at North Fairfield. The place, audience, and surroundings gave me
a special interest in the meeting. Thirty-eight years before, I,
then a young man, spoke at the same place, before a similar audience,
as a candidate for Congress, nominated by a party then without a
name. Now I was about to address an audience chiefly composed of
men and women, the children of my old constituents, who had been
born since my first appearance there. It is a farming region, well
cultivated, and but little changed in appearance by the lapse of
years. The great change was the absence, in the grave, of the
leading men I had met on my first visit, but they were represented
by descendants so numerous that they had to meet in the open grove
instead of the simple meeting-house of the olden time. The
comparatively few old settlers present who had attended the former
meeting, many of whom had been soldiers in the army, greeted me
warmly and reminded me of incidents that then occurred. It was
natural, under these circumstances, that my speech should be
reminiscent; but, in addition to the history of events, I stated--
I think fairly--the issues immediately involved--of tariff, currency
and coin. I closed my speech with the following reference to the
presidency:
"As to your vote for President I do not believe any Republican has
any doubt. It does not follow that because a man is President, or
nominated as such, he ought to be lauded to the skies. We have in
this republic no gods or demigods. I know General Harrison as well
as one man ever knew another after an intimate acquaintance for
ten years. He is a man of fine character, so far as I understand,
without blemish or reproach. His ability is marked and is now
recognized by all parties, I may say, in all parts of the world.
He has the lawyer's habit of taking the opposite side of a question,
but before he acts he is apt to be on the right side. When in the
Senate he did not show the versatility of talent he has exhibited
as President. All his utterances have been marked with dignity
suited to his high position, yet with delicate appropriateness and
precision that will admit no criticism. I have no controversy with
Mr. Cleveland. I think he is better than his party. On important
and critical questions he has been firmly right. But in the choice
between them for the high office to which they aspire no Republican
should hesitate to vote for Harrison, and an honest Democrat should,
in view of the tendencies of the Democratic party on the questions
I have discussed, decide to go and do likewise."
The next meeting of note that I attended was at the Academy of
Music in Philadelphia. I do not recall any meeting that I ever
addressed within four walls more striking and impressive than this,
not only in numbers and intelligence, but in apparent sympathy with
the speaker. Of the persons mentioned by me those who received
the loudest applause were in their order Blaine, McKinley and
Harrison. In opening I said:
"When I was invited to speak to you I was told that this was to be
a meeting of business men, to consider business questions involved
in a presidential election. I will, therefore, confine myself to
business issues distinctly made between the two great political
parties of our country. The people of this city of Philadelphia,
the greatest manufacturing city on the American continent, are as
well, or better, prepared to decide these issues wisely as any
other equal number of American citizens. I assume you are not much
troubled with third parties. The temperance question will be
settled by each individual to suit himself. The only Farmers'
Alliance I know of here is the Farmers' club, who dine sumptuously
with each other as often as they can and differ with each other on
every subject. I assume that you are either Republicans or Democrats,
that you are for Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland.
"The questions involved, in which you are deeply interested, are
whether duties on imported goods should be levied solely with a
view for revenue to support the government, or with a view, not
only to raise revenue, but to foster, encourage and protect American
industries; whether you are in favor of the use of both gold and
silver coins as money, always maintained at parity with each other
at a fixed ratio, or of the free coinage of silver, the cheaper
money, the direct effect of which is to demonetize gold and reduce
the standard of value of your labor, productions and property
fully one-third; whether you are in favor of the revival and
substitution of state bank paper money in the place of national
money now in use in the form of United States notes, treasury notes
and certificates, and the notes of national banks.
"These are business questions of vital interest to every wage
earner, to every producer and to every property owner, and they
are directly involved in the election of a President and a Congress
of the United States. Surely they demand the careful consideration
of every voter. They are not to be determined by courts or lawyers
or statesmen, but by you and men like you, twelve million in number,
each having an equal voice and vote."
The body of my speech was confined to the topics stated. I closed
with the following reference to Harrison and Cleveland:
"The Republican party has placed Benjamin Harrison in nomination
for re-election as President of the United States. He is in sympathy
with all the great measures of the Republican party. He fought as
a soldier in the ranks. His sympathies are all with his comrades
and the cause for which they fought.
"He has proven his fitness for his high office by remarkable ability
in the discharge of all its duties. He heartily supports the
principles, past and present, of his party. He has met and solved
every question, and performed every duty of his office. His
administration has been firm, without fear and without reproach.
I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the merits
of Mr. Cleveland. His highest merit is that he has checked, in
some respects, the evil tendencies of his party; but he was not in
active sympathy with the cause of the Union in the hour of its
peril, or with the men who fought its battles. He is opposed to
the protection of American industries. He supports, in the main,
the doctrines and tendencies of the Democratic party.
"We believe that the honor, safety, and prosperity of our country
can be best promoted by the election of a Republican President and
Vice President, and a Republican Congress, and, therefore, I appeal
to you to give to Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, his worthy
associate, and to your candidates for Congress, your hearty and
disinterested support."
It was at this meeting that for the first time I encountered the
kodak. The next morning the "Press," of Philadelphia, illustrated
its report of the speech with several "snap shots" presenting me
in various attitudes in different parts of the speech. I thought
this one of the most remarkable inventions of this inventive age,
and do not yet understand how the pictures were made. The comments
of the daily papers in Philadelphia were very flattering, and
perhaps I may be excused for inserting a single paragraph from a
long editorial in the "Press" of the next day, in respect to it:
"His speech is a calm, luminous and dispassionate discussion of
the business questions of the canvass. It is pre-eminently an
educational speech which any man can hear or read with pride.
Senator Sherman excels in the faculty of lucid and logical statement.
His personal participation in all our fiscal legislation gives him
an unequaled knowledge both of principles and details, and he is
remarkably successful in making them clear to the simplest
intelligence. The contrast between his candid, sober and weighty
treatment of questions, and the froth and fustian which supply the
lack of knowledge with epithets of 'fraud' and 'robbery' and 'cheat,'
is refreshing."
On Monday evening, the 11th of October, I spoke in Cooper Union in
the city of New York. It was an experiment to hold a political
meeting on the eve of a day devoted to Columbian celebrations and
a night to magnificent fireworks, but the great auditorium was
filled, and among the gathering was a large number of bankers and
business men interested in financial topics. I was introduced to
the audience in a very complimentary manner by Mr. Blanchard,
president of the Republican club, and was received with hearty
applause by the audience. I said:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Republicans of the State
of New York that at last we have brought the Democratic party to
a fair and distinct issue on questions involved in the presidential
campaign. Now for more than thirty years that party has been merely
an opposition party, opposed to everything that we proposed, and
having no principles or propositions of their own to present. They
declared the war a failure; they were opposed to the homestead law,
they were opposed to the greenback; they were opposed to everything
that we did, but now, thank God, they have agreed to have one or
two or three issues to be determined by the people."
I then stated the issues involved in the canvass in very much the
same terms as in Philadelphia, but the speech in New York was made
without notes and was literally reported in the "Tribune," while
the Philadelphia speech was prepared and followed as closely as
possible, without reference to manuscript. I have now read the
two speeches carefully, and while the subject-matter is the same
in both, the language, form and connection are as different as if
delivered by two distinct persons who had not conferred with each
other. My long experience convinces me that while it is safe for
a person to write what he intends to say, yet it is better to
carefully study the subject and then to speak without reference to
notes or manuscript. This depends, however, upon the temperament
and poise of the speaker. Nothing is more discouraging to an
audience than to hear a speech read, except it be the attempt to
speak offhand by a person who has not acquired a full knowledge of
the subject-matter and does not possess the art of recalling and
arranging the method of his address.
I believe my speech in New York covered all the issues involved in
the canvass fairly and fully stated. I arraigned the Democratic
party, especially for its declaration in 1864 that the war was a
failure, when Grant was holding on with his deadly grip, and when
Sherman and Sheridan were riding to battle and to victory. This
declaration was more injurious to the Union cause than any victory
by the Confederates during the war. I closed with the following
reference to the respective candidates:
"The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison.
When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy's guns came
to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered
the army. He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier.
He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child,
living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis. He gradually became
recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate.
For six years he sat by my side. I know him as well as I know any
man. He is without stain or blemish. He is a man of marked ability,
an able debater. He has grown greatly since he has been President
of the United States. His speeches are models of propriety and
eloquence. In every act of his life while President he had come
up to the full standard and measure of that great office. If there
was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world
or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.
"His worthy associate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city. He has been
placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison. He is an honorable
man. I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living
as best he could, and helping his father and mother. He has shown
himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.
"Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland. I am not here
to belittle any man. I have sometimes thought he is better than
his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance
of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of
him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an
able-bodied man when the war was on. I have never known, nor has
it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with
the Union solider or the Union cause.
"I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his
feet, was in that cause. I do not see how any patriotic man, who
was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose
Harrison rather than Cleveland."
I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak
in Turner Hall on the 14th of October. This hall had long been a
place for public meetings. It is situated in the midst of a German
population and is their usual place for rendezvous. They had
recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak
in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall. It was well
filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German
birth or descent. They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were
restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits.
They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and
considered this as temperance. With their wives and children, when
the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened
to music, in which many of them were proficient. Such was my
audience in Turner Hall. I spoke to them on the same topics I did
to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better
comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value,
whether of gold, silver or paper.
From Cincinnati I went to Chicago. I had been invited by Jesse
Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address
at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October. As
I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building
in the grounds of the World's Columbian Exposition, I accepted the
invitation of Mr. Spaulding. I regarded it as a bold movement on
the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of
the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings
of the World's Fair. Still, that was their business and not mine.
I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like
a lawyer's brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and
engraved on my mind. I determined to use no word that would not
be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical
phrases.
When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place assigned
me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of
marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic
or fact. The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers,
and was kindly treated in their editorial columns. After a brief
reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had
witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago,
I said:
"You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of
the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority
of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the
delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the
United States.
"Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties,
but between great parties. I take it that in this intelligent
audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party
or the farmers' party. The best temperance party is the individual
conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States.
As for the farmers' party, the Republican party has been the farmers'
party as well as the people's party since the beginning of its
organization in 1856. The controversy is between the two, the
Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.
"The Democratic party has a very popular name. It means a government
through the people. But the Republican party has a still more
popular name. It is a government by the representatives of the
people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of
our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party
has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the
Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate
Democracy of America."
The "Tribune" and "Inter-Ocean" had friendly editorial articles
about the meeting, and the "Tribune" especially, which in times
past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion
of the meeting and speech:
"It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular
gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs,
that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal
than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a
maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded
from gallery to parquet, Saturday night, with thousands of business
men and others who are interested in the great issues of the
political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John
Sherman, of Ohio. It was something more than an exposition of
Chicago's vital interest in these issues. It was a personal
compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the
veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of
substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of
the week. It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination
of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.
"It is no derogation of Senator Sherman's abilities to say one does
not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry
away audiences on waves of enthusiasm. His strength lies in his
convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts,
and his powerful logic. No man in the United States, perhaps, is
better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than
Senator Sherman. He appeals to the thought and reason of his
hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a
stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech. The three issues
discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and
the protective tariff question. His discussion of the wildcat
currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow
from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms."
On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke
at Schlitz's amphitheater in Milwaukee. The notice had been brief,
but the attendance was large. The audience was composed chiefly
of German Republicans. Frye and I had divided the topics between
us. He spoke on the tariff and I on good money. On the latter
subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all
as good as gold and plenty of it. I made my speech first, but Frye
made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat
divided. Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker,
and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting
address. The speeches were well reported the next morning, an
evidence of enterprise I did not expect.
After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches
prior to the election. While the Republican meetings were large,
I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were
also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic
command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to
sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party
to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of
business men, and secured him the "silent vote" of thousands of
Republicans.
In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of
the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state,
receiving but 1,089 plurality. The national ticket did not fare
quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first
time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one
Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican.
Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison
and Reid 145.
Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the
southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination,
nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed
to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went
Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.
As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and
McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote. The Democrats elected
220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126
and the People's party 8.
The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the
election of Cleveland. The causes that contributed to it might
have defeated any Republican. It is not worth while to state them,
for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American
people is the conservative element of our form of government that
distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.
CHAPTER LXIII.
ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION.
My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause
of the "Sherman Act"--Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia
"Ledger"--Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes--Tribute
to His Memory--Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the
Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States
Notes--The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to
Save the Appropriation Bill--Loss of Millions of Dollars to the
Government--Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office--His Inaugural
Address--Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the "World's Fair"
--Chicago Raises $1,000,000--Congress Finally Decides to Pay the
Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin--I Attend the Dedication of
the Ohio Building at the Fair--Address to the Officers and Crew of
the Spanish Caravels.
Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I
announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law
misnamed the "Sherman act," but of the clause of that act that
required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of
silver bullion each month. I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a
bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance.
I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the
agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption
of free coinage. During the short session of that Congress, which
met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this
bill though strongly pressed to do so. A majority of the Senate
were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House,
disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the
President either approve it or permit it to become a law without
his signature. When criticised for my delay by the "Ledger" of
Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:
"It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of
the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor
of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion.
They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for
such repeal. It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth
or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal,
and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it. They are
openly pronounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation
of the existing law. The pretense made that Republican Senators
would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme
is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it. If the
Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in
support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pass the
Senate within ten days. The Democratic party as now represented
in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver.
I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some
influence in changing their opinions."
Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.
On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the
bill referred to. On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal
of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the
attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was
not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that
session. I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I
had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not
satisfied there was a majority in favor of its passage. The question
why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the
newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion
when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time,
though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he
chose to do so. A motion to take it up was subsequently made by
Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.
No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of
subsequent events.
Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893,
I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the
following terms:
"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last
evening at eleven o'clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one
who has been President of the United States dies during the session
of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory,
recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for
the day.
"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life,
having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the
war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of
Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked
ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in
the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against
whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.
"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from
the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is
a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal
association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him
and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and
heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for
his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse.
He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who
approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy
with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his
judgment of his merits.
"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate,
out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."
In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I
followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation
of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have
done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in
the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state
and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend,
and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a
patriotic citizen.
On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil
appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at
his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five
years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the
redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of
the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to
carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this
provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds
necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure
of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent.
bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond
running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years,
which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.
After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30
yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question
presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment.
I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the
Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise
public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration.
In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:
"This conference report presents for our consideration again a
question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment
known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and
which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body
and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time
and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in
the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the
real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on
that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote
had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.
"I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a
member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated,
and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper."
I then quoted the amendment as follows:
"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to
maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the
provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, entitled 'An act
to provide for the resumption of specie payments,' and, at the
discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description
of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States
bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually
and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five
years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions
provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent
necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to
use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and
none other."
Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the
amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the
resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie
payments, and which is as follows:
"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide
for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is
authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the
treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions
of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress
approved July 14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding
of the national debt,' with like qualities, privileges, and
exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full
effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."
I then had read to the Senate the character and description of
bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding
act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows:
"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue,
in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $200,000,000, coupon
or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may
prescribe, and of denominations of $50, or some multiple of that
sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value, at the
pleasure of the United States, after ten years from the date of
their issue, and bearing interest, payable semi-annually in such
coin, at the rate of five per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums
not exceeding in the aggregate $300,000,000 of like bonds, the same
in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States,
after fifteen years from the date of their issue, and bearing
interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. per annum; also,
a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000 of like
bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of
the United States, after thirty years from the date of their issue,
and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum."
Resuming my argument, I said:
"It is apparent from these laws, which are fundamental in their
character, that the secretary has imposed upon him not merely the
privilege but the duty of maintaining or providing for the resumption
of specie payments and the maintenance of the specie standard in
gold and silver coin. He is also authorized by a subsequent act,
which I do not care to have read because it is not necessary, to
maintain $100,000,000 in gold in the nature of a redemption fund,
or rather that was the minimum limit provided in the law. In order
to perform this grave duty the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, at his discretion, whenever necessary to obtain the
coin required, to issue a bond bearing four per cent. interest
running for thirty years, or a bond bearing four and a half per
cent. interest running fifteen years, or a bond bearing five per
cent. interest running ten years.
"It has been feared--I do not say that there has been occasion for
this fear--that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot maintain the
necessary resumption fund; that he may have to resort to the credit
of the government, upon which all the greenback issues of the United
States notes and bonds are founded; that he might have to resort
to the sale of bonds to obtain money, in order to maintain the
parity of the different forms of money in this country and the
redemption or payment in coin, when demanded, of the obligations
of the United States, especially the United States notes, commonly
called greenbacks.
"When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not
the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs
in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man,
however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that
the conditions of our country were such that we would not be
justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to
sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent.
interest.
"Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone
who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all,
that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running
for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our
right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save
a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth
of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right
to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us
to do so.
"I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to
perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption
act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next
Secretary of the Treasury. I knew this law could not take effect
until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the
new secretary would come in. Therefore, I drew this amendment as
it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of
the Treasury. He having been formerly a member of the committee
on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us
all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the
reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency,
important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.
"He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with
him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all,
but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a
stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there
should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the
government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be
prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with
which to redeem the notes. That statement was submitted to the
committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman
who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of
the Treasury."
I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the
treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury
notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion. The Senate fully
appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of
the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to
reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger
the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate
receded from the amendment. It is easy now to see that its defeat
greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of
many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of
interest than three per cent.
On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office
as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural
address. It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing
chiefly with axioms readily assented to. Its strongest passages
were in favor of a sound and stable currency. He said that the
danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid
to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and
conservative precaution. He declared that the people had decreed
that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the
control of their government, in its legislative and executive
branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms
to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature
or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that
either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him. He
said:
"The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
of the United States, not only impressively defines the great
responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional
commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided.
I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty,
preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of
federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when
attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its
limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people."
This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the
Wilson bill. I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural
should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.
The chief interest at this period centered in the World's Fair at
Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of
America by Columbus. Such a celebration was first proposed as
early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific
exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to
take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge
of the national authorities. As the matter was discussed the
opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one,
and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St.
Louis. I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American
city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most
destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the
continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor
and industry of the American people. The contention about the site
delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was
not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following. This was the
first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was "behind
time," but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress,
which delayed too long the selection of the site. I was a member
of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January,
1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate. On the 21st of
April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000
from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of
representing the government of the United States in an exposition
in Chicago, in 1893. I made a speech in defense of the appropriation
and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one
in London and two in Paris that I had attended. While the receipts
at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense,
yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left
great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at
Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris. I referred
to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the
innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United
States, all of which were of great value to the places where held.
These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly
improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely
to increase in number in the future. The bill passed, but not
without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to
Chicago.
This course of opposition continued until August, 1892. The people
of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the
certainty of any return. All nations had been invited, and were
preparing to be represented at this exposition. The attention of
mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years
old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater
buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose. The
United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had
appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in
its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers. It became
necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan
the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts,
in the same proportion as to other stockholders. This was declined,
but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in
silver, and pay the exposition that coin. Whether this was done
because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000
sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against
the fair, I do not know. On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed
my opposition to this measure. Both Houses were remaining in
session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in
Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to
have been elsewhere. I said: "Under the circumstances, I do not
see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass. If
I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it."
On the 22nd of October, 1892, I attended the dedication of the
building erected by the State of Ohio, on the exposition grounds.
The structure, though not entirely completed, was formally dedicated,
and the keys were duly delivered to Governor McKinley. On receiving
the keys he made a very appropriate address. I was called for by
the crowd, and was introduced by Major Peabody, president of the
State Board of Managers. I do not recall the words of my speech,
nor was it, or the various speeches made on this occasion, reported;
but I no doubt said that the United States was the greatest power
on earth, and Ohio was its garden spot. I made a political speech
that evening at Central Music Hall, as previously stated.
Among the objects of the greatest interest at the exposition were
three Spanish caravels, the exact counterparts of the Santa Maria,
the Nina and the Pinta, the vessels with which Columbus made his
memorable voyage of discovery. These reproductions were made by
Spaniards at the place from which the original vessels sailed, and,
manned by Spanish sailors, followed the same course pursued by
Columbus to the islands he discovered and from thence sailed to
the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and following up that stream passed
through Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, Lakes Erie, Huron and
Michigan, to Chicago, more than 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.
I had been invited by the managers of the exposition to deliver an
address of welcome to the officers and sailors of these vessels,
on their arrival at Chicago on the 7th of July, 1893. They were
received by the managers and a great crowd, and conducted to a
stand in the park of the exposition, where I made my address, too
long to insert here, but I quote a few paragraphs:
"Mr. President, Captain Concas and the Officers and Mariners Under
His Command:--You have before you men and women of all races and
climes. They have met to share in this great exposition of the
industries of all nations. To-day they celebrate the discovery of
America by Christopher Columbus and the arrival here of the marine
fleet under your command, manned by the countrymen of those who
made the discovery of the new world.
* * * * *
"We have before us the reproduction of the Santa Maria, the Pinta
and the Nina, the three vessels that made this memorable voyage.
They are sent to us by the same chivalrous and gallant people who
built the original craft and manned and sailed them under the
command of Columbus. They are striking object lessons that speak
more eloquently than voice or words. We welcome them to this
exposition of the industries of the world. Here, on the waters of
this inland sea, 1,000 miles from the ocean traversed by Columbus,
in this city, the most marvelous result of the industry and energy
of mankind, we place this mimic fleet side by side with the monsters
that have come from the inventive genius of the American people,
not to extol our handiwork, but to extol the men who, four hundred
years ago, with such feeble means and resources, opened the way to
all the achievements of succeeding generations. You can look at
them where they quietly rest upon the waters of the great northwest.
In such as these one hundred and twenty men sailed on an unknown
ocean, they knew not where. They lived where for two thousand
years the pillars of Hercules had marked the end of the world.
They had been taught to believe in the four corners of the earth,
and that all beyond was a boundless waste of waters, into which no
one had ventured beyond the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa.
* * * * *
"We welcome all the peoples of the earth, with their varied
productions, to the full and free enjoyment of their habits at
home, and in return exhibit to them the results of our growth and
industry. In no boastful spirit this new and marvelous city, which
has sprung into existence within the life of men who hear me, has,
with the aid of the general government and the states that comprise
it, built these great palaces, adorned these lately waste places
and brought into them the wonderful facilities of transportation
invented in modern times. Welcome all, but on this day we doubly
welcome these mementoes of the voyage of Columbus to this western
world.
"In the name of the managers of this exposition I give thanks and
welcome to all who have brought them here, and especially to the
government and people of Spain, who have thus contributed to the
interest and success of this exposition."
CHAPTER LXIV.
REPEAL OF PART OF THE "SHERMAN ACT" OF 1890.
Congress Convened in Extraordinary Session on August 7, 1893--The
President's Apprehension Concerning the Financial Situation--Message
from the Executive Shows an Alarming Condition of the National
Finances--Attributed to the Purchase and Coinage of Silver--Letter
to Joseph H. Walker, a Member of the Conference Committee on the
"Sherman Act"--A Bill I Have Never Regretted--Brief History of the
Passage of the Law of 1893--My Speech in the Senate Well Received
--Attacked by the "Silver Senators"--General Debate on the Financial
Legislation of the United States--Views of the "Washington Post"
on My Speech of October 17--Repeal Accomplished by the Republicans
Supporting a Democratic Administration--The Law as Enacted--Those
Who Uphold the Free Coinage of Silver--Awkward Position of the
Democratic Members--My Efforts in Behalf of McKinley in Ohio--His
Election by 81,000 Plurality--Causes of Republican Victories
Throughout the Country.
On the 30th of June, 1893, the President issued a proclamation
convening Congress in extraordinary session on the 7th of August.
In reciting the reasons for this unusual call, only resorted to in
cases of extreme urgency, he said that "the distrust and apprehension
concerning the financial situation which pervades all business
circles have already caused great loss and damage to our people,
and threaten to cripple our merchants, stop the wheels of manufacture,
bring distress and privation to our farmers, and withhold from our
workingmen the wage of labor;" that "the policy which the executive
branch of government finds embodied in unwise laws which must be
executed until repealed by Congress;" and that Congress was convened
"to the end that the people may be relived, through legislation,
from present and impending danger and distress."
Congress met in pursuance of the proclamation, and on the 8th of
August the President sent a message to each House, in which he
depicted an alarming condition of the national finances, and
attributed it to congressional legislation touching the purchase
and coinage of silver by the general government. He said:
"This legislation is embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day
of July, 1890, which was the culmination of much agitation on the
subject involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
struggle, between the advocates of free silver coinage and those
intending to be more conservative."
He ascribed the evil of the times to the monthly purchase of
4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, and the payment therefor with
treasury notes redeemable in gold or silver coin at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the reissue of said notes
after redemption. He stated that up to the 15th of July, 1893,
such notes had been issued for the purpose mentioned to the amount
of more than $147,000,000. In a single year over $40,000,000 of
these notes had been redeemed in gold. This threatened the reserve
of gold held for the redemption of United States notes, and the
whole financial system of the government. No other subject was
presented in the message of the President, and Congress had to face
the alternative of the single standard of silver, or the suspension
of the purchase of silver bullion.
I had foreseen this inevitable result and had sought, as far as
possible, to avoid it by the inserting of sundry provisions in the
act of July 14, 1890. No portion of that act was objected to by
the President except the clause requiring the purchase of silver
bullion and the issue of treasury notes in payment for it. In this
I heartily concurred with him. From the date of the passage of
that law, to its final repeal, I was opposed to this compulsory
clause, but yielded to its adoption in preference to the free
coinage of silver, and in the hope that a brief experience under
the act would dissipate the popular delusion in favor of free
coinage. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, a prominent Member
of the House of Representatives, who was one of the conferees with
me on the bill referred to, and agreed with me in assenting to it,
wrote me a letter, my reply to which was in substantial accordance
with the subsequent message of the President and with the action
taken by Congress. I insert it here:
"Mansfield, O., July 8, 1893.
"Hon. J. H. Walker.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of 28th ult., inclosing a copy of your statement
of the causes that led Mr. Conger, yourself and me to agree with
reluctance to the silver act of 1890, is received. An answer had
been delayed by my absence at Chicago. You clearly and correctly
state the history of that act. The bill that passed the House
provided for the purchase of $4,500,000 worth of silver at gold
value. The Senate struck out this provision and provided for the
free coinage of silver or the purchase of all that was offered at
the rate of 129 cents an ounce. As conferees acting for the two
Houses, it was our duty to bring about an agreement, if practicable,
without respect to individual opinion. The result of the conference
was to reject free coinage and to provide for the purchase of four
million five hundred thousand ounces of silver at its gold price--
a less amount than was proposed by the House, the provisions
declaring the public policy of the United States to maintain the
parity of the two metals or the authority to stipulate on the
contracts for payments in gold, the limit of the issue of treasury
notes to the actual cost of silver bullion at gold value, and the
repeal of the act providing for the senseless coinage of silver
dollars when we already had 300,000,000 silver dollars in the
treasury we could not circulate, were all in the line of sound
money.
"Another object I had in view was to secure a much needed addition
to our currency, then being reduced by the compulsory retirement
of national bank notes in the payment of United States bonds. This
would have been more wisely provided by notes secured by both gold
and silver, but such a provision could not then be secured. These
reasons fully justified the compromise.
"But the great controlling reason why we agreed to it was that it
was the only expedient by which we could defeat the free coinage
of silver. Each of us regarded the measure proposed by the Senate
as a practical repudiation of one-third of the debts of the United
States, as a substantial reduction of the wages of labor, as a
debasement of our currency to a single silver standard, as the
demonetization of gold and a sharp disturbance of all our business
relations with the great commercial nations of the world. To defeat
such a policy, so pregnant with evil, I was willing to buy the
entire product of American silver mines at its gold value.
"And that was what we provided, guarded as far as we could. To
accomplish our object we had to get the consent of the Republican
Representatives from the silver-producing states. This we could
only do by buying the silver product of those states. It was a
costly purchase. The silver we purchased is not worth as much as
we paid for it, but this loss is insignificant compared to our gain
by the defeat of the free coinage of silver. It is said there was
no danger of free coinage, that the President would have vetoed
it. We had no right to throw the responsibility upon him. Besides,
his veto would leave the Bland act in force. We did not believe
that his veto would dispel the craze that then existed for free
coinage. Many people wanted the experiment tried. The result of
the experiment of buying four and a half million ounces of silver
a month at its market value will be the best antidote against the
purchase of the silver of the world at one-third more than its
market value.
"I never for a moment regretted the passage of the act of 1890,
commonly called the 'Sherman act,' though, as you know, I had no
more to do with it than the other conferees. There is but one
provision in it that I would change and that is to strike out the
compulsory purchase of a given quantity of silver and give authority
to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy silver bullion at its market
price when needed for subsidiary coinage. The only position we
can occupy in the interests of our constituents at large is one
fixed standard of value and the use of both metals at par with each
other, on a ratio as near as possible to their market value.
"Such a policy I believe is right. With reserves both of gold and
silver in the proper proportions we can maintain the entire body
of our paper money, including coin, at par with each other. For
one I will never agree to the revival of state bank paper money,
which cannot be made legal tender, and which, on the first sign of
alarm, will disappear or be lost in the hands of the holder.
"Very respectfully yours,
"John Sherman."
I had expressed similar views in speeches in Congress and before
the people and in numerous published interviews, and in the previous
Congress had introduced a bill to suspend the purchase of silver
bullion, substantially similar in terms to the bill that became a
law in November, 1893. During the month of August I took a more
active part in the proceedings than usual. On the 8th, the 16th
and the 18th I made speeches in the current debate.
A brief statement of the passage of this law of 1893 may be of
interest. It was introduced as a bill by William L. Wilson, of
West Virginia, in the House of Representatives, in the words of
the bill introduced by me in the Senate on the 14th of July, 1892,
as already stated, and passed the House on the 28th of August, by
the decisive vote of 239 yeas and 108 nays. It was referred in
the Senate to the committee on finance, of which Daniel W. Voorhees
was then chairman. It was on the next day reported by him from
that committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
but substantially similar in legal effect to the House bill.
On the next day, August 30, I took the floor and made one of the
longest speeches in my congressional life, covering more than forty
closely printed pamphlet pages. I quote a few of the opening
paragraphs:
"The immediate question before us is whether the United States
shall suspend the purchase of silver bullion directed by the act
of July 14, 1890. It is to decide this question the President has
called Congress together in special session at this inconvenient
season of the year. If this was the only reason for an extraordinary
session it would seem insufficient. The mere addition of eighteen
hundred million ounces of silver to the vast hoard in the treasury,
and the addition of fourteen millions of treasury notes to the one
thousand millions of notes outstanding, would hardly justify this
call, especially as Congress at the last session neglected or
refused to suspend the purchase of silver. The call is justified
by the existing financial stringency, growing out of the fear that
the United States will open its mints to the free coinage of silver.
This is the real issue. The purchase of silver is a mere incident.
The gravity of this issue cannot be measured by words. In every
way in which we turn we encounter difficulties.
"If we adopt the single standard of gold without aid from silver,
we will greatly increase the burden of national and individual
debts, disturb the relation between capital and labor, cripple the
industries of the country, still further reduce the value of silver,
of which we now have in the treasury and among our people over
$593,000,000, and of which we are the chief producers, and invite
a struggle with the great commercial nations for the possession of
the gold of the world.
"On the other hand, if we continue the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces
of silver a year, we will eventually bring the United States to
the single standard of silver--a constantly depreciating commodity,
now rejected by the great commercial nations as a standard of value;
a commodity confessedly inconvenient, by its weight, bulk, and
value, for the large transactions of foreign and domestic commerce,
and detach us from the money standard now adopted by all European
nations, with which we now have our chief commercial and social
relations. In dealing with such a question we surely ought to
dismiss from our minds all party affinities or prejudices; all
local or sectional interests, and all preconceived opinions not
justified by existing facts and conditions.
"Upon one thing I believe that Congress and our constituents agree:
That both these extreme positions shall be rejected; that both
silver and gold should be continued in use as money--a measure of
value; that neither can be dispensed with. Monometallism, pure
and simple, has never gained a foothold in the United States. We
are all bimetallists. But there are many kinds of bimetallism.
One kind favors the adoption of the cheaper metal for the time
being as the standard of value. Silver being now the cheaper metal,
they favor its free coinage at the present ratio, with the absolute
certainty that silver alone will be coined at our mints as money;
that gold will be demonetized, hoarded at a premium, or exported
where it is maintained as standard money. The result would be
monometallism of silver.
* * * * *
"The two metals, as metals, never have been, are not now, and never
can be, kept at par with each other for any considerable time at
any fixed ratio. This necessarily imposes upon the government the
duty of buying the cheaper metal and coining it into money. The
government should only pay for the bullion its market value, for
it has the burden of maintaining it at par with the dearer metal.
If the bullion falls in price the government must make it good; if
it rises in value the government gains.
"The government is thus always interested in advancing the value
of the cheaper metal. This is the kind of bimetallism I believe
in. It is the only way in which two commodities of unequal value
can be maintained at parity with each other. The free coinage of
silver and gold at any ratio you may fix means the use of the
cheaper metal only. This is founded on the universal law of
humanity, the law of selfishness. No man will carry to the mint
one ounce of gold to be coined into dollars when he can carry
sixteen ounces of silver, worth but little more in the market than
half an ounce of gold, and get the same number of dollars.
"The free coinage of silver means the single standard of silver.
It means a cheaper dollar, with less purchasing power. It means
a reduction in the wages of labor; not in the number of dollars,
but in the quantity of bread, meat, clothes, comforts he can purchase
with his daily wage. It means a repudiation of a portion of all
debts, public and private. It means a bounty to all banks, savings
institutions, trust companies that are in debt more than their
credits. It means a nominal advance in the prices of the produce
of the farmer, but a decrease in the purchasing power of his money.
Its chief attraction is that it enables a debtor to pay his debt
contracted upon the existing standard with money of less value.
If Senators want cheap money and to advance prices, free coinage
is the way to do it; but do not call it bimetallism. The problem
we have to solve is how to secure to our people the largest use of
both gold and silver without demonetizing either.
"Now, let us examine the situation in which we are placed. Our
country is under the pressure of a currency famine. Industries,
great and small, all suspended by the owners, not because they
cannot sell their products, but because they cannot get the money
to pay for raw material and the wages of their employees. Banks
conducted fairly are drained of their deposits and are compelled
not only to refuse all loans, but to collect their bills receivable.
This stringency extends to all trades and businesses; it affects
even your public revenues, all forms of public and private securities,
and, more than all, its stops the pay of a vast army of laboring
men, of skilled mechanics, and artisans, and affects the economy
and comfort of almost every home in the land.
"The strange feature of this stringency is unlike that of any of
the numerous panics in our past history. They came from either an
irredeemable currency, which became worthless in the hands of the
holder, or from expanded credit, based upon reckless enterprises
which, failing, destroyed confidence in all industries. Stringency
followed failure and reckless speculation. This panic occurs when
money is more abundant than ever before. Our circulating notes to-
day are sixty millions more than one year ago. It is all good--as
good as gold. No discrimination is made between the gold and silver
dollar, or between the United States note, the treasury note, the
silver certificate, or the gold certificate. All these are
indiscriminately hoarded, and not so much by the rich as by the
poor. The draft is upon the savings bank, as well as the national
or state bank. It is the movement of fear, the belief that their
money will be needed, and that they may not be able to get it when
they want it. In former panics, stringency followed failures. In
this, failures follow stringency.
"Now, as representatives of the people, we are called here in
Congress to furnish such measures of relief as the law can afford.
In the discharge of this duty I will sweep away all party bias,
all pride of opinion, all personal interest, and even the good will
of my constituents, if it were necessary; but, fortunately, I
believe their opinions concur with my own."
In conclusion I said:
"It is said that if we stop the coinage of silver it will be the
end of silver. I have heard that moan from some of my friends near
me. I do not think it will be the end of silver. We have proven
by our purchases that the mere purchase of silver by us in a
declining market, when all the nations of Europe are refusing to
buy silver and throwing upon us their surplus, is an improvident
use of the public money, and it ought to be abandoned, or at least
suspended until a time should come when we may, by an international
ratio or by some other provision of law, prevent the possible coming
to the single standard of silver. Now, that can be done.
"What do we propose to do now? We simply propose to stop the
purchase. We do not say when we will renew it again, but we simply
say we believe, in view of a panic or any possibilities of a panic,
that it would be idle for us to waste either our credit money or
our actual money to buy that which must be put down into the cellar
of our treasury and there lie unused, except as it is represented
by promises to pay gold. I say that such a policy as that would
be foolish and delusive.
"Senators say that this is a blow at silver. Why, silver is as
much a part of the industry of my country as it is a part of the
industry of the state of the Senator from Colorado, the able exponent
of this question. The production of silver is a great interest,
and the people of Ohio are as deeply interested in the success of
that interest as the people of Colorado. It is true we have not
the direct ownership of the property, but it enters into measures
of value of our property. There could be no desire on the part of
any portion of the people of the United States to strike down
silver. That idea ought to be abandoned at once. Therefore, in
order to at least give the assurance of honest men that we do not
intend to destroy an industry of America, we put upon this bill a
provision proposed now by the Senator from Indiana.
"I say that instead of desiring to strike down silver we will likely
build it up; and any measure that could be adopted for an international
ratio that will not demonetize gold will meet my approbation and
favor. But I would not dissever the financial business of this
great country of ours, with its 65,000,000 of people, from the
standards that are now recognized by all the Christian nations of
Europe. I would not have our measure less valuable than the measure
of the proudest and haughtiest country of the world.
"This is not a question of the mere interest of Nevada or Colorado.
It is not a question about what Wall street will do. They will
always be doing some deviltry or other, it makes no difference who
is up or who is down. We take that as a matter of course. The
question is what ought to be done for the people of the United
States in their length and breadth. If Congress should say that
in its opinion it is not now wise, after our experience, to continue
the purchase of silver bullion, is any injustice done to Colorado
or Nevada? Are we bound to build up the interest of one section
or one community at the expense of another or of the whole country?
"No. I heartily and truly believe that the best thing we can now
do is to suspend for time, at least, the purchase of silver bullion.
We should then turn our attention to measures that are demanded
immediately to meet the difficulties of the hour. Let this be done
promptly and completely. It involves a trust to your officers and
great powers over the public funds. I am willing to trust them.
If you are not, it is a strange attitude in political affairs. I
would give them power to protect the credit of the government
against all enemies at home and abroad.
"If the fight must be for the possession of gold, we will use our
cotton and our corn, our wheat and other productions, against all
the productions of mankind. We, with our resources, can then enter
into a financial competition. We do not want to do it now. We
prefer to wait awhile until the skies are clear and see what will
be the effect of the Indian policy, and what arrangements may be
made for conducting another international conference. In the
meantime let the United States stand upon its strength and credit,
maintaining its money, different kinds of money, at a parity with
each other. If we will do that I think soon all these clouds will
be dissipated and we may go home to our families and friends with
a conscientiousness that we have done good work for our country at
large."
I was frequently interrupted, and this led to the discussion of
collateral questions and especially the dropping of the silver
dollar by the act of 1873, the history of which I have heretofore
stated. This speech was a temperate and nonpartisan presentation
of a business question of great importance, and I can say without
egotism that it was well received and commended by the public press
and by my associates in the Senate. Though I sought to repeal a
single clause of a bill of which I was erroneously alleged to be
the author, I was charged with inconsistency, and my speech was
made the text of the long debate that followed. The "silver
Senators," so called, attacked it with violence, and appeals were
made to Democratic Senators to stand by those who had defeated the
election law, and by the position the Democratic Senators had
previously taken in favor of free coinage.
On the 28th of September, and on the 2nd, 13th, 17th and 28th of
October, I made speeches in the current debate, which extended to
every part of the financial legislation of the United States since
the formation of the government. I insert here the description
given by the Washington "Post" of the scene on the 17th:
"The climax of the remarkable day was now at hand. There is no
man in the Senate for whom a deeper feeling of esteem is felt than
John Sherman. He saw the Republican party born, he has been its
soldier as well as its sage, he has sat at the council table of
Presidents. His hair is white, and his muscles have no longer the
elasticity of youth, but age has not dimmed the clearness of his
intellectual vision, while it has added to the wisdom of his
councils. Upon Mr. Sherman, therefore, as he arose, every eye was
turned. Personalities were forgotten, the bitterness of strife
was laid aside. In a picture which must live in the memory of him
who saw it, the spare and bowed form of Mr. Sherman was the central
figure. There was not the slightest trace of feebleness in his
impassioned tones. Except once or twice, as he hesitated a moment
or two for a word to express his thought, there was not a reminder
that the brain at seventy may be inert or the fire be dampened in
the veins.
"Mr. Sherman spoke, as he himself said, neither in reproach nor
anger. It was the appealing tones that gave his speech its power
--its convincing earnestness, its lack of rancor, its sober truth
that gave it weight. Elsewhere it is printed in detail. Suffice
it to say here that he predicted that the rules would have to be
changed since they had been made the instrument of a revolutionary
minority. Never before had he seen such obstruction in the Senate,
never before the force bill had he known of a measure which failed,
after due deliberation, to come to a vote. The Republicans had
remained steadfast to the President, although under no obligation
to him, and now the time had come when the Democrats must take the
responsibility.
"In times past, when the Republicans were in the majority, they
never shrank from responsibility. They were Republicans because
they believed in Republican principles and Republican men and
Republican measures, and whenever a question was to be decided they
never pleaded the 'baby act' and said 'we could not agree.' They
met together and came to an agreement, and in that way they passed
all the great measures which have marked the history of the last
thirty years of our country, and it was not done by begging votes
on the other side.
"'They say they cannot agree, They must agree,' thundered Mr.
Sherman, drawing himself to his full height, and pointing his
quivering finger to the Democratic side, 'or else surrender their
political power!'
"Then Mr. Sherman pointed out the important legislation that was
so sadly needed, not the least being some provision for the deficit
of the government, which, he quoted Secretary Carlisle as saying,
would be $50,000,000 this year. 'These things cannot be evaded,'
he said, while the Senate lingered on his words. 'We must decide
the silver question one way or the other. If you,' he added,
looking the Democrats in the fact, 'cannot do it, then retire from
the Senate Chamber, and we will fix it on this side, and do the
best we can with our silver friends who belong to us, who are blood
of our blood, and bone of our bone. But yours is the proper duty,
and, therefore, I beg of you, not in reproach or anger, to perform
it. You have the supreme honor of being able to settle this question
now, and you ought to do it.'
"Mr. Sherman ceased, but the thrall of his words remained long
after his venerable form had disappeared. No Democrat answered
him. Mr. Voorhees, who had sat within arm's reach of him on the
Republican side, crossed the Chamber to his own seat, and sank down
as a man laden with deep care."
The debate continued in the Senate until the 30th of October, when
the Senate substitute was adopted by the vote of 43 yeas and 32
nays. Of the yeas 22 were Republicans, and of the nays 20 were
Democrats; so that the bill in the Senate was supported by a majority
of Republicans and opposed by a majority of Democrats. On this
important question the President was acting with a majority of
Republicans and a minority of Democrats, and it is to his credit
that he firmly held his ground in spite of the opposition in his
party.
On the 1st of November, when the amended bill came to the House,
Mr. Wilson moved to concur in the amendment of the Senate. A casual
debate followed, mostly by Bland and Bryan against the bill, and
Wilson and Reed for it. The Senate amendment was agreed to and
the bill as amended passed by the decisive vote of yeas 194 and
nays 94, and was approved by the President on the same day. The
law thus enacted is as follows:
"That so much of the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled 'An act
directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of treasury
notes thereon, and for other purposes,' as directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase from time to time silver bullion to
the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as
may be offered in each month at the market price thereof, not
exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue
in payment for such purchases treasury notes of the United States,
be, and the same is hereby, repealed. And it is hereby declared
to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both
gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver
into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality
to be secured through international agreement or by such safeguards
of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in
value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every
dollar at all times, in the markets and in the payment of debts.
And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the government
should be steadily directed to the establishment of such a safe
system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power
of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the
markets and in the payment of debts."
Thus the vital principles of the act of July 14, 1890, remained in
force, and the provisions for the purchase of silver bullion and
for the issue of treasury notes were repealed. The maintenance of
the gold standard, the parity of all money whether of gold, silver
or paper, and the payment of all bonds of the United States in
coin, were preserved.
The free coinage of silver is still upheld by a large body of those
who are interested in mining it, or who want to pay their debts
with a depreciated coin; but the danger of the adoption of this
policy is lessening daily. It received a severe blow by the action
of the Ohio Democratic convention in 1895 in rejecting it by a vote
of more than two to one. The bimetallic system of maintaining all
forms of money at par with gold will probably soon be fully
established. To complete this system and to extend it to our paper
money it would be wise to gradually withdraw treasury notes and
silver certificates and replace them with United States notes
supported and maintained by large reserves of gold. Thus all kinds
of paper money issued by the United States would be of the same
form and value. The great mass of standard silver dollars, amounting
on August 1, 1895, to $371,542,531, now held in the treasury
represented by $320,355,188 of silver certificates in circulation,
is the one great disturbing element in our finances. But 51,746,706
standard silver dollars are in circulation, and experience has
shown that a greater amount cannot be kept out among the people.
The certificates representing the silver dollars are in circulation
and a legal tender for customs dues as well as for all debts, public
and private. They must be treated as United States notes, and
maintained at par with gold coin, or the parity of our coin and
currency will be endangered. They now enter into the general
aggregate of our legal tender money and are largely used in the
payment of customs duties, and when received are paid out for the
current expenses of the government. While supported by the aggregate
silver dollars in the treasury, and the pledge of the public faith
to maintain them at par with gold coin and United States notes,
they are a safe and useful currency, but any measure to increase
these certificates, based upon the coining of more silver dollars
from bullion alleged to be gain or seigniorage, would seriously
impair the ability of the government to maintain their parity with
gold. The great depreciation of silver bullion has resulted in a
vast loss to the government and its disposition is the most serious
problem pending in Congress.
During the entire extra session of 1893 the body of the Democratic
Senators and Members were placed in an awkward position. They were
desirous of aiding the President, but their constituents behind
them were generally in favor of the free coinage of silver. In
some of the northern states, especially in Ohio, the Democratic
party had declared, in its convention, in favor of free coinage,
and now their President demanded, in the strongest language, the
repeal of the only provision of law for the purchase or coinage of
silver. The House promptly responded to the appeal, but the
Democratic Senators hesitated and delayed action until after three
months of weary debate. Their party had a majority in each House,
and should have disposed of the only question submitted by the
President in thirty days. Voorhees was the first Democratic Senator
to announce his purpose to vote for the repeal, although previously
an advocate of free coinage, and he, as chairman of the committee
on finance, reported the bill of the committee, while others lingered
in doubt. The Republican Senators, except those representing silver
states, as a rule, promptly avowed their purpose to vote for repeal,
although they had voted for the law.
After the call for the extra session was issued, I had expressed
my opinion of silver legislation, but I did not wish to embarrass
the President. When interviewed I refused to answer, saying the
people had called upon the present administration to handle these
questions, and neither I nor anyone should do aught to add
embarrassment, when so much already existed. When Congress met,
the Republicans remained quiet, and did not seek to embarrass the
administration, but it was soon ascertained that a decided majority
of them would vote for the repeal of the purchasing clause of the
act of 1890, but against any modification of any other provision
of that act. The position of the Republican Senators from the
states west of the Mississippi River was also known. They would
vote against any change of the law, unless they could secure the
free coinage of silver. During this period the position of the
Democratic Senators was unknown, but it was rapidly developed, with
the result already stated.
Congress adjourned on the 3rd of November. The closing days were
memorable for their excitement. For fourteen consecutive days the
Senate did not adjourn, but from time to time took recesses. On
the 31st of October the journal had not been read for fourteen days.
During this period I was requested by Governor McKinley to take
part in the pending canvass in Ohio, which involved his re-election
as governor. In the condition of the Senate I did not feel justified
in leaving, but immediately upon the passage of the repeal bill
started for Columbus to render such service as I could. It had
been falsely stated that I was indifferent about McKinley's election,
which I promptly denied. But a few days intervened before the
election. On the day of my arrival in Ohio, I spoke at Springfield.
On the evening of the next day, the 3rd of November, at Central
Turner Hall in Cincinnati, I spoke to a very large meeting. This
speech was fully reported. It was mostly devoted to the tariff,
a struggle over which was anticipated. After paying my usual visit
to the chamber of commerce and the Lincoln club, I proceeded to
Toledo, where I spoke at Memorial Hall on the evening before the
election, and then returned home to Mansfield, where I voted. The
result was even more decisive than expected. The 81,000 plurality
for McKinley was the best evidence of his popularity, and was
regarded as an indorsement of the McKinley tariff law.
On the 8th of November I returned to Washington. Many interviews
with me were reported, in which I expressed my satisfaction with
the overwhelming victory gained by the Republicans all over the
United States, and especially with their success in New York. In
response to a request by a leading journal, before the meeting of
Congress, I carefully prepared a statement of the causes that led
to these results. I undertook to review the political changes in
the past four years, but will insert only two paragraphs of this
paper.
"It is manifest that the causes of the defeat of the Democratic
party in the recent election were general and not local. They
extended to Colorado, Dakota, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
and Massachusetts. If the opposition to the Democratic party in
Virginia had been organized and conducted by the Republican party,
the results in that state would have been very different. The
ideas of the Populists are too visionary and impracticable to be
made the basis of a political organization. A canvass conducted
in Virginia upon the issues that prevailed in Ohio would, in my
judgment, have greatly changed the results in that state. Aside
from the memories of the war, the economic principles of the
Republican party have great strength in the southern states, and
whenever the images of the war fade away the people of those states
will be influenced by the same ideas that prevail in the northern
states. The leading cause of the enormous Republican majorities
in northern states I have mentioned was the united protest of the
unemployed against radical changes of our tariff laws. Whatever
theories may be proposed, it may be regarded as an axiom that the
protective principle is a well established principle in the United
States. It has been recommended by all the Presidents from Washington
to Harrison, and by none more emphatically than Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, and Jackson. This is and has been the natural and instinctive
policy of a new nation with enormous undeveloped resources. While
the terms of our tariff laws provided for revenue, their foundation
and background were to encourage domestic manufactures and diversify
productions. The extent of protection was limited to the want of
revenue, but the duties were uniformly so adjusted as, while
producing revenue, to encourage manufactures.
* * * * *
"But, after all, we must place as the chief cause of Democratic
defeat the profound and settled distrust that the Democratic party
will now, having the President and a majority in both Houses,
disturb the enormous industries of our country developed by, and
dependent upon, our tariff laws, and will seek to substitute the
policy of Great Britain, of free trade, as against the example of
the leading nations of Europe as well as our own, of a wise and
careful protection, and encouragement by tariff laws of all forms
of domestic industry that can be conducted with a reasonable hope
of profit in this country. The future of parties will depend more
largely upon the manner in which this condition of things is met
by the present Congress than upon all other causes combined."
CHAPTER LXV.
PASSAGE OF THE WILSON TARIFF BILL.
Second Session of the 53rd Congress--Recommendations of the President
Concerning a Revision of the Tariff Laws--Bill Reported to the
House by the Committee of Ways and Means--Supported by Chairman
Wilson and Passed--Received in the Senate--Report of the Senate
Committee on Finance--Passes the Senate with Radical Amendments--
These are Finally Agreed to by the House--The President Refuses to
Approve the Bill--Becomes a Law After Ten Days--Defects in the Bill
--Not Satisfactory to Either House, the President or the People--
Mistakes of the Secretary of the Treasury--No Power to Sell Bonds
or to Borrow Money to Meet Current Deficiencies--Insufficient
Revenue to Support the Government--A Remedy That Was Not Adopted--
Gross Injustice of Putting Wool on the Free List--McKinley Law
Compared with the Wilson Bill--Sufficient Revenue Furnished by the
Former--I Am Criticized for Supporting the President and Secretary.
The second session of the 53rd Congress commenced on the 4th of
December, 1893. The President in his message was especially urgent
in his recommendation of a revision of the tariff laws. He said:
"After a hard struggle tariff reform is directly before us. Nothing
so important claims our attention, and nothing so clearly presents
itself as both an opportunity and a duty--an opportunity to deserve
the gratitude of our fellow-citizens, and a duty imposed upon us
by our oft-repeated professions, and by the emphatic mandate of
the people. After a full discussion our countrymen have spoken in
favor of this reform, and they have confided the work of its
accomplishment to the hands of those who are solemnly pledged to it.
"If there is anything in the theory of a representation in public
places of the people and their desires, if public officers are
really the servants of the people, and if political promises and
professions have any binding force, our failure to give the relief
so long awaited will be sheer recreancy. Nothing should intervene
to distract our attention or disturb our effort, until this reform
is accomplished by wise and careful legislation.
* * * * *
"Not less closely related to our people's prosperity and well-being
is the removal of restrictions upon the importation of the raw
materials necessary to our manufactures. The world should be open
to our national ingenuity and enterprise. This cannot be while
federal legislation, through the imposition of high tariffs, forbids
to American manufactures as cheap materials as those used by their
competitors."
In view of this message, it was manifest that the tariff would be
the chief subject of legislation during the session. It was
understood that a bill had been prepared by the committee of ways
and means, which had been submitted to the President and Secretary
of the Treasury and approved by them. It was reported to the House
of Representatives, December 19, 1893. On the 8th of January,
1894, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, made an elaborate
speech in its support. The debate continued until the 1st of
February, when, with some amendments, it passed the House. In the
Senate, on the next day, it was referred to the committee on finance.
On the 20th of March it was reported to the Senate, with amendments,
by Mr. Voorhees. Mr. Morrill said:
"I desire to say that so far as the Republican members of the
committee on finance are concerned they did not object to the
reporting of the bill, while they are opposed not only to the
proposed income tax, but to the many changes of specifics to _ad
valorems_, and to the great bulk of the provisions of the bill."
On the 2nd of April Voorhees made a carefully prepared speech in
support of the bill. The debate continued, occupying much the
larger part of the time until the 3rd day of July, when the bill
passed with radical amendments, which changed it in principle and
details. Two conferences of the two Houses were held on amendments
disagreed to, but failed to agree, and it appeared, after the long
struggle, that he bill would be defeated, when, on the 13th of
August, upon motion of Mr. Catchings, the House agreed to the Senate
amendments in gross and thus the bill passed Congress. The President
refused to approve it and it became a law after ten days without
his approval.
This skeleton history of what is now known as the Wilson tariff
partly discloses its imperfections. Framed in the House as a tariff
for revenue only, and radically changed in the Senate to a tariff
with protection to special industries, it was not satisfactory to
either House, to the President or to the people. So far as it
copied the schedules and the legislative provisions of the McKinley
law, it met with approval. Its new features were incongruous, were
decidedly sectional, and many of its provisions were inconsistent
with each other.
The vital defect of this bill is that it does not provide sufficient
revenue to carry on the government. This is the primary and almost
the only cause of the financial difficulties of the present
administration. The election of Mr. Cleveland in 1892, upon the
platform framed by him, naturally created distrust as to the ability
of the government to maintain the parity of the different forms of
money in circulation. Added to this, the broad declaration of the
purpose to reduce taxation led to the reduction of importations
and the diminution of the revenue from the McKinley tariff. Importers
and dealers naturally reduced their imports in view of the expectation
that duties would be reduced. By the 1st of July, 1893, when the
Wilson bill was in embryo, the revenues had been so diminished as
to yield a surplus of only $2,341,074 during the previous year.
It was apparent, when Congress met in August, that the administration,
having a majority in each House of Congress, was determined to
reduce duties, and yet it made no effort to reduce expenditures.
Soon after there was a large deficiency in the revenue, and the
Secretary of the Treasury was compelled either to refuse to pay
appropriations made by law in excess of receipts or to borrow money
to meet the deficiencies.
In my judgment the better way for him would have been not to pay
appropriations not needed to meet specific contracts, for an
appropriation of money by Congress is not mandatory, but is
permissive, an authority but not a command to pay, nor does an
appropriation in itself authorize the borrowing of money. When
this authority is required Congress must grant it, and, upon its
failure to do so, all the Secretary of the Treasury should do is
to pay such appropriations as the revenues collected by the government
will justify. It is for Congress to provide such sums, by taxation
or loans, as are necessary to meet all appropriations made in excess
of revenue. If it refuses or neglects to do this, the responsibility
is on it, not on the secretary. All he can do is choose what
appropriations he will pay. This is a dangerous and delicate power,
but it has frequently been employed and has never been abused.
His failure to exercise this discretion was a grave mistake.
As revenues diminished deficiencies increased. A doubt arose
whether, under the then existing conditions, the government would
be able to pay gold coin for United States notes and treasury notes.
These were supported by a reserve of $100,000,000 in gold coin and
bullion, but this reserve fund was not segregated from the general
balance in the treasury, as it ought to have been, but was liable
to be drawn upon for all appropriations made by Congress. There
was not then, and there is not now, any specific authority invested
in the Secretary of the Treasury to sell bonds or to borrow money
to meet current deficiencies, and he felt called upon to pay these
out of the general fund, embracing that created for the redemption
of United States notes under the act of 1875. The result was to
create an alarm that the government could not or would not pay such
notes and thus maintain the gold standard. The timid, and those
whose patriotism is in their purse, were making inroads on the gold
reserve, which fell below $100,000,000.
By the resumption act of 1875 the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, to enable him to pay United States notes on demand, to
sell either of three classes of bonds bearing respectively five,
four and a half and four per cent. interest, but the question arose,
in 1894, whether he could sell these bonds to meet current
expenditures. All of them were worth a premium in the market.
Bonds bearing three per cent. running a short period could then
have been sold at par. In common with many others I foresaw, in
February, 1893, that the tariff policy of the then incoming
administration would reduce our revenue below our expenditures,
and sought to have Congress authorize the sale of bonds bearing
three per cent. interest instead of those at a higher rate already
authorized. I saw plainly that the incoming administration would
enter on precisely the same course as that adopted by Buchanan, of
providing insufficient revenue for the support of the government,
resulting in the gradual increase of the public debt and the
disturbance of our financial system. During each year of Buchanan's
administration the public debt increased, as it has been steadily
increasing during Cleveland's administration, and great embarrassment
grows out of this fact. My friendly suggestion was defeated and
the result has been the sale of four per cent. bonds at a sacrifice.
The President recommended the removal of restrictions upon the
importation of the raw materials necessary to our manufactures.
The tariff bill, as it passed, imposed duties on nearly all raw
materials except wool. This important product of the farmer was
made duty free. I made every effort to prevent this injustice.
Free wool was the culminating atrocity of the tariff law. By it
a revenue of over eight millions a year was surrendered for the
benefit of woolen manufacturers. I appealed to the Senate to give
some protection to this great industry of our country. It was
generally classed as the fifth of the industries of the United
States, including the manufacture of woolens, and I have no doubt
it fully came up to that grade. Over a million farmers were engaged
in the growth of wool. It involved an annual product estimated at
$125,000,000 under the former prices, but probably under the prices
after the passage of the Wilson bill it was reduced to about eighty
or ninety million dollars. It was, therefore, a great industry.
And yet it was left solitary and alone without the slightest
protection given to it directly or indirectly. The manufacture of
woolen goods was amply protected. Amendments were proposed and
adopted without dissent, adding largely to the protection at first
proposed on manufactures of wool.
The value of the wool in woolen goods as a rule is equal to the
cost of manufacturing the cloth. The duty on cloth under this law
averages 40 per cent., so that the domestic manufacturer of cloth
gets the benefit not only of a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of
manufacture, but he gets a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of the
wool in the cloth, thus getting a protection of 80 per cent. on
the cost of manufacture, while the farmer gets no protection against
foreign competition for his labor and care. This gross injustice
is done under the name of free raw materials. When I appealed to
the Senate for a duty on wool I was answered by one Senator that
free wool was all that was left in the bill of the Democratic
doctrines of free raw materials, and, if only for this reason, must
be retained. I made two speeches in support of a duty, but was
met by a united party vote, every Democrat against it and every
Republican for it. In the next tariff bill I hope this decision
will be reversed.
On the 31st of May, 1894, I made a long speech in favor of the
McKinley law and against the Wilson bill. While the McKinley law
largely reduced the taxes and duties under pre-existing laws, yet
it furnished ample revenue to support the government. The object
of the act was declared to be to reduce the revenue. It was
impartial to all sections and to all industries. The south was
well cared for in it, and every reasonable degree of protection
was given to that section. In growing industries in the north,
which it is desirable to encourage, an increase of duty was given.
In nearly all the older industries the rates were reduced, and the
result was a reduction of revenue to the extent of $30,000,000.
There was no discrimination made in the McKinley act between
agriculture and mechanical industries. The Wilson bill sacrificed
the interests of every farmer in the United States, except probably
the growers of rice and of fruit in the south. The McKinley act,
I believe, was the most carefully framed, especially in its operative
clauses and its classification of duties, of any tariff bill ever
passed by the Congress of the United States.
It has been said that the McKinley act was the cause of the deficiency
of revenue that commenced about three years after its passage.
That is a mistake. Until Mr. Cleveland was sworn into office,
March 4, 1893, there was no want of revenue to carry on the operations
of the government. Until July, 1893, there was a surplus of revenue,
and not a deficiency. The receipts during the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1891, 1892, 1893, under the McKinley act, furnished ample
means for the support of the government, and it was not until after
Cleveland had been elected, and when there was a great fear and
dread all over the country that our industries would be disturbed
by tariff legislation, that the revenues fell off. The surplus in
1891 was $37,000,000; in 1892, in the midst of the election, it
was $9,914,000, and in 1893, up to June 30, the surplus revenue
was $2,341,000. Yet in a single year afterwards, after this attempt
to tinker with the tariff had commenced, after the announcement as
to the tariff had been made by Mr. Cleveland, after the general
fear that sprang up in the country in regard to tariff legislation,
the revenues under the McKinley act fell off over $66,000,000, and
the deficiency of that year was $66,542,000.
I believe that if Harrison had been elected President of the United
States the McKinley act would have furnished ample revenue for the
support of the government, because then there would have been no
fear of disturbance of the protected industries of our country.
Cleveland's election created the disturbances that followed it.
The fear of radical changes in the tariff law was the basis of
them. That law caused the falling of prices, the stagnation of
some industries, and the suspension of others. No doubt the fall
in the value of silver and the increased demand for gold largely
precipitated and added to the other evils that I have mentioned.
If when Congress met in December, 1893, there had been a disposition
on the part of both sides to take up the tariff question and discuss
it and consider it as a pure question of finance, there would have
been no difficulty with the Republicans. We were all ready to
revise the rates contained in the McKinley tariff act. The body
of that act had been embodied in the Wilson bill as part of the
proposed law. Nearly all of the working machinery of the collection
of customs, framed carefully under the experienced eye of Senator
Allison, is still retained. All the schedules, the formal parts
of the act, which are so material, and the designation into classes
--all those matters which are so complicated and difficult to an
ordinary lawyer or an ordinary statesman, have been retained.
If the bill had been taken up in the spirit in which it should have
been, and if an impartial committee of both parties in the Senate
and the House had gone over it, item by item, it would have passed
in thirty days without trouble. That was not the purpose; it was
not the object, and it was not the actual result.
During the long session of 1893-94 I was the subject of much
controversy, debate, censure and praise. While distinctly a
Republican, and strongly attached to that party, I supported, with
the exception of the tariff law, the financial policy of the
President and Secretary Carlisle. Mr. Cleveland was a positive
force in sustaining all measures in support of the public credit.
Mr. Carlisle, who as a Member and Senator had not been always
equally positive on these measures, yet was regarded as a conservative
advocate of a sound financial policy, readily and heartily supported
the President in his recommendations. As these were in harmony
with my convictions I found myself indorsing them as against a
majority of the Democratic Senators. My Republican colleagues,
with scarcely an exception, favored the same policy.
CHAPTER LXVI.
SENIORITY OF SERVICE IN THE SENATE.
Notified That My Years of Service Exceed Those of Thomas Benton--
Celebration of the Sons of the American Revolution at the Washington
Monument--My Address to Those Present--Departure for the West with
General Miles--Our Arrival at Woodlake, Nebraska--Neither "Wood"
nor "Lake"--Enjoying the Pleasures of Camp Life--Bound for Big
Spring, South Dakota--Return via Sioux City, St. Paul and Minneapolis
--Marvelous Growth of the "Twin Cities"--Publication of the "Sherman
Letters" by General Sherman's Daughter Rachel--First Political
Speech of the Campaign at Akron--Republican Victory in the State
of Ohio--Return to Washington for the Winter of 1894-95--Marriage
of Our Adopted Daughter Mary with James Iver McCallum--A Short
Session of Congress Devoted Mainly to Appropriations--Conclusion.
On the 16th of June, 1894, I was notified by William E. Spencer,
the experienced journal clerk of the Senate, that I that day had
reached a term of service in the Senate equal in length to that of
Thomas Benton, whose service had previously held first rank in
duration, covering the period from December 6, 1821, to March 3,
1851, making 29 years, 2 months and 27 days. I had entered the
Senate March 23, 1861, and served continuously until March 8, 1877,
making 15 years, 11 months and 15 days, when I entered the cabinet
of President Hayes. My second term of service in the Senate began
March 4, 1881, and has continued until the present time. My service
since June 16, 1894, is in excess of that of Benton.
On the 4th of July, 1894, the Sons of the American Revolution
celebrated the day by a ceremony held literally in the shadow of
the Washington monument. There, at the base of the great shaft,
the members and friends of this organization and several chapters
of the Daughters of the Revolution gathered at 10 o'clock to listen
to patriotic addresses. The societies had been escorted from the
Arlington hotel by the Marine Band, and gathered in seats around
a grand stand while a battery of artillery welcomed them with a
salute. The band played national hymns, and the audience sang
"America." General Breckinridge introduced me and I was heartily
greeted. After narrating the principal events of the American
Revolution, and especially incidents connected with the Declaration
of American Independence, I said:
"It is a marvel of the world that these humble colonies, composed
of plain men, for there were no nobles or rich men in those times,
furnished genius which brought to mankind greater wisdom in the
framing of a government than ever elsewhere existed. It was of
these men that Lord Chatham said that they had prepared papers
stronger than ever emanated from any court of Europe. Our country
was built up on intelligence, obedience to law, desire for freedom
and the equal enjoyment of rights. Those who are gathered here to-
day are classified as sons and daughters of the Revolution, and
therefore they are under deeper obligations to be true and patriotic
citizens."
I then spoke of the character of our people and our institutions,
and the Civil War, happily ended, and the increasing strength and
power of the republic. I narrated how the Washington monument came
to be completed. I said it was true it cost a million of dollars,
but what was that to 65,000,000 people! The occasion was enjoyable,
the speeches were suitable for the 4th of July, patriotism and love
of country being the watchwords.
On the 28th of August, 1894, the second session of the 53rd Congress
closed. It was a laborious session. Its principal act was a
measure that did not satisfy anyone. It laid the foundations for
insufficient revenue, an increase of the public debt and the general
defeat of the party in power.
I was much fatigued, and had already arranged to accompany General
Nelson A. Miles and his party on a military inspection in Nebraska
and South Dakota. I arrived in Chicago on the 2nd of September,
where General Miles was stationed. There I was met by the reporters
and told them all I knew about the intended trip. I got as much
information from them as they did from me. What they wanted was
prophecy of the future, and I wanted to get into the wilderness.
Here our little party was made up, consisting of General Miles,
his wife, daughter and son, a lad about thirteen years old, Dr.
Daly and brother, two staff officers, and myself. We had a car
and lived in it, and the cook supplied us bountifully with good
healthy food, largely of game. I cannot imagine a more delightful
change to a man weary with talk in the hot chambers of the capitol
at Washington in August than the free, fresh air of the broad plains
of Nebraska, with congenial company in a palace car, and with no
one to bother him. Our first stopping place was called Woodlake,
a small village on the railroad in the northwestern part of Nebraska.
We arrived there in the afternoon; our car was detached from the
train and became our home for a week. Around us in every direction
was a broad rolling plain as dry as a powder horn, with scarcely
any signs of habitation, but the air was pure and exhilarating and
imparted a sense of health and energy. My first inquiry to one of
the denizens was "Where is your wood and your lake which gave a
name to your town?" He said that when the railroad was located
there was a grove near by, and water in the low ground where we
stood, but the trees had been cut and utilized in constructing the
railroad, and the lake was dried up by a long drouth. Woodlake
had neither wood nor lake in sight! We took long walks without
fatigue, and our hunters, of whom General Miles was chief, supplied
us with prairie chickens, the only game of the country.
After a few days thus spent we left our car and followed after a
company of United States Infantry, from Fort Niobrara, then engaged
in their usual drill, to a lake about twenty-five miles away, where
we lived in tents and had a taste of real camp life. With the
consent of the owner of the land we pitched our tents near his
house on the banks of the lake about three miles long and perhaps
half a mile wide. This sight of water was pleasing, but we were
warned not to drink it. We had a bountiful supply of pure healthy
water, however, from an artesian well driven over a hundred feet
into the earth and pumped by almost continuous winds into a great
basin, which furnished water in abundance for man and beast. The
only house in sight besides the one near our camp was occupied by
the brother of our host, three miles away at the other end of the
lake. The two brothers were the lords of all they surveyed. They
owned large herds of cattle that ranged over the plains around,
drank of the waters of the lake and fed upon the sparse herbage.
A few hundred of them were kept in a corral near the homesteads
for sale, but the larger portion roamed under the care of herdsmen
wherever the herbage seemed the best.
Here our hunters, with a fine pack of dogs, pursued prairie chickens,
and not only supplied our table but contributed to the soldiers in
their shelter tents near by. Mrs. Miles and I, escorted by her
young son, Sherman Miles, on horseback, had the benefit of a horse
and buggy with which we could drive in any direction. There was
no fence or bog or obstruction in the way. We generally kept in
sight of our hunters, but if we lost the trail we could go to the
hills and soon locate our camp. This free and easy life soon cured
my languor and weariness and I was able to walk or ride long
distances as well as any of the party.
Returning to Woodlake we attached our car to the train for Big
Spring in South Dakota. Here we spent two or three days, mainly
in riding through the picturesque country around. We intended to
extend our journey to Deadwood but the duties of General Miles
required him to visit St. Paul and the military post at Fort
Snelling. We returned by way of Sioux City, and thence to St.
Paul. This city and its sister Minneapolis, were familiar ground.
I had seen them when they were small towns, and had by frequent
visits kept pace with their growth, but the change noticed on my
last visit was a surprise to me. The two cities, but a few miles
apart when rival rural villages, were approaching each other and
no doubt are destined to blend into one great city of the north.
Here I met many friends, chief of whom I am glad to place Senator
Cushman K. Davis, of Minnesota. After a brief stay our little
party returned to Chicago and dispersed, I going back to Mansfield
to engage in the political campaign.
At this period "The Sherman Letters" was published, and at once
attracted attention and general commendation. I though the experiment
was a risky one, but it was the desire of General Sherman's children
to publish them, and especially of his daughter, Rachel Thorndike,
who undertook to compile them. I have been in the habit of preserving
letters written to me on personal matters, or by members of my
family, and, as General Sherman was a copious writer, I placed his
letters in separate books. He did the same with mine, but many of
these had been lost by fire in California. Rachel arranged in
chronological order such letters as she thought worth preserving,
and they were published in a handsome volume. I have a multitude
of letters from almost every man with whom I have been associated
in political life, but will not publish them while the writers live
without their consent, nor even after their death if the letters
would tend to wound the feelings of surviving friends or relatives.
Letters are the best evidence of current thought or events, but
they ought to be guarded by the person to whom they are written as
confidential communications, not to be disclosed to the injury of
the writer. General Sherman's inmost thoughts could be disclosed
without fear of injury to him, and his letters, though rapidly
written, did not indicate a dishonorable thought or action. I have
seen nothing in the comments of the press on these letters but what
is kindly to the "two brothers."
On the 5th of October I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati.
I called at the chamber of commerce, and had the same hearty welcome
its members have always given me. I made the usual short speech,
and it was all about "King Corn." General surprise was expressed
at my healthy appearance. The remark was frequently made that I
was looking better and healthier than for years. The impression
of my failing health was gathered from the newspaper descriptions
of "the old man" in the debates in the Senate. The effect of the
pure, open air of Nebraska was apparent. While on this visit I
was greatly pleased with a drive to Fort Thomas, and the high lands
on the Kentucky side of the river.
My first political speech of the campaign was made on the 12th of
October at Akron. It was confined almost exclusively to the tariff
and silver questions. The meeting was very large, composed chiefly
of men employed in the numerous factories and workshops of that
active and flourishing city. On the 18th I spoke at Sandusky upon
the same general topics as at Akron. Here I visited the Soldiers'
Home near that city. It is an interesting place, where I think
the old soldiers are better cared for than in the larger national
homes.
I continued in the canvass, speaking at several places, until the
election on the first Tuesday of November. The result was the re-
election of Samuel M. Taylor, the Republican candidate for Secretary
of State, by the abnormal plurality of 137,086, and nineteen
Republicans were elected to Congress out of the twenty-one. Though
this was a state election, it turned mainly upon national issues,
and especially evidenced strong opposition to the Wilson tariff
bill.
I was often asked by reporters, after my return to Washington, as
to the meaning of the election in Ohio. I uniformly expressed the
opinion that it meant the adoption of a nonpartisan tariff that
would, with a few internal taxes, yield revenue enough to pay
current expenses and the interest of the public debt and a portion
of the principal. I still hope that will be the result. The
framework of the McKinley law, with such changes as experience may
show to be essential, would remove the tariff from among the
political questions of the day and give reasonable encouragement
to American industries.
On the 10th of November my family and I returned to Washington for
the winter. The chief interest and occupation of my wife and
myself, for the time being, was the preparation for the approaching
marriage of our adopted daughter, Mary Stewart Sherman, to James
Iver McCallum, of Washington. This was fixed for noon, the 12th
of December. Full details of all the preparations made, of the
dresses worn, of the members of the family in attendance, and of
the distinguished guests present, were given in the city papers.
It is sufficient for me to say that Mary has been carefully educated
and trained by us, and never for a moment has given us anxiety as
to her prudence, deportment and affection. We gave her in marriage
to a young gentleman, a native of Washington, and a clerk in the
supreme court, and entertain for her all the affection and solicitude
that a father or mother can bestow.
Congress convened on the 3rd of December, 1894. The languor that
followed the excitement of the two previous sessions, and the defeat
suffered by the administration in the recent elections, no doubt
caused an indifference to political questions during the short
remaining session. But little was done except to consider and pass
the appropriations for the support of the government. I was often
annoyed by unfounded assertions that I had influence with the
administration, and especially with Carlisle, that I was in frequent
conference with the President and secretary. These stories were
entirely unfounded. Neither of these gentlemen ever consulted me
as to the business of their offices, nor did I ever seek to influence
them or even to converse with them on political questions. It was
a delicate matter for either of them or myself to deny such statements
when our personal relations were so friendly.
And now these memoirs must end. I know there are many events not
noted that should have been referred to, and many persons whose
names should not have been omitted. I would be glad to mention
with honor and credit hundreds of men who participated with me in
the political events of public life, but this seemed impracticable
within reasonable limits. I might have omitted many events and
speeches as of not sufficient consequence to be preserved, but if
I had I would not have written the recollections of my public life.
The life of a civilian is in what he says or writes, that of a
soldier in what he does. What I have written is no doubt clouded
with partisanship, but I would not be honest if I did not express
my attachment to my party. This, however, never impaired my
patriotism or swerved me from the path of duty.
To the people of Ohio I owe all the offices and honors that have
been conferred upon me. No constituency could have been more
forbearing and kind. During forty years of public life, though
many able men have aspired to the office I hold, the people of
Ohio, through their general assembly, have preferred me to represent
them. Though my grateful thanks are due to them and have been
often expressed, yet I have felt, as they do, that my duty was to
the whole country. Proud of Ohio, of its history and people,
willing at all times to sound its praise in the sisterhood of
states, yet, according to my convictions, the United States is
entitled to my allegiance, and all parts of it should receive equal
care and consideration. "Our country, our whole country, and
nothing but our country" has been the watchword and creed of my
public life. It was the opposite doctrine of "states' rights,"
allegiance to a state, that led to the Civil War. It was settled
by this war that we have a country limited in its powers by the
constitution of the United States fairly construed. Since that
time our progress and development have been more rapid than any
other country's.
The events of the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I
hope our people will be content with internal growth, and avoid
the complications of foreign acquisitions. Our family of states
is already large enough to create embarrassment in the Senate, and
a republic should not hold dependent provinces or possessions.
Every new acquisition will create embarrassments. Canada and Mexico
as independent republics will be more valuable to the United States
than if carved into additional states. The Union already embraces
discordant elements enough without adding others. If my life is
prolonged I will do all I can to add to the strength and prosperity
of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add
new dangers by acquisition of foreign territory.
INDEX
[omitted]