During my absence in the Yellowstone Park we had frequent bulletins

in respect to President Garfield, sometimes hopeful but generally

despondent. When I returned it was generally supposed that he

could not recover, but might linger for weeks or months. The public

sympathy excited for him suspended by common consent all political

meetings. As the Ohio election was to occur on the second Tuesday

of October, George K. Nash, chairman of the Republican state

committee, having charge of the canvass, made a number of appointments

for several gentlemen during September. Among them was one for me

to speak in Mansfield, on the 17th of that month, in aid of the

election of Foster and the Republican ticket. Preparations were

made and the meeting was actually convened on the afternoon of that

day, but, as the bulletins from Elberton indicated that Garfield

might die at any moment, I declined to speak. More favorable

advices coming, however, I was urged by the committee to speak to

Wooster on Monday evening, September 19, and consented with some

hesitation. In opening my speech I referred to the condition of

the President and my reluctance to speak; I said:

"Fellow-Citizens:--I am requested by the Republican state committee

to make a political speech to you to-night, in opening here the

usual discussion that precedes the election of a governor and other

state officers. If I felt at liberty to be guided by my own

feelings, I would, in view of the present condition of the President

of the United States, forego all political discussion at this time.

"The President is the victim of a crime committed without excuse

or palliation, in a time of profound peace and prosperity, not

aimed at him as an individual, but at him as the President of the

United States. It was a political crime, made with the view of

changing, by assassination, the President chosen by you. It has

excited, throughout the civilized world, the most profound horror.

The President has suffered for more than two months, and is still

suffering, from wounds inflicted by an assassin. His life still

hangs by a thread. The anxious inquiry comes up morning, noon and

night, from a whole people, with fervid, earnest prayers for his

recovery.

"Under the shadow of this misfortune, I do not feel like speaking,

and I know you do not feel like hearing a political wrangle. It

is but just to say that the members of all parties, with scarce an

exception, Democrats as well as Republicans, share in sympathy with

the President and his family, and in detestation of the crime and

the criminal, and the evidence of this sympathy tends to make

political dispute irksome and out of place."

I then entered into a general discussion of the issues of the

campaign. Soon after the close of my speech I received intelligence

of the death of Garfield, and at once revoked all my appointments,

and by common consent both parties withdrew their meetings. Thus

mine was the only speech made in the campaign. I immediately went

to Washington with ex-President Hayes to attend the funeral, and

accompanied the committee to the burial at Cleveland. The sympathy

for Garfield in his sad fate was universal and sincere. The

inauguration of President Arthur immediately followed, and with it

an entire change of the cabinet.

CHAPTER XLIV.

BEGINNING OF ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION.

Special Session of the Senate Convened by the President--Abuse of

Me by Newspapers and Discharged Employees--Charges Concerning

Disbursement of the Contingent Fund--My Resolution in the Senate--

Secretary Windom's Letter Accompanying the Meline Report--Investigation

and Complete Exoneration--Arthur's Message to Congress in December

--Joint Resolutions on the Death of Garfield--Blaine's Tribute to

His Former Chief--Credit of the United States at "High Water Mark"

--Bill Introduced Providing for the Issuing of Three per Cent.

Bonds--Corporate Existence of National Banks Extended--Bill to

Reduce Internal Revenue Taxes--Tax on Playing Cards--Democratic

Victory in Ohio.

On the 23rd of September, 1881, President Arthur convened the Senate

to meet in special session on the 10th of October. Mr. Bayard was

elected its president _pro tempore_. On the 13th of October, when

the Senate was full, David Davis, of Illinois, was elected president

_pro tempore_, and the usual thanks were given to Mr. Bayard, as

the retiring president _pro tempore_, for the dignity and impartiality

with which he had discharged the duties of his office.

At this period of my life I was the object of more abuse and

vituperation than ever before or since. The fact that the new

administration of Arthur was not friendly to me was no doubt the

partial cause of this abuse. The intense bitterness manifested by

certain papers, and by discharged employees, indicated the origin

of most of the petty charges against me. One of these employees

stated that he had been detailed for work on a house built by me

in 1880. This was easily answered by the fact that the house was

built under contract with a leading builder and the cost was paid

to him. I neither knew the man nor ever heard of him since.

I was blamed for certain irregularities in the disbursement of the

contingent fund of the treasury, although the accounts of that fund

were by law approved by the chief clerk of the department and were

settled by the accounting officers without ever coming under my

supervision, and the disbursement had been made by a custodian who

was in the department before I entered it. My wife was more annoyed

than I with the petty charges which she knew were false, but which

I did not dignify by denying.

Mr. Windom, soon after his appointment as secretary, directed an

inquiry to be made by officers of the treasury department into

these abuses and it was charged that he, at my request, had suppressed

this inquiry. The "Commercial Advertiser," on the 11th of October,

alleged that I was as much shocked by the disclosures as my successor,

Mr. Windom; that I did not want any further publicity given to

them, and was desirous that Mr. Windom should not allow the report

to get into the public prints. I, therefore, on the 14th of October,

offered in the Senate this resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed

to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline

and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of

the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such

report."

In offering the resolution, after reading the article in the

"Commercial Advertiser," I said:

"The writer of this paragraph is very much mistaken in supposing

that I have in any way sought or wished to withhold from the public

the report referred to. I neither have nor will I oppose or delay

any investigation of the treasury department while I was its chief

officer. The only wish I have is to see that every officer accused

of improper conduct shall have a fair chance to defend himself,

and then he must stand or fall according to the rectitude or wrong

of his conduct.

"The only doubt I have in calling for this report now is the fact

that Mr. Windom did not order its publication lest injustice might

be done to worthy and faithful officers who had no opportunity to

cross-examine witnesses or answer charges made against them. I

have no doubt that he either has given or will give them this

opportunity. At all events the Senate can do so. I, therefore,

offer this resolution and hope the Senate will promptly pass it."

Mr. Edmunds objected to the resolution as being unnecessary, and

under the rules of the Senate it went over. I called it up on the

18th of October, when Mr. Farley, of California, asked that it be

postponed a few days. On the 22nd I again called it up, when Mr.

Farley stated that he could not see what Congress had to do with

the report of such a commission appointed by the Secretary of the

Treasury, and asked me for an explanation. In reply I said:

"I stated, on introducing this resolution, that the investigation

was one of a character not usually communicated to Congress, but

that certain public prints had contained unfounded imputations

against several officers of the government, and that there was

something in the report which reflected on a Member of this body

formerly a cabinet officer. Under the circumstances, as I was

plainly the person referred to, having been Secretary of the Treasury

at the time stated, I deemed it my right, as well as my duty to my

fellow-Senators, to call out this information. If the statements

contained in the papers be true, they are proper matters for the

Senate to examine in every sense.

"Mr. president, I have been accustomed to newspaper abuse all my

life and very rarely notice it. This is probably the first time

in my political life that I have ever read to this body a newspaper

attack upon me or upon anyone else; but when any paper or any man

impugns in the slightest degree my official integrity I intend to

have it investigated, and I wish it tested not only by the law but

by the strictest rules of personal honor.

"For this reason, when this imputation is made by a leading and

prominent paper, that there is on the files of the treasury department

a document which reflects upon me, I think it right that it should

be published to the world, and then the Senate can investigate it

with the power to send for persons and papers. That is the only

reason why I offered the resolution, and not so much in my own

defense as in defense of those accused in this document. If the

accusation is true it is the duty of the Senate to examine into

the matter."

After some further discussion the resolution was adopted, and on

the same day Mr. Windom transmitted the report of James F. Meline,

and other officers of the treasury department, made to the department

during the recess of the Senate. His letter is as follows:

"Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary,}

"Washington, D. C., October 22, 1881. }

"Sir:--I am in receipt of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st

instant, as follows:

'_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed

to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline

and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of

the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such

report.'

"In reply thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of

the report called for, with the accompanying statements of Mr. J.

K. Upton and J. T. Power, who occupied the position of chief clerk

and _ex officio_ superintendent of the treasury building for the

period covered by the report.

"Soon after assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury my

attention was called to alleged abuses in the disbursement of the

contingent fund of the department, which was under the immediate

charge of a custodian, and the general supervision of the chief

clerk of the department, and I appointed a committee to look into

the matter, as has been the custom of the department in such cases.

The law, somewhat conflicting in its terms in relation to the

relative duties of these two officers, will be found fully set

forth in the report. On considering this report I am convinced

that certain irregularities and abuses existed in this branch of

the service, and as I had some doubts as to the legality of the

appointment of a custodian I abolished that office June 18, 1881,

and by general order of July 1, 1881, reorganized the office.

"A copy of this order is herewith transmitted, from which it will

appear that all the changes necessary to a complete and thorough

correction of the irregularities and abuses referred to have been

adopted.

"It was my intention, as my more pressing public duties would

permit, to have pursued this general policy in other branches of

the treasury, by the appointment of competent committees to collect

the necessary data on which to base proper action to secure economy

and promote the best interests of the public service, but the

assassination of the President suspended further action in this

direction.

"Very respectfully,

"William Windom, Secretary.

"Hon. David Davis, President of the Senate."

On the 26th I offered a resolution as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on appropriations of the Senate

be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate

the accounts for the expenditure of the appropriations for contingent

or other expenses of the several executive departments, including

the methods of making such disbursements, the character and

disposition of the purchases made, and the employment of labor paid

from such appropriations, and to report on the subject at as early

a day as practicable, and whether any further legislation is

necessary to secure the proper disbursement of such appropriations;

and that the committee have leave to send for persons and papers,

and have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate."

This led to a thorough investigation into the disbursement of the

contingent fund of the treasury department, the report of which,

accompanied by the testimony, covering over 1,200 printed pages,

was submitted to the Senate on the 15th of March, 1882. This

examination was chiefly conducted by Francis M. Cockrell, of

Missouri, a Senator distinguished for his fairness and thoroughness.

The report was concurred in unanimously by the committee on

appropriations. It showed that certain irregularities had entered

into the management of the fund and that certain improper entries

had been made in the account, but that only a trifling loss had

resulted to the government therefrom.

I was before the committee and stated that I never had any knowledge

of any wrongdoing in the matter until it had been brought out by

the investigation. The report fairly and fully relieved me from

the false accusations made against me. It said: "Touching the

statements of Senator Sherman, that he had no knowledge of its

irregularities, etc., established by the evidence, no witness states

that Mr. Sherman knew that any funds of the treasury department

were ever used for his individual benefit or otherwise misapplied."

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

At the close of the examination the committee addressed to the head

of each department of Arthur's administration an inquiry whether

the laws then in force provided ample safeguards for the faithful

expenditure of its contingent appropriation, and each of them

replied that no change in existing law was necessary. The committee

concurred in the views of the heads of the departments, and suggested

that they keep a constant supervision over the acts of their

subordinates; that the storekeeper of the treasury department should

be required to give a bond, and that careful inventories of the

property of each department should be made, and that annual reports

of the expenditures from the contingent fund should be made by each

department at the commencement of each regular session. While this

investigation imposed a severe labor upon the committee on

appropriations, it had a beneficial effect in securing a more

careful control over the contingent expenses of the departments,

and it silenced the imputations and innuendoes aimed at me.

In regard to these accusations, I no doubt exhibited more resentment

and gave them more importance than they deserved. I felt that, as

Secretary of the Treasury, I had rendered the country valuable

service, that I had dealt with vast sums without receiving the

slightest benefit, and at the close was humiliated by charges of

petty larceny. If I had recalled the experience of Washington,

Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson and Blaine, and many others, under

like accusations, I would have been content with answering as

Washington and Jackson did, or by silent indifference, but my

temperament led me to defy and combat with my accusers, however

formidable or insignificant they might be.

The annual message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on

the 6th of December, was a creditable, businesslike statement of

the condition of the government. It commenced with a very proper

announcement of the appalling calamity which had fallen upon the

American people by the untimely death of President Garfield. He

said:

"The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements,

and of his patriotic life, will be treasured forever as a sacred

possession of the whole people.

"The announcement of his death drew from foreign governments and

peoples tributes of sympathy and sorrow which history will record

as signal tokens of the kinship of nations and the federation of

mankind."

Our friendly relations with foreign nations were fully described,

and the operations of the different departments of the government

during the past year were clearly and emphatically stated. In

closing he called attention to the second article of the constitution,

in the fifth clause of its first section, that "in case of the

removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation,

or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office,

the same shall devolve on the Vice President," and asked that

Congress should define "what is the intendment of the constitution

in its specification of 'inability to discharge the powers and

duties of said office,' as one of the contingencies which calls

for the Vice President to the exercise of presidential functions?

Is the inability limited in its nature to long continued intellectual

incapacity, or has it a broader import? What must be its extent

and duration? How must its existence be established?"

These and other questions connected with the subject were not acted

upon by Congress, as it could not foresee the conditions of the

inabilities in advance of their occurrence. He closed with the

following sentence:

"Deeply impressed with the gravity of the responsibilities which

have so unexpectedly devolved upon me, it will be my constant

purpose to co-operate with you in such measures as will promote

the glory of the country and the prosperity of its people."

At the regular meeting of the House of Representatives, on the 5th

of December, 1881, J. Warren Keifer was elected speaker by a small

majority. Both Houses were almost equally divided on partisan

lines.

Early in the session, on the motion of William McKinley, the House

passed the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of one Member from each state

represented in this House be appointed on the part of the House to

join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate,

to consider and report by what token of respect and affection it

may be proper for the Congress of the United States to express the

deep sensibility of the nation to the event of the decease of their

late President, James Abram Garfield; and that so much of the

message of the President as refers to that melancholy event be

referred to said committee."

On the same day, on my motion, a similar resolution, limiting the

committee to eight, passed the Senate. The committees were duly

appointed. On the 21st of December the two Houses, upon the report

of the two committees, adopted the following concurrent preamble

and resolutions:

"Whereas, The melancholy event of the violent and tragic death of

James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, having

occurred during the recess of Congress, and the two Houses sharing

in the general grief and desiring to manifest their sensibility

upon the occasion of the public bereavement: Therefore,

"_Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

concurring)_, That the two Houses of Congress will assemble in the

hall of the House of Representatives on a day and hour to be fixed

and announced by the joint committee, and that in the presence of

the two Houses there assembled an address upon the life and character

of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, be

pronounced by Hon. James G. Blaine; and that the president of the

Senate _pro tempore_ and the speaker of the House of Representatives

be requested to invite the President and ex-Presidents, of the

United States, the heads of the several departments, the judges of

the Supreme Court, the representatives of the foreign governments

near this government, the governors of the several states, the

general of the army and the admiral of the navy, and such officers

of the army and have as have received the thanks of Congress who

may then be at the seat of government, to be present on this

occasion.

"_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the United

States be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Mrs.

Lucretia R. Garfield, and to assure her of the profound sympathy

of the two Houses of Congress for her deep personal affliction and

of their sincere condolence for the late national bereavement."

On the 27th of February, 1882, Mr. Blaine, in response to the

resolution of the two Houses, delivered an address, in the hall of

House of Representatives, on the life and character of President

Garfield, worthy of the occasion, of the distinguished audience

before him, and of his reputation as an orator. From the beginning

to the end it was elevated in tone, eloquent in the highest sense

of that word, and warm in expression of his affection for the friend

he eulogized. His delineation of Garfield as a soldier, an orator,

and a man, in all the relations of life, was without exaggeration,

but was tinged with his personal friendship and love. He described

him on the 2nd of July, the morning of his wounding, as a contented

and happy man, not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost

boyishly, happy. "Great in life, he was surpassingly great in

death." He pictured the long lingering illness that followed that

fatal wound, the patience of the sufferer, the unfaltering front

with which he faced death, and his simple resignation to the divine

decree. His peroration rose to the full measure of highest oratory.

It was as follows:

"As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned.

The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital

of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its

oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness.

Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer

to the longer-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God

should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of

its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to

the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing

wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its

restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the

noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the

horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us

think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt

and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the silence of

the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further

shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the

eternal morning."

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

a eulogy?

The following resolutions were adopted by both Houses of Congress:

"_Resolved (the Senate concurring)_, That the thanks of Congress

be presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine, for the appropriate

memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James

Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, in the

Representatives' Hall, before both Houses of Congress and their

invited guests, on the 27th day of February, 1882; and that he be

requested to furnish a copy for publication.

"_Resolved_, That the chairman of the joint committee appointed to

make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolutions

of this Congress, in relation to the memorial exercises in honor

of James Abram Garfield, be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine

the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto, and present

the same to both Houses of Congress."

At the time of the commencement of this session the credit of the

United States had reached high-water mark. It was apparent that,

with judicious management, a three per cent. bond of the United

States could be sold at par. On the first day of the session,

December 5, 1881, I introduced a bill to provide for the issue of

three per cent. bonds. It was referred to the committee on finance,

and on the 15th of December, by direction of that committee, I

reported the bill with certain amendments, and gave notice that I

was directed to seek the action of the Senate upon it immediately

after the holidays. It was taken up for consideration on the 11th

of January, and, much to my surprise, met with opposition from

those who a year before had favored a similar bill. They said it

was a mere expedient on my part, that President Hayes had, at my

request, vetoed a similar bill; but I was able to truly answer that

the veto of President Hayes was not against the three per cent.

bond, but against the compulsory provision that no other than three

per cent. bonds should be deposited in the treasury as security

for the circulating notes of, and deposits with, national banks;

that President Hayes, in fact, approved of the three per cent. bond.

I made a speech in support of this measure on the 26th of January,

reviewing our financial condition, with many details in respect to

our different loans, and closed as follows:

"I say now, as I said at the commencement, that the passage of this

bill seems to me a matter of public duty. I care nothing for it

personally. I have been taunted with my inconsistency. I feel

like the Senator from Kentucky about an argument of that kind. If

I did not sometimes change my mind I should consider myself a

blockhead or a fool. But in this matter, fortunately, I have not

changed my mind. In 1866 I anticipated the time when we could sell

three per cent. bonds and said that was a part of the funding

scheme, and so continued, year in and year out, as I could show

Senators, that that was the _ultima thule_, the highest point of

credit to which I looked in these refunding operations. I believed

last year it could not be done, because I did not believe the state

of the money market would justify the attempt, and, besides that,

the great mass of the indebtedness was so large that it might

prevent the sale of three per cent. bonds at par. Therefore, I

wanted a three and a half per cent. bill then. But then we secured

the three and a half in spite of Congress, by the operations of

the treasury department and the consent of the bondholders, now we

ought to do a little better.

"Let Congress do now what it proposed to do last year, offer to

the people a three per cent. bond. If they do not take it no harm

is done, no expense is incurred, no commissions are paid, no

advantage is taken. If they do take it, they enable you to pay

off more rapidly still your three and a half per cent. bonds.

There was no express and no implied obligation made by the Senator

from Minnesota, as he will himself say, that the people of the United

States have the right to pay every dollar of these three and a half

per cent. bonds. He had no power to make such an intimation even,

nor has he made it, as he states himself. We are not restrained

by any sense of duty, we have the right to take advantage of our

improved credit, of our advanced credit, and make the best bargain

we can for the people of the United States, and the doctrine is

not 'let well enough alone,' but always to advance.

"We are advancing in credit, in population, in strength, in power,

in reason. The work of to-day is not the work of to-morrow; it is

but the preparation for the future. And, sir, if I had my way in

regard to these matters I certainly would repeal taxes; I would

fortify ourselves in Congress by reducing this large surplus revenue;

I would regulate, by wise and separate laws, fully and fairly

considered, all the subjects embraced in these amendments as separate

and distinct measures, pass this bill which, to the extent it goes

and to the extent it is successful, will be beneficial to the

people."

The debate upon the bill and upon amendments to it continued until

the 3rd of February, when it passed the Senate by the decided vote

of 38 yeas, 18 nays.

The bill was referred to the committee of ways and means, but the

House, instead of passing a separate bill, accomplished the same

object by section 11 of the national bank act of July 12, 1882, by

which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to receive at

the treasury any bonds of the United States bearing three and a

half per cent. interest, and to issue in exchange therefor an equal

amount of registered bonds of the United States bearing interest

at the rate of three per cent. per annum.

Mr. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of

December 4, 1882, stated that on July 1, 1882, the amount of three

and a half per cent. bonds outstanding was $449,324,000, and that

under the section referred to he had exchanged to the date of his

report $280,394,750 of three per cent. bonds for a like amount of

three and a half per cent. bonds, thus reducing the annual interest

charge by reason of these exchanges $1,401,973.75.

By his report of 1883, it was shown that the total amount of such

exchanges was $305,581,250, making an annual saving of interest,

effected by these exchanges, of $1,527,906.25. These bonds were

subsequently paid from time to time by surplus revenue.

The whole process of refunding was perhaps as favorable a financial

transaction as has ever been executed in any country in the world.

A revision of the tariff was greatly needed, but the only measure

adopted at that session was an act to provide for the appointment

of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff. I made

a speech on this bill in which I advocated the appointment of a

commission. I said:

"Mr. president, I have called attention to these defects in the

present tariff, nearly all of which have grown out of amendments

that have been ingrafted on the Morrill tariff, by the confusion

caused by the difference between _ad valorem_ and specific duties,

by the great fall in prices, by important changes in the mode of

manufacturing, by, you may say, the revolution in trade and prices

that has occurred in the last twenty years, during which these laws

have existed. Therefore, coming back to the first question stated

by me, how best to get at a revision of the tariff, I say the

quickest way is the best way.

* * * * *

"Now, it does seem to me, with due deference to the opinion of the

Senator from Kentucky, that the quickest mode of revision is by a

commission. At the beginning of this session I believed it was

better to do it through the committees of the two Houses; but the

committee on ways and means of the House of Representatives alone

has the power to report a bill, and until then we in the Senate

are as helpless as children in this matter. The committee on ways

and means have declared in favor of a commission, and have reported

a bill to that effect; and they are the only power in this government

that can report a tariff bill under the rules of the House. The

House is the only body that can originate it under the constitution.

As they have decided in favor of a commission, why should we insist

upon it that they shall do the work themselves?

"Besides, half the session has passed away, and the committee on

ways and means is burdened with other duties. We know that as the

session approaches an end, they probably cannot devote time to the

general tariff question.

* * * * *

"If they will give us a bill about sugar and these other items, it

is all we can reasonably ask them to do. When Congress adjourns,

you cannot expect the committee on ways and means, or any other

committee of Congress, to devote all their recess to public business.

Elections are coming off for Members of Congress, and they will

look after the elections. They must have a little rest. Therefore,

the idea of waiting for the committees of Congress to act, is

preposterous in my judgment. It is too late. If the committee

had commenced on the first Monday of December, they might by this

time probably had prepared a bill. They have made no such preparation,

and, therefore, it is utterly idle to wait.

"I think, then, and I submit it to the good, cool sense and judgment

of my friend from Kentucky, that the better way is as early as

possible to organize a commission; let it be constituted, as I have

no doubt the President will take care to constitute it, of fair

and impartial men. They will be fresh at least. Let them frame

a bill with the aid of officers of the treasury department, so that

by the next session we may have a general revision of the tariff.

"Upon the main question there appears to be no substantial difference

of opinion. We agree that the tariff should be revised and the

taxes be reduced. The only pertinent question involved in this

bill is whether it is best to organize a commission of experts, not

Members of Congress, to examine the whole subject and to report

such facts and information to Congress as the commission can gather,

or whether the proposed revision should be made directly, without

the delay of a commission, by the aid of committees of Congress

and the officers of the government familiar with the workings of

the customs laws. It does seem to me that to decide this question

we need no long arguments about protection or free trade, watchwords

of opposing schools of political economy, nor does it seem to me

that the political bearings of the tariff question are involved

when we all agree that the tariff ought to be revised, and are now

only finding out the best way to get at it.

"Whenever a tariff bill is reported to us we will have full time

to discuss the theoretical and political aspects of the subject,

and no doubt the arguments already made will be repeated and

amplified. I prophesy that then we will have a strange mingling

of political elements, and a striking evidence of the changes of

interest and principle on this subject in different parts of the

country, caused by the revolution of the industry of our people by

the abolition of slavery during the Civil War. The only mitigation

of my desire for a prompt revision of the tariff is the confidence

I have that delay and discussion will make the sectional revolution

more thorough and universal, and leave the tariff question a purely

business and not a political or sectional issue."

The nine commissioners appointed by President Arthur were well

selected, and they were, under the law, required to report on that

subject to the following session of Congress.

It became necessary at this session to extend the corporate existence

of national banks. By the terms of the original national banking

act, banks organized under it continued for but twenty years, which

would expire within two years. A bill for the extension of the

time was introduced and a long discussion followed about silver,

certificates of deposit, clearing house certificates and other

financial matters. There was but little if any opposition to the

extension of national banks and the bill passed. It was approved

July 12, 1882.

The most important financial measure passed by this Congress was

the bill to reduce internal revenue taxes, reported March 29, 1882,

by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, from the committee of ways

and means. After a debate extending to June 27, a motion to recommit

was rejected and the bill passed the House. It was sent to the

Senate and reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill, from the

committee on finance, July 6. On July 11 it was recommitted to

the committee on finance and immediately reported back with

amendments, which consisted of a change in the tariff duties on

sugar and an increase of the duties on cotton, ties and a few other

things. It was not a general revision of the tariff. Mr. Beck

antagonized the amendments proposed by the committee and sought to

delay the passage of the bill. I replied to him as follows:

"If this Congress shall adjourn, whether the weather be hot or

cold, without a reduction of the taxes now imposed upon the people,

it will have been derelict in its highest duty. There is no

sentiment in this country stronger now than that Congress has

neglected its duty thus far in not repealing taxes that are obnoxious

to the people and unnecessary for the public uses; and if we should

still neglect that duty we should be properly held responsible by

our constituents."

In the course of the long debate Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, who

was the acknowledged wit of the Senate, moved to except playing

cards from the general repeal of stamp taxes. I objected to keeping

up the system of stamp taxes and said:

"If Senators want to insist on a piece of what I call demagogism,

by keeping a small stamp tax on playing cards, I am perfectly

willing that they should do so. If it is desired now to show our

virtuous indignation against card-playing, to single out this tax,

which probably yields but three or four thousand dollars a year--

to show our virtuous indignation against people who play cards and

against card-playing, let it be done in the name of Heaven. Let

us keep this as a monument of our virtue and intelligence and the

horror of the Senate of the United States against playing whist

and euchre. I hope that no such vote will be given."

Mr. Vance replied in his peculiarly humorous way, and concluded by

saying: "I have no doubt that not a men in the United States, but

who, when he 'stands pat' with three jacks, or draws to two aces,

will glorify the name of the Senator from Ohio; and if there is

gratitude in human nature, I expect the see the next edition of

playing cards bearing a fullsized portrait of the Senator from Ohio

as the distinguishing mark of the 'yerker.'"

The Senate was equally divided on this question of retaining the

tax on playing cards, the vote being 28 for and 28 against. As

there was not a majority in favor of the amendment of Mr. Vance it

was rejected and the tax was repealed.

Mr. Beck undertook to amend the bill by a general revision and

reduction of the tariff duties in long schedules introduced by him.

I took an active part in the discussion of this bill in the hope

that by it we might secure a logical and desirable revenue law.

No final action was taken on it before the adjournment of Congress

on the 8th of August, after an eight months' session, and it went

over to the next session.

After the long and wearisome session I returned to Mansfield. The

congressional canvass in Ohio was then in full operation. The

failure of Congress to pass the bill relieving the people from the

burden of internal taxes no longer required, the shadow of the

murder of Garfield, the dislike and prejudice against Arthur's

administration, the temporary stringency in money matters, the liquor

or license question, the Sunday observance, and the discontent of

German Republicans, greatly weakened the Republican party in the

state and foreboded defeat. R. A. Horr was the Republican candidate

for Congress in the district in which I reside, and on the 17th of

August he spoke at Mansfield. I also made a brief speech covering

the chief subjects under discussion. I explained the causes of

the failure to pass the revenue reduction bill, blaming it, as a

matter of course, on the Democratic party, but assured my hearers

that it would pass at the next session, and that the surplus revenue

would not be wasted, but would be applied to the reduction of the

public debt, and to increase pensions to Union soldiers, their

widows and orphans. The opposition to the immigration of Chinese

into this country was then strong. I could only promise that

Congress would do all it could to exclude them consistently with

treaty stipulations. I favored the proper observance of the Sabbath

day, claiming that it was a day of rest and should not be desecrated,

but each congregation and each citizen should be at liberty to

observe it in any way, consistent with good order and noninterference

with others. Touching on the liquor question, I said that many

of our young men were brought to disgrace and crime by indulgence

in intoxicating liquors, and I therefore believed in regulating

the evil. Why should all other business be suspended, and saloons

only be open? I was in favor of a law imposing a large tax on all

dealers in liquor, which would tend to prevent its use. I believed

in a policy that would protect our own laborers from undue competition

with foreign labor, and would increase and develop our home

industries. This position was chiefly a defensive one, and experience

has proven that it is not a safe one. The Republican party is

stronger when it is aggressive.

On the 31st of August I attended the state fair as usual, and on

the morning of that day made a full and formal political address

covering both state and national interests. I quote a few passages

on the liquor question, then the leading subject of state policy.

I said:

"All laws are a restraint upon liberty. We surrender some of our

natural rights for the security of the rest. The only question

is, where is the boundary between rights reserved and those given

up? And the only answer is, wherever the general good will be

promoted by the surrender. In a republic the personal liberty of

the citizen to do what he wishes should not be restricted, except

when it is clear that it is for the interest of the public at large.

There are three forms of legislative restriction: Prohibition,

regulation and taxation, of which taxation is the mildest. We

prohibit crime, we regulate and restrain houses of bad fame. We

tax whisky and beer. I see no hardship in such restraints upon

liberty. They are all not only for the public good, but for the

good of those affected. If certain social enjoyments are prolific

of vice and crime they must give way, or submit to restraints or

taxation.

"I know it is extremely difficult to define the line between social

habits and enjoyments perfectly innocent and proper and those that

are injurious to all concerned. It is in this that the danger

lies, for the law ought never to interfere with social happiness

and innocent enjoyments. The fault of Americans is that they are

not social enough. I have seen on the banks of the Rhine, and in

Berlin, old and young men, women, children of all conditions of

social life, listening to music, playing their games and drinking

their beer, doing no wrong and meaning none. I have seen in the

villages of France the young people dancing gayly, with all the

animation of youth and innocence, while the old people, looking

on, were chatting and joking and drinking their native wines, and

I could see no wrong in all this.

"But there were other scenes in these and other countries: Ginshops

and haunts of vice where the hand of authority was seen and felt.

What I contend for is that the lawmaking power shall be authorized

to make the distinction between innocent and harmful amusements

and the places and habits of life which eventually lead to

intemperance, vice and crime. Surely we can leave to our general

assembly, chosen by the people and constantly responsible to them,

the framing of such wise regulations, distinction and taxes as will

discriminate between enjoyment and vicious places of resort.

"It is a reproach to our legislative capacity to allow free whisky

to be sold, untaxed and without regulation, at tens of thousands

of groggeries and saloons, lest some law should be passed to restrain

the liberty of the citizen. What we want is a wise, discriminating

tax law on the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and judicious

legislation to restrain, as far as practicable, the acknowledged

evils that flow from this unlimited traffic."

This speech expressed my convictions in respect to temperance, and

how far this and kindred subjects should be regulated by legislative

authority. This was a delicate subject, but I believe the opinions

expressed by me were generally entertained by the people of Ohio

and would have been fully acted upon by the legislature but for

revenue restrictions in the constitution of Ohio.

After I closed Governor Foster and Speaker Keifer spoke briefly.

The general canvass then continued over the state until the election.

As the only state officers to be elected were the secretary of

state, a supreme judge and a member of the board of public works,

the chief interest centered in the liquor question and in the

election of Members of Congress in doubtful districts. I spoke in

several districts, especially in Elyria, Warren, Wauseon, Tiffin

and Zanesville. I spent several days in Cincinnati, socially, and

in speaking in different parts of the city. The result of the

election was that James W. Newman, the Democratic candidate for

secretary of state, received a majority of 19,000 over Charles

Townsend, the Republican candidate. This was heralded as a Democratic

victory. In one sense this was true, but it was properly attributed

by the Republicans to the opposition to prohibition. It grew out

of the demand of a portion of our people for free whisky and no

Sunday. THey were opposed to the liquor law, and believed it went

too far, and voted the Democratic ticket.

A few days after the election I went with two friends to Lawrence,

Kansas, arriving about the 15th of October. I have always retained

a kindly feeling for the people of that state since I shared in

the events of its early history. With each visit I have marked

the rapid growth of the state and the intense politics that divided

its people into several parties. This was the natural outgrowth

of conditions and events before the Civil War. As usual I was

called upon to make a speech in Lawrence, which, in view of our

recent defeat in Ohio, was not a pleasant task. However, I accepted,

and spoke at the opera house, chiefly on the early history of Kansas

and the struggle in that territory and state, which resulted in

transforming the United States from a confederacy of hostile states

into a powerful republic founded upon the principles of universal

liberty and perpetual union.

From Lawrence we went into Texas, and for the first time traversed

that magnificent state, going from Denison to Laredo on the Rio

Grande, stopping on the way at Austin and San Antonio. On the

route I met Senator Richard Coke and his former colleague, Samuel

B. Maxey. I have studied the history of Texas and its vast

undeveloped resources, and anticipated its growth in wealth and

population. It is destined to be, if not the first, among the

first, of the great states of the Union. We returned via Texarkana

to St. Louis and thence home.

CHAPTER XLV.

STEPS TOWARDS MUCH NEEDED TARIFF LEGISLATION.

Necessity of Relief from Unnecessary Taxation--Views of the President

as Presented to Congress in December, 1882--Views of the Tariff

Commission Appointed by the President--Great Changes Made by the

Senate--Regret That I Did Not Defeat the Bill--Wherein Many Sections

Were Defective or Unjust--Bill to Regulate and Improve the Civil

Service--A Mandatory Provision That Should be Added to the Existing

Law--Further Talk of Nominating Me for Governor of Ohio--Reasons

Why I Could Not Accept--Selected as Chairman of the State Convention

--Refusal to Be Nominated--J. B. Foraker Nominated by Acclamation

--His Career--Issues of the Campaign--My Trip to Montana--Resuming

the Canvass--Hoadley Elected Governor--Retirement of Gen. Sherman.

The President was able to present, in his annual message to Congress

on the 4th of December, 1882, a very favorable statement of the

condition of the United States during the preceding year. He

recalled the attention of Congress to the recommendation in his

previous message on the importance of relieving the industry and

enterprise of the country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation,

and to the fact that the public revenues had far exceeded the

expenditures, and, unless checked by appropriate legislation, such

excess would continue to increase from year to year. The surplus

revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, amounted to

$100,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, it

amounted to more than $145,000,000. This was applied to the payment

of the public debt. He renewed the expression of his conviction

that such rapid extinguishment of the national indebtedness as was

taking place was by no means a cause for congratulation, but rather

for serious apprehension. He therefore urged upon Congress the

policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation. He then

stated at length his opinion of the reductions that ought to be

made. He felt justified in recommending the abolition of all

internal taxes except those upon tobacco in its various forms, and

upon distilled spirits and fermented liquors. The message was a

clear and comprehensive statement of the existing tariff system,

and the unequal distribution of both its burdens and its benefits.

He called attention to the creation of the tariff commission, and

to the report of that commission as to the condition and prospects

of the various commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, mining and

other interests of the country, and recommended an enlargement of

the free list, so as to include within it numerous articles which

yielded inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex

and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures,

particularly those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial

reduction of the duties upon those and various other articles.

The subsequent action of Congress did not, in my opinion, conform

to this, in some respects, wise recommendation of the President.

In his closing paragraph he stated:

"The closing year has been replete with blessings for which we owe

to the Giver of all good our reverent acknowledgment. For the

uninterrupted harmony of our foreign relations, for the decay of

sectional animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests and the

triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the

prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence and the conservation

of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the

elements of national greatness--for these and countless other

blessings--we should rejoice and be glad. I trust that under the

inspiration of this great prosperity our counsels may be harmonious,

and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice and economy

may lead to the adoption of measures in which the Congress and the

Executive may heartily unite."

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated

the recommendations of the President.

The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session,

in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await

the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved

May 15, 1882. To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was

necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as

well as taxes on internal productions. The members of the tariff

commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report,

were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler,

Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and

Duncan F. Kenner. These gentlemen were of high standing, representing

different parts of the country, of both political parties, and

notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and

productions. In their report they said:

"In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of

the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to

divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or

considerations of personal interest. It is their desire that their

recommendations shall serve no particular party, class, section,

or school of political economy."

They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of

Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882. It was a clear and

business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules

of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested

amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them,

and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed

pages. It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our

customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been

published. It was quickly printed for the use of the finance

committee of the Senate, before whom the bill to reduce internal

revenue taxation was pending. If the committee had embodied, in

this bill, the recommendations of the tariff commission, including

the schedules without amendment or change, the tariff would have

been settled for many years. Unfortunately this was not done, but

the schedules prescribing the rates of duty and their classification

were so radically changed by the committee that the scheme of the

tariff commission was practically defeated. Many persons wishing

to advance their particular industries appeared before the committee

and succeeded in having their views adopted. The Democratic members

seemed to take little interest in the proceedings, as they were

opposed to the adoption of the tariff as a part of the bill. I

did all I could to prevent these changes, was very much discouraged

by the action of the committee, and doubted the propriety of voting

for the bill with the tariff provisions as proposed by the committee

and adopted by the Senate. I have always regretted that I did not

defeat the bill, which I could readily have done by voting with

the Democrats against the adoption of the conference report, which

passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 32, nays 30. However, the

propriety and necessity of a reduction of internal taxes proposed

by the bill were so urgent that I did not feel justified in denying

relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes on account of provisions

in the bill that I did not approve. With great reluctance I voted

for it.

One reduction made by the committee against my most strenuous

efforts was by a change in the classification and rates of the duty

on wool. When I returned to Ohio I was violently assailed by the

Democratic newspapers for voting for a bill that reduced the existing

duty on wool about twenty per cent., and I had much difficulty in

explaining to my constituents that I opposed the reduction, but,

when the Senate refused to adopt by view, did not feel justified,

on account of my opposition to this one item, in voting against

the bill as a whole. The conference report was agreed to by the

House of Representatives on the 2nd of March, and the bill was

approved by the President on the 3rd.

I did not conceal my opposition to the tariff sections of the

revenue bill. I expressed it in debate, in interviews and in

letters. When the bill was reported to the Senate it was met by

two kinds of opposition, one the blind party opposition of free

traders, led by Senators Beck and Vance, the other (much more

dangerous), the conflict of selfish and local interests, mainly on

the part of manufacturers, who regarded all articles which they

purchased as raw material, on which they wished the lowest possible

rate of duty, or none at all, and their work, as the finished

article, on which they wished the highest rate of duty. In other

words, what they had to buy they called raw material to be admitted

without protection, and what they had to sell they wanted protection.

It was a combination of the two kinds of opposition that made the

trouble.

The Democratic Senators, with a few exceptions, voted steadily and

blindly for any reduction of duty proposed; but they alone could

not carry their amendments, and only did so when re-enforced by

Republican Senators, who, influenced by local interest, could reduce

any duty at their pleasure. In this way, often by a majority of

one, amendments were adopted that destroyed the harmony of the

bill. In this way iron ore, pig iron, scrap iron and wool were

sacrificed in the Senate. They were classed as raw materials for

manufactures and not as manufactures. For selfish and local reasons

tin plates, cotton, ties and iron and steel rods for wire were put

at exceptionally low rates, and thus were stricken from the list

of articles that could be manufactured in this country. This local

and selfish appeal was the great defect of the tariff bill. I do

not hesitate to say that the iron and wool sections of the bill,

as it passed the Senate, were unjust, incongruous and absurd. They

would have reduced the iron and steel industries of the United

States to their condition before the war, and have closed up two-

thirds of the furnaces and rolling mills in this country. They

were somewhat changed in the committee of conference, but if they

had not been, the only alternative to the manufacturers would have

been to close up or largely reduce the wages of labor.

Another mistake made in the Senate was to strike out all the

carefully prepared legislative provisions simplifying the mode of

collecting customs duties, and the provisions for the trial of

customs cases. The tariff commission proposed to repeal the _ad

valorem_ duty on wool, and leave on it only the specific duty of

ten and twelve cents a pound. The chairman of the tariff commission

was himself the president or agent of the woolen manufacturers and

made the report. The manufacturers of woolens, however, were

dissatisfied, and demanded an entire change in the classification

of woolens, and, on some important grades, a large increase of

rates, but insisted upon a reduction of the duty on wool.

I hoped when the bill passed the Senate that a conference committee

would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew

from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators

Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman. My colleagues on the conference were

part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the

House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of

relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.

On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent

whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:

"No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the

merits and demerits of the law should not be stated. I worked at

it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion

of other business. Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a

great deal of good and some harm. The great body of it is wise

and just, but it contains some serious defects. The metallic and

wool schedules are unequal and unjust. The great merit of the bill

is that it reduces taxes. I would not have voted for it, if any

other way had been open to reduce taxes.

"Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?"

"Yes. The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in

respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative. The failure of

Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat

of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the

fault of our party. The bill was talked to death by Democratic

Senators. The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive,

but they are excessive. They tempt extravagance. We could not go

home without reducing the internal taxes. What I want you to

emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have passed in

their present shape but for their connection with the internal

revenue sections. We could not separate them; therefore, though

I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt

constrained to vote for the bill as a whole."

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

commission?"

"No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal

taxes. The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of

last session, and were then amended by the Senate. That bill gave

the Senate jurisdiction of the subject. It was only under cover

of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pass a tariff. At

the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate

had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable

and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on

all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable

revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial

of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and

even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but

preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had

a better tariff law than has existed in this country. But, instead

of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel,

and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some

cases higher than the old tariff. The committee restored nearly

all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and

yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that

destroyed all symmetry or harmony. But still the bill reported to

the Senate was a passable tariff except as to iron and wool; but

it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission

report."

Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York "Tribune" of the

date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff

amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the

lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion. The tariff

act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications

since that time.

During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service

of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton,

and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate,

which continued most of the month of December, 1882. It was referred

to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of

Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate,

passed that body and was approved by the President. This important

measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed

of three persons, and defined their duties. It withdrew from party

politics the great body of the employees of the government. Though

not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the

civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency,

is now in successful operation.

The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules

all employments in the executive branch of the government, except

those that, by the constitution, are appointed by the President by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If to this should

be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of

Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an

executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected

and the separate departments of the government would be independent

of each other. My experience as an executive officer convinced me

that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the "spoils

system," but would relieve the President and heads of departments,

as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that

often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.

Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a

candidate for governor was being canvassed in the press and among

the people of Ohio. My name, among others, was mentioned, but I

did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination,

supposing it was a passing thought that, upon reflection, would be

abandoned. No one could then foresee how the legislature to be

elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would

hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation,

to compliment me with an election as governor.

I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects

to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. I was kindly

received and expressed my thanks as follows:

"Gentlemen of the general assembly, I thank you for this hearty

reception. In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for

not making an address. You are the representatives of the people,

and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will

of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to

party, creed or condition. In the closing hours of your session

you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so

I bid you good-bye. Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks."

I was received in the same manner in the senate. I found a much

stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I

expected. I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a

candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who

was entitled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at

the head of the state ticket, I said:

"I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the

gubernatorial nomination under any circumstances. It is out of

the question. There was a manifest disposition at one time to run

me _nolens volens_, but my friends now understand my position fully,

and will not press the point. It is as though the possibility had

never been suggested, and the less said about it the better."

This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one

as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by

another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither

of which was true. While I did not wish the nomination, I would

have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined

that my acceptance was necessary for success. Upon my return to

Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned

several able men in the state who were well qualified for that

office. I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable

candidate. I did not then know him personally, but from what I

had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named. He

was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canvass. At that

time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and

Sherman as competing candidates. The state convention was approaching

and I had been invited to attend. I went to Columbus on the 5th

of June. All sorts of rumors were being circulated. The general

trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:

"The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent

Republicans, and the movement promises to assume such proportions

before the day of the convention, that it will result in the

nomination of Senator Sherman for governor. It has been stated

that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent

of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis: 'Mr. John Sherman has

been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party,

and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would

not.' The great interest manifested throughout the country in

Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circumstances,

to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all

contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the

campaign. Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will

be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would

be a foregone conclusion."

As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general

desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to

my room to urge me to accept. Among others who came to me were

Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fassett, of the Mahoning county delegation.

After some general conversation they said that in order that they

might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference

to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I

was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor. I

answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would

not and could not become one. I said I was sorry that matters had

shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of

refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the

place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put

upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction,

that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible

danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.

The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was

selected as chairman. I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus

that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on

taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for

the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the

Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions

which would have to be met in the canvass, and appealed to all

present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.

Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the

nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation

from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his

seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor. I

declined in the following words:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:--I have not been insensible to the

desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in

nomination for governor. But let me say frankly but firmly that

I cannot be your candidate. In order that I may not be misunderstood,

I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for

declining the nomination. I have been under so many obligations

to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter

of personal interest or feeling, I would say 'yes!' But, I cannot

accept this nomination. First, because you have charged me with

the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I

could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only

to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States.

And I will say that that view is shared by many of my associates

in the Senate. They deprecate any movement of this kind on account

of the condition of affairs there. But, aside from that, there is

one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate

now. When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the

gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention,

that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate. I could

not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor,

and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me. Although all

of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that

declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I

had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that

kind. So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with

a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by

a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially

among Republicans, to decline."

The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by

acclamation. He was introduced to the convention and made a long

and pleasant address. His speech was well received and he was

often interrupted with cheers. He was then about thirty-seven

years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his

appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he

was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold

a prominent place in the political history of the state. He had

enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen,

and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission

Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into

the enemy's works, being the first man of his regiment over the

ridge. He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea.

My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise. After the

war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college

and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to

a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati.

He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will,

in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of

strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that

election.

From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result

was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent

legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and

also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to

the people. The constitution of Ohio declares that "no license to

traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this

state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils

resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during

this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio

for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent

the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but

without effect. The constitution so limited the powers of the

general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive

laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors.

Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe

to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified

by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to

enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years,

free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that

probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any

other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the

Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in

favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the

general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from

the restraint of the old constitution. The legislature, instead

of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was

known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law

unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of

the constitution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican

party appeared before the people of the state when they were

discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of

Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly

beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man.

The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance

question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two

proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full

legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other

providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending

the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature

provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually

on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer.

This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of

Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the

Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion

in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans,

mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as

an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which

they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the

disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as

a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license,

they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for

prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with

hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The

Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every

proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as

their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer,

and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had

been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed

the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canvass. The farmers of

Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the

duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given

to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was

made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities

against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author

of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic

committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer

of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replied that it was true

that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on

wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and

did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united

vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican

Senators and Members from New England. I denounced the hypocrisy

of those who assailed me, whose representatives voted for even a

greater reduction, and some of them for free wool. To all this

they answered: "Did you not vote for the bill on its passage?"

I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated. No

doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some

adverse influence on the election.

This canvass was in many respects a peculiar one. Foraker was

active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave

general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been

until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the

course of the Democratic party during and since the war. Both the

candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there

was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor

question more than on general politics. When I was asked about

the German vote, I said:

"The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are

really a temperate people. They have always claimed to be willing

to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor. The

Scott bill is very moderate--more so than the bills that are being

passed in other states. If they mean what they say, I don't think

there will be any trouble about electing our ticket."

Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen,

George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on

a trip to Helena, Montana. The object was simply recreation and

sight-seeing. We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other

points. Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know

about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred

to talk about the great northwest. Interviews were sought by

reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers. Hedges

and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself,

in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the

local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota. With their assistance

I became conversant with the topography and productions of these

states. I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul

and Minneapolis. I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen,

some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul. Upon

my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more

thousands than the hundreds we paid for it. This was but a specimen

of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some

not far distant day, to be a single city. From St. Paul, we went

to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and

the newly made capital of Montana. This was the second time I had

visited this territory, now a state. I studied, as well as I could,

its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural. It is

properly named Montana. Its mountains are not only filled with

minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more

than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in

bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep

ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the

native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves

of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.

The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union

would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil

and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our

population. Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed

for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the

industry of our countrymen. The remaining tenth consists mainly

of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions,

the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war.

Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European

nations.

Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied

resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in

national matters, independence in local matters, are the central

ideas of our system of government.

On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a

scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective

capital. We passed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and

Detroit on our way to Mansfield. This trip, leisurely taken,

occupied about one month.

During the remainder of the summer, until the canvass commenced,

I had a period of rest and recuperation. It was interrupted only

by the necessity of making some preparation for the canvass, which

it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August. I carefully

dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that

day to a large audience. It was printed and circulated, but most

of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time.

Some of them it may be of interest to recall. I contrasted the

condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if

the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking. I

described the formation and history of parties as they then existed,

and assumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or

Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic

candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest

Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we

could assume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican

party were right. I said: "All these distinguished and able

gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge

Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of

the Democratic party than I have. To the extent, therefore, of

acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past,

_the Democratic party concedes that we were right_."

I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law. I defended

the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which

had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries

of Europe. Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly,

attacked the proposed amendments to the constitution prohibiting

the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican

party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed

policy. This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer

to evade the real issue of the "Scott" bill. He treated the

reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it

upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote

had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that

nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it. The entire

canvass of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues,

and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast

with the speeches of Foraker.

After the Findlay meeting I went to Cincinnati and attended the

harvest home festival in Green township, and read an address on

the life and work of A. J. Downing, a noted horticulturalist and

writer on rural architecture. I have always been interested in

such subjects and was conversant with Downing's writings and works,

especially with his improvement of the public parks in and about

Washington. He was employed by the President of the United States

in 1851, to lay out and superintend the improvement of the extensive

public grounds between the capitol and the executive mansion at

Washington, commonly known as the "Mall." This important work was

entered upon by him, with the utmost enthusiasm. Elaborate plans

of the Mall and other public squares were made by him, walks and

drives laid out; the place for each tree, with its kind and variety

determined, and the work of planning mainly executed. He, with an

artist's eye, saw the then unadorned beauties of the location of

the capital; the broad sweep of the Potomac, the valley and the

plain environed by its rim of varied hills, broken here and there

by glens and ravines. He spoke of it with enthusiasm, and no doubt,

above other hopes, wished, by his skill, to aid in making the city

of Washington as magnificent in its views and surroundings as any

city in Europe. But man proposes and God disposes. It was not to

be the good fortune of Mr. Downing to complete his magnificent

plans for converting the filthy, waste commons of the capital into

gardens of delight; but they have been executed by others, and have

contributed largely to making Washington what he wished it to be,

a beautiful city, parked and planted with specimens of every American

tree worthy of propagation, and becoming adorned with the best

models of architecture, not only of public edifices, fitted for

the great offices of the nation, but of many elegant private houses.

I had been invited by the Lincoln club, of Cincinnati, to attend

a reception at their clubhouse on the evening of the 1st of September.

It is a political as well as a social club, and I was expected to

make a political speech. I did so, and was followed by Foraker

and H. L. Morey. The usual "refreshments" were not forgotten. I

take this occasion to express my hearty approval of the organization

and maintenance of political clubs in every city containing 10,000

or more inhabitants. The Republicans of Cincinnati have for many

years maintained two notable organizations, the Lincoln and the

Blaine clubs, which have been places of social intercourse, as well

as centers for political discussion. Both have had a beneficial

influence, not only in instructing their members on political

topics, but in disseminating sound opinion throughout the state.

During this visit I was elected a member of the Chamber of Commerce

in Cincinnati. I regarded this as an honor, and returned to its

members my sincere thanks. Although I have not been engaged in

commercial pursuits, yet in my public duties I have often been

called upon to act upon commercial questions and interests. I have

habitually, in my annual visits to that city, visited the chamber

of commerce, and said a few words on the topic of the times in

which its members were interested, but never on politics. Every

diversity of opinion was there represented.

Cincinnati, situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, with

Kentucky on the other side, and Indiana near by, with a large part

of its population of German birth or descent, with every variety

of race, creed and color, is thoroughly a cosmopolitan city, subject

to sudden outbreaks and notable changes. At the time of my visit

it was especially disturbed by the agitation of the temperance

question. In discussing this, I took the same position as at

Findlay, and found but little objection to it, but the opinions

expressed by speakers in other parts of the state in favor of

prohibition had, as the election proved, a very bad effect upon

the Republican ticket.

On the 6th of September I attended the state fair at Columbus. It

was estimated that there were at least 40,000 people on the ground

that day. It has been the habit to gather around the headquarters

and press any public man who appeared to make a speech. Governor

Foster and I were together. Mr. Cowden, the president of the fair,

introduced Foster and he made a brief address. I was then introduced

and said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--It has been my good fortune to be able to

visit the state fair for many years in succession, but, from the

great multitude of people, and the vast concourse before me, I

should say that Ohio is rapidly pressing onward in the march of

progress. The gray beards I see before me, and I am among them now,

remind me of the time when we were boys together; when, after a

season's weary labor, we were compelled to utilize our surplus

crops to pay our taxes."

I contrasted the early days of Ohio with its condition then, and

closed as follows:

"But this is no time for speechmaking, nor the occasion for further

remarks. We have come out to show ourselves, and you do not desire

speeches, but you do most want to see the horses, cattle, sheep,

hogs, and the implements that make the life of a farmer easier.

This is a progress that I love to see. My countrymen, you are

crowned with blessings. Enjoy them freely and gratefully, returning

thanks to the Giver of all good gifts. This is a free land, and

the agricultural masses are the freest, the noblest, and the best

of all our race. Enjoy your privileges to the highest point, and

be worthy followers of the great race of pioneers who came before

you."

During the remainder of this canvass I spoke nearly every week day

until the election, and in most of the congressional districts of

the state. Some of these speeches were reported and circulated as

campaign documents. As the election day approached the interest

increased, and the meetings grew to be immense gatherings. This

was notably so at Toledo, Dayton, Portsmouth, Cleveland, Circleville

and Zanesville. I believed the Republican state ticket would be

elected, but feared that the prohibition amendment would prevent

the election of a Republican legislature. The result of the election

for governor was Hoadley 359,693, Foraker 347,164, and the general

assembly elected contained a majority of Democrats in each branch.

Henry B. Payne was, on the meeting of the legislature, elected

Senator in the place then held by Geo. H. Pendleton.

After the election I went to New York and was met everywhere with

inquiries as to the causes of Republican defeat in Ohio. I said

the Republicans were defeated because of the prohibition question

and the law reducing the tariff on wool; that many Germans feared

an invasion of their rights and an interference with their habits,

and the farmers objected to the discrimination made by our tariff

against their industries.

On the 1st of November, 1883, General Sherman relinquished command

of the army, with the same simplicity and lack of display which

had characterized his official life at army headquarters. He wrote

the following brief order:

"Headquarters of the Army, }

"Washington, November 1, 1883.}

"_General Orders No. 77_.

"By and with the consent of the President, as contained in General

Orders No. 71, of October 16, 1883, the undersigned relinquishes

command of the army of the United States.

"In thus severing relations which have hitherto existed between

us, he thanks all officers and men for their fidelity to the high

trust imposed on them during his official life, and will, in his

retirement, watch with parental solicitude their progress upward

in the noble profession to which they have devoted their lives.

"W. T. Sherman, General.

"Official: R. C. Drum, Adjutant General."

He then rose from his desk, gave his seat to Sheridan, who at once

issued his orders assuming his new duties, and the transfer was

completed. I know that when the bill for the retirement of officers

at a specified age was pending, there was a strong desire in the

Senate to except General Sherman from the operation of the law,

but the general, who was absent on the plains, telegraphed me not

to allow an exception to be made in his favor, insisting that it

would be a discrimination against other officers of high merit.

Thereupon the Senate reluctantly yielded, but with a provision that

he should retain his salary as general, notwithstanding his

retirement.

At this period mention was again made in the newspapers of my name

as the nominee of the Republican party for President in the next

year. I promptly declared that I was not a candidate and had no

purpose or desire to enter into the contest. This discussion of

my name continued until the decision of the national convention,

but I took no part or lot in it, made no requests of anyone to

support my nomination, and took no steps, directly or indirectly,

to promote it.

CHAPTER XLVI.

EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES.

Continued Prosperity of the Nation--Arthur's Report to Congress--

Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and

Mississippi--Reports of the Investigating Committee--Financial

Questions Discussed During the Session--Duties and Privileges of

Senators--Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward

in New York--Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are

Wrecked--Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House--Debate

in the Senate on the National Bank System--Dedication of the John

Marshall Statue at Washington--Defeat of Ingalls' Arrears of Pensions

Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the

Mexican War--The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration

of Independence on July 4.

The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th

of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity

in the United States. We were at peace and harmony with all nations.

The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883,

amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the

reduction of the public debt. It was estimated that the surplus

revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the

next fiscal year $60,000,000. The President called the attention

of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced

the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars.

While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely

made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the

national revenues. The whole tenor of the message was conservative

and hopeful.

During this session, upon representations made to me and after full

reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute

an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the

States of Virginia and Mississippi. I did so with extreme reluctance,

for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation.

On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out

in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported

in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in

Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the

following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on privileges and elections be,

and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of,

and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition

of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the

people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or

otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send

for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the

Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers."

On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the

following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and

requested an investigation:

"Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the

recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of

such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of

the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of

the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and,

if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom

of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in

the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.

"Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the

excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this

investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand

how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment

of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer

relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man

for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the

boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.

"The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or

massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported

by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also

verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a

Senator from the State of Virginia.

"The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives

in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the

actions and failure to act of officers of the state government,

including governors, judges, courts, and juries.

"I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation,

if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although

I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various

statements published in the papers of different political parties

and from different persons.

"If these statements are true, then in both these states there have

been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections,

accompanied by murder and violence in many forms. The crimes

depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where

the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued

by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but

the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by

violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of

citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished

by ordinary tribunals. If they are true, then in those communities

the members of our party and one race have no rights which the

prevailing party is bound to respect.

"It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the

fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for,

if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have

been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War. I

have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes,

but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself

to questions of peace, development, and progress. Still, if these

allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the

gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents

which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and

convert our elections into organized crimes. I do not say these

allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming

of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood

by the most careful and impartial inquiry.

"If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak

or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they

may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities;

but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a

party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of

elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions,

then they constitute a crime against the national government, the

highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal

rights and privileges of citizens.

"If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and

populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and

evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions

of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as

other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice

cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without

remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right

of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where

his rights will be respected and observed. But if these individual

crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a

party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of

the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt

acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose,

then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by

the national government.

"The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who

had been slaves. This was a national act, and whether wisely or

imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the

states. If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of

any locality it is the duty of the national government to make

their act respected by all its citizens. It is not now a question

as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross

a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by

organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of

citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions,

or deny to them the equal protection of the law. No court has ever

denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens

in their essential rights as freemen. No man should be allowed to

hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured

by crimes such as are depicted here.

"Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were

not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the

election of a President or a Member of Congress. While the power

of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and

the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations

passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in

respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that 'The

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not

be violated;' that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of

the United States;' that 'No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of

the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;'

and that 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state,

on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'

It was also declared that 'Congress shall have power to make all

laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution

the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution

in the government of the United States, or in any department or

office thereof.' Power is also given to Congress to enforce the

recent amendments by appropriate legislation.

"If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state

or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local

authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the

legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional

safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States

government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within

the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as

it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of

the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations

of the world. Surely a citizen of the United States has as much

right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land,

however remote or however powerful its government may be. Protection

at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property

is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms

are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a

matter of indifference. Protection goes with allegiance, and

allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.

"I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern

states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated

slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters,

with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them

as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even

of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with

great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional

rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or

creed, or party. If the time has come, as alleged in the papers

before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose

agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained

intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their

free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered

at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of

punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and

that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice,

and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions

where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national

government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full,

open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens

shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.

"If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party

in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect

again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and

disappointment. Written in the light of the events alleged to have

transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these

resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity,

and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are

the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi. I

should like to know--it is right that we should learn--the groundwork

of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.

"In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for

the conduct of the people complained of. I would give to their

motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation

the most charitable construction. I would give to them all political

power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or

penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right,

favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of

our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand

that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of

rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws

to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or

rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured

by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges

shall be asserted and maintained by the national government. Upon

this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every

lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights

by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those

who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment

of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their

associates."

General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to

the Danville election.

The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29. As

the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events,

they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee

on privileges and elections. Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee.

I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the

examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville. Mr. Lapham

prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the

minority. These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed

in a document containing 1,300 pages. The Copiah county matter

was referred to another sub-committee. As no affirmative action

was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length

either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that

the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were

substantially sustained by the testimony. There was a deliberate

effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts

of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the

November election this movement was organized by the formation of

clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the

Republican vote. A letter, called the Danville circular, was

prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing

the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the

negroes from voting.

The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the

election were very fully stated in the report, and established

clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at

the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled. A

scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson,

two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the

colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed.

A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were

fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols

and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being

variously estimated at from 75 to 250. The negroes fled. There

was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites

fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was

that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in

their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of

all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with

any view of violence or preparation for it. The whites, on the

contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and

obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence. Many of

the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that

Captain Graves reloaded his. There was conflicting evidence as to

the negroes having arms. Only one was shown to have exhibited any

before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites,

including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands

of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable

evidence that he fired. There was no evidence to be relied upon

that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated

that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their

shoulders. The evidence tended to show that the violence was

premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.

I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition

of affairs which led to it is now changed. The result was the

murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many

others. The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the

consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic

clubs had fully prepared.

I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important

measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout

the south. The problem of the two races living together in the

same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and

has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only

be settled by each state or community for itself. It is impossible

for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the

protection of life and property in any of the states except where

resistance is made to national authority. All the signs indicate

that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their

common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public

policy, without regard to race or color.

Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr.

Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in

the establishment and temporary support of common schools. It

provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed

among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the

current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years,

until the total sum was exhausted. The apportionment proposed

would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the

$15,000,000. The money was not to be disbursed by the United

States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities.

The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially

among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure

proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its

apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated,

but it passed the Senate by a large majority. The advocates of a

strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of

their theories. The bill, however, was defeated in the House of

Representatives.

An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during

this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed

to regard as a part of the public debt. It is, in fact, only a

treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount

actually paid. In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided

that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be

paid each year as a "sinking fund." While the United States was

borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay

outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the

treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed. In the

meantime, the treasury charged to the "sinking fund," annually,

the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities

of the United States. When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so

much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the

purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid

was placed to the credit of this fund. In the general prosperity

that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so

that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of,

the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against

it prior to 1868. When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the

revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current

expenditures. This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until

1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was

rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue,

and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I

was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable

sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more

rapidly than it had agreed to pay it. The term "sinking fund," as

applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase. It is

a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum

of the public debt each year. There is no actual fund of the kind

in existence for national purposes.

Another financial question was presented at this session and before

and since. The national banking act, when it passed in 1863,

provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be

issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States

bonds deposited in the treasury for their security. At that time

bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or

par in United States notes. Soon after the war, bonds advanced

far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium.

Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow

notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds

deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes

unreasonably. I introduced a bill early at this session to correct

this. It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House. The

same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when

the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when

they were greatly needed.

During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator

could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present

in the Senate. The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators

might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business

of the Senate when a quorum was present. Mr. Bayard and myself

agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which

the Senate might punish. Senators may retire from the Chamber,

but the Senate can compel their attendance. If a case should arise

where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without

good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured. The increase

in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance,

but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.

The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields

a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse. The committee

on appropriations is a very important one. It is always composed

of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations,

but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to

them. Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the

session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time

to enter into details. They are entirely familiar with the great

appropriations for the support of the government, and can best

judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which

ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for

specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia. No reason

can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by

such committees. It is true that the appropriation committee ought

to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution

existing laws. That is their function, according to the rules,

and that function they can perform very well in regard to such

expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the

District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain

other objects, are not defined or regulated by law. In the case

of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation

bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures

is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all

the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature,

new items not fixed by existing law.