SENATORIAL CAREER
1883 to 1911
After I was re-elected Governor of Illinois, in 1880, my friends
in the State urged me to become a candidate for the United States
Senate to succeed the late Hon. David Davis, whose term expired
March 3, 1883. I finally consented. There were several candidates
against me, Governor Richard Oglesby and General Thomas J. Henderson
being the two most prominent. It was not much of a contest, and
I had no serious struggle to secure the caucus nomination. The
objection was then raised in the Legislature itself that I was not
eligible under the Constitution of our State for election to the
United States Senate while I was serving as Governor of Illinois.
The point looked somewhat serious to me, and I consulted with my
friend, the Hon. Wm. J. Calhoun, then a member of the Legislature,
later Minister to China, for whose ability I had the most profound
respect. I asked him to give attention to the subject and, if he
agreed with me that I was eligible, to make the fight on the floor
of the House. He looked into it and came to the conclusion there
was no doubt as to my eligibility. He made a speech in the
Legislature, which was regarded then as one of the ablest efforts
ever delivered on the floor of the House, and he carried the
Legislature with him. When the time came, I received the vote of
every Republican member of both Houses, excepting one, the Hon.
Geo. E. Adams. He was thoroughly conscientious in voting against
me, and did so from no ulterior motive, as he honestly believed
that I was not eligible. We became very good friends afterwards,
and I never harbored any ill feeling against him on account of that
vote.
I appreciated the high distinction conferred upon me by the people
of the State, through the Legislature, in electing me to the United
States Senate, but I confess that I felt considerable regret on
leaving the Governorship, as during my six years I had enjoyed the
work and had endeavored to the best of my ability to give to the
people of my State a businesslike administration.
I retired from the office of Governor on February 5, 1883, and
remained in Springfield until sworn in as a member of the Senate,
December 4, 1883. General Arthur was President at that time, having
succeeded to the office after the assassination of General Garfield.
I liked General Arthur very much. I had met him once or twice
before. I went with my staff to attend the Yorktown celebration,
and I may remark here that it was the first and only time during
my service of six years as Governor on which my whole military
staff accompanied me. We stopped in Washington to pay our respects
to the President. It was soon after the assassination of General
Garfield, and Arthur had not yet moved into the White House. He
was living in the old Butler place just south of the Capitol, and
I called on him there and presented the members of my staff to him.
The President was exceedingly polite, as he always was, and was
quite interested, having been a staff officer himself, by appointment
of Governor Morgan of New York. We were all very much impressed
with the dignity of the occasion and the kindly attention the
President showed us.
General Arthur had taken considerable interest in New York politics
and belonged to the Conkling faction. He came into the office of
President under the most trying circumstances. The party was almost
torn asunder by factional troubles in New York and elsewhere.
Blaine, the bitter enemy of Conkling, had been made the Secretary
of State; Garfield had made some appointments very obnoxious to
Conkling--among them the Collector of the Port of New York--and,
generally, conditions were very unsatisfactory. Arthur entered
the office bent on restoring harmonious conditions in the party,
as far as he could. He did not allow himself to be controlled by
any faction, but seemed animated by one desire, and that was to
give a good administration and unite the party.
He was a man of great sense of propriety and dignity, believing
more thoroughly in the observance of the etiquette which should
surround a President than any other occupant of the White House
whom I have known. He was very popular with those who came into
contact with him, and especially was he popular with the members
of the House and Senate. I have always thought that he should have
been accorded the honor of a nomination for President in 1884; as
a matter of fact most of the Republican Senators agreed with me,
and many of us went to the National Convention at Chicago, determined
to nominate him; but we soon found there was no chance, and that
the nomination would go to Blaine.
President Arthur was very kind to me in the way of patronage. He
not only recognized my endorsement for Federal offices in my State,
but gave me a number of appointments outside. One of the first of
these was the appointment of Judge Zane as Territorial Judge of
Utah. President Arthur showed his confidence in me by appointing
Judge Zane, without any endorsement, excepting a statement of his
qualifications, written by me on a scrap of paper in the Executive
Office. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary called on the
President for the endorsements of Judge Zane, and Senator Edmunds
was quite disgusted when the President could send him only this
little slip of paper written by me, which was all the President
had when he made the appointment. Senator Edmunds hesitated to
recommend his confirmation. There was no question about Judge
Zane's qualifications. He had been a circuit judge in our State
for many years. I saw Senator Teller, whom I knew, and who knew
something of Judge Zane, and asked him to help us, as he could do,
being then Secretary of the Interior. On one occasion I spoke to
Teller about Judge Zane, and purposely spoke so loud that Senator
Edmunds could hear me. I said, among other things, there had not
been a man nominated for Territorial Judge in the country who was
better qualified for the position. Judge Zane's nomination was
soon reported from the committee and confirmed. He made a great
record on the Bench and did much to break up the practice of
polygamy. He is still living, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah.
I entered the Senate at a very uninteresting period in our history.
The excitement and bitterness caused by the Civil War and Reconstruction
had subsided. It was what I would term a period of industrial
development, and there were no great measures before Congress.
The men who then composed the membership of the Senate were honest
and patriotic, trying to do their duty as best they could, but
there was no great commanding figure. The days of Webster, Clay,
and Calhoun had passed; the great men of the Civil War period were
gone. Stevens, Sumner, Chase of the Reconstruction era, had all
passed away.
Among the leaders at the beginning of the Forty-eighth Congress
were Senators Aldrich and Anthony, of Rhode Island; Edmunds and
Morrill, of Vermont; Sherman and Pendleton, of Ohio; Sewell, of
New Jersey; Don Cameron, of Pennsylvania; Platt and Hawley, of
Connecticut; Harrison, of Indiana; Dawes and Hoar, of Massachusetts;
Allison, of Iowa; Ingalls, of Kansas; Hale and Frye, of Maine;
Sawyer, of Wisconsin; Van Wyck and Manderson, of Nebraska; all on
the Republican side. There were a number of quite prominent
Democrats--Bayard, of Delaware; Voorhees, of Indiana; Morgan, of
Alabama; Ransom and Vance, of North Carolina; Butler and Hampton,
of South Carolina; Beck, of Kentucky; Lamar and George, of Mississippi;
and Cockrell and Vest, of Missouri.
The Senate was controlled by the Republicans, there being forty
Republican and thirty-six Democratic Senators; and Senator George
F. Edmunds, of Vermont, was chosen President _pro tempore_. In
the House the Democrats had the majority, and John G. Carlisle was
chosen Speaker.
Senator Edmunds is still living, and he has been for many years
regarded as one of the foremost lawyers of the American bar. I
know that in the Senate when I entered it, he was ranked as its
leading lawyer. He was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and, with Senator Thurman, of Ohio, dominated that
committee. I became very intimately acquainted with him. He was
dignified in his conversation and deportment, and I never knew him
to say a vicious thing in debate.
I believe I had considerable influence with Senator Edmunds. He
always seemed to have a prejudice against appropriations for the
Rock Island (Illinois) Arsenal. He had never visited Rock Island,
but he seemed to think that the money spent there was more or less
wasted, and he was disposed to oppose appropriations for its
maintenance. One day we were considering an appropriation bill
carrying several items in favor of Rock Island, and I anticipated
Senator Edmunds' objections. Sitting beside him, I asked him not
to oppose these items. I told him that I did not think he was
doing right by such a course. He asked me where they were in the
bill and I showed them to him without saying a word. Just before
we reached them I observed him rising from his seat and leaving
the chamber. He remained away until the items were passed, then
he returned, and the subject was never mentioned between us
afterwards.
Senator Edmunds resigned before his last term expired. There were
two reasons for his resignation, the principal one being the illness
of his only daughter; but in addition, he had come to feel that
the Senate was becoming less and less desirable each year, and
began to lose interest in it. He did not like the rough-and-tumble
methods of debate of a number of Western Senators who were coming
to take a more prominent place in the Senate. On one occasion
Senator Plumb, of Kansas, attacked Senator Edmunds most violently,
and without any particular reason.
During his service in the Senate, Senator Edmunds seemed to be
frequently arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United
States. His ability as a lawyer made him in constant demand in
important litigation before that court. Personally, I do not
approve of Senators of the United States engaging in the active
practice of the law or any other business, but his practice before
the Supreme Court did not cause him to neglect his Senatorial
duties.
Justice Miller, one of the ablest members of the court, was talking
with me one day about Senator Edmunds, and he asked me why I did
not come into the Supreme Court to practise, remarking that Edmunds
was there a good deal. I replied that I did not know enough law,
to begin with; and in addition it did not seem to me proper for a
Senator of the United States to engage in that kind of business.
Justice Miller replied that Senators did do so, and that there
seemed to be no complaint about it, and he urged me to come along,
saying that he would take care of me. But needless for me to say,
I never appeared in any case before the Supreme Court of the United
States during my service as Senator.
Senator Edmunds' colleague, Justin S. Morrill, was one of the most
lovable characters I ever met. I served with him in the House.
Later he was a very prominent member of the Senate, when I entered
it, and was Chairman of the Committee on Finance. He was a
wonderfully capable man in legislation. He had extraordinary power
in originating measures and carrying them through. He was not a
lawyer, but was a man of exceptional common sense. His judgment
was good on any proposition. I do not believe he had an enemy in
the Senate. Every one felt kindly toward him, and for this reason
it was very easy for him to secure the passage of any bill he was
interested in.
While Senator Morrill was chairman of the Committee on Finance,
owing to his advanced age and the feeble condition of his health
the real burden of the committee for years before his death fell
on Nelson W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island. He was prominent as far
back as the Forty-eighth Congress, and was a dominant unit even
then. His recent retirement is newspaper history and need not be
aired here.
Senator Aldrich has had a potent influence in framing all tariff
and financial legislation almost from the time he entered the
Senate. Personally, I have great admiration for him and for his
great ability and capacity to frame legislation, and it is a matter
of sincere regret with me that he has determined to retire to
private life. His absence is seriously felt, especially in the
Finance Committee.
The Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio, was one of the most valuable
statesmen of his day and one of the ablest men. He was exceedingly
industrious, and well posted on all financial questions. Toward
the close of his Senatorial term, he failed rapidly, but he was
just as clear on any financial question as he was at any time in
his career. He was Secretary of the Treasury when in his prime,
and I believe his record in the office stands second only to
Hamilton's. He was of the Hamilton school of financiers, and his
judgment was always reliable and trustworthy. He was a very serious
man and could never see through a joke. He was one of the very
best men in Ohio, and would have made a splendid President. For
years he was quite ambitious to be President, and the business
interests of the country seemed to be for him. His name was before
the National Convention of the Republican party many times, but
circumstances always intervened to prevent his nomination when it
was almost within his grasp.
I have always thought that one reason was that his own State had
so many ambitious men in it who sought the honor themselves, that
they were never sincerely in good faith for Sherman. At least
twice he went to National Conventions, apparently with his own
State behind him, but he was unfortunate in the selection of his
managers, and, really, when the time came to support him they seemed
only too ready to sacrifice him in their own interests.
I have always regretted that he closed his career by accepting the
office of Secretary of State under President McKinley. It was
unfortunate for him that it was at a most trying and difficult time
that he entered that department. The Spanish-American War was
coming on, and there was necessity for exercising the most careful
and skillful diplomacy. Senator Sherman's training and experience
lay along other lines. He was not in any sense a diplomat, and
his age unfitted him for the place. He retired from office very
soon, and shortly thereafter passed away. His brief service as
Secretary of State will be forgotten, and he will be remembered as
the great Secretary of the Treasury, and one of the most celebrated
of Ohio Senators.
Senator George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, was quite prominent at
the beginning of the Forty-eighth Congress. He was jealous of New
England's interests, and was always prejudiced in its favor, and
in favor of New England men and men with New England ancestry, or
affiliations. He opposed the Interstate Commerce Act because he
thought it would injuriously affect his locality, although he knew
very well it would be of inestimable benefit to the country as a
whole. Senator Hoar was a scholarly man. Indeed, I would say he
was the most cultivated man in the Senate. He was highly educated,
had travelled extensively, was a student all his life, and in debate
was very fond of Latin or Greek quotations, and especially so when
he wanted to make a point perfectly clear to the Senate. He opposed
imperialism and the acquisition of foreign territory. He opposed
the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain. When the
Philippine question was up in the Senate, I made a speech in which
I compared Senator Hoar with his colleague, Senator Lodge, said
that Senator Lodge had no such fear as did Senator Hoar on account
of the acquirement of non-contiguous territory, and made the remark
that Senator Hoar was far behind the times. He was not present
when I made the speech, but afterwards read it in the _Record_.
He came down to my seat greatly out of humor one day and stated
that if three-fourths of the people of his State were not in harmony
with his position he would resign.
He was one of the most kindly of men, but during this period he
was so deadly in earnest in opposition to the so-called imperialism
that he became very ill-natured with his Republican colleagues who
differed from him. I do not know but the passing of time has
demonstrated that Senator Hoar was right in his opposition to
acquirement of the Philippines; but at the time it seemed that the
burden was thrust upon us and we could not shirk it.
Senator Hoar was disposed to be against the recognition of the
Republic of Panama, and it has been intimated that he was of the
opinion that the Roosevelt Administration had something to do with
the bloodless revolution that resulted in the uniting with the
United States of that part of Colombia which now forms the Canal
Zone.
President Roosevelt entertained a very high regard for Senator
Hoar, and he wanted to disabuse his mind of that impression. He
asked him to call at his office one morning. I was waiting to see
the President and when he came in he told me that he had an engagement
with Senator Hoar, and asked me if I would wait until he had seen
the Senator first. I promptly answered that he should see the
Senator first at any rate, as he was an older man than I, and was
older in the service. Senator Hoar and the President entered the
room together. Just as they went in, the President turned to me.
"You might as well come in at the same time," said he. I accompanied
them. And this is what took place:
The President wanted the Senator to read a message which he had
already prepared, in reference to Colombia's action in rejecting
the treaty and the canal in general; which message showed very
clearly that the President had never contemplated the secession of
Panama, and was considering different methods in order to obtain
the right of way across the Isthmus from Colombia, fully expecting
to deal only with the Colombian Government on the subject. The
President was sitting on the table, first at one side of Senator
Hoar, and then on the other, talking in his usual vigorous fashion,
trying to get the Senator's attention to the message. Senator Hoar
seemed adverse to reading it, but finally sat down, and without
seeming to pay any particular attention to what he was perusing,
he remained for a minute or two, then arose and said: "I hope I
may never live to see the day when the interests of my country are
placed above its honor." He at once retired from the room without
uttering another word, proceeding to the Capitol.
Later in the morning he came to me with a typewritten paper containing
the conversation between the President and himself, and asked me
to certify to its correctness. I took the paper and read it over,
and as it seemed to be correct, as I remembered the conversation,
I wrote my name on the bottom of it. I have never seen or heard
of the paper since.
Senator Hoar was very much interested in changing the date of the
inauguration of the President of the United States. March, in
Washington, is one of the very worst months of the year, and it
frequently happens that the weather is so cold and stormy as to
make any demonstration almost impossible. Inaugurations have cost
the lives of very many men. I was looking into the subject myself,
and I took occasion to write Senator Hoar a letter, asking his
views. He replied to me very courteously and promptly. I was so
pleased with the letter that I retained it, and give it here.
"Worcester, Mass., _August 26, 1901_.
"My dear Senator:--
"I do not think the proposed change of time of inauguration can be
made without change in the Constitution. I prepared an article
for so changing the Constitution. It has passed the Senate twice
certainly, and I think three times. It was reported once or twice
from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and once from the
Committee on the Judiciary. It received general favor in the
Senate, and as I now remember there was no vote against it at any
time. The only serious question was whether the four years should
terminate on a certain Wednesday in April or should terminate as
now on a fixed day of the month. The former is liable to the
objection that one Presidential term should be in some cases slightly
longer than another. The other is liable to the objection that if
the thirtieth of April were Sunday or Saturday or Monday, nearly
all persons from a distance who come to the inauguration would have
to be away from home over Sunday.
"The matter would, I think, have passed the House, if it could have
been reached for action. But it had the earnest opposition of
Speaker Reed. It was, as you know, very hard to get him to approve
anything that was a change.
"I have prepared an amendment to be introduced at the beginning of
the next section, and have got some very carefully prepared tables
from the Coast Survey, to show the exact length of an administration
under the different plans. The advantage of the change seems to
me very clear indeed. In the first place, you prolong the second
session of Congress until the last of April; you add six or seven
weeks, which are very much needed, to that session. And you can
further increase that session a little by special statute, which
should have Congress meet immediately after the November election,
a little earlier than now. In that case, you can probably without
disadvantage shorten the first session of Congress so as to get
away by the middle of May or the first of June and get rid of the
very disagreeable Washington heat.
"I wish you would throw your great influence, so much increased by
the renewed expression of the confidence of your State, against
what seems to me the most dangerous single proposition now pending
before the people, a plan to elect Senators of the United States
by popular vote.
"I am, with high regard, faithfully yours,
"Geo. F. Hoar.
"Hon. S. M. Cullom,
"Chicago, Ills."
Senator Dawes, of Massachusetts, Senator Hoar's colleague, was not
the cultivated man that Senator Hoar was, and neither would I say
he was a man of strong and independent character. He was very
popular in the Senate, probably far more popular with Senators than
his colleague, and it was much easier for him to pass bills in
which he was interested. He was influential as a legislator and
a man of great probity of character.
For some reason or other--why, I never knew--he was one of the very
few Eastern Senators of my time who gave special attention to Indian
affairs. He was chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs for
years, and was the acknowledged authority on that subject in the
Senate. When he retired he was placed at the head of the so-called
Dawes Commission, having in charge the interests of the tribes of
Indians in Oklahoma and the Indian territory. He was an honest
man, and having inherited no fortune, he consequently retired from
the Senate a poor man. The appointment was very agreeable to him
on that account, but it was given to him more especially because
he knew more about Indian matters than any other man.
As I have been writing these recollections of the men with whom I
have been associated in public life for the last half-century, I
have had occasion to mention a number of times, Senator Orville H.
Platt, of Connecticut, who was two years older than I, and who took
his seat in the Senate in 1879, serving there until his death in
1905.
We became very friendly almost immediately after I entered the
Senate. One bond of friendship between us from the beginning was,
we each had a senior colleague a celebrated General of Civil War
fame--Hawley, of Connecticut and Logan, of Illinois. Senator Platt
and I necessarily were compelled to take what might be termed a
back seat, our colleagues being almost always in the lime-light.
As a member of the select committee on Interstate Commerce, Senator
Platt rendered much valuable assistance in the investigation and
in the passage of the Act of 1887, although he was almost induced
finally to oppose it on account of the anti-pooling and the long-
and-short-haul sections.
He was a modest man, and it was some years before Senators that
were not intimate with him really appreciated his worth. Had he
not yielded to the late Senator Hoar, he would have been made
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary instead of Senator Hoar,
a position for which there was no Senator more thoroughly qualified
than Senator Platt. It seems strange that he never did succeed to
an important chairmanship until he was made chairman of the Committee
on Cuban Relations during the war with Spain, and he really made
that an important committee. Not only in name but in fact was he
the author of those very wise pieces of legislation known as the
Platt Amendments. I was a member of the Committee on Cuban Relations,
and know whereof I speak in saying that it was Senator Platt who
drafted these so-called amendments and secured their passage in
the Senate. They were finally embodied in the Cuban Constitution,
and also in the treaty between Cuba and the United States.
After the late Senator Dawes retired, Senator Platt was an authority
on all matters pertaining to Indian affairs.
As the years passed by he became more and more influential in the
Senate. Every Senator on both sides of the chamber had confidence
in him and in his judgment. As an orator he was not to be compared
with Senator Spooner, but he did deliver some very able speeches,
especially during the debates preceding the Spanish-American War.
I have often said that Senator Platt was capable in more ways than
any other man in the Senate of doing what the exigencies of the
day from time to time put upon him. He was always at his post of
duty, always watchful in caring for the interests of the country,
always just and fair to all alike, and ever careful and conservative
in determining what his duty should be in the disposition of any
public question; and I regarded his judgment as a little more
exactly right than that of any other Senator.
General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, was quite a figure in
the Senate when I entered it, and was regarded as one of the leaders,
especially on military matters. He was a man of fine ability and
address, brave as a lion and enjoyed an enviable Civil War record.
He was president of the Centennial at Philadelphia and permanent
President of the Republican Convention of 1868, which nominated
General Grant. He was a very ambitious man, and wanted to be
President; several times the delegation from his State presented
his name to national conventions. He had no mean idea of his own
merits; and his colleague, Senator Platt, told me once in a jocular
way that if the Queen of England should announce her purpose of
giving a banquet to one of the most distinguished citizens from
each nation, and General Hawley should be invited as the most
distinguished citizen of the United States, he would take it as a
matter of course.
Senator F. M. Cockrell and Senator George Vest represented Missouri
in the United States Senate for very many years.
Senator Cockrell was one of the most faithful and useful legislators
I ever knew. I served with him for years on the Committee on
Appropriations. That committee never had a better member. He kept
close track of the business of the Senate, and when the calendar
was called, no measure was passed without his close scrutiny,
especially any measure carrying an appropriation. He was a Democrat
all his life, but never allowed partisanship to enter into his
action on legislation. It was said of him that he used to make
one fiery Democratic speech at each Congress, and then not think
of partisanship again. He was not given much to talking about
violating the Constitution, because he knew he had been in the
Confederate Army himself and that he had violated it.
One day Senator George, who was, by the way, a very able Senator
from the South, was making a long constitutional argument against
a bill, extending over two or three days. I happened to be conversing
with Cockrell at the time, and he remarked: "Just listen to George
talk. He don't seem to realize that for four years he was violating
the Constitution himself." Senator Cockrell retired from the Senate
in 1905, his State for the first time in its history having elected
a Republican Legislature.
President Roosevelt had the very highest regard for him, and as
soon as it was known he could not be re-elected, he wired Senator
Cockrell, tendering him a place on either the Interstate Commerce
Commission or the Panama Canal Commission. He accepted the former,
serving thereon for one term. He gave the duties of this position
the same attention and study that he did when a member of the
Senate.
Senator Vest was an entirely different style of man. He did not
pay the close attention to the routine work of the Senate that
Senator Cockrell did, but he was honest and faithful to his duty,
and an able man as well. He was a great orator, and I have heard
him make on occasion as beautiful speeches as were ever delivered
in the Senate. At the time of his death he was the last surviving
member of the Confederate Senate.
He told me a rather interesting story once about how he came to
quit drinking whiskey. He said he came home to Missouri after the
war, found little to do, and being almost without means, took to
drinking whiskey pretty hard. He awoke one night and thought he
saw a cat sitting on the end of his bed. He reached down, took up
his boot-jack and threw it at the cat, as he supposed. Instead,
a pitcher was smashed to atoms. Needless to add there was no cat
at all, which he realized, and he never took another drink of
liquor.
Senator Vest was not a very old man, but he was in poor health and
feeble for his years. One day he looked particularly forlorn,
sitting at his desk and leaning his head on his hands. I noticed
his dejected attitude, and said to Senator Morrill, who was then
eighty-five or eighty-six years old: "Go over and cheer up Vest."
Morrill did so in these words: "Vest, what is the matter? Cheer
up! Why, you are nothing but a boy."
Senator Vest retired from the Senate, and shortly thereafter died
at his home in Washington.
Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, was another very prominent Democrat in
this Congress. He was one of the leading lawyers of the Senate,
ranking, probably, with Edmunds in this respect. He was chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary for a brief period, was later
nominated for Vice-President of the United States, but was defeated
with the rest of the Democratic ticket.
Senator Eugene Hale, who retired from the Senate on his own motion,
March 4, 1911, was elected in 1881, and was always regarded as a
very strong man. It was unfortunate for the Senate and country
that Senator Hale determined to leave this body. He was chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, and chairman of the Republican
caucus, in which latter capacity I succeeded him in April, 1911.
He was for years chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs; and
there is no man in the country, in my judgment, who knows more
about the work and condition of the Navy and the Navy Department
than does Senator Hale. Hence it has been for years past, that
when legislation affecting the Navy came up to be acted upon by
Congress, generally we have looked to Senator Hale to direct and
influence our legislative action.
He is a very independent character, and was just the man for chairman
of the great Committee on Appropriations. Senator Hale was more
than ordinarily independent, even to the extent of voting against
his party at times, and was very little influenced by what a
President or an Administration might desire. I regretted exceedingly
to see him leave the Senate, where for many years he served his
country so well.
Charles F. Manderson, of Nebraska, was twice elected to the United
States Senate, and was an influential member. I have regarded him
as one of the most amiable men with whom I have served. He was a
splendid soldier, a splendid legislator, and a splendid man generally.
He was the presiding officer of the Senate, and a good one. I have
always thought that he ought to have been the Republican nominee
for Vice-President of the United States; but for some reason or
other he never seemed to seek the place, and finally became one of
the attorneys for the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad,
since when he seems to have lost interest in political affairs.
He visit old friends in Washington once each year, and it is always
a great pleasure for me to greet Mr. and Mrs. Manderson.
Another Senator who first served many years in the House, was
Philetus Sawyer, of Wisconsin. It was in the Senate that I served
with him, and came to have for him a very great respect. He was
not very well educated, not a lawyer nor an orator, and excepting
in a conversational way, not regarded as a talker; yet he was an
uncommonly effective man in business as well as in politics, and
was once or twice invited to become chairman of the National
Republican Committee.
I cannot resist the temptation to tell a little story in connection
with Senator Sawyer. One day he was undertaking to pass an
unimportant bill in the Senate concerning some railroad in his own
State, and as was the custom when he had anything to say or do in
the Senate, he took his place in the centre aisle close to the
clerk's desk, so that he could be heard. Senator Van Wyck offered
an amendment to the bill, and was talking in favor of the amendment,
when Sawyer became a little alarmed lest the bill was going to be
beaten. He turned his back to the clerk, and said in a tone of
voice that could be distinctly heard:
"If you will stop your damned yawp I will accept your amendment."
Van Wyck merely said, "All right." The amendment was adopted, and
the bill passed.
As is quite the custom in the disposal of new members, I was
appointed a member of the Committee on Pensions--really the only
important committee appointment I received during my first service
in the Senate. I naturally felt very liberal toward the old
soldiers, and it seemed that every case that was referred to me
was a worthy one, and that a liberal pension should be allowed.
I became a little uneasy lest I might be too liberal, and I went
to Sawyer, knowing that he was a man of large wealth, seeking his
advice about it.
He said, and I have been guided by that advice largely ever since:
"You need not worry; you cannot very well make a mistake in allowing
liberal pensions to the soldier boys. The money will get into
circulation and come back into the treasury very soon; so go ahead
and do what you think is right in the premises; and there will be
no trouble."
Senator Sawyer retired from the Senate voluntarily at a ripe old
age. He was largely instrumental in selecting as his successor,
one of the greatest lawyers and ablest statesmen who has ever served
in that body, of whom I shall speak later, my distinguished friend,
the Hon. John C. Spooner.
In the Forty-eighth Congress the Democrats had a majority in the
House and the Republicans a majority in the Senate, and as is always
the case when such a situation prevails, little or no important
legislation was enacted.
I entered the Senate having three objects in view: First, the
control of Interstate Commerce; second, the stamping out of polygamy;
third, the construction of the Hennepin Canal.
I was not quite as modest as I have since advised younger Senators
to be, because I see by the _Record_ that on January 11, 1884, a
little more than a month after I had entered the Senate, I made an
extended address on the subject of Territorial Government for Utah,
particularly referring to polygamy. I was especially bitter in
what I said against the Mormons and the Mormon Church. I used such
expressions as these:
"There is scarcely a page of their history that is not marred by
a recital of some foul deed. The whole history of the Mormon Church
abounds in illustrations of the selfishness, deceit, and lawlessness
of its leaders and members. Founded in fraud, built up by the most
audacious deception, this organization has been so notoriously
corrupt and immoral in its practices, teachings, and tendencies as
to justify the Government in assuming absolute control of the
Territory and in giving the Church or its followers no voice in
the administration of public affairs. The progress of Mormonism
to its present strength and power has been attended by a continual
series of murders, robberies, and outrages of every description;
but there is one dark spot in its disgraceful record that can never
be effaced, one crime so heinous that the blood of the betrayed
victims still calls aloud for vengeance."
I introduced a bill on the subject, in which I provided for the
appointment of a legislative council by the President, this council
to have the same legislative power as the legislative assembly of
a Territory. I distrusted the local Legislature because it was
dominated by men high up in the Mormon Church.
During this Congress I pushed the bill as best I could, but was
never able to secure its passage. Laws were passed on the subject,
and the Mormon question is practically now a thing of the past.
Since that time conditions in Utah and in the Mormon Church have
changed greatly. The Prophets received a new revelation declaring
polygamy unlawful, and I believe that the practice has ceased. As
a matter of fact, Judge Zane, the Territorial Judge of Utah, did
more to stamp it out than any other one man. He sentenced those
guilty of the practice to terms in the penitentiary, and announced
that he would continue to do so until they reformed. I do not
think that the Church or the Mormon people deserve to-day the severe
criticism they merited twenty-five years ago.