Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet An Autobiography. (part 6 of 7)

Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet An Autobiography. (part 6 of 7)

I went from Washington to Petersburg, where I was hospitably entertained by General Mahone. He had been greatly distinguished for his courage, ability and success, as a Confederate general in the Civil War, and had long been a popular favorite in Virginia. He took the lead on questions affecting the debt of Virginia in opposition to the Democratic party, and a legislature in favor of his opinions having been elected, he became a Senator of the United States. He voted as a rule with Republican Senators, but maintained a marked independence of political parties. I admired him for his courage and fidelity, and was quite willing to speak a good word for him in the election of a legislature that would designate his successor.

The meeting at Petersburg was held in a large opera house on the evening of the 29th of October. When I faced my audience the central part of the house and the galleries seemed to be densely packed by negroes, while in the rear was a fringe of white men. The line of demarkation was clearly indicated by color, most of the white men standing and seeming ill at ease. The speech was fairly well received. In opening I said my purpose was to demonstrate that what the Republican party professed in Ohio as to national questions was the same that it professed in Virginia, and that the practical application of the principles of the Republican party would be of vast benefit to the State of Virginia, while Democratic success would tend more and more to harden the times and prevent the industrial development of Virginia.

"Not only your newspaper," I said, "but the distinguished gentleman who is the Democratic candidate for Governor of the State of Virginia, has said to you that I was waving the bloody shirt while he was contending under the Union flag. If he meant, by waving the bloody shirt, that I sought, in any way, to renew the animosities of the war, then he was greatly mistaken, for in the speech to which he refers, and in every speech I made in Ohio, I constantly said that the war was over and the animosities of the war should be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate soldier responsible for what he did during the war, and that all I wished was to maintain and preserve the acknowledged results of the war. Among these, I claim, is the right of every voter to cast one honest vote and have it counted; that every citizen, rich or poor, native or naturalized, white or black, should have equal civil and political rights, and that every man of lawful age should be allowed to exercise his right to vote, without distinction of race or color or previous condition. I charge, among other things, that these constitutional rights and privileges have been disregarded by the Democratic party, especially in the southern states."

The speech was largely historical in its character and evidently rather beyond the comprehension of the body of my audience. The scene and the surroundings made a vivid impression on my mind. Here, I felt, were two antagonistic races widely differing in every respect, the old relations of master and slave broken, with new conditions undeveloped, the master impoverished and the slave free without the knowledge to direct him, and with a belief that liberty meant license, and freedom idleness. William McKinley, then a Member of the House of Representatives, and Green B. Raum then spoke, Mr. McKinley confining his speech mainly to a simple exposition of the tariff question, which his audience could easily understand.

The next day, at the invitation of John S. Wise, then the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, I went to Richmond, and spent a pleasant day with him. In the evening I attended a mass meeting in the open air, at which there was a very large attendance. There was no disorder in the large crowd before me, but off to the right, at some distance, it was evident that a party of men were endeavoring to create some disturbance, and to distract attention from the speeches. While I was speaking Wise rose and, in terms very far from polite, denounced the people making the noise. He succeeded in preventing any interruption of the meeting. The speech was made without preparation, but, I think, better for the occasion that the one in Petersburg. I stated that I had been born and lived in a region where a large portion of the population was from Virginia and Kentucky; that I had always been taught to believe in the doctrines of the great men illustrious in Virginia history. To the charge made that I was engaged in waving the bloody shirt I said:

"If it means that I said anything in Ohio with a view to stir up the animosities of the Civil War, then, I say, it is greatly mistaken. I never uttered an unkind word about the people of Virginia that mortal man can quote. I have always respected and loved the State of Virginia, its memories, its history, its record, and its achievements.

"Again, although I was a Union man from my heart and every pulsation, just as my friend Wise was a Confederate soldier, yet I never heard in Ohio a man call in question either the courage or purity of motive of any Confederate soldier who fought in the Confederate ranks. I never uttered such a sentiment. I disclaim it. What I did say was this--what I say here in Richmond, and what I said in Petersburg is--that the war is over and all animosities of the war should be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate soldier responsible for what he did in the war, and all I ask of you is to carry out the acknowledged results of the war; to do what you agreed to, when Grant and Lee made their famous arrangement under the apple tree at Appomattox; to stand by the constitution and laws of the land, to see that every man in this country, rich and poor, native and naturalized, white and black, shall have equal civil and political rights, and the equal protection of the law. I said also, that by constitutional amendment agreed to by Virginia, every man of proper age in this country was armed for his protection with the right to cast one honest vote, and no more, and have that vote counted, and you, as well as I, are bound to protect every man in the enjoyment of that right.

"There is the ground I stood on in Ohio, and the ground I stand on now."

I closed my address as follows:

"And now a word to the best citizens of Richmond. If the criminal classes can deprive a colored man or a white Republican of his right to vote, as soon as they have accomplished it, then these rascals--because every man who resorts to this policy is a rascal --then these rascals will soon undermine their own party. They will begin to cheat each other after they have cheated the Republicans out of their political power. My countrymen, there is no duty so sacred resting upon any man among you, I don't care what his politics are. It is honesty that I like to appeal to. I say there is no man who can be deprived of his right to vote without injuring you, from the wealthiest in the city of Richmond down to the humblest man among you, white or black.

"There is no crime that is meaner, there is no crime that is so destructive to society, there is no crime so prejudicial to the man who commits it as the crime of preventing a citizen from participating in the government. Here I intend to leave the question. I appeal to you, of whatever party, or color, or race, or country, to give us in Virginia at this election an honest vote and an honest count, and if Lee is elected, well and good; if Wise is elected, better yet."

The Democrats carried the state and Wise was defeated.

CHAPTER L. ELECTED PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE. Death of Vice President Hendricks--I Am Chosen to Preside Over the United States Senate--Letter of Congratulation from S. S. Cox-- Cleveland's First Annual Message to Congress--His Views on the Tariff and Condition of Our Currency--Secretary Manning's Report-- Garfield's Statue Presented to the Nation by the State of Ohio--I Am Elected a Senator from Ohio for the Fifth Time--I Go to Columbus to Return Thanks to the Legislature for the Honor--Business of this Session of Congress--Attempt to Inquire Into the Methods of Electing Mr. Payne to the Senate from Ohio--My Address on "Grant and the New South"--Address Before the Ohio Society of New York.

Congress convened on the 7th of December, 1885. The death of Vice President Thomas A. Hendricks, on the 25th of November, was announced by Senator Voorhees, who offered appropriate resolutions, the consideration of which was postponed until January 26, 1886, when eloquent orations by Senators Voorhees, Hampton, Saulsbury, Evarts, Ransom, Spooner and Harrison were delivered in commemoration of his life and death. I added my sincere tribute to his marked ability and personal worth.

On the first day of the session after the opening prayer, Mr. Edmunds offered the following resolution:

"Resolved, That John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio, be and he hereby is, chosen president pro tempore of the Senate."

Following the usual form Mr. Voorhees moved to strike out the words "John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio," and insert "Isham G. Harris, a Senator from the State of Tennessee."

This was decided in the negative by the vote of 29 yeas and 34 nays, and thereupon the resolution was adopted. I was escorted to the chair by Senators Edmunds and Voorhees and, having taken the oath prescribed by law, said:

"Senators, I return you my grateful thanks for the high honor you have conferred upon me.

"In common with all the people of the United States I share in profound sorrow for the death of the Vice President, especially designated by the constitution to act as president of the Senate. It is an impressive lesson of the uncertain tenure by which we all hold office and life. The contingency had happened which compels you now, at the beginning of the session, to choose a president pro tempore.

"In assuming this position, without special aptitude or experience as a presiding officer, I feel that for a time, at least, I shall have often to appeal to the habitual courtesy and forbearance of Senators. Fortunately the rules of the Senate are simple and clear. My aim will be to secure the ready and kindly obedience and enforcement of them, so that in an orderly way the sense of the majority may be ascertained and the rights of the minority may be protected.

"I can only say, Senators, that while I hold this position I will endeavor, to the utmost of my ability, to be just and impartial, and I invoke from each of you assistance and forbearance."

This honor was unsought by me. The public prints had, as usual, discussed the choice of president of the Senate, but I made no mention of it to any Senator. I was gratified with the choice, chiefly because it would, in a measure, relieve me from burdensome details, and was an evidence of the good will of my associates.

I received many letters of congratulation on this event, one of which, from Mr. Cox, I insert:

"United States Legation, } "Constantinople, January 23, 1886.} "Dear Mr. Senator:--I am reminded by my wife of a courtesy I have neglected. It is that of congratulation upon your accession to the post lately held by my friend (from Muskingum county) Thomas A. Hendricks. You have associations with that valley also, and they are connected with the best friend I ever had in Congress, General Samuel R. Curtis, with whom I used to associate in my callow congressional days.

"Besides, I never forget the kindness with which my father used to regard C. R. Sherman, your father, for making him clerk of the supreme court of Muskingum, in early days.

"Here I am, aloof from all old Muskingum memories, or rather, scenes. As I look out of my balcony, on this spring day in midwinter, I see the Golden Horn brimming full of ships and other evidences of interchange; and far beyond it, 'clear as a fountain in July, when we see each grain of gravel,' Mt. Olympus lifts a double crown of snow.

"But I only meant to testify to you, from these remote nations, the pardonable pride of an Ohioan, and a veteran Congressman--in your elevation.

"When you write to the general, remember me to him kindly.

"Mrs. Cox desired to be kindly regarded to your wife and yourself. She joins me in felicitations.

"With esteem, etc., "S. S. Cox. "Hon. John Sherman."

President Cleveland's first annual message was delivered to the Senate on the 8th of December. He stated that:

"The fact that our revenues are in excess of the actual needs of an economical administration of the government justifies a reduction in the amount exacted from the people in its support.

* * * * *

"The proposition with which we have to deal is the reduction of the revenue received from the government, and indirectly paid by the people from customs duties. The question of free trade is not involved, nor is there now any occasion for the general discussion of the wisdom or expediency of a protective system.

"Justice and fairness dictate that, in any modification of our present laws relating to revenue, the industries and interests which have been encouraged by such laws, and in which our citizens have large investments, should not be ruthlessly injured or destroyed. We should also deal with the subject in such manner as to protect the interests of American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen; its stability and proper remuneration furnish the most justifiable pretext for a protective policy."

This specific principle, if fairly and justly applied to all industries alike, would be a basis for customs duties that all would agree to, but, when made, a struggle arises in determining the articles to be protected, and those to be free of duty. The President said that the reduction should be made of duties upon the imported necessaries of life. Such articles are not imported; they are mainly produced by our own people. By common consent the few articles that are imported, classed as necessaries of life, and which cannot be produced in this country, are already free of duty. When Congress undertook to reduce the revenue it was found difficult to apply the rule suggested by the President. He said:

"Nothing more important than the present condition of our currency and coinage can claim your attention.

"Since February, 1878, the government has, under the compulsory provisions of law, purchased silver bullion and coined the same at the rate of more than $2,000,000 every month. By this process, up to the present date, 215,759,431 silver dollars have been coined."

He properly stated that the mere desire to utilize the silver product of the country should not lead to a coinage not needed for a circulating medium. Only 50,000,000 of the silver dollars so coined had actually found their way into circulation, leaving more than 165,000,000 in the possession of the government, the custody of which had entailed a considerable expense for the construction of vaults for its safe deposit. At that time the outstanding silver certificates amounted to $93,000,000, and yet every month $2,000,000 of gold from the public treasury was paid out for two millions or more silver dollars to be added to the idle mass already accumulated. He stated his view of the effect of this policy, and in clear and forcible words urged Congress to suspend the purchase of silver bullion and the coinage of silver dollars until they should be required by the business of the country. This is the same question now pending, but under circumstances of greater urgency.

The President enlarged fully upon this vital subject and has adhered to his opinions tenaciously. He was re-elected with full knowledge of these opinions and now, no doubt, will soon again press them upon Congress. The efforts made to carry into effect the policy of the President will be more fully stated hereafter. He closed his message by calling attention to the law relating to the succession to the presidency in the event of the death, disability or removal of both the President and Vice President, and his recommendation has been carried into effect by law. In conclusion he said:

"I commend to the wise care and thoughtful attention of Congress the needs, the welfare, and the aspirations of an intelligent and generous nation. To subordinate these to the narrow advantages of partisanship, or the accomplishment of selfish aims, is to violate the people's trust and betray the people's interests. But an individual sense of responsibility on the part of each of us, and a stern determination to perform our duty well, must give us place among those who have added, in their day and generation, to the glory and prosperity of our beloved land."

The Secretary of the Treasury, David Manning, in his report to Congress, amplified the statement made of the receipts and expenditures of the government and gave estimates for the then current and the next fiscal year. He was much more explicit than the President in his statement of reform in taxation. He expressed more at length than the President the objections to the further coinage of the silver dollars. He stated the superior convenience of paper money to coins of either gold or silver, but that it should be understood that a sufficient quantity of actual coin should be honestly and safely stored in the treasury to pay the paper when presented. He entered into an extended and interesting history of the two metals as coined in this country and the necessity of a monetary unit as the standard of value. His history of the coinage of the United States is as clear, explicit and accurate as any I have read.

On the 12th of December, 1885, I received from Governor Hoadley an official letter notifying me, as president of the Senate, that a marble statue of General Garfield had been placed in the hall of the old House of Representatives, in pursuance of the law inviting each state to contribute statues of two of its eminent citizens, and saying:

"It is hoped that it may be found worthy of acceptance and approval as a fit contribution from this state to the United States, in whose service President Garfield passed so much of his life and whose chief executive officer he was at the time of his death."

On the 5th of January, 1886, I submitted to the Senate, in connection with Governor Hoadley's letter, concurrent resolutions returning the thanks of Congress to the Governor, and through him to the people of Ohio, for the statue, and accepting it in the name of the nation. In presenting these resolutions I expressed at considerable length the estimate of the people of Ohio of the character and public services of Garfield, and closed as follows:

"The people of Ohio, among whom he was born and bred, placed his image in enduring marble in the silent senate of the dead, among the worthies of every period of American history, not claiming for him to have been the greatest of all, but only as one of their fellow-citizens, whom, when living, they greatly loved and trusted, whose life was spent in the service of his whole country at the period of its greatest peril, and who, in the highest places of trust and power, did his full duty as a soldier, a patriot, and a statesman."

The resolutions were then adopted.

The legislature of Ohio that convened on the 3rd of January, 1886, was required to elect a Senator, as my successor, to serve for six years following the expiration of my term on the 4th of March, 1887. The Republican members of the legislature held an open joint caucus on the 7th of January, and nominated me for re-election, to be voted for at the joint convention of the two houses on the following Tuesday. The vote in the caucus was unanimous, there being no other name suggested. The legislature was required to meet an unexampled fraud at the recent election, practiced in Hamilton county, where, four Republican senators and eleven Republican members had been chosen. A lawless and desperate band of men got possession of the ballot boxes in two or three wards of the city of Cincinnati, broke open the boxes and changed the ballots and returns so as to reverse the result of the election of members of the legislature. These facts were ascertained by the finding and judgment of the circuit and supreme courts, but the supreme court held that the power to eliminate such frauds and forgeries did not reside in the courts but only in the senate and house of representatives of the state, respectively. Each house was the judge of the election of its members. This palpable and conceded fraud had to be acted upon promptly. The house of representatives, upon convening, appointed a committee to examine the returns, and on the fifth day of the session reported that the returns were permeated with fraud and forgeries, and that the persons elected and named by the committee were entitled to seats instead of those who held the fraudulent certificates of election. Without these changes the Republican majority was three on joint ballot. The report was adopted after a full and ample hearing, and the Republican members were seated.

In the senate a committee was also appointed and came to the same conclusion. The senators holding the fraudulent certificates claimed the right to vote on their own cases, which was denied by Lieutenant Governor Kennedy, the presiding officer, and the Republican senators were awarded their seats, but this did not occur until some months after the election of United States Senator, which took place on the 13th of January, when I was duly elected, receiving in the senate 17 votes and Thurman 20, and in the house 67 votes and Thurman 42, making a majority of 22 for me on joint ballot.

I was notified at Washington of my election and was invited to visit the legislature, members of the senate and house of both parties concurring. It so happened that at this time I had accepted an invitation from President Cleveland to attend a diplomatic dinner at the White House. I called upon him to withdraw my acceptance, and, on explaining the cause, he congratulated me on my election.

The reception by the two houses was arranged to be at 4 o'clock p. m. on the day after the election. I arrived in Columbus at 3:30, and, accompanied by Governor Foraker and a committee of the two houses, proceeded immediately to the hall of the House, where the legislature and a great company had assembled. I was introduced by Lieutenant Governor Kennedy. George G. Washburn delivered an eloquent address of welcome in behalf of the legislature, closing as follows:

"Your return to the Senate in 1881 was only additional evidence of our continued confidence and esteem, and on this, the occasion of your fifth election to that honored position, I tender to you the hearty congratulations of the general assembly and of the citizens of this great commonwealth. Conscious that you have rendered far greater service to the people of your native state than it will be possible for them to repay by any honors they can confer upon you, I again bid you a most cordial welcome and invoke the continued guidance and protection of the same Almighty Being who has led you thus far to well merit the exalted title of 'good and faithful servant.'"

After the applause which followed Mr. Washburn's address had subsided, I responded in part as follows:

"My first duty on this occasion, after the magnificent reception you have given me, it to express to you my profound sense of the high honor you have conferred upon me. I have often, in a somewhat busy life, felt how feeble are words to express the feelings of the heart. When all has been said that one can say, there is still something wanting to convey an adequate expression of gratitude and obligation. This I feel now more than ever before, when you have selected me for the fifth time to serve as a Member of the Senate of the United States.

"Such trust and confidence reposed in me by the people of Ohio, through their chosen representatives, imposes upon me an obligation of duty and honor, more sacred than any words or promises can create.

* * * * *

"And now, gentlemen, for the future term of service to which you have elected me, I can only, with increased experience, do what I have done in the past, and, with every motive that can influence any man, seek to preserve the favor and confidence of a people as intelligent as any on the face of the globe.

"As many of you know, I did not seek re-election to the Senate. I sincerely felt that there were many citizens of the State of Ohio of my political faith who might rightfully aspire to the dignity of the office of Senator of the United States. I was very willing to give way to any of them, but you have thought it best to continue me in this position. It comes to me without solicitation or intrigue, or any influence that is not honorable to you and to me. I trust it will not prove injurious to any portion of the people of the State of Ohio, whether they agree with me in political opinions or not.

"I accept the office as a trust to be performed under the active vigilance of political adversaries and the partial scrutiny of friends, but with the sole object of promoting the honor and prosperity of the United States. I can have no motive of selfishness or ambition to turn me from a faithful performance of every duty attached to the office.

* * * * *

"I assure you, gentlemen, that, without recalling that I am elected by a party, I will go back to Washington with the earnest desire to perform the duties that you have assigned me, with the hope to contribute, to the best of my abilities, not merely to the success of my party, but to the good of the whole country.

"To me the national government in our system is the father, the protector of our national honor, our defender against enemies at home and abroad, while the state is the good mother who guards sacredly the home, the family and the domestic interests of life, to be beloved by every good citizen of the state, the fountain and source of the greatest blessings of domestic life. Ohio can justly claim to be the equal of any other in the sisterhood of states, central in location, rich in resources, the common pathway of all the states, containing over three millions of people as happy in their surroundings as those of any community in the world. We must do our part to advance and improve our condition by wise legislation and by the moral influences of education and religion. In this way only can Ohio sustain her high and honorable standing as a part of a great country, eloquently and truly described by Canon Farrar as 'in numbers the greatest, in strength the most overwhelming, in wealth the most affluent, of all the great nations of the world.'"

My speech was well received by both Democrats and Republicans.

In the evening a general reception of ladies and gentlemen was held in the senate chamber, when hand shaking and social congratulations occurred, participated in by citizens of Columbus and other places. The next day I returned to Washington.

I observed closely the course pursued by the press of the country in respect to my election. As a rule it was received with favor by papers of both parties. The election of a Senator of the United States by such frauds as had been practiced by Democrats in Cincinnati would be a bad example that might be followed by other crimes, violence or civil war. The weakness in our system of government is likely to be developed by a disputed election. We touched the line of danger in the contest between Hayes and Tilden. Some guards against fraud at elections have been adopted, notably the Australian ballot, but the best security is to impress succeeding generations with the vital importance of honest elections, and to punish with relentless severity all violations of election laws.

During this Congress, by reason of my position as presiding officer, I participated only occasionally in the current debate, introduced only private bills, and had charge of no important measure.

Mr. Eustis, on the 8th of February, introduced a resolution instructing the committee on finance to inquire whether it had been the custom for the assistant treasurer at New Orleans to receive deposits of silver dollars and at a future period issue silver certificates therefor. This led to a long and rambling debate, in which I took part. I stated my efforts, as Secretary of the Treasury, and those of my successors in that office, to put the silver dollars in circulation; that they were sent to the different sub-treasuries to be used in payment of current liabilities, but silver certificates were exchanged for them when demanded. Also, when gold coin or bullion came into the United States in the course of trade, and was inconvenient to transport or to use in large payments for cotton or other products, the treasurer of the United States, or his assistants in all parts of the country, issued silver certificates in exchange for gold, that in this way the coin reserve in the treasury was maintained and increased without cost, that during one season $80,000,000 gold was in this way acquired by the treasury. I could have said later on, that, until within three years, when the receipts of the government were insufficient to pay its current expenditures, there was no difficulty in securing gold and silver coin in exchange for United States notes, treasury notes and silver certificates. The greater convenience of paper money in large commercial transactions created a demand for it, and gold and silver were easily obtained at par for all forms of paper money issued by the government. The exchange was temporarily discontinued by Secretary McCulloch. It is a proper mode of fortifying the gold reserve and ought to be continued, but cannot be when expenditures exceed the revenue, or when there is the slightest fear that the treasury will not be able to pay its notes in coin.

On the 8th of March John F. Miller, a Senator from California, died, and funeral services were conducted in the Senate on the 13th, when I announced that:

"By order of the Senate, the usual business will be suspended this day, to enable the Senate to participate in the funeral ceremonies deemed appropriate on the death of John F. Miller, late an honored Member of this body from the State of California."

The services were conducted in the Senate Chamber by Rev. William A. Leonard, rector of St. John's church, the chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Huntley, pronouncing the benediction, after which the following statement was made by me, as president of the Senate:

"The funeral ceremonies deemed appropriate to this occasion in the Senate Chamber are now terminated. We consign all that is mortal of our brother to the custody of an officer of the Senate and a committee of its Members, to be conveyed to his home on the Pacific, and there committed for burial to those who have honored him and loved him so much when living. The Senate, as a body, will now attend the remains to the station."

Mr. Miller was highly esteemed by his associates in the Senate. He was born in Indiana a few miles from Cincinnati, Ohio. After graduating as a lawyer he went to California, in 1853, but returned to his native state, and at the outbreak of the war entered the Union army with the rank of colonel. That he was a gallant soldier is shown by the fact that on his return to Indiana, at the close of the war, Governor Morton presented him a sword which he had promised the soldier of the state who had distinguished himself most and reflected the greatest credit on his state and country. At the close of the war he returned to California, and, after a few years, was elected, by a Republican legislature, to the United States Senate. He was not a frequent or lengthy speaker, but was a man of thought, of attention, of industry and practical sagacity, and brought to every question patient and persistent energy and intelligence. In his manner he was quiet, dignified and courteous. For years he suffered greatly from wounds received in the war, which no doubt shortened his life. He held the position of chairman of the committee on foreign relations, to which I succeeded him.

During April and May interstate commerce was the subject of an extended debate in which I participated. Amendments to the bill passed two years previously, involving "the long haul and the short haul" and whether Congress should attempt to legislate as to transportation within a single state, were debated, and no problems of legislation have been more difficult. The Interstate Commerce Commission organized under these laws was invested with extraordinary powers and its action has been beneficial to the public, but in many cases has seriously crippled many railroad corporations, and bankrupted some of them.

During the latter part of this session I was called upon to perform a very disagreeable duty. The election of my colleague, Mr. Payne, as a Member of the Senate, after an active contest with Mr. Pendleton, gave rise to charges of corruption, not against him personally, but against those who had charge of his canvass in the legislature. The succeeding legislature of Ohio was Republican and undertook to examine these charges by a committee of its house of representatives. The charges made and the testimony taken were sent by the house to the Senate of the United States, with a resolution requesting further examination and that the election be vacated. The papers were referred to the committee on privileges and elections, the majority of whom reported that the charges were not proven, and asked that the committee be discharged from further consideration of the matter. The minority of the committee reported in favor of the inquiry proposed. I felt it to be my duty to the people of Ohio to insist upon an investigation, but in no spirit of unkindness to my colleague. It was the first and only time I had occasion to bring before the Senate the politics of Ohio. My relations with Mr. Payne were friendly. I knew him, and respected him as a prominent citizen of Cleveland and regarded well by his neighbors. I believed that whatever corruption occurred at his election he had no personal knowledge of it, and that his honor would not be touched by the testimony to be produced.

On the 22nd of July I made a long speech upon the report of the committee, reviewing the evidence presented by the Ohio legislature and insisting that it was ample to justify and require a full and thorough examination by the committee. I disclaimed any desire to reflect upon the motives, or the honor, or the conduct, or the opinions, of the Senators who differed with me, saying:

"I believe from my own knowledge of the history of events in Ohio, as well as from the papers sent to us, that there is a profound conviction in the minds of the body of the people of Ohio of all political parties that in the election of my colleague there was gross corruption, by the use of large sums of money to corrupt and purchase the votes of members of the general assembly.

"Now, that is a fact. Whether sufficient evidence has been produced before you to justify this belief is for you to say. Whether sufficient has been said here to put you upon an inquiry, the fact remains that the people of Ohio believe, that in the election of my colleague, there was the corrupt use of money sufficient to change the result."

I then entered upon the details of the charges and testimony submitted to the committee, and concluded as follows:

"It is not sufficient for us to state that the case made by this printed testimony is not strong enough to convict. It is a question whether it is sufficient to excite a suspicion, because upon a suspicion a Senator's seat and his right to hold a seat here may be inquired into. Therefore, with due deference to the distinguished and eminent gentlemen who treat this case as if we were now passing upon the guilt or innocence of an accused with the view of a lawyer and the strictness of a lawyer, it seems to me they have confounded the stage of this inquiry. It is now an inquiry only in the hands of a committee of our body to advise whether or not, in these papers or in any that can be produced, there is cause for investigation, or whether there is reasonable and probable cause that can be produced. If so, then the inquiry goes on. The final judgement, however, is only arrived at when we shall have completed testimony of a legal character, when, with grave and deliberate justice, and with the kindness that we always give to our colleagues here, we proceed to render our judgment.

"I have said more than I intended to say when I rose. I will now add, in conclusion, that I consider that I perform a duty to my state, and especially to the party that I represent here, and all we can say to you is that we have believed and do now believe, mainly upon the statements made by Democratic editors and Democratic citizens, for they know more about it than we do, that upon the belief generally held in the State of Ohio that fraud and corruption did supervene in this election we ask you to make such inquiries as will satisfy your conscience whether that charge is true or false. If it is true, you alone are the judges of it. If it is false, then you should punish the men who started these charges and you should vindicate the men who have been unjustly arraigned.

"In any view I can take of it, I believe it is the duty of the Senate of the United States, as it regards its own honor and the future of our country, never the leave this matter in its present condition, to be believed by some and disbelieved by others, to be made the subject of party contest and party chicanery, but let us have a fair, judicial, full investigation into the merits of these accusations. If they are false, stamp them with the brand of ignominy; if they are true, deal with the facts proven as you think is just and right."

The debate upon the report attracted much attention and was participated in by many Senators. The motion of the majority of the committee was adopted by the vote of 44 yeas and 17 nays. The Senate thus denied that the case made by the legislature of Ohio did justify an inquiry into the election of Senator Payne. He filled out the measure of his term and still lives at his home in Cleveland, honored and respected, at the age of eighty-five.

Congress adjourned August 5, 1886.

I had been invited to deliver an address, upon the celebration of the sixty-fourth anniversary of the birth of General U. S. Grant, at the Metropolitan church in Washington on the 27th of April, 1886. The text given me was "Grant and the New South." As this brief speech expressed my appreciation of the character of General Grant soon after his death, and my presage of the new south, I insert it here:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--Our friends have given me a very great theme and very little time in which to present it to you. The new south is one of the mysteries which time only can unfold. It is to us, and, I fear, will be for generations to come, one of those problems which tax the highest abilities of statesmen. It is like the Irish question to England and the Eastern question to Europe. We can only judge of the future by the past. I can base my hope for the new south only upon the probable results of the changed conditions grafted upon the old south by the war; more a matter of hope and expectation than as yet of realization. Still we may hope very much even from the present signs of the times and upon what the south ought to be if not upon what it is.

"We know what the old south was. It was an oligarchy called a democracy. I do not speak this word in an offensive sense, but simply as descriptive of the character of the government of the south before the war. One-third of the people of the south were slaves. More than another third were deprived, by the nature of the institutions among which they lived, of many of the advantages absolutely indispensable to the highest civilization. Less than one-fourth of the population were admirably trained, disciplined and qualified for the highest duties of mankind. The south was very much such a democracy as Rome and Greece were at some periods of their history; a democracy founded upon the privileges of the few and the exclusion of the many. Very much like the democracy of the barons of Runnymede, who, when they met together to dictate Magna Charta to King John, guarded fully their own privileges as against the king, but cared but little for the rights of the people. And so with the south--the old south. But it was an able oligarchy.

"Among the brightest names in the American diadem were many men of the south--at the head of whom, and at the head of all mankind, was the name of Washington. And so, in all our history, the south, misnamed a democracy, did furnish to the United States many of their leading lights, and the highest saints in our calendar. They were able men. All who came in contact with them felt their power and their influence. Trained, selected for leading pursuits, they exercised a controlling influence in our politics. They held their slaves in subjection and the middle classes in ignorance, but extended their power and influence, so as to control, in the main, the policy of this country, at home and abroad. They disciplined our forces, led our parties, and made our law.

"General Grant, in the popular mind, represents the impersonation of the forces that broke the old south. Not that thousands of men did not do as much as he within the limits of their opportunities. Not that every soldier who followed his flag did not perform his duty in the same sense as General Grant. But General Grant was the head, the front, the selected leader; and therefore his name is the impersonation of that power in the war which broke the old south, and preserved our Union to your children, and I trust your children's children, to the remotest posterity. But, while we praise Grant and the Union soldiers, we must remember that Abraham Lincoln was the genius of the times. He pointed out the way. He foresaw the events that came. He did not like war. He hated war. He loved the south as few men did. He was born of the south--in his early life reared in the south. All his kin were in the south. He belonged to that middle or humble class of men in the south who were most seriously oppressed by all their surroundings--by the slavery of the south. He hated slavery, if he hated anything, but I do not believe he hated the owners of slaves. He loved all mankind. No man better than he could have uttered those words: 'Malice towards none, charity for all.' That was Abraham Lincoln. He was driven into the war reluctantly. At first, he tried to prevent it, and would not see the necessity for it. He ridiculed it, and believed that the time would speedily come when all the excitement springing up in the south would pass away.

"But the inevitable and irrepressible conflict was upon him, and he met the responsibility with courage and sagacity. A higher power than Abraham Lincoln, a power that rules and governs the universe of men, decreed the war as a necessary and unavoidable event, to prepare the way for a new south and a new north, and a more perfect Union. The war did come as a scourge and a resurrection. Grant was the commander of the Union armies, and at the close of the war more than what we had hoped for at the beginning was accomplished. When the war commenced no man among those in public life contemplated or expected the speedy abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the United States of America. I can say that, the winter before the war commenced, no man in public life in Washington expected the untold benefits and good that have come to mankind as the result of the war, by the Act of Emancipation --unforeseen then, but thankfully appreciated now, by the whole American people; even by the masters of the slaves.

"Now fellow-citizens, the new south is founded upon the ruins of the old. It inherits the prejudices, the institutions and some of the habits of the old south. No wise man will overlook this, and should not expect that the southern people will at once yield to the logic of events; but every patriotic man ought to do his utmost to bring about, as soon as possible, a cheerful acquiescence in the results of the war. You cannot in a single generation, much less a single decade, change the ideas of centuries. And, therefore, we must not be impatient with the new south. And we who come from the north must not expect them at once to lay aside all ideas with which they were born and which they inherited from their ancestors for generations. Therefore, it was to be expected that the south would be somewhat disturbed, and would be somewhat slow in their movements; that it must be born again and live an infancy and take its ordinary course in human life. It must grow as Topsy grew. Remember, at that time, before the war, this country was a confederacy, not of states, but a confederacy of sections. There were but two parties to that confederacy, one was the north and the other was the south. On every question, great and small, that division in American life and American politics arose. Before the war and during the war party lines were drawn on the sectional line, north and south. The parties in this country were sectional parties, and even up to this time we have not broken down the asperity which existed, growing out of this sectional condition of affairs.

"Now that slavery is gone, parties ought to be based on other conditions than sectional lines. There is no question now existing between the north and the south, and politicians will soon find that they must base their divisions of party lines upon some other question than between the north and the south. I see growing up every day the evidence of that feeling that this sectional controversy is at an end. Although the ghost is not buried--the dead body lies mouldering in the grave.

"What then, is the first duty of both sections, now that slavery is abolished. It is to base party divisions upon other than sectional lines. It is to adopt a policy approved by the patriotic men of both sections, that will develop the resources, improve the conditions, and advance the interests of the whole people. The north is ready for this consummation. There never was a time in the history of this government, from the time the constitution was framed to this hour, when there was less party spirit among the mass of the people of the United States. Nearly all that is left is among mere politicians. The people of the United States desire to see these differences buried, and new questions, living questions of the present and future, form the line of demarkation between parties. The north has made enormous growth and development since the war. Immense capital is seeking investment, and millions of idle men are seeking employment. The south, from a state of chaos, is showing marked evidence of growth and progress, and these two sections, no longer divided by slavery, can be united again by the same bonds that united our fathers of the revolution.

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me state briefly the conditions upon which the new south can secure the greatest amount of good for its people--conditions that can be accepted by men who served in either army (who wore the blue or the gray), both Confederate and Union soldiers. If these elemental conditions are accepted fairly, as I hope they will be by the south, the union will be complete without either north or south or sectional or party lines.

"First, there must be recognized in every part of this country, without respect to race or color or condition, the equality of rights and privileges between man and man. This fundamental principle is now ingrafted upon our constitution. It can never be erased. There it stands; and although, from time to time, parties and men may refuse to observe the spirit of that great provision in the constitution, there it will stand, and in time--and I trust a not far distant time--it will be recognized by every man and woman and child in this broad land, white or black, north or south. It is not safe for it to be otherwise. A right plainly given by the constitution and the laws, withheld or denied, is an uneasy grievance which will never rest. And, therefore, the time is not far distant, when those now strongly actuated by the prejudices and feelings of race will recognize this important doctrine. They will feel that it is for their own safety and for their own good. Blacks and whites are spread all over the south. They cannot be separated without the fiat of the Almighty, and such a fiat has never been issued except once, when the Israelites marched out from slavery in Egypt, and it took them about forty years to travel a short way.

"One-third of the population of the south is of the negro race, and two-thirds of the white race. Whatever may have been thought of the wisdom of the policy of emancipation, it was the logical result of the war, has been finally adopted, and will never be changed. It is idle to discuss schemes to separate these races except by voluntary and individual movement, but they will live and increase, generation after generation, the common occupants of the new south. What is needed above all else is to secure the harmonious living and working of these two elements, to secure to both the peaceful enjoyment of their rights and privileges. As long as any portion or race or class of the people of the new south are deprived of the rights which the constitution and law confer upon them, there will be unrest and danger. All history teaches us that those who suffer a wrong will sooner or later find means to correct and avenge it.

"There is another condition that the new south must find out. The honorable gentleman who preceded me (Senator Brown) has found it out already. The system of production which was admirably adapted to the old south will not answer for the new south. Under the old institution of slavery they raised a few leading crops, cotton, rice, sugar and tobacco--but not much else. Why? Because these articles could be raised by the labor of slaves.

"Now, in the new south, it is manifest that the chief sources of wealth and prosperity lie in the development of their natural resources, in the production of coal and iron and other minerals and phosphates, and in the manufacture of cotton and other textile fabrics, and in the development of railroads and other means of communication. In other words, they will find it to their interest to adopt and compete with the north in all its industries and employments. That this can be successfully done is shown in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. All the states touching on the Alleghany range have facilities for varied manufactures fully equal to any of the northern states, and with some advantages as to climate and labor. A diversity of production will be wealth to the south, break down its exclusion, open its doors to immigration, and assimilate its institutions with those of the north.

"The north is ready for this competition. Although the south will probably deprive us of some of the markets we now have, yet no man in the north will complain; but, on the contrary, we have in the north millions of dollars in capital to invest, and millions of hardy men to work north or south, wherever they can get fair wages for a fair day's work. When this competition comes we will have a diversity of industry, and a country rich in developed as well as in undeveloped resources. This is the second great want of the new south which I trust their able men may bring about; and Governor Brown is one of their leaders, and has seen that this is the road not only for the improvement of his section, but for the betterment of his fortune.

"There is one other thing I wish to say in regard to the south. That is, that it must mainly work out its own salvation. That is one of the last things that we in the north have found out. We have striven in various ways to assist the south in managing their local affairs; and I must confess that although I participated in that kind of business I am afraid it did not turn out very well. The north cannot rule the south any more than England can rule Ireland, or Europe can govern Greece and Turkey. According to the principles of our government it is not possible for us to keep soldiers enough down south to guard all their ballot boxes, and indeed we need a good many up north to guard our own sometimes. At all events it is not consistent with the principles of our government that we should undertake to rule in local affairs, and, therefore, while we should give to those who are oppressed, in our own country as well as in others, every kindly aid which the constitution and the law allow, yet, after all, the people of the south must work out their own salvation.

"I am inclined to think that the blacks, having the labor and the muscle and industry on their side, will not be far behind the white race in the future in the south. It is now conceded on all hands that, under our system of government, we cannot by external force manage or interfere with the local affairs of a state or community, unless the authorities of the state call for aid to resist domestic violence. Wrongs inflicted upon citizens by mobs are beyond redress by the general government. The only remedy is migration and public opinion; but these, though slow and very discouraging, will in time furnish a remedy and also a punishment. Neither capital nor labor, prosperity nor hope, will go or linger long where human rights and life are unsafe. The instinctive love of justice and fair play will, in time, dissipate the prejudice of race or caste and point the finger of scorn to the man who robs another of his rights, as it now does to the man who cheats, or steals the property of his neighbor. With the power of the colored people to migrate, whenever they are unjustly treated, to a place where law and justice prevail, with the capacity for labor and to acquire property, with reasonable opportunity for education, they will in time make sure their rights as citizens. I believe this is the growing feeling in the new south. I am willing to trust it, and I will be glad to aid it whenever and wherever I can see the way.

"What the new south wants now more than all else is education! education!! education!!! The statistics with which we have been made familiar recently in the debate in the Senate, of illiteracy in the south, are appalling, but not much more so than was the condition of the western states fifty years ago. The negroes being slaves were, of necessity, without education. The great mass of the white people were in the same condition, not because it was desired in the south, but because, from the sparseness of the population and the existence of plantations instead of farms, it was difficult to establish a system of public schools. A change in this respect cannot be brought about suddenly, but it is apparent that every southern state appreciates the importance of education of both white and black. It is the bounden duty of the national government to extend the aid of its large resources. If the action of the Senate is sanctioned by the House, and fairly and justly executed by the people of the southern states, there need be no danger from the ignorance of the next generation. I believe that these conditions will be the solution of the troubles of the south and make a great step on the road to prosperity and union in the south.

"Now, but a few words in conclusion. It is not merely common school education in the south that is needed, but it is higher education. It is all the learning of the schools, all that science has taught, all that religion teaches, all that medicine has found in its alchemy, all the justice which the law points out and seeks to administer; the south wants opportunity for that higher education which cannot be obtained from common schools, but which exists in no country except where common schools abound. It wants in its midst the places where the active leading young men of the south can gather in colleges and universities and there gain that higher education which prepares them to be leaders among men.

"I congratulate you, my countrymen, here in Washington, that, under the authority of the Methodist Episcopal church, a Christian denomination, under the name of the illustrious hero General Grant, there has been founded in the mountains of Tennessee, away up among the clouds and in the pure air of Heaven, in the midst of a loyal and patriotic population, an institution of learning which will be a blessing to all the people of the south, and I trust to all the people of the north. Every aid possible should be showered down from the north and south alike. Let them light their fires at this modern Athens upon the mountain top and they will shine forth all over our land. Here the young men of the south will fit themselves to lead in the march of progress and improvement. They will learn to vary their production, to develop their resources, to advance every race and generation in education, intelligence and patriotism, and with charity broad enough to secure all the people, of every race and tribe, the peaceful and unquestioned enjoyment of their civil and political rights. There is now no disturbing question of a sectional character which should prevent the north and south from moving in harmonious union. The two streams have united, and though for a time their waters may be divided by the color line, like the Mississippi and the Missouri at and after their junction, yet, in the end they will mingle in a great republic, not of sections, but of friendly states and a united people."

I attended a meeting of the members of the Ohio Society of New York, on the occasion of their first annual dinner at Delmonico's, on the 7th of May. It was a remarkable assemblage, composed almost exclusively of men born in Ohio, then living in New York, all of whom had attained a good standing there, and many were prominent in official or business life. There were over two hundred persons present. Thomas Ewing was president of the society, and Mr. Payne and myself sat on either side of him. I insert the remarks of General Ewing and myself as reported in the papers the next morning. Many speeches were made by others, including Senators Payne and Harrison. General Ewing, after the dinner had received ample attention, called the company to order and made a brief address, which was repeatedly applauded. He said:

"I hail and congratulate you, guests and members of the Ohio Society of New York, on our delightful and auspicious reunion. It is good that we are here. This large assemblage of Ohio's sons, coming from far and near, attests how strong and vital are the ties that bind us to our mother state. We have every reason to love and be proud of her. If American citizenship be a patent of nobility, it adds to the honor to have been born of that state which, almost in the forenoon of the first century of her existence, has shed such luster on the republic; which has given to it so long a roll of President, chief justices, judges of the Supreme Court and statesmen in the cabinet and in Congress--among whom is found not one dishonored name, but many that will shine illustrious in our country's annals forever; a state which, in the supreme struggle by which the Union was established as indissoluble and the plague of human slavery destroyed, gave to the republic even more than her enormous quota of noble troops, and with them those great captains of the war: Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans, McPherson.

"Gentlemen, we have not formed our society from a desire to culture state pride in any spirit of divided allegiance. No, no! There has been far too much of that in the past, and can't be too little in the future. We are first Americans--then Buckeyes. The blessings and misfortunes of our sister states are ours as well as theirs. The love of our own state and pride in her history spring largely from the fact that she and her institutions, in birth and growth, are purely American. She is the oldest and, so far, the best developed of all the typically American states. Neither Roundhead nor Cavalier stood sponsor at her cradle. She never wore the collar of colonial subserviency. Her churches and colleges are not endowed of King Charles or Queen Anne. Her lands are not held by grant or prescription under the Duke of York, Lord Fairfax or Lord Baltimore, but by patents under the seal of the young republic and the hand of George Washington, whose name will continue to be loved and honored throughout the world long after the memory of the last king and peer of Great Britain shall have sunk in oblivion.

"The early generation of her sons were not reared amid distinctions of wealth and rank and class, but in the primeval forest and prairie, where all stood equal and had no aid to eminence but strenuous efforts; where recollections of the sufferings and sacrifices of Revolutionary sires became inspirations of patriotism in their sons; and where nature threw around all her pure, loving and benignant influences to make them strong and great.

"Gentlemen, I now have the pleasure to present to you a typical Buckeye--the architect of his own fame and fortune--who stands below only one man in the republic in official station, and below none in the respect of his countrymen--John Sherman."

As General Ewing closed, there was a tumultuous scene. There were repeated cheers, and Colonel W. L. Strong called for three cheers in my honor, which were given. When I could be heard, I spoke as follows:

"Mr. President, Brethren All:--I give you my grateful thanks for this greeting. If you receive every Buckeye from Ohio in this manner, you will have the hordes of Ararat here among you. Such a reception as this, I think, would bring every boy from every farm in the State of Ohio, and what would become of New York then? You have gathered the sons of Ohio, and those who have been identified with its history, into a society where you may meet together and preserve and revive the recollections of Ohio boyhood and Ohio manhood. Why should you not do that? Why should you not have an Ohio society as well as a New England society, or any other kind of society? Our friends and fellow-citizens from old England's shore, from Ireland and Scotland and Germany, form their societies of the city of New York; and why should not the State of Ohio, more important than any of these countries by this represented?

"Now, gentlemen, there is one characteristic of Ohio people which has marked them from the beginning of their history, and marks them now. We are a migratory race. We are the Innocents Abroad. No Arab in his tent, restless and uneasy, feels more uncertain and movable than a man from Ohio, who can better his condition anywhere else. We are a migratory race, and why should we not be? Do we not deserve the best of every land? When we go to any other country, we don't go to rob them of anything, but to add to their wealth. If I want to prove that Ohio people are migratory, what better evidence can I have than is afforded by the men who are here around me? Here is my friend, General Ewing, born in one of the garden spots of Ohio, under circumstances when it would be supposed that he ought to be content with his lot; but he goes walking off to Kansas, and then to the war, and then into Washington, and finally settles down near New York here, under the shadow of the Sage of Greystone! Among others here around me I see a grandson of old William Henry Harrison. I see here innumerable representatives of the Puritan fathers, with all the virtues of the old fathers and some besides. I see here representatives not only of Virginia and New England, but of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania--all from Ohio.

"My countrymen, in the early days Ohio was the camping ground of all the old states. Ohio is the first fruit of the Federal Union. It is true that Vermont and Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted into the union of these states before Ohio was, but they were offshoots of New York and Virginia, while Ohio was the first fruit of that great commonwealth. Every state of the old states had a camping ground in the State of Ohio, either by reservation, by purchase or by settlement. Nearly all of the early descendants of Ohio were sons of Revolutionary fathers who came out to Ohio. They went there to redeem that land from a wilderness, and they made of Ohio the most prosperous, the richest and fairest commonwealth the world has ever known. In Ohio was the beginning of that magnificent march of progress which adds luster to the history of the northwest, as an evidence of growth and progress unexampled in the previous history of mankind. Think of it, my countrymen! Within one hundred years, more than 30,000,000 people have grown up in a country once people alone by Indian tribes, and that 30,000,000 of people are among the most prosperous and powerful peoples of the whole world.

"I want to defend our Ohio people against another charge that is very often made against them, especially in this city of New York. They charge us with being fond of office. Why, my countrymen, I can show by statistics--and statistics never lie--that Ohio never had her fair share of the public offices. I have not brought any of the statistics with me, for fear some know-nothing might cry at our after-dinner speech 'Figures.' Still we never had our share of the public offices, or if we had we always filled them well, and performed our duties honorably.

"Now, gentlemen, only one or two other thoughts, and then I will leave you. In the early times, migration was always to the westward. Nobody thought of coming east. Therefore it is that out of the eight sons of Ohio who are now Members of the United States Senate, all moved westward; and out of some thirty or forty or fifty Members of the House of Representatives who were born in Ohio, and who didn't stay in Ohio--and they are only a small part of them--all went westward. The reason was that 'Westward the star of empire wends its way.' But latterly the star of empire seems to have settled about this city of New York, until more than 200 Ohio men can sit down to an Ohio feast in the city of New York. There is another reason--there is more money in New York than anywhere else in the country. Not that our people have a fondness for money, but they have come here to better their condition--and I hope in God they will. They not only better their own condition, but the condition of all around them, and I can pick out from all over this community, and from this little dinner party, men who came from Ohio poor, but with an honest endeavor to do what was best for themselves and their families, and here they are, rich and happy.

"One word more, worthy fellow-citizens. We love Ohio. We love Ohio as our mother who nurtured us and fed us in our in our infancy; and, under any circumstances, although we may hear ill of Ohio, we never fail to remember all that is good that can be said of Ohio, and to be true and honorable for the love of Ohio. But we love our country more, and no man from Ohio would ever be true to his mother unless he were more true to his country all around, from one end of the land to the other. Our country forever from the Atlantic to the Pacific; from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canada line, and away around this continent in due time, when the pear will ripen and fall in this Federal Union; in the whole round of the country!

"I congratulate you upon this happy meeting, upon this successful feast, and I trust you may go on prospering and to prosper, until you will gather all the men of Ohio who are deserving of their nativity into the fold of this social union, not only that you may meet each other again as kinsmen born of the same soil, but that you may aid and assist each other, as other kindred societies have done, and I trust that the Ohio society, though the junior members at the table of these societies of New York, may yet be the foremost and leading members in charity and good works to the sons of Adam."

CHAPTER LI. A PERIOD OF POLITICAL SPEECH MAKING. Organization of the "Sherman Club" at Mansfield, Ohio--My Experiences with Newspaper Reporters--Address at the State Fair in Columbus on Agricultural Implements--Other Speeches Made in the Campaign of that Year--Address at Louisville, Ky.--Courteous Treatment by Henry Watterson, of the "Courier Journal"--Hon. John Q. Smith's Change of Heart--Answering Questions Propounded by Him at a Gathering in Wilmington, Ohio--Success of the Republican Party--Second Session of the 49th Congress--But Little Legislation Accomplished--Death of Senator John A. Logan--Tributes to His Memory--His Strong Characteristics--My Reason for Resigning the Presidency of the Senate--Succeeded by John J. Ingalls.

After the adjournment of Congress I returned home. I was not fatigued by the labors of the session, as the duties of presiding officer were lighter than those of an active Member on the floor. The usual canvass had already commenced for state officers and Members of Congress. A club called the "Sherman club" had been organized at Mansfield, and soon after my return having been invited to attend it, I did so, and made a brief political address. During this month I was visited by many interviewers, and while sometimes their calls were inopportune, yet I uniformly received them, answered their questions, and furnished them any information in my power. I knew that they were seeking information not for their own convenience, but to gratify a public interest, and, therefore, I was entirely willing to answer such questions as were put to me. The case was very rare where I was misrepresented, and then it was either unintentional or to brighten a story or to exaggerate a fact. I recall one interview in respect to courts of arbitration and the universal labor question. My opinions were expressed offhand, and, although not taken down at the time by the interviewer, my words uttered during a half hour's interview were quoted with great exactness. I know this is not the common opinion in respect to the interviewer, and in some cases gross misrepresentations are made, but in the very few instances where this has occurred in my experience I have always carefully remembered the reporters who made them and declined any further interview with them.

The latter part of August, Judge Thurman and I were invited to make brief addresses at the state fair in Columbus. After he had spoken with his usual ability and directness, I made a speech mainly about new devices in agricultural implements. I said:

"From the fact that Judge Thurman and I have been invited to address you I infer that you did not expect us to tell you what we knew about farming. He has been recognized as a standard authority as to the law--not only as to what it is but as to what it ought to be--but I never heard that he was eminent as a farmer, either of the theoretical sort who know how things ought to grow, or of the practical sort who know how to make them grow. I have had more experience as a farmer than he has had, but somehow my crops always cost me more than I could get for them. If the many millions of farmers in the United States have had my experience in farming they would have to get more than seventy-five cents a bushel for wheat to make the two ends meet. Still, Judge Thurman and I have learned enough to know that farming is the chosen employment of a large proportion of the human race, and is, besides, the chosen recreation of nearly all who have been successful in other pursuits. Every lawyer especially, from Cicero to Webster, has delighted in the healthful pleasure of rural pursuits--and if they have not made their money by farming they have spent their money in farming--and have enriched the language of every age and clime with eloquent and beautiful tributes to this noblest occupation of man.

"Perhaps this is the reason you call upon lawyers to speak on occasions like this, when the varied products of the farm, in their rich profusion and excellence, are spread before us. Besides, it is the common opinion that lawyers can talk as well about things they don't know as things they do know--and on either side of the question, without respect to the merits or morals of the topic. Your worthy secretary, in inviting me to speak for a few minutes on this occasion, said that I was quite at liberty to choose the subject of my remarks. So I have chosen as a text a discovery I have made very much like that of Benjamin Franklin, who advised the people of Paris that he had made a great discovery--that being wakeful one morning he discovered that the sun rose at Paris at five o'clock, and that if they would rise with the sun and go to bed with the sun they would save an enormous sum--millions of francs --in the cost of candles and lamps, and greatly improve their health and morals. So I have discovered that our farmers have become machinists, and, instead of working themselves, they make the horses, mules, and especially the machines, do nearly all the work of the farm.

"I have observed in the numerous fairs I have attended since they were first introduced in Ohio, and especially since the war, a marked change in the articles exhibited. Formerly the chief attraction was the varied exhibition of fruits, grain, cattle, horses, sheep, hogs, poultry--all the productions of the farm--and the chief benefit then derived from our state and county fairs was to excite competition in the size, excellence and abundance of these purely animal or agricultural productions. Formerly the tools and implements of husbandry were few, simple and plain, the chief of which were the plow, the scythe, the cradle, the sickle.

"Later by degrees there appeared new devices--new implements of husbandry--the mower, the reaper, the thresher, the binder, the sulky plow, an infinite variety of mechanical contrivances to make the labor of the farmer easier, or rather to dispense with a multitude of laborers, and substitute in their places the horse, the mule and the steam engine. In other words, to convert the business of farming from an agricultural pursuit, where the labor of men and women was the chief factor of production, to a mechanical pursuit, in which the chief element of cost and power were machines, the invention of a single generation.

"This striking change in an employment, which in all ages has been pursued by a greater number of human beings than any other, is shown in every fair now held in the United States, and especially in this."

I spoke of the changed condition of the farmer since Ohio was a new state, covered by a great forest, when the home was a cabin, and about the only implements were the plow and the axe, and then said:

"After what has been said by others, and especially so eloquently said by Judge Thurman, I need not express the high value I place upon the magnificent work of the state board of agriculture in preparing these grounds as a permanent place for the exhibition of the industrial products of Ohio, not only of the farm but of the workshop. It is this day dedicated by appropriate ceremonies for the use of the present and future generations of Buckeyes, and, I hope, as time rolls on, there may be here exhibited, not only stock and grains and vegetables, not only ingenious machinery and inventions, but men, high-minded men and noble women, and that with the many advantages in education and culture secured to them by their ancestors they will maintain and advance with manly vigor and sturdy virtue the work of the generations before them, who have planted and founded here in Ohio a model republic."

I attended the thirteenth Industrial exposition at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 2nd of September, where fully six thousand people were gathered, I entered the building with Governor Foraker, and we were received with rounds of applause and made brief remarks, the substance of which was reported, but I can only remember the magnitude of the audience and the difficulty of being heard. The city was crowded with men, women and children, all in holiday dress, and everybody in good humor at the success of the exposition. During September, and until the day of the election, I was engaged in making speeches. The one at Portsmouth, on the 28th of September, was carefully prepared and reported, and contained the substance of what I said in that canvass. It was a review of the political questions of the day. I always feel more at home in that part of Ohio then in any other. The river counties are associated with my early recollections and the people are uniformly generous and kind. With rare exceptions they have heartily supported me during my entire political life.

I attended a meeting conducted by the Blaine club in Cincinnati. The procession that marched through the streets was an immense one, and seemed to include all the men and boys in the city. The clubhouse, brilliantly illuminated, was surrounded by a great crowd, too large to hear the speeches, nor did it matter, for their enthusiasm and cheers showed that they needed no exhortation.

I attended a reception of the Sherman club of the 24th ward, at the head of which was my old friend, Governor Thomas L. Young. I there made a strong appeal for the election of Benjamin Butterworth and Charles Brown to Congress, the former being one of the ablest and most promising men in congressional life, and the latter a gallant soldier, who had lost a leg in the service of his country. I said:

"Their election is more important than anything else. The election of a Republican House of Representatives is of vital importance, because if we can have not only a Republican Senate, but a Republican House of Representatives, we will tie up Cleveland and his administration so that he and it can do no harm to anybody. If we can get a good Republican House of Representatives we will be able to maintain the system of protection of American labor, which is the pride and glory of the Republican party. We will maintain all these great measures of Republican policy which tend to develop our country, to increase its happiness, diversify its pursuits, and build up its industries; to give you a good currency; to protect your labor; and generally to promote the common good and welfare of our common country."

At the invitation of the Republicans of Louisville, Ky., I went to that city. In the afternoon I made a short address at the laying of the corner stone of the new customhouse, and in the evening made a long political speech. It was my first visit there, and I was much gratified as well as surprised, at the great numbers which attended a Republican meeting and the enthusiasm with which I was greeted. I referred to the long and intimate association of Ohio and Kentucky since the days of the Indian wars, when Kentucky sent her best and bravest men to fight the battles of Ohio, under Harrison and Taylor at Fort Meigs and Sandusky. In a later time, when Henry Clay was their favorite, Ohio steadily and heartily supported him, and now that the war was over, there was no reason why Kentucky and Ohio might not stand side by side in maintaining the principles of the Republican party. I said:

"You might naturally inquire why I came to the city of Louisville to make a Republican speech, when I knew that the majority of your population belong to a different school of politics, and that I could scarcely hope to make any impression upon the Democratic vote of the city of Louisville or the State of Kentucky. Still, I have always thought it strange that your people, who through many long years followed the fortunes and believed in the doctrines of Henry Clay, should willingly belong to a party opposed to all his ideas, and I was curious to learn why the same great events that led the people of Ohio into the ranks of the Republican party should lead the people of Kentucky into the ranks of the Democratic party. It is to make this discovery that I come here to-night, and I will speak to you, not for the purpose of reviving past controversies, but to see whether, after all, the people of Ohio and Kentucky ought not now to stand side by side in their political action, as they did in the days of old.

"When approaching manhood I, in common with the people of Ohio, was in ardent sympathy with the political opinions of the people of Kentucky. I was reared in a school which regarded Henry Clay, John J. Crittenden, Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin as the brightest lights in the political firmament, chief of whom was Henry Clay. I need not remind a Kentucky audience with what pride and love your people followed him in his great career, and with rare intermissions supported and sustained him to the close of his life. And so, too, with John J. Crittenden, who represented the people of Kentucky in both Houses of Congress, in the cabinet of two administrations, and, to the close of his eventful life in the midst of the Civil war, retained the confidence and support of the people of Kentucky. It may be said, also, that Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin, the warm and lifelong friends of Clay and Crittenden, represented the people of Ohio in the highest official positions, and that these great men, united in counsel, in political opinions and in ardent friendship, were the common standards of political faith to the people of these neighboring states.

"I had the honor to cast my first vote for Henry Clay for President of the United States, and supported him with all the natural enthusiasm of youth, and remember yet my sorrow when it was at last known that he was defeated. I also knew Mr. Crittenden from 1846, when, as a young lawyer, I visited Washington, and saw much of him in the later years of his life. I also held close personal relations with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Corwin since my early boyhood, and shared, as much as youth can share, the benefits of their council and confidence. I am justified in saying that during the memorable period of thirty years of political conflict through which we have passed, I have steadily adhered to the lessons they have taught, by supporting the measures adopted from time to time by the Republican party, while the majority of the people of Kentucky, with equal sincerity, no doubt, pursuing their convictions, have landed in the Democratic party. What I would like to find out is whether it is you or I who have switched off from the councils of our political fathers, and whether the causes of the difference of opinion still exist."

I closed as follows:

"I freely confess that the great mass of the Democratic party are patriotic, law-abiding citizens, yet I believe the elements that control that party, especially in the northern states, are unworthy of the confidence and trust of a brave and free people, and that the Republican party, although it may not always have met the hopes and expectations of its friends, does contain within it the elements of order, safety, obedience to law and respect for the rights of others, with well-grounded principles of public policy, and can fairly be trusted again to manage our national affairs.

"My heartiest sympathies go with the gallant Republicans of Kentucky, who, in an unequal fight, have shown the courage of their race and the patriotism of their ancestors. Let them persevere in appealing to their neighbors for co-operation, and they can fairly hope that, as the passions of the war pass away, Kentucky will be, as of old, on the side of the Union, the constitution and the impartial enforcement of the laws.

"Is not this a good time to try the experiment of a Republican representative from the Louisville district? Our Democratic friends seem to be in a bad way about the choice of a candidate. If what the opposing factions say of their candidates is half true, you had better take shelter under a genuine and fearless Republican like Mr. Wilson, who will be impartial to the factions and true to the great interests of American labor and American production. Such a light shining from Louisville will be a star of hope, a beacon light of safety and prosperity to the extreme bounds of our country. Why not try the experiment? I hope that my visit among you will be a message of good will, and I thank you with all my heart for your kindly reception."

The "Courier Journal" was much more fair to me on this occasion than the Democratic papers in Ohio. In consequence of this I have always entertained a kindly feeling for its editor, Henry Watterson, who, notwithstanding his strong political opinions, is always bold, frank and courteous in his criticisms.

On my return from Kentucky I spoke to a large meeting at Wilmington, Ohio, on the 7th of October. I had frequently addressed meetings at that place and always received a very cordial and hearty welcome. It so happened that John Q. Smith, one of the leading citizens of Clinton county, who had been a Member of Congress, had changed his political relations and become a warm supporter of the administration of Cleveland. He had prepared a large number of questions, to be put to me, which were printed and scattered broadcast in handbill form. I was glad of the opportunity to answer his questions, as they gave me a text for a general review of a Democratic administration. I said that the handbill was issued by a gentleman whom I esteemed very highly, and for whom I had the greatest good will and friendship, one of their own citizens, who had served in the legislature and in Congress with credit, and had been a representative of our government abroad. I then read the questions one by one and answered them, and, as I think, clearly showed to the satisfaction of my hearers, that, although Mr. Smith was generally sound on other matters, he was a little cracked on the question of American protection. My answers were received with great applause by the audience, and I think my old friend made nothing by his questions.

After making a number of other speeches in Ohio, I spoke in Grand Rapids on the 18th of October; in Indianapolis on the 21st; at Fort Wayne on the 24th, and at the Academy of Music, Philadelphia, on the 27th. I closed my speaking in this campaign at Toledo on the 30th. The time of the fall elections had been changed to the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. During the period from my return home after the adjournment of Congress until the day of election, I spoke almost daily. The election resulted in a victory for the Republican party, the head of the ticket, James S. Robinson, Secretary of State, receiving about 11,000 majority.

The second session of the 49th Congress passed but little important legislation except the appropriation bills. The two Houses were so widely divergent that they could not agree upon measures of political importance.

On the 9th of December I made an impromptu speech on the revision of the tariff, in reply to Senator Beck, but as no action was taken upon the subject at that session, it is useless to quote what I said. Mr. Beck was a man of great mental as well as physical power. A Scotchman by birth, he came at an early age to the United States and settled in Kentucky, where he practiced law, and in due time became a Member of Congress, and afterwards a Senator of the United States. He was aggressive, affirmative and dogmatic, and seemed to take special delight in opposing me on all financial questions. He and I were members of the committee on finance, and had many verbal contests, but always with good humor. On the 9th of December, as I entered the Senate Chamber after a temporary absence, I heard the familiar voice of Beck begging, in the name of the Democratic party, a chance to reduce taxation. I promptly replied to him, and the colloquy between us extended to considerable length. He was, in fact, a free trader, believed in the policy in force in Great Britain, and opposed every form of protection to American industries. Our debate brought out the salient arguments on both sides, though no measure on the subject-matter was pending before the Senate.

During the holiday recess Senator John A. Logan died at his residence, Calumet Place, in Washington. This was announced, in the Senate, by his colleague, Shelby M. Cullom, on January 4, 1887, as follows:

"'The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land.' His visitation has been most unexpected during the recent brief recess of the Senate, and has imposed upon me a duty which I have scarcely the heart to perform--the duty of announcing the death of my late distinguished colleague. At his home, which overlooks this capital city, at three minutes before three o'clock on Sunday afternoon, the 26th of December, the spirit of John A. Logan took its flight into the unknown realms of eternity. On Friday last, the funeral ceremonies were conducted, by the Senators and Representatives present, in this Senate Chamber, and his mortal remains were conveyed to the silent tomb.

"We are called upon to mourn the loss of one of the bravest and noblest of men--a man loved by the patriotic people of his state and of the nation, known to his country and to the civilized world as great in war and in peace, and for nearly fourteen years a distinguished Member of this Senate."

Logan is buried in the cemetery of the Soldiers' Home in Washington, in a conspicuous and beautiful marble tomb erected to his memory by his widow. On the 9th of February the business of the Senate was suspended, and many Senators, the associates of the deceased, paid fitting and eloquent tribute to his public and private virtues in addresses of marked ability and interest.

He was a striking character, bold, fearless and aggressive, but sensitive as a child. I knew him well when he was a Member of the House before the war. He was a devoted friend and admirer of Douglas, and, like him, when the war commenced, threw his whole soul into the Union cause. He was a good soldier, and, of those who entered the army from civil life, was among the most distinguished. He was a model of the volunteer soldiery. After the war was over he was returned to Congress and served in the House and Senate until his death. He was a positive man; there were no negative qualities about him. Thoroughly honest in his convictions he was regarded as a strong debater, though somewhat too urgent in presenting his opinions, and disposed to take a personal view of controverted questions. I had great respect for Logan, and never had any controversies with him except upon financial questions, upon which I thought he took at one time erroneous views. For a long time he adopted the ideas prevailing in the west in regard to paper money. Upon further reflection he became satisfied that the policy of resumption was the right one and adhered to it. He was a member of the committee that framed the resumption act, and from the time that measure was agreed upon, he, so far as I know, supported it firmly and warmly. He was a good party man; he stood by the judgment of his political friends. I never saw the slightest hesitation or doubt on his part in supporting a measure which was agreed upon by his political associates. One interesting feature of Logan's life was the interest felt by his wife in his public career, and her helpfulness to him. She was the model of a helpmate. She is in every way a good woman. She has the very qualities that he lacked, and I might illustrate by many instances her great aid to him in his political purposes.

I had accepted an invitation of the merchants of Boston to attend the annual banquet of the Mercantile Association on the 29th of December, but was compelled to withdraw my acceptance, so that, as president of the Senate, I could perform certain duties in respect to Logan's funeral that I could not delegate to others, and which were requested of me by the committee on arrangements, through a notice sent me by Senator Cullom, the chairman, as follows, and upon which I acted:

"The committee on arrangements at the funeral ceremonies of John A. Logan, late a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, respectfully request the Honorable John Sherman, a Senator of the United States from the State of Ohio, to preside at the funeral exercises on Friday, December 31, 1886."

In the Boston invitation it was intimated that some remarks on the national banking system would be acceptable. In declining I wrote a letter expressing my opinion of that system, which I said had realized all the good that had ever been claimed for it by its authors, that it had furnished the best paper money ever issued by banking corporations, that the system was adopted only after the fullest consideration and had won its way into public favor by slow process, and that I regarded it as the best that had ever been created by law. The remarkable success of this system, I said, was not appreciated by those not familiar with the old state banks. It had been adopted by many countries, especially in the far off island of Japan.

The bill to regulate interstate commerce became a law on the 4th of February, 1887. It had passed both Houses at the previous session, but, the Senate having disagreed to amendments of the House, the bill and amendments were sent to a committee of conference. The report of this committee was fully debated. I had taken great interest in this bill, but had not participated in the debate until the 14th of January, when I supported the conference report, while not agreeing to some of the amendments made. Senator Cullom is entitled to the chief credit for its passage.

On the 22nd of February I laid before the Senate the following communication, which was read:

"To the Senate of the United States.

"Senators:--My office as president pro tempore of the Senate will necessarily terminate on the 4th of March next, with my present term as Senator. It will promote the convenience of the Senate and the public service to elect a Senator as president pro tempore whose term extends beyond that date, so that he may administer the oath of office to Senators-elect and aid in the organization. I, therefore, respectfully resign that position, to take effect at one o'clock p. m., on Saturday next, February 26.

"Permit me, in doing so, to express my heartfelt thanks for the uniform courtesy and forbearance shown me, while in discharge of my duties as presiding officer, by every Member of the Senate.

"Very truly yours, "John Sherman."

I said that if there was no objection the communication would be entered in the journal and placed among the files of the Senate. On the 25th John J. Ingalls was elected president pro tempore, to take effect the next day. On that day I said:

"Before administering the oath of office to his successor the occupant of the chair desires again to return to his fellow Senators his grateful acknowledgments for their kind courtesy and forbearance in the past.

"It is not a difficult duty to preside over the Senate of the United States. From the establishment of our government to this time the Senate has always been noted for its order, decorum, and dignity. We have but few rules, and they are simple and plain; but we have, above all and higher than all, that which pervades all our proceedings --the courtesy of the Senate, which enables us to dispose of nearly all of the business of the Senate without question or without division. I trust that in the future, as in the past, this trait of the Senate of the United States will be preserved intact, and I invoke for my successor the same courtesy and forbearance you have extended to me. I now invite him to come forward and take the oath of office prescribed by law."

Mr. Ingalls advanced to the desk of the president pro tempore, and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took the chair, and said:

"Senators, I must inevitably suffer disparagement in your estimation, by contrast with the parliamentary learning and skill, the urbanity and accomplishments of my illustrious predecessor, but I shall strive to equal him in devotion to your service, and I shall endeavor, if that be possible, to excel him in grateful appreciation of the distinguished honor of your suffrages."

Mr. Harris offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted;

"Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to Hon. John Sherman, for the able and impartial manner in which he has administered the duties of the office of president pro tempore during the present Congress."

CHAPTER LII. VISIT TO CUBA AND THE SOUTHERN STATES. Departure for Florida and Havana--A Walk Through Jacksonville-- Impressions of the Country--Visit to Cigar Factories and Other Places of Interest--Impressions of Cuba--Experience with Colored Men at a Birmingham Hotel--The Proprietor Refuses to Allow a Delegation to Visit Me in my Rooms--Sudden Change of Quarters-- Journey to Nashville and the Hearty Reception Which Followed--Visit to the Widow of President Polk--My Address to Nashville Citizens-- Comment from the Press That Followed It--An Audience of Workingmen at Cincinnati--Return Home--Trip to Woodbury, Conn., the Home of My Ancestors--Invitation to Speak in the Hall of the House of Representatives at Springfield, Ill.--Again Charged with "Waving the Bloody Shirt."

At the close of the session of Congress, early in March, a congenial party was formed to visit Florida and Havana. It was composed of Senator Charles F. Manderson, wife and niece, Senator T. W. Palmer and niece, General Anson G. McCook and wife, and myself and daughter. We were accompanied by E. J. Babcock, my secretary, and A. J. Galloway and son, in the employ of the Coast Line road, over which we were to pass. We stopped at Charleston, where the ravages of a recent earthquake were everywhere visible. Fort Sumter, which we visited, was a picture of desolation. Such a large party naturally attracted attention. At Jacksonville we encountered our first reporter. He showed me an article in which it was stated that we were on a political trip. This I disclaimed and said we had not heard politics mentioned since we left Washington, that we were tired out after Congress completed its work and made up a party and started off merely for rest and recreation. I remarked that I had been in every state in the Union but one, and wanted to finish up the list by seeing Florida. A colloquy as given by the reporter was as follows:

"Well, Senator, my errand was for the purpose of getting your opinion on matters political."

"I am out of politics just now. I want to rest and I do not want politics to enter my head for two weeks."

"Then you say positively that you are not down here to look after your fences for a presidential boom in 1888?"

"Most decidedly not. I will not say a word about politics until I reach Nashville on my return. There I take up the political string again and will hold to it for some time."

Manderson proposed a walk through the city, the reporter being our guide. Orange trees were to be seen on every side. We were surprised to find so large and prosperous a city in Florida, with so many substantial business houses and residences. The weather was delightful, neither too hot nor too cold, and in striking contrast with the cold and damp March air of Washington. From Jacksonville we went in a steamboat up the St. John's River to Enterprise. Florida was the part of the United States to be first touched by the feet of white men, and yet it seemed to me to be the most backward in the march of progress. It was interesting chiefly from its weird and valueless swamps, its sandy reaches and its alligators. It is a peninsula, dividing the Gulf of Mexico from the ocean, and a large part of it is almost unexplored. The part we traversed was low, swampy, with dense thickets, and apparently incapable of reclamation by drainage. The soil was sandy and poor and the impression left on my mind was that it could not be made very productive. There were occasional spots where the earth was far enough above the sea to insure the growth of orange trees, but even then the soil was thin, and to an Ohio farmer would appear only to be a worthless sand bank. This, however, does not apply to all points in Florida, especially not to the Indian River region, where fine oranges and other semitropical fruits are raised in great abundance. The Indian River is a beautiful body of water, really an arm of the sea, on the eastern coast of Florida, separated from the Atlantic by a narrow strip of land. The water is salt and abounds in game and fish.

At Sanford our party was joined by Senator Aldrich and his wife, and we proceeded by way of Tampa and Key West to Havana, where we arrived on the 17th of March. The short sail of ninety miles from Key West transported us to a country of perpetual summers, as different from the United States as is old Egypt. After being comfortably installed in a hotel we were visited by Mr. Williams, our consul general, who brought us an invitation from Captain General Callejas to call upon him. We did so, Mr. Williams accompanying us as interpreter. We were very courteously received and hospitably entertained. The captain general introduced us to his family and invited us to a reception in the evening, at which dancing was indulged in by the younger members of the party. We spent four very pleasant days in the old city, visiting several of the large cigar factories, a sugar plantation in the neighborhood and other scenes strange to our northern eyes. The ladies supplied themselves with fans gaily decorated with pictures of bull fights, and the men with Panama hats, these being products peculiar to the island.

Among the gentlemen of the party, as already stated, was Frank G. Carpenter, a bright young man born at Mansfield, Ohio, who has since made an enviable reputation as a copious and interesting letter writer for the press. His description of Havana is so true that I insert a few paragraphs of it here:

"Havana has about 300,000 inhabitants. It was a city when New York was still a village, and it is now 100 years behind any American town of its size. It is Spanish and tropical. The houses are low stucco buildings put together in block, and resting close up to narrow sidewalks. Most of them are of one or two stories, and their roofs are of red tile which look like red clay drain pipes cut in two and so laid that they overlap each other. The residences are usually built around a narrow court, and their floors are of marble, tile or stone. This court often contains plants and flowers, and it forms the loafing place of the family in the cool of the evening.

"These streets of Havana are so narrow that in some of them the carriages are compelled to go in one direction only. When they return they must go back by another street. The sidewalks are not over three feet wide, and it is not possible for two persons to walk abreast upon them. The better class of Cubans seldom walk, and the cabbys are freely called upon. The cab of Havana is a low Victoria holding two or three persons. Their tops come down so as to shade the eyes, and they have springs which keep every molecule of your body in motion while you ride in them. The horses use are hardy mongrel little ponylike animals, who look as though they were seldom fed and never cleaned.

"The traffic of Havana is largely done by oxen, and the two-wheeled cart is used exclusively. This cart is roughly made and it has a tongue as thick as a railroad tie, nailed to the body of the cart, and which extends to the heads of the oxen and is there fastened by a great yoke directly to the horns. The Cuban ox pulls by his head and not his shoulders. This yoke is strapped by ropes across the foreheads of the oxen, and they move along with their heads down, pushing great loads with their foreheads. They are guided by rope reins fastened to a ring in the nose of the ox. Some of the carts are for a single ox, and these have shafts of about the same railroad tie thickness, which are fastened to a yoke which is put over the horns in the same manner. Everything is of the rudest construction and the Egyptians of to-day are as well off in this regard.

"Prices of everything here seem to me to be very high, and the money of the country is dirty, nasty paper, which is always below par, and of which you get twelve dollars for five American ones. A Cuban dollar is worth about forty American cents, and this Cuban scrip is ground out as fast as the presses can print it. The lower denominations are five, ten, twenty and fifty cent pieces, and you get your boots blacked for ten Spanish cents. Even the gold of Cuba is below par, about six per cent. below the American greenback, and most of it and the silver in use has been punched or chipped to make money off of the pieces thus cut out. The country is deeply in debt, and the taxes are very heavy."

On the return voyage a strong northwest wind sprang up, and most of the party, especially the ladies, experienced the disagreeable effects of being on a small steamer in a rough sea. They had, however, all recovered by the time we reached Tampa, and as soon as we landed we started for Jacksonville.

In an interview shortly after my return from Cuba, I thus gave the impression made upon my mind as to its condition:

"And how did you enjoy your visit to Cuba?"

"We spent four days in Havana. Nobody could be treated with greater courtesy. You know Spanish courtesy is never surpassed anywhere. But that cannot prevent me from saying that Cuba is in a deplorable condition. I should judge from what I heard from intelligent Cuban Americans living there, and even Spaniards themselves, that the island is in a condition of ill-suppressed revolt. Natives are nearly to a man in favor of annexation to us. I think they have given over the idea of independence, for they begin to recognize that they are incapable of self-government. Their condition is indeed pitiable. No serfs in Russia were ever greater slaves than the Cubans are to Spain. The revenue they must raise yearly for Spain, and for which they get no benefit whatever, except the name of a national protection and the aegis of a flag, is $16,000,000. They have no self-government of any kind. From captain general down to the tide-waiter at the docks, the official positions are held by Spaniards. I venture to say that not a single native Cuban holds an office or receives public emolument. In addition to the $16,000,000 sent annually to Spain, Cuba has to pay the salaries of all the Spanish horde fastened upon her."

"Do you think the native planters, the wealthier classes, that is, favor annexation to the United States?"

"Yes, I am told all of them are anxious for it, but I don't think we want Cuba as an appendage to the United States. I would not favor annexation. In spite of the drains upon her, Cuba is enormously rich in resources, and is a large consumer of our products, on which at present the heavy Spanish duties rest. What I would favor would be a reciprocity treaty with Spain, as to Cuba, so that we might send our goods there instead of forcing the Cubans to buy of England, France and Germany. We could do the island much more good by trading with her on an equal basis than we ever can by annexing her. Cuba, to some extent, is under our eye, we would probably never let any other nation than Spain own the island, but so long as Spain does own it she is welcome to it if she will only let us sell our goods on equal or better terms than the Cubans can get them for elsewhere."

I had some time previously accepted an invitation of the members of the Tennessee legislature to address them, and, therefore, at Jacksonville left the remainder of the party to pursue their way to Washington at their leisure, while I started for Nashville, accompanied by Mr. Babcock and Mr. Mussey. Having a few days to spare before my appointment at that place, and having heard much of the wonderful progress and development of the iron industry at Birmingham, Alabama, I determined to stop at that place. On our arrival we went to the Hotel Florence, and at once met the "ubiquitous reporter." My arrival was announced in the papers, and I was soon called upon by many citizens, who proposed that an informal reception be held in the dining room of the hotel that evening, to which I had no objection. Among those present were ex-Senator Willard Warner, and a number of the leading men who had so quickly transformed an open farm into the active and progressive city of Birmingham. The reception was held and was a very pleasant affair. Being called upon for a speech I made a few remarks, which were well received, and as the gentlemen present expressed a desire to have a larger meeting I consented to speak on the following evening at the opera house.

That afternoon, when my room was thronged with callers, most of whom were Democrats, I was handed the following note:

"Birmingham, Ala., March 20, 1887. "Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.

"Dear Sir:--The undersigned, citizens of Birmingham, Alabama, take this method of writing you to extend your visit from Nashville, Tennessee, to our growing city, and bear witness to its development and progress in the prospective mining, manufacturing and business metropolis of the state. Feeling confident that you are naturally interested in our welfare and happiness, American citizens in every capacity and relation in life, we earnestly trust that you will comply with our solicitation.

"Yours respectfully, "Sam'l R. Lowery, Editor 'Southern Freemen.' "A. L. Scott, Real Estate Agent. "W. R. Pettiford, J. M. Goodloe, A. J. Headon, A. D. Jemison and R. Donald, Pastors of Colored Churches in Birmingham, Ala."

The letter was written to be sent me at Nashville, when it was not known that I was at Birmingham, and was indorsed as follows;

"Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.

"Dear Sir:--A colored delegation, as given above, desires to call upon you to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock or at 3. Please do us the kindness to say if we may see you, and when.

"Yours faithfully, "A. L. Scott."

I at once sent word to the delegation that I would see them in my room the next morning at 10 o'clock, having already arranged to accompany some gentlemen on an excursion among the mines and other evidences of Birmingham's boom at 11 a. m. The next morning I waited in my room with General Warner, Judge Craig and others until 11 o'clock, and, the delegation not appearing, was about to start on my visit to the mines, when the following note was handed me by one of the colored servants of the house:

"Birmingham, Ala. "Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--In accordance with arrangement, a committee of colored citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama came to see you at 10 o'clock this morning. The proprietor of the Florence hotel declined to allow us to visit your room, and said if we desired to see you we must see you outside of the Florence hotel. We regret the occurrence, as the committee is composed of the best colored citizens of the community.

"Yours respectfully, "A. L. Scott, "W. R. Pettiford, "Samuel R. Lowery, "R. C. D. Benjamin, "Albert Boyd."

I requested General Warner and Judge Craig to go to the proprietor of the hotel and ask him if it was true that he had forbidden certain men going to my room. The proprietor informed them that it was true; it was against his rules to allow any colored people to go upstairs except the servants. I said I would not allow a hotel proprietor to say whom I should or should not receive in my room. That was a question I chose to decide for myself. I therefore immediately paid my bill and went to the Metropolitan hotel, where the delegation made their call. Their only object was to read to me an address of welcome to the city in behalf of the colored people. Their address was well expressed and they were evidently intelligent and respectable men. They welcomed me cordially in behalf of their race and countrymen, and said:

"While we respect your political and statesmanlike life, not an event has equaled your manly and heroic conduct in Birmingham, Alabama, in respect to the persecuted, proscribed and downtrodden black citizens, on account of their race, color and proscription in this city and state.

"When you stated to the tavern keeper, if the black citizens were not permitted to visit you there, you would go to another tavern, and if not permitted, you would stop with your baggage in the street and receive them, shows a sympathy and sentiment that you, though honored and able, feel bound with them and to them. And every black man, woman and child thenceforward in our state will pray Heaven's favor shall follow you and yours to a throne of grace for Sherman, Ohio's noblest, heroic and patriotic statesman."

In reply I expressed pleasure at meeting the colored people, and, touching the Florence hotel affair, advised forbearance. "Be true to yourselves," I said, "be industrious, maintain your own manhood, and they day will come when you can command recognition as men and citizens of the United States, free and equal with all others." I assured them that I entertained as high respect for colored people as I did for any other citizens.

I mention this incident at some length because, at the time, it excited much comment in the press throughout the United States. It is but fair to say that the action of the hotel proprietor was condemned by the leading Democrats of Birmingham, prominent among whom was the editor of the "Iron Age."

In the evening I spoke at the opera house, which was well filled with representative citizens. I was introduced by Rufus M. Rhodes, president of the News Publishing Company. My speech was confined mainly to nonpartisan subjects, to the industries in that section, and the effect of national legislation upon them. I had read of the vast deposits of coal and iron in that section, and had that day seen them for myself. I said: "You have stored in the surrounding hills elements of a wealth greater than all the banks of New York." In speaking of the effect of national legislation upon the development of their resources, I said I would not allude to politics, because, though a strict party man, as they all knew, I believed that men who differed with me were as honest as I was; that whatever might have occurred in the past, we were a reunited people; that we had had our differences, and men of both sides sought to have their convictions prevail, but I would trust the patriotism of an ex-Confederate in Alabama as readily as an ex- Unionist in Ohio; that I was not there to speak of success in war, but of the interests and prosperity of their people. My nonpartisan speech was heartily approved. General Warner made a brief address to his former constituents, and the meeting then adjourned.

I went the next day to Nashville, arriving early in the evening. A committee of the legislature met me on my way. On my arrival I met many of the members of both political parties, and was the recipient of a serenade at which William C. Whitthorne, a Democratic Member of Congress, made a neat speech welcoming me to the hospitality of the state. None of the speeches contained any political sentiments, referring mainly to the hopeful and prosperous outlook of the interests of Tennessee. During the next day I visited with the committee, at the head of which was Mr. Kerchival, the mayor of the city, several manufacturing establishments, and the Fisk and Vanderbilt universities, and also a school for colored boys. Among the more agreeable visits that day was one made at the residence of Mrs. Polk, the widow of President Polk. I remembered her when she was the honored occupant and mistress of the White House, at the time of my first visit to Washington in the winter of 1846-47. She was still in vigorous health, and elegant and dignified lady.

I wish here to express my grateful appreciation of the reception given me by the people of Nashville on this occasion. There was no appearance of mere form and courtesy due to a stranger among them, but a hearty general welcome, such as would be extended to one representing their opinions and identified with their interests. I met there several gentlemen with whom I had served in Congress, most of whom had been in the Confederate service. One of them paid me a compliment after hearing my speech by saying: "Sherman, your speech will trouble the boys some, but I could answer you."

This speech was made on the evening of the 24th of March, 1887, in the hall of the house of representatives. It was carefully prepared with the expectation that it would be delivered to an unsympathetic audience of able men. I delivered it with scarcely a reference to my notes, and substantially in the language written. Tennessee and Kentucky had been Whig states, strongly in favor of protection, and before the war were represented by John Bell and Henry Clay. I claimed my fellowship with the people of Tennessee in the old Whig times, and, aside from the questions that grew out of the war, assumed that they were still in favor of the policy of protection of American industries by tariff laws. I did not evade the slavery question or the War of the Rebellion, but said of them what I would have said in Ohio. I made an appeal on behalf of the negro, and quoted what Senator Vest had eloquently said, that "the southern man who would wrong them deserves to be blotted from the roll of manhood." All we asked for the negro was that the people of Tennessee would secure to him the rights and privileges of an American citizen, according to the constitution of the United States. I then presented the questions of the hour, taxation, currency, public credit, foreign and domestic commerce, education and internal improvements. On these questions I said the people of Tennessee had like interests and opinions with the people of Ohio, that the past was beyond recall, that for evil or good the record was made up and laid away. I discussed each of these subjects, dwelling mainly on taxation and currency; in the one was the protection and promotion of home industries, and in the other was the choice between bank notes of the olden time, and United States notes and national bank notes secured by the bonds of the United States. I closed with these words:

"But I do, in the presence of you all, claim for the Republican party, and defy contradiction, that in the grandeur of its achievements, in the benefits it has conferred upon the people, in the patriotic motives that have animated it, and the principles that have guided it, in the fidelity, honesty, and success of its administration of great public trusts, it will compare favorably with the record of any administration of any government in ancient or modern times. We ask you to aid us, to help us. We make this appeal in the same words to the Confederate gray as to the Union blue--to whoever in our great country is willing in the future to lend a helping hand or vote to advance the honor, grandeur and prosperity of this great republic."

The speech, being made by a Republican at the capital of a southern Democratic state, attracted great attention from the public press, and, much to my surprise, several of the leading Democratic and independent papers commended it highly. This was notably the case with the Louisville "Courier Journal," the Washington "Evening Star," and the New York "Herald." A brief extract from the latter is given as an indication of public sentiment:

"Senator Sherman's Nashville speech is the first address on national politics ever spoken by a Republican of national reputation to a southern audience. He was welcomed by the prominent citizens of the Tennessee capital, and spoke to a crowded and attentive audience in the hall of representatives.

"Both the speech and the welcome the speaker received are notable and important events. Mr. Sherman spoke as a Republican in favor of Republican politics, and what he said was frankly and forcibly put. If the Republican leaders are wise they will take care to circulate Mr. Sherman's Nashville speech all over the south, and through the north as well. He spoke for high protection, for internal improvements, for liberal expenditures on public buildings, for the Blair education bill, for the maintenance of the present currency system, and for spending the surplus revenue for public purposes.

"All that is the straightest and soundest Republican doctrine. He told his hearers, also, that the war is over, and that the interests of Tennessee and other southern states must naturally draw them to the Republican party. He spoke to attentive ears."

The speech was reprinted and had considerable circulation, but, like the shadows that pass, it is probably forgotten by all who heard or read it. I consider it as one of the best, in temper, composition and argument, that I ever made.

It had been arranged that I was to be driven to Saint Paul's chapel after the meeting. The occasion was the assemblage of the educational association of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and their friends. The chapel was a large, handsome, well-furnished room, and was crowded to the door with well-dressed men and women. Dr. Bryant made an address of welcome, and Bishop Turner introduced me to the audience. I made a brief response and excused myself from speaking further on account of fatigue. General Grosvenor and ex- Senator Warner made short speeches. Our party then returned to the hotel. To me this meeting was a surprise and a gratification. Here was a body of citizens but lately slaves, who, in attendance on religious services and afterward remaining until a late hour listening to us, behaved with order, attention and intelligence. The report of my remarks, as given in their newspapers, was as follows:

"Senator Sherman said that the praise of himself had been too high. He had voted for the emancipation of the negro race in the District of Columbia, an event which had preceded the emancipation proclamation of Abraham Lincoln. He supported it as a great act of national authority and of justice. Therefore, he could appear as a friend of the race and of liberty. He had not voted for it because they were negroes, but he had voted for it because they were men and women. He would have voted for the whites as well. He spoke of the society and said any measure that would tend to elevate the race he was in favor of. What the race wanted was not more rights but more education. Their rights were secured to them by the constitution of the United States, and the time would come when they would enjoy them as freely as anyone. They should not be impatient to advance. Prejudice could not be overcome in a short period. He said the best way to overcome all prejudice was by elevating themselves; but not by gaudy extravagance, groans, abuse, war, or tumult of war. They had the same right to become lawyers, doctors, soldiers and heroes as the white man had.

"When they became as advanced as the whites around them there would be no trouble about their franchises. Now they were free men and they should become freeholders. After they had got education they should accumulate property."

On the next morning I left Nashville for Cincinnati, where I arrived on the evening of the 25th of March and took lodgings at the Gibson House. I was to speak at Turner Hall on the next evening, under the auspices of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs. It was a busy day with me in receiving calls and in visiting the chamber of commerce and the two clubs where speeches were made and hand shaking done. Still, I knew what I was to say at the meeting, and the composition of the audience I was to address. The hall is large, with good acoustic qualities, and in it I had spoken frequently. It is situated in the midst of a dense population of workingmen, and was so crowded that night in every part that many of the audience were compelled to stand in the aisles and around the walls. On entering I mentally contrasted my hearers with those at Faneuil Hall and Nashville. Here was a sober, attentive and friendly body of workingmen, who came to hear and weigh what was said, not in the hurry of Boston or with the criticism of political opponents as in Nashville, but with an earnest desire to learn and to do what was best for the great body of workingmen, of whom they were a part. I was introduced in a kindly way by ex-Governor Noyes. After a brief reference to my trip to Florida and Cuba, I described the country lying southwest of the Alleghany mountains, about two hundred miles wide, extending from Detroit to Mobile, destined to be the great workshop of the United States, where coal and iron could be easily mined, where food was abundant and cheap, and in a climate best fitted for the development of the human race. In this region, workingmen, whether farmers, mechanics or laborers, would always possess political power as the controlling majority of the voters. I claimed that the Republican party was the natural home of workingmen, that its policy, as developed for thirty years, had advanced our industrial interests and diversified the employments of the people. This led to a review of our political policy, the homestead law, the abolition of slavery, good money always redeemable in coin, the development of manufactures and the diversity of employments. I discussed the creation of new parties, such as the labor party and the temperance party, and contended that their objects could better be attained by the old parties. I referred to the organization of a national bureau of labor, to a bill providing for arbitration, and other measures in the interest of labor. I stated the difficulties in the way of the government interposing between capital and labor. They were like husband and wife; they must settle their quarrels between them, but the law, if practicable, should provide a mode of adjustment. I closed with the following appeal to them as workingmen:

"Let us stand by the Republican party, and we will extend in due time our dominion and power into other regions; not by annexation, not by overriding peaceable and quiet people, but by our commercial influence, by extending our steamboat lines into South America, by making all the Caribbean Sea one vast American ocean; by planting our influence among the sister republics, by aiding them from time to time, and thus, by pursuing an American policy, become the ruler of other dominions."

From Cincinnati, after a brief visit to Mansfield, I returned to Washington to await the opening of spring weather, which rarely comes in the highlands of Ohio until the middle of May.

General Sherman and I had been invited several times to visit Woodbury, Connecticut, for nearly two centuries the home of our ancestors. In April, both being in Washington, we concluded to do so, and advised Mr. Cothron, the historian of Woodbury, of our purpose. We arrived in the evening at Waterbury, and there found that our coming was known. Several gentlemen met us at the depot and conducted us to the hotel, some of them having served with General Sherman in the Civil War. Among them was a reporter. We explained to him that we were on our way to Woodbury, had no plans to execute, intended to erect no monuments, as was stated, and only wished to see where our ancestors had lived and died. General Sherman was rather free in his talk about the steep hills and cliffs near High Rock grove. These he admired as scenery, but he said: "I cannot see how this rocky country can be converted into farming lands that can be made profitable;" also "I am indeed pleased to think that my ancestors moved from this region to Ohio in 1810." Among the callers was S. M. Kellogg, who had served with me in Congress.

The next morning we went to Woodbury, called on William Cothron, and proceeded to the cemetery and other places of note in the neighborhood. In this way the day was pleasantly spent. I thought there were signs of decay in the old village since my former visit, but this may have been caused by the different seasons of the year at which these visits were made. Woodbury looks more like an England shire town than any other in Connecticut. Its past history was full of interest, but the birth and growth of manufacturing towns all around eclipsed it and left only its memories. After visiting the site of the old Sherman homestead, about a mile from town, and the famous Stoddard house, in which my grandmother was born, we returned to New York.

I had been invited by the officers and members of the Illinois legislature, then in session at Springfield, to speak in the hall of the house of representatives on the political issues of the day. I accepted with some reluctance, as I doubted the expediency of a partisan address at such a place. My address at Nashville, no doubt, led to the invitation; but the conditions were different in the two cities. At Nashville it was expected that I would make a conciliatory speech, tending to harmony between the sections, while at Springfield I could only make a partisan speech, on lines well defined between the two great parties, and, as I learned afterwards, by reason of local issues, to a segment of the Republican party. Had I known this in advance I would have declined the invitation.

The 1st of June was the day appointed. I arrived in Chicago, at a late hour, on the 29th of May, stopping at the Grand Pacific hotel, and soon after received the calls of many citizens in the rotunda. On the evening of the 30th I was tendered a reception by the Union League club in its library, and soon became aware of the fact that one segment of the Republican party, represented by the Chicago "Tribune," was not in attendance. The reception, however, was a very pleasant one, greatly aided by a number of ladies.

The next morning, accompanied by Senator Charles B. Farwell and a committee of the club, I went to Springfield. I have often traversed the magnificent State of Illinois, but never saw it clothed more beautifully than on this early summer day. The broad prairies covered with green, the wide reaches of cultivated land, rich with growing corn, wheat and oats, presented pictures of fertility that could not be excelled in any portion of the world. I met Governor Oglesby and many leading citizens of Illinois on the way, and on my arrival at Springfield was received by Senator Cullom and other distinguished gentlemen, and conducted to the Leland hotel, but soon afterward was taken to the residence of Senator Cullom, where several hours were spent very pleasantly. Later in the evening I attended a reception tendered by Governor and Mrs. Oglesby, and there met the great body of the members of the legislature and many citizens.

On the 1st of June an elaborate order of arrangements, including a procession, was published, but about noon there came a heavy shower of rain that changed the programme of the day. A platform had been erected at the corner of the statehouse, from which the speaking was to be made. This had to be abandoned and the meeting was held in the hall of the house of representatives, to which no one could enter without a ticket.

It was not until 2:40 p. m. that we entered the hall, when Governor Oglesby, taking the speaker's chair, rapped for order and briefly addressed the assembly. I was then introduced and delivered the speech I had prepared, without reading or referring to it. It was published and widely circulated. The following abstract, published in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean," indicates the topics I introduced:

"The Senator began first to awaken applause at the mention of the name of Lincoln, repeated soon after and followed by a popular recognition of the name of Douglas. He quoted from Logan, and cheers and applause greeted his words. There was Democratic applause when he proclaimed his belief 'that had Douglas lived he would have been as loyal as Lincoln himself,' and again it resounded louder still when Logan received a hearty tribute. He touched upon the successes of our protective policy, and again the applause accentuated his point. He exonerated the Confederate soldier from sympathy with the atrocities of reconstruction times, and his audience appreciated it. He charged the Democratic party in the south with these atrocities and the continual effort to deprive the negro of his vote, and the audience appreciated that. His utterance that he would use the power of Congress to get the vote of a southern Republican counted at least once, excited general applause. They laughed when he asked what Andrew Jackson would have thought of Cleveland, and they laughed again when he declared the Democrats wanted to reduce the revenue, but didn't know how. He read them the tariff plank in the Confederate platform, and they laughed to see how it agreed with the same plank in the Democratic platform. From discussion of the incapacity of the Democrats to deal with the tariff question, from their very construction of the constitution, the Senator passed to the labor question, thence carrying the interest of his hearers to the purpose of the Republicans to educate the masses, and make internal improvements. His audience felt the point well made when he declared the President allowed the internal improvement bill to expire by a pocket veto because it contained a $5,000 provision for the Hennepin Canal. In excellent humor the audience heard him score the Democracy for its helplessness to meet the currency question, and finally pass, in his peroration, to an elaboration of George William Curtis' eulogy of the achievements of the Republican party. He read the twelve Republican principles, and each utterance received its applause like the readoption of a popular creed. 'The Democrats put more jail birds in office in their brief term than the Republicans did in the twenty-four years of our magnificent service,' exclaimed Senator Sherman, and his audience laughed, cheered, and applauded. Applause followed each closing utterance as the Senator outlined the purposes of the party for future victory, and predicted that result, the Democrats under the Confederate flag, the Republicans under the flag of the Union."

I returned the next day to Chicago, and in the evening was tendered a public reception in the parlors of the Grant Pacific hotel. Although Chicago was familiar to me, yet I was unknown to the people of Chicago. One or two thousand people shook hands with me and with them several ladies. Among those I knew were Justice Harlan, Robert T. Lincoln and Walker and Emmons Blaine.

Upon my return to Mansfield I soon observed, in the Democratic and conservative papers, hostile criticism of my Springfield speech, and especially of my arraignment of the crimes at elections in the south, and of the marked preference by Cleveland in the appointments to office of Confederate soldiers rather than Union soldiers. A contrast was made between the Nashville and Springfield speeches, and the latter was denounced as "waving the bloody shirt." Perhaps the best answer to this is the following interview with me, about the middle of June:

"So much fault is found with the Springfield speech by the opponents of the Republican party, and so many accusations made of inconsistency with the Nashville speech, that perhaps you may say--what you meant --what the foremost purpose was in both cases?"

"I meant my Springfield speech to be an historical statement of the position of the two parties and their tendencies and aims in the past and for the future. In this respect it differed from the Nashville speech, which was made to persuade the people of the south, especially of Tennessee, that their material interests would be promoted by the policy of the Republican party."

"Do you find anything in the Springfield speech to moderate or modify?"

"I do not think I said a word in the Springfield speech but what is literally true, except, perhaps, the statement that 'there is not an intelligent man in this broad land, of either party, who does not know that Mr. Cleveland is now President of the United States by virtue of crimes against the elective franchise.' This may be too broad, but upon a careful analysis I do not see how I could modify it if fair force is given to the word 'intelligent.'"

"You stand by the speech, then?"

"Well, since the speech has been pretty severely handled by several editors whom I am bound to respect, I have requested it to be printed in convenient form, and intend to send it to these critics with a respectful request that they will point out any error of fact contained in it, or any inconsistency between it and my Nashville speech."

"You do not admit that the two speeches are in two voices?"

"I can discover no inconsistency. And now, after seeing and weighting these criticisms, I indorse and repeat every word of both speeches. It may be that the speech was impolitic, but, as I have not usually governed my speeches and conduct by the rule of policy, as distinguished from the rule of right, I do not care to commence now."

"What about the persistent charge of unfriendliness to southern people and the accusation that you are shaking the bloody shirt?"

"I do not see how the arraignment of election methods that confessedly destroy the purity or the sanctity of the ballot box, and deprive a million of people of their political rights, can be ignored or silenced in a republic by the shoo-fly cry of 'bloody shirt.'"

"Is there no hope of persuasion of the southern people at large to see the justice of the demand for equal political rights?"

"I cannot see any reason why the Confederate cause, which was 'eternally wrong,' but bravely and honestly fought out, should be loaded down with the infamy of crimes which required no courage, committed long since the war, by politicians alone, for political power and for the benefit of the Democratic party. I can find some excuse for these atrocities in the strong prejudice of caste and race in the south, growing out of centuries of slavery, but I can find no excuse for any man of any party in the north, who is willing to submit to have his political power controlled and overthrown by such means."

CHAPTER LIII. INDORSED FOR PRESIDENT BY THE OHIO STATE CONVENTION. I Am Talked of as a Presidential Possibility--Public Statement of My Position--Unanimous Resolution Adopted by the State Convention at Toledo on July 28, 1887--Text of the Indorsement--Trip Across the Country with a Party of Friends--Visit to the Copper and Nickel Mining Regions--Stop at Winnipeg--A Day at Banff--Vast Snowsheds Along the Canadian Pacific Railroad--Meeting with Carter H. Harrison on Puget Sound--Rivalry Between Seattle and Tacoma--Trying to Locate "Mount Tacoma"--Return Home After a Month's Absence--Letter to General Sherman--Visit to the State Fair--I Attend a Soldiers' Meeting at Bellville--Opening Campaign Speech at Wilmington--Talk to Farmers in New York State--Success of the Republican Ticket in Ohio--Blaine Declines to Be a Candidate.

During the months of June and July, 1887, the question of the selection of the Republican candidate for President in the following year was discussed in the newspapers, in the conventions, and among the people. The names of Blaine and myself were constantly canvassed in connection with that office, and others were named. I was repeatedly written to and talked with about it, and uniformly said, to warm personal friends, that in view of my experience at previous national conventions I would not be a candidate without the support of a united delegation from Ohio, and the unanimous indorsement of a state convention. I referred to the fact that in every period of my political career I had been supported by the people of Ohio, and would not aspire to a higher position without their hearty approval. This statement was openly and publicly made and published in the newspapers. The "Commercial Gazette," of Cincinnati was authorized to make this declaration:

"If the Republicans of Ohio want Mr. Sherman for their presidential candidate they can say so at the Toledo convention. If not, Mr. Sherman will be entirely content with the position he now occupies, and will not be in the field as a presidential candidate."

I also wrote the following to a friend, and it was afterwards published:

"I do not want to be held up to the people of the United States as a presidential candidate if there is any doubt about Ohio. I do not, as many think, seek for the high honor, nor do I ask anyone to aid me in securing the nomination. I am as passive about it as any man can be whose merits or demerits are discussed in that connection. I do not desire the nomination, nor shall I encourage anyone to secure it for me until Ohio Republicans, who have conferred upon me the honors I have enjoyed, shall, with substantial unanimity, express their wish for my nomination."

This led my friends to determine to present this question to the approaching state convention at Toledo. It was said that, as this would be held in a year in advance of the national convention, it was too soon to open the subject, but the conclusive answer was that no other state convention would be held prior to the national convention, and that it was but fair that I should have the chance to decline if there should be a substantial difference of opinion in the convention, and should have the benefit of its approval if it should be given.

It was understood that Governor Foraker would be unanimously renominated for governor. He doubted the policy of introducing in that contest a resolution in favor of my nomination for President, but said it if should be passed he would support it. The press of the state was somewhat divided as to the policy of the convention making a declaration of a choice for President, but indicated an almost universal opinion that there should be an undivided delegation in favor of my nomination. As the convention approached, the feeling in favor of such declaration grew stronger, and when it met at Toledo, on the 28th of July, there was practically no opposition. After the preliminary organization ex-Governor Foster reported a series of resolutions, which strongly indorsed me for President, and highly commended Foraker for renomination as governor. The convention called for the rereading of these resolutions and they were applauded and unanimously adopted. The committee on permanent organization nominated me as chairman of the convention. In assuming these duties I made a speech commending the nomination of Governor Foraker and the action of the recent general assembly, and closed with these words:

"I have but one other duty to perform, and that I do with an overflowing heart. I thank you with all my heart for the resolution that you have this day passed in respect to your choice for a President of the United States. I know, my fellow-citizens, that this is a matter of sentiment. I know that this resolution is of no importance unless the voters of the States of Ohio and of the several states should, in their free choice, elect delegates who will agree with you in your opinion. I recognize the district rule, and the right of every district to speak its own voice. I stood by that rule in 1880, when I knew that its adoption would cut off all hopes of my friends at that time. I also knew that there was another rule, that no man ought to be held as a candidate for that high office unless he has the substantial, unanimous voice of his party friends behind him. I believe that is a true rule, and it ought to be exercised to promote harmony and good will and friendship among Republicans. Now, my countrymen, again thanking you for this expression, I tell you with all frankness that I think more of your unanimous praise this day uttered than I do of the office of President of United States."

The resolution, as adopted, was as follows:

"Recognizing, as the Republicans of Ohio always have, the gifted and tried statesmen of the Republican party of other states, loyal and unfaltering in their devotion to the success of the organization in 1888, under whatever standard bearer the Republican national convention may select, they have just pride in the record and career of John Sherman, as a member of the Republican party, and as a statesman of fidelity, large experience and great ability. His career as a statesman began with the birth of the Republican party; he has grown and developed with the growth of that organization; his genius and patriotism are stamped upon the records of the party and the statutes and constitution of the country, and, believing that his nomination for the office of President would be wise and judicious, we respectfully present his name to the people of the United States as a candidate, and announce our hearty and cordial support of him for that office."

The convention then proceeded to form a state ticket.

During the summer vacation of 1887, I made a trip across the continent from Montreal to Victoria, Vancouver Island, and from the Sound to Tacoma, going over the Canadian Pacific railroad, and returning by that line to Port Arthur, at the head of Lake Superior then, by one of the iron steamers of the Canadian Pacific road, through Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Owen Sound, and from there by rail to Toronto and home.

I had for many years desired to visit that country and to view for myself its natural resources and wonders, and to inspect the achievement of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company.

I was accompanied on this journey by James S. Robinson, formerly secretary of state of Ohio, ex-Congressman Amos Townsend, for many years Member from Cleveland, and Charles H. Grosvenor, Member of Congress from Athens, Ohio. We met at Cleveland and spent the next night at Toronto. Thence we proceeded to Montreal, and there received many courtesies from gentlemen distinguished in private and public life. We left Toronto on the night of the 1st of August, in a special car attached to the great through train which then made its journey to Vancouver in about six days. We halted at Sudbury, the point on the Canadian Pacific from which the Sault Ste. Marie line of railway diverges from the main track. We spent twenty-four hours at Sudbury, visiting the copper and nickel mining operations, then in their infancy. Proceeding, we passed the head of Lake Superior, and thence to Winnipeg. At this place the officers of the provincial government showed us many attentions, and I was especially delighted by a visit I made to Archbishop Taché of the Catholic church, a very aged man. He had been a missionary among the Indians at the very earliest period of time when missionary work was done in that section. He had been a devoted and faithful man, and now, in the evening of his life, enjoyed the greatest respect and received the highest honors from the people of his neighborhood, regardless of race or religion.

Proceeding from Winnipeg, we entered the great valley of the Saskatchewan, traversed the mighty wheat fields of that prolific province, and witnessed the indications of the grain producing capacity in that portion of Canada, alone quite sufficient, if pushed to its utmost, the furnish grain for the whole continent of America. We spent one night for rest and observation at a point near the mouth of the Bow River, and then proceeded to Calgary. This is the westernmost point where there is arable and grazing lands before beginning the ascent of the Rocky mountains. Here we inspected a sheep ranch owned by a gentleman from England. It is located at Cochrane, a few miles west of Calgary. It was managed by a young gentleman of most pleasing manners and great intelligence, who was surrounded at the time of our visit by numerous Scotch herdsmen, each of whom had one or more collie dogs. The collie, as everybody knows, is a Scotch production, and it has been imported into the country largely for the service of the great sheep and cattle ranches of the west. One shepherd was about to depart from Canada to reoccupy his home in Scotland, and among his other effects was a collie, passing under the name of Nellie. She was a beautiful animal, and so attracted my attention that at my suggestion General Grosvenor bought her, and undertook to receive her at the train as we should pass east a week or ten days later. The train, on our return, passed Calgary station at about two o'clock in the morning in the midst of a pouring rain storm, but the shepherd was on hand with the dog, and her pedigree carefully written out, and the compliments of Mr. Cochrane, and his assurance that the pedigree was truthful. Nellie was brought to Ohio, and her progeny is very numerous in the section of the state where she lived and flourished.

Leaving Calgary, we followed the valley of the Bow River. The current of this river is very swift in the summer, fed as it is by the melting of the snows of the Rocky mountains. We soon began to realize that we were ascending amid the mighty peaks of the great international chain. We spent one day at Banff, the National Park of the Dominion. Here we found water, boiling hot, springing out from the mountain side, and a magnificent hotel--apparently out of all proportion to the present or prospective need--being erected, with every indication of an effort, at least, to make the Canadian National Park a popular place of resort.

All about this region of country it is claimed there are deposits of gold and silver, and at one point we saw the incipient development of coal mining, coal being produced which it was claimed, and it seemed to me with good reason, to be equal in valuable qualities to the Pennsylvania anthracite.

Passing from the National Park and skirting the foot of the Giant mountains, we entered the mighty valley of the great Fraser River. The scenery between Calgary and Kamloops is indescribably majestic. We were furnished by the railroad company with a time-table in the form of a pamphlet, and a description of the principal railway stations and surrounding country written by Lady Smith, the wife of Sir Donald Smith, of Montreal, one of the original projectors of the Canadian Pacific railroad. This lady was an artist, a poet, with high literary attainment, and her descriptions of the mountains, of the glaciers, of the rivers and scenery were exceedingly well done. We stopped at one of the company hotels, at the foot of one of the mightiest mountains, whose peak ascends thousands of feet into the air, and at whose base, within a few rods of the entrance to the hotel, was the greatest of the mighty glaciers, almost equal in beauty and grandeur, as seen by us, with the far-famed glacier of the Rhone.

The construction of this railroad through the mountains is a marvel of engineering skill and well illustrates what the persistence and industry of man can accomplish. More than seventy miles of this line, as I remember it, are covered by snowsheds, constructed of stanch timbers along the base of the mountain in such a manner that the avalanches, which occasionally rush down from the mountain top and from the side of the mountain, strike upon the sheds and so fall harmless into the valley below, while the powerful locomotives go rushing through the snowsheds, heedless of the dangers overhead.

The Fraser River was full of camps of men engaged in the business of catching, drying and canning the salmon of that stream. The timber along this river is of great importance. The Canadian fir and other indigenous trees line the banks and mountain sides in a quantity sufficient to supply the demand of the people of that great country for many years to come. But it was unpleasant to witness the devastation that the fires had made by which great sections of the forests had been killed. The Canadian government has made a determined effort to suppress these fires in their forests and upon their plains, and it is one of the duties of the mounted police force, which we saw everywhere along the line of the road, to enforce the regulations in regard to the use of fire, but, naturally and necessarily, nearly all these efforts are abortive and great destruction results.

Vancouver, at the mouth of the Fraser, is the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway. At this point steamers are loaded for the China and Japan trade and a passenger steamer departs daily, and perhaps oftener, for Victoria, an important city at the point of Vancouver Island. We had a delightful trip on this steamer, running in and out among the almost numberless islands. It was an interesting and yet most intricate passage.

At Victoria we were entertained by gentlemen of public position and were also shown many attentions by private citizens. We were invited to attend a dinner on board of a great British war vessel, then lying at Esquimault. A canvass of our party disclosed the fact that our dress suits had been left at Vancouver, and being on foreign soil and under the domination of her British majesty's flag, we felt it was impossible to accept the invitation, and so, with a manifestation of great reluctance on the part of my associates, the invitation was declined.

We went by steamer to Seattle, Washington Territory, where we remained over night and were very kindly received and entertained by the people. Among the persons who joined in the reception were Watson C. Squire and his wife, then residents of the territory. Mr. Squire, after the admission of Washington as a state, became one of her Senators.

We were joined on this part of our journey by Carter H. Harrison, of Chicago, whose fourth term of office as mayor had just closed, and who was escorting his son and a young friend on a journey around the world. While waiting for the departure of the Canadian Pacific steamer from Vancouver, he joined in this excursion through the sound. He was a most entertaining conversationalist, and we enjoyed his country greatly.

There was much rivalry at that time between the growing cities of Seattle and Tacoma. At a reception in Seattle, one of the party, in responding to a call for a speech, spoke of having inquired of a resident of Seattle as to the whereabouts of Mount Tacoma. He said he was informed by the person to whom he applied that there was no Mount Tacoma. On stating that he had so understood from citizens of Washington Territory, he was informed that there was not then and never had been a Mount Tacoma. The gentleman was informed, however, that in the distance, enshrouded in the gloom of fog and smoke, there was a magnificent mountain, grand in proportion and beautiful in outline, and the mountain's name was Rainier. Later on he said he had inquired of a citizen of Tacoma as to the whereabouts, from that city, of Mount Rainier, and the gentleman, with considerable scorn on his countenance, declared that there was no such mountain, but in a certain direction at a certain distance was Mount Tacoma. The gentleman closed his speech by saying, whether it was Mount Tacoma or Mount Rainier, our party was unanimously in favor of the admission of Washington Territory into the Union.

We visited some sawmills at Tacoma where lumber of monstrous proportions and in great quantities was being produced by a system of gang saws. This is a wonderful industry and as long as the material holds out will be a leading one of that section. The deep waters of Puget Sound will always offer to the industrious population of Washington ample and cheap means of transportation to the outside market, and I predict a great future for the state.

We returned east more hastily and with fewer stops than in the western journey. We spend a night at Port Arthur, and the next day, embarking upon one of the great steamers of the Canadian Pacific line, found among our fellow-passengers Goldwin Smith, the distinguished Canadian writer and statesman. We had a most pleasant trip, arriving at Owen Sound without special incident; thence to Toronto, and by steamer to Niagara, where we remained until the next day, when our party separated for their several homes. The trip occupied exactly a month and was full of enjoyment from the beginning to the end.

After my return home I wrote a note to General Sherman, describing my impressions of the country. In this I said:

"My trip to the Pacific over the Canadian railroad was a great success. We traveled 7,000 miles without fatigue, accident or detention. We stopped at the chief points of interest, such as Toronto, Montreal, Sudbury, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Calgary, Banff, Donald, Glacier House, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and Tacoma, and yet made the round trip within the four weeks allowed. We did not go to Alaska, because of the fogs and for want of time. The trip was very instructive, giving me an inside view of many questions that may be important in the future. The country did not impress me as a desirable acquisition, though it would not be a bad one. The people are hardy and industrious. If they had free commercial intercourse with the United States, their farms, forests, and mines would become more valuable, but at the expense of the manufactures. If the population of Mexico and Canada were homogenous with ours, the union of the three countries would make the whole the most powerful nation in the world."

I then entered into the canvass. I attended the state fair at Columbus on the 2nd of September, first visiting the Wool Growers' Association, and making a brief speech in respect to the change in the duty on wool by the tariff of 1883. I reminded the members of that association that they were largely responsible for the action of Congress on the wool schedule, that while all the other interests were largely represented before the committees of Congress, they were only represented by two gentlemen, Columbus Delano and William Lawrence, both from the State of Ohio, who did all they could to prevent the reduction. Later in the day I attended a meeting of the state grange, at which several speeches had been made. I disclaimed the power to instruct the gentlemen before me, who knew so much more about farming that I, but called their attention to the active competition they would have in the future in the growth of cereals in the great plains of the west. I described the wheat fields I had seen far west of Winnipeg, ten degrees north of us in Canada. I said the wheat was sown in the spring as soon as the surface could be plowed, fed by the thawing frosts and harvested in August, yielding 25 to 40 bushels to the acre, that our farms had to compete in most of their crops with new and cheap lands in fertile regions which but a few years before were occupied by Indians and buffaloes. "We must diversify our crops," I said, "or make machines to work for us more and more. New wants are created by increased population in cities. This is one lesson of many lessons we can learn from the oldest nations in Europe. With large cities growing up around us the farmer becomes a gardener, a demand is created for dairy products, for potatoes, and numerous articles of food which yield a greater profit. In Germany, France and Italy they are now producing more sugar from beets than is produced in all the world from sugar cane. The people of the United States now pay $130,000,000 for sugar which can easily be produced from beets grown in any of the central states." I said much more to the same purport.

I visited all parts of the state fair, and tried to avoid talking politics, but wherever I went on the ground I found groups engaged in talking about the Toledo convention, and the prospects of Republican or Democratic success. I had been away so long that I supposed the embers left by the convention were extinguished, but nothing, I think, can prevent the Ohio man from expressing his opinion about parties and politics. I met William Lawrence, one of the ablest men of the state as a lawyer, a judge and a Member of Congress. An interview with him had recently been published in respect to the resolution indorsing my candidacy. This was frequently called to my attention, and though I had not then read it, my confidence in him was so great I was willing to indorse anything he had said.

On the 7th of September I attended a soldiers' meeting at Bellville, in Richland county, where it was said upwards of 4,000 people took part. I made quite a long talk to them, but was far more interested in the stories of men who had served in the war, many of whom gave graphic accounts of scenes and incidents in which they had taken part. I have attended many such meetings, but do not recall any that was more interesting. The story of the private soldier is often rich in experience. It tells of what he saw in battle, and these stories of the soldiers, told to each other, form the web and woof out of which history is written. It was useless to preach to these men that Providence directly controls the history of nations. A good Presbyterian would find in our history evidence of the truth of his theory that all things are ordained beforehand. Certain it is that the wonderful events in our national life might be cited as an evidence of this theory. I do reverently recognize in the history of our war, the hand of a superintending Providence that has guided our great nation from the beginning to this hour. The same power which guided our fathers' fathers through the Revolutionary War, upheld the arms of the soldiers of the Union Army in the Civil War, and I trust that the same good Providence will guide our great nation in the years to come.

I made my opening political speech in this campaign at Wilmington, on the 15th of September. Clinton county is peopled almost exclusively by a farming community, whose rich upland is drained by the waters of the Scioto and Miami Rivers. My speech, not only on this occasion, but during the canvass in other parts of the state, was chiefly confined to a defense of the Republican party and its policy while in power, which I contrasted with what I regarded as the feebleness of Mr. Cleveland's administration. I touched upon state matters with brevity, but complimented our brilliant and able governor, Foraker. I referred to the attacks that had been made upon me about my speech in Springfield, Illinois, and said that no one had answered by arraignment, except by the exploded cry of "the bloody shirt," or claimed that a single thing stated by me as fact was not true. I referred to the "tenderfoot" who would not hurt anyone's feelings, who would banish the word "rebel" from our vocabulary, who would not denounce crimes against our fellow-citizens when they occurred, who thought that, like Cromwell's Roundheads, we must surrender our captured flags to the rebels who bore them, and our Grand Army boys, bent and gray, must march under the new flag, under the flag of Grover Cleveland, or not hold their camp fires in St. Louis. In conclusion, I said:

"But I will not proceed further. The immediate question is whether you will renew and ratify the brilliant administration of Governor Foraker, and support him with a Republican legislature. I feel that it is hardly necessary to appeal to the good people of Clinton county for an overwhelming vote in favor of a man so well known and highly respected among you, and whose associates on the state ticket are among the most worthy and deserving Republicans of Ohio. I call your attention to the special importance of the election of your candidates for senator and members of the house. It is of vital importance to secure a Republican legislature to secure and complete the good work of the last. Our success this fall by a good majority will be a cheering preparation for the grand campaign of the next year, when we shall have an opportunity again to test the question of whether the Republican party, which conducted several administrations in the most trying period of American history with signal success, shall be restored to power to renew the broad national policy by which it preserved the Union, abolished slavery and advanced the republic, in strength, wealth, credit and varied industries, to the foremost place among the nations of the world."

In the latter part of September, I made an address to the farmers of Wayne county, at Lyons, New York. The county borders on Lake Ontario. Its surface is undulating, its soil generally fertile, and beneath are iron ore, limestone, gypsum, salt and sulphur springs. Its chief products are dairy and farm produce and live stock. I said that my experience about a farm was not such as would justify me in advising about practical farming, that I was like many lawyers, preachers, editors and Members of Congress, who instinctively seek to get possession of a farm, not to show farmers how to cultivate land, but to spend a good portion of their income in a healthy recreation, that Horace Greeley and Henry Ward Beecher were, when living, good specimens of this kind of farmer, that they all soon learned by sad experience that--

"He that by the plow would thrive, Himself must either hold or drive."

I claimed to be one of the farmers whose potatoes and chickens cost more than the market price. Still, those engaged in professional pursuits, and especially Members of Congress, have to study the statistics of agriculture because upon the increase and diversity of its varied productions depend the wealth and progress of the country for which we legislate. I will not undertake to repeat in any detail what I said. I drew the distinction between the work of a mechanic and the work of a farmer; the mechanic had but a single employment and sometimes confined himself to the manufacture of a single article, but the farmer must pursue the opposite course. He must diversify his crops each year, and the nature of his labors varies with the seasons. His success and profit depend upon the diversity of his productions, and the full and constant occupation of his time. I described what I had seen in the far-off region near the new city of Tacoma on Puget Sound, where the chief employment of the farmer is in raising hops, and also the mode of producing wheat in the vast plains of Canada, which, now that the buffalo is gone, are plowed in the spring, sown in wheat and left unguarded and untended until ready for the great machines which cut and bind the crop and thresh it ready for the market. I described the production of the celery plant in the region of Kalamazoo, Michigan, where a large portion of the soil is devoted to this vegetable. As each region varied in climate, soil and market, the occupations of farmers had to vary with the conditions that surrounded them. The great cereals, such as wheat, corn, oats and barley, can be produced in most parts of the United States. Our farmers ought constantly to diversity their crops and add to the number of their productions. Attention had been recently turned to the possibility of producing beet sugar in the northern states, the great obstacle being the cost of the factory and machinery which, to secure profitable results, could not be erected for less than $200,000, but I predicted that this industry would be established and sugar sufficient for our wants would be produced in our own country. I referred to the great advance made in the methods of farming, during the past forty years, with the aid of new inventions of agricultural implements and new modes of transportation, and the wonderful progress that had been made in other fields of invention and discovery, and in conclusion said:

"And so in mental culture, in the knowledge of chemistry, in granges and fairs, in books, magazines and pamphlets devoted to agriculture, the farmer of to-day has the means of information which lifts his occupation to the dignity of a science. The good order of society now rests upon the intelligence and conservatism of the farmers of the United States, for to them all classes must look for safety against the dogmas and doctrines that threaten the social fabric, and sacred rights of persons and property, and I believe the trust will not be in vain."

I spoke nearly every day during the month of October, in different parts of the State of Ohio. I do not recall a town of importance that I did not visit, nor a congressional district in which I did not speak. Governor Foraker was even more active than I was. His speeches were received with great applause, and his manners and conduct made him popular. The only danger he encountered was in the active movement of the Prohibition party. This party ran a separate ticket, the votes of which, it was feared, would mainly come from the Republican party. In a speech I made at Oberlin, on the 4th of November, I made an appeal to our Prohibition friends to support the Republican ticket. I said:

"There are but two great parties in this country, one or the other of which is to be put in power. You have a perfect right to vote for the smaller Prohibition party, and thus throw away your vote, but you know very well that either a Republican or a Democratic legislature will be elected, and that there will not be a single Prohibition candidate elected. Will it not be better to choose between these two parties and give your assistance to the one that has done the most for the success of your principles? We think the Republican party is still entitled, as in the past, to your hearty support. Among other of its enactments there is the 'Dow law,' looked upon you with suspicion, yet it has done more for temperance than your 'prohibition laws' at present could have done. That law enables you to exclude the sale of liquor in more than 400 Ohio towns. It was passed by a Republican legislature. By it more than 3,000 saloons have been driven out of existence.

"Then you have the repeated declaration of the Republican party, a party that never deceived the people with false promises, that they will do anything else that is necessary, or all that is possible by law, to check the evils that flow from intoxicating drinks.

"Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party, which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state $2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept. They say they want license, but they know it can never be brought about without a change in the constitution. They want the liquor traffic to go unrestrained. It does seem to me that with all the intelligence of this community it is the duty of all its candid men, who are watching the tendencies of these two parties in this country, not to throw their votes away.

"It is much better to do our work by degrees, working slowly in the right direction, than to attempt to do it prematurely by wholesale, and fail. More men have been broken up by attempting too much than by 'going slow.'

"Your powerful moral influence, if kept within the Republican party, will do more good, a thousandfold, than you can do losing your vote by casting it for a ticket that cannot be elected. Next year will present one of the most interesting spectacles in our history. The Republican party will gather its hosts of progressive and patriotic citizens into one grand party at its national convention, and I trust that when that good time comes our Prohibition friends and neighbors who stand aloof from us will come back and join the old fold and rally around the old flag of our country, the stars and stripes, and help us to march on to a grand and glorious victory."

I closed my part of the canvass on the 5th of November, at Music Hall, Cleveland, one of the finest meetings that I ever attended. General E. S. Meyer and D. K. Watson shared in the speaking.

The result of the election, on the following Tuesday, gave Governor Foraker a plurality of 23,329 over Thomas E. Powell, and the legislature was Republican in both branches.

During the canvass I felt specially anxious for the election of Governor Foraker and a Republican legislature. Some doubts had been expressed by members of the Toledo convention whether the resolution favoring my nomination for President would not endanger the election of Governor Foraker, and his defeat would have been attributed to that resolution. I did not believe it could have that effect, yet the fear of it led to my unusual activity in the canvass. I was very much gratified with the result. Before and after the election the general discussion was continued in the newspapers for and against my nomination, upon the presumption that the contest would lie between Mr. Blaine and myself.

The election in New York was adverse to the Republican party, and this and his feeble health no doubt largely influenced Mr. Blaine in declining to be a candidate for the nomination. Upon the surface it appeared that I would probably be the nominee, but I took no step whatever to promote the nomination and resumed my duties in the Senate with a firm resolve not to seek the nomination, but to rest upon the resolution adopted at Toledo. When letters came to me, as many did, favoring my nomination, I referred them to Green B. Raum, at that time a resident in Washington, to make such answer as he thought expedient.

CHAPTER LIV. CLEVELAND'S EXTRAORDINARY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. First Session of the 50th Congress--The President's "Cry of Alarm" --Troubled by the Excess of Revenues over Expenditures--My Answer to His Doctrines--His Refusal to Apply the Surplus to the Reduction of the Public Debt--The Object in Doing So--My Views Concerning Protection and the Tariff--In Favor of a Tariff Commission--"Mills Bill" the Outcome of the President's Message--Failure of the Bill During the Second Session--My Debates with Senator Beck on the Coinage Act of 1873, etc.--Omission of the Old Silver Dollar--Death of Chief Justice Waite--Immigration of Chinese Laborers--Controversy with Senator Vest--Speech on the Fisheries Question--Difficulties of Annexation with Canada.

The 50th Congress convened on the 5th of December, 1887, and was promptly organized, the Senate being Republican, and the House Democratic. During this long session of about eleven months, nearly every question of political or financial importance in American politics was under discussion, and I was compelled, by my position on the committees on foreign relations and finance, to take an active part in the debates.

On the 6th the President sent to Congress his annual message, in which he departed from the established usage of his predecessors, who had presented in order the subjects commented upon, commencing with a summary of our relations with foreign nations, and extending to the business of all the varied departments of the government. Instead of this he abruptly opened with a cry of alarm, as follows:

"To the Congress of the United States.

"You are confronted, at the threshold of your legislative duties, with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration."

This threatening announcement of a great national danger startled the general public, who had settled down into the conviction that all was going on very well with a Democratic administration. The President said that the amount of money annually exacted largely exceeded the expenses of the government. This did not seem so great a calamity. It was rather an evidence of good times, especially as he could apply the surplus to the reduction of the national debt. Then we were told that:

"On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the sinking fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54."

In other words, we had an excess of revenue over expenditures for three years of about $122,000,000. The sinking fund during that three years, as he informed us, amounted in the aggregate to $138,058,320; that is, we had stipulated by law to pay of the public debt that sum during three years, and had been able to pay all we agreed to pay, and had $122,000,000 more. He did not state that during and subsequent to the panic of 1873 the United States did not pay the sinking fund, and this deficiency was made good during the prosperous years that followed 1879. Upon the facts stated by him he based his extraordinary message. The only recommendation made by him was a reduction of taxation. No reference to the vast interests intrusted to departments other than the treasury was made by him except in a brief paragraph. He promised that as the law makes no provision for any report from the department of state, a brief history of the transactions of that important department might furnish the occasion for future consideration.

I have a sincere respect for President Cleveland, but I thought the message was so grave a departure from the customary annual message of the President to Congress that it ought to be answered seriatim. I did so in a carefully prepared speech. The answer made can be condensed in a few propositions: An increase of revenue (the law remaining unchanged) is an evidence of unusual trade and prosperity. The surplus revenue, whatever it might be, could and ought to be applied to the reduction of the public debt. The law under which the debt was created provided for this, by requiring a certain percentage of the debt to be paid annually, and appropriating the surplus revenue for that purpose. Under this policy it was estimated that the debt would be paid off prior to 1907.

But experience soon demonstrated that, whatever might be the law in force, the revenues of the government would vary from year to year, depending, not upon rates of taxation, but upon the financial condition of the country. After the panic of 1873, the revenues were so reduced that the sinking fund was practically suspended by the fact that there was no surplus money in the treasury to meet its requirements. At periods of prosperity the revenues were in excess of the current expenses and the sinking fund, and in such conditions the entire surplus revenue, was applied to the reduction of the public debt and thus made good the deficiency in the sinking fund in times of financial stringency. This was a wise public policy, fully understood and acted upon by every Secretary of the Treasury since the close of the war and prior to Mr. Manning.

Another rule of action, founded upon the clearest public policy, had been observed prior to the incumbency of Mr. Cleveland, and that was not to hold in the treasury any form of money in excess of a reasonable balance, in addition to the fund held to secure the redemption of United States notes. All sums in excess of these were promptly applied to the payment of the public debt, and, if none of it was redeemable, securities of the United States were purchased in the open market. It was the desire of Congress and every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, in order to comply with the sinking fund law, to apply the surplus to the gradual reduction of the debt. While I was secretary I heartily co-operated with the committees of Congress in reducing appropriations, and in this way was enabled to maintain the reserve, and to reduce the interest- bearing public debt.

The policy of Mr. Cleveland and Secretary Manning was to hoard in the treasury as much of the currency of the country as possible, amounting sometimes to more than $200,000,000, and this created a stringency which affected injuriously the business of the country. It was the policy of all the early Presidents to apply any surplus revenue either to the reduction of the public debt or to public objects.

Mr. Jefferson, in his message of 1806, says: "To what object shall the surplus be appropriated? Shall we suppress the impost, and thus give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufacturers?" He believed that the patriotism of the people would "prefer its continuance and application for the purpose of the public education, roads, rivers and canals." This was in exact opposition to the policy proposed by Mr. Cleveland, who refused to apply the surplus revenue to the reduction of the debt, and in his extraordinary message demanded a reduction of duties on foreign goods. A larger surplus revenue had frequently, from time to time, been wisely dealt with by Republican administrations. It had either been applied by the executive authorities to the payment of the public debt, or its accumulation had been prevented by Congress, from time to time, by the reduction or repeal of taxes. In the administration of each of Mr. Cleveland's predecessors since the close of the war, this simple remedy had been applied without neglecting other matters, or raising a cry of alarm. It was apparent that the object of the President was to force the reduction of duties on imported goods, which came into competition with domestic products, and that the accumulation of money in the treasury was resorted to as a means to compel such a reduction.

On the 19th of July, 1886, I had called the attention of the Senate to the difficulty and danger of hoarding in the treasury surplus revenue, and the readiness of the Senate to provide for the reduction of taxes and the application of the surplus. The revenues could have been reduced without endangering domestic industries. At the date of his extraordinary message both Houses of Congress were quite ready to reduce taxes. Full authority had been given to the Secretary of the Treasury to apply surplus revenue to the purchase of United States bonds. But the President, set in his opinion, was not satisfied with such measures, but demanded the reduction of duties which protected American industries.

The greater part of my speech in reply to the President's message was a discussion of the different forms of taxation imposed by the United States and especially the duties imposed on imported goods. I never was an extreme protectionist. I believed in the imposition of such a duty on foreign goods which could be produced in the United States as would fairly measure the difference in the cost of labor and manufacture in this and foreign countries. This was a question not to be decided by interested capitalists, but by the careful estimate of business men. The intense selfishness exhibited by many of those who demanded protection, and the error of those who opposed all protection, were alike to be disregarded.

I believe that no judicious tariff can be framed by Congress alone, without the help of a commission of business men not personally interested in the subject-matter, and they should be aided by experienced officers in the revenue service. I have participated in a greater or less degree in the framing of every tariff law for forty years. I have spoken many times on the subject in the Senate and on the rostrum. My reply to the President's message is the best exposition I have made as to the principles and details of a protective tariff. If I had my way I would convene such a tariff commission as I have discussed, give it ample time to hear and gain all information that could aid it, and require it to report the rates of duty proposed in separate schedules so that the rate of each schedule or paragraph might be raised or lowered from time to time to meet the wants of the treasury. If Congress would allow such a bill to become a law we could dismiss the tariff free from party politics and lay the foundation for a durable system of national taxation, upon which domestic industries may be founded without the hazard which they now encounter every year or two by "tinkering with the tariff."

The real controversy raised by the President's message was not whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate with Mr. McKenna, as follows;

"There is a broad line of division between the two parties as they exist now and as they will exist in the future. The President says, 'retain all internal taxes and reduce the duties on imported merchandise that comes in competition with home industries.' We say we will not strike down any prospering industry in this country; that where manufactures have sprung up in our midst by aid of a duty, this protection, as you call it, we will not reduce; we will not derange contracts, industries, or plans, or lower the prices of labor, or compel laborers or manufacturers to meet any sudden change or emergency. We say that we are willing to join with you in reducing the taxes. We will select those taxes that bear most heavily upon the people, especially internal taxes, and repeal those. We will maintain the policy of protection by tariff duties just as long as it is necessary to give our people the benefit of a home market, and diversified productions a fair chance in the trade and commerce of our country, but we will not invite into our country foreign importations to compete with and break down our home industries."

The bill entitled "A bill to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenue," known as the Mills bill, was the outcome of the President's message. It was reported to the House of Representatives by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, and thus obtained its name. Mr. Mills, on the 17th of April, called it up for consideration, and it was debated and amended, and passed the House on the 21st of July, more than seven months after the President's cry of alarm, by the close vote of 162 yeas to 149 nays. Samuel J. Randall, then absent and sick, desired his colleague to pair him against the bill, as, if present, he would record his vote in opposition to the bill. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on finance. On the 8th of October Mr. Allison, from that committee, reported back the Mills bill with a substitute for the entire bill. This substitute was a careful and elaborate protective tariff bill, containing some provisions I did not approve, but, in its general provisions, was, in my opinion, a far better bill than the Mills bill. The debate on these rival bills continued until the close of the session on the 19th of October, when the Senate, by a resolution, authorized and directed the committee on finance to continue during the recess of Congress the investigation of such revenue measures, including the Senate and House bills, as had been referred to the Senate.

The history of the bills during the second session of this Congress is easily told. They were debated in the Senate nearly every day until the 22nd of January, 1889, when the amendment of the Senate was adopted as a substitute for the entire Mills bill, by the close vote of 32 yeas to 30 nays. It was debated in the House of Representatives and referred to its committee of ways and means. It was reported by the committee to the House of Representatives, with a resolution declaring that the action of the Senate in substituting an entire bill for the House bill was in violation of the constitution. No action was taken on this resolution, and then all tariff legislation was defeated for that Congress.

On the 6th of March, 1888, Senator Beck made a rambling speech commencing with a fierce denunciation of a bill then pending to grant pensions to certain disabled soldiers of the Union army. He then veered off on the tariff and the great trusts created by it. I ventured, in a mild-mannered way, to suggest to him a doubt whether trusts were caused by the tariff, whether they did not exist as to domestic as well as to foreign productions. I named to him the whisky trust, the cotton-seed trust and other trusts of that kind, and wanted to know how these grew out of the tariff. Thereupon he changed his ground and took up the silver question and commenced assailing me for the coinage act of 1873, saying I was responsible for it. He said it was secretly passed, surreptitiously done, that I did it, that I knew it.

I promptly replied to that charge by showing from the records that the act referred to, and especially the part of it relating to the silver dollar, was recommended by Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury, and all the officers connected with coinage and the mints, that it was debated at great length for three successive sessions in both Houses, that it was printed thirteen times, and that the clause omitting the old silver dollar was especially considered and the policy of it fully debated, and a substitute for the old dollar was provided for by each House. I can say with confidence that every Member of the Senate but Beck felt that he had been worsted in the debate, and that the charge aimed at me, but which equally applied to Morrill and Bayard, and especially to all the Senators from the silver states who earnestly and actively supported the bill, was thoroughly refuted.

Senator Beck, chafed by his defeat, on the 13th of March made in the Senate a three hours' speech in support of his position. Instead of going to the public records and showing by them whether or not the law was put through the Senate in a secret way, he quoted what several Senators and Members said they did not know, what Grant did not know, a mode of argument that if of effect would invalidate the great body of the legislation of Congress.

I replied in a speech occupying less than half an hour, producing the original bill as it came from the treasury department with the dollar omitted from the silver coins, with the report of the Secretary of the Treasury calling attention to its omission, and the opinion of Knox, LInderman, Patterson, Elliott, all of whom were prominent officers of the treasury department in charge of currency and coinage, giving fully the reasons why the old silver dollar was omitted. I also quoted from the records of each House of Congress, showing that special attention was called to the omission of the old silver dollar by Mr. Hooper, having charge of the bill. The House of Representatives, in compliance with the advice of Comptroller Knox, did authorize in its bill, which it passed, a subsidiary dollar containing 384 grains of standard silver, the same weight as two half dollars, but these dollars were, like the subsidiary fractional coins, a legal tender for only five dollars. When this bill came to the Senate it was thoroughly debated. The legislature of California petitioned Congress for a silver dollar weighing more than the Mexican dollar instead of the subsidiary dollar provided for by the House. In compliance with this petition, the Senate so amended the bill as to authorize the owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at any mint, to be formed into bars or into dollars of the weight of 420 grains, designated as "trade dollars." These dollars were intended solely for the foreign trade, and were worth in the market only the value of 420 grains of standard silver. It was the dollar desired by the silver producing states, and but for the rapid decline in the price of silver, which made this dollar worth less than its face in gold, the mint would probably be coining them to-day; but before the mint was closed to their coinage more than 35,000,000 pieces had been made. No unprejudiced persons could claim that the charges of Mr. Beck were not completely answered.

On the 23rd of March Chief Justice Waite, of the Supreme Court of the United States, died at his residence in Washington. Upon the 27th, upon my motion, the Senate adopted a resolution that a committee of five Senators be appointed by the chair, whose duty it should be to accompany the remains of the chief justice to Toledo, in the State of Ohio, and attend the funeral there. The committee appointed were Messrs. Sherman, Allison, Evarts, George and Gray. They attended the funeral as directed. Chief Justice Waite was born in Connecticut, but lived all his manhood life in Toledo, Ohio, until appointed by President Grant as chief justice. He was an able lawyer and a patient, conscientious and learned judge.

On the 1st of March I was directed by the committee on foreign relations to report the following resolution:

"Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That, in view of the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer should enter the United States."

After a brief debate, participated in by Senators Morgan, Stewart, Mitchell and others, I made a few remarks, commencing as follows:

"Whatever differences there may have been in the Senate or in the country, with regard to the restriction of Chinese immigration, the time has come when I believe the general sentiment of the people is, that the law on the subject should be fairly enforced; that the Chinese laborer should be excluded from enjoying the benefits of our country, because he will not adapt himself to the civilization of our country. That feeling is most strongly expressed by Senators and Representatives from the Pacific coast, among whom the 100,000 or more Chinese in the country live, and they have expressed that opinion to the committee on foreign relations so decidedly and unanimously, and supported by such potent reasons, that I believe every member of that committee is of the opinion that the object of the law to exclude the immigration of Chinese laborers should be effectively carried out."

The resolution was adopted.

During this Congress the question of excluding Chinese immigration by treaty and by law was pending and copiously debated. There seemed to be a general concurrence that such immigration was not desirable, and that Chinese coolies should be absolutely excluded. A treaty was negotiated providing for such exclusion, but, as there was a long dely by the Chinese government in ratifying it, and the coolies still continued to come, bills were introduced in Congress prohibiting, under severe penalties, the immigration of all Chinese laborers. Before the bill became a law the treaty was ratified. Now, both by treaty and by law, such immigrants are excluded, but in spite of law and treaty they still come in lessening numbers, and it does not appear how they can be entirely excluded. I have been in favor of the exclusion of Chinese laborers when practically they are slaves, but have sought to moderate the legislation proposed, so as not to disturb our friendly relations with China, or to exclude educated Chinamen engaged in commercial pursuits.

On the 18th of April I made a speech on a bill for the admission of Dakota, as a state, into the Union. That territory had more than the usual population of a new state, but its admission had been postponed, year after year, by the action of the Democratic party. This speech led to a long debate between Mr. Vest and myself on the election in Louisiana in 1876. It is not an unusual occurrence to change the subject of discussion in the Senate where debate is unlimited. I made a long review of the events in Louisiana, mainly in reply to a question put by Mr. Vest as follows:

"I have never understood, and the people of this country have never been able to understand, why Packard was not elected governor with a larger number of votes than Hayes received for President. But Packard was thrown out and sent as consul to Liverpool, and Hayes was sworn in as President of the United States."

To this I replied that the returning board was invested with the power to pass upon the election of electors and they did perform that duty, but the question of the election of a governor and a legislature of Louisiana could only be passed upon by the legislature itself, each house being the judge of its own elections, and the two houses, when organized, had the sole and exclusive power to pass upon the election of a governor. This condition of affairs led to a controversy which endangered the public peace and involved the use of United States troops to prevent civil war. President Hayes thereupon had selected five gentlemen, Charles B. Lawrence, Joseph R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown and Wayne MacVeagh, each of whom was a man of marked distinction in the community in which he lived. They were sent to Louisiana to inquire and report upon the existing condition of affairs bordering on a state of civil war between the opposing factions. They were instructed to promote, as far as possible, the organization of a legislature, so that it might pass upon the question of who was governor of the state. The result of their inquiry led to the organization of the legislature, and when so organized it recognized Nichols as Governor of Louisiana, as it clearly had the right to do. The returning board had the unquestioned right to pass upon the election of electors for President, but it was equally clear that the legislature was invested with the sole power of passing upon the election of the governor. The returning board certified to the election of the Hayes electors, and the legislature determined that Nichols was elected governor. Although these decisions were inconsistent with each other yet each was legal and binding. I took occasion in this speech to defend the action of the returning board, and especially the two leading members, J. Madison Wells and Thomas A. Anderson, both of whom were men of high character and standing in that state.

In the course of this debate Vest and Butler charged me with inconsistency in my speeches at Nashville and Springfield. This allegation had been frequently made in the newspapers of the time. In reply I said:

"I am much obliged to my friend from Missouri for his kindness in reading extracts from my speeches. They sound much better to me read by him than when spoken by myself. The speeches speak for themselves, particularly the one at Nashville. Every word I uttered on that night I utter now. If I could repeat it over, I would add emphasis to give force and effect to it, and so I feel about the south. I have not the slightest feeling of hostility against the south, and no desire in regard to it, except to preserve and protect the rights of all the people of the south.

"Now, in regard to my speech at Springfield, every word of that is true. Why does not the Senator dispute some fact stated in that speech? That was a review made to a legislature--indeed, both speeches were made to legislative assemblies, dignified and honorable men. I was speaking in sight of the monument of Lincoln; I was recalling the incidents of Lincoln's life, the period of the war, and referred, of course, to the Democratic party north and south. I could not truthfully draw a more flattering picture. The one was a speech as to the future to men who, I believed, were hopefully looking forward to the disappearance of the feelings of the war. The other was a recapitulation and review of the past. Every word of it was true. If the Senator can point out the inconsistency in these speeches, he will oblige me. There is not a single word in one inconsistent with the other. I did denounce the course of the Democratic party north and south, during and since the war, especially in regard to the reconstruction measures. I did, at Nashville, speak hopefully, and I feel hopefully, of the future, but it is only upon the basis of the recognized rights of every American citizen."

On the 16th of July I made a speech in favor of the passage of a bill for the erection of a monument to General George Rogers Clark, of the American Revolution. His march through the wilderness and attack upon the British posts in the northwestern territory was one of the most brilliant events in the Revolutionary War. The bill passed the Senate and was reported to the House, but was not acted upon. It is one of the obligations of honor and duty which, I trust, will be discharged by the United States before many years.

On the 24th of August a message from the President, in regard to the fishing rights of the United States, was read in the Senate. I moved that the message be referred to the committee on foreign relations. Before this motion was put an extended debate took place mainly between Senators Edmunds and Morgan, though several other Senators took part. I made a speech expressing my opinion of the President's position on the fishery question, and then took occasion to refer to the surplus in the treasury in the following words:

"It seems to me that the position taken by the President is a good deal like that held by him as to the payment of the public debt. My former old and honored colleague [Mr. Thurman] is going around through the country talking about surplus money in the treasury, there accumulated all because we Republicans will not let it out. Of all the financial management that I have read or know of, the worst is that by the present administration. Here there was an accumulating surplus in the treasury, day by day and year by year, since the first day Mr. Cleveland entered the presidential chair. What did he do with that surplus revenue? He did not make proclamation of it for two or three years, but let it accumulate and accumulate until he did not know what to do with it. Finally the attention of the administration was called to the fact that they ought to buy bonds with it. Well, Mr. Cleveland, with his sharp construction, thought he had not the power to buy bonds; he thought he could not do it legally. The law confers the power upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

"The President had no more power over it than the Senator from Connecticut before me [Mr. Platt] has. The law confers it upon the secretary; it was his duty to buy bonds. What untold sums have been lost by his failure to comply with that law. Until recently, during nearly all the administration of Mr. Cleveland, the four per cent. bonds have been sold in the market about 123. I have here the American almanac giving the value of the four per cent. bonds during his administration, and they have usually sold at 123. If the United States had quietly watched its opportunities in the way the present secretary's predecessors had done, he could have gone into the market and absorbed those bonds, to the amount of half a million or a million at a time, and bought them at the market price, 123, and then how much money would have been saved to the government of the United States.

"My former colleague says they have over $100,000,000 of surplus. If they had applied that one hundred million in the purchase of bonds they would have saved four per cent. per annum for three years--that is, twelve per cent. And besides, they would have saved six or seven per cent. lost by the advance of bonds. At any time during the administration of Mr. Cleveland, if his Secretary of the Treasury had exercised the power conferred on him by the law, he might have saved the government of the United States from twelve to sixteen per cent. on the whole hundred million of dollars, if he had invested it in bonds of the United States. But he would not do it because he had not the power. So the President sent to Congress and asked for power, just as he has done in this case, when he had ample power, and both Houses declared unanimously that he had the power, and then, after the bonds had gone up to 127 or 128, when he had lost three years' interest on a large portion of this accumulation, he commenced to buy bonds and complains that they are too high, and that he calls wise financial management.

"So now here is a law, on the statute book for over a year, to enforce a demand on the Canadian authorities that our fishermen, who are there carrying on their hazardous enterprise, should have the right to enter the port of Halifax and ship their goods under the plain provisions of the treaty or the law, and, if that right was denied, then here was the law expressly prepared for the particular case, to authorize the President not to do any violent act of retaliation, not to involve us in any dangerous or delusive measure which would excite the public mind and probably create animosities between these two great countries. But suppose he had simply said: 'Well, if you deny to the Yankee fishermen the right to transship their fish, we deny you the right to bring fresh fish into Maine, Boston, and New York, and scatter them all over, cured by ice,' for that is the effect of it--ice takes the place of salt."

My allusion to the finances as usual excited the ire of Mr. Beck, who said:

"The Senator from Ohio gets away from the treaty and talks about this administration not buying bonds and how much we could have saved because they have raised the price; but I want to say that he himself was the man, both as Secretary of the Treasury and as chairman of the committee on finance, who arranged our debts in such a way that we could not pay them."

In my reply I again called attention to the fact that the House, of which Mr. Beck was a Member at the time of the passage of the four per cent. bond bill, and not the Senate, was responsible for the long period of the bonds. I said:

"The Senator from Kentucky says I am responsible for the fact that there is the prolonged period of thirty years to the four per cent. bonds. He knows, because he was here the other day when I showed from the public record, that the Senate of the United States proposed to pass a bill to issue bonds running only twenty years, with the right of redemption after ten years; and if the law had been passed in that form in which it was sent from the Senate none of this trouble would have existed; but it was changed by the House of Representatives, of which the Senator from Kentucky was then a Member. I believe he voted for the House proposition against the Senate proposition, by which the time was extended to thirty years, and they were not redeemable during that time. Yet I am charged with the responsibility of lengthening these bonds.

"Whatever my sins, I can claim to have always favored the right to redeem the bonds of the United States as the 5-20's and the 10-40's were issued to be redeemed; and if I had had my way we would have had the same kind of bonds issued instead of the thirty-year bonds."

The relation of Canada with the United States, especially in connection with the fisheries, became at this period dangerously strained. This led me, on the 18th of September, to offer in the Senate the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the committee on foreign relations be directed to inquire into, and report at the next session of Congress, the state of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, with such measures as are expedient to promote friendly commercial and political intercourse between these countries and the United States, and for that purpose have leave to sit during the recess of Congress."

In support of this resolution I said in opening:

"The recent message of the President recommending a line of retaliation against the Dominion of Canada involves the consideration of our relations with that country in a far more important and comprehensive way than Congress has ever before been called upon to give. The recent treaty rejected by the Senate related to a single subject, affecting alone our treaty rights on her northeastern coast. The act of retaliation of 1887 was confined to the same subject-matter. This message, however, treats of matters extending across the continent, affecting commercial relations with every state and territory on our northern boundary. Under these circumstances I feel it is my duty to present my views of all these cognate subjects, and in doing so I feel bound to discard, as far as possible, all political controversy, for in dealing with foreign relations, and especially those with our nearest neighbor, we should think only of our country and not of our party."

The real difficulty of dealing with Canada is its dependence on Great Britain. Our negotiations must be with the English government, while the matters complained of are purely Canadian, and the consent of Canada is necessary to the ratification of any treaty. The President complained that Canadian authorities and officers denied to our fishermen the common privileges freely granted to friendly nations to enter their ports and harbors, to purchase supplies and transship commodities. He said that they subjected our citizens, engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to their northeastern shore, to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances, had seized and sold their vessels upon slight pretexts, and had otherwise treated them in a rude, harsh, and oppressive manner. He further said:

"This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada, by the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it, and upon the ground that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, of disputed interpretation, the relative positions of the United States and Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations surely guaranty, and, above all, the liberality always extended by the United States to the people of Canada, furnished motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty covenants."

I agreed with the President in his arraignment of the Canadian authorities for denying to our fishing vessels the benefit of the enlightened measures adopted in later years by commercial nations, especially by the United States and Great Britain. We admitted fish free of duty into our country, while Canada refused to our fishermen the right to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian ports, thus preventing our fishermen from competing with the Canadians on the open sea. The President undertook, by treaty, to correct this injustice, but the Senate thought that the provisions of the treaty were not adequate for that purpose, and declined to ratify it. He thereupon recommended that Congress provide certain measures of retaliation, which, in the opinion of the Senate, would have inflicted greater injury to the United States than to Canada. This honest difference of opinion, not based upon party lines, opened up the consideration of all our commercial relations with Canada. The speech made by me dealt with the policy of the United States with Canada in the past and for the future, and led me to the expression of my opinion that Canada should be, and would be, represented in the parliament of Great Britain or the Congress of the United States, with the expression of my hope of its being annexed to our country. I said:

"And now I submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history, since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763, has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by a political as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all, for the mother country as well, if all this continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the blessings and prosperity of the American Union.

"So, evidently, our fathers thought, for among the earliest military movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the occupation of Canada, and the capture of the British forces in Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition, the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful suffering borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat, is familiar to every student of American history. The native population of Canada were then friendly to our cause, and hundreds of them, as refugees, followed our retiring forces and shared in the subsequent dangers and triumphs of the war. It was the earnest desire of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, at the treaty of peace, to secure the consent of Great Britain to allow Canada to form a part of the United States, and at one time it appeared possible, but for the influence of France and Spain, then the acknowledged sovereigns of large parts of the territory now included within the United States. The present status of Canada grew out of the activities and acquisitions of European powers after the discovery of this continent. Spain, France, and England especially desired to acquire political jurisdiction over this newly discovered country.

"Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts with the European powers maintaining governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now held.

"Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty- four years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world; and as far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live next door neighbors to each other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between them.

"A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them, rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European power, one hundred years ago, was able to hold that territory against us; but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become an independent government to all intents and purposes, as much so as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida, Louisiana, and the Pacific coast and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and matters of transportation. These intensify not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity, of both a commercial and a political union between Canada and the United States."

This was my opinion then, but further reflection convinces me that the annexation of Canada to the United States presents serious difficulties, and that the best policy for the other English-speaking countries is that Canada should constitute an independent republic, founded upon the model of the United States, with one central government, and provinces converted into states with limited powers for local governments. The United States already embraces so vast a country, divided into forty-four states and four territories, exclusive of Alaska and the Indian Territory, that any addition to the number of states would tend to weaken the system, and the conversion of the provinces of Canada into states of our Union would introduce new elements of discord, while with Canada as an independent and friendly republic we could, by treaties or concurrent legislation, secure to each the benefit of free trade and intercourse with the other, and without the danger of weakening the United States. Great Britain, the common mother of both republics, could take pride in her progeny and be relieved from the cares and controversies that have arisen and will arise in her guardianship of Canada. Her policy in recent years has been to surrender, as much as possible, her legislative power over Canada, but, as Canada is not represented in parliament and cannot be represented by a minister at Washington, the spectacle of a British minister of the highest rank engaged in an effort to negotiate a treaty for the benefit of Canada about bait and fish and fisheries, imposing restrictions of trade in direct opposition to the policy of the mother country. This condition of Canada constantly invites a breach of the peace between the United States and Great Britain, but with Canada governed by a parliament and by local assemblies in the provinces on a plan similar to our own, the two republics would be independent of each other, and could arrange their matters without any other country to interfere.

There were many other measures of interest and importance in the discussing and framing of which I participated at this session, but as this is not a general history of Congress, I do not deem it necessary to mention them in detail.

CHAPTER LV. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888. Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President-- Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats--I Am Indorsed by the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19--My Response to a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant--Meeting with Prominent Men in New York--Foraker's Reply to Judge West's Declaration Concerning Blaine--Blaine's Florence Letter to Chairman Jones--His Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position--Meeting of the Convention in Chicago in June--I Am Nominated by General D. H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker--Jealously Between the Ohio Delegates--Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June 25--Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain--General Harrison is Nominated--Letters from the President Elect--My Replies--First Speeches of the Campaign--Harrison's Victory--Second Session of the 50th Congress--The President's Cabinet.

While Congress was in session the people of the United States were greatly interested in the choice of a candidate for President. Conventions were held, votes were taken and preferences expressed in every state. It was settled early in the year that a large majority of the delegates from Ohio would support me for President, and several weeks before the convention was held it was announced that I would receive the unanimous support of the delegates from Ohio. The Democratic party nominated Grover Cleveland and Allen G. Thurman for President and Vice President.

The Republican state convention was held at Dayton, Ohio, on the 18th and 19th of April, and selected Foraker, Foster, McKinley and Butterworth as delegates at large to the national convention. Forty-two delegates were nominated by the twenty-one districts, and all of them were known to favor my nomination. The convention unanimously adopted this resolution:

"Seventh. The Republicans of Ohio recognize the merits, services and abilities of the statesmen who have been mentioned for the Republican nomination for the presidency, and, loyal to anyone who may be selected, present John Sherman to the country as eminently qualified and fitted for the duties of that exalted office, and the delegates to the Republican national convention this day selected are directed to use all honorable means to secure his nomination as President of the United States."

The speeches made at the convention by the delegates at large, and by other members, expressed without qualification the hearty and unanimous support of my nomination. The condition upon which alone I would become a candidate for so exalted a position as President of the United States had been complied with, and I therefore felt that I might fairly aspire to the nomination. Mr. Blaine had declined it on account of his health, and no one was named who had a longer record of public service than I had.

The movement for my nomination was heartily indorsed by the people of Ohio and was kindly received in the different states. Many of the leading newspapers assumed that it was assured. Sketches of my life, full of errors, appeared. My old friend, Rev. S. A. Bronson, issued a new edition of his "Life of John Sherman." Comments favorable and unfavorable, some of them libelous, appeared in print. Mrs. Sherman, much more sensitive than I of calumny, begged me not to be a candidate, as the office of President had killed Lincoln and Garfield, and the effort to attain it had broken down Webster, Clay and Blaine, and would do the same with me. However, I remained at my duties in Washington as calmly awaiting the action of the Chicago convention as any one of my associates in the Senate. I read the daily reports of what was to be--"that I was to be nominated on the first ballot," and "that I had no chance whatever," and became alike indifferent as to the one or the other result.

Shortly after the Ohio convention, I was invited to attend a banquet of the Americus club at the Monongahela House, in Pittsburg, on the 28th of April, at which Senator Harrison and Colonel Fred. Grant were guests. The lobby of the hotel looked as if a political convention was in session, many prominent men from Pennsylvania and other states being present.

At the banquet I was called upon to respond to the toast "Grant; He Was Great to the End." I insert a portion of my remarks:

"I saw General Grant when he arrived in Washington. He soon took command of the Army of the Potomac. His plan of campaign was soon formed. His objective point was Lee's army. Where Lee went he went, and if Lee moved too slowly Grant flanked him. After the fearful and destructive battles of the Wilderness, Washburne wanted to carry some consoling message to Lincoln, and Grant wrote 'I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.' And so he did, and all winter. He never loosed his tenacious grip of Lee's army until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. If you ask me the secret of his success I say tenacity, tenacity. He never was discouraged. He knew how to hold on. And when his object was attained, and not till then, he knew how to be generous.

"He carried the same traits into civil life. He was always the same plain, simple, confiding, brave, tenacious and generous man in war and peace, as when the leader of vast armies, President of the United States, the guest of kings and emperors, and in his final struggle with grim-visaged death. Gentlemen, you do right to commemorate his birthday. It was his good fortune to be the chief instrument of Divine Power to secure to you and your posterity the blessing of a free, strong and united country. He was heroic to the end, and you should be equally heroic in maintaining and preserving the rights and privileges and policy for which he contended.

* * * * *

"I deem it an honor to be called upon by your club, on this sixty- sixth anniversary of the birthday of General Grant, to present in brief words this typical American citizen, this illustrious soldier, this patriotic President. By his tenacious courage and skill the armies of the Union were led from victory to victory, from Belmont to Appomattox, until every enemy of the republic laid down his arms in unconditional surrender. He won from foreign nations reparation for injuries done to us during the war. He did more than anyone else to preserve untarnished the public credit and honor. Heroic to the end, in the hours of death he won his greatest victory by the story of his life, told in words so plain, truthful, charitable and eloquent that it will become as classic as the commentaries of Caesar, but more glorious as the record of a patriot who saved his country, instead of a conqueror who overthrew its liberties. When speaking of General Grant I do not know where to begin and where to end, whether with his personal traits of character, his achievements as a commander of armies, or his services as an untried magistrate in civil life; I can only make a mere reference to each of these elements of his fame."

During the whole of the month of May I remained in Washington, and attended constantly the sessions of the Senate. I was greatly interrupted by visits of persons from different parts of the country, who wished to converse with me in regard to the approaching convention. I treated them kindly, but referred them to General Raum for any information he could give them. I was called to New York on the 8th of June, to attend a meeting of the directors of the Fort Wayne Railway Company. I stopped at the Fifth Avenue hotel, where great numbers of politicians called upon me, but I was charged with having interviews with many persons whom I did not see. I met the leading politicians of the state, including ex- Senator Platt, Senators Hiscock and Quay, Charles Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, and many others. The newspapers had a good many alleged interviews which never occurred. I then became satisfied that I would not probably receive more than five or six of the votes of the New York delegation, as they had generally committed themselves to Mr. Depew, who was understood to be a candidate.

It was already asserted in the papers that I would not be nominated, but that Blaine would be, in spite of his declination in his Florence and Paris letters. Among others, this was asserted by Judge West, of Ohio. Governor Foraker, who was at the head of the Ohio delegation to Chicago, was reported to have said in reply to West:

"I do not attach much importance to Judge West's recent speech. He is not a delegate this year, and he only speaks for himself. Mr. Sherman will have the united and hearty support of the delegates from this state, and I think his nomination is reasonably assured. I received a letter from him yesterday in which he expressed himself as being very confident of getting the nomination. It certainly looks that way to me."

"How do you account for the circulation of the reports that you are not entirely loyal to Sherman?"

"I suppose they originated in the breasts of mischief-makers who would like to make trouble. There never was the slightest foundation for them. I have paid no heed to them, for if my character is not sufficiently established in this state to make my attitude towards Mr. Sherman perfectly clear, nothing I could say would alter the situation. It has been practically settled that General Hastings, the adjutant general of Pennsylvania, will present Mr. Sherman's name to the convention. He is an excellent speaker, and will, no doubt, acquit himself with credit. Yes, I shall probably make the speech seconding his nomination from this state. It is customary, I believe, to have a candidate presented by a delegate from some other state than his own, and in Sherman's case it seems eminently proper that he should be presented in this way, as he is in such a broad sense a national candidate."

There was a common opinion prevailing that the relations of Blaine and myself were not friendly. This was a grave mistake. We had never had any controversy of a personal character. He had spoken of me in terms of the highest eulogy in his book "Twenty Years of Congress," in this manner:

"It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress has an opportunity to carry it out in an executive department. But Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the resumption bill in the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day for coin payment he was at the head of the treasury department. He established a financial reputation not second to that of any man in our history."

Prior to our state convention, while Mr. Blaine was abroad, I wrote to a friend of his, who was with him, that if Blaine desired to be a candidate I would withdraw and advocate his nomination. This letter was handed to Murat Halstead, who was about to proceed to Europe. He showed it to Blaine, who insisted that he could not and would not be a candidate, and wrote a letter to B. F. Jones, chairman of the Republican national committee, in which he stated, in terms that could not be mistaken, his position in regard to the presidency, and settled for good the question of his candidacy. In neither of his previous epistles did he state positively he would not accept the nomination if tendered him. In the letter to Chairman Jones this declaration was most emphatically made. Under no circumstances, Mr. Blaine said, would he permit the use of his name in Chicago, nor would he accept a presidential nomination unanimously tendered him. He further went on to say that Senator John Sherman was his preference, and advised the convention to place his name at the head of the Republican national ticket.

Mr. Halstead said to a correspondent of the New York "World," in regard to Mr. Blaine's position, that he had achieved the greatest place in our political history--above that of Henry Clay--that the nomination would have come to him unsought, but he had smothered any personal ambition he may have had for the good of his party. Mr. Blaine's name, he declared, would not come before the Chicago convention as a candidate in any contingency we have a right to assume. "Mr. Blaine told me," he said, "when I met him in Europe in August last, that he was not a Tichborne claimant for the presidency, and he wanted his friends to understand it. Mr. Blaine will have as distinguished a place in history as he could have obtained had he been elected to the presidency."

Mr. Blaine was asked: "Do you think Mr. Sherman could be elected?"

He replied: "Mr. Sherman represents the principles of the Republican party from its beginning. He has never wavered in his allegiance to the party. If we cannot elect a man on the principles of the Republican party we will not be able to pull anyone through on personal popularity. I think Mr. Sherman is as strong as the Republican party, and that if nominated he can be elected, and also that he has great personal strength."

In reply to the question, "Will the Ohio delegates remain true to Sherman?" Mr. Blaine said: "Of that there can be no doubt. They are riveted and double-bolted to him. The talk of Foraker's scheming for himself is nonsense and malice. Foraker is a young man and has a great future before him. He may go to the Senate and be President later on. No, the Garfield miracle cannot be repeated this year. It is impossible."

The convention met at Chicago on the 19th of June. The delegation from Ohio was promptly in attendance, and was to all appearances united, and determined to carry out the instructions and requests of the state convention to support my nomination. There appeared to be some needless delay in the report of the committee on resolutions. Mr. McKinley, as chairman of the committee, reported the resolutions and they were unanimously adopted by the convention by a standing vote amid great enthusiasm.

I was nominated by General D. H. Hastings, of Pennsylvania, in a speech of remarkable power and eloquence. When he closed, enthusiastic and prolonged cheering and waving of flags greeted him from the galleries, which was joined in my many delegations.

Governor Foraker seconded the nomination. His opening words were: "Ohio is sometimes like New York. She occasionally comes to a national Republican convention divided as to her choice for the presidency, and sometimes she comes united. She has so come on this occasion. Her forty-six delegates are here to speak as one man." His speech throughout was received with great applause, and it and that of General Hastings were regarded as the most eloquent nominating addresses of the convention. They were followed by speeches made by John M. Langston, of Virginia, and Mr. Anson, of North Carolina. There certainly could be no fault found with either the manner or the matter of these addresses.

There was a constant effort made to produce jealousy between the members of the Ohio delegation, and perhaps it may be admitted that the natural divisions in a body of forty-six members would give rise to suspicion and misunderstanding, but I have no right to complain of anything done by the members of the delegation during the convention. There was a natural rivalry between Foraker and McKinley, as they were both young, able and eloquent men. Rumors prevailed at times that the Ohio delegation could be held solid no longer, but if there was any ground for these rumors it did not develop into a breach, as the delegation, from beginning to end, cast the entire vote of Ohio for me on every ballot except the last two or three, when one of the delegates, J. B. Luckey, voted for Harrison, placing his action on the ground that he had served with him in the army and felt bound to vote for him.

On Saturday evening I was telegraphed by different persons that I would certainly be nominated on Monday. That was the confident belief in Washington. On Sunday the following dispatch was published, which, though I do not recall any such conversation, expresses my feeling on that day:

"Senator Sherman says he does not believe that Foraker, or any other Ohio man, will desert him. He spent three hours Sunday at the capitol, in his committee room, and received many telegrams from Chicago, and also sent dispatches to that great central point of interest. He has received some unauthorized dispatches advising him to withdraw in favor of McKinley, but he refuses absolutely to interfere with his managers. His invariable answer to all advising him to pull out is that he is in the fight to stay."

On Monday, the 25th of June, I did not anticipate a change on the first ballot from the last one on Saturday. I did expect, from my dispatches, that the nomination would be made that day and in my favor, but, as the result proved, an arrangement had been made on Sunday that practically secured the nomination of General Harrison. This became obvious in the course of the vote on Monday and, as Harrison was practically assured of the nomination, Pennsylvania voted solid for him and ended the contest.

From the best information I could gather from many persons with whom I conversed, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that I was defeated for the nomination by New York. I was assured before the meeting of the convention that I would have six votes from the beginning from that state, and could reasonably hope for a large addition to that vote in the progress of the balloting. Instead of this I did not receive a single vote, although three or more of the delegates had been distinctly selected in my favor and had given pledges to their constituents that they would vote for me, but they did not on a single ballot do so, except I was advised that at one ballot one of them voted for me.

I believed then, as I believe now, that one of the delegates from the State of New York practically controlled the whole delegation, and that a corrupt bargain was made on Sunday which transferred the great body of the vote of New York to General Harrison, and thus led to his nomination. It is to the credit of General Harrison to say that if the reputed bargain was made it was without his consent at the time, nor did he carry it into execution.

I believe and had, as I thought, conclusive proof that the friends of General Alger substantially purchased the votes of many of the delegates from the southern states who had been instructed by their conventions to vote for me.

There were eight ballots taken in the convention, in all of which I had a large plurality of the votes until the last one.

When General Harrison was nominated I assured him of my hearty support. I have no respect for a man who, because he is disappointed in his aspirations, turns against the party to which he belongs. I believe that both honor and duty require prompt and ready acquiescence in the choice made, unless it is produced by corruption and fraud.

I had no reason to believe, however, that General Harrison resorted in the slightest degree to any improper or corrupt combination to secure his nomination. In answer to a letter from me expressing my congratulations and tendering my support, I received from him a very cordial reply, as follows:

"Indianapolis, July 9, 1888. "My Dear Senator:--Your very frank and kind letter of June 30th has remained unanswered so long only because it was impossible for me to get time to use the pen myself. Some friends were asking 'have you heard from Sherman,' and my answer always was, 'have no concern about him. His congratulations and assurances of support will not be withheld, and they will not be less sincere than the earlier and more demonstrative expressions from other friends.' You will recall our last conversation at Pittsburg, in which I very sincerely assured you that except for the situation of our state my name would not be presented at Chicago in competition with yours. I have always said to all friends that your equipment for the presidency was so ample and your services to the party so great that I felt there was a sort of inappropriateness in passing you by for any of us. I absolutely forbade my friends making any attempt upon the Ohio delegation, and sent word to an old army comrade in the delegation that I hoped he would stand by you to the end.

"I shall very much need your service and assistance, for I am an inexperienced politician as well as statesman. My desire is to have a Republican campaign and not a personal one, and I hope a good start will be made in that direction in the organization of the committee. I have not and shall not attempt to dictate the organization, but have made some very general suggestions. I will confidently hold you to your promise to give me frankly any suggestions that you may think valuable, and assure you that criticism will always be kindly received.

"Mrs. Harrison joins me in kind regards to Mrs. Sherman.

"Very sincerely your friend, "Benj. Harrison. "Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senate.

"I shall be very glad to see you when you come."

I had many letters from him during the canvass and gave him a hearty and I think effective support. After his election he wrote me the following letter:

"Indianapolis, Ind., November 22, 1888. "Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Senator:--You will understand, without any explanation from me, that my little home bureau was entirely inadequate to deal with the immense flood of telegrams and letters that poured in upon me after the election. It has happened, that some of those that should have had earliest attention have been postponed, by reason of the fact that the associated press carried off the telegrams and they were not returned for some times. But you did not need to be assured that I appreciate very highly your friendly words, and rely implicitly upon that friendly spirit that has not only prompted them, but so much besides that was useful to me.

"I have, up to this time, given my whole attention to visiting friends and to my correspondence with those who have addressed me by wire or mail. We are just now torn up a little in our household by reason of the work necessary to introduce the natural gas; but will after a little while be settled again. I wish that you would feel that I desire you to deal with me in the utmost frankness, without any restraints at all, and in the assurance that all you may say will be kindly received and will have the weight which your long experience in public life and your friendship for me entitles it to. I know the embarrassments that now attend any intercourse with my friends, on their part, rather than on mine; but you will find some method of communicating with me if you desire, and after awhile I will have the pleasure of a personal conference. With kind regards to Mrs. Sherman, I am,

"Very sincerely yours, "Benj. Harrison."

I sent him the following answer:

"Washington, D. C., November 26, 1888. "My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 22nd is received. I appreciate the embarrassments of your position and feel that the highest mark of friendship is to let you alone, and have therefore refrained from writing to or visiting you. Still I wish you to feel that I have no hope or ambition higher than to see your administration a complete success. The victory is a Republican victory and that I think is a victory for the whole country. Any advice or aid I can give will be freely rendered on call, but not tendered until needed. I notice that every scribbler is making a cabinet for you, but your observation must have led you to the conviction that this is a duty you only can perform. Advice in this matter is an impertinence. Your comfort and success will largely depend upon this, and if I were to offer advice it would be to consult alone your own judgment, taking care to choose those who above all will be faithful and honorable to you and administer the patronage of the departments, not in their own selfish interests, but for the good of the country. The cabinet should be fairly distributed among the different sections, but this is not the prime necessity, nor is it vital that cliques or factions be represented, but only the general average of Republican ideas and policy.

"As to the broader questions of public policy the rule of action is very different than the one suggested as to cabinet officers. The President should 'touch elbows' with Congress. He should have no policy distinct from that of his party, and this is better represented in Congress than in the Executive. Cleveland made his cardinal mistake in dictating a tariff policy to Congress. Grant also failed to cultivate friendly relations with Congress, and was constantly thwarted by it. Lincoln had a happy faculty in dealing with Members and Senators.

"As to visiting you, I will do so with pleasure if you think it necessary, but I dread, on your account as well as my own, the newspaper talk and gabble that will follow. It might embarrass you with others. With the modern facility of dictating you can converse with me without restraint, and all letters passing between us can be returned to the writer. In conclusion permit me to say, and perhaps I am justified in saying by what appears in the papers, that you must not feel embarrassed or under the slightest restraint by seeing my name in connection with office. I am not seeking or expecting any position, nor have I ever determined in my own mind whether I could, consistently with my duties to Ohio, accept any executive office. You should fell like a gallant young gentleman entering upon life with a world of girls about him, free to choose --to propose, but not to dispose.

"Give my kind regards, in which Mrs. Sherman and Mamie join, to Mrs. Harrison and your children, especially the little grandson.

"Very respectfully yours, "John Sherman."

The result of the nomination at Chicago did not in the least disturb my equanimity or my allegiance to the great party to which I belonged, and for the success of which I had devoted my life since 1854. I listened with complaisance to the explanations made as to the wavering of the Ohio delegation on the Saturday previous to the nomination, and as to the unexpected action of the New York delegation and the curious reasoning which held them together in the hope that they could persuade their leader to vote for me. The only feeling of resentment I entertained was in regard to the action of the friends of General Alger in tempting with money poor negroes to violate the instructions of their constituents. I have since read many of the revelations made subsequently as to the action of the Ohio delegation, and came to the conclusion that they did what they thought best to promote my nomination, and had just ground for discouragement when my vote fell below the number anticipated.

On the 5th of July I attended the national exposition in progress in Cincinnati at that time, and made a speech mainly confined to the remarkable growth of the northwestern states. On the next day I visited the chamber of commerce, and the Lincoln club. I then went to Mansfield. On the evening of the day of my arrival I was called upon by a great number of my townsmen, who seemed to feel my recent defeat with more regret than I did.

During this visit to Ohio I heard a great deal about the Chicago convention, but paid little attention to it, and said I was content with the result, that my friends had done what they could, that Harrison was nominated and ought to be elected. As quoted by a newspaper reporter, I said: "Henceforth, I can say what I please, and it is a great pleasure. This feeling of freedom is so strong with me that I am glad I did not get the nomination." Whether I uttered these words or not, they expressed my feeling of relief at the time.

The 100th anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the State of Ohio, at Marietta, was celebrated on the 7th of April, 1888. There was a difference of opinion among the people whether the proper day was the 7th of April or the 15th of July, as the landing of the settlers was on the 7th of April, but on the 15th of July General Arthur St. Clair entered upon the discharge of his duties as governor of the northwestern territory. The result was, the people of Marietta concluded to celebrate on both days. Senator Evarts made an eloquent address on the 7th of April, and I was invited to deliver one on the last day of the second celebration, commencing on the 15th of July. The ceremonies, visiting and feasting continued during five days. The fifth day was called "Ohio day," and was intended as the finale of a great celebration. It was said that 20,000 persons thronged the streets and participated in the memorial ceremonies on that day. This vast crowd, gathered from many different states, were hospitably entertained by the citizens of Marietta. The exercises commenced in the morning at ten o'clock, with Governor Foraker presiding. Among the distinguished guests were the governors or lieutenant-governors of the states that were carved out of the northwestern territory. I had not prepared a speech, but knew what I intended to talk about. I was introduced by Governor Foraker in an eloquent address, which he knew how to make. I said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--The very flattering manner in which our governor has introduced me to you rather disturbs the serenity of my thoughts, for I know that the high panegyric that he gives to me is scarcely justified to mortal man. We have faults, all have failings, and no one can claim more than a fair and common average of honest purpose and noble aim. I come to-day as a gleaner on a well-reaped field, by skillful workmen who have garnered the crop and placed it in stacks so high that I cannot steal a sheaf without being detected. I cannot utter a thought without having it said that I copied from some one else. I thank fortune I have no framed speech made, for, if I had, the speech would have been read or spoken to you in eloquent terms, but I only come with thoughts inspired by the great history we are called upon to review--a hundred years of this northwest territory. What a theme it is! Why is it that this favored country of 260,000 square miles and about 160,000,000 acres of land had been selected as the place where the greatest immigration of the human race has occurred in the history of the whole world? There is no spot in this world of ours of the size of this western territory, where, within a hundred years, 15,000,000 of free people are planted, where, at the beginning of the century, there was scarcely a white man living. I am glad it has been spoken of by such eminent men as Senators Hoar, Evarts, Daniel, Tucker, General Ewing and many other distinguished men; and remember, citizens of Marietta, when I speak of this centennial celebration, I do not mean that on the 15th of July only, but on the 7th of April and the 15th of July bound together in a noble wedlock."

I referred to the claims made by several of the old states, based upon their so-called titles to the whole or to portions of the northwestern territory. Senator Daniel, who was on the stand with me, had claimed that Virginia owned all the territory south of the 41st degree of north latitude and westward to the "South Sea." Connecticut claimed all north of that line. New York made a similar claim, all based upon grants by King James or King Charles, neither of whom knew where the South Sea was, and had no conception of or control over the vast territory covered by these grants. Neither of these states had either title to or possession of any part of the northwest territory. The only title based on European law was that acquired by Great Britain from France in 1763, and that title was transferred to the United States at the close of the Revolutionary war. There was no just title to this region except that held by the Indian tribes of America. They owned and possessed it. Before the constitution of the United States was, or could have been, adopted the imaginary claim of the several states was ceded to the United States for the common use and benefit of them all. Virginia and Connecticut reserved large portions of Ohio from their several grants, and these reservations were conceded to them. There is one title which has always been acknowledged by civilized nations, and that is the title by conquest. The only valid title of the United States was that based upon the conquest by George Rogers Clark, who conquered this country from Great Britain. It was not Virginia that did it. And, yet, among the illustrious names that have been furnished by that magnificent state, in the history of this country, that of George Rogers Clark will be gratefully remembered. He, with his two or three hundred Kentuckians, marched through that country, as Senator Daniel described, and subdued the British. Virginia is entitled to the honor of having this son; but it was George Rogers Clark who gave the United States its title to the northwest. The Indians, however, had possession, and how was their title to be disposed of? A treaty was made at Fort Harmar, and plans were adopted to get possession of the Indian land. The Indians always claimed they were cheated in the treaty, defining the boundary line between them and the white men. Therefore, Indian wars came on. St. Clair was defeated by the British and Indians combined. The British were always at the back of every hostile movement that has been made in the history of our country. In Judge Burnett's "Notes of the Northwest Territory" there is a full account of how white men, step by step, gained possession of this territory.

The Indian tribes made bold and aggressive efforts to hold Ohio. They defeated in succession the armies of St. Clair and Harmar, but were compelled to yield to the invincible force of General Wayne and his army. It is painful and pathetic to follow the futile efforts of the Indians to hold the northwest, their favorite hunting grounds. They were told that only a little land was wanted for some poor white settlers to keep them from starving. They were offered $50,000 in money, and $50,000 annually for twenty years, for the southern part of Ohio. The council adjourned until the next day. When it convened an old chief said that "Great Spirit" had appeared to them and told them a way in which all their troubles could be ended. "Let our Great Father give to the few poor white settlers among us the money you offer to us and let them go back from whence they came and be rich and happy." Colonel Wayne could not answer this logic, and the Indians were compelled to submit to their fate and ceded one-half of Ohio. In concluding I said:

"In the history of Ohio we have passed through three or four stages. First was the struggle with the Indians. This generation has not realized it, but I have lived long enough to know something about it in the northern part of Ohio. I saw the last Indian tribe leave the soil of Ohio in 1843, the Wyandotte Nation. There was but the feeble remnant of the most powerful tribe in the world. The next period was the clearing of log cabins. Every homestead was a log cabin--no brick houses, no frame houses, except in town. The log houses in the clearing, the toilsome and exciting time. You talk about hard times now--I have seen the time when a man was glad to get thirty-two cents for a bushel of wheat; when eggs could not be sold, when the only way to get 'York money' was to drive horses and cattle and sheep over the Alleghanies. The next step was the canal system, which brought laborers into the country. Then came the railroads and telegraphs, when the canals ceased to exist.

"Now, I am done. I shall think, however, that I am not through unless I reverently and devoutly give thanks to the Ruler of the universe for all this great good that has come upon this great continent. Here we see the most wonderful republic in the world, born within a hundred years, a great community peopling a continent, having every facility in the world for homes--no land-locked monopoly, closing the door to the poor acquiring homes, or if it does, it should be broken down at every hazard by wise laws passed from time to time. I reverently thank God for our homes, for our great cities, for our state and, more than all else, for our country."

On the 6th of October, while Congress was still in session, I went to Cincinnati and joined in celebrating "Republican day" at the exposition.

Immediately upon the adjournment of Congress I went to Cleveland to attend a meeting in the Music Hall, where I made my first speech in the political campaign. It was carefully prepared and was confined mainly to a full discussion of the tariff question. From that time until the day of the election I was constantly occupied in making speeches in different parts of the state and in Indiana. Among the many places in which I spoke in Ohio were Lancaster, Defiance, Toledo and Mansfield. My first speech in Indiana was at Portland. I referred to a statement made in the newspapers that the Republicans had given up Indiana, and denied this emphatically. I said that since I had come among them and felt the enthusiasm exhibited by them I was entirely confident that they would give to their own "most gallant citizen for President of the United States" a hearty and enthusiastic support. I discussed at length the Mills bill and the tariff bill of the Senate, and closed with an appeal to the "Hoosier voter" in behalf of Ben. Harrison, "the hero of Peach Tree Creek, and the man that honored Indiana in the Senate of the United States for six years."

On the next day I spoke at Huntington, opening my speech as follows;

"When I was traveling over the State of Ohio, recently, I was occasionally asked 'what about Indiana?' and now, since I have been in Indiana, I will be able to answer more accurately than I could have done, although I believed the people of Indiana were loyal, and brave, and true, and would never turn their backs upon their most eminent citizen when he had been designated by the Republican party as a candidate for chief magistrate of the Union. But I have no longer any doubt about Indiana. I saw yesterday 10,000 to 15,000 people, excited by the highest enthusiasm, marching in the bright sun and warm atmosphere in a county supposed to be Democratic. To- day, although the weather is inclement, I see your streets filled with ardent and enthusiastic people, shouting for Harrison and Morton and the Republican ticket. No rain disturbs you; no mud stops you. I shall go back to Ohio and tell them that the Buckeyes and Hoosiers will march together."

While in Indiana I received a request from Harrison to speak at Indianapolis, but my engagement at Toledo prevented this, much to my regret.

My part in the canvass closed at home on the evening of the 5th of November. I concluded my speech as follows:

"Benjamin Harrison possesses many qualities of the highest character. He is an able lawyer, an honest man and a good citizen. Benjamin Harrison is a man for whom every American citizen should vote. He would stand like a wall of fire on every question of honor with a foreign country. If you want to do your country a valuable service you will go to the polls and give a good square honest vote for Harrison."

Harrison received in Ohio a majority over Cleveland of 19,000 votes, and a majority of the electoral vote in the country.

During the period immediately following the election, the papers were, as usual, full of conjectures as to cabinet appointments. All sorts of cabinets were formed for General Harrison and in many of them I was mentioned for the office of Secretary of State. It was because of this that I wrote to Harrison the letter already inserted of the date of November 26. I wished to relieve him from all embarrassments, as I had made up my mind not to hold any office except such as might be given to me by the people of Ohio. I gratefully acknowledge that all the political favor I have received has been from the people of my native state.

On the 28th of November Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of General Sherman, died at her home in New York. She had been in feeble health, but was taken seriously ill about three weeks before her death. She was an accomplished woman of marked ability inherited from her father, a devout Christian of the Catholic faith. Her life had been devoted to the relief of suffering and want. This sad calamity was a source of great grief to her own family and that of her husband. She was married to General Sherman on the 1st of May, 1850, at Washington, when her father was a member of the cabinet of President Taylor. Throughout her entire life she was an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. Her remains were removed to St. Louis, and were there buried beside those of two sons and three grandchildren.

The winter of 1888-89, after the political excitement of the year before, seemed a tranquil period of rest. The coming change of administration excited some interest, especially the selection of a cabinet. Blaine and I were frequently mentioned in the public prints for appointment as Secretary of State, but I gave no attention to the rumors. I did not care to decline an office not tendered to me, though I had definitely made up my mind not to accept any executive office. The duties of a Senator were familiar and agreeable to me. I doubted the wisdom of competing presidential candidates accepting cabinet appointments under a successful rival. The experiment of Lincoln, with Chase and Seward as his principal advisers, was not a good example to follow.

The short session of the 50th Congress, commencing December 3, 1888, was mainly occupied with the tariff question, already referred to, but without hope of passing any tariff bill. Many other questions of public policy were also discussed, but as a rule were postponed to the next Congress, which it was known would be Republican in both branches. Perhaps the most interesting topic of debate was the condition of affairs in Samoa. As chairman of the committee on foreign relations, on the 29th of January, 1889, I presented to the Senate a full statement of the complications in that far distant group of islands. In opening I said:

"The time has arrived when Congress, and especially the Senate, must give intelligent attention to the questions involved in the occupation and settlement of the Samoan Islands. These questions are now exciting profound attention, not only in this country, but in Great Britain and Germany. While supporting the amendments proposed by the committee on foreign relations, reported now from the committee on appropriations, I think it is due to the Senate and the people of the United States that I should state, in a skeleton form, the chief facts in regard to this matter, and that, too, without any feeling whatever, without any desire to interfere with our diplomatic negotiations, or to disturb the harmony of our relations with Germany or Great Britain. I hope that the action of the Senate will be unanimous upon the adoption of these amendments, and that a frank and open debate will tend to this result."

It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted in making Great Britain, Germany, and the United States the guardians of these far distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative orientals. The only interest the United States had in these islands was the possession and ownership of the Bay of Pago-Pago, acquired by a treaty in 1878 between the United States and the King of Samoa. The repeated wars on a small scale that have occurred since that time, and the complications and expense caused by the tripartite protectorate of the islands, furnish another example of the folly of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in a far distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us from accepting outside possessions which in case of war would cost the United States more to defend than their value.

On the 24th of February, 1889, my youngest sister, Fanny Sherman Moulton, the widow of Colonel Charles W. Moulton, died at her residence at Glendale, Ohio, after a brief illness. Her husband died in January, 1888. She was buried by his side in Spring Grove Cemetery, near Cincinnati. In the hurry of the close of the session I could not attend her funeral. She was always kind and affectionate, not only to her children, but to all her kindred. I felt her death keenly, for as the youngest of our family she had lived with me until her marriage, and was regarded by me more as a daughter than a sister.

The called session of the Senate convened on the 4th of March, 1889. President Harrison's message was well delivered and well received. It was longer than the usual inaugural. It was free from any studied rhetoric, but was sensible, logical and satisfactory. The nominations of the cabinet officers were made and immediately confirmed. Those of Blaine and Windom were anticipated but the remainder of the cabinet excited some surprise. They were comparatively new men, without much, if any, experience in congressional life, but were well known in their respective states as gentlemen of ability and high character. A bare majority of the Senate were classed as Republicans. They retained the organization of the committees and no material changes were made. The Senate acted upon its general custom to confine its business to that which it could do alone without the action of the House. It adjourned on the 2nd of April, 1889.

CHAPTER LVI. FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS IN EUROPE. Our Party Takes Its Departure on the "City of New York" on May 1-- Personnel of the Party--Short Stop in London--Various Cities in Italy Visited--Sight-Seeing in Rome--Journey to Pompeii and Naples --Impressions of the Inhabitants of Southern Italy--An Amusing Incident Growing Out of the Ignorance of Our Courier--Meeting with Mr. Porter, Minister to Rome--Four Days in Florence--Venice Wholly Unlike Any Other City in the World--Favorable Impression of Vienna --Arrival at Paris--Reception by the President of the Republic of France--Return Home--My Opinion Concerning England and Englishmen --Reception at Washington--Campaigning Again for Foraker--Ohio Ballot Box Forgery and Its Outcome--Address at Cleveland on "The Congress of American States"--Defeat of Foraker for Governor.

Soon after the close of the called session in April, 1889, Mrs. Sherman and I concluded to make a trip to Europe. Both of us had been confined more than usual for over a year, and needed recreation and a change of scene. We went to New York on the 27th of April, stopping with my niece, Mrs. Alfred M. Hoyt. On the next day we witnessed from the battery the naval parade in honor of the centennial of the inauguration of Washington. On the first of May my little party, composed of Mrs. Sherman, Miss May Hoyt, my daughter Mary and myself, were driven to the steamer "City of New York," and there met Senator Cameron and his wife, with their infant child and nurse, Mrs. Colgate Hoyt, a niece of mine, with four children and nurse, and Mrs. Henry R. Hoyt, child and nurse. With this large party we had a joyous and happy voyage. Among the passengers we found many agreeable companions and had the usual diversions, such as music, singing and card playing. We arrived at Queenstown on the 8th of May without any special incident, proceeding thence to Liverpool and London, where we stopped at the Hotel Metropole. Here all our companions except our family party of four left us. As it was our desire to visit Italy before the hot weather set in, we determined to push on as rapidly as convenient to Naples. We spent a day or two in London. We pushed on to Paris via Folkestone and Boulogne. We remained three days at the Hotel Liverpool in Paris and there met several friends, among them Mrs. William Mahone and daughter, and Major and Mrs. Rathbone. On the 14th we went to Lyons, the 15th to Marseilles, and the 16th to Nice. On the 17th we visited Monte Carlo, and on the 18th went to Genoa. Here we spent two days in visiting the most interesting places in that ancient and interesting city. From thence, on the 20th, we went to Rome. The city had already been abandoned by most of the usual visitors, but we did not suffer from the heat, and leisurely drove or walked to all the principal places of interest, such as the ruins of the Roman forum, the Colosseum, the baths of Caracalla and St. Peter's, and the many churches in that ancient city. In the six days in Rome we had, with the aid of maps and a good guide, visited every interesting locality in that city, and had extended our drives over a large part of the Campagna. At Liverpool I had employed a Swiss with the awkward name of Eichmann as my courier. He had a smattering knowledge of many languages, but could not speak any well; he proved to be faithful, and, so far as I could discover, was honest. He relieved us from petty cares and could generally find the places I wished to see. On the 27th we went to Naples, and on the 28th by steamer to Sorrento and Capri. On the 29th we traveled by carriage to Pompeii and thence to Naples. On the 30th we drove about Naples as well as we could, but here we began to feel the heat, which was damp and depressing. It is the misfortune of this city that, although surrounded on all sides by the most beautiful and picturesque scenery of sea and mountain, in a land rich in historical and poetical annals, yet a large portion of the inhabitants impress a stranger with the conviction that they are the poorest, and perhaps the most ignorant, population in Europe. It is a sad reflection, that applies especially to all parts of southern Italy, that the descendants of the Romans, once the rulers of the world, are now classed among the lowest in intelligence in the Christian and civilized world. I remember two things about Naples, one that Mount Vesuvius was in partial action during our stay, and that we had a full opportunity to explore the ruins of Pompeii.

About this time there occurred an amusing incident growing out of the ignorance of a common American phrase on the part of my courier. Mr. Oates, of Alabama, a leading Member of the House of Representatives, was traveling with his wife and friends on the same general route that I was. We frequently met and had pleasant and friendly chats. Eichmann noticed our intimacy and was very polite to Mr. Oates. One day, as my party and I were about to enter a car, some one said: "Is not that John Sherman?" Mr. Oates said, in the hearing of Eichmann: "Yes, that is Sherman," and added as a compliment: "He was a good watchdog in the treasury." Eichmann catching the phrase "watchdog" applied to me regarded it as a gross insult. He rushed into my car, his face aflame with passion and his English more confused than usual, and said: "That man," pointing to Oates, "was not your friend; he called you, sir, a watchdog; yes, sir, a watchdog. He has but one arm, sir, one arm, or I would have chastised him." I had great difficulty in persuading him what a "watchdog" meant, that it was intended as a compliment, not as an insult.

On the 31st we returned to Rome. During my stay there I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Porter, our minister to Rome. He was hardly yet installed in his duties, as the king had been absent, but returned from Germany the day I arrived. Porter and I had been in Congress together, and boarded at the same house. He was not only a man of ability, but of pleasing address and manners.

Everybody I saw in Rome was talking about the heat and moving out of town. On June 1, I went to Florence. There we spent four days very pleasantly. The hotel was good, the weather all we could desire, and the people we met, looked contented and comfortable. They were in striking contrast with their countrymen in Naples. There was an air about the place that indicated prosperity. Florence is an art gallery. Several of our countrymen, famous as artists, of whom I can recall Powers, Meade and Turner, were not only pursuing, but learning, their art. I was told that a considerable part of the population were engaged in painting and sculpture. No doubt their wages were small but food and clothing were also low.

We would gladly have remained longer in Florence if my plan of travel would have allowed it. Not only was the city and all the treasures of art interesting, but the country around was picturesque and highly cultivated. We could ride in any direction over admirable roads and almost every place had an historical interest. I witnessed there a review of several thousand troops, but was especially interested in a body of small men well drilled for rapid movements. The parade was on Sunday and the ladies objected to a parade on that day. I observed that in the Latin states I visited, Sunday was generally selected for such displays. I purchased two works of art from American artists. I commend the wisdom of their choice of location, for in Florence the love of art, especially of sculpture, is more highly appreciated than in any other city of Europe that I have visited.

Our next stopping place was Venice. The chief attraction of this city is that it is unlike any other city in the world in its location, its architecture, its history and in the habits and occupation of its people. It is literally located in the sea; its streets are canals; its carriages are gondolas and they are peculiar and unlike any other vessel afloat. Magnificent stone palaces rise from the waters, and the traveler wonders how, upon such foundations, these buildings could rest for centuries. Its strange history has been the basis of novels, romances, dramas and poetry, by writers in every country and clime. Its form of government was, in the days of the Doges, a republic governed by an aristocracy, and its wealth was the product of commerce conducted by great merchants whose enterprise extended to every part of the known habitable globe.

We visited St. Mark's cathedral, the palace of the Doges, and the numerous places noted in history or tradition. We chartered a gondola and rode by moonlight through the Grand Canal and followed the traditional course of visitors. The glory of Venice is gone forever. We saw nothing of the pomp and panoply of the ancient city. The people were poor and the palaces were reduced to tenement houses. Venice may entice strangers by its peculiar situation and past history, but in the eye of an American traveler it is but a great ruin. The wages paid for labor were not sufficient to supply absolute necessities.

The construction of the railroad to Vienna is a remarkable feat of engineering. The route over the Semmerling pass presents difficulties far greater than any encountered in the United States. We spent four days in and about Vienna. Its location on the River Danube was a good one for a great city. The surrounding country was interesting and well cultivated. The comparison between the people of Vienna and Venice was very much in favor of Vienna. The city was clean, well built, with many signs of growth and prosperity. The people were comfortably clad, and the crowds that gathered in the parks and gardens to hear the music of the military bands were orderly and polite. Among the European cities I have visited, I recall none that made a more favorable impression on my mind than Vienna. I found no difficulty in making my English understood, and it was said of the people of that city that they generally knew enough of the English and French languages, in addition to their native German, to sustain a conversation in either. We visited Colonel Fred. Grant, then our minister to Austria, at Vosben, about twenty miles by rail from Vienna. I did not seek to make acquaintances in Vienna, as my time would not allow it, but, from a superficial view, I believed that the people of that city were intelligent, social and friendly, with more of the habits of Frenchmen than of the Germans of Berlin, or of the English of London.

From Vienna we followed the line of railroad through Salzburg, Innsbruck, to Zurich, stopping at each place for a day. This a very interesting country, generally picturesque, and in some places mountainous. Here we see the southern German in his native hills. A vein of superstition colors their creed as good Catholics. They are, as a rule, loyal to their emperor, and content with their condition. The passage from the Tyrol into Switzerland is not marked by national boundaries, such as rivers or mountains, nor does the population vary much until one reaches Zurich. In our progress thus far, from Nice through Italy and Austria, our party had been traveling over, to us, a new and strange land. At Zurich we entered within a region visited by Mrs. Sherman and myself in 1859. The cities and mountains of Switzerland seemed familiar to us. Great changes, however, had occurred in modes of travel in this short period in these old countries. Railroads traversed the valleys and crossed the mountains, where we had traveled in the stage coach. At Lucerne I went up a tramway to the top of Mt. Pilatus, at a grade of from 25 to 35 degrees. I did not feel this in ascending, but in descending I confess to experiencing real fear. The jog-jog of the cogwheels, the possibility of their breaking, and the sure destruction that would follow, made me very nervous. I would have been less so but for a lady unknown to me, sitting by my side, who became frightened and turned deathly pale. I was glad indeed when we reached the lake.

From Lucerne Mrs. Sherman went to Neuchâtel to meet my niece, Mrs. Huggins, then sick at that place. The remainder of the party went to Interlaken and the valley in which it is situated. I have no room for the description of mountain scenery, and no language can properly convey a sense of its grandeur. I have mentally contrasted Mt. St. Bernard and the Simplon with Pike's Peak and Mt. Washburn, and feel quite sure that in grandeur and in extent of view the American mountains are superior to those named in Europe, but the larger population in easy reach of the mountains of Switzerland will give them the preference for a generation or more. Then Mt. Shasta will take its place as the most beautiful isolated mountain in the world, and the Rocky Mountain range will furnish a series of mountains surpassing the mountains of Switzerland; but both South America and Asia contain mountains thousands of feet higher than either or any of the mountains of Europe or North America.

Without going into details of travels over familiar ground all our party arrived safely at Paris on the 2nd of July, 1889. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sherman was called back to Neuchâtel on the 4th of July, on account of the continued serious illness of Mrs. Huggins, the balance of the party remaining in Paris. We were in that city two weeks and attended the international exposition many times. The French people know better than any other how to conduct such a show. The great building in which it was held was so arranged that similar articles were grouped together, and yet all productions of a country were in convenient proximity. The French are artists in almost every branch of human industry. They are cheerful, gay and agreeable. They are polite and therefore sensitive of any slight, neglect or rudeness and promptly resent it.

While in Paris we formed some agreeable acquaintances. Whitelaw Reid, our minister to France, entertained elegantly his countrymen and his associates in the diplomatic corps. From him our little party, especially the two young ladies, received many courtesies, and through him we had invitations from the President of the French Republic and officers of the exposition. The reception at the palace of the president was in striking and pleasing contrast with that given by the emperor in 1867, already referred to. The later reception was simple in form, something like a reception by the President of the United States, but where it differed it was an improvement upon our custom. The invitation was quite general and extended to the diplomatic corps, to all persons representing any article in the exposition, and to many citizens and visitors in Paris, who were named by the diplomatic corps or by the officers of the French government. I think that fully as many persons were present as usually attend the receptions of our President. Each invited guest, as he entered the reception room, gave his name, and, if escorting others, gave their names to the officer in charge. The name was announced to the president, who stood a few paces in the rear, the guests and the president bowed but did not shake hands and the guests passed on through a suite of rooms or into the garden. Miss Hoyt, my daughter and I attended the reception with Mr. and Mrs. Reid. As Mr. Reid entered the room his name and office were announced, and the president and he advanced towards each other, shook hands, and I and my party were introduced and we shook hands. This occupied but a moment and the reception of others went on, only occasionally interrupted by the president when he chose to recognize some one by handshaking. When we were received, as stated, we were introduced by Mr. Reid to several persons on attendance on the president, and then retired with the passing company. In this way the president and his wife escaped the extreme fatigue of shaking hands with thousands of people in rapid succession, often producing soreness and swelling of hands and arms. I hope some President of the United States will be bold enough to adopt, as he can, this simple measure of relief practiced by the President of the French Republic. The French government also furnishes a house ample enough for a large reception, which the United States does not do, but I trust will.

We left Paris on the 15th of July and joined Mrs. Sherman at Neuchâtel. After two days at this delightful place we went to Basle and thence down the Rhine, stopping at places of interest on the way, but this is a journey I had taken before.

We made a brief visit to Amsterdam and the Hague, and then went to Brussels, with which city we had become acquainted on our previous visit. We arrived in England about the 1st of August and remained in London, or its environs, a week, most of the time in the country. During my stay I did not seek to form new acquaintances and most of the people I knew were absent in the country. From London we went to Oxford and remained several days visiting the colleges and the country around, especially the beautiful palace of the Duke of Marlborough. From there we went to Leamington, and made short excursions to Warwick Castle, Kenilworth, Stratford and Coventry. We then visited the English lakes, including Windermere. I was especially interested in the games, races and wrestling at Grasmere. From there we went to Chester spending several days in that city and surrounding country. We visited the magnificent estate of the Duke of Westminster, a few miles from Chester, and drove through Gladstone's place, but he was then absent. In Chester we met Justice Gray and his wife, and Bancroft Davis and his wife. With them we drove in the old-fashioned coach in and about the environs of Chester. From thence we went to Liverpool, remaining about a week in that city.

It is scarcely necessary to state that such a rapid, transient visit could hardly convey a proper conception of England or Englishmen. Our view was like that of the English traveler in America when he undertakes to describe our vast country on a trip of a month from New York to San Francisco. My idea of Great Britain is based, not upon flying visits, but upon my study of English history and literature. The political institutions of Great Britain are rapidly approaching our own. While progressive, the people of that country are also conservative, but with each successive decade they extend the power of the House of Commons so that already in some respects it represents better the public sentiment than the Congress of the United States. It responds quickly to a change of popular opinion. The functions of the crown are now more limited than those of our President, while the House of Commons can at any moment put an end to the ministry, and if necessary a new House of Commons can be convened within a brief period, and a new ministry be formed or the old one confirmed according to the popular will. All the governments of Europe are following in the same path, so that we may fairly hope that in a brief time Europe will become republican in substance if not in form.

We returned in the steamer "City of New York," the vessel on which we went over, and arrived in New York on the 12th of September. My wife, daughter and myself returned to Washington, improved in health and strength.

On the evening of the next day after my arrival a large company, estimated at 1,500 people, led by the Marine band, marched to my house. The report given by the "Republican" of Washington the next morning is substantially correct and is here inserted:

"To General Grosvenor had been assigned the duty of formally welcoming the Senator, and he did so in a very pleasant speech. He spoke of the thirty-five years of faithful service which had been rendered Ohio by John Sherman, as Representative, Senator, cabinet officer and citizen; touched upon the eagerness with which Ohio looked for the Senator's return; referred happily to the Senator's wife and daughter, and then launched out upon the broad ocean of Ohio politics. He closed by saying that one of the chief causes of Ohio Republican exultation on this occasion lay in the fact that the Senator had returned to do nobly his part toward the re-election of Governor Foraker and the election of a Republican Senator to succeed Mr. Payne.

"The welcome was punctuated with applause, and when the speech and the uproar had ceased the band played 'Home Again.' The crowd cheered once more as Senator Sherman stepped forward and commenced his reply.

"Appreciation of the welcome which had been extended to him by friends from Ohio and friends in Washington brightened his opening remarks, and he said that, although his home was in Ohio, yet he had been so long a resident of this city that he felt himself almost entitled to the rights of citizenship here, without, of course, losing his allegiance to the people of his native state. The joys of home and the pleasures of foreign lands were dilated upon, and the Senator said: 'No American can travel anywhere without having a stronger love and affection for his native land. This is the feeling of every American, and it is sometimes too strongly and noisily expressed to be acceptable abroad. We do sometimes carry the flag too high and flaunt it offensively.'

"Previous visits to Europe were referred to, and the Senator went on: 'And now let me say to you that while we boast in America of the rapid progress we have made in growth, population, wealth and strength, yet it is equally true that some of the oldest nations in the world are now keeping pace with us in industry, progress and even in liberal institutions. Everywhere in these old countries the spirit of nationalism is growing stronger and stronger.

'Thirty years ago Italy had at least five different forms of government; now it is under one rule. Twenty-two years ago France was an empire, under the almost absolute dominion of Napoleon III; now it is a republic, with all the forms of republican institutions, but without the stability of our government. The kingdom of Prussia has been expanded into the great German empire, among the strongest, if not the strongest, of the military powers in the world. The institutions of Great Britain have become liberalized until it is a monarchy only in name, the queen exercising far less power than the President of the United States. The whole tendency of events is to strengthen and at the same time popularize government.'

"The popularity of Americans in Europe was mentioned, and it was said of them that while abroad they were not partisans, but patriots; they believed that any party at home was better than all parties in foreign lands. The signs of war abroad and of peace in the United States were sketched, and the veterans who fought for the Union were eulogized and said to be entitled to the most liberal treatment. The Republican party, having saved the Union should be the governing party, and it should be heartily supported by all true patriots."

As I concluded, the audience came forward and shook hands with me. Later addresses were delivered by Thomas B. Coulter, ex-Lieutenant Governor Wm. C. Lyons, of Ohio, Rev. Wm. Warring, J. H. Smyth and ex-Speaker Warren J. Keifer.

Quite a number of callers were received in the house by Mrs. and Miss Sherman.

During the balance of the month of September I remained in Washington engaged in writing letters, dictating interviews, and preparing for the gubernatorial contest in Ohio, then in active progress. Governor Foraker was the Republican candidate for re-election, and James E. Campbell, formerly a Republican and recently a Democratic Member of Congress, was the opposing candidate. Both of these gentlemen were lawyers of ability, in the prime of life and living in adjoining counties. The canvass had become interesting before my return and I desired to do all I could in aid of Foraker. He was nominated while I was still in Europe, for the third term, and under conditions that weakened him somewhat. Still, his ability as a debater, his popular manners, and his interesting history, seemed to assure his success. I returned to Ohio with my family about the 1st of October, and made my first speech in this canvass at the Wayne county fair, at Orrville, on the 10th. I was introduced to the audience by M. L. Smyser, the Member of Congress from that district, in terms too complimentary to quote. He gave notice that Campbell would speak to them on the next day on behalf of the Democratic party. In explanation of my appearance there where politics were generally excluded I said:

"It is rather unusual at a county fair, where men of all parties are invited to exhibit and compare their productions, to discuss party politics. Therefore, I hesitated to accept your invitation to speak here in behalf of the Republican party; but upon being advised by my friend, Mr. Smyser, your Representative in Congress, that the same invitation was extended to Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell, the two candidates for governor, that Governor Foraker could not attend, but Mr. Campbell had accepted, I concluded also to accept, and am now here to give you the reasons for my political faith."

This speech was prepared for the occasion, and was chiefly on the choice between the Mills tariff bill and the Senate bill, both of which failed to pass in the preceding Congress. I discussed state issues briefly, including recent frauds at elections, the alleged bribery and corruption in the election of Mr. Payne as Senator, and the importance of nonpartisan boards of election. I closed by saying:

"This is not a contest between Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell. I have the highest regard for both of these gentlemen. Governor Foraker is one of the ablest, one of the most brilliant, men in public life. He was one of the youngest soldiers in the Union army, and, though young, rendered important services at critical periods of the war. He has made his own way in the world, and has filled with distinction every place assigned him. He has made an efficient governor, and I can see no force in the objection that he is running for a third term. If he has performed his duties exceptionally well in the past, it is good reason why he should be continued in office in the future. I have also the pleasure of a very kindly acquaintance with Mr. Campbell, whom I regard as a gentleman of merit and ability. Either of these gentlemen will perform the personal duties of the office with credit to the state, but the contest is not between them, but between the two parties they represent. Governor Foraker represents the principles and tendencies of the Republican party, its progressive national policy, the purity of elections, state and national, and its willingness to take the lead in Ohio in all proper measures to promote good order, temperance and morality, so far as they can be promoted by human laws and popular opinion.

"Mr. Campbell represents the aims and tendencies of the Democratic party, its jealousy of national authority, its want of genuine patriotism, its reactionary policy as to tariff laws, its lawless disregard of fair elections, both north and south, the criminal gangs that disgrace our cities, and its low tone on all questions affecting good order and morals. In my view the choice is as plain as the sunlight of heaven in favor of the Republican party. It may falter for a time in meeting new questions, it may be disturbed by passing clouds, and, like all human agents, may yield to expediency or be tarnished with the corruption and faults of individuals, yet it is the best organized guide in state and national affairs, and should, and I confidently trust will, receive the hearty support of the people of Ohio."

The reporter, in his description of the meeting, said:

"Senator Sherman was in excellent form to-day; his voice was clear, strong and its carrying power excellent. He spoke with uncommon vigor and, of course, without notes or manuscript. There was something in his manner that seemed to carry conviction with it. The people knew they were listening to an honest man who was a thorough master of every subject upon which he touched. He spoke as one having authority, and the weight of forty years of sturdy public life went into his utterances."

It was about this period that the Ohio ballot box forgery matter became a subject of discussion. On the 11th of September, Richard G. Wood appeared in Columbus, and delivered to Foraker the following paper, and received the governor's recommendation for the smoke inspectorship in Cincinnati:

"Washington, D. C., July 2, 1888. "We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amounts set opposite, or any part thereof, whenever requested so to do by John R. McLean, upon 'Contract No. 1,000,' a copy of which is to be given to each subscriber upon payment of any part of the money hereby subscribed.

"It is understood that each subscription of five thousand dollars shall entitle the subscriber thereof to a one-twentieth interest in said contract.

1. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 2. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 3. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 4. Wm. McKinley . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 5. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 6. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 7. B. Butterworth . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 8. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 9. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 10. S. S. Cox . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 11. Wm. C. P. Breckinridge . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 12. Wm. McAdoo . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 13. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 14. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 15. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 16. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 17. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 18. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 19. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars. 20. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

The paper referred to in this alleged agreement as "Contract No. 1,000" purported to be a contract for the manufacture and introduction of the Hall and Wood ballot box, to be used by the United States government whenever it had the authority to use ballot boxes. The merit claimed for the box was that it was constructed in such a manner as to prevent fraudulent voting. This alleged agreement and contract, taken in connection with a bill introduced July 23, 1888, by Mr. Campbell, in the House of Representatives, "regulating Federal elections and to promote the purity of the ballot," which required the purchase by the government of the ballot box mentioned, would of course, if true, present a clear case of corruption on the part of the Members of Congress signing the agreement, so grave as to justify their expulsion.

A copy of this paper was handed by Governor Foraker to Murat Halstead on the 28th of September, and on the evening of that day the governor made a speech at the Music Hall, Cincinnati, in which he referred to Mr. Campbell having introduced the bill for the purchase of the ballot box. On the 4th of October, Halstead published in the "Commercial-Gazette" a fac-simile of the false paper, with the name of Campbell alone, the names of the other apparent signers not being given in the fac-simile and nothing being said about them. On the 8th of October I was informed that it was whispered about Cincinnati that my name, with many others, was attached to the paper. I at once telegraphed that if this were so the signature was a forgery.

When I spoke at Orrville two days later I did not allude to the subject, regarding the whole thing as an election canard which would correct itself. In a brief time this became true. The whole paper was proven to be a forgery. The alleged signatures were made on tracing paper, from franks on documents distributed by Congressmen. All this was done by Wood, or by his procurement, in order to get an office through Governor Foraker. Halstead, on the 11th of October, published in his paper, over his own name, a statement that Mr. Campbell's signature was fraudulent, no mention being made of the other alleged signers of the paper. Subsequently, on the 10th of November, after the election, Foraker wrote a letter to Halstead giving a narrative of the mode by which he was misled into believing the paper to be genuine.

It has always seemed strange to me that Foraker, having in his possession a paper which implicated Butterworth, McKinley and myself, in what all men would regard as a dishonorable transaction, did not inform us and give us an opportunity to deny, affirm or explain our alleged signatures. An inquiry from him to either of the persons named would have led to an explanation at once. No doubt Foraker believed the signatures genuine, but that should not have deterred him from making the inquiry.

On the 12th of November, I wrote the following letter to Halstead:

"Senate Chamber, } "Washington, November 12, 1889.} "My Dear Sir:--Now that the election is over, I wish to impress upon you the importance of making public the whole history of the 'forged paper' about ballot boxes.

"While you believed in the genuineness of Campbell's signature you were entirely right in exposing him and the signers of the paper, for if it was genuine it was a corrupt and illegal transaction. I only wonder that seeing the names upon it did not excite your doubt and cause inquiry, but, assuming they were genuine, you had no right to suppress the paper because it involved your friends in a criminal charge. But now, since it is shown to be a forgery, a crime of the greatest character, it seems to me you ought at once to exercise your well-known energy and independence in exposing and denouncing, with equal severity, the man or men who forged, or circulated, or had anything to do with, the paper referred to. No delicacy or pity ought to shield them from the consequences of a crime infinitely greater than the signing of such a paper would have been. I know in this I speak the general sentiment of many prominent men, and you will appreciate the feeling of honor and fairness which appeals to you to denounce the men who, directly or indirectly, were connected with the fabrication of this paper. If my name was forged to it I will consider it my duty to prosecute all men who took that liberty. I will certainly do so whenever I have tangible evidence that my name was forged.

"Very truly yours, "John Sherman."

A fac-simile of the paper was then published with all the alleged signatures. The subject-matter was fully investigated by a committee of the House of Representatives, during which all the persons named in connection with it were examined under oath. It resulted in the unanimous finding of the committee as follows:

"In response to the first inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'By whom said alleged contract was prepared, and whether the several signatures appended thereto are forged or genuine,'

"We find that said alleged contract was dictated (prepared) by Richard G. Wood, and that all the signatures thereto are forged.

"In response to the second inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'If forged, what person or persons, if any, were directly or indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation and uttering of said forgery, and for what purpose,'

"We find that Richard G. Wood, Frank and L. Milward, and Frank S. Davis were the only persons directly or indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation of said forgery with knowledge of its character.

"We further find that J. B. Foraker and Murat Halstead aided in uttering said forgery, Mr. Foraker by exhibiting the paper to several persons and thereafter delivering it to Mr. Halstead, and Mr. Halstead aided in uttering said forgery by publishing the forged paper on October 4, 1889, in the Cincinnati 'Commercial Gazette;' but we find that neither of said parties, Foraker and Halstead, in uttering said paper, knew the same was a forgery.

"In response to the third inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'Whether any of the Members whose names appeared on said alleged contract had or have, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful, corrupt or improper connection with, or interest in, the ballot boxes which are the subject-matter of said alleged contract.'

"We find that no one of the persons whose names appear on said alleged contract had or has, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful, corrupt, or improper, or any other connection with, or interest in, the ballot boxes which are said to be the subject of said alleged contract, and that there never was any other contract relating to said ballot boxes in which either of these persons, alone or jointly with others, was in any way interested."

William E. Mason, chairman of the committee, added to the report quoted the following just and true statement, which relieved Foraker and Halstead from the implication stated in the report:

"If our unanimous finding is correct that Messrs. Halstead and Foraker did not know the paper was forged when the uttered it, then they were deceived by some one, for we have found it was a forgery. Being deceived, then, is their only offense.

"They each have made reputation and character equal perhaps to any of the gentlemen who were outraged by the forgery. Since they found they were deceived, they have done all in their power, as honorable men, to make amends. To ask more seems to me to be most unjust, and, believing as I do that the evidence does not warrant the censure indulged in by my associates on the committee in their above additional findings, I most respectfully, but most earnestly, protest."

This unfortunate incident, not fully explained before the election, created sympathy for Campbell and naturally displeased friends of McKinley, Butterworth and myself. I did not feel the least resentment after Halstead denounced the forgery, but entered with increased energy into the canvass. During this period I had promised to attend, on the 15th of October, a banquet given by the citizens of Cleveland to the delegates to the Pan-American Congress, then making a progress through the United States, to be presided over by my colleague, Senator Payne. As this speech is outside of the line of my usual topics, the toast being "The Congress of American States," and yet relates to a subject of vital importance, I introduce it as reported in the Cleveland "Leader:"

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:--The toast you ask me to respond to is the expression of a hope indulged in by many of the ablest statesmen of the United States ever since our sister American states dissolved their political connections with European powers. Henry Clay, as early as 1818, when proposing to acknowledge the independence of the South American states, eloquently depicted the mutual advantage of closer commercial relations with those states. Mr. Monroe proclaimed to the world the determination of the United States not to suffer any European power to interfere with the internal concerns of independent American states. Still no effective measures were adopted to promote intercourse between them. The hope of closer union has not been realized, mainly because of the neglect of the government of the United States. We have been too much engaged in political disputes and in the development of our own resources. Then we have had a serious unpleasantness among ourselves, which, if it had terminated differently, would have made us very unacceptable partners. But, now, all this is past and gone, and I can give assurance to our guests that not only the government of the United States, but the people of the United States, all parties and of every section, have united heartily in inviting you here, that they will do their full share in carrying out your recommendations, and sincerely hope that your conference will lead to a congress of American nations.

"I look upon this conference as having the same relation to the future of America as the conference of the thirteen British colonies, in 1774, had to the declaration of American independence. That conference led to the constitution of the United States and was the beginning of the independence of all the American states. Your conference is of infinitely greater importance, for your deliberations affect the interests of more than one hundred million people, while theirs only affected three million. But, more important still, your conference contemplates only peaceful aids for mutual benefit; theirs provided for war and a desperate struggle with superior forces.

"I do not recall, in the annals of man, a meeting of the selected representatives of any nations with nobler aims or with greater opportunity for good than this conference of American states. You seek to prevent war by peaceful negotiations and arbitration; you seek to promote intercourse with each other by land and by sea; you seek, as far as the wants and interests of each nation will permit, to remove unnecessary restrictions to trade and commerce; you seek to bring into closer union sixteen republics and one empire, all of them governed by free institutions. You do not unite to conquer, but to help each other in developing your resources and in exchanging your productions.

"If your conference deals wisely with your opportunity you will light a torch that will illuminate the world. You will disband armies, you will convert ships of war into useful agencies of commerce; you will secure the construction of a continuous line of railways from New York to Buenos Ayres, with connections to the capital city of every American country; you will contribute to the construction of the Nicaraguan Canal and all other feasible methods of transportation between the Atlantic and Pacific; you will unite in a generous rivalry of growth and progress all the American states. And, more important than all, you will pave the way for a congress in which all these states will be represented in a greater than an Amphictyonic council, with broader jurisdiction and scope than the rulers of ancient Greece conceived of.

"Is this to be only a dream? I do not think so. The American states are now more closely united in interest than any other part of the world. Our institutions are similar. We nourish no old- time feuds to separate us. Our productions do not compete with, but supplement, each other. Their direct exchange in American vessels is the natural course of trade. The diversity of language is less marked than in any other continent. The sentiment is universal in America that America belongs to Americans, that no European power should vex us with its policy or its wars; that all parts of America have been discovered and are not open to further discovery; each country belongs to the people who occupy it, with the clear and unquestioned right of home rule. Such, at least, is the feeling in the United States.

"And now, looking back with pride over a century of growth, exhibiting to you, as we are doing by a rather tiresome journey, what we have done, and appreciating fully the rapid progress and enormous resources of our sister American states, recognizing your equality and absolute independence, whatever may be your population or extent of territory, we say to you, in all frankness, that we are ready and willing to join you in an American congress devoted exclusively to the maintenance of peace, the increase of commerce, and the protection and welfare of each and all the states of the American continents."

On the 19th of October I addressed a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati, at which Butterworth and Grosvenor also made speeches. In this speech I especially urged the election of Governor Foraker and answered the cry against him for running for a third term. I said:

"Now, you have a good ticket, as I said, from top to bottom. I need not add anything more with respect to Governor Foraker, who, I believe, ought to be elected, not only because he has been a good soldier, but because he has been a good governor. Nor do I fear that cry about a third term. How should I fear it, when I am an example of a man serving on the fifth term of six years each? If Foraker has done his duty well for two terms, it is a good reason why he would do better the next time. If he made any mistakes in the past, he will have a chance to correct them in the future, and I believe he will do so if he has made any; and I don't believe he has."

On the 24th of October I was to address a meeting in Columbus, and hearing that Governor Foraker was sick, at his residence, I called upon him, and we had a free and friendly conversation. I did not introduce the subject of the ballot box forgery, but assured him that I was doing, and intended to do, all I could to promote his election. He thanked me heartily, expressed his regret that he was unable to take part in the canvass, but hoped to do so before its close. At one of the largest indoor meetings ever held in Columbus, that evening, I especially urged the importance of Governor Foraker's election, and ridiculed, to the best of my ability, the cry that was made for a third term. I called attention to the fact that all that could be said against Governor Foraker was that he was running for a third term. Continuing, I said:

"Why for a third term? Because he did so well in both his previous terms that the Republican party of Ohio was willing to sanction him as its candidate for a third term--and intend to elect him. Why should not a man be nominated by the Republicans for a third term as Governor of Ohio? What is there in the office that prevents his full and free and complete performance of all the duties imposed upon him as Governor of Ohio? Why, they say the President, by a prescriptive rule that has been established since the time of Washington, cannot be nominated for a third term. What of that? The powers of the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States are as different as a and z, and are as wide apart as heaven and earth. The President of the United States is armed with more power during his four years than any prince or potentate of Europe; he exercises a power greater than any man in any country of the world, whether a monarchy or empire. But is there any similitude between the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States? What power has he? The Governor of Ohio has less power than almost any other governor of the United States."

I spoke on the 2nd of November in the Music Hall at Cleveland, and there again urged the election of Foraker. I give a short extract of the description of the speech as it appeared in the papers of that city:

"He ridiculed the third term scare of the Democracy and then paid a glowing tribute to the worth and integrity of Governor Foraker. 'Has any man said,' he asked, 'that Governor Foraker is a bad man; that he is not a good man? My countrymen, no one has said that. He was a brave soldier. He is a self-made man; the son of good, plain people. He is self-educated. By integrity and toil he mounted, step by step, on the ladder of fame. Nearly every man who has arisen to prominence in our country has arisen from the ranks by toil. Such a man is Governor Foraker.'"

I spoke daily during the last two weeks of the canvass and everywhere made the same appeal in behalf of Governor Foraker and the state ticket. The result of the election was that Campbell received a plurality of 10,872 votes and was elected. A majority of the legislature was Democratic, and subsequently elected Calvin S. Brice United States Senator.

Elbert L. Lampson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, was elected by a plurality of 22. The other candidates on the Republican state ticket were elected by an average plurality of about 3,000.

CHAPTER LVII. HISTORY OF THE "SHERMAN SILVER LAW." President Harrison's First Annual Message--His Recommendations Regarding the Coinage of Silver and Tariff Revisions--Bill Authorizing the Purchase of $4,500,000 Worth of Silver Bullion Each Month-- Senator Plumb's "Free Silver" Amendment to the House Bill--Substitute Finally Agreed Upon in Conference--Since Known as the "Sherman Silver Law"--How It Came to Be so Called--Chief Merit of the Law-- Steady Decline of Silver After the Passage of the Act--Bill Against Trusts and Combinations--Amendments in Committee--The Bill as Passed --Evils of Unlawful Combinations--Death of Representative Wm. D. Kelley and Ex-Member S. S. Cox--Sketch of the Latter--My Views Regarding Immigration and Alien Contract Labor--McKinley Tariff Law--What a Tariff Is--Death of George H. Pendleton--Republican Success in Ohio--Second Session of the 51st Congress--Failure of Senator Stewart's "Free Coinage Bill."

The first session of the 51st Congress convened on the 2nd of December, 1889, both branches being Republican. President Harrison, in his message, reported a very favorable condition of the national finances. The aggregate receipts from all sources, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, were $387,050,058. The total expenditures, including the sinking fund for that year, were $329,579,929. The excess of receipts over expenditures was $57,470,129. The estimated surplus for the current year was $43,678,883. This would justify, and the President recommended, a reduction of taxation to that amount. He called attention to the reduction of the circulation of national banks amounting to $114,109,729, and the large increase of gold and silver coin in circulation and of the issues of gold and silver certificates. The law then in force required the purchase of two million dollars worth of silver bullion each month, to be coined into silver dollars of 412½ grains of standard silver nine- tenths fine. When this law was enacted, on the 28th of February, 1878, the price of silver in the market was $1.20 per ounce. Since that time to the date of his message the price had fallen to 70.6 cents an ounce. He expressed a fear of a further reduction of the value of silver, and that it would cause a difference in the value of the gold and silver dollars in commercial transactions. He called the attention of Congress to these three subjects of national importance--the reduction of taxation, the circulation of the national banks, and the further issue of silver coin and silver certificates, and invoked for them the considerate action of Congress.

He recommended the revision of the tariff law in such a way as not to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries, the free list to be extended to such domestic productions as our home industries did not supply. He referred approvingly to a plan for the increased use of silver, which would be presented by Secretary Windom.

The plan, submitted by Secretary Windom in his report, for increasing the use of silver in the circulation, provided that the treasury department should purchase silver bullion every month to a limited extent, paying therefor treasury notes receivable for government dues and payable on demand in gold, or in silver bullion at the current market rate at the time of payment, and that the purchase of silver bullion and the compulsory coinage of silver dollars under the act of 1878 should cease.

On the 28th of January, 1890, Senator Morrill introduced, by request, a bill which had been prepared by, and embodied the views of the Secretary of the Treasury. This bill was referred to the committee on finance, and was reported back by Senator Jones, of Nevada, February 25, with amendments. The first section of the amended bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase $4,500,000 worth of silver bullion each month, and to issue in payment therefor treasury notes receivable for customs and all public dues, and when so received they might be reissued. They were also redeemable on demand in lawful money of the United States, and when so redeemed should be canceled. Such portion of the silver was to be coined as might be necessary to meet the redemptions authorized. Other sections provided for details by which the plan was to be effected.

To this bill I proposed an additional section authorizing the deposits of legal tender notes by national banks with the United States treasurer, to meet the redemption of the notes of such banks which had failed, gone into liquidation, or were reducing their circulation, to be covered into the treasury to the credit of an appropriation from which the money could be withdrawn as necessary to meet the payments of the notes for which the deposits had been made. The deposits of this character often exceeded $50,000,000, but under the plan proposed the money became immediately available in current disbursements, thus avoiding a hoarding of the notes in the treasury or the creating of a stringency in the circulation, and, at the same time, giving the government the use of the deposits until needed, by which the issue of bonds to a considerable extent would be avoided. This arrangement was accepted and eventually became section 6 of the law which is now in satisfactory operation.

In the progress of the debate on this bill every question connected with the financial operations of the government for twenty years was introduced and made the subject of debate, and especially the coinage act of 1873, and the dropping of the old silver dollar from coinage. Although this coin has been restored by the act of 1878, and hundreds of millions of such dollars had been coined, yet the Senators from the silver producing states, and especially Stewart, were continually harping on "the crime of 1873," as they called the coinage act of that year, a careful statement of which has already been made in these volumes.

The only new allegation made was that the amendment recommended by the Senate committee on finance, to strike out the franc dollar of 384 grains, provided for in the bill as it came from the House, and insert the trade dollar, was not agreed to in the Senate, but that the change was made in committee of conference, and passed without the knowledge of the Senate. A conclusive answer was made to this statement by the production, from the files of the secretary's office, of the original bill as it stood after its passage in the Senate and before it was sent to conference. As similar statements have been frequently made, I reproduce the portion of this original bill showing the section in question, with the printer's note accompanying the bill explaining the different type used in printing it. The word "AGREED" on the bill is in the handwriting of the journal clerk of the Senate, Mr. McDonald, who held that position many years until his death. It shows that the Senate adopted the recommendation of the committee on finance before the bill was sent to conference. This amendment was agreed to by the House conferees.

[Note in explanation of the bill (H. R. 2934).] 1. The body of the bill, printed in brevier, is as it came from the House. 2. Amendments to insert, reported by the Committee on Finance, are in italics. 3. Amendments to strike out, reported by the Committee on Finance, are in [brackets]. 4. Amendments made by the Senate striking out words are in brevier, with brackets, and the words inserted in lieu thereof in the handwriting of the Clerk, are in SMALL CAPS.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. May 29, 1872. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. December 16, 1872. Reported by Mr. Sherman with amendments, viz.: Strike out the parts in [brackets] and insert the parts printed in italics. January 7, 1873. Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Finance, reported additional amendments, which were ordered to be printed with the bill.

AN ACT Revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay-offices, and coinage of the United States. 1 _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 2 United States of America in Congress assembled_, 1 Sec. [16] 15. [That the silver coins of the United States shall be 2 a dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty- 3 five-cent piece, and a dime or ten-cent piece; and the weight of the 4 dollar shall be three hundred and eighty-four grains; the half- dol 5 lar, quarter-dollar, and the dime shall be, respectively, one- half, 6 one-quarter, and one-tenth the weight of said dollar; which coins 7 shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for any amount not 8 exceeding five dollars in any one payment.] _That the silver coins 9 of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half-dollar or fifty- AGREED A DIME OR TEN-CENT PIECE 10 cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-five-cent piece ^; and the 11 weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty grains 12 troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams and one- 13 half of a gram; the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respec- 14 tively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar; 15 and said coins shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for 16 any amount not exceeding five dollars in any one payment_. AGREED

On the 5th of June I made a speech covering not only the pending bill, and the cognate questions involved, but all the irrelative topics introduced by other Senators. I said:

"I approach the discussion of this bill, and the kindred bills and amendments pending in the two Houses, with unaffected diffidence. No problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. Our action will affect the value of all property of the people of the United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our trade and commerce with all the world. In the consideration of such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound by local interests, but, with the lights of experience and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, we should give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature allows. With the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public credit or the general interests of our people. This is no time for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal with facts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably will be. The best prophet of the future is the past.

"To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear conception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority of the Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population, and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring of national bank notes; second, to increase the market value of silver, not only in the United States, but in the world, in the belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed, and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and, third, to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish both gold and silver as standards of value, not only in the United States, but among all the civilized nations of the world.

"Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all, and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my opinion, to promote or defeat these objects."

Those of us who were in favor of good money, whether of gold or silver, or whether issued by the government in the form of notes or currency by the national banks, all to be maintained at par with each other and of equal purchasing power, were constantly charged with reducing the volume of money. I showed that since the resumption of specie payments, January 1, 1879, there had been a constant annual increase in the total circulating medium of the country. I furnished a table showing the steady increase of circulation during the period named, which I here insert:

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

*Includes outstanding clearing house certificates of the act of June 8, 1872.

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.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us