"The statements made by Mrs. Emery about the contraction of our

currency are not only misleading but they are absolutely false.

She states that in 1868 $473,000,000 of our money was destroyed,

and in 1869 $500,000,000 of our money passed into a cremation

furnace, and in 1870 $67,000,000 was destroyed. Now these statements

are absolutely false. What she calls money in these paragraphs

was the most burdensome form of interest-bearing securities, treasury

notes bearing seven and three-tenths per cent. interest, and compound

interest notes. These were the chief and most burdensome items of

the public debt. They were paid off in the years named and were

never at any time for more than a single day money in circulation.

When issued they were received as money, but, as interest accrued

they became investments and were not at all in circulation.

"These statements of Mrs. Emery are palpable falsehoods, which if

stated by a man would justify a stronger word. It is true that in

1866 Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury under the administration

of Andrew Johnson, wished to bring about resumption by contraction,

and a bill was passed providing for a gradual reduction of the

greenbacks to $300,000,000, but this was very soon after repealed

and the greenbacks retained in circulation. I was not in favor of

the contraction of the greenbacks, and the very speech that she

quotes, in which I described the effects of contraction and the

difficulty of resuming, was made against the bill providing for

the reduction of the greenbacks.

"The next 'conspiracy' to which she refers was the first act of

General Grant's administration 'to strengthen the public credit.'

A controversy had existed whether the 5-20 bonds could be paid in

greenbacks. I maintained and still believe that by a fair construction

of the loan laws we had a right to pay the principal of the bonds

as they matured in greenbacks of the kind and character in existence

when the bonds were issued, but I insisted that it was the duty of

the government to define a time when the greenbacks should be either

redeemed or maintained at par in coin, that this was a plain

obligation of honor and duty which rested upon the United States,

and that it was not honorable or right to avail ourselves of our

own negligence in restoring these notes to the specie standard in

order to pay the bonds in the depreciated money. This idea is

embodied in the credit-strengthening act.

"The fifth 'conspiracy' of what she calls 'this infernal scheme'

was the refunding of the national debt. This operation of refunding

is regarded by all intelligent statesmen as of the highest value,

and was conducted with remarkable success. At the date of the

passage of the refunding act, July 14, 1870, we had outstanding

bonds bearing five and six per cent. interest for about $1,500,000,000.

By the wise providence of Congress, we had reserved the right of

redeeming a portion of this debt within five years, and a portion

of it within ten years, so that the debt was, in the main, then

redeemable at our pleasure. It was not possible to pay it in coin

and it was not honorable to pay it in greenbacks, especially as

that could only have been done by issuing new greenbacks far beyond

the volume existing during the war, and which would at once depreciate

in value and destroy the public credit and dishonor the country.

We, therefore, authorized the exchange, par for par, of bonds

bearing four, four and a half, and five per cent. interest for the

bonds bearing a higher rate of interest. The only contest in

Congress upon the subject was whether the new bonds should run

five, ten and fifteen years, or ten, fifteen and thirty years. I

advocated the shorter period, but the House of Representatives,

believing that the new bonds would not sell at par unless running

for a longer period, insisted that the four per cent. bonds should

run for thirty years. Greenbackers, like Mrs. Emery, who now

complain that the bonds run so long and cannot be paid until due,

are the same people who insisted upon making the bonds run thirty

years. It required some ten years to complete these refunding

operations--of which the larger part was accomplished when I was

Secretary of the Treasury--and they resulted in a saving of one-

third of the interest on the debt. So far from it being in the

interest of the bondholders, it was to their detriment and only in

the interest of the people of the United States.

"The next 'conspiracy' complained of is the alleged demonetization

of silver. By the act revising the coinage in 1873, the silver

dollar, which had been suspended by Jefferson in 1805 and practically

demonetized in 1835 and suspended by minor coins in 1853, and which

was issued only in later years as a convenient form in which to

export silver bullion, and the whole amount of which, from the

beginning of the government to the passage of the act referred to,

was only eight million dollars, was, by the unanimous vote of both

Houses of Congress, without objection from anyone, dropped from

our coinage, and in its place, upon the petition of the legislature

of California, was substituted the trade dollar containing a few

more grains of silver. A few years afterwards, silver having fallen

rapidly in market prices, Congress restored the coinage of the

silver dollar, limiting the amount to not exceeding four million

nor less than two million a month, and under ths law in a period

of twelve years we issued over 400,000,000 silver dollars, fifty

times the amount that had been coined prior to 1873. And now under

existing law we are purchasing 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year;

so that what she calls the demonetization of silver has resulted

in its use in our country to an extent more than fiftyfold greater

than before its demonetization.

"In spite of this, in consequence of the increased supply of silver

and the cheapening processes of its production, it is going down

in the market and is only maintained at par with gold by the fiat

of the different governments coining it. Now the deluded people

belonging to the class of Mrs. Emery are seeking to cheapen the

purchasing power of the dollar, in the hands of the farmer and

laborer, by the free coinage of silver and the demonetization of

gold. Silver and gold should be used and maintained as current

money, but only on a par with each other, and this can only be done

by treating the cheaper metal as subsidiary and coining it only as

demanded for the use of the people.

"The seventh 'financial conspiracy' is the pride and boast of the

government of the United States, the restoration of our notes, long

after the war was over, to the standard of coin; in other words,

the resumption of specie payments. This measure, which met the

violent opposition of such wild theorists as Mrs. Emery, has

demonstrated its success, in the judgment of all intelligent people,

not only in the United States, but in all the countries of the

world. There is no standard for paper money, except coin. The

United States postponed too long the restoration of its notes to

coin standards. Since it had the courage to do this under the

resumption act, on the 1st day of January, 1879, we have had in

the United States a standard of gold with coins of silver, nickel

and copper, maintained at that standard by the fiat of the government,

and paper money in various forms, as United States notes, national

bank notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, and treasury

notes, all at par with gold.

"To call this a 'conspiracy' or an 'infamous plot' is a misnomer

of terms which will not deceive any intelligent man, but it is

rather the glory and pride of the people of the United States that

it not only has been able, in the past thirty years, to put down

a great rebellion and to abolish slavery, but to advance the credit

of the United States to the highest rank among nations, to largely

increase the currency of the country, to add enormously to our

productive interests, and to develop the resources of the mine,

the field, and the workshop, to a degree unexampled in the history

of nations. Intelligent people, who reason and observe, will not

be deceived or misled by the wild fanaticism and the gloomy prophecies

of Mrs. Emery. Temporary conditions growing out of the failure of

any portion of our crops will not discourage them; the exaggerations

of the morbid fancy will not mislead them.

"A candid examination of the great financial measures of the last

thirty years will lead people to name what Mrs. Emery calls 'the

seven financial conspiracies' as the seven great, wise and

statesmanlike steps which have led the people of the United States,

through perils and dangers rarely encountered by any nation, from

a feeble confederacy with four millions of slaves, and discordant

theories of constitutional power, to a great, free republic, made

stronger by the dangers it has passed, a model and guide for the

nations of the world.

"As for Mrs. Emery's criticisms upon me personally, I do not even

deem them worthy of answer. She repeats the old story that I was

interested in the First National Bank of New York and gave it the

free use of the people's money. This is a plain lie, contradicted

and disproved over and over again. I never had the slightest

interest in the bank, direct or indirect, and, as the public records

will show, gave it no favors, but treated it like all other

depositaries of public money and held it to the most rigid

accountability; nor have I in any case derived the slightest

pecuniary benefit from any measure either pending in or before

Congress since I have been in public life.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman."

I had faith in the good sense and conservative tendencies of the

people, and believed they would not be deluded by such fantasies

and fallacies as were contained in the platform of the People's

party. That party made a very active canvass, and expected, as a

prominent member of it said, "to hold the balance of power in the

legislature and dictate who the next United States Senator from

Ohio shall be, and you may depend upon it that that man will not

be John Sherman."

This Alliance subsequently changed its ground from irredeemable

paper money to the free coinage of silver. Professing to care

for the farmers and laborers it sought in every way to depreciate

the purchasing power of their money.

CHAPTER LX.

FREE SILVER AND PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRIES.

My Views in 1891 on the Free Coinage of Silver--Letter to an Ohio

Newspaper on the Subject--A Problem for the Next Congress to Solve

--Views Regarding Protection to American Industries by Tariff Laws

--My Deep Interest in This Campaign--Its Importance to the Country

at Large--Ohio the Battle Ground of These Financial Questions--

Opening the Campaign in Paulding Late in August--Extracts from My

Speech There--Appeal to the Conservative Men of Ohio of Both Parties

--Address at the State Fair at Columbus--Review of the History of

Tariff Legislation in the United States--Five Republican Principles

Pertaining to the Reduction of Taxes--Speeches at Cleveland, Toledo,

Cincinnati and Elsewhere--McKinley's Election by Over 21,000

Plurality.

In the progress of the canvass of 1891 it was apparent that the

farmers of Ohio would not agree to free coinage of silver, and

divided as usual between the two great parties. In the heat of

this contest I wrote to the "Cyclone" the following letter:

"Mansfield, O., July 7, 1891.

"Editors 'Cyclone,' Washington C. H.

"My Dear Sirs:--In answer to your letter of the 6th, I can only

say that my views on the question of the free coinage of silver

are fully stated in the speech I made at the last session of the

Senate, a copy of which I send you, and I can add nothing new to it.

"I can appreciate the earnest demand of the producers of silver

bullion, that the United States should pay $1.29 an ounce for silver

bullion which in the markets of the world has been for a series of

years worth only about one dollar an ounce--sometimes a little

more, sometimes a little less, but I cannot appreciate why any

farmer or other producer should desire that the government should

pay for any article more than its market value. The government

should purchase the articles it needs, like all other purchasers,

at the market price. The distinction sought to be made in favor

of silver is without just foundation. The government now buys in

the open market more than the entire domestic production of silver

bullion, because it needs it for coinage and as the basis of treasury

notes. I gladly contributed my full share to this measure, and

would do anything in my power to advance the market value of silver

to its legal ratio to gold, but this can only be done in concert

with other commercial nations. The attempt to do it by the United

States alone would only demonstrate our weakness.

"To the extent that the enormous demand made by the existing law

advances the price of silver, the producer receives the benefit,

and to-day the production of silver is probably the most profitable

industry in the United States. To ask more seems to me unreasonable,

and, if yielded to, will bring all our money to the single silver

standard alone, demonetize gold and detach the United States from

the standards of the great commercial nations of the world. The

unreasonable demand for the free coinage of silver has nothing to

do with the reasonable demand for the increase of the volume of

money required by the increase of business and population of the

United States.

"We have provided by existing laws for the increase of money to an

amount greater than the increase of business and population; but,

even if more money is required, there are many ways of providing

it without cheapening its purchasing power, or making a wide

difference between the kinds of money in circulation based on silver

and gold. More than ninety-two per cent. of all payments is now

made in checks, drafts and other commercial devices. All kinds of

circulating notes are now equal to each other and are kept at the

gold standard by redemption and exchange. Our money and our credit

are now equal to or better than those of the most civilized nations

of the world, our productions of every kind are increasing, and it

seems to me almost a wild lunacy for us to disturb this happy

condition by changing the standard of all contracts, including

special contracts payable in gold, and again paying gold to the

capitalists, and silver (at an exaggerated price) to the farmer,

laborer and pensioner.

"I would not be true to my conviction of what is best for the good

of my constituents if I did not frankly and firmly stand by my

opinions, whatever may be the effect upon me personally. My greatest

obligations have been to the farmers of Ohio, and I would be unworthy

of their trust and confidence if I did not beseech them to stand

by the financial policy which will secure them the best results

for their labor and productions, and the comfort and prosperity of

all classes alike.

"Very truly yours,

"John Sherman."

When this letter was written the demand for the free coinage of

silver was at its height. I knew that my position was not a popular

one, yet felt confident that in the end the people would become

convinced that no change should be made in the standard of value

then existing, and that the use of silver as money should be

continued and it should be maintained at par with gold, but that

when the volume of it became so great as to threaten the demonetization

of gold, its coinage should be discontinued and silver bullion in

the treasury should be represented by treasury notes in circulation

equal in amount to the cost of the silver bullion. This was the

basis of the act of 1890, but, unfortunately, the amount of silver

bullion produced in the United States and in the world at large so

rapidly increased that it continually declined in market value.

Every purchase of it entailed great loss to the United States.

How to deal with this condition was the problem for the next Congress

to solve.

On the 31st of August, in response to an inquiry from the editor

of the "Citizen," a newspaper published in Urbana, Ohio, I wrote

the following letter in regard to the policy of protection to

American industries by tariff laws:

"A protective tariff was the first measure provided by the first

Congress of the United States. No nation can be independent without

a diversity of industries. A single occupation may answer for an

individual, but a nation must be composed of many men of many

employments. Every nation ought to be independent of other nations

in respect to all productions necessary for life and comfort that

can be made at home. These are axioms of political economy so

manifestly true that they need no demonstration. The measure of

protection is a proper subject of dispute, but there should be no

dispute as to the principle of protection in a country like ours,

possessing almost every raw material of nature and almost every

variety of productions. We have prospered most when our industries

have been best protected. The vast variety of our manufactures,

now rivaling in quantity those of countries much older than ours,

is the result of protection.

"Every President, from Washington down to Jackson, inclusive,

declared in favor of the principle of protection. Every eminent

statesman of the early period, including Calhoun, favored this

policy. The owners of slaves, engaged chiefly in the production

of cotton, became hostile to protection, and, with those engaged

in foreign commerce, were the representative free traders of the

United States. Now that slavery is abolished and the south has

entered upon the development of her vast natural resources, and it

has been proven that our foreign commerce is greater under protective

laws, there should be no opposition in any portion of our country

to the protection of American industry by wise discriminating

duties.

"The principle of protection should be applied impartially and

fairly to all productions, whether of the workshop or the farm.

The object is to diversify employment and to protect labor, and

this protection should be impartially applied without respect to

the nature of the production. All experience has established the

invariable fact that domestic production, by inducing competition,

in a brief period, lowers the price of all protected articles. In

the whole range of productions this result has been universal.

Whenever it is apparent that a new industry can be established, as

is the case now with the manufacture of tin plate, it is good policy

to give to the industry a liberal degree of protection, with the

assurance that if we have the raw material on equal conditions we

can after a time compete with the imported article.

"The policy of a nation upon economic questions should be fixed

and stable. The McKinley law, as now framed, though it may be open

to criticism as to details, is a strictly protective measure, fair

and just as applied to all industries, with ample provisions to

secure reciprocity in the exchange of domestic productions for

articles we cannot produce. It ought to be thoroughly tested by

the experience of several years. It is not good policy to disturb

it or keep the public mind in suspense about it. It will, as I

think, demonstrate its wisdom, but if not, with the light of

experience, it can be modified. The highest policy and the greatest

good to our people lie in the full trial of this effort, to establish,

upon a firm foundation, the domestic production of every article

essential to American life and independence."

These two letters, on the "free coinage of silver" and the "McKinley

tariff law," frankly expressed my opinions on the salient questions

of the day. With respect to the principles that underlie the policy

of protection, I have already stated my opinions in commenting upon

the Morrill tariff law. No general tariff bill has passed during

my service in Congress that met my entire approval. It is easy to

formulate general principles, but when we come to apply them to

the great number of articles named on the tariff list, we find that

the interests of their constituents control the action of Senator

and Members. The McKinley tariff bill was not improved in the

Senate. The compact and influential delegation from New England

made its influence felt in support of industries pursued in that

section, while the delegations from other sections were divided on

party lines. The tariff law was not, therefore, consistent with

any general principle, but it was nearer so than the one in force

before its passage, and the necessity of passing some law that

would reduce taxation was so imperative that the differences between

the two Houses were readily compromised. The execution of the

McKinley law under President Harrison demonstrated that it would

furnish ample revenue to support the government, and it should have

remained on the statute book with such slight changes as experience

might have shown to be necessary. The Democratic party, however,

was opposed to the protective features of this law, took advantage

of its defects, and, subsequently, when that party came into power,

it unwisely undertook to make a new tariff which has proven to be

insufficient to yield the needed revenue, and thus created the

necessity of using, for current expenses, the reserve of gold

specially accumulated in the treasury for the redemption of United

States notes.

I felt the deepest interest in this campaign, not from the selfish

desire to hold longer an office I had held for nearly thirty years,

but I thought that in Ohio we were to have a great financial battle,

upon the result of which might depend the monetary system of the

United States. On the 17th of August I said to a reporter:

"The people of the east do not seem to understand this campaign.

They do not appear to have any comprehension of what it means to

them as well as the country. No matter what their differences upon

the tariff question may be, every Republican who wishes the success

of his party should be made to understand that there is another

and perhaps a graver question to be settled in Ohio this year.

While our politics for the past few campaigns have hinged upon

minor questions, we are to-day brought back to the financial problem

which we all thought had been settled, in 1875, when Mr. Hayes won

the fight for an honest dollar against Governor Allen, who represented

the liberal currency idea. Then it came in the guise of greenbacks,

and now it comes in the garb of free silver. That conflict made

Mr. Hayes President of the United States. What the decision may

be this year no man can tell."

I further said the arguments that year were identically the same

as in the Hayes and Allen contest if the word "silver" were

substituted for "greenbacks." The Democrats had declared for

unlimited coinage, and we had declared against it. The Farmers'

Alliance came in as allies of the Democracy, but, while they were

an unknown quantity, they did not appear to be very dangerous. I

could not find that they made much impression on Republican farmers.

It had fallen to the lot of Ohio to be the battle ground on which

these financial question were fought, but we had never been saddled

with so grave a conflict as that year, not merely for the reason

that we had both the financial and economic questions depending

upon the result, but because of the lack of action and moral force

which did not seem to come to us from outside the state, as it

should and had years before. I had too much faith in the Republicans

of the country to believe that when they understood the situation

they would fail to arouse themselves to the necessities of the hour.

In answer to a question as to how the canvass would be conducted,

I said that Major McKinley and those close to him were perfectly

competent to deal with the management of the campaign and would do

so. I should in my opening speech devote myself entirely to a

presentation of the financial part of the contest, which was equal

in importance with the tariff. It was perhaps unfortunate for both

that two such questions should come up for discussion at the same

time, but they did and the issue had to be met. The only thing

that was necessary to insure a crowning success was that the

Republicans of the country should understand that, no matter what

their differences upon the tariff were, they had a vital interest

in settling the financial question for all time at the next election

in the State of Ohio. The prosperity in Ohio was a great aid to

the Republicans. The crops in that state and the west were larger

than for many years. Prices were good and the farmers as a rule

prosperous. This naturally made them regard with grim humor the

talk of the Alliance lecturers about poverty and distress. Another

thing which helped us was the fact that short crops were the rule

in Europe. In reply to a question as to the senatorial issue, I

said in one of my speeches:

"I have no regret that this character of battle is prominent. I

am rather complimented than otherwise to be again selected as the

target of this crusade against a sound currency. It is a question

that has been nearest my heart for a good many years, and I am

perfectly willing to abide the result upon my position thereon.

As I said before, I have no fears as to the decision for the right.

I have less opposition to encounter than I have ever had before,

and should we carry the legislature, which I believe we will, I am

content to stand by the judgment of the Republicans of that body,

no matter what it may be."

I made my opening speech in this campaign at Paulding, on the 27th

of August. It was mainly confined to the silver question. I quote

a few extracts from it:

"It has been said by many persons of both political parties that

this is to be a campaign of education. I believe it ought to be

so, for the leading questions involved are purely business questions,

affecting material interests common alike to men of all parties.

"Upon two great measures of public policy the Republican and

Democratic parties have made a formal and distinct issue, and these

are to be submitted to the people of Ohio in November, and your

decision will have a marked effect upon public opinion throughout

the United States. One is whether the holder of silver bullion

may deposit it in the treasury of the United States, and demand

and receive for it one dollar of coined money for every 371 grains

of fine silver deposited. The market value of so much silver

bullion is now about 77 cents, varying, however, from day to day,

like other commodities, sometimes more and sometimes less. The

other question is whether the policy of taxing imported goods by

the government of the United States, embodied in our existing tariff

law, known as the McKinley tariff, is a wise public policy, or

whether it should be superseded by what is called a tariff for

revenue only, as embodied in what is known as the Mills bill, which

passed the House of Representatives in 1888, and was rejected by

the Senate.

* * * * *

"I propose upon this occasion to confine myself mainly to a frank

and homely discussion of the money question, as the most pressing,

not that the tariff question is not equally important, but for the

reason that I can only do one thing at a time, and the money question

is a newer one, is now before us, upon which Republicans and

Democrats alike are somewhat divided. I wish to appeal to the

reason and common sense of the people who hear me, for that is said

to be the highest wisdom.

* * * * *

"Now, you all know that the money in circulation in the United

States--all of it--is good, good as gold. It will pass everywhere

and buy as much as the same amount of any other money in the world.

Our money is of many kinds--gold, silver, nickel and copper are

all coined into money. Then we have United States notes, or

greenbacks, gold certificates, silver certificates, treasury notes

and national bank notes. But the virtue of all these many kinds

of money is that they are all good. A dollar of each is as good

as a dollar of any other kind. All are as good as gold. But, and

here comes the first difficulty, the silver in the silver dollar

is not worth as much as the gold in the gold dollar. The nickel

in that coin is worth but a small part of five cents' worth of

silver. And the copper in the cent is not worth one-fifth of the

nickel in a five cent piece. How then, you may ask me, can these

coins be made equal to each other? The answer is that coinage is

a government monopoly, and though the copper in five cents is not

worth a nickel, and the nickel in twenty pieces is not worth a

silver dollar, and the silver in sixteen dollars is not worth

sixteen dollars in gold, yet, as the government coins them, and

receives them, and maintains them at par with gold coin, they are,

for all purposes, money equal to each other, and wherever they go,

even into foreign countries, they are received and paid out as

equivalents.

"The reason of all this is that the United States limits the amount

of all the coins to be issued except gold, which, being the most

valuable, is coined without limit. If coinage of all these metals

was free, and any holder of copper, nickel, silver or gold could

carry it to the mint to be coined, we would have no money but copper

and nickel, because they are the cheaper metals, worth less than

one-fourth of what, as coin, they purport to be. For the same

reason, if the coinage of silver was free at the ratio of sixteen

of silver to one of gold, no gold would be coined, because sixteen

ounces of silver are not worth one ounce of gold.

* * * * *

"The one distinctive, striking feature of the law of 1890 is, that

the United States will not pay for silver bullion more than its

market value. And why should we? What is there about silver

bullion that distinguishes it from any other product of industry

that the government needs? When the government needs food and

clothing for the army and navy it pays only the market price to

the farmer and manufacturer. The value of silver produced is

insignificant compared with the value of any of the articles produced

by the farmer, the miner and manufacturer. Nearly all the silver

produced in the United States is by rich corporations in a few new

states, and its production at market price is far more profitable

than any crop of the farmer, and yet it is the demand of the producer

of silver bullion that the United States should pay him twenty-five

per cent. more than its market value that lies at the foundation

of the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

* * * * *

"Our Democratic friends differ from us in this particular. They

are in favor of allowing any holder of silver bullion, foreign or

domestic, any old silverware or melted teapot, any part of the vast

accumulated hoard of silver in India, China, South America and

other countries of the world, estimated by statisticians to be

$3,810,571,346, to present it to the treasury of the United States

and demand one dollar of our money, or our promises to pay money,

for 371 grains of silver, or any multiple of that sum, though this

amount of silver is now worth only 77 cents, and has for a period

of years been as low as 70 cents. If with free silver we receive

only the quantity of silver we are required to purchase by existing

law, the United States would pay over $13,000,000 a year more than

if purchased at the market value, and this vast sum would be paid

annually as a bounty to the producers of silver bullion.

"But this is not the worst of it. Free coinage means that we shall

purchase not merely four and a half million ounces a month, but

all the silver that is offered, come from where it may, if presented

in quantities of one hundred ounces at a time. We are to give the

holder either coin or treasury notes, at his option, at the rate

of one dollar for every 371 grains, now worth in the market 77

cents. Who can estimate the untold hoards of silver that will come

into the treasury if this policy is adopted?

* * * * *

"But it is said that free coinage will not have the effect I have

stated; that the silver in sight is so occupied where it is that

it will not come to us. They said the same when the present law

was passed, that foreign silver would not come to us. Yet our

purchase of 4,500,000 ounces, troy weight, or 187 tons, of silver

a month, at market price, brought into the United States large

amounts of silver from all parts of the world. If that is the

effect of limited purchases at one dollar an ounce, the market

price, what will be the effect of unlimited purchases at 29 cents

an ounce more than market price? It would inundate us with the

vast hoards of silver in countries where silver alone is the current

money, and draw to us all the rapidly-increasing production of

silver mines in the world.

"But they say with free coinage the price of silver will rise to

the old ratio with gold. The experience of all the world belies

this statement. In no country in the world where free coinage

exists is sixteen ounces of silver equal to one ounce of gold.

France and the United States maintain the parity between the two

by carefully limiting the coinage and receiving and redeeming silver

coins as the equivalent of gold. But wherever free coinage exists

that is impossible. With free coinage the market value of the

bullion fixes the value of the dollar. The Mexican dollar contains

more silver than the American dollar, and yet the Mexican dollar

is worth about 78 cents, because in Mexico coinage is free. And

the American dollar is worth 100 cents because in the United States

coinage is limited. So in all free coinage countries where silver

alone is coined it is worth its market value as bullion. In all

countries where gold circulates the coinage of silver is limited,

but is used as money in even greater amounts than in countries

where coinage is free. This is the case in France and the United

States. The free coinage of silver in either would stop the coinage

of gold.

* * * * *

"It is claimed that if we adopt the silver standard we will get

more money for our labor and productions. This does not follow,

but, even if it be true, the purchasing power of our money will be

diminished. All experience proves that labor and the productions

of the farm are the last to advance in price.

* * * * *

"Some say that we want more money to transact the business of the

country. Do we get more money be demonetizing one-half of all we

have?--for the gold now in circulation is more than one-half of

the coin in circulation."

In closing this speech I said:

"I appeal to the conservative men of Ohio of both parties to repeat

now the service they rendered the people of the United States in

1875, by the election of Governor Hayes, in checking the wave of

inflation that then threatened the country. You can render even

a greater service now in the election of Governor McKinley, in

defeating the free coinage of silver, and strengthening the hands

of President Harrison and the Republican Senate in maintaining

American industries, a full dollar for all labor and productions,

the untarnished credit of the American people, and the advancing

growth and prosperity of our great republic. I have endeavored in

a feeble way to promote these objects of national policy, and now

that I am growing old, I have no other wish or ambition than to

inspire the young men of Ohio to take up the great work of the

generation that is passing away, and to do in their time as much

as, or more than, the soldiers and citizens of the last forty years

have been able to do to advance and elevate our government to the

highest standard and example of honor, courage and industry known

among men."

These extracts give an imperfect idea of the speech, which entered

into many details, and stated the effect of the cheapening of the

dollar on the wages of men employed as laborers, and on farmers

who would be cheated by the diminished power of money.

Being confined to one subject, and that one which at the time

excited the attention of the people, this speech was widely copied,

and received general approbation from the press of the north and

east, and was commented upon favorably in countries in Europe,

where the fall in the price of silver was the subject of anxious

interest. It also excited the denunciation of the free silver states

in the west. The Democratic platform of Ohio had unfortunately

committed that great party to the ideas of the new party calling

itself the People's party, represented mainly by the disciples of

the old greenback fiat money craze, some of whom, while claiming

to be farmers, do their planting in law offices, and whose crops,

if they have any, are thistles and ragweeds. That part of the

platform had been adopted by but a bare majority of the Democratic

convention, and Campbell, their candidate, tried to evade it.

McKinley promptly recognized the importance of the money question

in the pending canvass, and at once presented in all his speeches

the two vital measures of his party--good money and a protective

tariff. On these two issues the Republican party was united and

the Democratic party divided.

Early in September, I was invited by the managers of the state fair

to make a speech on the 17th of that month at their grounds in

Columbus, on the political issues of the day, and accepted the

invitation. As usual during the fair great crowds assembled, most

of whom no doubt felt more interested in the horse races and sight-

seeing than in coinage or tariff, but many thousands, mostly farmers

from all parts of the state, were gathered around the east front

of the main building. At the time appointed I was introduced by

E. W. Poe, the state auditor, with the usual flattering remarks,

and commenced my speech as follows:

"When I was invited to speak to you here I was informed that I was

expected to present my views on the leading issues of the day, and

that a like invitation had been given to Governor Campbell and

other gentlemen holding public trusts from the people of Ohio.

While this invitation relieves me from the charge of impropriety

in introducing a political question on the fair grounds, yet I am

admonished by the presence of gentlemen of all parties and all

shades of opinion that common courtesy demands that, while frankly

stating my convictions, I will respect the opinions of others who

differ from me. I propose, therefore, in a plain way to give you

my views on the tariff question, now on trial between the two great

political parties of the United States. It is somewhat unfortunate

that this purely business question of public policy is being

discussed on party lines, but it is made a party question by the

State conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties of Ohio,

and we must accept it as such, though I would greatly prefer, and

I intend to treat it here, as far as I can, as a purely economic

question."

I briefly stated the history of tariff legislation in the United

States, what was meant by a tariff and the objects sought by it,

and that for the first fifty years of our history the lines were

not drawn between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. It

was in those days the common desire of all sections to obtain

revenue and to encourage domestic industries. This unity of purpose

existed until 1831, when the south had become almost exclusively

an agricultural region, in which cotton was the chief product of

the plantation with negro slaves as the laborers, and when the

north, under the protective policy, had largely introduced

manufactures, and naturally wished to protect and enlarge their

industries. The tariff question grew out of a contest between free

and slave labor. I referred to the various measures adopted, the

compromise measure of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker

tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861. During and after

the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough

revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the

public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic

industries. To meet these demands we had to levy not only high

duties on nearly all imported goods, but to add internal taxes,

yielding $300,000,000 annually, on articles produced in this country.

When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these

taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political

question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then

stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the

Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were

applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:

"First. To repeal all taxes on home production, except on spirits,

tobacco, and beer.

"Second. To levy the highest rates of duties that will not encourage

smuggling, on articles of luxury which enter into the consumption

of the rich.

"Third. To place on imported articles which compete with articles

that can be manufactured or produced in the United States, such a

rate of duty as will secure to our farmers and laborers fair prices,

fair wages, and will induce our people to engage in such manufacture

and production.

"Fourth. To repeal all duties on articles of prime necessity which

enter into the consumption of the American people and which cannot

be produced in sufficient quantity in this country.

"Fifth. To grant to foreign nations the reciprocal right of free

importation into our ports of articles we cannot produce, in return

for the free introduction into their ports of articles of American

production."

I entered into full details of the tariff and contrasted the McKinley

act with the Mills bill proposed by the Democratic party, but which

never became a law, and in conclusion said:

"And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for

you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a

fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to

open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties.

If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling

we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better

than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say

to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should

have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair

trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance,

led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born

of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to

a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as

I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial.

Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views of public

policy. Some items I would like to change, but, on the whole, it

is a wise measure of finance. It will give enough revenue to

support the government. It is an American law, looking only to

American interests. It is a fair law, dealing justly by all

industries. It is an honest law, preventing, as far as law can,

fraud and evasion. It is a comprehensive law covering the whole

ground. It will undoubtedly establish new branches of industry in

our country not now pursued. It will strengthen others now in

operation. It will give to thousands of our people now idle,

employment at fair wages. It will give to our farmers a greatly

enlarged market for their productions, and encourage them in

producing articles not now produced, and to increase their flocks,

herds and horses to meet the new demands."

My speech was as free from partisanship as I could make it, and I

am quite willing to stand upon the policy I defined.

I visited Cleveland a few days later and met many of the active

Republicans of that city, and was glad to learn that they were

practically unanimous for my re-election. Among other callers was

a correspondent of the "Plain Dealer" of that city, who treated me

fairly in stating correctly what I said in answer to his questions.

The "Commercial Gazette" and the "Enquirer," of Cincinnati, also

published long interviews with me, and incidents of my life given

by my neighbors. I began to believe that these interviews, fairly

reported, were better modes of expressing my opinions than formal

speeches, and were more generally read.

During the month of October I made many speeches in different parts

of the state, several of which were reported in full, but the

general tenor of all may be gathered from those already referred to.

Among the largest meetings I attended in this canvass was one at

Toledo, on the evening of the 14th of October. Here again I

discoursed about currency and the tariff, but the salient points

had become so familiar to me that I could speak with ease to my

audience and to myself. As soon as this meeting was over, I took

the midnight train for Dayton, where a "burgoo" feast was to be

held the next day on the fair grounds. This was by far the largest

meeting of the campaign. There was an immense crowd on the grounds,

but it was a disagreeable day, with a cloudy sky, a chilly atmosphere

and a cold raw wind. McKinley, Foraker and I spoke from the same

stand, following each other. As I was the first to speak I had

the best of it, and as soon as I finished left the grounds, but

they held the great audience for several hours. I insert what the

Dayton "Journal" reported of the speakers as a specimen of friendly

journalism:

"Sherman renewed his youth and even exceeded the best efforts of

his earlier days. Neither man nor woman left their place while

Sherman was speaking. At 2 o'clock, when McKinley, our gallant

leader, took the platform, the crowd seemed so great that no man's

voice could reach them, but they listened for every syllable and

made the hills echo with their appreciative applause. Then came

Foraker. It seemed as if the great meeting had been magnetized

with an electric power of ten thousand volts. There were continuous

shouts of approbation and applause from his beginning to the close.

His mingling of wit and wisdom, a burgoo combination of powerful

and telling arguments, with sandwiches of solid facts, completed

a political barbecue which will be a historical memory that will

be almost as famous as the gathering of the people of this splendid

valley in 1842, when Henry Clay spoke to our fathers on the same

sod and under the shade of the same trees on the same subjects.

The memory of the magnificent Republican demonstration at the

Montgomery fair grounds on the 15th day of October, 1891, will

remain with all who participated in it as long as they shall live."

On the evening of October 17, Foraker and I appeared together before

a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati. I insert a few sentences

of a long description in the "Commercial Gazette" of the next day:

"Music Hall was the scene last night of the greatest Republican

gathering of the campaign. Senator Sherman and Governor Foraker

were the speakers.

"The meeting was an immense one. That was a magnificent assemblage.

It was an ovation. It was a recognition of brains and integrity.

It was an evidence that honesty and justice prevail. It showed

that the people believe in the Republican party. It proved that

they appreciate that the party still has a mission. It evinced an

appreciation of the past and a hope for, and a belief in, the

future. It was a great outpouring of Republicans. It was a

gathering of the supporters of right as against wrong. It was a

regular Republican crowd. Personal feeling and personal ambition

were laid aside.

* * * * *

"Sherman and Foraker were on the stage together. Their presence

on the same stage was a noteworthy fact. It was an evidence of

harmony and of strength. Then, again, the united marching of the

Lincoln and Blaine clubs was a further proof of harmony. In fact,

the entire meeting, and the pleasant feeling manifest, proved that

the party is united as one man against its old foe, the Democracy;

that, as many a time before, it is ready and anxious to do battle

with the ancient enemy. No deceits, no frauds, can defeat it--the

Republican party. This the meeting proved conclusively."

I closed my part in this canvass at Toledo and Cleveland in the

week before the election, and these speeches were fairly and fully

reported. During the whole contest between Foraker and myself

there was nothing said to disturb our friendly relations. The

election resulted in the success of the Republican ticket and a

Republican legislature, McKinley receiving over 21,000 plurality.

Immediately after the election it was announced that the members

of the legislature from Hamilton county were unanimously in favor

of Foraker for Senator. This announcement, and especially the

manner of it, created a good deal of bad feeling in the state,

especially as it was alleged and believed that George Cox had full

control of the delegation and had required the pledges of each

senator and member to vote for United States Senator as he dictated.

During the entire canvass there was a full and free discussion,

not only in Ohio but throughout the United States, as to the choice

between Foraker and myself. It was known that the vote in the

legislature would be close and the friends of each were claiming

a majority for their favorite. It is not necessary to follow the

progress of the contest, but I became satisfied that I would be re-

elected, although the most positive assurances were published that

Foraker, with the aid of his solid delegation from Hamilton county,

would be successful. Many things were said during the brief period

before the election that ought not to have been said, but this is

unavoidable in choosing between political friends as well as between

opposing parties. Every Republican paper in Ohio took sides in

the contest. Meetings were held in many of the counties and cities

of the state, and resolutions adopted expressing their preference.

I was urged by some friends to go to Columbus some time before the

meeting of the legislature on the first Monday in January, but

delayed my departure from Washington until after the wedding of my

niece, on the 30th of December, a narrative of which was given by

the "Ohio State Journal" as follows:

"The marriage of Miss Rachel Sherman, daughter of the late General

William T. Sherman, and Dr. Paul Thorndike, of Boston, was solemnized

at high noon to-day at the residence of Senator Sherman, in the

presence of a distinguished audience of relatives and officials.

It was a gathering composed chiefly of intimate friends of the late

General Sherman, many of whom came from afar to witness the nuptials

of the favorite daughter of the deceased chieftain.

"The house was gay with music and fragrant with flowers. The

ceremony took place in the front parlor of the residence. A canopy

of asparagus and smilax was twined over the recess where the ceremony

was performed. A background of foliage and palms massed together

made the couple standing in front all the more effective and

attractive. On the mantel were banked white blossoms in profusion,

and hanging from the chandeliers wreaths of smilax intertwined with

white chrysanthemums and carnations. The ushers were Mr. Allen

Johnston, of the British legation, Mr. Ward Thorou, Mr. William

Thorndike, Dr. Augustine Thorndike and Mr. Tecumseh Sherman, the

bride's brother. Preceding the bride came her little niece, Miss

Elizabeth Thackara, in a gown of white muslin, carrying a basket

of white lilies. Senator Sherman escorted the bride, who was met

by the groom and his best man, Mr. Albert Thorndike. The party

grouped about Father Sherman, brother of the bride, who, with much

impressiveness, performed the marriage rites of the Catholic church.

"After the ceremony the bride and groom held a reception. A wedding

breakfast was next served to the invited guests. Among those

present were the President and Mrs. Harrison, Mrs. McKee, the Vice

President and Mrs. Morton, Secretary Blaine, Mr. and Mrs. Damrosch,

Secretaries Rusk and Tracy, Senator and Mrs. Stanford, Sir Julian

Pauncefote and others."

CHAPTER LXI.

ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE SIXTH TIME.

I Secure the Caucus Nomination for Senator on the First Ballot--

Foraker and Myself Introduced to the Legislature--My Address of

Thanks to the Members--Speech of Governor Foraker--My Colleague

Given His Seat in the Senate Without Opposition--Message of President

Harrison to the 52nd Congress--Morgan's Resolutions and Speech for

the Free Coinage of Silver--Opening of the Silver Debate by Mr.

Teller--My Speech on the Question--Defeat of the Bill in the House

--Discussion of the Chinese Question--My Opposition to the Conference

Report on Mr. Geary's Amended Bill--Adopted by the Senate After a

Lengthy Debate--Effect of the Tariff Laws Upon Wages and Prices--

Senator Hale's Resolution--Carlisle's Speech in Opposition to High

Prices--My Reply--Résumé of My Opinions on the Policy of Protection

--Reception by the Ohio Republican Association--Refutation of a

Newspaper Slander Upon H. M. Daugherty--Newspaper Writers and

Correspondents--"Bossism" in Hamilton County.

Upon the meeting of the Ohio legislature, on the 4th of January,

1892, Foraker and I were in attendance, stopping at the same hotel

and meeting daily. There was much excitement and great diversity

of opinion as to the result of the senatorial election. Several

of the members, whose preference I knew, would not declare their

vote, with the mistaken idea that to remain silent would relieve

them from importunity, but before the decisive vote was taken in

caucus I was confident of success.

The caucus met on Wednesday evening, the 6th of January. It was

composed of the Republican members of both houses. L. C. Laylin,

a friend of mine, who had been elected speaker of the house of

representatives, was made chairman of the caucus. An attempt was

made by the friends of Foraker to secure a secret ballot, but this

was defeated. The decisive vote was then taken, in which I received

53 votes, Foraker 38, Foster 1 and McKinley 1. My nomination was

then made unanimous, and I was subsequently elected by the legislature

for the term ending March 4, 1899.

The caucus appointed a committee of its members to escort Foraker

and myself to the hall of the house of representatives, where we

were received with hearty applause. We were introduced by Speaker

Laylin, and our speeches will show that if we were combatants we

appreciated the merits of our respective adversaries. I said:

"Senators, Representatives and Fellow Citizens:--I return to you

my most grateful thanks for the very high honor you have conferred

upon me. Long trusted by the people of Ohio, I am under obligations

that I cannot express in any language at my command. I owe to them

--I owe to you--all that could be said from a heart overflowing.

"We have just passed through quite a contest, the most formidable

that I have ever encountered in Ohio, and I hope more formidable

than I will ever be called upon to encounter hereafter. I know,

gentlemen, that you have been called upon to make a choice which

was unpleasant to you because you would have liked to vote for both

of us, and would have been glad to have two Senators to elect

instead of one.

"I am glad to say that in this contest I have held, in my language

and in my heart, the highest feelings of respect and honor for the

gentleman who was my competitor, and who is now before you. He is

entitled to the love and affection of the people of Ohio, and if

you have given me this high honor because of my experience, you

have not underrated the high qualities, mental and moral, of Governor

Foraker. Although you have been engaged in this friendly contest,

we are all Republicans and I trust ever will be Republicans, true

to our cause, and true to the principles we advocate. I again

return to you, as the senators and representatives of our state,

my thanks for this almost unequaled honor."

Governor Foraker said:

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Caucus and Fellow Citizens:--I

am informed that, so far as you are concerned, the senatorial

contest is ended, and I have come here in response to your kind

invitation to say that so far as I am concerned it is ended also.

"You did not end it as I had hoped you might, but you are the duly

accredited and authorized representatives of the Republicans of

Ohio, and your will is law unto me and mine.

"As Senator Sherman has said, we have been having something of a

contest. For the last ten days we have been divided into Sherman

men and Foraker men, and we have been striving against each other.

There has been possibly some rasping and some friction, but at this

hour it is our highest duty to remember that from now on henceforth,

in the language again of the Senator, we must remember that we are

no longer Sherman men nor Foraker men, but Republicans all.

"Let us here and now put behind us, with the contest to which it

belongs, whatever unkindliness of feeling, if there be any at all,

that may have been engendered. So far as I am concerned, I am glad

to be able to say to you, gentlemen of the 70th general assembly,

that I have not an unkind thought toward any one of you, no matter

whether he has been friend or foe. I have no resentments, no

bitterness of feeling to carry with me. On the contrary, I shall

go back to the pursuit of my profession with my mind and my heart

filled with only grateful recollection and a pleasurable, and I

trust a pardonable, pride for the gallant, intrepid band who have

honored me with their support in this contest. Without any

disposition to criticise or find fault in the slightest degree,

but only as an excuse in so far as that may be necessary for

enlisting in a cause than has been crowned, not with success, but

with defeat, let me say to these friends that when we entered upon

it I did not foresee some of its features. I was not aware then,

as we have since come to know, that we have had to fight, not only

the Republicans of Ohio who were against us, but, because it was

grand old John Sherman on the other side, and with him the whole

United States of America. The Senator has said he don't want any

more contests like this. I thank him for the compliment, and vouch

to you that I don't want ever against to cross swords with a

Sherman."

The 52nd Congress met on the 7th of December, 1891. The credentials

of my colleague, Calvin S. Brice, in the usual form, were presented

and upon them he was entitled to be sworn into office. If his

right to a seat was to be contested the grounds of the contest

might be afterwards presented, when the case would be decided on

its merits, but, until it should be determined by the Senate that

he was not duly elected, he could perform the duties of a Senator.

I was urged to object to his taking the oath of office on the ground

that he was not a resident of the State of Ohio when elected. This

I declined to do, but simply gave notice of his alleged disability,

so that it would not be waived in the case the legislature or

citizens of Ohio should establish the fact that he was not an

inhabitant of that state when elected. This was not done and no

attempt was made to contest his seat, but I was reproached by

unreasonable partisans for the neglect to do so.

The annual message of President Harrison, sent to Congress on the

9th of December, strongly recommended the aid of the government in

the construction of he Nicaragua Canal. He highly commended the

McKinley tariff bill, and said that its results had disappointed

the evil prophecies of its opponents, and, in a large measure,

realized the predictions of its friends. He referred to the large

increase of our exports and imports, and, generally, gave a hopeful

view of our financial condition. He recommended that the experiment

of purchasing 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month, under

the act of July 14, 1890, be continued. Though silver had fallen

in value from $1.20 an ounce to 96 cents, yet he hoped a further

trial would more favorably affect it. He was still of opinion that

the free coinage of silver under existing conditions would disastrously

affect our business interests at home and aborad. He approved the

application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the public

debt, and stated that since the 1st of March, 1889, there had been

redeemed of interest-bearing securities $259,079,350, resulting in

a reduction of the annual interest charge of $11,684,675. On the

whole the message of the President and the report of Secretary

Foster presented a favorable state of our national finances.

The disposition of the 52nd Congress was not to engage in political

debate, especially on financial questions, as it was divided on

political lines, the Senate being Republican, and the House

Democratic. The current business did not present such questions

until Senator Morgan, on the 30th of March, 1892, introduced

resolutions directing the committee on finance to make examinations

and report upon six different propositions, embracing the whole

financial system of the United States, and to do it promptly. I

had no objection to the passage of the resolutions, though they

were imperative in tone, but naturally supposed they were brought

in merely as a text for a speech, and suggested to Morgan that he

prepare a bill that would carry out his views and have that referred

to the committee. He said: "I do not expect to refer them. I

expect to instruct your committee what to do. That is what I

propose." In introducing his resolutions he said: "There is an

evil in the land, a difficulty of most serious embarrassment. . . .

The people cannot afford to wait without encountering all the

hardships of bankruptcy and ruin. . . . Our differences will not

permit our people to wait further adjustment when they are in a

death struggle with poverty and wretchedness."

I replied: "If there is such distress as the Senator imagines it

ought to be met by specific measures and not by a debating school."

I knew that what he wanted was the free coinage of silver. Upon

this question both parties were divided. The states producing

silver were represented by Republicans who favored a measure that,

in my opinion, would lead to the single standard of silver, and if

the Senate was to consider that subject I wished it to be distinctly

presented and debated, rather than to enter upon the discussion of

a multitude of theories that would lead to no result. He expressed

the desire that he and others should have an opportunity to speak

on the resolutions, and, in conformity with the usages of the

Senate, they were left on the table for indefinite debate.

On the 14th of April, Morgan made an elaborate speech covering

twelve pages of the "Record," in which, as I expected, he elaborated

his views in favor of the free coinage of silver, and closed as

follows:

"We are very nearly out of the woods now, and if you will add the

free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold, and will cause

the treasury of the United States to coin the silver that is there

on the same terms that it does gold, I believe that we shall soon

master every difficulty in our way. Then the honorable Senator

from Ohio would have the right to rejoice, and, contrary to his

will, he would be led up into such high positions that he would be

able, at last, to bless the country when he did not expect to do

it."

Believing, as I did, that to continue this debate would be a

fruitless waste of time, and interfere with the current business

of Congress, I said:

"I do not intend to engage in this discussion, but still I wish to

ascertain the sense of the Senate. If we are to have a general

silver debate now, to the displacement of all other business, I

should like to have that point tested; and, in order to settle it

definitely, without engaging in the debate at all, I move to lay

the pending resolutions on the table."

Mr. Teller, the leader of the "silver Senators," as they are called,

with some excitement, said:

"The Senator from Ohio, flushed, perhaps, with the victory apparently

in the other House against silver, seems to think he can down the

debate in this body on the subject. I want to say to the Senator

that we spent some time during the last session to prevent him,

and others who thought with him, from securing a rule that would

cut off debate in this body, and the Senator might as well meet

the question now as at any time; that this question will be debated,

and if not upon this, upon some other resolution. . . . I give

notice that, under the rules of the Senate, we are able to be heard,

and that we will be heard, in despite of the honorable Senator from

Ohio, who appears to be so anxious to stifle debate."

To this I replied:

"I deny, in the most emphatic terms, that I have endeavored to

stifle debate. There is no ground for such an assertion. There

is not an iota of ground upon which such an assertion can be made.

I never objected in my life, and I have been here longer than any

of you, to any Senator speaking at any time when he chose upon any

subject; and every man here knows it. . . . I am willing to discuss,

and I never shrink from debate on, the silver question, or the gold

question, or the currency question. I have not been willing, at

all times, to talk at all hours, and reply to every gentleman who

might choose to make a speech; but whenever the Senate undertakes

to engage in this debate, I will take my share of it, and I will

take my responsibility for it."

I then proceeded at some length to reply to Morgan. The debate

was suspended by the order of business, but it continued from day

to day as opportunity offered, on a motion to refer the resolutions

to the committee on finance, until the 25th of May, when the Senate

rejected the motion by a vote of 17 yeas to 28 nays. This vote

was a clear indication that a majority of the Senate favored the

free coinage of silver. I then, while criticising the terms of

the resolutions, expressed my desire that they should be adopted.

This led to a desultory debate in which I took part, and on the

morning of the next day, having the floor, said:

"I regret as much as anyone can the unusual and remarkable

interposition of this question, by the Senator from Alabama, at

every stage of our business. Now, the whole of the morning hour

had been wasted except the ten minutes which I shall occupy, and

probably nothing could have been done in that time.

"An arraignment has been made of the committee on finance as if it

had neglected to perform its duty. I am not authorized to speak

for the committee except as one of its members. Its chairman, the

Senator from Vermont, Mr. Morrill, is here to speak for it, but

the committee on finance has never for a moment evaded or avoided

the issue of the free coinage of silver. It has never delayed a

bill, so far as my knowledge extends, upon that subject. Very soon

after the bill of the Senator from Nevada was introduced it was

considered and reported adversely. I believe two-thirds of the

members of the committee were opposed to the bill as it stood.

There has not been a day nor an hour, in the ordinary course of

business of the Senate, when, upon the motion of anyone, that bill

could not have been taken up if a majority of Senators were in

favor of it, but, unfortunately for the Senator, a majority of the

Senators were not in favor of taking it up and interposing it in

place of all the other business. Therefore, this mode is adopted

to bring it here before the Senate."

At two o'clock I gave way to the regular order of business. Mr.

Stewart then moved to take up his bill, introduced early in the

session, to provide for the free coinage of gold and silver bullion.

It had been referred to the committee on finance, reported adversely,

and was on the calendar, subject to a motion to take it up at any

time. This again presented directly to the Senate the policy of

the free coinage of silver. The motion was agreed to by the vote

of yeas 28, nays 20. The resolutions of Morgan were practically

suspended and the vote on taking up the silver bill indicated its

passage. Mr. Teller opened the debate for free coinage. On the

31st of May I commenced a very long speech, opening as follows:

"I do not regard the bill for the free coinage of silver as a party

measure or a political measure upon which parties are likely to

divide. It is in many respects a local measure, not exactly in

the sense in which General Hancock said in regard to the tariff

that it was a local question, but it is largely a local question.

Yet, at the same time, it is a question of vast importance. No

question before the Senate of the United States at this session is

at all to be compared with it in the importance of its effects upon

the business interests of the country. It affects every man, woman

and child in our broad land, the rich with his investments, the

poor with his labor. Everybody is deeply interested in the standard

of value by which we measure all the productions of the labor and

all the wealth of mankind.

"Five states largely interested in the production of silver are

very ably and zealously represented on this floor. They are united

by their delegations, ten Senators, in favor of the free coinage

of silver. The south seems also to have caught something of the

spirit which actuates the mining states, because they desire, not

exactly the free coinage of silver, but an expansion of the currency,

cheaper money, and broader credit, and they also are largely

represented on this floor in support of the proposition in favor

of the free coinage of silver. So in other parts of the country,

those who have been taught to believe that great good can come to

our country by an unlimited expansion of paper credit, with money

more abundant than it is now, also believe in the free coinage of

silver.

"I, representing a state nearly central in population, have tested

the sense of the people of Ohio, and they, I believe, are by a

great majority, not only of the party to which I belong but of the

Democratic party, opposed to the free coinage of silver. They

believe that that will degrade the money of our country, reduce

its purchasing power fully one-third, destroy the bi-metallic system

which we have maintained for a long period of time, and reduce us

to a single monometallic standard of silver measured by the value

of 371¼ grains of pure silver to the dollar."

I will not attempt to give an epitome of this speech. It covered

seventeen pages of the "Record," and dealt with every phase of the

question of silver coinage, and, incidentally, of our currency.

No part of it was written except the tables and extracts quoted.

Its delivery occupied parts of two days, May 31 and June 1. After

a careful reading I do not see what I could add to the argument,

but I might have condensed it. The question involved is still

before the people of the United States, and will again be referred

to by me. I closed with the following paragraph:

"But, sir, closing as I began, let me express my earnest belief

that this attempt to bring this great and powerful nation of ours

to the standard of silver coin alone is a bad project, wrong in

principle, wrong in detail, injurious to our credit, a threat to

our financial integrity, a robbery of the men whose wages will be

diminished by its operation, a gross wrong to the pensioner who

depends upon the bounty of his government, a measure that can do

no good, and, in every aspect which it appears to me, a frightful

demon to be resisted and opposed."

The debate continued with increasing interest until the 1st of July,

when the bill passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 29, nays 25.

It was sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence, but

a resolution providing for its consideration was there debated,

and rejected by a vote of yeas 136, nays 154.

During this session of Congress the policy of restricting Chinese

immigration was strongly pressed by the Senators and Representatives

from California and Oregon. They were not content with an extension

of the restrictions imposed by the act of 1882, which, by its terms,

expired in ten years from its approval, but demanded a positive

exclusion of all Chinese except a few merchants and travelers

especially defined and excepted, to be enforced with severe penalties

almost savage in their harshness. The position of the two countries

in respect to migration from one to the other had been directly

reversed. In common with European nations the United States had,

several years before, compelled the opening of Chinese ports to

Americans, insured the protection of its citizens in that country,

and had invited and encouraged Chinese laborers to migrate to the

United States. This was especially so as to the Pacific states,

where Chinese were employed in large numbers in the grading and

construction of railways and as farmers in cultivating the soil.

These people were patient, economical and skillful. Very many of

them flocked to San Francisco, but they soon excited the bitter

opposition of laborers from other countries, and no doubt of some

American laborers. This led to the restriction act of 1882 and to

a treaty with China, by which that country consented to the exclusion

of Chinese laborers, a degraded class of population known as

"coolies." It was complained in 1892, and for several years

previously, that the provisions of the law of 1882 and of the treaty

were evaded by fraud and perjury. Senator Dolph, of Oregon, had

introduced a bill extending the restriction to all Chinese laborers,

with provisions to prevent evasion and fraud. A number of other

bills were introduced in each House of a like character. The

committee on foreign relations considered the subject-matter very

carefully and directed Mr. Dolph to report a bill extending for

five years the act of 1882, with several amendments providing

against frauds. This bill was passed and sent to the House, but

was not acted upon there.

On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California,

reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on

foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese

persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to

suspend the rules and pass the bill. After a debate of one hour,

and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. It came to the

Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On

the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment

in the nature of a substitute, which was the bill that had previously

passed the Senate.

On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the

committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no

sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing

to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the

committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after

full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this

form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment

and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph,

Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman

and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the

adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report

was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary

and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from

the conference report, as follows:

"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to

get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply

wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.

"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to

continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers

coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very

broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some

penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in

opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the

introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an

insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult

by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are

forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our

border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on

Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation

of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian

authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create

excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will

no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly

legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create

irritation.

"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has

been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to

be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under

virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the

collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within

one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of

residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal

to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new

departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was

suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in

the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition

of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule

in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon

very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are

confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those

treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are

simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get

a certificate or be punished.

"Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced

into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned,

is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real

doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of

Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits

are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get

rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do

so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of

the treaty of 1880, it is our right--not our power, but our right

according to the treaty--to make this exceptional legislation for

people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides

that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or

residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of

this country, 'regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence,

but may not absolutely prohibit it.' In violation of that article

of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only

have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and

conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate

they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they

are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law

a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these

people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but

they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have

agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate

against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these

laborers to remain in the position of persons 'of the most favored

nation.' . . . Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous

nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the

class of people of China that we do not want here, making a

discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But

it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to

those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples

are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them;

that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of

this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not

propose to vote for the conference report on that ground."

After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference

committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.

An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to

the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff

bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on

finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this

subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it.

Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following

resolution, which gave rise to the debate:

"Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American

people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities

and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and

"Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never

been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and

"Whereas, Those conditions exist and are largely due to the Republican

policy of 'protection:' Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That the committee on finance be, and is hereby,

directed to inquire into the effect of a policy of 'tariff for

revenue only' upon the labor and the industries of the United

States, and to report upon the same to the Senate."

The next day Mr. Hale made a brief speech upon the resolution, and

was followed by Senator Vest, who quoted many documents, which were

printed in the "Record," in support of his views. Several other

Senators participated in the debate which continued from day to day.

The full report of the committee referred to, embracing three

volumes of over six hundred pages each, was submitted to the Senate

on the 19th of July, and on the 29th Senator John G. Carlisle, who,

as a member of the committee, had taken much interest in the inquiry,

and had participated in the conversational debate during the

preceding month, made an elaborate speech upon the resolution and

mainly upon the proposition advanced by him, that the result of

the McKinley law was to increase the prices of commodities, while

it did not increase wages. His speech was certainly a good specimen

of logic by a well trained mind. His first proposition was that

it was the unanimous opinion of scientists and statisticians, in

all the great industrial and commercial countries of the world,

that the prices of commodities had been decreasing, and the rates

of wages, especially in those occupations requiring skill and

intelligence, had been increasing; that capital had been receiving,

year after year, a smaller percentage of the total proceeds of the

product, and labor a larger percentage. He insisted that the

tendency toward a decline in prices of commodities and an increase

in the rates of wages is the necessary result of our improved

methods of production, transportation and exchange. He said that

anyone who contends in this day that high prices of commodities

are beneficial to the community at large, is at war with the spirit

of the age in which he lives, and with the genius of discovery and

invention, which, during the last half century, has ameliorated

the condition of mankind by bringing all the necessaries of life,

and many of its luxuries, within the reach of every man who is

willing to work. He then entered into an elaborate argument to

show that the McKinley act interfered with this natural tendency

towards a decline in the prices of commodities and a rise in the

rates of wages, and made it harder and more expensive for the masses

of the people of the United States to live.

I do not follow his argument, as, to treat him fairly, it would be

necessary to state it in full. It was illustrated by carefully

prepared tables.

On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake

to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from

Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that

the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not

think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his

argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary,

showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its

enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or

by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those

benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit

to the people of the United States, especially when they are the

productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of

a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only

seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire

but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points

made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the

magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor

were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities.

If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual

advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product

of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American

citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no

difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I

quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including

Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters

of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of

protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the

first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American

industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of

manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration.

The platform upon which he was elected was "That an adequate

protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity

of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this

period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best

interest of the nation."

I insisted that the object of protection--the employment of American

labor--was of more importance than the price of food or clothing,

though I believed, with Mr. Carlisle, that the tendency of a constant

falling of the prices of the necessaries of life would go on without

regard to the duties on imported goods, as the natural result of

invention and skill.

My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it

contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in

respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek

to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of

industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise.

Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by

this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the

people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the

articles that can be profitably produced in the United States.

The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained

in the following paragraphs of this speech:

"Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient

to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they

are fairly entitled to receive, then I am against the tariff act.

I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not

furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to

American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our

country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not

need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing

industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is

concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest

on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite,

to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection.

It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it

ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can

be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which

will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American

wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which

are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that

is desired."

Having referred to the principal measures of Congress during the

long session of 1891-92, I recur to some of the personal events

that followed my re-election. It was received with general approval

by the press of the United States. On the evening of the 30th of

January, 1892, the Ohio Republican Association, at Washington,

extended to me a reception at the National Rifles' Armory. Several

hundred invitations had been issued, and very few declined. The

hall was beautifully decorated with flags, and in the gallery the

Marine Band was stationed and rendered patriotic airs. I was

introduced to the audience by Thomas B. Coulter, the president of

the association. He deplored the illness of Secretary Charles

Foster, who was to have delivered the address of welcome, and then

introduced S. A. Whitfield, who made a complimentary address,

closing as follows:

"You have gone through all these years of public life without a

stain upon your honored name. The recent election in Ohio demonstrated

the honor in which you are held by the people of your state. It

was that which has given us this opportunity to pay you this respect,

we, of the Ohio Association, who are here to welcome you."

To this I made a brief reply, expressing my hearty thanks. John

Wanamaker, Postmaster General, made an interesting address, full

of humor and kindness, and was followed by several Members of

Congress, among whom was my neighbor, Michael D. Harter.

The only incident of an unpleasant nature growing out of the

senatorial contest was an unfounded charge against H. M. Daugherty,

an active and able member of the house of representatives of Ohio,

who was accused by a newspaper with being corruptly influenced to

cast his vote for me. He promptly denounced the slander, and

demanded an investigation. Noticing the publication and his denial,

I wrote him as follows:

"Senate Chamber, }

"Washington, January 18, 1892.}

"Hon. H. M. Daugherty.

"My Dear Sir:--I notice in Saturday's 'Journal' that you intend to

push to a trial some of the men who most unjustly libeled you, and

indirectly libeled me. I think so clear and strong a case of gross

injustice ought to be punished if the law can furnish any relief,

and I sympathize with you, and will stand by you in the effort to

reach the guilty parties.

"No one can know better than I the frank, manly and disinterested

course you pursued in the contest for the organization of the house,

and the election of Senator, and no one can know better than I how

false the imputation made against you was.

"I am glad to say that in the whole contest I never used one dollar

of money to corrupt or influence the vote or judgment of any member

of the legislature, and that the charge that you received, or were

to receive, $3,500, or any other sum of money, is absolutely false

and malicious. Whenever you desire me to testify to this, I will

gladly do so.

"Very sincerely yours,

"John Sherman."

A committee was appointed by the general assembly, who examined

witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:

"We are unable to find one iota of evidence that would lead us to

believe that the said H. M. Daugherty either received, or asked,

or was offered, any consideration for his vote for John Sherman,

for United States Senator, or that anyone received, or asked, or

was offered, the same for him, or that he was in any way unduly or

corruptly influenced to cast his vote for the said John Sherman,

but that, in voting for the said John Sherman, Mr. Daugherty followed

the instructions received by him from his constituents. We herewith

submit all the evidence taken by us in this examination, and make

the same a part of this report.

"Respectfully submitted,

"A. H. Strock,

"J. C. Heinlein,

"W. A. Reiter,

"John D. Beaird."

The "State Journal" said:

"After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr.

Daugherty and congratulated him. These expressions of good will

were too much for Mr. Daugherty's composure, and tears came unbidden

to his eyes. He felt the stigma placed upon his good name by the

insinuations of the Democratic newspapers very keenly, although

not one member of the house believed the stories."

At this period many interviews with me were published. It is the

custom of newspaper letter writers, who are generally bright

intelligent men, to call upon a Senator or Member with some current

story of the hour and then interview him. A brief interview is

often expanded into a long article in a newspaper, founded sometimes

not upon the conversation but upon speeches, writings and known

opinions of the person interviewed. When this is fairly and truly

done it answers the purpose of the letter writer, and the person

interviewed has no cause of complaint. This was especially the

case with the letters of George Alfred Townsend. His letter of

February 26, 1892, was but one of many which entered into details

that I could not deny, embracing anecdotes and incidents hardly

worthy of preservation, but forming a part of the gossip of the

hour. The newspaper reporter, as distinguished from the letter

writer, does not seek as a rule to verify his views, but flashes

by telegraph the current report of the moment. In this way it was

stated in the New York "World," on the 29th of February, that I

was about to resign and that Foster was to take my place, that I

was to edit General Sherman's letters, and ample details were given

of arrangements for the future--not a word of which was true.

In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the

Citizens' Republican Association of Cincinnati, of which Lewis

Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply.

I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that

a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in

Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the

Ohio house of representatives--one refusing to obey instructions--

and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States

Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county

were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had

committed themselves to their "boss" to vote for Senator as he

should direct, in order to secure his "influence" in the primaries.

I knew that if I answered the letter of the association truly I

would be reproached by the timid with the cry "Hush," "Hush," but

I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:

"Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892.

"Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:

"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state

that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln

club, that had 'for its object' the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton

county who have seized and degraded the 'Republican organization.'

You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the

Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the

'Citizens' Republican Association,' with a view of rebuking corruption

and purifying our party 'affairs from offenses and scandalous

methods,' and request me to give my opinion of your movement.

"While I do not wish to interfere in any way with the methods

adopted by the people of Hamilton county to ascertain the popular

will, yet I cannot refuse to answer frankly the inquiry of so

respectable a body of Republicans who complain that the popular will

is defeated by a corrupt gang, using offensive and scandalous

methods. My opinion is founded upon information gathered from many

of your citizens and the public press of Cincinnati, as well as

from your own statement. If I am in error as to existing methods

for the control of nominations and the corrupt practices of political

managers, your people can correct me and I will be gladly convinced

of my error.

"I do not see how any self-respecting Republican can differ with

you in your effort to secure to the Republican voters of Hamilton

county the free and unimpeded selection of candidates for office,

without the intervention of a boss or the corrupt use of money to

purchase the nominations. As I understand, the substantial control

of all local Republican appointments, and nominations to public

offices or employments of every grade in Hamilton county, is

practically in one man, that it is rare that anyone can secure any

place on the Republican ticket, from judge of the highest court in

your county, to the least important office, without his consent,

that this consent is secured in most cases by the payment of a

specific sum of money, that the money so collected is apportioned

between the 'boss' and what is called the 'gang,' and used to

control the primaries for the election of delegates to your county,

state and congressional conventions, and that when any office

carries with it patronage it is made the express and implied

condition in the nomination of the candidate that this patronage

must be transferred to the 'boss.'

"I understand also that the appointments made by your local boards,

and even some federal offices, are in effect transferred to the

same person to whom applicants are sent and whose recommendation

decides the appointment, so that one man controls by corrupt methods

nearly all nominations and appointments in Hamilton county, and

this rule is only tempered by occasional respect to public opinion,

when the boss thinks it unsafe to disregard it. These methods were

strikingly exemplified in the last county convention, when a decided

majority of a delegation of ten representatives and three senators

were nominated for the Ohio legislature, pledged beforehand to vote

for the person to be designated by the boss when the time came for

the election of the Senator of the United States. His decision

was carefully withheld until the election was over and was then

announced. In this way the vote for United States Senator of the

most populous city and county in Ohio was, during the canvass,

held, as I believe, for sale, not by the persons nominated as

Senators and Representatives, who are highly reputable citizens,

but by a corrupt organization which was able to control the

nominations and practically to exercise the power to vote for United

States Senator intrusted to its nominees.

"Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not

only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of

the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices.

It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are

adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will

compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority.

Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but

the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general

attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election

of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes

of their constituents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a

slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last

county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to

break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise,

as the unbiased choice and action of a popular assemblage. Since

I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations

and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except

to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to assert

their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too

sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would

sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices,

employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public

improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund

which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case,

by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power

of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and

finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear

in municipal governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without

respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.

"Very respectfully yours,

"John Sherman."

I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication.

Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not

know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.

CHAPTER LXII.

SECOND ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND.

Opposition to General Harrison for the Presidential Nomination--My

Belief That He Could Not Be Elected--Preference for McKinley--

Meeting of the National Republican Convention at Minneapolis--

Meeting of Republicans at Washington to Ratify the Ticket--Newspaper

Comment on My Two Days' Speech in the Senate on the Silver Question

--A Claim That I Was Not in Harmony with My Party on the Tariff--

My Reply--Opening Speeches for Harrison and Reid--Publication of

My "History of the Republican Party"--First Encounter with a "Kodak"

--Political Addresses in Philadelphia, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago

and Milwaukee--Return to Ohio--Defeat of Harrison.

During the spring and summer of 1892, prior to the renomination of

General Harrison for President and Whitelaw Reid for Vice President,

the choice of candidates was the general subject of comment. A

good deal of opposition to General Harrison was developed, mainly,

I think, from his cold and abrupt manners in his intercourse with

those who had business with him. His ability and integrity were

conceded, but he was not in any sense popular. This was apparent

especially in New York, that state that nominated him in 1888.

During all the period mentioned many names were canvassed, mine

among others, but I uniformly declined to be a candidate, and said

if I had a vote in the convention it would be cast for Harrison.

Some of his friends, especially Charles Foster, complained in

published interviews that I had not taken a more active part in

securing his nomination. From later developments I became satisfied

that Harrison could not be elected, that Platt and a powerful New

York influence would defeat him if nominated. I therefore preferred

the nomination of a new man, such as William McKinley, but he had

committed himself to Harrison, and, according to my code of honor,

could not accept a nomination if tendered him.

The Republican national convention met at Minneapolis on the 7th

of June. On the first ballot, Harrison received 535 votes, Blaine

182, McKinley 182, Reed 4, Lincoln 1. The southern states gave

Harrison 229 votes and other candidates 69, thus securing to Harrison

the nomination. Both Blaine and McKinley promptly acquiesced in

the result. I did not think the nomination wise, but was reported,

no doubt correctly, as saying to an interviewer:

"The nomination is one I expected to be made in the natural order

of things. The attempt to bring out a dark horse against two

persons evenly matched, or supposed to be so, is an extremely

difficult feat, because any break from one of the leaders would

naturally carry a portion of his followers to the other leader.

Therefore, the nomination of Harrison seemed to be the natural

sequence as soon as it appeared that he had a majority over Blaine,

which, I think, was apparent from the very beginning. I think that

the nomination being made, all will acquiesce in it and try to

elect the ticket. There was far more discontent with the nomination

four years ago than there is now. Then there were rapid changes

made that were to be accounted for only by agreements and compacts

made among leading delegates, but that was impossible in this case

because the convention was divided between prominent candidates.

I think the Republicans in every state will cheerfully acquiesce

in the result, and hope and expect that we can elect the ticket."

Soon after the nominations were made, Ohio Republicans in Washington,

held a ratification meeting. Alphonso Hart acted as president of

the meeting. He said it was not a matter of surprise that there

had been a difference of opinion as to candidates at Minneapolis,

when the choice was to be made between Harrison, Blaine, McKinley,

Reed and Lincoln. To-day their followers were all Harrison men.

I entered the hall as he was closing and was loudly called upon

for a speech. I said I had come to hear the young Republicans,

McKinley and Foster. I congratulated my hearers upon the bright

prospect of Republican success, and declared that Harrison would

be elected because he ought to be. The following synopsis of what

I said was published in the papers:

"President Harrison was all right. Personally, perhaps, he (the

Senator) would have been in favor of McKinley, but there was time

enough ahead for him; the future would witness his exaltation. He

eulogized McKinley most eloquently and declared him to be one of

the greatest and best men in public life. It was the best thing

to nominate Benjamin Harrison and the next thing to do would be to

elect him. It made no difference whom the Democrats trotted out

against him, he could and would win.

"The Senator said he was getting old now and did not feel like

working as he once did. He wanted to take things easy and let the

young men exert themselves. 'Let me,' he said, 'play the part of

Nestor and talk to you in a garrulous sort of a way; give you good

advice, which you do not always heed. Let me wander around like

the old farmer and watch the young men toil, but if I can mend an

old spoke or repair a broken wheel call upon John Sherman--he will

do his best.'"

On the 1st of July I started from Baltimore, by boat, for Boston,

for the recreation and air of a short sea voyage. I arrived on

the 3rd, and met, as usual, a reporter who asked many questions,

among others as to the condition of the silver bill and whether

Harrison would approve it if it should pass. I answered, I believed

Harrison would veto it, and also believed that if Cleveland was in

the chair he would do the same.

Pending this presidential nomination, my mind was fully occupied

by my duties in the Senate. I made my two days' speech on the

silver question, already referred to, when the active politicians

were absorbed in what was to happen in the convention at Minneapolis.

I quote what was said in papers of different politics, not only as

their estimates of the speech, but also of the state of my mind

when it was made:

"The two days' speech of Senator Sherman on the Stewart silver bill

is undoubtedly the greatest speech he has ever made. More than

that, it is probably the greatest speech that ever was made in the

Senate on any financial question. It is interesting to note that

Mr. Sherman, after speaking two hours and a half on Tuesday, said

that he was not at all tired, and was ready to go on and finish

then. This was said in reply to a suggestion that the Senate should

adjourn. For one who has passed his sixty-ninth year, this is

surely a remarkable exhibition of mental and physical powers.

"Such a speech, covering not only the silver question, but the

whole range of national finance, cannot be reviewed in detail within

the limits of a newspaper article. All that can be said about

details is that Mr. Sherman has not merely a well furnished mind

on the whole range of topics embraced in his discourse, but so well

furnished that there is no point too small to have escaped his

attention or his memory.

"Give him a clear field, such as the statesmen and financiers of

Europe have, where there are no wrongheaded and befooled constituencies

to be reckoned with, and he would be _facile princeps_ among them."

--New York "Evening Post," June 2, 1892.

"In his latest great speech on free coinage, Senator Sherman, after

depicting the inevitable disaster which the silver standard would

bring upon the United States--drawing an impressive lesson from

the experience of countries having a depreciated silver currency--

deals with the subject of bimetallism in his usual lucid way. He

has been called a 'gold bug,' and is no doubt willing to accept

the epithet if it signifies a belief in the gold standard under

present conditions. But he declares himself to be a bimetallist

in the true sense of the term.

"What the Senator means by bimetallism is the use of gold and silver

and paper money maintained at par with each other; more definitely,

the different forms of money of different temporary values must be

combined together by the law in some way to make them circulate as

equal with each other. This is accomplished now by our laws and

the pledge of the government to keep all forms of money at a parity

with that form having the greatest intrinsic value. Whether, under

the law requiring the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver a

year, silver and gold could permanently be maintained at the same

value as money, at the existing ratio of sixteen to one, is a matter

concerning which the Senator expresses doubt. He would repeal or

materially amend the law of 1890. Furthermore, he would change

the ratio. The increased production of silver and the consequent

decline in price warrant this course, and it is a financial and

business necessity if silver is to enter more largely into circulation

or into use as the basis of paper."--Cincinnati "Times Star," June

4, 1892.

"In a conspicuous degree Senator Sherman, of Ohio, represents the

noblest principles and traditions of the Republican party. He is

an astute politician; but, much better than that, he is a wise,

public-spirited, broad-minded statesman.

"With regard to the financial and economic principles, which are

vital ones, and which must be made the dominating ones of the

Republican campaign, Mr. Sherman's opinions and convictions are

known to be in harmony with those of shrewdest judgment and wisest,

safest counsel. Mr. Sherman is the strongest, most effective

defender of the principle of honest money now in public life, and

a consistent supporter of the policy of protection.

"Within the last few days Mr. Sherman, in one of the most masterly

and cogent arguments ever made in the Senate, has indisputably

proved the length, depth and breadth of his perception of true,

just, safe financial principles and his unconquerable loyalty to

them. At a time when the enemies of an honest, stable currency

are seeking to destroy it and to set up in its place a debased,

unstable, dishonest currency, the country would accept this exponent

of sound, wise finance and a reliable, steadfast currency with

extraordinary satisfaction."--Philadelphia "Ledger and Transcript,"

June 8, 1892.

"While Senator John Sherman's mail is loaded down with letters from

all parts of the country in reference to the presidency, while a

thousand suggestions reach him from all quarters that after all

_he_ is not unlikely to be the man upon whom the Minneapolis

nomination will light, and while the mass of people are listening

with feverish interest for news from the convention, Sherman calmly

rises in his place in the Senate and delivers a five hours' speech

upon the coinage and the currency, which will not only rank as

perhaps the greatest effort of his own life, but will constitute

a text-book upon the subject for half a dozen generations to come.

"Men will not read the speech this week; but the unusual circumstances

under which it was delivered and the curious spectacle of a great

mind discussing so abstract a subject amid the fervid heat and

excitement attending a national convention of his own party, will

make everybody look up the speech after the convention is over and

give it more readers, perhaps, than any speech upon the coinage

and the currency ever had since the foundation of the government."

--"Ohio State Journal," June 9, 1892.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress, on the 5th of August, I

returned to Mansfield. At this time the Boston "Herald" alleged

that I was not in harmony with my party on the tariff. This was

founded upon an erroneous construction of my reply to Carlisle.

The article was called to my attention by W. C. Harding, of Boston,

to whom, in reply, I sent the following letter on August 29:

"Your note of the 27th is received. In answer I have to say that

the Boston 'Herald' in the article you inclose, has totally

misconstrued my position on the tariff. I am decidedly in favor

of a protective tariff; one framed with a view not only to secure

ample revenue for the support of the government, but with a distinct

purpose to encourage and protect all productions which can be

readily produced in our country. I do not believe that a tariff

framed under the doctrine now announced and proclaimed by the

Democratic party in its national platform can protect and foster

our home industries.

"Mr. Tilden, and the men of his school, believed that the old

doctrines of the Democratic party, proclaimed in former national

platforms and supported by the declarations of Jefferson, Madison

and Jackson, was a wise and constitutional exercise of national

power. This doctrine has been abandoned and denounced by the

Democratic platform recently adopted by the Chicago convention.

A tariff framed in accordance with this new doctrine would be

confined simply to levying revenue duties, excluding the idea of

protection, and that is the purpose and object of the men who made

the platform, and of the men in the Democratic convention that

adopted it by a large majority.

"Such a tariff might be levied exclusively on articles we cannot

produce in this country, such as sugar, coffee and tea. I have

believed that as to certain items in different tariffs we have gone

beyond the line of protection which is necessary to foster American

industries. A few rates have been adopted that I think will exclude

competition between foreign and American productions and secure a

monopoly to the American manufacturer. This I do not believe to

be a wise policy. There are some details of the McKinley tariff

bill that may be subject to this objection, but on the whole it is

the fairest and best tariff, not only for revenue, for the protection,

that has had a place on our statute book. The tariff plank of the

Republican convention at Minneapolis is the clearest statement of

the extent of protection favored by the great mass of the Republicans

of this country.

"The actual result of the McKinley bill has been not only to give

to all American industries reasonable protection, but has increased

our foreign trade, enlarged our exports and our imports, and greatly

encouraged and added to all kinds of American productions, whether

of the field or of the workshop. I fear the Boston 'Herald' has

overlooked the striking difference between the old position of the

Democratic party and the one now proclaimed by that party. The

tendency and drift of the Democratic party is now more and more in

favor of free trade, and in open opposition to any favor shown by

discriminating duties to foster, encourage and diversify American

industries."

I attended the state fair at Columbus early in September and met

the leading Republicans of the state. I noticed an apparent apathy

among them. The issue between the parties was for or against the

McKinley tariff. The parties did not differ materially on the

silver question, but did differ as between national and state banks.

The Democratic party had resolved in favor of the repeal of the

tax on state bank circulation, but it was believed that Cleveland

would repudiate or evade this dogma. There seemed to be no enthusiasm

on either side, but there was less dissatisfaction with the existing

administration than is usual during the incumbency of a President.

The country was prosperous. The people had confidence in Harrison

and the general drift seemed to be in his favor.

In September I wrote an article for the New York "Independent" on

"The History of the Republican Party." It was confined chiefly to

the contention that the Republican party was an affirmative party,

adopting, declaring and executing great public measures of vital

importance, while the Democratic party was simply a negative party,

opposing all the Republican party's measures but acquiescing in

its achievements. I insert the closing paragraph:

"Republicanism, on the other hand, holds fast to everything that

is ennobling and elevating in its history. It is the party of

national honor, which has removed the foul reproach of slavery,

and redeemed the plighted faith of the government in financial

legislation and administration. It is the party of equal rights,

an unsullied ballot and honest elections. It is the party of

national policies, of comprehensive scope and enlightened self-

interest, by which industry is diversified, labor systematically

protected, and the prosperity of all classes and sections promoted.

Between its present policies and the traditions of its glorious

past there is unbroken continuity of patriotic action."