"Dear Sir:--The undersigned, citizens of Birmingham, Alabama, take

this method of writing you to extend your visit from Nashville,

Tennessee, to our growing city, and bear witness to its development

and progress in the prospective mining, manufacturing and business

metropolis of the state. Feeling confident that you are naturally

interested in our welfare and happiness, American citizens in every

capacity and relation in life, we earnestly trust that you will

comply with our solicitation.

"Yours respectfully,

"Sam'l R. Lowery, Editor 'Southern Freemen.'

"A. L. Scott, Real Estate Agent.

"W. R. Pettiford, J. M. Goodloe, A. J. Headon, A. D. Jemison and

R. Donald, Pastors of Colored Churches in Birmingham, Ala."

The letter was written to be sent me at Nashville, when it was not

known that I was at Birmingham, and was indorsed as follows;

"Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.

"Dear Sir:--A colored delegation, as given above, desires to call

upon you to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock or at 3. Please do us

the kindness to say if we may see you, and when.

"Yours faithfully,

"A. L. Scott."

I at once sent word to the delegation that I would see them in my

room the next morning at 10 o'clock, having already arranged to

accompany some gentlemen on an excursion among the mines and other

evidences of Birmingham's boom at 11 a. m. The next morning I

waited in my room with General Warner, Judge Craig and others until

11 o'clock, and, the delegation not appearing, was about to start

on my visit to the mines, when the following note was handed me by

one of the colored servants of the house:

"Birmingham, Ala.

"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--In accordance with arrangement, a committee of colored

citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama came to see

you at 10 o'clock this morning. The proprietor of the Florence

hotel declined to allow us to visit your room, and said if we

desired to see you we must see you outside of the Florence hotel.

We regret the occurrence, as the committee is composed of the best

colored citizens of the community.

"Yours respectfully,

"A. L. Scott,

"W. R. Pettiford,

"Samuel R. Lowery,

"R. C. D. Benjamin,

"Albert Boyd."

I requested General Warner and Judge Craig to go to the proprietor

of the hotel and ask him if it was true that he had forbidden

certain men going to my room. The proprietor informed them that

it was true; it was against his rules to allow any colored people

to go upstairs except the servants. I said I would not allow a

hotel proprietor to say whom I should or should not receive in my

room. That was a question I chose to decide for myself. I therefore

immediately paid my bill and went to the Metropolitan hotel, where

the delegation made their call. Their only object was to read to

me an address of welcome to the city in behalf of the colored

people. Their address was well expressed and they were evidently

intelligent and respectable men. They welcomed me cordially in

behalf of their race and countrymen, and said:

"While we respect your political and statesmanlike life, not an

event has equaled your manly and heroic conduct in Birmingham,

Alabama, in respect to the persecuted, proscribed and downtrodden

black citizens, on account of their race, color and proscription

in this city and state.

"When you stated to the tavern keeper, if the black citizens were

not permitted to visit you there, you would go to another tavern,

and if not permitted, you would stop with your baggage in the street

and receive them, shows a sympathy and sentiment that you, though

honored and able, feel bound with them and to them. And every

black man, woman and child thenceforward in our state will pray

Heaven's favor shall follow you and yours to a throne of grace for

Sherman, Ohio's noblest, heroic and patriotic statesman."

In reply I expressed pleasure at meeting the colored people, and,

touching the Florence hotel affair, advised forbearance. "Be true

to yourselves," I said, "be industrious, maintain your own manhood,

and they day will come when you can command recognition as men and

citizens of the United States, free and equal with all others."

I assured them that I entertained as high respect for colored people

as I did for any other citizens.

I mention this incident at some length because, at the time, it

excited much comment in the press throughout the United States.

It is but fair to say that the action of the hotel proprietor was

condemned by the leading Democrats of Birmingham, prominent among

whom was the editor of the "Iron Age."

In the evening I spoke at the opera house, which was well filled

with representative citizens. I was introduced by Rufus M. Rhodes,

president of the News Publishing Company. My speech was confined

mainly to nonpartisan subjects, to the industries in that section,

and the effect of national legislation upon them. I had read of

the vast deposits of coal and iron in that section, and had that

day seen them for myself. I said: "You have stored in the

surrounding hills elements of a wealth greater than all the banks

of New York." In speaking of the effect of national legislation

upon the development of their resources, I said I would not allude

to politics, because, though a strict party man, as they all knew,

I believed that men who differed with me were as honest as I was;

that whatever might have occurred in the past, we were a reunited

people; that we had had our differences, and men of both sides

sought to have their convictions prevail, but I would trust the

patriotism of an ex-Confederate in Alabama as readily as an ex-

Unionist in Ohio; that I was not there to speak of success in war,

but of the interests and prosperity of their people. My nonpartisan

speech was heartily approved. General Warner made a brief address

to his former constituents, and the meeting then adjourned.

I went the next day to Nashville, arriving early in the evening.

A committee of the legislature met me on my way. On my arrival I

met many of the members of both political parties, and was the

recipient of a serenade at which William C. Whitthorne, a Democratic

Member of Congress, made a neat speech welcoming me to the hospitality

of the state. None of the speeches contained any political

sentiments, referring mainly to the hopeful and prosperous outlook

of the interests of Tennessee. During the next day I visited with

the committee, at the head of which was Mr. Kerchival, the mayor

of the city, several manufacturing establishments, and the Fisk

and Vanderbilt universities, and also a school for colored boys.

Among the more agreeable visits that day was one made at the

residence of Mrs. Polk, the widow of President Polk. I remembered

her when she was the honored occupant and mistress of the White

House, at the time of my first visit to Washington in the winter

of 1846-47. She was still in vigorous health, and elegant and

dignified lady.

I wish here to express my grateful appreciation of the reception

given me by the people of Nashville on this occasion. There was

no appearance of mere form and courtesy due to a stranger among

them, but a hearty general welcome, such as would be extended to

one representing their opinions and identified with their interests.

I met there several gentlemen with whom I had served in Congress,

most of whom had been in the Confederate service. One of them paid

me a compliment after hearing my speech by saying: "Sherman, your

speech will trouble the boys some, but I could answer you."

This speech was made on the evening of the 24th of March, 1887, in

the hall of the house of representatives. It was carefully prepared

with the expectation that it would be delivered to an unsympathetic

audience of able men. I delivered it with scarcely a reference to

my notes, and substantially in the language written. Tennessee

and Kentucky had been Whig states, strongly in favor of protection,

and before the war were represented by John Bell and Henry Clay.

I claimed my fellowship with the people of Tennessee in the old

Whig times, and, aside from the questions that grew out of the war,

assumed that they were still in favor of the policy of protection

of American industries by tariff laws. I did not evade the slavery

question or the War of the Rebellion, but said of them what I would

have said in Ohio. I made an appeal on behalf of the negro, and

quoted what Senator Vest had eloquently said, that "the southern

man who would wrong them deserves to be blotted from the roll of

manhood." All we asked for the negro was that the people of

Tennessee would secure to him the rights and privileges of an

American citizen, according to the constitution of the United

States. I then presented the questions of the hour, taxation,

currency, public credit, foreign and domestic commerce, education

and internal improvements. On these questions I said the people

of Tennessee had like interests and opinions with the people of

Ohio, that the past was beyond recall, that for evil or good the

record was made up and laid away. I discussed each of these

subjects, dwelling mainly on taxation and currency; in the one was

the protection and promotion of home industries, and in the other

was the choice between bank notes of the olden time, and United

States notes and national bank notes secured by the bonds of the

United States. I closed with these words:

"But I do, in the presence of you all, claim for the Republican

party, and defy contradiction, that in the grandeur of its

achievements, in the benefits it has conferred upon the people, in

the patriotic motives that have animated it, and the principles

that have guided it, in the fidelity, honesty, and success of its

administration of great public trusts, it will compare favorably

with the record of any administration of any government in ancient

or modern times. We ask you to aid us, to help us. We make this

appeal in the same words to the Confederate gray as to the Union

blue--to whoever in our great country is willing in the future to

lend a helping hand or vote to advance the honor, grandeur and

prosperity of this great republic."

The speech, being made by a Republican at the capital of a southern

Democratic state, attracted great attention from the public press,

and, much to my surprise, several of the leading Democratic and

independent papers commended it highly. This was notably the case

with the Louisville "Courier Journal," the Washington "Evening

Star," and the New York "Herald." A brief extract from the latter

is given as an indication of public sentiment:

"Senator Sherman's Nashville speech is the first address on national

politics ever spoken by a Republican of national reputation to a

southern audience. He was welcomed by the prominent citizens of

the Tennessee capital, and spoke to a crowded and attentive audience

in the hall of representatives.

"Both the speech and the welcome the speaker received are notable

and important events. Mr. Sherman spoke as a Republican in favor

of Republican politics, and what he said was frankly and forcibly

put. If the Republican leaders are wise they will take care to

circulate Mr. Sherman's Nashville speech all over the south, and

through the north as well. He spoke for high protection, for

internal improvements, for liberal expenditures on public buildings,

for the Blair education bill, for the maintenance of the present

currency system, and for spending the surplus revenue for public

purposes.

"All that is the straightest and soundest Republican doctrine. He

told his hearers, also, that the war is over, and that the interests

of Tennessee and other southern states must naturally draw them to

the Republican party. He spoke to attentive ears."

The speech was reprinted and had considerable circulation, but,

like the shadows that pass, it is probably forgotten by all who

heard or read it. I consider it as one of the best, in temper,

composition and argument, that I ever made.

It had been arranged that I was to be driven to Saint Paul's chapel

after the meeting. The occasion was the assemblage of the educational

association of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and their

friends. The chapel was a large, handsome, well-furnished room,

and was crowded to the door with well-dressed men and women. Dr.

Bryant made an address of welcome, and Bishop Turner introduced me

to the audience. I made a brief response and excused myself from

speaking further on account of fatigue. General Grosvenor and ex-

Senator Warner made short speeches. Our party then returned to

the hotel. To me this meeting was a surprise and a gratification.

Here was a body of citizens but lately slaves, who, in attendance

on religious services and afterward remaining until a late hour

listening to us, behaved with order, attention and intelligence.

The report of my remarks, as given in their newspapers, was as

follows:

"Senator Sherman said that the praise of himself had been too high.

He had voted for the emancipation of the negro race in the District

of Columbia, an event which had preceded the emancipation proclamation

of Abraham Lincoln. He supported it as a great act of national

authority and of justice. Therefore, he could appear as a friend

of the race and of liberty. He had not voted for it because they

were negroes, but he had voted for it because they were men and

women. He would have voted for the whites as well. He spoke of

the society and said any measure that would tend to elevate the

race he was in favor of. What the race wanted was not more rights

but more education. Their rights were secured to them by the

constitution of the United States, and the time would come when

they would enjoy them as freely as anyone. They should not be

impatient to advance. Prejudice could not be overcome in a short

period. He said the best way to overcome all prejudice was by

elevating themselves; but not by gaudy extravagance, groans, abuse,

war, or tumult of war. They had the same right to become lawyers,

doctors, soldiers and heroes as the white man had.

"When they became as advanced as the whites around them there would

be no trouble about their franchises. Now they were free men and

they should become freeholders. After they had got education they

should accumulate property."

On the next morning I left Nashville for Cincinnati, where I arrived

on the evening of the 25th of March and took lodgings at the Gibson

House. I was to speak at Turner Hall on the next evening, under

the auspices of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs. It was a busy day

with me in receiving calls and in visiting the chamber of commerce

and the two clubs where speeches were made and hand shaking done.

Still, I knew what I was to say at the meeting, and the composition

of the audience I was to address. The hall is large, with good

acoustic qualities, and in it I had spoken frequently. It is situated

in the midst of a dense population of workingmen, and was so crowded

that night in every part that many of the audience were compelled

to stand in the aisles and around the walls. On entering I mentally

contrasted my hearers with those at Faneuil Hall and Nashville.

Here was a sober, attentive and friendly body of workingmen, who

came to hear and weigh what was said, not in the hurry of Boston

or with the criticism of political opponents as in Nashville, but

with an earnest desire to learn and to do what was best for the

great body of workingmen, of whom they were a part. I was introduced

in a kindly way by ex-Governor Noyes. After a brief reference to

my trip to Florida and Cuba, I described the country lying southwest

of the Alleghany mountains, about two hundred miles wide, extending

from Detroit to Mobile, destined to be the great workshop of the

United States, where coal and iron could be easily mined, where

food was abundant and cheap, and in a climate best fitted for the

development of the human race. In this region, workingmen, whether

farmers, mechanics or laborers, would always possess political

power as the controlling majority of the voters. I claimed that

the Republican party was the natural home of workingmen, that its

policy, as developed for thirty years, had advanced our industrial

interests and diversified the employments of the people. This led

to a review of our political policy, the homestead law, the abolition

of slavery, good money always redeemable in coin, the development

of manufactures and the diversity of employments. I discussed the

creation of new parties, such as the labor party and the temperance

party, and contended that their objects could better be attained

by the old parties. I referred to the organization of a national

bureau of labor, to a bill providing for arbitration, and other

measures in the interest of labor. I stated the difficulties in

the way of the government interposing between capital and labor.

They were like husband and wife; they must settle their quarrels

between them, but the law, if practicable, should provide a mode

of adjustment. I closed with the following appeal to them as

workingmen:

"Let us stand by the Republican party, and we will extend in due

time our dominion and power into other regions; not by annexation,

not by overriding peaceable and quiet people, but by our commercial

influence, by extending our steamboat lines into South America,

by making all the Caribbean Sea one vast American ocean; by planting

our influence among the sister republics, by aiding them from time

to time, and thus, by pursuing an American policy, become the ruler

of other dominions."

From Cincinnati, after a brief visit to Mansfield, I returned to

Washington to await the opening of spring weather, which rarely

comes in the highlands of Ohio until the middle of May.

General Sherman and I had been invited several times to visit

Woodbury, Connecticut, for nearly two centuries the home of our

ancestors. In April, both being in Washington, we concluded to do

so, and advised Mr. Cothron, the historian of Woodbury, of our

purpose. We arrived in the evening at Waterbury, and there found

that our coming was known. Several gentlemen met us at the depot

and conducted us to the hotel, some of them having served with

General Sherman in the Civil War. Among them was a reporter. We

explained to him that we were on our way to Woodbury, had no plans

to execute, intended to erect no monuments, as was stated, and only

wished to see where our ancestors had lived and died. General

Sherman was rather free in his talk about the steep hills and cliffs

near High Rock grove. These he admired as scenery, but he said:

"I cannot see how this rocky country can be converted into farming

lands that can be made profitable;" also "I am indeed pleased to

think that my ancestors moved from this region to Ohio in 1810."

Among the callers was S. M. Kellogg, who had served with me in

Congress.

The next morning we went to Woodbury, called on William Cothron,

and proceeded to the cemetery and other places of note in the

neighborhood. In this way the day was pleasantly spent. I thought

there were signs of decay in the old village since my former visit,

but this may have been caused by the different seasons of the year

at which these visits were made. Woodbury looks more like an

England shire town than any other in Connecticut. Its past history

was full of interest, but the birth and growth of manufacturing

towns all around eclipsed it and left only its memories. After

visiting the site of the old Sherman homestead, about a mile from

town, and the famous Stoddard house, in which my grandmother was

born, we returned to New York.

I had been invited by the officers and members of the Illinois

legislature, then in session at Springfield, to speak in the hall

of the house of representatives on the political issues of the day.

I accepted with some reluctance, as I doubted the expediency of a

partisan address at such a place. My address at Nashville, no

doubt, led to the invitation; but the conditions were different in

the two cities. At Nashville it was expected that I would make a

conciliatory speech, tending to harmony between the sections, while

at Springfield I could only make a partisan speech, on lines well

defined between the two great parties, and, as I learned afterwards,

by reason of local issues, to a segment of the Republican party.

Had I known this in advance I would have declined the invitation.

The 1st of June was the day appointed. I arrived in Chicago, at

a late hour, on the 29th of May, stopping at the Grand Pacific

hotel, and soon after received the calls of many citizens in the

rotunda. On the evening of the 30th I was tendered a reception by

the Union League club in its library, and soon became aware of the

fact that one segment of the Republican party, represented by the

Chicago "Tribune," was not in attendance. The reception, however,

was a very pleasant one, greatly aided by a number of ladies.

The next morning, accompanied by Senator Charles B. Farwell and a

committee of the club, I went to Springfield. I have often traversed

the magnificent State of Illinois, but never saw it clothed more

beautifully than on this early summer day. The broad prairies

covered with green, the wide reaches of cultivated land, rich with

growing corn, wheat and oats, presented pictures of fertility that

could not be excelled in any portion of the world. I met Governor

Oglesby and many leading citizens of Illinois on the way, and on

my arrival at Springfield was received by Senator Cullom and other

distinguished gentlemen, and conducted to the Leland hotel, but

soon afterward was taken to the residence of Senator Cullom, where

several hours were spent very pleasantly. Later in the evening I

attended a reception tendered by Governor and Mrs. Oglesby, and

there met the great body of the members of the legislature and many

citizens.

On the 1st of June an elaborate order of arrangements, including

a procession, was published, but about noon there came a heavy

shower of rain that changed the programme of the day. A platform

had been erected at the corner of the statehouse, from which the

speaking was to be made. This had to be abandoned and the meeting

was held in the hall of the house of representatives, to which no

one could enter without a ticket.

It was not until 2:40 p. m. that we entered the hall, when Governor

Oglesby, taking the speaker's chair, rapped for order and briefly

addressed the assembly. I was then introduced and delivered the

speech I had prepared, without reading or referring to it. It was

published and widely circulated. The following abstract, published

in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean," indicates the topics I introduced:

"The Senator began first to awaken applause at the mention of the

name of Lincoln, repeated soon after and followed by a popular

recognition of the name of Douglas. He quoted from Logan, and

cheers and applause greeted his words. There was Democratic applause

when he proclaimed his belief 'that had Douglas lived he would have

been as loyal as Lincoln himself,' and again it resounded louder

still when Logan received a hearty tribute. He touched upon the

successes of our protective policy, and again the applause accentuated

his point. He exonerated the Confederate soldier from sympathy

with the atrocities of reconstruction times, and his audience

appreciated it. He charged the Democratic party in the south with

these atrocities and the continual effort to deprive the negro of

his vote, and the audience appreciated that. His utterance that

he would use the power of Congress to get the vote of a southern

Republican counted at least once, excited general applause. They

laughed when he asked what Andrew Jackson would have thought of

Cleveland, and they laughed again when he declared the Democrats

wanted to reduce the revenue, but didn't know how. He read them

the tariff plank in the Confederate platform, and they laughed to

see how it agreed with the same plank in the Democratic platform.

From discussion of the incapacity of the Democrats to deal with

the tariff question, from their very construction of the constitution,

the Senator passed to the labor question, thence carrying the

interest of his hearers to the purpose of the Republicans to educate

the masses, and make internal improvements. His audience felt the

point well made when he declared the President allowed the internal

improvement bill to expire by a pocket veto because it contained

a $5,000 provision for the Hennepin Canal. In excellent humor the

audience heard him score the Democracy for its helplessness to meet

the currency question, and finally pass, in his peroration, to an

elaboration of George William Curtis' eulogy of the achievements

of the Republican party. He read the twelve Republican principles,

and each utterance received its applause like the readoption of a

popular creed. 'The Democrats put more jail birds in office in

their brief term than the Republicans did in the twenty-four years

of our magnificent service,' exclaimed Senator Sherman, and his

audience laughed, cheered, and applauded. Applause followed each

closing utterance as the Senator outlined the purposes of the party

for future victory, and predicted that result, the Democrats under

the Confederate flag, the Republicans under the flag of the Union."

I returned the next day to Chicago, and in the evening was tendered

a public reception in the parlors of the Grant Pacific hotel.

Although Chicago was familiar to me, yet I was unknown to the people

of Chicago. One or two thousand people shook hands with me and

with them several ladies. Among those I knew were Justice Harlan,

Robert T. Lincoln and Walker and Emmons Blaine.

Upon my return to Mansfield I soon observed, in the Democratic and

conservative papers, hostile criticism of my Springfield speech,

and especially of my arraignment of the crimes at elections in the

south, and of the marked preference by Cleveland in the appointments

to office of Confederate soldiers rather than Union soldiers. A

contrast was made between the Nashville and Springfield speeches,

and the latter was denounced as "waving the bloody shirt." Perhaps

the best answer to this is the following interview with me, about

the middle of June:

"So much fault is found with the Springfield speech by the opponents

of the Republican party, and so many accusations made of inconsistency

with the Nashville speech, that perhaps you may say--what you meant

--what the foremost purpose was in both cases?"

"I meant my Springfield speech to be an historical statement of

the position of the two parties and their tendencies and aims in

the past and for the future. In this respect it differed from the

Nashville speech, which was made to persuade the people of the

south, especially of Tennessee, that their material interests would

be promoted by the policy of the Republican party."

"Do you find anything in the Springfield speech to moderate or

modify?"

"I do not think I said a word in the Springfield speech but what

is literally true, except, perhaps, the statement that 'there is

not an intelligent man in this broad land, of either party, who

does not know that Mr. Cleveland is now President of the United

States by virtue of crimes against the elective franchise.' This

may be too broad, but upon a careful analysis I do not see how I

could modify it if fair force is given to the word 'intelligent.'"

"You stand by the speech, then?"

"Well, since the speech has been pretty severely handled by several

editors whom I am bound to respect, I have requested it to be

printed in convenient form, and intend to send it to these critics

with a respectful request that they will point out any error of

fact contained in it, or any inconsistency between it and my

Nashville speech."

"You do not admit that the two speeches are in two voices?"

"I can discover no inconsistency. And now, after seeing and

weighting these criticisms, I indorse and repeat every word of both

speeches. It may be that the speech was impolitic, but, as I have

not usually governed my speeches and conduct by the rule of policy,

as distinguished from the rule of right, I do not care to commence

now."

"What about the persistent charge of unfriendliness to southern

people and the accusation that you are shaking the bloody shirt?"

"I do not see how the arraignment of election methods that confessedly

destroy the purity or the sanctity of the ballot box, and deprive

a million of people of their political rights, can be ignored or

silenced in a republic by the shoo-fly cry of 'bloody shirt.'"

"Is there no hope of persuasion of the southern people at large to

see the justice of the demand for equal political rights?"

"I cannot see any reason why the Confederate cause, which was

'eternally wrong,' but bravely and honestly fought out, should be

loaded down with the infamy of crimes which required no courage,

committed long since the war, by politicians alone, for political

power and for the benefit of the Democratic party. I can find some

excuse for these atrocities in the strong prejudice of caste and

race in the south, growing out of centuries of slavery, but I can

find no excuse for any man of any party in the north, who is willing

to submit to have his political power controlled and overthrown by

such means."

CHAPTER LIII.

INDORSED FOR PRESIDENT BY THE OHIO STATE CONVENTION.

I Am Talked of as a Presidential Possibility--Public Statement of

My Position--Unanimous Resolution Adopted by the State Convention

at Toledo on July 28, 1887--Text of the Indorsement--Trip Across

the Country with a Party of Friends--Visit to the Copper and Nickel

Mining Regions--Stop at Winnipeg--A Day at Banff--Vast Snowsheds

Along the Canadian Pacific Railroad--Meeting with Carter H. Harrison

on Puget Sound--Rivalry Between Seattle and Tacoma--Trying to Locate

"Mount Tacoma"--Return Home After a Month's Absence--Letter to

General Sherman--Visit to the State Fair--I Attend a Soldiers'

Meeting at Bellville--Opening Campaign Speech at Wilmington--Talk

to Farmers in New York State--Success of the Republican Ticket in

Ohio--Blaine Declines to Be a Candidate.

During the months of June and July, 1887, the question of the

selection of the Republican candidate for President in the following

year was discussed in the newspapers, in the conventions, and among

the people. The names of Blaine and myself were constantly canvassed

in connection with that office, and others were named. I was

repeatedly written to and talked with about it, and uniformly said,

to warm personal friends, that in view of my experience at previous

national conventions I would not be a candidate without the support

of a united delegation from Ohio, and the unanimous indorsement of

a state convention. I referred to the fact that in every period

of my political career I had been supported by the people of Ohio,

and would not aspire to a higher position without their hearty

approval. This statement was openly and publicly made and published

in the newspapers. The "Commercial Gazette," of Cincinnati was

authorized to make this declaration:

"If the Republicans of Ohio want Mr. Sherman for their presidential

candidate they can say so at the Toledo convention. If not, Mr.

Sherman will be entirely content with the position he now occupies,

and will not be in the field as a presidential candidate."

I also wrote the following to a friend, and it was afterwards

published:

"I do not want to be held up to the people of the United States as

a presidential candidate if there is any doubt about Ohio. I do

not, as many think, seek for the high honor, nor do I ask anyone to

aid me in securing the nomination. I am as passive about it as

any man can be whose merits or demerits are discussed in that

connection. I do not desire the nomination, nor shall I encourage

anyone to secure it for me until Ohio Republicans, who have conferred

upon me the honors I have enjoyed, shall, with substantial unanimity,

express their wish for my nomination."

This led my friends to determine to present this question to the

approaching state convention at Toledo. It was said that, as this

would be held in a year in advance of the national convention, it

was too soon to open the subject, but the conclusive answer was

that no other state convention would be held prior to the national

convention, and that it was but fair that I should have the chance

to decline if there should be a substantial difference of opinion

in the convention, and should have the benefit of its approval if

it should be given.

It was understood that Governor Foraker would be unanimously

renominated for governor. He doubted the policy of introducing in

that contest a resolution in favor of my nomination for President,

but said it if should be passed he would support it. The press of

the state was somewhat divided as to the policy of the convention

making a declaration of a choice for President, but indicated an

almost universal opinion that there should be an undivided delegation

in favor of my nomination. As the convention approached, the

feeling in favor of such declaration grew stronger, and when it

met at Toledo, on the 28th of July, there was practically no

opposition. After the preliminary organization ex-Governor Foster

reported a series of resolutions, which strongly indorsed me for

President, and highly commended Foraker for renomination as governor.

The convention called for the rereading of these resolutions and

they were applauded and unanimously adopted. The committee on

permanent organization nominated me as chairman of the convention.

In assuming these duties I made a speech commending the nomination

of Governor Foraker and the action of the recent general assembly,

and closed with these words:

"I have but one other duty to perform, and that I do with an

overflowing heart. I thank you with all my heart for the resolution

that you have this day passed in respect to your choice for a

President of the United States. I know, my fellow-citizens, that

this is a matter of sentiment. I know that this resolution is of

no importance unless the voters of the States of Ohio and of the

several states should, in their free choice, elect delegates who

will agree with you in your opinion. I recognize the district

rule, and the right of every district to speak its own voice. I

stood by that rule in 1880, when I knew that its adoption would

cut off all hopes of my friends at that time. I also knew that

there was another rule, that no man ought to be held as a candidate

for that high office unless he has the substantial, unanimous voice

of his party friends behind him. I believe that is a true rule,

and it ought to be exercised to promote harmony and good will and

friendship among Republicans. Now, my countrymen, again thanking

you for this expression, I tell you with all frankness that I think

more of your unanimous praise this day uttered than I do of the

office of President of United States."

The resolution, as adopted, was as follows:

"Recognizing, as the Republicans of Ohio always have, the gifted

and tried statesmen of the Republican party of other states, loyal

and unfaltering in their devotion to the success of the organization

in 1888, under whatever standard bearer the Republican national

convention may select, they have just pride in the record and career

of John Sherman, as a member of the Republican party, and as a

statesman of fidelity, large experience and great ability. His

career as a statesman began with the birth of the Republican party;

he has grown and developed with the growth of that organization;

his genius and patriotism are stamped upon the records of the party

and the statutes and constitution of the country, and, believing

that his nomination for the office of President would be wise and

judicious, we respectfully present his name to the people of the

United States as a candidate, and announce our hearty and cordial

support of him for that office."

The convention then proceeded to form a state ticket.

During the summer vacation of 1887, I made a trip across the

continent from Montreal to Victoria, Vancouver Island, and from

the Sound to Tacoma, going over the Canadian Pacific railroad, and

returning by that line to Port Arthur, at the head of Lake Superior

then, by one of the iron steamers of the Canadian Pacific road,

through Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Owen Sound, and from there

by rail to Toronto and home.

I had for many years desired to visit that country and to view for

myself its natural resources and wonders, and to inspect the

achievement of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company.

I was accompanied on this journey by James S. Robinson, formerly

secretary of state of Ohio, ex-Congressman Amos Townsend, for many

years Member from Cleveland, and Charles H. Grosvenor, Member of

Congress from Athens, Ohio. We met at Cleveland and spent the next

night at Toronto. Thence we proceeded to Montreal, and there

received many courtesies from gentlemen distinguished in private

and public life. We left Toronto on the night of the 1st of August,

in a special car attached to the great through train which then

made its journey to Vancouver in about six days. We halted at

Sudbury, the point on the Canadian Pacific from which the Sault

Ste. Marie line of railway diverges from the main track. We spent

twenty-four hours at Sudbury, visiting the copper and nickel mining

operations, then in their infancy. Proceeding, we passed the head

of Lake Superior, and thence to Winnipeg. At this place the officers

of the provincial government showed us many attentions, and I was

especially delighted by a visit I made to Archbishop Taché of the

Catholic church, a very aged man. He had been a missionary among

the Indians at the very earliest period of time when missionary

work was done in that section. He had been a devoted and faithful

man, and now, in the evening of his life, enjoyed the greatest

respect and received the highest honors from the people of his

neighborhood, regardless of race or religion.

Proceeding from Winnipeg, we entered the great valley of the

Saskatchewan, traversed the mighty wheat fields of that prolific

province, and witnessed the indications of the grain producing

capacity in that portion of Canada, alone quite sufficient, if

pushed to its utmost, the furnish grain for the whole continent of

America. We spent one night for rest and observation at a point

near the mouth of the Bow River, and then proceeded to Calgary.

This is the westernmost point where there is arable and grazing

lands before beginning the ascent of the Rocky mountains. Here we

inspected a sheep ranch owned by a gentleman from England. It is

located at Cochrane, a few miles west of Calgary. It was managed

by a young gentleman of most pleasing manners and great intelligence,

who was surrounded at the time of our visit by numerous Scotch

herdsmen, each of whom had one or more collie dogs. The collie,

as everybody knows, is a Scotch production, and it has been imported

into the country largely for the service of the great sheep and

cattle ranches of the west. One shepherd was about to depart from

Canada to reoccupy his home in Scotland, and among his other effects

was a collie, passing under the name of Nellie. She was a beautiful

animal, and so attracted my attention that at my suggestion General

Grosvenor bought her, and undertook to receive her at the train as

we should pass east a week or ten days later. The train, on our

return, passed Calgary station at about two o'clock in the morning

in the midst of a pouring rain storm, but the shepherd was on hand

with the dog, and her pedigree carefully written out, and the

compliments of Mr. Cochrane, and his assurance that the pedigree

was truthful. Nellie was brought to Ohio, and her progeny is very

numerous in the section of the state where she lived and flourished.

Leaving Calgary, we followed the valley of the Bow River. The

current of this river is very swift in the summer, fed as it is by

the melting of the snows of the Rocky mountains. We soon began to

realize that we were ascending amid the mighty peaks of the great

international chain. We spent one day at Banff, the National Park

of the Dominion. Here we found water, boiling hot, springing out

from the mountain side, and a magnificent hotel--apparently out of

all proportion to the present or prospective need--being erected,

with every indication of an effort, at least, to make the Canadian

National Park a popular place of resort.

All about this region of country it is claimed there are deposits

of gold and silver, and at one point we saw the incipient development

of coal mining, coal being produced which it was claimed, and it

seemed to me with good reason, to be equal in valuable qualities

to the Pennsylvania anthracite.

Passing from the National Park and skirting the foot of the Giant

mountains, we entered the mighty valley of the great Fraser River.

The scenery between Calgary and Kamloops is indescribably majestic.

We were furnished by the railroad company with a time-table in the

form of a pamphlet, and a description of the principal railway

stations and surrounding country written by Lady Smith, the wife

of Sir Donald Smith, of Montreal, one of the original projectors

of the Canadian Pacific railroad. This lady was an artist, a poet,

with high literary attainment, and her descriptions of the mountains,

of the glaciers, of the rivers and scenery were exceedingly well

done. We stopped at one of the company hotels, at the foot of one

of the mightiest mountains, whose peak ascends thousands of feet

into the air, and at whose base, within a few rods of the entrance

to the hotel, was the greatest of the mighty glaciers, almost equal

in beauty and grandeur, as seen by us, with the far-famed glacier

of the Rhone.

The construction of this railroad through the mountains is a marvel

of engineering skill and well illustrates what the persistence and

industry of man can accomplish. More than seventy miles of this

line, as I remember it, are covered by snowsheds, constructed of

stanch timbers along the base of the mountain in such a manner that

the avalanches, which occasionally rush down from the mountain top

and from the side of the mountain, strike upon the sheds and so

fall harmless into the valley below, while the powerful locomotives

go rushing through the snowsheds, heedless of the dangers overhead.

The Fraser River was full of camps of men engaged in the business

of catching, drying and canning the salmon of that stream. The

timber along this river is of great importance. The Canadian fir

and other indigenous trees line the banks and mountain sides in a

quantity sufficient to supply the demand of the people of that

great country for many years to come. But it was unpleasant to

witness the devastation that the fires had made by which great

sections of the forests had been killed. The Canadian government

has made a determined effort to suppress these fires in their

forests and upon their plains, and it is one of the duties of the

mounted police force, which we saw everywhere along the line of

the road, to enforce the regulations in regard to the use of fire,

but, naturally and necessarily, nearly all these efforts are abortive

and great destruction results.

Vancouver, at the mouth of the Fraser, is the terminus of the

Canadian Pacific railway. At this point steamers are loaded for

the China and Japan trade and a passenger steamer departs daily,

and perhaps oftener, for Victoria, an important city at the point

of Vancouver Island. We had a delightful trip on this steamer,

running in and out among the almost numberless islands. It was an

interesting and yet most intricate passage.

At Victoria we were entertained by gentlemen of public position

and were also shown many attentions by private citizens. We were

invited to attend a dinner on board of a great British war vessel,

then lying at Esquimault. A canvass of our party disclosed the

fact that our dress suits had been left at Vancouver, and being on

foreign soil and under the domination of her British majesty's

flag, we felt it was impossible to accept the invitation, and so,

with a manifestation of great reluctance on the part of my associates,

the invitation was declined.

We went by steamer to Seattle, Washington Territory, where we

remained over night and were very kindly received and entertained

by the people. Among the persons who joined in the reception were

Watson C. Squire and his wife, then residents of the territory.

Mr. Squire, after the admission of Washington as a state, became

one of her Senators.

We were joined on this part of our journey by Carter H. Harrison,

of Chicago, whose fourth term of office as mayor had just closed,

and who was escorting his son and a young friend on a journey around

the world. While waiting for the departure of the Canadian Pacific

steamer from Vancouver, he joined in this excursion through the

sound. He was a most entertaining conversationalist, and we enjoyed

his country greatly.

There was much rivalry at that time between the growing cities of

Seattle and Tacoma. At a reception in Seattle, one of the party,

in responding to a call for a speech, spoke of having inquired of

a resident of Seattle as to the whereabouts of Mount Tacoma. He

said he was informed by the person to whom he applied that there

was no Mount Tacoma. On stating that he had so understood from

citizens of Washington Territory, he was informed that there was

not then and never had been a Mount Tacoma. The gentleman was

informed, however, that in the distance, enshrouded in the gloom

of fog and smoke, there was a magnificent mountain, grand in

proportion and beautiful in outline, and the mountain's name was

Rainier. Later on he said he had inquired of a citizen of Tacoma

as to the whereabouts, from that city, of Mount Rainier, and the

gentleman, with considerable scorn on his countenance, declared

that there was no such mountain, but in a certain direction at a

certain distance was Mount Tacoma. The gentleman closed his speech

by saying, whether it was Mount Tacoma or Mount Rainier, our party

was unanimously in favor of the admission of Washington Territory

into the Union.

We visited some sawmills at Tacoma where lumber of monstrous

proportions and in great quantities was being produced by a system

of gang saws. This is a wonderful industry and as long as the

material holds out will be a leading one of that section. The deep

waters of Puget Sound will always offer to the industrious population

of Washington ample and cheap means of transportation to the outside

market, and I predict a great future for the state.

We returned east more hastily and with fewer stops than in the

western journey. We spend a night at Port Arthur, and the next

day, embarking upon one of the great steamers of the Canadian

Pacific line, found among our fellow-passengers Goldwin Smith, the

distinguished Canadian writer and statesman. We had a most pleasant

trip, arriving at Owen Sound without special incident; thence to

Toronto, and by steamer to Niagara, where we remained until the

next day, when our party separated for their several homes. The

trip occupied exactly a month and was full of enjoyment from the

beginning to the end.

After my return home I wrote a note to General Sherman, describing

my impressions of the country. In this I said:

"My trip to the Pacific over the Canadian railroad was a great

success. We traveled 7,000 miles without fatigue, accident or

detention. We stopped at the chief points of interest, such as

Toronto, Montreal, Sudbury, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Calgary, Banff,

Donald, Glacier House, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and Tacoma,

and yet made the round trip within the four weeks allowed. We did

not go to Alaska, because of the fogs and for want of time. The

trip was very instructive, giving me an inside view of many questions

that may be important in the future. The country did not impress

me as a desirable acquisition, though it would not be a bad one.

The people are hardy and industrious. If they had free commercial

intercourse with the United States, their farms, forests, and mines

would become more valuable, but at the expense of the manufactures.

If the population of Mexico and Canada were homogenous with ours,

the union of the three countries would make the whole the most

powerful nation in the world."

I then entered into the canvass. I attended the state fair at

Columbus on the 2nd of September, first visiting the Wool Growers'

Association, and making a brief speech in respect to the change in

the duty on wool by the tariff of 1883. I reminded the members of

that association that they were largely responsible for the action

of Congress on the wool schedule, that while all the other interests

were largely represented before the committees of Congress, they

were only represented by two gentlemen, Columbus Delano and William

Lawrence, both from the State of Ohio, who did all they could to

prevent the reduction. Later in the day I attended a meeting of

the state grange, at which several speeches had been made. I

disclaimed the power to instruct the gentlemen before me, who knew

so much more about farming that I, but called their attention to

the active competition they would have in the future in the growth

of cereals in the great plains of the west. I described the wheat

fields I had seen far west of Winnipeg, ten degrees north of us in

Canada. I said the wheat was sown in the spring as soon as the

surface could be plowed, fed by the thawing frosts and harvested

in August, yielding 25 to 40 bushels to the acre, that our farms

had to compete in most of their crops with new and cheap lands in

fertile regions which but a few years before were occupied by

Indians and buffaloes. "We must diversify our crops," I said, "or

make machines to work for us more and more. New wants are created

by increased population in cities. This is one lesson of many

lessons we can learn from the oldest nations in Europe. With large

cities growing up around us the farmer becomes a gardener, a demand

is created for dairy products, for potatoes, and numerous articles

of food which yield a greater profit. In Germany, France and Italy

they are now producing more sugar from beets than is produced in

all the world from sugar cane. The people of the United States

now pay $130,000,000 for sugar which can easily be produced from

beets grown in any of the central states." I said much more to

the same purport.

I visited all parts of the state fair, and tried to avoid talking

politics, but wherever I went on the ground I found groups engaged

in talking about the Toledo convention, and the prospects of

Republican or Democratic success. I had been away so long that I

supposed the embers left by the convention were extinguished, but

nothing, I think, can prevent the Ohio man from expressing his

opinion about parties and politics. I met William Lawrence, one

of the ablest men of the state as a lawyer, a judge and a Member

of Congress. An interview with him had recently been published in

respect to the resolution indorsing my candidacy. This was frequently

called to my attention, and though I had not then read it, my

confidence in him was so great I was willing to indorse anything

he had said.

On the 7th of September I attended a soldiers' meeting at Bellville,

in Richland county, where it was said upwards of 4,000 people took

part. I made quite a long talk to them, but was far more interested

in the stories of men who had served in the war, many of whom gave

graphic accounts of scenes and incidents in which they had taken

part. I have attended many such meetings, but do not recall any

that was more interesting. The story of the private soldier is

often rich in experience. It tells of what he saw in battle, and

these stories of the soldiers, told to each other, form the web

and woof out of which history is written. It was useless to preach

to these men that Providence directly controls the history of

nations. A good Presbyterian would find in our history evidence

of the truth of his theory that all things are ordained beforehand.

Certain it is that the wonderful events in our national life might

be cited as an evidence of this theory. I do reverently recognize

in the history of our war, the hand of a superintending Providence

that has guided our great nation from the beginning to this hour.

The same power which guided our fathers' fathers through the

Revolutionary War, upheld the arms of the soldiers of the Union

Army in the Civil War, and I trust that the same good Providence

will guide our great nation in the years to come.

I made my opening political speech in this campaign at Wilmington,

on the 15th of September. Clinton county is peopled almost exclusively

by a farming community, whose rich upland is drained by the waters

of the Scioto and Miami Rivers. My speech, not only on this

occasion, but during the canvass in other parts of the state, was

chiefly confined to a defense of the Republican party and its policy

while in power, which I contrasted with what I regarded as the

feebleness of Mr. Cleveland's administration. I touched upon state

matters with brevity, but complimented our brilliant and able

governor, Foraker. I referred to the attacks that had been made

upon me about my speech in Springfield, Illinois, and said that no

one had answered by arraignment, except by the exploded cry of "the

bloody shirt," or claimed that a single thing stated by me as fact

was not true. I referred to the "tenderfoot" who would not hurt

anyone's feelings, who would banish the word "rebel" from our

vocabulary, who would not denounce crimes against our fellow-citizens

when they occurred, who thought that, like Cromwell's Roundheads,

we must surrender our captured flags to the rebels who bore them,

and our Grand Army boys, bent and gray, must march under the new

flag, under the flag of Grover Cleveland, or not hold their camp

fires in St. Louis. In conclusion, I said:

"But I will not proceed further. The immediate question is whether

you will renew and ratify the brilliant administration of Governor

Foraker, and support him with a Republican legislature. I feel

that it is hardly necessary to appeal to the good people of Clinton

county for an overwhelming vote in favor of a man so well known

and highly respected among you, and whose associates on the state

ticket are among the most worthy and deserving Republicans of Ohio.

I call your attention to the special importance of the election of

your candidates for senator and members of the house. It is of

vital importance to secure a Republican legislature to secure and

complete the good work of the last. Our success this fall by a

good majority will be a cheering preparation for the grand campaign

of the next year, when we shall have an opportunity again to test

the question of whether the Republican party, which conducted

several administrations in the most trying period of American

history with signal success, shall be restored to power to renew

the broad national policy by which it preserved the Union, abolished

slavery and advanced the republic, in strength, wealth, credit and

varied industries, to the foremost place among the nations of the

world."

In the latter part of September, I made an address to the farmers

of Wayne county, at Lyons, New York. The county borders on Lake

Ontario. Its surface is undulating, its soil generally fertile,

and beneath are iron ore, limestone, gypsum, salt and sulphur

springs. Its chief products are dairy and farm produce and live

stock. I said that my experience about a farm was not such as

would justify me in advising about practical farming, that I was

like many lawyers, preachers, editors and Members of Congress, who

instinctively seek to get possession of a farm, not to show farmers

how to cultivate land, but to spend a good portion of their income

in a healthy recreation, that Horace Greeley and Henry Ward Beecher

were, when living, good specimens of this kind of farmer, that they

all soon learned by sad experience that--

"He that by the plow would thrive,

Himself must either hold or drive."

I claimed to be one of the farmers whose potatoes and chickens cost

more than the market price. Still, those engaged in professional

pursuits, and especially Members of Congress, have to study the

statistics of agriculture because upon the increase and diversity

of its varied productions depend the wealth and progress of the

country for which we legislate. I will not undertake to repeat in

any detail what I said. I drew the distinction between the work

of a mechanic and the work of a farmer; the mechanic had but a

single employment and sometimes confined himself to the manufacture

of a single article, but the farmer must pursue the opposite course.

He must diversify his crops each year, and the nature of his labors

varies with the seasons. His success and profit depend upon the

diversity of his productions, and the full and constant occupation

of his time. I described what I had seen in the far-off region

near the new city of Tacoma on Puget Sound, where the chief employment

of the farmer is in raising hops, and also the mode of producing

wheat in the vast plains of Canada, which, now that the buffalo is

gone, are plowed in the spring, sown in wheat and left unguarded

and untended until ready for the great machines which cut and bind

the crop and thresh it ready for the market. I described the

production of the celery plant in the region of Kalamazoo, Michigan,

where a large portion of the soil is devoted to this vegetable.

As each region varied in climate, soil and market, the occupations

of farmers had to vary with the conditions that surrounded them.

The great cereals, such as wheat, corn, oats and barley, can be

produced in most parts of the United States. Our farmers ought

constantly to diversity their crops and add to the number of their

productions. Attention had been recently turned to the possibility

of producing beet sugar in the northern states, the great obstacle

being the cost of the factory and machinery which, to secure

profitable results, could not be erected for less than $200,000,

but I predicted that this industry would be established and sugar

sufficient for our wants would be produced in our own country. I

referred to the great advance made in the methods of farming, during

the past forty years, with the aid of new inventions of agricultural

implements and new modes of transportation, and the wonderful

progress that had been made in other fields of invention and

discovery, and in conclusion said:

"And so in mental culture, in the knowledge of chemistry, in granges

and fairs, in books, magazines and pamphlets devoted to agriculture,

the farmer of to-day has the means of information which lifts his

occupation to the dignity of a science. The good order of society

now rests upon the intelligence and conservatism of the farmers of

the United States, for to them all classes must look for safety

against the dogmas and doctrines that threaten the social fabric,

and sacred rights of persons and property, and I believe the trust

will not be in vain."

I spoke nearly every day during the month of October, in different

parts of the State of Ohio. I do not recall a town of importance

that I did not visit, nor a congressional district in which I did

not speak. Governor Foraker was even more active than I was. His

speeches were received with great applause, and his manners and

conduct made him popular. The only danger he encountered was in

the active movement of the Prohibition party. This party ran a

separate ticket, the votes of which, it was feared, would mainly

come from the Republican party. In a speech I made at Oberlin, on

the 4th of November, I made an appeal to our Prohibition friends

to support the Republican ticket. I said:

"There are but two great parties in this country, one or the other

of which is to be put in power. You have a perfect right to vote

for the smaller Prohibition party, and thus throw away your vote,

but you know very well that either a Republican or a Democratic

legislature will be elected, and that there will not be a single

Prohibition candidate elected. Will it not be better to choose

between these two parties and give your assistance to the one that

has done the most for the success of your principles? We think

the Republican party is still entitled, as in the past, to your

hearty support. Among other of its enactments there is the 'Dow

law,' looked upon you with suspicion, yet it has done more for

temperance than your 'prohibition laws' at present could have done.

That law enables you to exclude the sale of liquor in more than

400 Ohio towns. It was passed by a Republican legislature. By it

more than 3,000 saloons have been driven out of existence.

"Then you have the repeated declaration of the Republican party,

a party that never deceived the people with false promises, that

they will do anything else that is necessary, or all that is possible

by law, to check the evils that flow from intoxicating drinks.

"Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party,

which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose

opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state

$2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal

that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept.

They say they want license, but they know it can never be brought

about without a change in the constitution. They want the liquor

traffic to go unrestrained. It does seem to me that with all the

intelligence of this community it is the duty of all its candid

men, who are watching the tendencies of these two parties in this

country, not to throw their votes away.

"It is much better to do our work by degrees, working slowly in

the right direction, than to attempt to do it prematurely by

wholesale, and fail. More men have been broken up by attempting

too much than by 'going slow.'

"Your powerful moral influence, if kept within the Republican party,

will do more good, a thousandfold, than you can do losing your vote

by casting it for a ticket that cannot be elected. Next year will

present one of the most interesting spectacles in our history.

The Republican party will gather its hosts of progressive and

patriotic citizens into one grand party at its national convention,

and I trust that when that good time comes our Prohibition friends

and neighbors who stand aloof from us will come back and join the

old fold and rally around the old flag of our country, the stars

and stripes, and help us to march on to a grand and glorious

victory."

I closed my part of the canvass on the 5th of November, at Music

Hall, Cleveland, one of the finest meetings that I ever attended.

General E. S. Meyer and D. K. Watson shared in the speaking.

The result of the election, on the following Tuesday, gave Governor

Foraker a plurality of 23,329 over Thomas E. Powell, and the

legislature was Republican in both branches.

During the canvass I felt specially anxious for the election of

Governor Foraker and a Republican legislature. Some doubts had

been expressed by members of the Toledo convention whether the

resolution favoring my nomination for President would not endanger

the election of Governor Foraker, and his defeat would have been

attributed to that resolution. I did not believe it could have

that effect, yet the fear of it led to my unusual activity in the

canvass. I was very much gratified with the result. Before and

after the election the general discussion was continued in the

newspapers for and against my nomination, upon the presumption that

the contest would lie between Mr. Blaine and myself.

The election in New York was adverse to the Republican party, and

this and his feeble health no doubt largely influenced Mr. Blaine

in declining to be a candidate for the nomination. Upon the surface

it appeared that I would probably be the nominee, but I took no

step whatever to promote the nomination and resumed my duties in

the Senate with a firm resolve not to seek the nomination, but to

rest upon the resolution adopted at Toledo. When letters came to

me, as many did, favoring my nomination, I referred them to Green

B. Raum, at that time a resident in Washington, to make such answer

as he thought expedient.

CHAPTER LIV.

CLEVELAND'S EXTRAORDINARY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

First Session of the 50th Congress--The President's "Cry of Alarm"

--Troubled by the Excess of Revenues over Expenditures--My Answer

to His Doctrines--His Refusal to Apply the Surplus to the Reduction

of the Public Debt--The Object in Doing So--My Views Concerning

Protection and the Tariff--In Favor of a Tariff Commission--"Mills

Bill" the Outcome of the President's Message--Failure of the Bill

During the Second Session--My Debates with Senator Beck on the

Coinage Act of 1873, etc.--Omission of the Old Silver Dollar--Death

of Chief Justice Waite--Immigration of Chinese Laborers--Controversy

with Senator Vest--Speech on the Fisheries Question--Difficulties

of Annexation with Canada.

The 50th Congress convened on the 5th of December, 1887, and was

promptly organized, the Senate being Republican, and the House

Democratic. During this long session of about eleven months, nearly

every question of political or financial importance in American

politics was under discussion, and I was compelled, by my position

on the committees on foreign relations and finance, to take an

active part in the debates.

On the 6th the President sent to Congress his annual message, in

which he departed from the established usage of his predecessors,

who had presented in order the subjects commented upon, commencing

with a summary of our relations with foreign nations, and extending

to the business of all the varied departments of the government.

Instead of this he abruptly opened with a cry of alarm, as follows:

"To the Congress of the United States.

"You are confronted, at the threshold of your legislative duties,

with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands

immediate and careful consideration."

This threatening announcement of a great national danger startled

the general public, who had settled down into the conviction that

all was going on very well with a Democratic administration. The

President said that the amount of money annually exacted largely

exceeded the expenses of the government. This did not seem so

great a calamity. It was rather an evidence of good times, especially

as he could apply the surplus to the reduction of the national

debt. Then we were told that:

"On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public

expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the

sinking fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June

30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the

year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54."

In other words, we had an excess of revenue over expenditures for

three years of about $122,000,000. The sinking fund during that

three years, as he informed us, amounted in the aggregate to

$138,058,320; that is, we had stipulated by law to pay of the public

debt that sum during three years, and had been able to pay all we

agreed to pay, and had $122,000,000 more. He did not state that

during and subsequent to the panic of 1873 the United States did

not pay the sinking fund, and this deficiency was made good during

the prosperous years that followed 1879. Upon the facts stated by

him he based his extraordinary message. The only recommendation

made by him was a reduction of taxation. No reference to the vast

interests intrusted to departments other than the treasury was made

by him except in a brief paragraph. He promised that as the law

makes no provision for any report from the department of state, a

brief history of the transactions of that important department

might furnish the occasion for future consideration.

I have a sincere respect for President Cleveland, but I thought

the message was so grave a departure from the customary annual

message of the President to Congress that it ought to be answered

seriatim. I did so in a carefully prepared speech. The answer

made can be condensed in a few propositions: An increase of revenue

(the law remaining unchanged) is an evidence of unusual trade and

prosperity. The surplus revenue, whatever it might be, could and

ought to be applied to the reduction of the public debt. The law

under which the debt was created provided for this, by requiring

a certain percentage of the debt to be paid annually, and appropriating

the surplus revenue for that purpose. Under this policy it was

estimated that the debt would be paid off prior to 1907.

But experience soon demonstrated that, whatever might be the law

in force, the revenues of the government would vary from year to

year, depending, not upon rates of taxation, but upon the financial

condition of the country. After the panic of 1873, the revenues

were so reduced that the sinking fund was practically suspended by

the fact that there was no surplus money in the treasury to meet

its requirements. At periods of prosperity the revenues were in

excess of the current expenses and the sinking fund, and in such

conditions the entire surplus revenue, was applied to the reduction

of the public debt and thus made good the deficiency in the sinking

fund in times of financial stringency. This was a wise public

policy, fully understood and acted upon by every Secretary of the

Treasury since the close of the war and prior to Mr. Manning.

Another rule of action, founded upon the clearest public policy,

had been observed prior to the incumbency of Mr. Cleveland, and

that was not to hold in the treasury any form of money in excess

of a reasonable balance, in addition to the fund held to secure

the redemption of United States notes. All sums in excess of these

were promptly applied to the payment of the public debt, and, if

none of it was redeemable, securities of the United States were

purchased in the open market. It was the desire of Congress and

every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, in order to comply with

the sinking fund law, to apply the surplus to the gradual reduction

of the debt. While I was secretary I heartily co-operated with

the committees of Congress in reducing appropriations, and in this

way was enabled to maintain the reserve, and to reduce the interest-

bearing public debt.

The policy of Mr. Cleveland and Secretary Manning was to hoard in

the treasury as much of the currency of the country as possible,

amounting sometimes to more than $200,000,000, and this created a

stringency which affected injuriously the business of the country.

It was the policy of all the early Presidents to apply any surplus

revenue either to the reduction of the public debt or to public

objects.

Mr. Jefferson, in his message of 1806, says: "To what object shall

the surplus be appropriated? Shall we suppress the impost, and

thus give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufacturers?"

He believed that the patriotism of the people would "prefer its

continuance and application for the purpose of the public education,

roads, rivers and canals." This was in exact opposition to the

policy proposed by Mr. Cleveland, who refused to apply the surplus

revenue to the reduction of the debt, and in his extraordinary

message demanded a reduction of duties on foreign goods. A larger

surplus revenue had frequently, from time to time, been wisely

dealt with by Republican administrations. It had either been

applied by the executive authorities to the payment of the public

debt, or its accumulation had been prevented by Congress, from time

to time, by the reduction or repeal of taxes. In the administration

of each of Mr. Cleveland's predecessors since the close of the war,

this simple remedy had been applied without neglecting other matters,

or raising a cry of alarm. It was apparent that the object of the

President was to force the reduction of duties on imported goods,

which came into competition with domestic products, and that the

accumulation of money in the treasury was resorted to as a means

to compel such a reduction.

On the 19th of July, 1886, I had called the attention of the Senate

to the difficulty and danger of hoarding in the treasury surplus

revenue, and the readiness of the Senate to provide for the reduction

of taxes and the application of the surplus. The revenues could

have been reduced without endangering domestic industries. At the

date of his extraordinary message both Houses of Congress were

quite ready to reduce taxes. Full authority had been given to the

Secretary of the Treasury to apply surplus revenue to the purchase

of United States bonds. But the President, set in his opinion,

was not satisfied with such measures, but demanded the reduction

of duties which protected American industries.

The greater part of my speech in reply to the President's message

was a discussion of the different forms of taxation imposed by the

United States and especially the duties imposed on imported goods.

I never was an extreme protectionist. I believed in the imposition

of such a duty on foreign goods which could be produced in the

United States as would fairly measure the difference in the cost

of labor and manufacture in this and foreign countries. This was

a question not to be decided by interested capitalists, but by the

careful estimate of business men. The intense selfishness exhibited

by many of those who demanded protection, and the error of those

who opposed all protection, were alike to be disregarded.

I believe that no judicious tariff can be framed by Congress alone,

without the help of a commission of business men not personally

interested in the subject-matter, and they should be aided by

experienced officers in the revenue service. I have participated

in a greater or less degree in the framing of every tariff law for

forty years. I have spoken many times on the subject in the Senate

and on the rostrum. My reply to the President's message is the

best exposition I have made as to the principles and details of a

protective tariff. If I had my way I would convene such a tariff

commission as I have discussed, give it ample time to hear and gain

all information that could aid it, and require it to report the

rates of duty proposed in separate schedules so that the rate of

each schedule or paragraph might be raised or lowered from time to

time to meet the wants of the treasury. If Congress would allow

such a bill to become a law we could dismiss the tariff free from

party politics and lay the foundation for a durable system of

national taxation, upon which domestic industries may be founded

without the hazard which they now encounter every year or two by

"tinkering with the tariff."

The real controversy raised by the President's message was not

whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced

or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate

with Mr. McKenna, as follows;

"There is a broad line of division between the two parties as they

exist now and as they will exist in the future. The President

says, 'retain all internal taxes and reduce the duties on imported

merchandise that comes in competition with home industries.' We

say we will not strike down any prospering industry in this country;

that where manufactures have sprung up in our midst by aid of a

duty, this protection, as you call it, we will not reduce; we will

not derange contracts, industries, or plans, or lower the prices

of labor, or compel laborers or manufacturers to meet any sudden

change or emergency. We say that we are willing to join with you

in reducing the taxes. We will select those taxes that bear most

heavily upon the people, especially internal taxes, and repeal

those. We will maintain the policy of protection by tariff duties

just as long as it is necessary to give our people the benefit of

a home market, and diversified productions a fair chance in the

trade and commerce of our country, but we will not invite into our

country foreign importations to compete with and break down our

home industries."

The bill entitled "A bill to reduce taxation and simplify the laws

in relation to the collection of the revenue," known as the Mills

bill, was the outcome of the President's message. It was reported

to the House of Representatives by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, and

thus obtained its name. Mr. Mills, on the 17th of April, called

it up for consideration, and it was debated and amended, and passed

the House on the 21st of July, more than seven months after the

President's cry of alarm, by the close vote of 162 yeas to 149

nays. Samuel J. Randall, then absent and sick, desired his colleague

to pair him against the bill, as, if present, he would record his

vote in opposition to the bill. It came to the Senate and was

referred to the committee on finance. On the 8th of October Mr.

Allison, from that committee, reported back the Mills bill with a

substitute for the entire bill. This substitute was a careful and

elaborate protective tariff bill, containing some provisions I did

not approve, but, in its general provisions, was, in my opinion,

a far better bill than the Mills bill. The debate on these rival

bills continued until the close of the session on the 19th of

October, when the Senate, by a resolution, authorized and directed

the committee on finance to continue during the recess of Congress

the investigation of such revenue measures, including the Senate

and House bills, as had been referred to the Senate.

The history of the bills during the second session of this Congress

is easily told. They were debated in the Senate nearly every day

until the 22nd of January, 1889, when the amendment of the Senate

was adopted as a substitute for the entire Mills bill, by the close

vote of 32 yeas to 30 nays. It was debated in the House of

Representatives and referred to its committee of ways and means.

It was reported by the committee to the House of Representatives,

with a resolution declaring that the action of the Senate in

substituting an entire bill for the House bill was in violation of

the constitution. No action was taken on this resolution, and then

all tariff legislation was defeated for that Congress.

On the 6th of March, 1888, Senator Beck made a rambling speech

commencing with a fierce denunciation of a bill then pending to

grant pensions to certain disabled soldiers of the Union army. He

then veered off on the tariff and the great trusts created by it.

I ventured, in a mild-mannered way, to suggest to him a doubt

whether trusts were caused by the tariff, whether they did not

exist as to domestic as well as to foreign productions. I named

to him the whisky trust, the cotton-seed trust and other trusts of

that kind, and wanted to know how these grew out of the tariff.

Thereupon he changed his ground and took up the silver question

and commenced assailing me for the coinage act of 1873, saying I

was responsible for it. He said it was secretly passed, surreptitiously

done, that I did it, that I knew it.

I promptly replied to that charge by showing from the records that

the act referred to, and especially the part of it relating to the

silver dollar, was recommended by Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of

the Treasury, and all the officers connected with coinage and the

mints, that it was debated at great length for three successive

sessions in both Houses, that it was printed thirteen times, and

that the clause omitting the old silver dollar was especially

considered and the policy of it fully debated, and a substitute

for the old dollar was provided for by each House. I can say with

confidence that every Member of the Senate but Beck felt that he

had been worsted in the debate, and that the charge aimed at me,

but which equally applied to Morrill and Bayard, and especially to

all the Senators from the silver states who earnestly and actively

supported the bill, was thoroughly refuted.

Senator Beck, chafed by his defeat, on the 13th of March made in

the Senate a three hours' speech in support of his position.

Instead of going to the public records and showing by them whether

or not the law was put through the Senate in a secret way, he quoted

what several Senators and Members said they did not know, what

Grant did not know, a mode of argument that if of effect would

invalidate the great body of the legislation of Congress.

I replied in a speech occupying less than half an hour, producing

the original bill as it came from the treasury department with the

dollar omitted from the silver coins, with the report of the

Secretary of the Treasury calling attention to its omission, and

the opinion of Knox, LInderman, Patterson, Elliott, all of whom

were prominent officers of the treasury department in charge of

currency and coinage, giving fully the reasons why the old silver

dollar was omitted. I also quoted from the records of each House

of Congress, showing that special attention was called to the

omission of the old silver dollar by Mr. Hooper, having charge of

the bill. The House of Representatives, in compliance with the

advice of Comptroller Knox, did authorize in its bill, which it

passed, a subsidiary dollar containing 384 grains of standard

silver, the same weight as two half dollars, but these dollars

were, like the subsidiary fractional coins, a legal tender for only

five dollars. When this bill came to the Senate it was thoroughly

debated. The legislature of California petitioned Congress for a

silver dollar weighing more than the Mexican dollar instead of the

subsidiary dollar provided for by the House. In compliance with

this petition, the Senate so amended the bill as to authorize the

owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at any mint, to be

formed into bars or into dollars of the weight of 420 grains,

designated as "trade dollars." These dollars were intended solely

for the foreign trade, and were worth in the market only the value

of 420 grains of standard silver. It was the dollar desired by

the silver producing states, and but for the rapid decline in the

price of silver, which made this dollar worth less than its face

in gold, the mint would probably be coining them to-day; but before

the mint was closed to their coinage more than 35,000,000 pieces

had been made. No unprejudiced persons could claim that the charges

of Mr. Beck were not completely answered.

On the 23rd of March Chief Justice Waite, of the Supreme Court of

the United States, died at his residence in Washington. Upon the

27th, upon my motion, the Senate adopted a resolution that a

committee of five Senators be appointed by the chair, whose duty

it should be to accompany the remains of the chief justice to

Toledo, in the State of Ohio, and attend the funeral there. The

committee appointed were Messrs. Sherman, Allison, Evarts, George

and Gray. They attended the funeral as directed. Chief Justice

Waite was born in Connecticut, but lived all his manhood life in

Toledo, Ohio, until appointed by President Grant as chief justice.

He was an able lawyer and a patient, conscientious and learned

judge.

On the 1st of March I was directed by the committee on foreign

relations to report the following resolution:

"_Resolved by the Senate of the United States_, That, in view of

the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation

of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under

the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the

United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor

of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer should

enter the United States."

After a brief debate, participated in by Senators Morgan, Stewart,

Mitchell and others, I made a few remarks, commencing as follows:

"Whatever differences there may have been in the Senate or in the

country, with regard to the restriction of Chinese immigration,

the time has come when I believe the general sentiment of the people

is, that the law on the subject should be fairly enforced; that

the Chinese laborer should be excluded from enjoying the benefits

of our country, because he will not adapt himself to the civilization

of our country. That feeling is most strongly expressed by Senators

and Representatives from the Pacific coast, among whom the 100,000

or more Chinese in the country live, and they have expressed that

opinion to the committee on foreign relations so decidedly and

unanimously, and supported by such potent reasons, that I believe

every member of that committee is of the opinion that the object

of the law to exclude the immigration of Chinese laborers should

be effectively carried out."

The resolution was adopted.

During this Congress the question of excluding Chinese immigration

by treaty and by law was pending and copiously debated. There

seemed to be a general concurrence that such immigration was not

desirable, and that Chinese coolies should be absolutely excluded.

A treaty was negotiated providing for such exclusion, but, as there

was a long dely by the Chinese government in ratifying it, and the

coolies still continued to come, bills were introduced in Congress

prohibiting, under severe penalties, the immigration of all Chinese

laborers. Before the bill became a law the treaty was ratified.

Now, both by treaty and by law, such immigrants are excluded, but

in spite of law and treaty they still come in lessening numbers,

and it does not appear how they can be entirely excluded. I have

been in favor of the exclusion of Chinese laborers when practically

they are slaves, but have sought to moderate the legislation

proposed, so as not to disturb our friendly relations with China,

or to exclude educated Chinamen engaged in commercial pursuits.

On the 18th of April I made a speech on a bill for the admission

of Dakota, as a state, into the Union. That territory had more

than the usual population of a new state, but its admission had

been postponed, year after year, by the action of the Democratic

party. This speech led to a long debate between Mr. Vest and myself

on the election in Louisiana in 1876. It is not an unusual occurrence

to change the subject of discussion in the Senate where debate is

unlimited. I made a long review of the events in Louisiana, mainly

in reply to a question put by Mr. Vest as follows:

"I have never understood, and the people of this country have never

been able to understand, why Packard was not elected governor with

a larger number of votes than Hayes received for President. But

Packard was thrown out and sent as consul to Liverpool, and Hayes

was sworn in as President of the United States."

To this I replied that the returning board was invested with the

power to pass upon the election of electors and they did perform

that duty, but the question of the election of a governor and a

legislature of Louisiana could only be passed upon by the legislature

itself, each house being the judge of its own elections, and the

two houses, when organized, had the sole and exclusive power to

pass upon the election of a governor. This condition of affairs

led to a controversy which endangered the public peace and involved

the use of United States troops to prevent civil war. President

Hayes thereupon had selected five gentlemen, Charles B. Lawrence,

Joseph R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown and Wayne MacVeagh,

each of whom was a man of marked distinction in the community in

which he lived. They were sent to Louisiana to inquire and report

upon the existing condition of affairs bordering on a state of

civil war between the opposing factions. They were instructed to

promote, as far as possible, the organization of a legislature, so

that it might pass upon the question of who was governor of the

state. The result of their inquiry led to the organization of the

legislature, and when so organized it recognized Nichols as Governor

of Louisiana, as it clearly had the right to do. The returning

board had the unquestioned right to pass upon the election of

electors for President, but it was equally clear that the legislature

was invested with the sole power of passing upon the election of

the governor. The returning board certified to the election of

the Hayes electors, and the legislature determined that Nichols

was elected governor. Although these decisions were inconsistent

with each other yet each was legal and binding. I took occasion

in this speech to defend the action of the returning board, and

especially the two leading members, J. Madison Wells and Thomas A.

Anderson, both of whom were men of high character and standing in

that state.

In the course of this debate Vest and Butler charged me with

inconsistency in my speeches at Nashville and Springfield. This

allegation had been frequently made in the newspapers of the time.

In reply I said:

"I am much obliged to my friend from Missouri for his kindness in

reading extracts from my speeches. They sound much better to me

read by him than when spoken by myself. The speeches speak for

themselves, particularly the one at Nashville. Every word I uttered

on that night I utter now. If I could repeat it over, I would add

emphasis to give force and effect to it, and so I feel about the

south. I have not the slightest feeling of hostility against the

south, and no desire in regard to it, except to preserve and protect

the rights of all the people of the south.

"Now, in regard to my speech at Springfield, every word of that is

true. Why does not the Senator dispute some fact stated in that

speech? That was a review made to a legislature--indeed, both

speeches were made to legislative assemblies, dignified and honorable

men. I was speaking in sight of the monument of Lincoln; I was

recalling the incidents of Lincoln's life, the period of the war,

and referred, of course, to the Democratic party north and south.

I could not truthfully draw a more flattering picture. The one

was a speech as to the future to men who, I believed, were hopefully

looking forward to the disappearance of the feelings of the war.

The other was a recapitulation and review of the past. Every word

of it was true. If the Senator can point out the inconsistency in

these speeches, he will oblige me. There is not a single word in

one inconsistent with the other. I did denounce the course of the

Democratic party north and south, during and since the war, especially

in regard to the reconstruction measures. I did, at Nashville,

speak hopefully, and I feel hopefully, of the future, but it is

only upon the basis of the recognized rights of every American

citizen."

On the 16th of July I made a speech in favor of the passage of a

bill for the erection of a monument to General George Rogers Clark,

of the American Revolution. His march through the wilderness and

attack upon the British posts in the northwestern territory was

one of the most brilliant events in the Revolutionary War. The

bill passed the Senate and was reported to the House, but was not

acted upon. It is one of the obligations of honor and duty which,

I trust, will be discharged by the United States before many years.

On the 24th of August a message from the President, in regard to

the fishing rights of the United States, was read in the Senate.

I moved that the message be referred to the committee on foreign

relations. Before this motion was put an extended debate took

place mainly between Senators Edmunds and Morgan, though several

other Senators took part. I made a speech expressing my opinion

of the President's position on the fishery question, and then took

occasion to refer to the surplus in the treasury in the following

words:

"It seems to me that the position taken by the President is a good

deal like that held by him as to the payment of the public debt.

My former old and honored colleague [Mr. Thurman] is going around

through the country talking about surplus money in the treasury,

there accumulated all because we Republicans will not let it out.

Of all the financial management that I have read or know of, the

worst is that by the present administration. Here there was an

accumulating surplus in the treasury, day by day and year by year,

since the first day Mr. Cleveland entered the presidential chair.

What did he do with that surplus revenue? He did not make proclamation

of it for two or three years, but let it accumulate and accumulate

until he did not know what to do with it. Finally the attention

of the administration was called to the fact that they ought to

buy bonds with it. Well, Mr. Cleveland, with his sharp construction,

thought he had not the power to buy bonds; he thought he could not

do it legally. The law confers the power upon the Secretary of

the Treasury.

"The President had no more power over it than the Senator from

Connecticut before me [Mr. Platt] has. The law confers it upon

the secretary; it was his duty to buy bonds. What untold sums have

been lost by his failure to comply with that law. Until recently,

during nearly all the administration of Mr. Cleveland, the four

per cent. bonds have been sold in the market about 123. I have

here the American almanac giving the value of the four per cent.

bonds during his administration, and they have usually sold at 123.

If the United States had quietly watched its opportunities in the

way the present secretary's predecessors had done, he could have

gone into the market and absorbed those bonds, to the amount of

half a million or a million at a time, and bought them at the market

price, 123, and then how much money would have been saved to the

government of the United States.

"My former colleague says they have over $100,000,000 of surplus.

If they had applied that one hundred million in the purchase of

bonds they would have saved four per cent. per annum for three

years--that is, twelve per cent. And besides, they would have

saved six or seven per cent. lost by the advance of bonds. At any

time during the administration of Mr. Cleveland, if his Secretary

of the Treasury had exercised the power conferred on him by the

law, he might have saved the government of the United States from

twelve to sixteen per cent. on the whole hundred million of dollars,

if he had invested it in bonds of the United States. But he would

not do it because he had not the power. So the President sent to

Congress and asked for power, just as he has done in this case,

when he had ample power, and both Houses declared unanimously that

he had the power, and then, after the bonds had gone up to 127 or

128, when he had lost three years' interest on a large portion of

this accumulation, he commenced to buy bonds and complains that

they are too high, and that he calls wise financial management.

"So now here is a law, on the statute book for over a year, to

enforce a demand on the Canadian authorities that our fishermen,

who are there carrying on their hazardous enterprise, should have

the right to enter the port of Halifax and ship their goods under

the plain provisions of the treaty or the law, and, if that right

was denied, then here was the law expressly prepared for the

particular case, to authorize the President not to do any violent

act of retaliation, not to involve us in any dangerous or delusive

measure which would excite the public mind and probably create

animosities between these two great countries. But suppose he had

simply said: 'Well, if you deny to the Yankee fishermen the right

to transship their fish, we deny you the right to bring fresh fish

into Maine, Boston, and New York, and scatter them all over, cured

by ice,' for that is the effect of it--ice takes the place of salt."

My allusion to the finances as usual excited the ire of Mr. Beck,

who said:

"The Senator from Ohio gets away from the treaty and talks about

this administration not buying bonds and how much we could have

saved because they have raised the price; but I want to say that

he himself was the man, both as Secretary of the Treasury and as

chairman of the committee on finance, who arranged our debts in

such a way that we could not pay them."

In my reply I again called attention to the fact that the House,

of which Mr. Beck was a Member at the time of the passage of the

four per cent. bond bill, and not the Senate, was responsible for

the long period of the bonds. I said:

"The Senator from Kentucky says I am responsible for the fact that

there is the prolonged period of thirty years to the four per cent.

bonds. He knows, because he was here the other day when I showed

from the public record, that the Senate of the United States proposed

to pass a bill to issue bonds running only twenty years, with the

right of redemption after ten years; and if the law had been passed

in that form in which it was sent from the Senate none of this

trouble would have existed; but it was changed by the House of

Representatives, of which the Senator from Kentucky was then a

Member. I believe he voted for the House proposition against the

Senate proposition, by which the time was extended to thirty years,

and they were not redeemable during that time. Yet I am charged

with the responsibility of lengthening these bonds.

"Whatever my sins, I can claim to have always favored the right to

redeem the bonds of the United States as the 5-20's and the 10-40's

were issued to be redeemed; and if I had had my way we would have

had the same kind of bonds issued instead of the thirty-year bonds."

The relation of Canada with the United States, especially in

connection with the fisheries, became at this period dangerously

strained. This led me, on the 18th of September, to offer in the

Senate the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on foreign relations be directed

to inquire into, and report at the next session of Congress, the

state of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and

the Dominion of Canada, with such measures as are expedient to

promote friendly commercial and political intercourse between these

countries and the United States, and for that purpose have leave

to sit during the recess of Congress."

In support of this resolution I said in opening:

"The recent message of the President recommending a line of

retaliation against the Dominion of Canada involves the consideration

of our relations with that country in a far more important and

comprehensive way than Congress has ever before been called upon

to give. The recent treaty rejected by the Senate related to a

single subject, affecting alone our treaty rights on her northeastern

coast. The act of retaliation of 1887 was confined to the same

subject-matter. This message, however, treats of matters extending

across the continent, affecting commercial relations with every

state and territory on our northern boundary. Under these

circumstances I feel it is my duty to present my views of all these

cognate subjects, and in doing so I feel bound to discard, as far

as possible, all political controversy, for in dealing with foreign

relations, and especially those with our nearest neighbor, we should

think only of our country and not of our party."

The real difficulty of dealing with Canada is its dependence on

Great Britain. Our negotiations must be with the English government,

while the matters complained of are purely Canadian, and the consent

of Canada is necessary to the ratification of any treaty. The

President complained that Canadian authorities and officers denied

to our fishermen the common privileges freely granted to friendly

nations to enter their ports and harbors, to purchase supplies and

transship commodities. He said that they subjected our citizens,

engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to their northeastern

shore, to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances, had

seized and sold their vessels upon slight pretexts, and had otherwise

treated them in a rude, harsh, and oppressive manner. He further

said:

"This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada, by

the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it, and upon the ground

that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests.

We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further

maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, of disputed

interpretation, the relative positions of the United States and

Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the

development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable

relations surely guaranty, and, above all, the liberality always

extended by the United States to the people of Canada, furnished

motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty

covenants."

I agreed with the President in his arraignment of the Canadian

authorities for denying to our fishing vessels the benefit of the

enlightened measures adopted in later years by commercial nations,

especially by the United States and Great Britain. We admitted

fish free of duty into our country, while Canada refused to our

fishermen the right to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian

ports, thus preventing our fishermen from competing with the

Canadians on the open sea. The President undertook, by treaty, to

correct this injustice, but the Senate thought that the provisions

of the treaty were not adequate for that purpose, and declined to

ratify it. He thereupon recommended that Congress provide certain

measures of retaliation, which, in the opinion of the Senate, would

have inflicted greater injury to the United States than to Canada.

This honest difference of opinion, not based upon party lines,

opened up the consideration of all our commercial relations with

Canada. The speech made by me dealt with the policy of the United

States with Canada in the past and for the future, and led me to

the expression of my opinion that Canada should be, and would be,

represented in the parliament of Great Britain or the Congress of

the United States, with the expression of my hope of its being

annexed to our country. I said:

"And now I submit if the time has not come when the people of the

United States and Canada should take a broader view of their

relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable.

Our whole history, since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain

in 1763, has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace

with each other except by a political as well as commercial union.

The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies

in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all,

for the mother country as well, if all this continent north of

Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the

blessings and prosperity of the American Union.

"So, evidently, our fathers thought, for among the earliest military

movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the

occupation of Canada, and the capture of the British forces in

Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition,

the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the

fearful suffering borne by the Continental forces in the march and

retreat, is familiar to every student of American history. The

native population of Canada were then friendly to our cause, and

hundreds of them, as refugees, followed our retiring forces and

shared in the subsequent dangers and triumphs of the war. It was

the earnest desire of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, at the treaty of

peace, to secure the consent of Great Britain to allow Canada to

form a part of the United States, and at one time it appeared

possible, but for the influence of France and Spain, then the

acknowledged sovereigns of large parts of the territory now included

within the United States. The present status of Canada grew out

of the activities and acquisitions of European powers after the

discovery of this continent. Spain, France, and England especially

desired to acquire political jurisdiction over this newly discovered

country.

"Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is

sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of

the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England

held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title,

only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The

statesmen of this government early discerned the fact that it was

impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory

then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and

prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was

always present of conflicts with the European powers maintaining

governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a

necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country.

They were acquired and are now held.

"Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater

force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-

four years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our

own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character,

and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect

freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to

the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of

the world; and as far as the interests of the two people are

concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live

next door neighbors to each other, and there should be a perfect

freedom of intercourse between them.

"A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them,

rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European power,

one hundred years ago, was able to hold that territory against us;

but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become

an independent government to all intents and purposes, as much so

as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all

the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida,

Louisiana, and the Pacific coast and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly

strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and

matters of transportation. These intensify not only the propriety,

but the absolute necessity, of both a commercial and a political

union between Canada and the United States."

This was my opinion then, but further reflection convinces me that

the annexation of Canada to the United States presents serious

difficulties, and that the best policy for the other English-speaking

countries is that Canada should constitute an independent republic,

founded upon the model of the United States, with one central

government, and provinces converted into states with limited powers

for local governments. The United States already embraces so vast

a country, divided into forty-four states and four territories,

exclusive of Alaska and the Indian Territory, that any addition to

the number of states would tend to weaken the system, and the

conversion of the provinces of Canada into states of our Union

would introduce new elements of discord, while with Canada as an

independent and friendly republic we could, by treaties or concurrent

legislation, secure to each the benefit of free trade and intercourse

with the other, and without the danger of weakening the United

States. Great Britain, the common mother of both republics, could

take pride in her progeny and be relieved from the cares and

controversies that have arisen and will arise in her guardianship

of Canada. Her policy in recent years has been to surrender, as

much as possible, her legislative power over Canada, but, as Canada

is not represented in parliament and cannot be represented by a

minister at Washington, the spectacle of a British minister of the

highest rank engaged in an effort to negotiate a treaty for the

benefit of Canada about bait and fish and fisheries, imposing

restrictions of trade in direct opposition to the policy of the

mother country. This condition of Canada constantly invites a

breach of the peace between the United States and Great Britain,

but with Canada governed by a parliament and by local assemblies in

the provinces on a plan similar to our own, the two republics would

be independent of each other, and could arrange their matters

without any other country to interfere.

There were many other measures of interest and importance in the

discussing and framing of which I participated at this session,

but as this is not a general history of Congress, I do not deem it

necessary to mention them in detail.

CHAPTER LV.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888.

Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President--

Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats--I Am Indorsed by

the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19--My Response to

a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant--Meeting with

Prominent Men in New York--Foraker's Reply to Judge West's Declaration

Concerning Blaine--Blaine's Florence Letter to Chairman Jones--His

Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position--Meeting

of the Convention in Chicago in June--I Am Nominated by General D.

H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker--Jealously Between

the Ohio Delegates--Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June

25--Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain--General Harrison is

Nominated--Letters from the President Elect--My Replies--First

Speeches of the Campaign--Harrison's Victory--Second Session of

the 50th Congress--The President's Cabinet.

While Congress was in session the people of the United States were

greatly interested in the choice of a candidate for President.

Conventions were held, votes were taken and preferences expressed

in every state. It was settled early in the year that a large

majority of the delegates from Ohio would support me for President,

and several weeks before the convention was held it was announced

that I would receive the unanimous support of the delegates from

Ohio. The Democratic party nominated Grover Cleveland and Allen

G. Thurman for President and Vice President.

The Republican state convention was held at Dayton, Ohio, on the

18th and 19th of April, and selected Foraker, Foster, McKinley and

Butterworth as delegates at large to the national convention.

Forty-two delegates were nominated by the twenty-one districts,

and all of them were known to favor my nomination. The convention

unanimously adopted this resolution:

"Seventh. The Republicans of Ohio recognize the merits, services

and abilities of the statesmen who have been mentioned for the

Republican nomination for the presidency, and, loyal to anyone who

may be selected, present John Sherman to the country as eminently

qualified and fitted for the duties of that exalted office, and

the delegates to the Republican national convention this day selected

are directed to use all honorable means to secure his nomination

as President of the United States."

The speeches made at the convention by the delegates at large, and

by other members, expressed without qualification the hearty and

unanimous support of my nomination. The condition upon which alone

I would become a candidate for so exalted a position as President

of the United States had been complied with, and I therefore felt

that I might fairly aspire to the nomination. Mr. Blaine had

declined it on account of his health, and no one was named who had

a longer record of public service than I had.

The movement for my nomination was heartily indorsed by the people

of Ohio and was kindly received in the different states. Many of

the leading newspapers assumed that it was assured. Sketches of

my life, full of errors, appeared. My old friend, Rev. S. A.

Bronson, issued a new edition of his "Life of John Sherman."

Comments favorable and unfavorable, some of them libelous, appeared

in print. Mrs. Sherman, much more sensitive than I of calumny,

begged me not to be a candidate, as the office of President had

killed Lincoln and Garfield, and the effort to attain it had broken

down Webster, Clay and Blaine, and would do the same with me.

However, I remained at my duties in Washington as calmly awaiting

the action of the Chicago convention as any one of my associates

in the Senate. I read the daily reports of what was to be--"that

I was to be nominated on the first ballot," and "that I had no

chance whatever," and became alike indifferent as to the one or

the other result.

Shortly after the Ohio convention, I was invited to attend a banquet

of the Americus club at the Monongahela House, in Pittsburg, on

the 28th of April, at which Senator Harrison and Colonel Fred.

Grant were guests. The lobby of the hotel looked as if a political

convention was in session, many prominent men from Pennsylvania

and other states being present.

At the banquet I was called upon to respond to the toast "Grant;

He Was Great to the End." I insert a portion of my remarks:

"I saw General Grant when he arrived in Washington. He soon took

command of the Army of the Potomac. His plan of campaign was soon

formed. His objective point was Lee's army. Where Lee went he

went, and if Lee moved too slowly Grant flanked him. After the

fearful and destructive battles of the Wilderness, Washburne wanted

to carry some consoling message to Lincoln, and Grant wrote 'I

propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.' And

so he did, and all winter. He never loosed his tenacious grip of

Lee's army until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. If you ask me the

secret of his success I say tenacity, tenacity. He never was

discouraged. He knew how to hold on. And when his object was

attained, and not till then, he knew how to be generous.

"He carried the same traits into civil life. He was always the

same plain, simple, confiding, brave, tenacious and generous man

in war and peace, as when the leader of vast armies, President of

the United States, the guest of kings and emperors, and in his

final struggle with grim-visaged death. Gentlemen, you do right

to commemorate his birthday. It was his good fortune to be the

chief instrument of Divine Power to secure to you and your posterity

the blessing of a free, strong and united country. He was heroic

to the end, and you should be equally heroic in maintaining and

preserving the rights and privileges and policy for which he

contended.

* * * * *

"I deem it an honor to be called upon by your club, on this sixty-

sixth anniversary of the birthday of General Grant, to present in

brief words this typical American citizen, this illustrious soldier,

this patriotic President. By his tenacious courage and skill the

armies of the Union were led from victory to victory, from Belmont

to Appomattox, until every enemy of the republic laid down his arms

in unconditional surrender. He won from foreign nations reparation

for injuries done to us during the war. He did more than anyone

else to preserve untarnished the public credit and honor. Heroic

to the end, in the hours of death he won his greatest victory by

the story of his life, told in words so plain, truthful, charitable

and eloquent that it will become as classic as the commentaries of

Caesar, but more glorious as the record of a patriot who saved his

country, instead of a conqueror who overthrew its liberties. When

speaking of General Grant I do not know where to begin and where

to end, whether with his personal traits of character, his achievements

as a commander of armies, or his services as an untried magistrate

in civil life; I can only make a mere reference to each of these

elements of his fame."

During the whole of the month of May I remained in Washington, and

attended constantly the sessions of the Senate. I was greatly

interrupted by visits of persons from different parts of the country,

who wished to converse with me in regard to the approaching

convention. I treated them kindly, but referred them to General

Raum for any information he could give them. I was called to New

York on the 8th of June, to attend a meeting of the directors of

the Fort Wayne Railway Company. I stopped at the Fifth Avenue

hotel, where great numbers of politicians called upon me, but I

was charged with having interviews with many persons whom I did

not see. I met the leading politicians of the state, including ex-

Senator Platt, Senators Hiscock and Quay, Charles Emory Smith, of

Philadelphia, and many others. The newspapers had a good many

alleged interviews which never occurred. I then became satisfied

that I would not probably receive more than five or six of the

votes of the New York delegation, as they had generally committed

themselves to Mr. Depew, who was understood to be a candidate.

It was already asserted in the papers that I would not be nominated,

but that Blaine would be, in spite of his declination in his Florence

and Paris letters. Among others, this was asserted by Judge West,

of Ohio. Governor Foraker, who was at the head of the Ohio delegation

to Chicago, was reported to have said in reply to West:

"I do not attach much importance to Judge West's recent speech.

He is not a delegate this year, and he only speaks for himself.

Mr. Sherman will have the united and hearty support of the delegates

from this state, and I think his nomination is reasonably assured.

I received a letter from him yesterday in which he expressed himself

as being very confident of getting the nomination. It certainly

looks that way to me."

"How do you account for the circulation of the reports that you

are not entirely loyal to Sherman?"

"I suppose they originated in the breasts of mischief-makers who

would like to make trouble. There never was the slightest foundation

for them. I have paid no heed to them, for if my character is not

sufficiently established in this state to make my attitude towards

Mr. Sherman perfectly clear, nothing I could say would alter the

situation. It has been practically settled that General Hastings,

the adjutant general of Pennsylvania, will present Mr. Sherman's

name to the convention. He is an excellent speaker, and will, no

doubt, acquit himself with credit. Yes, I shall probably make the

speech seconding his nomination from this state. It is customary,

I believe, to have a candidate presented by a delegate from some

other state than his own, and in Sherman's case it seems eminently

proper that he should be presented in this way, as he is in such

a broad sense a national candidate."

There was a common opinion prevailing that the relations of Blaine

and myself were not friendly. This was a grave mistake. We had

never had any controversy of a personal character. He had spoken

of me in terms of the highest eulogy in his book "Twenty Years of

Congress," in this manner:

"It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress has

an opportunity to carry it out in an executive department. But

Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the resumption bill in

the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day

for coin payment he was at the head of the treasury department.

He established a financial reputation not second to that of any

man in our history."