CLEVELAND'S SECOND TERM
1892 to 1896
I have already, in other parts of these recollections, referred to
the National Convention of 1892, and the reasons which induced me
to support President Harrison for renomination. I attended as one
of the delegates, and took a more or less active part in the work
of the convention. Harrison was chosen on the first ballot. No
other candidate had any chance. Mr. Blaine and Mr. McKinley on
that ballot received one hundred and eighty-two votes each, but
neither was really considered for the nomination.
Grover Cleveland, of course, was the principal candidate before
the Democratic Convention, and had no serious opposition aside from
the bitter personal enmity evinced toward him by David B. Hill, of
New York, who had succeeded him as Governor of that State, and had
hoped to succeed him as President. Senator Hill has only recently
passed away. He was one of the most astute and ablest politicians
in the history of the Democratic party. President Cleveland
determined, for some reason or other, to drive him out of public
life, and he succeeded in doing so during his second administration
as President.
The campaign of 1892, just as the previous Presidential campaign
had been, was entirely fought out on the tariff issue; and the
question in general was the McKinley Law and its results. The
Democrats were able to show that there had been increase in cost
in many articles regarded as necessaries, while the Republicans
pointed to a great era of national prosperity. The Republicans
contended also that wages had advanced and prices declined under
the McKinley Law; but I have always doubted whether we were able
to sustain that contention. For instance, the department stores
and retail merchants generally marked up prices, and wholly without
reason, on articles on which there had been no increase in the
tariff; and when asked why, they would reply, "It is because of
the McKinley tariff."
For these economic reasons, added to the labor disturbances, Mr.
Cleveland was again elected President of the United States, and
carried with him for the first time both the Senate and the House.
The Democrats now had complete control of all branches of the
Government, and were in a position, if united, to enact any
legislation they might desire. The result of the election was a
complete surprise to every one. Why the voters should have turned
against the Republican administration, it is hard to say. Mr.
Harrison's personality had much to do with it.
The times were never more prosperous. In his message to the Congress
which convened after his defeat, President Harrison appositely
said: "There never has been a time in our history when work was
so abundant, or when wages were so high, whether measured in the
currency in which they are paid, or by their power to supply the
necessaries and comforts of life." And yet, with this admitted
condition prevailing, the Democratic party was returned to power.
I felt very badly over President Harrison's defeat, as I had done
everything I could to secure, first, his renomination and then his
re-election. After the election I wrote President Harrison as
follows:
"U. S. Senate Chamber,
"Washington, D. C., _Nov. 11, 1890_.
"Dear Mr. President:--
"I have delayed writing you since the election for the reason that
the result so surprised me I scarcely knew what to make of it. We
lost Illinois by the overwhelming Democratic vote in Chicago. I
feared that city all the time, but was assured by the committees
that it would not be very much against us. I said all the time
that we would take care of the country and carry the State if the
Cook County vote could be kept below ten thousand Democratic, and
was assured by all hands there that it would be. We did carry the
country about as heretofore. As things have gone bad nearly
everywhere, I am not feeling so chagrined as I would if Illinois
had been the pivotal State. I specially desire to say that the
cause of the defeat does not lie at your door personally. Any man
in the country standing upon the doctrine of high protection would
have been defeated. The people sat down upon the McKinley Tariff
Bill two years ago, and they have never gotten up. They were
thoroughly imbued with the feeling that the party did not do right
in revising the tariff up instead of down. They beat us for it in
'90 and now again.
"Hoping to see you in ten days, I am, with great respect,
"Truly yours,
"S. M. Cullom."
Curtis, in his work on the Republican party, in commenting on the
result of this election, said:
"It will be seen that to the Solid South were added, California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin; while Mr. Cleveland obtained one electoral vote in
Ohio, and five in Michigan. The result was certainly disastrous,
and left no doubt that the people at large for the time being had
rebuked the Republican party for what they wrongly supposed to be
against their best interests. And yet, though a large majority of
the people had voted for Mr. Cleveland, they were probably sorry
for it within twenty-four hours after the election. There was no
such rejoicing as took place in 1885. In fact, as soon as it was
determined without doubt that the next Congress would be Democratic
in both branches, and would enable Mr. Cleveland and his party to
carry out their threats to repeal the McKinley Law and enact in
its stead a Free Trade measure, apprehension and alarm took possession
of the industrial and financial interests of the country, and could
the election have been held over again within ten days, it may be
estimated that a million or more votes would have been changed from
the Cleveland column to that of Harrison. The people, as it were,
awoke from a dream; they saw at once how they had been deceived by
the methods of the Democratic campaign managers, and how an incident
which had no bearing whatever upon the issue of the campaign had
influenced their vote in a time of temporary anger and resentment."
This perfectly sums up the situation, as I now recollect it, on
the election of President Cleveland; it was the beginning of the
most protracted era of hard times that this country has ever known.
Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated the second time on March 4, 1893,
and, as Mr. Curtis says, there was very little enthusiasm. The
ceremonies were quiet and unenlivened.
Of course, it goes without saying, that I was not glad to see the
Democratic party returned to power; but I confess I was a little
pleased to meet President Cleveland in the White House again. His
manner, his treatment of those with whom he came in contact, was
so different from that of his predecessor, that it was a real
pleasure, rather than a burden, to call at the executive offices.
Mr. Cleveland promptly proceeded to remove Republicans from
Presidential offices and appoint Democrats. This even went to the
extent of the removal of postmasters, large and small, against whom
almost any sort of charge might be trumped up.
Adlai E. Stevenson was a past master in this respect. He was First
Assistant Postmaster-General under Cleveland's first Administration
and removed Republican postmasters whose terms had not expired,
without cause or reason. He was elected Vice-President when Mr.
Cleveland again came into office. He was a great favorite among
the Democrats, because he believed in appointing Democrats to every
office within the gift of the Executive.
I remember, after Stevenson was elected, Senator Harris, of Tennessee,
remarking to me: "Now we have got Cleveland and Stevenson elected,
if Cleveland would drop out and Stevenson was President, we would
get along finely." He meant that Stevenson would never permit a
single Republican to remain in office, if he could help it.
Mr. Stevenson made a popular presiding-officer of the Senate. He
has been a strong Democrat all his life, and it has repeatedly been
charged against him, although I believe he denies it, that he was
a Southern sympathizer during the Civil War. He served in Congress
two terms, having been elected from the Bloomington district, and
was quite an influential member. He was defeated as a candidate
for Vice-President with Mr. Bryan in 1900, and was also defeated
as a candidate of the Democratic party for Governor of Illinois,
in 1908.
As a candidate for Governor he made a splendid showing in 1908, as
he was defeated by 23,164 votes, while President Taft carried
Illinois by 179,122.
President Cleveland's Cabinet contained some very able men. He
appointed Judge Walter Q. Gresham as Secretary of State. Why he
should have appointed Gresham, I do not know. It would seem to me
that there were men of as much ability in his own party whom he
might have selected, but for some reason or other he did appoint
him.
Judge Gresham was then serving as United States Circuit Judge, at
Chicago. He had always been a Republican, and in the convention
which nominated Harrison he received on one ballot one hundred and
twenty-three votes as the candidate of the Republican party for
President of the United States. He probably supported Mr. Cleveland,
although of this I am not sure. He was a bitter enemy of President
Harrison,--so much so, indeed, that he could scarcely be polite to
any one whom he thought favored Harrison. He was holding court in
Springfield, during the Harrison Administration, when I met him,
and, not appreciating his feeling, I casually commended President
Harrison for some particular thing which I approved. Gresham did
not like it, and he almost told me in so many words that he did
not think much of me or any one else who thought well of Harrison.
Whereupon we separated somewhat coolly, I giving him to understand
that I would insist upon my views and my right to commend a man
who I thought was following a proper course. I do not believe he
ever avowed himself a Democrat, and in the State Department he
always declined to make any recommendations for appointments, on
the ground that he was not a Democrat, and that those appointments
must be left to the President himself. I had more or less intercourse
with him as Secretary of State, and always found him polite and
agreeable. He was regarded as an able Secretary, and served in
that office until his death.
Richard Olney succeeded him as Secretary of State. He had been
the Attorney-General in the cabinet. He was to me a much more
satisfactory Secretary than Judge Gresham, and fully as able as a
lawyer.
John G. Carlisle was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. He had
been seven times elected to Congress and three times Speaker. He
resigned his seat in the House, having been elected as a member of
the Senate from Kentucky, and remained in the Senate until he
resigned to accept the position of Secretary of the Treasury under
Cleveland.
Mr. Carlisle was in entire harmony with the President on the tariff
and also on the monetary questions--and, indeed, I remark here that
Mr. Carlisle had very much to do toward the defeat of Mr. Bryan in
1896. Although a life-long Democrat himself, he believed that Mr.
Bryan's theories on the monetary question would ruin the country,
and he stood with Mr. Cleveland in opposing his election. Had
Cleveland, Carlisle, and other patriotic Gold Democrats stood with
their party, Mr. Bryan would probably have been elected and the
history of this country would have been written differently.
After Mr. Cleveland's election, our industrial conditions became
so depressed--and it was alleged by many that the cause for this
was the Sherman Coinage Act of 1890--that a special session of
Congress was called to meet August 7, 1893. The President said in
his message to this Congress:
"The existence of an alarming and extraordinary business situation,
involving the welfare and prosperity of all our people, has
constrained me to call in extra session the people's representatives
in Congress, to the end that through a wise and patriotic exercise
fo the legislative duty with which they are solely charged, present
evils may be mitigated and danger threatening the future may be
averted. . . . With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of
remunerative production and manufacture, with unusual invitation
to safe investment, and with satisfactory returns to business
enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung up on
every side. . . . Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch of
business. I believe these things are principally chargeable to
Congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage of
silver by the general Government."
And Mr. Cleveland earnestly recommended the prompt repeal of the
Sherman Coinage Act of 1890.
The extra session continued until October 30, when the Sherman Act
was finally repealed.
But the repeal of the Sherman Act did not at all remedy industrial
conditions. It was not the Sherman Act that was at fault, but the
well-grounded fear on the part of our manufacturers of the passage
of a free trade measure. The panic commenced, it is true, under
the McKinley Bill, but it was the direct result of what the business
interests felt sure was to come; and that was the passage of a
Democratic Tariff act.
The year 1893 closed with the prices of many products at the lowest
ever known, with many workers seeking in vain for work, and with
charity laboring to keep back suffering and starvation in all our
cities. And yet, in view of the condition, Mr. Cleveland sent to
Congress at the beginning of the annual session a free trade message,
advocating the repeal of the McKinley Act and the passage of a
Democratic free trade, or Tariff for Revenue, measure. From the
tone of this message, however, he seems to have changed somewhat
from his message of 1887; yet it was strong enough to startle the
business interests, and make more widespread financial panic.
Speaker Crisp at once proceeded to the formation of the committees
of the House, and particularly the Committee on Ways and Means.
I was naturally anxious concerning our industries in Illinois, and
I wanted one of our strongest Illinois Representatives placed on
that committee. I happened to enjoy particularly friendly relations
with Mr. Crisp, he having been a House conferee on the Interstate
Commerce Act of 1887, and I felt quite free to call upon him.
After looking over the Illinois delegation, I came to the conclusion
that the Hon. A. J. Hopkins, my late colleague in the Senate, and
who was then serving in the House, was the very best man he could
select for that place. I urged Mr. Crisp to appoint him, saying
that he was capable of doing more and better work on the committee
than any other man in the delegation. Crisp was very nice about
it, and whether he did it on my recommendation or not I do not
know; but he appointed Hopkins. Senator Hopkins was, during his
service on that committee, regarded as one of its leading members,
and had a prominent part in framing the Dingley tariff. He served
in the House until elected to the Senate, where he remained for
six years. Senator Hopkins is an able man, and was constantly
growing in influence and power in the Senate. He was an agreeable
colleague, and I regretted very much indeed that he was not re-
elected.
It did not take long for the Democratic majority of the Committee
on Ways and Means of the House to frame and report the Wilson Bill,
repealing the McKinley Bill, and recommending in its stead the
enactment of a Tariff for Revenue, which was fairly in harmony with
Democratic Free Trade principles, and in harmony with the President's
message. The bill was passed without long delay, Mr. Reed leading
the ineffectual opposition to its passage in the House, with a
speech of great eloquence, in which he depicted conditions that
would surely arise after the passage of such a measure.
But this bill still had to run the gantlet of the Senate, where
many Democratic Senators did not sympathize to the full extent with
the Cleveland-Carlisle Free Trade theory. Senators Gorman, Hill,
Murphy, Jones, Brice, and Smith of New Jersey, led the opposition,
uniting with the Republicans in securing some seven hundred
amendments, all in the interest, more or less, of Protection.
The truth is, we were all--Democrats as well as Republicans--trying
to get in amendments in the interest of protecting the industries
of our respective States. I myself secured the adoption of many
such amendments. After I had exhausted every resource, I went to
Senator Brice one day and asked him if he would not offer some
little amendment for me, as I felt pretty sure that if Brice offered
it it would be adopted, and I knew if I did it myself it stood a
good chance of being defeated. Brice, by the way, was a very bluff,
frank man; he replied to me, half jocularly, "Now, you know when
your party is in power you will never do anything for a Democrat,
and I won't offer this amendment for you. You go and get your
colleague, Senator Palmer, to offer it for you." I left him and
went to General Palmer; he presented the amendment, and it was
adopted.
The bill passed the Senate; and after going to conference, when it
seemed likely the Conference Committee would not agree, the Democratic
leaders of the House, fearing the bill would fail entirely, decided
to surrender to the Senate and accept the Senate bill with all its
amendments. President Cleveland denounced this temporizing, coining
the famous expression, "party perfidy and party dishonor" in the
Wilson letter, evidently referring to Mr. Gorman and other leaders
of the Senate.
There has been endless controversy and discussion over the attitude
of Senator Gorman on the Wilson Bill. I myself have always believed
that Senator Gorman felt that the industries of the country could
not prosper under a Democratic Free Trade Tariff, and that he was
willing to afford them a certain amount of protection. Especially
was he criticised on account of the sugar schedule. Senator Tillman
in his memorial address in the Senate, on the occasion of the
delivery of eulogies on Senator Gorman, said in reference to this:
"In the conversations I had with the Democratic leaders, it was
clearly brought out that the sugar refineries were ready to contribute
to the Democratic campaign fund if it could be understood that the
industry would be fostered and not destroyed by the Democratic
Tariff policy, and I received the impression, which became indelibly
fixed on my mind then and remains fixed to this day, that President
Cleveland understood the situation and was willing to acquiesce in
it if we won at the polls. I did not talk with Mr. Cleveland in
person on this subject, though I called at his hotel to pay my
respects, and I am thoroughly satisfied that the charge of party
perfidy and party dishonor was an act of the grossest wrong and
cruelty to Senator Gorman. If Mr. Cleveland, as I was told, knew
of these negotiations and was the beneficiary of such a contribution,
it is inconceivable how he could lend his great name and influence
toward destroying Senator Gorman's influence and popularity, in
the way he did."
Senator Gorman himself was very justly indignant and displayed much
feeling when he addressed the Senate on July 23, 1894, replying to
Mr. Cleveland's letter.
He used, in part, the following language:
"As I have said, sir, this is a most extraordinary proceeding for
a Democrat, elected to the highest place in the Government, and
fellow Democrats in another high place, where they have the right
to speak and legislate generally, to join with the commune in
traducing the Senate of the United States, to blacken the character
of Senators who are as honorable as they are, who are as patriotic
as they ever can be, who have done as much to serve their party as
men who are now the beneficiaries of your labor and mine, to taunt
and jeer us before the country as the advocates of trust and as
guilty of dishonor and perfidy."
It was a Democratic controversy, and I am not in a position to say
whether Mr. Cleveland or Mr. Gorman was right; whether it was a
bargain in advance of the election to secure campaign funds; whether
the sugar schedule was framed to secure the support of the Louisiana
Senators; but I do know that Mr. Cleveland's attacks on Mr. Gorman
turned the State of Maryland over to the Republicans and relegated
Mr. Gorman to private life.
The Wilson Bill became a law without the approval of the President,
Mr. Cleveland taking the position that he would not permit himself
to be separated from his party to such an extent as might be implied
by a veto of the tariff legislation which, though disappointing to
him, he said was still chargeable to Democratic efforts.
There was one provision of the Wilson Bill which, I have been
convinced since, was a very wise measure, and which will yet be
enacted into law; and that is the income tax provision. That bill
provided for a tax of two per cent on incomes above four thousand
dollars. A separate vote was taken on this section and I voted
against it. It was Republican policy then to oppose an income-tax,
and the view I took then was, that if we started out taxing incomes
the end would be that we would derive, from the source, sufficient
amount of revenue to run the Government and that it would gradually
break down the protective policy. It was declared unconstitutional
by a vote of five to four of the Supreme Court. A previous income-
tax had been declared constitutional during the Civil War, and I
am very strongly of the opinion that if the case is again presented
to the Court the decision will be in harmony with the first decision,
overruling the decision of 1895. An income-tax is the fairest of
all taxes. It is resorted to by every other nation. It falls most
heavily on those who can best afford it. The sentiment in the
Republican party has changed, and I believe that at no far distant
day Congress will pass an income-tax as well as an inheritance-tax
law.
The passage of the Wilson Bill increased, rather than diminished,
the hard times commencing with the panic of 1893. The Democratic
party, or the free silver element of it, claimed that the panacea
was the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen
to one. The silver question was argued week after week in both
branches of Congress, and was never finally settled until the
election of McKinley and the establishment by law of the Gold
Standard. In recent years we hear very little about free silver;
but the Democratic party split on that issue, Mr. Cleveland heading
the faction in favor of sound money.
In those closing days of the Cleveland Administration, it was very
seldom that a Democratic Senator was seen at the White House. The
President became completely estranged from the members of his party
in both House and Senate, but it seemed to bother him little. He
went ahead doing his duty as he saw it, utterly disregarding the
wishes of the members of his party in Congress.
I saw him many times during this period, and I remember on one
occasion I had seen a notice in one of the papers indicating that
the President was about to appoint my old friend Mr. Charles Ridgely,
of Springfield, Illinois, as Comptroller of the Currency. I had
the highest regard for Mr. Ridgely, and I called at the White House
to congratulate the President on the selection. He seemed to be
out of humor, and was more than usually abrupt. He declared that
he knew nothing about it, that he did not know Ridgely, and never
had had any intention of appointing him. I repeated that I had
seen the announcement in a newspaper, adding that it looked to me
as though the report were authentic, and that I only wanted to
congratulate him. But the President merely reiterated, somewhat
curtly, that he knew nothing about it. I became a little annoyed,
finally losing my temper.
"I don't care a damn whether you appoint him or not," I exclaimed;
"Ridgely's a Democrat, anyhow."
Thereupon his attitude quickly changed, and he inquired about
Ridgely, listening with interest to what I had to say. He then
talked with me on the silver question and other matters, detaining
me while he kept his back to the crowd waiting to see him. I almost
had to break away in order to give others a chance.
Among the other embarrassments and difficulties of the Cleveland
Administration were the famous Chicago riots of 1893. The trouble
grew out of a railroad strike; much damage was done and a great
deal of property was destroyed, with consequent loss of life. The
city itself seemed to be threatened, the business and manufacturing
interests appealed to the Governor first, and then to the President,
to send troops to Chicago to protect property. When the Governor
failed to act, the President ordered Federal troops to Chicago.
The action was regarded as very wise, and it endeared him to the
business people of that city. Governor Altgeld protested, and that
was one of the reasons why he became Mr. Cleveland's most bitter
enemy.
I think I should say a few words in reference to Governor Altgeld.
He has been called an anarchist and a socialist. In my judgment,
he was neither. Of his honesty, his integrity, his sincerity of
purpose, his determination to give the State a good administration,
I never had the slightest doubt. The mainspring of the trouble,
I believe, was an inability to select good men for public office.
He was not a good judge of men; he surrounded himself with a coterie
that betrayed his trust and used the State offices for personal
gain. I have always sympathized with Governor Altgeld. Had he
been eligible I believe he would have been the nominee of his party
for the Presidency; but he was born abroad.
One can scarcely imagine industrial conditions in a worse state
than they were at the close of the Cleveland Administration. The
election of a Republican Congress in 1894 had helped some, but the
revenues were not sufficient to meet the ordinary running expenses
of the Government; bonds had to be issued, labor was out of
employment, the mills and factories were closed, and business was
at a standstill.
This was the condition of affairs when the Republican National
Convention assembled in 1896.