Bot-S: Autobiography of John Sherman

I knew Garfield well.  From his early advent in 1861 in the
legislature of Ohio, when I was a candidate for the Senate, to the
date of his death, I had every opportunity to study his character.
He was a large, well developed, handsome man, with a pleasing
address and a natural gift for oratory.  Many of his speeches were
models of eloquence.  These qualities naturally made him popular.
But his will power was not equal to his personal magnetism.  He
easily changed his mind, and honestly veered from one impulse to
another.  This, I think, will be admitted by his warmest friends.
During the trying period between his election and inauguration his
opinions wavered, but Blaine, having similar personal qualities,
but a stronger will, gained a powerful influence with him.  When
I proposed to him to be a delegate at large to the Chicago convention,
he no doubt meant in good faith to support my nomination.  When
his own nomination seemed probable he acquiesced in, and perhaps
contributed to it, but after his election he was chiefly guided by
his brilliant Secretary of State.

There was a striking contrast between the personal qualities of
Garfield and Hayes.  Hayes was a modest man, but a very able one.
He had none of the brilliant qualities of his successor, but his
judgment was always sound, and his opinion, when once formed, was
stable and consistent.  He was a graduate of Kenyon college and
the law school at Cambridge.  He had held several local offices in
Cincinnati, had served with high credit in the Union army, and had
attained the rank of major general by conspicuous heroism in battle.
He had been twice elected a Member of Congress from Cincinnati and
three times as Governor of Ohio, and in 1876 was elected President
of the United States.  The contest which was ended by his inauguration
has already been referred to.  During his entire term, our official
and personal relations were not only cordial, but as close and
intimate as that of brothers could be.  I never took an important
step in the process of resumption and refunding, though the law
vested the execution of these measures in my office, without
consulting him.  Yet, while expressing his opinion, he said this
business must be conducted by me, and that I was responsible.

Early in his administration we formed the habit of taking long
drives on each Sunday afternoon, in the environs of Washington.
He was a regular attendant with Mrs. Hayes, every Sunday morning,
at the Methodist Episcopal church, of which she was a member.  This
duty being done we felt justified in seeking the seclusion of the
country for long talks about current measures and policy.  Each of
us was prepared with a memorandum of queries.  My coachman, who
has been with me for twenty years, could neither heed nor hear.
We did not invade any of the departments of the government outside
of the treasury and his official functions as President.  This
exchange of opinion was of service to the public, and gave to each
of us the benefit of an impartial opinion from the other.

Among the multitude of public men I have met I have known no one
who held a higher sense of his duty to his country, and more
faithfully discharged that duty, than President Hayes.  He came
into his great office with the prejudice of a powerful party against
him, caused by a close and disputed election.  This was unjust to
him, for the decision was made by a tribunal created mainly by its
representatives.  He went out of office at the close of his term
with the hearty respect of the American people, and his administration
may be placed as among the most beneficial and satisfactory in the
history of the republic.

When near the close of his term, he gave the usual dinner to the
members of the outgoing and the incoming cabinets.  It was purely
an official dinner, but Hayes said that there were two gentlemen
present who were not in office.  We looked around to see who the
unhappy two were, and found they were Garfield and myself.  Garfield
had not yet become President and I had resigned as secretary the
day before.  This happened to be the only day that I was not in
public office since March 4, 1855.

On the 3rd of March I delivered to the President my resignation,
as follows:

  'Washington, March 3.
"Hon. R. B. Hayes, President United States.

"My Dear Sir:--Having been elected a Member of the Senate of the
United States, I have the honor to resign the office of Secretary
of the Treasury, to take effect this day.  In thus severing our
official relations, I avail myself of the opportunity to express
my grateful appreciation and heartfelt thanks for the support and
assistance you have uniformly given me in the discharge of the
duties of that office.  I shall ever cherish with pleasant memories
my friendly association with you as a member of your cabinet, and
shall follow you in your retirement from your great office with my
best wishes and highest regards.

  "Very truly your friend,
  "John Sherman."

During my service as Secretary of the Treasury I had been arraigned
in every issue of the Sunday "Capital," a newspaper published in
Washington, in the severest terms of denunciation, by Don Piatt,
the owner of the paper.  He was a brilliant but erratic writer,
formerly a member of the Ohio legislature and a native of that
state.  I believed that his animosity to me grew out of my re-
election to the Senate in 1865, when General Schenck, who was warmly
supported by Piatt, was my competitor.  Schenck and I always
maintained friendly relations.  He served his district long and
faithfully in the House of Representatives, was a brilliant debater,
had the power of condensing a statement or argument in the fewest
possible words, and uttering them with effective force.  Next to
Mr. Corwin, and in some respects superior to him, Schenck was ranked
as the ablest Member of the House of Representatives from Ohio
during his period of active life, from 1840 to his death, at
Washington, D. C., March 23, 1890.  Schenck freely forgave me for
his defeat, but Piatt never did.

At the close of my term as secretary, much to my surprise, Piatt
wrote and published in his paper an article, a portion of which I
trust I will be pardoned for inserting here:

"When John Sherman took the treasury, in March, 1877, it was plain
that the _piece de resistance_ of his administration would be the
experiment of the resumption act, which John, as chairman of the
Senate finance committee, had elaborated two years before, and
which was then just coming upon the threshold of practical test.
The question at issue was whether resumption of specie payments,
after eighteen years of suspension, could be accomplished through
the operation of laws of Congress, which, if not absolutely in
conflict with the laws of political economy, were, to every visible
appearance, several years in advance of them.  Of course, the
primary effect of the appreciation of our paper towards par with
the standard of coin was the enhancement of the purchasing power
of the circulating medium.  That made it hard to pay debts which
had been contracted on low scales of purchasing power.  That which
had been bought for a dollar worth sixty cents, must be paid for
with a dollar worth eighty, ninety, or a hundred cents, according
to the date on which the contract matured.  Of course, such a
proceedings created an awful squeeze.  Many men, struggling under
loads of debt, found the weight of their obligations growing upon
them faster than their power to meet, and they succumbed.

"For all this John Sherman was blamed.  He was named 'The Wrecker,'
and the maledictions poured upon his head during the years 1877
and 1878 could not be measured.  Every day the columns of the press
recorded new failures, and every failure added to the directory of
John Sherman's maledictors.  But the man persevered.  And now,
looking back over the record of those two years, with all their
stifled ambitions and ruined hopes, the grim resolution with which
John, deafening his ears to the cry of distress from every quarter,
kept his eye fixed upon the single object of his endeavor, seems
hardly human--certainly not humane.  And yet there are few reasoning
men to be found now ready to deny that it was for the best, and,
taken all in all, a benefaction to the country; one of those sad
cases, in fact, where it is necessary to be cruel in order to be
kind.

"We were not a supporter of John Sherman's policy at any period of
its crucial test.  We did not believe that his gigantic experiment
could be brought to a successful conclusion.  The absurd currency
theories which were from time to time set up in antagonism to his
policy never impressed us; our disbelief was based upon our fear
that the commercial and industrial wreckage, consequent upon an
increase of forty per cent. in the purchasing power of money within
three years, would be infinitely greater than it turned out to be,
and, so being, would overwhelm the country in one common ruin.
But we were mistaken.  John Sherman was right.  And it is but common
frankness to say of him, even as one would give the devil his due,
that he builded wiser than we knew--possibly wiser than he knew
himself.  At all events, John builded wisely.

"He took the treasury at a period when it was little more than a
great national bank of discount, with rates varying from day to
day; the coin standard a commodity of speculation on Wall street;
the credit of the government a football in the markets of the world;
and our bonds begging favor of European capitalists.  He leaves it
what it ought to be--a treasury pure and simple, making no discounts,
offering no concessions, asking no favors; the board that once
speculated in coin as a commodity abolished, doors closed by reason
of occupation gone; the credit of our government at the head of
the list of Christendom; since we are launching at par a three per
cent. consol, which even England, banking house of the universe,
has never yet been able to maintain steadily above 97.

"This is no small achievement to stand as the record of four years.
It is an achievement that entitles the man who accomplished it to
rank as one of the four great American financiers who really deserve
the title--Robert Morris, Albert Gallatin, Salmon P. Chase, and
John Sherman.

"We take off our hat to John; not because we like him personally,
but because we admire the force of character, the power of intellect
and the courage of conviction that enabled him to face his
difficulties, surmount his obstacles and overcome the resistance
he met.

"The treasury he took up in 1877 was a battle ground.  The treasury
he resigns to his successor in 1881 is a well-ordered machine of
red tape and routine, requiring for its future successful administration
little else than mediocrity, method and _laissez faire_.  As we
said before, we take off our hat to John.  He is not a magnetic
man like Blaine, not a lovable man like our poor, dear friend Matt.
Carpenter, not a brilliant man like our Lamar; not like any of
these--warm of temperament, captivating of presence or dazzling of
intellectual luminosity; but he is a great man, strong in the cold,
steadfast nerve that he inherits from his ancestor, and respectable
in the symmetry of an intellect which, like a marble masterpiece,
leaves nothing to regret except the thought that its perfection
excludes the blemish of a soul.  John Sherman will figure creditably
in history.  Mankind soon forgets the sentimental acrimony of the
moment, provoked by the suffering of harsh processes, and remembers
only the grand results.  Thus John Sherman will figure in history
as the man who resumed specie payments; and in that the visiting
statesman of 1876 and the wrecker of 1877-78 will be forgotten.
We congratulate John upon his translation into the history of
success as heartily as if we had been his supporter in the midst
of all his tribulations.  Bully for John."

George Bancroft, the eminent historian, lived in Washington for
many years during the latter part of his life.  His house was always
an attractive and hospitable one.  I had many interesting conversations
with him, mainly on historical subjects.  Both of us carefully
eschewed politics, for to the end of his life, I think, he always
regarded himself as a Democrat.  I insert an autograph letter from
him, written at the age of eighty-one.

  "1623 H Street,                       }
  "Washington, D. C., February 22, 1881.}
"My Dear Mr. Sherman:--I thank you very much for the complete
statement, you were very good to send me, of the time and amounts
of payments made to Washington as President.  Congratulating you
on the high state of the credit of the United States, I remain,
ever, dear Mr. Secretary,

  "Very truly yours,
  "Geo. Bancroft."

Before closing my recollections of the administration of President
Hayes I ought to express my high appreciation of my colleagues in
his cabinet.  It was throughout his term a happy family.  I do not
recall a single incident that disturbed the sincere friendship of
its members, nor any clashing of opinions that produced discord or
contention.  Neither interfered with the duties of the other.  The
true rule was acted upon that the head of each department should
submit to the President his view of any important question that
arose in his department.  If the President wished the opinion of
his cabinet on any question, he submitted it to the cabinet but
took the responsibility of deciding it after hearing their opinions.
It was the habit of each head of a department to present any
questions of general interest in his department, but as a rule he
decided it with the approbation of the President.  Evarts was always
genial and witty, McCrary was an excellent Secretary of War.  He
was sensible, industrious and prudent.  Thompson was a charming
old gentleman of pleasing manners and address, a good advocate and
an eloquent orator, who had filled many positions of honor and
trust.  The President regretted his resignation, to engage in the
abortive scheme of De Lesseps to construct the Panama Canal.
Attorney General Devens was a good lawyer and judge and an accomplished
gentleman.  He frequently assisted me in my resumption and refunding
operations, and, fortunately for me, he agreed with me in my opinions
as to the legality and expedience of the measures adopted.  General
Carl Schurz was a brilliant and able man and discharged the duties
of Secretary of the Interior with ability.  I had known him in the
Senate as an admirable and eloquent debater, but in the cabinet he
was industrious and practical and heartily supported the policy of
the President and was highly esteemed by him.  Key, of Tennessee,
was selected as a moderate Democrat to represent the south.  This
was an experiment in cabinet making, cabinets being usually composed
of members of the same party as the President, but Key proved to
be a good and popular officer.  The two vacancies that occurred by
the resignations of McCrary and Thompson were acceptably filled by
Governor Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Goff, of West Virginia.  Each
of these gentlemen contributed to the success of Hayes' administration,
and each of the heartily sympathized with, and supported the measures
of, the treasury department.

On the 4th day of March, 1881, I attended the special session of
the Senate, called by President Hayes, and took the oath prescribed
by law.  In conformity with the usages of the Senate, I lost my
priority on the committee on finance by the interregnum in my
service, but was made chairman of the committee on the library,
and a member of the committees on finance, rules, and privileges
and elections.  Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, became chairman of the
committee on finance, and, by the courtesy of the other members,
I was placed next to him on that committee.  Our relations since
our entrance together, in 1854, into the House of Representatives
had been so intimate and cordial that it made no practical difference
which of us sat at the head of the table.  When I recalled the
facts that in both the Senate and House of Representatives I had
been chairman of the financial committee, and Mr. Morrill a member,
that my service in the treasury department did not impair my fitness
as chairman, but rather improved it, and that under precisely the
same conditions I had restored to Mr. Fessenden his former position,
I felt piqued, but my feelings did not extend to Mr. Morrill, for
whom I had the highest respect and confidence, and with whom I
rarely differed on any public question.  He is now the Nestor of
the Senate, wonderfully vigorous in mind and body.

The chief subject of political interest in this session was the
attitude of William Mahone, a Senator from Virginia.  He had been
a distinguished officer in the Confederate army, was a small man
physically, but of wonderful vitality, of undoubted courage and
tenacity.  He had broken from the Democratic party, of which he
had been a member, and had been elected a Senator on local issues
in Virginia, arising chiefly out of the debt of that state.  When
he entered the Senate, that body was so equally divided that his
vote would determine which party should have the control of its
organization.  He quickly made his choice.  He was viciously assailed
by Senator Hill, of Georgia, who, not by name but by plain inference,
charged Mahone with disgracing the commission he held.  The reply
of Mahone was dramatic and magnetic.  His long hair, his peculiar
dress and person, and his bold and aggressive language, attracted
the attention and sympathy of the Senate and the galleries.  He
opened his brief speech as follows:

"Mr. president, the Senator has assumed not only to be the custodian
here of the Democratic party of this nation; but he has dared to
assert his right to speak for a constituency that I have the
privilege, the proud and honorable privilege on this floor, of
representing without his assent, without the assent of such Democracy
as he speaks for.  I owe them, sir, I owe you [addressing Mr. Hill],
and those for whom you undertake to speak, nothing in this chamber.
I came here, sir, as a Virginian, to represent my people, not to
represent the Democracy for which you stand.  I come with as proud
a claim to represent that people as you to represent the people of
Georgia, won on field where I have vied with Georgians whom I
commanded and others in the cause of my people and of their section
in the late unhappy contest, but, thank God, for the peace and good
of the country that contest is over, and as one of those who engaged
in it, and who has neither here nor elsewhere any apology to make
for the part taken, I am here by my humble efforts to bring peace
to this whole country, peace and good will between the sections,
not here as a partisan, not here to represent the Bourbonism which
has done so much injury to my section of the country."

The debate that followed soon settled the position of General
Mahone.  He acted with the Republican party.  During the whole of
this session, which extended to May 20, little was done except to
debate Virginia politics, of which Mahone was the center.  His vote
was decisive of nearly every question presented.  I took part in
the long debate on the election of officers of the Senate, mainly
with Senator Bayard.  My sympathy was with Mahone, as I felt that,
whatever his view of the debt question in Virginia was, he was
right on the reconstruction of the south and in opposition to the
bitter sectionalism of the Democratic party in that state.  In
replying to Mr. Bayard I said I agreed with him in the principle
that the majority must rule.  I claimed, however, that when the
action of a minority went beyond a reasonable delay it became
revolution and, in a word, was worse than revolution, it was treason;
that under the senate rules, and in conformity with them, this
government might be as absolutely destroyed as the southern
Confederates would have destroyed it if they had succeeded; that
the rules were intended to be construed with reason and judgment;
that the minority had certain rights to interpose dilatory motions
in order to delay and weary out the will of the majority, but when
it went beyond that limit it entered upon dangerous ground; that
the simple question was whether the Senate should elect its officers
by a majority vote or whether the minority should force the retention
of those then in office.  The session closed without electing
officers of the Senate, and was in substance a debating society
doing nothing but talk and acting upon presidential appointments.

The cabinet of President Garfield, as finally selected, was a good
one and was promptly confirmed.  Mr. Blaine, for the head of it,
was determined upon early after the election, but the other members
were not decided upon until near the inauguration.  Mr. Windom
certainly proved himself a very able and accomplished Secretary of
the Treasury during the short period of his tenure.  As I held
myself in a large measure responsible for his appointment, I took
a great interest in his success.  He conferred with me freely about
the best mode of refunding the large amount of bonds that became
due on or before the 1st of July.  Congress having failed to pass
any law to provide for the refunding of this debt, he resorted to
an ingenious expedient, which answered the purpose of refunding.
Under a plan which was his own device there were called in, for
absolute payment on July 1, 1881, about $200,000,000 of bonds,
mainly the six per cent. bonds of 1861, but permission was given
to the holders of the bonds to have them continued at the pleasure
of the government, with interest at the rate of three and a half
per cent. per annum, provided the holder should so request, and
the bonds should be received at the treasury for that purpose on
or before the 10th of May, 1881.  The plan proved entirely
satisfactory.  There were presented in due time, for continuance
at three and a half per cent., the amount of $178,055,150 of bonds,
leaving to be paid off from surplus revenue $24,211,400, for which
the treasury had ample resources.  Having succeeded in disposing
of the six per cent. bonds, he gave notice that the coupon five
per cent. bonds of the loans of July 14, 1870, and January 20,
1871, would be paid on August 12, 1881, with a like privilege of
continuing the bonds at three and a half per cent. to such of the
holders who might present them for that purpose on or before July
1, 1881.  At the same time the treasurer offered to receive for
continuance any of the uncalled registered bonds of that loan to
an amount not exceeding $250,000,000, the remainder of the loan
being reserved with a view to its payment from the surplus revenues.

The annual saving in interest by the continuance of these bonds
amounted to $10,473,952.25.  I heartily approved this plan.  In a
reported interview of the 14th of April I said:

"I see no difficulty in fully carrying out Secretary Windom's
policy, as far as developed.  He has ample means for reducing the
interest on the five and six per cent. bonds.  He can pay off all
those who wish to be paid in money, in strict accordance with the
terms of these bonds, leaving the mass of them at three and a half
per cent. interest, payable at the pleasure of Congress.  This is
not only for the public interest, but is on the clear line of his
power and duty.  Indeed, I think it is better for the country than
any refunding plan that would be carried out under a new law.  The
old securities remain as redeemable bonds, bearing as low a rate
of interest as any new bonds would bear, which could be now sold
at par, and they are more readily payable with surplus revenue than
any new bonds could be.  If it should appear next session that a
three per cent. bond would sell at par, that can be authorized.
Secretary Windom is cautious and careful, and has done the very
best for the public that is possible."

"Do you think the public will be likely to respond largely to his
efforts?"

"Yes, I have no doubt about it, unless an unforseen or sudden
revulsion occurs."

Mr. Windom demonstrated his ability, not only in the plan of
refunding the debt, but in the general conduct and management of
his department.

The administration of Garfield encountered the same difficulty as
that of Hayes in the selection of officers in the State of New
York.  The question was whether appointments in New York should be
made by the President or by a Senator from that state.  E. A.
Merritt, collector of the port of New York, having been nominated
for consul general at London, William H. Robertson was nominated
to the Senate in his place.  When the Senate considered this
nomination Senator Conkling and his colleague, Senator Platt,
opposed it, not for unfitness, but for the reason that they had
not been consulted in this matter, and that the selection was an
insult and in violation of pledges given Conkling by the President.
When this opposition was known, the President withdrew previous
appointments from that state, in order that the Senate might act
upon the nomination of collector and definitely determine whether
he or the Senators should appoint United States officers in New
York.  Finding the nomination of Robertson would be confirmed, both
Senators resigned on the 16th of May, and made their appeal to the
legislature of New York for re-election.  If they had been returned
to the Senate, the President would have been powerless to appoint
anyone in New York without consulting the Senators, practically
transferring to them his constitutional power.  Fortunately for
the country the legislature of New York elected E. C. Lapham and
Warner Miller in the places of Conkling and Platt.

How far, if at all, the excitement of this contest led to the
assassination of Garfield by Guiteau cannot be known; yet, this
tragedy occurring soon after the contest, the popular mind connected
the two events, and the horror and detestation of the murder
emphasized the rejection of Conkling and Platt.

The action of the President and of the New York legislature
contributed to check the interference of Senators in appointments
to office, which had grown up, under what is called "the courtesy
of the Senate," to be a serious abuse.  The nomination of Stanley
Matthews, eminently fitted for the office of justice of the Supreme
Court, was confirmed by a majority of only one vote, the objections
to him being chiefly as did not relate to his fitness or qualifications
for that great office, but grew out of his intimate relations with
Hayes.


CHAPTER XLIII.
ASSASSINATION OF GARFIELD AND EVENTS FOLLOWING.
I Return to Mansfield for a Brief Period of Rest--Selected as
Presiding Officer of the Ohio State Convention--My Address to the
Delegates Indorsing Garfield and Governor Foster--Kenyon College
Confers on Me the Degree of Doctor of Laws--News of the Assassination
of the President--How He Differed from Blaine--Visit of General
Sherman--Reception by Old Soldiers--My Trip to Yellowstone Park--
Speechmaking at Salt Lake City--Visit to Virginia City--Placer
Mining in Montana--The Western Hunter Who Was Lost in a "St. Louis
Cañon"--Sunday in Yellowstone Park--Geysers in the Upper Basin--
Rolling Stones Down the Valley--Return Home--Opening of the Ohio
Campaign--Death of Garfield.

After the adjournment of the Senate I went to Mansfield, and enjoyed
the comfort and quiet of home life after the turbulence and anxiety
of four years of severe labor as Secretary of the Treasury.  The
state convention was to be held at Cleveland on the 18th of June.
There were signs of disaffection growing out of the events of the
past year, which threatened to disturb the harmony of the Republican
party.  I determined to do all I could to allay this, and for that
purpose to attend the convention as a delegate and promote, as far
as I could, the renomination of Governor Foster.  When the convention
met I was selected as its president, and in my speech I took care
to express my support of Governor Foster and the administration of
Garfield.

I said that Governor Foster was entitled to renomination, and I
believed would receive it at the hands of the convention, that his
able and earnest canvass two years before had laid the foundation
for a great victory, culminating in the election of Garfield as
President.  I called attention to the achievements of the Republican
party during the past twenty-five years in war and in peace.  I
warned the convention that there was no room in Ohio, or in this
country, for a "boss," or a leader who commands and dictates, and
said:  "The man who aspires to it had better make his will beforehand."
I congratulated the convention upon the auspicious opening of the
administration of President Garfield and said:

"We know office-seeking is undoubtedly the proper pursuit of mankind.
There may be some disappointments, because there are fewer places
to fill than men willing to fill them.  But, in the main, the
general principles and policy of this administration are in harmony
with the aspirations of the Republican party.  The financial policy
of the last administration has been supplemented by the reduction
of the rate of interest on $500,000,000 of the public securities
from five and six per cent. to three and a half per cent.  This
wise measure has been carefully and most skillfully managed by
Secretary Windom, an Ohio boy. . . . They are saving $15,000,000
a year, and now the debt which frightened brave men fifteen years
ago has melted away like snow before a summer sun, no longer
frightening the timid.  And now the tax on whisky will pay the
interest on the public debt.

"The people of Ohio are satisfied with the administration, I believe,
as it now stands.  I believe I can say, in advance of the resolution
that has been, or that will be, offered, that President Garfield
has the emphatic approval of the Republicans of Ohio in the course
he has pursued thus far.  Let him further advance the public credit;
let him punish all who do wrong; let him give us an administration
pure, simple and republican, worthy of a nation like ours, and we
will send him our approval twice over again.  But, we have something
to do in this task.  We have got to emphasize our approval by
indorsing this administration in the election of the Republican
ticket this fall.  This is no child's play.  We know of the good
work of the Republican party, that it has a powerful constituency
behind it, we dare not do anything wrong, or they will push us from
our positions, if we do not behave ourselves.  Let us, then, do
our part; work as Republicans of Ohio know how to work, and victory
will perch upon our banners."

The proceedings of the convention, from beginning to end, were
conducted without any serious division or excitement.  The threatened
outbreak against Foster did not occur.  Upon the close of my speech
I announced that the first business in order was the nomination of
a candidate for governor.  Foster was nominated by acclamation,
without a dissenting voice.  The rest of the ticket was composed
of popular candidates, and an exceptionally good platform was
adopted.

In the latter part of June, I attended alumni day of Kenyon college,
in company with ex-President Hayes and many leading men of Ohio.
Delano Hall, the gift of Columbus Delano, and Hubbard Hall were
dedicated with appropriate services, conducted by Bishop Bedell
and President Bodine.  On this occasion the degree of Doctor of
Laws was conferred upon me, and I told the faculty how earnestly
I had wished to graduate in their college, and why I could not do
so.  Frank Hurd and Mr. Hayes, both graduates, made interesting
addresses.  This college was founded mainly upon liberal contributions
to Bishop Chase, by Lord Kenyon and other Englishmen.  Its governing
power was the Episcopal church.  It has had many vicissitudes of
prosperity and depression, but has never realized the hopes of its
founders.  It is one of the colleges of Ohio, excellent in their
way, but if their limited resources had been combined in one great
university, free from sectarian influence, the result would, in my
opinion, have been much better for the youth of Ohio.

During this period I was busy putting my country house in order.
I was literally "repairing the fences."  The absence, during four
years, of Mrs. Sherman and myself made a great change in the
condition of my house, grounds and farm.  The work of restoration
was a pleasant one, and I was relieved from appeals for appointments,
from the infinite details of an exacting office, and still more
from the grave responsibility of dealing with vast sums, in which,
however careful I might be, and free from fault, I was subject to
imputations and innuendoes by every writer who disapproved of my
policy.

I was arranging for a trip to Yellowstone Park, was receiving
visitors from abroad daily, and mixing with my neighbors and fellow-
townsmen, congratulating myself upon a period of rest and recreation,
when, on the 2nd of July, I received from General Sherman the
announcement, by telegram, that Garfield had been shot by Guiteau,
and that the wound was dangerous, and perhaps fatal.  The full
details of this crime were soon given.  I started to go to Washington,
but returned when advised that I could be of no service, but
continued to receive from General Sherman frequent bulletins.  The
position of the fatal bullet could not be ascertained, and Garfield
lingered in suffering until the 19th of September, when he died.

The death of Garfield, by the hand of a half crazy crank, created
a profound impression throughout the civilized world.  To rise to
such a height as he had attained, and then to become the victim of
such a wretch, was a calamity that excited profound sympathy for
the President, and unusual detestation for the murderer.  The
personal qualities of Garfield have been already mentioned.  After
his untimely death his enemies became silent.  At this distance of
time we can properly fix his place in the calendar of those who
have gone before.  In many respects, Garfield was like Blaine, but
in his personal intercourse with men, and in the power of will, he
was not the equal of Blaine, while, in style of oratory, in imagery
and expression, he was superior to him.  Both were eminent in their
day and generation.  They were my juniors about eight years, yet
they lived long enough to permanently stamp their names upon the
history of the country.

On the 20th of July General Sherman arrived at Mansfield as my
visitor.  There was much curiosity to see him, especially by soldiers
who had served under his command.  I invited them to call at my
house.  On the evening of the 21st a large procession of soldiers
and citizens, headed by the American band, marched to my grounds.
The general and I met them at the portico, when Colonel Fink stepped
forward and made a brief speech, saying:

"General Sherman:--We, the old soldiers of the war for the Union,
of Richland county and its surroundings, together with our citizens,
have come to-day to pay our respects to you.

"We come, with feelings of profound regard, to see and welcome you,
our great strategic war chief, and the hero fo the glorious 'March
to the sea.'

"We greet you as the general and leader of all the armies of our
country; we greet you as the gallant defender of the flag; we greet
you as the brother of our beloved Senator; we greet you as an Ohio
man, but, above all, we have come to greet and honor you for your
worth; the man that you are."

General Sherman replied briefly, and as this is the first speech
I ever heard him make I insert it here.  He said:

"Fellow-Soldiers of the late war and Fellow-Citizens:--It gives me
pleasure to meet you here to-night, in this beautiful grove; in
this inclosure, at my own brother's home.  I am glad to meet you,
his neighbors and his friends.  The situation is a novel one to
me, and I am deeply moved by it.  As I look over you I do not
recognize the faces that I used to know, and when riding about your
city to-day, I only found some of the names I then knew--your
Hedges, your Parkers, and your Purdys; for the rest I had to go to
your cemetery, over yonder, and read their names on the tombstones.
But you have them still among you in their children and their
grandchildren.

"I cannot distinguish to-night who are and who are not soldiers,
but let me say to you, soldiers, I am very glad to meet you again,
after so many years, in this time of peace, when yet the recollection
of the hardships of war is a bond of comradeship among us.  We
fought, not for ourselves alone, but for those who are to come
after us.  The dear old flag we carried through the storms of many
battles, ready to die, if need be, that it might still wave over
the government of our fathers.

"But this is not the time nor place to recount the events of the
past.  I could not now do the subject justice if I should try.  I
am not accustomed to addressing mixed audiences.  My brother here
knows how to do that better than I, and he understands you better.
But I want to say to you:  Teach your children to honor the flag,
to respect the laws, and love and understand our institutions, and
our glorious country will be safe with them.

"My friends, I heartily appreciate this splendid tribute of your
friendship and respect.  I thank you.  Good night."

At the conclusion of General Sherman's speech he was cheered
vociferously, after which calls were made for me.  I made a few
remarks and announced that the general would be glad to take them
all by the hand, and as he did so they passed into the dining-room,
where refreshments awaited them.  The greetings and hand-shaking
lasted over an hour.  In the meantime the "soldier boys" and others
were enjoying the good cheer within.

On the 22nd of July General Sherman, with Colonel Bacon, left for
Clyde, Ohio, and I at the same time started for Chicago, there to
be joined by Justice Strong, late of the Supreme Court, who had
recently retired at the age of 70, the artist Bierstadt, and Alfred
M. Hoyt, of New York, for a trip to Yellowstone Park.  We had
arranged for this trip months before.  Our plan was a simple one,
to go at our convenience by the Union Pacific, the only railroad
route then open, to Salt Lake City, and thence to Virginia City,
thence through the Yellowstone Park, and by another route to return
to Virginia City, and thence home.  We were to take the usual route
and means of conveyance until we arrived at Virginia City.  From
there we were to have an escort, to and through the park, of ten
United States soldiers from Fort Ellis.

The party met at Chicago and proceeded to Ogden and Salt Lake City.
At the latter place we casually met several gentlemen of our
acquaintance, especially General Harrison, Eli Murray, Governor of
the Territory of Utah, and General McCook, who commanded the post
in Salt Lake City.  We spent a day or two in visiting the post and
city, and found a great improvement since my former visit.  In the
evening we were serenaded by a band from the post, and several
gentlemen were called out for speeches by the gathering crowd.  I
had been met during my stay there by many people who claimed to
hail from Ohio, so that I began to think it was quite an Ohio
settlement.  In the few remarks I made at the serenade I eulogized
Ohio and spoke of the number of Ohio people I had met in that city.
General McCook was called out, and as he was from Ohio he had
something to say for that state.  General Harrison was called upon,
and he said that while he lived in Indiana he was born in Ohio and
was proud of it.  General Murray was next called for and he said
that while he was born in Kentucky he lived so close to Ohio that
he could throw a stone into the state.  So much had been said about
Ohio that Judge Strong took offense.  They called upon him to
address the crowd from the balcony, but he would not.  Finally,
upon my urging him to speak, he rushed forward and said:  "I want
you to understand distinctly that I am not from Ohio, I was not
born in Ohio, I never lived in Ohio, and don't want to hear anything
more about Ohio!"  This was vociferously cheered, and the old
gentleman closed with very proper remarks about love for the Union
instead of for the state.

Since that time I have visited Salt Lake City and have always been
impressed with the great value of that region, not only for its
mineral wealth, but for the possibility of great agricultural
development with proper irrigation.

During our stay we bathed in Salt Lake.  The water was so impregnated
with salt that our bodies floated upon the surface and there was
no danger of drowning.  The history of Salt Lake City, which owes
its existence and wonderful development and prosperity to Brigham
young, is like an improbable romance.  I have already mentioned
Young, having met him on my former visit with Thomas A. Scott.  In
the nine years that had elapsed the city had nearly doubled its
population.  Pure water was flowing in all the streets and the city
looked fresh and clean.  The air, at an elevation of 4,000 feet
above the sea, was exhilarating.  From Salt Lake City we returned
to Ogden, and on, or about, the 1st of August took passage on the
Utah Northern railroad.  Our route lay along the Beaver River,
passing Eagle Rock, thence through Beaver Cañon into Idaho, thence
through a mountainous range, at about an elevation of 6,800 feet,
into Montana as far as the frontier town of Dillon.  There we left
the cars and took wagons to Virginia City, Montana, where we were
to meet our military escort and arrange for horses and mules to
carry us and our camp outfit into the park.

Our drive from Dillon to Virginia City was very picturesque, skirting
the Ruby mountains and crossing the Stinking Water River.  Virginia
City was at one time the center and thriving business place of the
large population that was drawn to that valley by the very rich
placer gold mines there, discovered between 1865 and 1870.  It is
estimated that $90,000,000 of gold was taken from that stream that
runs through a valley about eighteen miles long.  The city had many
substantial buildings, a large brick courthouse, five churches,
many large business stores, dwellings and hotels.  At the time we
were there the placer mining had been abandoned, except by some
Chinamen who were washing over the tailings and making good wages
at it; and the population had been reduced from 20,000 people to
1,400.  Here we spent Sunday.  It was a gala day for the saloons,
ranchmen and cowboys, typical of how Sunday is observed in all
these mining and ranch towns.  We met here, as everywhere in Montana,
wandering gold-seekers who explored from mountain to valley in
search of the precious metal, often making exaggerated statements
in regard to the undeveloped wealth not yet discovered, with stories
about gold which were never realized.  It was the common belief
that the gold found in the placer mines must have been washed from
the mountains near by, and seekers for gold were looking for the
source of the gold field in such mountains, but it was never
discovered.  Mines were discovered in other parts of Montana, but
none about Virginia City.

On Monday we met Lieutenant Swigert with a dozen troopers from Fort
Ellis, who, by orders from the war department, were to escort us
through Yellowstone Park.  Here we obtained horses and mules for
our own use and for carrying our packs, camp traps, etc.  When all
was ready we started for our camping in the wilderness.  Our first
day's march was about twenty miles, when we went into camp.  We
proceeded each day about this same rate, following along the valley
of the Madison River until we reached the park.  When we were there
the park was truly a wilderness, with no evidences of civilization.
Game was very abundant.  Elk, deer, antelope and bear were plentiful,
and we had no difficulty in getting all the fresh meat we wanted.

Among our employees was a man by the name of Beam, a typical hunter.
He had spent most of his life in the mountains.  He started out
every morning in advance of us and was always sure to be at the
agreed camping ground when he arrived.  I asked him at one time if
he was not afraid of being lost.  He said no, he could not be lost
for he could go to the top of any hill or mountain and determine
his course.  He said he had never been lost but once, and that was
in St. Louis; when he went out from the hotel he was in a "cañon"
and he could not tell which way to go.

We arrived in the lower geyser basin on Saturday.  The next day
(Sunday) was bright and beautiful.  We knew that our revered
companion, Justice Strong, was a religious man and we felt that he
would have scruples about traveling on Sunday.  Still, we wished
to move on that afternoon to the upper geyser basin, but were at
a loss how to approach him with the Sunday question.  It was left
to me to confer with him.  Before doing so I arranged to have
everything in order for a proper observance of the Sabbath day.
I found after inquiry that there was no Bible in the large party,
but that the officer in command of the troops had an Episcopal
prayer book.  I went with that to Justice Strong and suggested that
we should have religious services, to which he readily assented.
I gave him the prayer book and he carefully marked out a selection
of scripture and prayers, saying that he was not familiar with the
book, but it contained ample material for a proper religious service.
We gathered all the soldiers, wagoners and cowboys, including the
hunter, belonging to our party.  Justice Strong was furnished a
box to sit on in front of his tent, and the rest of us stood or
lay in scattered groups on the ground around him.  He read from
the prayer book the passages he had selected, making together a
most impressive and interesting service.  Many of those who gathered
around him had not shared in religious services for years, and were
duly impressed with them.  After this was over and we had taken
dinner, I suggested to him that there were so many horses that the
teamsters complained that the grass was not sufficient for them to
remain there all day, and that I thought it would be well for us
to move to the upper geyser basin a few miles away, to which he at
once assented.  I throughly sympathized with his feelings in this
matter, but thought that under the circumstances our action was
excusable and he doubtless saw through the scheme.

During our visit to the geysers in the upper basin, we encamped
near "Old Faithful."  From this camp we could reach, by an easy
walk, nearly all the grand geysers of this wonderful basin.  I have
sometimes undertaken to describe these geysers, but never could
convey my idea of their grandeur.  Bierstadt made a sketch of "Old
Faithful," showing Mr. Hoyt and myself in the foreground, with the
geyser in full action.  He subsequently expanded this picture into
a painting, which I now own and greatly prize.

We resumed our march, passing by Sulphur Mountain, the Devil's
Caldron, mud geysers, the "paint pots," and through this marvelous
land, to the shores of Yellowstone Lake.  We were amazed at the
beautiful scenery that stretched before us.  This large lake is in
the midst of snow-clad mountains; its only supply of water is from
the melting snows and ice that feed the upper Yellowstone River.
Its elevation is 7,741 feet above the sea.  The ranges and peaks
of snow-clad mountains surrounding the lake, the silence and majesty
of the scene, were awe-inspiring--the only life apparent being the
flocks of pelicans.  We fished successfully in this mountain lake,
but of the fishes caught many were spoiled by worms that had eaten
into and remained in them.

We visited the great falls of the Yellowstone, the immense and
wonderful cañon so often described and illustrated.  We remained
encamped near this cañon a whole day, and amused ourselves chiefly
in exploring its wonderful depths and in rolling stones from
projecting points down into the valley.  They generally bounded
from point to point until we could hear them dashing into the waters
far below.

Our march down the valley of the Yellowstone was very interesting.
The military escort and Justice Strong did not pass over Mount
Washburn, but went by a nearer and easier route along the valley
to the next camping ground.  Bierstadt, Hoyt and I, with a guide,
rode on horseback to the top of Mount Washburn, a long, difficult
and somewhat dangerous feat, but we were amply repaid by the splendid
view before us.  We crossed the mountain at an elevation of 12,000
feet, in the region of perpetual snow.  From its summit one of the
grandest and most extensive views of mountain scenery lay before
and around us, range after range of snowpeaks stretching away for
one hundred miles.  To the south was the valley of Wind River and
Stinking Water, and encircling these, the Shoshone and Wind River
ranges with their lines of perpetual snow, the Bear Tooth Mountain
and Pilot Knob and Index Peak, the great landmarks of the Rockies.
The ascent was fatiguing and almost exhausting.  We remained on
the mountain two or three hours for needed rest.  When we arrived
in the camp about sundown I was so fatigued that I was utterly
unable to dismount from my horse, and was lifted bodily from it by
the soldiers.

We continued our journey through grassy parks until we reached
Lower Falls.  From there we continued until we arrived at Mammoth
Hot Springs, where there was a house, the first sign of civilization
we had seen since we began our journeyings in the park.  From here
we took our way to Fort Ellis and Bozeman, where we left our escort
and horses and mules.  We returned from here to Virginia City, and
at Dillon took cars for Ogden and thence for home, where I arrived
about the 25th of August.

During my absence in the Yellowstone Park we had frequent bulletins
in respect to President Garfield, sometimes hopeful but generally
despondent.  When I returned it was generally supposed that he
could not recover, but might linger for weeks or months.  The public
sympathy excited for him suspended by common consent all political
meetings.  As the Ohio election was to occur on the second Tuesday
of October, George K. Nash, chairman of the Republican state
committee, having charge of the canvass, made a number of appointments
for several gentlemen during September.  Among them was one for me
to speak in Mansfield, on the 17th of that month, in aid of the
election of Foster and the Republican ticket.  Preparations were
made and the meeting was actually convened on the afternoon of that
day, but, as the bulletins from Elberton indicated that Garfield
might die at any moment, I declined to speak.  More favorable
advices coming, however, I was urged by the committee to speak to
Wooster on Monday evening, September 19, and consented with some
hesitation.  In opening my speech I referred to the condition of
the President and my reluctance to speak; I said:

"Fellow-Citizens:--I am requested by the Republican state committee
to make a political speech to you to-night, in opening here the
usual discussion that precedes the election of a governor and other
state officers.  If I felt at liberty to be guided by my own
feelings, I would, in view of the present condition of the President
of the United States, forego all political discussion at this time.

"The President is the victim of a crime committed without excuse
or palliation, in a time of profound peace and prosperity, not
aimed at him as an individual, but at him as the President of the
United States.  It was a political crime, made with the view of
changing, by assassination, the President chosen by you.  It has
excited, throughout the civilized world, the most profound horror.
The President has suffered for more than two months, and is still
suffering, from wounds inflicted by an assassin.  His life still
hangs by a thread.  The anxious inquiry comes up morning, noon and
night, from a whole people, with fervid, earnest prayers for his
recovery.

"Under the shadow of this misfortune, I do not feel like speaking,
and I know you do not feel like hearing a political wrangle.  It
is but just to say that the members of all parties, with scarce an
exception, Democrats as well as Republicans, share in sympathy with
the President and his family, and in detestation of the crime and
the criminal, and the evidence of this sympathy tends to make
political dispute irksome and out of place."

I then entered into a general discussion of the issues of the
campaign.  Soon after the close of my speech I received intelligence
of the death of Garfield, and at once revoked all my appointments,
and by common consent both parties withdrew their meetings.  Thus
mine was the only speech made in the campaign.  I immediately went
to Washington with ex-President Hayes to attend the funeral, and
accompanied the committee to the burial at Cleveland.  The sympathy
for Garfield in his sad fate was universal and sincere.  The
inauguration of President Arthur immediately followed, and with it
an entire change of the cabinet.


CHAPTER XLIV.
BEGINNING OF ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION.
Special Session of the Senate Convened by the President--Abuse of
Me by Newspapers and Discharged Employees--Charges Concerning
Disbursement of the Contingent Fund--My Resolution in the Senate--
Secretary Windom's Letter Accompanying the Meline Report--Investigation
and Complete Exoneration--Arthur's Message to Congress in December
--Joint Resolutions on the Death of Garfield--Blaine's Tribute to
His Former Chief--Credit of the United States at "High Water Mark"
--Bill Introduced Providing for the Issuing of Three per Cent.
Bonds--Corporate Existence of National Banks Extended--Bill to
Reduce Internal Revenue Taxes--Tax on Playing Cards--Democratic
Victory in Ohio.

On the 23rd of September, 1881, President Arthur convened the Senate
to meet in special session on the 10th of October.  Mr. Bayard was
elected its president _pro tempore_.  On the 13th of October, when
the Senate was full, David Davis, of Illinois, was elected president
_pro tempore_, and the usual thanks were given to Mr. Bayard, as
the retiring president _pro tempore_, for the dignity and impartiality
with which he had discharged the duties of his office.

At this period of my life I was the object of more abuse and
vituperation than ever before or since.  The fact that the new
administration of Arthur was not friendly to me was no doubt the
partial cause of this abuse.  The intense bitterness manifested by
certain papers, and by discharged employees, indicated the origin
of most of the petty charges against me.  One of these employees
stated that he had been detailed for work on a house built by me
in 1880.  This was easily answered by the fact that the house was
built under contract with a leading builder and the cost was paid
to him.  I neither knew the man nor ever heard of him since.

I was blamed for certain irregularities in the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the treasury, although the accounts of that fund
were by law approved by the chief clerk of the department and were
settled by the accounting officers without ever coming under my
supervision, and the disbursement had been made by a custodian who
was in the department before I entered it.  My wife was more annoyed
than I with the petty charges which she knew were false, but which
I did not dignify by denying.

Mr. Windom, soon after his appointment as secretary, directed an
inquiry to be made by officers of the treasury department into
these abuses and it was charged that he, at my request, had suppressed
this inquiry.  The "Commercial Advertiser," on the 11th of October,
alleged that I was as much shocked by the disclosures as my successor,
Mr. Windom; that I did not want any further publicity given to
them, and was desirous that Mr. Windom should not allow the report
to get into the public prints.  I, therefore, on the 14th of October,
offered in the Senate this resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed
to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline
and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of
the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such
report."

In offering the resolution, after reading the article in the
"Commercial Advertiser," I said:

"The writer of this paragraph is very much mistaken in supposing
that I have in any way sought or wished to withhold from the public
the report referred to.  I neither have nor will I oppose or delay
any investigation of the treasury department while I was its chief
officer.  The only wish I have is to see that every officer accused
of improper conduct shall have a fair chance to defend himself,
and then he must stand or fall according to the rectitude or wrong
of his conduct.

"The only doubt I have in calling for this report now is the fact
that Mr. Windom did not order its publication lest injustice might
be done to worthy and faithful officers who had no opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses or answer charges made against them.  I
have no doubt that he either has given or will give them this
opportunity.  At all events the Senate can do so.  I, therefore,
offer this resolution and hope the Senate will promptly pass it."

Mr. Edmunds objected to the resolution as being unnecessary, and
under the rules of the Senate it went over.  I called it up on the
18th of October, when Mr. Farley, of California, asked that it be
postponed a few days.  On the 22nd I again called it up, when Mr.
Farley stated that he could not see what Congress had to do with
the report of such a commission appointed by the Secretary of the
Treasury, and asked me for an explanation.  In reply I said:

"I stated, on introducing this resolution, that the investigation
was one of a character not usually communicated to Congress, but
that certain public prints had contained unfounded imputations
against several officers of the government, and that there was
something in the report which reflected on a Member of this body
formerly a cabinet officer.  Under the circumstances, as I was
plainly the person referred to, having been Secretary of the Treasury
at the time stated, I deemed it my right, as well as my duty to my
fellow-Senators, to call out this information.  If the statements
contained in the papers be true, they are proper matters for the
Senate to examine in every sense.

"Mr. president, I have been accustomed to newspaper abuse all my
life and very rarely notice it.  This is probably the first time
in my political life that I have ever read to this body a newspaper
attack upon me or upon anyone else; but when any paper or any man
impugns in the slightest degree my official integrity I intend to
have it investigated, and I wish it tested not only by the law but
by the strictest rules of personal honor.

"For this reason, when this imputation is made by a leading and
prominent paper, that there is on the files of the treasury department
a document which reflects upon me, I think it right that it should
be published to the world, and then the Senate can investigate it
with the power to send for persons and papers.  That is the only
reason why I offered the resolution, and not so much in my own
defense as in defense of those accused in this document.  If the
accusation is true it is the duty of the Senate to examine into
the matter."

After some further discussion the resolution was adopted, and on
the same day Mr. Windom transmitted the report of James F. Meline,
and other officers of the treasury department, made to the department
during the recess of the Senate.  His letter is as follows:

  "Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary,}
  "Washington, D. C., October 22, 1881.         }
"Sir:--I am in receipt of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st
instant, as follows:

'_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed
to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline
and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of
the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such
report.'

"In reply thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of
the report called for, with the accompanying statements of Mr. J.
K. Upton and J. T. Power, who occupied the position of chief clerk
and _ex officio_ superintendent of the treasury building for the
period covered by the report.

"Soon after assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury my
attention was called to alleged abuses in the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the department, which was under the immediate
charge of a custodian, and the general supervision of the chief
clerk of the department, and I appointed a committee to look into
the matter, as has been the custom of the department in such cases.
The law, somewhat conflicting in its terms in relation to the
relative duties of these two officers, will be found fully set
forth in the report.  On considering this report I am convinced
that certain irregularities and abuses existed in this branch of
the service, and as I had some doubts as to the legality of the
appointment of a custodian I abolished that office June 18, 1881,
and by general order of July 1, 1881, reorganized the office.

"A copy of this order is herewith transmitted, from which it will
appear that all the changes necessary to a complete and thorough
correction of the irregularities and abuses referred to have been
adopted.

"It was my intention, as my more pressing public duties would
permit, to have pursued this general policy in other branches of
the treasury, by the appointment of competent committees to collect
the necessary data on which to base proper action to secure economy
and promote the best interests of the public service, but the
assassination of the President suspended further action in this
direction.

  "Very respectfully,
  "William Windom, Secretary.
"Hon. David Davis, President of the Senate."

On the 26th I offered a resolution as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on appropriations of the Senate
be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate
the accounts for the expenditure of the appropriations for contingent
or other expenses of the several executive departments, including
the methods of making such disbursements, the character and
disposition of the purchases made, and the employment of labor paid
from such appropriations, and to report on the subject at as early
a day as practicable, and whether any further legislation is
necessary to secure the proper disbursement of such appropriations;
and that the committee have leave to send for persons and papers,
and have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate."

This led to a thorough investigation into the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the treasury department, the report of which,
accompanied by the testimony, covering over 1,200 printed pages,
was submitted to the Senate on the 15th of March, 1882.  This
examination was chiefly conducted by Francis M. Cockrell, of
Missouri, a Senator distinguished for his fairness and thoroughness.
The report was concurred in unanimously by the committee on
appropriations.  It showed that certain irregularities had entered
into the management of the fund and that certain improper entries
had been made in the account, but that only a trifling loss had
resulted to the government therefrom.

I was before the committee and stated that I never had any knowledge
of any wrongdoing in the matter until it had been brought out by
the investigation.  The report fairly and fully relieved me from
the false accusations made against me.  It said:  "Touching the
statements of Senator Sherman, that he had no knowledge of its
irregularities, etc., established by the evidence, no witness states
that Mr. Sherman knew that any funds of the treasury department
were ever used for his individual benefit or otherwise misapplied."

I could not have asked for a more favorable ending of the matter.

At the close of the examination the committee addressed to the head
of each department of Arthur's administration an inquiry whether
the laws then in force provided ample safeguards for the faithful
expenditure of its contingent appropriation, and each of them
replied that no change in existing law was necessary.  The committee
concurred in the views of the heads of the departments, and suggested
that they keep a constant supervision over the acts of their
subordinates; that the storekeeper of the treasury department should
be required to give a bond, and that careful inventories of the
property of each department should be made, and that annual reports
of the expenditures from the contingent fund should be made by each
department at the commencement of each regular session.  While this
investigation imposed a severe labor upon the committee on
appropriations, it had a beneficial effect in securing a more
careful control over the contingent expenses of the departments,
and it silenced the imputations and innuendoes aimed at me.

In regard to these accusations, I no doubt exhibited more resentment
and gave them more importance than they deserved.  I felt that, as
Secretary of the Treasury, I had rendered the country valuable
service, that I had dealt with vast sums without receiving the
slightest benefit, and at the close was humiliated by charges of
petty larceny.  If I had recalled the experience of Washington,
Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson and Blaine, and many others, under
like accusations, I would have been content with answering as
Washington and Jackson did, or by silent indifference, but my
temperament led me to defy and combat with my accusers, however
formidable or insignificant they might be.

The annual message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on
the 6th of December, was a creditable, businesslike statement of
the condition of the government.  It commenced with a very proper
announcement of the appalling calamity which had fallen upon the
American people by the untimely death of President Garfield.  He
said:

"The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements,
and of his patriotic life, will be treasured forever as a sacred
possession of the whole people.

"The announcement of his death drew from foreign governments and
peoples tributes of sympathy and sorrow which history will record
as signal tokens of the kinship of nations and the federation of
mankind."

Our friendly relations with foreign nations were fully described,
and the operations of the different departments of the government
during the past year were clearly and emphatically stated.  In
closing he called attention to the second article of the constitution,
in the fifth clause of its first section, that "in case of the
removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation,
or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office,
the same shall devolve on the Vice President," and asked that
Congress should define "what is the intendment of the constitution
in its specification of 'inability to discharge the powers and
duties of said office,' as one of the contingencies which calls
for the Vice President to the exercise of presidential functions?
Is the inability limited in its nature to long continued intellectual
incapacity, or has it a broader import?  What must be its extent
and duration?  How must its existence be established?"

These and other questions connected with the subject were not acted
upon by Congress, as it could not foresee the conditions of the
inabilities in advance of their occurrence.  He closed with the
following sentence:

"Deeply impressed with the gravity of the responsibilities which
have so unexpectedly devolved upon me, it will be my constant
purpose to co-operate with you in such measures as will promote
the glory of the country and the prosperity of its people."

At the regular meeting of the House of Representatives, on the 5th
of December, 1881, J. Warren Keifer was elected speaker by a small
majority.  Both Houses were almost equally divided on partisan
lines.

Early in the session, on the motion of William McKinley, the House
passed the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of one Member from each state
represented in this House be appointed on the part of the House to
join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate,
to consider and report by what token of respect and affection it
may be proper for the Congress of the United States to express the
deep sensibility of the nation to the event of the decease of their
late President, James Abram Garfield; and that so much of the
message of the President as refers to that melancholy event be
referred to said committee."

On the same day, on my motion, a similar resolution, limiting the
committee to eight, passed the Senate.  The committees were duly
appointed.  On the 21st of December the two Houses, upon the report
of the two committees, adopted the following concurrent preamble
and resolutions:

"Whereas, The melancholy event of the violent and tragic death of
James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, having
occurred during the recess of Congress, and the two Houses sharing
in the general grief and desiring to manifest their sensibility
upon the occasion of the public bereavement:  Therefore,

"_Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring)_, That the two Houses of Congress will assemble in the
hall of the House of Representatives on a day and hour to be fixed
and announced by the joint committee, and that in the presence of
the two Houses there assembled an address upon the life and character
of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, be
pronounced by Hon. James G. Blaine; and that the president of the
Senate _pro tempore_ and the speaker of the House of Representatives
be requested to invite the President and ex-Presidents, of the
United States, the heads of the several departments, the judges of
the Supreme Court, the representatives of the foreign governments
near this government, the governors of the several states, the
general of the army and the admiral of the navy, and such officers
of the army and have as have received the thanks of Congress who
may then be at the seat of government, to be present on this
occasion.

"_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the United
States be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Mrs.
Lucretia R. Garfield, and to assure her of the profound sympathy
of the two Houses of Congress for her deep personal affliction and
of their sincere condolence for the late national bereavement."

On the 27th of February, 1882, Mr. Blaine, in response to the
resolution of the two Houses, delivered an address, in the hall of
House of Representatives, on the life and character of President
Garfield, worthy of the occasion, of the distinguished audience
before him, and of his reputation as an orator.  From the beginning
to the end it was elevated in tone, eloquent in the highest sense
of that word, and warm in expression of his affection for the friend
he eulogized.  His delineation of Garfield as a soldier, an orator,
and a man, in all the relations of life, was without exaggeration,
but was tinged with his personal friendship and love.  He described
him on the 2nd of July, the morning of his wounding, as a contented
and happy man, not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost
boyishly, happy.  "Great in life, he was surpassingly great in
death."  He pictured the long lingering illness that followed that
fatal wound, the patience of the sufferer, the unfaltering front
with which he faced death, and his simple resignation to the divine
decree.  His peroration rose to the full measure of highest oratory.
It was as follows:

"As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned.
The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital
of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its
oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness.
Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer
to the longer-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God
should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of
its manifold voices.  With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to
the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing
wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its
restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the
noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the
horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars.  Let us
think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt
and parting soul may know.  Let us believe that in the silence of
the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further
shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the
eternal morning."

Blaine died January 27, 1893.  Who now living could pronounce such
a eulogy?

The following resolutions were adopted by both Houses of Congress:

"_Resolved (the Senate concurring)_, That the thanks of Congress
be presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine, for the appropriate
memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James
Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, in the
Representatives' Hall, before both Houses of Congress and their
invited guests, on the 27th day of February, 1882; and that he be
requested to furnish a copy for publication.

"_Resolved_, That the chairman of the joint committee appointed to
make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolutions
of this Congress, in relation to the memorial exercises in honor
of James Abram Garfield, be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine
the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto, and present
the same to both Houses of Congress."

At the time of the commencement of this session the credit of the
United States had reached high-water mark.  It was apparent that,
with judicious management, a three per cent. bond of the United
States could be sold at par.  On the first day of the session,
December 5, 1881, I introduced a bill to provide for the issue of
three per cent. bonds.  It was referred to the committee on finance,
and on the 15th of December, by direction of that committee, I
reported the bill with certain amendments, and gave notice that I
was directed to seek the action of the Senate upon it immediately
after the holidays.  It was taken up for consideration on the 11th
of January, and, much to my surprise, met with opposition from
those who a year before had favored a similar bill.  They said it
was a mere expedient on my part, that President Hayes had, at my
request, vetoed a similar bill; but I was able to truly answer that
the veto of President Hayes was not against the three per cent.
bond, but against the compulsory provision that no other than three
per cent. bonds should be deposited in the treasury as security
for the circulating notes of, and deposits with, national banks;
that President Hayes, in fact, approved of the three per cent. bond.

I made a speech in support of this measure on the 26th of January,
reviewing our financial condition, with many details in respect to
our different loans, and closed as follows:

"I say now, as I said at the commencement, that the passage of this
bill seems to me a matter of public duty.  I care nothing for it
personally.  I have been taunted with my inconsistency.  I feel
like the Senator from Kentucky about an argument of that kind.  If
I did not sometimes change my mind I should consider myself a
blockhead or a fool.  But in this matter, fortunately, I have not
changed my mind.  In 1866 I anticipated the time when we could sell
three per cent. bonds and said that was a part of the funding
scheme, and so continued, year in and year out, as I could show
Senators, that that was the _ultima thule_, the highest point of
credit to which I looked in these refunding operations.  I believed
last year it could not be done, because I did not believe the state
of the money market would justify the attempt, and, besides that,
the great mass of the indebtedness was so large that it might
prevent the sale of three per cent. bonds at par.  Therefore, I
wanted a three and a half per cent. bill then.  But then we secured
the three and a half in spite of Congress, by the operations of
the treasury department and the consent of the bondholders, now we
ought to do a little better.

"Let Congress do now what it proposed to do last year, offer to
the people a three per cent. bond.  If they do not take it no harm
is done, no expense is incurred, no commissions are paid, no
advantage is taken.  If they do take it, they enable you to pay
off more rapidly still your three and a half per cent. bonds.
There was no express and no implied obligation made by the Senator
from Minnesota, as he will himself say, that the people of the United
States have the right to pay every dollar of these three and a half
per cent. bonds.  He had no power to make such an intimation even,
nor has he made it, as he states himself.  We are not restrained
by any sense of duty, we have the right to take advantage of our
improved credit, of our advanced credit, and make the best bargain
we can for the people of the United States, and the doctrine is
not 'let well enough alone,' but always to advance.

"We are advancing in credit, in population, in strength, in power,
in reason.  The work of to-day is not the work of to-morrow; it is
but the preparation for the future.  And, sir, if I had my way in
regard to these matters I certainly would repeal taxes; I would
fortify ourselves in Congress by reducing this large surplus revenue;
I would regulate, by wise and separate laws, fully and fairly
considered, all the subjects embraced in these amendments as separate
and distinct measures, pass this bill which, to the extent it goes
and to the extent it is successful, will be beneficial to the
people."

The debate upon the bill and upon amendments to it continued until
the 3rd of February, when it passed the Senate by the decided vote
of 38 yeas, 18 nays.

The bill was referred to the committee of ways and means, but the
House, instead of passing a separate bill, accomplished the same
object by section 11 of the national bank act of July 12, 1882, by
which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to receive at
the treasury any bonds of the United States bearing three and a
half per cent. interest, and to issue in exchange therefor an equal
amount of registered bonds of the United States bearing interest
at the rate of three per cent. per annum.

Mr. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of
December 4, 1882, stated that on July 1, 1882, the amount of three
and a half per cent. bonds outstanding was $449,324,000, and that
under the section referred to he had exchanged to the date of his
report $280,394,750 of three per cent. bonds for a like amount of
three and a half per cent. bonds, thus reducing the annual interest
charge by reason of these exchanges $1,401,973.75.

By his report of 1883, it was shown that the total amount of such
exchanges was $305,581,250, making an annual saving of interest,
effected by these exchanges, of $1,527,906.25.  These bonds were
subsequently paid from time to time by surplus revenue.

The whole process of refunding was perhaps as favorable a financial
transaction as has ever been executed in any country in the world.

A revision of the tariff was greatly needed, but the only measure
adopted at that session was an act to provide for the appointment
of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff.  I made
a speech on this bill in which I advocated the appointment of a
commission.  I said:

"Mr. president, I have called attention to these defects in the
present tariff, nearly all of which have grown out of amendments
that have been ingrafted on the Morrill tariff, by the confusion
caused by the difference between _ad valorem_ and specific duties,
by the great fall in prices, by important changes in the mode of
manufacturing, by, you may say, the revolution in trade and prices
that has occurred in the last twenty years, during which these laws
have existed.  Therefore, coming back to the first question stated
by me, how best to get at a revision of the tariff, I say the
quickest way is the best way.

* * * * *

"Now, it does seem to me, with due deference to the opinion of the
Senator from Kentucky, that the quickest mode of revision is by a
commission.  At the beginning of this session I believed it was
better to do it through the committees of the two Houses; but the
committee on ways and means of the House of Representatives alone
has the power to report a bill, and until then we in the Senate
are as helpless as children in this matter.  The committee on ways
and means have declared in favor of a commission, and have reported
a bill to that effect; and they are the only power in this government
that can report a tariff bill under the rules of the House.  The
House is the only body that can originate it under the constitution.
As they have decided in favor of a commission, why should we insist
upon it that they shall do the work themselves?

"Besides, half the session has passed away, and the committee on
ways and means is burdened with other duties.  We know that as the
session approaches an end, they probably cannot devote time to the
general tariff question.

* * * * *

"If they will give us a bill about sugar and these other items, it
is all we can reasonably ask them to do.  When Congress adjourns,
you cannot expect the committee on ways and means, or any other
committee of Congress, to devote all their recess to public business.
Elections are coming off for Members of Congress, and they will
look after the elections.  They must have a little rest.  Therefore,
the idea of waiting for the committees of Congress to act, is
preposterous in my judgment.  It is too late.  If the committee
had commenced on the first Monday of December, they might by this
time probably had prepared a bill.  They have made no such preparation,
and, therefore, it is utterly idle to wait.

"I think, then, and I submit it to the good, cool sense and judgment
of my friend from Kentucky, that the better way is as early as
possible to organize a commission; let it be constituted, as I have
no doubt the President will take care to constitute it, of fair
and impartial men.  They will be fresh at least.  Let them frame
a bill with the aid of officers of the treasury department, so that
by the next session we may have a general revision of the tariff.

"Upon the main question there appears to be no substantial difference
of opinion.  We agree that the tariff should be revised and the
taxes be reduced.  The only pertinent question involved in this
bill is whether it is best to organize a commission of experts, not
Members of Congress, to examine the whole subject and to report
such facts and information to Congress as the commission can gather,
or whether the proposed revision should be made directly, without
the delay of a commission, by the aid of committees of Congress
and the officers of the government familiar with the workings of
the customs laws.  It does seem to me that to decide this question
we need no long arguments about protection or free trade, watchwords
of opposing schools of political economy, nor does it seem to me
that the political bearings of the tariff question are involved
when we all agree that the tariff ought to be revised, and are now
only finding out the best way to get at it.

"Whenever a tariff bill is reported to us we will have full time
to discuss the theoretical and political aspects of the subject,
and no doubt the arguments already made will be repeated and
amplified.  I prophesy that then we will have a strange mingling
of political elements, and a striking evidence of the changes of
interest and principle on this subject in different parts of the
country, caused by the revolution of the industry of our people by
the abolition of slavery during the Civil War.  The only mitigation
of my desire for a prompt revision of the tariff is the confidence
I have that delay and discussion will make the sectional revolution
more thorough and universal, and leave the tariff question a purely
business and not a political or sectional issue."

The nine commissioners appointed by President Arthur were well
selected, and they were, under the law, required to report on that
subject to the following session of Congress.

It became necessary at this session to extend the corporate existence
of national banks.  By the terms of the original national banking
act, banks organized under it continued for but twenty years, which
would expire within two years.  A bill for the extension of the
time was introduced and a long discussion followed about silver,
certificates of deposit, clearing house certificates and other
financial matters.  There was but little if any opposition to the
extension of national banks and the bill passed.  It was approved
July 12, 1882.

The most important financial measure passed by this Congress was
the bill to reduce internal revenue taxes, reported March 29, 1882,
by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, from the committee of ways
and means.  After a debate extending to June 27, a motion to recommit
was rejected and the bill passed the House.  It was sent to the
Senate and reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill, from the
committee on finance, July 6.  On July 11 it was recommitted to
the committee on finance and immediately reported back with
amendments, which consisted of a change in the tariff duties on
sugar and an increase of the duties on cotton, ties and a few other
things.  It was not a general revision of the tariff.  Mr. Beck
antagonized the amendments proposed by the committee and sought to
delay the passage of the bill.  I replied to him as follows:

"If this Congress shall adjourn, whether the weather be hot or
cold, without a reduction of the taxes now imposed upon the people,
it will have been derelict in its highest duty.  There is no
sentiment in this country stronger now than that Congress has
neglected its duty thus far in not repealing taxes that are obnoxious
to the people and unnecessary for the public uses; and if we should
still neglect that duty we should be properly held responsible by
our constituents."

In the course of the long debate Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, who
was the acknowledged wit of the Senate, moved to except playing
cards from the general repeal of stamp taxes.  I objected to keeping
up the system of stamp taxes and said:

"If Senators want to insist on a piece of what I call demagogism,
by keeping a small stamp tax on playing cards, I am perfectly
willing that they should do so.  If it is desired now to show our
virtuous indignation against card-playing, to single out this tax,
which probably yields but three or four thousand dollars a year--
to show our virtuous indignation against people who play cards and
against card-playing, let it be done in the name of Heaven.  Let
us keep this as a monument of our virtue and intelligence and the
horror of the Senate of the United States against playing whist
and euchre.  I hope that no such vote will be given."

Mr. Vance replied in his peculiarly humorous way, and concluded by
saying:  "I have no doubt that not a men in the United States, but
who, when he 'stands pat' with three jacks, or draws to two aces,
will glorify the name of the Senator from Ohio; and if there is
gratitude in human nature, I expect the see the next edition of
playing cards bearing a fullsized portrait of the Senator from Ohio
as the distinguishing mark of the 'yerker.'"

The Senate was equally divided on this question of retaining the
tax on playing cards, the vote being 28 for and 28 against.  As
there was not a majority in favor of the amendment of Mr. Vance it
was rejected and the tax was repealed.

Mr. Beck undertook to amend the bill by a general revision and
reduction of the tariff duties in long schedules introduced by him.
I took an active part in the discussion of this bill in the hope
that by it we might secure a logical and desirable revenue law.
No final action was taken on it before the adjournment of Congress
on the 8th of August, after an eight months' session, and it went
over to the next session.

After the long and wearisome session I returned to Mansfield.  The
congressional canvass in Ohio was then in full operation.  The
failure of Congress to pass the bill relieving the people from the
burden of internal taxes no longer required, the shadow of the
murder of Garfield, the dislike and prejudice against Arthur's
administration, the temporary stringency in money matters, the liquor
or license question, the Sunday observance, and the discontent of
German Republicans, greatly weakened the Republican party in the
state and foreboded defeat.  R. A. Horr was the Republican candidate
for Congress in the district in which I reside, and on the 17th of
August he spoke at Mansfield.  I also made a brief speech covering
the chief subjects under discussion.  I explained the causes of
the failure to pass the revenue reduction bill, blaming it, as a
matter of course, on the Democratic party, but assured my hearers
that it would pass at the next session, and that the surplus revenue
would not be wasted, but would be applied to the reduction of the
public debt, and to increase pensions to Union soldiers, their
widows and orphans.  The opposition to the immigration of Chinese
into this country was then strong.  I could only promise that
Congress would do all it could to exclude them consistently with
treaty stipulations.  I favored the proper observance of the Sabbath
day, claiming that it was a day of rest and should not be desecrated,
but each congregation and each citizen should be at liberty to
observe it in any way, consistent with good order and noninterference
with others.  Touching on the liquor question, I said that many
of our young men were brought to disgrace and crime by indulgence
in intoxicating liquors, and I therefore believed in regulating
the evil.  Why should all other business be suspended, and saloons
only be open?  I was in favor of a law imposing a large tax on all
dealers in liquor, which would tend to prevent its use.  I believed
in a policy that would protect our own laborers from undue competition
with foreign labor, and would increase and develop our home
industries.  This position was chiefly a defensive one, and experience
has proven that it is not a safe one.  The Republican party is
stronger when it is aggressive.

On the 31st of August I attended the state fair as usual, and on
the morning of that day made a full and formal political address
covering both state and national interests.  I quote a few passages
on the liquor question, then the leading subject of state policy.
I said:

"All laws are a restraint upon liberty.  We surrender some of our
natural rights for the security of the rest.  The only question
is, where is the boundary between rights reserved and those given
up?  And the only answer is, wherever the general good will be
promoted by the surrender.  In a republic the personal liberty of
the citizen to do what he wishes should not be restricted, except
when it is clear that it is for the interest of the public at large.
There are three forms of legislative restriction:  Prohibition,
regulation and taxation, of which taxation is the mildest.  We
prohibit crime, we regulate and restrain houses of bad fame.  We
tax whisky and beer.  I see no hardship in such restraints upon
liberty.  They are all not only for the public good, but for the
good of those affected.  If certain social enjoyments are prolific
of vice and crime they must give way, or submit to restraints or
taxation.

"I know it is extremely difficult to define the line between social
habits and enjoyments perfectly innocent and proper and those that
are injurious to all concerned.  It is in this that the danger
lies, for the law ought never to interfere with social happiness
and innocent enjoyments.  The fault of Americans is that they are
not social enough.  I have seen on the banks of the Rhine, and in
Berlin, old and young men, women, children of all conditions of
social life, listening to music, playing their games and drinking
their beer, doing no wrong and meaning none.  I have seen in the
villages of France the young people dancing gayly, with all the
animation of youth and innocence, while the old people, looking
on, were chatting and joking and drinking their native wines, and
I could see no wrong in all this.

"But there were other scenes in these and other countries:  Ginshops
and haunts of vice where the hand of authority was seen and felt.
What I contend for is that the lawmaking power shall be authorized
to make the distinction between innocent and harmful amusements
and the places and habits of life which eventually lead to
intemperance, vice and crime.  Surely we can leave to our general
assembly, chosen by the people and constantly responsible to them,
the framing of such wise regulations, distinction and taxes as will
discriminate between enjoyment and vicious places of resort.

"It is a reproach to our legislative capacity to allow free whisky
to be sold, untaxed and without regulation, at tens of thousands
of groggeries and saloons, lest some law should be passed to restrain
the liberty of the citizen.  What we want is a wise, discriminating
tax law on the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and judicious
legislation to restrain, as far as practicable, the acknowledged
evils that flow from this unlimited traffic."

This speech expressed my convictions in respect to temperance, and
how far this and kindred subjects should be regulated by legislative
authority.  This was a delicate subject, but I believe the opinions
expressed by me were generally entertained by the people of Ohio
and would have been fully acted upon by the legislature but for
revenue restrictions in the constitution of Ohio.

After I closed Governor Foster and Speaker Keifer spoke briefly.
The general canvass then continued over the state until the election.
As the only state officers to be elected were the secretary of
state, a supreme judge and a member of the board of public works,
the chief interest centered in the liquor question and in the
election of Members of Congress in doubtful districts.  I spoke in
several districts, especially in Elyria, Warren, Wauseon, Tiffin
and Zanesville.  I spent several days in Cincinnati, socially, and
in speaking in different parts of the city.  The result of the
election was that James W. Newman, the Democratic candidate for
secretary of state, received a majority of 19,000 over Charles
Townsend, the Republican candidate.  This was heralded as a Democratic
victory.  In one sense this was true, but it was properly attributed
by the Republicans to the opposition to prohibition.  It grew out
of the demand of a portion of our people for free whisky and no
Sunday. THey were opposed to the liquor law, and believed it went
too far, and voted the Democratic ticket.

A few days after the election I went with two friends to Lawrence,
Kansas, arriving about the 15th of October.  I have always retained
a kindly feeling for the people of that state since I shared in
the events of its early history.  With each visit I have marked
the rapid growth of the state and the intense politics that divided
its people into several parties.  This was the natural outgrowth
of conditions and events before the Civil War.  As usual I was
called upon to make a speech in Lawrence, which, in view of our
recent defeat in Ohio, was not a pleasant task.  However, I accepted,
and spoke at the opera house, chiefly on the early history of Kansas
and the struggle in that territory and state, which resulted in
transforming the United States from a confederacy of hostile states
into a powerful republic founded upon the principles of universal
liberty and perpetual union.

From Lawrence we went into Texas, and for the first time traversed
that magnificent state, going from Denison to Laredo on the Rio
Grande, stopping on the way at Austin and San Antonio.  On the
route I met Senator Richard Coke and his former colleague, Samuel
B. Maxey.  I have studied the history of Texas and its vast
undeveloped resources, and anticipated its growth in wealth and
population.  It is destined to be, if not the first, among the
first, of the great states of the Union.  We returned via Texarkana
to St. Louis and thence home.


CHAPTER XLV.
STEPS TOWARDS MUCH NEEDED TARIFF LEGISLATION.
Necessity of Relief from Unnecessary Taxation--Views of the President
as Presented to Congress in December, 1882--Views of the Tariff
Commission Appointed by the President--Great Changes Made by the
Senate--Regret That I Did Not Defeat the Bill--Wherein Many Sections
Were Defective or Unjust--Bill to Regulate and Improve the Civil
Service--A Mandatory Provision That Should be Added to the Existing
Law--Further Talk of Nominating Me for Governor of Ohio--Reasons
Why I Could Not Accept--Selected as Chairman of the State Convention
--Refusal to Be Nominated--J. B. Foraker Nominated by Acclamation
--His Career--Issues of the Campaign--My Trip to Montana--Resuming
the Canvass--Hoadley Elected Governor--Retirement of Gen. Sherman.

The President was able to present, in his annual message to Congress
on the 4th of December, 1882, a very favorable statement of the
condition of the United States during the preceding year.  He
recalled the attention of Congress to the recommendation in his
previous message on the importance of relieving the industry and
enterprise of the country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation,
and to the fact that the public revenues had far exceeded the
expenditures, and, unless checked by appropriate legislation, such
excess would continue to increase from year to year.  The surplus
revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, amounted to
$100,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, it
amounted to more than $145,000,000.  This was applied to the payment
of the public debt.  He renewed the expression of his conviction
that such rapid extinguishment of the national indebtedness as was
taking place was by no means a cause for congratulation, but rather
for serious apprehension.  He therefore urged upon Congress the
policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation.  He then
stated at length his opinion of the reductions that ought to be
made.  He felt justified in recommending the abolition of all
internal taxes except those upon tobacco in its various forms, and
upon distilled spirits and fermented liquors.  The message was a
clear and comprehensive statement of the existing tariff system,
and the unequal distribution of both its burdens and its benefits.
He called attention to the creation of the tariff commission, and
to the report of that commission as to the condition and prospects
of the various commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, mining and
other interests of the country, and recommended an enlargement of
the free list, so as to include within it numerous articles which
yielded inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex
and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures,
particularly those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial
reduction of the duties upon those and various other articles.
The subsequent action of Congress did not, in my opinion, conform
to this, in some respects, wise recommendation of the President.
In his closing paragraph he stated:

"The closing year has been replete with blessings for which we owe
to the Giver of all good our reverent acknowledgment.  For the
uninterrupted harmony of our foreign relations, for the decay of
sectional animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests and the
triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the
prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence and the conservation
of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the
elements of national greatness--for these and countless other
blessings--we should rejoice and be glad.  I trust that under the
inspiration of this great prosperity our counsels may be harmonious,
and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice and economy
may lead to the adoption of measures in which the Congress and the
Executive may heartily unite."

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated
the recommendations of the President.

The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session,
in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await
the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved
May 15, 1882.  To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was
necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as
well as taxes on internal productions.  The members of the tariff
commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report,
were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler,
Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and
Duncan F. Kenner.  These gentlemen were of high standing, representing
different parts of the country, of both political parties, and
notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and
productions.  In their report they said:

"In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of
the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to
divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or
considerations of personal interest.  It is their desire that their
recommendations shall serve no particular party, class, section,
or school of political economy."

They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of
Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882.  It was a clear and
business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules
of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested
amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them,
and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed
pages.  It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our
customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been
published.  It was quickly printed for the use of the finance
committee of the Senate, before whom the bill to reduce internal
revenue taxation was pending.  If the committee had embodied, in
this bill, the recommendations of the tariff commission, including
the schedules without amendment or change, the tariff would have
been settled for many years.  Unfortunately this was not done, but
the schedules prescribing the rates of duty and their classification
were so radically changed by the committee that the scheme of the
tariff commission was practically defeated.  Many persons wishing
to advance their particular industries appeared before the committee
and succeeded in having their views adopted.  The Democratic members
seemed to take little interest in the proceedings, as they were
opposed to the adoption of the tariff as a part of the bill.  I
did all I could to prevent these changes, was very much discouraged
by the action of the committee, and doubted the propriety of voting
for the bill with the tariff provisions as proposed by the committee
and adopted by the Senate.  I have always regretted that I did not
defeat the bill, which I could readily have done by voting with
the Democrats against the adoption of the conference report, which
passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 32, nays 30.  However, the
propriety and necessity of a reduction of internal taxes proposed
by the bill were so urgent that I did not feel justified in denying
relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes on account of provisions
in the bill that I did not approve.  With great reluctance I voted
for it.

One reduction made by the committee against my most strenuous
efforts was by a change in the classification and rates of the duty
on wool.  When I returned to Ohio I was violently assailed by the
Democratic newspapers for voting for a bill that reduced the existing
duty on wool about twenty per cent., and I had much difficulty in
explaining to my constituents that I opposed the reduction, but,
when the Senate refused to adopt by view, did not feel justified,
on account of my opposition to this one item, in voting against
the bill as a whole.  The conference report was agreed to by the
House of Representatives on the 2nd of March, and the bill was
approved by the President on the 3rd.

I did not conceal my opposition to the tariff sections of the
revenue bill.  I expressed it in debate, in interviews and in
letters.  When the bill was reported to the Senate it was met by
two kinds of opposition, one the blind party opposition of free
traders, led by Senators Beck and Vance, the other (much more
dangerous), the conflict of selfish and local interests, mainly on
the part of manufacturers, who regarded all articles which they
purchased as raw material, on which they wished the lowest possible
rate of duty, or none at all, and their work, as the finished
article, on which they wished the highest rate of duty.  In other
words, what they had to buy they called raw material to be admitted
without protection, and what they had to sell they wanted protection.
It was a combination of the two kinds of opposition that made the
trouble.

The Democratic Senators, with a few exceptions, voted steadily and
blindly for any reduction of duty proposed; but they alone could
not carry their amendments, and only did so when re-enforced by
Republican Senators, who, influenced by local interest, could reduce
any duty at their pleasure.  In this way, often by a majority of
one, amendments were adopted that destroyed the harmony of the
bill.  In this way iron ore, pig iron, scrap iron and wool were
sacrificed in the Senate.  They were classed as raw materials for
manufactures and not as manufactures.  For selfish and local reasons
tin plates, cotton, ties and iron and steel rods for wire were put
at exceptionally low rates, and thus were stricken from the list
of articles that could be manufactured in this country.  This local
and selfish appeal was the great defect of the tariff bill.  I do
not hesitate to say that the iron and wool sections of the bill,
as it passed the Senate, were unjust, incongruous and absurd.  They
would have reduced the iron and steel industries of the United
States to their condition before the war, and have closed up two-
thirds of the furnaces and rolling mills in this country.  They
were somewhat changed in the committee of conference, but if they
had not been, the only alternative to the manufacturers would have
been to close up or largely reduce the wages of labor.

Another mistake made in the Senate was to strike out all the
carefully prepared legislative provisions simplifying the mode of
collecting customs duties, and the provisions for the trial of
customs cases.  The tariff commission proposed to repeal the _ad
valorem_ duty on wool, and leave on it only the specific duty of
ten and twelve cents a pound.  The chairman of the tariff commission
was himself the president or agent of the woolen manufacturers and
made the report.  The manufacturers of woolens, however, were
dissatisfied, and demanded an entire change in the classification
of woolens, and, on some important grades, a large increase of
rates, but insisted upon a reduction of the duty on wool.

I hoped when the bill passed the Senate that a conference committee
would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew
from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators
Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman.  My colleagues on the conference were
part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the
House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of
relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.

On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent
whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:

"No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the
merits and demerits of the law should not be stated.  I worked at
it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion
of other business.  Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a
great deal of good and some harm.  The great body of it is wise
and just, but it contains some serious defects.  The metallic and
wool schedules are unequal and unjust.  The great merit of the bill
is that it reduces taxes.  I would not have voted for it, if any
other way had been open to reduce taxes.

"Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?"

"Yes.  The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in
respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative.  The failure of
Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat
of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the
fault of our party.  The bill was talked to death by Democratic
Senators.  The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive,
but they are excessive.  They tempt extravagance.  We could not go
home without reducing the internal taxes.  What I want you to
emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have passed in
their present shape but for their connection with the internal
revenue sections.  We could not separate them; therefore, though
I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt
constrained to vote for the bill as a whole."

"Is not the bill, as it passed, substantially the bill of the tariff
commission?"

"No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal
taxes.  The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of
last session, and were then amended by the Senate.  That bill gave
the Senate jurisdiction of the subject.  It was only under cover
of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pass a tariff.  At
the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate
had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable
and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on
all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable
revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial
of customs cases.  If the committee had adopted this report, and
even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but
preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had
a better tariff law than has existed in this country.  But, instead
of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel,
and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some
cases higher than the old tariff.  The committee restored nearly
all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and
yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that
destroyed all symmetry or harmony.  But still the bill reported to
the Senate was a passable tariff except as to iron and wool; but
it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission
report."

Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York "Tribune" of the
date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff
amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the
lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion.  The tariff
act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications
since that time.

During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service
of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton,
and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate,
which continued most of the month of December, 1882.  It was referred
to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of
Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate,
passed that body and was approved by the President.  This important
measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed
of three persons, and defined their duties.  It withdrew from party
politics the great body of the employees of the government.  Though
not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the
civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency,
is now in successful operation.

The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules
all employments in the executive branch of the government, except
those that, by the constitution, are appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate.  If to this should
be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of
Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an
executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected
and the separate departments of the government would be independent
of each other.  My experience as an executive officer convinced me
that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the "spoils
system," but would relieve the President and heads of departments,
as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that
often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.

Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a
candidate for governor was being canvassed in the press and among
the people of Ohio.  My name, among others, was mentioned, but I
did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination,
supposing it was a passing thought that, upon reflection, would be
abandoned.  No one could then foresee how the legislature to be
elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would
hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation,
to compliment me with an election as governor.

I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects
to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus.  I was kindly
received and expressed my thanks as follows:

"Gentlemen of the general assembly, I thank you for this hearty
reception.  In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for
not making an address.  You are the representatives of the people,
and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will
of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to
party, creed or condition.  In the closing hours of your session
you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so
I bid you good-bye.  Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks."

I was received in the same manner in the senate.  I found a much
stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I
expected.  I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a
candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who
was entitled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at
the head of the state ticket, I said:

"I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the
gubernatorial nomination under any circumstances.  It is out of
the question.  There was a manifest disposition at one time to run
me _nolens volens_, but my friends now understand my position fully,
and will not press the point.  It is as though the possibility had
never been suggested, and the less said about it the better."

This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one
as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by
another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither
of which was true.  While I did not wish the nomination, I would
have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined
that my acceptance was necessary for success.  Upon my return to
Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned
several able men in the state who were well qualified for that
office.  I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable
candidate.  I did not then know him personally, but from what I
had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named.  He
was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canvass.  At that
time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and
Sherman as competing candidates.  The state convention was approaching
and I had been invited to attend.  I went to Columbus on the 5th
of June.  All sorts of rumors were being circulated.  The general
trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:

"The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent
Republicans, and the movement promises to assume such proportions
before the day of the convention, that it will result in the
nomination of Senator Sherman for governor.  It has been stated
that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent
of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis:  'Mr. John Sherman has
been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party,
and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would
not.'  The great interest manifested throughout the country in
Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circumstances,
to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all
contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the
campaign.  Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will
be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would
be a foregone conclusion."

As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general
desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to
my room to urge me to accept.  Among others who came to me were
Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fassett, of the Mahoning county delegation.
After some general conversation they said that in order that they
might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference
to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I
was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor.  I
answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would
not and could not become one.  I said I was sorry that matters had
shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of
refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the
place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put
upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction,
that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible
danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.

The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was
selected as chairman.  I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus
that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on
taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for
the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the
Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions
which would have to be met in the canvass, and appealed to all
present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.

Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the
nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation
from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his
seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor.  I
declined in the following words:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:--I have not been insensible to the
desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in
nomination for governor.  But let me say frankly but firmly that
I cannot be your candidate.  In order that I may not be misunderstood,
I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for
declining the nomination.  I have been under so many obligations
to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter
of personal interest or feeling, I would say 'yes!'  But, I cannot
accept this nomination.  First, because you have charged me with
the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I
could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only
to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States.
And I will say that that view is shared by many of my associates
in the Senate.  They deprecate any movement of this kind on account
of the condition of affairs there.  But, aside from that, there is
one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate
now.  When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the
gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention,
that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate.  I could
not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor,
and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me.  Although all
of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that
declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I
had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that
kind.  So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with
a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by
a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially
among Republicans, to decline."

The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by
acclamation.  He was introduced to the convention and made a long
and pleasant address.  His speech was well received and he was
often interrupted with cheers.  He was then about thirty-seven
years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his
appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he
was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold
a prominent place in the political history of the state.  He had
enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen,
and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission
Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into
the enemy's works, being the first man of his regiment over the
ridge.  He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea.
My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise.  After the
war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college
and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to
a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati.
He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will,
in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of
strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that
election.

From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result
was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent
legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and
also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to
the people.  The constitution of Ohio declares that "no license to
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this
state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils
resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during
this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio
for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent
the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but
without effect.  The constitution so limited the powers of the
general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive
laws.  It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors.
Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe
to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified
by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to
enforce them.  Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years,
free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that
probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any
other Christian or civilized country.  Two years before, the
Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in
favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the
general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from
the restraint of the old constitution.  The legislature, instead
of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was
known as the Pond bill.  The supreme court declared that law
unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of
the constitution.  Thus, at the previous election, the Republican
party appeared before the people of the state when they were
discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of
Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly
beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man.
The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance
question in a different spirit.  It submitted to the people two
proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full
legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other
providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic.  Pending
the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature
provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually
on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer.
This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of
Ohio.  This action of the legislature had been approved by the
Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion
in the Republican party.  On the one hand, a large body of Republicans,
mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as
an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which
they regarded as a harmless beverage.  On the other hand, the
disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as
a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license,
they alleged, was wrong and against public policy.  They were for
prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with
hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles.  The
Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every
proposition about the liquor laws.  They placed in nomination, as
their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer,
and able speaker and a man of good character and standing.  He had
been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed
the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canvass.  The farmers of
Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the
duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given
to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer.  A great outcry was
made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities
against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author
of it.  Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic
committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer
of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers.  I replied that it was true
that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on
wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and
did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united
vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican
Senators and Members from New England.  I denounced the hypocrisy
of those who assailed me, whose representatives voted for even a
greater reduction, and some of them for free wool.  To all this
they answered:  "Did you not vote for the bill on its passage?"
I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated.  No
doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some
adverse influence on the election.

This canvass was in many respects a peculiar one.  Foraker was
active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave
general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been
until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the
course of the Democratic party during and since the war.  Both the
candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there
was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor
question more than on general politics.  When I was asked about
the German vote, I said:

"The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are
really a temperate people.  They have always claimed to be willing
to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor.  The
Scott bill is very moderate--more so than the bills that are being
passed in other states.  If they mean what they say, I don't think
there will be any trouble about electing our ticket."

Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen,
George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on
a trip to Helena, Montana.  The object was simply recreation and
sight-seeing.  We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other
points.  Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know
about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred
to talk about the great northwest.  Interviews were sought by
reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers.  Hedges
and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself,
in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the
local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota.  With their assistance
I became conversant with the topography and productions of these
states.  I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul
and Minneapolis.  I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen,
some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul.  Upon
my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more
thousands than the hundreds we paid for it.  This was but a specimen
of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some
not far distant day, to be a single city.  From St. Paul, we went
to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and
the newly made capital of Montana.  This was the second time I had
visited this territory, now a state.  I studied, as well as I could,
its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural.  It is
properly named Montana.  Its mountains are not only filled with
minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more
than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in
bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep
ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the
native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves
of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.

The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union
would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil
and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our
population.  Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed
for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the
industry of our countrymen.  The remaining tenth consists mainly
of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions,
the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war.
Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European
nations.

Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied
resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in
national matters, independence in local matters, are the central
ideas of our system of government.

On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a
scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective
capital.  We passed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and
Detroit on our way to Mansfield.  This trip, leisurely taken,
occupied about one month.

During the remainder of the summer, until the canvass commenced,
I had a period of rest and recuperation.  It was interrupted only
by the necessity of making some preparation for the canvass, which
it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August.  I carefully
dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that
day to a large audience.  It was printed and circulated, but most
of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time.
Some of them it may be of interest to recall.  I contrasted the
condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if
the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking.  I
described the formation and history of parties as they then existed,
and assumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or
Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic
candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest
Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we
could assume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican
party were right.  I said:  "All these distinguished and able
gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge
Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of
the Democratic party than I have.  To the extent, therefore, of
acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past,
_the Democratic party concedes that we were right_."

I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law.  I defended
the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which
had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries
of Europe.  Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly,
attacked the proposed amendments to the constitution prohibiting
the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican
party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed
policy.  This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer
to evade the real issue of the "Scott" bill.  He treated the
reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it
upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote
had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that
nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it.  The entire
canvass of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues,
and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast
with the speeches of Foraker.

After the Findlay meeting I went to Cincinnati and attended the
harvest home festival in Green township, and read an address on
the life and work of A. J. Downing, a noted horticulturalist and
writer on rural architecture.  I have always been interested in
such subjects and was conversant with Downing's writings and works,
especially with his improvement of the public parks in and about
Washington.  He was employed by the President of the United States
in 1851, to lay out and superintend the improvement of the extensive
public grounds between the capitol and the executive mansion at
Washington, commonly known as the "Mall."  This important work was
entered upon by him, with the utmost enthusiasm.  Elaborate plans
of the Mall and other public squares were made by him, walks and
drives laid out; the place for each tree, with its kind and variety
determined, and the work of planning mainly executed.  He, with an
artist's eye, saw the then unadorned beauties of the location of
the capital; the broad sweep of the Potomac, the valley and the
plain environed by its rim of varied hills, broken here and there
by glens and ravines.  He spoke of it with enthusiasm, and no doubt,
above other hopes, wished, by his skill, to aid in making the city
of Washington as magnificent in its views and surroundings as any
city in Europe.  But man proposes and God disposes.  It was not to
be the good fortune of Mr. Downing to complete his magnificent
plans for converting the filthy, waste commons of the capital into
gardens of delight; but they have been executed by others, and have
contributed largely to making Washington what he wished it to be,
a beautiful city, parked and planted with specimens of every American
tree worthy of propagation, and becoming adorned with the best
models of architecture, not only of public edifices, fitted for
the great offices of the nation, but of many elegant private houses.

I had been invited by the Lincoln club, of Cincinnati, to attend
a reception at their clubhouse on the evening of the 1st of September.
It is a political as well as a social club, and I was expected to
make a political speech.  I did so, and was followed by Foraker
and H. L. Morey.  The usual "refreshments" were not forgotten.  I
take this occasion to express my hearty approval of the organization
and maintenance of political clubs in every city containing 10,000
or more inhabitants.  The Republicans of Cincinnati have for many
years maintained two notable organizations, the Lincoln and the
Blaine clubs, which have been places of social intercourse, as well
as centers for political discussion.  Both have had a beneficial
influence, not only in instructing their members on political
topics, but in disseminating sound opinion throughout the state.

During this visit I was elected a member of the Chamber of Commerce
in Cincinnati.  I regarded this as an honor, and returned to its
members my sincere thanks.  Although I have not been engaged in
commercial pursuits, yet in my public duties I have often been
called upon to act upon commercial questions and interests.  I have
habitually, in my annual visits to that city, visited the chamber
of commerce, and said a few words on the topic of the times in
which its members were interested, but never on politics.  Every
diversity of opinion was there represented.

Cincinnati, situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, with
Kentucky on the other side, and Indiana near by, with a large part
of its population of German birth or descent, with every variety
of race, creed and color, is thoroughly a cosmopolitan city, subject
to sudden outbreaks and notable changes.  At the time of my visit
it was especially disturbed by the agitation of the temperance
question.  In discussing this, I took the same position as at
Findlay, and found but little objection to it, but the opinions
expressed by speakers in other parts of the state in favor of
prohibition had, as the election proved, a very bad effect upon
the Republican ticket.

On the 6th of September I attended the state fair at Columbus.  It
was estimated that there were at least 40,000 people on the ground
that day.  It has been the habit to gather around the headquarters
and press any public man who appeared to make a speech.  Governor
Foster and I were together.  Mr. Cowden, the president of the fair,
introduced Foster and he made a brief address.  I was then introduced
and said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--It has been my good fortune to be able to
visit the state fair for many years in succession, but, from the
great multitude of people, and the vast concourse before me, I
should say that Ohio is rapidly pressing onward in the march of
progress.  The gray beards I see before me, and I am among them now,
remind me of the time when we were boys together; when, after a
season's weary labor, we were compelled to utilize our surplus
crops to pay our taxes."

I contrasted the early days of Ohio with its condition then, and
closed as follows:

"But this is no time for speechmaking, nor the occasion for further
remarks.  We have come out to show ourselves, and you do not desire
speeches, but you do most want to see the horses, cattle, sheep,
hogs, and the implements that make the life of a farmer easier.
This is a progress that I love to see.  My countrymen, you are
crowned with blessings.  Enjoy them freely and gratefully, returning
thanks to the Giver of all good gifts.  This is a free land, and
the agricultural masses are the freest, the noblest, and the best
of all our race.  Enjoy your privileges to the highest point, and
be worthy followers of the great race of pioneers who came before
you."

During the remainder of this canvass I spoke nearly every week day
until the election, and in most of the congressional districts of
the state.  Some of these speeches were reported and circulated as
campaign documents.  As the election day approached the interest
increased, and the meetings grew to be immense gatherings.  This
was notably so at Toledo, Dayton, Portsmouth, Cleveland, Circleville
and Zanesville.  I believed the Republican state ticket would be
elected, but feared that the prohibition amendment would prevent
the election of a Republican legislature.  The result of the election
for governor was Hoadley 359,693, Foraker 347,164, and the general
assembly elected contained a majority of Democrats in each branch.
Henry B. Payne was, on the meeting of the legislature, elected
Senator in the place then held by Geo. H. Pendleton.

After the election I went to New York and was met everywhere with
inquiries as to the causes of Republican defeat in Ohio.  I said
the Republicans were defeated because of the prohibition question
and the law reducing the tariff on wool; that many Germans feared
an invasion of their rights and an interference with their habits,
and the farmers objected to the discrimination made by our tariff
against their industries.

On the 1st of November, 1883, General Sherman relinquished command
of the army, with the same simplicity and lack of display which
had characterized his official life at army headquarters.  He wrote
the following brief order:

  "Headquarters of the Army,    }
  "Washington, November 1, 1883.}
"_General Orders No. 77_.

"By and with the consent of the President, as contained in General
Orders No. 71, of October 16, 1883, the undersigned relinquishes
command of the army of the United States.

"In thus severing relations which have hitherto existed between
us, he thanks all officers and men for their fidelity to the high
trust imposed on them during his official life, and will, in his
retirement, watch with parental solicitude their progress upward
in the noble profession to which they have devoted their lives.

  "W. T. Sherman, General.
  "Official:  R. C. Drum, Adjutant General."

He then rose from his desk, gave his seat to Sheridan, who at once
issued his orders assuming his new duties, and the transfer was
completed.  I know that when the bill for the retirement of officers
at a specified age was pending, there was a strong desire in the
Senate to except General Sherman from the operation of the law,
but the general, who was absent on the plains, telegraphed me not
to allow an exception to be made in his favor, insisting that it
would be a discrimination against other officers of high merit.
Thereupon the Senate reluctantly yielded, but with a provision that
he should retain his salary as general, notwithstanding his
retirement.

At this period mention was again made in the newspapers of my name
as the nominee of the Republican party for President in the next
year.  I promptly declared that I was not a candidate and had no
purpose or desire to enter into the contest.  This discussion of
my name continued until the decision of the national convention,
but I took no part or lot in it, made no requests of anyone to
support my nomination, and took no steps, directly or indirectly,
to promote it.


CHAPTER XLVI.
EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES.
Continued Prosperity of the Nation--Arthur's Report to Congress--
Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and
Mississippi--Reports of the Investigating Committee--Financial
Questions Discussed During the Session--Duties and Privileges of
Senators--Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward
in New York--Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are
Wrecked--Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House--Debate
in the Senate on the National Bank System--Dedication of the John
Marshall Statue at Washington--Defeat of Ingalls' Arrears of Pensions
Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the
Mexican War--The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration
of Independence on July 4.

The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th
of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity
in the United States.  We were at peace and harmony with all nations.
The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883,
amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the
reduction of the public debt.  It was estimated that the surplus
revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the
next fiscal year $60,000,000.  The President called the attention
of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced
the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars.
While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely
made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the
national revenues.  The whole tenor of the message was conservative
and hopeful.

During this session, upon representations made to me and after full
reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute
an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the
States of Virginia and Mississippi.  I did so with extreme reluctance,
for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation.
On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out
in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported
in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in
Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the
following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on privileges and elections be,
and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of,
and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition
of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the
people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or
otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send
for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the
Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers."

On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the
following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and
requested an investigation:

"Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the
recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of
such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of
the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of
the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and,
if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom
of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in
the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.

"Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the
excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this
investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand
how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment
of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer
relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man
for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the
boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.

"The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or
massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported
by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also
verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a
Senator from the State of Virginia.

"The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives
in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the
actions and failure to act of officers of the state government,
including governors, judges, courts, and juries.

"I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation,
if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although
I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various
statements published in the papers of different political parties
and from different persons.

"If these statements are true, then in both these states there have
been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections,
accompanied by murder and violence in many forms.  The crimes
depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where
the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued
by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but
the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by
violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of
citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished
by ordinary tribunals.  If they are true, then in those communities
the members of our party and one race have no rights which the
prevailing party is bound to respect.

"It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the
fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for,
if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have
been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War.  I
have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes,
but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself
to questions of peace, development, and progress.  Still, if these
allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the
gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents
which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and
convert our elections into organized crimes.  I do not say these
allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming
of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood
by the most careful and impartial inquiry.

"If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak
or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they
may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities;
but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a
party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of
elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions,
then they constitute a crime against the national government, the
highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal
rights and privileges of citizens.

"If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and
populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and
evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions
of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as
other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice
cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without
remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right
of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where
his rights will be respected and observed.  But if these individual
crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a
party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of
the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt
acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose,
then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by
the national government.

"The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who
had been slaves.  This was a national act, and whether wisely or
imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the
states.  If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of
any locality it is the duty of the national government to make
their act respected by all its citizens.  It is not now a question
as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross
a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by
organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of
citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions,
or deny to them the equal protection of the law.  No court has ever
denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens
in their essential rights as freemen.  No man should be allowed to
hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured
by crimes such as are depicted here.

"Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were
not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the
election of a President or a Member of Congress.  While the power
of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and
the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations
passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in
respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that 'The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated;' that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States;' that 'No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;'
and that 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state,
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'
It was also declared that 'Congress shall have power to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution
in the government of the United States, or in any department or
office thereof.'  Power is also given to Congress to enforce the
recent amendments by appropriate legislation.

"If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state
or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local
authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the
legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional
safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States
government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within
the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as
it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of
the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations
of the world.  Surely a citizen of the United States has as much
right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land,
however remote or however powerful its government may be.  Protection
at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property
is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms
are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a
matter of indifference.  Protection goes with allegiance, and
allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.

"I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern
states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated
slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters,
with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them
as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even
of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with
great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional
rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or
creed, or party.  If the time has come, as alleged in the papers
before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose
agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained
intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their
free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered
at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of
punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and
that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice,
and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions
where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national
government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full,
open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens
shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.

"If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party
in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect
again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and
disappointment.  Written in the light of the events alleged to have
transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these
resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity,
and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are
the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi.  I
should like to know--it is right that we should learn--the groundwork
of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.

"In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for
the conduct of the people complained of.  I would give to their
motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation
the most charitable construction.  I would give to them all political
power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or
penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right,
favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of
our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand
that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of
rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws
to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or
rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured
by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges
shall be asserted and maintained by the national government.  Upon
this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every
lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights
by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those
who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment
of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their
associates."

General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to
the Danville election.

The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29.  As
the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events,
they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee
on privileges and elections.  Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee.
I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the
examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville.  Mr. Lapham
prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the
minority.  These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed
in a document containing 1,300 pages.  The Copiah county matter
was referred to another sub-committee.  As no affirmative action
was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length
either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that
the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were
substantially sustained by the testimony.  There was a deliberate
effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts
of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the
November election this movement was organized by the formation of
clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the
Republican vote.  A letter, called the Danville circular, was
prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing
the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the
negroes from voting.

The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the
election were very fully stated in the report, and established
clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at
the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled.  A
scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson,
two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the
colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed.
A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were
fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols
and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being
variously estimated at from 75 to 250.  The negroes fled.  There
was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites
fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was
that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in
their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of
all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with
any view of violence or preparation for it.  The whites, on the
contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and
obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence.  Many of
the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that
Captain Graves reloaded his.  There was conflicting evidence as to
the negroes having arms.  Only one was shown to have exhibited any
before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites,
including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands
of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable
evidence that he fired.  There was no evidence to be relied upon
that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated
that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their
shoulders.  The evidence tended to show that the violence was
premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.

I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition
of affairs which led to it is now changed.  The result was the
murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many
others.  The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the
consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic
clubs had fully prepared.

I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important
measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout
the south.  The problem of the two races living together in the
same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and
has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only
be settled by each state or community for itself.  It is impossible
for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the
protection of life and property in any of the states except where
resistance is made to national authority.  All the signs indicate
that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their
common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public
policy, without regard to race or color.

Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr.
Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in
the establishment and temporary support of common schools.  It
provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed
among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the
current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years,
until the total sum was exhausted.  The apportionment proposed
would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the
$15,000,000.  The money was not to be disbursed by the United
States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities.
The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially
among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure
proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its
apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated,
but it passed the Senate by a large majority.  The advocates of a
strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of
their theories.  The bill, however, was defeated in the House of
Representatives.

An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during
this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed
to regard as a part of the public debt.  It is, in fact, only a
treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount
actually paid.  In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided
that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be
paid each year as a "sinking fund."  While the United States was
borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay
outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the
treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed.  In the
meantime, the treasury charged to the "sinking fund," annually,
the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities
of the United States.  When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so
much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the
purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid
was placed to the credit of this fund.  In the general prosperity
that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so
that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of,
the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against
it prior to 1868.  When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the
revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current
expenditures.  This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until
1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was
rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue,
and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I
was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable
sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more
rapidly than it had agreed to pay it.  The term "sinking fund," as
applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase.  It is
a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum
of the public debt each year.  There is no actual fund of the kind
in existence for national purposes.

Another financial question was presented at this session and before
and since.  The national banking act, when it passed in 1863,
provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be
issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States
bonds deposited in the treasury for their security.  At that time
bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or
par in United States notes.  Soon after the war, bonds advanced
far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium.
Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow
notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds
deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes
unreasonably.  I introduced a bill early at this session to correct
this.  It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House.  The
same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when
the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when
they were greatly needed.

During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator
could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present
in the Senate.  The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators
might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business
of the Senate when a quorum was present.  Mr. Bayard and myself
agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which
the Senate might punish.  Senators may retire from the Chamber,
but the Senate can compel their attendance.  If a case should arise
where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without
good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured.  The increase
in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance,
but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.

The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields
a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse.  The committee
on appropriations is a very important one.  It is always composed
of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations,
but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to
them.  Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the
session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time
to enter into details.  They are entirely familiar with the great
appropriations for the support of the government, and can best
judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which
ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for
specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia.  No reason
can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by
such committees.  It is true that the appropriation committee ought
to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution
existing laws.  That is their function, according to the rules,
and that function they can perform very well in regard to such
expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the
District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain
other objects, are not defined or regulated by law.  In the case
of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation
bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures
is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all
the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature,
new items not fixed by existing law.

On the 6th of May, 1884, the country was startled by the failure
of the Marine National Bank of New York, an institution that had
been in high credit and standing.  The circumstances connected with
the failure excited a great deal of interest and profound surprise.
Immediately in connection with the failure of this bank the banking
firm of Grant & Ward, in the city of New York, failed for a large
amount.  Their business was complicated with that of the Marine
National Bank, and disclosures were made which not only aroused
indignation but almost created a panic in the city of New York.

Almost contemporaneous with this the insolvency of the Second
National Bank of New York, for a very large sum, became public,
and the alleged gross misconduct of the president of that bank,
John C. Eno, became a matter of public notoriety.  Steps were taken
by the officers and stockholders of the bank, including the father
of the president, to relieve it from bankruptcy.

Also, and in connection with the failure of the Marine National
Bank, there were disclosed financial operations of a strange and
extraordinary character of the president of that bank, James D.
Fish.  All these events coming together caused much excitement and
disturbance in New York.  They led to a great fall of securities,
to a want of confidence, and to a general run, as it is called,
upon banks and banking institutions, including the savings banks.
It appeared as if there were to be a general panic, a financial
revulsion, and wide-reaching distress.

At that time also, and in connection with the other events, came
the temporary suspension of the Metropolitan National Bank, one of
the oldest, largest, and in former times considered among the best,
of all the banks in the city of New York.  This was partly caused
by rumors and stories of large railroad operations and indebtedness
of Mr. Seney, the president of the bank, which resulted in a gradual
drawing upon the bank.

At once the Secretary of the Treasury did what he could to relieve
the money market, by prepaying bonds which had been called in the
process of the payment of the public debt; but the principal relief
given to the market at that time was the action of the Clearing
House Association of New York, by the issue of over $24,000,000 of
clearing house certificates.  This was purely a defensive operation
adopted by the associated banks of New York, fifteen of which are
state institutions and the balance national banks.

All that was done in New York to prevent a panic was done by the
banks themselves.  The government of the United States had no lot
or parcel in it except so far as the Secretary of the Treasury
prepaid bonds that had already been called, a transaction which
has been done a hundred times.  So far as the government was
concerned it had nothing to do with these banks; the measures of
relief were furnished by the banks themselves.

This condition of financial affairs led to a long debate in the
Senate, commencing on the 17th of June, on the merits and demerits
of the system of national banks, and especially of the clearing
house of the city of New York.  The comptroller of the currency
had taken active and efficient measures to protect the interests
of the United States.  He was called before the committee on finance
and gave a full statement of these measures.  It was apparent that
the temporary panic grew out of the reckless and criminal conduct
of a few men and not from defects in the national bank system or
the clearing house.  The debate that followed, in the Senate, was
mainly between Morgan, Beck and myself.  I stated fully the methods
of conducting the business of the clearing house, a corporation of
the State of New York, and closed as follows:

"As the prosecution against John C. Eno is now pending in Canada,
a foreign country, as a matter of course no one can state what will
be the result of it.  We only know that proper legal proceedings
are now being urged to have an extradition, and if he is brought
within the jurisdiction of the courts as a matter of course the
prosecution can then be pushed.  So with James D. Fish.  Indictments
have been had and are now pending against him for a violation, not
only of the national banking act, but I believe also for a violation
of the state law; and the same is to be said of Ferdinand Ward.
These three persons are the only ones who have been charged with
fraudulent and illegal transactions leading to these financial
disasters.  The Metropolitan bank, thanks to the agency and the
aid that was given in a trying time, in now going on and doing
business as of old, no doubt having met with large losses.

"It is a matter of satisfaction that with the single exception of
the Marine Bank, of New York, no national bank has been overwhelmed
by this disaster.  It is true that the Second National Bank was
bankrupted by the crimes and wrongs of John C. Eno, but his father,
with a sensitive pride not to allow innocent persons to suffer from
the misconduct of his son, with a spirit really worthy of commendation,
here or anywhere else, threw a large sum of money into the maelstrom
and saved not only the credit of the bank and advanced his own
credit, but to some extent, as far as he could at least, expiated
the fault, the folly, and the crime of his son.  The Metropolitan
Bank is relieved from its embarrassments by its associate banks.
The losses caused by the speculations of its president did not
entirely fall upon the bank.  That bank, now relived from the
pressure of unexpected demands, is pursuing its even tenor.  It
seems to me that all these facts taken together show the strength
and confidence that may well be reposed in the national banking
system.  The law cannot entirely prevent fraud and crime, but it
has guarded the public from the results of such offense far better
than any previous system."

On the 10th of May, 1884, which happened to be my birthday, the
statue of John Marshall, formerly Chief Justice of the United
States, was dedicated.  This is a bronze statue in a sitting posture,
erected by the bar of Philadelphia and the Congress of the United
States.  A fund had been collected shortly after the death of
Marshall, but it was insufficient to erect a suitable monument,
and it was placed in the hands of trustees and invested as "The
Marshall Memorial Fund."  On the death of the last of the trustees,
Peter McCall, it was found that the fund had, by honest stewardship,
increased sevenfold its original amount.  This sum, with an equal
amount appropriated by Congress, was applied to the erection of a
statue to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall, to be placed in a
suitable reservation in the city of Washington.  The artist who
executed this work was W. W. Story, a son of the late Justice Story
of the Supreme Court.  I was chairman of the joint committee on
the library and presided on the occasion.  Chief Justice Waite
delivered an appropriate address.  He was followed by William Henry
Rawle, of Philadelphia, in an eloquent oration, closing as follows:

"And for what in his life he did for us, let there be lasting
memory.  He and the men of his time have passed away; other
generations have succeeded them; other phases of our country's
growth have come and gone; other trials, greater a hundredfold than
he or they could possibly have imagined, have jeoparded the nation's
life; but still that which they wrought remains to us, secured by
the same means, enforced by the same authority, dearer far for all
that is past, and holding together a great, a united and happy
people.  And all largely because he whose figure is now before us
has, above and beyond all others, taught the people of the United
States, in words of absolute authority, what was the constitution
which they ordained, 'in order to form a perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to themselves and their posterity.'

"Wherefore, with all gratitude, with fitting ceremony and circumstance;
in the presence of the highest in the land; in the presence of those
who make, of those who execute, and of those who interpret, the
laws; in the presence of those descendants in whose veins flows
Marshall's blood, have the bar and the Congress of the United States
here set up this semblance of his living form, in perpetual memory
of the honor, the reverence and the love which the people of this
country bear to the great chief justice."

During this session Mr. Ingalls offered to a House bill granting
a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican War, the following
amendment:

"That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted
in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in
the service since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of
wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since that date
in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the
death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has
been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to
discharge, and if such disability occurred after the discharge,
then from the date of actual disability, or from the termination
of the right of the party having prior title to such pension."

I opposed this sweeping provision with much reluctance, as I have
always favored the granting of the most liberal pensions consistent
with the public interests.  I said:

"I regret very much to oppose any proposition that is favored by
the Union soldiers of the American army; and I perhaps should feel
some hesitation in doing it, only that I know very well that the
soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided in opinion
as to this measure.

"This proposition repeals all restrictions as to time upon applications
to be made for arrears of pensions, and extends to all persons back
to the war or date of discharge or disability, not only of those
who have heretofore applied, but of those who may hereafter apply.
It removes absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for
arrears of pensions.  And if this only involved ten or even twenty
million dollars, I might still hesitate, because I have always,
since the close of the war, voted for every measure that has been
offered in good faith for the benefit of the Union soldiers.  My
heart, my feelings are all with them.  I appreciate the value of
their services, the enormous benefits they have conferred upon the
people of the America for generations yet unborn, and I hesitate
therefore to oppose any wish that they may express through their
organs.

"This measure involves an immense sum of money.  That alone would
not be conclusive.  But here is a motion made by a Senator, without
the report or sanction of any committee of this body, to put upon
the people of the United States a great demand, ranging anywhere
up to $246,000,000, a proposition so indefinite in character that
the commissioner of pensions is utterly unable to give us any
approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can.  He
says that this proposition will involve the expenditure of
$246,000,000."

Mr. Ingalls made a sturdy effort for his amendment, and quoted a
declaration of the Republican national convention in favor of
arrears of pensions, to which I replied that, when I remembered
that the platform of the last Republican convention had been made
up in a few hours, on a sweltering hot day, by forty-two men hastily
called together, most of whom never saw each other before, I did
not think it ought to be taken as a guide for Senators in the
performance of their public duties.

After full discussion the amendment was rejected.

My position was highly commended by the public press and by many
distinguished soldiers, including Governor Foraker, who wrote me,
saying:  "It may be some gratification to you to know that your
course, in regard to the pension bill, meets with the earnest
approval of all right-minded men in this part of the state."

On the 3rd of July the following resolution was adopted by the
Senate on my motion:

"_Resolved_, That the Senate will meet at the usual hour on Friday,
the 4th day of July instant, and, after the reading of the journal
and before other business is done, the secretary of the Senate
shall read the Declaration of American Independence."

On introducing the resolution, I said:

"Never till during our Civil War, so far as the records show or as
is known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July.
During the Civil War we did meet habitually on the 4th of July,
but it was only on the ground that those who had control then
believed that the business then requiring attention was proper to
be done on the 4th of July.  We have only met once since on the
4th of July, and that was in 1870, at a time of great political
excitement.  An effort was made to adjourn when the Senate met that
day, but the session was continued--a long, exciting, and unpleasant
session--on the 4th of July, 1870.

"I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the
committees of conference are carrying on their business and I have
no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize, by
common consent, the importance of the day and the fact that it is
a national anniversary celebrated all over the United States, by
reading that immortal paper which is the foundation of American
independence."

Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.


CHAPTER XLVII.
MY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884.
Again Talked of as a Republican Candidate for the Presidency--I
Have no Desire for the Nomination--Blaine the Natural Candidate of
the Party--My Belief that Arthur Would be Defeated if Nominated--
Speech at Washington, D. C., for Blaine and Logan--Opening of the
Ohio Campaign at Ashland--Success of the Republican State Ticket
in October--Speeches in Boston, Springfield, Mass., New York and
Brooklyn--Address to Business Men in Faneuil Hall--Success of the
National Democratic Ticket--Arthur's Annual Message to Congress--
Secretary McCulloch's Recommendations Concerning the Further Coinage
of Silver Dollars--Statement of My Views at This Time--Statue to
the Memory of General Lafayette--Controversy Between General Sherman
and Jefferson Davis.

On the 3rd of June, 1884, during the session of Congress, the
national Republican convention to nominate Republican candidates
for President and Vice President, was held at Chicago.  Prior to
that time the papers had been full of the merits and demerits of
candidates, and my name was mentioned among them.  I had early
announced, in interviews and letters, that I was not a candidate.
The following statement was generally published in Ohio:

"I am in no sense a candidate, and would not make an effort for
the nomination.  I would not even express my opinion as to who
should be delegates from my own district or what their action should
be.  Four years ago I thought it best to be a candidate.  I believed
that the logic of events at that time justified such action.  The
reasons I need not state.  Now there is no such condition and I
would not enter a contest even for the indorsement of my own
constituency.  Many of my friends write me complaining letters
because I refuse to make such an issue.  Believing that the
convention, when it meets, should be free, uninstructed, and in
shape to do the very best thing for the whole party, I have counseled
by friends to that end.  A united and enthusiastic party is more
important than one man, and hence I am for bending every energy to
the first purpose, and am not a candidate."

I had not expressed the slightest desire to make such a contest.
When approached by personal friends I dissuaded them from using my
name as a candidate.  I neither asked nor sought anyone to be a
delegate.  When the convention met, the Ohio delegation was divided
between Blaine and myself, and this necessarily prevented any
considerable support of me outside of the state.  I was not sorry
for it.  I regarded the nomination of Blaine as the natural result
under the circumstances.

The strength of Arthur, his principal competitor, grew out of his
power and patronage as President.  He was a gentleman of pleasing
manners, but I thought unequal to the great office he held.  He
had never been distinguished in political life.  The only office
he had held of any importance was that of collector of the port of
New York, from which he was removed for good causes already stated.
His nomination as Vice President was the whim of Roscoe Conkling
to strike at President Hayes.  If nominated he would surely have
been defeated.  In the then condition of political affairs it is
not certain that any Republican would have been elected.

The weakness of the nomination of Blaine was the strong opposition
to him in the State of New York.  The selection by the Democratic
convention of Grover Cleveland as the candidate for President, and
of Thomas A. Hendricks for Vice President, was made in view of the
necessity of carrying the two doubtful States of New York and
Indiana, which it was well understood would determine the election.

I promptly took an active part in support of the Republican ticket.
A meeting to ratify the nomination of James G. Blaine and John A.
Logan was held at Washington, D. C., on the 19th of June, at which
I made a speech, which, as reported, was as follows:

"It is one of the curious customs of American politics that when
anybody is nominated for office, his competitors are the first to
be called upon to vouch for the wisdom of the choice.  Perhaps that
is the reason I am called upon now.  Though I did not consider
myself as much of a candidate, I am ready to accept, approve and
ratify the action of the Chicago convention.  I will support the
nomination of Blaine and Logan as heartily as I have done those of
Fremont and Lincoln and Grant and Hayes and Garfield.  And this I
would do, fellow-citizens, even if they were less worthy than I
know them to be of the distinguished honor proposed for them.  I
would do it for my own honor.  I have no patience with any man who,
for himself or any other person, would take his chances for success
in a political convention, and when disappointed would seek to
thwart the action of the convention.  Political conventions are
indispensable in a republican government, for it is only by such
agencies, that opposing theories can be brought to the popular
judgment.  These can only be presented by candidates chosen as
standard bearers of a flag, or a cause, or a party.

"That Blaine and Logan have been fairly nominated by the free choice
of our 800 delegates, representing the Republicans of every state,
county and district in the broad extent of our great country, is
admitted by every man whose voice has been heard.  They are not
'dark horses.'  Their names are known to fame; the evil and good
that men could say of them have been said with a license that is
a shame to free discussion.  Traveling in peace and in war through
the memorable events of a quarter of a century, they have kept
their place in the busy jostling of political life well in the
foreground.  And now they have been selected from among millions
of their countrymen to represent--not themselves, but the Republican
party of the United States.

"They represent the American Union, one and indivisible, snatched
by war from the perils of secession and disunion.  They represent
a strong national government, able, I trust, in time, not only to
protect our citizens from foreign tyranny, but from local cruelty,
intolerance, and oppression.

"They represent that party in the country which would scorn to
obtain or hold power by depriving, by crime and fraud, more than
a million of men of their equal rights as citizens.  They represent
a party that would give to the laboring men of our country the
protection of our revenue laws against undue competition with
foreign labor.

"They represent the power, the achievements, and the aspirations
of the Republican party that now for twenty-four years has been
greatly trusted by the people, and in return has greatly advanced
your country in strength and wealth, intelligence, courage and
hope, and in the respect and wonder of mankind.

"Fellow Republicans, we are about to enter into no holiday contest.
You have to meet the same forces and principles that opposed the
Union army in war; that opposed the abolition of slavery; that
sought to impair the public credit; that resisted the resumption
of specie payment.  They are recruited here and there by a deserter
from our ranks, but meanwhile a generation of younger men are coming
to the front, in the south as well as in the north.  They have been
educated amidst memorable events with patriotic ardor, love of
country, pride in its strength and power.  They are now determined
to overthrow the narrow Bourbon sectionalism of the Democratic
party.  They live in the mountains and plains of the west.  They
breathe the fresh air of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
They are the hardy, liberty-loving laborers of every state.

"They come from the fatherland, they come from old Ireland.  They
are the active spirits, native and naturalized, of a generation of
free men who never felt the incubus of slavery, and who wish only
as Americans to make stronger and plant deeper the principles of
the Republican party.  It is to these men we who have grown old in
this conflict wish now to hand over the banner we have borne.  Let
them take it and advance it to higher honors.  Let them spread the
influence of our republican institutions north and south, until
the whole continent of America shall be a brotherhood of republics.

"Let them assert the rights of American citizenship, so that they
will be respected as were the rights of citizens of the Roman
republic.  Let them deal with this most difficult and subtle problem
of social politics so as to secure to the man who labors his just
share of the fruits of his labor.  Let them improve even upon the
protective policy we have pursued, so as to diversify our industries
and plant in all parts of our country the workshops of millions of
well-paid contented citizens.  Let them do what we have not been
able to do since the war--restore our commerce to every port and
protect it under our flag in every sea.

"My countrymen, I regret to say it, you cannot accomplish any of
these great objects of national desire through the agency of the
Democratic party.  It cannot be made an instrument of progress and
reform.  Its traditions, its history for twenty-five years, and
its composition, forbid it.  You may punish us for our shortcomings
by its success, but you will punish yourselves as well and stay
the progress of your country.  A party that with seventy majority
in the House cannot pass a bill on any subject of party politics,
great or small, is not fit to govern the country.

"Every advance, every reform, every improvement, the protection of
your labor, the building of your navy, the assertion of your rights
as a free man, the maintenance of good money--a good dollar, good
in every land, worth a dollar in gold--all these objects of desire
must await the movements of the Republican party.  It may be slow,
but if you turn to the Democratic party you will always find it
watching and waiting, good, steady citizens of the olden time,
grounded on the resolutions of '98 and the 'times before the wah.'

"It is said that Blaine is bold and aggressive; that he will obstruct
the business interests of the country.  I would like to try such
a President.  He might shake off some of the cobwebs of diplomacy
and invite the attention of mankind to the existence of this country.
There will always be conservatism enough in Congress, and inertness
enough in the Democratic party, to hold in check even as brilliant
a man as James G. Blaine.  What we want now is an American policy
broad enough to embrace the continent, conservative enough to
protect the rights of every man, poor as well as rich, and brave
enough to do what is right, whatever stands in the way.  We want
protection to American citizens and protection to American laborers,
a free vote and a fair count, an assertion of all the powers of
the government in doing what is right.  It is because I believe
that the administration of Blaine and Logan will give us such a
policy, and that I know the Democratic party is not capable of it,
that I invoke your aid and promise you mine to secure the election
of the Republican ticket."

Upon the adjournment of Congress, I took an active part in the
campaign, commencing with a speech at Ashland, Ohio, on the 30th
of August, and from that time until the close of the canvass I
spoke daily.  The meetings of both parties were largely attended,
notably those at Springfield, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.

After the October election in Ohio, which resulted in the success
of the Republican ticket, I engaged in the canvass in other states,
speaking in many places, among others in Faneuil Hall, Boston, in
Springfield, Massachusetts, in Chickering Hall, New York, and in
the Brooklyn Grand Opera House.

I felt greater timidity in speaking in Faneuil Hall than anywhere
else.  The time, place, and manner of the meeting were so novel,
that a strong impression was made upon my mind.  In the middle of
the day, when the streets were crowded, I was conducted up a narrow,
spiral passageway that led directly to a low platform on one side
of the hall, where were the officers of the meeting, and there I
faced an audience of men with their hats and overcoats on, all
standing closely packed, with no room for any more.  It was a
meeting of business men of marked intelligence, who had no time to
waste, and whose countenances expressed the demand, "Say what you
have to say, and say it quickly."  I was deeply impressed with the
historical associations of the place, recalling the Revolutionary
scenes that had occurred there, and Daniel Webster and the great
men whose voices had been heard within its walls.  I condensed my
speech into less than an hour, and, I believe, gave the assemblage
satisfaction.  I was followed by brief addresses from Theodore
Roosevelt and others, and then the meeting quietly dispersed.

While in Springfield, I heard of the unfortunate remark of Dr.
Burchard to Blaine about "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," and felt
that the effect would be to offend a considerable portion of the
Irish voters, who had been very friendly to Blaine.  After that
incident, I met Mr. Blaine at the Chickering Hall meeting, and went
with him to Brooklyn, where we spoke together at the Academy of
Music.

The election, a few days afterward, resulted in the success of the
Democratic ticket.  The electoral vote of New York was cast for
Cleveland and Hendricks.  It was believed at the time that this
result was produced by fraudulent voting in New York city, but the
returns were formal, and there was no way in which the election
could be contested.

Congress met on the 1st of December, 1884.  President Arthur promptly
sent his message to each House.  He congratulated the country upon
the quiet acquiescence in the result of an election where it had
been determined with a slight preponderance.  Our relations with
foreign nations had been friendly and cordial.  The revenues of
the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, had been
$348,519,869.92.  The expenditures for the same period, including
the sinking fund, were $290,916,473.83, leaving a surplus of
$57,603,396.09.  He recommended the immediate suspension of the
coinage of silver dollars and of the issuance of silver certificates,
a further reduction of internal taxes and customs duties, and that
national banks be allowed to issue circulating notes to the par
amount of bonds deposited for their security.  He closed with these
words:

"As the time draws nigh when I am to retire from the public service,
I cannot refrain from expressing to Members of the national
legislature, with whom I have been brought into personal and official
intercourse, my sincere appreciation of their unfailing courtesy,
and of their harmonious co-operation with the Executive in so many
measures calculated to promote the best interests of the nation.

"And to my fellow-citizens generally, I acknowledge a deep sense
of obligation for the support which they have accorded me in my
administration of the executive department of this government."

Hugh McCulloch, upon the death of Mr. Folger, had become Secretary
of the Treasury.  His report contained the usual statements in
regard to government receipts and expenditures and the public debt,
but the chief subject discussed was the coinage of silver dollars.
He said:

"There are some financial dangers ahead which can only be avoided
by changes in our financial legislation.  The most imminent of
these dangers, and the only one to which I now ask the attention
of Congress, arises from the continued coinage of silver and the
increasing representation of it by silver certificates.  I believe
that the world is not in a condition, and never will be, for the
demonetization of one-third of its metallic money; that both gold
and silver are absolutely necessary for a circulating medium; and
that neither can be disused without materially increasing the burden
of debt, nor even temporarily degraded by artificial means without
injurious effect upon home and international trade.  But I also
believe that gold and silver can only be made to maintain their
comparative value by the joint action of commercial nations.  Not
only is there now no joint action taken by these nations to place
and keep silver on an equality with gold, according to existing
standards, but it has been by the treatment it has received from
European nations greatly lessened in commercial value.

* * * * *

"After giving the subject careful consideration, I have been forced
to the conclusion that unless both the coinage of silver dollars
and the issue of silver certificates are suspended, there is danger
that silver, and not gold, may become our metallic standard.  This
danger may not be imminent, but it is of so serious a character
that there ought not to be delay in providing against it.  Not only
would the national credit be seriously impaired if the government
should be under the necessity of using silver dollars or certificates
in payment of gold obligations, but business of all kinds would be
greatly disturbed; not only so, but gold would at once cease to be
a circulating medium, and severe contraction would be the result."

The first important subject considered by the Senate was the coinage
of silver dollars and the consequent issue of silver certificates.
The debate was founded upon a resolution offered by Senator Hill,
of Colorado, against the views expressed by the President in his
message and by Secretary McCulloch in his report.

On the 15th of December I made a speech covering, as I thought,
the silver question, not only of the past but of the probable
results in the future.  The amount of silver dollars then in the
treasury was $184,730,829, and of silver certificates outstanding
$131,556,531.  These certificates were maintained at par in gold
by being received for customs duties.  They were redeemable in
silver dollars, but were in fact never presented for redemption.
The silver dollars could only be used in the redemption of certificates
or by issue in payment of current liabilities.  With the utmost
exertions to put the silver dollars in circulation only fifty
million could be used in this way.  To have forced more into
circulation would have excited a doubt whether any of our paper
money could be maintained at par with gold.

When urged to express a remedy for this condition I said that if
I had the power to dictate a law I would ascertain by the best
means the exact market value of the two metals, and then put into
each silver dollar as many grains of standard silver as would be
equal in market value to 25.8 grains of standard gold.  I said that
if the price of silver fell the coin would still circulate upon
the fiat of the government.  If silver advanced in relative value
the amount of silver in the coin could, at stated periods, be
decreased.  Bimetallism could only exist where the market value of
the two metals approached the coinage value, or where a strong
government, with a good credit, received and paid out coins of each
metal at parity with each other.  The only way to prevent a variation
in the value of the two metals, and the exportation of the dearer
metal, would be, by an international agreement between commercial
nations, to adopt a common ratio somewhat similar in substance to
that of the Latin Union, each nation to receive as current money
the coins of the other and each to redeem its own coins in gold.

Mr. Beck replied to my argument, and the debate between us continued
during two or three days.  The weakness of the silver advocates
was that they were not content with the coinage of more silver coin
than ever before, but were determined that the holder of silver in
any form might deposit it in the mint and have it coined into
dollars for his benefit at the ratio of sixteen to one, when its
market value had then fallen so that twenty ounces of silver were
worth but one ounce in gold, and since has fallen in value so that
thirty ounces of silver are worth but one ounce in gold.

With free coinage in these conditions no gold coins would be minted
and all the money of the United States would be reduced in value
to the sole silver standard, and gold would be hoarded and exported.
This debate has been continued from that date to this, not only in
Congress, but in every schoolhouse in the United States, and in
all the commercial nations of the world.  I shall have occasion
hereafter to recur to it.

On the 18th of December I reported, from the joint committee on
the library, an amendment to an appropriation bill providing for
the construction of a statue to the memory of General Lafayette,
in the following words:

"That the president _pro tempore_ of the Senate and the speaker of
the House of Representative do appoint a joint committee of three
Senators and three Representatives, with authority to contract for
and erect a statue to the memory of General Lafayette and his
compatriots; and said statue shall be placed in a suitable public
reservation in the city of Washington, to be designated by said
joint committee."

The amendment was agreed to by both Houses.  The result was the
erection, on the southeast corner of Lafayette Square in Washington,
of the most beautiful and artistic bronze monument in that city.

A somewhat sharp and combative controversy had taken place in the
newspapers between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis, in regard
to the position of the latter on the rights of the Confederate
states in the spring of 1865.  General Sherman, in a letter to me
dated December 4, 1884, published in the "Sherman Letters," narrated
his remarks at a meeting of the Frank Blair Post, G. A. R., No. 1,
in St. Louis, in which he said that he had noticed the tendency to
gloss over old names and facts by speaking of the Rebellion as a
war of secession, while in fact it was a conspiracy up to the firing
on Fort Sumter, and a rebellion afterwards.  He described the
conspiracy between Slidell, Benjamin and Davis, and the seizure of
the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, and other acts of war,
and then said:

"I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere
in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the states of the
Confederacy, in 1865, talked of 'a separate state action,' another
name for 'secession,' he stated that he, as president of the
Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee's army
against it.  I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured
letter book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing."

Davis called for the production of the identical letter.  General
Sherman said he could not enter into a statement of the controversy,
but he believed the truth of his statement could be established,
and that he would collect evidence to make good his statement.  I
replied to his letter as follows:

  "United States Senate,                }
  "Washington, D. C., December 10, 1884.}
"Dear Brother:--. . . I can see how naturally you spoke of Jeff.
Davis as you did, and you did not say a word more than he deserved.
Still, he scarcely deserves to be brought into notice.  He was not
only a conspirator, but a traitor.  His reply was a specimen of
impotent rage.  It is scarcely worth your notice, nor should you
dignify it by a direct rejoinder.  A clear, strong statement of
the historical facts that justified the use of the word 'conspirator,'
which you know very well how to write, is all the notice required.
Do not attempt to fortify it by an affidavit, as some of the papers
say you intend to do, but your statement of the letters seen by
you, and the historical facts known by you, are enough.  I have
had occasion, since your letter was received, to speak to several
Senators about the matter, and they all agree with me that you
ought to avoid placing the controversy on letters which cannot now
be produced.  The records have been pretty well sifted by friendly
rebels, and under the new administration it is likely their further
publication will be edited by men who will gladly shield Davis at
the expense of a Union soldier.  The letter of Stephens to Johnson
is an extraordinary one.  Its publication will be a bombshell in
the Confederate camp.  I will deliver the copy to Colonel Scott to-
morrow.  One or two paragraphs from it go far to sustain your stated
opinion of Jeff. Davis. . . .

  "Very affectionately yours,
  "John Sherman."

This controversy came before the Senate by a resolution offered by
Senator Hawley, calling upon the President to communicate to the
Senate an historical statement concerning the public policy of the
executive department of the Confederate states during the late War
of the Rebellion, reported to have been lately filed in the war
department by General William T. Sherman.  Upon this resolution a
somewhat acrimonious debate occurred, participated in by Senators
Harris, Hawley, Vest, George, Ingalls and others.  During the debate
I felt constrained, on account of my relationship with General
Sherman, to give his version of the controversy between himself
and Jefferson Davis.

I disliked the introduction of such a controversy twenty years
after the war was over, but still, as the matter was before us, I
entered at considerable length into a history of the controversy,
and expressed my decided opinion that General Sherman was entirely
justified in denouncing Davis and his associates, before the Civil
War commenced, as conspirators and traitors.  I closed my remarks
as follows:

"I am sorry this debate has sprung up.  I was in hope, with the
Senator from Connecticut, who introduced the resolution, that these
papers would be published, and nothing more would be said about
them here, but let the people determine the issue and let this
matter go down in history.  But, sir, whenever, in my presence, in
a public assemblage, Jefferson Davis shall be treated as a patriot,
I must enter my solemn protest.  Whenever the motives and causes
of the war, the beginning and end of which I have seen, are brought
into question, I must stand, as I have always stood, upon the firm
conviction that it was a causeless rebellion, made with bad motives,
and that all men who led in that movement were traitors to their
country."

Senator Lamar answered my speech with some heat, and closed as
follows:

"One other thing.  We, of the south, have surrendered upon all the
questions which divided the two sides in that controversy.  We have
given up the right of the people to secede from the Union; we have
given up the right of each state to judge for itself of the
infractions of the constitution and the mode of redress; we have
given up the right to control our own domestic institutions.  We
fought for all these, and we lost in that controversy; but no man
shall, in my presence, call Jefferson Davis a traitor, without my
responding with a stern and emphatic denial."

Senator Vest closed the debate in a few remarks, and the subject-
matter was displaced by the regular order.  While I regretted this
debate, I believed that the speeches made by the Republican Senators
properly defined the Rebellion as, first, a conspiracy; second,
treason; third, a rebellion subdued by force, finally followed by
the most generous treatment of those engaged in the Rebellion that
is found in the history of mankind.

During this session there was a very full debate upon the subject
of regulating interstate commerce, in which I participated.  The
contest was between what was known as the Reagan bill, which passed
the House of Representatives, and the Senate bill.  I expressed
the opinion that the Senate bill was better than the Reagan bill,
and, although much popular favor had been enlisted from time to
time in favor of the Reagan bill, because it grappled with and
dealt with the railroad corporations, the Senate bill did more; it
not only grappled with them, but laid a broad and deep foundation
for an admirable system of railroad law, which should govern all
the railroads of the country.


CHAPTER XLVIII.
DEDICATION OF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT.
Resolution of Senator Morrill Providing for Appropriate Dedicatory
Ceremonies--I Am Made Chairman of the Commission--Robert C. Winthrop's
Letter Stating His Inability to Attend the Exercises--Letters of
Regret from General Grant and John G. Whittier--Unfavorable Weather
for the Dedication--My Address as Presiding Officer--The President's
Acceptance of the Monument for the Nation--Mr. Winthrop's Address
Read in the House by John D. Long--Inauguration of the First
Democratic President Since Buchanan's Time--Visit to Cincinnati
and Address on the Election Frauds--Respects to the Ohio Legislature
--A Trip to the West and Southwest--Address on American Independence.

On the 13th of May, 1884, the President approved the following
joint resolution, introduced by Mr. Morrill, from the committee on
public buildings and grounds:

"Whereas, The shaft of the Washington monument is approaching
completion, and it is proper that it should be dedicated with
appropriate ceremonies, calculated to perpetuate the fame of the
illustrious man who was 'first in war, first in peace, and first
in the hearts of his countrymen:'  Therefore,

"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That a commission to
consist of five Senators appointed by the president of the Senate,
eight Representatives appointed by the speaker of the House of
Representatives, three members of the Washington Monument Society,
and the United States engineer in charge of the work be, and the
same is hereby, created, with full powers to make arrangements for,--

"First.  The dedication of the monument to the name and memory of
George Washington, by the President of the United States, with
appropriate ceremonies.

"Second.  A procession from the monument to the capitol, escorted
by regular and volunteer corps, the Washington Monument Society,
representatives of cities, states, and organizations which have
contributed blocks of stone, and such bodies of citizens as may
desire to appear.

"Third.  An oration in the hall of the House of Representatives,
on the twenty-second day of February, _anno Domini_ eighteen hundred
and eighty-five, by the Honorable Robert C. Winthrop, who delivered
the oration at the laying of the corner stone of the monument in
eighteen hundred and forty-eight, with music by the Marine Band.

"Fourth.  Salutes of one hundred guns from the navy yard, the
artillery headquarters, and such men-of-war as can be anchored in
the Potomac."

I was chairman of the commission appointed under this resolution,
and, in compliance with it, invited Mr. Winthrop to deliver the
oration.  He expressed his deep sense of the honor conferred upon
him, but had a doubt whether he ought not to decline on account of
his failing health.  Mr. Morrill and I strongly insisted upon his
acceptance and he eventually consented, though not without misgivings
which were unhappily justified.

A short time before the day appointed for the dedication I received
from him the following autograph letter, which is interesting, not
only on account of the eminence of its author, but of the important
event about to be celebrated:

  "90 Marlborough Street, Boston, February 13, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman, Chairman, etc.

"Dear Senator Sherman:--It is with deep regret that I find myself
compelled to abandon all further hope of being at the dedication
of the Washington monument on the 21st instant.  I have been looking
forward to the possibility of being able to run on at the last
moment, and to pronounce a few sentences of my oration before
handing it to Governor Long, who has so kindly consented to read
it.  But my recovery from dangerous illness has been slower than
I anticipated, and my physician concurs with my family in forbidding
me from any attempt to leave home at present.

"I need not assure the commissioners how great a disappointment it
is to me to be deprived of the privilege of being present on this
most interesting occasion.  I am sure of their sympathy without
asking for it.

"Please present my respectful apologies to your associates, and
believe me,

  "With great regard, very faithfully yours,
  "Robt. C. Winthrop.
"P. S.--This is the first letter I have attempted to write with my
own pen since my illness."

Among the numerous regrets received by the commission was the
following:

  "Oak Knoll, Danvers, Mass., Second Month 8, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman, Chairman of Committee.

"Dear Friend:--The state of my health will scarcely permit me to
avail myself of the invitation of the commission to attend the
ceremonies of the dedication of the Washington monument.

"In common with my fellow-citizens I rejoice at the successful
completion of this majestic testimonial of the reverence and
affection which the people of the United States, irrespective of
party, section, or race, cherish for the 'Father of his Country.'
Grand, however, and imposing as that testimonial may seem, it is,
after all, but an inadequate outward representation of that mightier
monument, unseen and immeasurable, builded of the living stones of
a nation's love and gratitude, the hearts of forty millions of
people.  But the world has not outlived its need of picture writing
and symbolism, and the great object lesson of the Washington monument
will doubtless prove a large factor in the moral and political
education of present and future generations.  Let us hope that it
will be a warning as well as a benediction; and that while its
sunlit altitude may fitly symbolize the truth that 'righteousness
exalteth a nation,' its shadow falling on the dome of the capitol
may be a daily remainder that 'sin is a reproach to any people.'
Surely it will not have been reared in vain if, on the day of its
dedication, its mighty shaft shall serve to lift heavenward the
voice of a united people that the principles for which the fathers
toiled and suffered shall be maintained inviolate by their children.

  "With sincere respect, I am thy friend,
  "John G. Whittier."

Another letter, received about two weeks earlier from General Grant,
seems to me worthy of a reproduction.  It is as follows:

  "New York City, January 27, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--I regret very much that my physical condition prevents
me from accepting the invitation of the commissioners, appointed
by Congress to provide suitable ceremonies for the dedication of
the Washington monument, to be present to witness the same on the
21st of February next.  My throat still requires the attention of
the physician daily, though I am encouraged to believe that it is
improving.

  "Very respectfully yours,
  "U. S. Grant."

An engraved card of invitation was sent to a great number of civil
and military organizations throughout the United States, the regents
of Mount Vernon, relatives of General Washington and other
distinguished persons.

The commission invited Lieutenant General Sheridan to act as marshal
of the day, with an aid-de-camp from each state and territory.
This invitation was accepted, and arrangements were made for a
procession from the monument to the capitol and proceedings there
after the dedication by the President.

The joint resolution prescribed that the monument be dedicated "to
the name and memory of George Washington, by the President of the
United States, with appropriate ceremonies" on the 22nd of February.
The day selected was among the coldest of the year.  The ground
was covered with snow and a high keen wind was blowing.  I was
directed to preside over the proceedings at the base of the monument,
and in the performance of this duty made the following address:

"The commission authorized by the two Houses of Congress to provide
suitable ceremonies for the dedication of the Washington monument,
direct me to preside and announce the order of ceremonies deemed
proper on this occasion.

"I need not say anything to impress upon you the dignity of the
event you have met to celebrate.  The monument speaks for itself--
simple in form, admirable in proportions, composed of enduring
marble and granite, resting upon foundations broad and deep, it
rises into the skies higher than any work of human art.  It is the
most imposing, costly and appropriate monument ever erected in the
honor of one man.

"It had its origin in the profound conviction of the people,
irrespective of party, creed or race, not only of this country,
but of all civilized countries, that the name and fame of Washington
should be perpetuated by the most imposing testimonial of a nation's
gratitude to its hero, statesman and father.  This universal
sentiment took form in a movement of private citizens, associated
under the name of the Washington National Monument Association,
who, on the 31st day of January, 1848, secured, from Congress, an
act authorizing them to erect the proposed monument on this ground,
selected, as the most appropriate site, by the President of the
United States.  Its corner stone was laid on the 4th day of July,
1848, by the Masonic fraternity, with imposing ceremonies, in the
presence of the chief officer of the government and a multitude of
citizens.  It was partially erected by the National Monument
Association, with means furnished by the voluntary contributions
of the people of the United States.

"On the 5th day of July, 1876, one hundred years after the declaration
of American Independence, Congress, in the name of the people of
the United States, formally assumed and directed the completion of
the monument.  Since then the foundation has been strengthened,
the shaft has been steadily advanced, and the now completed structure
stands before you.

"It is a fit memorial of the greatest character in human history.
It looks down upon scenes most loved by him on earth, the most
conspicuous object in a landscape full of objects deeply interesting
to the American people.  All eyes turn to it, and all hearts feel
the inspiration of its beauty, symmetry and grandeur.  Strong as
it is, it will not endure so long as the memory of him in whose
honor it was built, but while it stands it will be the evidence to
many succeeding generations of the love and reverence of this
generation for the name and fame of George Washington, 'first in
war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen'--
more even than this, the prototype of purity, manhood and patriotism
for all lands and for all time.  Without further preface, I proceed
to discharge the duty assigned me."

After prayer by the Rev. Henderson Suter, Dr. James C. Welling read
an address which had been prepared by W. W. Corcoran, first vice
president of the Washington National Monument Society, giving a
detailed history of the structure in its various stages.  Washington
having been a Freemason, appropriate Masonic ceremonies were
performed, the address being delivered by Grand Master Myron M.
Parker.  Colonel Thomas L. Casey, of the engineer corps, United
States army, the chief engineer and architect of the monument, then
formally delivered the structure to the President of the United
States, in an address describing the work done by him on it.
President Arthur received the monument with the following well-
chosen words:

"Fellow-Countrymen:--Before the dawn of the century whose eventful
years will soon have faded into the past, when death had but lately
robbed this republic of its most beloved and illustrious citizen,
the Congress of the United States pledged the faith of the nation
that in this city, bearing his honored name, and then, as now, the
seat of the general government, a monument should be erected 'to
commemorate the great events of his military and political life.'

"The stately column that stretches heavenward from the plain whereon
we stand bears witness to all who behold it that the covenant which
our fathers made, their children have fulfilled.

"In the completion of this great work of patriotic endeavor there
is abundant cause for national rejoicing; for while this structure
shall endure it shall be to all mankind a steadfast token of the
affectionate and reverent regard in which this people continue to
hold the memory of Washington.  Well may he ever keep the foremost
place in the hearts of his countrymen.

"The faith that never faltered, the wisdom that was broader and
deeper than any learning taught in schools, the courage that shrank
from no peril and was dismayed by no defeat, the loyalty that kept
all selfish purpose subordinate to the demands of patriotism and
honor, the sagacity that displayed itself in camp and cabinet alike,
and, above all, that harmonious union of moral and intellectual
qualities which has never found its parallel among men; these are
the attributes of character which the intelligent thought of this
century ascribes to the grandest figure of the last.

"But other and more eloquent lips than mine will to-day rehearse
to you the story of his noble life and its glorious achievements.

"To myself has been assigned a simpler and more formal duty, in
fulfillment of which I do now, as President of the United States,
and in behalf of the people, receive this monument from the hands
of its builder, and declare it dedicated from this time forth to
the immortal name and memory of George Washington."

The exercises at the monument concluded, General Sheridan and his
aids formed the procession, consisting of regular and state troops,
the Masonic fraternity, Grand Army posts, and other organizations,
with the invited guests, in carriages, and proceeded to the capitol,
while the cannon at the navy yard, at the artillery headquarters
and at Fort Meyer fired minute guns.

As previously arranged, the address of Mr. Winthrop, which has ever
since been regarded as equal to the occasion, was read by John D.
Long, in the hall of the House of Representatives, before a most
distinguished audience, embracing all the principal officers of
the government and the invited guests.  John W. Daniel, of Virginia,
also delivered an eloquent oration.

Thus the Congress celebrated the completion of monuments in enduring
form to two of the greatest men in American history--Washington
and Marshall.

The Congress expired by limitation March 4, 1885.

On the same day, there was inaugurated the first Democratic President
of the United States since the time of James Buchanan.  The election
of Cleveland, though not disputed, turned upon a very narrow majority
in New York, and the practical exclusion of the majority of the
legal voters in several of the southern states.  This naturally
led to the inquiry, "What will you do about it?"  My answer was
that we must quietly acquiesce in the result of the official returns
and give to Mr. Cleveland such fair treatment as we asked for Hayes.
I said that we should confirm his appointments made in pursuance
of the law and custom.  I was a member of the committee that
conducted him to the stand where he was inaugurated.  I heard his
inaugural address, carefully studied it, and felt sure that if he
faithfully observed the policy he defined, the bitterness of party
strife would be greatly diminished.  He carefully avoided contested
questions of public policy, and especially omitted all reference
to the substantial overthrow of the political rights of a majority
of the legal voters in many of the southern states, by which alone
he was elected.

The usual call for an executive session at the close of a presidential
term was issued by President Arthur, and the Senate met on the 4th
of March, Vice President Hendricks presiding.  But little business
of general interest was done during that session except action on
presidential appointments, few in number, which were confirmed
without objection.  The Senate adjourned on the 2nd of April.

Soon after I went to Mansfield, and, on the 12th of April, to
Cincinnati, to witness the inauguration of my friend, Amor Smith,
Jr., as mayor of that city.  He had fought and overcome the grossest
frauds that had been or could be committed by penitentiary convicts.
A crowd gathered around his residence, which, with those of his
neighbors, was brilliantly illuminated.  The Blaine club, headed
by a band and followed by many citizens, filled his yard.  His
house was full of his personal friends.  After music by the band,
Miller Outcalt, president of the club, escorted Mr. Smith to the
piazza and introduced him to the citizens.  His speech was modest
and appropriate, but he took care to denounce, in fitting language,
the open and reckless frauds practiced by his enemies to defeat
him, and promised that while he was mayor no such frauds should be
committed.

I was introduced to the crowd, and, after rendering my thanks and
congratulations and my appeal to the young men of the club, said:

"I think the foulest crime in the decalogue of crime, worse than
any named in the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic law, lower far than
stealing, worse than burglary, as bad as murder, is the crime that
has been perpetrated here in your city openly, in the face of day,
trying to break down the elective franchise and rob the people of
their right to govern themselves.  I might forgive a man who would
steal because he was in need of bread; he might commit other crimes
because of some reason, but a man who seeks to rob his neighbors
of their right to govern themselves, and practices the tricks of
the wily electioneer to deprive the people of this right, commits
a meaner crime than any that can be named in the list of crime.

"I am told that dozens--aye, hundreds--of men have gone to the
polls and there voted over and over again; that they have given
false names, and sometimes, in the presence of the very guardians
of the public peace, they have openly violated the law.  I say that
worse men cannot be found than those who do this, or those viler
creatures who protect them in doing it or justify them in their
acts.  Every power of the nation should be utilized to punish them
with the penitentiary; they ought to be made to wear the stripes
of the convict."

Foraker followed with an eloquent speech, which greatly pleased
the audience, and after much hand-shaking the crowd gradually
dispersed.

My remarks about frauds at elections did not please the "Enquirer."
While strongly censuring me for violence in language it did not
try to controvert what I said.  I have always entertained the
opinion that frauds in elections are more dangerous crimes than
cheating, theft and robbery, because they are committed against
the whole people and sap and undermine republican institutions.
I have always denounced them, or anything approaching them, when
committed by friend or foe.

From Cincinnati I went to Columbus to pay my respects to the Ohio
legislature, about to adjourn.  A majority of both houses was
Democratic.  They convened in the hall of the house of representatives,
where I addressed them.  I thanked them for their courtesy, which
was the more gracious because it came from gentlemen who did not
agree with me in political opinion.  I told them I was pleased to
see that in Ohio and elsewhere the interests of our country and
our state were regarded of vastly more importance than the factious
quarrels of bitter partisans, which feeling I was glad to say I
had always encouraged.  I alluded to my having served in the Senate
of the United States with colleagues representing different political
opinions from myself, including Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton
and, at that time, Henry B. Payne, and to the fact that whenever
the interests of the people of Ohio were concerned our political
differences disappeared and we were shoulder to shoulder as friends.
I said I thought this spirit ought to be observed by the representatives
of the people of Ohio and of the United States, that whenever the
interests of the people were under consideration party spirit should
sink into insignificance.

After hand-shaking all around I returned to my hotel.  In the
evening I was invited to attend the board of trade, and, being
kindly introduced by President Miles, I, as usual, was called upon
for a speech.  I first alluded to the remarkable growth of Columbus
to which the members of the board had contributed, and then discussed
briefly the silver question, about which they also felt an interest.
I then exploited into electricity, as follows:

"Gentlemen, you will be called upon hereafter to deal with forces
yet undiscovered.  The developments of science have brought to your
aid things as mysterious as life, which no mind can penetrate.
You are now called upon to use electricity as a motive power and
as light.  You must develop these secrets of nature, and you will
have no more fear of the exhaustion of gold, for these new powers
will contribute to the wealth and power of this country.  The
business men must carry out these, and so I say, as I said in
Cincinnati, that if business men would carry their honest methods
into government, then the scale and grade of our politics would
rise higher and higher.  We have had advancement under these
principles in everything except the government of the country.
What we want is honest government by honest men.  The United States
will then be looked on no longer as an experiment, but it will
become the greatest of the great governments since Adam was created.

"If I can induce the young men, who have contributed so much to
the growth of this city, to see to this--if you will do this much
to promote honest government and honest methods, we won't care
whether you call yourself Democrat or Republican."

I closed with thanks for the honor done me.  I was also invited to
visit the city council, and as soon as the reception in the board
of trade was over I accompanied a committee to the council chamber,
where I was again called upon for a speech.

Mr. Taylor, the president of the council, by a slip of the tongue,
introduced me as "Senator Thurman."  I said:

"I see that our friend, your president, mixes me up with Judge
Thurman on account of the fact that our names sound very much alike.
I consider such a mistake the highest compliment that could be paid
me; for the great ability, intense sagacity and entire purity of
your distinguished fellow-citizen, in the highest offices of the
land, have placed him, in my estimation, in the first rank of able
and noble men.  I like to have my name called Thurman.  It is my
opinion that the duties of city officers are of the very highest
importance.  The most serious embarrassments of this or any other
country lie with the municipal governments.  National government
is clearly defined.  The government of the State of Ohio ought to
present no difficulties when administered by fair men of business
habits.  But the eyes of the people are upon the difficulties of
municipal government.  The scenes that occurred in Paris, in London,
in New York, and, to come nearer home, the scenes that occurred in
Cincinnati, all show the importance of good city government.  I
say to you, although a Member of the Senate of the United States,
that the real difficulties of our government are no more serious
than the problems of city management and government.  When Rome
became the scene of wrongs, crimes, and usurpation, the republic
crumbled.  If ever this government be in danger, it will be because
of the misgovernment of our cities."

In the early part of April, 1885, I arranged for a trip via Chicago,
Des Moines, St. Louis, Texas and California, thence along the
Pacific coast to Tacoma and Seattle, and thence by the Northern
Pacific railroad to St. Paul, and home again.  The party was composed
of Henry C. Hedges, George F. Carpenter, both citizens of Mansfield,
my nephew Frank Sherman, of Des Moines, and myself.  It was arranged
that we were to meet in St. Louis.  In the meantime I proceeded to
Des Moines, where I met my brother, Hoyt, and his son, Frank.  Here
I met a reporter of the "Register" published in that city.  He said
in his report that I seemed to feel happy at the prospect that for
two months at least I was going to be free from public cares, and
that I acted like a man who had absolutely thrown worry aside for
the time being.  I told him my business was purely of a private
character, and that I had dismissed all politics from my mind.  I
declined to answer his questions about Mr. Cleveland.  He made out
of small materials an interview which answered his purpose.  He
asked my view of the silver question.  I told him I hoped to see
the people abandon the idea, which prevailed a few years previous,
of having silver money of less value than gold.  We had gone through
a struggle of some years to make our paper money equal to gold,
and the next struggle ought to be to do the same with silver money.
I said we should have all kinds of money of equal value whether
United States notes, bank bills, silver or gold; that if we had
this our silver would circulate in all parts of the world the same
as our gold, that we could use both silver and gold as the basis
of our certificates, which would then be regarded as money by every
commercial nation of the world.  I said I was in favor of both
silver and gold, and of using both to be coined upon the basis of
market value, that in this way the volume of money would be increased
instead of being diminished, and our money would become the standard
money of the world.  In his report he said that I spoke very
feelingly of General Grant, expressing a hope for his recovery,
but that I feared his apparent improvement was only characteristic
of that disease and not substantial.

I was surprised as well as gratified at the rapid growth of Des
Moines, which I first knew as an insignificant village.  From Des
Moines Frank Sherman and I went to St. Louis, and there met Messrs.
Hedges and Carpenter.  During the two or three days we remained in
St. Louis I stayed at the house of General Sherman, who then resided
in that city.  He took great interest in my proposed trip, and one
evening wrote out, without a change or erasure of a single word,
on three pages of foolscap, and under the head of "Memorandum for
John Sherman," a complete and detailed statement of the route I
was to follow, and the names of the cities and places I was to
visit, including the persons whom I ought to see, to several of
whom he gave me letters of introduction.  I have regarded this
"memorandum," which we found accurate in every particular, as a
striking evidence of his mastery of details.  We followed the route
with scarcely a change.  Among the letters given me by him was one
to his friend, F. F. Low, as follows:

  "St. Louis, Mo., May 3, 1885.
"Hon. F. F. Low, Anglo California Bank.

"Dear Sir:--My brother John, the Senator, is on the point of starting
for San Francisco via the southern route and intends to come back
by the north.  He will be in your city some days, and I am anxious
you should become acquainted, also that he should meet your wife
and daughter.

"If you are with the Pacific club please introduce him to some of
the old set--Hoffman, Tevis, Haggin, Rowie, etc., etc.  Nearly all
my old banking friends have passed away, but I am sure he would be
pleased to meet Alvord and Brown, of the Bank of California, and
also Flood, of the Nevada Bank.

  "Truly your friend,
  "W. T. Sherman."

While in St. Louis, the "Evening Chronicle" of May 1, published
quite a long interview with me.  General Sherman, during this
interview, sat somewhat aside, now and then putting in an emphatic
assent or suggestion.  The general inquired of me if there was any
late news from Washington concerning General Sheridan.  The reporter
then asked him what his opinion was as to the controversy between
General Sheridan and Secretary of War Endicott.  The general
answered:  "There is no controversy.  It is simply an incident of
the conflict of authority which has existed between the Secretary
of War and the General of the Army since the days of Washington.
General Scott had to leave Washington on that account.  I had to
leave there for the same reason, and Sheridan will have to go away."

Early Monday morning, May 4, we left on the St. Louis, Iron Mountain
& Southern railway.  I had heard and read a great deal in St. Louis
about the mineral resources of the southeastern part of Missouri,
through which we passed, but from the cars we could gain no
information.  We saw, on every side, herds of cattle, flocks of
sheep, and bands of horses and mules.  For miles the forest woods
stretched away.  We passed through the low lands of Arkansas,
covered with valuable timber.  We passed through Texarkana, a city
located partly in Arkansas and partly in Texas, and not far from
Louisiana.  We proceeded across the State of Texas, only catching
glimpses, here and there, of towns springing up, and broad fields
already planted with cotton.

In passing through Dallas, we met my old boyhood friend, A. Banning
Norton, who was there called Judge Norton.  In 1844 he was so
earnest in his zeal and enthusiasm for Henry Clay that he vowed he
would not cut his hair until Clay was elected President of the
United States.  Clay's defeat was a sad blow to Norton, but he
religiously kept his vow, and until the day of his death wore his
hair unshorn.  He was thoroughly loyal during the war, and was
compelled to leave Texas and remain in Ohio until after the war
was over, when he returned and published a newspaper, and was kindly
treated by his Texas neighbors.  In his paper, he said that receiving
a telegram from me at six o'clock, at his residence, just before
the arrival of the train, he hurried to the Union Depot, and there
had the satisfaction of meeting our party.  He said that his chief
regret at the delay in receiving this telegram was that he did not
have time enough to give notice to his neighbors, who would have
been glad to give us an ovation.  He went with us as far as Fort
Worth, and we had a chance to revive the memories of early times,
when we were schoolboys at Mount Vernon, Ohio.

We arrived at El Paso and Paso del Norte, the first a Texan and
the second a Mexican town, opposite each other on the Rio Grande
River, which, from its mouth to this point, is the boundary line
between Mexico and the United States.  El Paso must, in all human
probability, become a place of great importance.  From there we
proceeded to Deming and entered Arizona.  Here we began again to
hear of rich mines, of thriving mining towns, and of the inexhaustible
ores of silver and gold, but how much was truth and how much
exaggeration we had no means of knowing.  From the cars the whole
country appeared to be a wilderness.  Arizona, as viewed from the
cars, does not present a pleasing prospect, though we heard that
back beyond the mountains on either side were plains and valleys
irrigated by mountain streams, where perennial grasses existed and
grain was raised.  We passed through Tucson, the capital of the
territory.  It is an old city, having been in existence, it is
said, 300 years.  Here we saw fields of barley, wheat, rye and
timothy, and a large orchard, all enriched by irrigation.  We soon
crossed the Colorado River and entered California.

From Yuma to San Bernardino is an absolute desert.  For over one
hundred miles the track is one hundred feet, or more, below the
level of the sea, and the country is absolutely naked of bird or
grass.  At San Bernardino we entered California proper, and there
found a beautiful country, with nothing to obstruct the view, the
California mountains being on the right all the way into Los Angeles.
Upon my arrival in this city I was pleasantly surprised.  I had
been there thirteen years before, but everything was changed.  I
could find none of the old landmarks I had formerly seen.  They
had disappeared, but in their place were great improvements and
signs of progress and prosperity.  I was asked the occasion of my
visit.  I answered truly that I proposed to remain in the southern
part of the state for a week or more, for rest and recreation.
Here, again, I had inquiries about the silver question.  I was
averse to giving any expression of opinion, but the topic was
irrepressible, and I finally said to the representative of one of
the leading papers:  "I am in favor of a silver dollar, equal, in
market value, to the gold dollar--actually equal.  In other words,
let the silver dollar have enough grains of silver in it to make
it intrinsically worth, in the market, the gold dollar.  As it is,
the government buys the silver at a certain valuation and then
coins it at another valuation, to make a profit on the difference.
This is not protecting the silver producer at all.  It really is
an injury to him and his industry."

Our stay in Los Angeles was a very pleasant one.  We drove to many
interesting towns and settlements within fifteen or twenty miles
of the city.  I do not remember, in my many travels, any part of
the earth's surface that is more attractive in the spring of the
year, the season when I was there, than the region about Los Angeles.
I met there many friends of General Sherman, who inquired for him,
and I informed them he was living very pleasantly in St. Louis,
that I had spent the last Sunday with him, that he traveled a great
deal, and attended reunions with old army comrades, which he enjoyed
very much, that he was fond of the Pacific coast and liked to go
there, and that I almost persuaded him to come with me on this
trip, had not other engagements existed which he could not annul.

We met several Ohio people while here, among them two or three
gentlemen whom we had known as boys in Mansfield.  We drove to
Wolfskill's orange grove, and to many handsome places in, and
around, Los Angeles, to Sierra Madre Villa, to Baldwin's place, to
Rose's wine establishment, and to Passadena, where we found Senator
Cameron and his wife pleasantly situated, and where they spent the
summer.

From Los Angeles we departed by stage and passed through the Los
Angeles valley, the San Fernando valley, and after crossing the
coast range saw the sea.  For the first time we were at the Pacific
coast proper.  On the way we met a settlement of Ohio men, most of
them from Richland county, whom we knew.  San Buenaventura is the
county seat of Ventura county, with about 2,000 inhabitants.  It
is an interesting place, its chief ornament being an old mission
built in 1784.  We there visited a loan exhibition and floral
display under the management of the ladies of the village and
surrounding country, and saw the evidences of a semi-tropical
climate, magnificent palm tress, and the orange, the lemon and the
lime.  From this place to Santa Barbara the drive was mainly along
the beach.  Passing from the beach we entered upon a beautiful
country, and so proceeded all the way into Santa Barbara, through
charming valleys and under pleasant skies.

At Santa Barbara we were welcomed by Colonel Hollister, a native
of Ohio and a ranchero of California, whom, as already related, I
had met under similar circumstance thirteen years previous.  We
stopped at a hotel owned by him and for four days were his guests.
He had settled on a tract of country west of Santa Barbara, and
had become the owner of a ranch of 48,000 acres as well as extensive
property in Santa Barbara and other places.  We visited him at Glen
Annie after a drive of a few miles in an open carriage, all the
way within view of the sea and the mountains, through valleys
cultivated like gardens, under a bright sky in pure air.  On the
foot hills were grazing herds of cattle, flocks of sheep and droves
of horses.  On either side of the carriage road were groves of the
English walnut, orange, lemon, lime, apricot, peach, apple, cherry,
the date palm and olive trees, with acres and acres of vineyards,
and now and then a park of live oak.  The mansion of Glen Annie
was surrounded by a bower of flowers and vines.  From the porch we
could see the sea.  This was the second time I had been at Santa
Barbara and I always remember it as perhaps the most pleasing
combination of scenery I have ever witnessed.  We spent a very
pleasant hour with Mr. Stoddard and family, who had removed from
Ohio some years before to that delightful part of our country.
From Santa Barbara we went by steamer to Wilmington and San Pedro
and then returned to Los Angeles through a beautiful country.  From
thence we went to San Francisco by rail through a country that
seemed absolutely worthless except now and then there were small
valleys highly cultivated.  In the early morning we were in the
valley of the San Joaquin, where wide fields extend all along both
sides.  Here we saw thousands of acres of land covered by growing
wheat without a fence to protect it.

Arriving at Oakland we crossed the bay to San Francisco on the 18th
of May, stopping at the Palace hotel.  There I was called upon by
reporters of the several papers and was asked to tell them where
I came from, where I was going, and my opinions upon various
subjects.  All manner of questions were asked and answered about
matters of no present interest.  Our party visited many places of
interest in and about San Francisco.  I visited General Pope, at
his residence at Black Point, the fort at the entrance of the Golden
Gate, the seal rocks and park.  While here I met a great number of
very agreeable gentlemen and ladies, some of whom were from Lancaster,
Ohio.  The letters given me by General Sherman introduced me to
prominent men, who were very kind and courteous.  On the 25th, a
public reception was tendered me at the rooms of the Chamber of
Commerce, by the members of that body, the Board of Trade and the
Manufacturers' Association.  This was an act of courtesy that I
did not expect, but greatly appreciated.  The usual speech making
occurred.  I was introduced by Henry L. Dodge, president of the
chamber, in flattering terms, and responded in a brief speech.  I
recalled to them my visit to California with Colonel Scott in
connection with the Texas Pacific railroad, and the early connection
of General Sherman with the history of California.  I expressed my
appreciation of the importance of California, and its enormous
development and influence upon the country since it became part of
the United States.  I stated my views in respect to the silver
question, and the importance of maintaining all forms of money at
parity with each other, so that coins of both silver and gold might
"travel all over the world equal to each other in every land and
in every part."  I insert two passages from this speech, which,
though it did not conform to their opinions and interests, was
kindly received by the intelligent body of merchants present.  I
said:

"It is due to frankness and manhood for me to say that in the
country there is a feeling now, that if the present system should
be continued unchanged, the result would be that gold would be
demonetized, being worth more than silver as coined by the government
of the United States.  The opinion prevails that the only thing to
remedy this is to buy the silver and gold, or take them from the
miner and coin them at the same rate, of equal market value, in
coins, one for the other, so that they would travel, side by side,
without depreciation or discount.  There is an inclination in the
eastern states, not of hostility to silver, but of hostility to
that system which would take from the miner the fruit of his labor
at its market rate and issue it at a depreciated rate; so that even
cautious people would doubt whether or not this silver money will
hereafter be as good as gold money.

"I wish you success in all your business enterprises.  I know your
success will contribute to the happiness of our country.  I am glad
to be able to congratulate the merchants of San Francisco upon the
enormous growth and prosperity of our country, not only of California,
not only of San Francisco, Los Angeles and the other beautiful
towns you have in your midst, but the whole country; for although
we have sometimes here and there waves of dejection, after all,
our country is moving forward in bounding prosperity.  We have now
the best currency that exists on the globe.  Our credit is unrivaled
in all the world, for no nation can borrow money at so low a rate
as our United States bonds now bear.  Our general prosperity is
increasing and abounding, and although, as I have said, there may
be waves here and there, the progress is onward and upward and
hopeful.  I trust you will be prosperous in your enterprises, that
you will share in the common prosperity of our whole country, for,
after all, the energy of your people of San Francisco and California
should not be expended entirely alone on the Pacific coast.  This
whole boundless continent is ours, and only awaits the time when
we choose to assert our right to take it and hold it."

At the invitation of Senator John F. Miller I spent a day on his
ranch in Napa valley.  It was a beautiful country, neither a prairie
nor a woodland, but more like a fine cultivated park, with here
and there groups of trees planted by nature.  I made several
excursions around the bay, accompanied by General Pope and members
of his staff.  I was delighted with my visit in and around San
Francisco, not only for the natural beauty of the country, but also
on account of the kindness of its inhabitants.  I was no doubt
indebted for this to my connection with General Sherman, who seemed
to be known and greatly beloved by everyone.

I have a pleasant recollection of a reception given at the Dirigo
club.  The gentlemen present were not all young men, though they
chose to regard themselves as such.  Major Chamberlain delivered
a brief address of welcome, in which he referred to the "martial
services of General Sherman and the pacific achievements of the
Senator," and drew a comparison highly complimentary to both of
the brothers.  William W. Morrow, Member of Congress, formally
welcomed me as a guest of the club and delivered a short but eloquent
speech.  I made a brief reply and then the company was served with
refreshments, entertained with music and had a free and friendly
time.  The reception was a decided success as was to be expected
from the high reputation of the club.

On the 27th of May we started northward towards Sacramento and
Portland, Oregon.  Senator Leland Stanford was kind enough to
furnish us a car and accompanied us to his ranch at Vina.  We
stopped at Chico long enough to visit the ranch of John Bidwell,
containing 20,000 acres.  He met us at the station and we were soon
conveyed to his mansion such as is seldom built on a farm.  We
drove through orchards of peach, apricot, cherry, apple, pear and
almond trees, while in his gardens were all kinds of berries and
vegetables.  After this brief visit we proceeded along the line of
railroad to Vina, the extensive possession of Senator Stanford,
containing 56,000 acres.  Here is said to be the largest vineyard
in the world, 3,600 acres.  On leaving Mr. Stanford we proceeded
to the terminus of the railroad, from which point we crossed the
coast range of mountains in a stage, and were for three days in
sight of Mt. Shasta.  This mountain rising from the plains stands
out by itself 14,400 feet above the level of the sea.  Between
Shasta and the Sierras proper there is no continuity, nor is there
with the coast range.  More properly it is a butte, a lone mountain.
Shortly after leaving Southern's the castle rocks came in view,
the highest and boldest mountains in close proximity, or within
our view.  Shasta was crowned with snow, the snow line beginning
7,000 feet from its base.  The scene all day had been rugged and
bold, and as we traveled by the Sacramento River, here a rapid
mountain stream, its waters rushed along the rocky bottom, now
confined within narrow banks, now widening out into a wide deep
bed as clear as crystal and cold and pure.  For thirty miles of
our travel that day we had been in a good timbered country.  Within
a circle of fifty feet in diameter we counted a dozen pines, every one
of which would have yielded ten to twelve thousand feet of sawed
timber.  Flowers of the richest colors were found in the woods,
and the range afforded feed for thousands of cattle.  At Southern's
we took a spring-top wagon in which to ride sixteen miles over the
mountains.  We spent three days in the journey between Delta,
California, and Ashland, Oregon, the two ends of the railway
approaching towards each other.  I recall it as the most charming
mountain ride I ever took.  While crossing the mountain I occupied
a seat with the driver and much of the time I held the reins.  The
ascent of the Siskiyou mountain was very tedious.  Much of the way
the load was too heavy for our six horses to pull, and many dismounted
from the coach, among them the driver; the reins were placed in my
hands and we transferred most of the baggage from the boot to the
body of the coach.  So we climbed the Siskiyou 5,000 feet to the
summit of the pass.  Then on a gallop, with the coach full, we
turned downward.  At one time, as the lead team turned a sharp
curve, it was nearly opposite the stage.  Down, still down, and on
the full gallop, we arrived at Ashland on the evening of the 31st
of May, and remained there one day.

On the 1st of June we followed the line of the Willamette valley,
a productive region for the cultivation of wheat and other cereals.
At Albany we were met by Governor Moody and Secretary Earnhart,
who welcomed us to Oregon.  With these officials we went to Salem,
the capital city of the state.  My visit in Salem was a very pleasant
one and I was especially indebted to Governor Moody for his courtesy
and kindness.  On the morning of the next day, the 2nd of June, we
left Salem and rode down the valley to Portland.  This, the principal
city of Oregon, then contained a population of nearly 40,000, of
whom 6,000 or 7,000 were Chinese.  It was the natural head of
navigation of the Columbia River, and was a flourishing handsome
city of the American type, in this respect unlike the cities of
California.  General Miles was then in command of the military
district, with his residence at Fort Vancouver, Washington Territory.
The military post of Vancouver was then on the north bank of the
Columbia River, but a few miles from Portland.  Mrs. Miles is the
daughter of my brother Charles, and I remained with their family
in Vancouver during my two or three days stay there, my traveling
companions making their headquarters at Portland.

When visiting Tacoma and Seattle our party had been increased to
the number of seventeen gentlemen, some of them connected with the
army, some with the railroads, and others who joined us in our
progress around the waters of Puget Sound and strait of Juan de
Fuca.  These waters furnish perhaps the finest harbors in the world.
They are deep, with high banks rising in some places to mountains,
and capable of holding all the navies of the world.  In a military
sense Puget Sound can be easily defended from an enemy coming from
the sea, and, though the country is mountainous, it is capable of
sustaining a large population in the extensive valleys both east
and west of the coast range.  I have visited this portion of the
United States on three occasions, and am always more and more
impressed with its great importance and its probably rapid increase
of population and wealth.  I will not dwell longer on this interesting
trip.

We left Portland on the 7th of June and proceeded on the Northern
Pacific railroad to Tacoma.  On the train we met Charles Francis
Adams, Jr., with a party of railway managers, and in Tacoma we met
an old friend, a gallant and able officer, General John W. Sprague,
formerly from Erie county, Ohio, and more recently connected with
the Northern Pacific Railway Company.  On Sunday, our party, including
Mr. Adams, dined with General Sprague.  We had not as yet been able
to see Mount Tacoma in its glory, as it was constantly shrouded by
clouds.  In the course of the dinner, Mr. Adams said humorously to
Mrs. Sprague that he had some doubts whether there was a Mount
Tacoma, that he had come there to see it and looked in the right
direction, but could not find it.  I saw that this nettled Mrs.
Sprague, but she said nothing.  In a few moments she left the table
and soon came back with a glowing face, saying, "You can see Tacoma
now!"  We all left our places at the tables and went out on the
porch, and there was Mount Tacoma in all its glory.  The clouds
were above the head of the mountain and it stood erect, covered
with snow, one of the most beautiful sights in nature.  Mr. Adams
said:  "Tacoma--yes Mount Tacoma is there and is very beautiful!"

On the 9th of June we visited Victoria in British Columbia.  On
our return we stopped at Port Townsend and Seattle.  I received
many courtesies from gentlemen at Seattle, many of whom had been
natives or residents of Ohio, and among them Governor Squire, who
had read law in Cleveland and was admitted to the bar in Mansfield,
where I resided. Among other events we were tendered a reception
and a banquet at Tacoma, at which seventy persons sat at the table.
I was introduced in complimentary terms and expressed my surprise
at the rapid growth of Tacoma and Seattle and that part of our
country.  It was a wonder, I said, that such a scene could occur
in a place that had so recently been without an inhabitant except
Indians, and where, but a few years before, the Walla Wallas and
the Nez Percés were on the war path and General Miles was in pursuit
of them.  I referred to the unrivaled body of water, Puget Sound,
and said that in the geography of the world it was not equaled.
I referred, also, to the coal fields and other elements of wealth
scattered through the then territory.  I carefully avoided the
subject of the rivalry between Tacoma and Seattle, but after all
I found there was no ill-will between the two places.  Speeches
were also made by Governor Squire, Mr. Adams, General Miles and
others.

We returned to Portland on the 12th of June, but before that we
visited Astoria, looked into the great industry of salmon packing,
and were greeted by quite a number of old Ohioans.  On our return
we visited Walla Walla and there saw wheat growing that yielded
fifty bushels to the acre.  We remained over, also, at Spokane
Falls, then a mere village with a few houses, since become quite
a city.

General Miles and I drove in a buggy from Spokane to Fort Coeur
d'Alène, a military post which he wished to visit and inspect.  It
is situated on a lake which is famous for the abundance of its
fish.  From there we took the cars to Helena, where we remained a
day, and then proceeded to St. Paul, where we arrived on the 21st
of June.  Here again we found the interviewer, who wanted to know
my opinion about Cleveland, the silver question, the Chinese and
various other topics.  I pleaded ignorance on all these matters,
but told the reporter that if he would call upon me in the course
of a month I would be able to answer his questions.

From St. Paul we went to Milwaukee and there crossed Lake Michigan
and thence by rail to Grand Rapids, where I had a number of
acquaintances and some business.  We then proceeded by way of
Detroit and Sandusky to our home at Mansfield about the 24th of
June.


CHAPTER XLIX.
REUNION OF THE "SHERMAN BRIGADE."
Patriotic Address Delivered at Woodstock, Conn., On My Return from
the Pacific Coast--Meeting of the Surviving Members of the Sherman
Family at Mansfield--We Attend the Reunion of the "Sherman Brigade"
at Odell's Lake--Addresses of General Sherman and Myself to the
Old Soldiers and Others Present--Apathy of the Republican Party
During the Summer of 1885--Contest Between Foraker and Hoadley for
the Governorship--My Speech at Mt. Gilead Denounced as "Bitterly
Partisan"--Governor Hoadley Accuses Me of "Waving the Bloody Shirt"
--My Reply at Lebanon--Election of Foraker--Frauds in Cincinnati
and Columbus--Speeches Made in Virginia.

Upon my return from the Pacific coast I found a mass of letters to
be answered, and many interviewers in search of news, and I had
some engagements to speak for which I had made no preparations.
Among the latter was a promise to attend a celebration of the
approaching 4th of July at Woodstock, Connecticut, under the auspices
of Henry C. Bowen of the New York "Independent."  He had for several
years conducted these celebrations at his country home at much
expense, and made them specially interesting by inviting prominent
men to deliver patriotic addresses suitable for Independence Day.
General Logan and I were to attend on this occasion.  I selected
as my theme "America of to-day as contrasted with America of 1776."
I prepared an address with as much care as my limited time would
allow, giving an outline of the history of the Declaration of
Independence, and the prominent part taken by the sons of Connecticut
in this and other great works of the American Revolution.  The
address was published in the "Independent."  I have read it recently,
and do not see where it could be improved by me.  The outline of
the growth of the United States presents the most remarkable
development in the history of mankind.  I closed with the following
words:

"It has been my good fortune, within the last two months, to traverse
eleven states and territories, all of which were an unbroken
wilderness in the possession of savage tribes when the declaration
was adopted, now occupied by 15,000,000 people--active, intelligent,
enterprising citizens, enjoying all the advantages of modern
civilization.  What a change!  The hopeful dreams of Washington
and Jefferson and Franklin could not have pictured, as the probable
result of their patriotic efforts, such scenes as I saw; cities
rivaling in population and construction the capitals of Europe;
towns and villages without number full of active life and hope;
wheat fields, orchards, and gardens in place of broad deserts
covered by sage brush; miners in the mountains, cattle on the
plains, the fires of Vulcan in full blast in thousands of workshops;
all forms of industry, all means of locomotion.

"Who among us would not be impressed by such scenes?  Who can look
over our broad country, rich in every resource, a climate and soil
suited to every production, a home government for every community,
a national government to protect all alike, and not feel a profound
sentiment of gratitude, first of all to the great Giver of all
gifts, and next to our Revolutionary fathers who secured, by their
blood and sacrifices, the liberty we enjoy, and by their wisdom
moulded the people of the United States into one great nation, with
a common hope and destiny?

"And this generation may fairly claim that it has strengthened the
work of the fathers, has made freedom universal, and disunion
impossible.  Let the young men of to-day, heirs of a great heritage,
take up the burden of government, soon to fall upon their shoulders,
animated by the patriotic fire of the Revolution and the love of
liberty and union that inspired our soldiers in the Civil War,
turning their back upon all the animosities of that conflict, but
clinging with tenacious courage to all its results, and they will,
in their generation, double the population and quadruple the wealth
and resources of our country.  Above all, they should keep the
United States of American in the forefront of progress, intelligence,
education, temperance, religion, and in all the virtues that tend
to elevate, refine, and ennoble mankind."

General Logan delivered an eloquent and patriotic speech that was
received by his audience with great applause.  He was personally
a stranger to the Connecticut people, but his western style and
manner, unlike the more reserved and quiet tone of their home
orators, gave them great pleasure.  Senators Hawley and Platt also
spoke.  It is needless to say that our host provided us with
bountiful creature comforts.  On the whole we regarded the celebration
as a great success.

During the last week of August, 1885, my surviving brothers and
sisters visited my wife and myself at our residence in Mansfield.
Colonel Moulton and the wives of General and Hoyt Sherman were also
present.  Several of my numerous nephews and nieces visited us with
their parents.  The then surviving brothers were W. T. Sherman,
Lampson P. Sherman, John Sherman, and Hoyt Sherman, and the surviving
sisters were Mrs. Elizabeth Reese and Mrs. Fanny B. Moulton.  The
brothers and sisters who died before this meeting were Charles T.
Sherman, James Sherman, Mrs. McComb, Mrs. Willock and Mrs. Bartley.
All of the family attended with me the reunion of the "Sherman
Brigade," at its camp at Odell's Lake.  On the arrival of the train
at the lake we found a great crowd of soldiers and citizens waiting
to meet General Sherman.  The brigade had served under his command
from Chattanooga to Atlanta.  They received him with great respect
and affection and he was deeply moved by their hearty greetings.
He shook hands with all who could reach him, but the crowd of
visitors was so great that many of them could not do so.  The
encampment was located at the west end of the lake, justly celebrated
for the natural beauty of its scenery, and a favorite resort for
picnic excursions from far and near.  We arrived at about twelve
o'clock and were at once conducted to a stand in the encampment
grounds, where again the hand-shaking commenced, and continued for
some time.  General Sherman and I were called upon for speeches.
He was disinclined to speak, and said he preferred to wander around
the camp but insisted that I should speak.  I was introduced by
General Finley, and said:

"Soldiers and Citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I saw in one of your
published statements that I was to make an address on this occasion.
That is not exactly according to the fact.  I did not agree to make
a speech.  One year ago, when the Sherman Brigade met at Shelby,
I did, according to promise, make a prepared speech, giving the
history of the organization of the 'Sherman Brigade,' and a copy
of that, I understand, was sent to surviving members of that brigade.
But few will care for this, but it may interest the wives or children
of these soldiers.

"Now I do not intend to make a speech, but only a few remarks
preliminary to those that will be made to you by one more worthy
to speak to soldiers than I am.

"I have always understood that at soldiers' reunions the most
agreeable portion of the proceedings is to have the old soldiers
gather around the campfire to tell their stories of the war, to
exchange their recollections of the trying period through which
they passed from 1861 to 1865; to exchange greetings, to exhibit
their wives and children to each other, and to meet with their
neighbors in a social way and thus recall the events of a great
period in American history.  And this is really the object of these
reunions.

"You do not meet here to hear speeches from those, who, like myself,
were engaged in civil pursuits during the war, and therefore, I
never am called before a soldiers' reunion but I feel compelled to
make an apology for speaking."

I referred to General Grant and his recent death, and then to
General Sherman as follows:

"There is another of those commanders, who is here before you to-
day.  What is he?  He is now a retired army officer.  When the war
was over he became the General in Chief of the army, served until
the time fixed by the law for his retirement, and now he is a
private citizen, as plain and simple in his bearing and manners as
any other of the citizens who now surround him.  These are the kind
of heroes a republic makes, and these are the kind of heroes we
worship as one free man may worship another."

General Sherman was then introduced to the vast audience, and said:

"Comrades and Friends:--A few days ago I was up on the banks of
Lake Minnetonka, and was summoned here to northern Ohio to participate
in a family reunion.  I knew my brother's house in Mansfield was
large and commodious, sufficient to receive the survivors of the
first generation of the family, but I also knew that if he brought
in the second and third generations he would have to pitch a camp
somewhere, and I find he has chosen this at Odell's Lake.  So, for
the time being, my friends, you must pass as part of the Sherman
family, not as 'the Sherman Brigade,' and you must represent the
second and third generations of a very numerous family.

"Of course, it is not my trade or vocation to make orations or
speeches.  I see before me many faces that look to me as though
they were once soldiers, and to them I feel competent to speak; to
the others I may not be so fortunate.

"But, very old comrades of the war, you who claim to be in 'Sherman's
Brigade' or in any other brigade, who took a part in the glorious
Civil War, the fruits of which we are now enjoying, I hail and
thank you for the privilege of being with you this beautiful day
in this lovely forest and by the banks of yonder lake, not that I
can say anything that will please you or profit you, but there is
a great pleasure in breathing the same air, in thinking the same
thoughts, in feeling the same inspirations for the future, which
every member of the 'Sherman Brigade' and the children who have
succeeded them must, in contemplating the condition of our country
at this very moment of time.  Peace universal, not only at home
but abroad, and America standing high up in the niche of nations,
envied of all mankind and envied because we possess all the powers
of a great nation vindicated by a war of your own making and your
own termination.  Yes, my fellow-soldiers, you have a right to sit
beneath your own vine and fig tree and be glad, for you can be
afraid of no man.  You have overcome all enemies, save death, which
we must all meet as our comrades who have gone before us have done,
and submit.  But as long as we live let us come together whenever
we can, and if we can bring back the memories of those glorious
days it will do us good, and, still more, good to the children who
will look up to us as examples."

He continued to speak for fifteen minutes or more, and closed with
these words:

"My friends, of course I am an old man now, passing off the stage
of life.  I realize that, and I assure you that I now think more
of the days of the Mexican War, the old California days, and of
the early days of the Civil War, than I do of what occurred last
week, and I assure you that, let it come when it may, I would be
glad to welcome the old 'Sherman Brigade' to my home and my fireside,
let it be either in St. Louis or on the banks of the Columbia River
in Oregon.  May God smile upon you, and give you his choicest
blessings.  You live in a land of plenty.  I do not advise you to
emigrate, but I assure you, wherever you go, you will find comrades
and soldiers to take you by the hand and be glad to aid you as
comrades."

The gathering was a thoroughly enjoyable one, and was often recalled
by those present.

During the summer of 1885 there was much languor apparent in the
Republican party.  President Cleveland was pursuing a conservative
policy, removals from office were made slowly, and incumbents were
allowed to serve out their time.  Foraker and Hoadley were again
nominated in Ohio for governor by their respective parties, and
the contest between them was to be repeated.

There was a feeling among Republicans of humiliation and shame that
the people had placed in power the very men who waged war against
the country for years, created a vast public debt, and destroyed
the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  This feeling was
intensified by the fact that Republicans in the south were ostracised
and deprived of all political power or influence.  In the Democratic
party there were signs of dissension.  Charges of corruption in
Ohio, in the election of Payne as Senator in the place of Pendleton,
were openly made, and the usual discontent as to appointments to
office that follows a change of administration was manifest.  Under
these conditions I felt it to be my duty to take a more active part
in the approaching canvass than ever before.  On the 13th of August,
I met at Columbus with Foraker and the state Republican committee,
of which Asa S. Bushnell was chairman, and we prepared for a thorough
canvass in each county, the distribution of documents and the
holding of meetings.  In addition to the state ticket there were
to be elected members of the legislature.  There was no contest as
to the selection of a United States Senator, as, by general
acquiescence, it was understood that if the legislature should be
Democratic Thurman would be elected, and if it should be Republican
I would be elected.  Governor Foster, when spoken to upon this
subject, very kindly said:

"As long as John Sherman desires to be Senator, or is willing to
take the office, there is no use for me or any other man with
senatorial aspirations to be a candidate against him.  Sherman is
yet young.  He is not much over sixty, and it would be idle to
dispute that he is the best equipped man in the Republican party
in Ohio for that position.  He has the learning, the ability, the
experience, the popularity."

The organization of both parties was completed and a vigorous
canvass inaugurated.  Foraker soon after commenced a series of
public meetings extending to nearly every county in the state, and
everywhere made friends by his vigorous and eloquent speeches.

On the 18th I attended a pioneer picnic at Monroe, near the division
line between the counties of Butler and Warren.  This mode of
reunion, mainly confined to farmers, is quite common in Ohio, and
is by far the most pleasing and instructive popular assemblage held
in that state.  The discussion of politics is forbidden.  The people
of the country for miles around come in wagons, carriages, on
horseback and on foot, men, women and children, with their baskets
full of food and fruit, and gather in a well-shaded grove, in
families or groups, and discuss the crops and the news, and make
new or renew old acquaintance.  When the scattered picnic is going
on everyone who approaches is invited to eat.  When the appetite
is satisfied all gather around a temporary platform, and speeches,
long and short, upon every topic but politics, are made.  I have
attended many such meetings and all with sincere pleasure.  This
particular picnic was notable for its large attendance--estimated
to be over three thousand--and the beauty of the grove and the
surrounding farms.  I made an address, or rather talked, about the
early times in Ohio, and especially in the Miami valley, a section
which may well be regarded as among the fairest and most fruitful
spots in the world.  The substance of my speech was reported and
published.  The sketch I was able to give of incidents of Indian
warfare, of the expeditions of St. Clair and Wayne, of the early
settlement in that neighborhood, and of the ancestors, mainly
Revolutionary soldiers, of hundreds of those who heard me, seemed
to give great satisfaction.  At the close of my remarks I was
requested by the Pioneer Society to write them out for publication,
to be kept as a memorial, but I never was able to do so.

On the 26th of August I made, at Mt. Gilead, Morrow county, my
first political speech of the campaign.  The people of that county
were among my first constituents.  More than thirty years before,
in important and stirring times, I had appeared before them as a
candidate for Congress.  I referred to the early history of the
Republican party and to the action of Lincoln and Grant in the
prosecution of the war, and contrasted the opinion expressed of
them by the Democratic party then and at the time of my speech.
During the war our party was the "black abolition party," Lincoln
was an "ape," Grant was a "butcher," and Union soldiers were "Lincoln
hirelings."  I said:

"Our adversaries now concede the wisdom and success of all prominent
Republican measures, as well as the merits of the great leaders of
the Republican party.  Only a few days since I heard my colleague,
Senator Payne, in addressing soldiers at Fremont, extol Lincoln
and Grant in the highest terms of praise and say the war was worth
all it cost and he thanked God that slavery had been abolished.
Only recently, when the great procession conveyed the mortal remains
of Grant to their resting place, I heard active Confederates extol
him in the highest terms of praise and some of them frankly gloried
in the success of Republican measures, and, especially, in the
abolition of slavery."

I said that the Republican party, within six years after its
organization, overthrew the powerful dominant Democratic party,
and for twenty-four years afterwards conducted the operations of
a great government in war and peace, with such success as to win
the support and acquiescence of its enemies, and could fairly claim
to be worthy of the confidence and support of the great body of
the people.  The defection of a few men in three Republican states
had raised our old adversaries to power again in the national
government.  I continued:

"Some of the very men who boastfully threatened to break up the
Union, and, with the oath of office in support of the constitution
fresh upon their lips, conspired and confederated to overthrow it,
waged war against it, and were the cause of the loss of half a
million of lives and thousands of millions of treasure, have been
placed in high office again, in the very seats of power which they
abandoned with scorn and defiance.  Two members of the Confederate
congress, and one man who sympathized with them, are at the head
of great departments of the government.  I saw the Union flag at
half-mast, floating over the interior department in sign of honor
and mourning for the death of Jacob Thompson, whom we regarded as
a defaulter and a conspirator.  This country is now represented
abroad by men, who, within twenty-five years, were in arms to
overthrow it, and the governing power in the executive branch of
the government is in sympathy with the ideas of, and selects the
chief officers of the government from, the men who were in war
against it.  This strange turn in events has but one example in
history, and that was the restoration of Charles II, after the
brilliant but brief Protectorate of Cromwell, and, like that
restoration, is a reproach to the civilization of the age."

I referred to the "solid south," and the means by which it was held
together in political fellowship by crimes, violence and fraud
which, if continued, would as surely renew all the strifes of the
Civil War as that the sun would roll around in its course.

In referring to the Republican party and its liberality I said:

"The Republican party was certainly liberal and just to the rebels
lately in arms against the country.  We deprived them of no political
power, no blood was shed; no confiscation was had; and more generous
terms were conceded to them than ever before had been extended to
an unsuccessful party in a civil war.  Their leaders emphasized
that at the burial of our great commander, General Grant.  The
result of the settlement by the constitutional amendments at the
close of the war was to give them increased political power, upon
condition that the slaves should be free and should be allowed to
vote, and that all political distinction growing out of race, color
or previous condition of servitude shall be abolished; and yet to-
day, the Republican party is faced by a 'solid south,' in which
the negro is deprived, substantially, of all his political rights,
by open violence or by frauds as mean as any that have been committed
by penitentiary convicts, and as openly and boldly done as any
highway robbery.  By this system, and by the acquiescence of a few
northern states, the men who led in the Civil War have been restored
to power, and hope, practically, to reverse all the results of the
war.

"This is the spectre that now haunts American politics, and may
make it just as vital and necessary to appeal to the northern states
to unite again against this evil, not so open and arrogant as
slavery, but more dangerous and equally unjust.  The question then
was the slavery of the black man.  Now the question is the equality
of the white man, whether a southern man in Mississippi may, by
depriving a majority of the legal voters in the state of their
right to vote, exercise twice the political power of a white man
in the north, where the franchise is free and open and equal to all.

"When we point out these offenses committed in the south, it is
said that we are raising the bloody shirt, that we are reviving
the issues of the war--that the war is over.  I hope the war is
over, and that the animosities of the war will pass away, and be
dead and buried.  Anger and hate and prejudice are not wise counselors
in peace or in war.  Generosity, forgiveness and charity are great
qualities of the human heart, but, like everything else that is
good, they may be carried to excess, and may degenerate into faults.
They must not lead us to forget the obligations of duty and honor.
While we waive the animosities of the war, we must never fail to
hold on, with courage and fortitude, to all the results of the
war.  Our soldiers fought in no holiday contest, not merely to test
the manly qualities of the men of the north and the south, not for
power or plunder, or wealth or title.  They fought to secure to
themselves and their posterity the blessings of a strong national
government; the preservation of the Union--a Union not of states,
but of the people of the United States; not a confederate government,
but a national government.  The preservation of the Union was the
central idea of the war.  The Confederate soldier fought for what
he was led to think was the right of a state to secede from the
Union at its pleasure.  The Union soldiers triumphed.  The Confederate
soldiers were compelled to an unconditional surrender.

"Fellow-citizens, the line drawn between the two parties is now as
distinct as it was during the war, but we occupy a different field
of battle.

"Then we fought for the preservation of the Union, and, as a means
to that end, for the abolition of slavery.  Now the Union is saved
and slavery is abolished, we fight for the equal political rights
of all men, and the faithful observance of the constitutional
amendments.  We are for the exercise of national authority, for
the preservation of rights conferred by the constitution, and upon
this broad issue we invite co-operation from the south as well as
the north.

"Upon this issue we intend to make our appeal to the honest and
honorable people of the southern states.  We think they are bound
in honor to faithfully observe the conditions of peace granted to
them by General Grant and prescribed by the constitutional amendments.
If they do this we will have peace, union and fraternity.  Without
it we will have agitation, contests and complaints.  Upon this
issue I will go before the people of the south, and, turning my
back upon all the animosities of the war, appeal only to their
sense of honor and justice."

I contrasted the policy and tendencies of the two parties on the
question of protection to American industry, on good money redeemable
in coin, on frauds in elections, on our pension laws, and on all
the political questions of the day.  I stated and approved the
policy of the Republican party on the temperance question.  I closed
with an exhortation to support Governor Foraker and the Republican
ticket and to elect a legislature that would place Ohio where she
had usually stood, in the fore front of Republican states, for the
Union, for liberty and justice to all, without respect of race,
nativity and creed.

This speech was denounced by the Democratic press as "bitterly
partisan;" and so it was and so intended.  The Republican party
during its long possession of power had divided into factions, as
the Democratic party had in 1860.  We had the Blaine, the Conkling
and other factions, and many so-called third parties, and the
distinctive principles upon which the Republican party was founded
were in danger of being forgotten.  It was my purpose to arouse
the attention to the Republicans in Ohio to the necessity of union
and organization, and I believe this speech contributed to that
result.  It was the text and foundation of nearly all I uttered in
the canvass that followed.

Early in September Governor Hoadley, in commencing his campaign in
Hamilton, assailed by speech at Mt. Gilead, charging me with waving
the bloody shirt, and reviving the animosities of the war.  He
claimed to be a friend of the negro, but did not deny the facts
stated by me.  He allowed himself to be turned from local questions,
such as temperance, schools, economy, and the government of cities,
in all of which the people of Ohio had a deep interest, and as to
which the Democratic party had a defined policy, to national
questions, and, especially, to reconstruction and the treatment of
freedmen in the south.  He thanked God for the "solid south."
Though an Abolitionist of the Chase school in early life, and,
until recently an active Republican, he ignored or denied the
suppression of the negro vote, the organized terror and cruelty of
the Ku-Klux Klan, and the almost daily outrages published in the
papers.  On the evening of the 8th of September I made a speech at
Lebanon, in which I reviewed his speech at Hamilton in the adjoining
county.  I said I would wave the bloody shirt as long as it remained
bloody.  I referred to the copious evidence of outrage and wrong,
including many murders of negroes and of white Republicans, published
in official reports, and challenged him to deny it.  I said that
by these crimes the south was made solid, and the men who had waged
war against the United States, though they failed in breaking up
the Union, then held the political power of the Confederate states,
strengthened by counting all the negroes as free men, though
practically denying them the right of suffrage.  I said this was
not only unjust to the colored man but unjust to the white men of
the north.

In conclusion I said:

"Thirty-eight Members of Congress, and of the electoral college,
are based upon the six million of colored people in the south.
The effect of the crimes I have mentioned is to confer upon the
white people of the south, not only the number of votes to which
they are entitled for the white population, but also the thirty-
eight votes based upon the colored population, and, in this way,
in some of the southern states, every white voter possesses the
political power of two white voters in the northern states.  The
colored people have, practically, no voice in Congress and no voice
in the electoral college.  Mr. Cleveland is now President of the
United States, instead of James G. Blaine, by reason of these
crimes.  I claim that this should be corrected.  An injustice so
gross and palpable will not be submitted to by the colored people
of the south, nor by fair-minded white men in the south who hate
wrong and injustice; nor by the great northern people, by whose
sacrifices in the Union cause the war was brought to a successful
termination.  It will not be submitted to, and Governor Hoadley,
from his former position, ought to be one of the first to demand
and insist upon a remedy, and not seek to avoid or belittle it by
cant phrases."

After I had spoken in the opera house at Lebanon I was told that
the stage I occupied was within a few feet of the place where my
father died.  The room in the old hotel in which he was taken sick,
and in which he died within twenty-four hours, covered the ground
now occupied by the east end of the opera house.  As already stated,
he died while a member of the supreme court holding court at
Lebanon.

This debate at long range continued through the canvass.  Governor
Hoadley is an able man with many excellent traits, but in his
political life he did not add to his reputation, and wisely chose
a better occupation, the practice of his profession in the city of
New York.

It is not worth while to enter into details as to the many speeches
made by me in this canvass.  I spoke nearly every day until the
election on the 13th of October.  While Foraker and Hoadley continued
their debate I filled such appointments as were made for me by Mr.
Bushnell.  At Toledo, when conversing with a gentleman about the
condition of affairs in the south, I was asked "What are you going
to do about it?"  In reply to this inquiry I said in my speech, at
that place:  "I do not know exactly how we are going to do it, but
with the help of God we are going to arrange that the vote of the
man who followed Lee shall no longer have, in national affairs,
three times the power of the vote of the man who followed Grant.
The tendency of events guided by a growing popular opinion will,
I believe, secure this condition."

The meetings grew in number and enthusiasm.  The largest meeting
I ever witnessed within four walls was at the Music Hall in
Cincinnati, on the 22nd of September.  The auditorium, the balcony,
the gallery, even the windows were filled, and thousands outside
were unable to enter.  This and similar scenes in Cleveland and
other cities indicated the success of the Republican ticket.  Great
interest was taken in the canvass in Ohio by many other states, as
the vote in Ohio would indicate the current of popular opinion.
The result was the election of Foraker by a majority of 17,451,
and of Robert P. Kennedy as lieutenant governor.  The legislature
elected was Republican by a decided majority, the size of which
depended upon the official returns from Hamilton county, where
frauds had been committed by the Democratic party.

Soon after the election I was urged by Senator Mahone to take part
in the canvass in Virginia in which he was interested.  I doubted
the policy of accepting, but, assuming that he knew best, I agreed
to speak in Petersburg and Richmond.  Governor Foraker accepted a
like invitation and spoke in the Shenandoah valley.  On my way I
addressed a spontaneous crowd in Washington, the only place in the
United States where no elections are held, and there I could talk
about frauds at elections.  I had denounced fraud and violence in
elections in the south, and at Washington I had to confess recent
frauds attempted or practiced in Cincinnati.  The worst feature
that the frauds in Ohio were forgery and perjury, committed by
criminals of low degree for money, while in the south the crimes
were shared by the great body of the people and arose from the
embers of a war that had involved the whole country.  I gave as a
sample of the frauds in the 4th ward of Cincinnati this instance:

"As soon as the recent election was over an organized gang stopped
the counting in fifteen precincts.  Nobody but the gang knew what
the vote was.  This could be for no motive but to commit fraud,
and frauds enough were committed in Hamilton county to change the
result on the legislative ticket of four senators and nine
representatives.

"There were probably 500 or 600 voters in the 4th ward, and according
to previous elections about one-fourth were Republicans and the
rest were Democrats.  Well, they made up a registration of 700.
When the day of the election came they tore up the registration
papers and let every fellow vote as many times as he wanted until
they got 996 votes in the ballot box.  Then that was not all.  The
Republican judge got angry and went away, but he took the key.
Then they broke open the box, tied it up with a rope, and took it
to the police officer, and then changed it so that when it was
counted over 900 votes were Democratic and only 48 Republican!"

A similar fraud was attempted at Columbus in sight of the penitentiary.
The returns of elections had been filed with the county records.
Between Saturday night and Monday morning thieves stole one of the
returns and added three hundred tallies for every Democratic
candidate, thus changing the number of ballots from 208 to 508.
The judges were about to count this return, knowing it was a forgery,
when public indignation was aroused in the city of Columbus, shared
in by its most distinguished Democratic citizens, and fraud was
prevented.  I felt, and so declared, that these mean crimes were
infinitely more despicable than the violence in the south, which
sprang from a fear of the southern people that their institutions
would be impaired by the votes of men debased by slavery and
ignorance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I closed my address as follows:

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

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

The Democrats carried the state and Wise was defeated.


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

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

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

"_Resolved_, That John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio,
be and he hereby is, chosen president _pro tempore_ of the Senate."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolutions were then adopted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

My speech was well received by both Democrats and Republicans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress adjourned August 5, 1886.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I closed as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"To the Senate of the United States.

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

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

  "Very truly yours,
  "John Sherman."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Birmingham, Ala.
"Hon. John Sherman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You stand by the speech, then?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution, as adopted, was as follows:

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

The convention then proceeded to form a state ticket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

"To the Congress of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution was adopted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In support of this resolution I said in opening:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Very sincerely yours,
  "Benj. Harrison."

I sent him the following answer:

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

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

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

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

  "Very respectfully yours,
  "John Sherman."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Very truly yours,
  "John Sherman."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"With regard to the financial and economic principles, which are
vital ones, and which must be made the dominating ones of the
Republican campaign, Mr. Sherman's opinions and convictions are
known to be in harmony with those of shrewdest judgment and wisest,
safest counsel.  Mr. Sherman is the strongest, most effective
defender of the principle of honest money now in public life, and
a consistent supporter of the policy of protection.

"Within the last few days Mr. Sherman, in one of the most masterly
and cogent arguments ever made in the Senate, has indisputably
proved the length, depth and breadth of his perception of true,
just, safe financial principles and his unconquerable loyalty to
them.  At a time when the enemies of an honest, stable currency
are seeking to destroy it and to set up in its place a debased,
unstable, dishonest currency, the country would accept this exponent
of sound, wise finance and a reliable, steadfast currency with
extraordinary satisfaction."--Philadelphia "Ledger and Transcript,"
June 8, 1892.

"While Senator John Sherman's mail is loaded down with letters from
all parts of the country in reference to the presidency, while a
thousand suggestions reach him from all quarters that after all
_he_ is not unlikely to be the man upon whom the Minneapolis
nomination will light, and while the mass of people are listening
with feverish interest for news from the convention, Sherman calmly
rises in his place in the Senate and delivers a five hours' speech
upon the coinage and the currency, which will not only rank as
perhaps the greatest effort of his own life, but will constitute
a text-book upon the subject for half a dozen generations to come.

"Men will not read the speech this week; but the unusual circumstances
under which it was delivered and the curious spectacle of a great
mind discussing so abstract a subject amid the fervid heat and
excitement attending a national convention of his own party, will
make everybody look up the speech after the convention is over and
give it more readers, perhaps, than any speech upon the coinage
and the currency ever had since the foundation of the government."
--"Ohio State Journal," June 9, 1892.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress, on the 5th of August, I
returned to Mansfield.  At this time the Boston "Herald" alleged
that I was not in harmony with my party on the tariff.  This was
founded upon an erroneous construction of my reply to Carlisle.
The article was called to my attention by W. C. Harding, of Boston,
to whom, in reply, I sent the following letter on August 29:

"Your note of the 27th is received.  In answer I have to say that
the Boston 'Herald' in the article you inclose, has totally
misconstrued my position on the tariff.  I am decidedly in favor
of a protective tariff; one framed with a view not only to secure
ample revenue for the support of the government, but with a distinct
purpose to encourage and protect all productions which can be
readily produced in our country.  I do not believe that a tariff
framed under the doctrine now announced and proclaimed by the
Democratic party in its national platform can protect and foster
our home industries.

"Mr. Tilden, and the men of his school, believed that the old
doctrines of the Democratic party, proclaimed in former national
platforms and supported by the declarations of Jefferson, Madison
and Jackson, was a wise and constitutional exercise of national
power.  This doctrine has been abandoned and denounced by the
Democratic platform recently adopted by the Chicago convention.
A tariff framed in accordance with this new doctrine would be
confined simply to levying revenue duties, excluding the idea of
protection, and that is the purpose and object of the men who made
the platform, and of the men in the Democratic convention that
adopted it by a large majority.

"Such a tariff might be levied exclusively on articles we cannot
produce in this country, such as sugar, coffee and tea.  I have
believed that as to certain items in different tariffs we have gone
beyond the line of protection which is necessary to foster American
industries.  A few rates have been adopted that I think will exclude
competition between foreign and American productions and secure a
monopoly to the American manufacturer.  This I do not believe to
be a wise policy.  There are some details of the McKinley tariff
bill that may be subject to this objection, but on the whole it is
the fairest and best tariff, not only for revenue, for the protection,
that has had a place on our statute book.  The tariff plank of the
Republican convention at Minneapolis is the clearest statement of
the extent of protection favored by the great mass of the Republicans
of this country.

"The actual result of the McKinley bill has been not only to give
to all American industries reasonable protection, but has increased
our foreign trade, enlarged our exports and our imports, and greatly
encouraged and added to all kinds of American productions, whether
of the field or of the workshop.  I fear the Boston 'Herald' has
overlooked the striking difference between the old position of the
Democratic party and the one now proclaimed by that party.  The
tendency and drift of the Democratic party is now more and more in
favor of free trade, and in open opposition to any favor shown by
discriminating duties to foster, encourage and diversify American
industries."

I attended the state fair at Columbus early in September and met
the leading Republicans of the state.  I noticed an apparent apathy
among them.  The issue between the parties was for or against the
McKinley tariff.  The parties did not differ materially on the
silver question, but did differ as between national and state banks.
The Democratic party had resolved in favor of the repeal of the
tax on state bank circulation, but it was believed that Cleveland
would repudiate or evade this dogma.  There seemed to be no enthusiasm
on either side, but there was less dissatisfaction with the existing
administration than is usual during the incumbency of a President.
The country was prosperous.  The people had confidence in Harrison
and the general drift seemed to be in his favor.

In September I wrote an article for the New York "Independent" on
"The History of the Republican Party."  It was confined chiefly to
the contention that the Republican party was an affirmative party,
adopting, declaring and executing great public measures of vital
importance, while the Democratic party was simply a negative party,
opposing all the Republican party's measures but acquiescing in
its achievements.  I insert the closing paragraph:

"Republicanism, on the other hand, holds fast to everything that
is ennobling and elevating in its history.  It is the party of
national honor, which has removed the foul reproach of slavery,
and redeemed the plighted faith of the government in financial
legislation and administration.  It is the party of equal rights,
an unsullied ballot and honest elections.  It is the party of
national policies, of comprehensive scope and enlightened self-
interest, by which industry is diversified, labor systematically
protected, and the prosperity of all classes and sections promoted.
Between its present policies and the traditions of its glorious
past there is unbroken continuity of patriotic action."

On the 30th of September, I made my first speech in this canvass
at North Fairfield.  The place, audience, and surroundings gave me
a special interest in the meeting.  Thirty-eight years before, I,
then a young man, spoke at the same place, before a similar audience,
as a candidate for Congress, nominated by a party then without a
name.  Now I was about to address an audience chiefly composed of
men and women, the children of my old constituents, who had been
born since my first appearance there.  It is a farming region, well
cultivated, and but little changed in appearance by the lapse of
years.  The great change was the absence, in the grave, of the
leading men I had met on my first visit, but they were represented
by descendants so numerous that they had to meet in the open grove
instead of the simple meeting-house of the olden time.  The
comparatively few old settlers present who had attended the former
meeting, many of whom had been soldiers in the army, greeted me
warmly and reminded me of incidents that then occurred.  It was
natural, under these circumstances, that my speech should be
reminiscent; but, in addition to the history of events, I stated--
I think fairly--the issues immediately involved--of tariff, currency
and coin.  I closed my speech with the following reference to the
presidency:

"As to your vote for President I do not believe any Republican has
any doubt.  It does not follow that because a man is President, or
nominated as such, he ought to be lauded to the skies.  We have in
this republic no gods or demigods.  I know General Harrison as well
as one man ever knew another after an intimate acquaintance for
ten years.  He is a man of fine character, so far as I understand,
without blemish or reproach.  His ability is marked and is now
recognized by all parties, I may say, in all parts of the world.
He has the lawyer's habit of taking the opposite side of a question,
but before he acts he is apt to be on the right side.  When in the
Senate he did not show the versatility of talent he has exhibited
as President.  All his utterances have been marked with dignity
suited to his high position, yet with delicate appropriateness and
precision that will admit no criticism.  I have no controversy with
Mr. Cleveland.  I think he is better than his party.  On important
and critical questions he has been firmly right.  But in the choice
between them for the high office to which they aspire no Republican
should hesitate to vote for Harrison, and an honest Democrat should,
in view of the tendencies of the Democratic party on the questions
I have discussed, decide to go and do likewise."

The next meeting of note that I attended was at the Academy of
Music in Philadelphia.  I do not recall any meeting that I ever
addressed within four walls more striking and impressive than this,
not only in numbers and intelligence, but in apparent sympathy with
the speaker.  Of the persons mentioned by me those who received
the loudest applause were in their order Blaine, McKinley and
Harrison.  In opening I said:

"When I was invited to speak to you I was told that this was to be
a meeting of business men, to consider business questions involved
in a presidential election.  I will, therefore, confine myself to
business issues distinctly made between the two great political
parties of our country.  The people of this city of Philadelphia,
the greatest manufacturing city on the American continent, are as
well, or better, prepared to decide these issues wisely as any
other equal number of American citizens.  I assume you are not much
troubled with third parties.  The temperance question will be
settled by each individual to suit himself.  The only Farmers'
Alliance I know of here is the Farmers' club, who dine sumptuously
with each other as often as they can and differ with each other on
every subject.  I assume that you are either Republicans or Democrats,
that you are for Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland.

"The questions involved, in which you are deeply interested, are
whether duties on imported goods should be levied solely with a
view for revenue to support the government, or with a view, not
only to raise revenue, but to foster, encourage and protect American
industries; whether you are in favor of the use of both gold and
silver coins as money, always maintained at parity with each other
at a fixed ratio, or of the free coinage of silver, the cheaper
money, the direct effect of which is to demonetize gold and reduce
the standard of value of your labor, productions and property
fully one-third; whether you are in favor of the revival and
substitution of state bank paper money in the place of national
money now in use in the form of United States notes, treasury notes
and certificates, and the notes of national banks.

"These are business questions of vital interest to every wage
earner, to every producer and to every property owner, and they
are directly involved in the election of a President and a Congress
of the United States.  Surely they demand the careful consideration
of every voter.  They are not to be determined by courts or lawyers
or statesmen, but by you and men like you, twelve million in number,
each having an equal voice and vote."

The body of my speech was confined to the topics stated.  I closed
with the following reference to Harrison and Cleveland:

"The Republican party has placed Benjamin Harrison in nomination
for re-election as President of the United States.  He is in sympathy
with all the great measures of the Republican party.  He fought as
a soldier in the ranks.  His sympathies are all with his comrades
and the cause for which they fought.

"He has proven his fitness for his high office by remarkable ability
in the discharge of all its duties.  He heartily supports the
principles, past and present, of his party.  He has met and solved
every question, and performed every duty of his office.  His
administration has been firm, without fear and without reproach.
I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the merits
of Mr. Cleveland.  His highest merit is that he has checked, in
some respects, the evil tendencies of his party; but he was not in
active sympathy with the cause of the Union in the hour of its
peril, or with the men who fought its battles.  He is opposed to
the protection of American industries.  He supports, in the main,
the doctrines and tendencies of the Democratic party.

"We believe that the honor, safety, and prosperity of our country
can be best promoted by the election of a Republican President and
Vice President, and a Republican Congress, and, therefore, I appeal
to you to give to Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, his worthy
associate, and to your candidates for Congress, your hearty and
disinterested support."

It was at this meeting that for the first time I encountered the
kodak.  The next morning the "Press," of Philadelphia, illustrated
its report of the speech with several "snap shots" presenting me
in various attitudes in different parts of the speech.  I thought
this one of the most remarkable inventions of this inventive age,
and do not yet understand how the pictures were made.  The comments
of the daily papers in Philadelphia were very flattering, and
perhaps I may be excused for inserting a single paragraph from a
long editorial in the "Press" of the next day, in respect to it:

"His speech is a calm, luminous and dispassionate discussion of
the business questions of the canvass.  It is pre-eminently an
educational speech which any man can hear or read with pride.
Senator Sherman excels in the faculty of lucid and logical statement.
His personal participation in all our fiscal legislation gives him
an unequaled knowledge both of principles and details, and he is
remarkably successful in making them clear to the simplest
intelligence.  The contrast between his candid, sober and weighty
treatment of questions, and the froth and fustian which supply the
lack of knowledge with epithets of 'fraud' and 'robbery' and 'cheat,'
is refreshing."

On Monday evening, the 11th of October, I spoke in Cooper Union in
the city of New York.  It was an experiment to hold a political
meeting on the eve of a day devoted to Columbian celebrations and
a night to magnificent fireworks, but the great auditorium was
filled, and among the gathering was a large number of bankers and
business men interested in financial topics.  I was introduced to
the audience in a very complimentary manner by Mr. Blanchard,
president of the Republican club, and was received with hearty
applause by the audience.  I said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Republicans of the State
of New York that at last we have brought the Democratic party to
a fair and distinct issue on questions involved in the presidential
campaign.  Now for more than thirty years that party has been merely
an opposition party, opposed to everything that we proposed, and
having no principles or propositions of their own to present.  They
declared the war a failure; they were opposed to the homestead law,
they were opposed to the greenback; they were opposed to everything
that we did, but now, thank God, they have agreed to have one or
two or three issues to be determined by the people."

I then stated the issues involved in the canvass in very much the
same terms as in Philadelphia, but the speech in New York was made
without notes and was literally reported in the "Tribune," while
the Philadelphia speech was prepared and followed as closely as
possible, without reference to manuscript.  I have now read the
two speeches carefully, and while the subject-matter is the same
in both, the language, form and connection are as different as if
delivered by two distinct persons who had not conferred with each
other.  My long experience convinces me that while it is safe for
a person to write what he intends to say, yet it is better to
carefully study the subject and then to speak without reference to
notes or manuscript.  This depends, however, upon the temperament
and poise of the speaker.  Nothing is more discouraging to an
audience than to hear a speech read, except it be the attempt to
speak offhand by a person who has not acquired a full knowledge of
the subject-matter and does not possess the art of recalling and
arranging the method of his address.

I believe my speech in New York covered all the issues involved in
the canvass fairly and fully stated.  I arraigned the Democratic
party, especially for its declaration in 1864 that the war was a
failure, when Grant was holding on with his deadly grip, and when
Sherman and Sheridan were riding to battle and to victory.  This
declaration was more injurious to the Union cause than any victory
by the Confederates during the war.  I closed with the following
reference to the respective candidates:

"The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison.
When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy's guns came
to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered
the army.  He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier.
He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child,
living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis.  He gradually became
recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate.
For six years he sat by my side.  I know him as well as I know any
man.  He is without stain or blemish.  He is a man of marked ability,
an able debater.  He has grown greatly since he has been President
of the United States.  His speeches are models of propriety and
eloquence.  In every act of his life while President he had come
up to the full standard and measure of that great office.  If there
was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world
or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.

"His worthy associate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city.  He has been
placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison.  He is an honorable
man.  I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living
as best he could, and helping his father and mother.  He has shown
himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.

"Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland.  I am not here
to belittle any man.  I have sometimes thought he is better than
his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance
of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of
him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an
able-bodied man when the war was on.  I have never known, nor has
it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with
the Union solider or the Union cause.

"I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his
feet, was in that cause.  I do not see how any patriotic man, who
was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose
Harrison rather than Cleveland."

I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak
in Turner Hall on the 14th of October.  This hall had long been a
place for public meetings.  It is situated in the midst of a German
population and is their usual place for rendezvous.  They had
recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak
in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall.  It was well
filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German
birth or descent.  They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were
restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits.
They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and
considered this as temperance.  With their wives and children, when
the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened
to music, in which many of them were proficient.  Such was my
audience in Turner Hall.  I spoke to them on the same topics I did
to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better
comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value,
whether of gold, silver or paper.

From Cincinnati I went to Chicago.  I had been invited by Jesse
Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address
at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October.  As
I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building
in the grounds of the World's Columbian Exposition, I accepted the
invitation of Mr. Spaulding.  I regarded it as a bold movement on
the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of
the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings
of the World's Fair.  Still, that was their business and not mine.
I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like
a lawyer's brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and
engraved on my mind.  I determined to use no word that would not
be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical
phrases.

When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place assigned
me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of
marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic
or fact.  The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers,
and was kindly treated in their editorial columns.  After a brief
reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had
witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago,
I said:

"You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of
the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority
of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the
delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the
United States.

"Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties,
but between great parties.  I take it that in this intelligent
audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party
or the farmers' party.  The best temperance party is the individual
conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States.
As for the farmers' party, the Republican party has been the farmers'
party as well as the people's party since the beginning of its
organization in 1856.  The controversy is between the two, the
Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.

"The Democratic party has a very popular name.  It means a government
through the people.  But the Republican party has a still more
popular name.  It is a government by the representatives of the
people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of
our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party
has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the
Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate
Democracy of America."

The "Tribune" and "Inter-Ocean" had friendly editorial articles
about the meeting, and the "Tribune" especially, which in times
past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion
of the meeting and speech:

"It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular
gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs,
that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal
than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a
maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded
from gallery to parquet, Saturday night, with thousands of business
men and others who are interested in the great issues of the
political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John
Sherman, of Ohio.  It was something more than an exposition of
Chicago's vital interest in these issues.  It was a personal
compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the
veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of
substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of
the week.  It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination
of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.

"It is no derogation of Senator Sherman's abilities to say one does
not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry
away audiences on waves of enthusiasm.  His strength lies in his
convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts,
and his powerful logic.  No man in the United States, perhaps, is
better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than
Senator Sherman.  He appeals to the thought and reason of his
hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a
stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech.  The three issues
discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and
the protective tariff question.  His discussion of the wildcat
currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow
from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms."

On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke
at Schlitz's amphitheater in Milwaukee.  The notice had been brief,
but the attendance was large.  The audience was composed chiefly
of German Republicans.  Frye and I had divided the topics between
us.  He spoke on the tariff and I on good money.  On the latter
subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all
as good as gold and plenty of it.  I made my speech first, but Frye
made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat
divided.  Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker,
and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting
address.  The speeches were well reported the next morning, an
evidence of enterprise I did not expect.

After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches
prior to the election.  While the Republican meetings were large,
I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were
also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic
command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to
sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party
to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of
business men, and secured him the "silent vote" of thousands of
Republicans.

In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of
the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state,
receiving but 1,089 plurality.  The national ticket did not fare
quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first
time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one
Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican.
Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison
and Reid 145.

Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the
southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination,
nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed
to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went
Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.

As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and
McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote.  The Democrats elected
220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126
and the People's party 8.

The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the
election of Cleveland.  The causes that contributed to it might
have defeated any Republican.  It is not worth while to state them,
for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American
people is the conservative element of our form of government that
distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.


CHAPTER LXIII.
ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION.
My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause
of the "Sherman Act"--Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia
"Ledger"--Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes--Tribute
to His Memory--Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the
Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States
Notes--The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to
Save the Appropriation Bill--Loss of Millions of Dollars to the
Government--Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office--His Inaugural
Address--Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the "World's Fair"
--Chicago Raises $1,000,000--Congress Finally Decides to Pay the
Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin--I Attend the Dedication of
the Ohio Building at the Fair--Address to the Officers and Crew of
the Spanish Caravels.

Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I
announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law
misnamed the "Sherman act," but of the clause of that act that
required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of
silver bullion each month.  I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a
bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance.
I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the
agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption
of free coinage.  During the short session of that Congress, which
met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this
bill though strongly pressed to do so.  A majority of the Senate
were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House,
disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the
President either approve it or permit it to become a law without
his signature.  When criticised for my delay by the "Ledger" of
Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:

"It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of
the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor
of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion.
They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for
such repeal.  It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth
or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal,
and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it.  They are
openly pronounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation
of the existing law.  The pretense made that Republican Senators
would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme
is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it.  If the
Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in
support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pass the
Senate within ten days.  The Democratic party as now represented
in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver.
I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some
influence in changing their opinions."

Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.

On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the
bill referred to.  On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal
of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the
attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was
not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that
session.  I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I
had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not
satisfied there was a majority in favor of its passage.  The question
why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the
newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion
when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time,
though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he
chose to do so.  A motion to take it up was subsequently made by
Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.

No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of
subsequent events.

Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893,
I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the
following terms:

"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last
evening at eleven o'clock.  By the usage of the Senate, when one
who has been President of the United States dies during the session
of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory,
recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for
the day.

"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life,
having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the
war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of
Ohio, and President of the United States.  He was a man of marked
ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in
the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against
whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.

"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from
the time we were law students until his death.  To me his death is
a deep personal grief.  All who had the benefit of personal
association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him
and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and
heart.  His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for
his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse.
He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who
approached him, and generous to friend or foe.  He had no sympathy
with hatred or malice.  He gave every man his due according to his
judgment of his merits.

"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate,
out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."

In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I
followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation
of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him.  This I have
done in previous pages.  His life was stainless; his services in
the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state
and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend,
and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a
patriotic citizen.

On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil
appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at
his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five
years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the
redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of
the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to
carry that act into full effect.  I stated in explanation of this
provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds
necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure
of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent.
bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond
running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years,
which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.

After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30
yeas and 16 nays.  It was not agreed to by the House and the question
presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment.
I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the
Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise
public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration.
In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:

"This conference report presents for our consideration again a
question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment
known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and
which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body
and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time
and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in
the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the
real opinion of that body on the subject.  I can say no more on
that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote
had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.

"I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a
member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated,
and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper."

I then quoted the amendment as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to
maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the
provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, entitled 'An act
to provide for the resumption of specie payments,' and, at the
discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description
of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States
bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually
and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five
years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions
provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent
necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to
use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and
none other."

Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the
amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the
resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie
payments, and which is as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide
for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is
authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the
treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions
of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress
approved July 14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding
of the national debt,' with like qualities, privileges, and
exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full
effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."

I then had read to the Senate the character and description of
bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding
act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue,
in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $200,000,000, coupon
or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may
prescribe, and of denominations of $50, or some multiple of that
sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value, at the
pleasure of the United States, after ten years from the date of
their issue, and bearing interest, payable semi-annually in such
coin, at the rate of five per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums
not exceeding in the aggregate $300,000,000 of like bonds, the same
in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States,
after fifteen years from the date of their issue, and bearing
interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. per annum; also,
a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000 of like
bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of
the United States, after thirty years from the date of their issue,
and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum."

Resuming my argument, I said:

"It is apparent from these laws, which are fundamental in their
character, that the secretary has imposed upon him not merely the
privilege but the duty of maintaining or providing for the resumption
of specie payments and the maintenance of the specie standard in
gold and silver coin.  He is also authorized by a subsequent act,
which I do not care to have read because it is not necessary, to
maintain $100,000,000 in gold in the nature of a redemption fund,
or rather that was the minimum limit provided in the law.  In order
to perform this grave duty the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, at his discretion, whenever necessary to obtain the
coin required, to issue a bond bearing four per cent. interest
running for thirty years, or a bond bearing four and a half per
cent. interest running fifteen years, or a bond bearing five per
cent. interest running ten years.

"It has been feared--I do not say that there has been occasion for
this fear--that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot maintain the
necessary resumption fund; that he may have to resort to the credit
of the government, upon which all the greenback issues of the United
States notes and bonds are founded; that he might have to resort
to the sale of bonds to obtain money, in order to maintain the
parity of the different forms of money in this country and the
redemption or payment in coin, when demanded, of the obligations
of the United States, especially the United States notes, commonly
called greenbacks.

"When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not
the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs
in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man,
however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that
the conditions of our country were such that we would not be
justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to
sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent.
interest.

"Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone
who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all,
that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running
for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our
right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save
a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth
of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right
to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us
to do so.

"I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to
perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption
act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next
Secretary of the Treasury.  I knew this law could not take effect
until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the
new secretary would come in.  Therefore, I drew this amendment as
it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of
the Treasury.  He having been formerly a member of the committee
on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us
all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the
reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency,
important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.

"He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with
him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all,
but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a
stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there
should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the
government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be
prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with
which to redeem the notes.  That statement was submitted to the
committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman
who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of
the Treasury."

I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the
treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury
notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion.  The Senate fully
appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of
the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to
reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger
the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate
receded from the amendment.  It is easy now to see that its defeat
greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of
many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of
interest than three per cent.

On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office
as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural
address.  It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing
chiefly with axioms readily assented to.  Its strongest passages
were in favor of a sound and stable currency.  He said that the
danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid
to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and
conservative precaution.  He declared that the people had decreed
that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the
control of their government, in its legislative and executive
branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms
to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature
or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that
either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him.  He
said:

"The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
of the United States, not only impressively defines the great
responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional
commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided.
I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty,
preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of
federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when
attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its
limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people."

This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the
Wilson bill.  I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural
should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.

The chief interest at this period centered in the World's Fair at
Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of
America by Columbus.  Such a celebration was first proposed as
early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific
exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to
take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge
of the national authorities.  As the matter was discussed the
opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one,
and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St.
Louis.  I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American
city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most
destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the
continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor
and industry of the American people.  The contention about the site
delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was
not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following.  This was the
first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was "behind
time," but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress,
which delayed too long the selection of the site.  I was a member
of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January,
1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate.  On the 21st of
April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000
from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of
representing the government of the United States in an exposition
in Chicago, in 1893.  I made a speech in defense of the appropriation
and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one
in London and two in Paris that I had attended.  While the receipts
at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense,
yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left
great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at
Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris.  I referred
to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the
innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United
States, all of which were of great value to the places where held.
These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly
improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely
to increase in number in the future.  The bill passed, but not
without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to
Chicago.

This course of opposition continued until August, 1892.  The people
of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the
certainty of any return.  All nations had been invited, and were
preparing to be represented at this exposition.  The attention of
mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years
old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater
buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose.  The
United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had
appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in
its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers.  It became
necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan
the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts,
in the same proportion as to other stockholders.  This was declined,
but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in
silver, and pay the exposition that coin.  Whether this was done
because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000
sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against
the fair, I do not know.  On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed
my opposition to this measure.  Both Houses were remaining in
session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in
Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to
have been elsewhere.  I said:  "Under the circumstances, I do not
see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass.  If
I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it."

On the 22nd of October, 1892, I attended the dedication of the
building erected by the State of Ohio, on the exposition grounds.
The structure, though not entirely completed, was formally dedicated,
and the keys were duly delivered to Governor McKinley.  On receiving
the keys he made a very appropriate address.  I was called for by
the crowd, and was introduced by Major Peabody, president of the
State Board of Managers.  I do not recall the words of my speech,
nor was it, or the various speeches made on this occasion, reported;
but I no doubt said that the United States was the greatest power
on earth, and Ohio was its garden spot.  I made a political speech
that evening at Central Music Hall, as previously stated.

Among the objects of the greatest interest at the exposition were
three Spanish caravels, the exact counterparts of the Santa Maria,
the Nina and the Pinta, the vessels with which Columbus made his
memorable voyage of discovery.  These reproductions were made by
Spaniards at the place from which the original vessels sailed, and,
manned by Spanish sailors, followed the same course pursued by
Columbus to the islands he discovered and from thence sailed to
the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and following up that stream passed
through Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, Lakes Erie, Huron and
Michigan, to Chicago, more than 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.
I had been invited by the managers of the exposition to deliver an
address of welcome to the officers and sailors of these vessels,
on their arrival at Chicago on the 7th of July, 1893.  They were
received by the managers and a great crowd, and conducted to a
stand in the park of the exposition, where I made my address, too
long to insert here, but I quote a few paragraphs:

"Mr. President, Captain Concas and the Officers and Mariners Under
His Command:--You have before you men and women of all races and
climes.  They have met to share in this great exposition of the
industries of all nations.  To-day they celebrate the discovery of
America by Christopher Columbus and the arrival here of the marine
fleet under your command, manned by the countrymen of those who
made the discovery of the new world.

* * * * *

"We have before us the reproduction of the Santa Maria, the Pinta
and the Nina, the three vessels that made this memorable voyage.
They are sent to us by the same chivalrous and gallant people who
built the original craft and manned and sailed them under the
command of Columbus.  They are striking object lessons that speak
more eloquently than voice or words.  We welcome them to this
exposition of the industries of the world.  Here, on the waters of
this inland sea, 1,000 miles from the ocean traversed by Columbus,
in this city, the most marvelous result of the industry and energy
of mankind, we place this mimic fleet side by side with the monsters
that have come from the inventive genius of the American people,
not to extol our handiwork, but to extol the men who, four hundred
years ago, with such feeble means and resources, opened the way to
all the achievements of succeeding generations.  You can look at
them where they quietly rest upon the waters of the great northwest.
In such as these one hundred and twenty men sailed on an unknown
ocean, they knew not where.  They lived where for two thousand
years the pillars of Hercules had marked the end of the world.
They had been taught to believe in the four corners of the earth,
and that all beyond was a boundless waste of waters, into which no
one had ventured beyond the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa.

* * * * *

"We welcome all the peoples of the earth, with their varied
productions, to the full and free enjoyment of their habits at
home, and in return exhibit to them the results of our growth and
industry.  In no boastful spirit this new and marvelous city, which
has sprung into existence within the life of men who hear me, has,
with the aid of the general government and the states that comprise
it, built these great palaces, adorned these lately waste places
and brought into them the wonderful facilities of transportation
invented in modern times.  Welcome all, but on this day we doubly
welcome these mementoes of the voyage of Columbus to this western
world.

"In the name of the managers of this exposition I give thanks and
welcome to all who have brought them here, and especially to the
government and people of Spain, who have thus contributed to the
interest and success of this exposition."


CHAPTER LXIV.
REPEAL OF PART OF THE "SHERMAN ACT" OF 1890.
Congress Convened in Extraordinary Session on August 7, 1893--The
President's Apprehension Concerning the Financial Situation--Message
from the Executive Shows an Alarming Condition of the National
Finances--Attributed to the Purchase and Coinage of Silver--Letter
to Joseph H. Walker, a Member of the Conference Committee on the
"Sherman Act"--A Bill I Have Never Regretted--Brief History of the
Passage of the Law of 1893--My Speech in the Senate Well Received
--Attacked by the "Silver Senators"--General Debate on the Financial
Legislation of the United States--Views of the "Washington Post"
on My Speech of October 17--Repeal Accomplished by the Republicans
Supporting a Democratic Administration--The Law as Enacted--Those
Who Uphold the Free Coinage of Silver--Awkward Position of the
Democratic Members--My Efforts in Behalf of McKinley in Ohio--His
Election by 81,000 Plurality--Causes of Republican Victories
Throughout the Country.

On the 30th of June, 1893, the President issued a proclamation
convening Congress in extraordinary session on the 7th of August.
In reciting the reasons for this unusual call, only resorted to in
cases of extreme urgency, he said that "the distrust and apprehension
concerning the financial situation which pervades all business
circles have already caused great loss and damage to our people,
and threaten to cripple our merchants, stop the wheels of manufacture,
bring distress and privation to our farmers, and withhold from our
workingmen the wage of labor;" that "the policy which the executive
branch of government finds embodied in unwise laws which must be
executed until repealed by Congress;" and that Congress was convened
"to the end that the people may be relived, through legislation,
from present and impending danger and distress."

Congress met in pursuance of the proclamation, and on the 8th of
August the President sent a message to each House, in which he
depicted an alarming condition of the national finances, and
attributed it to congressional legislation touching the purchase
and coinage of silver by the general government.  He said:

"This legislation is embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day
of July, 1890, which was the culmination of much agitation on the
subject involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
struggle, between the advocates of free silver coinage and those
intending to be more conservative."

He ascribed the evil of the times to the monthly purchase of
4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, and the payment therefor with
treasury notes redeemable in gold or silver coin at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the reissue of said notes
after redemption.  He stated that up to the 15th of July, 1893,
such notes had been issued for the purpose mentioned to the amount
of more than $147,000,000.  In a single year over $40,000,000 of
these notes had been redeemed in gold.  This threatened the reserve
of gold held for the redemption of United States notes, and the
whole financial system of the government.  No other subject was
presented in the message of the President, and Congress had to face
the alternative of the single standard of silver, or the suspension
of the purchase of silver bullion.

I had foreseen this inevitable result and had sought, as far as
possible, to avoid it by the inserting of sundry provisions in the
act of July 14, 1890.  No portion of that act was objected to by
the President except the clause requiring the purchase of silver
bullion and the issue of treasury notes in payment for it.  In this
I heartily concurred with him.  From the date of the passage of
that law, to its final repeal, I was opposed to this compulsory
clause, but yielded to its adoption in preference to the free
coinage of silver, and in the hope that a brief experience under
the act would dissipate the popular delusion in favor of free
coinage.  Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, a prominent Member
of the House of Representatives, who was one of the conferees with
me on the bill referred to, and agreed with me in assenting to it,
wrote me a letter, my reply to which was in substantial accordance
with the subsequent message of the President and with the action
taken by Congress.  I insert it here:

  "Mansfield, O., July 8, 1893.
"Hon. J. H. Walker.

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of 28th ult., inclosing a copy of your statement
of the causes that led Mr. Conger, yourself and me to agree with
reluctance to the silver act of 1890, is received.  An answer had
been delayed by my absence at Chicago.  You clearly and correctly
state the history of that act.  The bill that passed the House
provided for the purchase of $4,500,000 worth of silver at gold
value.  The Senate struck out this provision and provided for the
free coinage of silver or the purchase of all that was offered at
the rate of 129 cents an ounce.  As conferees acting for the two
Houses, it was our duty to bring about an agreement, if practicable,
without respect to individual opinion.  The result of the conference
was to reject free coinage and to provide for the purchase of four
million five hundred thousand ounces of silver at its gold price--
a less amount than was proposed by the House, the provisions
declaring the public policy of the United States to maintain the
parity of the two metals or the authority to stipulate on the
contracts for payments in gold, the limit of the issue of treasury
notes to the actual cost of silver bullion at gold value, and the
repeal of the act providing for the senseless coinage of silver
dollars when we already had 300,000,000 silver dollars in the
treasury we could not circulate, were all in the line of sound
money.

"Another object I had in view was to secure a much needed addition
to our currency, then being reduced by the compulsory retirement
of national bank notes in the payment of United States bonds.  This
would have been more wisely provided by notes secured by both gold
and silver, but such a provision could not then be secured.  These
reasons fully justified the compromise.

"But the great controlling reason why we agreed to it was that it
was the only expedient by which we could defeat the free coinage
of silver.  Each of us regarded the measure proposed by the Senate
as a practical repudiation of one-third of the debts of the United
States, as a substantial reduction of the wages of labor, as a
debasement of our currency to a single silver standard, as the
demonetization of gold and a sharp disturbance of all our business
relations with the great commercial nations of the world.  To defeat
such a policy, so pregnant with evil, I was willing to buy the
entire product of American silver mines at its gold value.

"And that was what we provided, guarded as far as we could.  To
accomplish our object we had to get the consent of the Republican
Representatives from the silver-producing states.  This we could
only do by buying the silver product of those states.  It was a
costly purchase.  The silver we purchased is not worth as much as
we paid for it, but this loss is insignificant compared to our gain
by the defeat of the free coinage of silver.  It is said there was
no danger of free coinage, that the President would have vetoed
it.  We had no right to throw the responsibility upon him.  Besides,
his veto would leave the Bland act in force.  We did not believe
that his veto would dispel the craze that then existed for free
coinage.  Many people wanted the experiment tried.  The result of
the experiment of buying four and a half million ounces of silver
a month at its market value will be the best antidote against the
purchase of the silver of the world at one-third more than its
market value.

"I never for a moment regretted the passage of the act of 1890,
commonly called the 'Sherman act,' though, as you know, I had no
more to do with it than the other conferees.  There is but one
provision in it that I would change and that is to strike out the
compulsory purchase of a given quantity of silver and give authority
to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy silver bullion at its market
price when needed for subsidiary coinage.  The only position we
can occupy in the interests of our constituents at large is one
fixed standard of value and the use of both metals at par with each
other, on a ratio as near as possible to their market value.

"Such a policy I believe is right.  With reserves both of gold and
silver in the proper proportions we can maintain the entire body
of our paper money, including coin, at par with each other.  For
one I will never agree to the revival of state bank paper money,
which cannot be made legal tender, and which, on the first sign of
alarm, will disappear or be lost in the hands of the holder.

  "Very respectfully yours,
  "John Sherman."

I had expressed similar views in speeches in Congress and before
the people and in numerous published interviews, and in the previous
Congress had introduced a bill to suspend the purchase of silver
bullion, substantially similar in terms to the bill that became a
law in November, 1893.  During the month of August I took a more
active part in the proceedings than usual.  On the 8th, the 16th
and the 18th I made speeches in the current debate.

A brief statement of the passage of this law of 1893 may be of
interest.  It was introduced as a bill by William L. Wilson, of
West Virginia, in the House of Representatives, in the words of
the bill introduced by me in the Senate on the 14th of July, 1892,
as already stated, and passed the House on the 28th of August, by
the decisive vote of 239 yeas and 108 nays.  It was referred in
the Senate to the committee on finance, of which Daniel W. Voorhees
was then chairman.  It was on the next day reported by him from
that committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
but substantially similar in legal effect to the House bill.

On the next day, August 30, I took the floor and made one of the
longest speeches in my congressional life, covering more than forty
closely printed pamphlet pages.  I quote a few of the opening
paragraphs:

"The immediate question before us is whether the United States
shall suspend the purchase of silver bullion directed by the act
of July 14, 1890.  It is to decide this question the President has
called Congress together in special session at this inconvenient
season of the year.  If this was the only reason for an extraordinary
session it would seem insufficient.  The mere addition of eighteen
hundred million ounces of silver to the vast hoard in the treasury,
and the addition of fourteen millions of treasury notes to the one
thousand millions of notes outstanding, would hardly justify this
call, especially as Congress at the last session neglected or
refused to suspend the purchase of silver.  The call is justified
by the existing financial stringency, growing out of the fear that
the United States will open its mints to the free coinage of silver.
This is the real issue.  The purchase of silver is a mere incident.
The gravity of this issue cannot be measured by words.  In every
way in which we turn we encounter difficulties.

"If we adopt the single standard of gold without aid from silver,
we will greatly increase the burden of national and individual
debts, disturb the relation between capital and labor, cripple the
industries of the country, still further reduce the value of silver,
of which we now have in the treasury and among our people over
$593,000,000, and of which we are the chief producers, and invite
a struggle with the great commercial nations for the possession of
the gold of the world.

"On the other hand, if we continue the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces
of silver a year, we will eventually bring the United States to
the single standard of silver--a constantly depreciating commodity,
now rejected by the great commercial nations as a standard of value;
a commodity confessedly inconvenient, by its weight, bulk, and
value, for the large transactions of foreign and domestic commerce,
and detach us from the money standard now adopted by all European
nations, with which we now have our chief commercial and social
relations.  In dealing with such a question we surely ought to
dismiss from our minds all party affinities or prejudices; all
local or sectional interests, and all preconceived opinions not
justified by existing facts and conditions.

"Upon one thing I believe that Congress and our constituents agree:
That both these extreme positions shall be rejected; that both
silver and gold should be continued in use as money--a measure of
value; that neither can be dispensed with.  Monometallism, pure
and simple, has never gained a foothold in the United States.  We
are all bimetallists.  But there are many kinds of bimetallism.
One kind favors the adoption of the cheaper metal for the time
being as the standard of value.  Silver being now the cheaper metal,
they favor its free coinage at the present ratio, with the absolute
certainty that silver alone will be coined at our mints as money;
that gold will be demonetized, hoarded at a premium, or exported
where it is maintained as standard money.  The result would be
monometallism of silver.

* * * * *

"The two metals, as metals, never have been, are not now, and never
can be, kept at par with each other for any considerable time at
any fixed ratio.  This necessarily imposes upon the government the
duty of buying the cheaper metal and coining it into money.  The
government should only pay for the bullion its market value, for
it has the burden of maintaining it at par with the dearer metal.
If the bullion falls in price the government must make it good; if
it rises in value the government gains.

"The government is thus always interested in advancing the value
of the cheaper metal.  This is the kind of bimetallism I believe
in.  It is the only way in which two commodities of unequal value
can be maintained at parity with each other.  The free coinage of
silver and gold at any ratio you may fix means the use of the
cheaper metal only.  This is founded on the universal law of
humanity, the law of selfishness.  No man will carry to the mint
one ounce of gold to be coined into dollars when he can carry
sixteen ounces of silver, worth but little more in the market than
half an ounce of gold, and get the same number of dollars.

"The free coinage of silver means the single standard of silver.
It means a cheaper dollar, with less purchasing power.  It means
a reduction in the wages of labor; not in the number of dollars,
but in the quantity of bread, meat, clothes, comforts he can purchase
with his daily wage.  It means a repudiation of a portion of all
debts, public and private.  It means a bounty to all banks, savings
institutions, trust companies that are in debt more than their
credits.  It means a nominal advance in the prices of the produce
of the farmer, but a decrease in the purchasing power of his money.
Its chief attraction is that it enables a debtor to pay his debt
contracted upon the existing standard with money of less value.
If Senators want cheap money and to advance prices, free coinage
is the way to do it; but do not call it bimetallism.  The problem
we have to solve is how to secure to our people the largest use of
both gold and silver without demonetizing either.

"Now, let us examine the situation in which we are placed.  Our
country is under the pressure of a currency famine.  Industries,
great and small, all suspended by the owners, not because they
cannot sell their products, but because they cannot get the money
to pay for raw material and the wages of their employees.  Banks
conducted fairly are drained of their deposits and are compelled
not only to refuse all loans, but to collect their bills receivable.
This stringency extends to all trades and businesses; it affects
even your public revenues, all forms of public and private securities,
and, more than all, its stops the pay of a vast army of laboring
men, of skilled mechanics, and artisans, and affects the economy
and comfort of almost every home in the land.

"The strange feature of this stringency is unlike that of any of
the numerous panics in our past history.  They came from either an
irredeemable currency, which became worthless in the hands of the
holder, or from expanded credit, based upon reckless enterprises
which, failing, destroyed confidence in all industries.  Stringency
followed failure and reckless speculation.  This panic occurs when
money is more abundant than ever before.  Our circulating notes to-
day are sixty millions more than one year ago.  It is all good--as
good as gold.  No discrimination is made between the gold and silver
dollar, or between the United States note, the treasury note, the
silver certificate, or the gold certificate.  All these are
indiscriminately hoarded, and not so much by the rich as by the
poor.  The draft is upon the savings bank, as well as the national
or state bank.  It is the movement of fear, the belief that their
money will be needed, and that they may not be able to get it when
they want it.  In former panics, stringency followed failures.  In
this, failures follow stringency.

"Now, as representatives of the people, we are called here in
Congress to furnish such measures of relief as the law can afford.
In the discharge of this duty I will sweep away all party bias,
all pride of opinion, all personal interest, and even the good will
of my constituents, if it were necessary; but, fortunately, I
believe their opinions concur with my own."

In conclusion I said:

"It is said that if we stop the coinage of silver it will be the
end of silver.  I have heard that moan from some of my friends near
me.  I do not think it will be the end of silver.  We have proven
by our purchases that the mere purchase of silver by us in a
declining market, when all the nations of Europe are refusing to
buy silver and throwing upon us their surplus, is an improvident
use of the public money, and it ought to be abandoned, or at least
suspended until a time should come when we may, by an international
ratio or by some other provision of law, prevent the possible coming
to the single standard of silver.  Now, that can be done.

"What do we propose to do now?  We simply propose to stop the
purchase.  We do not say when we will renew it again, but we simply
say we believe, in view of a panic or any possibilities of a panic,
that it would be idle for us to waste either our credit money or
our actual money to buy that which must be put down into the cellar
of our treasury and there lie unused, except as it is represented
by promises to pay gold.  I say that such a policy as that would
be foolish and delusive.

"Senators say that this is a blow at silver.  Why, silver is as
much a part of the industry of my country as it is a part of the
industry of the state of the Senator from Colorado, the able exponent
of this question.  The production of silver is a great interest,
and the people of Ohio are as deeply interested in the success of
that interest as the people of Colorado.  It is true we have not
the direct ownership of the property, but it enters into measures
of value of our property.  There could be no desire on the part of
any portion of the people of the United States to strike down
silver.  That idea ought to be abandoned at once.  Therefore, in
order to at least give the assurance of honest men that we do not
intend to destroy an industry of America, we put upon this bill a
provision proposed now by the Senator from Indiana.

"I say that instead of desiring to strike down silver we will likely
build it up; and any measure that could be adopted for an international
ratio that will not demonetize gold will meet my approbation and
favor.  But I would not dissever the financial business of this
great country of ours, with its 65,000,000 of people, from the
standards that are now recognized by all the Christian nations of
Europe.  I would not have our measure less valuable than the measure
of the proudest and haughtiest country of the world.

"This is not a question of the mere interest of Nevada or Colorado.
It is not a question about what Wall street will do.  They will
always be doing some deviltry or other, it makes no difference who
is up or who is down.  We take that as a matter of course.  The
question is what ought to be done for the people of the United
States in their length and breadth.  If Congress should say that
in its opinion it is not now wise, after our experience, to continue
the purchase of silver bullion, is any injustice done to Colorado
or Nevada?  Are we bound to build up the interest of one section
or one community at the expense of another or of the whole country?

"No.  I heartily and truly believe that the best thing we can now
do is to suspend for time, at least, the purchase of silver bullion.
We should then turn our attention to measures that are demanded
immediately to meet the difficulties of the hour.  Let this be done
promptly and completely.  It involves a trust to your officers and
great powers over the public funds.  I am willing to trust them.
If you are not, it is a strange attitude in political affairs.  I
would give them power to protect the credit of the government
against all enemies at home and abroad.

"If the fight must be for the possession of gold, we will use our
cotton and our corn, our wheat and other productions, against all
the productions of mankind.  We, with our resources, can then enter
into a financial competition.  We do not want to do it now.  We
prefer to wait awhile until the skies are clear and see what will
be the effect of the Indian policy, and what arrangements may be
made for conducting another international conference.  In the
meantime let the United States stand upon its strength and credit,
maintaining its money, different kinds of money, at a parity with
each other.  If we will do that I think soon all these clouds will
be dissipated and we may go home to our families and friends with
a conscientiousness that we have done good work for our country at
large."

I was frequently interrupted, and this led to the discussion of
collateral questions and especially the dropping of the silver
dollar by the act of 1873, the history of which I have heretofore
stated.  This speech was a temperate and nonpartisan presentation
of a business question of great importance, and I can say without
egotism that it was well received and commended by the public press
and by my associates in the Senate.  Though I sought to repeal a
single clause of a bill of which I was erroneously alleged to be
the author, I was charged with inconsistency, and my speech was
made the text of the long debate that followed.  The "silver
Senators," so called, attacked it with violence, and appeals were
made to Democratic Senators to stand by those who had defeated the
election law, and by the position the Democratic Senators had
previously taken in favor of free coinage.

On the 28th of September, and on the 2nd, 13th, 17th and 28th of
October, I made speeches in the current debate, which extended to
every part of the financial legislation of the United States since
the formation of the government.  I insert here the description
given by the Washington "Post" of the scene on the 17th:

"The climax of the remarkable day was now at hand.  There is no
man in the Senate for whom a deeper feeling of esteem is felt than
John Sherman.  He saw the Republican party born, he has been its
soldier as well as its sage, he has sat at the council table of
Presidents.  His hair is white, and his muscles have no longer the
elasticity of youth, but age has not dimmed the clearness of his
intellectual vision, while it has added to the wisdom of his
councils.  Upon Mr. Sherman, therefore, as he arose, every eye was
turned.  Personalities were forgotten, the bitterness of strife
was laid aside.  In a picture which must live in the memory of him
who saw it, the spare and bowed form of Mr. Sherman was the central
figure.  There was not the slightest trace of feebleness in his
impassioned tones.  Except once or twice, as he hesitated a moment
or two for a word to express his thought, there was not a reminder
that the brain at seventy may be inert or the fire be dampened in
the veins.

"Mr. Sherman spoke, as he himself said, neither in reproach nor
anger.  It was the appealing tones that gave his speech its power
--its convincing earnestness, its lack of rancor, its sober truth
that gave it weight.  Elsewhere it is printed in detail.  Suffice
it to say here that he predicted that the rules would have to be
changed since they had been made the instrument of a revolutionary
minority.  Never before had he seen such obstruction in the Senate,
never before the force bill had he known of a measure which failed,
after due deliberation, to come to a vote.  The Republicans had
remained steadfast to the President, although under no obligation
to him, and now the time had come when the Democrats must take the
responsibility.

"In times past, when the Republicans were in the majority, they
never shrank from responsibility.  They were Republicans because
they believed in Republican principles and Republican men and
Republican measures, and whenever a question was to be decided they
never pleaded the 'baby act' and said 'we could not agree.'  They
met together and came to an agreement, and in that way they passed
all the great measures which have marked the history of the last
thirty years of our country, and it was not done by begging votes
on the other side.

"'They say they cannot agree,  They must agree,' thundered Mr.
Sherman, drawing himself to his full height, and pointing his
quivering finger to the Democratic side, 'or else surrender their
political power!'

"Then Mr. Sherman pointed out the important legislation that was
so sadly needed, not the least being some provision for the deficit
of the government, which, he quoted Secretary Carlisle as saying,
would be $50,000,000 this year.  'These things cannot be evaded,'
he said, while the Senate lingered on his words.  'We must decide
the silver question one way or the other.  If you,' he added,
looking the Democrats in the fact, 'cannot do it, then retire from
the Senate Chamber, and we will fix it on this side, and do the
best we can with our silver friends who belong to us, who are blood
of our blood, and bone of our bone.  But yours is the proper duty,
and, therefore, I beg of you, not in reproach or anger, to perform
it.  You have the supreme honor of being able to settle this question
now, and you ought to do it.'

"Mr. Sherman ceased, but the thrall of his words remained long
after his venerable form had disappeared.  No Democrat answered
him.  Mr. Voorhees, who had sat within arm's reach of him on the
Republican side, crossed the Chamber to his own seat, and sank down
as a man laden with deep care."

The debate continued in the Senate until the 30th of October, when
the Senate substitute was adopted by the vote of 43 yeas and 32
nays.  Of the yeas 22 were Republicans, and of the nays 20 were
Democrats; so that the bill in the Senate was supported by a majority
of Republicans and opposed by a majority of Democrats.  On this
important question the President was acting with a majority of
Republicans and a minority of Democrats, and it is to his credit
that he firmly held his ground in spite of the opposition in his
party.

On the 1st of November, when the amended bill came to the House,
Mr. Wilson moved to concur in the amendment of the Senate.  A casual
debate followed, mostly by Bland and Bryan against the bill, and
Wilson and Reed for it.  The Senate amendment was agreed to and
the bill as amended passed by the decisive vote of yeas 194 and
nays 94, and was approved by the President on the same day.  The
law thus enacted is as follows:

"That so much of the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled 'An act
directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of treasury
notes thereon, and for other purposes,' as directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase from time to time silver bullion to
the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as
may be offered in each month at the market price thereof, not
exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue
in payment for such purchases treasury notes of the United States,
be, and the same is hereby, repealed.  And it is hereby declared
to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both
gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver
into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality
to be secured through international agreement or by such safeguards
of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in
value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every
dollar at all times, in the markets and in the payment of debts.
And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the government
should be steadily directed to the establishment of such a safe
system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power
of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the
markets and in the payment of debts."

Thus the vital principles of the act of July 14, 1890, remained in
force, and the provisions for the purchase of silver bullion and
for the issue of treasury notes were repealed.  The maintenance of
the gold standard, the parity of all money whether of gold, silver
or paper, and the payment of all bonds of the United States in
coin, were preserved.

The free coinage of silver is still upheld by a large body of those
who are interested in mining it, or who want to pay their debts
with a depreciated coin; but the danger of the adoption of this
policy is lessening daily.  It received a severe blow by the action
of the Ohio Democratic convention in 1895 in rejecting it by a vote
of more than two to one.  The bimetallic system of maintaining all
forms of money at par with gold will probably soon be fully
established.  To complete this system and to extend it to our paper
money it would be wise to gradually withdraw treasury notes and
silver certificates and replace them with United States notes
supported and maintained by large reserves of gold.  Thus all kinds
of paper money issued by the United States would be of the same
form and value.  The great mass of standard silver dollars, amounting
on August 1, 1895, to $371,542,531, now held in the treasury
represented by $320,355,188 of silver certificates in circulation,
is the one great disturbing element in our finances.  But 51,746,706
standard silver dollars are in circulation, and experience has
shown that a greater amount cannot be kept out among the people.
The certificates representing the silver dollars are in circulation
and a legal tender for customs dues as well as for all debts, public
and private.  They must be treated as United States notes, and
maintained at par with gold coin, or the parity of our coin and
currency will be endangered.  They now enter into the general
aggregate of our legal tender money and are largely used in the
payment of customs duties, and when received are paid out for the
current expenses of the government.  While supported by the aggregate
silver dollars in the treasury, and the pledge of the public faith
to maintain them at par with gold coin and United States notes,
they are a safe and useful currency, but any measure to increase
these certificates, based upon the coining of more silver dollars
from bullion alleged to be gain or seigniorage, would seriously
impair the ability of the government to maintain their parity with
gold.  The great depreciation of silver bullion has resulted in a
vast loss to the government and its disposition is the most serious
problem pending in Congress.

During the entire extra session of 1893 the body of the Democratic
Senators and Members were placed in an awkward position.  They were
desirous of aiding the President, but their constituents behind
them were generally in favor of the free coinage of silver.  In
some of the northern states, especially in Ohio, the Democratic
party had declared, in its convention, in favor of free coinage,
and now their President demanded, in the strongest language, the
repeal of the only provision of law for the purchase or coinage of
silver.  The House promptly responded to the appeal, but the
Democratic Senators hesitated and delayed action until after three
months of weary debate.  Their party had a majority in each House,
and should have disposed of the only question submitted by the
President in thirty days.  Voorhees was the first Democratic Senator
to announce his purpose to vote for the repeal, although previously
an advocate of free coinage, and he, as chairman of the committee
on finance, reported the bill of the committee, while others lingered
in doubt.  The Republican Senators, except those representing silver
states, as a rule, promptly avowed their purpose to vote for repeal,
although they had voted for the law.

After the call for the extra session was issued, I had expressed
my opinion of silver legislation, but I did not wish to embarrass
the President.  When interviewed I refused to answer, saying the
people had called upon the present administration to handle these
questions, and neither I nor anyone should do aught to add
embarrassment, when so much already existed.  When Congress met,
the Republicans remained quiet, and did not seek to embarrass the
administration, but it was soon ascertained that a decided majority
of them would vote for the repeal of the purchasing clause of the
act of 1890, but against any modification of any other provision
of that act.  The position of the Republican Senators from the
states west of the Mississippi River was also known.  They would
vote against any change of the law, unless they could secure the
free coinage of silver.  During this period the position of the
Democratic Senators was unknown, but it was rapidly developed, with
the result already stated.

Congress adjourned on the 3rd of November.  The closing days were
memorable for their excitement.  For fourteen consecutive days the
Senate did not adjourn, but from time to time took recesses.  On
the 31st of October the journal had not been read for fourteen days.

During this period I was requested by Governor McKinley to take
part in the pending canvass in Ohio, which involved his re-election
as governor.  In the condition of the Senate I did not feel justified
in leaving, but immediately upon the passage of the repeal bill
started for Columbus to render such service as I could.  It had
been falsely stated that I was indifferent about McKinley's election,
which I promptly denied.  But a few days intervened before the
election.  On the day of my arrival in Ohio, I spoke at Springfield.
On the evening of the next day, the 3rd of November, at Central
Turner Hall in Cincinnati, I spoke to a very large meeting.  This
speech was fully reported.  It was mostly devoted to the tariff,
a struggle over which was anticipated.  After paying my usual visit
to the chamber of commerce and the Lincoln club, I proceeded to
Toledo, where I spoke at Memorial Hall on the evening before the
election, and then returned home to Mansfield, where I voted.  The
result was even more decisive than expected.  The 81,000 plurality
for McKinley was the best evidence of his popularity, and was
regarded as an indorsement of the McKinley tariff law.

On the 8th of November I returned to Washington.  Many interviews
with me were reported, in which I expressed my satisfaction with
the overwhelming victory gained by the Republicans all over the
United States, and especially with their success in New York.  In
response to a request by a leading journal, before the meeting of
Congress, I carefully prepared a statement of the causes that led
to these results.  I undertook to review the political changes in
the past four years, but will insert only two paragraphs of this
paper.

"It is manifest that the causes of the defeat of the Democratic
party in the recent election were general and not local.  They
extended to Colorado, Dakota, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
and Massachusetts.  If the opposition to the Democratic party in
Virginia had been organized and conducted by the Republican party,
the results in that state would have been very different.  The
ideas of the Populists are too visionary and impracticable to be
made the basis of a political organization.  A canvass conducted
in Virginia upon the issues that prevailed in Ohio would, in my
judgment, have greatly changed the results in that state.  Aside
from the memories of the war, the economic principles of the
Republican party have great strength in the southern states, and
whenever the images of the war fade away the people of those states
will be influenced by the same ideas that prevail in the northern
states.  The leading cause of the enormous Republican majorities
in northern states I have mentioned was the united protest of the
unemployed against radical changes of our tariff laws.  Whatever
theories may be proposed, it may be regarded as an axiom that the
protective principle is a well established principle in the United
States.  It has been recommended by all the Presidents from Washington
to Harrison, and by none more emphatically than Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, and Jackson.  This is and has been the natural and instinctive
policy of a new nation with enormous undeveloped resources.  While
the terms of our tariff laws provided for revenue, their foundation
and background were to encourage domestic manufactures and diversify
productions.  The extent of protection was limited to the want of
revenue, but the duties were uniformly so adjusted as, while
producing revenue, to encourage manufactures.

* * * * *

"But, after all, we must place as the chief cause of Democratic
defeat the profound and settled distrust that the Democratic party
will now, having the President and a majority in both Houses,
disturb the enormous industries of our country developed by, and
dependent upon, our tariff laws, and will seek to substitute the
policy of Great Britain, of free trade, as against the example of
the leading nations of Europe as well as our own, of a wise and
careful protection, and encouragement by tariff laws of all forms
of domestic industry that can be conducted with a reasonable hope
of profit in this country.  The future of parties will depend more
largely upon the manner in which this condition of things is met
by the present Congress than upon all other causes combined."


CHAPTER LXV.
PASSAGE OF THE WILSON TARIFF BILL.
Second Session of the 53rd Congress--Recommendations of the President
Concerning a Revision of the Tariff Laws--Bill Reported to the
House by the Committee of Ways and Means--Supported by Chairman
Wilson and Passed--Received in the Senate--Report of the Senate
Committee on Finance--Passes the Senate with Radical Amendments--
These are Finally Agreed to by the House--The President Refuses to
Approve the Bill--Becomes a Law After Ten Days--Defects in the Bill
--Not Satisfactory to Either House, the President or the People--
Mistakes of the Secretary of the Treasury--No Power to Sell Bonds
or to Borrow Money to Meet Current Deficiencies--Insufficient
Revenue to Support the Government--A Remedy That Was Not Adopted--
Gross Injustice of Putting Wool on the Free List--McKinley Law
Compared with the Wilson Bill--Sufficient Revenue Furnished by the
Former--I Am Criticized for Supporting the President and Secretary.

The second session of the 53rd Congress commenced on the 4th of
December, 1893.  The President in his message was especially urgent
in his recommendation of a revision of the tariff laws.  He said:

"After a hard struggle tariff reform is directly before us.  Nothing
so important claims our attention, and nothing so clearly presents
itself as both an opportunity and a duty--an opportunity to deserve
the gratitude of our fellow-citizens, and a duty imposed upon us
by our oft-repeated professions, and by the emphatic mandate of
the people.  After a full discussion our countrymen have spoken in
favor of this reform, and they have confided the work of its
accomplishment to the hands of those who are solemnly pledged to it.

"If there is anything in the theory of a representation in public
places of the people and their desires, if public officers are
really the servants of the people, and if political promises and
professions have any binding force, our failure to give the relief
so long awaited will be sheer recreancy.  Nothing should intervene
to distract our attention or disturb our effort, until this reform
is accomplished by wise and careful legislation.

* * * * *

"Not less closely related to our people's prosperity and well-being
is the removal of restrictions upon the importation of the raw
materials necessary to our manufactures.  The world should be open
to our national ingenuity and enterprise.  This cannot be while
federal legislation, through the imposition of high tariffs, forbids
to American manufactures as cheap materials as those used by their
competitors."

In view of this message, it was manifest that the tariff would be
the chief subject of legislation during the session.  It was
understood that a bill had been prepared by the committee of ways
and means, which had been submitted to the President and Secretary
of the Treasury and approved by them.  It was reported to the House
of Representatives, December 19, 1893.  On the 8th of January,
1894, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, made an elaborate
speech in its support.  The debate continued until the 1st of
February, when, with some amendments, it passed the House.  In the
Senate, on the next day, it was referred to the committee on finance.
On the 20th of March it was reported to the Senate, with amendments,
by Mr. Voorhees.  Mr. Morrill said:

"I desire to say that so far as the Republican members of the
committee on finance are concerned they did not object to the
reporting of the bill, while they are opposed not only to the
proposed income tax, but to the many changes of specifics to _ad
valorems_, and to the great bulk of the provisions of the bill."

On the 2nd of April Voorhees made a carefully prepared speech in
support of the bill.  The debate continued, occupying much the
larger part of the time until the 3rd day of July, when the bill
passed with radical amendments, which changed it in principle and
details.  Two conferences of the two Houses were held on amendments
disagreed to, but failed to agree, and it appeared, after the long
struggle, that he bill would be defeated, when, on the 13th of
August, upon motion of Mr. Catchings, the House agreed to the Senate
amendments in gross and thus the bill passed Congress.  The President
refused to approve it and it became a law after ten days without
his approval.

This skeleton history of what is now known as the Wilson tariff
partly discloses its imperfections.  Framed in the House as a tariff
for revenue only, and radically changed in the Senate to a tariff
with protection to special industries, it was not satisfactory to
either House, to the President or to the people.  So far as it
copied the schedules and the legislative provisions of the McKinley
law, it met with approval.  Its new features were incongruous, were
decidedly sectional, and many of its provisions were inconsistent
with each other.

The vital defect of this bill is that it does not provide sufficient
revenue to carry on the government.  This is the primary and almost
the only cause of the financial difficulties of the present
administration.  The election of Mr. Cleveland in 1892, upon the
platform framed by him, naturally created distrust as to the ability
of the government to maintain the parity of the different forms of
money in circulation.  Added to this, the broad declaration of the
purpose to reduce taxation led to the reduction of importations
and the diminution of the revenue from the McKinley tariff.  Importers
and dealers naturally reduced their imports in view of the expectation
that duties would be reduced.  By the 1st of July, 1893, when the
Wilson bill was in embryo, the revenues had been so diminished as
to yield a surplus of only $2,341,074 during the previous year.
It was apparent, when Congress met in August, that the administration,
having a majority in each House of Congress, was determined to
reduce duties, and yet it made no effort to reduce expenditures.
Soon after there was a large deficiency in the revenue, and the
Secretary of the Treasury was compelled either to refuse to pay
appropriations made by law in excess of receipts or to borrow money
to meet the deficiencies.

In my judgment the better way for him would have been not to pay
appropriations not needed to meet specific contracts, for an
appropriation of money by Congress is not mandatory, but is
permissive, an authority but not a command to pay, nor does an
appropriation in itself authorize the borrowing of money.  When
this authority is required Congress must grant it, and, upon its
failure to do so, all the Secretary of the Treasury should do is
to pay such appropriations as the revenues collected by the government
will justify.  It is for Congress to provide such sums, by taxation
or loans, as are necessary to meet all appropriations made in excess
of revenue.  If it refuses or neglects to do this, the responsibility
is on it, not on the secretary.  All he can do is choose what
appropriations he will pay.  This is a dangerous and delicate power,
but it has frequently been employed and has never been abused.
His failure to exercise this discretion was a grave mistake.

As revenues diminished deficiencies increased.  A doubt arose
whether, under the then existing conditions, the government would
be able to pay gold coin for United States notes and treasury notes.
These were supported by a reserve of $100,000,000 in gold coin and
bullion, but this reserve fund was not segregated from the general
balance in the treasury, as it ought to have been, but was liable
to be drawn upon for all appropriations made by Congress.  There
was not then, and there is not now, any specific authority invested
in the Secretary of the Treasury to sell bonds or to borrow money
to meet current deficiencies, and he felt called upon to pay these
out of the general fund, embracing that created for the redemption
of United States notes under the act of 1875.  The result was to
create an alarm that the government could not or would not pay such
notes and thus maintain the gold standard.  The timid, and those
whose patriotism is in their purse, were making inroads on the gold
reserve, which fell below $100,000,000.

By the resumption act of 1875 the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, to enable him to pay United States notes on demand, to
sell either of three classes of bonds bearing respectively five,
four and a half and four per cent. interest, but the question arose,
in 1894, whether he could sell these bonds to meet current
expenditures.  All of them were worth a premium in the market.
Bonds bearing three per cent. running a short period could then
have been sold at par.  In common with many others I foresaw, in
February, 1893, that the tariff policy of the then incoming
administration would reduce our revenue below our expenditures,
and sought to have Congress authorize the sale of bonds bearing
three per cent. interest instead of those at a higher rate already
authorized.  I saw plainly that the incoming administration would
enter on precisely the same course as that adopted by Buchanan, of
providing insufficient revenue for the support of the government,
resulting in the gradual increase of the public debt and the
disturbance of our financial system.  During each year of Buchanan's
administration the public debt increased, as it has been steadily
increasing during Cleveland's administration, and great embarrassment
grows out of this fact.  My friendly suggestion was defeated and
the result has been the sale of four per cent. bonds at a sacrifice.

The President recommended the removal of restrictions upon the
importation of the raw materials necessary to our manufactures.
The tariff bill, as it passed, imposed duties on nearly all raw
materials except wool.  This important product of the farmer was
made duty free.  I made every effort to prevent this injustice.
Free wool was the culminating atrocity of the tariff law.  By it
a revenue of over eight millions a year was surrendered for the
benefit of woolen manufacturers.  I appealed to the Senate to give
some protection to this great industry of our country.  It was
generally classed as the fifth of the industries of the United
States, including the manufacture of woolens, and I have no doubt
it fully came up to that grade.  Over a million farmers were engaged
in the growth of wool.  It involved an annual product estimated at
$125,000,000 under the former prices, but probably under the prices
after the passage of the Wilson bill it was reduced to about eighty
or ninety million dollars.  It was, therefore, a great industry.
And yet it was left solitary and alone without the slightest
protection given to it directly or indirectly.  The manufacture of
woolen goods was amply protected.  Amendments were proposed and
adopted without dissent, adding largely to the protection at first
proposed on manufactures of wool.

The value of the wool in woolen goods as a rule is equal to the
cost of manufacturing the cloth.  The duty on cloth under this law
averages 40 per cent., so that the domestic manufacturer of cloth
gets the benefit not only of a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of
manufacture, but he gets a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of the
wool in the cloth, thus getting a protection of 80 per cent. on
the cost of manufacture, while the farmer gets no protection against
foreign competition for his labor and care.  This gross injustice
is done under the name of free raw materials.  When I appealed to
the Senate for a duty on wool I was answered by one Senator that
free wool was all that was left in the bill of the Democratic
doctrines of free raw materials, and, if only for this reason, must
be retained.  I made two speeches in support of a duty, but was
met by a united party vote, every Democrat against it and every
Republican for it.  In the next tariff bill I hope this decision
will be reversed.

On the 31st of May, 1894, I made a long speech in favor of the
McKinley law and against the Wilson bill.  While the McKinley law
largely reduced the taxes and duties under pre-existing laws, yet
it furnished ample revenue to support the government.  The object
of the act was declared to be to reduce the revenue.  It was
impartial to all sections and to all industries.  The south was
well cared for in it, and every reasonable degree of protection
was given to that section.  In growing industries in the north,
which it is desirable to encourage, an increase of duty was given.
In nearly all the older industries the rates were reduced, and the
result was a reduction of revenue to the extent of $30,000,000.
There was no discrimination made in the McKinley act between
agriculture and mechanical industries.  The Wilson bill sacrificed
the interests of every farmer in the United States, except probably
the growers of rice and of fruit in the south.  The McKinley act,
I believe, was the most carefully framed, especially in its operative
clauses and its classification of duties, of any tariff bill ever
passed by the Congress of the United States.

It has been said that the McKinley act was the cause of the deficiency
of revenue that commenced about three years after its passage.
That is a mistake.  Until Mr. Cleveland was sworn into office,
March 4, 1893, there was no want of revenue to carry on the operations
of the government.  Until July, 1893, there was a surplus of revenue,
and not a deficiency.  The receipts during the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1891, 1892, 1893, under the McKinley act, furnished ample
means for the support of the government, and it was not until after
Cleveland had been elected, and when there was a great fear and
dread all over the country that our industries would be disturbed
by tariff legislation, that the revenues fell off.  The surplus in
1891 was $37,000,000; in 1892, in the midst of the election, it
was $9,914,000, and in 1893, up to June 30, the surplus revenue
was $2,341,000.  Yet in a single year afterwards, after this attempt
to tinker with the tariff had commenced, after the announcement as
to the tariff had been made by Mr. Cleveland, after the general
fear that sprang up in the country in regard to tariff legislation,
the revenues under the McKinley act fell off over $66,000,000, and
the deficiency of that year was $66,542,000.

I believe that if Harrison had been elected President of the United
States the McKinley act would have furnished ample revenue for the
support of the government, because then there would have been no
fear of disturbance of the protected industries of our country.
Cleveland's election created the disturbances that followed it.
The fear of radical changes in the tariff law was the basis of
them.  That law caused the falling of prices, the stagnation of
some industries, and the suspension of others.  No doubt the fall
in the value of silver and the increased demand for gold largely
precipitated and added to the other evils that I have mentioned.

If when Congress met in December, 1893, there had been a disposition
on the part of both sides to take up the tariff question and discuss
it and consider it as a pure question of finance, there would have
been no difficulty with the Republicans.  We were all ready to
revise the rates contained in the McKinley tariff act.  The body
of that act had been embodied in the Wilson bill as part of the
proposed law.  Nearly all of the working machinery of the collection
of customs, framed carefully under the experienced eye of Senator
Allison, is still retained.  All the schedules, the formal parts
of the act, which are so material, and the designation into classes
--all those matters which are so complicated and difficult to an
ordinary lawyer or an ordinary statesman, have been retained.

If the bill had been taken up in the spirit in which it should have
been, and if an impartial committee of both parties in the Senate
and the House had gone over it, item by item, it would have passed
in thirty days without trouble.  That was not the purpose; it was
not the object, and it was not the actual result.

During the long session of 1893-94 I was the subject of much
controversy, debate, censure and praise.  While distinctly a
Republican, and strongly attached to that party, I supported, with
the exception of the tariff law, the financial policy of the
President and Secretary Carlisle.  Mr. Cleveland was a positive
force in sustaining all measures in support of the public credit.
Mr. Carlisle, who as a Member and Senator had not been always
equally positive on these measures, yet was regarded as a conservative
advocate of a sound financial policy, readily and heartily supported
the President in his recommendations.  As these were in harmony
with my convictions I found myself indorsing them as against a
majority of the Democratic Senators.  My Republican colleagues,
with scarcely an exception, favored the same policy.


CHAPTER LXVI.
SENIORITY OF SERVICE IN THE SENATE.
Notified That My Years of Service Exceed Those of Thomas Benton--
Celebration of the Sons of the American Revolution at the Washington
Monument--My Address to Those Present--Departure for the West with
General Miles--Our Arrival at Woodlake, Nebraska--Neither "Wood"
nor "Lake"--Enjoying the Pleasures of Camp Life--Bound for Big
Spring, South Dakota--Return via Sioux City, St. Paul and Minneapolis
--Marvelous Growth of the "Twin Cities"--Publication of the "Sherman
Letters" by General Sherman's Daughter Rachel--First Political
Speech of the Campaign at Akron--Republican Victory in the State
of Ohio--Return to Washington for the Winter of 1894-95--Marriage
of Our Adopted Daughter Mary with James Iver McCallum--A Short
Session of Congress Devoted Mainly to Appropriations--Conclusion.

On the 16th of June, 1894, I was notified by William E. Spencer,
the experienced journal clerk of the Senate, that I that day had
reached a term of service in the Senate equal in length to that of
Thomas Benton, whose service had previously held first rank in
duration, covering the period from December 6, 1821, to March 3,
1851, making 29 years, 2 months and 27 days.  I had entered the
Senate March 23, 1861, and served continuously until March 8, 1877,
making 15 years, 11 months and 15 days, when I entered the cabinet
of President Hayes.  My second term of service in the Senate began
March 4, 1881, and has continued until the present time.  My service
since June 16, 1894, is in excess of that of Benton.

On the 4th of July, 1894, the Sons of the American Revolution
celebrated the day by a ceremony held literally in the shadow of
the Washington monument.  There, at the base of the great shaft,
the members and friends of this organization and several chapters
of the Daughters of the Revolution gathered at 10 o'clock to listen
to patriotic addresses.  The societies had been escorted from the
Arlington hotel by the Marine Band, and gathered in seats around
a grand stand while a battery of artillery welcomed them with a
salute.  The band played national hymns, and the audience sang
"America."  General Breckinridge introduced me and I was heartily
greeted.  After narrating the principal events of the American
Revolution, and especially incidents connected with the Declaration
of American Independence, I said:

"It is a marvel of the world that these humble colonies, composed
of plain men, for there were no nobles or rich men in those times,
furnished genius which brought to mankind greater wisdom in the
framing of a government than ever elsewhere existed.  It was of
these men that Lord Chatham said that they had prepared papers
stronger than ever emanated from any court of Europe.  Our country
was built up on intelligence, obedience to law, desire for freedom
and the equal enjoyment of rights.  Those who are gathered here to-
day are classified as sons and daughters of the Revolution, and
therefore they are under deeper obligations to be true and patriotic
citizens."

I then spoke of the character of our people and our institutions,
and the Civil War, happily ended, and the increasing strength and
power of the republic.  I narrated how the Washington monument came
to be completed.  I said it was true it cost a million of dollars,
but what was that to 65,000,000 people!  The occasion was enjoyable,
the speeches were suitable for the 4th of July, patriotism and love
of country being the watchwords.

On the 28th of August, 1894, the second session of the 53rd Congress
closed.  It was a laborious session.  Its principal act was a
measure that did not satisfy anyone.  It laid the foundations for
insufficient revenue, an increase of the public debt and the general
defeat of the party in power.

I was much fatigued, and had already arranged to accompany General
Nelson A. Miles and his party on a military inspection in Nebraska
and South Dakota.  I arrived in Chicago on the 2nd of September,
where General Miles was stationed.  There I was met by the reporters
and told them all I knew about the intended trip.  I got as much
information from them as they did from me.  What they wanted was
prophecy of the future, and I wanted to get into the wilderness.
Here our little party was made up, consisting of General Miles,
his wife, daughter and son, a lad about thirteen years old, Dr.
Daly and brother, two staff officers, and myself.  We had a car
and lived in it, and the cook supplied us bountifully with good
healthy food, largely of game.  I cannot imagine a more delightful
change to a man weary with talk in the hot chambers of the capitol
at Washington in August than the free, fresh air of the broad plains
of Nebraska, with congenial company in a palace car, and with no
one to bother him.  Our first stopping place was called Woodlake,
a small village on the railroad in the northwestern part of Nebraska.
We arrived there in the afternoon; our car was detached from the
train and became our home for a week.  Around us in every direction
was a broad rolling plain as dry as a powder horn, with scarcely
any signs of habitation, but the air was pure and exhilarating and
imparted a sense of health and energy.  My first inquiry to one of
the denizens was "Where is your wood and your lake which gave a
name to your town?"  He said that when the railroad was located
there was a grove near by, and water in the low ground where we
stood, but the trees had been cut and utilized in constructing the
railroad, and the lake was dried up by a long drouth.  Woodlake
had neither wood nor lake in sight!  We took long walks without
fatigue, and our hunters, of whom General Miles was chief, supplied
us with prairie chickens, the only game of the country.

After a few days thus spent we left our car and followed after a
company of United States Infantry, from Fort Niobrara, then engaged
in their usual drill, to a lake about twenty-five miles away, where
we lived in tents and had a taste of real camp life.  With the
consent of the owner of the land we pitched our tents near his
house on the banks of the lake about three miles long and perhaps
half a mile wide.  This sight of water was pleasing, but we were
warned not to drink it.  We had a bountiful supply of pure healthy
water, however, from an artesian well driven over a hundred feet
into the earth and pumped by almost continuous winds into a great
basin, which furnished water in abundance for man and beast.  The
only house in sight besides the one near our camp was occupied by
the brother of our host, three miles away at the other end of the
lake.  The two brothers were the lords of all they surveyed.  They
owned large herds of cattle that ranged over the plains around,
drank of the waters of the lake and fed upon the sparse herbage.
A few hundred of them were kept in a corral near the homesteads
for sale, but the larger portion roamed under the care of herdsmen
wherever the herbage seemed the best.

Here our hunters, with a fine pack of dogs, pursued prairie chickens,
and not only supplied our table but contributed to the soldiers in
their shelter tents near by.  Mrs. Miles and I, escorted by her
young son, Sherman Miles, on horseback, had the benefit of a horse
and buggy with which we could drive in any direction.  There was
no fence or bog or obstruction in the way.  We generally kept in
sight of our hunters, but if we lost the trail we could go to the
hills and soon locate our camp.  This free and easy life soon cured
my languor and weariness and I was able to walk or ride long
distances as well as any of the party.

Returning to Woodlake we attached our car to the train for Big
Spring in South Dakota.  Here we spent two or three days, mainly
in riding through the picturesque country around.  We intended to
extend our journey to Deadwood but the duties of General Miles
required him to visit St. Paul and the military post at Fort
Snelling.  We returned by way of Sioux City, and thence to St.
Paul.  This city and its sister Minneapolis, were familiar ground.
I had seen them when they were small towns, and had by frequent
visits kept pace with their growth, but the change noticed on my
last visit was a surprise to me.  The two cities, but a few miles
apart when rival rural villages, were approaching each other and
no doubt are destined to blend into one great city of the north.
Here I met many friends, chief of whom I am glad to place Senator
Cushman K. Davis, of Minnesota.  After a brief stay our little
party returned to Chicago and dispersed, I going back to Mansfield
to engage in the political campaign.

At this period "The Sherman Letters" was published, and at once
attracted attention and general commendation.  I though the experiment
was a risky one, but it was the desire of General Sherman's children
to publish them, and especially of his daughter, Rachel Thorndike,
who undertook to compile them.  I have been in the habit of preserving
letters written to me on personal matters, or by members of my
family, and, as General Sherman was a copious writer, I placed his
letters in separate books.  He did the same with mine, but many of
these had been lost by fire in California.  Rachel arranged in
chronological order such letters as she thought worth preserving,
and they were published in a handsome volume.  I have a multitude
of letters from almost every man with whom I have been associated
in political life, but will not publish them while the writers live
without their consent, nor even after their death if the letters
would tend to wound the feelings of surviving friends or relatives.
Letters are the best evidence of current thought or events, but
they ought to be guarded by the person to whom they are written as
confidential communications, not to be disclosed to the injury of
the writer.  General Sherman's inmost thoughts could be disclosed
without fear of injury to him, and his letters, though rapidly
written, did not indicate a dishonorable thought or action.  I have
seen nothing in the comments of the press on these letters but what
is kindly to the "two brothers."

On the 5th of October I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati.
I called at the chamber of commerce, and had the same hearty welcome
its members have always given me.  I made the usual short speech,
and it was all about "King Corn."  General surprise was expressed
at my healthy appearance.  The remark was frequently made that I
was looking better and healthier than for years.  The impression
of my failing health was gathered from the newspaper descriptions
of "the old man" in the debates in the Senate.  The effect of the
pure, open air of Nebraska was apparent.  While on this visit I
was greatly pleased with a drive to Fort Thomas, and the high lands
on the Kentucky side of the river.

My first political speech of the campaign was made on the 12th of
October at Akron.  It was confined almost exclusively to the tariff
and silver questions.  The meeting was very large, composed chiefly
of men employed in the numerous factories and workshops of that
active and flourishing city.  On the 18th I spoke at Sandusky upon
the same general topics as at Akron.  Here I visited the Soldiers'
Home near that city.  It is an interesting place, where I think
the old soldiers are better cared for than in the larger national
homes.

I continued in the canvass, speaking at several places, until the
election on the first Tuesday of November.  The result was the re-
election of Samuel M. Taylor, the Republican candidate for Secretary
of State, by the abnormal plurality of 137,086, and nineteen
Republicans were elected to Congress out of the twenty-one.  Though
this was a state election, it turned mainly upon national issues,
and especially evidenced strong opposition to the Wilson tariff
bill.

I was often asked by reporters, after my return to Washington, as
to the meaning of the election in Ohio.  I uniformly expressed the
opinion that it meant the adoption of a nonpartisan tariff that
would, with a few internal taxes, yield revenue enough to pay
current expenses and the interest of the public debt and a portion
of the principal.  I still hope that will be the result.  The
framework of the McKinley law, with such changes as experience may
show to be essential, would remove the tariff from among the
political questions of the day and give reasonable encouragement
to American industries.

On the 10th of November my family and I returned to Washington for
the winter.  The chief interest and occupation of my wife and
myself, for the time being, was the preparation for the approaching
marriage of our adopted daughter, Mary Stewart Sherman, to James
Iver McCallum, of Washington.  This was fixed for noon, the 12th
of December.  Full details of all the preparations made, of the
dresses worn, of the members of the family in attendance, and of
the distinguished guests present, were given in the city papers.
It is sufficient for me to say that Mary has been carefully educated
and trained by us, and never for a moment has given us anxiety as
to her prudence, deportment and affection.  We gave her in marriage
to a young gentleman, a native of Washington, and a clerk in the
supreme court, and entertain for her all the affection and solicitude
that a father or mother can bestow.

Congress convened on the 3rd of December, 1894.  The languor that
followed the excitement of the two previous sessions, and the defeat
suffered by the administration in the recent elections, no doubt
caused an indifference to political questions during the short
remaining session.  But little was done except to consider and pass
the appropriations for the support of the government.  I was often
annoyed by unfounded assertions that I had influence with the
administration, and especially with Carlisle, that I was in frequent
conference with the President and secretary.  These stories were
entirely unfounded.  Neither of these gentlemen ever consulted me
as to the business of their offices, nor did I ever seek to influence
them or even to converse with them on political questions.  It was
a delicate matter for either of them or myself to deny such statements
when our personal relations were so friendly.

And now these memoirs must end.  I know there are many events not
noted that should have been referred to, and many persons whose
names should not have been omitted.  I would be glad to mention
with honor and credit hundreds of men who participated with me in
the political events of public life, but this seemed impracticable
within reasonable limits.  I might have omitted many events and
speeches as of not sufficient consequence to be preserved, but if
I had I would not have written the recollections of my public life.
The life of a civilian is in what he says or writes, that of a
soldier in what he does.  What I have written is no doubt clouded
with partisanship, but I would not be honest if I did not express
my attachment to my party.  This, however, never impaired my
patriotism or swerved me from the path of duty.

To the people of Ohio I owe all the offices and honors that have
been conferred upon me.  No constituency could have been more
forbearing and kind.  During forty years of public life, though
many able men have aspired to the office I hold, the people of
Ohio, through their general assembly, have preferred me to represent
them.  Though my grateful thanks are due to them and have been
often expressed, yet I have felt, as they do, that my duty was to
the whole country.  Proud of Ohio, of its history and people,
willing at all times to sound its praise in the sisterhood of
states, yet, according to my convictions, the United States is
entitled to my allegiance, and all parts of it should receive equal
care and consideration.  "Our country, our whole country, and
nothing but our country" has been the watchword and creed of my
public life.  It was the opposite doctrine of "states' rights,"
allegiance to a state, that led to the Civil War.  It was settled
by this war that we have a country limited in its powers by the
constitution of the United States fairly construed.  Since that
time our progress and development have been more rapid than any
other country's.

The events of the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I
hope our people will be content with internal growth, and avoid
the complications of foreign acquisitions.  Our family of states
is already large enough to create embarrassment in the Senate, and
a republic should not hold dependent provinces or possessions.
Every new acquisition will create embarrassments.  Canada and Mexico
as independent republics will be more valuable to the United States
than if carved into additional states.  The Union already embraces
discordant elements enough without adding others.  If my life is
prolonged I will do all I can to add to the strength and prosperity
of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add
new dangers by acquisition of foreign territory.


INDEX
[omitted]
Autobiography of John Sherman - Part 3
