Prior to our state convention, while Mr. Blaine was abroad, I wrote

to a friend of his, who was with him, that if Blaine desired to be

a candidate I would withdraw and advocate his nomination. This

letter was handed to Murat Halstead, who was about to proceed to

Europe. He showed it to Blaine, who insisted that he could not

and would not be a candidate, and wrote a letter to B. F. Jones,

chairman of the Republican national committee, in which he stated,

in terms that could not be mistaken, his position in regard to the

presidency, and settled for good the question of his candidacy.

In neither of his previous epistles did he state positively he

would not accept the nomination if tendered him. In the letter to

Chairman Jones this declaration was most emphatically made. Under

no circumstances, Mr. Blaine said, would he permit the use of his

name in Chicago, nor would he accept a presidential nomination

unanimously tendered him. He further went on to say that Senator

John Sherman was his preference, and advised the convention to

place his name at the head of the Republican national ticket.

Mr. Halstead said to a correspondent of the New York "World," in

regard to Mr. Blaine's position, that he had achieved the greatest

place in our political history--above that of Henry Clay--that the

nomination would have come to him unsought, but he had smothered

any personal ambition he may have had for the good of his party.

Mr. Blaine's name, he declared, would not come before the Chicago

convention as a candidate in any contingency we have a right to

assume. "Mr. Blaine told me," he said, "when I met him in Europe

in August last, that he was not a Tichborne claimant for the

presidency, and he wanted his friends to understand it. Mr. Blaine

will have as distinguished a place in history as he could have

obtained had he been elected to the presidency."

Mr. Blaine was asked: "Do you think Mr. Sherman could be elected?"

He replied: "Mr. Sherman represents the principles of the Republican

party from its beginning. He has never wavered in his allegiance

to the party. If we cannot elect a man on the principles of the

Republican party we will not be able to pull anyone through on

personal popularity. I think Mr. Sherman is as strong as the

Republican party, and that if nominated he can be elected, and also

that he has great personal strength."

In reply to the question, "Will the Ohio delegates remain true to

Sherman?" Mr. Blaine said: "Of that there can be no doubt. They

are riveted and double-bolted to him. The talk of Foraker's scheming

for himself is nonsense and malice. Foraker is a young man and

has a great future before him. He may go to the Senate and be

President later on. No, the Garfield miracle cannot be repeated

this year. It is impossible."

The convention met at Chicago on the 19th of June. The delegation

from Ohio was promptly in attendance, and was to all appearances

united, and determined to carry out the instructions and requests

of the state convention to support my nomination. There appeared

to be some needless delay in the report of the committee on

resolutions. Mr. McKinley, as chairman of the committee, reported

the resolutions and they were unanimously adopted by the convention

by a standing vote amid great enthusiasm.

I was nominated by General D. H. Hastings, of Pennsylvania, in a

speech of remarkable power and eloquence. When he closed, enthusiastic

and prolonged cheering and waving of flags greeted him from the

galleries, which was joined in my many delegations.

Governor Foraker seconded the nomination. His opening words were:

"Ohio is sometimes like New York. She occasionally comes to a

national Republican convention divided as to her choice for the

presidency, and sometimes she comes united. She has so come on

this occasion. Her forty-six delegates are here to speak as one

man." His speech throughout was received with great applause, and

it and that of General Hastings were regarded as the most eloquent

nominating addresses of the convention. They were followed by

speeches made by John M. Langston, of Virginia, and Mr. Anson, of

North Carolina. There certainly could be no fault found with either

the manner or the matter of these addresses.

There was a constant effort made to produce jealousy between the

members of the Ohio delegation, and perhaps it may be admitted that

the natural divisions in a body of forty-six members would give rise

to suspicion and misunderstanding, but I have no right to complain

of anything done by the members of the delegation during the

convention. There was a natural rivalry between Foraker and

McKinley, as they were both young, able and eloquent men. Rumors

prevailed at times that the Ohio delegation could be held solid no

longer, but if there was any ground for these rumors it did not

develop into a breach, as the delegation, from beginning to end,

cast the entire vote of Ohio for me on every ballot except the last

two or three, when one of the delegates, J. B. Luckey, voted for

Harrison, placing his action on the ground that he had served with

him in the army and felt bound to vote for him.

On Saturday evening I was telegraphed by different persons that I

would certainly be nominated on Monday. That was the confident

belief in Washington. On Sunday the following dispatch was published,

which, though I do not recall any such conversation, expresses my

feeling on that day:

"Senator Sherman says he does not believe that Foraker, or any

other Ohio man, will desert him. He spent three hours Sunday at

the capitol, in his committee room, and received many telegrams

from Chicago, and also sent dispatches to that great central point

of interest. He has received some unauthorized dispatches advising

him to withdraw in favor of McKinley, but he refuses absolutely to

interfere with his managers. His invariable answer to all advising

him to pull out is that he is in the fight to stay."

On Monday, the 25th of June, I did not anticipate a change on the

first ballot from the last one on Saturday. I did expect, from my

dispatches, that the nomination would be made that day and in my

favor, but, as the result proved, an arrangement had been made on

Sunday that practically secured the nomination of General Harrison.

This became obvious in the course of the vote on Monday and, as

Harrison was practically assured of the nomination, Pennsylvania

voted solid for him and ended the contest.

From the best information I could gather from many persons with

whom I conversed, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion

that I was defeated for the nomination by New York. I was assured

before the meeting of the convention that I would have six votes

from the beginning from that state, and could reasonably hope for

a large addition to that vote in the progress of the balloting.

Instead of this I did not receive a single vote, although three or

more of the delegates had been distinctly selected in my favor and

had given pledges to their constituents that they would vote for

me, but they did not on a single ballot do so, except I was advised

that at one ballot one of them voted for me.

I believed then, as I believe now, that one of the delegates from

the State of New York practically controlled the whole delegation,

and that a corrupt bargain was made on Sunday which transferred

the great body of the vote of New York to General Harrison, and

thus led to his nomination. It is to the credit of General Harrison

to say that if the reputed bargain was made it was without his

consent at the time, nor did he carry it into execution.

I believe and had, as I thought, conclusive proof that the friends

of General Alger substantially purchased the votes of many of the

delegates from the southern states who had been instructed by their

conventions to vote for me.

There were eight ballots taken in the convention, in all of which

I had a large plurality of the votes until the last one.

When General Harrison was nominated I assured him of my hearty

support. I have no respect for a man who, because he is disappointed

in his aspirations, turns against the party to which he belongs.

I believe that both honor and duty require prompt and ready

acquiescence in the choice made, unless it is produced by corruption

and fraud.

I had no reason to believe, however, that General Harrison resorted

in the slightest degree to any improper or corrupt combination to

secure his nomination. In answer to a letter from me expressing

my congratulations and tendering my support, I received from him

a very cordial reply, as follows:

"Indianapolis, July 9, 1888.

"My Dear Senator:--Your very frank and kind letter of June 30th

has remained unanswered so long only because it was impossible for

me to get time to use the pen myself. Some friends were asking

'have you heard from Sherman,' and my answer always was, 'have no

concern about him. His congratulations and assurances of support

will not be withheld, and they will not be less sincere than the

earlier and more demonstrative expressions from other friends.'

You will recall our last conversation at Pittsburg, in which I very

sincerely assured you that except for the situation of our state

my name would not be presented at Chicago in competition with yours.

I have always said to all friends that your equipment for the

presidency was so ample and your services to the party so great

that I felt there was a sort of inappropriateness in passing you

by for any of us. I absolutely forbade my friends making any

attempt upon the Ohio delegation, and sent word to an old army

comrade in the delegation that I hoped he would stand by you to

the end.

"I shall very much need your service and assistance, for I am an

inexperienced politician as well as statesman. My desire is to

have a Republican campaign and not a personal one, and I hope a

good start will be made in that direction in the organization of

the committee. I have not and shall not attempt to dictate the

organization, but have made some very general suggestions. I will

confidently hold you to your promise to give me frankly any

suggestions that you may think valuable, and assure you that

criticism will always be kindly received.

"Mrs. Harrison joins me in kind regards to Mrs. Sherman.

"Very sincerely your friend,

"Benj. Harrison.

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

"I shall be very glad to see you when you come."

I had many letters from him during the canvass and gave him a hearty

and I think effective support. After his election he wrote me the

following letter:

"Indianapolis, Ind., November 22, 1888.

"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Senator:--You will understand, without any explanation

from me, that my little home bureau was entirely inadequate to deal

with the immense flood of telegrams and letters that poured in upon

me after the election. It has happened, that some of those that

should have had earliest attention have been postponed, by reason

of the fact that the associated press carried off the telegrams

and they were not returned for some times. But you did not need

to be assured that I appreciate very highly your friendly words,

and rely implicitly upon that friendly spirit that has not only

prompted them, but so much besides that was useful to me.

"I have, up to this time, given my whole attention to visiting

friends and to my correspondence with those who have addressed me

by wire or mail. We are just now torn up a little in our household

by reason of the work necessary to introduce the natural gas; but

will after a little while be settled again. I wish that you would

feel that I desire you to deal with me in the utmost frankness,

without any restraints at all, and in the assurance that all you

may say will be kindly received and will have the weight which your

long experience in public life and your friendship for me entitles

it to. I know the embarrassments that now attend any intercourse

with my friends, on their part, rather than on mine; but you will

find some method of communicating with me if you desire, and after

awhile I will have the pleasure of a personal conference. With

kind regards to Mrs. Sherman, I am,

"Very sincerely yours,

"Benj. Harrison."

I sent him the following answer:

"Washington, D. C., November 26, 1888.

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 22nd is received. I appreciate the

embarrassments of your position and feel that the highest mark of

friendship is to let you alone, and have therefore refrained from

writing to or visiting you. Still I wish you to feel that I have

no hope or ambition higher than to see your administration a complete

success. The victory is a Republican victory and that I think is

a victory for the whole country. Any advice or aid I can give will

be freely rendered on call, but not tendered until needed. I notice

that every scribbler is making a cabinet for you, but your observation

must have led you to the conviction that this is a duty you only

can perform. Advice in this matter is an impertinence. Your

comfort and success will largely depend upon this, and if I were

to offer advice it would be to consult alone your own judgment,

taking care to choose those who above all will be faithful and

honorable to you and administer the patronage of the departments,

not in their own selfish interests, but for the good of the country.

The cabinet should be fairly distributed among the different

sections, but this is not the prime necessity, nor is it vital that

cliques or factions be represented, but only the general average

of Republican ideas and policy.

"As to the broader questions of public policy the rule of action

is very different than the one suggested as to cabinet officers.

The President should 'touch elbows' with Congress. He should have

no policy distinct from that of his party, and this is better

represented in Congress than in the Executive. Cleveland made his

cardinal mistake in dictating a tariff policy to Congress. Grant

also failed to cultivate friendly relations with Congress, and was

constantly thwarted by it. Lincoln had a happy faculty in dealing

with Members and Senators.

"As to visiting you, I will do so with pleasure if you think it

necessary, but I dread, on your account as well as my own, the

newspaper talk and gabble that will follow. It might embarrass

you with others. With the modern facility of dictating you can

converse with me without restraint, and all letters passing between

us can be returned to the writer. In conclusion permit me to say,

and perhaps I am justified in saying by what appears in the papers,

that you must not feel embarrassed or under the slightest restraint

by seeing my name in connection with office. I am not seeking or

expecting any position, nor have I ever determined in my own mind

whether I could, consistently with my duties to Ohio, accept any

executive office. You should fell like a gallant young gentleman

entering upon life with a world of girls about him, free to choose

--to propose, but not to dispose.

"Give my kind regards, in which Mrs. Sherman and Mamie join, to

Mrs. Harrison and your children, especially the little grandson.

"Very respectfully yours,

"John Sherman."

The result of the nomination at Chicago did not in the least disturb

my equanimity or my allegiance to the great party to which I

belonged, and for the success of which I had devoted my life since

1854. I listened with complaisance to the explanations made as to

the wavering of the Ohio delegation on the Saturday previous to

the nomination, and as to the unexpected action of the New York

delegation and the curious reasoning which held them together in

the hope that they could persuade their leader to vote for me.

The only feeling of resentment I entertained was in regard to the

action of the friends of General Alger in tempting with money poor

negroes to violate the instructions of their constituents. I have

since read many of the revelations made subsequently as to the

action of the Ohio delegation, and came to the conclusion that they

did what they thought best to promote my nomination, and had just

ground for discouragement when my vote fell below the number

anticipated.

On the 5th of July I attended the national exposition in progress

in Cincinnati at that time, and made a speech mainly confined to

the remarkable growth of the northwestern states. On the next day

I visited the chamber of commerce, and the Lincoln club. I then

went to Mansfield. On the evening of the day of my arrival I was

called upon by a great number of my townsmen, who seemed to feel

my recent defeat with more regret than I did.

During this visit to Ohio I heard a great deal about the Chicago

convention, but paid little attention to it, and said I was content

with the result, that my friends had done what they could, that

Harrison was nominated and ought to be elected. As quoted by a

newspaper reporter, I said: "Henceforth, I can say what I please,

and it is a great pleasure. This feeling of freedom is so strong

with me that I am glad I did not get the nomination." Whether I

uttered these words or not, they expressed my feeling of relief at

the time.

The 100th anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the

State of Ohio, at Marietta, was celebrated on the 7th of April,

1888. There was a difference of opinion among the people whether

the proper day was the 7th of April or the 15th of July, as the

landing of the settlers was on the 7th of April, but on the 15th

of July General Arthur St. Clair entered upon the discharge of his

duties as governor of the northwestern territory. The result was,

the people of Marietta concluded to celebrate on both days. Senator

Evarts made an eloquent address on the 7th of April, and I was

invited to deliver one on the last day of the second celebration,

commencing on the 15th of July. The ceremonies, visiting and

feasting continued during five days. The fifth day was called

"Ohio day," and was intended as the finale of a great celebration.

It was said that 20,000 persons thronged the streets and participated

in the memorial ceremonies on that day. This vast crowd, gathered

from many different states, were hospitably entertained by the

citizens of Marietta. The exercises commenced in the morning at

ten o'clock, with Governor Foraker presiding. Among the distinguished

guests were the governors or lieutenant-governors of the states

that were carved out of the northwestern territory. I had not

prepared a speech, but knew what I intended to talk about. I was

introduced by Governor Foraker in an eloquent address, which he

knew how to make. I said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--The very flattering manner in which our

governor has introduced me to you rather disturbs the serenity of

my thoughts, for I know that the high panegyric that he gives to

me is scarcely justified to mortal man. We have faults, all have

failings, and no one can claim more than a fair and common average

of honest purpose and noble aim. I come to-day as a gleaner on a

well-reaped field, by skillful workmen who have garnered the crop

and placed it in stacks so high that I cannot steal a sheaf without

being detected. I cannot utter a thought without having it said

that I copied from some one else. I thank fortune I have no framed

speech made, for, if I had, the speech would have been read or

spoken to you in eloquent terms, but I only come with thoughts

inspired by the great history we are called upon to review--a

hundred years of this northwest territory. What a theme it is!

Why is it that this favored country of 260,000 square miles and

about 160,000,000 acres of land had been selected as the place

where the greatest immigration of the human race has occurred in

the history of the whole world? There is no spot in this world of

ours of the size of this western territory, where, within a hundred

years, 15,000,000 of free people are planted, where, at the beginning

of the century, there was scarcely a white man living. I am glad

it has been spoken of by such eminent men as Senators Hoar, Evarts,

Daniel, Tucker, General Ewing and many other distinguished men;

and remember, citizens of Marietta, when I speak of this centennial

celebration, I do not mean that on the 15th of July only, but on

the 7th of April and the 15th of July bound together in a noble

wedlock."

I referred to the claims made by several of the old states, based

upon their so-called titles to the whole or to portions of the

northwestern territory. Senator Daniel, who was on the stand with

me, had claimed that Virginia owned all the territory south of the

41st degree of north latitude and westward to the "South Sea."

Connecticut claimed all north of that line. New York made a similar

claim, all based upon grants by King James or King Charles, neither

of whom knew where the South Sea was, and had no conception of or

control over the vast territory covered by these grants. Neither

of these states had either title to or possession of any part of

the northwest territory. The only title based on European law was

that acquired by Great Britain from France in 1763, and that title

was transferred to the United States at the close of the Revolutionary

war. There was no just title to this region except that held by

the Indian tribes of America. They owned and possessed it. Before

the constitution of the United States was, or could have been,

adopted the imaginary claim of the several states was ceded to the

United States for the common use and benefit of them all. Virginia

and Connecticut reserved large portions of Ohio from their several

grants, and these reservations were conceded to them. There is

one title which has always been acknowledged by civilized nations,

and that is the title by conquest. The only valid title of the

United States was that based upon the conquest by George Rogers

Clark, who conquered this country from Great Britain. It was not

Virginia that did it. And, yet, among the illustrious names that

have been furnished by that magnificent state, in the history of

this country, that of George Rogers Clark will be gratefully

remembered. He, with his two or three hundred Kentuckians, marched

through that country, as Senator Daniel described, and subdued the

British. Virginia is entitled to the honor of having this son;

but it was George Rogers Clark who gave the United States its title

to the northwest. The Indians, however, had possession, and how

was their title to be disposed of? A treaty was made at Fort

Harmar, and plans were adopted to get possession of the Indian

land. The Indians always claimed they were cheated in the treaty,

defining the boundary line between them and the white men. Therefore,

Indian wars came on. St. Clair was defeated by the British and

Indians combined. The British were always at the back of every

hostile movement that has been made in the history of our country.

In Judge Burnett's "Notes of the Northwest Territory" there is a

full account of how white men, step by step, gained possession of

this territory.

The Indian tribes made bold and aggressive efforts to hold Ohio.

They defeated in succession the armies of St. Clair and Harmar,

but were compelled to yield to the invincible force of General

Wayne and his army. It is painful and pathetic to follow the futile

efforts of the Indians to hold the northwest, their favorite hunting

grounds. They were told that only a little land was wanted for

some poor white settlers to keep them from starving. They were

offered $50,000 in money, and $50,000 annually for twenty years,

for the southern part of Ohio. The council adjourned until the

next day. When it convened an old chief said that "Great Spirit"

had appeared to them and told them a way in which all their troubles

could be ended. "Let our Great Father give to the few poor white

settlers among us the money you offer to us and let them go back

from whence they came and be rich and happy." Colonel Wayne could

not answer this logic, and the Indians were compelled to submit to

their fate and ceded one-half of Ohio. In concluding I said:

"In the history of Ohio we have passed through three or four stages.

First was the struggle with the Indians. This generation has not

realized it, but I have lived long enough to know something about

it in the northern part of Ohio. I saw the last Indian tribe leave

the soil of Ohio in 1843, the Wyandotte Nation. There was but the

feeble remnant of the most powerful tribe in the world. The next

period was the clearing of log cabins. Every homestead was a log

cabin--no brick houses, no frame houses, except in town. The log

houses in the clearing, the toilsome and exciting time. You talk

about hard times now--I have seen the time when a man was glad to

get thirty-two cents for a bushel of wheat; when eggs could not be

sold, when the only way to get 'York money' was to drive horses

and cattle and sheep over the Alleghanies. The next step was the

canal system, which brought laborers into the country. Then came

the railroads and telegraphs, when the canals ceased to exist.

"Now, I am done. I shall think, however, that I am not through

unless I reverently and devoutly give thanks to the Ruler of the

universe for all this great good that has come upon this great

continent. Here we see the most wonderful republic in the world,

born within a hundred years, a great community peopling a continent,

having every facility in the world for homes--no land-locked

monopoly, closing the door to the poor acquiring homes, or if it

does, it should be broken down at every hazard by wise laws passed

from time to time. I reverently thank God for our homes, for our

great cities, for our state and, more than all else, for our

country."

On the 6th of October, while Congress was still in session, I went

to Cincinnati and joined in celebrating "Republican day" at the

exposition.

Immediately upon the adjournment of Congress I went to Cleveland

to attend a meeting in the Music Hall, where I made my first speech

in the political campaign. It was carefully prepared and was

confined mainly to a full discussion of the tariff question. From

that time until the day of the election I was constantly occupied

in making speeches in different parts of the state and in Indiana.

Among the many places in which I spoke in Ohio were Lancaster,

Defiance, Toledo and Mansfield. My first speech in Indiana was at

Portland. I referred to a statement made in the newspapers that

the Republicans had given up Indiana, and denied this emphatically.

I said that since I had come among them and felt the enthusiasm

exhibited by them I was entirely confident that they would give to

their own "most gallant citizen for President of the United States"

a hearty and enthusiastic support. I discussed at length the Mills

bill and the tariff bill of the Senate, and closed with an appeal

to the "Hoosier voter" in behalf of Ben. Harrison, "the hero of

Peach Tree Creek, and the man that honored Indiana in the Senate

of the United States for six years."

On the next day I spoke at Huntington, opening my speech as follows;

"When I was traveling over the State of Ohio, recently, I was

occasionally asked 'what about Indiana?' and now, since I have been

in Indiana, I will be able to answer more accurately than I could

have done, although I believed the people of Indiana were loyal,

and brave, and true, and would never turn their backs upon their

most eminent citizen when he had been designated by the Republican

party as a candidate for chief magistrate of the Union. But I have

no longer any doubt about Indiana. I saw yesterday 10,000 to 15,000

people, excited by the highest enthusiasm, marching in the bright

sun and warm atmosphere in a county supposed to be Democratic. To-

day, although the weather is inclement, I see your streets filled

with ardent and enthusiastic people, shouting for Harrison and

Morton and the Republican ticket. No rain disturbs you; no mud

stops you. I shall go back to Ohio and tell them that the Buckeyes

and Hoosiers will march together."

While in Indiana I received a request from Harrison to speak at

Indianapolis, but my engagement at Toledo prevented this, much to

my regret.

My part in the canvass closed at home on the evening of the 5th of

November. I concluded my speech as follows:

"Benjamin Harrison possesses many qualities of the highest character.

He is an able lawyer, an honest man and a good citizen. Benjamin

Harrison is a man for whom every American citizen should vote. He

would stand like a wall of fire on every question of honor with a

foreign country. If you want to do your country a valuable service

you will go to the polls and give a good square honest vote for

Harrison."

Harrison received in Ohio a majority over Cleveland of 19,000 votes,

and a majority of the electoral vote in the country.

During the period immediately following the election, the papers

were, as usual, full of conjectures as to cabinet appointments.

All sorts of cabinets were formed for General Harrison and in many

of them I was mentioned for the office of Secretary of State. It

was because of this that I wrote to Harrison the letter already

inserted of the date of November 26. I wished to relieve him from

all embarrassments, as I had made up my mind not to hold any office

except such as might be given to me by the people of Ohio. I

gratefully acknowledge that all the political favor I have received

has been from the people of my native state.

On the 28th of November Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of General

Sherman, died at her home in New York. She had been in feeble

health, but was taken seriously ill about three weeks before her

death. She was an accomplished woman of marked ability inherited

from her father, a devout Christian of the Catholic faith. Her

life had been devoted to the relief of suffering and want. This

sad calamity was a source of great grief to her own family and that

of her husband. She was married to General Sherman on the 1st of

May, 1850, at Washington, when her father was a member of the

cabinet of President Taylor. Throughout her entire life she was

an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. Her remains were removed

to St. Louis, and were there buried beside those of two sons and

three grandchildren.

The winter of 1888-89, after the political excitement of the year

before, seemed a tranquil period of rest. The coming change of

administration excited some interest, especially the selection of

a cabinet. Blaine and I were frequently mentioned in the public

prints for appointment as Secretary of State, but I gave no attention

to the rumors. I did not care to decline an office not tendered

to me, though I had definitely made up my mind not to accept any

executive office. The duties of a Senator were familiar and

agreeable to me. I doubted the wisdom of competing presidential

candidates accepting cabinet appointments under a successful rival.

The experiment of Lincoln, with Chase and Seward as his principal

advisers, was not a good example to follow.

The short session of the 50th Congress, commencing December 3,

1888, was mainly occupied with the tariff question, already referred

to, but without hope of passing any tariff bill. Many other

questions of public policy were also discussed, but as a rule were

postponed to the next Congress, which it was known would be Republican

in both branches. Perhaps the most interesting topic of debate

was the condition of affairs in Samoa. As chairman of the committee

on foreign relations, on the 29th of January, 1889, I presented

to the Senate a full statement of the complications in that far

distant group of islands. In opening I said:

"The time has arrived when Congress, and especially the Senate,

must give intelligent attention to the questions involved in the

occupation and settlement of the Samoan Islands. These questions

are now exciting profound attention, not only in this country, but

in Great Britain and Germany. While supporting the amendments

proposed by the committee on foreign relations, reported now from

the committee on appropriations, I think it is due to the Senate

and the people of the United States that I should state, in a

skeleton form, the chief facts in regard to this matter, and that,

too, without any feeling whatever, without any desire to interfere

with our diplomatic negotiations, or to disturb the harmony of our

relations with Germany or Great Britain. I hope that the action

of the Senate will be unanimous upon the adoption of these amendments,

and that a frank and open debate will tend to this result."

It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted

in making Great Britain, Germany, and the United States the guardians

of these far distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative

orientals. The only interest the United States had in these islands

was the possession and ownership of the Bay of Pago-Pago, acquired

by a treaty in 1878 between the United States and the King of Samoa.

The repeated wars on a small scale that have occurred since that

time, and the complications and expense caused by the tripartite

protectorate of the islands, furnish another example of the folly

of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in

a far distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us

from accepting outside possessions which in case of war would cost

the United States more to defend than their value.

On the 24th of February, 1889, my youngest sister, Fanny Sherman

Moulton, the widow of Colonel Charles W. Moulton, died at her

residence at Glendale, Ohio, after a brief illness. Her husband

died in January, 1888. She was buried by his side in Spring Grove

Cemetery, near Cincinnati. In the hurry of the close of the session

I could not attend her funeral. She was always kind and affectionate,

not only to her children, but to all her kindred. I felt her death

keenly, for as the youngest of our family she had lived with me

until her marriage, and was regarded by me more as a daughter than

a sister.

The called session of the Senate convened on the 4th of March,

1889. President Harrison's message was well delivered and well

received. It was longer than the usual inaugural. It was free

from any studied rhetoric, but was sensible, logical and satisfactory.

The nominations of the cabinet officers were made and immediately

confirmed. Those of Blaine and Windom were anticipated but the

remainder of the cabinet excited some surprise. They were

comparatively new men, without much, if any, experience in

congressional life, but were well known in their respective states

as gentlemen of ability and high character. A bare majority of

the Senate were classed as Republicans. They retained the organization

of the committees and no material changes were made. The Senate

acted upon its general custom to confine its business to that which

it could do alone without the action of the House. It adjourned

on the 2nd of April, 1889.

CHAPTER LVI.

FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS IN EUROPE.

Our Party Takes Its Departure on the "City of New York" on May 1--

Personnel of the Party--Short Stop in London--Various Cities in

Italy Visited--Sight-Seeing in Rome--Journey to Pompeii and Naples

--Impressions of the Inhabitants of Southern Italy--An Amusing

Incident Growing Out of the Ignorance of Our Courier--Meeting with

Mr. Porter, Minister to Rome--Four Days in Florence--Venice Wholly

Unlike Any Other City in the World--Favorable Impression of Vienna

--Arrival at Paris--Reception by the President of the Republic of

France--Return Home--My Opinion Concerning England and Englishmen

--Reception at Washington--Campaigning Again for Foraker--Ohio Ballot

Box Forgery and Its Outcome--Address at Cleveland on "The Congress

of American States"--Defeat of Foraker for Governor.

Soon after the close of the called session in April, 1889, Mrs.

Sherman and I concluded to make a trip to Europe. Both of us had

been confined more than usual for over a year, and needed recreation

and a change of scene. We went to New York on the 27th of April,

stopping with my niece, Mrs. Alfred M. Hoyt. On the next day we

witnessed from the battery the naval parade in honor of the centennial

of the inauguration of Washington. On the first of May my little

party, composed of Mrs. Sherman, Miss May Hoyt, my daughter Mary

and myself, were driven to the steamer "City of New York," and

there met Senator Cameron and his wife, with their infant child

and nurse, Mrs. Colgate Hoyt, a niece of mine, with four children

and nurse, and Mrs. Henry R. Hoyt, child and nurse. With this

large party we had a joyous and happy voyage. Among the passengers

we found many agreeable companions and had the usual diversions,

such as music, singing and card playing. We arrived at Queenstown

on the 8th of May without any special incident, proceeding thence

to Liverpool and London, where we stopped at the Hotel Metropole.

Here all our companions except our family party of four left us.

As it was our desire to visit Italy before the hot weather set in,

we determined to push on as rapidly as convenient to Naples. We

spent a day or two in London. We pushed on to Paris via Folkestone

and Boulogne. We remained three days at the Hotel Liverpool in

Paris and there met several friends, among them Mrs. William Mahone

and daughter, and Major and Mrs. Rathbone. On the 14th we went to

Lyons, the 15th to Marseilles, and the 16th to Nice. On the 17th

we visited Monte Carlo, and on the 18th went to Genoa. Here we

spent two days in visiting the most interesting places in that

ancient and interesting city. From thence, on the 20th, we went

to Rome. The city had already been abandoned by most of the usual

visitors, but we did not suffer from the heat, and leisurely drove

or walked to all the principal places of interest, such as the

ruins of the Roman forum, the Colosseum, the baths of Caracalla

and St. Peter's, and the many churches in that ancient city. In

the six days in Rome we had, with the aid of maps and a good guide,

visited every interesting locality in that city, and had extended

our drives over a large part of the Campagna. At Liverpool I had

employed a Swiss with the awkward name of Eichmann as my courier.

He had a smattering knowledge of many languages, but could not

speak any well; he proved to be faithful, and, so far as I could

discover, was honest. He relieved us from petty cares and could

generally find the places I wished to see. On the 27th we went to

Naples, and on the 28th by steamer to Sorrento and Capri. On the

29th we traveled by carriage to Pompeii and thence to Naples. On

the 30th we drove about Naples as well as we could, but here we

began to feel the heat, which was damp and depressing. It is the

misfortune of this city that, although surrounded on all sides by

the most beautiful and picturesque scenery of sea and mountain, in

a land rich in historical and poetical annals, yet a large portion

of the inhabitants impress a stranger with the conviction that they

are the poorest, and perhaps the most ignorant, population in

Europe. It is a sad reflection, that applies especially to all

parts of southern Italy, that the descendants of the Romans, once

the rulers of the world, are now classed among the lowest in

intelligence in the Christian and civilized world. I remember two

things about Naples, one that Mount Vesuvius was in partial action

during our stay, and that we had a full opportunity to explore the

ruins of Pompeii.

About this time there occurred an amusing incident growing out of

the ignorance of a common American phrase on the part of my courier.

Mr. Oates, of Alabama, a leading Member of the House of Representatives,

was traveling with his wife and friends on the same general route

that I was. We frequently met and had pleasant and friendly chats.

Eichmann noticed our intimacy and was very polite to Mr. Oates.

One day, as my party and I were about to enter a car, some one

said: "Is not that John Sherman?" Mr. Oates said, in the hearing

of Eichmann: "Yes, that is Sherman," and added as a compliment:

"He was a good watchdog in the treasury." Eichmann catching the

phrase "watchdog" applied to me regarded it as a gross insult. He

rushed into my car, his face aflame with passion and his English

more confused than usual, and said: "That man," pointing to Oates,

"was not your friend; he called you, sir, a watchdog; yes, sir, a

watchdog. He has but one arm, sir, one arm, or I would have

chastised him." I had great difficulty in persuading him what a

"watchdog" meant, that it was intended as a compliment, not as an

insult.

On the 31st we returned to Rome. During my stay there I had the

pleasure of meeting Mr. Porter, our minister to Rome. He was hardly

yet installed in his duties, as the king had been absent, but

returned from Germany the day I arrived. Porter and I had been in

Congress together, and boarded at the same house. He was not only

a man of ability, but of pleasing address and manners.

Everybody I saw in Rome was talking about the heat and moving out

of town. On June 1, I went to Florence. There we spent four days

very pleasantly. The hotel was good, the weather all we could

desire, and the people we met, looked contented and comfortable.

They were in striking contrast with their countrymen in Naples.

There was an air about the place that indicated prosperity. Florence

is an art gallery. Several of our countrymen, famous as artists,

of whom I can recall Powers, Meade and Turner, were not only

pursuing, but learning, their art. I was told that a considerable

part of the population were engaged in painting and sculpture. No

doubt their wages were small but food and clothing were also low.

We would gladly have remained longer in Florence if my plan of

travel would have allowed it. Not only was the city and all the

treasures of art interesting, but the country around was picturesque

and highly cultivated. We could ride in any direction over admirable

roads and almost every place had an historical interest. I witnessed

there a review of several thousand troops, but was especially

interested in a body of small men well drilled for rapid movements.

The parade was on Sunday and the ladies objected to a parade on

that day. I observed that in the Latin states I visited, Sunday

was generally selected for such displays. I purchased two works

of art from American artists. I commend the wisdom of their choice

of location, for in Florence the love of art, especially of sculpture,

is more highly appreciated than in any other city of Europe that

I have visited.

Our next stopping place was Venice. The chief attraction of this

city is that it is unlike any other city in the world in its

location, its architecture, its history and in the habits and

occupation of its people. It is literally located in the sea; its

streets are canals; its carriages are gondolas and they are peculiar

and unlike any other vessel afloat. Magnificent stone palaces rise

from the waters, and the traveler wonders how, upon such foundations,

these buildings could rest for centuries. Its strange history has

been the basis of novels, romances, dramas and poetry, by writers

in every country and clime. Its form of government was, in the

days of the Doges, a republic governed by an aristocracy, and its

wealth was the product of commerce conducted by great merchants

whose enterprise extended to every part of the known habitable

globe.

We visited St. Mark's cathedral, the palace of the Doges, and the

numerous places noted in history or tradition. We chartered a

gondola and rode by moonlight through the Grand Canal and followed

the traditional course of visitors. The glory of Venice is gone

forever. We saw nothing of the pomp and panoply of the ancient

city. The people were poor and the palaces were reduced to tenement

houses. Venice may entice strangers by its peculiar situation and

past history, but in the eye of an American traveler it is but a

great ruin. The wages paid for labor were not sufficient to supply

absolute necessities.

The construction of the railroad to Vienna is a remarkable feat of

engineering. The route over the Semmerling pass presents difficulties

far greater than any encountered in the United States. We spent

four days in and about Vienna. Its location on the River Danube

was a good one for a great city. The surrounding country was

interesting and well cultivated. The comparison between the people

of Vienna and Venice was very much in favor of Vienna. The city

was clean, well built, with many signs of growth and prosperity.

The people were comfortably clad, and the crowds that gathered in

the parks and gardens to hear the music of the military bands were

orderly and polite. Among the European cities I have visited, I

recall none that made a more favorable impression on my mind than

Vienna. I found no difficulty in making my English understood,

and it was said of the people of that city that they generally knew

enough of the English and French languages, in addition to their

native German, to sustain a conversation in either. We visited

Colonel Fred. Grant, then our minister to Austria, at Vosben, about

twenty miles by rail from Vienna. I did not seek to make acquaintances

in Vienna, as my time would not allow it, but, from a superficial

view, I believed that the people of that city were intelligent,

social and friendly, with more of the habits of Frenchmen than of

the Germans of Berlin, or of the English of London.

From Vienna we followed the line of railroad through Salzburg,

Innsbruck, to Zurich, stopping at each place for a day. This a

very interesting country, generally picturesque, and in some places

mountainous. Here we see the southern German in his native hills.

A vein of superstition colors their creed as good Catholics. They

are, as a rule, loyal to their emperor, and content with their

condition. The passage from the Tyrol into Switzerland is not

marked by national boundaries, such as rivers or mountains, nor

does the population vary much until one reaches Zurich. In our

progress thus far, from Nice through Italy and Austria, our party

had been traveling over, to us, a new and strange land. At Zurich

we entered within a region visited by Mrs. Sherman and myself in

1859. The cities and mountains of Switzerland seemed familiar to

us. Great changes, however, had occurred in modes of travel in

this short period in these old countries. Railroads traversed the

valleys and crossed the mountains, where we had traveled in the

stage coach. At Lucerne I went up a tramway to the top of Mt.

Pilatus, at a grade of from 25 to 35 degrees. I did not feel this

in ascending, but in descending I confess to experiencing real

fear. The jog-jog of the cogwheels, the possibility of their

breaking, and the sure destruction that would follow, made me very

nervous. I would have been less so but for a lady unknown to me,

sitting by my side, who became frightened and turned deathly pale.

I was glad indeed when we reached the lake.

From Lucerne Mrs. Sherman went to Neuchâtel to meet my niece, Mrs.

Huggins, then sick at that place. The remainder of the party went

to Interlaken and the valley in which it is situated. I have no

room for the description of mountain scenery, and no language can

properly convey a sense of its grandeur. I have mentally contrasted

Mt. St. Bernard and the Simplon with Pike's Peak and Mt. Washburn,

and feel quite sure that in grandeur and in extent of view the

American mountains are superior to those named in Europe, but the

larger population in easy reach of the mountains of Switzerland

will give them the preference for a generation or more. Then Mt.

Shasta will take its place as the most beautiful isolated mountain

in the world, and the Rocky Mountain range will furnish a series

of mountains surpassing the mountains of Switzerland; but both

South America and Asia contain mountains thousands of feet higher

than either or any of the mountains of Europe or North America.

Without going into details of travels over familiar ground all our

party arrived safely at Paris on the 2nd of July, 1889. Unfortunately,

Mrs. Sherman was called back to Neuchâtel on the 4th of July, on

account of the continued serious illness of Mrs. Huggins, the

balance of the party remaining in Paris. We were in that city two

weeks and attended the international exposition many times. The

French people know better than any other how to conduct such a

show. The great building in which it was held was so arranged that

similar articles were grouped together, and yet all productions of

a country were in convenient proximity. The French are artists in

almost every branch of human industry. They are cheerful, gay and

agreeable. They are polite and therefore sensitive of any slight,

neglect or rudeness and promptly resent it.

While in Paris we formed some agreeable acquaintances. Whitelaw

Reid, our minister to France, entertained elegantly his countrymen

and his associates in the diplomatic corps. From him our little

party, especially the two young ladies, received many courtesies,

and through him we had invitations from the President of the French

Republic and officers of the exposition. The reception at the

palace of the president was in striking and pleasing contrast with

that given by the emperor in 1867, already referred to. The later

reception was simple in form, something like a reception by the

President of the United States, but where it differed it was an

improvement upon our custom. The invitation was quite general and

extended to the diplomatic corps, to all persons representing any

article in the exposition, and to many citizens and visitors in

Paris, who were named by the diplomatic corps or by the officers

of the French government. I think that fully as many persons were

present as usually attend the receptions of our President. Each

invited guest, as he entered the reception room, gave his name,

and, if escorting others, gave their names to the officer in charge.

The name was announced to the president, who stood a few paces in

the rear, the guests and the president bowed but did not shake

hands and the guests passed on through a suite of rooms or into

the garden. Miss Hoyt, my daughter and I attended the reception

with Mr. and Mrs. Reid. As Mr. Reid entered the room his name and

office were announced, and the president and he advanced towards

each other, shook hands, and I and my party were introduced and we

shook hands. This occupied but a moment and the reception of others

went on, only occasionally interrupted by the president when he

chose to recognize some one by handshaking. When we were received,

as stated, we were introduced by Mr. Reid to several persons on

attendance on the president, and then retired with the passing

company. In this way the president and his wife escaped the extreme

fatigue of shaking hands with thousands of people in rapid succession,

often producing soreness and swelling of hands and arms. I hope

some President of the United States will be bold enough to adopt,

as he can, this simple measure of relief practiced by the President

of the French Republic. The French government also furnishes a

house ample enough for a large reception, which the United States

does not do, but I trust will.

We left Paris on the 15th of July and joined Mrs. Sherman at

Neuchâtel. After two days at this delightful place we went to

Basle and thence down the Rhine, stopping at places of interest on

the way, but this is a journey I had taken before.

We made a brief visit to Amsterdam and the Hague, and then went to

Brussels, with which city we had become acquainted on our previous

visit. We arrived in England about the 1st of August and remained

in London, or its environs, a week, most of the time in the country.

During my stay I did not seek to form new acquaintances and most

of the people I knew were absent in the country. From London we

went to Oxford and remained several days visiting the colleges and

the country around, especially the beautiful palace of the Duke of

Marlborough. From there we went to Leamington, and made short

excursions to Warwick Castle, Kenilworth, Stratford and Coventry.

We then visited the English lakes, including Windermere. I was

especially interested in the games, races and wrestling at Grasmere.

From there we went to Chester spending several days in that city

and surrounding country. We visited the magnificent estate of the

Duke of Westminster, a few miles from Chester, and drove through

Gladstone's place, but he was then absent. In Chester we met

Justice Gray and his wife, and Bancroft Davis and his wife. With

them we drove in the old-fashioned coach in and about the environs

of Chester. From thence we went to Liverpool, remaining about a

week in that city.

It is scarcely necessary to state that such a rapid, transient

visit could hardly convey a proper conception of England or

Englishmen. Our view was like that of the English traveler in

America when he undertakes to describe our vast country on a trip

of a month from New York to San Francisco. My idea of Great Britain

is based, not upon flying visits, but upon my study of English

history and literature. The political institutions of Great Britain

are rapidly approaching our own. While progressive, the people of

that country are also conservative, but with each successive decade

they extend the power of the House of Commons so that already in

some respects it represents better the public sentiment than the

Congress of the United States. It responds quickly to a change of

popular opinion. The functions of the crown are now more limited

than those of our President, while the House of Commons can at any

moment put an end to the ministry, and if necessary a new House of

Commons can be convened within a brief period, and a new ministry

be formed or the old one confirmed according to the popular will.

All the governments of Europe are following in the same path, so

that we may fairly hope that in a brief time Europe will become

republican in substance if not in form.

We returned in the steamer "City of New York," the vessel on which

we went over, and arrived in New York on the 12th of September.

My wife, daughter and myself returned to Washington, improved in

health and strength.

On the evening of the next day after my arrival a large company,

estimated at 1,500 people, led by the Marine band, marched to my

house. The report given by the "Republican" of Washington the next

morning is substantially correct and is here inserted:

"To General Grosvenor had been assigned the duty of formally

welcoming the Senator, and he did so in a very pleasant speech.

He spoke of the thirty-five years of faithful service which had

been rendered Ohio by John Sherman, as Representative, Senator,

cabinet officer and citizen; touched upon the eagerness with which

Ohio looked for the Senator's return; referred happily to the

Senator's wife and daughter, and then launched out upon the broad

ocean of Ohio politics. He closed by saying that one of the chief

causes of Ohio Republican exultation on this occasion lay in the

fact that the Senator had returned to do nobly his part toward the

re-election of Governor Foraker and the election of a Republican

Senator to succeed Mr. Payne.

"The welcome was punctuated with applause, and when the speech and

the uproar had ceased the band played 'Home Again.' The crowd

cheered once more as Senator Sherman stepped forward and commenced

his reply.

"Appreciation of the welcome which had been extended to him by

friends from Ohio and friends in Washington brightened his opening

remarks, and he said that, although his home was in Ohio, yet he

had been so long a resident of this city that he felt himself almost

entitled to the rights of citizenship here, without, of course,

losing his allegiance to the people of his native state. The joys

of home and the pleasures of foreign lands were dilated upon, and

the Senator said: 'No American can travel anywhere without having

a stronger love and affection for his native land. This is the

feeling of every American, and it is sometimes too strongly and

noisily expressed to be acceptable abroad. We do sometimes carry

the flag too high and flaunt it offensively.'

"Previous visits to Europe were referred to, and the Senator went

on: 'And now let me say to you that while we boast in America of

the rapid progress we have made in growth, population, wealth and

strength, yet it is equally true that some of the oldest nations

in the world are now keeping pace with us in industry, progress

and even in liberal institutions. Everywhere in these old countries

the spirit of nationalism is growing stronger and stronger.

'Thirty years ago Italy had at least five different forms of

government; now it is under one rule. Twenty-two years ago France

was an empire, under the almost absolute dominion of Napoleon III;

now it is a republic, with all the forms of republican institutions,

but without the stability of our government. The kingdom of Prussia

has been expanded into the great German empire, among the strongest,

if not the strongest, of the military powers in the world. The

institutions of Great Britain have become liberalized until it is

a monarchy only in name, the queen exercising far less power than

the President of the United States. The whole tendency of events

is to strengthen and at the same time popularize government.'

"The popularity of Americans in Europe was mentioned, and it was

said of them that while abroad they were not partisans, but patriots;

they believed that any party at home was better than all parties

in foreign lands. The signs of war abroad and of peace in the

United States were sketched, and the veterans who fought for the

Union were eulogized and said to be entitled to the most liberal

treatment. The Republican party, having saved the Union should be

the governing party, and it should be heartily supported by all

true patriots."

As I concluded, the audience came forward and shook hands with me.

Later addresses were delivered by Thomas B. Coulter, ex-Lieutenant

Governor Wm. C. Lyons, of Ohio, Rev. Wm. Warring, J. H. Smyth and

ex-Speaker Warren J. Keifer.

Quite a number of callers were received in the house by Mrs. and

Miss Sherman.

During the balance of the month of September I remained in Washington

engaged in writing letters, dictating interviews, and preparing

for the gubernatorial contest in Ohio, then in active progress.

Governor Foraker was the Republican candidate for re-election, and

James E. Campbell, formerly a Republican and recently a Democratic

Member of Congress, was the opposing candidate. Both of these

gentlemen were lawyers of ability, in the prime of life and living

in adjoining counties. The canvass had become interesting before

my return and I desired to do all I could in aid of Foraker. He

was nominated while I was still in Europe, for the third term, and

under conditions that weakened him somewhat. Still, his ability

as a debater, his popular manners, and his interesting history,

seemed to assure his success. I returned to Ohio with my family

about the 1st of October, and made my first speech in this canvass

at the Wayne county fair, at Orrville, on the 10th. I was introduced

to the audience by M. L. Smyser, the Member of Congress from that

district, in terms too complimentary to quote. He gave notice that

Campbell would speak to them on the next day on behalf of the

Democratic party. In explanation of my appearance there where

politics were generally excluded I said:

"It is rather unusual at a county fair, where men of all parties

are invited to exhibit and compare their productions, to discuss

party politics. Therefore, I hesitated to accept your invitation

to speak here in behalf of the Republican party; but upon being

advised by my friend, Mr. Smyser, your Representative in Congress,

that the same invitation was extended to Governor Foraker and Mr.

Campbell, the two candidates for governor, that Governor Foraker

could not attend, but Mr. Campbell had accepted, I concluded also

to accept, and am now here to give you the reasons for my political

faith."

This speech was prepared for the occasion, and was chiefly on the

choice between the Mills tariff bill and the Senate bill, both of

which failed to pass in the preceding Congress. I discussed state

issues briefly, including recent frauds at elections, the alleged

bribery and corruption in the election of Mr. Payne as Senator,

and the importance of nonpartisan boards of election. I closed by

saying:

"This is not a contest between Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell.

I have the highest regard for both of these gentlemen. Governor

Foraker is one of the ablest, one of the most brilliant, men in

public life. He was one of the youngest soldiers in the Union

army, and, though young, rendered important services at critical

periods of the war. He has made his own way in the world, and has

filled with distinction every place assigned him. He has made an

efficient governor, and I can see no force in the objection that

he is running for a third term. If he has performed his duties

exceptionally well in the past, it is good reason why he should be

continued in office in the future. I have also the pleasure of a

very kindly acquaintance with Mr. Campbell, whom I regard as a

gentleman of merit and ability. Either of these gentlemen will

perform the personal duties of the office with credit to the state,

but the contest is not between them, but between the two parties

they represent. Governor Foraker represents the principles and

tendencies of the Republican party, its progressive national policy,

the purity of elections, state and national, and its willingness

to take the lead in Ohio in all proper measures to promote good

order, temperance and morality, so far as they can be promoted by

human laws and popular opinion.

"Mr. Campbell represents the aims and tendencies of the Democratic

party, its jealousy of national authority, its want of genuine

patriotism, its reactionary policy as to tariff laws, its lawless

disregard of fair elections, both north and south, the criminal

gangs that disgrace our cities, and its low tone on all questions

affecting good order and morals. In my view the choice is as plain

as the sunlight of heaven in favor of the Republican party. It

may falter for a time in meeting new questions, it may be disturbed

by passing clouds, and, like all human agents, may yield to expediency

or be tarnished with the corruption and faults of individuals, yet

it is the best organized guide in state and national affairs, and

should, and I confidently trust will, receive the hearty support

of the people of Ohio."

The reporter, in his description of the meeting, said:

"Senator Sherman was in excellent form to-day; his voice was clear,

strong and its carrying power excellent. He spoke with uncommon

vigor and, of course, without notes or manuscript. There was

something in his manner that seemed to carry conviction with it.

The people knew they were listening to an honest man who was a

thorough master of every subject upon which he touched. He spoke

as one having authority, and the weight of forty years of sturdy

public life went into his utterances."

It was about this period that the Ohio ballot box forgery matter

became a subject of discussion. On the 11th of September, Richard

G. Wood appeared in Columbus, and delivered to Foraker the following

paper, and received the governor's recommendation for the smoke

inspectorship in Cincinnati:

"Washington, D. C., July 2, 1888.

"We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amounts set opposite, or

any part thereof, whenever requested so to do by John R. McLean,

upon 'Contract No. 1,000,' a copy of which is to be given to each

subscriber upon payment of any part of the money hereby subscribed.

"It is understood that each subscription of five thousand dollars

shall entitle the subscriber thereof to a one-twentieth interest

in said contract.

1. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

2. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

3. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

4. Wm. McKinley . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

5. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

6. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

7. B. Butterworth . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

8. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

9. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

10. S. S. Cox . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

11. Wm. C. P. Breckinridge . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

12. Wm. McAdoo . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

13. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

14. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

15. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

16. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

17. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

18. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

19. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

20. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

The paper referred to in this alleged agreement as "Contract No.

1,000" purported to be a contract for the manufacture and introduction

of the Hall and Wood ballot box, to be used by the United States

government whenever it had the authority to use ballot boxes. The

merit claimed for the box was that it was constructed in such a

manner as to prevent fraudulent voting. This alleged agreement

and contract, taken in connection with a bill introduced July 23,

1888, by Mr. Campbell, in the House of Representatives, "regulating

Federal elections and to promote the purity of the ballot," which

required the purchase by the government of the ballot box mentioned,

would of course, if true, present a clear case of corruption on

the part of the Members of Congress signing the agreement, so grave

as to justify their expulsion.

A copy of this paper was handed by Governor Foraker to Murat Halstead

on the 28th of September, and on the evening of that day the governor

made a speech at the Music Hall, Cincinnati, in which he referred

to Mr. Campbell having introduced the bill for the purchase of the

ballot box. On the 4th of October, Halstead published in the

"Commercial-Gazette" a fac-simile of the false paper, with the name

of Campbell alone, the names of the other apparent signers not

being given in the fac-simile and nothing being said about them.

On the 8th of October I was informed that it was whispered about

Cincinnati that my name, with many others, was attached to the

paper. I at once telegraphed that if this were so the signature

was a forgery.

When I spoke at Orrville two days later I did not allude to the

subject, regarding the whole thing as an election canard which

would correct itself. In a brief time this became true. The whole

paper was proven to be a forgery. The alleged signatures were made

on tracing paper, from franks on documents distributed by Congressmen.

All this was done by Wood, or by his procurement, in order to get

an office through Governor Foraker. Halstead, on the 11th of

October, published in his paper, over his own name, a statement

that Mr. Campbell's signature was fraudulent, no mention being made

of the other alleged signers of the paper. Subsequently, on the

10th of November, after the election, Foraker wrote a letter to

Halstead giving a narrative of the mode by which he was misled into

believing the paper to be genuine.

It has always seemed strange to me that Foraker, having in his

possession a paper which implicated Butterworth, McKinley and

myself, in what all men would regard as a dishonorable transaction,

did not inform us and give us an opportunity to deny, affirm or

explain our alleged signatures. An inquiry from him to either of

the persons named would have led to an explanation at once. No

doubt Foraker believed the signatures genuine, but that should not

have deterred him from making the inquiry.

On the 12th of November, I wrote the following letter to Halstead:

"Senate Chamber, }

"Washington, November 12, 1889.}

"My Dear Sir:--Now that the election is over, I wish to impress

upon you the importance of making public the whole history of the

'forged paper' about ballot boxes.

"While you believed in the genuineness of Campbell's signature you

were entirely right in exposing him and the signers of the paper,

for if it was genuine it was a corrupt and illegal transaction.

I only wonder that seeing the names upon it did not excite your

doubt and cause inquiry, but, assuming they were genuine, you had

no right to suppress the paper because it involved your friends in

a criminal charge. But now, since it is shown to be a forgery, a

crime of the greatest character, it seems to me you ought at once

to exercise your well-known energy and independence in exposing

and denouncing, with equal severity, the man or men who forged, or

circulated, or had anything to do with, the paper referred to. No

delicacy or pity ought to shield them from the consequences of a

crime infinitely greater than the signing of such a paper would

have been. I know in this I speak the general sentiment of many

prominent men, and you will appreciate the feeling of honor and

fairness which appeals to you to denounce the men who, directly or

indirectly, were connected with the fabrication of this paper. If

my name was forged to it I will consider it my duty to prosecute

all men who took that liberty. I will certainly do so whenever I

have tangible evidence that my name was forged.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman."

A fac-simile of the paper was then published with all the alleged

signatures. The subject-matter was fully investigated by a committee

of the House of Representatives, during which all the persons named

in connection with it were examined under oath. It resulted in

the unanimous finding of the committee as follows:

"In response to the first inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'By whom said alleged contract was prepared, and whether the several

signatures appended thereto are forged or genuine,'

"We find that said alleged contract was dictated (prepared) by

Richard G. Wood, and that all the signatures thereto are forged.

"In response to the second inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'If forged, what person or persons, if any, were directly or

indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to

the preparation and uttering of said forgery, and for what purpose,'

"We find that Richard G. Wood, Frank and L. Milward, and Frank S.

Davis were the only persons directly or indirectly aiding, abetting,

assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation of said

forgery with knowledge of its character.

"We further find that J. B. Foraker and Murat Halstead aided in

uttering said forgery, Mr. Foraker by exhibiting the paper to

several persons and thereafter delivering it to Mr. Halstead, and

Mr. Halstead aided in uttering said forgery by publishing the forged

paper on October 4, 1889, in the Cincinnati 'Commercial Gazette;'

but we find that neither of said parties, Foraker and Halstead, in

uttering said paper, knew the same was a forgery.

"In response to the third inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'Whether any of the Members whose names appeared on said alleged

contract had or have, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful,

corrupt or improper connection with, or interest in, the ballot

boxes which are the subject-matter of said alleged contract.'

"We find that no one of the persons whose names appear on said

alleged contract had or has, either directly or indirectly, any

unlawful, corrupt, or improper, or any other connection with, or

interest in, the ballot boxes which are said to be the subject of

said alleged contract, and that there never was any other contract

relating to said ballot boxes in which either of these persons,

alone or jointly with others, was in any way interested."

William E. Mason, chairman of the committee, added to the report

quoted the following just and true statement, which relieved Foraker

and Halstead from the implication stated in the report:

"If our unanimous finding is correct that Messrs. Halstead and

Foraker did not know the paper was forged when the uttered it, then

they were deceived by some one, for we have found it was a forgery.

Being deceived, then, is their only offense.

"They each have made reputation and character equal perhaps to any

of the gentlemen who were outraged by the forgery. Since they

found they were deceived, they have done all in their power, as

honorable men, to make amends. To ask more seems to me to be most

unjust, and, believing as I do that the evidence does not warrant

the censure indulged in by my associates on the committee in their

above additional findings, I most respectfully, but most earnestly,

protest."

This unfortunate incident, not fully explained before the election,

created sympathy for Campbell and naturally displeased friends of

McKinley, Butterworth and myself. I did not feel the least resentment

after Halstead denounced the forgery, but entered with increased

energy into the canvass. During this period I had promised to

attend, on the 15th of October, a banquet given by the citizens of

Cleveland to the delegates to the Pan-American Congress, then making

a progress through the United States, to be presided over by my

colleague, Senator Payne. As this speech is outside of the line

of my usual topics, the toast being "The Congress of American

States," and yet relates to a subject of vital importance, I

introduce it as reported in the Cleveland "Leader:"

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:--The toast you ask me to respond to

is the expression of a hope indulged in by many of the ablest

statesmen of the United States ever since our sister American states

dissolved their political connections with European powers. Henry

Clay, as early as 1818, when proposing to acknowledge the independence

of the South American states, eloquently depicted the mutual

advantage of closer commercial relations with those states. Mr.

Monroe proclaimed to the world the determination of the United

States not to suffer any European power to interfere with the

internal concerns of independent American states. Still no effective

measures were adopted to promote intercourse between them. The

hope of closer union has not been realized, mainly because of the

neglect of the government of the United States. We have been too

much engaged in political disputes and in the development of our

own resources. Then we have had a serious unpleasantness among

ourselves, which, if it had terminated differently, would have made

us very unacceptable partners. But, now, all this is past and

gone, and I can give assurance to our guests that not only the

government of the United States, but the people of the United

States, all parties and of every section, have united heartily in

inviting you here, that they will do their full share in carrying

out your recommendations, and sincerely hope that your conference

will lead to a congress of American nations.

"I look upon this conference as having the same relation to the

future of America as the conference of the thirteen British colonies,

in 1774, had to the declaration of American independence. That

conference led to the constitution of the United States and was

the beginning of the independence of all the American states. Your

conference is of infinitely greater importance, for your deliberations

affect the interests of more than one hundred million people, while

theirs only affected three million. But, more important still,

your conference contemplates only peaceful aids for mutual benefit;

theirs provided for war and a desperate struggle with superior

forces.

"I do not recall, in the annals of man, a meeting of the selected

representatives of any nations with nobler aims or with greater

opportunity for good than this conference of American states. You

seek to prevent war by peaceful negotiations and arbitration; you

seek to promote intercourse with each other by land and by sea;

you seek, as far as the wants and interests of each nation will

permit, to remove unnecessary restrictions to trade and commerce;

you seek to bring into closer union sixteen republics and one

empire, all of them governed by free institutions. You do not

unite to conquer, but to help each other in developing your resources

and in exchanging your productions.

"If your conference deals wisely with your opportunity you will

light a torch that will illuminate the world. You will disband

armies, you will convert ships of war into useful agencies of

commerce; you will secure the construction of a continuous line of

railways from New York to Buenos Ayres, with connections to the

capital city of every American country; you will contribute to the

construction of the Nicaraguan Canal and all other feasible methods

of transportation between the Atlantic and Pacific; you will unite

in a generous rivalry of growth and progress all the American

states. And, more important than all, you will pave the way for

a congress in which all these states will be represented in a

greater than an Amphictyonic council, with broader jurisdiction

and scope than the rulers of ancient Greece conceived of.

"Is this to be only a dream? I do not think so. The American

states are now more closely united in interest than any other part

of the world. Our institutions are similar. We nourish no old-

time feuds to separate us. Our productions do not compete with,

but supplement, each other. Their direct exchange in American

vessels is the natural course of trade. The diversity of language

is less marked than in any other continent. The sentiment is

universal in America that America belongs to Americans, that no

European power should vex us with its policy or its wars; that all

parts of America have been discovered and are not open to further

discovery; each country belongs to the people who occupy it, with

the clear and unquestioned right of home rule. Such, at least, is

the feeling in the United States.

"And now, looking back with pride over a century of growth, exhibiting

to you, as we are doing by a rather tiresome journey, what we have

done, and appreciating fully the rapid progress and enormous

resources of our sister American states, recognizing your equality

and absolute independence, whatever may be your population or extent

of territory, we say to you, in all frankness, that we are ready

and willing to join you in an American congress devoted exclusively

to the maintenance of peace, the increase of commerce, and the

protection and welfare of each and all the states of the American

continents."

On the 19th of October I addressed a great audience in Music Hall,

Cincinnati, at which Butterworth and Grosvenor also made speeches.

In this speech I especially urged the election of Governor Foraker

and answered the cry against him for running for a third term. I

said:

"Now, you have a good ticket, as I said, from top to bottom. I

need not add anything more with respect to Governor Foraker, who,

I believe, ought to be elected, not only because he has been a good

soldier, but because he has been a good governor. Nor do I fear

that cry about a third term. How should I fear it, when I am an

example of a man serving on the fifth term of six years each? If

Foraker has done his duty well for two terms, it is a good reason

why he would do better the next time. If he made any mistakes in

the past, he will have a chance to correct them in the future, and

I believe he will do so if he has made any; and I don't believe he

has."

On the 24th of October I was to address a meeting in Columbus, and

hearing that Governor Foraker was sick, at his residence, I called

upon him, and we had a free and friendly conversation. I did not

introduce the subject of the ballot box forgery, but assured him

that I was doing, and intended to do, all I could to promote his

election. He thanked me heartily, expressed his regret that he

was unable to take part in the canvass, but hoped to do so before

its close. At one of the largest indoor meetings ever held in

Columbus, that evening, I especially urged the importance of Governor

Foraker's election, and ridiculed, to the best of my ability, the

cry that was made for a third term. I called attention to the fact

that all that could be said against Governor Foraker was that he

was running for a third term. Continuing, I said:

"Why for a third term? Because he did so well in both his previous

terms that the Republican party of Ohio was willing to sanction

him as its candidate for a third term--and intend to elect him.

Why should not a man be nominated by the Republicans for a third

term as Governor of Ohio? What is there in the office that prevents

his full and free and complete performance of all the duties imposed

upon him as Governor of Ohio? Why, they say the President, by a

prescriptive rule that has been established since the time of

Washington, cannot be nominated for a third term. What of that?

The powers of the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United

States are as different as a and z, and are as wide apart as heaven

and earth. The President of the United States is armed with more

power during his four years than any prince or potentate of Europe;

he exercises a power greater than any man in any country of the

world, whether a monarchy or empire. But is there any similitude

between the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States?

What power has he? The Governor of Ohio has less power than almost

any other governor of the United States."

I spoke on the 2nd of November in the Music Hall at Cleveland, and

there again urged the election of Foraker. I give a short extract

of the description of the speech as it appeared in the papers of

that city:

"He ridiculed the third term scare of the Democracy and then paid

a glowing tribute to the worth and integrity of Governor Foraker.

'Has any man said,' he asked, 'that Governor Foraker is a bad man;

that he is not a good man? My countrymen, no one has said that.

He was a brave soldier. He is a self-made man; the son of good,

plain people. He is self-educated. By integrity and toil he

mounted, step by step, on the ladder of fame. Nearly every man

who has arisen to prominence in our country has arisen from the

ranks by toil. Such a man is Governor Foraker.'"

I spoke daily during the last two weeks of the canvass and everywhere

made the same appeal in behalf of Governor Foraker and the state

ticket. The result of the election was that Campbell received a

plurality of 10,872 votes and was elected. A majority of the

legislature was Democratic, and subsequently elected Calvin S.

Brice United States Senator.

Elbert L. Lampson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor,

was elected by a plurality of 22. The other candidates on the

Republican state ticket were elected by an average plurality of

about 3,000.

CHAPTER LVII.

HISTORY OF THE "SHERMAN SILVER LAW."

President Harrison's First Annual Message--His Recommendations

Regarding the Coinage of Silver and Tariff Revisions--Bill Authorizing

the Purchase of $4,500,000 Worth of Silver Bullion Each Month--

Senator Plumb's "Free Silver" Amendment to the House Bill--Substitute

Finally Agreed Upon in Conference--Since Known as the "Sherman

Silver Law"--How It Came to Be so Called--Chief Merit of the Law--

Steady Decline of Silver After the Passage of the Act--Bill Against

Trusts and Combinations--Amendments in Committee--The Bill as Passed

--Evils of Unlawful Combinations--Death of Representative Wm. D.

Kelley and Ex-Member S. S. Cox--Sketch of the Latter--My Views

Regarding Immigration and Alien Contract Labor--McKinley Tariff

Law--What a Tariff Is--Death of George H. Pendleton--Republican

Success in Ohio--Second Session of the 51st Congress--Failure of

Senator Stewart's "Free Coinage Bill."

The first session of the 51st Congress convened on the 2nd of

December, 1889, both branches being Republican. President Harrison,

in his message, reported a very favorable condition of the national

finances. The aggregate receipts from all sources, for the fiscal

year ending June 30, 1889, were $387,050,058. The total expenditures,

including the sinking fund for that year, were $329,579,929. The

excess of receipts over expenditures was $57,470,129. The estimated

surplus for the current year was $43,678,883. This would justify,

and the President recommended, a reduction of taxation to that

amount. He called attention to the reduction of the circulation

of national banks amounting to $114,109,729, and the large increase

of gold and silver coin in circulation and of the issues of gold

and silver certificates. The law then in force required the purchase

of two million dollars worth of silver bullion each month, to be

coined into silver dollars of 412½ grains of standard silver nine-

tenths fine. When this law was enacted, on the 28th of February,

1878, the price of silver in the market was $1.20 per ounce. Since

that time to the date of his message the price had fallen to 70.6

cents an ounce. He expressed a fear of a further reduction of the

value of silver, and that it would cause a difference in the value

of the gold and silver dollars in commercial transactions. He

called the attention of Congress to these three subjects of national

importance--the reduction of taxation, the circulation of the

national banks, and the further issue of silver coin and silver

certificates, and invoked for them the considerate action of

Congress.

He recommended the revision of the tariff law in such a way as not

to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries,

the free list to be extended to such domestic productions as our

home industries did not supply. He referred approvingly to a plan

for the increased use of silver, which would be presented by

Secretary Windom.

The plan, submitted by Secretary Windom in his report, for increasing

the use of silver in the circulation, provided that the treasury

department should purchase silver bullion every month to a limited

extent, paying therefor treasury notes receivable for government

dues and payable on demand in gold, or in silver bullion at the

current market rate at the time of payment, and that the purchase

of silver bullion and the compulsory coinage of silver dollars

under the act of 1878 should cease.

On the 28th of January, 1890, Senator Morrill introduced, by request,

a bill which had been prepared by, and embodied the views of the

Secretary of the Treasury. This bill was referred to the committee

on finance, and was reported back by Senator Jones, of Nevada,

February 25, with amendments. The first section of the amended

bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase $4,500,000

worth of silver bullion each month, and to issue in payment therefor

treasury notes receivable for customs and all public dues, and when

so received they might be reissued. They were also redeemable on

demand in lawful money of the United States, and when so redeemed

should be canceled. Such portion of the silver was to be coined

as might be necessary to meet the redemptions authorized. Other

sections provided for details by which the plan was to be effected.

To this bill I proposed an additional section authorizing the

deposits of legal tender notes by national banks with the United

States treasurer, to meet the redemption of the notes of such banks

which had failed, gone into liquidation, or were reducing their

circulation, to be covered into the treasury to the credit of an

appropriation from which the money could be withdrawn as necessary

to meet the payments of the notes for which the deposits had been

made. The deposits of this character often exceeded $50,000,000,

but under the plan proposed the money became immediately available

in current disbursements, thus avoiding a hoarding of the notes in

the treasury or the creating of a stringency in the circulation,

and, at the same time, giving the government the use of the deposits

until needed, by which the issue of bonds to a considerable extent

would be avoided. This arrangement was accepted and eventually

became section 6 of the law which is now in satisfactory operation.

In the progress of the debate on this bill every question connected

with the financial operations of the government for twenty years

was introduced and made the subject of debate, and especially the

coinage act of 1873, and the dropping of the old silver dollar from

coinage. Although this coin has been restored by the act of 1878,

and hundreds of millions of such dollars had been coined, yet the

Senators from the silver producing states, and especially Stewart,

were continually harping on "the crime of 1873," as they called

the coinage act of that year, a careful statement of which has

already been made in these volumes.

The only new allegation made was that the amendment recommended by

the Senate committee on finance, to strike out the franc dollar of

384 grains, provided for in the bill as it came from the House,

and insert the trade dollar, was not agreed to in the Senate, but

that the change was made in committee of conference, and passed

without the knowledge of the Senate. A conclusive answer was made

to this statement by the production, from the files of the secretary's

office, of the original bill as it stood after its passage in the

Senate and before it was sent to conference. As similar statements

have been frequently made, I reproduce the portion of this original

bill showing the section in question, with the printer's note

accompanying the bill explaining the different type used in printing

it. The word "AGREED" on the bill is in the handwriting of the

journal clerk of the Senate, Mr. McDonald, who held that position

many years until his death. It shows that the Senate adopted the

recommendation of the committee on finance before the bill was sent

to conference. This amendment was agreed to by the House conferees.

[Note in explanation of the bill (H. R. 2934).]

1. The body of the bill, printed in brevier, is as it came from

the House.

2. Amendments to insert, reported by the Committee on Finance,

are in _italics_.

3. Amendments to strike out, reported by the Committee on Finance,

are in [brackets].

4. Amendments made by the Senate striking out words are in brevier,

with brackets, and the words inserted in lieu thereof in the

handwriting of the Clerk, are in SMALL CAPS.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

May 29, 1872.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

December 16, 1872.

Reported by Mr. Sherman with amendments, viz.: Strike out the

parts in [brackets] and insert the parts printed in _italics_.

January 7, 1873.

Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Finance, reported additional

amendments, which were ordered to be printed with the bill.

AN ACT

Revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay-offices,

and coinage of the United States.

1 _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

2 United States of America in Congress assembled_,

1 Sec. [16] 15. [That the silver coins of the United States shall

be

2 a dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar

or twenty-

3 five-cent piece, and a dime or ten-cent piece; and the weight

of the

4 dollar shall be three hundred and eighty-four grains; the half-

dol

5 lar, quarter-dollar, and the dime shall be, respectively, one-

half,

6 one-quarter, and one-tenth the weight of said dollar; which coins

7 shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for any amount

not

8 exceeding five dollars in any one payment.] _That the silver

coins

9 of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half-dollar or

fifty-

AGREED A DIME OR TEN-CENT PIECE

10 cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-five-cent piece ^; and the

11 weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty

grains

12 troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams and

one-

13 half of a gram; the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respec-

14 tively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar;

15 and said coins shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for

16 any amount not exceeding five dollars in any one payment_.

AGREED

On the 5th of June I made a speech covering not only the pending

bill, and the cognate questions involved, but all the irrelative

topics introduced by other Senators. I said:

"I approach the discussion of this bill, and the kindred bills and

amendments pending in the two Houses, with unaffected diffidence.

No problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty.

Our action will affect the value of all property of the people of

the United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our

trade and commerce with all the world. In the consideration of

such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions

or bound by local interests, but, with the lights of experience

and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, we should

give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature

allows. With the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of

us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will

accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public

credit or the general interests of our people. This is no time

for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal with

facts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at

results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably

will be. The best prophet of the future is the past.

"To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear

conception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority of

the Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet

the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population,

and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring

of national bank notes; second, to increase the market value of

silver, not only in the United States, but in the world, in the

belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed,

and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal

ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join

with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in

agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and, third,

to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize

gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish

both gold and silver as standards of value, not only in the United

States, but among all the civilized nations of the world.

"Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all,

and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will

discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my

opinion, to promote or defeat these objects."

Those of us who were in favor of good money, whether of gold or

silver, or whether issued by the government in the form of notes

or currency by the national banks, all to be maintained at par with

each other and of equal purchasing power, were constantly charged

with reducing the volume of money. I showed that since the resumption

of specie payments, January 1, 1879, there had been a constant

annual increase in the total circulating medium of the country.

I furnished a table showing the steady increase of circulation

during the period named, which I here insert:

THE AMOUNT AND KINDS OF MONEY IN ACTUAL CIRCULATION ON CERTAIN

DATES FROM 1878 TO 1889.

Year. Date. Total circula- Gold coin. Standard sil- Subsidiary

tion. ver dollars. silver.

1878. March 1. $805,793,807 $82,530,163 ........... $53,573,833

1879. October 1. 862,579,754 123,698,157 $11,074,230 54,088,747

1880. October 1. 1,022,033,685 261,320,920 22,914,075 48,368,543

1881. October 1. 1,147,892,435 328,118,146 32,230,038 47,859,327

1882. October 1. 1,188,752,363 358,351,956 33,801,231 47,153,750

1883. October 1. 1,236,650,032 346,077,784 39,783,527 48,170,263

1884. October 1. 1,261,569,924 341,485,840 40,322,042 45,344,717

1885. October 1. 1,286,630,871 348,268,740 45,275,710 51,328,206

1886. October 1. 1,264,889,561 364,894,599 60,170,793 48,176,838

1887. October 1. 1,353,485,690 391,090,890 60,614,524 50,414,706

1887. October 1. 1,384,340,280 377,329,865 57,959,356 52,020,975

1888. October 1. 1,405,018,000 375,947,715 57,554,100 52,931,352

Year. Date. Gold certifi- Silver cer- United States National

cates. tificates. Notes.* bank notes.

1878. March 1. $44,364,100 ........... $311,436,971 $313,888,740

1879. October 1. 14,843,200 $ 1,176,720 327,747,762 362,950,938

1880. October 1. 7,480,100 12,203,191 329,417,403 340,329,453

1881. October 1. 5,239,320 52,590,180 327,655,884 354,199,540

1882. October 1. 4,907,440 63,204,780 325,272,858 356,060,348

1883. October 1. 55,014,940 78,921,961 321,356,596 347,324,961

1884. October 1. 87,389,660 96,491,251 325,786,143 324,750,271

1885. October 1. 118,137,790 93,656,716 318,736,684 311,227,025

1886. October 1. 84,691,807 95,387,112 310,161,935 301,406,477

1887. October 1. 97,984,683 154,354,826 329,070,804 269,955,257

1887. October 1. 134,838,190 218,561,601 306,052,053 237,578,240

1888. October 1. 116,675,349 276,619,715 325,510,758 199,779,011

*Includes outstanding clearing house certificates of the act of

June 8, 1872.

Meanwhile, the House passed a bill of like import to the one under

consideration in the Senate, differing therefrom mainly in that it

made the notes to be issued a full legal tender, and authorized

the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem them in gold coin or silver

bullion at current market rate. When this bill reached the Senate

it was, by unanimous consent, accepted as a substitute for the

Senate bill, and the discussion of the measure continued, occupying

much of the time and attention of the Senate until June 17, 1890,

when a vote was taken on an amendment proposed by Senator Plumb to

strike out the first section authorizing the issue of notes and

inserting the following:

"That from and after the date of the passage of this act, the unit

of value in the United States shall be the dollar, and the same may

be coined of 412½ grains of standard silver, or of 25.8 grains of

standard gold, and the said coins shall be legal tender for all

debts, public and private.

"That hereafter any owner of silver or gold bullion may deposit

the same in any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard

dollars, or bars, for his benefit, and without charge, but it shall

be lawful to refuse any deposit of less value than $100, or any

bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the mint."

This amendment was adopted by a vote of 43 to 24, the yeas being

made up of Democrats and the Republicans from the silver producing

states.

The adoption of this free silver amendment clearly indicated that

a large majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver

at the ratio of sixteen to one.

The other sections of the bill were then made to harmonize with

this new provision, and the bill was passed and returned to the

House, where the amendments were nonconcurred in, and a conference

asked for.

The Senate granted this request, and Senators Sherman, Jones, of

Nevada, and Harris were appointed to meet Representatives Conger,

Walker, and Bland, of the House, in conference, to adjust the wide

disagreements. On July 7 a bill agreed upon in conference was

reported to the Senate, Messrs. Harris and Bland not joining in

the report. The bill agreed to became a law July 12, 1890, and

was as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase,

from time to time, silver bullion to the aggregate amount of

4,500,000 ounces, or as much thereof as may be offered in each

month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for

371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue, in payment for such

purchases of silver bullion, treasury notes of the United States

to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and

of such denominations, not less than one dollar nor more than

$1,000, as he may prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry into

effect the provisions of this act is hereby appropriated out of

any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

"Sec. 2. That the treasury notes issued in accordance with the

provisions of this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at

the treasury of the United States or at the office of any assistant

treasurer of the United States, and when so redeemed may be reissued;

but no greater or less amount of such notes shall be outstanding

at any time than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard

silver dollars coined therefrom, then held in the treasury, purchased

by such notes; and such treasury notes shall be a legal tender in

payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise

expressly stipulated in the contract, and shall be receivable for

customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be

reissued; and such notes, when held by any national banking

association, may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve. That,

upon demand of the holder of any of the treasury notes herein

provided for, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such

regulations as he may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver

coin, at his discretion, it being the established policy of the

United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each

other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided

by law.

"Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall each month coin

2,000,000 ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions

of this act into standard silver dollars until the 1st day of July,

1891, and after that time he shall coin of the silver bullion

purchased under the provisions of this act as much as may be

necessary to provide for the redemption of the treasury notes herein

provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage

shall be accounted for and paid into the treasury.

"Sec. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions

of this act shall be subject to the requirements of existing law

and the regulations of the mint service governing the methods of

determining the amount of pure silver contained, and the amount of

charges or deductions, if any, to be made.

"Sec. 5. That so much of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled

'An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and

to restore its legal tender character,' as requires the monthly

purchase and coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less

than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion,

is hereby repealed.

"Sec. 6. That upon the passage of this act the balances standing

with the treasurer of the United States to the respective credits

of national banks, for deposits made to redeem the circulating

notes of such banks, and all deposits thereafter received for like

purpose, shall be converted into the treasury as a miscellaneous

receipt, and the treasurer of the United States shall redeem, from

the general cash in the treasury, the circulating notes of said

banks which may come into his possession subject to redemption;

and upon the certificate of the comptroller of the currency that

such notes have been received by him, and that they have been

destroyed and that no new notes will be issued in their place,

reimbursement of their amount shall be made to the treasurer, under

such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe,

from an appropriation hereby created, to be known as 'National bank

notes: Redemption account,' but the provisions of this act shall

not apply to the deposits received under section 3 of the act of

June 20, 1874, requiring every national bank to keep in lawful

money, with the treasurer of the United States, a sum equal to five

per cent. of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption

of its circulating notes; and the balance remaining of the deposit

so covered shall, at the close of each month, be reported on the

monthly public debt statement as debt of the United States bearing

no interest.

"Sec. 7. That this act shall take effect thirty days from and

after its passage."

The authorship of this law has been generally credited to me, and

it was commonly called the "Sherman silver law," though I took but

little part in framing the legislation until the bill got into

conference. The situation at that time was critical. A large

majority of the Senate favored free silver, and it was feared that

the small majority against it in the other House might yield and

agree to it. The silence of the President on the matter gave rise

to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pass both

Houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. Some action had

to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the

measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted for it, but the

day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be

had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage.

It will be noticed that the act varied greatly from the House bill

before the free coinage amendment was attached. The amount of

silver bullion to be purchased was changed from $4,500,000 worth

per month to 4,500,000 ounces per month. This change, owing to

the fall in price of silver, not then anticipated, greatly reduced

the quantity to be purchased. The House conferees yielded reluctantly

to the striking out of the section in the bill providing for the

redemption of the notes in bullion, a plan that had been urged by

Secretary Windom. In lieu thereof, however, a clause declaring

that it was the purpose of the government to maintain the parity

of the metals was inserted. This was a most important amendment

and one that has been generally accepted as indicating the purpose

of the country to maintain all dollars at par with each other.

The chief merit of this law was that it suspended the peremptory

coinage of the silver purchased under it into silver dollars which

could not be circulated, but were hoarded in the treasury at great

cost and inconvenience. It required the monthly purchase of a

greater amount of silver than before, but that could be held in

the form of bullion, and could be paid for by treasury notes equal

in amount to the cost of the bullion, the whole of which was held

in the treasury as security for the payment of the notes. If silver

bullion did not decline in market value it could, if necessary, be

coined without loss, and thus the parity of the notes with gold

could be readily maintained according to the declared policy of

the law. The friends of free coinage stoutly asserted that this

purchase of silver bullion would not only prevent its depreciation,

but would advance its market value, and thus be a gain to the

government. I did not believe this but hoped that it would not

decline in value, and, in any event, it was better to stop the

compulsory coinage of the bullion into dollars, as to force them

into circulation would reduce the purchasing power of the dollar

and bring the United States to the single standard of silver.

Being compelled to choose between the measure proposed and the free

coinage of silver I preferred the former, and voted for the bill

and, thus, with others, became responsible for it.

Contrary to the expectation of the friends of silver it steadily

declined in market value. The compulsory purchase of the enormous

aggregate of fifty-four million ounces, or 2,250 tons Troy, each

year, did not maintain the market value of silver, but it steadily

declined so that the silver purchased each year entailed an annual

loss of more than $10,000,000.

When the result became apparent I was anxious to arrest the purchase

of silver, and I never could comprehend why anyone not directly

interested in the mining of silver could favor a policy involving

so heavy a loss to the people of the United States. Long before

the second election of Mr. Cleveland I advocated the repeal of what

became known as the "Sherman act," and heartily supported and voted

for the repeal he recommended.

In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill "to declare

unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and

production," but no action was taken upon it. On the 4th of December

I again introduced this bill, it being the first Senate bill

introduced in that Congress. It was referred to the committee on

finance, and, having been reported back with amendments, I called

it up on the 27th of February, and said that I did not intend to

make any extended remarks upon it unless it should become necessary

to do so. Senator George made a long and carefully prepared speech,

from which it appeared that while he favored the general purpose

of the bill he objected to it on the ground that it was not

constitutional. This objection was shared by several Senators.

I subsequently reported from the committee on finance a substitute

for the bill, and on the 21st of March made a long speech in support

of it in which I said:

"I did not originally intend to make any extended argument on the

trust bill, because I supposed that the public facts upon which it

is founded and the general necessity of some legislation were so

manifest that no debate was necessary to bring those facts to the

attention of the Senate.

"But the different views taken by Senators in regard to the legal

questions involved in this bill, and the very able speech made by

the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] relative to the details

of the bill, led me to the conclusion that it was my duty, having

reported the bill from the committee on finance, to present, in as

clear and logical a way as I can, the legal and practical questions

involved in the bill.

"The object of the bill, as shown by the title, is 'to declare

unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and

production.' It declares that certain contracts are against public

policy, null and void. It does not announce a new principle of

law, but applies old and well-recognized principles of the common

law to the complicated jurisdiction of our state and federal

government. Similar contracts in any state in the Union are now,

by common or statute law, null and void. Each state can and does

prevent and control combinations within the limit of the state.

This we do not propose to interfere with. The power of the state

courts has been repeatedly exercised to set aside such combinations

as I shall hereafter show, but these courts are limited in their

jurisdiction to the state, and, in our complex system of government,

are admitted to be unable to deal with the great evil that now

threatens us.

"Unlawful combinations, unlawful at common law, now extend to all

the states and interfere with our foreign and domestic commerce

and with the importation and sale of goods subject to duty under

the laws of the United States, against which only the general

government can secure relief. They not only affect our commerce

with foreign nations, but trade and transportation among the several

states. The purpose of this bill is to enable the courts of the

United States to apply the same remedies against combinations which

injuriously affect the interests of the United States that have

been applied in the several states to protect local interests.

* * * * *

"This bill, as I would have it, has for its single object to invoke

the aid of the courts of the United States to deal with the

combinations described in the first section, when they affect

injuriously our foreign and interstate commerce and our revenue

laws, and in this way to supplement the enforcement of the established

rules of the common and statute law by the courts of the several

states in dealing with combinations that affect injuriously the

industrial liberty of the citizens of these states. It is to arm

the federal courts within the limits of their constitutional power,

that they may co-operate with the state courts in checking, curbing,

and controlling the most dangerous combinations that now threaten

the business, property, and trade of the people of the United

States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course

by finespun constitutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts

of associated or corporate wealth and power.

"It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with

the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful

combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid

of production where there is free and fair competition. It is the

right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful

vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and

conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty,

and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and

privileges."

I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from

the period of Coke and Littleton to the present times. I also

quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and

explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United

States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many

states.

Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until,

on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject

to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the

ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat

all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it,

corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was

defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however,

the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with

instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April

Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a substitute for

the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views,

he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke,

members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect.

When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not

intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that

after having fairly and fully considered the substitute proposed

by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as

being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all

the circumstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that

direction. The bill passed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay,

Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting in the negative. It

was passed by the House and after being twice referred to committees

of conference was finally agreed to, its title having been changed

to "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints

and monopolies," and was approved by the President June 26, 1890.

The law as finally agreed to is as follows:

"Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or

otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among

the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to

be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or

engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty

of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by

fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not

exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion

of the court.

"Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize,

or combine or conspire with any other person, or persons, to

monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several

states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a

misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine

not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding

one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the

court.

"Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise,

or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory

of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint

of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or

between any such territory or territories and any state or states

or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between

the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations,

is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such

contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall

be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof,

shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars,

or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments,

in the discretion of the court.