Charles Foster was nominated by the Republican convention in the

latter part of May, and Thomas Ewing by the Democratic convention.

These nominations necessarily made prominent the financial questions

of the time. After the close of the funding operations, I received

from Mr. Blaine, as chairman of the Republican committee of Maine,

the following invitation, which I accepted:

"Augusta, Me., July 3, 1879.

"Hon. John Sherman, Secy. of Treas.

"My Dear Sir:--Could you speak at Portland, Tuesday, July 23, and

then during the same week at Augusta and Bangor--say 25th-27th?

Your Portland speech we should expect to have printed the next day,

accurately from your own slips.

"Your two other speeches, hardly less important to us, might be

made with less care and accuracy, that is, more on the order of

the general stump speech.

"In your Portland speech I hope, however, you will talk on something

more than the finance, making it, however, the leading and prominent

topic--but giving a heavy hit at the conduct of the Democrats during

the extra session.

"Sincerely,

"James G. Blaine."

The election in the State of Maine preceding those of other states,

great interest was taken in it, as the result there would have much

influence in other parts of the country. That state in the previous

year had faltered in support of the Republican party. In that year

there were three candidates in the field for governor, the Republican,

whose name I do not recall, the Democratic, Garcelon, for hard

money, and the Greenback, Smith, under the lead of Solon Chase, an

alleged lunatic in favor of fiat money, the repeal of the resumption

law, and the enactment of an eight-hour law. Smith received about

40,000 votes, Garcelon about 28,000, and the Republican candidate

about 54,000. Many Republicans either did not vote or voted the

Democratic or Greenback ticket. By the constitution of that state

a majority of all the votes cast is required to elect a governor,

and in case of failure the house of representatives of the state

proceeds to ballot for choice. The names are then sent to the

senate for the action of that body. The result was the election

of Garcelon, the Democratic candidate.

This was due to a strong feeling then prevailing in favor of

irredeemable or fiat money, and to some discontent among Republicans

with the liberal measures adopted by President Hayes to secure

peace and quiet in the south, especially the recognition of Hampton

as Governor of South Carolina and of Nichols as Governor of

Louisiana.

I thought it important to turn the issues of the campaign to the

financial measures accomplished by the Republican party, and

therefore prepared with some care a speech to be delivered at

Portland, and confined mainly to this subject. This speech was

made on the 23rd of July, 1879. I regard it as the best statement

of the financial question made by me in that canvass. In it I

stated fully the action of the administration in respect to the

resumption of specie payments, and the refunding of the public

debt. The people of Maine had been greatly divided upon these

measures. The Greenback party was opposed to the effort to advance

the United States note to the value of coin which it represented,

but wished to make it depend upon some imaginary value given to it

by law. I said the people of Maine would have to choose between

those who strictly sought to preserve the national faith, and to

maintain the greenback at par with coin, and those who, with utter

disregard of the public faith, wished to restore the old state of

affairs, when the greenback could only be passed at a discount,

and could neither be received for customs duties, nor be paid upon

the public debt.

The Greenback party had embodied in their platform the following

dogmas:

"The general government should issue an ample volume of full legal

tender currency to meet the business needs of the country, and to

promptly pay all of its debts."

"The national banking system should be immediately abolished."

"We demand the immediate calling-in and payment of all United States

bonds in full legal tender money."

One of the Members of Congress from the State of Maine, Hon. G. W.

Ladd, was reported to have paid his attention to me, in a speech

in Portland, in the following language:

"Mr. Sherman has sold one hundred and ninety millions of four per

cent. bonds in one day to bloodsuckers who were choking the country,

and he should be impeached."

In closing my speech I said:

"It is to support such dogmas, my Republican friends, that we are

invited to desert the great party to which we belong. It may be

that the Republican party has made in the last twenty years some

mistakes. It may not always have come up to your aspirations.

Sometimes power may have been abused. To err is human; but where

it has erred it has always been on the side of liberty and justice.

It led our country in the great struggle for union and nationality,

which more than all else tended to make it great and powerful. It

has always taken side with the poor and the feeble. It emancipated

a whole race, and has invested them with liberty and all the rights

of citizenship. It never robbed the ballot box. It has never

deprived any class of people, for any cause, of the elective

franchise. It maintains the supremacy of the national government

on all national affairs, while observing and protecting the rights

of the states. It has tried to secure the equality of all citizens

before the law. It opposes all distinctions among men, whether

white or black, native or naturalized. It invites them all to

partake of equal privileges, and secures them an equal chance in

life. It has secured, for the first time in our history, the rights

of a naturalized citizen to protection against claims of military

duty in his native country. It prescribes no religious test.

While it respects religion for its beneficial influence upon civil

society, it recognizes the right of each individual to worship God

according to the dictates of his own conscience, without prejudice

or interference. It supports free common schools as the basis of

republican institutions. It has done more than any party that ever

existed to provide lands for the landless. It devised and enacted

the homestead law, and has constantly extended this policy, so that

all citizens, native and naturalized, may enjoy, without cost,

limited portions of this public land. It protects American labor.

It is in favor of American industry. It seeks to diversity

productions. It has steadily pursued, as an object of national

importance, the development of our commerce on inland waters and

on the high seas. It has protected our flag on every sea; not the

stars and bars, not the flag of a state, but the stars and stripes

of the Union. It seeks to establish in this republic of ours a

great, strong, free government of free men. It would, with frankness

and sincerity, without malice or hate, extend the right hand of

fellowship and fraternity to those who lately were at war with us,

aid them in making fruitful their waste places and in developing

their immense resources, if only they would allow the poor and

ignorant men among them the benefits conferred by the constitution

and the laws. No hand of oppression rests upon them. No bayonet

points to them except in their political imaginings.

"We would gladly fraternize with them if they would allow us, and

have but one creed--the constitution and laws of our country, to

be executed and enforced by our country, and for the equal benefit

of all our countrymen. If they will not accept this, but will keep

up sectionalism, maintain the solid south upon the basis of the

principles of the Confederate states, we must prepare to stand

together as the loyal north, true to the Union, true to liberty,

and faithful to every national obligation. I appeal to every man

who ever, at any time, belonged to the Republican party, to every

man who supported his country in its time of danger, to every lover

of liberty regulated by law, and every intelligent Democrat who

can see with us the evil tendencies of the dogmas I have commented

upon, to join us in reforming all that is evil, all the abuses of

the past, and in developing the principles and policies which in

twenty years have done so much to strengthen our government, to

consolidate our institutions, and to excite the respect and admiration

of mankind."

I made similar speeches at Lewiston, Augusta, Waterville and Bangor.

General Sherman's estimate of my speech at Portland, in reply to

an inquiry, is characteristic of him, viz:

"General, your brother, Secretary Sherman, seems to be doing some

telling work just now in the State of Maine; in fact, it is conceded

that his recent financial triumphs have made him a power."

"Well, yes, I think John's doing right well. He made a good speech

at Portland, one that seemed to me carefully prepared. I think he

answered his critics quite conclusively, but if I were in John's

place I would now save my breath and make no more speeches, but

simply say in reply to other invitations, 'Read my Portland speech,'

because whatever other efforts he may make during the campaign must

be more or less a rehash of that."

In the canvass that followed in Maine but little attention was paid

to the sectional question, and the Republican party gained a complete

victory.

About the middle of August the business of the treasury department,

being confined to routine duties, was left under the management of

Assistant Secretary John B. Hawley. I determined to spend the

remainder of the month in the campaign in Ohio, then actively

progressing, but confined mainly to the issue between the inflation

of paper money and the solid rock of specie payments. I made my

first speech in that canvass at Steubenville on the 21st of August.

The meeting was a very large one. Every available seat was occupied

by an intelligent audience, and the aisles and corridors were filled

with people sitting or standing. I opened my speech as follows:

"I am happy to be again among the people of Ohio, to whom I am

under the highest obligations of duty and gratitude, and especially

to be here in this good county of Jefferson, whose representatives

have thrice honored me by their vote when a candidate for the Senate

of the United States. I cheerfully come to speak on matters in

which you, as well as the whole people of the United States, have

a common interest; and I will best meet your wishes by stating, in

a plain, frank way, such facts and reasons as appear to me to

justify the support you have uniformly given to the Republican

party since its organization in 1854, and to present adequate

grounds for supporting it now.

"Three parties present candidates to the people of Ohio for the

highest offices of the state. It will not be necessary or just

for me to arraign the personal character, standing, or services of

either of the candidates on either of these tickets. They are all

respected citizens, and each would, no doubt, if elected, satisfactorily

perform the duties of the office for which he is nominated.

"But the issues involved are far more important than the candidates.

I assure you that upon the election in Ohio depend questions of

public policy which touch upon the framework of our government and

affect the interests of every citizen of the United States. The

same old questions about which we disputed before the war, and

during the war, and since the war, are as clearly involved in this

campaign as they were when Lincoln was elected, or when Grant was

fighting the battles of his country in the Wilderness.

"There are also financial questions involved in this contest. The

Republican party proposed, maintained, and executed the resumption

act as the best remedy for the evils that followed the panic of

1873. Under that act it has brought about the resumption of specie

payments. By its policy all forms of money are equal to and

redeemable in coin. It has reduced the interest on all the public

debt that is now redeemable. It has maintained and advanced the

public credit. It now declares its purpose to hold fast to what

it has done, to keep and maintain every dollar of paper money in

circulation as of equal value to the best coin issued from the

mint, and as soon as possible to complete the work of reducing

interest on all the public debt to four per cent. or less.

"The Greenback party not only denounces all we have done, but

proposes to reverse it by the issue of an almost unlimited amount

of irredeemable paper money, to destroy the system of free national

banks, and to call in and pay off all the United States bonds with

irredeemable money.

"The Democratic party of Ohio, both in its platform and by its

candidates, supports more or less all of these dogmas; but it does

so not as a matter of principle, but for political power. Its main

object is, by any sort of alliance on any real or pretended popular

issue, to gain strength enough to unite with the solid south, so

that it may restore to power, in all departments of the national

government, the very same doctrines that led to the Civil War, and

the very men who waged it against the Union. To obtain political

power, the democracy seek, by party discipline, to compel their

members to abandon the old and cherished principles of their party

of having a sound currency redeemable in coin. For this, they

overthrew Governor Bishop; for this, they propose to reopen all

the wild and visionary schemes of inflation which have been twice

rejected by the people of Ohio. Our contest with them is not only

on financial questions, but upon the old and broad question of the

power and duty of the national government to enforce the constitution

and laws of the United States in every state and territory, whether

in favor of or against any citizen of the United States.

"Let us first take up these financial questions, and in charity

and kindness, and with due deference to opposing opinions, endeavor

to get at the right, if we can.

"The great body of all parties are interested in and desirous of

promoting the public good. If they could only hear both sides

fairly stated, there would be less heat and bitterness in political

contests, and more independent voting."

I then proceeded with a full discussion of the financial questions,

referring especially to the speeches made by General Ewing, with

whose opinions I was conversant. I closed with a brief discussion

of the southern question, and especially the nullification of the

election laws in the southern states. This speech was the best of

many made by me in different parts of the state. I was engaged in

the canvass in Ohio for two weeks afterward, during which I visited

my home at Mansfield.

In traversing the state I was surprised at the remarkable change

in the condition of business and the feelings of the people, and

at the evidences of prosperity not only in the workshops but on

the farms. It was jokingly said that the revival of industries

and peace and happiness was a shrewd political trick of the

Republicans to carry the state. As I rode through the country I

saw for miles and miles luxuriant crops of thousands of acres of

wheat, corn, oats and barley. It was said that this was merely a

part of the campaign strategy of the Republicans, that really the

people were very poor and miserable and on the verge of starvation.

This was the burden of the speeches of General Ewing, who attributed

the miseries of the people to my "wicked financial policy," and

said that I was given over to the clutches of the money power and

stripped and robbed the people of Ohio for the benefit of the

"bloated bondholders."

While General Ewing was fighting in the shadows of the past, caused

by the panic of 1873, a revolution had taken place, and he who

entered into the canvass with the hope that the cry of distress

would aid him in his ambition to be governor, must have been greatly

discouraged by the evidences of prosperity all around him. I found

in my home at Mansfield that business was prosperous, the workshops

were in full blast, and smoke was issuing from the chimney of every

establishment in the place.

My coming to Ohio naturally excited a good deal of comment and of

opposition from Democratic speakers and papers. I was charged with

nepotism in appointing my relatives to office, but upon examination

it was found that I had appointed none, though several, mostly

remote, were holding office under appointments of General Grant.

On the 25th of August I left Mansfield for Columbus and Cincinnati,

and on the train met Charles Foster and others on their way to

Mount Vernon. On their arrival they were met by flags and music,

and in response to the calls I made a brief speech.

On the 27th of August I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati

and the Chamber of Commerce of that city. That body is composed

in almost equal numbers of members of the two great parties, and

therefore, in addressing it, I carefully refrain from discussing

political topics. At that time there was a good deal of discussion

of the order made by me on the 13th of August, addressed to the

treasurer of the United States, directing him not to withdraw from

bank depositaries the money deposited for the payment of called

bonds, until it was required for that purpose. At the date of that

order over $70,000,000 of called bonds were still outstanding, but

only $52,000,000 remained on deposit with national bank depositaries

to pay them, thus showing that $18,000,000 United States notes had

been withdrawn from the depositaries into the treasury in advance

of their need for such payment. These sums were fully secured by

the deposit with the government of bonds to the amount of such

deposits and a further sum of bonds to the amount of five per cent.

of the deposit.

I felt that the withdrawal of this great sum in advance of the

presentation of the called bonds would necessarily create an

injurious contraction of the currency. To meet this condition of

affairs, upon the advice of the treasurer at Washington and the

assistant treasurer at New York, and the pressing complaints of

business men not interested in depositary banks, I issued this

order:

"Treasury Department, August 13, 1879.

"Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.

"Sir:--With a view to closing as soon as practicable the accounts

of the department with depositary banks on loan account, without

unnecessary disturbance of the money market or the withdrawal of

legal tenders from current business, you will please receive from

such depositaries in payment called bonds to be credited when passed

through the loan division. You will require from such depositaries

sufficient money in addition to the called bonds, to insure the

withdrawal of all deposits on loan account on or before the 1st of

October next. The letter of the department of March 26 is modified

accordingly.

"Very respectfully,

"John Sherman, Secretary."

It was said that this was done to relieve the banks, and especially

the First National and the National Bank of Commerce, of New York,

which in closing out the refunding operations had, as already

stated, made large subscriptions for themselves and others, and it

was intimated that I was interested in these banks. This innuendo

was without foundation or excuse, and was made merely to create a

political sensation. This order was made, not at the request of

the banks, for they were entirely prepared to pay the money, but

at the urgent demand of business men, that the currency should not

be withdrawn from the banks where it was employed in active business,

and be deposited in the treasury where it would lay idle.

I thus explained the matter to the Chamber of Commerce, and to the

public at large. I felt that it would not be advisable for me to

drain the money market of legal tenders, and to hoard them in the

treasury to await the presentation of called bonds. If such a

course had been adopted, the clamor would have been louder and more

just. The order, no doubt, had a happy effect, as the running

accounts were rapidly and quietly closed, by the payment of the

called bonds, without any disturbance in the money market. The

clamor made was beneficial because it induced the holders of the

called bonds to send them in for payment, in which I greatly

rejoiced.

In the evening of that day a reception was given to me at the

Lincoln club. While it was going on a large crowd, headed by a

band, approached the clubhouse, and loudly insisted that I should

speak to them. As this was a political club, I felt at liberty,

on being introduced by Warner M. Bateman, to make a political

speech, mainly devoted to my early friend, General Ewing, and his

peculiar notions of finance. This was reported in the papers at

the time. If there was too much political feeling manifested in

my speeches at this period, it may be partly excused by the extreme

violence of denunciation of me by Democratic speakers and

newspapers.

Later in the evening I visited Wielert's pavilion, on Vine Street,

where the usual evening concert was being given. The visitors were

mainly German citizens, and, as such, were known to be in favor of

a sound currency based upon gold and silver. The orchestra at once

stopped the piece they were playing, and played the "Star Spangled

Banner," amid the cheering of the assemblage. They insisted upon

a speech, and I said:

"When I came here to-night I did not expect to make a speech, as

I have made one already. I only came to see the people enjoy

themselves, to drink a glass of that good old German beverage,

beer, and to listen to the music. I am very happy to meet you,

and shall carry away with me a kindly remembrance of your greeting.

All I want, and that is what we all want, is honest money. A dollar

in paper is now worth a dollar in gold or silver anywhere in this

country, and we want affairs so shaped that the paper money issued

may be exchanged anywhere or under any circumstances for gold or

silver. That is my idea of honest money. [Cries, 'That is so.'

'That is ours, too,' etc.] We may be assured that such shall be

the character of the money in our country if the people will sustain

the party which has equalized the values of the paper and metal

moneys. Again I thank you for your kind reception."

I returned to Washington and remained there during the month of

September, actively employed in the duties of the department.

During this month nearly all the outstanding called bonds were

presented and paid, and all sums deposited with national banks

during the operation of refunding were paid into the treasury and

these accounts closed.

Fruitful crops in the United States, and a large demand for them

in Europe, caused an accumulation of coin in this country. Much

of it came through the customhouse in New York, but most of it was

in payment for cotton and provisions. It was readily exchanged

for United States notes and silver certificates. As all forms of

money were of equal purchasing power and paper money was much more

convenient to handle than coin, the exchange of coin, by the holders

of it, for notes or certificates, was a substantial benefit to them

and strengthened the treasury. I promoted these exchanges as far

as the law allowed. I deemed it wise to distribute this coin among

the several sub-treasuries of the United States, maintaining always

the reserve for the redemption of United States notes in the sub-

treasury in New York as the law required. For this purpose I issued

the following order:

"Treasury Department, }

"Washington, September 19, 1879.}

"Gold coin beyond the needs of the government having accumulated

in the treasury of the United States, by the deposit in the several

public assay offices of fine bars and foreign coin, for which the

depositors have been paid, at their option, in United States notes,

the treasurer of the United States, and the several assistant

treasurers at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati,

Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and San Francisco, are hereby

authorized to pay out gold coin as well as silver coin and notes

upon the current obligations of the government, and upon advances

to disbursing officers, as may be convenient and practicable.

Transfers of coin for this purpose will be made to any assistant

treasurer, when necessary, by the treasurer of the United States,

upon application to him. The treasurer of the United States in

this city, upon the receipt by him of a certificate of deposit

issued by the United States assistant treasurer at New York, stating

that there has been deposited with him legal tender notes in the

sum of $100 or multiples thereof, will also cause to be shipped

from the mint to the depositor, at his risk and expense, a like

amount of gold coin. Standard silver dollars may also be obtained

as heretofore.

* * * * *

"John Sherman, Secretary."

The result of this policy was beneficial, though the demand for

coin rarely existed except for foreign exchange, and this was

generally in New York, and largely depended upon the balance of

trade. Our people had been so accustomed to the use of paper money

that they received and paid United States notes in preference to

coin, and this more readily since these notes were equal in purchasing

power to coin.

Senator Thurman, my colleague and personal friend, was active in

the canvass in Ohio. His term expired on the 4th of March, 1881,

and he was a candidate for re-election by the legislature about to

be chosen. I heard of his speeches, especially those in respect

to resumption. He commented upon the fact that United States notes

were only redeemed in the city of New York, and claimed that we

had not actually resumed, for gold was not in circulation. He

appealed to his audiences to say whether they had any gold and

whether they were not compelled to receive the same greenbacks then

as they had since the period of the war, and said if they wanted

gold they had to go to New York for it. I regarded this as a piece

of demagogism, for he knew the difference between the greenbacks

then and the greenbacks before resumption. Hearing that he was to

speak in Bellaire shortly I arranged to have certain disbursements

for wages in that neighborhood made in gold coin. When he made

his speech in Bellaire, soon afterwards, he repeated the same

statements that he had previously made, and appealed to the audience

to know whether they had seen any of the gold coin they had heard

so much about. Much to his surprise and embarrassment quite a

number of persons held up and shook gold coin. This put a stop to

his inquiries. The people appreciated the advance in the purchasing

power of their money, and neither demanded coin nor cared for it.

Early in October I yielded to the urgent request of Mr. Foster to

help in the closing days of the canvass, and, on the evening of

the 8th, addressed a meeting at the west front of the capitol in

Columbus, far exceeding in numbers any political gathering during

the campaign. My opening will indicate the general trend of my

remarks:

"It is not within my power to reach with my voice all who have

assembled on this occasion, and besides, for some time I have not

been much in the habit of speaking in the open air, and don't know

how long my voice will hold out, but I think I will be able to say

all that you will desire to hear from me, as I will be followed by

a gentleman distinguished in war and able to supply any imperfections

in my address.

"When I was here in August last it appeared that the great point

in the political contest in which we were about to engage was

whether the people of Ohio would stand fast to the resumption of

specie payments, which the Republicans, by a steady and patient

courage and unswerving conviction, had finally brought to a successful

consummation on the 1st day of January last, or whether the people

of Ohio would yield to the wild and fanciful ideas of inflation,

and desert the great good that had been accomplished after so long

a trial.

"The Democratic party, which had been holding the honored principles

of that party, seemed to be willing to go after strange gods, and

to form new alliances, to do anything to gain success, and that

old party sought to form at least temporary alliances, so that the

people would forget the great issue, and follow after these strange

and delusive ideas of which I will speak. Therefore it was that

my friend General Ewing was nominated for Governor of Ohio, with

the expectation that as he had advanced some such ideas in times

past, a coalition would be made between the parties naturally

hostile, and that the State of Ohio would be thus gained for the

Democratic ticket."

In the course of my remarks I read an extract from General Ewing's

speech of the year before, in which he stated that if we were out

of debt to foreign countries, and if our foreign commerce floated

under our own flag, resumption in gold and silver would be impossible

on the then volume of paper money; that if it were attempted the

desperadoes of Wall street and the money kings of England would

present greenbacks, and take the gold as fast as it could be paid

over the counter of the treasury. I said in reply:

"Not a year rolled around until this resumption came, and these

Wall street desperadoes and these money kings of Europe, instead

of coming and demanding our gold in exchange for greenbacks, now

bring their gold to us and want greenbacks for it.

"The money kings of Europe have brought us gold--$36,900,000 in

gold coin from France--and the English have brought their gold and

exchanged it for United States notes. And these Wall street

desperadoes are as eager to get our greenbacks as you are. They

don't want the gold at all and we cannot put it on them. Why, my

countrymen, United States notes may now travel the circuit of the

world with undiminished honor, and be everywhere redeemed at par

in coin. They are made redeemable everywhere, and at this moment

the greenback is worth a premium on the Pacific coast and in the

Hawaiian Islands, and in China and Japan it is worth par; and in

every capital of Europe, in Berlin, in Paris, in London, an American

traveling may go anywhere in the circuit of the civilized world,

and take no money with him except United States notes.

"Well, now, General Ewing was mistaken. Well, why don't General

Ewing come down and say 'I was mistaken?' [A voice, 'He will come

down.'] Yes, after next Tuesday he will."

On the next day I spoke at Springfield to an audience nearly as

large, following the general lines of my Columbus speech. On the

following day I spoke at Lancaster from a stand in front of the

town hall, in plain sight of the house in which General Ewing and

I were born. I spoke of General Ewing in very complimentary terms,

said we had been intimate friends from boyhood, that our fathers

had been friends and neighbors, but that he and I then found

ourselves on opposite sides of a very important question. I

expressed my respect for the sincerity of General Ewing's motives,

but believed that he was thoroughly and radically wrong. I said

I wished to state frankly how he was wrong, and to what dangerous

consequences the fruit of his errors would lead, and I wanted the

people of Lancaster to judge between us.

On the Saturday before the election I spoke in Massillon. By some

misunderstanding I was advertised to speak on that afternoon at

both Massillon and Mansfield, but, by an arrangement subsequently

made, I spoke at Massillon to one of the largest meetings of the

campaign, and then was taken by special train to Mansfield in time

to make my closing speech in the canvass. It was late in the

afternoon, but the crowd that met to hear me remained until my

arrival, of which the following account was given by the local

paper:

"But the grand ovation was reserved for our distinguished townsman,

Secretary Sherman. There were acres of men, women, and children

and vehicles at the depot to meet him, and as he stepped from the

cars he was greeted with the booming of cannon, the music of half

a dozen bands, and the loud and long acclaim that came from the

throats of the immense concourse of friends. A thousand hands of

old neighbors were stretched out to grasp his as he moved along

with great difficulty, piloted by the reception committee, through

the vast and surging crowd. Cheer after cheer went up on every

imaginable pretext, and many times calls for 'Three cheers for John

Sherman, our next President,' were honored with a power and enthusiasm

that left no room for doubt as to the intensity of the devotion

felt for him at his old home."

In this connection I wish to say once for all that I have been

under the highest obligations to the people of Mansfield during my

entire life, from boyhood to old age. I have, with rare exceptions,

and without distinction of party, received every kindness and favor

which anyone could receive from his fellow-citizens, and if I have

not been demonstrative in exhibiting my appreciation and gratitude,

it has nevertheless been entertained, and I wish in this way to

acknowledge it.

In opening my address in the evening I said:

"My fellow-townsmen, I regret your disappointment of to-day, that,

by some misunderstanding as to the hour of your meeting, I felt it

my duty, in obedience to the request of the state committee, to

attend the great mass meeting as Massillon this afternoon, and now

come before you wearied and hoarse, to speak of the political

questions of the day.

"When I was in Ohio in August last, the chief question in the

pending political canvass was, whether the resumption of specie

payments, so long and steadily struggled for, and happily accomplished

by the Republican party, should be maintained, or whether it should

give way to certain wild and erratic notions in favor of irredeemable

paper money. Upon this issue General Ewing was nominated by the

Democratic party, in the hope that he would gain support from a

third party committed to inflation. Since then it would appear

that the Democratic leaders seek to change the issue. The same

old questions about the rights of states to nullify the laws of

the United States--the same old policy to belittle and degrade our

national government into a mere confederacy of states--are now

thrust forward into prominence."

On the following Tuesday I voted, and immediately started for

Washington. The news of the triumphant election of Foster and

Hickenlooper, by over 30,000 majority, and a Republican majority

of twenty-five in the legislature, reached me while on the train.

The management by Governor Foster of his canvass, and his work in

it, was as laborious and effective as any ever conducted in Ohio.

He visited every county in the state, often made four or five

speeches in a day, and kept special railroad trains in motion all

the while, carrying him from place to place. He is not, in the

usual sense, an orator, but in his numerous campaigns he has always

made clear and effective statements which the people could understand.

His manner is pleasing, without pretension or gush. He had been

elected to Congress several times in a district strongly Democratic.

In the campaign of 1879 he adopted the same plan that had been so

successful when he was a candidate for Congress. He was an

experienced and efficient hand-shaker.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

LAST DAYS OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION.

Invitation From General Arthur to Speak in New York--Letter to Hon.

John Jay on the Subject--Mr. Evarts' Refined Specimen of Egotism--

An Anecdote of the Hayes Cabinet--Duty of the Government to Protect

the Election of All Federal Officers--My Speech in Cooper Institute

--Offers of Support to Elect Me as a Successor of Senator Thurman

--My Replies--Republican Victory in New York--President Hayes'

Message to Congress--My Report as Secretary of the Treasury--

Modification of My Financial Views Since that Time--Bank Notes as

Currency--Necessity for Paper Money--Mr. Bayard's Resolution

Concerning the Legal Tender Quality of United States Notes--Questions

Asked Me by the Finance Committee of the Senate.

In the latter part of September I was invited by General Arthur,

as chairman of the Republican state committee of New York, to speak

to the Republicans of that state during the pending canvass, in

aid of election of Mr. Cornell as governor. The circumstances of

the removal of Arthur and Cornell caused some doubt whether I should

accept the invitation, as it seemed that the nomination of Cornell

and the management of the canvass by Arthur was an expression of

triumph, and my acceptance would be regarded as a humiliation of

the President. I did not think so and in this opinion the President

concurred. I, therefore, accepted the invitation by the following

letter:

"Treasury Department, }

"Washington, September 29, 1879.}

"Dear Sir:--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of

the 25th inst., inviting me to speak to the Republicans in New York

some time during the pending campaign. It will give me great

pleasure to do my utmost in aid of the election of Mr. Cornell and

the Republican ticket at the coming election, and I wish I could

accept your invitation without reserve; but in view of engagements

made in Ohio, and the official duties incumbent upon me, I cannot

make any more definite reply than to say that by the middle of

October I hope to be able to set aside two or three days to be

spent in your canvass at such places as you may think I can render

the most satisfactory service. I have also received an invitation

from Mr. Johnson, secretary of your committee. Please consider

this an answer.

"Very respectfully,

"John Sherman.

"To General C. A. Arthur,

"Chairman Republican State Committee, New York."

Shortly afterward I received a letter from Hon. John Jay, expressing

regret at my acceptance, for the reasons I have stated. To this

I replied as follows:

"October 4, 1879.

"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 2nd is received.

"I feel as you do that the nomination of Mr. Cornell, and the

appointment of Mr. Arthur to conduct the canvass, has the look of

a reproach to the President for their removal. If only their

personal interests were involved, I should feel great indifference

to their success, but it so happens that Republican success in New

York is of such vital importance to the people of the United States,

that their personal interest in the matter, and even the motive of

the nomination and appointment, should be overlooked, with a view to

secure the country against the return to power of the Democratic

party.

"We must carry New York next year, or see all the results of the

war overthrown and the constitutional amendments absolutely nullified.

We cannot do this if our friends defeat a Republican candidate for

governor fairly nominated, and against whom, there are no substantial

charges affecting his integrity. Besides, the nomination of Mr.

Cornell could easily have been prevented if the friends of the

President and the administration had aided to defeat it. He was

nominated by our acquiescence, and we should not now complain of

it. The expediency of holding the meeting you propose, depends

entirely upon the question whether or not it would aid the Republican

cause this fall. I am inclined to think it would not, that such

a meeting would deter Republicans from supporting the regular ticket

and, therefore, is ill advised. I thus frankly state my opinion

as you ask it, but without any desire in any way to influence that

of others.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman.

"Hon. John Jay, Katonah, N. Y."

After the election in Ohio I received from General Arthur a list

of appointments for me in New York, which if I had attempted to

fill would have overtaxed my strength. Mr. Evarts had also been

invited, but limited his acceptance to one speech to be made in

Cooper Institute. I complained to him that it was not fair to

request of me so many speeches where he, a citizen of that state,

agreed to make but one. His answer was characteristic. He said:

"Well, Mr. Sherman, when the people of New York wish my views upon

public questions they arrange for a meeting in Cooper Institute,

or some such place. I make the speech and it is printed and is

read." I thought this, under the circumstances, a refined specimen

of egotism, meaning that he had only to pronounce his opinion to

attract universal attention and he need not therefore repeat his

speech at any other place.

This incident recalls to my mind a specimen of his keen wit. Among

the early meetings of the cabinet President Hayes announced three

or four personal appointments that he intended to make, mainly in

the foreign service, in the department of which Mr. Evarts was the

head. Evarts seemed to be surprised at these appointments, and

after some pause he said: "Mr. President, I have never had the

good fortune to see the 'great western reserve' of Ohio, of which

we have heard so much." For a moment Hayes did not perceive the

quiet sarcasm of Mr. Evarts, which was a polite expression of his

feeling that he should have been consulted about these nominations

before they were announced. We all caught the idea and the President

joined heartily in the laughter. Mr. Evarts is not only a man of

keen wit, but is a great lawyer and able advocate. I learned, from

my intimate association with him in the cabinet, and subsequently

in the Senate as a member of the committee on foreign relations,

to respect and love him.

On the 25th of October, when on my way to New York, at the request

of General Kilpatrick I made a speech at Paterson, New Jersey, on

the occasion of the ratification of the Republican nominations.

In this speech I expressed my opinions upon the subject of fraudulent

elections, especially in the south, and, while the government has

not been able at any time to completely protect the ballot box in

several states, the opinions I then expressed are still entertained.

I believe the right of each lawful voter to vote in national

elections should be enforced by the power of the national government

in every state and territory of the Union. I said at this time:

"Now I want to serve notice on the Democratic party, that the

Republican party has resolved upon two things, and it never makes

up its mind upon anything until it is determined to put it through.

_We are going to see that every lawful voter in this country has

a right to vote one honest ballot at every national election, and

no more_. If the Democratic party stands in the way, so much the

worse for the Democratic party. If the south, rebellious as it

is, stands in the way again, we will protect every voter in his

right to vote wherever the constitution gives the right to vote.

Local elections must be regulated by state laws. Southern voters

may cheat each other as they please in local elections. The

Republican party never trenched on the rights of states, and does

not intend to.

"Whenever national officers or Congressmen are elected, those are

national elections, and, under the plain provisions of the

constitution, the nation has the right to protect them. The

Republican party intends, if the present law is not strong enough,

_to make it stronger_. In the south 1,000,000 Republicans are

disfranchised. With the help of Almighty God, we intend to right

that wrong. Congress has a right to regulate congressional elections.

The Tweed frauds, reversing the vote of New York state in 1868,

led to the passage of the first federal election law, breaking up

false counts. Then the Mississippi plan was introduced in the

south.

"If Congress was purged to-day of men elected by fraud and bloodshed

in the south, the Democrats would be in a pitiful minority in the

capital. At the last session the Democrats tried to repeal the

election laws, and were met by veto after veto from the stanch

Republican President. Then they tried to nullify existing laws.

We must as firmly resist nullification now as when Jackson threatened

'by the eternal God' to hang the original nullifier, Calhoun. _We

must have free elections_. We are determined to assert the _supremacy

of the United States in all matters pertaining to the United States_,

and to _enforce the laws of the United States, come what will_."

This declaration of mine at the time created a good deal of criticism,

especially in the New York papers, but, in spite of this, my

convictions have grown stronger with time that it is the imperative

duty of the national government to protect the election of all

federal officers, including Members of Congress, by wise conservative

laws.

On the 27th of October I spoke in Cooper Institute, confining myself

mainly to an exposition and defense of the financial policy of the

administration. This was hardly needed in the city of New York

though, as Evarts said of his speech, I knew what I said would be

printed, and people who were not familiar with financial topics

could read it. The commercial papers, while approving the general

tenor of the speech, complained that I did not advocate the retirement

of the legal tender notes of the government. They seemed then, as

they do now, to favor a policy that would withdraw the government

from all participation in furnishing a currency. I have always

honestly entertained the opinion that the United States should

furnish the body of circulating notes required for the convenience

of the people, and I do yet entertain it, but the notes should

always be maintained at parity with coin. In the cities generally,

where banks have great influence and where circulating notes are

superseded in a great measure by checks, drafts and clearing house

certificates, the wants of the people for paper money secured by

the highest sanction of law and by the promise and credit of the

government are not appreciated. In this speech I referred to the

banks as follows:

"They [the banks] are interwoven with all the commercial business

of the country, and their loans and discounts form our most active

and useful capital. . . . The abolition of the national banks would

inevitably lead to the incorporation of state banks, especially in

bankrupt states, where any expedient to make paper money cheap will

be quickly resorted to. . . . It will open the question of the

repeal of the provisions of the loan laws fixing a limit to the

amount of United States notes, and thus will shock the public credit

and raise new questions of authority which the Supreme Court would

probably declare to be unconstitutional. Free banking open to all,

with prompt and easy redemption, supplies a currency to meet the

varying wants of different periods and seasons. Who would risk

such a question to the changing votes of Congress?"

I must add, however, that I do not believe the banking system would

be sustained by popular opinion unless the great body of our currency

was in the form of United States notes or certificates based upon

coin. If there is any profit in the circulation of such notes, it

ought to inure to the government. The circulation of banks should

only be equal to the local demands for currency and should always

be amply secured, as now, by the deposit of United States bonds,

or some substitute for these bonds equally valuable, when the

national bonds shall be redeemed. This security ought not to extend

beyond the amount of bank notes actually outstanding, leaving the

security of deposits by individuals to depend upon the assets of

each bank. The duty of the government is performed when it guards

with undoubted security the payment of the circulating notes issued

by the banks. In this speech I spoke of the resumption act and

the history of resumption as follows:

"The resumption act was a Republican measure, supported, advocated

and voted for by Republican Senators and Members, and without the

aid of a single Democrat in either House of Congress. It has been

adhered to and successfully executed by that party. The Republican

party has won no victory more complete than the passage, execution

and success of the resumption act. This measure was adopted in

January, 1875, in the midst of the panic, when our paper money was

worth only 85 cents on the dollar. It was a period of wild

speculation and inflation. The rate of interest was higher than

before or since--the government paying six per cent. in gold,

corporations in fair credit from eight to ten per cent., and

individuals from ten to twelve per cent. Recklessness in contracting

debts was universal. Railroads were built where they were not

needed; furnaces were put up in excess of all possible demands;

and over-production and over-trading occurred in all branches of

business. The balance of trade for ten years had been steadily

against us, with an aggregate excess of imports over exports of

over $1,000,000,000.

"The panic of 1873 put an end to all these wild, visionary schemes,

and left the country prostrate and in ruin. All business enterprises

were paralyzed. Congress, in a hopeless quandary, looked in vain

for some way of escape from the bankruptcy which threatened every

interest and every individual. Then it was the Republican party

devised and placed upon the statute book the resumption act, and,

against noisy opposition and continual speaking, steadily persevered

in its execution.

* * * * * *

"Now that resumption is a success, Democrats say the Republican

party did not bring it about, but that Providence has done it; that

bountiful crops here and bad crops in Europe have been the cause

of all the prosperity that has come since resumption. We gratefully

acknowledge that Providence has been on the side of the Republican

party, or rather, that, having sought to do right, we find ourselves

supported by Divine Providence, and we are grateful to the Almighty

for the plentiful showers and favorable seasons that brought us

good crops; but we also remember that it was the passage of the

resumption act, the steady steps toward resumption, the accumulation

of the coin reserve, the economy of the people, and their adjustment

of business affairs to the time fixed for resumption, that, with

the blessings of Divine Providence, brought us resumption.

"We should be, and are, thankful to the Almighty, but we are under

no thanks whatever to the Democratic party. It has not, for twenty-

five years, had Providence on its side, but we may fairly infer

that, as it has steadily resisted Providence and patriotic duty

for more than twenty years, it must have had the devil on its side.

Democrats can claim no credit, but stand convicted of a blundering

mistake in abandoning the old and tried principles of their party,

and following after strange gods with the hope of a brief and

partial success. They have failed, and that dogma for hard money,

which they abandoned, has been adopted by the Republican party, as

the corner stone of its greatest success."

I spoke at Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse, and, on my way to

Washington, at New Brunswick, New Jersey.

After the election in Ohio, I received several letters from members

of the legislature, offering their support to me as a candidate

for United States Senator, to be elected in January to succeed Mr.

Thurman, for the term commencing on the 4th of March, 1881. Among

them was a letter from L. M. Dayton, a member of the general assembly

from Hamilton county, to which I replied as follows:

"Washington, D. C., November 2, 1879.

"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 30th ult., in which you inquire

whether I will be a candidate for election as Senator of the United

States in place of Senator Thurman, is received.

"Early last summer, when this subject was first mentioned to me by

personal friends, I freely expressed my conviction that as the

general assembly of Ohio had three times conferred upon me this

high and much coveted honor, I ought not to stand in the way of

others who might fairly aspire to that position. I am of the same

opinion now. During the recent canvass I stated to several gentlemen

who had been named in the public press as probable candidates, that

I would not be a candidate, and I could not now recede from that

position without just reproach.

"Please say so to your fellow members, and accept my hearty thanks

for your partiality.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman.

"Hon. L. M. Dayton, Cincinnati, Ohio."

I also wrote the following letter to Senator A. B. Cole, of

Portsmouth, in reply to a similar offer:

"Washington, D. C., November 11, 1879.

"My Dear Sir:--Your very kind letter of the 10th inst. is received.

I thank you again for your offer to support me for the Senate, but

you will have seen from the letter I wrote to Colonel Dayton, that

I have determined, under the circumstances stated therein, not to

be a candidate, so that members may feel entirely free to follow

their judgment in the selection of the Senator. I must be impartial

between the several candidates.

"I thank you also for what you say about the nomination for the

presidency. Such a nomination would be a very exalted honor, so

much so that I ought not to do anything to promote or to defeat

it. I would be very glad to get the hearty cordial support of the

Ohio delegation, and that being granted I am perfectly willing to

abide the decision of the national convention, and will be ready

to support anyone who is nominated.

"I should be glad to see your son, and hope you will give him a

letter of introduction to me.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman.

"Hon. A. B. Cole, Portsmouth, Ohio."

Cornell was elected Governor of New York, and with him a Republican

legislature. The elections generally that fall were in favor of

the Republican party, but, as both Houses of the 46th Congress were

Democratic, President Hayes had to conduct executive business with

a Congress not in political harmony with him until the 4th of March,

1881, when the term of Congress and of the President expired. I

feel bound to say that no merely obstructive financial measures

were adopted during that Congress.

The message of the President, communicated to Congress on the 1st

of December, 1879, dealt with the usual topics of such a document;

but, instead of commencing with our foreign relations as usual, he

began by congratulating Congress on the successful execution of

the resumption act and the funding of all the public debt redeemable,

into bonds bearing a lower rate of interest. He recommended the

suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar, and the retirement

from circulation of United States notes with the capacity of legal

tender. He held that the issue of such notes during the Civil War

was not authorized except as a means of rescuing the country from

imminent peril, and the protracted use of them as money was not

contemplated by the framers of the law. While I did not concur in

all the views stated by the President, especially as to the policy

of retiring United States notes then in circulation, yet his general

conclusions in favor of the coin standard were, in my view, sound

and just. I was very willing to hold on to the progress made in

making United States notes equivalent to coin rather than to attempt

to secure their retirement from circulation.

In the report made by me as Secretary of the Treasury I stated my

opinion that the existing law was ample to enable the department

to maintain resumption upon the volume of United States notes then

outstanding; but added, that in view of the large inflow of gold

into the country, and the high price of public securities, it would

seem to be a favorable time to invest a portion of the sinking fund

in United States notes to be retired and canceled, and in this way

gradually to reduce the maximum of such notes to the sum of

$300,000,000, the amount named in the resumption act.

I would not make such a recommendation now, as I am convinced that

United States notes based on coin in the treasury are the best form

of currency yet devised, and that the volume might be gradually

increased as the volume of business increases. Since resumption

such notes have been maintained at par with coin by holding in the

treasury coin to the amount of thirty per cent. of the notes

outstanding. This coin, lying idle and yielding no interest, costs

the government the interest on an equal amount of bonds, or a

fraction over one per cent. on the sum of United States notes in

circulation. These notes are a part of the debt of the United

States, and if redeemed, must be paid by the issue of $346,000,000

of bonds. I see no reason why the people of the United States

should not have the benefit of this cheap loan rather than the

national banks, and there are many reasons why the issue of a like

amount of notes by national banks cannot fill the place or perform

the functions of United States notes. The issue of bank notes

would be governed by the opinions and interest of the banks, and

the amount could be increased or diminished according to their

interests and without regard to the public good. As an auxiliary

and supplement to United States notes, bank notes may be issued as

now when amply secured by United States bonds, but it would be a

dangerous experiment to confine our paper money to bank notes alone,

the amount of which would depend upon the interest, hopes and fears

of corporations which would be guided alone by the supposed interests

of their stockholders.

There is another objection to a sole dependence on bank notes as

currency: They cannot be made a legal tender either by the states

or the United States, while it is settled by the Supreme Court that

notes of the United States may be made a legal tender, a function

that ought to belong to money.

I know that my views on this subject are not entertained by the

influential class of our citizens who manage our banks, but in this

I prefer the opinion and interest of the great body of our people,

who instinctively prefer the notes of the United States, supported

by coin reserves, to any form of bank paper that has yet been

devised. The only danger in our present currency is that the amount

may be increased to a sum that cannot be maintained at par with

coin, but the same or a greater danger would exist if the volume

of paper money should be left to the interested opinion of bankers

alone.

It is sometimes claimed that neither the government nor banks should

issue paper money, that coin only is money. It is sufficient to

say that all commercial nations have been constrained by necessity

to provide some form of paper money as a substitute for coin. The

experience of the United States has proven this necessity and for

many years our people were compelled to rely upon state bank notes

as a medium of exchange, with resulting loss and bankruptcy. For

the want of paper money at the commencement of the Civil War, the

United States was compelled to issue its notes and to make them a

legal tender. Without this the effort to preserve the Union would

have utterly failed. With such a lesson before us it is futile to

attempt to conduct the business of a great country like ours with

coin alone. Gold can only be a measure or standard of value, but

cannot be the current money of the country. Silver also can only

be used as money for the small transactions of life, its weight

and bulk forbidding its use in commerce or trade. The fluctuations

in market value of these metals make it impossible to permit the

free coinage of both at any ratio with each other without demonetizing

one of them. The cheaper money will always be the money in

circulation. Wherever free coinage now exists silver is the only

money, while where gold is the standard, silver is employed as a

subsidiary coin, maintained at par in gold by the mandate of the

government and its receipt for or redemption in gold. The only

proposed remedy for this fluctuation is an agreement by commercial

nations upon a common ratio, but thus far all efforts for such an

agreement have failed. If successful the result might not be as

satisfactory as anticipated.

I urged, in my report, the importance of adjusting the coinage

ratio of the two metals by treaties with commercial nations, and,

until this could be done, of limiting the coinage of the silver

dollar to such sum as, in the opinion of Congress, would enable

the department to readily maintain the standard dollars of gold

and silver at par with each other.

In this report I stated the refunding transactions already described,

and recommended the refunding of all bonds of the United States in

the same manner as they became redeemable. This was successfully

executed by my successors in office. I was able to say truly of

the treasury department, in conclusion:

"The organization of the several bureaus is such, and the system

of accounting so perfect, that the financial transactions of the

government during the past two years, aggregating $3,354,345,040.53,

have been adjusted without question, with the exception of a few

small balances now in the process of collection, of which it is

believed the government will eventually lose less than $13,000, or

less than four mills on each $1,000 of the amount involved."

The question of the legal tender quality of United States notes,

discussed in my report, was followed, on the 3rd of December, by

the introduction in the Senate of a resolution by Mr. Bayard as

follows:

"_Resolved, etc._, That from and after the passage of this resolution

the treasury notes of the United States shall be receivable for

all dues to the United States excepting duties on imports, and

shall not otherwise be a legal tender; and any of said notes

hereafter reissued shall bear this inscription."

This resolution, while pending in the committee, was debated at

some length, and reported back adversely on the 15th of January,

1880, by Mr. Allison, from a majority of the committee. Mr. Bayard

presented the views of the minority in favor of the resolution.

It was subsequently discussed at considerable length by Mr. Coke,

of Texas, and Mr. Bayard, on opposite sides. No definite action

was taken and the matter rested, and I do not recall that it was

ever again brought before the Senate. I felt satisfied with the

majority report, as I doubted the expediency or power of Congress

to deny to these notes any of the qualities conferred upon them by

the law authorizing their issue, as was the legal tender clause.

The beneficial result of resumption was appreciated by both parties

and there was no disposition of Congress to pass any legislation

on the subject. The speech of Mr. Bayard, made on the 27th of

January, 1880, was a careful and able review of the whole subject

of legal tender, but it was evident that neither House of Congress

agreed with him in opinion.

A bill in regard to refunding the debt maturing after the 1st of

March, 1881, was introduced in Congress on the 27th of December,

1879, by Fernando Wood, chairman of the committee of ways and means

of the House. It provided for a change of existing laws so as to

limit the rate of interest upon the bonds to be issued in such

refunding to not to exceed three and a half per cent. per annum.

This bill, if it had been passed, would have prohibited the sale

of all bonds for resumption, as well as for refunding, at a greater

rate of interest than three and a half per cent. I opposed this

proposition, as it would impair the power of maintaining resumption

in case such bonds could not be sold at par, and the existing law

did not prevent the secretary from selling those already authorized

at a premium. No action was taken upon the bill by that Congress,

and Mr. Windom, my successor, found no difficulty in refunding

these bonds on more favorable terms without any change of existing

law.

On the 30th of January, 1880, I appeared before the finance committee

of the Senate in response to their invitation. The committee was

composed of Senators Bayard (chairman), Kernan, Wallace, Beck,

Morrill, Allison and Ferry, all of whom were present. Mr. Bayard

stated that a number of propositions, upon which it was desired to

obtain my views, had been submitted by Senator Beck, and then read

them as follows:

"1. What reason, if any, there is for refusing to pass a bill

authorizing the receipt of legal tenders for customs dues.

"2. Why the trade dollar should not be converted into a standard

dollar.

"3. What has been the cost of converting the interest-bearing

debt, as it stood July 14, 1870, to what it is now, including double

interest, commissions, traveling expenses of agents, etc., and the

use of public money by banks, and the value of its use, so as to

determine whether the system should be continued or changed.

"4. The effect of the abolition of the legal tender quality of

greenbacks upon the paper currency.

"5. The necessity for a sinking fund and how it is managed.

"6. Whether silver coin received in payment of customs duties has

been paid out for interest on the public debt; and if not, why not."

Senator Allison desired to know if this interview was to be

stenographically reported, and the committee decided that it should

be.

My answers to these questions and the colloquy with the committee

in respect to details cover fifty-four printed pages, and give by

far the most comprehensive statement of treasury operations during

the two or three years before that meeting, and suggestions for

future legislation, that has been written or published. The length

of the interview prevents its introduction in full, but a statement

of some portions of it may be interesting. In answer to the first

question I said:

"The act of February 25, 1862 (section 3694, R. S.), provides that

all the duties on imported goods shall be paid in coin; and the

coin so paid shall be set apart as a special fund to be applied to

two purposes, one of which is the payment in coin of interest on

the bonds of the United States, and the balance to the sinking fund.

"This is an obligation of the government that its coin revenue

should be applied to the payment of interest on the public debt.

So long as legal tender notes are maintained at par and parties

are willing to receive them in payment of coin interest, there is

no objection to receiving legal tender notes for customs dues.

"Since resumption it has been the practice of the department to

thus receive them, but this practice can be kept up only as long

as parties holding interest obligations are willing to accept the

same notes in payment thereof. If, by any unforseen and untoward

event, the notes should again depreciate in value below coin, the

obligations of the government would still require that interest on

the public debt be paid in coin; and if customs dues were payable

in legal tender notes, the department would have no source from

which to obtain the coin necessary to the payment of interest, for

of course holders of interest obligations would not accept a

depreciated currency when they were entitled by law to coin."

I reminded the committee that in my report of December, 1878, I

stated that on the 1st of January following I would receive United

States notes for customs duties. As these notes were redeemable

in coin, it was unreasonable to require the holder of notes to go

to one government officer to get coin for his notes to pay customs

duties to another government officer. I held that the United States

notes had become coin certificates by resumption, and should be

treated as such. I informed them that I issued the order with some

reluctance, and only after full examination and upon the statement

of the Attorney General, who thought technically I could treat the

note as a coin certificate. I called their attention to the fact

that I had informed Congress of my purpose to receive United States

notes for customs duties and had asked specific authority to do

so, but no action was taken, and I was assured that none was needed.

The conversation that followed showed that they all agreed that

what I did was right. It was evidently better not to provide by

specific law that the United States notes should be receivable for

customs dues, for in case of an emergency the law would be imperative,

while, if the matter was left to the discretion of the Secretary

of the Treasury, he could refuse to receive notes for customs dues

and compel their payment in coin.

This led to a long colloquy as to whether the time might come when

the United States notes could not be redeemed in coin. I entered

into a full explanation of the strength of the government, the

amount of reserve on hand, the nature of our ability, and said:

"Still we know that wars may come, pestilence may come, an adverse

balance of trade, or some contingency of a kind which we cannot

know of in advance may arise. I therefore think it is wise to save

the right of the United States to demand coin for customs duties

if it should be driven to that exigency."

The question then arose as to the propriety of confining redemption

of notes to one place. Mr. Wallace inquired whether the government

notes should not be receivable and interchangeable at every government

depositary. I answered that the notes should be received everywhere

at par with coin, but I doubted the propriety of paying coin for

United States notes except at one place and that in New York, the

natural center for financial operations, where most of the customs

dues were paid and where coin could be most safely hoarded.

Mr. Beck examined me at considerable length, and, with his usual

Scotch tenacity, insisted, in spite of the attorney general, that

I was not authorized to receive legal tender notes for customs

dues. He asked me by what authority I claimed this power. I quoted

the third section of the resumption act, and gave him a copy of my

circular letter to officers of customs, dated on the 21st of

December, 1878, in which, after calling attention to that section,

I said:

"By reason of this act, you are authorized to receive United State

notes, as well as gold coin and standard silver dollars, in payment

of duties on imports, on and after the first day of January, 1879.

"Notes thus received will in every instance be deposited with the

treasurer, or some assistant treasurer of the United States, as

are other collections of such duties, to be redeemed, from time to

time, in coin, on government account, as the convenience of the

service may demand."

Mr. Beck then said:

"I desire to know, Mr. Secretary, whether it is not better, in your

opinion, that the Congress of the United States should prescribe

the duties of executive officers, so that they can act in pursuance

of law, rather than the executive officer should be acting on his

own notions of what is best?"

I replied:

"I say yes, decidedly."

Mr. Beck inquired:

"Is not that what we are proposing to do now, by the passage of

this law which I seek to have enacted, and are you not opposing

that condition of things?"

I replied:

"An executive officer, when there is a doubt about the law, must

give his own construction of it, but should, of course, readily

conform to the action of Congress as soon as it is declared. The

objection I make is not to the passage of a law, but that the bill

as proposed applies it to a possible future state of affairs such

as did not exist when this order was made and does not now."

The subject then turned to the exchange of trade dollars for standard

dollars. Mr. Beck said: "I have introduced several bills to

facilitate the exchange of trade for standard dollars." I said:

"The bill which I have here is a House bill. There is no objection

in my mind to the object of this bill; that is, to provide for the

exchange of the trade dollar for the standard silver dollar; the

only point is whether the trade dollar shall be treated as bullion,

or as a coined dollar of the United States. Now, I am clearly of

the opinion that it ought to be treated as so much bullion, issued

at the expense of merchants, for their convenience and benefit,

and without profit to the United States, and therefore not entitled

to any preference over other bullion, and we might say not to so

much, because it was issued to private parties for their benefit

and at their cost, but stamped by us merely to enable the coins to

be used to better advantage in a foreign market. I have not,

therefore, any objection to the bill if you allow us to pay the

same for these trade dollars as for other bullion."

This reply led to a long examination about silver at home and in

foreign markets, and the objections made to having two silver

dollars, one coined for private persons, from bullion furnished by

them, and the other coined for the United States from bullion

purchased by it.

Mr. Beck next inquired what effect the abolition of the legal tender

quality of the greenbacks would have on our paper currency. This

led to a long colloquy between him and myself, in which all the

laws relating to the subject and the practice of the government,

from its organization to that time, were discussed.

On the question whether United States notes ought still to be a

legal tender, I referred him to my report, in which I said: "The

power of Congress to make them such was asserted by Congress during

the war, and was upheld by the Supreme Court. The power to reissue

them in time of peace, after they are once redeemed, is still

contested in that court."

I soon found that Mr. Bayard and Mr. Beck were quite opposed to

each other on this topic, and I suggested that I thought that the

argument upon it should be between them. My own opinions were

sufficiently stated in the report in which I submitted to Congress

whether the legal tender should not be repealed as to all future

contracts, and parties be left to stipulate the mode of payment.

I said that United States notes should still be receivable for all

dues to the government, and ample provision should be made to secure

their redemption on demand.

The examination, or, rather, conference, took a wide range between

the members of the committee and myself. Mr. Beck pressed me to

express my opinion of the legal tender which was contained in the

bill introduced by him, providing for a mandatory legal tender of

all forms of money. I answered:

"I do not think, Mr. Senator, you ought to ask me that question,

because that is a matter you are called upon to decide and pass

upon in your sphere as a Senator. I would say, on the other hand,

that I do not think it ought to have any such effect. I suppose,

however, Mr. Bayard would very frankly tell you what the intention

of the resolution is."

Mr. Bayard then said:

"I know one thing: That banks cannot compel me to receive their

notes for debts due me, nor can any man compel me to receive them.

If the government owes me my salary, I think they could, perhaps,

pay me in the national bank notes, under the existing law, but you

cannot compel the payment of a debt between private parties with

it."

I said:

"If you will allow me, I should like to amplify a little on one

point: I think if Congress would take up this question of the

modification of the legal tender note and make certain rules of

evidence (which would be clearly constitutional), which good lawyers

undoubtedly approve, declaring that where a contract is made between

parties upon the basis of United States notes, it shall be presumed

by courts, in the affirmance of contracts, that the payment in

United States notes shall be a sufficient compliance therewith,

and that, in the absence of any absolute provision to the contrary,

paper money, or promises to pay money, shall be a legal tender in

discharge of any obligation."

In respect to the cost of refunding, the next subject of inquiry,

I was able to give them full details, with all the orders of the

treasury department from the 16th of January, 1878, until the close

of these operations in the summer of 1879. Many of these details

had not then been published, but I furnished the fullest information

available. In response to an inquiry as to the amount of commissions

paid to the national banks on account of the sale of the four per

cent. bonds, a full table was exhibited of the subscriptions of,

and commissions paid to, the twenty-six national banks chiefly

engaged in this business, in which the total amount of sales made

by them was shown to be $552,929,100, and the amount of commissions

paid was $1,363,070.34. In exhibiting these tables I said:

"Here is a table showing the sales and commissions of certain banks.

I have taken all banks who sold over $1,000,000. There were twenty-

six of them. The First National Bank, having been always connected

with the national securities and having been the agent of the

syndicate, continued to be the agent of the foreign syndicate, and

continued to have altogether the largest business. They sold of

the four per cent. bonds $262,625,000. The sales of the other

banks are kept here in the same way. The Bank of New York (National

Banking Association), I think, was the next. It sold $57,259,500.

The National Bank of Commerce sold $51,684,000; the National Bank

of the State of New York sold $46,915,000, and so on down."

I called attention to the fact that in the last sale of about

$200,000,000 four per cent. bonds, we received one-half of one per

cent. premium, or a million dollars, which nearly covered the entire

commissions paid to the twenty-six banks named. Full details were

given of the various loans, and it was shown that the cost of

selling the last loan was less expensive to the government, in

proportion to the amount sold, than any previous loan.

In reference to the sinking fund, about which I was asked my opinion,

I said it was the same old question that had been so often debated.

I explained that a sinking fund is nothing but an obligation or

promise, on the part of the government or an individual, to pay a

certain amount annually of the principal of the debt in addition

to the interest. In this way the debt is gradually liquidated and

the annual interest lessened. A sinking fund promised by a government

is nothing more or less than a name for the surplus revenue of the

government. A government without a surplus revenue cannot possibly

have a sinking fund. There is no way to pay a debt except by having

an income above your expenditures, and you can call your surplus

revenue a sinking fund if you choose. I said that under existing

law the department was required to purchase one per cent. of the

entire debt of the United States each fiscal year, and to set the

amount apart as a sinking fund, and to compute interest thereon to

be added with the amount to be subsequently purchased each year.

This act can only be construed as an authority to purchase the debt

in case of surplus revenue for the purpose.

In practice, while keeping a book account with the sinking fund,

we have reduced the debt by the application of surplus revenue more

rapidly than if the requirements of the sinking fund had been

literally complied with. At several periods we, in fact, did not

reduce the debt, but actually increased it, and especially within

the last two years, but in other years of prosperity, when the

revenues exceeded our expenditures, we were able to pay a much

larger amount of the debt than the sinking fund required by law.

Mr. Beck said: "I propose to inquire pretty carefully, before we

get through with this interview, concerning the immense reduction

of the public debt which has been made, of over $700,000,000, from

the highest point down to the present, so that we may be governed

in the future taxation by actual requirements of the public service."

He expressed his wish, after he had carefully examined the interview

thus far, to continue it at a future day, but I was not again called

upon.

CHAPTER XL.

THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN 1880.

Talk of Grant for President for a Third Term--His Triumphal Return

from a Trip Around the World--The Candidacy of Mr. Blaine and Myself

--Many of My Opponents Those Who Disagreed with Me on Financial

Questions--Accused of Being a Catholic and of Using Patronage to

Aid in My Nomination--My Replies--Delay in Holding the Ohio State

Convention--My Interview with Garfield--Resolution of the State

Convention in My Favor--National Convention at Chicago, on June 2,

1880--Fatal Move of Nine Ohio Delegates for Blaine--Final Nomination

of Garfield--Congratulations--Letter to Governor Foster and to

Garfield--Wade Hampton and the "Ku-Klux Klan."

During the entire period of this session of Congress the nomination

for President by the Republican national convention was naturally

the chief subject of interest in political circles. General Grant

returned from his voyage around the world arriving in San Francisco

in December, 1879, and from that time until he reached Washington

his progress was a grand popular ovation. He had been received in

every country through which he passed, especially in China and

Japan, with all the honors that could be conferred upon a monarch.

He made no open declaration of his candidacy, but it was understood

that he was very willing to again accept the office of President.

His friends openly avowed their intention to support him, and

answered the popular objection against a third term by the fact

that a term had intervened since he last held the office. Mr.

Blaine was also an avowed candidate and had strong supporters in

every part of the Union. My name was mentioned as a candidate,

and it was generally supposed that one of the three would be the

nominee of the Republican convention. I soon found that the fact

that I held an office which compelled me to express my opinions

was a drawback rather than a benefit, and, while I had the natural

ambition to attain such a distinction, I was handicapped by my

official position.

The friends of General Grant succeeded in getting control of the

national committee and could dictate the time and place for holding

the convention. Senator Cameron was chosen chairman of that

committee. He openly avowed his preference for the nomination of

General Grant, and exercised all his influence and power to promote

it. It was decided to hold the convention on the 2nd of June,

1880, at Chicago.

The chief topic of all the newspapers and politicians was the merits

and demerits of the three candidates then recognized as the persons

from whom the choice was to be made. Every charge against either

the personal character or conduct of each was canvassed with the

broadest license, and often with great injustice. The life and

conduct of General Grant were analyzed, and praised or blamed

according to the bias of the speaker or writer. Mr. Blaine always

had a warm and ardent support by the younger Republicans in every

part of the United States. His brilliant and dashing manner and

oratory made him a favorite with all the young and active politicians,

but, as he was a bold and active fighter, he had enemies as well

as friends. My strength and weakness grew out of my long service

in the House, Senate and cabinet, but, as my chief active work was

connected with the financial questions, upon which men of all

parties differed widely, I had to encounter the objections of all

who were opposed to my views on these questions. The idea was that

in the certain contest between Grant and Blaine I might be nominated,

in case either of them should fail to receive a majority of the

votes cast in the convention.

It is scarcely worth while to point out the changes of opinion

during the popular discussion that preceded the meeting of the

convention of which every newspaper was full, the discussion being

universal. Votes were taken and expression of opinion sought in

every community in the United States.

My letter book at this time became a curious mixture of business

and politics, so that I was early compelled to ask two of my personal

friends to take an office, which I furnished them in the Corcoran

building in Washington, to answer such letters as grew out of the

contest, and as a place where conferences could be held by persons

interested in my nomination. In this way I severed all connection

between my duties in the treasury and the necessary correspondence

caused by my being named as a candidate for President. I was at

once charged in the newspaper and even by personal letters, with

all sorts of misdemeanors, of which I was not guilty, but which I

felt it a humiliation to reply to or even to notice. Among the

first was a statement that in some way or other I was under the

influence of the Catholic church, and was giving Catholics an undue

share of appointments. My answer is here inserted, not as important,

but as a specimen of many such communications upon various subjects:

"March 1, 1880.

"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 20th is received.

"I appreciate your kindness and frankness and will be equally frank

with you.

"There is not one shadow of ground for the suspicion stated by you.

I was born, bred, educated and ingrained as a Protestant and never

had any affinity, directly or indirectly, with the Catholic church,

but share the common feelings and prejudices of Protestants against

the special dogmas and rites of that church. Still I believe the

Catholics have as good a right to their opinions, their mode of

worship, and religious belief as we have, and I would not weaken

or impair the full freedom of religious belief, or make any contest

against them on account of it for all the offices in Christendom.

I have no sympathy whatever with the narrow dogmatic hate and

prejudice of Mr. Cowles on this subject, though no doubt much of

this is caused by the unfortunate fact that his daughter has become

a Catholic, and I am charitable enough to take this into consideration

when thinking of him. Mrs. General Sherman, it is true, is a

Catholic. She was born so and will remain so. She is a good

Catholic, however, in good wishes and good works, but has also too

much of the dogmatism and intolerance of a sectarian for my ideas.

She neither claims to have nor has any sort of influence over me.

"It is a mean business to get up such a prejudice against me when

men are so ashamed of it that they are afraid to avow it.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman.

"Hon. Geo. H. Foster, Cleveland, Ohio."

Another allegation made was that I was using the patronage of my

office to aid in my nomination. In regard to this I wrote as

follows to a friend:

"I think the impression has been made upon the public mind that

the patronage of this department has been used in my favor. This

ought to be met. Of the two men who parcel out the patronage of

this department, one, General Raum, commissioner of internal revenue,

is a known personal friend of General Grant, appointed by him, and

the great majority of the officers under that bureau are believed

to be for General Grant. I have not sought to control any of them.

McCormick, my first assistant secretary, was a known Blaine man.

The second, Hawley, was a known personal friend of General Grant,

and recently resigned to run for nomination as Governor of Illinois.

McPherson, a known Blaine man, was chief of the bureau of engraving

and printing, which employs some seven hundred people. The officers

named have practically made all the appointments in the treasury

other than the presidential ones. Probably no one who ever held

my position has ever been so utterly indifferent to the distribution

of patronage, except that I always insisted that good Republicans

should be appointed to every position, small or great. I never

inquired who they were for for President. In official letters, a

copy of one of which I could furnish you if desired, I gave distinct

instructions that I would not permit anyone to remain in the service

who was making himself obnoxious to citizens generally, by pressing

my claims or advocating my nomination for President by the next

national convention, or by opposing me."

I also soon learned that nearly every applicant whose appointment

I could not give or secure harbored this as a reason why I should

not be nominated for President, and in three or four cases where

the applicants were men of influence they opposed the selection of

delegates friendly to me. I do not mention any names, for most of

these gentlemen, years afterwards, became my warm friends.

I early announced that unless the State of Ohio would give me a

substantial indorsement, my name would not be presented to the

convention. James S. Robinson was the chairman of the state

committee and A. L. Conger was a prominent member. They disagreed

as to the time of holding the state convention for the appointment

of delegates to the national convention, which my friends were

anxious to have at as early a period as possible, so that the

position of Ohio might be known to, and possibly influence the

action of, other states. The disagreement between these two

gentlemen resulted in a postponement of the convention until a

period so late that before it met most of the delegations were

selected by the other states. That was thought to be inimical to

my success, and led to ill-will and contention. Governor Dennison

and Governor Foster had frankly and openly avowed their purpose to

support my nomination, and actively did so. They advised me of

the condition of opinion from time to time, and early represented

that I might reasonably expect the support of all the districts,

except perhaps those represented by Garfield and McKinley, and the

Toledo district.

I went to Mansfield on private business about the latter part of

March, and as usual was called upon to make a speech, which I did,

at Miller's Hall, on the 31st of March, and which was reported in

full at the time. I stated my position in regard to the nomination,

as follows:

"By the course of recent events, and not by my own seeking, my name

is mentioned among those from whom the Republican party will select

one to carry its banner in the approaching presidential contest.

It is not egotistic to state this fact, and it would not be manly

to shrink from the criticism and scrutiny which such a choice

necessarily invites and provokes.

"I accepted the position without a pretense of mock modesty, because

I do not think it right to allow friends to put themselves to

trouble on my account without a frank avowal that I was willing to

accept, and without delaying until certain of success; but with a

firm determination not to detract from the merits or services of

others, nor to seek this lofty elevation by dishonorable means or

lying evasions or pretense. In this way, and in this way only, am

I a candidate; but with great doubt whether, if nominated, I would

meet the expectation of friends, and resolved in case of failure

that I will abide, cheerfully and kindly, by the choice of the

convention.

"There is one condition, scarcely necessary to state, upon which

my candidacy depends, and that is, if the Republicans of Ohio do

not fairly and fully, in their convention, express a preference

for me, and support me with substantial unanimity in the national

convention, my name will not be presented to that convention with

my consent.

"This, fellow-citizens, is about all, and is perhaps more than I

ought to say about personal matters, for in the great contest in

which we are about to engage, the hopes, ambitions, and even the

lives, of men, are of but little account compared with the issues

involved."

I proceeded, then, to discuss the political questions of the day.

During the month of April delegates were selected from the different

congressional districts of the state to attend the state convention,

to meet on the 28th of that month. Prior to the convention the

question of the nomination was the subject of discussion in every

district. The sentiment in my favor was clearly expressed in nearly

every county or district of the state. On the 8th of April I wrote

the following letter to a friend:

"McKinley is still in Ohio, and I presume will be there for some

days. I have to-day written to him at Canton covering the points

you name. You had better write to him yourself giving the list of

appointments desired.

"There is a strong feeling that Garfield, in order to save his

district, should go to the Chicago convention as a delegate. He

is placed in a very awkward attitude now. If this district should

be against my nomination it would be attributed to either want of

influence on his part, or, what is worse, a want of sincerity in

my support. In view of the past this would be a very unfortunate

thing for him. This is a delicate matter for me to take any part

in, and I leave it entirely to your good judgment and kind

friendship."

While in Ohio I had a consultation, at Columbus, with Governor

Foster, ex-Governor Dennison, and a number of other personal friends,

all of whom expressed great confidence that by the time the state

convention met, the friendly feeling in favor of Blaine, in some

of the districts of Ohio, would be waived in deference to the

apparent wishes of the great majority. In that event, in case my

nomination should prove impracticable, the whole delegation could

be very easily changed to Mr. Blaine. As to General Grant, though

he had many warm personal friends in Ohio, yet, on account of

objections to a third term, very few desired his nomination.

Prior to the state convention I had an interview with General

Garfield which he sought at my office in the department, and he

there expressed his earnest desire to secure my nomination and his

wish to be a delegate at large, so that he might aid me effectively.

He had been chosen, with little or no opposition, United States

Senator, to fill the place of Thurman, whose term expired March 4,

1881. I had not a doubt of the support of Governor Foster, with

whom I had been in close correspondence, and who expressed a strong

desire for my nomination. I was permitted practically to name the

four delegates at large, and had implicit confidence that these

delegates would take the lead in my behalf.

The state convention, which met on the 28th of April, was exceptionally

large, and was composed of the leading Republicans of Ohio, who

proceeded at once to the business before them. The persons named

by the convention as delegates at large to the national convention,

to assemble in Chicago on June 2, were William Dennison, James A.

Garfield, Charles Foster and Warner M. Bateman, who were instructed

for me. The following resolution of the convention expressed the

preference of the Republicans of Ohio in favor of my nomination,

and recommended that the vote of the state be cast for me:

"_Resolved_, That the great ability, invaluable services, long

experience, full and exalted character, and unwavering fidelity to

Republican principles of our distinguished fellow-citizen, John

Sherman, entitle him to the honors and confidence of the Republican

party of Ohio, and of the country. His matchless skill and courage

as a financier have mainly contributed to accomplish the invaluable

and difficult work of resumption and refunding the public debt,

and made him the trusted representative, in public life, of the

business interests of all classes of the American people. He has

been trained from the beginning of his public life in advocacy of

the rights of man, and no man has been more unfaltering in his

demand that the whole power of the government should be used to

protect the colored people of the south from unlawful violence and

unfriendly local legislation. And in view of his services to his

country, and his eminent ability as a statesman, we, the Republican

party of Ohio, present him to the Republican party of the country,

as a fit candidate for president, and respectfully urge upon the

Republican convention at Chicago, his nomination, and the district

delegates are respectfully requested to vote for his nomination."

The trend of public sentiment, as shown by the newspaper, indicated

that Grant and Blaine would each have a very strong following in

the national convention, but that the contest between them might

lead to my nomination. After the state convention, it was generally

assumed that I would receive the united vote of the delegation in

conformity with the expression of opinion by the convention. During

this period a few leading men, whose names I do not care to mention,

made a combination of those unfriendly to me, and agreed to disregard

the preference declared by the state convention.

During the month of May the feeling in my favor increased, and many

of the leading papers in New York and in the eastern states advocated

my nomination as a compromise candidate.

At this time I was in constant communication with General Garfield,

by letters and also by interviews, as we were both in Washington.

On the 10th of May he wrote me:

"I think it will be a mistake for us to assume a division in the

Ohio delegation. We should meet and act as though we were of one

mind, until those delegates who are hostile to you refuse to act

with us, and if we fail to win them over, the separation will be

their act, not ours."

The national convention met June 2, 1880. It was called to order

in the Exposition Hall, Chicago, by Senator J. Donald Cameron, and

a temporary organization, with Senator George F. Hoar as president,

was soon perfected. An effort was made by the friends of General

Grant to adopt the unit rule, which would allow a majority of each

state to determine the vote of the entire delegation. This was

rejected.

Four days were occupied in perfecting the permanent organization,

and the nomination of candidates for President. During this time

a minority of nine of the delegation of Ohio announced their

determination to vote for Blaine. This was a fatal move for Blaine,

and undoubtedly led to his defeat. Nearly four-fifths of the

delegation were in favor of my nomination, in pursuance of the

express wishes of the Ohio convention, but they were all friendly

to Blaine, and whenever it should have become apparent that my

nomination was impracticable, the whole delegation could easily

have been carried for him without a division, and thus have secured

his nomination. The action of those nine delegates, who refused

to carry out the wishes of the state convention, prevented the

possibility of the vote of Ohio being cast for Mr. Blaine.

Long before the convention I had declared, in a published interview,

that "Blaine is a splendid man, able and eminently fit for President.

If nominated he will find no one giving him a heartier support than

myself." We were connected by early ties of association and kinship,

and had been and were then warm friends. Blaine, when confident

of the nomination, said of me: "To no living man does the American

people owe a deeper debt of gratitude than to John Sherman, for

giving them resumption with all its blessings. As Secretary of

the Treasury he has been the success of the age. He is as eminently

fit for President as any man in America, and should he be nominated

all I am capable of doing will be done to aid in his election.

Should it be my fortune to become President, or should it fall to

the lot of any Republican, no one elected could afford to do less

than invite Secretary Sherman to remain where he is." The folly

of a few men made co-operation impracticable. I received opposition

in Ohio from his pretended friends, and he therefore lost the Ohio

delegation, which, but for this defection, would have made his

nomination sure had I failed to receive it.

The speech of General Garfield nominating me has always been regarded

as a specimen of brilliant eloquence rarely surpassed, the close

of which I insert:

"You ask for his monuments. I point you to twenty-five years of

national statutes. Not one great beneficent law has been placed

on our statute books without his intelligent and powerful aid. He

aided to formulate the laws that raised our great armies, and

carried us through the war. His hand was seen in the workmanship

of those statutes that restored the unity of the states. His hand

was in all that great legislation that created the war currency,

and in a still greater work that redeemed the promise of the

government, and made our currency the equal of gold. And when at

last called from the halls of legislation into a high executive

office, he displayed that experience, intelligence, firmness, and

poise of character which has carried us through a stormy period.

The great fiscal affairs of the nation, and the great business

interests of our country, he has preserved, while executing the

law of resumption and effecting its object, without a jar, and

against the false prophecies of one-half the press and all the

Democracy of this continent. He has shown himself able to meet

with calmness the great emergencies of the government for twenty-

five years. He has trodden the perilous heights of public duty,

and against all the shafts of malice has borne his breast unharmed.

He has stood in the blaze of 'that fierce light that beats upon a

throne,' but its fiercest ray has found no flaw in his armor, no

stain on his shield."

On the first ballot 9 of the Ohio delegation voted for Mr. Blaine,

34 for me, and 1 for Edmunds. The general result was 304 for Grant,

284 for Blaine, 93 for Sherman, 34 for Edmunds, 30 for Washburne,

10 for Windom. The vote of my friends would have nominated Blaine

at any period of the convention, but under the conditions then

existing it was impossible to secure this vote to either Blaine or

Grant.

The final result was the selection of a new candidate and the

nomination of Garfield.

It is probable that if I had received the united vote of the Ohio

delegation I would have been nominated, as my relations with both

General Grant and Mr. Blaine were of a friendly character, but it

is hardly worth while to comment on what might have been. The

course of the Ohio delegation was the object of severe comment,

and perhaps of unfounded suspicions of perfidy on the part of some

of the delegates.

As soon as I heard of the movement to nominate Garfield I sent the

following telegram to Mr. Dennison:

"Washington, June 8, 1880.

"Hon. William Dennison, Convention, Chicago, Ill.

"Whenever the vote of Ohio will be likely to assure the nomination

of Garfield, I appeal to every delegate to vote for him. Let Ohio

be solid. Make the same appeal in my name to North Carolina and

every delegate who has voted for me.

"John Sherman."

The moment the nomination was made I sent the following dispatch

to Garfield at Chicago:

"Washington, June 8, 1880.

"Hon. James A. Garfield, Chicago, Ill.

"I congratulate you with all my heart upon your nomination as

President of the United States. You have saved the Republican

party and the country from a great peril, and assured the continued

success of Republican principles.

"John Sherman."

I understood that the health of Governor Dennison, who had faithfully

represented me in the national convention, was somewhat impaired

by his confinement there, and invited him to join me in a sail on

the Chesapeake Bay, spending a few days at different points. He

accepted and we had a very enjoyable trip for about ten days.

During this trip I wrote, for the 4th of July issue of the New York

"Independent," an article on Virginia and state rights. I had

promised to do this some time before but could not find an opportunity,

and availed myself of the quiet of the cruise to fulfill my promise.

The history of Virginia has always had for me a peculiar interest,

mainly because of the leading part taken by that state in the

American Revolution. The great natural resources of the state had

been neglected, the fertility of the soil on the eastern shore had

been exhausted, and no efforts had been made to develop the vast

mineral wealth in the mountains along its western border. The

destruction of slavery and the breaking up of the large farms and

plantations had discouraged its people, and I thought, by an

impartial statement of its undeveloped resources, I might excite

their attention and that of citizens of other states to the wealth

under its soil. This article, written in a friendly spirit, excited

the attention and approval of many citizens of the state, and

brought me many letters of thanks.

In time I became thoroughly advised of what occurred at the Chicago

convention and had become entirely reconciled to the result, though

frequently afterwards I heard incidents and details which occasioned

me great pain and which seemed to establish the want of sincerity

on the part of some of the delegates, and tended to show that for

some time before the meeting of the convention the nomination of

General Garfield had been agreed upon. After its close I had

numerous letters from delegates of other states, complaining bitterly

of the conduct of the Ohio delegation and giving this as a reason

why they had not voted for me. I was assured that large portions

of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other delegations,

had notified General Foster that they were ready to vote for me

whenever their vote was required, but no such request came from

him. The matter had been made the subject of public discussion in

the newspapers. I was content with the result, but was deeply

wounded by what I could not but regard as a breach of faith on the

part of some of the Ohio delegation, and especially of Governor

Foster, who had been fully advised of my feelings in regard to his

course. I received a letter from him, on the 23rd of June, answering

the allegations that had been publicly made in regard to him, and

explaining his action. In reply I wrote him the following letter:

"Washington, D. C., June 30, 1880.

"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 23rd came while I was still absent

on the Chesapeake Bay. I regret that I did not see you, for a free

conversation would be far more satisfactory than letter writing.

"I wish to be perfectly frank with you, as since I first became

acquainted with you I have felt for you warm friendship, and have

always had entire confidence in you. I confess, however, that the

information I received in regard to your operations at Chicago had

greatly weakened this feeling and left a painful impression upon

my mind that you had not done by me as I would have done by you

under like circumstances. Your letter chased away much of this

impression, and, perhaps, the better way would be for me to write

no more, but to treat your letter as entirely satisfactory and

conclusive. Still I think it right for me to give you the general

basis of the impressions I had formed.

"My first impulse was to send you at once a mass of letters from

delegates and others attending the convention, but this would only

create a controversy, and, perhaps, betray confidence, which I

could not do. The general purport of these letters is that, while

you spoke freely and kindly of me, yet there was always a kind of

reserve in favor of Blaine and a hesitation in pressing me that

indicated a divided opinion, that partly by the divisions in the

Ohio delegation and partly by the halfway support of yourself, and,

perhaps others, the Ohio delegation lost its moral strength and,

practically, defeated me before any ballot was had.

"This general impression I could have passed by, but it was distinctly

stated to me, by delegates and friends of delegates present at the

convention, that they proffered the votes of large portions of

their respective delegations to you with the understanding that

they were to be cast for me whenever you indicated the proper

moment. This was specifically said as to Indiana, Massachusetts,

Connecticut and the Blaine portion of the Pennsylvania delegation.

It was said that you prevented Massachusetts from voting for me

from about the tenth to the fifteenth ballot on Monday, that nine

of the Connecticut delegates held themselves ready to vote for me

on your call, but that you put it off, and Harrison is quoted as

saying that twenty-six votes from Indiana were ready to be cast

for me on Monday, at any time after a few ballots, but they were

withheld on account of representations from the Ohio delegation.

Mr. Billings, of Vermont, is quoted as saying that the Vermont

delegation, with two or three exceptions, were ready to vote for

me, but were discontented with the position taken by you, and

doubted whether you desired their vote for me.

"These and many other allegations of similar import, coming one

after the other, led me to believe that you had changed the position

you took in the early part of the canvass, and had come to the

conclusion that it was not wise to nominate me, and that other

arrangements for your future influenced you in changing your opinion.

This impression caused me more pain than anything that has transpired

since the beginning of the contest.

"I assure you I have no regrets over the results of the convention.

Indeed, the moment it was over, I felt a sense of relief that I

had not had for six months.

"The nomination of Garfield is entirely satisfactory to me. The

only shade that rests on this feeling is the fact that Garfield

went there by my selection to represent me and comes from the

convention with the honor that I sought. I will do him the justice

to say that I have seen no evidence that he has contributed to this

result except by his good conduct in the presence of the convention.

I had always looked with great favor upon the contingency that if

I was not nominated after a fair and full trial and Blaine was,

you would be the candidate for the Vice Presidency, and had frequently

said to mutual friends that this was my desire. The contingency

of Garfield's nomination I did not consider, for I supposed that

as he was secure in the Senate for six years, he would not desire

the presidential nomination, but as it has come to him without his

self-seeking it is honorable and right and I have no cause of

complaint. If I believed that he had used the position I gave him

to supplant me, I would consider it dishonorable and would not

support him; but, while such statements have been made to me, I

feel bound to say that I have never seen nor heard from credible

sources any ground for such an imputation, and, therefore, he shall

have my earnest and hearty support.

"There are one or two features of this canvass that leave a painful

impression upon me. The first is that the opposition to me in Ohio

was unreasonable, without cause, either springing from corrupt or

bad motives, or from such trivial causes as would scarcely justify

the pouting of a schoolboy.

"I receive your frank statement with confidence and act upon it,

will treat you, as of old, with hearty good will and respect, and

will give no further credence to the stories I hear. You can have

no knowledge of the extent of the accusations that have been made

against you.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman.

"Hon. Charles Foster, Columbus, Ohio."

With this letter I sought to divest myself of all feeling or

prejudice growing out of the recent canvass.

At the close of the fiscal year and the preparation of the usual

statements made at that time, there was a period of rest, of which

I availed myself by taking an excursion along our northeastern

coast. The quiet of the voyage, the salt air, and the agreeable

companions, were a great relief from the confinement and anxiety

of the previous months. Upon my return to New York from this

outing, on the 19th of July, I found two letters from General

Garfield, both relating to the progress of the canvass, and asking

my opinion of his letter of acceptance. In reply I wrote him:

"New York, July 19, 1880.

"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 16th was received by me this

morning. When I left Washington, about the 1st of July, I felt

very much debilitated by the heat and by the long mental struggle

through which I had passed. I have had the benefit now of three

weeks quiet and rest, mostly on the ocean, avoiding, whenever

possible, all political talk, and feel, in consequence, greatly

refreshed and invigorated. I take the outward voyage _via_ Fortress

Monroe to Washington, arriving there on Thursday.

"I received the telegraphic invitation to speak at Chicago but

could not accept, as I must give some relief to French and Upton

upon my return.

"I have received letters and telegrams from Nash about his proposed

canvass, and highly approve it. I do not see, however, how it is

possible for me to prepare a speech during the present month. I

now propose to write a political letter in response to one from

Chicago, which I believe will have a wider circulation than a

campaign speech. During the latter part of August or the first of

September, which is as early as the active campaign ought really

to commence, I will be prepared to make several speeches in Ohio,

and, perhaps, in other states. This is my present plan. I regard

Indiana and New York as the pivotal states, and there the struggle

should be.

"Your letter of acceptance I approve heartily, although I thought

you yielded a little too much in one or two sentences on the civil

service question. Although politicians have undertaken to ridicule

and belittle the efforts of President Hayes to bring about some

sort of civil service reform, yet the necessity of such a reform

is so ingrafted in the minds of the leading sensible people of the

northern states that anything like an abandonment of that idea will

not meet favor. I agree with you that it can only be done by the

co-operation of Congress, and it would be a great stroke of public

policy if Congress could be prevailed upon to pass a law prescribing

a reasonable tenure for civil office, with such guards against

arbitrary removals as would make the incumbents somewhat independent

in their opinions and actions. I had a conversation with Fletcher

Harper, at Long Beach, on Saturday, which leads me to think that

he is anxious upon this subject and also upon the financial

question.