CLEVELAND'S FIRST TERM
1884 to 1887
The Republican Convention of 1884 was held at Chicago. The names
of Joseph R. Hawley, John A. Logan, Chester A. Arthur, John Sherman,
George F. Edmunds, and James G. Blaine were presented as candidates
for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
Blaine and Logan finally were the nominees, neither of them having
much of a contest to secure the nomination for President and Vice-
President respectively.
The Democratic Convention met later, and nominated Grover Cleveland
and Thomas A. Hendricks.
The Presidential campaign of 1884 was unique in the extreme. It
was the most bitter personal contest in our history. The private
lives of both candidates, Cleveland and Blaine, were searched, and
the most scandalous stories circulated, most of which were false.
The tide was in favor of Blaine only a short time before the
election. I do not intend to go into the cause of his defeat. It
was accomplished by a margin so narrow that any one of a dozen
reasons may be given as the particular one. The Burchard incident,
the dinner given by the plutocrats at Delmonico's, certainly changed
several hundred votes--important when we remember that a change of
less than six hundred votes in the State of New York would have
elected him. Conkling, too, was accused of playing him false, and
it was alleged that there were hundreds of fraudulent votes cast
in the city of New York and on Long Island. Colonel A. K. McClure,
in "Our Presidents and How We Make Them," says, with reference to
this contest:
"Blaine would have been matchless in the skilful management of a
Presidential campaign for another, but he was dwarfed by the
overwhelming responsibilities of conducting a campaign for himself,
and yet he assumed the supreme control of the struggle and directed
it absolutely from start to finish. He was of the heroic mould,
and he wisely planned his campaign tours to accomplish the best
result. In point of fact, he had won his fight after stumping the
country, and lost it by his stay in New York on his way home. He
knew how to sway multitudes, and none could approach him in that
important feature of a conflict; but he was not trained to consider
the thousand intricacies that fell upon the management of every
Presidential contest."
Grover Cleveland was inaugurated on the fourth of March, 1885,
being the first Democratic President since James Buchanan, who was
elected in 1856, and marking the first defeat of the Republican
party since the election of Lincoln.
There was a wild scramble for offices on the part of the Democrats
as soon as Cleveland was inaugurated. He proceeded to satisfy them
as rapidly as he could, and out of 56,134 Presidential positions
he appointed 42,992 Democrats.
I always admired Grover Cleveland. I first saw him at the time of
his inaugural address, which he delivered without notes. He never
faltered from the beginning to the end, never skipped a line or
missed a word, or made a false start. He was the first, and so
far as I know the only President who did not read his inaugural
address. His speeches, his messages, and his public utterances
generally all showed that he was a man of extraordinary ability.
He made a wonderful impression upon the country. As Chief Executive,
he was strong-minded and forceful, and adhered to his views on
public questions with a remarkable degree of tenacity, utterly
regardless of his party.
He appointed a very fair cabinet. There was really no great man
in it, but they were all men of some ability. The Secretary of
State, Thos. F. Bayard, of Delaware, was one of the prominent
Democrats of the Senate when I entered it, and had represented his
State in that body for many years. I believe he conducted the
affairs of the State Department satisfactorily, and he was later
made Minister to the Court of St. James.
Daniel Manning, of New York, was Secretary of the Treasury. And,
referring to Manning, I am reminded of a little story.
Soon after he came into the office I had occasion to go to the
Treasury Department on some business. I saw the office secretary,
who had been there under the previous Administration, and whom I
knew well. He informed me that the Secretary of the Treasury was
not in, but that he would be in a few minutes. I expressed a desire
to see him and said that I would like very much to be introduced
to him. Mr. Manning came in presently, and I was introduced, after
which I disposed of my business without delay. Looking around, I
saw Senator Beck and a number of other Senators, accompanied by a
horde of Democratic office-seekers from the South, sitting against
the wall waiting for me to get through with my business. Beck came
forward, and in a half serious sort of way said to me: "You do
not seem to know that the Administration has changed. You march
in here and take possession, and we Democrats are sitting here
against the wall cooling our heels and waiting for an opportunity
to see the Secretary. You have seen him already, and are ready to
go." It did plague me a little, as I was not quite sure whether
Beck was in earnest or not. He soon returned to the Senate from
the Treasury, and coming into the Senate Chamber a little later I
found that he had been telling my colleagues how he had "plagued
Cullom" and how Cullom was much embarrassed about it. He considered
it quite a joke on me.
L. Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, was made Secretary of the Interior.
Lamar was also one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when
I entered it. I had the very greatest respect for him as a Senator
and as a man. Later, Mr. Cleveland nominated him for Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination pended before the
Judiciary Committee for a long time, as it was well known that Mr.
Lamar had not been an active, practising lawyer.
I happened to be at the White House one day, and Mr. Cleveland said
to me: "I wish you would take up Lamar's nomination and dispose
of it. I am between hay and grass with reference to the Interior
Department. Nothing is being done there; I ought to have some one
on duty, and I can not do anything until you dispose of Lamar."
He had, I suppose, spoken to other Senators along the same line.
The nomination was taken up soon after, and he was confirmed. I
voted against his confirmation in the Senate; not because I had
anything against him personally, or because he was a Southern
Democrat, but I understood that he had not practised law at all,
and I did not believe that sort of man should be appointed to fill
so high and responsible a position.
Generally speaking, I got along very well with President Cleveland,
considering the fact that he was a Democrat and I a Republican.
I visited the White House frequently, and he generally granted
anything that I asked for.
He was keenly interested in the passage of the first Interstate
Commerce Act. It became a law under his administration, and although
the Democrats supported it, it succeeded mainly through the influence
of Republican Senators and a Republican Senate. When the bill went
to the President, and while he had it under consideration, he sent
for me to explain one or two sections which he did not understand.
I called one night about nine o'clock and found him surrounded by
a multitude of papers, hard at work reading the bill. I explained
the sections concerning which he was in doubt as best I could, and
he said: "I will approve the bill."
I immediately took advantage of the occasion to say: "Now, Mr.
President, I might just as well take this opportunity to talk with
you with reference to the appointment of a Commission. A Republican
Senate has passed this bill, and as I had charge of it in the
Senate, I think you ought to permit me to recommend the appointment
of one commissioner." He agreed to this, asking me to present the
name of some Republican whom I desired appointed.
Afterward there were complications with the members of his own
party in Congress, and he sent for me to tell me that Colonel
Morrison, of Illinois, had been recommended by the whole "Free
Trade Party," as he called it, and that he did not see how he was
going to avoid appointing him. I suggested that he give Morrison
something else. He undertook to do so; but Morrison, true to his
independent nature, declined to accept anything else, declaring
that he would like to have the office of commissioner, and if he
could not have that he would accept nothing.
The President sent for me again, and told me he could not satisfy
Morrison, and he did not know how he was going to solve the
complication. I said, in effect, that I had been a Governor of a
State and I knew sometimes that an executive officer had to do
things he did not expect to do, and did not desire to do, but that
he had to yield to party pressure. I ceased insisting upon an
appointment, and allowed Morrison to be named. At the same time
I was a little provoked and out of patience and I added: "Colonel
Morrison knows nothing about the subject whatever. If you are
going to appoint broken-down politicians who have been defeated at
home, as a sort of salve for the sores caused by their defeat, we
might as well repeal the law."
I inquired of him: "Who else are you going to appoint on that
Commission?" I had previously recommended Judge Cooley.
"I will appoint Cooley," promised the President.
"Will Cooley take it?" I asked; to which he replied, "I will offer
any place on the Commission he desires, and will telegraph him at
once."
I expressed my satisfaction with this arrangement. He did telegraph
Judge Cooley, who accepted, and was the first and most distinguished
chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Forty-ninth Congress assembled on December 7, 1885, with Thomas
A. Hendricks, Vice-President, presiding in the Senate, John Sherman
having been elected President _pro tempore_. The Senate was still
in the control of the Republicans by a majority of five. The
Democrats had a majority of something like forty in the House, and
elected John G. Carlisle Speaker. This is practically the same
situation that had prevailed during the previous Congress, except
this time the Democrats, in addition to a majority, had the Chief
Executive as well. But they were just as powerless to enact
legislation as they had been before.
Senators Evarts, of New York; Spooner, of Wisconsin; Teller, of
Colorado; Stanford, of California; Gray, of Delaware; Brown, of
Georgia; Blackburn, of Kentucky; and Walthall, of Mississippi, were
a few of the prominent men who entered the Senate at the beginning
of the Cleveland Administration.
Senator Evarts was recognized for many years as the leader of the
American Bar. He was not only a profound lawyer, but one of the
greatest public speakers of the day. I remember him as a good
natured, agreeable man, who was pre-eminently capable of filling
the highest places in public life. He was Attorney-General under
President Johnson, Secretary of State under President Hayes, and
counsel representing the United States before many great international
tribunals. He defended President Johnson in his impeachment
proceedings, and I remember yet his lofty eloquence on that memorable
occasion. He did not accomplish much as a Senator, but he did take
an active part where a legal or constitutional question came before
the Senate.
Illustrating how great lawyers are as apt to be wrong on a legal
question as the lesser legal lights, Senator Evarts expressed the
opinion that Congress did not possess the constitutional power to
pass the Act of 1887 to regulate commerce. He contended in the
debate that the act was a restriction and not a regulation of
commerce, and consequently was beyond the power of Congress. The
Supreme Court of the United States very soon afterwards sustained
the constitutionality of the act.
Before his term expired he became partially blind, and the story
is told by the late Senator Hoar that Senator Evarts and he had
delivered speeches in the Senate on some great legal, constitutional
question, Senator Hoar on one side, Senator Evarts on the other.
The latter asked Senator Hoar to look over the proof of his speech
and correct it, and in reading over the proof Senator Hoar told me
that he became convinced that his position was wrong and that Evarts
was right.
I do not know of a Democrat with whom I have served in the Senate
for whom I have greater respect than George Gray, of Delaware. We
became quite intimate and were paired all during his service. He
was one of the few Senators that every Senator on both sides believed
in and was willing to trust. Indeed, our country would not suffer
if he were elected President of the United States. He has held
many important positions,--Senator, member of the Paris Peace
Commission, United States Circuit Judge, member of many arbitration
commissions,--in all of which he acquitted himself with great honor.
My friend, Senator Henry M. Teller, of Colorado, returned to the
Senate at the beginning of this Congress. He had previously served
in the Senate, and resigned to accept a Cabinet position under
President Arthur. Senator Teller has had a long and honorable
public career. He was elected to the Senate several times as a
Republican, and appointed to the office of Secretary of the Interior
as a Republican. He continued this affiliation until the silver
agitation, in 1896, when he regarded himself as being justified in
leaving the party, and was twice elected afterward to the Senate
by the Legislature of his State, and during this last term I believe
he became a pretty strong Democrat; yet he never allowed partisanship
to enter into his action on legislation, excepting where a party
issue was involved, when he would vote with his party.
I served with him on the Appropriation Committee and other committees
of the Senate, and regarded him as one of the best Senators for
committee service with whom I was ever associated. The friendly
relations between Senator Teller and myself have been very close
and intimate since I first knew him, and I am glad to say that the
fact that he left the Republican party has not disturbed them in
the least.
Mr. Teller's withdrawal from the Republican party after its
declaration for the Gold Standard in the St. Louis Convention of
1896 was due to his abiding conviction in support of the principles
of bimetallism. He had been a member of the party almost since
its organization, and up to '96, although independent upon many
points at issue, had been regarded as one of the party's stanchest
and most reliable adherents. The severance of the ties of a lifetime
could not be made without producing a visible effect upon a man of
Mr. Teller's fine sensibilities, but I was pleased to observe that
he did not allow the incident to change his personal relations.
He continued as a member of the Senate for twelve or thirteen years
after he left the Republican party, and I am sure that he did not
lose the respect or personal regard of a single Republican member
of the body. Personally, I regarded him just as warmly as a Democrat
as I had esteemed him as a Republican, and I am sure that my attitude
toward him was reflected by his attitude toward myself.
The Colorado Senator's nature is such that he cannot dissemble,
and when his conviction led him to condemn the Republican party
because of its position on the money question, he could not find
it in his conscience to remain in that party. Time has shown that
he was mistaken as to the results that might follow the adoption
of the gold standard, but it has not served to alter the character
of the man. He will stand for what he believes to be right, whatever
the consequences to himself. As a legislator, he was faithful in
his work in committee and in the Senate. No man was more constant
in his attendance, and none gave more conscientious attention to
the problems of legislation. An unusually strong lawyer and a man
given to studious research, he never failed to strengthen any cause
which he espoused nor to throw light upon any subject which came
within his range of vision. With the exception of three years
spent as Secretary of the Interior he was a member of the Senate
from 1876, the year of Colorado's admission to the Union, until
1909, during which time he had nine different colleagues from his
own State.
Mr. Teller was a resident of Illinois before he removed to Colorado
in 1861, and was one of the earliest supporters of Mr. Lincoln.
His father and mother remained in Illinois as long as they lived,
and Senator Teller always has retained interests in that State.
I think he still has relatives residing in Whiteside County.
William Eaton Chandler, of New Hampshire, was one of the first
government officials with whom I became acquainted when I came to
Washington, in 1865, as a member of the House of Representatives.
He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. We became quite intimate
and our relations ever since have been the most cordial and
friendly.
Senator Chandler is a man of wonderfully acute intellect. For many
years he served his people in the Legislature of New Hampshire and
was a member of the Senate of the United States for several terms.
After he retired from the Senate in 1901, President McKinley
appointed him a member of the Spanish Claims Commission. In the
discharge of the duties of that office he manifested the same high
conception of his trust as in every position he occupied, either
elective or appointive, and I think he saved to the government of
the United States many millions of dollars in the adjudication of
claims growing out of the Spanish-American War.
While Senator Chandler is very combative in his attitude toward
others, yet his innate sincerity draws one close to him after
becoming acquainted with him. A little incident which will illustrate
this trait, occurred in the Senate of the United States some years
ago. Mr. Chandler was induced to believe that the late Senator
Proctor, of Vermont, did not like him very much. So Chandler went
up to Proctor, and said: "Proctor, don't you like me?" Proctor
in his coarse gruff voice replied: "I have acquired a liking for
you." He established the point without circumlocution or diplomacy.
As Chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate,
I objected to the appointment of Chandler as a member of that
committee. I did not believe he would be very attentive. It turned
out that I was mistaken and I often wished that he would stay away
from the meetings, because he was always stirring up some new
question that involved the time of the committee. He was inspired,
however, by the highest motive, recognizing as he did that the
control of the railroads of the country was a matter of supreme
importance to the people of the United States. He rendered valuable
service on the committee in the enactment of legislation on this
important subject.
Senator Leland Stanford, of California, was a man of large wealth,
and became famous on account of his having built the Central Pacific
Railroad. He was a man of business experience and made a valuable
Senator. He died as a member of the Senate, and his wife founded
Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Senator Stanford's colleague, Senator Hearst, who entered the Senate
two years after Senator Stanford, was also a man of very large
wealth and possessor of a interesting character. Concerning him
many amusing stories are told. He gave an elaborate dinner one
evening, which I attended. There were twenty-five of us present
with our wives, and after dinner was over the men went down to the
smoking-room. Senator Hearst had thought out a little speech to
make to us, in which he said: "I do now know much about books; I
have not read very much; but I have travelled a good deal and
observed men and things, and I have made up my mind after all my
experience that the members of the Senate are the survival of the
fittest." Senator Hearst died while serving as a member of the
Senate.
Matthew Stanley Quay was a conspicuous figure in our political
history. He had been a soldier in the Civil War and afterwards
occupied many positions of importance in the civil affairs in his
State. Few men in American political life have had so constant a
struggle as did Senator Quay to retain his ascendancy in Republican
politics in Pennsylvania. Quay in Pennsylvania, and T. C. Platt
in New York, were regarded as two of the greatest political bosses
in the country. In national convention after national convention
they exercised a paramount influence over the nomination of
Presidents, and the two usually worked together. Their political
methods were about the same. Quay was the bigger man of the two;
but it must be said, in justice to both of them, that the word of
either was as good as his bond. Senator Quay was returned to the
Senate after a desperate struggle. I was glad to see him return,
but saddened to see that he was sorely afflicted with a disease
that finally proved fatal. Senator Quay and Senator Platt have
both passed away. They were the two last survivors of the old
coterie of politicians who so long dominated Republican national
conventions.
Toward the close of the Cleveland Administration, a vacancy occurred
in the office of Chief Justice of the United States, to fill which
President Cleveland appointed the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, of
Illinois. I had something to do with this appointment.
Chief Justice Fuller has only recently passed away, after serving
as Chief Justice of the United States for a longer period than any
of his predecessors in that high office, with the two exceptions
of Marshall and Taney. I knew Melville W. Fuller for many years
before he became Chief Justice. Away back in war times, I knew
him as a member of the Illinois Legislature and as a member of the
Constitutional Convention, and subsequently as one of the leading
lawyers of the Chicago Bar.
President Cleveland was in a considerable quandary over the
appointment of a Chief Justice. He wanted to bestow the seat upon
an able lawyer, and he wanted a Democrat, but as the Senate was in
control of the Republicans he wanted to make sure to name some one
whom the Senate would confirm. He at first seriously considered
Judge Phelps, of Vermont, a cultivated and able man, who had been
Minister to England, but for some reason or other--why I never knew
--he finally rejected Phelps as an available candidate and determined
upon a Western man as Chief Justice.
Prior to this, however, he had considered the appointment of Justice
Scholfield, of our own State, who was then a member of the Supreme
Court of Illinois, which never had an abler or better lawyer as a
member of its personnel. He would have been given the honor had
he signified a willingness to accept; but when he was approached
by Representative Townsend, at the suggestion of President Cleveland,
after considering the matter, he demurred, asserting that although
he would enjoy the distinction of being Chief Justice of the United
States, he did not think that life in Washington, and especially
the social side of the life which the Chief Justice of the United
States naturally is expected to lead, would suit either him or his
family. He had a family of growing children, who had been raised
in the country, and they would naturally have to accompany him to
Washington. He feared that Washington life would ruin them, so he
finally declined the appointment.
Judge Fuller had been a close friend of President Cleveland, had
been a member of the national convention that nominated him, was
recognized as one of the leading Democrats of Illinois, and had
been consulted by Mr. Cleveland in the distribution of the patronage
in that State; so naturally Judge Fuller was considered in connection
with the office. It was not surprising, considering that the Senate
was then in the control of the Republicans, that he would want to
enlist my aid in securing his confirmation.
I called on Mr. Cleveland about nine o'clock one morning in regard
to some personal matter. He at once sent out word for me to come
in, that he wanted to see me. I apologized for appearing at so
early an hour, whereupon he said that he was very glad that I had
come because he desired to have a talk with me. Then he inquired
whom I considered the best lawyer, belonging to his party, in
Illinois, who would make a good Chief Justice. He at once himself
mentioned Judge Fuller. I told him that Judge Gowdy was probably
the ablest Democratic lawyer in Illinois, but that he was a railroad
attorney, and it would probably not be a good thing to appoint him.
He next questioned me particularly about Fuller. I told him that
I knew Fuller very well indeed; that if I were called upon to name
five of the best lawyers of Illinois belonging to his party, I
would name Fuller among the five; that he was not only a good
lawyer, but a scholarly man, a gentleman who would grace the
position. He at once intimated that he would send his name to the
Senate.
I said to him: "Mr. President, the selection of a Chief Justice
is one of the greatest duties you have to perform. _You_ can make
a mistake; we can raise the devil in Congress; but with a capable
Supreme Court standing steady and firm, doing its full duty, the
country is safe."
He agreed with me; and very soon thereafter Melville W. Fuller was
nominated as Chief Justice of the United States.
But this was only the prelude to the real struggle. The nomination
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which Senator
Edmunds, of Vermont, was chairman. The latter was very much out
of humor with the President, because he had fully expected that
Judge Phelps, of his own State, was to receive the honor, and he
did not take it kindly that the appointment should go to Illinois.
He had told me himself, in confidence, that he had every assurance
that Judge Phelps was to be nominated.
The result was the Senator Edmunds held the nomination, without
any action, in the Judiciary Committee for some three months, as
I now recollect. Finally there began to be more or less scandal
hinted at and suggestions of something wrong, and so forth; which
I considered so entirely uncalled for and unfair to Judge Fuller
that I appeared before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and
asked that the nomination be reported favorably if possible,
unfavorably if the committee so determined; and if the committee
was not disposed to report the nomination either favorably or
unfavorably that they report the nomination to the Senate without
recommendation, so that the Senate itself might have an opportunity
to act upon it. The latter action was taken, and the nomination
was laid naked before the Senate. The matter was considered in
executive session. Senator Edmunds at once took the floor and
attacked Judge Fuller most viciously as having sympathized with
the Rebellion, together with much to the same effect.
In the meantime some one had sent me a printed copy of a speech
which Judge Phelps had delivered during the war, attacking Mr.
Lincoln in the most outrageous and undignified fashion. When I
read that speech I then and there determined that Judge Phelps
would never be confirmed as Chief Justice, even though the President
might send his nomination to the Senate. I put the speech in my
desk, determining that if I ever had a good chance I would read it
in the Senate, at the same time pointing out that the only objection
which Senator Edmunds opposed to Judge Fuller was his pique because
Phelps had not received the appointment. Edmunds' attack on Judge
Fuller gave me the opportunity, and I read the speech of Judge
Phelps to the Senate, much to the chagrin and mortification of
Senator Edmunds.
The Democrats in the Senate enjoyed the controversy between Senator
Edmunds and myself; Senator Voorhees was particularly amused,
laughing heartily all through it. Naturally, it appeared to them
a very funny performance, two Republicans quarreling over the
confirmation of a Democrat. They sat silent, however, and took no
part at all in the debate, leaving us Republicans to settle it
among ourselves. The vote was taken and Judge Fuller was confirmed
by a substantial majority.
Judge Fuller was very grateful to me for what I had done in behalf
of his confirmation, and afterwards he wrote me a letter of thanks:
"Chicago, _July 21, 1888_.
"My dear Senator:--
"I cannot refrain from expressing to you my intense appreciation
at the vigorous way in which you secured my confirmation. I use
the word 'vigorous' because, though it was more than that, that
was the quality that struck me most forcibly when I saw the newspapers
this morning. When we meet, as I hope we will soon, I would very
much like to talk this matter over with you. I hope you will never
have cause to regret your action. I can't tell you how pleased I
am that Maine and Illinois, both so dear to me, stood by me. But
because I love them, I do not love my country any the less, as you
know.
"And so I am to be called 'Judge' after all! This is between
ourselves.
"Faithfully yours,
"M. W. Fuller."
Senator Frye voted in favor of Judge Fuller's confirmation. He
did this partly, I believe, because Fuller was a Maine man and a
classmate of his at Bowdoin College, he previously having entertained
some doubts, as he told me afterwards, whether Fuller was really
qualified to be Chief Justice of the United States. Very soon
after his appointment, the Chief Justice was invited to deliver an
address before the Joint Session of the two Houses of Congress.
I think it was on the occasion of the one-hundredth anniversary of
the inauguration of the first President of the United States.
Senator Frye and I walked together over to the hall of the House
where the joint session assembled, and he said as we went along:
"I will determine to-day, after I hear Fuller deliver his address,
whether I did right or wrong in voting for his confirmation as
Chief Justice." Judge Fuller delivered a most beautiful speech,
which would have done credit to any man, no matter how high a
position he occupied in this or any other country; and as we returned
together to our own chamber, Senator Frye remarked: "Cullom, it
is all right. I am satisfied now that I did right in voting in
favor of the confirmation of Fuller's nomination."
Melville W. Fuller filled the position of Chief Justice of the
United States with great credit and dignity. He wrote, during his
long term of service, many very able opinions. I did not agree
with his conclusions in the Income Tax case; but I think every
lawyer will conceded that this opinion was about as able a presentation
of that side of the case as could be made. He was a most conservative
and safe man for the high position which he occupied. Of necessity
the Chief Justice of the United States must be an executive officer
as well as an able lawyer and judge. There was no better executive
officer than Chief Justice Fuller. Justice Miller told me on one
occasion that Fuller was the best presiding judge that the Supreme
Court had had within his time; and in addition he was a most lovable,
congenial man.
The last time I saw Judge Fuller he was particularly agreeable.
I called to invite him to deliver an address at a great banquet to
be held in Springfield on Lincoln's birthday in February, 1909.
I have had a great deal of experience in trying to prevail upon
prominent men to deliver addresses in Illinois, and I know how they
always hesitate, and hem and haw, then, if they do accept, destroy
all feelings of gratitude and appreciation by the ungracious manner
in which they do so. It was certainly a pleasant surprise and a
contrast to custom to hear Judge Fuller's reply when I extended
the invitation to him. "Why, certainly," he responded promptly;
"I will be delighted to accept. I have been wanting to visit
Springfield for twenty years, and I am glad to receive the
invitation."
This reply was quite characteristic of Chief Justice Fuller. I
could not imagine him saying an unkind word to any one. His
disposition was to treat his colleagues on the Bench, the members
of the Bar who appeared before him, and every one with whom he came
in contact, with the greatest kindness and consideration. He passed
away, quietly and peacefully, as he would have wished, honored and
respected by the Bench and Bar of the Nation, and by the people of
his home State, who took pride in the fact that Illinois had
furnished to the United States a Chief Justice for so long a period.
Chief Justice Fuller was succeeded by Hon. Edward D. White, of
Louisiana, with whom I served for three years in the Senate of the
United States. Justice White was an able Senator, and in the
disposition of some of the most important cases which have come
before the Supreme Court in recent years affecting corporations he
has shown great ability and is a worthy successor of his predecessors
in that high office.
Aside from the act to regulate commerce, an act providing for
the Presidential succession, and an act in reference to polygamy,
there was very little, if any, important legislation during the
first Cleveland Administration.
It was a very quiet administration. The country clearly comprehended
that the Senate stood in the way of any Democratic doctrine being
enacted into law, and generally, as I remember it now, the country
was fairly prosperous. This condition continued until President
Cleveland's famous Free Trade message of December 5, 1887, came as
a startling blow to the business and manufacturing interests of
the United States.
Why he should have sent such a message to Congress when his
administration was about to come to a close, and when he knew
perfectly well that no tariff legislation could be enacted with a
Democratic House and a Republican Senate, I do not know. He for
the first time stepped out boldly and asserted his Free Trade
doctrine, and made the issue squarely on tariff for protection as
against Free Trade, or tariff for revenue. This message naturally
precipitated a tariff discussion in both House and Senate, and the
Democratic majority of the House considered it incumbent on them
to make some attempt to carry out the President's policy. As a
result the so-called Mills Bill was reported, upon which debates
continued for many months. One member in closing this discussion
very aptly said:
"This debate will perhaps be known as the most remarkable that has
ever occurred in our parliamentary history. It has awakened an
interest not only throughout the length and breadth of our own
country, but throughout the civilized world, and henceforth, as
long as our government shall endure, it will be known as 'the great
tariff debate of 1888.'"
It was in this debate in the House that both Mr. Reed and Mr.
McKinley so distinguished themselves as the great advocates of
Protection. Mr. Reed was then the floor leader of the minority.
He made a magnificent speech against Free Trade in which he used
many familiar allegories, one of which I have often used myself in
campaign speeches. It is substantially as follows:
"Once there was a dog. He was a nice little dog--nothing the matter
with him, except a few foolish Free Trade ideas in his head. He
was trotting along, happy as the day, for he had in his mouth a
nice shoulder of succulent mutton. By and by he came to a stream
bridged by a plank. He trotted along, and looking over the side
of the plank, he saw the markets of the world, and dived for them.
A minute afterwards he was crawling up the bank the wettest, the
sickest, the nastiest, the most muttonless dog that ever swam
ashore."
Thomas B. Reed was one whom I unquestionably would term a great
man. He was conspicuous among the most brilliant presiding officers
that ever occupied the chair of the Speaker. He ruled the House
with a rod of iron, thus earning for himself the nickname of "Czar."
And this was more or less warranted. He was the first Speaker to
inaugurate the new rules. He found a demoralized House in which
it was difficult to enact legislation, and in which the right of
the majority to rule was questioned and hampered. He turned the
Lower House into an orderly legislative body in which legislation
was enacted expeditiously by the majority. He had more perfect
control over the House than any former Speaker, and his authority
remained unquestioned until he retired. He ruled alone; after he
became Speaker he had no favorites; he had no little coterie of
men around him to excite the jealousy of the members of the House,
and it has even been said that so careful was he in this respect
that he would scarcely venture to walk in public with a member of
the House. He was a powerful man intellectually and physically,
and he looked the giant he was among the members of the House. He
wanted to be President; and it seems rather a queer coincidence
that his election as Speaker paved the way for his rival, Mr.
McKinley, as by his acceptance of the chair Mr. McKinley became
the leader of the majority, chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the author of the McKinley Bill, which finally resulted in
its author's defeat for Congress, but in his election as President
of the United States in 1896.
But to return to the Mills Bill. It passed the House by a substantial
majority and came to the Senate, where a substitute was prepared
by the Finance Committee and reported by Senator Allison early in
October. I remember the discussion on it in the Senate very well.
We all thought it incumbent upon us to make speeches for home
consumption, for campaign use, showing the iniquities of the Mills
Bill, and of the Democratic tariff generally, although we knew it
was impossible for either bill to become law.
The Congressional session continued until about the middle of
October with nothing done in the way of practical legislation.
This was the situation when the National Republican Convention
assembled in 1888.