The Amount and Kinds of Money in Actual Circulation on Certain Dates From 1878 to 1889
| Year. | Date. | Total circula- | Gold coin. | Standard sil- Subsidiary |
| tion. | ver dollars. silver. | |||
| 1878. | March 1. | $805,793,807 | $82,530,163 | ……….. $53,573,833 |
| 1879. | October 1. | 862,579,754 | 123,698,157 | $11,074,230 54,088,747 |
| 1880. | October 1. | 1,022,033,685 | 261,320,920 | 22,914,075 48,368,543 |
| 1881. | October 1. | 1,147,892,435 | 328,118,146 | 32,230,038 47,859,327 |
| 1882. | October 1. | 1,188,752,363 | 358,351,956 | 33,801,231 47,153,750 |
| 1883. | October 1. | 1,236,650,032 | 346,077,784 | 39,783,527 48,170,263 |
| 1884. | October 1. | 1,261,569,924 | 341,485,840 | 40,322,042 45,344,717 |
| 1885. | October 1. | 1,286,630,871 | 348,268,740 | 45,275,710 51,328,206 |
| 1886. | October 1. | 1,264,889,561 | 364,894,599 | 60,170,793 48,176,838 |
| 1887. | October 1. | 1,353,485,690 | 391,090,890 | 60,614,524 50,414,706 |
| 1887. | October 1. | 1,384,340,280 | 377,329,865 | 57,959,356 52,020,975 |
| 1888. | October 1. | 1,405,018,000 | 375,947,715 | 57,554,100 52,931,352 |
| Year. | Date. | Gold certifi- | Silver cer- United States National |
| cates. | tificates. Notes.* bank notes. | ||
| 1878. | March 1. | $44,364,100 | ……….. $311,436,971 $313,888,740 |
| 1879. | October 1. | 14,843,200 | $ 1,176,720 327,747,762 362,950,938 |
| 1880. | October 1. | 7,480,100 | 12,203,191 329,417,403 340,329,453 |
| 1881. | October 1. | 5,239,320 | 52,590,180 327,655,884 354,199,540 |
| 1882. | October 1. | 4,907,440 | 63,204,780 325,272,858 356,060,348 |
| 1883. | October 1. | 55,014,940 | 78,921,961 321,356,596 347,324,961 |
| 1884. | October 1. | 87,389,660 | 96,491,251 325,786,143 324,750,271 |
| 1885. | October 1. | 118,137,790 | 93,656,716 318,736,684 311,227,025 |
| 1886. | October 1. | 84,691,807 | 95,387,112 310,161,935 301,406,477 |
| 1887. | October 1. | 97,984,683 | 154,354,826 329,070,804 269,955,257 |
| 1887. | October 1. | 134,838,190 | 218,561,601 306,052,053 237,578,240 |
| 1888. | October 1. | 116,675,349 | 276,619,715 325,510,758 199,779,011 |
Meanwhile, the House passed a bill of like import to the one under consideration in the Senate, differing therefrom mainly in that it made the notes to be issued a full legal tender, and authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem them in gold coin or silver bullion at current market rate. When this bill reached the Senate it was, by unanimous consent, accepted as a substitute for the Senate bill, and the discussion of the measure continued, occupying much of the time and attention of the Senate until June 17, 1890, when a vote was taken on an amendment proposed by Senator Plumb to strike out the first section authorizing the issue of notes and inserting the following:
“That from and after the date of the passage of this act, the unit of value in the United States shall be the dollar, and the same may be coined of 412½ grains of standard silver, or of 25.8 grains of standard gold, and the said coins shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.
“That hereafter any owner of silver or gold bullion may deposit the same in any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard dollars, or bars, for his benefit, and without charge, but it shall be lawful to refuse any deposit of less value than $100, or any bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the mint.”
This amendment was adopted by a vote of 43 to 24, the yeas being made up of Democrats and the Republicans from the silver producing states.
The adoption of this free silver amendment clearly indicated that a large majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one.
The other sections of the bill were then made to harmonize with this new provision, and the bill was passed and returned to the House, where the amendments were nonconcurred in, and a conference asked for.
The Senate granted this request, and Senators Sherman, Jones, of Nevada, and Harris were appointed to meet Representatives Conger, Walker, and Bland, of the House, in conference, to adjust the wide disagreements. On July 7 a bill agreed upon in conference was reported to the Senate, Messrs. Harris and Bland not joining in the report. The bill agreed to became a law July 12, 1890, and was as follows:
“That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or as much thereof as may be offered in each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue, in payment for such purchases of silver bullion, treasury notes of the United States to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and of such denominations, not less than one dollar nor more than $1,000, as he may prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry into effect the provisions of this act is hereby appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
“Sec. 2. That the treasury notes issued in accordance with the provisions of this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at the treasury of the United States or at the office of any assistant treasurer of the United States, and when so redeemed may be reissued; but no greater or less amount of such notes shall be outstanding at any time than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard silver dollars coined therefrom, then held in the treasury, purchased by such notes; and such treasury notes shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued; and such notes, when held by any national banking association, may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve. That, upon demand of the holder of any of the treasury notes herein provided for, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such regulations as he may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his discretion, it being the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law.
“Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall each month coin 2,000,000 ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act into standard silver dollars until the 1st day of July, 1891, and after that time he shall coin of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act as much as may be necessary to provide for the redemption of the treasury notes herein provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the treasury.
“Sec. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act shall be subject to the requirements of existing law and the regulations of the mint service governing the methods of determining the amount of pure silver contained, and the amount of charges or deductions, if any, to be made.
“Sec. 5. That so much of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled ‘An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal tender character,’ as requires the monthly purchase and coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion, is hereby repealed.
“Sec. 6. That upon the passage of this act the balances standing with the treasurer of the United States to the respective credits of national banks, for deposits made to redeem the circulating notes of such banks, and all deposits thereafter received for like purpose, shall be converted into the treasury as a miscellaneous receipt, and the treasurer of the United States shall redeem, from the general cash in the treasury, the circulating notes of said banks which may come into his possession subject to redemption; and upon the certificate of the comptroller of the currency that such notes have been received by him, and that they have been destroyed and that no new notes will be issued in their place, reimbursement of their amount shall be made to the treasurer, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, from an appropriation hereby created, to be known as ‘National bank notes: Redemption account,’ but the provisions of this act shall not apply to the deposits received under section 3 of the act of June 20, 1874, requiring every national bank to keep in lawful money, with the treasurer of the United States, a sum equal to five per cent. of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of its circulating notes; and the balance remaining of the deposit so covered shall, at the close of each month, be reported on the monthly public debt statement as debt of the United States bearing no interest.
“Sec. 7. That this act shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage.”
The authorship of this law has been generally credited to me, and it was commonly called the “Sherman silver law,” though I took but little part in framing the legislation until the bill got into conference. The situation at that time was critical. A large majority of the Senate favored free silver, and it was feared that the small majority against it in the other House might yield and agree to it. The silence of the President on the matter gave rise to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pass both Houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. Some action had to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted for it, but the day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage.
It will be noticed that the act varied greatly from the House bill before the free coinage amendment was attached. The amount of silver bullion to be purchased was changed from $4,500,000 worth per month to 4,500,000 ounces per month. This change, owing to the fall in price of silver, not then anticipated, greatly reduced the quantity to be purchased. The House conferees yielded reluctantly to the striking out of the section in the bill providing for the redemption of the notes in bullion, a plan that had been urged by Secretary Windom. In lieu thereof, however, a clause declaring that it was the purpose of the government to maintain the parity of the metals was inserted. This was a most important amendment and one that has been generally accepted as indicating the purpose of the country to maintain all dollars at par with each other.
The chief merit of this law was that it suspended the peremptory coinage of the silver purchased under it into silver dollars which could not be circulated, but were hoarded in the treasury at great cost and inconvenience. It required the monthly purchase of a greater amount of silver than before, but that could be held in the form of bullion, and could be paid for by treasury notes equal in amount to the cost of the bullion, the whole of which was held in the treasury as security for the payment of the notes. If silver bullion did not decline in market value it could, if necessary, be coined without loss, and thus the parity of the notes with gold could be readily maintained according to the declared policy of the law. The friends of free coinage stoutly asserted that this purchase of silver bullion would not only prevent its depreciation, but would advance its market value, and thus be a gain to the government. I did not believe this but hoped that it would not decline in value, and, in any event, it was better to stop the compulsory coinage of the bullion into dollars, as to force them into circulation would reduce the purchasing power of the dollar and bring the United States to the single standard of silver. Being compelled to choose between the measure proposed and the free coinage of silver I preferred the former, and voted for the bill and, thus, with others, became responsible for it.
Contrary to the expectation of the friends of silver it steadily declined in market value. The compulsory purchase of the enormous aggregate of fifty-four million ounces, or 2,250 tons Troy, each year, did not maintain the market value of silver, but it steadily declined so that the silver purchased each year entailed an annual loss of more than $10,000,000.
When the result became apparent I was anxious to arrest the purchase of silver, and I never could comprehend why anyone not directly interested in the mining of silver could favor a policy involving so heavy a loss to the people of the United States. Long before the second election of Mr. Cleveland I advocated the repeal of what became known as the “Sherman act,” and heartily supported and voted for the repeal he recommended.
In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill “to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production,” but no action was taken upon it. On the 4th of December I again introduced this bill, it being the first Senate bill introduced in that Congress. It was referred to the committee on finance, and, having been reported back with amendments, I called it up on the 27th of February, and said that I did not intend to make any extended remarks upon it unless it should become necessary to do so. Senator George made a long and carefully prepared speech, from which it appeared that while he favored the general purpose of the bill he objected to it on the ground that it was not constitutional. This objection was shared by several Senators. I subsequently reported from the committee on finance a substitute for the bill, and on the 21st of March made a long speech in support of it in which I said:
“I did not originally intend to make any extended argument on the trust bill, because I supposed that the public facts upon which it is founded and the general necessity of some legislation were so manifest that no debate was necessary to bring those facts to the attention of the Senate.
“But the different views taken by Senators in regard to the legal questions involved in this bill, and the very able speech made by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] relative to the details of the bill, led me to the conclusion that it was my duty, having reported the bill from the committee on finance, to present, in as clear and logical a way as I can, the legal and practical questions involved in the bill.
“The object of the bill, as shown by the title, is ‘to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production.’ It declares that certain contracts are against public policy, null and void. It does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well-recognized principles of the common law to the complicated jurisdiction of our state and federal government. Similar contracts in any state in the Union are now, by common or statute law, null and void. Each state can and does prevent and control combinations within the limit of the state. This we do not propose to interfere with. The power of the state courts has been repeatedly exercised to set aside such combinations as I shall hereafter show, but these courts are limited in their jurisdiction to the state, and, in our complex system of government, are admitted to be unable to deal with the great evil that now threatens us.
“Unlawful combinations, unlawful at common law, now extend to all the states and interfere with our foreign and domestic commerce and with the importation and sale of goods subject to duty under the laws of the United States, against which only the general government can secure relief. They not only affect our commerce with foreign nations, but trade and transportation among the several states. The purpose of this bill is to enable the courts of the United States to apply the same remedies against combinations which injuriously affect the interests of the United States that have been applied in the several states to protect local interests.
“This bill, as I would have it, has for its single object to invoke the aid of the courts of the United States to deal with the combinations described in the first section, when they affect injuriously our foreign and interstate commerce and our revenue laws, and in this way to supplement the enforcement of the established rules of the common and statute law by the courts of the several states in dealing with combinations that affect injuriously the industrial liberty of the citizens of these states. It is to arm the federal courts within the limits of their constitutional power, that they may co-operate with the state courts in checking, curbing, and controlling the most dangerous combinations that now threaten the business, property, and trade of the people of the United States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course by finespun constitutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts of associated or corporate wealth and power.
“It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid of production where there is free and fair competition. It is the right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty, and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and privileges.”
I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from the period of Coke and Littleton to the present times. I also quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many states.
Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until, on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it, corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however, the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a substitute for the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views, he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke, members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect. When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that after having fairly and fully considered the substitute proposed by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all the circumstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that direction. The bill passed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay, Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting in the negative. It was passed by the House and after being twice referred to committees of conference was finally agreed to, its title having been changed to “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” and was approved by the President June 26, 1890.
The law as finally agreed to is as follows:
“Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
“Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person, or persons, to monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
“Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or between any such territory or territories and any state or states or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
“Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the attorney general, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
“Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
“Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract of any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
“Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
“Sec. 8. That the word ‘person,’ or ‘persons,’ wherever used in this text, shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country.”
Since the passage of this act I have carefully studied and observed the effect, upon legitimate trade and production, of the combination of firms and corporations to monopolize a particular industry. If this association is made merely to promote production or to create guilds for friendly intercourse between persons engaged in a common pursuit, it is beneficial, but such is not the object of the great combinations in the United States. They are organized to prevent competition and to advance prices and profits. Usually the capital of several corporations, often of different states, is combined into a single corporation, and sometimes this is placed under the control of one man. The power of this combination is used to prevent and destroy all competition, and in many cases this has been successful, which has resulted in enormous fortunes and sometimes a large advance in prices to the consumer. This law may not be sufficient to control and prevent such combinations, but, if not, the evil produced by them will lead to effective legislation. I know of no object of greater importance to the people. I hope the courts of the United States and of the several states, will deal with these combinations so as to prevent and destroy them.
On the 13th of May, 1890, I was drawn into a casual debate with Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana, which extended to others, on the relations of the north and south, or, rather, between Union and Confederate soldiers. The subject before the Senate was a bill to aid the illiterate in obtaining a common school education. The chief benefit of the measure would have inured to the south, especially to the negroes of the south. Mr. Eustis complained of the 15th amendment to the constitution. I explained to him that this amendment would never have been adopted but for the action of the south in depriving the enfranchised voter, not only of his rights of citizenship, but of the ordinary rights of humanity. I gave the history of the reconstruction acts, the first of which was framed by a committee of which I was chairman. It was based upon the restoration of the southern states to all the rights and privileges they enjoyed before the war, subject to such changes as were made necessary by the abolition of slavery as the result of the war. There was then no feeling of hostility to the people of the south. I had heard at that time no expression of opinion except of kindness to them. There was a universal appreciation of the fact that while they were wrong—radically wrong, as we thought, in waging a useless and bloody war against the Union of this country —yet they were honest in their convictions, they believed the doctrines they fought for were the doctrines of the constitution, and there was, therefore, a spirit of generosity, of forbearance, of kindness, to these people, and everything they could ask for in reason would have been granted to them.
It was not then contemplated to arm the negroes with suffrage. A few, and but a few, Senators made such a proposition, but it was scouted and laid aside. It was at this time that the Ku-Klux crimes and violence broke out, and the laws of the southern states were so cruel, so unjust, so wrong in our view of the rights of the colored people, and of white Republicans as well, that the people of the north resented this injustice. These laws burned like coals of fire in the northern breast. This led to the reconstruction acts, and the adoption of the 15th amendment. The 14th amendment was the act of the conservative Senators and Members, such as Fessenden, Trumbull and Doolittle. The 15th amendment was the natural result of cruelty and outrage in the south. This amendment has been practically nullified by the conservatives of the north, and now the people of the south have increased political power by reason of the abolition of slavery, while, backed by public opinion in the south, they deprive the colored people, by whom they gained this power, of their political rights, and that by processes that are denounced as criminal by every free state. Time, no doubt, will correct this evil. If justice is done to the negroes they will advance in intelligence with the improvement of their condition, and with the benefit of their labor the south will become more prosperous by the diversity of employments. There is reason to believe that in a brief period the south will engage in manufactures and become more prosperous than in the days of slavery.
On the 20th of May, the death of William D. Kelley was announced in the Senate. He entered the House of Representatives as I left it to take my seat in the Senate, but our frequent meetings in the consideration of bills of a financial character led to a friendship which was unbroken, and which imposed on me the duty of responding to the usual resolutions presented on the death of a Member. When Mr. Kelley entered the House as a Member from the city of Philadelphia, he had arrived at the mature age of forty-six, and had an established reputation for ability, industry, and fidelity to duty. He had been trained in the school of poverty, making his own way in the world, gathering knowledge by the wayside. He labored for several years at his trade as a mechanic, but, prompted by a restless thirst for knowledge, studied law, and for several years practiced the legal profession. In due time he became a judge and served as such for ten years, so that when he entered public life as a Member of the House he was a trained lawyer, with strong convictions upon economic questions, and bold and earnest on all the stern issues of the Civil War.
The creed to which he devoted himself consisted of but three articles: That the Union must be preserved at all hazards, that the national government should exercise its exclusive power to provide money for the people of the United States, and that the laborer of our country should be protected in his industry from undue competition. To the establishment of each of these theories as the public policy of the country he contributed his full measure of effort and success. By instinct he was opposed to slavery. All his early struggles and his innate perceptions of the rights of man made him an enemy to all forms of oppression. Still, he would have respected the right of each state to deal with this question, but when it became manifest that slavery was the real cause of the attempt at secession, he was among the first and foremost to demand that it should be abolished. But especially as the recognized leader in the support of protection to American industry he exercised commanding influence and authority.
Whatever opinions might be honestly entertained by others as to the nature and extent of this protection, Judge Kelley had no doubt, but impartially and freely extended it to every industry, without regard to its nature, or the section in which it was pursued. On all economic questions he had accurate knowledge of details. His patient industry enabled him to master every shade and side of such a question, and especially so as to the policy of protection by discriminating duties. On other matters he was a follower, but in this always a leader. His writings and speeches upon this and kindred questions constitute a storehouse of information, and furnish the best evidence of his industry and ability.
From the time he entered public life until the hour of his death he commanded the full confidence of his people. No fluctuation of opinion, no personal rivalries, no contests for patronage or office, could weaken their confidence in his integrity and justice. These obstructions in the paths of public men, often fatal, did not affect him. For thirty years he was the chosen Representative of one constituency, in our country an unexampled event. In the House of Representatives, famous for its sudden changes, he was for many years “the father of the House,” and no doubt, if his life had been prolonged to the extreme period allotted to man, his seat in the House would have been safe for him.
On the 8th of July a similar announcement was made of the death of Samuel S. Cox, late a Representative of the city of New York. He had been a Member of Congress from Ohio before the Civil War, and shared in the exciting and dangerous scenes in Congress at that time, and I felt it became my duty, as one of the few surviving actors in those events, to pay a just tribute to the qualities of head and heart that made him and kept him a leader among the public men of our country for a period of more than thirty-three years, longer than the average life of a generation. This duty was the more imperative upon me as he was a native of Ohio, for forty years a resident, and for eight years a Representative in Congress from that state, honored and respected by all of whatever party or creed, and beloved by his associates as but few in political life can hope to be.
I could also speak of him from a longer personal acquaintance than anyone in either House, for I had known him or his kindred from almost the days of my boyhood. We were born in neighboring counties, he one year later than I. My father and his were associated as judge and clerk of the supreme court of Ohio. I knew of him as early as 1853, as the editor of the “Ohio Statesman,” a Democratic paper published at Columbus, the organ of that party in Ohio, but my personal acquaintance and association with him commenced with his election, in 1856, as a Member of the House of Representatives.
While Mr. Cox was a successful leader in political life, and rendered his party due fealty on purely political questions, he was not always in harmony with the majority of his party. In his first speech in Congress, which was the first one made in the new hall of the House of Representatives, an opportunity carefully chosen by him with the skill of an actor, he took ground against the Lecompton constitution, strongly recommended by Mr. Buchanan’s administration. He supported several measures during the war not approved by his political associates. He spoke in favor of the amendment abolishing slavery, though he did not vote for it. By instinct, education and association, especially by family ties, he was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat, and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider this a fault, but a virtue.
We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all such matters Mr. Cox was always on the humanitarian side. He has linked his name in honorable association with many humane, kindly, and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life-saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war. He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy, charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness bestowed is never lost, then Mr. Cox has left an inheritance to thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.
Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner. Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation. In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection and constant help to each other.
He was fond of travel, and wrote several books descriptive of scenes and incidents of his journeys. He also wrote historical works. He entered, as an author, a lecturer, and a speaker, many fields of research, and in all sustained his reputation as a brilliant writer and speaker, always interesting and often eloquent, a close student who fully mastered his subject, and withal a man of generous impulses, kind and cheerful nature, a true friend, and a faithful public servant. This all can be said truly and without exaggeration of Mr. Cox. He did not contemplate death when I saw him last. His untimely death was the first news I received on my arrival in New York from a journey abroad. I am told that he met the common fate of all with patient confidence and an assured hope and belief in the doctrines of the Christian faith and the promise of future life.
It is fortunate that man cannot know the future, and especially that future beyond human life. Socrates, when condemned to death, consoled himself with the inconceivable happiness in a future state when he would converse and associate with and question the mighty array of heroes, patriots, and sages who had preceded him. He said to his judges, “It is now time to depart—for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to everyone but God.” We cannot lift the veil, but may we not share the hope of the wisest of men that our farewell to associates who go before us is but a brief parting for a better life?
I have been frequently assailed for my part in the passage, in the spring of 1864, of a law to encourage immigration. In reporting this bill from the committee on finance, on the 18th of February of that year, I said:
“The special wants for labor in this country at the present time are very great. The war has depleted our workshops, and materially lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and mechanism. In their noble response to the call of their country, our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies which must be filled, or the material interest of the country must suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and promising.
“The south, having torn down the fabric of its labor system by its own hands, will, when the war shall have ceased, present a wide field for voluntary white labor, and it must look to immigration for its supply.
“The following may be mentioned as the special inducements to immigration:
“First. High price of labor and low price of food compared with other countries.
“Second. Our land policy, giving to every immigrant, after he shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen, a home and a farm substantially as a free gift, charging him less for 160 acres in fee-simple than is paid as the annual rent of a single acre in England.
“Third. The political rights conferred upon persons of foreign birth.
“Fourth. Our system of free schools, melting in a common crucible all differences of religion, language, and race, and giving to the child of the day laborer and the son of the millionaire equal opportunities to excel in the pursuit and acquirement of knowledge. This is an advantage and a blessing which the poor man enjoys in no other country.”
The committee rejected several plans to aid immigration, and closed its report as follows:
“Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished without great expenditure, and without changing the relation heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.
“With this view your committee report the following bill and recommend its passage.”
When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it, and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.
The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888, the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as “the Senate bill” to distinguish it from the “Mills bill,” for which it was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.
It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference, of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying, as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.
My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session. The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is not subject to the tariff tax.
The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of sections, or, as General Hancock truly said, it is “a local question.” The Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only; but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his “deestrict” or state. It so happens that by the constitutional organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population, according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri, commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation. The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000 inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided. It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from the date of its passage.
I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I said:
“A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since 1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the subject of political debate before the people of the United States in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff, until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to bring before the people of the United States their rival theories as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production. It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House, and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.
“Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say, with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government. On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government, but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered into the presidential contest.
“Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the Democratic ideas.
“What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us, and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United States or to any Member of Congress.
“There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first, that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country. It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea, to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign productions. As this tax does not apply to home production, therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule, and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a larger market.”
I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.
The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress adjourned.
Many other measures of importance were considered during this long session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to them.
When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H. Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and, though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved the kindly manners that gave him the name of “Gentleman George.” He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery. I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect and affection for him:
“U. S. Senate, }
“Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.}
“My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral of
Mr. Pendleton, has been received.
“Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly, and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides, while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome journey.
“Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.
Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October. It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law, the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently, speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for the number and enthusiasm of those present.
During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:
“While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of Pittsburg wanted to hear me for—why they should invite a Buckeye from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that grand party commenced its series of achievements which have distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in 1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance for your children and your children’s children. In 1876 the object of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy the taxes to support the national government? That is the question that is to be discussed mainly to-night.”
The mention of the McKinley tariff law was received with immense applause and cheers. Continuing, I said:
“That bill is very well named. It is named after Wm. McKinley, a kind of Pennsylvania-Ohio Dutchman, with a little Scotch-Irish mixed in him, too—a brilliant neighbor of mine, whom, I am told, you have had the pleasure of hearing. It is true that this bill was made up largely of what was called the Senate bill of the year before, and new lines had contributed toward the formation of that bill; but it was properly named after Mr. McKinley because of his indomitable pluck, his ability, his energy.
“It was pushed through the House after great opposition, because the Democrats, as usual, opposed that, as they opposed everything else.”
The election in Ohio resulted in Republican success, Daniel J. Ryan, the head of the ticket, being elected secretary of state by about 11,000 majority.
Shortly after the election I was in the city of New York, and was there interviewed. I was reported to have said:
“The Republican defeats do not bother me at all, I have seen many such revulsions before and we get around all right again. It does us good, we become more active and careful. It will be all right.
“I will cite an instance in my own state, Ohio. Last year we lost our governor, this year we carry the state by a splendid majority. The Democrats fixed up the congressional districts so we would get six Congressmen only, but we got eight.”
“What of Major McKinley’s election to Congress?”
“Major McKinley is, I fear, defeated, though when I left Ohio it was thought that he had succeeded by a small majority. If he should have run in his old district his majority would have been 3,500 or 4,000 against 2,000 received by him two years ago. But they placed him in a district of three Democratic counties and only one Republican county, in which the Democratic majority is upward of 2,000. It looks now as if he is defeated by about 130 votes. It simply means that the major will be the next Governor of Ohio. He made a splendid canvass and a magnificent run, and defeat is not the proper name for the result. Mr. McKinley told me before the election that he did not expect to succeed with such odds against him.
“As to the general result of the congressional elections, I have seen such convulsions a dozen times or more, but they have had no permanent effect. In 1878, when I was Secretary of the Treasury, we lost the House and Senate both, but two years later, in 1880, we rallied and recovered all that we had lost and elected a Republican President besides. I do not regard the present situation with apprehension. The country will be wiser by next year and better able to pass upon the issues.”
The second session of the 51st Congress met on the 1st of December, 1890. The annual message of the President dealt with the usual topics. The surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, including the amount applied to the sinking fund, was $105,344,496. In referring to the act “directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of treasury notes thereon,” approved July 14, 1890, the President said:
“It has been administered by the Secretary of the Treasury with an earnest purpose to get into circulation, at the earliest possible dates, the full monthly amount of treasury notes contemplated by its provisions, and at the same time to give to the market for silver bullion such support as the law contemplates. The recent depression in the price of silver has been observed with regret. The rapid rise in price which anticipated and followed the passage of this act was influenced in some degree by speculation, and the recent reaction is in part the result of the same cause and in part of the recent monetary disturbances. Some months of further trial will be necessary to determine the permanent effect of the recent legislation upon silver values, but it is gratifying to know that the increased circulation secured by the act has exerted, and will continue to exert, a most beneficial influence upon business and upon general values.”
On the 18th of December I reported, from the committee on finance, a bill to provide against the contraction of the currency, and for other purposes. This bill embodied several financial bills on the calendar which had been reported by the committee, and it was deemed best to include them in a single measure. The bill was recommitted and again reported by me on the 23rd of December, when Mr. Stewart gave notice of and had read an amendment he intended to offer providing for the free coinage of silver.
On January 5, 1891, at the expiration of the morning hour, Mr. Stewart moved to proceed to the consideration of this bill. By a combination of seven Republican with the Democratic Senators the motion was carried, thus displacing the regular order of business, which was a bill relating to the election of Members of Congress, and which had been under discussion for several days.
Mr. Stewart than offered, as an amendment to the amendment of the committee, then pending, the following provision:
“That any owner of silver bullion, not too base for the operations of the mint, may deposit the same in amount of the value of not less than $100, at any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard dollars or bars, for his benefit and without charge, and that, at the said owner’s option, he may receive therefor an equivalent of such standard dollars in treasury notes of the same form and description, and having the same legal qualities, as the notes provided for by the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled, ‘An act directing the purchase of silver bullion, and the issue of treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.’ And all such treasury notes issued under the provisions of this act shall be a legal tender for their nominal amount in payment of all debts, public and private, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued in the same manner, and to the same extent, as other treasury notes.”
This being an amendment to an amendment, no further modification or change could be made to the bill until it was disposed of. Mr. Stewart made some remarks, and in conclusion said:
“I do not intend further to comment, at this time, on the amendment to the bill which I have offered. If it shall be adopted, then there are other portions of the bill which can be stricken out. The amendment I have offered presents the question naked and simple. Will you remonetize silver and place it back where it was before it was excluded from the mints of the United States and Europe?”
I was taken by surprise at the sudden presentation of the question, but promptly took the floor and said:
“The sudden and unexpected change of the scene, the introduction of an entirely new topic into our debate, must not pass by without the serious and sober attention of every Senator on the floor to the revolutionary measure now proposed. I do not wish to, nor will I, nor can I, regard this as a political question, because we know that the local interests of a certain portion of our number—and I do not object to Senators representing the interest of their constituents—lead them to opinions different from the opinions of Senators from the larger states containing the great mass of the population of this country, not only in the north, but in the south; and therefore, while the Republican party may be weakened by the unexpected defection of a certain portion of our number who agree with us in political opinions generally, yet that will not relieve the minority in this body, our Democratic associates, from the sober responsibility which they will assume in aiding in the adoption of this measure. At the very outset of this discussion I appealed to the sober judgment of Senators to consider the responsibility which they take in adopting what I regard as a revolution more full of injury, more dangerous in its character, and more destructive in its results, than any measure which has been proposed for years.
“Now, what is this question? The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart], representing a state whose chief production is silver, offers an amendment to change entirely the standard of valuation of all the property of the United States. At present all contracts are founded upon what is called the gold standard. Every particle of property we enjoy, every obligation of contract, whether by the national government or by each individual, is now based in actual fact upon the gold standard of 25.8 grains. That is the standard of all the commercial nations of the world. It is the standard of France, which, like ourselves, has used silver to a large extent. It is the standard of value of France and every country of Europe.”
I then, at considerable length, stated the objections to the free coinage of silver and the revolution it would create in the financial condition of the country. This led to a long debate, participated in by many Senators. On the 13th of January I made a long and carefully considered speech, extending through fourteen pages of the “Record,” in which I entered into detail in reply to the speeches that had been made, and stated the objections to the free coinage of silver. It is too long to insert even an abstract of it here. I have carefully read this speech and refer to it as the first of three speeches, the second being delivered on the 30th of June, 1892, and the third on August 30, 1893, as the best presentation I have ever made of the question involved, and as containing all the material facts bearing upon the question of free coinage and the folly of its adoption.
It was manifest that the combination that had been made intended to force the adoption of the amendment. The vote on it was taken on the 14th of January and the result was yeas 42 and nays 30. Nearly all the Senators from the western group of states, though Republicans, voted for the amendment in favor of free coinage. Only four voted against it. So the amendment of Mr. Stewart was agreed to. The bill was further discussed and changed to conform to the amendment and finally passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 39, nays 27, but failed to pass the House.
Thus the debate and the adoption by the Senate of free coinage defeated all financial legislation during that session.
CHAPTER LVIII. EFFORTS TO CONSTRUCT THE NICARAGUAN CANAL. Early Recognition of the Need of a Canal Across the Isthmus Connecting North and South America—M. de Lesseps Attempts to Build a Water Way at Panama—Feasability of a Route by Lake Nicaragua— First Attempts in 1825 to Secure Aid from Congress—The Clayton-Bulwer Convention of 1850—Hindrance to the Work Caused by This Treaty—Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1891— Failure to Secure a Treaty Between the United States and Nicaragua in 1884—Cleveland’s Reasons for Withdrawing This Treaty—Incorporation of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua—Inevitable Failure of Their Attempts Unless Aided by the Government—Why We Should Purchase Outright the Concessions of the Maritime Company—Brief Description of the Proposed Canal—My Last Letter from General Sherman—His Death from Pneumonia After a Few Days’ Illness—Messages of President Harrison—Resolution—My Commemorative Address Delivered Before the Loyal Legion.
One of the most important subjects considered by the Senate within the last ten years, to which I have given special attention, is the construction of a ship canal across Central America. The American continents, stretching from the polar regions of the north to the Straits of Magellan, south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, present a barrier to navigation from the east to the west, to overcome which has been the anxious desire of mankind ever since the discovery of America by Columbus. It was the object of his memorable voyage to find a water way from Spain to China and India. While his discovery was an event of the greatest importance, yet it was a disappointment to him, and in all his subsequent voyages he sought to find a way through the newly-found land to the Indian Ocean. The spirit of enterprise that was aroused by his reports led many adventurers to explore the new world, and before many years the peculiar formation of the long strip of land connecting North and South America was clearly defined. The Spaniards conquered Mexico and Peru, and at this early period conceived the idea of a canal across the isthmus, but the obstruction could not be overcome by the engineering of that day. The region of Central America was soon occupied by Spain, and was divided into many colonies, which, in process of time, became independent of Spain, and of each other.
During the four centuries that have elapsed since the discovery, the construction of a canal across the isthmus has been kept in view, and by common consent the routes at Panama and through Lake Nicaragua have been regarded as the best. That at Panama is the shortest, but is impracticable, as was shown by the abortive attempt of M. de Lesseps. The route by Lake Nicaragua was early regarded by the American people as the only adequate, efficient and practicable passage. Though burdened with the delays of lockage, it is more practical, less costly, and more useful than the one at Panama would have been, and will accomplish the same object. When, in 1825, the independence of the republic of Nicaragua was secured, that government appealed to the United States for assistance in executing the work of a canal by that route. Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, took an active interest in the subject, and said, in a letter to the commissioners of the United States to the congress of Panama:
“A canal for navigation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans should form a proper subject of consideration at the congress. The vast object, if it should ever be accomplished, will be interesting in a greater or less degree to all parts of the world; but especially to this continent will accrue its greatest benefits; and to Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru, and the United States, more than any other of the American nations.”
No action was taken, as the discordant interests of the several Central American states prevented. When California was acquired as the result of the Mexican War, and gold was discovered in its soil, the necessity for some means of speedy transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast became imperative. The route by Panama, being the shortest line across the isthmus, was naturally taken by the eager gold seekers and a railroad was soon after constructed over this route. The movement of travel and transportation across the isthmus tempted M. de Lesseps and his associates to undertake the task of constructing a canal, with the result already stated.
Prior to 1850 the movements of the British government to seize the country at the mouth of the San Juan River in Nicaragua, with the evident view of controlling the construction of a canal by way of Lake Nicaragua, excited in this country the deepest interest and apprehension. This led to the Clayton-Bulwer convention of 1850, by which the United States and Great Britain stipulated that neither of the governments “will ever obtain for itself any exclusive control over the canal or colonize or assume or exercise any domain over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America.”
It provided for the exertion of the influence of the two governments in facilitating the construction of the work by every means in their power, and that after completion they would defend its neutrality, with the privilege of withdrawing such guaranty on notice. It also provided for inviting other governments to come into the same arrangement, and that each party should enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central American states as might be deemed advisable for carrying out the great design of the convention. It declared that no time should be unnecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the canal, and, therefore, that the two governments would give their support and encouragement to such persons as might first offer to commence the same with the necessary capital, and that, if any persons then already had obtained the right to build it from the Central American government and should fail, each of the two governments should be free to afford its protection to any other company that should be prepared to proceed with the work.
This treaty has given rise to much discussion, and has ever since been a hindrance to the great work it proposed to advance. The British government has repeatedly violated the treaty by extending its possessions and strengthening its influence in that part of the world. The report made by me, as chairman of the committee on foreign relations, on the 10th of January, 1891, in response to a resolution of the Senate, contains a full statement of the results of that treaty. As this report has been widely circulated and was considered an important document, it is but just for me to say that, while I presented it, two other members of the committee participated in its preparation. The first part, relating to negotiations, was written by Senator Edmunds; the second part, relating to the then condition of the work on the Nicaragua Canal and its value, tonnage and business, by Senator Morgan; and the residue, in respect to the financial aspect of the subject, the cost of the work proposed and the aid that should be given by the United States in its construction, by me. The framing of a bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee was the work of the full committee. I do not think it necessary to restate here the position of the committee, as no definite action has been taken by Congress on the bill reported. The report was signed by each member of the committee, as follows: John Sherman, Chairman, Geo. F. Edmunds, Wm. P. Frye, Wm. M. Evarts, J. N. Dolph, John T. Morgan, Joseph E. Brown, H. B. Payne, J. B. Eustis.
There are, however, questions connected with this subject which are of vital interest to the United States, and not presented in that report. By the treaty negotiated in 1884, between the United States and Nicaragua, the canal was to be built by the United States. This treaty was sent to the Senate on December 10, 1884, by President Arthur, who, in strong and earnest language, recommended its ratification. It had been frequently debated, but was still pending in the Senate when Mr. Cleveland became President. I do not feel at liberty to state the causes of delay, nor the ground taken, nor the votes given either for or against it, as the injunction of secrecy in respect to it has not been removed, but I have regarded as a misfortune its practical defeat by the want of a two-thirds vote, required by the constitution to ratify a treaty. The terms granted in it by Nicaragua were liberal in the broadest sense. The complete control of the canal and its appurtenances, and the manner of its construction, were invested in the United States. The conditions proposed would have made it an international work of great importance to all commercial nations, while ample authority was reserved on the part of the United States to protect its investment with tolls sufficient to pay the interest and refund the principal.
At the called session of March, 1885, Mr. Cleveland withdrew the treaty, not from opposition to its general purposes, but because, as he stated in his annual message in December, 1885, it was “coupled with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial integrity of the states where such interests lie.” He held that this clause was an “entangling alliance inconsistent with the declared policy of the United States.” This objection to the treaty could have been easily removed by negotiation, as Mr. Bayard, a Member of the Senate when the treaty was pending, and Secretary of State under President Cleveland, very well knew. Thus, by an unfortunate division in the Senate and the action of the President, the construction of the canal by the United States was prevented. Subsequently, in 1887, concessions were made by Nicaragua and Costa Rica to a private association of citizens of the United States, which led to the incorporation, by Congress, of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua.
The interposition of a private corporation between the United States and Nicaragua has created all the delays and embarrassments that have followed. Such a corporation can obtain money only be selling its bonds bearing a high rate of interest, secured by a mortgage of all its property and concessions, and its stock must accompany the bonds. Experience has shown that such a work cannot be executed, especially on foreign soil, without the support and aid of a powerful government. If such aid is rendered it must be to the full cost of the work, and all the benefits should inure to the people and not to the corporation or its stockholders. The experience of the United States in the construction of the Pacific railroads is an example of the inevitable result of copartnership. The attempt of the Maritime Company to construct such a work as the Nicaraguan canal without the aid of the government will end either in failure or at a cost, in bonds and stock, the interest of which would be so great that the cost of the transit of vessels through the canal would deter their owners from using it, and goods would be, as now, transferred by rail to and from Panama.
The method of aiding the Maritime Canal Company proposed in the bill reported by me, and again recently by Senator Morgan, is as good as any that can be devised, but I greatly prefer the direct and absolute purchase of the concessions of that company, and the negotiation of new treaties with Nicaragua and Costa Rica upon the basis of the former treaty, and the execution of the work under the supervision of the engineer corps of the United States in the same manner that internal improvements are made in this country. The credit of the United States will secure a loan at the lowest possible rate of interest, and with money thus obtained, and with the confidence of contractors that they will receive their pay for work done, the cost will be reduced to the actual sum needed. It is the interest of the commercial world as well as of the United States that the tolls charged on the passage of vessels should be as low as possible, and this will be secured by the construction of the work by the government.
If the present owners of the concessions from Nicaragua and Costa Rica will not accept a reasonable price for their privileges and for the work done, to be fixed by an impartial tribunal, it is better for the United States to withdraw any offer of aid; but if they will accept such an award the United States should take up the work and realize the dream and hopes of Columbus. At present the delay of action by Congress grows out of the fact that no detailed scientific survey of the route has been made by the engineer corps of the United States. The only approach to such a survey was the one made by A. G. Menocal, an accomplished civil engineer of the navy, but it was felt that this was not sufficient to justify the United States in undertaking so great and expensive a work. In accordance with this feeling the 53rd Congress directed the Secretary of War to cause a thorough survey to be made and to submit a full report to the next Congress, to convene December 2, 1895. This survey is now in progress and will no doubt largely influence the future action of Congress.
A brief description of the canal proposed may be of interest to those who have not studied the geography and topography of its site, though it is difficult to convey by writing and without maps an adequate conception of the work. It is apparent, according to Menocal’s surveys, that the physical difficulties to be overcome are not greater than those of works of improvement undertaken within our own country, for the highest part of the water way is to be only 110 feet above the two oceans—a less altitude than that of the base of the hills which surround the city of Washington. The works proposed include a system of locks, similar in character to the one built by the United States at the falls of Sault Ste. Marie and to those constructed by Canada around the falls of Niagara. A single dam across the San Juan River, 1,250 feet long and averaging 61 feet high, between two steep hills, will insure navigable water, of sufficient depth and width for the commerce of the world, to a length of 120 miles. The approaches to this level, though expensive, are not different from similar works, and will be singularly sheltered from floods and storms. Of the distance of 169.4 miles from ocean to ocean, 142.6 miles are to be accomplished by slack-water navigation in lake, river, and basins, and only 26.8 miles by excavated canal. The greatest altitude of the ridge which divides Lake Nicaragua from the Pacific Ocean does not exceed, at any point, 42 feet above the lake.
Perhaps the chief engineering difficulty is in the construction of harbors at the Pacific and Atlantic termini of the canal, but that at Greytown, on the Atlantic coast, which is considered the most formidable, has already been partially built. The obstacles are not to be compared with those encountered in the attempted construction of the Panama canal, or with those which were easily overcome in the construction of the Suez Canal; and the whole work, from ocean to ocean, is free from the dangers of moving sand and destroying freshets. Lake Nicaragua itself is one of the most remarkable physical features of the world. It fills a cavity in the midst of a broken chain of mountains, whose height is reduced, at this point, nearly to the level of the sea, and it furnishes not only the means of navigation at a low altitude, but enormous advantages as a safe harbor.
If the survey ordered and now (1895) being made should confirm the reports of Menocal there is no reason why the United States should not assume and execute this great work without ultimate loss, and with enormous benefit to the commerce of the world. It will be a monument to our republic and will tend to widen its influence with all the nations of Central and South America.
The last letter I received from General Sherman was as follows:
“No. 75 West 71st Street, New York,} “Tuesday, February 3, 1891. } “Dear Brother:—I am drifting along in the old rut—in good strength, attending about four dinners out per week at public or private houses, and generally wind up for gossip at the Union League club. Last night, discussing the effect of Mr. Windom’s death and funeral, several prominent gentlemen remarked that Windom’s fine speech just preceding his death was in line with yours on the silver question in the Senate, and also with a carefully prepared interview of you by George Alfred Townsend which I had not seen. I have ordered of my book man the New York ‘Sun’ of Sunday, February 1st, which contains the interview.
“You sent me a copy of your speech in pamphlet form which was begged of me, and as others naturally apply for copies, I wish you would have your secretary send me a dozen, that I may distribute them.
“All well here and send love.
“Your brother,
“W. T. Sherman.”
Soon after the receipt of this letter I was notified of the dangerous illness of my brother at his residence in the city of New York. I at once went to his bedside, and remained with him until his death, at two o’clock of Saturday, the 14th of February. In his later years, after his removal to New York, he entered into the social life of that city. He was in demand at weddings, dinners, parties, reunions of soldiers, and public meetings, where his genial nature and ready tact, his fund of information and happy facility of expression, made him a universal favorite. He was temperate in his eating and drinking, but fond of companionship, and always happy when he had his old friends and comrades about him. He enjoyed the society of ladies, and did not like to refuse their invitations to social gatherings. In conversation with men or women, old or young, he was always interesting. He was often warned that at three score and ten he could not endure the excitement of such a life, and he repeatedly promised to limit his engagements. Early in February he exposed himself to the inclement weather of that season, and contracted a cold which led to pneumonia, and in a few days to death. He was perfectly conscious of his condition and probable fate, but had lost the power of speech and could only communicate his wishes by signs. His children were with him, and hundreds daily inquired about him at his door; among them were soldiers and widows whom he had aided.
During the last hours of General Sherman, his family, who had been bred in the Catholic faith, called in a Catholic priest to administer extreme unction according to the ritual of that church. The New York “Times,” of the date of February 13, made a very uncharitable allusion to this and intimated that it was done surreptitiously, without my knowledge. This was not true but the statement deeply wounded the feelings of his children. I promptly sent to the “Times” the following letter, which was published and received with general satisfaction:
“A paragraph in your paper this morning gives a very erroneous view of an incident in General Sherman’s sick chamber, which wounds the sensitive feelings of his children, now in deep distress, which, under the circumstances, I deem it proper to correct. Your reporter intimates that advantage was taken of my temporary absence to introduce a Catholic priest into General Sherman’s chamber to administer the rite of extreme unction to the sick man, in the nature of a claim that he was a Catholic. It is well known that his children have been reared by their mother, a devoted Catholic, in her faith, and now cling to it. It is equally well known that General Sherman and myself, as well as all my mother’s children, are, by inheritance, education, and connection, Christians, but not Catholics, and this has been openly avowed, on all proper occasions, by General Sherman; but he is too good a Christian, and too humane a man, to deny to his children the consolation of their religion. He was insensible at the time and apparently at the verge of death, but if he had been well and in the full exercise of his faculties, he would not have denied to them the consolation of the prayers and religious observances for their father of any class or denomination of Christian priests or preachers. Certainly, if I had been present, I would, at the request of the family, have assented to and reverently shared in an appeal to the Almighty for the life here and hereafter of my brother, whether called a prayer or extreme unction, and whether uttered by a priest or a preacher, or any other good man who believed what he spoke and had an honest faith in his creed.
“I hear that your reporter uttered a threat to obtain information which I cannot believe you would for a moment tolerate. We all need charity for our frailties, but I can feel none for anyone who would wound those already in distress.”
President Harrison announced General Sherman’s death to both Houses of Congress in the following words:
“To the Senate and House of Representatives: The death of William Tecumseh Sherman, which took place to-day at his residence in the city of New York, at 1 o’clock and 50 minutes p. m., is an event that will bring sorrow to the heart of every patriotic citizen. No living American was so loved and venerated as he. To look upon his face, to hear his name, was to have one’s love of country intensified. He served his country, not for fame, not out of a sense of professional duty, but for love of the flag and of the beneficent civil institutions of which it was the emblem. He was an ideal soldier, and shared to the fullest the esprit de corps of the army; but he cherished the civil institutions organized under the constitution, and was a soldier only that these might be perpetuated in undiminished usefulness and honor. He was in nothing an imitator.
“A profound student of military science and precedent, he drew from them principles and suggestions, and so adapted them to novel conditions that his campaigns will continue to be the profitable study of the military profession throughout the world. His genial nature made him comrade to every soldier of the great Union army. No presence was so welcome and inspiring at the camp-fire or commandery as his. His career was complete; his honors were full. He had received from the government the highest rank known to our military establishment, and from the people unstinted gratitude and love. No word of mine can add to his fame. His death has followed in startling quickness that of the Admiral of the Navy; and it is a sad and notable incident that, when the department under which he served shall have put on the usual emblems of mourning, four of the eight executive departments will be simultaneously draped in black, and one other has but to-day removed the crape from its walls
“Benj. Harrison.
“Executive Mansion, February 14, 1891.”
The following resolutions were offered in the Senate and unanimously agreed to:
“Resolved, That the Senate received with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of William T. Sherman, late general of the armies of the United States.
“Resolved, That the Senate renews its acknowledgments of the inestimable services he rendered its country in the day of its extreme trial, laments the great loss the country has sustained, and deeply sympathizes with his family in their bereavement.
“Resolved, That the presiding officer is requested to appoint a committee of five Senators to attend the funeral of the late General Sherman.
“Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the family of the deceased.”
Eloquent and appropriate speeches were made by Senators Hawley, Manderson, Morgan and Pierce.
In the House of Representatives the message of the President was referred to the committee on military affairs, for appropriate action thereon and the following resolutions were reported by Mr. McCutcheon and adopted:
“Resolved, That the House of Representatives has heard with profound sorrow of the death, at his home in New York City, on the 14th instant, of William Tecumseh Sherman, the last of the generals of the armies of the United States.
“Resolved, That we mourn him as the greatest soldier remaining to the republic and the last of that illustrious trio of generals who commanded the armies of the United States—Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan—who shed imperishable glory upon American arms, and were the idolized leaders of the Union army.
“Resolved, That we hereby record the high appreciation in which the American people hold the character and services of General Sherman, as one of the greatest soldiers of his generation, as one of the grandest patriots that our country has produced, and as a noble man in the broadest and fullest meaning of the word.
“We mingle our grief with that of the nation, mourning the departure of her great son, and of the survivors of the battle-scarred veterans whom he led to victory and peace. We especially tender our sympathy and condolence to those who are bound to him by the ties of blood and strong personal affection.
“Resolved, That the speaker appoint a committee of nine Members of the House to attend the funeral of the late general as representatives of this body.
“Resolved, That a copy of these resolution be forwarded by the clerk of the House to the family of General Sherman.”
Eloquent tributes were paid to his memory by Messrs. Cutcheon, Grosvenor, Outhwaite, Henderson, Cogswell, Vandever, Wheeler and Williams.
General Sherman had expressed the desire that his body be buried by the side of his wife in a cemetery in St. Louis. In February, 1890, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, the members of Ransom Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of which he was the first commander, sent him many congratulatory letters and telegrams. In replying to these, among other things he wrote:
“I have again and again been urged to allow my name to be transferred to the roster of some one of the many reputable posts of the Grand Army of the Republic in New York, but my invariable answer has been ‘no;’ that Ransom Post has stood by me since its beginning and I will stand by it to my end, and then that, in its organized capacity, it will deposit my poor body in Calvary Cemetery alongside my faithful wife and idolized ‘soldier boy.’ My health continues good, so my comrades of Ransom Post must guard theirs, that they may be able to fulfill this sacred duty imposed by their first commander. God bless you all.”
I vividly recall the impressive scene in the city of New York when his body was started on its long journey. The people of the city, in silence and sadness, filled the sidewalks from 71st to Courtland street, and watched the funeral train, and a countless multitude in every city, town and hamlet on the long road to St. Louis expressed their sorrow and sympathy. His mortal remains were received with profound respect by the people of that city, among whom he had lived for many years, and there he was buried by the side of his wife and the children who had gone before him.
In February, 1892, I was requested, by the New York Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, to deliver an address commemorative of General Sherman. I did so, on the 6th of April of that year but, as many of the incidents therein mentioned have been already stated, I only add a few paragraphs from its close:
“And here I might end, but there are certain traits and characteristics of General Sherman upon which I can and ought to speak with greater knowledge and confidence than of his military career. He was distinguished, first of all, from his early boyhood, for his love and veneration for, and obedience to, his mother. There never was a time—since his appointment as a cadet, to her death—that he did not insist upon sharing with her his modest pay, and gave to her most respectful homage and duty. It is hardly necessary in this presence to refer to his devotion to his wife, Ellen Ewing Sherman. They were born in neighboring households, reared from childhood in the same family, early attached and pledged to each other, married when he reached the grade of captain, shared in affection and respect the joys and sorrows of life, and paid the last debt to nature within a few months of each other.
“The same affection and care were bestowed upon his children. Many of his comrades will recall the visit of his wife and his son Willie, a lad of thirteen, at his camp on the Big Black, after the surrender of Vicksburg. Poor Willie believed he was a sergeant in the 13th United States Infantry. He sickened and died at Memphis on his way home. No one who reads it but will remember the touching tribute of sorrow his father wrote, a sorrow that was never dimmed, but was often recalled while life lasted.
“General Sherman always paid the most respectful attention to women in every rank and condition of life—the widow and the orphan, the young and the old. While he was often stern and abrupt to men, he was always kind and gentle to women, and he received from them the homage they would pay to a brother. His friendship for Grant I have already alluded to, but it extended in a lesser degree to all his comrades, especially those of West Point. No good soldier in his command feared to approach him to demand justice, and everyone received it if in his power to grant it. He shared with them the hardships of the march and the camp, and he was content with the same ration given to them. Simple in his habits, easy of approach, considerate of their comfort, he was popular with his soldiers, even while exacting in his discipline. The name of ‘Uncle Billy,’ given to him by them, was the highest evidence of their affection.
“He was the most unselfish man I ever knew. He did not seek for high rank, and often expressed doubts of his fitness for high command. He became a warm admirer of Abraham Lincoln as the war progressed, and more than once expressed to him a desire for subordinate duty. He never asked for promotion, but accepted it when given. His letters to me are full of urgent requests for the promotion of officers who rendered distinguished service, but never for his own. When the bill for the retirement of officers at the age of sixty-three was pending, he was excepted from its operation. He telegraphed me, insisting that no exception should be made in his favor, that General Sheridan should have the promotion and rank of general, which he had fairly earned. This was granted, but Congress with great kindness continued to General Sherman the full pay of a general when he was placed on the retired list.
“In his business relations he was bound by a scrupulous sense of honor and duty. I never knew of him doing anything which the most exacting could say was dishonorable, a violation of duty or right. I could name many instances of this trait, which I will not, but one or two cases will suffice. When a banker in California, several of his old army friends, especially from the south, trusted him with their savings for investment. He invested their money in good faith in what were considered the very best securities in California, but when Page, Bacon & Co., and nearly every banker in San Francisco, failed in 1855, all securities were dishonored, and many of them became worthless. General Sherman, though not responsible in law or equity for a loss that common prudence could not foresee, yet felt that he was ‘in honor’ bound to secure from loss those who had confided in him, and used for that purpose all, or nearly all, of his own savings.
“So, in the settlements of his accounts in Louisiana, when he had the entire control of expenditures, he took the utmost care to see that every dollar was accounted for. He resigned on the 18th of January, and waited until the 23rd of February for that purpose. The same exact accountability was practiced by him in all accounts with the United States. In my personal business relations with him, I found him to be exact and particular to the last degree, insisting always upon paying fully every debt, and his share of every expense. I doubt if any man living can truly say that General Sherman owes him a dollar, while thousands know he was generous in giving in proportion to his means. He had an extreme horror of debt and taxes. He looked upon the heavy taxes now in vogue as in the nature of confiscation, and in some cases sold his land, rapidly rising in value, because the taxes assessed seemed to him unreasonable.
“While the war lasted, General Sherman was a soldier intent upon putting down what he conceived to be a causeless rebellion. He said that war was barbarism that could not be refined, and the speediest way to end it was to prosecute it with vigor to complete success. When this was done, and the Union was saved, he was for the most liberal terms of conciliation and kindness to the southern people. All enmities were forgotten; his old friendships were revived. Never since the close of the war have I heard him utter words of bitterness against the enemies he fought, nor of the men in the north who had reviled him.
“To him it was a territorial war; one that could not have been avoided. Its seeds had been planted in the history of the colonies, in the constitution itself, and in the irrepressible conflict between free and slave institutions. It was a war by which the south gained, by defeat, enormous benefits, and the north, by success, secured the strength and development of the republic. No patriotic man of either section would willingly restore the old conditions. Its benefits are not confined to the United States, but extend to all the countries of America. Its good influence will be felt by all the nations of the world, by opening to them the hope of free institutions. It is one of the great epochs in the march of time, which, as the years go by, will be, by succeeding generations of freemen, classed in importance with the discovery of America and our Revolutionary War. It was the good fortune of General Sherman to have been a chief actor in this great drama, and to have lived long enough after its close to have realized and enjoyed the high estimate of his services by his comrades, by his countrymen, and by mankind. To me, his brother, it is a higher pride to know and to say that in all the walks of private life—as a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a soldier, a comrade, or a friend—he was an honorable gentleman, without fear and without reproach.”
CHAPTER LIX. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1890-91 IN OHIO. Public Discussion of My Probable Re-election to the Senate—My Visit to the Ohio Legislature in April, 1891—Reception at the Lincoln League Club—Address to the Members—Appointed by the Republicans as a Delegate to the State Convention at Columbus—Why My Prepared Speech Was Not Delivered—Attack on Me by the Cincinnati “Enquirer”—Text of the Address Printed in the “State Journal”— Beginning of a Canvass with Governor Foraker as a Competitor for the Senatorship—Attitude of George Cox, a Cincinnati Politician, Towards Me—Attempt to Form a “Farmers’ Alliance” or People’s Party in Ohio—“Seven Financial Conspiracies”—Mrs. Emery’s Pamphlet and My Reply to It.
During the winter of 1890-91 the question of my re-election to the Senate was the subject of newspaper discussion not only in Ohio, but in other states. As a rule the leading newspapers in the eastern states strongly favored my return to the Senate, and much the larger number of Republican papers in Ohio expressed the same desire. In the west, wherever the free coinage of silver was favored, a strong opposition to me was developed. I had not expressed any wish or intention to be a candidate and turned aside any attempt to commit me on the subject. I could quote by the score articles in the public prints of both political parties highly complimentary to me, but most of these turned upon free coinage of silver, which I did not regard as a political issue.
After the adjournment of Congress on the 4th of March the Cincinnati “Enquirer” formally announced, as “upon the assurance of the Senator himself,” that I would not again be a candidate for re-election. The next day that paper repeated that a well-known Sherman man, whose name was not given, said: “Your article is correct. Mr. Sherman is not, nor will he be again, a candidate for the Senate.” Both declarations were without foundation, and I supposed the intention of the “Enquirer” was to force a contest among Republicans for the nomination. I paid no attention to these publications, but they were the basis of comment in the newspapers in Ohio. The discussion of this question extended to other states, and indicated the desire of a large majority of the papers, east of the Mississippi River, that I be re-elected. I insert an extract from a long article in the Chicago “Inter-Ocean” of the 22nd of March, 1891:
“The most important event looked for in 1892 is that of a successor to John Sherman in Ohio, and already the matter is being discussed, as well it might be, and the interest is by no means confined to that state. John Sherman belongs to the whole country, and it is no reflection upon the usefulness of any other public man to say that his retirement to private life would be the greatest strictly personal loss the nation could now maintain.”
I do not care to quote the many kindly opinions expressed of me at that period.
I returned to Ohio early in April on a brief visit to Mansfield, and to pay my respects to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. At Mansfield I was met by a correspondent of the “Enquirer” and answered a multitude of questions. Among others I was asked if I would respond to the call of the members of the Ohio legislature to meet them at Columbus. I answered: “Yes, I will go to Columbus on Tuesday next, and from there to Washington, to return here with my family in May for the summer.” He said: “Is there any significance in this Columbus visit?” I answered: “None whatever so far as I know.” In leaving he said: “Tell me, did your trip here at this time have any reference to your fences, their building or repair?” “No,” I said, “I came here to build a barn. I am just about to commence it.” He bade me good-bye without saying a word about my declining or being elected as Senator.
I went to Columbus on the 7th, arriving late in the evening, but not too late to meet many gentlemen and to give to a correspondent of the “Commercial Gazette” an interview. On the next day, in pursuance of a custom that has existed in Ohio for many years, I, as a Senator elected by the legislature, was expected to make a formal call upon that body when in session, and during my visit to eschew politics. Accompanied by a committee of the senate I called upon Governor Campbell. We were then and had always been personal friends. He accompanied me to the senate, which took a recess, when brief and complimentary addresses were made, and I thanked the senate for the reception. After handshaking and pleasant talk I was escorted to the house of representatives, where the same simple ceremony was observed. I visited the state board of equalization, then engaged in the important duty of equalizing the taxes imposed in the several counties and cities of the state. At their request I expressed my opinion of the system of taxation in existence in Ohio, which I regarded as exceedingly defective by reason of restrictive clauses in the constitution of the state adopted in 1851.
In the evening of this day I was invited to a reception at the Lincoln League club. I insert the report published the next morning in the “State Journal.”
“The reception to Senator John Sherman at the Lincoln League club rooms last night was a rousing enthusiastic affair. The rooms were crowded with members of the league and their friends, while most of the state officials, members of the general assembly and the state board of equalization were present. Several Democrats were conspicuous in the crowd, and all parties, old men and young, vied with each other in doing honor to Ohio’s great statesman. During the evening Governor Campbell, accompanied by his daughter, came in to pay his respects to the distinguished guest and was cordially received. He was called upon for a speech and responded briefly in his usual happy vein. He expected to meet with the Republicans this fall again and would assist at some one’s obsequies, but just whose it would be he did not know.
“During the short visit the governor’s daughter was the recipient of marked attention, and divided honors with her father in handshaking.
“The feature of the evening was the welcome accorded Senator Sherman and his speech. Everybody was eager to shake hands with him, and for over an hour he was so engaged.
“He was introduced by President Huling in his usual happy manner, and responded feelingly in a short speech, which was received with enthusiasm. Senator Sherman said:
‘Gentlemen:—I appear before you to-night, not as a partisan, not as a Republican, although I do not deny my fraternity, nor as a Democrat, but simply as a native son of Ohio. My friend has made a very eloquent speech to you, but I have come to greet you all, to thank you for the support that has been extended to me by the people of Ohio, not only by those of my political faith, but also those who have differed from me. I have often been brought in contact with Democrats whom I cherish as my friends. You all know your honored and venerable statesman, Allen G. Thurman. We differed on political issues, but we never quarreled with each other. When any question affecting the interests or prosperity of Ohio was concerned we were like two brothers aiding each other. When we came to discuss political questions, upon which parties divided, we put on our armor. I knew that if I made the slightest error, he would pick me up and handle me as roughly as anyone else, and he expected the same of me. And so with Mr. Pendleton, who is now dead. I regarded him as one of the most accomplished men I ever met; always kind, always genial, possessing all the attributes of a gentleman. When discussing any question affecting the interest or honor of Ohio there was no difference of opinion between us. When I met him a short time before his death, at Homburg, I felt that I would not see him again. In politics there ought to be kindness and fairness. Men of adverse opinions may be true friends while they honestly differ on great public questions.
‘Now, gentlemen, I think I have said all I ought to say. This is a social meeting and, as I understand it, you came here to greet me as one of your public servants. I wish to express my obligations to the people of Ohio for their generosity and for their long-continued support. I am glad indeed to greet you and give you a good Buckeye greeting. All I can do is to thank you.’”
On the 6th of June I was appointed by the Republicans of Richland county as a delegate to the state convention. In a brief speech to the county convention, I said:
“The next state convention will be a very important one in many respects. In one or two matters the business has already been done. It has been settled that Major McKinley will be nominated Governor of Ohio, and that he will be elected. Of the balance of the ticket I say nothing. There are so many good men for candidates that we can make no mistake in any of them.”
Resolutions were adopted indorsing the platforms of the last state and national conventions, declaring a belief in the doctrine of protection to labor and American industries, and indorsing the wisdom of the Republican party in continuing the advocacy of the protective tariff. I was remembered by resolutions thanking me for services rendered to the country, and Senators W. S. Kerr and W. Hildebrand were complimented for their efficiency in the state senate.
A resolution indorsing William McKinley for unanimous nomination for governor passed amidst enthusiastic applause.
Upon attending the state convention at Columbus, on the 17th of June, I was advised that objection would be made to my designation as chairman, and that Mr. Bushnell would be pressed for that honor. I promptly said I did not wish the position, and urged the selection of Bushnell, who was fairly entitled to it for his active agency as chairman of the state committee. The central committee had invited me to address the convention, and I was prepared to do so, but, feeling that after McKinley was unanimously nominated for governor my speech would delay the convention in completing the ticket, I declined to speak, but the convention insisted upon it, and I did respond very briefly, saying I would hand my speech to the “State Journal.” Out of this incident the “Enquirer” made the story that I had been “snubbed” by the convention, through the influence of Governor Foraker and other gentlemen named by it. The correct account of my action was stated in the “State Journal” as follows:
“After Major McKinley had finished speaking there were enthusiastic calls for Senator Sherman. The demand became so vigorous that General Bushnell was unable to secure quiet. Senator Sherman marched down the middle aisle from his seat in his delegation just under the balcony. Perhaps no one received such generous recognition as did the senior Senator from Ohio. Although Senator Sherman had prepared a speech he did not attempt to deliver it. He said he had intended to insist on his right as a delegate not to hear any more oratory, but, to proceed with the business of the convention. He gave the ‘State Journal’ an appreciated compliment by advising all the delegates who desired to know what his speech contained to buy this morning’s ‘State Journal.’ His remarks were felicitous and he was frequently interrupted by applause.”
The prepared speech as published in the “Journal” gave satisfaction, not only to the Republicans in Ohio, but was printed in many of the leading journals of the United States. My refusal to deliver it in the sweltering heat of the convention enabled that body to rapidly clear the business it met to transact, and the unfounded imputations about leading Republicans fell harmless. I insert this speech:
“My Fellow Republicans:—When I was invited with others to address this convention, I felt that the best speech that could be made was the convention itself. You are here to speak the voice of Ohio in the choice of the chief officers of the state and to announce the creed of a great party. Such bodies as this are the convenient agencies of a free people to mark out the line of march and to select their leaders.
“When I look upon this great body of representative Republicans, animated by a common purpose and inspired by a common faith in the party to which we belong, my mind instinctively reverts to the first Republican convention of Ohio, held in this city thirty-six years ago. Then, under the impulse of a great wrong—the repeal of the restriction of slavery north and west of Missouri—that convention, remarkable in numbers and ability, composed of representatives of all parties then in existence, pledged themselves, that come what may, they would resist the extension of slavery over every foot of territory where it was not then established by law. There was no doubt or hesitation or timidity in their resolution, though they knew they were entering into a contest with an enemy that had never been defeated, that had dominated all parties, and would resist to the uttermost, even to war, any attempt to curb the political power of the most infamous institution that ever existed among men. This was the beginning of the Republican party.
“It was also the beginning of the most remarkable events of American history. Since that day the Republican party has abolished slavery, not only in the United States, but, by its reflected influence, in nearly all the countries of the world. It has conducted a war of gigantic proportions with marked success, demonstrating in the strongest way the ability of a free people to maintain and preserve its government against all enemies, at home and abroad. It has established the true theory of national authority over every citizen of the republic, without regard to state lines, and has forever put at rest the pretense of the right of secession by a state or any portion of our people. It has placed our country, in its relations to foreign nations, in so commanding a position that none will seek a controversy with us, while empires and kingdoms profit by our example. It has, for the necessities of the time and the warnings and follies of the past, marked out a financial system which secures us a currency safe beyond all possibility of loss, a coinage of silver and gold received at par in every commercial mart of the world, and a public credit equal, if not superior, to that of the oldest, richest and most powerful nations. It has, by a policy of fostering and protecting our home industries, so diversified our productions that every article of necessity, luxury, art or refinement can be made by American labor, and the food and fruits of a temperate climate, and cotton, wool and all the textile fibres, can be raised on the American farm.
“Under Republican policy, sometimes embarrassed but never changed, our country has become free, without a slave; strong, without standing armies or great navies; rich, with wealth better distributed, labor better paid, and equality of rights better secured, than in any country in the world. All the opportunities of life, without distinction of birth or rank or wealth, are open to all alike. Education is free, without money or price. Railroads, telegraphs and all the wonderful devices of modern civilization are at our command. Many of these blessings are the natural results of our free institutions, the work of our fathers, but they have been in every case promoted and fostered by the policy of the Republican party. We, therefore, can honestly claim that our party has been a faithful servant of the people and is fairly entitled to their confidence and support.
“But we do not rest our claims upon this fact alone. We do not need to muster the great names that have marched at the head of our columns to their final rest to invoke your approval. We invite the strictest scrutiny into the conduct of the present Republican administration of Benjamin Harrison. He was not as well known to the people at large, at the time of his election, as many former Presidents, for the politics of Indiana do not give a Republican of that state a fair chance to demonstrate his capacity and ability, but my intimate acquaintance and companionship with him, sitting side by side for six years in the Senate Chamber, impressed me with the high intellectual and moral traits which he has exhibited in his great office.
“The issues now involved are not so great and pressing as in the days of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but they do directly affect the life, comfort and happiness of every citizen of the United States. The recent Republican Congress, in connection with President Harrison, has dealt with all leading domestic questions of the time and with the most important questions with foreign nations. Every one of these has either been settled or is in the way of settlement.
“The administration of Mr. Cleveland settled nothing but the sublime egotism of Mr. Cleveland, his opposition to the protection policy, his want of sympathy for the Union soldiers and his narrow notions of finance and the public credit. He devised nothing and accomplished nothing. A Democratic House passed the Mills tariff bill, but it was rejected by the Senate and by the people in the election of 1888. It was neither a protective tariff nor a revenue tariff, but a mongrel affair made up of shreds and patches furnished here and there by Democratic Members to suit their local constituencies. This abortive measure was the only one of any mark or importance proposed by Mr. Cleveland, or passed by a Democratic House of Representatives.
“In marked contrast with this is the Republican administration of Harrison and the recent Republican Congress. Mr. Harrison, with the slow, thoughtful, conservative tendencies of his mind, gave careful consideration to every proposition that came before him, and announced his opinion in his messages to Congress. The House of Representatives, having cleared the way by the decision and courage of Speaker Tom Reed that the majority should rule, proceeded to transact the public business, and the Senate, in hearty concurrence and co-operation, acted upon every important measure pending before Congress. The first in importance, though not in point of time, was an entire revision of our revenue laws. This bill was subjected to the most careful scrutiny in both Houses, and was passed as a Republican measure, and approved by the President. It is the law of the land, though some of its provisions have not yet taken effect. It is, in my judgment, a wise law, and will bear the most careful scrutiny. It may be that in its details, in the rates of duty, the precise line between enough to protect and more than is necessary, is not observed, but this error in detail does not weaken the essential merits of this great measure. I do not intend to discuss it in the presence of a gentleman now before me, who had charge of the bill in the House, who is, in a great measure, the author of it, and whose effective advocacy carried it over the shoals and rocks in the House of Representatives. You will greatly and justly honor him this day, but not more than he deserves, and you will have a chance to hear from him as to its merits. It is sufficient now for me to state, very briefly, why I heartily supported it in the Senate.
“In the first place it is a clear-cut, effective measure that will make explicit the rates of duties proposed; will prevent, as far as the law can, any evasion or undervaluation. It is in every line and word a protective tariff. It favors, to the extent of the duty, the domestic manufacturer, and will induce the production here of every article suited to our condition and climate. It is a fair law, for it extends its benefits not only to the artisan, but, to the farmer and producer in every field of employment. I know, by my long experience in passing upon tariff bills, that the McKinley bill more carefully and beneficially protects the farmer in his productions than any previous measures of the kind. And its inevitable effect in encouraging manufactures will give to the farmer the best possible market for his crops. The bill has received, and will bear, discussion, and will improve on acquaintance. The new features of the bill relating to sugar and tin plate will soon demonstrate the most satisfactory results. Sugar will be greatly lowered in cost to the consumer, while the bounty given to the domestic producer will soon establish the cultivation of beet and sorghum sugar in the United States, as the same policy has done in Germany and France. The increased duty soon to be put upon tin plate will develop, and has already developed, tin mines in several states and territories, so that we may confidently hope that in a short period we will be sweetened by untaxed home sugar, and protected by untaxed tin plate. The arts of the demagogue, which were at the last election played upon the credulous to deceive them as to the effects of the McKinley bill, will return to plague the inventors, and this Republican measure, with its kindred measures, reciprocity and fair play to American ships, will be among the boasted triumphs of our party, in which our Democratic friends will, as usual, heartily acquiesce.
“There is another question in which the people are vitally interested, and that is the currency question. They want good money and plenty of it. They want all their money of equal value, so that a dollar will be the same whether it is made of gold or silver or paper. We have had this kind of money since the resumption of specie payments in January, 1879. Nobody wants to go back to the old condition of things when it was gold to the bondholders and paper to the pensioners. When the outstanding government bonds were fifteen hundred millions, and banks could issue paper money upon the deposit of bonds, the volume of currency could expand upon the increase of business. But that condition is passing away. The bonds are being paid, and the time is coming, and has come, when the amount of bonds is so reduced and their value is so increased that banks cannot afford to buy bonds upon which to issue circulating notes.
“We must contemplate the time when the national banks will not issue their notes, but become banks of discount and deposit. The banks are evidently acting upon this theory, for they have voluntarily largely reduced their circulation. How shall this currency be replaced? Certainly not by the notes of state banks. No notes should circulate as money except such as have the sanction, authority and guarantee of the United States. The best for of these is certificates based upon gold and silver of value equal to the notes outstanding. Nor should any distinction be made between gold and silver. Both should be received at their market value in the markets of the world. Their relative value varies from day to day and there is no power strong enough to establish a fixed ratio of value except the concurrence of the chief commercial nations of the world. We coin both metals at a fixed ratio, but we maintain them at par with each other by limiting the amount of the cheaper metal to the sum needed for subsidiary coin and receiving and redeeming it.
“The demand for the free coinage of silver without limit, is a demand that the people of the United States shall pay for silver bullion more than its market price; a demand that is not and ought not to be made by the producer of any commodity. There is no justice or equity in it. If granted by the United States alone it will demonetize gold and derange all the business transactions of our people. What we ought to do, and what we now do under the silver law of the last Congress, a conservative Republican measure, is to buy the entire product of silver mined in the United States at its market value, and, upon the security of that silver deposited in the treasury, issue treasury notes to the full amount of the cost of the bullion. In this way we add annually to our national currency circulating notes of undoubted value, equal to gold to an amount equal to or greater than the increase of our population and the increasing business for our growing country.
“There is another measure to which the Republican party is bound by every obligation of honor and duty, and that is to grant to the Union soldiers of the late war, their widows and orphans, liberal pensions for their sacrifices and services in the preservation of the Union. In the language of Lincoln, ‘To bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.’ Impressed with this obligation, the Republican party has gone as far as prudence will allow. We appropriate $135,000,000 a year for this purpose. Though the sum is large, it is not the measure of our obligation. The rising generation who will bear this burden must remember the immeasurable blessings they enjoy by the sacrifices and services of Union soldiers in the preservation of the Union and in a strong republican government and free institutions.
“There is another obligation which we, as Republicans, cannot ignore without being false to our party pledges, and that is to use every legal means to secure all citizens their constitutional rights and privileges as such, without respect to race and color. Fortunately, time is promoting this great duty, but it must never be forgotten or neglected until every lawful voter shall freely exercise his right to vote without discrimination or favor.
“This is not the time for a fuller discussion of the many political questions which will enter into the canvass. The great tribunal of the people must pass upon them in their assemblages. I hope we will go back to the old-fashioned mass meetings in the beautiful groves of our state, where old and young, women as well as men, can gather together with their baskets well-filled, their minds open to conviction, their hearts full of patriotism, to listen and judge for themselves the path of duty, the lines of wisdom, the proper choice between the parties claiming their suffrages. Fortunately, there is now no bitterness between parties, nothing that can justify abuse, or reproach, for we must all concede the honesty and desire of members of all parties to do what is best for the common good. We must not meet as farmers, mechanics, or partisans, but as fellow-citizens and patriots, alike interested in all measures of national or state legislation. If any public measure bears unjustly upon any class of our population we are all interested in providing a remedy. The farmers of our country sometimes complain that they do not share in the common prosperity, that the prices they receive for their products are too low, that they pay more than their share of the taxes.
“So far as these complaints may be met by wise legislation it should be done by Congress and our state legislature. The Republican party is wise enough and liberal enough to meet the just demands of all classes, and, especially, of the farmers, the great conservative and controlling portion of our population, and they are patriotic enough not to demand measures not sanctioned by reason and experience, and not consistent with the common good or the credit and honor of our country. The Republican party has shown its capacity to deal wisely with many more difficult questions of the past, and may be relied upon to solve wisely the questions of a peaceful and prosperous future. Strong now at home our country may extend its moral influence to neighboring republics, encourage trade and intercourse with them, and invite a broader union founded upon common interests, sympathies, and free institutions.
“The State of Ohio is an important factor in this great union of states and people. Ohio is a Republican state, one that has taken a conspicuous part in the great drama of the past. In an evil hour, and under wild delusions, Ohio elected the recent Democratic legislature. With this warning behind us let us not be backward or laggard in the civic contest in November; but, with a ticket worthy of our choice, let us appeal to our fellow-citizens to place again our honored state at the head of the Republican column.”
While the statement in the “Enquirer” and in other Democratic papers was not, in my opinion, true, yet the charge of a purpose on the part of the members of the convention to humiliate or “snub” me, by inviting me to address the convention and then denying me the opportunity, led to a very general popular discussion of the selection of United States Senator by the legislature then to be elected. The choice seemed, by general acquiescence, to rest between Governor Foraker and myself in case the Republicans should have a majority of the legislature. There could be no difference as to the weight of public opinion outside of Ohio, as represented by the leading journals of both political parties. Even such independent papers as the Chicago “Evening Post,” the “Boston Herald,” the Springfield (Massachusetts) “Republican” and the New York “Evening Post,” and I can say the great body of the Republican journals in the State of Ohio, warmly urged my re-election. With this general feeling prevailing I considered myself a candidate, without any announcement, and entered into the canvass as such. I also regarded Governor Foraker as my competitor fairly entitled to aspire to the position of Senator, though he did not, at first, publicly announce his candidacy. Young, active and able, with a brilliant military record vouched for by General Sherman, twice elected Governor of Ohio, he was justified in entering the contest. In the latter part of June he was reported to have said that I would be re-elected, but this was regarded in a Pickwickian sense. Candidates for the legislature were chosen in many counties according to senatorial preferences, but, so far as I recall, there was no contest over such nominations bitter enough to cause the defeat of any nominee.
No serious difficulty arose until the latter part of July, when I was advised that George B. Cox, a well-known politician in Cincinnati, who, it was understood, controlled the Republican primaries in that city, would not allow any man to be nominated for either branch of the legislature who did not specifically agree to vote for whoever he (Cox) should designate as United States Senator. This I regarded, if the statement were true, as a corrupt and dangerous power to be conferred upon any man, which ought not to be submitted to. I went to Cincinnati, partly to confer with Foraker, and chiefly in pursuance of a habit of visiting that city at least once a year. I met Foraker, and he promptly disclaimed any knowledge of such a requirement in legislative nominations. Cox also called upon me, and said the delegation would probably be divided between Foraker and myself. I could say nothing more to him. Foraker gave a written answer to an inquiry of the “Commercial Gazette,” in which he said he was a candidate, and no one knew it better than I. This was quite true and proper. In a published interview I said:
“Governor Foraker and I have always been friends, and I am always glad to see him. He has a right to the position he has taken in regard to the senatorship, and it is a proper one. One man has just as much right to try it as another.”
“Are McKinley and Butterworth candidates for Senator?”
“I do not know, but they have a right to be.”
The only question that remained was whether Cox had a delegation pledged to obey his wish, and this was to be ascertained in the future.
During the spring and summer of 1891 there was an attempt to organize a new party in Ohio, under the name of the Farmers’ Alliance, or People’s party, based mainly upon what were alleged to be “seven financial conspiracies.” These so-called “conspiracies” were the great measures by which the Union cause was maintained during and since the war. The Alliance was greatly encouraged by its success in defeating Senator Ingalls and replacing him by Senator Peffer, and proposed that I should follow Ingalls. Pamphlets were freely distributed throughout the state, the chief of which was one written by a Mrs. Emery, containing ninety-six pages. I was personally arraigned in this pamphlet as the “head devil” of these conspiracies, and the chief specifications of my crimes were the laws requiring the duties on imported goods to be paid in coin, the payment in coin of the principal and interest of the public debt, the act to strengthen the public credit, the national banking system, and, in her view, the worst of all, the resumption of specie payments.
At first I paid no attention to this pamphlet, but assumed that intelligent readers could and would answer it. In October I received a letter calling my attention to it and asking me to answer it. This I did by the following letter which I was advised had a beneficial effect in the western states, where the pamphlet was being mainly circulated:
“Mansfield, O., October 12, 1891.
“Mr. Charles F. Stokey, Canton, O.
“My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 8th, accompanied by Mrs. S. E. V.
Emery’s pamphlet called ‘Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have
Enslaved the American People,’ is received.
“Some time since, this wild and visionary book was sent to me, and I read it with amusement and astonishment that anyone could approve of it or be deceived by its falsehoods.
“The ‘seven financial conspiracies’ are the seven great pillars of our financial credit, the seven great financial measures by which the government was saved from the perils of war and by which the United States has become the most flourishing and prosperous nation in the world.
“The first chapter attributes the Civil War to an infamous plot of capitalists to absorb the wealth of the country at the expense of the people, when all the world knows that the Civil War was organized by slaveholders to destroy the national government and to set up a slaveholding confederacy in the south upon its ruins. The ‘Shylock,’ described by Mrs. Emery, is a phantom of her imagination. The ‘Shylocks of the war’ were the men who furnished the means to carry on the government, and included in their number the most patriotic citizens of the northern states, who, uniting their means with the services and sacrifices of our soldiers, put down the rebellion, abolished slavery, and preserved and strengthened our government.
“The first of her ‘conspiracies’ she calls the exception clause in the act of February 25, 1862, by which the duties on imported goods were required to be paid in coin in order to provide the means to pay the interest on coin bonds in coin. This clause had not only the cordial support of Secretary Chase, but of President Lincoln, and proved to be the most important financial aid of the government devised during the war. Goods being imported upon coin values, it was but right that the duty to the government should be paid in the same coin. Otherwise the duties would have been constantly diminishing with the lessening purchasing power of our greenbacks. If the interest of our debt had not been paid in coin, we could have borrowed no money abroad, and the rate of interest, instead of diminishing as it did, would have been largely increased, and the volume of our paper money would necessarily have had to be increased and its value would have gone down lower and lower, and probably ended, as Confederate money did, in being as worthless as rags. This exception clause saved our public credit by making a market for our bonds, and the coin was paid by foreigners for the privilege of entering our markets.
“As for the national banking system—the second of her ‘conspiracies’ —it is now conceded to have produced the best form of paper money issued by banks that has ever been devised. It was organized to take the place of the state banks, which, at the beginning of the war, had outstanding over $200,000,000 of notes, of value varying from state to state, and most of them at a discount of from five to twenty-five per cent. It was absolutely necessary to get rid of these state bank notes and to substitute for them bank notes secured beyond doubt by the deposit of United States bonds, a system so perfect that from the beginning until now no one has lost a dollar on the circulating notes of national banks. The system may have to give way because we are paying off our bonds, but no sensible man will ever propose in this country to go back to the old system of state banks, and if some security to take the place of United States bonds can be devised for national bank notes, the system will be and ought to be perpetuated.
“The third ‘conspiracy’ referred to is contraction of the currency. It has been demonstrated by official documents that from the beginning of the war to this time the volume of our currency has been increasing, year by year, more rapidly than our population. In 1860 the total amount of all the money in circulation was $435,000,000, when our population was 31,000,000, and half of this was money of variable and changing value. Now we have in circulation $1,500,000,000, with a population of 64,000,000, and every dollar of this money is good as gold, all kinds equal to each other, passing from hand to hand and paid out as good money, not only in the United States but among all the commercial countries of the world. Our money has increased nearly fourfold, while our population has only doubled.
“The statements made by Mrs. Emery about the contraction of our currency are not only misleading but they are absolutely false. She states that in 1868 $473,000,000 of our money was destroyed, and in 1869 $500,000,000 of our money passed into a cremation furnace, and in 1870 $67,000,000 was destroyed. Now these statements are absolutely false. What she calls money in these paragraphs was the most burdensome form of interest-bearing securities, treasury notes bearing seven and three-tenths per cent. interest, and compound interest notes. These were the chief and most burdensome items of the public debt. They were paid off in the years named and were never at any time for more than a single day money in circulation. When issued they were received as money, but, as interest accrued they became investments and were not at all in circulation.
“These statements of Mrs. Emery are palpable falsehoods, which if stated by a man would justify a stronger word. It is true that in 1866 Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury under the administration of Andrew Johnson, wished to bring about resumption by contraction, and a bill was passed providing for a gradual reduction of the greenbacks to $300,000,000, but this was very soon after repealed and the greenbacks retained in circulation. I was not in favor of the contraction of the greenbacks, and the very speech that she quotes, in which I described the effects of contraction and the difficulty of resuming, was made against the bill providing for the reduction of the greenbacks.
“The next ‘conspiracy’ to which she refers was the first act of General Grant’s administration ‘to strengthen the public credit.’ A controversy had existed whether the 5-20 bonds could be paid in greenbacks. I maintained and still believe that by a fair construction of the loan laws we had a right to pay the principal of the bonds as they matured in greenbacks of the kind and character in existence when the bonds were issued, but I insisted that it was the duty of the government to define a time when the greenbacks should be either redeemed or maintained at par in coin, that this was a plain obligation of honor and duty which rested upon the United States, and that it was not honorable or right to avail ourselves of our own negligence in restoring these notes to the specie standard in order to pay the bonds in the depreciated money. This idea is embodied in the credit-strengthening act.
“The fifth ‘conspiracy’ of what she calls ‘this infernal scheme’ was the refunding of the national debt. This operation of refunding is regarded by all intelligent statesmen as of the highest value, and was conducted with remarkable success. At the date of the passage of the refunding act, July 14, 1870, we had outstanding bonds bearing five and six per cent. interest for about $1,500,000,000. By the wise providence of Congress, we had reserved the right of redeeming a portion of this debt within five years, and a portion of it within ten years, so that the debt was, in the main, then redeemable at our pleasure. It was not possible to pay it in coin and it was not honorable to pay it in greenbacks, especially as that could only have been done by issuing new greenbacks far beyond the volume existing during the war, and which would at once depreciate in value and destroy the public credit and dishonor the country. We, therefore, authorized the exchange, par for par, of bonds bearing four, four and a half, and five per cent. interest for the bonds bearing a higher rate of interest. The only contest in Congress upon the subject was whether the new bonds should run five, ten and fifteen years, or ten, fifteen and thirty years. I advocated the shorter period, but the House of Representatives, believing that the new bonds would not sell at par unless running for a longer period, insisted that the four per cent. bonds should run for thirty years. Greenbackers, like Mrs. Emery, who now complain that the bonds run so long and cannot be paid until due, are the same people who insisted upon making the bonds run thirty years. It required some ten years to complete these refunding operations—of which the larger part was accomplished when I was Secretary of the Treasury—and they resulted in a saving of one-third of the interest on the debt. So far from it being in the interest of the bondholders, it was to their detriment and only in the interest of the people of the United States.
“The next ‘conspiracy’ complained of is the alleged demonetization of silver. By the act revising the coinage in 1873, the silver dollar, which had been suspended by Jefferson in 1805 and practically demonetized in 1835 and suspended by minor coins in 1853, and which was issued only in later years as a convenient form in which to export silver bullion, and the whole amount of which, from the beginning of the government to the passage of the act referred to, was only eight million dollars, was, by the unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress, without objection from anyone, dropped from our coinage, and in its place, upon the petition of the legislature of California, was substituted the trade dollar containing a few more grains of silver. A few years afterwards, silver having fallen rapidly in market prices, Congress restored the coinage of the silver dollar, limiting the amount to not exceeding four million nor less than two million a month, and under ths law in a period of twelve years we issued over 400,000,000 silver dollars, fifty times the amount that had been coined prior to 1873. And now under existing law we are purchasing 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year; so that what she calls the demonetization of silver has resulted in its use in our country to an extent more than fiftyfold greater than before its demonetization.
“In spite of this, in consequence of the increased supply of silver and the cheapening processes of its production, it is going down in the market and is only maintained at par with gold by the fiat of the different governments coining it. Now the deluded people belonging to the class of Mrs. Emery are seeking to cheapen the purchasing power of the dollar, in the hands of the farmer and laborer, by the free coinage of silver and the demonetization of gold. Silver and gold should be used and maintained as current money, but only on a par with each other, and this can only be done by treating the cheaper metal as subsidiary and coining it only as demanded for the use of the people.
“The seventh ‘financial conspiracy’ is the pride and boast of the government of the United States, the restoration of our notes, long after the war was over, to the standard of coin; in other words, the resumption of specie payments. This measure, which met the violent opposition of such wild theorists as Mrs. Emery, has demonstrated its success, in the judgment of all intelligent people, not only in the United States, but in all the countries of the world. There is no standard for paper money, except coin. The United States postponed too long the restoration of its notes to coin standards. Since it had the courage to do this under the resumption act, on the 1st day of January, 1879, we have had in the United States a standard of gold with coins of silver, nickel and copper, maintained at that standard by the fiat of the government, and paper money in various forms, as United States notes, national bank notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, and treasury notes, all at par with gold.
“To call this a ‘conspiracy’ or an ’infamous plot’ is a misnomer of terms which will not deceive any intelligent man, but it is rather the glory and pride of the people of the United States that it not only has been able, in the past thirty years, to put down a great rebellion and to abolish slavery, but to advance the credit of the United States to the highest rank among nations, to largely increase the currency of the country, to add enormously to our productive interests, and to develop the resources of the mine, the field, and the workshop, to a degree unexampled in the history of nations. Intelligent people, who reason and observe, will not be deceived or misled by the wild fanaticism and the gloomy prophecies of Mrs. Emery. Temporary conditions growing out of the failure of any portion of our crops will not discourage them; the exaggerations of the morbid fancy will not mislead them.
“A candid examination of the great financial measures of the last thirty years will lead people to name what Mrs. Emery calls ‘the seven financial conspiracies’ as the seven great, wise and statesmanlike steps which have led the people of the United States, through perils and dangers rarely encountered by any nation, from a feeble confederacy with four millions of slaves, and discordant theories of constitutional power, to a great, free republic, made stronger by the dangers it has passed, a model and guide for the nations of the world.
“As for Mrs. Emery’s criticisms upon me personally, I do not even deem them worthy of answer. She repeats the old story that I was interested in the First National Bank of New York and gave it the free use of the people’s money. This is a plain lie, contradicted and disproved over and over again. I never had the slightest interest in the bank, direct or indirect, and, as the public records will show, gave it no favors, but treated it like all other depositaries of public money and held it to the most rigid accountability; nor have I in any case derived the slightest pecuniary benefit from any measure either pending in or before Congress since I have been in public life.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
I had faith in the good sense and conservative tendencies of the people, and believed they would not be deluded by such fantasies and fallacies as were contained in the platform of the People’s party. That party made a very active canvass, and expected, as a prominent member of it said, “to hold the balance of power in the legislature and dictate who the next United States Senator from Ohio shall be, and you may depend upon it that that man will not be John Sherman.”
This Alliance subsequently changed its ground from irredeemable paper money to the free coinage of silver. Professing to care for the farmers and laborers it sought in every way to depreciate the purchasing power of their money.
CHAPTER LX. FREE SILVER AND PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRIES. My Views in 1891 on the Free Coinage of Silver—Letter to an Ohio Newspaper on the Subject—A Problem for the Next Congress to Solve —Views Regarding Protection to American Industries by Tariff Laws —My Deep Interest in This Campaign—Its Importance to the Country at Large—Ohio the Battle Ground of These Financial Questions— Opening the Campaign in Paulding Late in August—Extracts from My Speech There—Appeal to the Conservative Men of Ohio of Both Parties —Address at the State Fair at Columbus—Review of the History of Tariff Legislation in the United States—Five Republican Principles Pertaining to the Reduction of Taxes—Speeches at Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati and Elsewhere—McKinley’s Election by Over 21,000 Plurality.
In the progress of the canvass of 1891 it was apparent that the farmers of Ohio would not agree to free coinage of silver, and divided as usual between the two great parties. In the heat of this contest I wrote to the “Cyclone” the following letter:
“Mansfield, O., July 7, 1891.
“Editors ‘Cyclone,’ Washington C. H.
“My Dear Sirs:—In answer to your letter of the 6th, I can only say that my views on the question of the free coinage of silver are fully stated in the speech I made at the last session of the Senate, a copy of which I send you, and I can add nothing new to it.
“I can appreciate the earnest demand of the producers of silver bullion, that the United States should pay $1.29 an ounce for silver bullion which in the markets of the world has been for a series of years worth only about one dollar an ounce—sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, but I cannot appreciate why any farmer or other producer should desire that the government should pay for any article more than its market value. The government should purchase the articles it needs, like all other purchasers, at the market price. The distinction sought to be made in favor of silver is without just foundation. The government now buys in the open market more than the entire domestic production of silver bullion, because it needs it for coinage and as the basis of treasury notes. I gladly contributed my full share to this measure, and would do anything in my power to advance the market value of silver to its legal ratio to gold, but this can only be done in concert with other commercial nations. The attempt to do it by the United States alone would only demonstrate our weakness.
“To the extent that the enormous demand made by the existing law advances the price of silver, the producer receives the benefit, and to-day the production of silver is probably the most profitable industry in the United States. To ask more seems to me unreasonable, and, if yielded to, will bring all our money to the single silver standard alone, demonetize gold and detach the United States from the standards of the great commercial nations of the world. The unreasonable demand for the free coinage of silver has nothing to do with the reasonable demand for the increase of the volume of money required by the increase of business and population of the United States.
“We have provided by existing laws for the increase of money to an amount greater than the increase of business and population; but, even if more money is required, there are many ways of providing it without cheapening its purchasing power, or making a wide difference between the kinds of money in circulation based on silver and gold. More than ninety-two per cent. of all payments is now made in checks, drafts and other commercial devices. All kinds of circulating notes are now equal to each other and are kept at the gold standard by redemption and exchange. Our money and our credit are now equal to or better than those of the most civilized nations of the world, our productions of every kind are increasing, and it seems to me almost a wild lunacy for us to disturb this happy condition by changing the standard of all contracts, including special contracts payable in gold, and again paying gold to the capitalists, and silver (at an exaggerated price) to the farmer, laborer and pensioner.
“I would not be true to my conviction of what is best for the good of my constituents if I did not frankly and firmly stand by my opinions, whatever may be the effect upon me personally. My greatest obligations have been to the farmers of Ohio, and I would be unworthy of their trust and confidence if I did not beseech them to stand by the financial policy which will secure them the best results for their labor and productions, and the comfort and prosperity of all classes alike.
“Very truly yours,
“John Sherman.”
When this letter was written the demand for the free coinage of silver was at its height. I knew that my position was not a popular one, yet felt confident that in the end the people would become convinced that no change should be made in the standard of value then existing, and that the use of silver as money should be continued and it should be maintained at par with gold, but that when the volume of it became so great as to threaten the demonetization of gold, its coinage should be discontinued and silver bullion in the treasury should be represented by treasury notes in circulation equal in amount to the cost of the silver bullion. This was the basis of the act of 1890, but, unfortunately, the amount of silver bullion produced in the United States and in the world at large so rapidly increased that it continually declined in market value. Every purchase of it entailed great loss to the United States. How to deal with this condition was the problem for the next Congress to solve.
On the 31st of August, in response to an inquiry from the editor of the “Citizen,” a newspaper published in Urbana, Ohio, I wrote the following letter in regard to the policy of protection to American industries by tariff laws:
“A protective tariff was the first measure provided by the first Congress of the United States. No nation can be independent without a diversity of industries. A single occupation may answer for an individual, but a nation must be composed of many men of many employments. Every nation ought to be independent of other nations in respect to all productions necessary for life and comfort that can be made at home. These are axioms of political economy so manifestly true that they need no demonstration. The measure of protection is a proper subject of dispute, but there should be no dispute as to the principle of protection in a country like ours, possessing almost every raw material of nature and almost every variety of productions. We have prospered most when our industries have been best protected. The vast variety of our manufactures, now rivaling in quantity those of countries much older than ours, is the result of protection.
“Every President, from Washington down to Jackson, inclusive, declared in favor of the principle of protection. Every eminent statesman of the early period, including Calhoun, favored this policy. The owners of slaves, engaged chiefly in the production of cotton, became hostile to protection, and, with those engaged in foreign commerce, were the representative free traders of the United States. Now that slavery is abolished and the south has entered upon the development of her vast natural resources, and it has been proven that our foreign commerce is greater under protective laws, there should be no opposition in any portion of our country to the protection of American industry by wise discriminating duties.
“The principle of protection should be applied impartially and fairly to all productions, whether of the workshop or the farm. The object is to diversify employment and to protect labor, and this protection should be impartially applied without respect to the nature of the production. All experience has established the invariable fact that domestic production, by inducing competition, in a brief period, lowers the price of all protected articles. In the whole range of productions this result has been universal. Whenever it is apparent that a new industry can be established, as is the case now with the manufacture of tin plate, it is good policy to give to the industry a liberal degree of protection, with the assurance that if we have the raw material on equal conditions we can after a time compete with the imported article.
“The policy of a nation upon economic questions should be fixed and stable. The McKinley law, as now framed, though it may be open to criticism as to details, is a strictly protective measure, fair and just as applied to all industries, with ample provisions to secure reciprocity in the exchange of domestic productions for articles we cannot produce. It ought to be thoroughly tested by the experience of several years. It is not good policy to disturb it or keep the public mind in suspense about it. It will, as I think, demonstrate its wisdom, but if not, with the light of experience, it can be modified. The highest policy and the greatest good to our people lie in the full trial of this effort, to establish, upon a firm foundation, the domestic production of every article essential to American life and independence.”
These two letters, on the “free coinage of silver” and the “McKinley tariff law,” frankly expressed my opinions on the salient questions of the day. With respect to the principles that underlie the policy of protection, I have already stated my opinions in commenting upon the Morrill tariff law. No general tariff bill has passed during my service in Congress that met my entire approval. It is easy to formulate general principles, but when we come to apply them to the great number of articles named on the tariff list, we find that the interests of their constituents control the action of Senator and Members. The McKinley tariff bill was not improved in the Senate. The compact and influential delegation from New England made its influence felt in support of industries pursued in that section, while the delegations from other sections were divided on party lines. The tariff law was not, therefore, consistent with any general principle, but it was nearer so than the one in force before its passage, and the necessity of passing some law that would reduce taxation was so imperative that the differences between the two Houses were readily compromised. The execution of the McKinley law under President Harrison demonstrated that it would furnish ample revenue to support the government, and it should have remained on the statute book with such slight changes as experience might have shown to be necessary. The Democratic party, however, was opposed to the protective features of this law, took advantage of its defects, and, subsequently, when that party came into power, it unwisely undertook to make a new tariff which has proven to be insufficient to yield the needed revenue, and thus created the necessity of using, for current expenses, the reserve of gold specially accumulated in the treasury for the redemption of United States notes.
I felt the deepest interest in this campaign, not from the selfish desire to hold longer an office I had held for nearly thirty years, but I thought that in Ohio we were to have a great financial battle, upon the result of which might depend the monetary system of the United States. On the 17th of August I said to a reporter:
“The people of the east do not seem to understand this campaign. They do not appear to have any comprehension of what it means to them as well as the country. No matter what their differences upon the tariff question may be, every Republican who wishes the success of his party should be made to understand that there is another and perhaps a graver question to be settled in Ohio this year. While our politics for the past few campaigns have hinged upon minor questions, we are to-day brought back to the financial problem which we all thought had been settled, in 1875, when Mr. Hayes won the fight for an honest dollar against Governor Allen, who represented the liberal currency idea. Then it came in the guise of greenbacks, and now it comes in the garb of free silver. That conflict made Mr. Hayes President of the United States. What the decision may be this year no man can tell.”
I further said the arguments that year were identically the same as in the Hayes and Allen contest if the word “silver” were substituted for “greenbacks.” The Democrats had declared for unlimited coinage, and we had declared against it. The Farmers’ Alliance came in as allies of the Democracy, but, while they were an unknown quantity, they did not appear to be very dangerous. I could not find that they made much impression on Republican farmers. It had fallen to the lot of Ohio to be the battle ground on which these financial question were fought, but we had never been saddled with so grave a conflict as that year, not merely for the reason that we had both the financial and economic questions depending upon the result, but because of the lack of action and moral force which did not seem to come to us from outside the state, as it should and had years before. I had too much faith in the Republicans of the country to believe that when they understood the situation they would fail to arouse themselves to the necessities of the hour.
In answer to a question as to how the canvass would be conducted, I said that Major McKinley and those close to him were perfectly competent to deal with the management of the campaign and would do so. I should in my opening speech devote myself entirely to a presentation of the financial part of the contest, which was equal in importance with the tariff. It was perhaps unfortunate for both that two such questions should come up for discussion at the same time, but they did and the issue had to be met. The only thing that was necessary to insure a crowning success was that the Republicans of the country should understand that, no matter what their differences upon the tariff were, they had a vital interest in settling the financial question for all time at the next election in the State of Ohio. The prosperity in Ohio was a great aid to the Republicans. The crops in that state and the west were larger than for many years. Prices were good and the farmers as a rule prosperous. This naturally made them regard with grim humor the talk of the Alliance lecturers about poverty and distress. Another thing which helped us was the fact that short crops were the rule in Europe. In reply to a question as to the senatorial issue, I said in one of my speeches:
“I have no regret that this character of battle is prominent. I am rather complimented than otherwise to be again selected as the target of this crusade against a sound currency. It is a question that has been nearest my heart for a good many years, and I am perfectly willing to abide the result upon my position thereon. As I said before, I have no fears as to the decision for the right. I have less opposition to encounter than I have ever had before, and should we carry the legislature, which I believe we will, I am content to stand by the judgment of the Republicans of that body, no matter what it may be.”
I made my opening speech in this campaign at Paulding, on the 27th of August. It was mainly confined to the silver question. I quote a few extracts from it:
“It has been said by many persons of both political parties that this is to be a campaign of education. I believe it ought to be so, for the leading questions involved are purely business questions, affecting material interests common alike to men of all parties.
“Upon two great measures of public policy the Republican and Democratic parties have made a formal and distinct issue, and these are to be submitted to the people of Ohio in November, and your decision will have a marked effect upon public opinion throughout the United States. One is whether the holder of silver bullion may deposit it in the treasury of the United States, and demand and receive for it one dollar of coined money for every 371 grains of fine silver deposited. The market value of so much silver bullion is now about 77 cents, varying, however, from day to day, like other commodities, sometimes more and sometimes less. The other question is whether the policy of taxing imported goods by the government of the United States, embodied in our existing tariff law, known as the McKinley tariff, is a wise public policy, or whether it should be superseded by what is called a tariff for revenue only, as embodied in what is known as the Mills bill, which passed the House of Representatives in 1888, and was rejected by the Senate.
“I propose upon this occasion to confine myself mainly to a frank and homely discussion of the money question, as the most pressing, not that the tariff question is not equally important, but for the reason that I can only do one thing at a time, and the money question is a newer one, is now before us, upon which Republicans and Democrats alike are somewhat divided. I wish to appeal to the reason and common sense of the people who hear me, for that is said to be the highest wisdom.
“Now, you all know that the money in circulation in the United States—all of it—is good, good as gold. It will pass everywhere and buy as much as the same amount of any other money in the world. Our money is of many kinds—gold, silver, nickel and copper are all coined into money. Then we have United States notes, or greenbacks, gold certificates, silver certificates, treasury notes and national bank notes. But the virtue of all these many kinds of money is that they are all good. A dollar of each is as good as a dollar of any other kind. All are as good as gold. But, and here comes the first difficulty, the silver in the silver dollar is not worth as much as the gold in the gold dollar. The nickel in that coin is worth but a small part of five cents’ worth of silver. And the copper in the cent is not worth one-fifth of the nickel in a five cent piece. How then, you may ask me, can these coins be made equal to each other? The answer is that coinage is a government monopoly, and though the copper in five cents is not worth a nickel, and the nickel in twenty pieces is not worth a silver dollar, and the silver in sixteen dollars is not worth sixteen dollars in gold, yet, as the government coins them, and receives them, and maintains them at par with gold coin, they are, for all purposes, money equal to each other, and wherever they go, even into foreign countries, they are received and paid out as equivalents.
“The reason of all this is that the United States limits the amount of all the coins to be issued except gold, which, being the most valuable, is coined without limit. If coinage of all these metals was free, and any holder of copper, nickel, silver or gold could carry it to the mint to be coined, we would have no money but copper and nickel, because they are the cheaper metals, worth less than one-fourth of what, as coin, they purport to be. For the same reason, if the coinage of silver was free at the ratio of sixteen of silver to one of gold, no gold would be coined, because sixteen ounces of silver are not worth one ounce of gold.
“The one distinctive, striking feature of the law of 1890 is, that the United States will not pay for silver bullion more than its market value. And why should we? What is there about silver bullion that distinguishes it from any other product of industry that the government needs? When the government needs food and clothing for the army and navy it pays only the market price to the farmer and manufacturer. The value of silver produced is insignificant compared with the value of any of the articles produced by the farmer, the miner and manufacturer. Nearly all the silver produced in the United States is by rich corporations in a few new states, and its production at market price is far more profitable than any crop of the farmer, and yet it is the demand of the producer of silver bullion that the United States should pay him twenty-five per cent. more than its market value that lies at the foundation of the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
“Our Democratic friends differ from us in this particular. They are in favor of allowing any holder of silver bullion, foreign or domestic, any old silverware or melted teapot, any part of the vast accumulated hoard of silver in India, China, South America and other countries of the world, estimated by statisticians to be $3,810,571,346, to present it to the treasury of the United States and demand one dollar of our money, or our promises to pay money, for 371 grains of silver, or any multiple of that sum, though this amount of silver is now worth only 77 cents, and has for a period of years been as low as 70 cents. If with free silver we receive only the quantity of silver we are required to purchase by existing law, the United States would pay over $13,000,000 a year more than if purchased at the market value, and this vast sum would be paid annually as a bounty to the producers of silver bullion.
“But this is not the worst of it. Free coinage means that we shall purchase not merely four and a half million ounces a month, but all the silver that is offered, come from where it may, if presented in quantities of one hundred ounces at a time. We are to give the holder either coin or treasury notes, at his option, at the rate of one dollar for every 371 grains, now worth in the market 77 cents. Who can estimate the untold hoards of silver that will come into the treasury if this policy is adopted?
“But it is said that free coinage will not have the effect I have stated; that the silver in sight is so occupied where it is that it will not come to us. They said the same when the present law was passed, that foreign silver would not come to us. Yet our purchase of 4,500,000 ounces, troy weight, or 187 tons, of silver a month, at market price, brought into the United States large amounts of silver from all parts of the world. If that is the effect of limited purchases at one dollar an ounce, the market price, what will be the effect of unlimited purchases at 29 cents an ounce more than market price? It would inundate us with the vast hoards of silver in countries where silver alone is the current money, and draw to us all the rapidly-increasing production of silver mines in the world.
“But they say with free coinage the price of silver will rise to the old ratio with gold. The experience of all the world belies this statement. In no country in the world where free coinage exists is sixteen ounces of silver equal to one ounce of gold. France and the United States maintain the parity between the two by carefully limiting the coinage and receiving and redeeming silver coins as the equivalent of gold. But wherever free coinage exists that is impossible. With free coinage the market value of the bullion fixes the value of the dollar. The Mexican dollar contains more silver than the American dollar, and yet the Mexican dollar is worth about 78 cents, because in Mexico coinage is free. And the American dollar is worth 100 cents because in the United States coinage is limited. So in all free coinage countries where silver alone is coined it is worth its market value as bullion. In all countries where gold circulates the coinage of silver is limited, but is used as money in even greater amounts than in countries where coinage is free. This is the case in France and the United States. The free coinage of silver in either would stop the coinage of gold.
“It is claimed that if we adopt the silver standard we will get more money for our labor and productions. This does not follow, but, even if it be true, the purchasing power of our money will be diminished. All experience proves that labor and the productions of the farm are the last to advance in price.
“Some say that we want more money to transact the business of the country. Do we get more money be demonetizing one-half of all we have?—for the gold now in circulation is more than one-half of the coin in circulation.”
In closing this speech I said:
“I appeal to the conservative men of Ohio of both parties to repeat now the service they rendered the people of the United States in 1875, by the election of Governor Hayes, in checking the wave of inflation that then threatened the country. You can render even a greater service now in the election of Governor McKinley, in defeating the free coinage of silver, and strengthening the hands of President Harrison and the Republican Senate in maintaining American industries, a full dollar for all labor and productions, the untarnished credit of the American people, and the advancing growth and prosperity of our great republic. I have endeavored in a feeble way to promote these objects of national policy, and now that I am growing old, I have no other wish or ambition than to inspire the young men of Ohio to take up the great work of the generation that is passing away, and to do in their time as much as, or more than, the soldiers and citizens of the last forty years have been able to do to advance and elevate our government to the highest standard and example of honor, courage and industry known among men.”
These extracts give an imperfect idea of the speech, which entered into many details, and stated the effect of the cheapening of the dollar on the wages of men employed as laborers, and on farmers who would be cheated by the diminished power of money.
Being confined to one subject, and that one which at the time excited the attention of the people, this speech was widely copied, and received general approbation from the press of the north and east, and was commented upon favorably in countries in Europe, where the fall in the price of silver was the subject of anxious interest. It also excited the denunciation of the free silver states in the west. The Democratic platform of Ohio had unfortunately committed that great party to the ideas of the new party calling itself the People’s party, represented mainly by the disciples of the old greenback fiat money craze, some of whom, while claiming to be farmers, do their planting in law offices, and whose crops, if they have any, are thistles and ragweeds. That part of the platform had been adopted by but a bare majority of the Democratic convention, and Campbell, their candidate, tried to evade it.
McKinley promptly recognized the importance of the money question in the pending canvass, and at once presented in all his speeches the two vital measures of his party—good money and a protective tariff. On these two issues the Republican party was united and the Democratic party divided.
Early in September, I was invited by the managers of the state fair to make a speech on the 17th of that month at their grounds in Columbus, on the political issues of the day, and accepted the invitation. As usual during the fair great crowds assembled, most of whom no doubt felt more interested in the horse races and sight-seeing than in coinage or tariff, but many thousands, mostly farmers from all parts of the state, were gathered around the east front of the main building. At the time appointed I was introduced by E. W. Poe, the state auditor, with the usual flattering remarks, and commenced my speech as follows:
“When I was invited to speak to you here I was informed that I was expected to present my views on the leading issues of the day, and that a like invitation had been given to Governor Campbell and other gentlemen holding public trusts from the people of Ohio. While this invitation relieves me from the charge of impropriety in introducing a political question on the fair grounds, yet I am admonished by the presence of gentlemen of all parties and all shades of opinion that common courtesy demands that, while frankly stating my convictions, I will respect the opinions of others who differ from me. I propose, therefore, in a plain way to give you my views on the tariff question, now on trial between the two great political parties of the United States. It is somewhat unfortunate that this purely business question of public policy is being discussed on party lines, but it is made a party question by the State conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties of Ohio, and we must accept it as such, though I would greatly prefer, and I intend to treat it here, as far as I can, as a purely economic question.”
I briefly stated the history of tariff legislation in the United States, what was meant by a tariff and the objects sought by it, and that for the first fifty years of our history the lines were not drawn between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. It was in those days the common desire of all sections to obtain revenue and to encourage domestic industries. This unity of purpose existed until 1831, when the south had become almost exclusively an agricultural region, in which cotton was the chief product of the plantation with negro slaves as the laborers, and when the north, under the protective policy, had largely introduced manufactures, and naturally wished to protect and enlarge their industries. The tariff question grew out of a contest between free and slave labor. I referred to the various measures adopted, the compromise measure of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861. During and after the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic industries. To meet these demands we had to levy not only high duties on nearly all imported goods, but to add internal taxes, yielding $300,000,000 annually, on articles produced in this country. When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:
“First. To repeal all taxes on home production, except on spirits, tobacco, and beer.
“Second. To levy the highest rates of duties that will not encourage smuggling, on articles of luxury which enter into the consumption of the rich.
“Third. To place on imported articles which compete with articles that can be manufactured or produced in the United States, such a rate of duty as will secure to our farmers and laborers fair prices, fair wages, and will induce our people to engage in such manufacture and production.
“Fourth. To repeal all duties on articles of prime necessity which enter into the consumption of the American people and which cannot be produced in sufficient quantity in this country.
“Fifth. To grant to foreign nations the reciprocal right of free importation into our ports of articles we cannot produce, in return for the free introduction into their ports of articles of American production.”
I entered into full details of the tariff and contrasted the McKinley act with the Mills bill proposed by the Democratic party, but which never became a law, and in conclusion said:
“And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties. If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance, led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial. Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views of public policy. Some items I would like to change, but, on the whole, it is a wise measure of finance. It will give enough revenue to support the government. It is an American law, looking only to American interests. It is a fair law, dealing justly by all industries. It is an honest law, preventing, as far as law can, fraud and evasion. It is a comprehensive law covering the whole ground. It will undoubtedly establish new branches of industry in our country not now pursued. It will strengthen others now in operation. It will give to thousands of our people now idle, employment at fair wages. It will give to our farmers a greatly enlarged market for their productions, and encourage them in producing articles not now produced, and to increase their flocks, herds and horses to meet the new demands.”
My speech was as free from partisanship as I could make it, and I am quite willing to stand upon the policy I defined.
I visited Cleveland a few days later and met many of the active Republicans of that city, and was glad to learn that they were practically unanimous for my re-election. Among other callers was a correspondent of the “Plain Dealer” of that city, who treated me fairly in stating correctly what I said in answer to his questions. The “Commercial Gazette” and the “Enquirer,” of Cincinnati, also published long interviews with me, and incidents of my life given by my neighbors. I began to believe that these interviews, fairly reported, were better modes of expressing my opinions than formal speeches, and were more generally read.
During the month of October I made many speeches in different parts of the state, several of which were reported in full, but the general tenor of all may be gathered from those already referred to.
Among the largest meetings I attended in this canvass was one at Toledo, on the evening of the 14th of October. Here again I discoursed about currency and the tariff, but the salient points had become so familiar to me that I could speak with ease to my audience and to myself. As soon as this meeting was over, I took the midnight train for Dayton, where a “burgoo” feast was to be held the next day on the fair grounds. This was by far the largest meeting of the campaign. There was an immense crowd on the grounds, but it was a disagreeable day, with a cloudy sky, a chilly atmosphere and a cold raw wind. McKinley, Foraker and I spoke from the same stand, following each other. As I was the first to speak I had the best of it, and as soon as I finished left the grounds, but they held the great audience for several hours. I insert what the Dayton “Journal” reported of the speakers as a specimen of friendly journalism:
“Sherman renewed his youth and even exceeded the best efforts of his earlier days. Neither man nor woman left their place while Sherman was speaking. At 2 o’clock, when McKinley, our gallant leader, took the platform, the crowd seemed so great that no man’s voice could reach them, but they listened for every syllable and made the hills echo with their appreciative applause. Then came Foraker. It seemed as if the great meeting had been magnetized with an electric power of ten thousand volts. There were continuous shouts of approbation and applause from his beginning to the close. His mingling of wit and wisdom, a burgoo combination of powerful and telling arguments, with sandwiches of solid facts, completed a political barbecue which will be a historical memory that will be almost as famous as the gathering of the people of this splendid valley in 1842, when Henry Clay spoke to our fathers on the same sod and under the shade of the same trees on the same subjects. The memory of the magnificent Republican demonstration at the Montgomery fair grounds on the 15th day of October, 1891, will remain with all who participated in it as long as they shall live.”
On the evening of October 17, Foraker and I appeared together before a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati. I insert a few sentences of a long description in the “Commercial Gazette” of the next day:
“Music Hall was the scene last night of the greatest Republican gathering of the campaign. Senator Sherman and Governor Foraker were the speakers.
“The meeting was an immense one. That was a magnificent assemblage. It was an ovation. It was a recognition of brains and integrity. It was an evidence that honesty and justice prevail. It showed that the people believe in the Republican party. It proved that they appreciate that the party still has a mission. It evinced an appreciation of the past and a hope for, and a belief in, the future. It was a great outpouring of Republicans. It was a gathering of the supporters of right as against wrong. It was a regular Republican crowd. Personal feeling and personal ambition were laid aside.
“Sherman and Foraker were on the stage together. Their presence on the same stage was a noteworthy fact. It was an evidence of harmony and of strength. Then, again, the united marching of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs was a further proof of harmony. In fact, the entire meeting, and the pleasant feeling manifest, proved that the party is united as one man against its old foe, the Democracy; that, as many a time before, it is ready and anxious to do battle with the ancient enemy. No deceits, no frauds, can defeat it—the Republican party. This the meeting proved conclusively.”
I closed my part in this canvass at Toledo and Cleveland in the week before the election, and these speeches were fairly and fully reported. During the whole contest between Foraker and myself there was nothing said to disturb our friendly relations. The election resulted in the success of the Republican ticket and a Republican legislature, McKinley receiving over 21,000 plurality. Immediately after the election it was announced that the members of the legislature from Hamilton county were unanimously in favor of Foraker for Senator. This announcement, and especially the manner of it, created a good deal of bad feeling in the state, especially as it was alleged and believed that George Cox had full control of the delegation and had required the pledges of each senator and member to vote for United States Senator as he dictated.
During the entire canvass there was a full and free discussion, not only in Ohio but throughout the United States, as to the choice between Foraker and myself. It was known that the vote in the legislature would be close and the friends of each were claiming a majority for their favorite. It is not necessary to follow the progress of the contest, but I became satisfied that I would be re-elected, although the most positive assurances were published that Foraker, with the aid of his solid delegation from Hamilton county, would be successful. Many things were said during the brief period before the election that ought not to have been said, but this is unavoidable in choosing between political friends as well as between opposing parties. Every Republican paper in Ohio took sides in the contest. Meetings were held in many of the counties and cities of the state, and resolutions adopted expressing their preference.
I was urged by some friends to go to Columbus some time before the meeting of the legislature on the first Monday in January, but delayed my departure from Washington until after the wedding of my niece, on the 30th of December, a narrative of which was given by the “Ohio State Journal” as follows:
“The marriage of Miss Rachel Sherman, daughter of the late General William T. Sherman, and Dr. Paul Thorndike, of Boston, was solemnized at high noon to-day at the residence of Senator Sherman, in the presence of a distinguished audience of relatives and officials. It was a gathering composed chiefly of intimate friends of the late General Sherman, many of whom came from afar to witness the nuptials of the favorite daughter of the deceased chieftain.
“The house was gay with music and fragrant with flowers. The ceremony took place in the front parlor of the residence. A canopy of asparagus and smilax was twined over the recess where the ceremony was performed. A background of foliage and palms massed together made the couple standing in front all the more effective and attractive. On the mantel were banked white blossoms in profusion, and hanging from the chandeliers wreaths of smilax intertwined with white chrysanthemums and carnations. The ushers were Mr. Allen Johnston, of the British legation, Mr. Ward Thorou, Mr. William Thorndike, Dr. Augustine Thorndike and Mr. Tecumseh Sherman, the bride’s brother. Preceding the bride came her little niece, Miss Elizabeth Thackara, in a gown of white muslin, carrying a basket of white lilies. Senator Sherman escorted the bride, who was met by the groom and his best man, Mr. Albert Thorndike. The party grouped about Father Sherman, brother of the bride, who, with much impressiveness, performed the marriage rites of the Catholic church.
“After the ceremony the bride and groom held a reception. A wedding breakfast was next served to the invited guests. Among those present were the President and Mrs. Harrison, Mrs. McKee, the Vice President and Mrs. Morton, Secretary Blaine, Mr. and Mrs. Damrosch, Secretaries Rusk and Tracy, Senator and Mrs. Stanford, Sir Julian Pauncefote and others.”
CHAPTER LXI. ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE SIXTH TIME. I Secure the Caucus Nomination for Senator on the First Ballot— Foraker and Myself Introduced to the Legislature—My Address of Thanks to the Members—Speech of Governor Foraker—My Colleague Given His Seat in the Senate Without Opposition—Message of President Harrison to the 52nd Congress—Morgan’s Resolutions and Speech for the Free Coinage of Silver—Opening of the Silver Debate by Mr. Teller—My Speech on the Question—Defeat of the Bill in the House —Discussion of the Chinese Question—My Opposition to the Conference Report on Mr. Geary’s Amended Bill—Adopted by the Senate After a Lengthy Debate—Effect of the Tariff Laws Upon Wages and Prices— Senator Hale’s Resolution—Carlisle’s Speech in Opposition to High Prices—My Reply—Résumé of My Opinions on the Policy of Protection —Reception by the Ohio Republican Association—Refutation of a Newspaper Slander Upon H. M. Daugherty—Newspaper Writers and Correspondents—“Bossism” in Hamilton County.
Upon the meeting of the Ohio legislature, on the 4th of January, 1892, Foraker and I were in attendance, stopping at the same hotel and meeting daily. There was much excitement and great diversity of opinion as to the result of the senatorial election. Several of the members, whose preference I knew, would not declare their vote, with the mistaken idea that to remain silent would relieve them from importunity, but before the decisive vote was taken in caucus I was confident of success.
The caucus met on Wednesday evening, the 6th of January. It was composed of the Republican members of both houses. L. C. Laylin, a friend of mine, who had been elected speaker of the house of representatives, was made chairman of the caucus. An attempt was made by the friends of Foraker to secure a secret ballot, but this was defeated. The decisive vote was then taken, in which I received 53 votes, Foraker 38, Foster 1 and McKinley 1. My nomination was then made unanimous, and I was subsequently elected by the legislature for the term ending March 4, 1899.
The caucus appointed a committee of its members to escort Foraker and myself to the hall of the house of representatives, where we were received with hearty applause. We were introduced by Speaker Laylin, and our speeches will show that if we were combatants we appreciated the merits of our respective adversaries. I said:
“Senators, Representatives and Fellow Citizens:—I return to you my most grateful thanks for the very high honor you have conferred upon me. Long trusted by the people of Ohio, I am under obligations that I cannot express in any language at my command. I owe to them —I owe to you—all that could be said from a heart overflowing.
“We have just passed through quite a contest, the most formidable that I have ever encountered in Ohio, and I hope more formidable than I will ever be called upon to encounter hereafter. I know, gentlemen, that you have been called upon to make a choice which was unpleasant to you because you would have liked to vote for both of us, and would have been glad to have two Senators to elect instead of one.
“I am glad to say that in this contest I have held, in my language and in my heart, the highest feelings of respect and honor for the gentleman who was my competitor, and who is now before you. He is entitled to the love and affection of the people of Ohio, and if you have given me this high honor because of my experience, you have not underrated the high qualities, mental and moral, of Governor Foraker. Although you have been engaged in this friendly contest, we are all Republicans and I trust ever will be Republicans, true to our cause, and true to the principles we advocate. I again return to you, as the senators and representatives of our state, my thanks for this almost unequaled honor.”
Governor Foraker said:
“Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Caucus and Fellow Citizens:—I am informed that, so far as you are concerned, the senatorial contest is ended, and I have come here in response to your kind invitation to say that so far as I am concerned it is ended also.
“You did not end it as I had hoped you might, but you are the duly accredited and authorized representatives of the Republicans of Ohio, and your will is law unto me and mine.
“As Senator Sherman has said, we have been having something of a contest. For the last ten days we have been divided into Sherman men and Foraker men, and we have been striving against each other. There has been possibly some rasping and some friction, but at this hour it is our highest duty to remember that from now on henceforth, in the language again of the Senator, we must remember that we are no longer Sherman men nor Foraker men, but Republicans all.
“Let us here and now put behind us, with the contest to which it belongs, whatever unkindliness of feeling, if there be any at all, that may have been engendered. So far as I am concerned, I am glad to be able to say to you, gentlemen of the 70th general assembly, that I have not an unkind thought toward any one of you, no matter whether he has been friend or foe. I have no resentments, no bitterness of feeling to carry with me. On the contrary, I shall go back to the pursuit of my profession with my mind and my heart filled with only grateful recollection and a pleasurable, and I trust a pardonable, pride for the gallant, intrepid band who have honored me with their support in this contest. Without any disposition to criticise or find fault in the slightest degree, but only as an excuse in so far as that may be necessary for enlisting in a cause than has been crowned, not with success, but with defeat, let me say to these friends that when we entered upon it I did not foresee some of its features. I was not aware then, as we have since come to know, that we have had to fight, not only the Republicans of Ohio who were against us, but, because it was grand old John Sherman on the other side, and with him the whole United States of America. The Senator has said he don’t want any more contests like this. I thank him for the compliment, and vouch to you that I don’t want ever against to cross swords with a Sherman.”
The 52nd Congress met on the 7th of December, 1891. The credentials of my colleague, Calvin S. Brice, in the usual form, were presented and upon them he was entitled to be sworn into office. If his right to a seat was to be contested the grounds of the contest might be afterwards presented, when the case would be decided on its merits, but, until it should be determined by the Senate that he was not duly elected, he could perform the duties of a Senator. I was urged to object to his taking the oath of office on the ground that he was not a resident of the State of Ohio when elected. This I declined to do, but simply gave notice of his alleged disability, so that it would not be waived in the case the legislature or citizens of Ohio should establish the fact that he was not an inhabitant of that state when elected. This was not done and no attempt was made to contest his seat, but I was reproached by unreasonable partisans for the neglect to do so.
The annual message of President Harrison, sent to Congress on the 9th of December, strongly recommended the aid of the government in the construction of he Nicaragua Canal. He highly commended the McKinley tariff bill, and said that its results had disappointed the evil prophecies of its opponents, and, in a large measure, realized the predictions of its friends. He referred to the large increase of our exports and imports, and, generally, gave a hopeful view of our financial condition. He recommended that the experiment of purchasing 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month, under the act of July 14, 1890, be continued. Though silver had fallen in value from $1.20 an ounce to 96 cents, yet he hoped a further trial would more favorably affect it. He was still of opinion that the free coinage of silver under existing conditions would disastrously affect our business interests at home and aborad. He approved the application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the public debt, and stated that since the 1st of March, 1889, there had been redeemed of interest-bearing securities $259,079,350, resulting in a reduction of the annual interest charge of $11,684,675. On the whole the message of the President and the report of Secretary Foster presented a favorable state of our national finances.
The disposition of the 52nd Congress was not to engage in political debate, especially on financial questions, as it was divided on political lines, the Senate being Republican, and the House Democratic. The current business did not present such questions until Senator Morgan, on the 30th of March, 1892, introduced resolutions directing the committee on finance to make examinations and report upon six different propositions, embracing the whole financial system of the United States, and to do it promptly. I had no objection to the passage of the resolutions, though they were imperative in tone, but naturally supposed they were brought in merely as a text for a speech, and suggested to Morgan that he prepare a bill that would carry out his views and have that referred to the committee. He said: “I do not expect to refer them. I expect to instruct your committee what to do. That is what I propose.” In introducing his resolutions he said: “There is an evil in the land, a difficulty of most serious embarrassment.... The people cannot afford to wait without encountering all the hardships of bankruptcy and ruin.... Our differences will not permit our people to wait further adjustment when they are in a death struggle with poverty and wretchedness.”
I replied: “If there is such distress as the Senator imagines it ought to be met by specific measures and not by a debating school.” I knew that what he wanted was the free coinage of silver. Upon this question both parties were divided. The states producing silver were represented by Republicans who favored a measure that, in my opinion, would lead to the single standard of silver, and if the Senate was to consider that subject I wished it to be distinctly presented and debated, rather than to enter upon the discussion of a multitude of theories that would lead to no result. He expressed the desire that he and others should have an opportunity to speak on the resolutions, and, in conformity with the usages of the Senate, they were left on the table for indefinite debate.
On the 14th of April, Morgan made an elaborate speech covering twelve pages of the “Record,” in which, as I expected, he elaborated his views in favor of the free coinage of silver, and closed as follows:
“We are very nearly out of the woods now, and if you will add the free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold, and will cause the treasury of the United States to coin the silver that is there on the same terms that it does gold, I believe that we shall soon master every difficulty in our way. Then the honorable Senator from Ohio would have the right to rejoice, and, contrary to his will, he would be led up into such high positions that he would be able, at last, to bless the country when he did not expect to do it.”
Believing, as I did, that to continue this debate would be a fruitless waste of time, and interfere with the current business of Congress, I said:
“I do not intend to engage in this discussion, but still I wish to ascertain the sense of the Senate. If we are to have a general silver debate now, to the displacement of all other business, I should like to have that point tested; and, in order to settle it definitely, without engaging in the debate at all, I move to lay the pending resolutions on the table.”
Mr. Teller, the leader of the “silver Senators,” as they are called, with some excitement, said:
“The Senator from Ohio, flushed, perhaps, with the victory apparently in the other House against silver, seems to think he can down the debate in this body on the subject. I want to say to the Senator that we spent some time during the last session to prevent him, and others who thought with him, from securing a rule that would cut off debate in this body, and the Senator might as well meet the question now as at any time; that this question will be debated, and if not upon this, upon some other resolution.... I give notice that, under the rules of the Senate, we are able to be heard, and that we will be heard, in despite of the honorable Senator from Ohio, who appears to be so anxious to stifle debate.”
To this I replied:
“I deny, in the most emphatic terms, that I have endeavored to stifle debate. There is no ground for such an assertion. There is not an iota of ground upon which such an assertion can be made. I never objected in my life, and I have been here longer than any of you, to any Senator speaking at any time when he chose upon any subject; and every man here knows it.... I am willing to discuss, and I never shrink from debate on, the silver question, or the gold question, or the currency question. I have not been willing, at all times, to talk at all hours, and reply to every gentleman who might choose to make a speech; but whenever the Senate undertakes to engage in this debate, I will take my share of it, and I will take my responsibility for it.”
I then proceeded at some length to reply to Morgan. The debate was suspended by the order of business, but it continued from day to day as opportunity offered, on a motion to refer the resolutions to the committee on finance, until the 25th of May, when the Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 17 yeas to 28 nays. This vote was a clear indication that a majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver. I then, while criticising the terms of the resolutions, expressed my desire that they should be adopted. This led to a desultory debate in which I took part, and on the morning of the next day, having the floor, said:
“I regret as much as anyone can the unusual and remarkable interposition of this question, by the Senator from Alabama, at every stage of our business. Now, the whole of the morning hour had been wasted except the ten minutes which I shall occupy, and probably nothing could have been done in that time.
“An arraignment has been made of the committee on finance as if it had neglected to perform its duty. I am not authorized to speak for the committee except as one of its members. Its chairman, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Morrill, is here to speak for it, but the committee on finance has never for a moment evaded or avoided the issue of the free coinage of silver. It has never delayed a bill, so far as my knowledge extends, upon that subject. Very soon after the bill of the Senator from Nevada was introduced it was considered and reported adversely. I believe two-thirds of the members of the committee were opposed to the bill as it stood. There has not been a day nor an hour, in the ordinary course of business of the Senate, when, upon the motion of anyone, that bill could not have been taken up if a majority of Senators were in favor of it, but, unfortunately for the Senator, a majority of the Senators were not in favor of taking it up and interposing it in place of all the other business. Therefore, this mode is adopted to bring it here before the Senate.”
At two o’clock I gave way to the regular order of business. Mr. Stewart then moved to take up his bill, introduced early in the session, to provide for the free coinage of gold and silver bullion. It had been referred to the committee on finance, reported adversely, and was on the calendar, subject to a motion to take it up at any time. This again presented directly to the Senate the policy of the free coinage of silver. The motion was agreed to by the vote of yeas 28, nays 20. The resolutions of Morgan were practically suspended and the vote on taking up the silver bill indicated its passage. Mr. Teller opened the debate for free coinage. On the 31st of May I commenced a very long speech, opening as follows:
“I do not regard the bill for the free coinage of silver as a party measure or a political measure upon which parties are likely to divide. It is in many respects a local measure, not exactly in the sense in which General Hancock said in regard to the tariff that it was a local question, but it is largely a local question. Yet, at the same time, it is a question of vast importance. No question before the Senate of the United States at this session is at all to be compared with it in the importance of its effects upon the business interests of the country. It affects every man, woman and child in our broad land, the rich with his investments, the poor with his labor. Everybody is deeply interested in the standard of value by which we measure all the productions of the labor and all the wealth of mankind.
“Five states largely interested in the production of silver are very ably and zealously represented on this floor. They are united by their delegations, ten Senators, in favor of the free coinage of silver. The south seems also to have caught something of the spirit which actuates the mining states, because they desire, not exactly the free coinage of silver, but an expansion of the currency, cheaper money, and broader credit, and they also are largely represented on this floor in support of the proposition in favor of the free coinage of silver. So in other parts of the country, those who have been taught to believe that great good can come to our country by an unlimited expansion of paper credit, with money more abundant than it is now, also believe in the free coinage of silver.
“I, representing a state nearly central in population, have tested the sense of the people of Ohio, and they, I believe, are by a great majority, not only of the party to which I belong but of the Democratic party, opposed to the free coinage of silver. They believe that that will degrade the money of our country, reduce its purchasing power fully one-third, destroy the bi-metallic system which we have maintained for a long period of time, and reduce us to a single monometallic standard of silver measured by the value of 371¼ grains of pure silver to the dollar.”
I will not attempt to give an epitome of this speech. It covered seventeen pages of the “Record,” and dealt with every phase of the question of silver coinage, and, incidentally, of our currency. No part of it was written except the tables and extracts quoted. Its delivery occupied parts of two days, May 31 and June 1. After a careful reading I do not see what I could add to the argument, but I might have condensed it. The question involved is still before the people of the United States, and will again be referred to by me. I closed with the following paragraph:
“But, sir, closing as I began, let me express my earnest belief that this attempt to bring this great and powerful nation of ours to the standard of silver coin alone is a bad project, wrong in principle, wrong in detail, injurious to our credit, a threat to our financial integrity, a robbery of the men whose wages will be diminished by its operation, a gross wrong to the pensioner who depends upon the bounty of his government, a measure that can do no good, and, in every aspect which it appears to me, a frightful demon to be resisted and opposed.”
The debate continued with increasing interest until the 1st of July, when the bill passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 29, nays 25. It was sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence, but a resolution providing for its consideration was there debated, and rejected by a vote of yeas 136, nays 154.
During this session of Congress the policy of restricting Chinese immigration was strongly pressed by the Senators and Representatives from California and Oregon. They were not content with an extension of the restrictions imposed by the act of 1882, which, by its terms, expired in ten years from its approval, but demanded a positive exclusion of all Chinese except a few merchants and travelers especially defined and excepted, to be enforced with severe penalties almost savage in their harshness. The position of the two countries in respect to migration from one to the other had been directly reversed. In common with European nations the United States had, several years before, compelled the opening of Chinese ports to Americans, insured the protection of its citizens in that country, and had invited and encouraged Chinese laborers to migrate to the United States. This was especially so as to the Pacific states, where Chinese were employed in large numbers in the grading and construction of railways and as farmers in cultivating the soil. These people were patient, economical and skillful. Very many of them flocked to San Francisco, but they soon excited the bitter opposition of laborers from other countries, and no doubt of some American laborers. This led to the restriction act of 1882 and to a treaty with China, by which that country consented to the exclusion of Chinese laborers, a degraded class of population known as “coolies.” It was complained in 1892, and for several years previously, that the provisions of the law of 1882 and of the treaty were evaded by fraud and perjury. Senator Dolph, of Oregon, had introduced a bill extending the restriction to all Chinese laborers, with provisions to prevent evasion and fraud. A number of other bills were introduced in each House of a like character. The committee on foreign relations considered the subject-matter very carefully and directed Mr. Dolph to report a bill extending for five years the act of 1882, with several amendments providing against frauds. This bill was passed and sent to the House, but was not acted upon there.
On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California, reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. After a debate of one hour, and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was the bill that had previously passed the Senate.
On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph, Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from the conference report, as follows:
“Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.
“I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create irritation.
“The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get a certificate or be punished.
“Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned, is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of the treaty of 1880, it is our right—not our power, but our right according to the treaty—to make this exceptional legislation for people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of this country, ‘regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it.’ In violation of that article of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these laborers to remain in the position of persons ‘of the most favored nation.’... Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the class of people of China that we do not want here, making a discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them; that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not propose to vote for the conference report on that ground.”
After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.
An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it. Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following resolution, which gave rise to the debate:
“Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and
“Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and
“Whereas, Those conditions exist and are largely due to the Republican policy of ‘protection:’ Therefore,
“Resolved, That the committee on finance be, and is hereby, directed to inquire into the effect of a policy of ‘tariff for revenue only’ upon the labor and the industries of the United States, and to report upon the same to the Senate.”
The next day Mr. Hale made a brief speech upon the resolution, and was followed by Senator Vest, who quoted many documents, which were printed in the “Record,” in support of his views. Several other Senators participated in the debate which continued from day to day.
The full report of the committee referred to, embracing three volumes of over six hundred pages each, was submitted to the Senate on the 19th of July, and on the 29th Senator John G. Carlisle, who, as a member of the committee, had taken much interest in the inquiry, and had participated in the conversational debate during the preceding month, made an elaborate speech upon the resolution and mainly upon the proposition advanced by him, that the result of the McKinley law was to increase the prices of commodities, while it did not increase wages. His speech was certainly a good specimen of logic by a well trained mind. His first proposition was that it was the unanimous opinion of scientists and statisticians, in all the great industrial and commercial countries of the world, that the prices of commodities had been decreasing, and the rates of wages, especially in those occupations requiring skill and intelligence, had been increasing; that capital had been receiving, year after year, a smaller percentage of the total proceeds of the product, and labor a larger percentage. He insisted that the tendency toward a decline in prices of commodities and an increase in the rates of wages is the necessary result of our improved methods of production, transportation and exchange. He said that anyone who contends in this day that high prices of commodities are beneficial to the community at large, is at war with the spirit of the age in which he lives, and with the genius of discovery and invention, which, during the last half century, has ameliorated the condition of mankind by bringing all the necessaries of life, and many of its luxuries, within the reach of every man who is willing to work. He then entered into an elaborate argument to show that the McKinley act interfered with this natural tendency towards a decline in the prices of commodities and a rise in the rates of wages, and made it harder and more expensive for the masses of the people of the United States to live.
I do not follow his argument, as, to treat him fairly, it would be necessary to state it in full. It was illustrated by carefully prepared tables.
On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary, showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit to the people of the United States, especially when they are the productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities. If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration. The platform upon which he was elected was “That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interest of the nation.”
I insisted that the object of protection—the employment of American labor—was of more importance than the price of food or clothing, though I believed, with Mr. Carlisle, that the tendency of a constant falling of the prices of the necessaries of life would go on without regard to the duties on imported goods, as the natural result of invention and skill.
My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise. Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the articles that can be profitably produced in the United States. The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained in the following paragraphs of this speech:
“Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they are fairly entitled to receive, then I am against the tariff act. I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite, to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection. It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that is desired.”
Having referred to the principal measures of Congress during the long session of 1891-92, I recur to some of the personal events that followed my re-election. It was received with general approval by the press of the United States. On the evening of the 30th of January, 1892, the Ohio Republican Association, at Washington, extended to me a reception at the National Rifles’ Armory. Several hundred invitations had been issued, and very few declined. The hall was beautifully decorated with flags, and in the gallery the Marine Band was stationed and rendered patriotic airs. I was introduced to the audience by Thomas B. Coulter, the president of the association. He deplored the illness of Secretary Charles Foster, who was to have delivered the address of welcome, and then introduced S. A. Whitfield, who made a complimentary address, closing as follows:
“You have gone through all these years of public life without a stain upon your honored name. The recent election in Ohio demonstrated the honor in which you are held by the people of your state. It was that which has given us this opportunity to pay you this respect, we, of the Ohio Association, who are here to welcome you.”
To this I made a brief reply, expressing my hearty thanks. John Wanamaker, Postmaster General, made an interesting address, full of humor and kindness, and was followed by several Members of Congress, among whom was my neighbor, Michael D. Harter.
The only incident of an unpleasant nature growing out of the senatorial contest was an unfounded charge against H. M. Daugherty, an active and able member of the house of representatives of Ohio, who was accused by a newspaper with being corruptly influenced to cast his vote for me. He promptly denounced the slander, and demanded an investigation. Noticing the publication and his denial, I wrote him as follows:
“Senate Chamber, }
“Washington, January 18, 1892.}
“Hon. H. M. Daugherty.
“My Dear Sir:—I notice in Saturday’s ‘Journal’ that you intend to push to a trial some of the men who most unjustly libeled you, and indirectly libeled me. I think so clear and strong a case of gross injustice ought to be punished if the law can furnish any relief, and I sympathize with you, and will stand by you in the effort to reach the guilty parties.
“No one can know better than I the frank, manly and disinterested course you pursued in the contest for the organization of the house, and the election of Senator, and no one can know better than I how false the imputation made against you was.
“I am glad to say that in the whole contest I never used one dollar of money to corrupt or influence the vote or judgment of any member of the legislature, and that the charge that you received, or were to receive, $3,500, or any other sum of money, is absolutely false and malicious. Whenever you desire me to testify to this, I will gladly do so.
“Very sincerely yours,
“John Sherman.”
A committee was appointed by the general assembly, who examined witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:
“We are unable to find one iota of evidence that would lead us to believe that the said H. M. Daugherty either received, or asked, or was offered, any consideration for his vote for John Sherman, for United States Senator, or that anyone received, or asked, or was offered, the same for him, or that he was in any way unduly or corruptly influenced to cast his vote for the said John Sherman, but that, in voting for the said John Sherman, Mr. Daugherty followed the instructions received by him from his constituents. We herewith submit all the evidence taken by us in this examination, and make the same a part of this report.
“Respectfully submitted,
“A. H. Strock,
“J. C. Heinlein,
“W. A. Reiter,
“John D. Beaird.”
The “State Journal” said:
“After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr. Daugherty and congratulated him. These expressions of good will were too much for Mr. Daugherty’s composure, and tears came unbidden to his eyes. He felt the stigma placed upon his good name by the insinuations of the Democratic newspapers very keenly, although not one member of the house believed the stories.”
At this period many interviews with me were published. It is the custom of newspaper letter writers, who are generally bright intelligent men, to call upon a Senator or Member with some current story of the hour and then interview him. A brief interview is often expanded into a long article in a newspaper, founded sometimes not upon the conversation but upon speeches, writings and known opinions of the person interviewed. When this is fairly and truly done it answers the purpose of the letter writer, and the person interviewed has no cause of complaint. This was especially the case with the letters of George Alfred Townsend. His letter of February 26, 1892, was but one of many which entered into details that I could not deny, embracing anecdotes and incidents hardly worthy of preservation, but forming a part of the gossip of the hour. The newspaper reporter, as distinguished from the letter writer, does not seek as a rule to verify his views, but flashes by telegraph the current report of the moment. In this way it was stated in the New York “World,” on the 29th of February, that I was about to resign and that Foster was to take my place, that I was to edit General Sherman’s letters, and ample details were given of arrangements for the future—not a word of which was true.
In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the Citizens’ Republican Association of Cincinnati, of which Lewis Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply. I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the Ohio house of representatives—one refusing to obey instructions— and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had committed themselves to their “boss” to vote for Senator as he should direct, in order to secure his “influence” in the primaries. I knew that if I answered the letter of the association truly I would be reproached by the timid with the cry “Hush,” “Hush,” but I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:
“Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892. “Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:
“Gentlemen:—Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln club, that had ‘for its object’ the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton county who have seized and degraded the ‘Republican organization.’ You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the ‘Citizens’ Republican Association,’ with a view of rebuking corruption and purifying our party ‘affairs from offenses and scandalous methods,’ and request me to give my opinion of your movement.
“While I do not wish to interfere in any way with the methods adopted by the people of Hamilton county to ascertain the popular will, yet I cannot refuse to answer frankly the inquiry of so respectable a body of Republicans who complain that the popular will is defeated by a corrupt gang, using offensive and scandalous methods. My opinion is founded upon information gathered from many of your citizens and the public press of Cincinnati, as well as from your own statement. If I am in error as to existing methods for the control of nominations and the corrupt practices of political managers, your people can correct me and I will be gladly convinced of my error.
“I do not see how any self-respecting Republican can differ with you in your effort to secure to the Republican voters of Hamilton county the free and unimpeded selection of candidates for office, without the intervention of a boss or the corrupt use of money to purchase the nominations. As I understand, the substantial control of all local Republican appointments, and nominations to public offices or employments of every grade in Hamilton county, is practically in one man, that it is rare that anyone can secure any place on the Republican ticket, from judge of the highest court in your county, to the least important office, without his consent, that this consent is secured in most cases by the payment of a specific sum of money, that the money so collected is apportioned between the ‘boss’ and what is called the ‘gang,’ and used to control the primaries for the election of delegates to your county, state and congressional conventions, and that when any office carries with it patronage it is made the express and implied condition in the nomination of the candidate that this patronage must be transferred to the ‘boss.’
“I understand also that the appointments made by your local boards, and even some federal offices, are in effect transferred to the same person to whom applicants are sent and whose recommendation decides the appointment, so that one man controls by corrupt methods nearly all nominations and appointments in Hamilton county, and this rule is only tempered by occasional respect to public opinion, when the boss thinks it unsafe to disregard it. These methods were strikingly exemplified in the last county convention, when a decided majority of a delegation of ten representatives and three senators were nominated for the Ohio legislature, pledged beforehand to vote for the person to be designated by the boss when the time came for the election of the Senator of the United States. His decision was carefully withheld until the election was over and was then announced. In this way the vote for United States Senator of the most populous city and county in Ohio was, during the canvass, held, as I believe, for sale, not by the persons nominated as Senators and Representatives, who are highly reputable citizens, but by a corrupt organization which was able to control the nominations and practically to exercise the power to vote for United States Senator intrusted to its nominees.
“Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices. It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority. Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes of their constituents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise, as the unbiased choice and action of a popular assemblage. Since I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to assert their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices, employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case, by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear in municipal governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.
“Very respectfully yours,
“John Sherman.”
I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication. Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.
CHAPTER LXII. SECOND ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND. Opposition to General Harrison for the Presidential Nomination—My Belief That He Could Not Be Elected—Preference for McKinley— Meeting of the National Republican Convention at Minneapolis— Meeting of Republicans at Washington to Ratify the Ticket—Newspaper Comment on My Two Days’ Speech in the Senate on the Silver Question —A Claim That I Was Not in Harmony with My Party on the Tariff— My Reply—Opening Speeches for Harrison and Reid—Publication of My “History of the Republican Party”—First Encounter with a “Kodak” —Political Addresses in Philadelphia, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago and Milwaukee—Return to Ohio—Defeat of Harrison.
During the spring and summer of 1892, prior to the renomination of General Harrison for President and Whitelaw Reid for Vice President, the choice of candidates was the general subject of comment. A good deal of opposition to General Harrison was developed, mainly, I think, from his cold and abrupt manners in his intercourse with those who had business with him. His ability and integrity were conceded, but he was not in any sense popular. This was apparent especially in New York, that state that nominated him in 1888. During all the period mentioned many names were canvassed, mine among others, but I uniformly declined to be a candidate, and said if I had a vote in the convention it would be cast for Harrison. Some of his friends, especially Charles Foster, complained in published interviews that I had not taken a more active part in securing his nomination. From later developments I became satisfied that Harrison could not be elected, that Platt and a powerful New York influence would defeat him if nominated. I therefore preferred the nomination of a new man, such as William McKinley, but he had committed himself to Harrison, and, according to my code of honor, could not accept a nomination if tendered him.
The Republican national convention met at Minneapolis on the 7th of June. On the first ballot, Harrison received 535 votes, Blaine 182, McKinley 182, Reed 4, Lincoln 1. The southern states gave Harrison 229 votes and other candidates 69, thus securing to Harrison the nomination. Both Blaine and McKinley promptly acquiesced in the result. I did not think the nomination wise, but was reported, no doubt correctly, as saying to an interviewer:
“The nomination is one I expected to be made in the natural order of things. The attempt to bring out a dark horse against two persons evenly matched, or supposed to be so, is an extremely difficult feat, because any break from one of the leaders would naturally carry a portion of his followers to the other leader. Therefore, the nomination of Harrison seemed to be the natural sequence as soon as it appeared that he had a majority over Blaine, which, I think, was apparent from the very beginning. I think that the nomination being made, all will acquiesce in it and try to elect the ticket. There was far more discontent with the nomination four years ago than there is now. Then there were rapid changes made that were to be accounted for only by agreements and compacts made among leading delegates, but that was impossible in this case because the convention was divided between prominent candidates. I think the Republicans in every state will cheerfully acquiesce in the result, and hope and expect that we can elect the ticket.”
Soon after the nominations were made, Ohio Republicans in Washington, held a ratification meeting. Alphonso Hart acted as president of the meeting. He said it was not a matter of surprise that there had been a difference of opinion as to candidates at Minneapolis, when the choice was to be made between Harrison, Blaine, McKinley, Reed and Lincoln. To-day their followers were all Harrison men. I entered the hall as he was closing and was loudly called upon for a speech. I said I had come to hear the young Republicans, McKinley and Foster. I congratulated my hearers upon the bright prospect of Republican success, and declared that Harrison would be elected because he ought to be. The following synopsis of what I said was published in the papers:
“President Harrison was all right. Personally, perhaps, he (the Senator) would have been in favor of McKinley, but there was time enough ahead for him; the future would witness his exaltation. He eulogized McKinley most eloquently and declared him to be one of the greatest and best men in public life. It was the best thing to nominate Benjamin Harrison and the next thing to do would be to elect him. It made no difference whom the Democrats trotted out against him, he could and would win.
“The Senator said he was getting old now and did not feel like working as he once did. He wanted to take things easy and let the young men exert themselves. ‘Let me,’ he said, ‘play the part of Nestor and talk to you in a garrulous sort of a way; give you good advice, which you do not always heed. Let me wander around like the old farmer and watch the young men toil, but if I can mend an old spoke or repair a broken wheel call upon John Sherman—he will do his best.’”
On the 1st of July I started from Baltimore, by boat, for Boston, for the recreation and air of a short sea voyage. I arrived on the 3rd, and met, as usual, a reporter who asked many questions, among others as to the condition of the silver bill and whether Harrison would approve it if it should pass. I answered, I believed Harrison would veto it, and also believed that if Cleveland was in the chair he would do the same.
Pending this presidential nomination, my mind was fully occupied by my duties in the Senate. I made my two days’ speech on the silver question, already referred to, when the active politicians were absorbed in what was to happen in the convention at Minneapolis. I quote what was said in papers of different politics, not only as their estimates of the speech, but also of the state of my mind when it was made:
“The two days’ speech of Senator Sherman on the Stewart silver bill is undoubtedly the greatest speech he has ever made. More than that, it is probably the greatest speech that ever was made in the Senate on any financial question. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sherman, after speaking two hours and a half on Tuesday, said that he was not at all tired, and was ready to go on and finish then. This was said in reply to a suggestion that the Senate should adjourn. For one who has passed his sixty-ninth year, this is surely a remarkable exhibition of mental and physical powers.
“Such a speech, covering not only the silver question, but the whole range of national finance, cannot be reviewed in detail within the limits of a newspaper article. All that can be said about details is that Mr. Sherman has not merely a well furnished mind on the whole range of topics embraced in his discourse, but so well furnished that there is no point too small to have escaped his attention or his memory.
“Give him a clear field, such as the statesmen and financiers of Europe have, where there are no wrongheaded and befooled constituencies to be reckoned with, and he would be facile princeps among them.” —New York “Evening Post,” June 2, 1892.
“In his latest great speech on free coinage, Senator Sherman, after depicting the inevitable disaster which the silver standard would bring upon the United States—drawing an impressive lesson from the experience of countries having a depreciated silver currency— deals with the subject of bimetallism in his usual lucid way. He has been called a ‘gold bug,’ and is no doubt willing to accept the epithet if it signifies a belief in the gold standard under present conditions. But he declares himself to be a bimetallist in the true sense of the term.
“What the Senator means by bimetallism is the use of gold and silver and paper money maintained at par with each other; more definitely, the different forms of money of different temporary values must be combined together by the law in some way to make them circulate as equal with each other. This is accomplished now by our laws and the pledge of the government to keep all forms of money at a parity with that form having the greatest intrinsic value. Whether, under the law requiring the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year, silver and gold could permanently be maintained at the same value as money, at the existing ratio of sixteen to one, is a matter concerning which the Senator expresses doubt. He would repeal or materially amend the law of 1890. Furthermore, he would change the ratio. The increased production of silver and the consequent decline in price warrant this course, and it is a financial and business necessity if silver is to enter more largely into circulation or into use as the basis of paper.”—Cincinnati “Times Star,” June 4, 1892.
“In a conspicuous degree Senator Sherman, of Ohio, represents the noblest principles and traditions of the Republican party. He is an astute politician; but, much better than that, he is a wise, public-spirited, broad-minded statesman.
“With regard to the financial and economic principles, which are vital ones, and which must be made the dominating ones of the Republican campaign, Mr. Sherman’s opinions and convictions are known to be in harmony with those of shrewdest judgment and wisest, safest counsel. Mr. Sherman is the strongest, most effective defender of the principle of honest money now in public life, and a consistent supporter of the policy of protection.
“Within the last few days Mr. Sherman, in one of the most masterly and cogent arguments ever made in the Senate, has indisputably proved the length, depth and breadth of his perception of true, just, safe financial principles and his unconquerable loyalty to them. At a time when the enemies of an honest, stable currency are seeking to destroy it and to set up in its place a debased, unstable, dishonest currency, the country would accept this exponent of sound, wise finance and a reliable, steadfast currency with extraordinary satisfaction.”—Philadelphia “Ledger and Transcript,” June 8, 1892.
“While Senator John Sherman’s mail is loaded down with letters from all parts of the country in reference to the presidency, while a thousand suggestions reach him from all quarters that after all he is not unlikely to be the man upon whom the Minneapolis nomination will light, and while the mass of people are listening with feverish interest for news from the convention, Sherman calmly rises in his place in the Senate and delivers a five hours’ speech upon the coinage and the currency, which will not only rank as perhaps the greatest effort of his own life, but will constitute a text-book upon the subject for half a dozen generations to come.
“Men will not read the speech this week; but the unusual circumstances under which it was delivered and the curious spectacle of a great mind discussing so abstract a subject amid the fervid heat and excitement attending a national convention of his own party, will make everybody look up the speech after the convention is over and give it more readers, perhaps, than any speech upon the coinage and the currency ever had since the foundation of the government.” —“Ohio State Journal,” June 9, 1892.
Soon after the adjournment of Congress, on the 5th of August, I returned to Mansfield. At this time the Boston “Herald” alleged that I was not in harmony with my party on the tariff. This was founded upon an erroneous construction of my reply to Carlisle. The article was called to my attention by W. C. Harding, of Boston, to whom, in reply, I sent the following letter on August 29:
“Your note of the 27th is received. In answer I have to say that the Boston ‘Herald’ in the article you inclose, has totally misconstrued my position on the tariff. I am decidedly in favor of a protective tariff; one framed with a view not only to secure ample revenue for the support of the government, but with a distinct purpose to encourage and protect all productions which can be readily produced in our country. I do not believe that a tariff framed under the doctrine now announced and proclaimed by the Democratic party in its national platform can protect and foster our home industries.
“Mr. Tilden, and the men of his school, believed that the old doctrines of the Democratic party, proclaimed in former national platforms and supported by the declarations of Jefferson, Madison and Jackson, was a wise and constitutional exercise of national power. This doctrine has been abandoned and denounced by the Democratic platform recently adopted by the Chicago convention. A tariff framed in accordance with this new doctrine would be confined simply to levying revenue duties, excluding the idea of protection, and that is the purpose and object of the men who made the platform, and of the men in the Democratic convention that adopted it by a large majority.
“Such a tariff might be levied exclusively on articles we cannot produce in this country, such as sugar, coffee and tea. I have believed that as to certain items in different tariffs we have gone beyond the line of protection which is necessary to foster American industries. A few rates have been adopted that I think will exclude competition between foreign and American productions and secure a monopoly to the American manufacturer. This I do not believe to be a wise policy. There are some details of the McKinley tariff bill that may be subject to this objection, but on the whole it is the fairest and best tariff, not only for revenue, for the protection, that has had a place on our statute book. The tariff plank of the Republican convention at Minneapolis is the clearest statement of the extent of protection favored by the great mass of the Republicans of this country.
“The actual result of the McKinley bill has been not only to give to all American industries reasonable protection, but has increased our foreign trade, enlarged our exports and our imports, and greatly encouraged and added to all kinds of American productions, whether of the field or of the workshop. I fear the Boston ‘Herald’ has overlooked the striking difference between the old position of the Democratic party and the one now proclaimed by that party. The tendency and drift of the Democratic party is now more and more in favor of free trade, and in open opposition to any favor shown by discriminating duties to foster, encourage and diversify American industries.”
I attended the state fair at Columbus early in September and met the leading Republicans of the state. I noticed an apparent apathy among them. The issue between the parties was for or against the McKinley tariff. The parties did not differ materially on the silver question, but did differ as between national and state banks. The Democratic party had resolved in favor of the repeal of the tax on state bank circulation, but it was believed that Cleveland would repudiate or evade this dogma. There seemed to be no enthusiasm on either side, but there was less dissatisfaction with the existing administration than is usual during the incumbency of a President. The country was prosperous. The people had confidence in Harrison and the general drift seemed to be in his favor.
In September I wrote an article for the New York “Independent” on “The History of the Republican Party.” It was confined chiefly to the contention that the Republican party was an affirmative party, adopting, declaring and executing great public measures of vital importance, while the Democratic party was simply a negative party, opposing all the Republican party’s measures but acquiescing in its achievements. I insert the closing paragraph:
“Republicanism, on the other hand, holds fast to everything that is ennobling and elevating in its history. It is the party of national honor, which has removed the foul reproach of slavery, and redeemed the plighted faith of the government in financial legislation and administration. It is the party of equal rights, an unsullied ballot and honest elections. It is the party of national policies, of comprehensive scope and enlightened self-interest, by which industry is diversified, labor systematically protected, and the prosperity of all classes and sections promoted. Between its present policies and the traditions of its glorious past there is unbroken continuity of patriotic action.”
On the 30th of September, I made my first speech in this canvass at North Fairfield. The place, audience, and surroundings gave me a special interest in the meeting. Thirty-eight years before, I, then a young man, spoke at the same place, before a similar audience, as a candidate for Congress, nominated by a party then without a name. Now I was about to address an audience chiefly composed of men and women, the children of my old constituents, who had been born since my first appearance there. It is a farming region, well cultivated, and but little changed in appearance by the lapse of years. The great change was the absence, in the grave, of the leading men I had met on my first visit, but they were represented by descendants so numerous that they had to meet in the open grove instead of the simple meeting-house of the olden time. The comparatively few old settlers present who had attended the former meeting, many of whom had been soldiers in the army, greeted me warmly and reminded me of incidents that then occurred. It was natural, under these circumstances, that my speech should be reminiscent; but, in addition to the history of events, I stated— I think fairly—the issues immediately involved—of tariff, currency and coin. I closed my speech with the following reference to the presidency:
“As to your vote for President I do not believe any Republican has any doubt. It does not follow that because a man is President, or nominated as such, he ought to be lauded to the skies. We have in this republic no gods or demigods. I know General Harrison as well as one man ever knew another after an intimate acquaintance for ten years. He is a man of fine character, so far as I understand, without blemish or reproach. His ability is marked and is now recognized by all parties, I may say, in all parts of the world. He has the lawyer’s habit of taking the opposite side of a question, but before he acts he is apt to be on the right side. When in the Senate he did not show the versatility of talent he has exhibited as President. All his utterances have been marked with dignity suited to his high position, yet with delicate appropriateness and precision that will admit no criticism. I have no controversy with Mr. Cleveland. I think he is better than his party. On important and critical questions he has been firmly right. But in the choice between them for the high office to which they aspire no Republican should hesitate to vote for Harrison, and an honest Democrat should, in view of the tendencies of the Democratic party on the questions I have discussed, decide to go and do likewise.”
The next meeting of note that I attended was at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. I do not recall any meeting that I ever addressed within four walls more striking and impressive than this, not only in numbers and intelligence, but in apparent sympathy with the speaker. Of the persons mentioned by me those who received the loudest applause were in their order Blaine, McKinley and Harrison. In opening I said:
“When I was invited to speak to you I was told that this was to be a meeting of business men, to consider business questions involved in a presidential election. I will, therefore, confine myself to business issues distinctly made between the two great political parties of our country. The people of this city of Philadelphia, the greatest manufacturing city on the American continent, are as well, or better, prepared to decide these issues wisely as any other equal number of American citizens. I assume you are not much troubled with third parties. The temperance question will be settled by each individual to suit himself. The only Farmers’ Alliance I know of here is the Farmers’ club, who dine sumptuously with each other as often as they can and differ with each other on every subject. I assume that you are either Republicans or Democrats, that you are for Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland.
“The questions involved, in which you are deeply interested, are whether duties on imported goods should be levied solely with a view for revenue to support the government, or with a view, not only to raise revenue, but to foster, encourage and protect American industries; whether you are in favor of the use of both gold and silver coins as money, always maintained at parity with each other at a fixed ratio, or of the free coinage of silver, the cheaper money, the direct effect of which is to demonetize gold and reduce the standard of value of your labor, productions and property fully one-third; whether you are in favor of the revival and substitution of state bank paper money in the place of national money now in use in the form of United States notes, treasury notes and certificates, and the notes of national banks.
“These are business questions of vital interest to every wage earner, to every producer and to every property owner, and they are directly involved in the election of a President and a Congress of the United States. Surely they demand the careful consideration of every voter. They are not to be determined by courts or lawyers or statesmen, but by you and men like you, twelve million in number, each having an equal voice and vote.”
The body of my speech was confined to the topics stated. I closed with the following reference to Harrison and Cleveland:
“The Republican party has placed Benjamin Harrison in nomination for re-election as President of the United States. He is in sympathy with all the great measures of the Republican party. He fought as a soldier in the ranks. His sympathies are all with his comrades and the cause for which they fought.
“He has proven his fitness for his high office by remarkable ability in the discharge of all its duties. He heartily supports the principles, past and present, of his party. He has met and solved every question, and performed every duty of his office. His administration has been firm, without fear and without reproach. I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the merits of Mr. Cleveland. His highest merit is that he has checked, in some respects, the evil tendencies of his party; but he was not in active sympathy with the cause of the Union in the hour of its peril, or with the men who fought its battles. He is opposed to the protection of American industries. He supports, in the main, the doctrines and tendencies of the Democratic party.
“We believe that the honor, safety, and prosperity of our country can be best promoted by the election of a Republican President and Vice President, and a Republican Congress, and, therefore, I appeal to you to give to Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, his worthy associate, and to your candidates for Congress, your hearty and disinterested support.”
It was at this meeting that for the first time I encountered the kodak. The next morning the “Press,” of Philadelphia, illustrated its report of the speech with several “snap shots” presenting me in various attitudes in different parts of the speech. I thought this one of the most remarkable inventions of this inventive age, and do not yet understand how the pictures were made. The comments of the daily papers in Philadelphia were very flattering, and perhaps I may be excused for inserting a single paragraph from a long editorial in the “Press” of the next day, in respect to it:
“His speech is a calm, luminous and dispassionate discussion of the business questions of the canvass. It is pre-eminently an educational speech which any man can hear or read with pride. Senator Sherman excels in the faculty of lucid and logical statement. His personal participation in all our fiscal legislation gives him an unequaled knowledge both of principles and details, and he is remarkably successful in making them clear to the simplest intelligence. The contrast between his candid, sober and weighty treatment of questions, and the froth and fustian which supply the lack of knowledge with epithets of ‘fraud’ and ‘robbery’ and ‘cheat,’ is refreshing.”
On Monday evening, the 11th of October, I spoke in Cooper Union in the city of New York. It was an experiment to hold a political meeting on the eve of a day devoted to Columbian celebrations and a night to magnificent fireworks, but the great auditorium was filled, and among the gathering was a large number of bankers and business men interested in financial topics. I was introduced to the audience in a very complimentary manner by Mr. Blanchard, president of the Republican club, and was received with hearty applause by the audience. I said:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Republicans of the State of New York that at last we have brought the Democratic party to a fair and distinct issue on questions involved in the presidential campaign. Now for more than thirty years that party has been merely an opposition party, opposed to everything that we proposed, and having no principles or propositions of their own to present. They declared the war a failure; they were opposed to the homestead law, they were opposed to the greenback; they were opposed to everything that we did, but now, thank God, they have agreed to have one or two or three issues to be determined by the people.”
I then stated the issues involved in the canvass in very much the same terms as in Philadelphia, but the speech in New York was made without notes and was literally reported in the “Tribune,” while the Philadelphia speech was prepared and followed as closely as possible, without reference to manuscript. I have now read the two speeches carefully, and while the subject-matter is the same in both, the language, form and connection are as different as if delivered by two distinct persons who had not conferred with each other. My long experience convinces me that while it is safe for a person to write what he intends to say, yet it is better to carefully study the subject and then to speak without reference to notes or manuscript. This depends, however, upon the temperament and poise of the speaker. Nothing is more discouraging to an audience than to hear a speech read, except it be the attempt to speak offhand by a person who has not acquired a full knowledge of the subject-matter and does not possess the art of recalling and arranging the method of his address.
I believe my speech in New York covered all the issues involved in the canvass fairly and fully stated. I arraigned the Democratic party, especially for its declaration in 1864 that the war was a failure, when Grant was holding on with his deadly grip, and when Sherman and Sheridan were riding to battle and to victory. This declaration was more injurious to the Union cause than any victory by the Confederates during the war. I closed with the following reference to the respective candidates:
“The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison. When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy’s guns came to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered the army. He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier. He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child, living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis. He gradually became recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate. For six years he sat by my side. I know him as well as I know any man. He is without stain or blemish. He is a man of marked ability, an able debater. He has grown greatly since he has been President of the United States. His speeches are models of propriety and eloquence. In every act of his life while President he had come up to the full standard and measure of that great office. If there was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.
“His worthy associate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city. He has been placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison. He is an honorable man. I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living as best he could, and helping his father and mother. He has shown himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.
“Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland. I am not here to belittle any man. I have sometimes thought he is better than his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an able-bodied man when the war was on. I have never known, nor has it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with the Union solider or the Union cause.
“I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet, was in that cause. I do not see how any patriotic man, who was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose Harrison rather than Cleveland.”
I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak in Turner Hall on the 14th of October. This hall had long been a place for public meetings. It is situated in the midst of a German population and is their usual place for rendezvous. They had recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall. It was well filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German birth or descent. They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits. They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and considered this as temperance. With their wives and children, when the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened to music, in which many of them were proficient. Such was my audience in Turner Hall. I spoke to them on the same topics I did to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value, whether of gold, silver or paper.
From Cincinnati I went to Chicago. I had been invited by Jesse Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October. As I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building in the grounds of the World’s Columbian Exposition, I accepted the invitation of Mr. Spaulding. I regarded it as a bold movement on the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings of the World’s Fair. Still, that was their business and not mine. I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like a lawyer’s brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and engraved on my mind. I determined to use no word that would not be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical phrases.
When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place assigned me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic or fact. The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers, and was kindly treated in their editorial columns. After a brief reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago, I said:
“You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the United States.
“Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties, but between great parties. I take it that in this intelligent audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party or the farmers’ party. The best temperance party is the individual conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States. As for the farmers’ party, the Republican party has been the farmers’ party as well as the people’s party since the beginning of its organization in 1856. The controversy is between the two, the Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.
“The Democratic party has a very popular name. It means a government through the people. But the Republican party has a still more popular name. It is a government by the representatives of the people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate Democracy of America.”
The “Tribune” and “Inter-Ocean” had friendly editorial articles about the meeting, and the “Tribune” especially, which in times past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion of the meeting and speech:
“It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs, that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded from gallery to parquet, Saturday night, with thousands of business men and others who are interested in the great issues of the political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio. It was something more than an exposition of Chicago’s vital interest in these issues. It was a personal compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of the week. It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.
“It is no derogation of Senator Sherman’s abilities to say one does not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry away audiences on waves of enthusiasm. His strength lies in his convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts, and his powerful logic. No man in the United States, perhaps, is better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than Senator Sherman. He appeals to the thought and reason of his hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech. The three issues discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and the protective tariff question. His discussion of the wildcat currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms.”
On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke at Schlitz’s amphitheater in Milwaukee. The notice had been brief, but the attendance was large. The audience was composed chiefly of German Republicans. Frye and I had divided the topics between us. He spoke on the tariff and I on good money. On the latter subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all as good as gold and plenty of it. I made my speech first, but Frye made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat divided. Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker, and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting address. The speeches were well reported the next morning, an evidence of enterprise I did not expect.
After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches prior to the election. While the Republican meetings were large, I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of business men, and secured him the “silent vote” of thousands of Republicans.
In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state, receiving but 1,089 plurality. The national ticket did not fare quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican. Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison and Reid 145.
Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination, nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.
As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote. The Democrats elected 220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126 and the People’s party 8.
The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the election of Cleveland. The causes that contributed to it might have defeated any Republican. It is not worth while to state them, for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American people is the conservative element of our form of government that distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.
CHAPTER LXIII. ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION. My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause of the “Sherman Act”—Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia “Ledger”—Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes—Tribute to His Memory—Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States Notes—The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to Save the Appropriation Bill—Loss of Millions of Dollars to the Government—Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office—His Inaugural Address—Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the “World’s Fair” —Chicago Raises $1,000,000—Congress Finally Decides to Pay the Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin—I Attend the Dedication of the Ohio Building at the Fair—Address to the Officers and Crew of the Spanish Caravels.
Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law misnamed the “Sherman act,” but of the clause of that act that required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month. I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance. I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption of free coinage. During the short session of that Congress, which met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this bill though strongly pressed to do so. A majority of the Senate were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House, disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the President either approve it or permit it to become a law without his signature. When criticised for my delay by the “Ledger” of Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:
“It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion. They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for such repeal. It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal, and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it. They are openly pronounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation of the existing law. The pretense made that Republican Senators would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it. If the Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pass the Senate within ten days. The Democratic party as now represented in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver. I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some influence in changing their opinions.”
Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.
On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the bill referred to. On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that session. I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not satisfied there was a majority in favor of its passage. The question why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time, though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he chose to do so. A motion to take it up was subsequently made by Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.
No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of subsequent events.
Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893, I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the following terms:
“It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last evening at eleven o’clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one who has been President of the United States dies during the session of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory, recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for the day.
“President Hayes held high and important positions during his life, having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.
“It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse. He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his judgment of his merits.
“I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate, out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn.”
In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend, and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a patriotic citizen.
On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent. bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years, which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.
After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30 yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment. I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration. In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:
“This conference report presents for our consideration again a question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.
“I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated, and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper.”
I then quoted the amendment as follows:
“To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, entitled ‘An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments,’ and, at the discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and none other.”
Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie payments, and which is as follows:
“To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled ‘An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt,’ with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid.”
I then had read to the Senate the character and description of bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows:
“That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $200,000,000, coupon or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may prescribe, and of denominations of $50, or some multiple of that sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value, at the pleasure of the United States, after ten years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest, payable semi-annually in such coin, at the rate of five per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $300,000,000 of like bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States, after fifteen years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000 of like bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States, after thirty years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum.”
Resuming my argument, I said:
“It is apparent from these laws, which are fundamental in their character, that the secretary has imposed upon him not merely the privilege but the duty of maintaining or providing for the resumption of specie payments and the maintenance of the specie standard in gold and silver coin. He is also authorized by a subsequent act, which I do not care to have read because it is not necessary, to maintain $100,000,000 in gold in the nature of a redemption fund, or rather that was the minimum limit provided in the law. In order to perform this grave duty the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized, at his discretion, whenever necessary to obtain the coin required, to issue a bond bearing four per cent. interest running for thirty years, or a bond bearing four and a half per cent. interest running fifteen years, or a bond bearing five per cent. interest running ten years.
“It has been feared—I do not say that there has been occasion for this fear—that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot maintain the necessary resumption fund; that he may have to resort to the credit of the government, upon which all the greenback issues of the United States notes and bonds are founded; that he might have to resort to the sale of bonds to obtain money, in order to maintain the parity of the different forms of money in this country and the redemption or payment in coin, when demanded, of the obligations of the United States, especially the United States notes, commonly called greenbacks.
“When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man, however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that the conditions of our country were such that we would not be justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent. interest.
“Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all, that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us to do so.
“I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next Secretary of the Treasury. I knew this law could not take effect until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the new secretary would come in. Therefore, I drew this amendment as it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of the Treasury. He having been formerly a member of the committee on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency, important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.
“He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all, but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with which to redeem the notes. That statement was submitted to the committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of the Treasury.”
I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion. The Senate fully appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate receded from the amendment. It is easy now to see that its defeat greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of interest than three per cent.
On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural address. It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing chiefly with axioms readily assented to. Its strongest passages were in favor of a sound and stable currency. He said that the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and conservative precaution. He declared that the people had decreed that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the control of their government, in its legislative and executive branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him. He said:
“The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, not only impressively defines the great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided. I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty, preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people.”
This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the Wilson bill. I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.
The chief interest at this period centered in the World’s Fair at Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of America by Columbus. Such a celebration was first proposed as early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge of the national authorities. As the matter was discussed the opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one, and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St. Louis. I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor and industry of the American people. The contention about the site delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following. This was the first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was “behind time,” but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress, which delayed too long the selection of the site. I was a member of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January, 1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate. On the 21st of April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000 from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of representing the government of the United States in an exposition in Chicago, in 1893. I made a speech in defense of the appropriation and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one in London and two in Paris that I had attended. While the receipts at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense, yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris. I referred to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United States, all of which were of great value to the places where held. These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely to increase in number in the future. The bill passed, but not without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to Chicago.
This course of opposition continued until August, 1892. The people of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the certainty of any return. All nations had been invited, and were preparing to be represented at this exposition. The attention of mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose. The United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers. It became necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts, in the same proportion as to other stockholders. This was declined, but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in silver, and pay the exposition that coin. Whether this was done because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000 sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against the fair, I do not know. On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed my opposition to this measure. Both Houses were remaining in session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to have been elsewhere. I said: “Under the circumstances, I do not see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass. If I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it.”
On the 22nd of October, 1892, I attended the dedication of the building erected by the State of Ohio, on the exposition grounds. The structure, though not entirely completed, was formally dedicated, and the keys were duly delivered to Governor McKinley. On receiving the keys he made a very appropriate address. I was called for by the crowd, and was introduced by Major Peabody, president of the State Board of Managers. I do not recall the words of my speech, nor was it, or the various speeches made on this occasion, reported; but I no doubt said that the United States was the greatest power on earth, and Ohio was its garden spot. I made a political speech that evening at Central Music Hall, as previously stated.
Among the objects of the greatest interest at the exposition were three Spanish caravels, the exact counterparts of the Santa Maria, the Nina and the Pinta, the vessels with which Columbus made his memorable voyage of discovery. These reproductions were made by Spaniards at the place from which the original vessels sailed, and, manned by Spanish sailors, followed the same course pursued by Columbus to the islands he discovered and from thence sailed to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and following up that stream passed through Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, Lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan, to Chicago, more than 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. I had been invited by the managers of the exposition to deliver an address of welcome to the officers and sailors of these vessels, on their arrival at Chicago on the 7th of July, 1893. They were received by the managers and a great crowd, and conducted to a stand in the park of the exposition, where I made my address, too long to insert here, but I quote a few paragraphs:
“Mr. President, Captain Concas and the Officers and Mariners Under His Command:—You have before you men and women of all races and climes. They have met to share in this great exposition of the industries of all nations. To-day they celebrate the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and the arrival here of the marine fleet under your command, manned by the countrymen of those who made the discovery of the new world.
“We have before us the reproduction of the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Nina, the three vessels that made this memorable voyage. They are sent to us by the same chivalrous and gallant people who built the original craft and manned and sailed them under the command of Columbus. They are striking object lessons that speak more eloquently than voice or words. We welcome them to this exposition of the industries of the world. Here, on the waters of this inland sea, 1,000 miles from the ocean traversed by Columbus, in this city, the most marvelous result of the industry and energy of mankind, we place this mimic fleet side by side with the monsters that have come from the inventive genius of the American people, not to extol our handiwork, but to extol the men who, four hundred years ago, with such feeble means and resources, opened the way to all the achievements of succeeding generations. You can look at them where they quietly rest upon the waters of the great northwest. In such as these one hundred and twenty men sailed on an unknown ocean, they knew not where. They lived where for two thousand years the pillars of Hercules had marked the end of the world. They had been taught to believe in the four corners of the earth, and that all beyond was a boundless waste of waters, into which no one had ventured beyond the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa.
“We welcome all the peoples of the earth, with their varied productions, to the full and free enjoyment of their habits at home, and in return exhibit to them the results of our growth and industry. In no boastful spirit this new and marvelous city, which has sprung into existence within the life of men who hear me, has, with the aid of the general government and the states that comprise it, built these great palaces, adorned these lately waste places and brought into them the wonderful facilities of transportation invented in modern times. Welcome all, but on this day we doubly welcome these mementoes of the voyage of Columbus to this western world.
“In the name of the managers of this exposition I give thanks and welcome to all who have brought them here, and especially to the government and people of Spain, who have thus contributed to the interest and success of this exposition.”
CHAPTER LXIV. REPEAL OF PART OF THE “SHERMAN ACT” OF 1890. Congress Convened in Extraordinary Session on August 7, 1893—The President’s Apprehension Concerning the Financial Situation—Message from the Executive Shows an Alarming Condition of the National Finances—Attributed to the Purchase and Coinage of Silver—Letter to Joseph H. Walker, a Member of the Conference Committee on the “Sherman Act”—A Bill I Have Never Regretted—Brief History of the Passage of the Law of 1893—My Speech in the Senate Well Received —Attacked by the “Silver Senators”—General Debate on the Financial Legislation of the United States—Views of the “Washington Post” on My Speech of October 17—Repeal Accomplished by the Republicans Supporting a Democratic Administration—The Law as Enacted—Those Who Uphold the Free Coinage of Silver—Awkward Position of the Democratic Members—My Efforts in Behalf of McKinley in Ohio—His Election by 81,000 Plurality—Causes of Republican Victories Throughout the Country.
On the 30th of June, 1893, the President issued a proclamation convening Congress in extraordinary session on the 7th of August. In reciting the reasons for this unusual call, only resorted to in cases of extreme urgency, he said that “the distrust and apprehension concerning the financial situation which pervades all business circles have already caused great loss and damage to our people, and threaten to cripple our merchants, stop the wheels of manufacture, bring distress and privation to our farmers, and withhold from our workingmen the wage of labor;” that “the policy which the executive branch of government finds embodied in unwise laws which must be executed until repealed by Congress;” and that Congress was convened “to the end that the people may be relived, through legislation, from present and impending danger and distress.”
Congress met in pursuance of the proclamation, and on the 8th of August the President sent a message to each House, in which he depicted an alarming condition of the national finances, and attributed it to congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage of silver by the general government. He said:
“This legislation is embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day of July, 1890, which was the culmination of much agitation on the subject involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long struggle, between the advocates of free silver coinage and those intending to be more conservative.”
He ascribed the evil of the times to the monthly purchase of 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, and the payment therefor with treasury notes redeemable in gold or silver coin at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the reissue of said notes after redemption. He stated that up to the 15th of July, 1893, such notes had been issued for the purpose mentioned to the amount of more than $147,000,000. In a single year over $40,000,000 of these notes had been redeemed in gold. This threatened the reserve of gold held for the redemption of United States notes, and the whole financial system of the government. No other subject was presented in the message of the President, and Congress had to face the alternative of the single standard of silver, or the suspension of the purchase of silver bullion.
I had foreseen this inevitable result and had sought, as far as possible, to avoid it by the inserting of sundry provisions in the act of July 14, 1890. No portion of that act was objected to by the President except the clause requiring the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of treasury notes in payment for it. In this I heartily concurred with him. From the date of the passage of that law, to its final repeal, I was opposed to this compulsory clause, but yielded to its adoption in preference to the free coinage of silver, and in the hope that a brief experience under the act would dissipate the popular delusion in favor of free coinage. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, a prominent Member of the House of Representatives, who was one of the conferees with me on the bill referred to, and agreed with me in assenting to it, wrote me a letter, my reply to which was in substantial accordance with the subsequent message of the President and with the action taken by Congress. I insert it here:
“Mansfield, O., July 8, 1893.
“Hon. J. H. Walker.
“My Dear Sir:—Yours of 28th ult., inclosing a copy of your statement of the causes that led Mr. Conger, yourself and me to agree with reluctance to the silver act of 1890, is received. An answer had been delayed by my absence at Chicago. You clearly and correctly state the history of that act. The bill that passed the House provided for the purchase of $4,500,000 worth of silver at gold value. The Senate struck out this provision and provided for the free coinage of silver or the purchase of all that was offered at the rate of 129 cents an ounce. As conferees acting for the two Houses, it was our duty to bring about an agreement, if practicable, without respect to individual opinion. The result of the conference was to reject free coinage and to provide for the purchase of four million five hundred thousand ounces of silver at its gold price— a less amount than was proposed by the House, the provisions declaring the public policy of the United States to maintain the parity of the two metals or the authority to stipulate on the contracts for payments in gold, the limit of the issue of treasury notes to the actual cost of silver bullion at gold value, and the repeal of the act providing for the senseless coinage of silver dollars when we already had 300,000,000 silver dollars in the treasury we could not circulate, were all in the line of sound money.
“Another object I had in view was to secure a much needed addition to our currency, then being reduced by the compulsory retirement of national bank notes in the payment of United States bonds. This would have been more wisely provided by notes secured by both gold and silver, but such a provision could not then be secured. These reasons fully justified the compromise.
“But the great controlling reason why we agreed to it was that it was the only expedient by which we could defeat the free coinage of silver. Each of us regarded the measure proposed by the Senate as a practical repudiation of one-third of the debts of the United States, as a substantial reduction of the wages of labor, as a debasement of our currency to a single silver standard, as the demonetization of gold and a sharp disturbance of all our business relations with the great commercial nations of the world. To defeat such a policy, so pregnant with evil, I was willing to buy the entire product of American silver mines at its gold value.
“And that was what we provided, guarded as far as we could. To accomplish our object we had to get the consent of the Republican Representatives from the silver-producing states. This we could only do by buying the silver product of those states. It was a costly purchase. The silver we purchased is not worth as much as we paid for it, but this loss is insignificant compared to our gain by the defeat of the free coinage of silver. It is said there was no danger of free coinage, that the President would have vetoed it. We had no right to throw the responsibility upon him. Besides, his veto would leave the Bland act in force. We did not believe that his veto would dispel the craze that then existed for free coinage. Many people wanted the experiment tried. The result of the experiment of buying four and a half million ounces of silver a month at its market value will be the best antidote against the purchase of the silver of the world at one-third more than its market value.
“I never for a moment regretted the passage of the act of 1890, commonly called the ‘Sherman act,’ though, as you know, I had no more to do with it than the other conferees. There is but one provision in it that I would change and that is to strike out the compulsory purchase of a given quantity of silver and give authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy silver bullion at its market price when needed for subsidiary coinage. The only position we can occupy in the interests of our constituents at large is one fixed standard of value and the use of both metals at par with each other, on a ratio as near as possible to their market value.
“Such a policy I believe is right. With reserves both of gold and silver in the proper proportions we can maintain the entire body of our paper money, including coin, at par with each other. For one I will never agree to the revival of state bank paper money, which cannot be made legal tender, and which, on the first sign of alarm, will disappear or be lost in the hands of the holder.
“Very respectfully yours,
“John Sherman.”
I had expressed similar views in speeches in Congress and before the people and in numerous published interviews, and in the previous Congress had introduced a bill to suspend the purchase of silver bullion, substantially similar in terms to the bill that became a law in November, 1893. During the month of August I took a more active part in the proceedings than usual. On the 8th, the 16th and the 18th I made speeches in the current debate.
A brief statement of the passage of this law of 1893 may be of interest. It was introduced as a bill by William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, in the House of Representatives, in the words of the bill introduced by me in the Senate on the 14th of July, 1892, as already stated, and passed the House on the 28th of August, by the decisive vote of 239 yeas and 108 nays. It was referred in the Senate to the committee on finance, of which Daniel W. Voorhees was then chairman. It was on the next day reported by him from that committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but substantially similar in legal effect to the House bill.
On the next day, August 30, I took the floor and made one of the longest speeches in my congressional life, covering more than forty closely printed pamphlet pages. I quote a few of the opening paragraphs:
“The immediate question before us is whether the United States shall suspend the purchase of silver bullion directed by the act of July 14, 1890. It is to decide this question the President has called Congress together in special session at this inconvenient season of the year. If this was the only reason for an extraordinary session it would seem insufficient. The mere addition of eighteen hundred million ounces of silver to the vast hoard in the treasury, and the addition of fourteen millions of treasury notes to the one thousand millions of notes outstanding, would hardly justify this call, especially as Congress at the last session neglected or refused to suspend the purchase of silver. The call is justified by the existing financial stringency, growing out of the fear that the United States will open its mints to the free coinage of silver. This is the real issue. The purchase of silver is a mere incident. The gravity of this issue cannot be measured by words. In every way in which we turn we encounter difficulties.
“If we adopt the single standard of gold without aid from silver, we will greatly increase the burden of national and individual debts, disturb the relation between capital and labor, cripple the industries of the country, still further reduce the value of silver, of which we now have in the treasury and among our people over $593,000,000, and of which we are the chief producers, and invite a struggle with the great commercial nations for the possession of the gold of the world.
“On the other hand, if we continue the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year, we will eventually bring the United States to the single standard of silver—a constantly depreciating commodity, now rejected by the great commercial nations as a standard of value; a commodity confessedly inconvenient, by its weight, bulk, and value, for the large transactions of foreign and domestic commerce, and detach us from the money standard now adopted by all European nations, with which we now have our chief commercial and social relations. In dealing with such a question we surely ought to dismiss from our minds all party affinities or prejudices; all local or sectional interests, and all preconceived opinions not justified by existing facts and conditions.
“Upon one thing I believe that Congress and our constituents agree: That both these extreme positions shall be rejected; that both silver and gold should be continued in use as money—a measure of value; that neither can be dispensed with. Monometallism, pure and simple, has never gained a foothold in the United States. We are all bimetallists. But there are many kinds of bimetallism. One kind favors the adoption of the cheaper metal for the time being as the standard of value. Silver being now the cheaper metal, they favor its free coinage at the present ratio, with the absolute certainty that silver alone will be coined at our mints as money; that gold will be demonetized, hoarded at a premium, or exported where it is maintained as standard money. The result would be monometallism of silver.
“The two metals, as metals, never have been, are not now, and never can be, kept at par with each other for any considerable time at any fixed ratio. This necessarily imposes upon the government the duty of buying the cheaper metal and coining it into money. The government should only pay for the bullion its market value, for it has the burden of maintaining it at par with the dearer metal. If the bullion falls in price the government must make it good; if it rises in value the government gains.
“The government is thus always interested in advancing the value of the cheaper metal. This is the kind of bimetallism I believe in. It is the only way in which two commodities of unequal value can be maintained at parity with each other. The free coinage of silver and gold at any ratio you may fix means the use of the cheaper metal only. This is founded on the universal law of humanity, the law of selfishness. No man will carry to the mint one ounce of gold to be coined into dollars when he can carry sixteen ounces of silver, worth but little more in the market than half an ounce of gold, and get the same number of dollars.
“The free coinage of silver means the single standard of silver. It means a cheaper dollar, with less purchasing power. It means a reduction in the wages of labor; not in the number of dollars, but in the quantity of bread, meat, clothes, comforts he can purchase with his daily wage. It means a repudiation of a portion of all debts, public and private. It means a bounty to all banks, savings institutions, trust companies that are in debt more than their credits. It means a nominal advance in the prices of the produce of the farmer, but a decrease in the purchasing power of his money. Its chief attraction is that it enables a debtor to pay his debt contracted upon the existing standard with money of less value. If Senators want cheap money and to advance prices, free coinage is the way to do it; but do not call it bimetallism. The problem we have to solve is how to secure to our people the largest use of both gold and silver without demonetizing either.
“Now, let us examine the situation in which we are placed. Our country is under the pressure of a currency famine. Industries, great and small, all suspended by the owners, not because they cannot sell their products, but because they cannot get the money to pay for raw material and the wages of their employees. Banks conducted fairly are drained of their deposits and are compelled not only to refuse all loans, but to collect their bills receivable. This stringency extends to all trades and businesses; it affects even your public revenues, all forms of public and private securities, and, more than all, its stops the pay of a vast army of laboring men, of skilled mechanics, and artisans, and affects the economy and comfort of almost every home in the land.
“The strange feature of this stringency is unlike that of any of the numerous panics in our past history. They came from either an irredeemable currency, which became worthless in the hands of the holder, or from expanded credit, based upon reckless enterprises which, failing, destroyed confidence in all industries. Stringency followed failure and reckless speculation. This panic occurs when money is more abundant than ever before. Our circulating notes to-day are sixty millions more than one year ago. It is all good—as good as gold. No discrimination is made between the gold and silver dollar, or between the United States note, the treasury note, the silver certificate, or the gold certificate. All these are indiscriminately hoarded, and not so much by the rich as by the poor. The draft is upon the savings bank, as well as the national or state bank. It is the movement of fear, the belief that their money will be needed, and that they may not be able to get it when they want it. In former panics, stringency followed failures. In this, failures follow stringency.
“Now, as representatives of the people, we are called here in Congress to furnish such measures of relief as the law can afford. In the discharge of this duty I will sweep away all party bias, all pride of opinion, all personal interest, and even the good will of my constituents, if it were necessary; but, fortunately, I believe their opinions concur with my own.”
In conclusion I said:
“It is said that if we stop the coinage of silver it will be the end of silver. I have heard that moan from some of my friends near me. I do not think it will be the end of silver. We have proven by our purchases that the mere purchase of silver by us in a declining market, when all the nations of Europe are refusing to buy silver and throwing upon us their surplus, is an improvident use of the public money, and it ought to be abandoned, or at least suspended until a time should come when we may, by an international ratio or by some other provision of law, prevent the possible coming to the single standard of silver. Now, that can be done.
“What do we propose to do now? We simply propose to stop the purchase. We do not say when we will renew it again, but we simply say we believe, in view of a panic or any possibilities of a panic, that it would be idle for us to waste either our credit money or our actual money to buy that which must be put down into the cellar of our treasury and there lie unused, except as it is represented by promises to pay gold. I say that such a policy as that would be foolish and delusive.
“Senators say that this is a blow at silver. Why, silver is as much a part of the industry of my country as it is a part of the industry of the state of the Senator from Colorado, the able exponent of this question. The production of silver is a great interest, and the people of Ohio are as deeply interested in the success of that interest as the people of Colorado. It is true we have not the direct ownership of the property, but it enters into measures of value of our property. There could be no desire on the part of any portion of the people of the United States to strike down silver. That idea ought to be abandoned at once. Therefore, in order to at least give the assurance of honest men that we do not intend to destroy an industry of America, we put upon this bill a provision proposed now by the Senator from Indiana.
“I say that instead of desiring to strike down silver we will likely build it up; and any measure that could be adopted for an international ratio that will not demonetize gold will meet my approbation and favor. But I would not dissever the financial business of this great country of ours, with its 65,000,000 of people, from the standards that are now recognized by all the Christian nations of Europe. I would not have our measure less valuable than the measure of the proudest and haughtiest country of the world.
“This is not a question of the mere interest of Nevada or Colorado. It is not a question about what Wall street will do. They will always be doing some deviltry or other, it makes no difference who is up or who is down. We take that as a matter of course. The question is what ought to be done for the people of the United States in their length and breadth. If Congress should say that in its opinion it is not now wise, after our experience, to continue the purchase of silver bullion, is any injustice done to Colorado or Nevada? Are we bound to build up the interest of one section or one community at the expense of another or of the whole country?
“No. I heartily and truly believe that the best thing we can now do is to suspend for time, at least, the purchase of silver bullion. We should then turn our attention to measures that are demanded immediately to meet the difficulties of the hour. Let this be done promptly and completely. It involves a trust to your officers and great powers over the public funds. I am willing to trust them. If you are not, it is a strange attitude in political affairs. I would give them power to protect the credit of the government against all enemies at home and abroad.
“If the fight must be for the possession of gold, we will use our cotton and our corn, our wheat and other productions, against all the productions of mankind. We, with our resources, can then enter into a financial competition. We do not want to do it now. We prefer to wait awhile until the skies are clear and see what will be the effect of the Indian policy, and what arrangements may be made for conducting another international conference. In the meantime let the United States stand upon its strength and credit, maintaining its money, different kinds of money, at a parity with each other. If we will do that I think soon all these clouds will be dissipated and we may go home to our families and friends with a conscientiousness that we have done good work for our country at large.”
I was frequently interrupted, and this led to the discussion of collateral questions and especially the dropping of the silver dollar by the act of 1873, the history of which I have heretofore stated. This speech was a temperate and nonpartisan presentation of a business question of great importance, and I can say without egotism that it was well received and commended by the public press and by my associates in the Senate. Though I sought to repeal a single clause of a bill of which I was erroneously alleged to be the author, I was charged with inconsistency, and my speech was made the text of the long debate that followed. The “silver Senators,” so called, attacked it with violence, and appeals were made to Democratic Senators to stand by those who had defeated the election law, and by the position the Democratic Senators had previously taken in favor of free coinage.
On the 28th of September, and on the 2nd, 13th, 17th and 28th of October, I made speeches in the current debate, which extended to every part of the financial legislation of the United States since the formation of the government. I insert here the description given by the Washington “Post” of the scene on the 17th:
“The climax of the remarkable day was now at hand. There is no man in the Senate for whom a deeper feeling of esteem is felt than John Sherman. He saw the Republican party born, he has been its soldier as well as its sage, he has sat at the council table of Presidents. His hair is white, and his muscles have no longer the elasticity of youth, but age has not dimmed the clearness of his intellectual vision, while it has added to the wisdom of his councils. Upon Mr. Sherman, therefore, as he arose, every eye was turned. Personalities were forgotten, the bitterness of strife was laid aside. In a picture which must live in the memory of him who saw it, the spare and bowed form of Mr. Sherman was the central figure. There was not the slightest trace of feebleness in his impassioned tones. Except once or twice, as he hesitated a moment or two for a word to express his thought, there was not a reminder that the brain at seventy may be inert or the fire be dampened in the veins.
“Mr. Sherman spoke, as he himself said, neither in reproach nor anger. It was the appealing tones that gave his speech its power —its convincing earnestness, its lack of rancor, its sober truth that gave it weight. Elsewhere it is printed in detail. Suffice it to say here that he predicted that the rules would have to be changed since they had been made the instrument of a revolutionary minority. Never before had he seen such obstruction in the Senate, never before the force bill had he known of a measure which failed, after due deliberation, to come to a vote. The Republicans had remained steadfast to the President, although under no obligation to him, and now the time had come when the Democrats must take the responsibility.
“In times past, when the Republicans were in the majority, they never shrank from responsibility. They were Republicans because they believed in Republican principles and Republican men and Republican measures, and whenever a question was to be decided they never pleaded the ‘baby act’ and said ‘we could not agree.’ They met together and came to an agreement, and in that way they passed all the great measures which have marked the history of the last thirty years of our country, and it was not done by begging votes on the other side.
“‘They say they cannot agree, They must agree,’ thundered Mr. Sherman, drawing himself to his full height, and pointing his quivering finger to the Democratic side, ‘or else surrender their political power!’
“Then Mr. Sherman pointed out the important legislation that was so sadly needed, not the least being some provision for the deficit of the government, which, he quoted Secretary Carlisle as saying, would be $50,000,000 this year. ‘These things cannot be evaded,’ he said, while the Senate lingered on his words. ‘We must decide the silver question one way or the other. If you,’ he added, looking the Democrats in the fact, ‘cannot do it, then retire from the Senate Chamber, and we will fix it on this side, and do the best we can with our silver friends who belong to us, who are blood of our blood, and bone of our bone. But yours is the proper duty, and, therefore, I beg of you, not in reproach or anger, to perform it. You have the supreme honor of being able to settle this question now, and you ought to do it.’
“Mr. Sherman ceased, but the thrall of his words remained long after his venerable form had disappeared. No Democrat answered him. Mr. Voorhees, who had sat within arm’s reach of him on the Republican side, crossed the Chamber to his own seat, and sank down as a man laden with deep care.”
The debate continued in the Senate until the 30th of October, when the Senate substitute was adopted by the vote of 43 yeas and 32 nays. Of the yeas 22 were Republicans, and of the nays 20 were Democrats; so that the bill in the Senate was supported by a majority of Republicans and opposed by a majority of Democrats. On this important question the President was acting with a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats, and it is to his credit that he firmly held his ground in spite of the opposition in his party.
On the 1st of November, when the amended bill came to the House, Mr. Wilson moved to concur in the amendment of the Senate. A casual debate followed, mostly by Bland and Bryan against the bill, and Wilson and Reed for it. The Senate amendment was agreed to and the bill as amended passed by the decisive vote of yeas 194 and nays 94, and was approved by the President on the same day. The law thus enacted is as follows:
“That so much of the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled ‘An act directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes,’ as directs the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase from time to time silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as may be offered in each month at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue in payment for such purchases treasury notes of the United States, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. And it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every dollar at all times, in the markets and in the payment of debts. And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the government should be steadily directed to the establishment of such a safe system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts.”
Thus the vital principles of the act of July 14, 1890, remained in force, and the provisions for the purchase of silver bullion and for the issue of treasury notes were repealed. The maintenance of the gold standard, the parity of all money whether of gold, silver or paper, and the payment of all bonds of the United States in coin, were preserved.
The free coinage of silver is still upheld by a large body of those who are interested in mining it, or who want to pay their debts with a depreciated coin; but the danger of the adoption of this policy is lessening daily. It received a severe blow by the action of the Ohio Democratic convention in 1895 in rejecting it by a vote of more than two to one. The bimetallic system of maintaining all forms of money at par with gold will probably soon be fully established. To complete this system and to extend it to our paper money it would be wise to gradually withdraw treasury notes and silver certificates and replace them with United States notes supported and maintained by large reserves of gold. Thus all kinds of paper money issued by the United States would be of the same form and value. The great mass of standard silver dollars, amounting on August 1, 1895, to $371,542,531, now held in the treasury represented by $320,355,188 of silver certificates in circulation, is the one great disturbing element in our finances. But 51,746,706 standard silver dollars are in circulation, and experience has shown that a greater amount cannot be kept out among the people. The certificates representing the silver dollars are in circulation and a legal tender for customs dues as well as for all debts, public and private. They must be treated as United States notes, and maintained at par with gold coin, or the parity of our coin and currency will be endangered. They now enter into the general aggregate of our legal tender money and are largely used in the payment of customs duties, and when received are paid out for the current expenses of the government. While supported by the aggregate silver dollars in the treasury, and the pledge of the public faith to maintain them at par with gold coin and United States notes, they are a safe and useful currency, but any measure to increase these certificates, based upon the coining of more silver dollars from bullion alleged to be gain or seigniorage, would seriously impair the ability of the government to maintain their parity with gold. The great depreciation of silver bullion has resulted in a vast loss to the government and its disposition is the most serious problem pending in Congress.
During the entire extra session of 1893 the body of the Democratic Senators and Members were placed in an awkward position. They were desirous of aiding the President, but their constituents behind them were generally in favor of the free coinage of silver. In some of the northern states, especially in Ohio, the Democratic party had declared, in its convention, in favor of free coinage, and now their President demanded, in the strongest language, the repeal of the only provision of law for the purchase or coinage of silver. The House promptly responded to the appeal, but the Democratic Senators hesitated and delayed action until after three months of weary debate. Their party had a majority in each House, and should have disposed of the only question submitted by the President in thirty days. Voorhees was the first Democratic Senator to announce his purpose to vote for the repeal, although previously an advocate of free coinage, and he, as chairman of the committee on finance, reported the bill of the committee, while others lingered in doubt. The Republican Senators, except those representing silver states, as a rule, promptly avowed their purpose to vote for repeal, although they had voted for the law.
After the call for the extra session was issued, I had expressed my opinion of silver legislation, but I did not wish to embarrass the President. When interviewed I refused to answer, saying the people had called upon the present administration to handle these questions, and neither I nor anyone should do aught to add embarrassment, when so much already existed. When Congress met, the Republicans remained quiet, and did not seek to embarrass the administration, but it was soon ascertained that a decided majority of them would vote for the repeal of the purchasing clause of the act of 1890, but against any modification of any other provision of that act. The position of the Republican Senators from the states west of the Mississippi River was also known. They would vote against any change of the law, unless they could secure the free coinage of silver. During this period the position of the Democratic Senators was unknown, but it was rapidly developed, with the result already stated.
Congress adjourned on the 3rd of November. The closing days were memorable for their excitement. For fourteen consecutive days the Senate did not adjourn, but from time to time took recesses. On the 31st of October the journal had not been read for fourteen days.
During this period I was requested by Governor McKinley to take part in the pending canvass in Ohio, which involved his re-election as governor. In the condition of the Senate I did not feel justified in leaving, but immediately upon the passage of the repeal bill started for Columbus to render such service as I could. It had been falsely stated that I was indifferent about McKinley’s election, which I promptly denied. But a few days intervened before the election. On the day of my arrival in Ohio, I spoke at Springfield. On the evening of the next day, the 3rd of November, at Central Turner Hall in Cincinnati, I spoke to a very large meeting. This speech was fully reported. It was mostly devoted to the tariff, a struggle over which was anticipated. After paying my usual visit to the chamber of commerce and the Lincoln club, I proceeded to Toledo, where I spoke at Memorial Hall on the evening before the election, and then returned home to Mansfield, where I voted. The result was even more decisive than expected. The 81,000 plurality for McKinley was the best evidence of his popularity, and was regarded as an indorsement of the McKinley tariff law.
On the 8th of November I returned to Washington. Many interviews with me were reported, in which I expressed my satisfaction with the overwhelming victory gained by the Republicans all over the United States, and especially with their success in New York. In response to a request by a leading journal, before the meeting of Congress, I carefully prepared a statement of the causes that led to these results. I undertook to review the political changes in the past four years, but will insert only two paragraphs of this paper.
“It is manifest that the causes of the defeat of the Democratic party in the recent election were general and not local. They extended to Colorado, Dakota, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. If the opposition to the Democratic party in Virginia had been organized and conducted by the Republican party, the results in that state would have been very different. The ideas of the Populists are too visionary and impracticable to be made the basis of a political organization. A canvass conducted in Virginia upon the issues that prevailed in Ohio would, in my judgment, have greatly changed the results in that state. Aside from the memories of the war, the economic principles of the Republican party have great strength in the southern states, and whenever the images of the war fade away the people of those states will be influenced by the same ideas that prevail in the northern states. The leading cause of the enormous Republican majorities in northern states I have mentioned was the united protest of the unemployed against radical changes of our tariff laws. Whatever theories may be proposed, it may be regarded as an axiom that the protective principle is a well established principle in the United States. It has been recommended by all the Presidents from Washington to Harrison, and by none more emphatically than Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson. This is and has been the natural and instinctive policy of a new nation with enormous undeveloped resources. While the terms of our tariff laws provided for revenue, their foundation and background were to encourage domestic manufactures and diversify productions. The extent of protection was limited to the want of revenue, but the duties were uniformly so adjusted as, while producing revenue, to encourage manufactures.
“But, after all, we must place as the chief cause of Democratic defeat the profound and settled distrust that the Democratic party will now, having the President and a majority in both Houses, disturb the enormous industries of our country developed by, and dependent upon, our tariff laws, and will seek to substitute the policy of Great Britain, of free trade, as against the example of the leading nations of Europe as well as our own, of a wise and careful protection, and encouragement by tariff laws of all forms of domestic industry that can be conducted with a reasonable hope of profit in this country. The future of parties will depend more largely upon the manner in which this condition of things is met by the present Congress than upon all other causes combined.”
CHAPTER LXV. PASSAGE OF THE WILSON TARIFF BILL. Second Session of the 53rd Congress—Recommendations of the President Concerning a Revision of the Tariff Laws—Bill Reported to the House by the Committee of Ways and Means—Supported by Chairman Wilson and Passed—Received in the Senate—Report of the Senate Committee on Finance—Passes the Senate with Radical Amendments— These are Finally Agreed to by the House—The President Refuses to Approve the Bill—Becomes a Law After Ten Days—Defects in the Bill —Not Satisfactory to Either House, the President or the People— Mistakes of the Secretary of the Treasury—No Power to Sell Bonds or to Borrow Money to Meet Current Deficiencies—Insufficient Revenue to Support the Government—A Remedy That Was Not Adopted— Gross Injustice of Putting Wool on the Free List—McKinley Law Compared with the Wilson Bill—Sufficient Revenue Furnished by the Former—I Am Criticized for Supporting the President and Secretary.
The second session of the 53rd Congress commenced on the 4th of December, 1893. The President in his message was especially urgent in his recommendation of a revision of the tariff laws. He said:
“After a hard struggle tariff reform is directly before us. Nothing so important claims our attention, and nothing so clearly presents itself as both an opportunity and a duty—an opportunity to deserve the gratitude of our fellow-citizens, and a duty imposed upon us by our oft-repeated professions, and by the emphatic mandate of the people. After a full discussion our countrymen have spoken in favor of this reform, and they have confided the work of its accomplishment to the hands of those who are solemnly pledged to it.
“If there is anything in the theory of a representation in public places of the people and their desires, if public officers are really the servants of the people, and if political promises and professions have any binding force, our failure to give the relief so long awaited will be sheer recreancy. Nothing should intervene to distract our attention or disturb our effort, until this reform is accomplished by wise and careful legislation.
“Not less closely related to our people’s prosperity and well-being is the removal of restrictions upon the importation of the raw materials necessary to our manufactures. The world should be open to our national ingenuity and enterprise. This cannot be while federal legislation, through the imposition of high tariffs, forbids to American manufactures as cheap materials as those used by their competitors.”
In view of this message, it was manifest that the tariff would be the chief subject of legislation during the session. It was understood that a bill had been prepared by the committee of ways and means, which had been submitted to the President and Secretary of the Treasury and approved by them. It was reported to the House of Representatives, December 19, 1893. On the 8th of January, 1894, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, made an elaborate speech in its support. The debate continued until the 1st of February, when, with some amendments, it passed the House. In the Senate, on the next day, it was referred to the committee on finance. On the 20th of March it was reported to the Senate, with amendments, by Mr. Voorhees. Mr. Morrill said:
“I desire to say that so far as the Republican members of the committee on finance are concerned they did not object to the reporting of the bill, while they are opposed not only to the proposed income tax, but to the many changes of specifics to ad valorems, and to the great bulk of the provisions of the bill.”
On the 2nd of April Voorhees made a carefully prepared speech in support of the bill. The debate continued, occupying much the larger part of the time until the 3rd day of July, when the bill passed with radical amendments, which changed it in principle and details. Two conferences of the two Houses were held on amendments disagreed to, but failed to agree, and it appeared, after the long struggle, that he bill would be defeated, when, on the 13th of August, upon motion of Mr. Catchings, the House agreed to the Senate amendments in gross and thus the bill passed Congress. The President refused to approve it and it became a law after ten days without his approval.
This skeleton history of what is now known as the Wilson tariff partly discloses its imperfections. Framed in the House as a tariff for revenue only, and radically changed in the Senate to a tariff with protection to special industries, it was not satisfactory to either House, to the President or to the people. So far as it copied the schedules and the legislative provisions of the McKinley law, it met with approval. Its new features were incongruous, were decidedly sectional, and many of its provisions were inconsistent with each other.
The vital defect of this bill is that it does not provide sufficient revenue to carry on the government. This is the primary and almost the only cause of the financial difficulties of the present administration. The election of Mr. Cleveland in 1892, upon the platform framed by him, naturally created distrust as to the ability of the government to maintain the parity of the different forms of money in circulation. Added to this, the broad declaration of the purpose to reduce taxation led to the reduction of importations and the diminution of the revenue from the McKinley tariff. Importers and dealers naturally reduced their imports in view of the expectation that duties would be reduced. By the 1st of July, 1893, when the Wilson bill was in embryo, the revenues had been so diminished as to yield a surplus of only $2,341,074 during the previous year. It was apparent, when Congress met in August, that the administration, having a majority in each House of Congress, was determined to reduce duties, and yet it made no effort to reduce expenditures. Soon after there was a large deficiency in the revenue, and the Secretary of the Treasury was compelled either to refuse to pay appropriations made by law in excess of receipts or to borrow money to meet the deficiencies.
In my judgment the better way for him would have been not to pay appropriations not needed to meet specific contracts, for an appropriation of money by Congress is not mandatory, but is permissive, an authority but not a command to pay, nor does an appropriation in itself authorize the borrowing of money. When this authority is required Congress must grant it, and, upon its failure to do so, all the Secretary of the Treasury should do is to pay such appropriations as the revenues collected by the government will justify. It is for Congress to provide such sums, by taxation or loans, as are necessary to meet all appropriations made in excess of revenue. If it refuses or neglects to do this, the responsibility is on it, not on the secretary. All he can do is choose what appropriations he will pay. This is a dangerous and delicate power, but it has frequently been employed and has never been abused. His failure to exercise this discretion was a grave mistake.
As revenues diminished deficiencies increased. A doubt arose whether, under the then existing conditions, the government would be able to pay gold coin for United States notes and treasury notes. These were supported by a reserve of $100,000,000 in gold coin and bullion, but this reserve fund was not segregated from the general balance in the treasury, as it ought to have been, but was liable to be drawn upon for all appropriations made by Congress. There was not then, and there is not now, any specific authority invested in the Secretary of the Treasury to sell bonds or to borrow money to meet current deficiencies, and he felt called upon to pay these out of the general fund, embracing that created for the redemption of United States notes under the act of 1875. The result was to create an alarm that the government could not or would not pay such notes and thus maintain the gold standard. The timid, and those whose patriotism is in their purse, were making inroads on the gold reserve, which fell below $100,000,000.
By the resumption act of 1875 the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized, to enable him to pay United States notes on demand, to sell either of three classes of bonds bearing respectively five, four and a half and four per cent. interest, but the question arose, in 1894, whether he could sell these bonds to meet current expenditures. All of them were worth a premium in the market. Bonds bearing three per cent. running a short period could then have been sold at par. In common with many others I foresaw, in February, 1893, that the tariff policy of the then incoming administration would reduce our revenue below our expenditures, and sought to have Congress authorize the sale of bonds bearing three per cent. interest instead of those at a higher rate already authorized. I saw plainly that the incoming administration would enter on precisely the same course as that adopted by Buchanan, of providing insufficient revenue for the support of the government, resulting in the gradual increase of the public debt and the disturbance of our financial system. During each year of Buchanan’s administration the public debt increased, as it has been steadily increasing during Cleveland’s administration, and great embarrassment grows out of this fact. My friendly suggestion was defeated and the result has been the sale of four per cent. bonds at a sacrifice.
The President recommended the removal of restrictions upon the importation of the raw materials necessary to our manufactures. The tariff bill, as it passed, imposed duties on nearly all raw materials except wool. This important product of the farmer was made duty free. I made every effort to prevent this injustice. Free wool was the culminating atrocity of the tariff law. By it a revenue of over eight millions a year was surrendered for the benefit of woolen manufacturers. I appealed to the Senate to give some protection to this great industry of our country. It was generally classed as the fifth of the industries of the United States, including the manufacture of woolens, and I have no doubt it fully came up to that grade. Over a million farmers were engaged in the growth of wool. It involved an annual product estimated at $125,000,000 under the former prices, but probably under the prices after the passage of the Wilson bill it was reduced to about eighty or ninety million dollars. It was, therefore, a great industry. And yet it was left solitary and alone without the slightest protection given to it directly or indirectly. The manufacture of woolen goods was amply protected. Amendments were proposed and adopted without dissent, adding largely to the protection at first proposed on manufactures of wool.
The value of the wool in woolen goods as a rule is equal to the cost of manufacturing the cloth. The duty on cloth under this law averages 40 per cent., so that the domestic manufacturer of cloth gets the benefit not only of a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of manufacture, but he gets a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of the wool in the cloth, thus getting a protection of 80 per cent. on the cost of manufacture, while the farmer gets no protection against foreign competition for his labor and care. This gross injustice is done under the name of free raw materials. When I appealed to the Senate for a duty on wool I was answered by one Senator that free wool was all that was left in the bill of the Democratic doctrines of free raw materials, and, if only for this reason, must be retained. I made two speeches in support of a duty, but was met by a united party vote, every Democrat against it and every Republican for it. In the next tariff bill I hope this decision will be reversed.
On the 31st of May, 1894, I made a long speech in favor of the McKinley law and against the Wilson bill. While the McKinley law largely reduced the taxes and duties under pre-existing laws, yet it furnished ample revenue to support the government. The object of the act was declared to be to reduce the revenue. It was impartial to all sections and to all industries. The south was well cared for in it, and every reasonable degree of protection was given to that section. In growing industries in the north, which it is desirable to encourage, an increase of duty was given. In nearly all the older industries the rates were reduced, and the result was a reduction of revenue to the extent of $30,000,000. There was no discrimination made in the McKinley act between agriculture and mechanical industries. The Wilson bill sacrificed the interests of every farmer in the United States, except probably the growers of rice and of fruit in the south. The McKinley act, I believe, was the most carefully framed, especially in its operative clauses and its classification of duties, of any tariff bill ever passed by the Congress of the United States.
It has been said that the McKinley act was the cause of the deficiency of revenue that commenced about three years after its passage. That is a mistake. Until Mr. Cleveland was sworn into office, March 4, 1893, there was no want of revenue to carry on the operations of the government. Until July, 1893, there was a surplus of revenue, and not a deficiency. The receipts during the fiscal years ending June 30, 1891, 1892, 1893, under the McKinley act, furnished ample means for the support of the government, and it was not until after Cleveland had been elected, and when there was a great fear and dread all over the country that our industries would be disturbed by tariff legislation, that the revenues fell off. The surplus in 1891 was $37,000,000; in 1892, in the midst of the election, it was $9,914,000, and in 1893, up to June 30, the surplus revenue was $2,341,000. Yet in a single year afterwards, after this attempt to tinker with the tariff had commenced, after the announcement as to the tariff had been made by Mr. Cleveland, after the general fear that sprang up in the country in regard to tariff legislation, the revenues under the McKinley act fell off over $66,000,000, and the deficiency of that year was $66,542,000.
I believe that if Harrison had been elected President of the United States the McKinley act would have furnished ample revenue for the support of the government, because then there would have been no fear of disturbance of the protected industries of our country. Cleveland’s election created the disturbances that followed it. The fear of radical changes in the tariff law was the basis of them. That law caused the falling of prices, the stagnation of some industries, and the suspension of others. No doubt the fall in the value of silver and the increased demand for gold largely precipitated and added to the other evils that I have mentioned.
If when Congress met in December, 1893, there had been a disposition on the part of both sides to take up the tariff question and discuss it and consider it as a pure question of finance, there would have been no difficulty with the Republicans. We were all ready to revise the rates contained in the McKinley tariff act. The body of that act had been embodied in the Wilson bill as part of the proposed law. Nearly all of the working machinery of the collection of customs, framed carefully under the experienced eye of Senator Allison, is still retained. All the schedules, the formal parts of the act, which are so material, and the designation into classes —all those matters which are so complicated and difficult to an ordinary lawyer or an ordinary statesman, have been retained.
If the bill had been taken up in the spirit in which it should have been, and if an impartial committee of both parties in the Senate and the House had gone over it, item by item, it would have passed in thirty days without trouble. That was not the purpose; it was not the object, and it was not the actual result.
During the long session of 1893-94 I was the subject of much controversy, debate, censure and praise. While distinctly a Republican, and strongly attached to that party, I supported, with the exception of the tariff law, the financial policy of the President and Secretary Carlisle. Mr. Cleveland was a positive force in sustaining all measures in support of the public credit. Mr. Carlisle, who as a Member and Senator had not been always equally positive on these measures, yet was regarded as a conservative advocate of a sound financial policy, readily and heartily supported the President in his recommendations. As these were in harmony with my convictions I found myself indorsing them as against a majority of the Democratic Senators. My Republican colleagues, with scarcely an exception, favored the same policy.
CHAPTER LXVI. SENIORITY OF SERVICE IN THE SENATE. Notified That My Years of Service Exceed Those of Thomas Benton— Celebration of the Sons of the American Revolution at the Washington Monument—My Address to Those Present—Departure for the West with General Miles—Our Arrival at Woodlake, Nebraska—Neither “Wood” nor “Lake”—Enjoying the Pleasures of Camp Life—Bound for Big Spring, South Dakota—Return via Sioux City, St. Paul and Minneapolis —Marvelous Growth of the “Twin Cities”—Publication of the “Sherman Letters” by General Sherman’s Daughter Rachel—First Political Speech of the Campaign at Akron—Republican Victory in the State of Ohio—Return to Washington for the Winter of 1894-95—Marriage of Our Adopted Daughter Mary with James Iver McCallum—A Short Session of Congress Devoted Mainly to Appropriations—Conclusion.
On the 16th of June, 1894, I was notified by William E. Spencer, the experienced journal clerk of the Senate, that I that day had reached a term of service in the Senate equal in length to that of Thomas Benton, whose service had previously held first rank in duration, covering the period from December 6, 1821, to March 3, 1851, making 29 years, 2 months and 27 days. I had entered the Senate March 23, 1861, and served continuously until March 8, 1877, making 15 years, 11 months and 15 days, when I entered the cabinet of President Hayes. My second term of service in the Senate began March 4, 1881, and has continued until the present time. My service since June 16, 1894, is in excess of that of Benton.
On the 4th of July, 1894, the Sons of the American Revolution celebrated the day by a ceremony held literally in the shadow of the Washington monument. There, at the base of the great shaft, the members and friends of this organization and several chapters of the Daughters of the Revolution gathered at 10 o’clock to listen to patriotic addresses. The societies had been escorted from the Arlington hotel by the Marine Band, and gathered in seats around a grand stand while a battery of artillery welcomed them with a salute. The band played national hymns, and the audience sang “America.” General Breckinridge introduced me and I was heartily greeted. After narrating the principal events of the American Revolution, and especially incidents connected with the Declaration of American Independence, I said:
“It is a marvel of the world that these humble colonies, composed of plain men, for there were no nobles or rich men in those times, furnished genius which brought to mankind greater wisdom in the framing of a government than ever elsewhere existed. It was of these men that Lord Chatham said that they had prepared papers stronger than ever emanated from any court of Europe. Our country was built up on intelligence, obedience to law, desire for freedom and the equal enjoyment of rights. Those who are gathered here to-day are classified as sons and daughters of the Revolution, and therefore they are under deeper obligations to be true and patriotic citizens.”
I then spoke of the character of our people and our institutions, and the Civil War, happily ended, and the increasing strength and power of the republic. I narrated how the Washington monument came to be completed. I said it was true it cost a million of dollars, but what was that to 65,000,000 people! The occasion was enjoyable, the speeches were suitable for the 4th of July, patriotism and love of country being the watchwords.
On the 28th of August, 1894, the second session of the 53rd Congress closed. It was a laborious session. Its principal act was a measure that did not satisfy anyone. It laid the foundations for insufficient revenue, an increase of the public debt and the general defeat of the party in power.
I was much fatigued, and had already arranged to accompany General Nelson A. Miles and his party on a military inspection in Nebraska and South Dakota. I arrived in Chicago on the 2nd of September, where General Miles was stationed. There I was met by the reporters and told them all I knew about the intended trip. I got as much information from them as they did from me. What they wanted was prophecy of the future, and I wanted to get into the wilderness. Here our little party was made up, consisting of General Miles, his wife, daughter and son, a lad about thirteen years old, Dr. Daly and brother, two staff officers, and myself. We had a car and lived in it, and the cook supplied us bountifully with good healthy food, largely of game. I cannot imagine a more delightful change to a man weary with talk in the hot chambers of the capitol at Washington in August than the free, fresh air of the broad plains of Nebraska, with congenial company in a palace car, and with no one to bother him. Our first stopping place was called Woodlake, a small village on the railroad in the northwestern part of Nebraska. We arrived there in the afternoon; our car was detached from the train and became our home for a week. Around us in every direction was a broad rolling plain as dry as a powder horn, with scarcely any signs of habitation, but the air was pure and exhilarating and imparted a sense of health and energy. My first inquiry to one of the denizens was “Where is your wood and your lake which gave a name to your town?” He said that when the railroad was located there was a grove near by, and water in the low ground where we stood, but the trees had been cut and utilized in constructing the railroad, and the lake was dried up by a long drouth. Woodlake had neither wood nor lake in sight! We took long walks without fatigue, and our hunters, of whom General Miles was chief, supplied us with prairie chickens, the only game of the country.
After a few days thus spent we left our car and followed after a company of United States Infantry, from Fort Niobrara, then engaged in their usual drill, to a lake about twenty-five miles away, where we lived in tents and had a taste of real camp life. With the consent of the owner of the land we pitched our tents near his house on the banks of the lake about three miles long and perhaps half a mile wide. This sight of water was pleasing, but we were warned not to drink it. We had a bountiful supply of pure healthy water, however, from an artesian well driven over a hundred feet into the earth and pumped by almost continuous winds into a great basin, which furnished water in abundance for man and beast. The only house in sight besides the one near our camp was occupied by the brother of our host, three miles away at the other end of the lake. The two brothers were the lords of all they surveyed. They owned large herds of cattle that ranged over the plains around, drank of the waters of the lake and fed upon the sparse herbage. A few hundred of them were kept in a corral near the homesteads for sale, but the larger portion roamed under the care of herdsmen wherever the herbage seemed the best.
Here our hunters, with a fine pack of dogs, pursued prairie chickens, and not only supplied our table but contributed to the soldiers in their shelter tents near by. Mrs. Miles and I, escorted by her young son, Sherman Miles, on horseback, had the benefit of a horse and buggy with which we could drive in any direction. There was no fence or bog or obstruction in the way. We generally kept in sight of our hunters, but if we lost the trail we could go to the hills and soon locate our camp. This free and easy life soon cured my languor and weariness and I was able to walk or ride long distances as well as any of the party.
Returning to Woodlake we attached our car to the train for Big Spring in South Dakota. Here we spent two or three days, mainly in riding through the picturesque country around. We intended to extend our journey to Deadwood but the duties of General Miles required him to visit St. Paul and the military post at Fort Snelling. We returned by way of Sioux City, and thence to St. Paul. This city and its sister Minneapolis, were familiar ground. I had seen them when they were small towns, and had by frequent visits kept pace with their growth, but the change noticed on my last visit was a surprise to me. The two cities, but a few miles apart when rival rural villages, were approaching each other and no doubt are destined to blend into one great city of the north. Here I met many friends, chief of whom I am glad to place Senator Cushman K. Davis, of Minnesota. After a brief stay our little party returned to Chicago and dispersed, I going back to Mansfield to engage in the political campaign.
At this period “The Sherman Letters” was published, and at once attracted attention and general commendation. I though the experiment was a risky one, but it was the desire of General Sherman’s children to publish them, and especially of his daughter, Rachel Thorndike, who undertook to compile them. I have been in the habit of preserving letters written to me on personal matters, or by members of my family, and, as General Sherman was a copious writer, I placed his letters in separate books. He did the same with mine, but many of these had been lost by fire in California. Rachel arranged in chronological order such letters as she thought worth preserving, and they were published in a handsome volume. I have a multitude of letters from almost every man with whom I have been associated in political life, but will not publish them while the writers live without their consent, nor even after their death if the letters would tend to wound the feelings of surviving friends or relatives. Letters are the best evidence of current thought or events, but they ought to be guarded by the person to whom they are written as confidential communications, not to be disclosed to the injury of the writer. General Sherman’s inmost thoughts could be disclosed without fear of injury to him, and his letters, though rapidly written, did not indicate a dishonorable thought or action. I have seen nothing in the comments of the press on these letters but what is kindly to the “two brothers.”
On the 5th of October I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati. I called at the chamber of commerce, and had the same hearty welcome its members have always given me. I made the usual short speech, and it was all about “King Corn.” General surprise was expressed at my healthy appearance. The remark was frequently made that I was looking better and healthier than for years. The impression of my failing health was gathered from the newspaper descriptions of “the old man” in the debates in the Senate. The effect of the pure, open air of Nebraska was apparent. While on this visit I was greatly pleased with a drive to Fort Thomas, and the high lands on the Kentucky side of the river.
My first political speech of the campaign was made on the 12th of October at Akron. It was confined almost exclusively to the tariff and silver questions. The meeting was very large, composed chiefly of men employed in the numerous factories and workshops of that active and flourishing city. On the 18th I spoke at Sandusky upon the same general topics as at Akron. Here I visited the Soldiers’ Home near that city. It is an interesting place, where I think the old soldiers are better cared for than in the larger national homes.
I continued in the canvass, speaking at several places, until the election on the first Tuesday of November. The result was the re-election of Samuel M. Taylor, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State, by the abnormal plurality of 137,086, and nineteen Republicans were elected to Congress out of the twenty-one. Though this was a state election, it turned mainly upon national issues, and especially evidenced strong opposition to the Wilson tariff bill.
I was often asked by reporters, after my return to Washington, as to the meaning of the election in Ohio. I uniformly expressed the opinion that it meant the adoption of a nonpartisan tariff that would, with a few internal taxes, yield revenue enough to pay current expenses and the interest of the public debt and a portion of the principal. I still hope that will be the result. The framework of the McKinley law, with such changes as experience may show to be essential, would remove the tariff from among the political questions of the day and give reasonable encouragement to American industries.
On the 10th of November my family and I returned to Washington for the winter. The chief interest and occupation of my wife and myself, for the time being, was the preparation for the approaching marriage of our adopted daughter, Mary Stewart Sherman, to James Iver McCallum, of Washington. This was fixed for noon, the 12th of December. Full details of all the preparations made, of the dresses worn, of the members of the family in attendance, and of the distinguished guests present, were given in the city papers. It is sufficient for me to say that Mary has been carefully educated and trained by us, and never for a moment has given us anxiety as to her prudence, deportment and affection. We gave her in marriage to a young gentleman, a native of Washington, and a clerk in the supreme court, and entertain for her all the affection and solicitude that a father or mother can bestow.
Congress convened on the 3rd of December, 1894. The languor that followed the excitement of the two previous sessions, and the defeat suffered by the administration in the recent elections, no doubt caused an indifference to political questions during the short remaining session. But little was done except to consider and pass the appropriations for the support of the government. I was often annoyed by unfounded assertions that I had influence with the administration, and especially with Carlisle, that I was in frequent conference with the President and secretary. These stories were entirely unfounded. Neither of these gentlemen ever consulted me as to the business of their offices, nor did I ever seek to influence them or even to converse with them on political questions. It was a delicate matter for either of them or myself to deny such statements when our personal relations were so friendly.
And now these memoirs must end. I know there are many events not noted that should have been referred to, and many persons whose names should not have been omitted. I would be glad to mention with honor and credit hundreds of men who participated with me in the political events of public life, but this seemed impracticable within reasonable limits. I might have omitted many events and speeches as of not sufficient consequence to be preserved, but if I had I would not have written the recollections of my public life. The life of a civilian is in what he says or writes, that of a soldier in what he does. What I have written is no doubt clouded with partisanship, but I would not be honest if I did not express my attachment to my party. This, however, never impaired my patriotism or swerved me from the path of duty.
To the people of Ohio I owe all the offices and honors that have been conferred upon me. No constituency could have been more forbearing and kind. During forty years of public life, though many able men have aspired to the office I hold, the people of Ohio, through their general assembly, have preferred me to represent them. Though my grateful thanks are due to them and have been often expressed, yet I have felt, as they do, that my duty was to the whole country. Proud of Ohio, of its history and people, willing at all times to sound its praise in the sisterhood of states, yet, according to my convictions, the United States is entitled to my allegiance, and all parts of it should receive equal care and consideration. “Our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country” has been the watchword and creed of my public life. It was the opposite doctrine of “states’ rights,” allegiance to a state, that led to the Civil War. It was settled by this war that we have a country limited in its powers by the constitution of the United States fairly construed. Since that time our progress and development have been more rapid than any other country’s.
The events of the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I hope our people will be content with internal growth, and avoid the complications of foreign acquisitions. Our family of states is already large enough to create embarrassment in the Senate, and a republic should not hold dependent provinces or possessions. Every new acquisition will create embarrassments. Canada and Mexico as independent republics will be more valuable to the United States than if carved into additional states. The Union already embraces discordant elements enough without adding others. If my life is prolonged I will do all I can to add to the strength and prosperity of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add new dangers by acquisition of foreign territory.
INDEX [omitted]
Notes
* Includes outstanding clearing house certificates of the act of June 8, 1872.