invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of
this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys
of the United States, in their respective districts, under the
direction of the attorney general, to institute proceedings in
equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings
may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that
such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When
the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such
petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing
and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before
final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary
restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the
premises.
"Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any
proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the
ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before
the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they
reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and
subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal
thereof.
"Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract of any combination,
or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof)
mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of
transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country,
shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and
condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the
forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into
the United States contrary to law.
"Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property
by any other or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or
declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit
court of the United States in the district in which the defendant
resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy,
and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the
costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
"Sec. 8. That the word 'person,' or 'persons,' wherever used in
this text, shall be deemed to include corporations and associations
existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United
States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state,
or the laws of any foreign country."
Since the passage of this act I have carefully studied and observed
the effect, upon legitimate trade and production, of the combination
of firms and corporations to monopolize a particular industry. If
this association is made merely to promote production or to create
guilds for friendly intercourse between persons engaged in a common
pursuit, it is beneficial, but such is not the object of the great
combinations in the United States. They are organized to prevent
competition and to advance prices and profits. Usually the capital
of several corporations, often of different states, is combined
into a single corporation, and sometimes this is placed under the
control of one man. The power of this combination is used to
prevent and destroy all competition, and in many cases this has
been successful, which has resulted in enormous fortunes and
sometimes a large advance in prices to the consumer. This law may
not be sufficient to control and prevent such combinations, but,
if not, the evil produced by them will lead to effective legislation.
I know of no object of greater importance to the people. I hope
the courts of the United States and of the several states, will
deal with these combinations so as to prevent and destroy them.
On the 13th of May, 1890, I was drawn into a casual debate with
Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana, which extended to others, on the relations
of the north and south, or, rather, between Union and Confederate
soldiers. The subject before the Senate was a bill to aid the
illiterate in obtaining a common school education. The chief
benefit of the measure would have inured to the south, especially
to the negroes of the south. Mr. Eustis complained of the 15th
amendment to the constitution. I explained to him that this
amendment would never have been adopted but for the action of the
south in depriving the enfranchised voter, not only of his rights
of citizenship, but of the ordinary rights of humanity. I gave
the history of the reconstruction acts, the first of which was
framed by a committee of which I was chairman. It was based upon
the restoration of the southern states to all the rights and
privileges they enjoyed before the war, subject to such changes as
were made necessary by the abolition of slavery as the result of
the war. There was then no feeling of hostility to the people of
the south. I had heard at that time no expression of opinion except
of kindness to them. There was a universal appreciation of the
fact that while they were wrong--radically wrong, as we thought,
in waging a useless and bloody war against the Union of this country
--yet they were honest in their convictions, they believed the
doctrines they fought for were the doctrines of the constitution,
and there was, therefore, a spirit of generosity, of forbearance,
of kindness, to these people, and everything they could ask for in
reason would have been granted to them.
It was not then contemplated to arm the negroes with suffrage. A
few, and but a few, Senators made such a proposition, but it was
scouted and laid aside. It was at this time that the Ku-Klux crimes
and violence broke out, and the laws of the southern states were
so cruel, so unjust, so wrong in our view of the rights of the
colored people, and of white Republicans as well, that the people
of the north resented this injustice. These laws burned like coals
of fire in the northern breast. This led to the reconstruction
acts, and the adoption of the 15th amendment. The 14th amendment
was the act of the conservative Senators and Members, such as
Fessenden, Trumbull and Doolittle. The 15th amendment was the
natural result of cruelty and outrage in the south. This amendment
has been practically nullified by the conservatives of the north,
and now the people of the south have increased political power by
reason of the abolition of slavery, while, backed by public opinion
in the south, they deprive the colored people, by whom they gained
this power, of their political rights, and that by processes that
are denounced as criminal by every free state. Time, no doubt,
will correct this evil. If justice is done to the negroes they
will advance in intelligence with the improvement of their condition,
and with the benefit of their labor the south will become more
prosperous by the diversity of employments. There is reason to
believe that in a brief period the south will engage in manufactures
and become more prosperous than in the days of slavery.
On the 20th of May, the death of William D. Kelley was announced
in the Senate. He entered the House of Representatives as I left
it to take my seat in the Senate, but our frequent meetings in the
consideration of bills of a financial character led to a friendship
which was unbroken, and which imposed on me the duty of responding
to the usual resolutions presented on the death of a Member. When
Mr. Kelley entered the House as a Member from the city of Philadelphia,
he had arrived at the mature age of forty-six, and had an established
reputation for ability, industry, and fidelity to duty. He had
been trained in the school of poverty, making his own way in the
world, gathering knowledge by the wayside. He labored for several
years at his trade as a mechanic, but, prompted by a restless thirst
for knowledge, studied law, and for several years practiced the
legal profession. In due time he became a judge and served as such
for ten years, so that when he entered public life as a Member of
the House he was a trained lawyer, with strong convictions upon
economic questions, and bold and earnest on all the stern issues
of the Civil War.
The creed to which he devoted himself consisted of but three
articles: That the Union must be preserved at all hazards, that
the national government should exercise its exclusive power to
provide money for the people of the United States, and that the
laborer of our country should be protected in his industry from
undue competition. To the establishment of each of these theories
as the public policy of the country he contributed his full measure
of effort and success. By instinct he was opposed to slavery.
All his early struggles and his innate perceptions of the rights
of man made him an enemy to all forms of oppression. Still, he
would have respected the right of each state to deal with this
question, but when it became manifest that slavery was the real
cause of the attempt at secession, he was among the first and
foremost to demand that it should be abolished. But especially as
the recognized leader in the support of protection to American
industry he exercised commanding influence and authority.
Whatever opinions might be honestly entertained by others as to
the nature and extent of this protection, Judge Kelley had no doubt,
but impartially and freely extended it to every industry, without
regard to its nature, or the section in which it was pursued. On
all economic questions he had accurate knowledge of details. His
patient industry enabled him to master every shade and side of such
a question, and especially so as to the policy of protection by
discriminating duties. On other matters he was a follower, but in
this always a leader. His writings and speeches upon this and
kindred questions constitute a storehouse of information, and
furnish the best evidence of his industry and ability.
From the time he entered public life until the hour of his death
he commanded the full confidence of his people. No fluctuation of
opinion, no personal rivalries, no contests for patronage or office,
could weaken their confidence in his integrity and justice. These
obstructions in the paths of public men, often fatal, did not affect
him. For thirty years he was the chosen Representative of one
constituency, in our country an unexampled event. In the House of
Representatives, famous for its sudden changes, he was for many
years "the father of the House," and no doubt, if his life had been
prolonged to the extreme period allotted to man, his seat in the
House would have been safe for him.
On the 8th of July a similar announcement was made of the death of
Samuel S. Cox, late a Representative of the city of New York. He
had been a Member of Congress from Ohio before the Civil War, and
shared in the exciting and dangerous scenes in Congress at that
time, and I felt it became my duty, as one of the few surviving
actors in those events, to pay a just tribute to the qualities of
head and heart that made him and kept him a leader among the public
men of our country for a period of more than thirty-three years,
longer than the average life of a generation. This duty was the
more imperative upon me as he was a native of Ohio, for forty years
a resident, and for eight years a Representative in Congress from
that state, honored and respected by all of whatever party or creed,
and beloved by his associates as but few in political life can hope
to be.
I could also speak of him from a longer personal acquaintance than
anyone in either House, for I had known him or his kindred from
almost the days of my boyhood. We were born in neighboring counties,
he one year later than I. My father and his were associated as
judge and clerk of the supreme court of Ohio. I knew of him as
early as 1853, as the editor of the "Ohio Statesman," a Democratic
paper published at Columbus, the organ of that party in Ohio, but
my personal acquaintance and association with him commenced with
his election, in 1856, as a Member of the House of Representatives.
While Mr. Cox was a successful leader in political life, and rendered
his party due fealty on purely political questions, he was not
always in harmony with the majority of his party. In his first
speech in Congress, which was the first one made in the new hall
of the House of Representatives, an opportunity carefully chosen
by him with the skill of an actor, he took ground against the
Lecompton constitution, strongly recommended by Mr. Buchanan's
administration. He supported several measures during the war not
approved by his political associates. He spoke in favor of the
amendment abolishing slavery, though he did not vote for it. By
instinct, education and association, especially by family ties, he
was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character
he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat,
and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider
this a fault, but a virtue.
We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body
of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these
we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all
such matters Mr. Cox was always on the humanitarian side. He has
linked his name in honorable association with many humane, kindly,
and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life-
saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took
an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war.
He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of
Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter
carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions
to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed
on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy,
charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the
unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness
bestowed is never lost, then Mr. Cox has left an inheritance to
thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.
Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner.
Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the
pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from
sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was
ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without
an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political
debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation.
In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old
times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and
he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He
had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie
of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities
of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection
and constant help to each other.
He was fond of travel, and wrote several books descriptive of scenes
and incidents of his journeys. He also wrote historical works.
He entered, as an author, a lecturer, and a speaker, many fields
of research, and in all sustained his reputation as a brilliant
writer and speaker, always interesting and often eloquent, a close
student who fully mastered his subject, and withal a man of generous
impulses, kind and cheerful nature, a true friend, and a faithful
public servant. This all can be said truly and without exaggeration
of Mr. Cox. He did not contemplate death when I saw him last.
His untimely death was the first news I received on my arrival in
New York from a journey abroad. I am told that he met the common
fate of all with patient confidence and an assured hope and belief
in the doctrines of the Christian faith and the promise of future
life.
It is fortunate that man cannot know the future, and especially
that future beyond human life. Socrates, when condemned to death,
consoled himself with the inconceivable happiness in a future state
when he would converse and associate with and question the mighty
array of heroes, patriots, and sages who had preceded him. He said
to his judges, "It is now time to depart--for me to die, for you
to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to
everyone but God." We cannot lift the veil, but may we not share
the hope of the wisest of men that our farewell to associates who
go before us is but a brief parting for a better life?
I have been frequently assailed for my part in the passage, in the
spring of 1864, of a law to encourage immigration. In reporting
this bill from the committee on finance, on the 18th of February
of that year, I said:
"The special wants for labor in this country at the present time
are very great. The war has depleted our workshops, and materially
lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and
mechanism. In their noble response to the call of their country,
our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies
which must be filled, or the material interest of the country must
suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war
calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the
deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than
at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and
promising.
"The south, having torn down the fabric of its labor system by its
own hands, will, when the war shall have ceased, present a wide
field for voluntary white labor, and it must look to immigration
for its supply.
"The following may be mentioned as the special inducements to
immigration:
"First. High price of labor and low price of food compared with
other countries.
"Second. Our land policy, giving to every immigrant, after he
shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen, a home and
a farm substantially as a free gift, charging him less for 160
acres in fee-simple than is paid as the annual rent of a single
acre in England.
"Third. The political rights conferred upon persons of foreign
birth.
"Fourth. Our system of free schools, melting in a common crucible
all differences of religion, language, and race, and giving to the
child of the day laborer and the son of the millionaire equal
opportunities to excel in the pursuit and acquirement of knowledge.
This is an advantage and a blessing which the poor man enjoys in
no other country."
The committee rejected several plans to aid immigration, and closed
its report as follows:
"Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration
the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate
in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration
to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions
now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the
like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York
to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor
and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished
without great expenditure, and without changing the relation
heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.
"With this view your committee report the following bill and
recommend its passage."
When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict
alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring
to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since
that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries
had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it,
and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that
would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way
whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into
our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who
were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the
correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the
extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share
our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did
so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all
conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and
regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and
toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood
should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into
American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense
of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection
of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American
citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.
The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what
is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as
much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the
committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation
as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888,
the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill
was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work
was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful
examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as "the
Senate bill" to distinguish it from the "Mills bill," for which it
was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate
on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on
finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had
considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the
committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.
It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate
on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the
Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and
the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference,
of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of
conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying,
as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff
taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to
the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member
of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated
in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this
bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace
with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as
far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment
upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.
My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions
of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and
Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the
conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the
bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language
of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken
from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session.
The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time
to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the
relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue
required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under
any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may
be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining
their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff
for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff
for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects
or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is
not subject to the tariff tax.
The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of _sections_, or,
as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The
Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The
Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only;
but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing
a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his
"deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional
organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment
of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States
have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population,
according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for
less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri,
commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen
Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less
than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives
these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation.
The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000
inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided.
It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New
England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from
the date of its passage.
I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff
legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I
said:
"A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since
1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the
people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I
always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as
the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of
that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was
wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave
satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and
from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has
been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the
subject of political debate before the people of the United States
in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least
two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff,
until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and
the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to
bring before the people of the United States their rival theories
as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was
very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production.
It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was
called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House,
and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at
once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms
of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the
choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was
submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed
their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.
"Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them
very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic
party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say,
with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended
solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government.
On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do
something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should
so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield
us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government,
but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and
diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered
into the presidential contest.
"Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party
carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the
popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the
government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the
Democratic ideas.
"What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the
Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as
to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us,
and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before
us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does
not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of
ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United
States or to any Member of Congress.
"There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first,
that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify
American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be
started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a
reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to
establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country.
It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as
our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson
and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times
were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated
it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It
has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea,
to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign
productions. As this tax does not apply to home production,
therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign
goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax
ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a
chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the
investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this
country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule,
and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think
liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a
larger market."
I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of
the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation
between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof
of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the
tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without
sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and
caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for
the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial
system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.
The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of
September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved
by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress
adjourned.
Many other measures of importance were considered during this long
session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to
them.
When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H.
Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister
in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and,
though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the
marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved
the kindly manners that gave him the name of "Gentleman George."
He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired
in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died
on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to
his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery.
I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which
I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect
and affection for him:
"U. S. Senate, }
"Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.}
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral of
Mr. Pendleton, has been received.
"Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral
ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express
my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no
one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly,
and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have
engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides,
while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still
hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome
journey.
"Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to
telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered
to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform
the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations
in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A
brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of
Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.
"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."
On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven
years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a
distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice
President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to
dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed
by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone
of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good
health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given
by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters
of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing
each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that
I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political
opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.
Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and
entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for
secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest
was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first
speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October.
It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of
Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great
parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law,
the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff
law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while
reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American
industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently,
speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest
meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music
Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke
together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for
the number and enthusiasm of those present.
During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting
at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief
interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to
which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:
"While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of
Pittsburg wanted to hear me for--why they should invite a Buckeye
from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city
of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that
grand party commenced its series of achievements which have
distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in
ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of
the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States
greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political
organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence
which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors
organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the
extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in
1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the
union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance
for your children and your children's children. In 1876 the object
of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in
our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver
coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as
in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy
the taxes to support the national government? That is the question
that is to be discussed mainly to-night."
The mention of the McKinley tariff law was received with immense
applause and cheers. Continuing, I said:
"That bill is very well named. It is named after Wm. McKinley, a
kind of Pennsylvania-Ohio Dutchman, with a little Scotch-Irish
mixed in him, too--a brilliant neighbor of mine, whom, I am told,
you have had the pleasure of hearing. It is true that this bill
was made up largely of what was called the Senate bill of the year
before, and new lines had contributed toward the formation of that
bill; but it was properly named after Mr. McKinley because of his
indomitable pluck, his ability, his energy.
"It was pushed through the House after great opposition, because
the Democrats, as usual, opposed that, as they opposed everything
else."
The election in Ohio resulted in Republican success, Daniel J.
Ryan, the head of the ticket, being elected secretary of state by
about 11,000 majority.
Shortly after the election I was in the city of New York, and was
there interviewed. I was reported to have said:
"The Republican defeats do not bother me at all, I have seen many
such revulsions before and we get around all right again. It does
us good, we become more active and careful. It will be all right.
"I will cite an instance in my own state, Ohio. Last year we lost
our governor, this year we carry the state by a splendid majority.
The Democrats fixed up the congressional districts so we would get
six Congressmen only, but we got eight."
"What of Major McKinley's election to Congress?"
"Major McKinley is, I fear, defeated, though when I left Ohio it
was thought that he had succeeded by a small majority. If he should
have run in his old district his majority would have been 3,500 or
4,000 against 2,000 received by him two years ago. But they placed
him in a district of three Democratic counties and only one Republican
county, in which the Democratic majority is upward of 2,000. It
looks now as if he is defeated by about 130 votes. It simply means
that the major will be the next Governor of Ohio. He made a splendid
canvass and a magnificent run, and defeat is not the proper name
for the result. Mr. McKinley told me before the election that he
did not expect to succeed with such odds against him.
"As to the general result of the congressional elections, I have
seen such convulsions a dozen times or more, but they have had no
permanent effect. In 1878, when I was Secretary of the Treasury,
we lost the House and Senate both, but two years later, in 1880,
we rallied and recovered all that we had lost and elected a Republican
President besides. I do not regard the present situation with
apprehension. The country will be wiser by next year and better
able to pass upon the issues."
The second session of the 51st Congress met on the 1st of December,
1890. The annual message of the President dealt with the usual
topics. The surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890,
including the amount applied to the sinking fund, was $105,344,496.
In referring to the act "directing the purchase of silver bullion
and the issue of treasury notes thereon," approved July 14, 1890,
the President said:
"It has been administered by the Secretary of the Treasury with an
earnest purpose to get into circulation, at the earliest possible
dates, the full monthly amount of treasury notes contemplated by
its provisions, and at the same time to give to the market for
silver bullion such support as the law contemplates. The recent
depression in the price of silver has been observed with regret.
The rapid rise in price which anticipated and followed the passage
of this act was influenced in some degree by speculation, and the
recent reaction is in part the result of the same cause and in part
of the recent monetary disturbances. Some months of further trial
will be necessary to determine the permanent effect of the recent
legislation upon silver values, but it is gratifying to know that
the increased circulation secured by the act has exerted, and will
continue to exert, a most beneficial influence upon business and
upon general values."
On the 18th of December I reported, from the committee on finance,
a bill to provide against the contraction of the currency, and for
other purposes. This bill embodied several financial bills on the
calendar which had been reported by the committee, and it was deemed
best to include them in a single measure. The bill was recommitted
and again reported by me on the 23rd of December, when Mr. Stewart
gave notice of and had read an amendment he intended to offer
providing for the free coinage of silver.
On January 5, 1891, at the expiration of the morning hour, Mr.
Stewart moved to proceed to the consideration of this bill. By a
combination of seven Republican with the Democratic Senators the
motion was carried, thus displacing the regular order of business,
which was a bill relating to the election of Members of Congress,
and which had been under discussion for several days.
Mr. Stewart than offered, as an amendment to the amendment of the
committee, then pending, the following provision:
"That any owner of silver bullion, not too base for the operations
of the mint, may deposit the same in amount of the value of not
less than $100, at any mint of the United States, to be formed into
standard dollars or bars, for his benefit and without charge, and
that, at the said owner's option, he may receive therefor an
equivalent of such standard dollars in treasury notes of the same
form and description, and having the same legal qualities, as the
notes provided for by the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled,
'An act directing the purchase of silver bullion, and the issue of
treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.' And all such
treasury notes issued under the provisions of this act shall be a
legal tender for their nominal amount in payment of all debts,
public and private, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes,
and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued in the
same manner, and to the same extent, as other treasury notes."
This being an amendment to an amendment, no further modification
or change could be made to the bill until it was disposed of. Mr.
Stewart made some remarks, and in conclusion said:
"I do not intend further to comment, at this time, on the amendment
to the bill which I have offered. If it shall be adopted, then
there are other portions of the bill which can be stricken out.
The amendment I have offered presents the question naked and simple.
Will you remonetize silver and place it back where it was before
it was excluded from the mints of the United States and Europe?"
I was taken by surprise at the sudden presentation of the question,
but promptly took the floor and said:
"The sudden and unexpected change of the scene, the introduction
of an entirely new topic into our debate, must not pass by without
the serious and sober attention of every Senator on the floor to
the revolutionary measure now proposed. I do not wish to, nor will
I, nor can I, regard this as a political question, because we know
that the local interests of a certain portion of our number--and
I do not object to Senators representing the interest of their
constituents--lead them to opinions different from the opinions of
Senators from the larger states containing the great mass of the
population of this country, not only in the north, but in the south;
and therefore, while the Republican party may be weakened by the
unexpected defection of a certain portion of our number who agree
with us in political opinions generally, yet that will not relieve
the minority in this body, our Democratic associates, from the
sober responsibility which they will assume in aiding in the adoption
of this measure. At the very outset of this discussion I appealed
to the sober judgment of Senators to consider the responsibility
which they take in adopting what I regard as a revolution more full
of injury, more dangerous in its character, and more destructive
in its results, than any measure which has been proposed for years.
"Now, what is this question? The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart],
representing a state whose chief production is silver, offers an
amendment to change entirely the standard of valuation of all the
property of the United States. At present all contracts are founded
upon what is called the gold standard. Every particle of property
we enjoy, every obligation of contract, whether by the national
government or by each individual, is now based in actual fact upon
the gold standard of 25.8 grains. That is the standard of all the
commercial nations of the world. It is the standard of France,
which, like ourselves, has used silver to a large extent. It is
the standard of value of France and every country of Europe."
I then, at considerable length, stated the objections to the free
coinage of silver and the revolution it would create in the financial
condition of the country. This led to a long debate, participated
in by many Senators. On the 13th of January I made a long and
carefully considered speech, extending through fourteen pages of
the "Record," in which I entered into detail in reply to the speeches
that had been made, and stated the objections to the free coinage
of silver. It is too long to insert even an abstract of it here.
I have carefully read this speech and refer to it as the first of
three speeches, the second being delivered on the 30th of June,
1892, and the third on August 30, 1893, as the best presentation
I have ever made of the question involved, and as containing all
the material facts bearing upon the question of free coinage and
the folly of its adoption.
It was manifest that the combination that had been made intended
to force the adoption of the amendment. The vote on it was taken
on the 14th of January and the result was yeas 42 and nays 30.
Nearly all the Senators from the western group of states, though
Republicans, voted for the amendment in favor of free coinage.
Only four voted against it. So the amendment of Mr. Stewart was
agreed to. The bill was further discussed and changed to conform
to the amendment and finally passed the Senate by the vote of yeas
39, nays 27, but failed to pass the House.
Thus the debate and the adoption by the Senate of free coinage
defeated all financial legislation during that session.
CHAPTER LVIII.
EFFORTS TO CONSTRUCT THE NICARAGUAN CANAL.
Early Recognition of the Need of a Canal Across the Isthmus
Connecting North and South America--M. de Lesseps Attempts to Build
a Water Way at Panama--Feasability of a Route by Lake Nicaragua--
First Attempts in 1825 to Secure Aid from Congress--The Clayton-
Bulwer Convention of 1850--Hindrance to the Work Caused by This
Treaty--Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1891--
Failure to Secure a Treaty Between the United States and Nicaragua
in 1884--Cleveland's Reasons for Withdrawing This Treaty--Incorporation
of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua--Inevitable Failure of
Their Attempts Unless Aided by the Government--Why We Should Purchase
Outright the Concessions of the Maritime Company--Brief Description
of the Proposed Canal--My Last Letter from General Sherman--His
Death from Pneumonia After a Few Days' Illness--Messages of President
Harrison--Resolution--My Commemorative Address Delivered Before
the Loyal Legion.
One of the most important subjects considered by the Senate within
the last ten years, to which I have given special attention, is
the construction of a ship canal across Central America. The
American continents, stretching from the polar regions of the north
to the Straits of Magellan, south of the 50th parallel of south
latitude, present a barrier to navigation from the east to the
west, to overcome which has been the anxious desire of mankind ever
since the discovery of America by Columbus. It was the object of
his memorable voyage to find a water way from Spain to China and
India. While his discovery was an event of the greatest importance,
yet it was a disappointment to him, and in all his subsequent
voyages he sought to find a way through the newly-found land to
the Indian Ocean. The spirit of enterprise that was aroused by
his reports led many adventurers to explore the new world, and
before many years the peculiar formation of the long strip of land
connecting North and South America was clearly defined. The
Spaniards conquered Mexico and Peru, and at this early period
conceived the idea of a canal across the isthmus, but the obstruction
could not be overcome by the engineering of that day. The region
of Central America was soon occupied by Spain, and was divided into
many colonies, which, in process of time, became independent of
Spain, and of each other.
During the four centuries that have elapsed since the discovery,
the construction of a canal across the isthmus has been kept in
view, and by common consent the routes at Panama and through Lake
Nicaragua have been regarded as the best. That at Panama is the
shortest, but is impracticable, as was shown by the abortive attempt
of M. de Lesseps. The route by Lake Nicaragua was early regarded
by the American people as the only adequate, efficient and practicable
passage. Though burdened with the delays of lockage, it is more
practical, less costly, and more useful than the one at Panama
would have been, and will accomplish the same object. When, in
1825, the independence of the republic of Nicaragua was secured,
that government appealed to the United States for assistance in
executing the work of a canal by that route. Mr. Clay, then
Secretary of State, took an active interest in the subject, and
said, in a letter to the commissioners of the United States to the
congress of Panama:
"A canal for navigation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
should form a proper subject of consideration at the congress.
The vast object, if it should ever be accomplished, will be
interesting in a greater or less degree to all parts of the world;
but especially to this continent will accrue its greatest benefits;
and to Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru, and the United
States, more than any other of the American nations."
No action was taken, as the discordant interests of the several
Central American states prevented. When California was acquired
as the result of the Mexican War, and gold was discovered in its
soil, the necessity for some means of speedy transit from the
Atlantic to the Pacific coast became imperative. The route by
Panama, being the shortest line across the isthmus, was naturally
taken by the eager gold seekers and a railroad was soon after
constructed over this route. The movement of travel and transportation
across the isthmus tempted M. de Lesseps and his associates to
undertake the task of constructing a canal, with the result already
stated.
Prior to 1850 the movements of the British government to seize the
country at the mouth of the San Juan River in Nicaragua, with the
evident view of controlling the construction of a canal by way of
Lake Nicaragua, excited in this country the deepest interest and
apprehension. This led to the Clayton-Bulwer convention of 1850,
by which the United States and Great Britain stipulated that neither
of the governments "will ever obtain for itself any exclusive
control over the canal or colonize or assume or exercise any domain
over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of
Central America."
It provided for the exertion of the influence of the two governments
in facilitating the construction of the work by every means in
their power, and that after completion they would defend its
neutrality, with the privilege of withdrawing such guaranty on
notice. It also provided for inviting other governments to come
into the same arrangement, and that each party should enter into
treaty stipulations with such of the Central American states as
might be deemed advisable for carrying out the great design of the
convention. It declared that no time should be unnecessarily lost
in commencing and constructing the canal, and, therefore, that the
two governments would give their support and encouragement to such
persons as might first offer to commence the same with the necessary
capital, and that, if any persons then already had obtained the
right to build it from the Central American government and should
fail, each of the two governments should be free to afford its
protection to any other company that should be prepared to proceed
with the work.
This treaty has given rise to much discussion, and has ever since
been a hindrance to the great work it proposed to advance. The
British government has repeatedly violated the treaty by extending
its possessions and strengthening its influence in that part of
the world. The report made by me, as chairman of the committee on
foreign relations, on the 10th of January, 1891, in response to a
resolution of the Senate, contains a full statement of the results
of that treaty. As this report has been widely circulated and was
considered an important document, it is but just for me to say
that, while I presented it, two other members of the committee
participated in its preparation. The first part, relating to
negotiations, was written by Senator Edmunds; the second part,
relating to the then condition of the work on the Nicaragua Canal
and its value, tonnage and business, by Senator Morgan; and the
residue, in respect to the financial aspect of the subject, the
cost of the work proposed and the aid that should be given by the
United States in its construction, by me. The framing of a bill
to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee was the
work of the full committee. I do not think it necessary to restate
here the position of the committee, as no definite action has been
taken by Congress on the bill reported. The report was signed by
each member of the committee, as follows: John Sherman, Chairman,
Geo. F. Edmunds, Wm. P. Frye, Wm. M. Evarts, J. N. Dolph, John T.
Morgan, Joseph E. Brown, H. B. Payne, J. B. Eustis.
There are, however, questions connected with this subject which
are of vital interest to the United States, and not presented in
that report. By the treaty negotiated in 1884, between the United
States and Nicaragua, the canal was to be built by the United
States. This treaty was sent to the Senate on December 10, 1884,
by President Arthur, who, in strong and earnest language, recommended
its ratification. It had been frequently debated, but was still
pending in the Senate when Mr. Cleveland became President. I do
not feel at liberty to state the causes of delay, nor the ground
taken, nor the votes given either for or against it, as the injunction
of secrecy in respect to it has not been removed, but I have regarded
as a misfortune its practical defeat by the want of a two-thirds
vote, required by the constitution to ratify a treaty. The terms
granted in it by Nicaragua were liberal in the broadest sense.
The complete control of the canal and its appurtenances, and the
manner of its construction, were invested in the United States.
The conditions proposed would have made it an international work
of great importance to all commercial nations, while ample authority
was reserved on the part of the United States to protect its
investment with tolls sufficient to pay the interest and refund
the principal.
At the called session of March, 1885, Mr. Cleveland withdrew the
treaty, not from opposition to its general purposes, but because,
as he stated in his annual message in December, 1885, it was "coupled
with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial
integrity of the states where such interests lie." He held that
this clause was an "entangling alliance inconsistent with the
declared policy of the United States." This objection to the treaty
could have been easily removed by negotiation, as Mr. Bayard, a
Member of the Senate when the treaty was pending, and Secretary of
State under President Cleveland, very well knew. Thus, by an
unfortunate division in the Senate and the action of the President,
the construction of the canal by the United States was prevented.
Subsequently, in 1887, concessions were made by Nicaragua and Costa
Rica to a private association of citizens of the United States,
which led to the incorporation, by Congress, of the Maritime Canal
Company of Nicaragua.
The interposition of a private corporation between the United States
and Nicaragua has created all the delays and embarrassments that
have followed. Such a corporation can obtain money only be selling
its bonds bearing a high rate of interest, secured by a mortgage
of all its property and concessions, and its stock must accompany
the bonds. Experience has shown that such a work cannot be executed,
especially on foreign soil, without the support and aid of a powerful
government. If such aid is rendered it must be to the full cost
of the work, and all the benefits should inure to the people and
not to the corporation or its stockholders. The experience of the
United States in the construction of the Pacific railroads is an
example of the inevitable result of copartnership. The attempt of
the Maritime Company to construct such a work as the Nicaraguan
canal without the aid of the government will end either in failure
or at a cost, in bonds and stock, the interest of which would be
so great that the cost of the transit of vessels through the canal
would deter their owners from using it, and goods would be, as now,
transferred by rail to and from Panama.
The method of aiding the Maritime Canal Company proposed in the
bill reported by me, and again recently by Senator Morgan, is as
good as any that can be devised, but I greatly prefer the direct
and absolute purchase of the concessions of that company, and the
negotiation of new treaties with Nicaragua and Costa Rica upon the
basis of the former treaty, and the execution of the work under
the supervision of the engineer corps of the United States in the
same manner that internal improvements are made in this country.
The credit of the United States will secure a loan at the lowest
possible rate of interest, and with money thus obtained, and with
the confidence of contractors that they will receive their pay for
work done, the cost will be reduced to the actual sum needed. It
is the interest of the commercial world as well as of the United
States that the tolls charged on the passage of vessels should be
as low as possible, and this will be secured by the construction
of the work by the government.
If the present owners of the concessions from Nicaragua and Costa
Rica will not accept a reasonable price for their privileges and
for the work done, to be fixed by an impartial tribunal, it is
better for the United States to withdraw any offer of aid; but if
they will accept such an award the United States should take up
the work and realize the dream and hopes of Columbus. At present
the delay of action by Congress grows out of the fact that no
detailed scientific survey of the route has been made by the engineer
corps of the United States. The only approach to such a survey
was the one made by A. G. Menocal, an accomplished civil engineer
of the navy, but it was felt that this was not sufficient to justify
the United States in undertaking so great and expensive a work.
In accordance with this feeling the 53rd Congress directed the
Secretary of War to cause a thorough survey to be made and to submit
a full report to the next Congress, to convene December 2, 1895.
This survey is now in progress and will no doubt largely influence
the future action of Congress.
A brief description of the canal proposed may be of interest to
those who have not studied the geography and topography of its
site, though it is difficult to convey by writing and without maps
an adequate conception of the work. It is apparent, according to
Menocal's surveys, that the physical difficulties to be overcome
are not greater than those of works of improvement undertaken within
our own country, for the highest part of the water way is to be
only 110 feet above the two oceans--a less altitude than that of
the base of the hills which surround the city of Washington. The
works proposed include a system of locks, similar in character to
the one built by the United States at the falls of Sault Ste. Marie
and to those constructed by Canada around the falls of Niagara.
A single dam across the San Juan River, 1,250 feet long and averaging
61 feet high, between two steep hills, will insure navigable water,
of sufficient depth and width for the commerce of the world, to a
length of 120 miles. The approaches to this level, though expensive,
are not different from similar works, and will be singularly
sheltered from floods and storms. Of the distance of 169.4 miles
from ocean to ocean, 142.6 miles are to be accomplished by slack-
water navigation in lake, river, and basins, and only 26.8 miles
by excavated canal. The greatest altitude of the ridge which
divides Lake Nicaragua from the Pacific Ocean does not exceed, at
any point, 42 feet above the lake.
Perhaps the chief engineering difficulty is in the construction of
harbors at the Pacific and Atlantic termini of the canal, but that
at Greytown, on the Atlantic coast, which is considered the most
formidable, has already been partially built. The obstacles are
not to be compared with those encountered in the attempted construction
of the Panama canal, or with those which were easily overcome in
the construction of the Suez Canal; and the whole work, from ocean
to ocean, is free from the dangers of moving sand and destroying
freshets. Lake Nicaragua itself is one of the most remarkable
physical features of the world. It fills a cavity in the midst of
a broken chain of mountains, whose height is reduced, at this point,
nearly to the level of the sea, and it furnishes not only the means
of navigation at a low altitude, but enormous advantages as a safe
harbor.
If the survey ordered and now (1895) being made should confirm the
reports of Menocal there is no reason why the United States should
not assume and execute this great work without ultimate loss, and
with enormous benefit to the commerce of the world. It will be a
monument to our republic and will tend to widen its influence with
all the nations of Central and South America.
The last letter I received from General Sherman was as follows:
"No. 75 West 71st Street, New York,}
"Tuesday, February 3, 1891. }
"Dear Brother:--I am drifting along in the old rut--in good strength,
attending about four dinners out per week at public or private
houses, and generally wind up for gossip at the Union League club.
Last night, discussing the effect of Mr. Windom's death and funeral,
several prominent gentlemen remarked that Windom's fine speech just
preceding his death was in line with yours on the silver question
in the Senate, and also with a carefully prepared interview of you
by George Alfred Townsend which I had not seen. I have ordered of
my book man the New York 'Sun' of Sunday, February 1st, which
contains the interview.
"You sent me a copy of your speech in pamphlet form which was begged
of me, and as others naturally apply for copies, I wish you would
have your secretary send me a dozen, that I may distribute them.
"All well here and send love.
"Your brother,
"W. T. Sherman."
Soon after the receipt of this letter I was notified of the dangerous
illness of my brother at his residence in the city of New York.
I at once went to his bedside, and remained with him until his
death, at two o'clock of Saturday, the 14th of February. In his
later years, after his removal to New York, he entered into the
social life of that city. He was in demand at weddings, dinners,
parties, reunions of soldiers, and public meetings, where his genial
nature and ready tact, his fund of information and happy facility
of expression, made him a universal favorite. He was temperate in
his eating and drinking, but fond of companionship, and always
happy when he had his old friends and comrades about him. He
enjoyed the society of ladies, and did not like to refuse their
invitations to social gatherings. In conversation with men or
women, old or young, he was always interesting. He was often warned
that at three score and ten he could not endure the excitement of
such a life, and he repeatedly promised to limit his engagements.
Early in February he exposed himself to the inclement weather of
that season, and contracted a cold which led to pneumonia, and in
a few days to death. He was perfectly conscious of his condition
and probable fate, but had lost the power of speech and could only
communicate his wishes by signs. His children were with him, and
hundreds daily inquired about him at his door; among them were
soldiers and widows whom he had aided.
During the last hours of General Sherman, his family, who had been
bred in the Catholic faith, called in a Catholic priest to administer
extreme unction according to the ritual of that church. The New
York "Times," of the date of February 13, made a very uncharitable
allusion to this and intimated that it was done surreptitiously,
without my knowledge. This was not true but the statement deeply
wounded the feelings of his children. I promptly sent to the
"Times" the following letter, which was published and received with
general satisfaction:
"A paragraph in your paper this morning gives a very erroneous view
of an incident in General Sherman's sick chamber, which wounds the
sensitive feelings of his children, now in deep distress, which,
under the circumstances, I deem it proper to correct. Your reporter
intimates that advantage was taken of my temporary absence to
introduce a Catholic priest into General Sherman's chamber to
administer the rite of extreme unction to the sick man, in the
nature of a claim that he was a Catholic. It is well known that
his children have been reared by their mother, a devoted Catholic,
in her faith, and now cling to it. It is equally well known that
General Sherman and myself, as well as all my mother's children,
are, by inheritance, education, and connection, Christians, but
not Catholics, and this has been openly avowed, on all proper
occasions, by General Sherman; but he is too good a Christian, and
too humane a man, to deny to his children the consolation of their
religion. He was insensible at the time and apparently at the
verge of death, but if he had been well and in the full exercise
of his faculties, he would not have denied to them the consolation
of the prayers and religious observances for their father of any
class or denomination of Christian priests or preachers. Certainly,
if I had been present, I would, at the request of the family, have
assented to and reverently shared in an appeal to the Almighty for
the life here and hereafter of my brother, whether called a prayer
or extreme unction, and whether uttered by a priest or a preacher,
or any other good man who believed what he spoke and had an honest
faith in his creed.
"I hear that your reporter uttered a threat to obtain information
which I cannot believe you would for a moment tolerate. We all
need charity for our frailties, but I can feel none for anyone who
would wound those already in distress."
President Harrison announced General Sherman's death to both Houses
of Congress in the following words:
"_To the Senate and House of Representatives:_ The death of William
Tecumseh Sherman, which took place to-day at his residence in the
city of New York, at 1 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m., is an event
that will bring sorrow to the heart of every patriotic citizen.
No living American was so loved and venerated as he. To look upon
his face, to hear his name, was to have one's love of country
intensified. He served his country, not for fame, not out of a
sense of professional duty, but for love of the flag and of the
beneficent civil institutions of which it was the emblem. He was
an ideal soldier, and shared to the fullest the _esprit de corps_
of the army; but he cherished the civil institutions organized
under the constitution, and was a soldier only that these might be
perpetuated in undiminished usefulness and honor. He was in nothing
an imitator.
"A profound student of military science and precedent, he drew from
them principles and suggestions, and so adapted them to novel
conditions that his campaigns will continue to be the profitable
study of the military profession throughout the world. His genial
nature made him comrade to every soldier of the great Union army.
No presence was so welcome and inspiring at the camp-fire or
commandery as his. His career was complete; his honors were full.
He had received from the government the highest rank known to our
military establishment, and from the people unstinted gratitude
and love. No word of mine can add to his fame. His death has
followed in startling quickness that of the Admiral of the Navy;
and it is a sad and notable incident that, when the department
under which he served shall have put on the usual emblems of
mourning, four of the eight executive departments will be simultaneously
draped in black, and one other has but to-day removed the crape
from its walls
"Benj. Harrison.
"Executive Mansion, February 14, 1891."
The following resolutions were offered in the Senate and unanimously
agreed to:
"_Resolved_, That the Senate received with profound sorrow the
announcement of the death of William T. Sherman, late general of
the armies of the United States.
"_Resolved_, That the Senate renews its acknowledgments of the
inestimable services he rendered its country in the day of its
extreme trial, laments the great loss the country has sustained,
and deeply sympathizes with his family in their bereavement.
"_Resolved_, That the presiding officer is requested to appoint a
committee of five Senators to attend the funeral of the late General
Sherman.
"_Resolved_, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the
family of the deceased."
Eloquent and appropriate speeches were made by Senators Hawley,
Manderson, Morgan and Pierce.
In the House of Representatives the message of the President was
referred to the committee on military affairs, for appropriate
action thereon and the following resolutions were reported by Mr.
McCutcheon and adopted:
"_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives has heard with
profound sorrow of the death, at his home in New York City, on the
14th instant, of William Tecumseh Sherman, the last of the generals
of the armies of the United States.
"_Resolved_, That we mourn him as the greatest soldier remaining
to the republic and the last of that illustrious trio of generals
who commanded the armies of the United States--Grant, Sherman, and
Sheridan--who shed imperishable glory upon American arms, and were
the idolized leaders of the Union army.
"_Resolved_, That we hereby record the high appreciation in which
the American people hold the character and services of General
Sherman, as one of the greatest soldiers of his generation, as one
of the grandest patriots that our country has produced, and as a
noble man in the broadest and fullest meaning of the word.
"We mingle our grief with that of the nation, mourning the departure
of her great son, and of the survivors of the battle-scarred veterans
whom he led to victory and peace. We especially tender our sympathy
and condolence to those who are bound to him by the ties of blood
and strong personal affection.
"_Resolved_, That the speaker appoint a committee of nine Members
of the House to attend the funeral of the late general as
representatives of this body.
"_Resolved_, That a copy of these resolution be forwarded by the
clerk of the House to the family of General Sherman."
Eloquent tributes were paid to his memory by Messrs. Cutcheon,
Grosvenor, Outhwaite, Henderson, Cogswell, Vandever, Wheeler and
Williams.
General Sherman had expressed the desire that his body be buried
by the side of his wife in a cemetery in St. Louis. In February,
1890, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, the members of
Ransom Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of which he was the first
commander, sent him many congratulatory letters and telegrams. In
replying to these, among other things he wrote:
"I have again and again been urged to allow my name to be transferred
to the roster of some one of the many reputable posts of the Grand
Army of the Republic in New York, but my invariable answer has been
'no;' that Ransom Post has stood by me since its beginning and I
will stand by it to my end, and then that, in its organized capacity,
it will deposit my poor body in Calvary Cemetery alongside my
faithful wife and idolized 'soldier boy.' My health continues
good, so my comrades of Ransom Post must guard theirs, that they
may be able to fulfill this sacred duty imposed by their first
commander. God bless you all."
I vividly recall the impressive scene in the city of New York when
his body was started on its long journey. The people of the city,
in silence and sadness, filled the sidewalks from 71st to Courtland
street, and watched the funeral train, and a countless multitude
in every city, town and hamlet on the long road to St. Louis
expressed their sorrow and sympathy. His mortal remains were
received with profound respect by the people of that city, among
whom he had lived for many years, and there he was buried by the
side of his wife and the children who had gone before him.
In February, 1892, I was requested, by the New York Commandery of
the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, to deliver an address
commemorative of General Sherman. I did so, on the 6th of April
of that year but, as many of the incidents therein mentioned have
been already stated, I only add a few paragraphs from its close:
"And here I might end, but there are certain traits and characteristics
of General Sherman upon which I can and ought to speak with greater
knowledge and confidence than of his military career. He was
distinguished, first of all, from his early boyhood, for his love
and veneration for, and obedience to, his mother. There never was
a time--since his appointment as a cadet, to her death--that he
did not insist upon sharing with her his modest pay, and gave to
her most respectful homage and duty. It is hardly necessary in
this presence to refer to his devotion to his wife, Ellen Ewing
Sherman. They were born in neighboring households, reared from
childhood in the same family, early attached and pledged to each
other, married when he reached the grade of captain, shared in
affection and respect the joys and sorrows of life, and paid the
last debt to nature within a few months of each other.
"The same affection and care were bestowed upon his children. Many
of his comrades will recall the visit of his wife and his son
Willie, a lad of thirteen, at his camp on the Big Black, after the
surrender of Vicksburg. Poor Willie believed he was a sergeant in
the 13th United States Infantry. He sickened and died at Memphis
on his way home. No one who reads it but will remember the touching
tribute of sorrow his father wrote, a sorrow that was never dimmed,
but was often recalled while life lasted.
"General Sherman always paid the most respectful attention to women
in every rank and condition of life--the widow and the orphan, the
young and the old. While he was often stern and abrupt to men, he
was always kind and gentle to women, and he received from them the
homage they would pay to a brother. His friendship for Grant I
have already alluded to, but it extended in a lesser degree to all
his comrades, especially those of West Point. No good soldier in
his command feared to approach him to demand justice, and everyone
received it if in his power to grant it. He shared with them the
hardships of the march and the camp, and he was content with the
same ration given to them. Simple in his habits, easy of approach,
considerate of their comfort, he was popular with his soldiers,
even while exacting in his discipline. The name of 'Uncle Billy,'
given to him by them, was the highest evidence of their affection.
"He was the most unselfish man I ever knew. He did not seek for
high rank, and often expressed doubts of his fitness for high
command. He became a warm admirer of Abraham Lincoln as the war
progressed, and more than once expressed to him a desire for
subordinate duty. He never asked for promotion, but accepted it
when given. His letters to me are full of urgent requests for the
promotion of officers who rendered distinguished service, but never
for his own. When the bill for the retirement of officers at the
age of sixty-three was pending, he was excepted from its operation.
He telegraphed me, insisting that no exception should be made in
his favor, that General Sheridan should have the promotion and rank
of general, which he had fairly earned. This was granted, but
Congress with great kindness continued to General Sherman the full
pay of a general when he was placed on the retired list.
"In his business relations he was bound by a scrupulous sense of
honor and duty. I never knew of him doing anything which the most
exacting could say was dishonorable, a violation of duty or right.
I could name many instances of this trait, which I will not, but
one or two cases will suffice. When a banker in California, several
of his old army friends, especially from the south, trusted him
with their savings for investment. He invested their money in good
faith in what were considered the very best securities in California,
but when Page, Bacon & Co., and nearly every banker in San Francisco,
failed in 1855, all securities were dishonored, and many of them
became worthless. General Sherman, though not responsible in law
or equity for a loss that common prudence could not foresee, yet
felt that he was 'in honor' bound to secure from loss those who had
confided in him, and used for that purpose all, or nearly all, of
his own savings.
"So, in the settlements of his accounts in Louisiana, when he had
the entire control of expenditures, he took the utmost care to see
that every dollar was accounted for. He resigned on the 18th of
January, and waited until the 23rd of February for that purpose.
The same exact accountability was practiced by him in all accounts
with the United States. In my personal business relations with
him, I found him to be exact and particular to the last degree,
insisting always upon paying fully every debt, and his share of
every expense. I doubt if any man living can truly say that General
Sherman owes him a dollar, while thousands know he was generous in
giving in proportion to his means. He had an extreme horror of
debt and taxes. He looked upon the heavy taxes now in vogue as in
the nature of confiscation, and in some cases sold his land, rapidly
rising in value, because the taxes assessed seemed to him
unreasonable.
"While the war lasted, General Sherman was a soldier intent upon
putting down what he conceived to be a causeless rebellion. He
said that war was barbarism that could not be refined, and the
speediest way to end it was to prosecute it with vigor to complete
success. When this was done, and the Union was saved, he was for
the most liberal terms of conciliation and kindness to the southern
people. All enmities were forgotten; his old friendships were
revived. Never since the close of the war have I heard him utter
words of bitterness against the enemies he fought, nor of the men
in the north who had reviled him.
"To him it was a territorial war; one that could not have been
avoided. Its seeds had been planted in the history of the colonies,
in the constitution itself, and in the irrepressible conflict
between free and slave institutions. It was a war by which the
south gained, by defeat, enormous benefits, and the north, by
success, secured the strength and development of the republic. No
patriotic man of either section would willingly restore the old
conditions. Its benefits are not confined to the United States,
but extend to all the countries of America. Its good influence
will be felt by all the nations of the world, by opening to them
the hope of free institutions. It is one of the great epochs in
the march of time, which, as the years go by, will be, by succeeding
generations of freemen, classed in importance with the discovery
of America and our Revolutionary War. It was the good fortune of
General Sherman to have been a chief actor in this great drama,
and to have lived long enough after its close to have realized and
enjoyed the high estimate of his services by his comrades, by his
countrymen, and by mankind. To me, his brother, it is a higher
pride to know and to say that in all the walks of private life--as
a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a soldier, a comrade, or a
friend--he was an honorable gentleman, without fear and without
reproach."
CHAPTER LIX.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1890-91 IN OHIO.
Public Discussion of My Probable Re-election to the Senate--My
Visit to the Ohio Legislature in April, 1891--Reception at the
Lincoln League Club--Address to the Members--Appointed by the
Republicans as a Delegate to the State Convention at Columbus--Why
My Prepared Speech Was Not Delivered--Attack on Me by the Cincinnati
"Enquirer"--Text of the Address Printed in the "State Journal"--
Beginning of a Canvass with Governor Foraker as a Competitor for
the Senatorship--Attitude of George Cox, a Cincinnati Politician,
Towards Me--Attempt to Form a "Farmers' Alliance" or People's Party
in Ohio--"Seven Financial Conspiracies"--Mrs. Emery's Pamphlet and
My Reply to It.
During the winter of 1890-91 the question of my re-election to the
Senate was the subject of newspaper discussion not only in Ohio,
but in other states. As a rule the leading newspapers in the
eastern states strongly favored my return to the Senate, and much
the larger number of Republican papers in Ohio expressed the same
desire. In the west, wherever the free coinage of silver was
favored, a strong opposition to me was developed. I had not
expressed any wish or intention to be a candidate and turned aside
any attempt to commit me on the subject. I could quote by the
score articles in the public prints of both political parties highly
complimentary to me, but most of these turned upon free coinage of
silver, which I did not regard as a political issue.
After the adjournment of Congress on the 4th of March the Cincinnati
"Enquirer" formally announced, as "upon the assurance of the Senator
himself," that I would not again be a candidate for re-election.
The next day that paper repeated that a well-known Sherman man,
whose name was not given, said: "Your article is correct. Mr.
Sherman is not, nor will he be again, a candidate for the Senate."
Both declarations were without foundation, and I supposed the
intention of the "Enquirer" was to force a contest among Republicans
for the nomination. I paid no attention to these publications,
but they were the basis of comment in the newspapers in Ohio. The
discussion of this question extended to other states, and indicated
the desire of a large majority of the papers, east of the Mississippi
River, that I be re-elected. I insert an extract from a long
article in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean" of the 22nd of March, 1891:
"The most important event looked for in 1892 is that of a successor
to John Sherman in Ohio, and already the matter is being discussed,
as well it might be, and the interest is by no means confined to
that state. John Sherman belongs to the whole country, and it is
no reflection upon the usefulness of any other public man to say
that his retirement to private life would be the greatest strictly
personal loss the nation could now maintain."
I do not care to quote the many kindly opinions expressed of me at
that period.
I returned to Ohio early in April on a brief visit to Mansfield,
and to pay my respects to the general assembly, then in session at
Columbus. At Mansfield I was met by a correspondent of the "Enquirer"
and answered a multitude of questions. Among others I was asked
if I would respond to the call of the members of the Ohio legislature
to meet them at Columbus. I answered: "Yes, I will go to Columbus
on Tuesday next, and from there to Washington, to return here with
my family in May for the summer." He said: "Is there any significance
in this Columbus visit?" I answered: "None whatever so far as I
know." In leaving he said: "Tell me, did your trip here at this
time have any reference to your fences, their building or repair?"
"No," I said, "I came here to build a barn. I am just about to
commence it." He bade me good-bye without saying a word about my
declining or being elected as Senator.
I went to Columbus on the 7th, arriving late in the evening, but
not too late to meet many gentlemen and to give to a correspondent
of the "Commercial Gazette" an interview. On the next day, in
pursuance of a custom that has existed in Ohio for many years, I,
as a Senator elected by the legislature, was expected to make a
formal call upon that body when in session, and during my visit to
eschew politics. Accompanied by a committee of the senate I called
upon Governor Campbell. We were then and had always been personal
friends. He accompanied me to the senate, which took a recess,
when brief and complimentary addresses were made, and I thanked
the senate for the reception. After handshaking and pleasant talk
I was escorted to the house of representatives, where the same
simple ceremony was observed. I visited the state board of
equalization, then engaged in the important duty of equalizing the
taxes imposed in the several counties and cities of the state. At
their request I expressed my opinion of the system of taxation in
existence in Ohio, which I regarded as exceedingly defective by
reason of restrictive clauses in the constitution of the state
adopted in 1851.
In the evening of this day I was invited to a reception at the
Lincoln League club. I insert the report published the next morning
in the "State Journal."
"The reception to Senator John Sherman at the Lincoln League club
rooms last night was a rousing enthusiastic affair. The rooms were
crowded with members of the league and their friends, while most
of the state officials, members of the general assembly and the
state board of equalization were present. Several Democrats were
conspicuous in the crowd, and all parties, old men and young, vied
with each other in doing honor to Ohio's great statesman. During
the evening Governor Campbell, accompanied by his daughter, came
in to pay his respects to the distinguished guest and was cordially
received. He was called upon for a speech and responded briefly
in his usual happy vein. He expected to meet with the Republicans
this fall again and would assist at some one's obsequies, but just
whose it would be he did not know.
"During the short visit the governor's daughter was the recipient
of marked attention, and divided honors with her father in
handshaking.
"The feature of the evening was the welcome accorded Senator Sherman
and his speech. Everybody was eager to shake hands with him, and
for over an hour he was so engaged.
"He was introduced by President Huling in his usual happy manner,
and responded feelingly in a short speech, which was received with
enthusiasm. Senator Sherman said:
'Gentlemen:--I appear before you to-night, not as a partisan, not
as a Republican, although I do not deny my fraternity, nor as a
Democrat, but simply as a native son of Ohio. My friend has made
a very eloquent speech to you, but I have come to greet you all,
to thank you for the support that has been extended to me by the
people of Ohio, not only by those of my political faith, but also
those who have differed from me. I have often been brought in
contact with Democrats whom I cherish as my friends. You all know
your honored and venerable statesman, Allen G. Thurman. We differed
on political issues, but we never quarreled with each other. When
any question affecting the interests or prosperity of Ohio was
concerned we were like two brothers aiding each other. When we
came to discuss political questions, upon which parties divided,
we put on our armor. I knew that if I made the slightest error,
he would pick me up and handle me as roughly as anyone else, and
he expected the same of me. And so with Mr. Pendleton, who is now
dead. I regarded him as one of the most accomplished men I ever
met; always kind, always genial, possessing all the attributes of
a gentleman. When discussing any question affecting the interest
or honor of Ohio there was no difference of opinion between us.
When I met him a short time before his death, at Homburg, I felt
that I would not see him again. In politics there ought to be
kindness and fairness. Men of adverse opinions may be true friends
while they honestly differ on great public questions.
'Now, gentlemen, I think I have said all I ought to say. This is
a social meeting and, as I understand it, you came here to greet
me as one of your public servants. I wish to express my obligations
to the people of Ohio for their generosity and for their long-
continued support. I am glad indeed to greet you and give you a
good Buckeye greeting. All I can do is to thank you.'"
On the 6th of June I was appointed by the Republicans of Richland
county as a delegate to the state convention. In a brief speech
to the county convention, I said:
"The next state convention will be a very important one in many
respects. In one or two matters the business has already been done.
It has been settled that Major McKinley will be nominated Governor
of Ohio, and that he will be elected. Of the balance of the ticket
I say nothing. There are so many good men for candidates that we
can make no mistake in any of them."
Resolutions were adopted indorsing the platforms of the last state
and national conventions, declaring a belief in the doctrine of
protection to labor and American industries, and indorsing the
wisdom of the Republican party in continuing the advocacy of the
protective tariff. I was remembered by resolutions thanking me
for services rendered to the country, and Senators W. S. Kerr and
W. Hildebrand were complimented for their efficiency in the state
senate.
A resolution indorsing William McKinley for unanimous nomination
for governor passed amidst enthusiastic applause.
Upon attending the state convention at Columbus, on the 17th of
June, I was advised that objection would be made to my designation
as chairman, and that Mr. Bushnell would be pressed for that honor.
I promptly said I did not wish the position, and urged the selection
of Bushnell, who was fairly entitled to it for his active agency
as chairman of the state committee. The central committee had
invited me to address the convention, and I was prepared to do so,
but, feeling that after McKinley was unanimously nominated for
governor my speech would delay the convention in completing the
ticket, I declined to speak, but the convention insisted upon it,
and I did respond very briefly, saying I would hand my speech to
the "State Journal." Out of this incident the "Enquirer" made the
story that I had been "snubbed" by the convention, through the
influence of Governor Foraker and other gentlemen named by it.
The correct account of my action was stated in the "State Journal"
as follows:
"After Major McKinley had finished speaking there were enthusiastic
calls for Senator Sherman. The demand became so vigorous that
General Bushnell was unable to secure quiet. Senator Sherman
marched down the middle aisle from his seat in his delegation just
under the balcony. Perhaps no one received such generous recognition
as did the senior Senator from Ohio. Although Senator Sherman had
prepared a speech he did not attempt to deliver it. He said he
had intended to insist on his right as a delegate not to hear any
more oratory, but, to proceed with the business of the convention.
He gave the 'State Journal' an appreciated compliment by advising
all the delegates who desired to know what his speech contained to
buy this morning's 'State Journal.' His remarks were felicitous
and he was frequently interrupted by applause."
The prepared speech as published in the "Journal" gave satisfaction,
not only to the Republicans in Ohio, but was printed in many of the
leading journals of the United States. My refusal to deliver it
in the sweltering heat of the convention enabled that body to
rapidly clear the business it met to transact, and the unfounded
imputations about leading Republicans fell harmless. I insert this
speech:
"My Fellow Republicans:--When I was invited with others to address
this convention, I felt that the best speech that could be made
was the convention itself. You are here to speak the voice of Ohio
in the choice of the chief officers of the state and to announce
the creed of a great party. Such bodies as this are the convenient
agencies of a free people to mark out the line of march and to
select their leaders.
"When I look upon this great body of representative Republicans,
animated by a common purpose and inspired by a common faith in the
party to which we belong, my mind instinctively reverts to the
first Republican convention of Ohio, held in this city thirty-six
years ago. Then, under the impulse of a great wrong--the repeal
of the restriction of slavery north and west of Missouri--that
convention, remarkable in numbers and ability, composed of
representatives of all parties then in existence, pledged themselves,
that come what may, they would resist the extension of slavery over
every foot of territory where it was not then established by law.
There was no doubt or hesitation or timidity in their resolution,
though they knew they were entering into a contest with an enemy
that had never been defeated, that had dominated all parties, and
would resist to the uttermost, even to war, any attempt to curb
the political power of the most infamous institution that ever
existed among men. This was the beginning of the Republican party.
"It was also the beginning of the most remarkable events of American
history. Since that day the Republican party has abolished slavery,
not only in the United States, but, by its reflected influence, in
nearly all the countries of the world. It has conducted a war of
gigantic proportions with marked success, demonstrating in the
strongest way the ability of a free people to maintain and preserve
its government against all enemies, at home and abroad. It has
established the true theory of national authority over every citizen
of the republic, without regard to state lines, and has forever
put at rest the pretense of the right of secession by a state or
any portion of our people. It has placed our country, in its
relations to foreign nations, in so commanding a position that none
will seek a controversy with us, while empires and kingdoms profit
by our example. It has, for the necessities of the time and the
warnings and follies of the past, marked out a financial system
which secures us a currency safe beyond all possibility of loss,
a coinage of silver and gold received at par in every commercial
mart of the world, and a public credit equal, if not superior, to
that of the oldest, richest and most powerful nations. It has, by
a policy of fostering and protecting our home industries, so
diversified our productions that every article of necessity, luxury,
art or refinement can be made by American labor, and the food and
fruits of a temperate climate, and cotton, wool and all the textile
fibres, can be raised on the American farm.
"Under Republican policy, sometimes embarrassed but never changed,
our country has become _free_, without a slave; strong, without
standing armies or great navies; rich, with wealth better distributed,
labor better paid, and equality of rights better secured, than in
any country in the world. All the opportunities of life, without
distinction of birth or rank or wealth, are open to all alike.
Education is free, without money or price. Railroads, telegraphs
and all the wonderful devices of modern civilization are at our
command. Many of these blessings are the natural results of our
free institutions, the work of our fathers, but they have been in
every case promoted and fostered by the policy of the Republican
party. We, therefore, can honestly claim that our party has been
a faithful servant of the people and is fairly entitled to their
confidence and support.
"But we do not rest our claims upon this fact alone. We do not
need to muster the great names that have marched at the head of
our columns to their final rest to invoke your approval. We invite
the strictest scrutiny into the conduct of the present Republican
administration of Benjamin Harrison. He was not as well known to
the people at large, at the time of his election, as many former
Presidents, for the politics of Indiana do not give a Republican
of that state a fair chance to demonstrate his capacity and ability,
but my intimate acquaintance and companionship with him, sitting
side by side for six years in the Senate Chamber, impressed me with
the high intellectual and moral traits which he has exhibited in
his great office.
"The issues now involved are not so great and pressing as in the
days of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but they do directly
affect the life, comfort and happiness of every citizen of the
United States. The recent Republican Congress, in connection with
President Harrison, has dealt with all leading domestic questions
of the time and with the most important questions with foreign
nations. Every one of these has either been settled or is in the
way of settlement.
"The administration of Mr. Cleveland settled nothing but the sublime
egotism of Mr. Cleveland, his opposition to the protection policy,
his want of sympathy for the Union soldiers and his narrow notions
of finance and the public credit. He devised nothing and accomplished
nothing. A Democratic House passed the Mills tariff bill, but it
was rejected by the Senate and by the people in the election of
1888. It was neither a protective tariff nor a revenue tariff,
but a mongrel affair made up of shreds and patches furnished here
and there by Democratic Members to suit their local constituencies.
This abortive measure was the only one of any mark or importance
proposed by Mr. Cleveland, or passed by a Democratic House of
Representatives.
"In marked contrast with this is the Republican administration of
Harrison and the recent Republican Congress. Mr. Harrison, with
the slow, thoughtful, conservative tendencies of his mind, gave
careful consideration to every proposition that came before him,
and announced his opinion in his messages to Congress. The House
of Representatives, having cleared the way by the decision and
courage of Speaker Tom Reed that the majority should rule, proceeded
to transact the public business, and the Senate, in hearty concurrence
and co-operation, acted upon every important measure pending before
Congress. The first in importance, though not in point of time,
was an entire revision of our revenue laws. This bill was subjected
to the most careful scrutiny in both Houses, and was passed as a
Republican measure, and approved by the President. It is the law
of the land, though some of its provisions have not yet taken
effect. It is, in my judgment, a wise law, and will bear the most
careful scrutiny. It may be that in its details, in the rates of
duty, the precise line between enough to protect and more than is
necessary, is not observed, but this error in detail does not weaken
the essential merits of this great measure. I do not intend to
discuss it in the presence of a gentleman now before me, who had
charge of the bill in the House, who is, in a great measure, the
author of it, and whose effective advocacy carried it over the
shoals and rocks in the House of Representatives. You will greatly
and justly honor him this day, but not more than he deserves, and
you will have a chance to hear from him as to its merits. It is
sufficient now for me to state, very briefly, why I heartily
supported it in the Senate.
"In the first place it is a clear-cut, effective measure that will
make explicit the rates of duties proposed; will prevent, as far
as the law can, any evasion or undervaluation. It is in every line
and word a protective tariff. It favors, to the extent of the
duty, the domestic manufacturer, and will induce the production
here of every article suited to our condition and climate. It is
a fair law, for it extends its benefits not only to the artisan,
but, to the farmer and producer in every field of employment. I
know, by my long experience in passing upon tariff bills, that the
McKinley bill more carefully and beneficially protects the farmer
in his productions than any previous measures of the kind. And
its inevitable effect in encouraging manufactures will give to the
farmer the best possible market for his crops. The bill has
received, and will bear, discussion, and will improve on acquaintance.
The new features of the bill relating to sugar and tin plate will
soon demonstrate the most satisfactory results. Sugar will be
greatly lowered in cost to the consumer, while the bounty given to
the domestic producer will soon establish the cultivation of beet
and sorghum sugar in the United States, as the same policy has done
in Germany and France. The increased duty soon to be put upon tin
plate will develop, and has already developed, tin mines in several
states and territories, so that we may confidently hope that in a
short period we will be sweetened by untaxed home sugar, and
protected by untaxed tin plate. The arts of the demagogue, which
were at the last election played upon the credulous to deceive them
as to the effects of the McKinley bill, will return to plague the
inventors, and this Republican measure, with its kindred measures,
reciprocity and fair play to American ships, will be among the
boasted triumphs of our party, in which our Democratic friends
will, as usual, heartily acquiesce.
"There is another question in which the people are vitally interested,
and that is the currency question. They want good money and plenty
of it. They want all their money of equal value, so that a dollar
will be the same whether it is made of gold or silver or paper.
We have had this kind of money since the resumption of specie
payments in January, 1879. Nobody wants to go back to the old
condition of things when it was gold to the bondholders and paper
to the pensioners. When the outstanding government bonds were
fifteen hundred millions, and banks could issue paper money upon
the deposit of bonds, the volume of currency could expand upon the
increase of business. But that condition is passing away. The
bonds are being paid, and the time is coming, and has come, when
the amount of bonds is so reduced and their value is so increased
that banks cannot afford to buy bonds upon which to issue circulating
notes.
"We must contemplate the time when the national banks will not
issue their notes, but become banks of discount and deposit. The
banks are evidently acting upon this theory, for they have voluntarily
largely reduced their circulation. How shall this currency be
replaced? Certainly not by the notes of state banks. No notes
should circulate as money except such as have the sanction, authority
and guarantee of the United States. The best for of these is
certificates based upon gold and silver of value equal to the notes
outstanding. Nor should any distinction be made between gold and
silver. Both should be received at their market value in the
markets of the world. Their relative value varies from day to day
and there is no power strong enough to establish a fixed ratio of
value except the concurrence of the chief commercial nations of
the world. We coin both metals at a fixed ratio, but we maintain
them at par with each other by limiting the amount of the cheaper
metal to the sum needed for subsidiary coin and receiving and
redeeming it.
"The demand for the free coinage of silver without limit, is a
demand that the people of the United States shall pay for silver
bullion more than its market price; a demand that is not and ought
not to be made by the producer of any commodity. There is no
justice or equity in it. If granted by the United States alone it
will demonetize gold and derange all the business transactions of
our people. What we ought to do, and what we now do under the
silver law of the last Congress, a conservative Republican measure,
is to buy the entire product of silver mined in the United States
at its market value, and, upon the security of that silver deposited
in the treasury, issue treasury notes to the full amount of the
cost of the bullion. In this way we add annually to our national
currency circulating notes of undoubted value, equal to gold to an
amount equal to or greater than the increase of our population and
the increasing business for our growing country.
"There is another measure to which the Republican party is bound
by every obligation of honor and duty, and that is to grant to the
Union soldiers of the late war, their widows and orphans, liberal
pensions for their sacrifices and services in the preservation of
the Union. In the language of Lincoln, 'To bind up the nation's
wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for
his widow and his orphan.' Impressed with this obligation, the
Republican party has gone as far as prudence will allow. We
appropriate $135,000,000 a year for this purpose. Though the sum
is large, it is not the measure of our obligation. The rising
generation who will bear this burden must remember the immeasurable
blessings they enjoy by the sacrifices and services of Union soldiers
in the preservation of the Union and in a strong republican government
and free institutions.
"There is another obligation which we, as Republicans, cannot ignore
without being false to our party pledges, and that is to use every
legal means to secure all citizens their constitutional rights and
privileges as such, without respect to race and color. Fortunately,
time is promoting this great duty, but it must never be forgotten
or neglected until every lawful voter shall freely exercise his
right to vote without discrimination or favor.
"This is not the time for a fuller discussion of the many political
questions which will enter into the canvass. The great tribunal
of the people must pass upon them in their assemblages. I hope we
will go back to the old-fashioned mass meetings in the beautiful
groves of our state, where old and young, women as well as men,
can gather together with their baskets well-filled, their minds
open to conviction, their hearts full of patriotism, to listen and
judge for themselves the path of duty, the lines of wisdom, the
proper choice between the parties claiming their suffrages.
Fortunately, there is now no bitterness between parties, nothing
that can justify abuse, or reproach, for we must all concede the
honesty and desire of members of all parties to do what is best
for the common good. We must not meet as farmers, mechanics, or
partisans, but as fellow-citizens and patriots, alike interested
in all measures of national or state legislation. If any public
measure bears unjustly upon any class of our population we are all
interested in providing a remedy. The farmers of our country
sometimes complain that they do not share in the common prosperity,
that the prices they receive for their products are too low, that
they pay more than their share of the taxes.
"So far as these complaints may be met by wise legislation it should
be done by Congress and our state legislature. The Republican
party is wise enough and liberal enough to meet the just demands
of all classes, and, especially, of the farmers, the great conservative
and controlling portion of our population, and they are patriotic
enough not to demand measures not sanctioned by reason and experience,
and not consistent with the common good or the credit and honor of
our country. The Republican party has shown its capacity to deal
wisely with many more difficult questions of the past, and may be
relied upon to solve wisely the questions of a peaceful and prosperous
future. Strong now at home our country may extend its moral
influence to neighboring republics, encourage trade and intercourse
with them, and invite a broader union founded upon common interests,
sympathies, and free institutions.
"The State of Ohio is an important factor in this great union of
states and people. Ohio is a Republican state, one that has taken
a conspicuous part in the great drama of the past. In an evil
hour, and under wild delusions, Ohio elected the recent Democratic
legislature. With this warning behind us let us not be backward
or laggard in the civic contest in November; but, with a ticket
worthy of our choice, let us appeal to our fellow-citizens to place
again our honored state at the head of the Republican column."
While the statement in the "Enquirer" and in other Democratic papers
was not, in my opinion, true, yet the charge of a purpose on the
part of the members of the convention to humiliate or "snub" me,
by inviting me to address the convention and then denying me the
opportunity, led to a very general popular discussion of the
selection of United States Senator by the legislature then to be
elected. The choice seemed, by general acquiescence, to rest
between Governor Foraker and myself in case the Republicans should
have a majority of the legislature. There could be no difference
as to the weight of public opinion outside of Ohio, as represented
by the leading journals of both political parties. Even such
independent papers as the Chicago "Evening Post," the "Boston
Herald," the Springfield (Massachusetts) "Republican" and the New
York "Evening Post," and I can say the great body of the Republican
journals in the State of Ohio, warmly urged my re-election. With
this general feeling prevailing I considered myself a candidate,
without any announcement, and entered into the canvass as such.
I also regarded Governor Foraker as my competitor fairly entitled
to aspire to the position of Senator, though he did not, at first,
publicly announce his candidacy. Young, active and able, with a
brilliant military record vouched for by General Sherman, twice
elected Governor of Ohio, he was justified in entering the contest.
In the latter part of June he was reported to have said that I
would be re-elected, but this was regarded in a Pickwickian sense.
Candidates for the legislature were chosen in many counties according
to senatorial preferences, but, so far as I recall, there was no
contest over such nominations bitter enough to cause the defeat of
any nominee.
No serious difficulty arose until the latter part of July, when I
was advised that George B. Cox, a well-known politician in Cincinnati,
who, it was understood, controlled the Republican primaries in that
city, would not allow any man to be nominated for either branch of
the legislature who did not specifically agree to vote for whoever
he (Cox) should designate as United States Senator. This I regarded,
if the statement were true, as a corrupt and dangerous power to be
conferred upon any man, which ought not to be submitted to. I went
to Cincinnati, partly to confer with Foraker, and chiefly in
pursuance of a habit of visiting that city at least once a year.
I met Foraker, and he promptly disclaimed any knowledge of such a
requirement in legislative nominations. Cox also called upon me,
and said the delegation would probably be divided between Foraker
and myself. I could say nothing more to him. Foraker gave a
written answer to an inquiry of the "Commercial Gazette," in which
he said he was a candidate, and no one knew it better than I. This
was quite true and proper. In a published interview I said:
"Governor Foraker and I have always been friends, and I am always
glad to see him. He has a right to the position he has taken in
regard to the senatorship, and it is a proper one. One man has
just as much right to try it as another."
"Are McKinley and Butterworth candidates for Senator?"
"I do not know, but they have a right to be."
The only question that remained was whether Cox had a delegation
pledged to obey his wish, and this was to be ascertained in the
future.
During the spring and summer of 1891 there was an attempt to organize
a new party in Ohio, under the name of the Farmers' Alliance, or
People's party, based mainly upon what were alleged to be "seven
financial conspiracies." These so-called "conspiracies" were the
great measures by which the Union cause was maintained during and
since the war. The Alliance was greatly encouraged by its success
in defeating Senator Ingalls and replacing him by Senator Peffer,
and proposed that I should follow Ingalls. Pamphlets were freely
distributed throughout the state, the chief of which was one written
by a Mrs. Emery, containing ninety-six pages. I was personally
arraigned in this pamphlet as the "head devil" of these conspiracies,
and the chief specifications of my crimes were the laws requiring
the duties on imported goods to be paid in coin, the payment in
coin of the principal and interest of the public debt, the act to
strengthen the public credit, the national banking system, and, in
her view, the worst of all, the resumption of specie payments.
At first I paid no attention to this pamphlet, but assumed that
intelligent readers could and would answer it. In October I received
a letter calling my attention to it and asking me to answer it.
This I did by the following letter which I was advised had a
beneficial effect in the western states, where the pamphlet was
being mainly circulated:
"Mansfield, O., October 12, 1891.
"Mr. Charles F. Stokey, Canton, O.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 8th, accompanied by Mrs. S. E. V.
Emery's pamphlet called 'Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have
Enslaved the American People,' is received.
"Some time since, this wild and visionary book was sent to me, and
I read it with amusement and astonishment that anyone could approve
of it or be deceived by its falsehoods.
"The 'seven financial conspiracies' are the seven great pillars of
our financial credit, the seven great financial measures by which
the government was saved from the perils of war and by which the
United States has become the most flourishing and prosperous nation
in the world.
"The first chapter attributes the Civil War to an infamous plot of
capitalists to absorb the wealth of the country at the expense of
the people, when all the world knows that the Civil War was organized
by slaveholders to destroy the national government and to set up
a slaveholding confederacy in the south upon its ruins. The
'Shylock,' described by Mrs. Emery, is a phantom of her imagination.
The 'Shylocks of the war' were the men who furnished the means to
carry on the government, and included in their number the most
patriotic citizens of the northern states, who, uniting their means
with the services and sacrifices of our soldiers, put down the
rebellion, abolished slavery, and preserved and strengthened our
government.
"The first of her 'conspiracies' she calls the exception clause in
the act of February 25, 1862, by which the duties on imported goods
were required to be paid in coin in order to provide the means to
pay the interest on coin bonds in coin. This clause had not only
the cordial support of Secretary Chase, but of President Lincoln,
and proved to be the most important financial aid of the government
devised during the war. Goods being imported upon coin values, it
was but right that the duty to the government should be paid in
the same coin. Otherwise the duties would have been constantly
diminishing with the lessening purchasing power of our greenbacks.
If the interest of our debt had not been paid in coin, we could
have borrowed no money abroad, and the rate of interest, instead
of diminishing as it did, would have been largely increased, and
the volume of our paper money would necessarily have had to be
increased and its value would have gone down lower and lower, and
probably ended, as Confederate money did, in being as worthless as
rags. This exception clause saved our public credit by making a
market for our bonds, and the coin was paid by foreigners for the
privilege of entering our markets.
"As for the national banking system--the second of her 'conspiracies'
--it is now conceded to have produced the best form of paper money
issued by banks that has ever been devised. It was organized to
take the place of the state banks, which, at the beginning of the
war, had outstanding over $200,000,000 of notes, of value varying
from state to state, and most of them at a discount of from five
to twenty-five per cent. It was absolutely necessary to get rid
of these state bank notes and to substitute for them bank notes
secured beyond doubt by the deposit of United States bonds, a system
so perfect that from the beginning until now no one has lost a
dollar on the circulating notes of national banks. The system may
have to give way because we are paying off our bonds, but no sensible
man will ever propose in this country to go back to the old system
of state banks, and if some security to take the place of United
States bonds can be devised for national bank notes, the system
will be and ought to be perpetuated.
"The third 'conspiracy' referred to is contraction of the currency.
It has been demonstrated by official documents that from the
beginning of the war to this time the volume of our currency has
been increasing, year by year, more rapidly than our population.
In 1860 the total amount of all the money in circulation was
$435,000,000, when our population was 31,000,000, and half of this
was money of variable and changing value. Now we have in circulation
$1,500,000,000, with a population of 64,000,000, and every dollar
of this money is good as gold, all kinds equal to each other,
passing from hand to hand and paid out as good money, not only in
the United States but among all the commercial countries of the
world. Our money has increased nearly fourfold, while our population
has only doubled.