By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Fifty Years of Public Service
Author: Cullom, Shelby M.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Fifty Years of Public Service" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

Transcriber's notes:

  The dieresis is transcribed by a preceding hyphen.  Caps and small
  caps have been set as upper and lower case.  Names have been corrected

  Chapter VIII:  "La Fayette", Indiana, kept as a contemporary
  variant spelling.  McPherson, "clerk of the house" changed to "Clerk
  of the House" (of Representatives).

  LoC call number:  E661.C9


_Photo, by Prince Tota, Washington, D. C._
[Facsimile signature]





A. C. McCLURG & Co.

Published October, 1911
Second Edition, December, 1911


     I  Birth to Admission to the Bar, 1829 to 1855
    II  Service as City Attorney at Springfield, 1855 and 1856
   III  Election to the Illinois Legislature: Lincoln-Douglas
          Debates, 1856 to 1858
    IV  Other Distinguished Characters of that Day, 1858 and 1859
     V  Nomination of Lincoln and Douglas for the Presidency, 1859
          and 1860
    VI  Speaker of the Illinois Legislature, and a Member of
          Congress, 1860 to 1865
   VII  Lincoln, 1860 to 1864
  VIII  Notables in the Thirty-ninth Congress, 1864 to 1870
    IX  The Impeachment of President Johnson
     X  Speaker of the Legislature, and Governor, 1871 to 1883
    XI  Grant
   XII  General John A. Logan
  XIII  General John M. Palmer
   XIV  Governor Richard J. Oglesby
    XV  Senatorial Career, 1883 to 1911
   XVI  Cleveland's First Term, 1884 to 1887
  XVII  Cleveland's Defeat and Harrison's First Term, 1888 to 1891
 XVIII  Cleveland's Second Term, 1892 to 1896
   XIX  McKinley's Presidency, 1896 to 1901
    XX  Roosevelt's Presidency, 1901 to 1909
   XXI  Interstate Commerce
  XXII  John Marshall Harlan
 XXIII  Members of the Committee on Foreign Relations
  XXIV  Work of the Committee on Foreign Relations
   XXV  The Interoceanic Canal
  XXVI  Santo Domingo's Fiscal Affairs
 XXVII  Diplomatic Agreements by Protocol
XXVIII  Arbitration
  XXIX  Titles and Decorations from Foreign Powers
   XXX  Isle of Pines, Danish West Indies, and Algeciras
  XXXI  Congress under the Taft Administration
 XXXII  Lincoln Centennial: Lincoln Library
XXXIII  Consecutive Elections to United States Senate
 XXXIV  Conclusion



S. M. Cullom
Shelby M. Cullom, while a Law Student
Richard Yates
Stephen A. Douglas
Abraham Lincoln
James G. Blaine
Andrew Johnson
Shelby M. Cullom, while Governor of Illinois
Ulysses S. Grant
John A. Logan
John M. Palmer
Richard J. Oglesby
Grover Cleveland
James A. Garfield
William McKinley
William Howard Taft
Cushman K. Davis
William P. Frye
John C. Spooner
Theodore Roosevelt
Elihu Root


"Oh, that mine adversary had written a book!"

Such was the exclamation of one who, through the centuries, has
been held up to the world as the symbol of patience and long
suffering endurance, and who believed that he thus expressed the surest
method of confounding an enemy.

I have come to that age in life where I feel somewhat indifferent
as to consequences, and, yielding to the suggestions and insistence
of friends, I determined that I would undertake to write some
recollections, as they occurred to me, of the men and events of my

Naturally, to me the history of the period covered by my life since
1829 is particularly interesting.  I do not think that I am prejudiced
when I assert that while this period has not been great in Art and
Letters, from a material, scientific, and industrial standpoint it
has been the most wonderful epoch in all the world's history.

About the period of my birth General Andrew Jackson was first
elected President of the United States.  Jackson to me has always
been an interesting character.  Theodore Roosevelt has declared
very little respect for him, and has written deprecatingly--I might
say, even abusively--of him.  But the truth is, there were never
two Presidents in the White House who, in many respects, resembled
each other more nearly than Jackson and Roosevelt.

Jackson was sixty-one years old when elected President--an unusually
old man to be elected to that high office; and he had served his
country during the War of the Revolution.  When I consider this
the thought occurs to me, How young as a Nation we are, after all.
Why, I date almost back to the Revolution!  President Taft jocularly
remarked to me recently:  "Here's my old friend, Uncle Shelby.  He
comes nearer connecting the present with the days of Washington
than any one whom I know."  And I suppose there are few men in
public life whose careers extend farther into the past than mine.

During my early life the survivors of the Revolutionary War, to
say nothing of the War of 1812, were very numerous and abundantly
in evidence.  Up to that time, no man who had not served his country
in some capacity in the Revolutionary War had been elevated to the
Presidency, and this was the case until the year 1843.

During the year 1829 the crown of Great Britain descended from King
George IV to King William IV.  That reign passed away, and I have
lived to see the long reign of Victoria come and go, the reign of
Edward VII come and go, and the accession of King George V.  Charles
X ruled in France, Francis I in Austria (the reign of Francis Joseph
had not yet begun), Frederick William III in Prussia, Nicholas I
in Russia; while Leo XII governed the Papal States, the Kingdom of
Italy not yet having come into existence.  The United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland had not yet a population of 24,000,000,
all told.

From the dawn of this epoch may well date the practical beginning
of a long cycle of political and intellectual upheaval, and the
readjustment of relations which go to make up world-history, arriving
at a culmination in our great Civil War.

In the last half-century--nay, I might say, within the last two
decades--there has been a mighty impulse in the direction of
scientific investigation, of mechanical invention, of preventive
medicine, of economic improvement, and the like.  Germany, in some
respects, has led, but our own country has not been far behind.
Independent research has been wonderfully productive, and rivalry
has been keen.  Often the mere suggestion of one scientist has been
taken up and elaborated (or discredited) by other scientists; the
idea of one inventor has been seized upon and bettered, or possibly
proved valueless, by other inventors.  The paths to the remote and
inaccessible have been toiled over by rival explorers; new records
have been made by rival aviators; while competitive and co-operative
activities in every line have known a phenomenal growth.  New names
have been placed in the Pantheon of the immortals, new planets
discovered in the solar system, new stars added to the clear skies
of our nightly vision.  Out of all the striving has come a sweeping
advance in lingual requirements.  In most departments of Science,
Art, and Manufacture, the processes and methods of to-day are not
those of yesterday, and the doers of new things have freely coined
new words or given new meaning to old ones.  The most complete and
exhaustive encyclopaedia of yesterday is to-day found not entirely
adequate to the already increased wants.  Upon all these momentous
factors must these "Recollections," in one way or another, touch
from time to time.

  Shelby M. Cullom.

Washington, D. C.
  _July, 1911_.


1829 to 1855

Tides of migration set in about the close of the Revolutionary War,
originating in the most populous of the late Colonies (now States),
debouching from the western slopes of the mountain border-passes
into the headwaters of Kentucky's rivers, and mingling at last in
the fertile valley through which those rivers, in their lower
reaches, find an outlet into the Ohio.

The westward flowing current brought with it two families--the
Culloms of Maryland, and the Coffeys of North Carolina--who settled
in a beautiful valley, not far from the banks of the Cumberland,
which bore the euphonious name of Elk Spring Valley.  Richard
Northcraft Cullom, of the first-named family, married Elizabeth
Coffey.  They remained in Kentucky until seven children had been
born to them, I being the seventh, the date of my birth occurring
on the twenty-second day of November, 1829.  We were a large family,
but not extraordinarily numerous for those times, there being five
brothers and seven sisters.

Kentucky was a Slave State, and my father did not believe in slavery.
He was fairly well to do, and after considering the situation he
determined to seek a home in a Free State and live there to the
end of his days.

A treaty with the Indians in 1784, at Fort Stanwix, had secured
from the Iroquois all claims to the lands which now make up the
States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.  At the time of our removal
the State of Illinois was only eleven years old, and but a small
portion of it had any considerable settlements.  These were mainly
in the south half of the State.  Chicago was then a small village,
Fort Dearborn being at that time of more consequence than the
village.  Now Chicago is the second greatest city in the Union in
population and business.

My father, together with Alfred Phillips and William Brown, his
two brothers-in-law, entered land in the same portion of the County
of Tazewell, and at once, on their arrival from Kentucky, pitched
their tents and began the erection of log cabins, in preparation
for winter.  Phillips was a large, vigorous man, both in body and
mind.  He was a man of the highest integrity, and soon became one
of the leading citizens of Tazewell County, continuing so until
his death.  William Brown was a Methodist preacher and was a worthy
example of the consistent minister of the Gospel of Christ.  He
was called upon by the people for many miles around to perform
ceremonies on wedding occasions and, in time of sorrow, to preach
at the funerals of departed friends.

My father lived longer than either Phillips or Brown.  They both
raised large families, and to-day the youngest son of Phillips--
the Hon. Isaac N. Phillips--is recognized as one of the able lawyers
of the State, and is the reporter of the Supreme Court of Illinois.
My father was a farmer, but he always took great interest in the
affairs of the country, and especially of the State in which he
lived.  He was a Whig, and believed in Henry Clay.  He took an
active part in political campaigns, and was several times a member
of the House of Representatives of the State Legislature, and once
of the State Senate.

Tazewell County, in which he resided, became a very strong Whig
county, the Whigs having their own way until the Free-soil party,
which soon became the Republican party, took its place as against
the Democratic party.  When that time came, Tazewell, like Sangamon,
became Democratic.  Sangamon County, in which I live, and Tazewell
County, in which I was raised, were both strong Whig counties while
the Whig party survived; but when it died, the population being
largely from Kentucky and other Southern States, naturally sympathized
with the South on the question of slavery.  They drifted into the
Democratic party in large numbers, and gave the control to the
Democracy for a time; and the two parties still struggle for control
in both counties.

My father became well acquainted with Abraham Lincoln while the
latter was a young man.  The first time I ever heard of Lincoln,
was when two men came to my father's house to consult with him on
the question of employing an attorney to attend to a law case for
them at the approaching term of the Circuit Court.  I remember
hearing my father say to them that if Judge Stephen T. Logan should
be in attendance at court, they should employ him; but if he were
not, a young man named Lincoln would be there, who would do just
about as well.  Readers will see by this that while Lincoln was
yet a young man he was ranked among the foremost lawyers at the
Bar.  At that time Stephen A. Douglas was beginning to be heard

Judge Logan was one of the best lawyers of the Mississippi Valley.
He was a Kentuckian by birth, and, as a lawyer, was a very great
man.  Douglas was a great statesman and a leader of men; a great
debater, but, in my opinion, not a great lawyer.  The law is a
jealous mistress; there are no great lawyers who do not give
undivided attention to its study, and Douglas devoted much time to
public affairs.

On the arrival of my father at the grove where he had previously
determined to locate his family, he pitched his tent near a little
stream, then called Mud Creek, afterwards called Deer Creek, because
it was a great resort for wild deer.  He soon erected a log cabin
and moved into it with his family.  I was less than one year old
when the family located in Illinois.  We lived in the cabin for
several years.  It was not a single cabin, but there were two cabins
connected together by a covered porch; which was a very pleasant
arrangement in both summer and winter.

Finally, my father built a frame house.  During all this time the
wild deer were numerous, and often I have counted from the door
from five to twenty deer feeding in a slough not a quarter of a
mile away.

I never killed a deer.  The beautiful animals always seemed to me
so innocent that I had not the heart to shoot them.

The Winter of 1830-31 was long remembered by the early settlers of
Illinois, and of all the now so-called Middle States, as the "winter
of the deep snow."  For months it was impossible to pass from one
community to another in the country.

My education was obtained at the local schools and at the seminary
at Mount Morris two hundred miles distant from my father's home.

In my boyhood years there were no common schools.  There were only
such schools in the country as the people by subscription saw proper
to provide.  The schoolhouse in the neighborhood in which I lived
was built of logs, covered with thick boards, and supplied with
rude benches on its puncheon floor for the scholars to sit upon.
We sat bolt upright, there being nothing to lean against.  There
were no desks for our books; and had desks been obtainable there
were but few books to use or care for.  We boys whispered to the
girls at our peril; but we took the risk occasionally.

It was my duty as a school-boy, after doing the chores and work
inseparable from farm life, to walk every morning a long distance
over rough country roads to school.  After I had attained to a fair
common-school education, I concluded that I could teach a country
school, and was employed to teach in the neighborhood; first for
three months at eighteen dollars per month, and then for a second
term of three months at twenty.  I think I have a right to assume
that I did well as a teacher, since the patrons raised my wages
for the second term two dollars per month.

My efforts in teaching school did not secure sufficient funds to
enable me to remain at school away from home very long, and I
determined to try another plan.  My father had five yoke of oxen.
I prevailed on him to lend them to me.  I obtained a plough which
cut a furrow eighteen to twenty inches wide, and with the oxen and
plough I broke prairie for some months.  I thereby secured sufficient
money, with the additional sums which I made from the institution
at Mount Morris at odd times, to enable me to remain at the Mount
Morris Seminary for two years.

I never shall forget the journey from my home in Tazewell County
to Mount Morris, when I first left home to enter the school.  As
it well illustrates the difficulties and hardships of travel in
those early days in Illinois, I may be pardoned for giving it
somewhat in detail.

It was in the Spring of the year.  My father started with me on
horseback from my home in Tazewell County to Peoria, a distance of
fifteen miles.  A sudden freeze had taken place after the frost
had gone out of the ground, and this had caused an icy crust to
form over the mud, but not of sufficient strength to bear the weight
of a horse, whose hoofs would constantly break through.  Whereupon
I dismounted and told father that he had better take the horses
back home, and that I would go to Peoria on foot, which I did.

The weather was cold, and I was certainly used up when I arrived
in Peoria.  I went to bed, departing early the following morning,
by steamer, for Peru, a distance of twenty-five miles.  From there
I took the stage-coach to Dixon, a distance of twelve miles.

There came up another storm during the journey from Peru to Dixon,
and the driver of the stage-coach lost his way and could not keep
in the road.  I ran along in front of the coach most of the way,
in order to keep it in the road, the horses following me.  From
Dixon I crossed the river, proceeding to Mount Morris by private
conveyance.  I never had a more severe trip, and I felt its effects
for very many years afterwards.

The days I spent in old Mount Morris Seminary were the pleasantest
of my life.  I was just at the age which might be termed the
formative period of a young man's career.  Had I been surrounded
then by other companions, by other environment, my whole future
might have been entirely different.  Judged by the standard of the
great Eastern institutions, Mount Morris was not even a third-class
college; but it was a good school, attended by young men of an
unusually high order.  In those early days it was the leading
institution of higher learning in Northern Illinois.  I enjoyed
Mount Morris, and the friendships formed there continued throughout
my life.

I do not know whether I was a popular student or not, but I was
president of the Amphictyon Society, and, according to the usual
custom, was to deliver the address on retiring from the presidency.
During the course of the address I fainted and was carried from
the chapel, which was very hot and very crowded.  I was rolled
around in the snow a while and speedily revived.  I was immediately
asked to let one of the boys read the remainder of the address,
but the heroic treatment to which I had been subjected stirred me
to profane indifference respecting its fate.  Later I was selected
to deliver the valedictory.  So I suppose I must have enjoyed a
reasonable degree of popularity among my fellow students.

It was at Mount Morris that I first became intimate with the late
Robert R. Hitt.  He and his brother John, who recently died, were
classmates of mine, their father being the resident Methodist
preacher at Mount Morris.  Robert R. Hitt remained my friend from
our school days until his death.  He was a candidate for the Senate
against me at one time, but he was no politician, and I defeated
him so easily that he could not harbor a bitter feeling against
me.  He was quite a character, and enjoyed a long and distinguished
public career in Illinois.  One of the early shorthand reporters
of the State, the reporter of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he became
intimate with Lincoln, and Lincoln was very fond of him.  He filled
numerous important positions at home and abroad, and married a most
beautiful lady, who still survives.  He was later appointed Secretary
of Legation at Paris.

Bob Hitt told me that he asked President Grant for the appointment,
and the President at once said that he would give it to him.
Washburne, who had been Secretary of State for a few days, and who
was then minister at Paris, was much astonished when Hitt appeared
and said that he had been appointed Secretary of Legation.  Mr.
Washburne denounced both President Grant and Secretary of State
Fish for appointing anybody to fill such an intimate position
without his consent.

Ambassadors and ministers, however, are not consulted as to who
shall be appointed secretaries.  These appointments are made by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
but Mr. Washburne, as usual, though that he was a bigger man than
any one else, and that an exception should have been made in his
case.  But, when officially informed of the appointment, he submitted
gracefully, and they got along together quite amicably.  Strange
to say, Hitt represented Washburne's old district in Congress for
a number of years--many more years than Washburne himself represented

It was as a member of Congress that Mr. Hitt distinguished himself.
He did what every man should do who expects to make a reputation
as a national legislator; and that is to specialize, to become an
expert in some particular branch.  He was peculiarly fitted for
foreign affairs.  He was a man of education and culture, a student
always, had served abroad for years, had mingled in the highest
society, and it is not strange than in a comparatively few years
he was recognized as the leading authority on all matters coming
before the House pertaining to our foreign relations.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House is not nearly so important
a committee as the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, and
I may be pardoned for saying that I am chairman of the latter
committee myself.

The reason is this:  the Constitution provides that treaties shall
be made only with the advice and consent of the Senate; hence it
is that all such treaties, and consequently the foreign policy of
the general Government, must pass the scrutiny of the Foreign
Relations Committee of the Senate while the House and its committees
have nothing whatever to do with them.

But nevertheless of all the House committees, that of Foreign
Affairs is at times the foremost, and it never had an abler chairman
than Robert R. Hitt.  He was certainly in the most remarkable degree
what might be termed a specialist in legislation.  He gave but
scant attention to any other branch of legislation.  He had little
time or liking for the tariff, finance, appropriations, or for any
branch of legislation that failed to come within his own especial
province.  He was, in fact, so indifferent to the general business
of the House that he told me one day that he did not even take the
trouble to select a regular seat; that when any question came up
in which he was interested he would talk from the seat of some
absent colleague.  Hence it was that he was seldom seen on the
floor of the House except when some question was raised concerning
our foreign relations; at which time he was immediately sent for.
And it is only justice to him to say that he was the only man in
the House in his time, and no one has since appeared there, who
could so successfully defend or attack the policy of an administration
concerning its foreign affairs.

The late Senator Morgan of Alabama, a most extraordinary character,
of whom I shall have something to say later, and Robert R. Hitt
and myself were appointed members of a commission to frame a form
of government for the Territory of Hawaii, which we had just
acquired.  We travelled to Hawaii together.  No two more delightful,
entertaining, or interesting men could be found.  They are both
dead, and it was my sad privilege to eulogize their public achievements
in the Senate.

In what I am writing from time to time, now, as the months and
years go by, when I have the leisure from my public duties to devote
to it, and without knowing whether what I am writing will ever be
published, I do not want to eulogize any one.  If what I say about
men and events shall offend their friends living, I can not help
it.  I want only to give my own estimate of the men whom I have
known.  Robert R. Hitt was a good man; his honesty and uprightness
were never questioned; he never did a great deal for his district
but he was one of the most useful legislators in his own line--
foreign affairs--whom I have ever known during my service in
Congress.  I think this is a fair and just estimate of him.

But to return to Mount Morris, Professor D. J. Pinckney was president
of the Seminary when I was a student there.  He knew my father
intimately, and naturally took more than ordinary interest in me.
When I became ill at school, he took me into his own home and kept
me there for a month or more, treating me with the greatest kindness
and consideration.

Years after I left the institution he became interested in politics,
and ran as an independent for Congress against Horatio C. Burchard,
Republican (who was, by the way, a very excellent man and my friend).
Burchard defeated him.  When the campaign was on I was invited to
go to Galena and make a speech for Mr. Burchard.  It never occurred
to me at the time that I was going into Pinckney's district; but
when I discovered the truth, I could not very well back out.  I
made my speech, but was careful not to say a word against Professor
Pinckney, simply advocating the election of Mr. Burchard as a good
Republican.  Professor Pinckney, however, took great offense, and
was very cold toward me from that time until his death.  I felt
that he had been misled, that it would all come right, and that
some day I would have a plain talk with him; but he died before we
ever got together.  He has a son now living in Chicago, a prominent
circuit judge of Cook County.

Among other classmates of mine at Mount Morris, was the late General
John A. Rawlins, who became a distinguished officer and was General
Grant's chief of staff.  No better, no truer, man ever lived than
General Rawlins.  He was essentially a good man and never had a
bad habit.

Rawlins was a Democrat, and a strong one, during his school days,
and I believe that he remained one until the Civil War.  Robert
Hitt and his brother John, together with Rawlins and myself, formed
a sort of four-in-hand, and we were very intimate.  We would take
part in the discussions in our society, and Rawlins was especially
strong when a political question was raised.  I have heard him,
during his school days, make speeches that would have done credit
to a statesman.  He would have done himself and country credit in
any civil office.  He served as Secretary of War a few months.
Like so many others who entered the war without the slightest
military training, he came out of it with a brilliant record as an
officer and soldier.

Judge Moses Hallett, a United States judge, retired, of Colorado,
was another classmate of mine.  He was an exceptionally good man,
and developed into a very able lawyer and judge.  He is still
living, and has become quite wealthy through fortunate real-estate
investments in the vicinity of Denver.

But I fear I might tire the reader by dwelling longer on my school
life at Mount Morris.  To look back over those happy early days is
interesting to me; but it is sad to think how few, how very few,
of my schoolmates, then just beginning the journey of life, with
all the enthusiasm and hope of youth, are living to-day.  They soon
scattered, some to one vocation, some to another; some to achieve
distinction and fame, some failure; but certain it is that I know
of very few who are now living.

My health was impaired when I left school, and I returned home to
work on the farm.  Soon I became strong again, but the labor was
so arduous and uncongenial that I determined upon a change: if
there was any other way of making a honest living, I would try to
find it.

In the meantime I had leased a farm of one hundred and sixty acres
from my father.  When Spring came I told him that I wanted to be
released from my contract; that I had deliberately come to the
conclusion that I could make my living some other way--that I
intended to study law.  My father did not hesitate to relieve me
of my obligations, and the succeeding October, 1853, I started for
Springfield to enter upon the study of law.  I consulted with
Abraham Lincoln, and on his advice I entered the law offices of
Stuart and Edwards, both of whom were Whigs and friends of my
father.  They were both very good men and distinguished lawyers.

At that time Abraham Lincoln and Stephen T. Logan and Stuart and
Edwards were the four ablest lawyers of the capital city.  I studied
two years in the offices of Stuart and Edwards, pursuing the usual
life of a law student in a country law office, and was admitted to
the Bar in 1855, and elected City Attorney the same year.

Meanwhile, however, I had been ill of typhoid fever for several
months.  During the period of my convalescence, I was advised to
return to my home in the country and spend much time riding horseback.
I did so, but the time seemed to drag, and finally I went to the
city of Peoria to learn whether I could direct my restorative
exercise to an additional profitable end.  The result was that for
several ensuing weeks I rode about the countryside, buying hogs
for Ting & Brotherson; at the expiration of which time I had regained
my health, was richer by about five hundred dollars, and was thus
enabled to return at once to Springfield and take up again my
interrupted studies.

Having been inducted into the office of City Attorney, I was fairly
launched upon a political career, exceeding in length of unbroken
service that of any other public man in the country's history.  In
fact I never accepted but two executive appointments:  the first
was an unsought appointment by Abraham Lincoln, after he had become
the central figure of his time, if not of all time; and, second,
an appointment from President McKinley as chairman of the Hawaiian

1855 and 1856

My election as City Attorney of Springfield signalized at once my
active interest in politics at the very moment when the war cloud
was beginning to take shape in the political heavens--a portentous
cloud, but recognized as such at that time by comparatively few of
the thinking people.  It had seemed certain for years that a struggle
was sure to come.  Being a very young man, I suppose I did not
realize the horrors of a civil war, but I watched with keen interest
the signs of dissolution in political parties, and realignments in
party ties.

In 1854 the country seemed on the verge of a war with Spain over
Cuba which happily was averted.  The _Black Warrior_ had been seized
in Havana Harbor, and the excitement throughout the country when
Congress prepared to suspend the neutrality laws between the United
States and Spain was intense.

It was about this time also that the famous Ostend manifesto was
issued without authority from any one.  The American representatives
at the Courts of England, France, and Spain met at Ostend to confer
on the best method of settling the difficulties concerning Cuba
and obtaining possession of the island.  They issued a manifesto in
which they recommended that Cuba should be purchased if possible,
failing which that it should be taken by force:

"If Spain, actuated by stubborn pride and a false sense of honor,
should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then by every law,
human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain,
if we possess the power."

The Ostend manifesto was repudiated; but it is certain that we
would have then intervened in favor of freeing Cuba, had it not
been for the dark war clouds which were so quickly gathering over
our own country.

Among the other vital conditions which helped to keep the country's
interest and attention divided at this critical time was the Missouri
Compromise repeal, May 30, 1855.  This repealing act early began
to bear political fruit.  Already treaties had been made with half
a score of the Indian Nations in Kansas, by which the greater part
of the soil for two hundred miles west was opened.  Settlers,
principally from Missouri, immediately began to flock in, and with
the first attempt to hold an election a bloody epoch set in for
that region between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions,
fanned by attempts in Massachusetts and other Eastern States to
make of Kansas a Free State.

By methods of intimidation, Whitfield, a slave-holder, was elected
the first delegate to Congress.  At a second election thirteen
State Senators and twenty-six members of a Lower House were declared
elected.  For this purpose 6,320 votes were cast--more than twice
the number of legal voters.

Foreign affairs other than Spain's unfriendly activities also had
a share in distracting attention.  The United States paid Mexico
ten million dollars to be free of the Guadalupe Hidalgo obligation
to defend the Mexican frontier against the Indians.

My first experience after I was elected City Attorney, was to
prosecute persons charged with violating the ordinances prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquors.  One of my preceptors, the Hon.
Benjamin S. Edwards, was a strong and earnest temperance man.  He
volunteered to assist me in the prosecution of what we called
"liquor cases."  The fact is that for a time he took charge of the
cases, and I assisted him.  Life was made a burden to violators of
liquor ordinances that year in Springfield.

The following year, 1856, was a Presidential year.  I was chosen
as an elector on what was called the "Fillmore Ticket."  I did not
at that time believe very strongly in Fremont for President.  During
the same year, I was nominated as a candidate for the House of
Representatives of the Illinois Legislature, and was supported by
both the Fillmore party and the Free-soil party and thus elected.

The House of Representatives of the Legislature of 1856 was so
close that if all the members who had not been elected as Democrats
united, they had one majority.  If any one of them went to the
Democrats, the Democrats would have the control.  One of the men
elected on the Fillmore ticket went over, thus giving the Democracy
the coveted one necessary.  The Republicans, or as they were then
called, Free-soilers, attempted to organize the House by recognizing
the clerk of the previous House, who was a Free-soiler, it then
being the custom to have the clerk call the House to order and
preside until a temporary organization was perfected.  The Democrats
refused to recognize the clerk whom the opposition recognized.
The Democrats declared by vote the election of a temporary chairman,
nominated and elected a sergeant-at-arms and a deputy, and ordered
the two latter officers to carry the clerk out of the hall; which
was promptly done at the expense of a good suit of clothes to the
clerk who departed reluctantly.  This was my first experience in

A careful reading of the annals of the State of Illinois will show
that this incident is by no means unique in its history.

To go back a few years, when Edward Coles, who had been private
secretary to President Madison, was elected Governor, it was by a
mere plurality vote over his highest competitor, and--to use the
language of former Governor Ford--he was so unfortunate as to have
a majority of the Legislature against him during his whole term of
service.  The election had taken place soon after the settlement
of the Missouri question.  The Illinois Senators had voted for the
admission of Missouri as a Slave State, while her only Representative
in the Lower House voted against it.  This all helped to keep alive
some questions for or against the introduction of slavery.

About this time, also, a tide of immigrants was pouring into Missouri
through Illinois, from Virginia and Kentucky.  In the Fall of the
year, every great road was crowded with them, all bound for Missouri,
with their money and long trains of teams and negroes.  These were
the most wealthy and best educated immigrants from the Slave States.
Many people who had land and farms to sell, looked upon the good
fortune of Missouri with envy; whilst the lordly immigrant, as he
passed along with his money and droves of negroes, took a malicious
pleasure in increasing it by pretending to regret the short-sighted
policy of Illinois, which excluded him from settlement, and from
purchasing and holding lands.

In this mode a desire to make Illinois a Slave State became quite
prevalent.  Many persons had voted for Brown or Phillips with this
view, whilst the friends of a Free State had rallied almost in a
body for Coles.

Notwithstanding the defeat of the Democrats at this election, they
were not annihilated.  They had been beaten for Governor only by
a division in their own ranks, whilst they had elected a large
majority of each House of the Assembly, and were determined to make
a vigorous effort to carry their measure at the session of the
Legislature to be held in 1822-23.  Governor Coles, in his first
message, recommended the emancipation of the French slaves.  This
served as the spark to kindle into activity all the elements in
favor of slavery.

Slavery could not be introduced, nor was it believed that the French
slaves could be emancipated, without an amendment to the Constitution;
the Constitution could not be amended without a new convention, to
obtain which two thirds of each branch of the Legislature had to
concur in recommending it to the people; and the voters, at the
next election, had to sanction it by a majority of all the votes
given for members of the Legislature.

When the Legislature assembled, it was found that the Senate
contained the requisite two-thirds majority; but in the House of
Representatives, by deciding a contested election in favor of one
of the candidates, the Slave party would have one more than two-
thirds, while by deciding in favor of the other, they would lack
one vote of having the majority.  These two candidates were John
Shaw and Nicholas Hanson, who claimed to represent the County of
Pike, which then included all the military tract and all the country
north of the Illinois River to the northern limits of the State.

The leaders of the Slave party were anxious to re-elect Jesse B.
Thomas to the United States Senate.  Hanson would vote for him,
but Shaw would not; Shaw would vote for the convention, but Hanson
would not.  The party had use for both of them, and they determined
to use them both, one after the other.  For this purpose, they
first decided in favor of Hanson, admitted him to a seat, and with
his vote elected their United States Senator; and then, toward the
close of the session, with mere brute force, and in the most
barefaced manner, they reconsidered their former vote, turned Hanson
out of his seat, and decided in favor of Shaw, and with his vote
carried their resolution for a convention.

There immediately resulted a very fierce contest before the people,
characterized by lavish detraction and personal abuse--one of the
most bitter, prolonged, and memorable in the history of the State
--and the question of making Illinois permanently a Slave State
was put to rest by a majority of about two thousand votes.  The
census of 1850 was the first that enumerated no slaves in our State.

In this connection I cannot avoid giving a little account of
Frederick Adolphus Hubbard, who was Lieutenant-Governor when Coles
was Governor.  Hubbard seemed to be a very ignorant man, but
ambitious to become Governor of the State, or to attain some other
position that would give him reputation.

"It is related of him that while engaged in the trial of a lawsuit,
involving the title to a certain mill owned by Joseph Duncan [who
afterwards became Governor], the opposing counsel, David J. Baker,
then recently from New England, had quoted from Johnson's New York
reports a case strongly against Hubbard's side.  Reading reports
of the decisions of courts before juries was a new thing in those
days; and Hubbard, to evade the force of the authority as a precedent,
coolly informed the jury that Johnson was a Yankee clock-peddler,
who had been perambulating up and down the country gathering up
rumors and floating stories against the people of the West, and
had them published in a book under the name of 'Johnson's Reports.'
He indignantly repudiated the book as authority in Illinois, and
clinched the argument by adding:  'Gentlemen of the jury, I am sure
you will not believe anything that comes from that source; and
besides that, what did Johnson know about Duncan's mill anyhow?'"( 1)

Hubbard, in 1826, became a candidate for Governor of Illinois.  He
canvassed the State, and the following is a sample of his speeches,
recorded by Ford:

"Fellow-citizens, I offer myself as a candidate before you for the
office of Governor.  I do not pretend to be a man of extraordinary
talents, nor do I claim to be equal to Julius Caesar or Napoleon
Bonaparte, nor yet to be as great a man as my opponent, Governor
Edwards.  Nevertheless I think I can govern you pretty well.  I do
not think it will require a very extraordinary smart man to govern
you; for to tell you the truth, fellow-citizens, I do not believe
you will be very hard to govern, nohow."( 2)

In 1825, Governor Coles notified Lieutenant-Governor Hubbard that
he had occasion to leave the State for a time and required the
latter to take charge of affairs.  Hubbard did so, and when Governor
Coles returned Hubbard declined to give up the office, asserting
that the Governor had vacated it.  He based his contention upon
that clause of the Constitution that provided that the Lieutenant-
Governor should exercise all the power and authority appertaining
to the office of Governor, in case of the latter's absence from
the State, until the time provided by the Constitution for the
election of Governor should arrive.  He claimed that the Governor
had vacated the office until the time of the election of a new
Governor, and declined to surrender.  The result was, the Governor
had to get a decision of the Supreme Court, which was to the effect
that there was no ground on which to award the writ.  Coles was
obliged to submit, but not until he had appealed to the Legislature,
where his contention was equally unsuccessful.

At one time, after repeated and annoying application, Hubbard
obtained from Governor Edwards what he had reason to believe was
a recommendation for a certain office.  He became a little suspicious
that the letter was not very strong in his behalf, and in speaking
of it afterwards, in his lisping manner, said:  "Contrary to the
uthage amongst gentlemen, he thealed it up; and contrary to the
uthage amongst gentlemen, I broke it open; and what do you think
I found?  Instead of recommending me, the old rathcal abuthed me
like a pickpocket."

( 1) Moses, page 334.

( 2) Ford, page 61.

1856 to 1858

In the year 1856 I had rather unusual experiences of both victory
and defeat in one and the same political campaign.  As candidate
for the Legislature I won out, being elected; as the chosen elector
on the Fillmore ticket, I went down in the party's defeat.  The
Whig party was in its expiring days, and what was called the "Know-
Nothing" party was apparently a temporary substitute for it.
Fillmore carried one solitary state--Maryland.  Buchanan was elected
by quite a large majority over both Fremont and Fillmore combined.

The administration of President Buchanan has been so frequently
and fully described that there is little, if anything, new to say
about it; but such were the fearful responsibilities incurred by
it for the subsequent bloodshed, that its shortcomings cannot be
entirely ignored in the intelligible presentation of the course of
events which gave direction to my observations and activities.

The campaign of 1856 had been one of the most exiting and hotly
contested ever fought in the State.  The only hope the Democrats
had of success was in the division of their opponents and in
preventing their fusion.  Their denunciations of abolitionists and
"Black Republicans," as they termed their antagonists, were without
bounds.  But here and there some one would be called to account,
as in the case of the late John M. Palmer, since distinguished in
war and peace, and some years ago candidate of the Gold Democrats
for the Presidency.

Between him and Major Harris, then running for Congress in his
district, there had been considerable ill-feeling.  The major had
written a letter to be read at a Democratic meeting at which Palmer
was present.  It was very abusive of the Republicans, and Palmer
rising, remarked the fact that the author would not dare make such
charges to the face of any honest man.  Harris, as related by the
historian Moses, hearing of this, announced that he would resent
it at the first opportunity.  This Palmer soon gave him by attending
one of his meetings.  The major in the course of his remarks indulged
in the most vituperative language against abolitionists, calling
them disturbers of the peace, incendiaries, and falsifiers; and at
length, turning to Palmer and pointing his finger at him, said, "I
mean you, sir!"  Palmer rising to his feet, instantly replied,
"Well, sir, if you apply that language to me you are a dastardly
liar!"  And drawing a pistol, he started toward the speaker's stand.
"Now, sir," he continued, "when you get through, I propose to reply
to you."  The major had not anticipated this turn of affairs, but
prudently kept his temper and finished his speech.  Then Palmer
arose and, laying his weapon before him, cocked, proceeded to give
the Democratic party such a castigation as none of those present
had ever heard before.

It was in the campaign of 1856 that I first began to make political
speeches.  James H. Matheny, who was then our circuit clerk,
accompanied me to several meetings where we both delivered addresses.
He was an old Whig inclined toward Democracy, and I was a Whig
inclined toward Republicanism.  The result was I made Republican
speeches, while Judge Matheny made Democratic speeches.

Our first meeting away from home was at Petersburg, Menard County.
Being a candidate for elector on the Fillmore ticket, I made my
first away-from-home speech, which I thought was a pretty good
Republican speech.  Matheny followed me with a hot Democratic
speech, attacking especially Judge Trumbull, then our United States
Senator.  I remained pretty steadily in the campaign of that year,
making about the same character of speech wherever I went.

Fillmore was very popular in Central Illinois, where the Whig party
also had quite a large following during its palmy days, but he did
not receive votes enough to come anywhere near carrying the State.
Sangamon, my home county, and Tazewell County, where I was brought
up, both gave their majority votes for Fillmore.

The Hon. John T. Stuart and his partner, the Hon. B. S. Edwards,
with whom I studied law, besides being able lawyers and first-class
men, were both Whigs; Mr. Stuart especially took an active part in
the campaign.  The latter was invited to attend what was called a
Fillmore meeting at Shelbyville, several counties away from Sangamon.
It so happened that he could not go, and the people of Shelbyville
telegraphed for me.  I went, and it turned out to be a combined
Fremont, Buchanan, and Fillmore meeting--at least the three meetings
there were held all on the same day.

The Fillmore camp gathered its forces out in the woods until about
two o'clock in the afternoon.  The Buchanan and Fremont crowds then
marched in, informing the first-comers that they regarded their
right to have the first meeting pre-eminent.  An agreement was
arrived at after some little wrangling, and old General Thornton
was chosen to preside.  He determined that, as I was not only a
young man but the farthest from home, I should make the first speech
--an arrangement that suited me very well.

I made my speech, as good a one as I could, and in closing, somewhat
hurriedly announced that I was obliged to leave for home, much as
I might wish to remain with them to the close of the meeting.  The
result was that most of the Fillmore people followed me away and
came nearly breaking up the whole performance.  I urged them to go
back and listen to the other speakers; but they declined to do so
until I had gotten off for home.  It was my first venture at speech-
making away from home on national issues.

I worked and voted for Fillmore because I had a very high opinion
of him as a good man, and did not then think very much of Fremont
as a proper candidate for the Presidency.  Subsequently Fremont
became better known, and occupied a high place in the estimation
of the people of the United States, as a gallant soldier and a
statesman, enjoying the unique honor of having been the first
candidate of the Republican party for President.

I have taken an active part in every campaign since 1856, excepting
when poor health prevented a regular speaking campaign.

The animosities of the campaign of 1856 were carried into the
Legislature and kept alive in the House during the entire session.
Governor Bissell's inaugural address was a dignified State paper
in which he referred to the administration of his predecessor in
highly complimentary terms.  He concurred in all his recommendations,
but suggested no measures of his own.  Although he had commented
briefly upon the Kansas-Nebraska controversy, and in mild terms,
his remarks stirred the ire of the Democrats.  Upon the motion to
print the address, a virulent attack was made upon him, led, strange
to say, by John A. Logan, afterwards the foremost volunteer general
of the Union, and a Republican of Republicans.  The rancor of the
Democrats against Governor Bissell, who at that time was a physical
wreck from a stroke of paralysis, though mentally sound, was largely
due to their recollection of the fearless manner in which he had
responded, some years before, to a challenge given him by Jefferson
Davis to a duel.  That episode has long since become historic, and
I need not enlarge upon it here.

As was the political temper in the State of Illinois, so was it,
to a greater or less degree, throughout the entire Nation.

Buchanan's first message repeated the assurance that the discussion
of slavery had come to an end.  The clergy were criticised for
fomenting prevalent disturbances.  The President declared in favor
of the admission of Kansas, with a Constitution agreeable to a
majority of the settlers.  He also referred to an impending decision
of the Supreme Court, with which he had been made acquainted, and
asked acquiescence in it.  This was Judge Taney's decision in the
Dred Scott case, rendered two days after Buchanan's inauguration.

An action had been begun in the Circuit Court in Missouri by Scott,
a negro, for the freedom of himself and children.  He claimed that
he had been removed by his master in 1834 to Illinois, a Free State,
and afterwards taken into territory north of the compromise line.
Sanford, his master, replied that Scott was not a citizen of
Missouri, and could not bring an action, and that he and his children
were Sanford's slaves.  The lower courts differed, and the case
was twice argued.  The decision nullified the Missouri restriction,
or, indeed, any restriction by Congress on slavery in the Territories.
Chief-Justice Taney said:

"The question is whether the class of persons (negroes) compose a
portion of the people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty.
We think they are not included under the word 'citizen' in the
Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and
privileges of that instrument."

Negroes, as a race, were at that time considered as a subordinate
and inferior class who had been subjugated by the dominant whites,
and had no rights or privileges except such as those who held the
power and the government might choose to grant them.  They had for
more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior grade--
so far inferior that they possessed no rights which the white man
was bound to respect; and the negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his (the white man's) benefit.  The negro
race by common consent had been excluded from civilized governments
and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.  The unhappy
black race was separated from the whites by indelible marks long
before established, and was never thought of or spoken of except
as property.

The Chief-Justice further annulled the Missouri restriction, by
asserting that "the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from
holding property of this kind north of the line therein mentioned
is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void."
Benton said that it was "no longer the exception, with freedom the
rule; but slavery was the rule, with freedom the exception."

It was a year of financial distress in America, which recalled the
hard times of twenty years before.  The United States treasury was

Early in this year (1856) a Legislature had met at Topeka, Kansas,
and was immediately dissolved by the United States marshals.  A
Territorial Legislature also met at Lecompton and provided for a
State Constitution.  The people of Kansas utterly refused to
recognize the latter body which had been chosen by the Missouri
invaders, and both parties continued to hold their elections.

Thus it may be seen that these episodes were the culmination of a
long series of events leading to a new alignment of the country's
political forces.  The Republican party was the child of this
ferment of unrest.  The formation of a new political party, or the
regeneration of an old one, is always due to events, and not to
the schemes and purposes of men except as events sometimes originate
in such purposes and schemes.  In this case the steps in the course
of events which had rendered the formation of an anti-slavery party
inevitable were:  The pro-slavery provisions of the Constitution,
the foreign slave trade, the acquisition of the Territory of
Louisiana, the invention of the cotton-gin and its effects, the
Missouri Compromise, the nullification schemes of South Carolina,
the colonization and annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, the
contest over the admission of California, the Compromise Measure
of 1850, and finally the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854.

The name of the party was an incident only, and not an essential
or very important incident; its principles and purposes were the
vital facts.  When events demand a new party, or the reorganization
of an old one, all resistance is usually borne down speedily.  On
the other hand, it is a wasteful exhibition of human power to
attempt the creation of a new party by the force of combined will
and resolutions formulated in public meetings.  Abraham Lincoln's
great experience or keener penetration, or both, guided him at the
outset of the realignments on political issues, and at the opening
of the Congressional campaign of 1858, I followed him firmly and
without mental reservation into the ranks of the Republican party.

Hence it was that I was present on that historic occasion when the
Republican party of the State of Illinois held a convention at
Springfield, June 17 of the year named, and nominated Lincoln for
the seat in the United States Senate, then held by Stephen A.
Douglas, who at that time was usually affectionately referred to
by his partisan followers as "The Little Giant."  This nomination
was anticipated, and Mr. Lincoln had prepared a speech, which he
then delivered, in which he set forth, in a manner now universally
recognized as masterly, the doctrines of the Republican party.  He
arraigned the administration of Mr. Buchanan and denounced the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise under the lead of Senator Douglas.
In that speech he made the declaration, which I remember as clearly
as though an event of yesterday, then characterized as extravagant
but long since accepted as prophetic:  "I believe this Government
cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free."

That address inaugurated a discussion which has no exact parallel
in history--certainly no equal in American political history.  It
introduced Mr. Lincoln to the country at large, and prepared the
way for his nomination to the Presidency two years later.  On the
declaration above quoted Mr. Douglas based many arguments, in vain
attempts to prove that Mr. Lincoln was a disunionist.

During this period Douglas addressed an enthusiastic assemblage at
Chicago, and in the course of his speech adverted to the arraignment
of himself by Mr. Lincoln.  He took direct issue with that gentleman
on his proposition that, as to Freedom and Slavery, "the Union will
become _all_ one thing or _all_ the other," and maintained strenuously
that "it is neither desirable nor possible that there should be
uniformity in the local institutions and domestic regulations of
the different States of this Union."

An announcement that Mr. Lincoln would reply to Mr. Douglas on the
following evening brought out another assemblage, July 10, which
was awakened, before the speaker had concluded, to an enthusiasm
at least equal to that which the eloquence of Douglas had aroused.

The issues involved in this famous series of debates are too familiar
to all students of our Nation's political history to be considered
at length in these pages.  Mr. Lincoln analyzed and answered the
various arguments advanced by Mr. Douglas the evening before; and
the closing paragraphs of his reply to the insistent reminders
"that this Government was made for white men," were memorable:

"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be
treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying;
that as much is to be done for them as their conditions will allow.
What are these arguments?  They are the arguments that kings have
made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world.  You will
find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this
class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they
wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being
ridden.  That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is
the same old serpent that says:  'You work, and I eat; you toil,
and I will enjoy the fruits of it.'"

Six days thereafter, July 16, Senator Douglas in a great speech
again tried to break the force of his opponent's facts and logic.
This was at Bloomington, and Mr. Lincoln was again a careful
listener.  On the evening following, July 17, at Springfield, before
an enthusiastic audience, he proceeded to dissect the matters so
plausibly presented.

At the same hour Douglas was addressing a Springfield audience of
his own, ridiculing especially Mr. Lincoln's alleged attitude toward
the Supreme Court.

Contrasting the disadvantages under which, by reason of an unfair
apportionment of State Legislature representation and otherwise,
the Republicans labored in that campaign, Mr. Lincoln on that
occasion said in the course of his talk:

"Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown.  All the anxious politicians
of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have
been looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the
President of the United States.  They have seen in his round, jolly,
fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet
appointments, _chargé_-ships and foreign missions, bursting and
sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by
their greedy hands.  And as they have been gazing upon this attractive
picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has
taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming
hope; but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him,
and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions, beyond
what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could have
brought about in his favor.  On the contrary, nobody has ever
expected me to be President.  In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody
has ever seen that any cabbages were sprouting out."

He affirmed that Popular Sovereignty, "the great staple" of the
Douglas campaign, was "the most arrant Quixotism that was ever
enacted before a community."

As a result of these preliminary speeches of the Congressional
campaign it was generally conceded that, at last, the "Little Giant"
had met his match, and the intellectual and political appetites of
the public called for more.  In recognition of this demand, Mr.
Lincoln opened a correspondence which led to an agreement with Mr.
Douglas for a series of joint discussions, seven in number, on fixed
dates in August, September, and October.  Alternately they were,
in succession, to open the discussion and speak for an hour, with
another half-hour at the close after the other had spoken for an
hour and a half continuously.  My friend and schoolmate, the late
Mr. R. R. Hitt, an efficient stenographer, was employed to report
the whole series, and thus we have a full record of the most
remarkable debate, viewed from all points, that has ever occurred
in American history--possibly without a parallel in the world's
history.  Vast assemblages gathered from far and near and listened
with breathless attention to these absorbingly interesting

Notwithstanding the intense partisan feeling that was evoked, the
discussion proceeded amidst surroundings characterized by the utmost
decorum.  The people evidently felt that the greatest of all
political principles, that of human liberty itself, was hanging on
the issue of this great political contest between intellectual
giants, thus openly waged before the world.  They accordingly rose
to the dignity and solemnity of the occasion, as has been well said
by one who was then a zealous follower of Douglas, vindicating by
their very example the sacredness with which the right of free
speech should be regarded at all times and everywhere.

I have elsewhere described the disappointment I personally felt at
the result, when the election returns came in.  Although the popular
vote stood 125,698 for Lincoln to 121,130 for Douglas--showing a
victory for Lincoln among the people--yet enough Douglas Democrats
were elected to the Legislature, when added to those of his friends
in the Illinois Senate elected two years before and held over, to
give him fifty-four members of both branches of the Legislature on
joint ballot, against forty-six for Mr. Lincoln.

1858 and 1859

More than four months had elapsed since Lincoln's epoch-marking
speech at Springfield had brought on his great discussion with
Douglas, when on October 20, 1858, Governor Seward at Rochester,
New York, intensified the political inflammation of the times by
saying in a notable speech:

"These antagonistic systems (free labor and slave labor) are
continually coming close in contact.  It is an irrepressible conflict
between opposing and enduring forces; and it means that the United
States must and will, sooner or later, become either an entirely
slave-holding or entirely a free-labor nation."

A book written by a young Southerner, "The Impending Crisis in the
South--How to Meet It," was recommended in a circular signed by a
large number of the Republican Congressmen, and thus given a vogue
and weight out of all proportion to the standing of the author,
whose recent death under tragic circumstances at an advanced age
has drawn the name of Hinton Rowan Helper for a brief hour from
its long obscurity.

"Dred, a Tale of the Dismal Swamp," by the author of "Uncle Tom's
Cabin," served, if such service were at all needed, to keep fresh
in all civilized lands the name of Harriet Elizabeth Beecher Stowe.
The British Museum has a long shelf filled with different translations,
editions, and versions of her greatest literary work.

In the month of September Mr. Lincoln delivered a speech at
Cincinnati, in reply to Mr. Douglas.  In that speech he addressed
himself to the citizens of Kentucky, and advocated the nomination
of Mr. Douglas to the Presidency, upon the ground that he was more
devoted to the South than were the Southern leaders themselves,
and that he was wiser in methods for defending their rights.

This was a form of attack which Douglas had not anticipated, and
which he could neither resent nor answer.  As the event proved,
the seed thus sown was to bear fruit abundantly in results at the
ensuing National Democratic conventions, and at the Presidential
election two years later.  Until June, Mr. Lincoln was unknown
outside of Illinois and Indiana.  Judge Douglas had already taken
a high place among the able men of his time of national and
international reputation.  In September, Lincoln's character was
understood and his ability was recognized in all the non-slaveholding
States of the Union.  His mastery over Douglas had been complete.
His logic was unanswerable, his ridicule fatal; every position
taken by him was defended successfully.  At the end Douglas had
but one recourse.  He misstated Lincoln's positions, and then
assailed them.

But Lincoln was ever on the alert to expose his opponent's fallacies,
and to hold up the author to the derision or condemnation of his

Mr. Lincoln's first fame rests, therefore, on that great debate.
Judge Douglas had long been famous as an experienced politician
and an exceptionally skilful debater.  As lawyers both ranked high
in their State at a time when the bar of Illinois could boast of
exceptionally brilliant and able forensic talent.

As it is my purpose to treat of both these great men in some detail
in subsequent pages of this work, devoting at least a full chapter
to Mr. Lincoln, so long my admired and never failing friend, I
shall now proceed to give some personal recollections concerning
certain other of the distinguished characters of that day, chiefly
those connected with the bar.

I knew Judge David Davis very well.  He was Circuit Judge on our
State circuit for a number of years, and until Mr. Lincoln became
President, when he was made Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States.  When a young lawyer Davis was a Whig; and
my father, being also a Whig, took a great interest in him, as he
did in every young lawyer he knew who became affiliated with that
party.  My father thought himself justified in believing that Davis
would become a power in the land.  Hence he took up the young man
soon after he had settled in the practice of the law at Bloomington;
and I have heard him state that he gave Davis the first case he
ever had in Tazewell County, by advising another to employ him.
But he re-enacted, on the less conspicuous forum, the distressing
experience of failure of Disraeli in his first attempt to address
the English House of Commons.  Davis broke down in the speech he
had prepared to make, to the great mortification of my father, who
had exhibited such unusual pride and confidence as to counsel his
employment in the case.  Subsequently Davis redeemed himself, as
did Disraeli, and became a most prominent and successful lawyer.

Among other interesting circumstances of his career was that of a
little claim he had for a client in Boston against a merchant in
Chicago.  He could not collect the debt, except by levying on a
tract of land in Chicago--eighty acres, I think.  Davis reported
what he had done, and his client manifested dissatisfaction with
the result.  He so vigorously stated his disappointment to Davis,
that the latter immediately redeemed the land by taking it himself
and paying the amount of money due the client.  This tract grew in
value with the growth of Chicago until it became worth a million
dollars or more.

Judge Davis was a remarkably popular man on his circuit.  He was
thoroughly honest, and could not endure a dishonest man on the
witness-stand or anywhere else.  I remember a man in Chicago who
on one occasion filed a bill of discovery for the purpose of finding
real estate that he seemed once to have had an interest in, and
which also involved the insertion of Judge Davis's own name, since
he had himself at one time owned the tract of land involved.  The
man had lost his voice to a considerable extent, so that he had
come to be called "Whispering Smith."  He became notorious as a
successful collector of debts, where persons had failed and were
unable to pay their debts.  He had filed in this case a bill of
discovery consisting of thirty or forty printed pages which included
the names of many persons who had been found to have owned the real
estate at one time or another, among them being Judge Davis.
Discovering this, and being entirely innocent of any complicity
with the party who had failed, the Judge denounced Smith in open
court for the outrage of swearing to something he did not know
anything about, and practically threw him out of court.

There was an incident characteristic of his fidelity to friendships
which I think well worth relating.  It occurred when I was Governor
of Illinois.  I was invited by the Agricultural Society of McLean
County to deliver an address, and went to Bloomington on the day
designated.  I was called upon by Judge Davis, who resided there.
He was a very polite man, and asked me if he could not take me out
to the fair-ground.  I told him I would be delighted if he would
do so.  He came for me with his carriage, and on our arrival at
the grounds took me to the stand, disregarding the prearrangements
of the officials of the fair, and introduced me to the audience.
In doing so he made a speech, very complimentary to my father, but
scarcely mentioning me at all--not more than to introduce me at
the end of his eulogistic remarks.  Many of the lawyers of the town
were present.  I knew them all, and they were much amused at this
unusual style of introduction.  And so was I.  I knew, of course,
that he was a great friend of my father, and a great friend of mine
as well.

Judge Davis was elected to the Senate in 1877 to succeed General
Logan, and resigned his seat on the bench to accept the position.
He became quite fond of the Senate, and during his one term there
he was elected president _pro tempore_ of the body under somewhat
unusual conditions.  The Senate at that time was almost evenly
divided between the two parties.  The two senators from New York,
however (both Republicans), and Mr. Aldrich, of Rhode Island, had
been elected by their respective Legislatures, but had not taken
their seats.  This gave the Democrats a temporary majority, and
the Senate proceeded to elect Senator Bayard, of Delaware, as its
president _pro tempore_.  Within the next day or two, however, the
two New York senators and Senator Aldrich were admitted to their
seats; this left a majority of two for the Republicans if Davis
acted with them, and the two parties tied if Davis acted with the
Democrats.  Under these circumstances, General Logan, who after
being out for two years had been re-elected to the Senate, moved
in the caucus that David Davis be the Republican candidate for
president _pro tempore_.  Later he made the nomination in the Senate
itself, and Senator Davis was elected, Senator Bayard descending,
amid general laughter, from the chair which he had occupied for
but a short time.

Senator Davis was very proud of the position of president _pro
tempore_, which he retained to the end of his Senate term.  He had
been acting quite independently, but seemed to incline a little
toward the Democrats.  After he became president _pro tempore_,
while he never announced himself a Republican, he generally acted
with the Republicans.

I was in the Senate the day before Senator Davis's term expired.
He was soliloquizing to himself in the intervals of putting motions
and attending to the routine of his office.  He was very fond of
Senator Isham G. Harris of Tennessee, and when he had occasion to
call a senator to the chair, generally it would be Harris.  He
called Harris to him while I was there, and I heard him say as his
friend came up:  "Harris, Harris!  When I get out of here I won't
have to listen to old Bayard any more!"

He was a very remarkable man and a friend of Lincoln, and Lincoln
was a friend of his.  I suppose that Davis did as much to secure
Lincoln's nomination over Seward as any one man, although Judge
Logan worked with equal zeal.  But Davis knew more people than did
Judge Logan, although the latter was, in my opinion, the better

In the days of Davis's judicial life on the State bench, the judge
and the lawyer had a pretty large circuit.  Davis's circuit was
composed of several large counties.  It was the custom to travel
the circuit, judge, lawyers, and all, together.  At that period
there were no railway facilities worth mentioning, and they had to
go by private conveyance--wagon or carriage or on horseback as the
case might be.  Probably a dozen lawyers might go together, all
putting up at the same hotel, and generally having a good time at
night, spinning yarns.  Lincoln was a good story-teller, and so
was Davis; and the evenings were made exceedingly agreeable to all

In no small measure as a result of the influences thus put into
operation, the lawyers of the period were better qualified to get
along in life than those of later days; that is to say, for the
rough-and-tumble life they were better able to take care of themselves
than the lawyers of a more recent date have been, as a general rule.

Judge Stephen T. Logan was, I think, the best lawyer that I have
ever known in Illinois.  He went to Illinois at an early age and
lived there until his death; he had attained the age of a little
more than eighty years before he died.  He was purely a lawyer.
I think I never knew another lawyer who could so everlastingly ruin
a man who undertook to misrepresent the truth.  He seemed to
understand intuitively whether a man was trying to tell the truth
or was lying; if the latter, his words would so effectually be torn
to pieces that they could be of no earthly value.  But he was not
an adept as a politician.  He ran for Congress at one time against
a man named Thomas L. Harris, and was beaten.  He also ran later
for Judge of the Supreme Court, and was beaten.  This defeat was
not his fault, however, as the community was a strongly Democratic
one.  I recall a story current in those days, to the effect that
some man who had recently come from the east inquired, while talking
with him, "By the way, Judge, didn't you run for the Supreme Court
last year?"  In his squeaky voice, the judge replied, "No; I hardly

But the judge was a true man in every respect,--honest, faithful
to his friends, and fearless in doing whatever he believed to be
right.  He felt, I think, a little bit disappointed that President
Lincoln did not appoint him instead of Davis a Judge of the Supreme

I came to Washington and saw Mr. Lincoln in Judge Logan's behalf
without any suggestion that I do so from Logan or any one else,
but simply because I believed that the President ought to appoint
him on the Supreme Bench in preference to any other man in the

Logan was a better lawyer than Davis; but Davis was an abler
politician than Logan.  I have always felt that in view of the fact
that Lincoln and Logan had been partners earlier, and also neighbors
and close friends, he ought to have nominated Logan instead of
Davis.  Davis, Logan, and Browning were all well qualified for the
Supreme Court, all of them friends of Lincoln, and all Whigs.
Lincoln had to make the choice, and I think the selection was
influenced by Davis's great assistance in securing his nomination.

Judge Logan was also a close Whig friend of my father, and earnest
in his friendship for me on that account.  When I was a candidate
for the nomination for Governor I had a pretty stiff fight for the
first term.  There were rumors that men were going to attack my
personal character.  I did not know about the judge's action in
the premises, but when the convention met, Judge Logan went to it
as a private citizen and crowded himself into the hall, remaining
here until I was nominated.  Then he went home.  I was told afterwards
that he had gone there for the purpose of defending me in case of
an attack against my personal character.

Of course, I could not but greatly appreciate a friendship so

He had a son, David Logan, who went to Oregon as a young lawyer,
and became very eminent there.  In later years the judge wrote to
him, proposing that if he would come back home he would take him
into partnership.  To this the father received a reply from David,
proposing that if he would come out there a partnership with the
son was subject to his acceptance or refusal.  The judge died after
attaining full four-score years, and the son at an age less

I think Judge Logan also felt a bit sour toward Mr. Lincoln because
the latter, he thought, ought to have been more helpful than he
was to his son in his effort to be elected to the United States
Senate from Oregon, at the time Baker was elected.

Speaking of Judges Logan and Davis, I am reminded of the exceptionally
high character of the lawyers of Illinois of that day, and more
especially of Springfield.  I think there has never been a time
when it had another such splendid bar.  It must be that high personal
character in leaders has a direct and marked influence in elevating
the general characters of the followers.  The young lawyers,
especially, are impelled by a force implanted by nature to admire
and to strive to imitate or attain to the great qualities manifested
in life of those to whom leadership is conceded by common consent.

Colonel E. D. Baker was a very good lawyer.  Also Orville H.
Browning, of Quincy, who was in Springfield attending the various
courts whose sittings were at the State capital much of the time.
Then there was Archibald Williams; and Stephen A. Douglas, a great
man in every way, was on the bench a part of the time.  Abraham
Lincoln was, of course, the equal of any man, on the bench or off
of it.  Such men prominently in the lead as lawyers, and as men
among men, could not but stimulate the ambitions and loftier
aspirations of other lawyers, especially the younger ones.  In
striving to pay the tributes--imitation, etc.,--that can be accorded
to greatness, they become great themselves; and perhaps here may
be found the real or chief cause of the very large numbers of
conspicuously eminent men congregated at the capital of Illinois
in those days.

Judge Lyman Trumbull I always regarded as one of the exceptional
lawyers of the country.  I came to know him well while I was a
member of the House and he a United States Senator.  During those
days I saw very much of him.  When Trumbull came to the Senate
there was some prejudice against him, growing out of circumstances
(related elsewhere in these pages) which prevented the election of
Mr. Lincoln, and which seemed to be plainly within Mr. Trumbull's
control.  But the feeling soon vanished, and Trumbull's course in
the Senate was so true to the principles of the party which Mr.
Lincoln had championed, that the manner in which he had secured
the election was soon forgotten, or at least condoned, and the
judge remained there for a long period of service--three terms.

While he was there I came to the House of Representatives, and came
to be, as our association grew more and more intimate, very fond
of Senator Trumbull.  I also admired his ability.  He was one of
the few in that body who could hold his own with Judge Douglas in
debate, and when he came into the Senate he at once took issue with
Douglas, they being in controversy with each other very frequently
on slavery and other political questions, until Douglas's career
ended, about the beginning of the Civil War.

I was, perhaps, as intimate personally with Judge Trumbull during
my stay in the House as any other member.  Barton C. Cook and Norman
B. Judd also were as intimate with the judge, as any other members
of the Illinois delegation.  Nothing ever happened to change these
conditions, until the vote which Trumbull cast against the impeachment
of Andrew Johnson.  Mr. Cook and Mr. Judd, especially the latter,
seemed to be almost bitterly angry against Judge Trumbull.

As a result of that vote opposition to him began to grow in the
party.  However, almost immediately after the impeachment he was
re-elected, although at the time not a candidate.  He was subsequently
nominated by the Democratic party for Governor of Illinois.  I ran
against him as the candidate of the Republican party, and was
elected over him by a majority of about thirty-eight thousand.  He
imagined, so I have heard, that he was going to beat me, and was
considerably surprised at his failure to do so.

He died only a few years ago, at an advanced age.  His first wife
was a sister of Dr. Jayne, an excellent man, and, I am glad to add,
he and I are warm personal friends.  I am very sorry to say, though,
that his children, I believe, are all gone, as are mine.

There were other men who had risen to prominence in Illinois, of
whom I wish to write, and some who were then new upon the stage of
public life, whom I knew and who subsequently achieved distinction.
I have already postponed my reminiscences of Mr. Lincoln to a later
chapter than I could wish, but in point of time we have now come
to the year of his nomination and election to the Presidency of
the United States, and the beginning of a career which was to be
finished in the course of only a little over four years.

The reference to my old friend Doctor William Jayne reminds me that
I should say something of my Springfield friends,--some living,
but many dead.  It is to these friends that I am indebted for my
success in public life, and they have generally loyally supported
me, although friends in other parts of the State have been quite
as loyal and devoted to my interests when I have been a candidate
for high public office.

In the days of Lincoln, I do not believe that there ever was a
community that contained so many really splendid men, men who were
so well fitted to fill any place in the State or Nation, as did
Springfield.  I can refer to only a few of those of State and
National renown.  If I have overlooked some whom I should have
mentioned, I hope I shall be pardoned.

First of all comes Lincoln.  From time to time, as I have written
these recollections, I have spoken of him.  I will later give my
estimate of Douglas, who, while not a citizen of Springfield, spent
a great deal of time there as a member of the Supreme Court, as a
member of the Legislature, and on legal, political, and social
affairs.  In the last-mentioned connection he at one time was a
rival for the hand of Mary Todd, afterwards Mrs. Abraham Lincoln.
I have thought and written something of Stephen T. Logan, and to
my own old law partner, Milton Hay, I refer in other parts of these
recollections.  There were no better lawyers in their day.

William H. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, was a capable lawyer
also.  He wrote an excellent life of his distinguished partner.
Herndon was one of the earliest Republicans of his State.  While
Lincoln believed in the principles of the party from the very
beginning, the truth is, he was a little slow in becoming a member
of it; and Herndon always claimed that he had much to do with making
Abraham Lincoln an active member of the Republican party.  Herndon
believed that he was qualified to fill almost any office, and I
think he was a little dissatisfied that Lincoln did not give him
some high position.

William Butler, belonging to this same period, was one of the
leading citizens and a devoted friend of Lincoln and an excellent
man.  Nor can I forget Antram Campbell, one of my first law partners.
We were always warm friends.  I saw him on his death-bed when I
returned home from Washington, where I was serving as a Member of
Congress.  He recognized me, but could not speak, and I can see
now the tears falling from his eyes.

Of the State officers of that day, Richard Yates was Governor.
The State, under the lead of its War Governor, did not waste time
or spare money in putting the troops in readiness for the field,
and perhaps there was no governor of any State more watchful of
the State's interests, or more devoted to the interests of the
Union, or more loved by the people of his own State, including the
troops in the field, than was Governor Yates.  He was loyalty
itself, and for many years was an apostle of liberty.  He retired
from the office of governor, to take his place as a senator from
Illinois in the United States Senate.  His fame, however, rests on
being the great War Governor of the State of Illinois, the compeer
of Morton, Andrews, and Curtin.

His son, Richard Yates, many years later succeeded to the office
of governor, and is one of the prominent men of Springfield to-day.

O. M. Hatch was Secretary of State.  He was among my early influential
friends in Springfield.  Uncle Jesse K. Dubois, for whom I had high
regard, and who was quite well known in and out of Illinois, was
one of the State officers.  O. H. Miner was Auditor of the State
at one time.  He was a very good man.  His son, Louis Miner, and
Harry Dorwin, a nephew of my deceased wife, are joint owners of
the Springfield _Journal_, one of the oldest Republican organs of
the State.

Colonel John Williams could not be said to be a National or State
character, but he was a good business man, and one of the best
friends I ever had, so I cannot refrain from a passing tribute to
his memory.

When I was elected to Congress the first time, in 1864, my friends
knew that I had spent a considerable sum of money for election
expenses.  It being Lincoln's district, and Lincoln being a candidate
for re-election as President, the National Committee helped some;
but I was naturally compelled to spend a great deal myself.  I
considered to whom I should apply for assistance, and thought of
Colonel Williams.  I went to him, candidly explaining that I should
be unable to make the race without financial assistance; he told
me to draw on him for whatever funds I might want, and at the end
to let him know the total amount, and that he would take care of
it.  I did so.  He gave me what I asked for, and I gave him my
note, which I paid as soon as I could; but he never bothered me
about it.  I always had a warm spot for him in my heart.

Nicholas H. Ridgely, the grandfather of the Hon. William Barret
Ridgely, who married one of my daughters, and who served as United
States Comptroller of the Currency for a number of years, was one
of the leading bankers of the State, and was reputed to be one of
the first millionaires of Illinois.  He was a very careful banker,
and was probably too careful to be popular among the people generally;
but every one knew that there was no sounder institution in the
State than the Ridgely National Bank.  His son, Charles Ridgely,
whom I always regarded as one of the most interesting men in
Springfield, has passed away just about the time that I am writing
these lines.  Mr. Charles Ridgely was a man of great reading and
great cultivation, and a man whom any one would like to meet.  His
death was a loss to Springfield of one of its most interesting and
enterprising characters.

S. H. Jones ("Sam" Jones, as he was known) was another well-known
character in Springfield, as well as throughout Illinois.  He was
a warm friend and supporter of mine in the early days.

James C. Robinson was twice elected to Congress.  He and Governor
Oglesby were opponents for State Senator from the district.  A
little story in this connection occurs to me, which Oglesby used
to tell.

When running for the Senate, before the Civil War, Oglesby and
Robinson travelled together over the district.  The settlements in
those days were very scattering, and as the rivals were good friends
personally they agreed to go together and hold joint discussions.
They held one every day, the understanding being that if either
desired to talk anywhere else aside from the joint debate he had
a right to do so.

At one place Robinson announced that he would make a speech in the
courthouse.  A large crowd greeted him, which he captured with one
of his characteristic speeches.  Oglesby was sitting in front of
the hotel across the way by himself, and listening to the cheering.
He became very uneasy lest Robinson should get the best of it.

Now it chanced that Oglesby could play a violin splendidly.  A man
came along with one in his hands, and Oglesby asked if he might
borrow it for the evening, to which the man consented.  He commenced
playing in order to attract the crowd from Robinson, and in order
to break up his meeting.  He succeeded; one by one they came out
of the courthouse, and when Oglesby swung into a stirring dance
measure the crowd at once responded with an impromptu hoe-down.

Robinson, seeing his audience dwindling, quit speaking and came
out himself.  Taking in the situation at a glance, he pulled off
his shoes and became the most enthusiastic participant, dancing
first with one and then with another of his late hearers, winning
them all back again and completely turning the tables against his
adroit opponent.

This is a good illustration of early campaigning in the country
districts of Illinois.  There was the utmost good feeling, and a
disposition to let the best man win.

Among the early men and incidents connected with the practice of
the law in Springfield, in the sixties, and before and during the
time I was Speaker of the House, the Rev. Peter Cartwright must
not be forgotten.  He was one of the prominent figures in the
pioneer educational and religious life of the Western country, more
particularly of Illinois.  He was a wonderful type of the times--
a man of great courage, of considerable ability, and most remarkable
in his capacity as a minister of the Gospel.  He believed in camp-
meetings; and when Peter Cartwright conducted a camp-meeting the
loafers and rowdies inclined to interrupt the worship knew they
would invite trouble if they ventured to interfere with or annoy
the meeting.  He was ready, not only to preach the Gospel but to
fight, as sometimes he felt it his duty to do.  No man dared in
the presence of Cartwright to interrupt the meeting, as in those
times irresponsible parties hanging about such gatherings frequently
attempted to do in his absence.

Cartwright was not only an able pioneer preacher, but he was a
loyal Democrat, too.  He believed in Democracy, and was ready to
run on the Democratic ticket, or to advance the party's cause in
any other way.  He was nominated for Congress as against Mr. Lincoln,
the only time Lincoln ever ran for Congress.

Some persons disapproved of Cartwright's activity in politics,
questioning the propriety of it on the part of a minister.  Among
these was Judge Treat, then our Federal Judge in the Springfield
district.  The story goes that the Judge signified to Mr. Lincoln
his dislike of Cartwright, and his willingness to lend a helping
hand in case Lincoln should need help and would let him know the
fact.  He thought he could get a good many votes for Lincoln, and
the latter thanked him and told him if he found need of his help
he would let him know.  On one occasion during the campaign Lincoln
was walking along one side of the street when he saw Treat on the
farther side, proceeding in the opposite direction, toward his
home.  Lincoln called out to him:  "Judge, I won't need your help.
I have got the better of the old Methodist preacher, and I will
beat him; so I will not have to call upon you for help."  This so
embarrassed the judge, lest some one should hear what was being
said, that he almost ran, in his hurry to get into his house.

It so happened that some of Peter Cartwright's grandchildren were
somewhat reckless boys, and one of them killed another young man.
Mr. Peyton Harrison, the father of the slayer, was a friend of Mr.
Lincoln and also of Judge Logan, and had grown to be a good friend
of mine, I being a young lawyer.  The two and I were employed in
the defence of the young man.  I did the running about, and other
things necessary to be done until the time arrived for the trial.
I had the accused man in my house part of the intervening time.
When the Circuit Court convened he, having been previously indicted,
was delivered up and the trial came on.  It lasted some ten or
twelve days.  In the meantime, Peter Cartwright, and his daughter
Mrs. Harrison, the mother of the young man on trial, were at my
house most of the time.  They drove into town from where they lived,
some ten or twelve miles out, every day, and remained until nearly
night, going back and forth as long as the trial lasted.  Cartwright
became somewhat attached to me on account of my efforts in the
young man's behalf.

The trial resulted in the acquittal of young Harrison, in whose
behalf Mr. Lincoln and Judge Logan exerted themselves very

Springfield seems changed to me since my old friend, David T.
Littler, passed away.  If I visited Springfield during the heat of
Summer, when every one else was gone, I was always sure that Dave
Littler would be there to greet me.  Littler was a unique character.
His manners and speech were bluff and frank; he never was afraid
of any one, and never was afraid to speak just exactly what he
thought.  Senator Littler, Colonel Bluford Wilson, a particularly
devoted friend, and I travelled through Europe together, and we
had a great time.

Littler was for many years a member of the State Senate of Illinois,
and was a very useful member in securing favors for his district;
and there is no district in the State more dependent upon the
Legislature than the Springfield district.  He was very ambitious,
and when many of my friends in Illinois believed that President
McKinley would honor me with an appointment to his cabinet, he
thought he was pretty sure to succeed me in the United States
Senate.  My secret opinion was that the politicians who were running
State affairs at that time were fooling him; but it never came to
a test, as I did not enter the cabinet.

It is a pleasure to record that I was able to show a substantial
token of friendship when, through my influence, Senator Littler
was appointed by President Cleveland one of the Pacific Railroad

Speaking of Colonel Littler reminds me of our mutual friend, Mr.
Rheuna Lawrence, an estimable citizen of Springfield in his day.
When I was re-elected to the Senate in the Winter of 1901, Rheuna
Lawrence and David Littler were both desperately ill.  I visited
them both before leaving for Washington.  Lawrence died soon after,
but Littler recovered and lived for a year or two.

Rheuna Lawrence was intensely interested in my campaign in 1900.
He attended the Peoria convention as one of the Springfield delegates.
There was a contesting delegation from Sangamon County, and my
friends, among whom were Lawrence and Littler, were seated.  My
friends won out all along the line, and the excitement was too much
for Rheuna, who was not a drinking man at all; but he and Dave got
in their cups, and it was very amusing to those who knew Mr. Lawrence
as one of the cleanest and most estimable of our citizens to hear
Littler refer to him as "my drunken friend, Rheuna."  All of which,
of course, was only a little pleasantry which I repeat for the
benefit of those who attended that convention, and knew Lawrence
and Littler well.

James C. Conkling was a prominent lawyer at home, in the days of
Lincoln.  He was a zealous Republican and a stanch supporter of
Lincoln; also a lawyer and a business man; but for some reason or
other, I do not know why, he became involved and failed, and the
people, especially the older citizens, insisted that he be appointed
postmaster.  I recommended him, and the appointment was made.  He
served a term and passed away.  His son, Mr. Clinton Conkling, is
now one of the leading attorneys of the city.

Henry Green was noted as a great lawyer.  He came to Illinois from
Canada and studied law in Clinton County with the Hon. Lawrence
Weldon, who was a prominent lawyer himself, and for years served
as a member of the Court of Claims at Washington.  Weldon was a
lovable character.  Green was for some years the partner of Milton
Hay, the firm being Hay, Green, and Littler; it changed later to
Green and Humphrey.  While I always believed that Hay was the best
lawyer in the State, many lawyers believed that Green was the ablest
in connection with railroad litigation.

The Hon. O. H. Browning was one of the most prominent men of Illinois
in the early times, and was about Springfield, the capital, a great
deal, attending the Federal Court, and also the Supreme Court of
the State.  Browning, Archibald Williams, and Jack Grimshaw were
all three very excellent lawyers, quite prominent in their profession,
as well as associates in the Whig party.  Browning was probably
the most prominent of the three.  He was appointed by Governor
Yates to succeed Douglas, after the death of the latter, in the
United States Senate.  Of course he did not remain there long,
being succeeded, I think, by William A. Richardson, a strong Democrat
of Quincy, and a man of considerable ability.  After he went out
of the Senate, Browning was appointed by Andrew Johnson as Secretary
of the Interior.  He became a follower of Mr. Johnson, who had
broken with the Republican party, and when he got out of office,
I think he ceased to take any part in politics.  He had been talked
about a good deal at one time as the proper man for the Supreme
bench, but as between him and Logan and Davis, Mr. Lincoln decided
in favor of Davis.

It is impossible to mention all the many friends and supporters
loyal and devoted to me who are now living, but I shall be pardoned,
I am sure, for saying a few words in reference to some of them at
present in Springfield, who are especially esteemed.

I have been away from Springfield most of the time for nearly thirty
years, and as I go back there during the vacations for brief periods,
I feel lonely, because so many of the familiar faces of earlier
days have passed away.  As I walk the streets now it seems that I
know comparatively few people; but I have the best of reasons for
knowing that among them are many splendid men.

I like to feel, on the eve of visiting Springfield, that I shall
see my friend, Judge J. Otis Humphrey, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Illinois.  I have all the affection
and interest in Judge Humphrey that one could entertain for a
brother, and I know that he has the same feeling for me.  He is an
able man, and is regarded by the Bar as the ablest judge who has
ever occupied the United States District Bench at Springfield.  I
have known him from his boyhood, and knew his father before him.
It was one of the great pleasures of my public career to have been
able to secure from the late President McKinley his appointment as
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, and
later to have secured his promotion to the position of United States
District Judge.  He is now the senior United States District Judge
of the seventh circuit, and I regard him as the ablest judge of
them all.  I sincerely hope that higher honors, which he so well
deserves in his chosen career, are still in store for him.

In connection with Judge Humphrey I am reminded of the late Judge
Solomon H. Bethea, who was appointed United States Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois, and who was later promoted to
the Federal Bench.  Humphrey and Bethea I have always regarded as
my two judges, as they were both appointed on my recommendation.
Bethea was a man of very strong and positive character.  These
traits were so conspicuous that his manners were, by some, regarded
as extremely dictatorial.  He was highly educated, a student all
his life, and a very cultivated man.  At the same time he was a
first-rate politician.  I do not know of two more useful men to
lead a floor fight in a convention than Bethea and Humphrey.  Judge
Bethea was my friend and supporter from the time I was elected to
the United States Senate, in 1883, until his death.  He made a
splendid record as United States Attorney, and am informed that
during his incumbency of that office, he never lost a case before
a jury.  Very unfortunately, just when he reached the goal of his
highest ambition, a Federal judgeship, his health failed.  I have
never for a moment doubted that had he lived and retained his health
he would have made an enviable record on the bench.

There is no better man in Springfield than John W. Bunn.  He has
been my friend ever since I first went to Springfield.  He was a
friend of Lincoln, and there was no one in Springfield in whom
Lincoln placed more confidence.  I believe that one of the first
appointments he made, after entering the office of President, was
that of John W. Bunn as Pension Agent at Springfield.  He was the
trusted friend of the War Governor, Yates, and performed many
important duties for him during the Civil War.  From those early
days down to the present, every one has had confidence in John W.
Bunn and in his integrity and honesty.  I am glad to say that he
is still living as one of the foremost citizens of his city.

The Hon. James A. Connelly, who for two terms represented the
district in Congress, was a very influential and popular member of
Congress; and being a good lawyer he was a prominent member of the
Judiciary Committee of the House.  He is a forcible speaker, and
has always taken an active part in behalf of the party in campaigns
in the State.

Mr. E. F. Leonard--Frank Leonard, as he was familiarly known among
his friends--was my secretary when I was Governor of Illinois.  He
was later president of the Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad,
stationed at Peoria, and I have always believed him to be one of
the best railroad presidents in the State.  He was particularly
noted for his sound common sense and as a scholarly, well posted
man in public affairs.  I do not think he ever said or did a foolish
thing in his life.  He has retired from business, and lives quietly
and elegantly, being a man of wealth, at the beautiful little
college town of Amherst, Massachusetts, in the vicinity of which
he was born.

One of the oldest men in Springfield is Edward Thayer.  He has been
a merchant in that town ever since I first went there, and was
engaged in business some years before that, I believe.  His father
was living when I first went to Springfield, and was a very refined,
cultivated, elegant Eastern gentleman.  Mr. Thayer, although over
ninety-five, still seems to enjoy the best of health, and attends
his store every day.

The present Governor of Illinois, the Hon. Charles S. Deneen,
although a citizen of Chicago, has lived in Springfield for nearly
six years, during his incumbency of office.  Governor Deneen has
had a very successful public career.  He has creditably filled
every public office which he has held.  I have been interested in
him, not only on his own account, but on account of his father,
whom I knew well and whom I respected highly.  Years ago I obtained
his appointment in the consular service, in which he served during
the Harrison administration.  Governor Deneen has taken a prominent
part in public affairs in Cook County and has held several responsible
positions there.  He made a splendid State's Attorney of Cook
County.  His honor and integrity were above suspicion.  His record
as State's Attorney paved the way to the higher office of Governor
of Illinois.  He is a conservative man, and has given the State a
conservative administration.  Unfortunately he has had difficulties
with the Legislature, but on the whole I regard his administration
as a successful and creditable one.  Governor Deneen and I are the
only two men in the history of the State who have been honored by
its people by being re-elected to succeed themselves as Governor.

1859 and 1860

Returning to the period preceding the Civil War, we observe that
the whole nation was stirred by the conduct of a man whom most people
believed to be crazy, but who in my judgment was not.  He was an
enthusiast, fired by an abnormal zeal, perhaps; but he filled a
most important place in the development leading to the Civil War.
I refer to old John Brown.

With a score of followers he seized the arsenal at Harpers Ferry
in October, 1859.  The nation was then on the very verge of civil
war.  There was tremendous excitement even in far-off Springfield
when the news came over the wires that John Brown had opened war
almost single-handed and alone.  Under orders from General-in-Chief
Winfield Scott, Colonel Robert E. Lee with a battalion of soldiers
marched on Harpers Ferry, and, after a series of siege operations,
summoned John Brown to surrender, the demand being borne to the
besieged by J. E. B. Stuart, a young lieutenant, afterwards
distinguished as the foremost cavalry leader of the Confederacy.

The story of John Brown is too familiar to be repeated here; but
how strange that in so short a time his captor, Robert E. Lee,
should become famous as one of the greatest leaders of force in
rebellion against the government he then served.

John Brown was captured and hanged.  He had but few sympathizers
in the North, but his attempt to incite the slaves to rebellion
greatly stirred up the entire South, and hastened secession.

Very soon the second National Republican Convention was held at
Chicago.  At this convention, which nominated Lincoln for the
Presidency, the resolutions declared for "the maintenance inviolate
of the right of each State to order and control its own domestic
institutions according to its own judgment exclusively," and
condemned the attempt to enforce the extreme pretensions of a purely
local interest (meaning the slave interest), through the intervention
of Congress and the courts, by the Democratic administration.  They
derided the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carried
slavery into the Territories, and denied the authority of Congress,
or of a Territorial Legislature, or of any individual to give leave
of existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States.

After the failure of the efforts to make of Kansas a Slave State,
it had become plain that the South could not hope to keep its
equality of representation in the Senate without reversing what
appeared to be settled popular opinion concerning the status of
the Northern Territories.  Resolutions to this general effect were
moved by Jefferson Davis early in February, 1860, and passed by
the Senate.  It was in effect the ultimatum presented to the
Democratic party at its National Convention when it assembled,
April 23, at Charleston, S. C.  The warring factions failed to come
to an agreement, and the convention adjourned to meet at Baltimore
on the eighteenth of June.  There Douglas was at last nominated.
The delegates who had seceded at Charleston were joined by other
seceders at Baltimore, and nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky
for President.  A month later, May 19, a third faction, calling
itself the "Constitutional Union Party," assembled in convention
at the same city, Baltimore, and nominated John Bell of Tennessee
and Edward Everett of Massachusetts, on a platform whose distinguishing
battle-cry was "The Constitution, the Union of the States, and the
enforcement of the laws."  Three days before this, May sixteenth,
the Republican Convention had met at Chicago, and had nominated
Lincoln and Hamlin on a platform which rang true on great principles
and with high resolve.

In many particulars this platform was a contrast to, rather than
a growth from, that of 1856.  It asserted that the normal condition
of all the territory of the United States was that of freedom; it
denounced the outrages in Kansas, and demanded her immediate
admission into the Union, with her Constitution, as a Free State;
it branded the re-opening of the African slave-trade as a crime;
and in expressing the abhorrence of the Republican party to all
schemes of disunion, the Democratic party was arraigned for its
silence in the presence of threats of secession made by its own
members.  The doctrine of encouragement to domestic industry was
announced; the sale of the public lands was condemned; the coming
measure of securing homesteads for the landless was approved; and
a pledge of protection was given to all citizens, whether native
or naturalized, and whether at home or abroad.  The party was again
pledged to the construction of a railway to the Pacific Ocean, and
to the improvement of the rivers and harbors of the country.

During the four years preceding, the home State of Lincoln and
Douglas had decreased its public debt $3,104,374.  She had become
the fourth State of the Union in population and wealth, having
during the decade then closing outstripped Virginia, Massachusetts,
North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Indiana.  In production of
wheat and corn she now surpassed all other States and occupied the
foremost position.  She had in successful operation two thousand,
nine hundred miles of railways, being surpassed in this respect by
Ohio only.  Chicago, her marvellous lake mart, had grown from a
population of 29,963 to 109,206, an increase of nearly three
hundred per cent.  From nine Congressmen in 1850, she was entitled
in 1860 to thirteen; and so, on every hand, might the recital of
her growth be continued indefinitely.

For the first time in twenty years, during the progress of a
political campaign in Illinois, the voice of Lincoln was not heard.
But the record of his former speeches, printed by an enterprising
Ohio publishing firm, in a volume which sold in enormous numbers,
afforded the text from which the Republican stump-orators in every
Free State gathered at once their logic and their inspiration.
Though the orator himself remained silent, the potent echo of his
eloquence resounded in countless voices from the Atlantic to the

The political contest that followed the various nominations was a
memorable one.  Douglas made his last effort for the Presidency
with wonderful vigor and spirit.  He canvassed the whole country,
and great throngs were greatly moved by his eloquent and energetic
oratory.  Jefferson Davis and other Southern orators canvassed
portions of the Northern States in support of the nominee of the
Southern wing of the Democratic party.  In some parts of the North
fusions were attempted among the opponents of the Republican
candidate.  In the South the interest in the contest was even more
intense than in the North.  Douglas had a good following in many
portions of the South, but a majority of the ruling class there,
whether they had formerly been Democrats or Whigs, were now disposed
to bring the long sectional controversy to an issue.  Therefore,
besides the debate over the Presidential issue, there was a serious
discussion also of what course the South should take in the event
of Mr. Lincoln's election.  In all the Cotton States the sentiment
for secession was now very strong.  The Alabama Legislature, early
in 1860, had instructed her Governor to call a convention in case
a "Black Republican" should be elected President in November.
South Carolina had long been ready to join in such a movement, or
to lead in it.

At last, election day came, and the results, immediate as well as
ulterior, are deserving of some remark.  The aggregate popular vote
exceeded four million, six hundred and eighty thousand; and of the
total, one million, eight hundred and sixty-six thousand votes were
given for Mr. Lincoln; and of the three hundred and three electoral
votes, he received one hundred and eighty.  Mr. Breckinridge, the
candidate of the South, received eight hundred and forty-seven
thousand votes, and seventy-two votes in the Electoral College;
while Mr. Douglas received only twelve electoral votes, although
his popular vote reached a million, three hundred and seventy-five
thousand.  Bell received thirty-nine electoral votes on a popular
vote of less than six hundred thousand.  Thus the popular vote for
Mr. Lincoln was nearly a half-million less than a majority; but
his predecessor, Mr. Buchanan, was also a minority President, so
that this fact as a pretext for secession was wholly without point.

Eleven States voted for Mr. Breckinridge, including Delaware and
Maryland; and eleven States became members of the Confederacy,
including Virginia and Tennessee, which had voted for Mr. Bell.
It all went to show that the Democratic party as represented by
Breckinridge was in fact a secession party first of all.  The
division of the Democratic party decided the election in favor of
Mr. Lincoln.

Had that party supported Mr. Douglas in good faith, his election
would probably have been secured; but the South would have been
left without excuse had it persisted in the scheme of secession.

Therefore it came to pass that the Democratic party was disorganized
by its own leaders of the South as a step preliminary to the election
of Mr. Lincoln, and the making of that election a pretext for
disunion.  This part of the conspiracy was managed with consummate
skill and eminent success; but the conspirators were perfectly well
aware that ultimate success depended largely on prompt, effective,
and decisive steps which must be taken while their efficient friend
in the Executive Mansion still remained in office.

This allowed them four months of precious time between the election
of Mr. Lincoln and his inauguration as President.  The vigilance
and effectiveness of their work is an interesting and familiar
story, but I shall not attempt here a narration of it.  This work
eventuated in war, and with the opening of war, Mr. Douglas was
quickly found in the attitude of a leader in the cause of the Union
--the closing and the noblest episode of his whole remarkable

I knew Senator Douglas quite well.  Of course, he was considerably
older than I, and was one of the great men of the Nation, when I
was just starting in public life.  I knew him before the Civil War.
He was a wonderful man with the people.  I do not think there was
ever a man in public life who was more thoroughly loved by the
party to which he belonged than Senator Douglas.  His adherents
were devoted to him at all times and under all circumstances.  When
he came through the State, the whole Democratic party was alive
and ready to rally to his support.  I heard him deliver addresses
on two occasions before the War.  I heard one of the Lincoln-Douglas
debates at Ottawa.  I heard Lincoln deliver the famous Springfield
address, in which he uttered the immortal sentiment, "A house
divided against itself cannot stand."  To this address Douglas
afterwards replied.  When Lincoln was inaugurated, Douglas was
present on the platform and held Lincoln's hat while he delivered
his inaugural address; the tremendous significance of which trivial
act can be appreciated only in the light of later years.

But Douglas did not hesitate for a moment after Fort Sumter was
fired upon, April 12, 1861.  He voluntarily called upon President
Lincoln and tendered his support to the cause of the Union, and
immediately gave out to the Associated Press a statement, calling
upon the people of the North, regardless of party, to rally to its

I believe it was Mr. Lincoln who asked him to visit Illinois, where,
especially in the southern part of the State, there was considerable
disunion sentiment.  There was a great effort to induce the region
where the Democracy predominated, the people being loyal followers
of Douglas, to go with the South instead of the North.  Douglas
alone could save it.  He came to Illinois, as he told me, partly on
that account; to rally the State to the support of the Union,
earnestly desiring that the country should understand where he

He visited Springfield while the Legislature was in session.
Senator Douglas was invited to address a joint session of that
body, which he did on the evening of April 25, 1861.  Being Speaker
of the House, I presided.  In addition to the members of the
Legislature, there was a great crowd present.

I have a vivid recollection of the evening.  Prior to that time I
had not believed in Senator Douglas; which was only natural, I
having been a Whig and an enthusiastic adherent of Lincoln.  The
duty of introducing Senator Douglas to the joint Assembly devolved
upon myself; I cannot at this late day recall the words I used,
but I am sure that I presented him in as complimentary a manner as
my prejudices allowed.

As he continued speaking, however, I, as thousands--nay, millions
--of others had done, succumbed to the magic of his eloquence and
the irresistible logic of his brilliant mind; and I must here
confess that never before or since have I heard a more masterful,
a more inspired, plea for the integrity of the Union and the
indivisibility of the Nation than Senator Douglas delivered upon
that occasion.

It seemed to me, as he hurled the thunders of his eloquence broadcast,
that the very rafters rang in harmony, that the air vibrated in
accord with his denunciations of rebellion.

The address was not a long one.  As it was printed by order of the
General Assembly, I shall take the liberty of presenting it in full:

"Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:
I am not insensible to the patriotic motives which have prompted
you to do me the honor to invite me to address you on the momentous
issues now presented in the condition of our country.  With a heart
filled with sadness and grief, I proceed to comply with your

"For the first time since the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
a widespread conspiracy exists to destroy the best government the
sun of heaven ever shed its rays upon.  Hostile armies are now
marching upon the Federal Capitol, with a view of planting a
revolutionary flag upon its dome; seizing the National archives;
taking captive the President elected by the votes of the people,
and holding him in the hands of secessionists and disunionists.
A war of aggression and of extermination is being waged against
the Government established by our fathers.  The boast has gone
forth by the authorities of this revolutionary Government that on
the first day of May the revolutionary flag shall float from the
walls of the Capitol at Washington, and that on the fourth day of
July the Rebel army shall hold possession of the Hall of Independence
in Philadelphia.

"The simple question presented to us is, whether we will wait for
the enemy to carry out his boast of making war upon our soil; or
whether we will rush as one man to the defence of the Government
and its capital, and defend it from the hands of all assailants
who have threatened to destroy it.  Already the piratical flag has
been unfurled against the commerce of the United States.  Letters
of marque have been issued, appealing to the pirates of the world
to assemble under that revolutionary flag and commit depredations
on the commerce carried on under the Stars and Stripes.  The
navigation of our great river into the Gulf of Mexico is obstructed.
Hostile batteries have been planted upon its banks; custom houses
have already been established; and we are now required to pay
tribute and taxes, without having a voice in making the laws imposing
them, or having a share in the proceeds after they have been
collected.  The question is, whether this war of aggression shall
proceed, and we remain with folded arms, inattentive spectators;
or whether we shall meet the aggressors at the threshold and turn
back the tide of revolution and usurpation.

"So long as there was a hope of peaceful solution, I prayed and
implored for compromise.  I can appeal to my countrymen with
confidence that I have spared no effort, omitted no opportunity,
to secure a peaceful solution of all these troubles, and thus
restore peace, happiness, and fraternity to the country.  When all
propositions of peace fail, and a war of aggression is proclaimed,
there is but one course left for the patriot, and that is to rally
under that flag which has waved over the capitol from the days of
Washington, and around the Government established by Washington,
Madison, Hamilton, and their compeers.

"What is the alleged cause for this invasion of the rights and
authority of the Government of the United States?  The cause alleged
is that the institutions of the Southern States are not safe under
the Federal Government.  What evidence has been presented that they
are insecure?  I appeal to every man within the sound of my voice
to tell me at what period from the time that Washington was
inaugurated down to this hour, have the rights of the Southern
States--the rights of the slave-holders--been more secure than they
are at this moment?  When in the whole history of this Government
have they stood on so firm a basis?  For the first time in the
history of this republic, there is no restriction by act of Congress
upon the institution of slavery, anywhere within the limits of the
United States.  Then it cannot be the Territorial question that
has given them cause for rebellion.  When was the Fugitive Slave
Law executed with more fidelity than since the inauguration of the
present incumbent of the Presidential office?  Let the people of
Chicago speak and tell us when were the laws of the land executed
with as much firmness and fidelity, so far as the fugitive slaves
are concerned, as they are now.  Can any man tell me of any one
act of aggression that has been committed or attempted since the
last Presidential election, that justifies this violent disruption
of the Federal Union?

"I ask you to reflect, and then point out any one act that has been
done--any one duty that has been omitted to be done--of which any
one of these disunionists can justly complain.  Yet we are told,
simply because a certain political party has succeed in a Presidential
election, they choose to consider that their liberties are not
safe, and therefore they are justified in breaking up the

"I had supposed that it was a cardinal and fundamental principle
of our system of government that the decision of the people at the
ballot box, without fraud, according to the forms of the Constitution,
was to command the implicit obedience of every good citizen.  If
defeat at a Presidential election is to justify the minority, or
any portion of the minority, in raising the traitorous hand of
rebellion against the constituted authorities, you will find the
future history of the United States written in the history of
Mexico.  According to my reading of Mexican history, there has
never been one presidential term, from the time of the Revolution
of 1820 down to this day, when the candidate elected by the people
ever served his four years.  In every instance, either the defeated
candidate has seized upon the Presidential chair by use of the
bayonet, or he has turned out the duly elected President before
his term expired.  Are we to inaugurate this Mexican system in the
United States of America?  Suppose the case to be reversed.  Suppose
the disunion candidate had been elected by any means--I care not
what, if by any means in accordance with the forms of the Constitution
--at the last Presidential election; then, suppose the Republicans
had raised a rebellion against his authority--in that case you would have
found me tendering my best efforts and energies to John C. Breckinridge
to put down the Republican rebels.  And if you had attempted such
a rebellion I would have justified him in calling forth all the
power and energies of this country to have crushed you out.

"The first duty of an American citizen, or of a citizen of any
constitutional Government, is obedience to the Constitution and
laws of his country.  I have no apprehension that any man in
Illinois, or beyond the limits of our own beloved State, will
misconstrue or misunderstand my motive.  So far as any of the
partisan questions are concerned, I stand in equal, irreconcilable,
and undying opposition both to the Republicans and the secessionists.
You all know that I am a very good partisan fighter in partisan
times, and I trust you will find me equally as good a patriot when
the country is in danger.

"Now permit me to say to the assembled Representatives and Senators
of our beloved States, composed of men of both political parties,
in my opinion it is your duty to lay aside, for the time being,
your party creeds and party platforms; to dispense with your party
organizations and partisan appeals; to forget that you were ever
divided, until you have rescued the Government and the country from
their assailants.  When this paramount duty shall have been performed,
it will be proper for each of us to resume our respective political
positions according to our convictions of public duty.  Give me a
country first, that my children may live in peace; then we will
have a theatre for our party organizations to operate upon.

"Are we to be called upon to fold our arms, allow the national
capital to be seized by a military force under a foreign revolutionary
flag; to see the archives of the Government in the hands of a people
who affect to despise the flag and Government of the United States?
I am not willing to be expelled by military force, nor to fly from
the Federal capitol.  It has been my daily avocation six months in
the year, for eighteen years, to walk into that marble building,
and from its portico to survey a prosperous, happy, and united
country on both sides of the Potomac.  I believe I may with confidence
appeal to the people of every section of the country to bear
testimony that I have been as thoroughly national in my political
opinions and actions as any man that has lived in my day.  And I
believe if I should make an appeal to the people of the State of
Illinois, or of the Northern States, for their impartial verdict,
they would say that whatever errors I have committed have been in
leaning too far to the Southern section of the Union against my
own.  I think I can appeal to friend and foe--I use the term in a
political sense, and I trust I use the word _foe_ in a past sense
--I can appeal to them with confidence, that I have never pandered
to the prejudice or passion of my section against the minority
section of this Union; and I will say to you now, with all frankness
and in all sincerity, that I will never sanction nor acquiesce in
any warfare whatever upon the constitutional rights or domestic
institutions of the people of the Southern States.  On the contrary,
if there was an attempt to invade these rights--to stir up servile
insurrection among their people--I would rush to their rescue, and
interpose with whatever of strength I might possess to defend them
from such a calamity.  While I will never invade them--while I will
never fail to defend and protect their rights to the full extent
that a fair and liberal construction of the Constitution can give
them--they must distinctly understand that I will never acquiesce
in their invasion of our constitutional rights.

"It is a crime against the inalienable and indefeasible rights of
every American citizen to attempt to destroy the Government under
which we were born.  It is a crime against constitutional freedom
and the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the wide world
to attempt to blot out the United States from the map of Christendom.
Yet this attempt is now being made.  The Government of our fathers
is to be overthrown and destroyed.  The capital that bears the name
of the Father of his Country is to be bombarded and levelled with
the earth among the rubbish and the dust of things that are past.
The records of your Government are to be scattered to the four
winds of heaven.  The constituted authorities, placed there by the
same high authority that placed Washington and Jefferson and Madison
and Jackson in the chair, are to be captured and carried off, to
become a byword and a scorn to the nations of the world.

"You may think that I am drawing a picture that is overwrought.
No man who has spent the last week in the city of Washington will
believe that I have done justice to it.  You have all the elements
of the French Revolution surrounding the capital now, and threatening
it with its terrors.  Not only is our constitutional Government to
be stricken down; not only is our flag to be blotted out; but the
very foundations of social order are to be undermined and destroyed;
the demon of destruction is to be let loose over the face of the
land, a reign of terror and mob law is to prevail in each section
of the Union, and the man who dares to plead for the cause of
justice and moderation in either section is to be marked down as
a traitor to his section.  If this state of things is allowed to
go on, how long before you will have the guillotine in active

"I appeal to you, my countrymen--men of all parties--not to allow
your passions to get the better of your judgment.  Do not allow
your vengeance upon the authors of this great iniquity to lead you
into rash, and cruel, and desperate acts upon loyal citizens who
may differ with you in opinion.  Let the spirit of moderation and
of justice prevail.  You cannot expect, within so few weeks after
an excited political canvass, that every man can rise to the high
and patriotic level of forgetting his partisan prejudices and
sacrifice everything upon the altar of his country; but allow me
to say to you, whom I have opposed and warred against with an energy
you will respect--allow me to say to you, you will not be true to
your country if you ever attempt to manufacture partisan capital
out of the misfortunes of your country.  When calling upon Democrats
to rally to the tented field, leaving wife, child, father, and
mother behind them to rush to the rescue of the President that you
elected, do not make war upon them and try to manufacture partisan
capital at their expense out of a struggle in which they are engaged
from the holiest and purest of motives.

"Then I appeal to you, my own Democratic friends--those men that
have never failed to rally under the glorious banner of the country
whenever an enemy at home or abroad has dared to assail it--to you
with whom it has always been my pride to act--do not allow the
mortification, growing out of a defeat in a partisan struggle, and
the elevation of a party to power that we firmly believe to be
dangerous to the country--do not let that convert you from patriots
into traitors to your native land.  Whenever our Government is
assailed, when hostile armies are marching under new and odious
banners against the Government of our country, the shortest way to
peace is the most stupendous and unanimous preparations for war.
The greater unanimity, the less blood will be shed.  The more prompt
and energetic the movement, and the more imposing in numbers, the
shorter will be the struggle.

"Every friend of freedom--every champion and advocate of constitutional
liberty throughout the land--must feel that this cause is his own.
There is and should be nothing disagreeable or humiliating to men
who have differed in times of peace on every question that could
divide fellow men, to rally in concert in defence of the country
and against all assailants.  While all the States of this Union,
and every citizen of every State has a priceless legacy dependent
upon the success of our efforts to maintain this Government, we in
the great valley of the Mississippi have peculiar interests and
inducements to the struggle.  What is the attempt now being made?
Seven States of the Union chose to declare that they will no longer
obey the Constitution of the United States; that they will withdraw
from the Government established by our fathers; that they will
dissolve without our consent the bonds that have united us together.
But, not content with that, they proceed to invade and obstruct
our dearest and most inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution.
One of their first acts is to establish a battery of cannon upon
the banks of the Mississippi, on the dividing line between the
States of Mississippi and Tennessee, and require every steamer that
passes down the river to come to under their guns to receive a
custom-house officer on board, to prescribe where the boat may land
and upon what terms it may put out a barrel of flour or a cask of

"We are called upon to sanction this policy.  Before consenting to
their right to commit such acts, I implore you to consider that
the same principle which will allow the cotton States to exclude
us from the ports of the gulf, would authorize the New England
States and New York and Pennsylvania to exclude us from the Atlantic,
and the Pacific States to exclude us from the ports of that ocean.
Whenever you sanction this doctrine of secession, you authorize
the States bordering upon the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to withdraw
from us, form alliance among themselves, and exclude us from the
markets of the world and from communication with all the rest of
Christendom.  Not only this, but there follows a tariff on imports,
levying taxes upon every pound of tea and coffee and sugar and
every yard of cloth that we may import for our consumption; the
levying too of an export duty upon every bushel of corn and every
pound of meat we may choose to send to the markets of the world to
pay for our imports.

"Bear in mind that these very cotton States, who in former times
have been so boisterous in their demands for free trade, have,
among their first acts, established an export duty on cotton for
the first time in American history.

"It is an historical fact, well known to every man who has read
the debates of the convention which framed the Constitution, that
the Southern States refused to become parties to the Constitution
unless there was an express provision in the Constitution prohibiting
Congress to levy an export duty on any product of the country.  No
sooner have these cotton States seceded than an export duty is
levied, and if they will levy it on their own cotton do you not
think they will levy it on our pork and our beef and our corn and
our wheat and our manufactured articles, and all we have to sell?
Then what is the proposition?  It is to enable the tier of States
bordering on the Atlantic and the Pacific and on the Gulf, surrounding
us on all sides, to withdraw from our Union, form alliances among
themselves, and then levy taxes on us without our consent, and
collect revenues without giving us any just proportion or any
portion of the amount collected.  Can we submit to taxation without
representation?  Can we permit nations foreign to us to collect
revenues off our products, the fruits of our industry?  I ask the
citizens of Illinois--I ask every citizen in the great basin between
the Rocky Mountains and the Alleghenies, in the valley of the Ohio,
Mississippi, and Missouri to tell me whether he is willing to
sanction a line of policy that may isolate us from the markets of
the world and make us dependent provinces upon powers that thus
choose to surround and hem us in?

"I warn you, my countrymen, whenever you permit this to be done in
the Southern States, New York will very soon follow their example.
New York--that great port where two-thirds of all our revenue is
collected, and whence two-thirds of our products are exported, will
not long be able to resist the temptation of taxing fifteen millions
of people in the great West, when she can monopolize the resources
and release her own people thereby from any taxation whatsoever.
Hence I say to you, my countrymen, from the best consideration I
have been able to give to this subject, after the most mature
reflection and thorough investigation, I have arrived at the
conclusion that, come what may,--war if it must be, although I
deplore it as a great calamity,--yet, come what may, the people of
the Mississippi Valley can never consent to be excluded from free
access to the ports of the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Gulf of

"Hence, I repeat, that while I am not prepared to take up arms or
to sanction war upon the rights of the Southern States, upon their
domestic institutions, upon their rights of person or property,
but, on the contrary, would rush to their defence and protect them
from assault, I will never cease to urge my countrymen to take up
arms and to fight to the death in defence of our indefeasible

"Hence, if a war does come, it will be a war of self-defence on
our part.  It will be a war in defence of our own just rights; in
defence of the Government which we have inherited as a priceless
legacy from our patriotic fathers; in defence of those great rights
of the freedom of trade, commerce, transit, and intercourse from
the centre to the circumference of our great continent.  These are
rights we can never surrender.

"I have struggled almost against hope to avert the calamities of
war and to effect a reunion and reconciliation with our brethren
of the South.  I yet hope it may be done, but I am not able to
point out to you how it may be effected.  Nothing short of Providence
can reveal to us the issue of this great struggle.  Bloody--calamitous
--I fear it will be.  May we so conduct it if a collision must
come, that we will stand justified in the eyes of Him who knows
our hearts and who will judge our every act.  We must not yield to
resentments, nor to the spirit of vengeance, much less to the desire
for conquest or ambition.

"I see no path of ambition open in a bloody struggle for triumph
over my own countrymen.  There is no path for ambition open for me
in a divided country, after having so long served a united and
glorious country.  Hence, whatever we may do must be the result of
conviction, of patriotic duty--the duty that we owe to ourselves,
to our posterity, and to the friends of constitutional liberty and
self-government throughout the world.

"My friends, I can say no more.  To discuss these topics is the
most painful duty of my life.  It is with a sad heart--with a grief
that I have never before experienced, that I have to contemplate
this fearful struggle; but I believe in my conscience that it is
a duty we owe ourselves and our children and our God, to protect
this Government and that flag from every assailant, be he who he

Of all the members of that joint assembly who listened to the
eloquence of Senator Douglas that evening, forty-nine years ago,
aside from Dr. William Jayne of Springfield, and myself, I do not
know of a single one now living.

After he concluded his address, the joint session of the Legislature
dissolved.  He and I remained together in conversation, and I
accompanied him to his hotel.  During that talk he expressed to me
the great anxiety which he felt for the safety of the country and
the preservation of the Union.  I am satisfied that it was his
ambition to enter the army and possibly lead it in suppressing the
Rebellion.  What would have been the result in that case, no one
can tell; but I am inclined to think that he would have made a very
great general.

Senator Douglas's Springfield speech had a tremendous effect on
public opinion.  It brought his followers, and they were legion in
all parts of the country, to the support of the Government and the

Senator Douglas went from Springfield to Chicago, where he delivered
another eloquent address, along the same lines as the one delivered
at Springfield, to tens of thousands of people.  Very soon thereafter
he was taken ill with pneumonia and passed away.

He was a man of extraordinary intellect.  He did his full part, at
one of the most critical periods of our history, in saving the
Nation.  His speeches in and out of Congress are among the most
able and eloquent delivered by any American statesman.

1860 to 1865

The election of Mr. Lincoln was made the pretext for secession.
It has always seemed to me that the South was determined to secede
no matter at what cost; and it has also seemed to me that this
determination was not due to the great body of the people of the
South, than whom there were no better, but to the jealous politicians
of that section, who saw the gradual growth in wealth and power of
the Northern States threaten their domination of the National
Government, which they had firmly held since the days of Washington.
They saw that domination slipping away, and they determined to form
a nation of their own--in which slavery, indeed, would be paramount;
but it was not so much slavery as it was their own desire for
control that influenced them.

As soon, therefore, as Mr. Lincoln was elected President they began
the organization of a Government of their own.  President Buchanan
declared in his message that the Southern States had no right to
secede--"unless they wanted to," as some one aptly expressed it;
in other words, that he had no right under the Constitution to keep
them forcibly in the Union, and thus the constitutional opinions
of the President harmonized effectively with the purposes of the
secessionists.  Fortunate it was that Mr. Buchanan had so short a
term remaining after the election of Mr. Lincoln.  Had a year or
two elapsed, the Confederacy would have been firmly and irrevocably

It has never been quite clear to my mind whether Mr. Buchanan cared
to preserve the Union or not.  In the heat and passion of that day,
we all thought he was a traitor.  As I look back now and think of
it, remembering his long and distinguished service to the country
in almost every capacity--as a legislator, as a diplomat, as
Secretary of State, as President, I think now he was only weak.
His term was about expiring, and he saw and feared the awful
consequences of a civil war.

One State after another seceded; the United States' arms and arsenals
were seized; on January 9, the _Star of the West_, carrying supplies
to Fort Sumter, was fired upon and driven off.  South Carolina,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas went
out.  The Confederate States of America were organized in the capital
of Alabama on the fourth of February, and Jefferson Davis was
elected President.

We watched with great interest the famous Peace Conference which
met in Washington and over which John Tyler, ex-President of the
United States, presided.  It sat during the month of February,
preceding Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, and recommended the adoption
of seven additional articles to the Constitution, which were
afterwards rejected by the Senate of the United States.

But the fourth of March finally came, and new life was infused into
the national councils.

Mr. Lincoln's speeches on his way East were a disappointment, in
that they failed in the least to abate the rising Southern storm;
the calmly firm tone of his inaugural address impressed the North,
but his appeals to the South were in vain.  Said he:

"I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it
exists. . . . The Union of these States is perpetual.  It is safe
to assert that no Government proper ever had a provision in its
organic law for its own termination.  The power confided to me will
be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts."

It was a notable appeal that he made, in closing, to the

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine,
is the momentous issue of civil war.  The Government will not assail
you.  You can have no conflict without being yourselves the
aggressors.  You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the
Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve,
protect, and defend it.'

"I am loath to close.  We are not enemies, but friends.  We must
not be enemies.  Though passion may have strained it must not break
our bonds of affection.  The mystic chords of memory, stretching
from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and
hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of
the union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better
angels of our nature."

At the same time that Mr. Lincoln was first elected President of
the United States, I was for the second time elected to the
Legislature of Illinois.  I received the vote of what they called
the Republicans, or Free-soil men, and of those who were previously
known as Fillmore men.  I was always in thorough accord with Mr.
Lincoln in political sentiment, though I had supported Fillmore
rather than Fremont in 1856.  I most heartily supported Lincoln's
candidacy, and as candidate for the Legislature received more votes
than Mr. Lincoln received in Sangamon County.  Douglas carried the
county as against Lincoln, and I carried it as against my opponent.
There was great enthusiasm for Mr. Lincoln in the county, but he
was so positive and outspoken in his convictions on the slavery
question that he failed to get a considerable number of votes; many
went to other Republicans who did not express their views so
vigorously as he did.  Of course, what he lost at home because of
zeal and earnestness in his cause, was more than made up to him on
the wider field covered by his candidacy.

Stephen A. Hurlbut was a member of that Legislature, and afterward
became a prominent general in the army.  I might say that General
Hurlbut and Lawrence Church were two very strong men, both from
the northern part of the State, and both became prominent in the
public service.  I might say also that but for these two men, who
put me forward as a candidate for the Speakership, I probably would
not have become a candidate.  On the Saturday night before the
Monday on which the Legislature was to convene, they pressed me so
strongly that I consented, and became the nominee of my party
associates.  J. W. Singleton was the Democratic nominee.  Before
the Legislature convened, and during the intervening Sunday, a
feeling got abroad among the older members of the Legislature that
I was too young to be trusted in such a responsible position as
that of Speaker.  When I came down-town on Sunday I found that
feeling prevailing.

I at once took notice of it, and stated that if there was any
feeling that I had done wrong in becoming a candidate, I would
submit the question to another test of the sense of the Republicans
in the Legislature, and if they thought I ought not to have the
position I would cheerfully yield to their judgment.  The caucus
was called together Monday morning, and I stated that I had heard
that there was some dissatisfaction, and I desired to have another
vote.  A vote was accordingly taken, and I was again nominated,
and by a larger vote then in the first instance; whereupon the older
men gave in, and I was duly elected, receiving thirty-nine votes
to twenty-nine cast for the Democratic candidate.

I think I made more friends, in the conduct of the office of Speaker
during that term, than I ever did afterwards; and in subsequent
campaigns I was frequently gratified to find men, some of them
Democrats, who had been in the Legislature with me at that time,
working for me with a stronger zeal and earnestness because of the
associations and intimate relations there formed and cemented.
All classes, Republicans and Democrats alike, took occasion to
manifest their satisfaction, and some who became my friends then
continued so as long as they lived.  I think, of all that Legislature,
I am the only one left.

A little incident occurred at a reception given by Mr. Lincoln
after he was elected President, but before he left his home to come
to Washington, that vitally affected my life.  In speaking to the
President, I expressed a desire to visit Washington while he was
President of the United States.  He replied heartily:  "Mr. Speaker,
come on."  And that was about the origin of my thinking seriously
that I would like to come to Washington as a member of Congress.

The more I thought of the idea, the more interested I became, and
I so shaped matters during that session of the Legislature as to
secure a district in which some Republican could hope to be elected.
In the apportionment under the census of 1860, I had our Congressional
district elongated to the north and south rather than to the east
and west, and let it be known that I would be a candidate.

But when the time came for a nomination the Hon. Leonard Swett,
who was then a prominent lawyer and politician, also took the field
to secure the Republican nomination.  He visited Springfield, and
persuaded some of his friends there that he ought to be the nominee,
and they determined to try their hands toward securing my withdrawal,
if possible by persuasion.  They sent for me to come to the library,
where they were proposing to hold a meeting.  I went over, and
found that their project was to get me to withdraw in favor of
Swett, and I declined.  But I said I would "draw straws," or assent
to any other fair means that could be found by which it was to be
settled who was to be the nominee of the party.  Then, after some
further parleying, I finally left the conference.

That evening after dusk I met Swett on the street.  We sat down
upon the curbstone, as it was growing a little dark, and talked
the matter over.  Swett said to me that he was an older man than
I was; that he had been knocked about a good deal, and, though he
had done much work for the party, he had never got anything; and
if the present opportunity for reward for services were allowed to
pass him by another opportunity was not likely, at his age, to come
to him.  Finally, I said:  "Mr. Swett, if you had come to me and
made this suggestion at first, I would have been very glad indeed
to make the concession to you, and I am ready to do so now.  Here
is my hand on it, and I will help you at the convention."  He became
the party candidate by general consent, as I remember it.  At all
events he was the candidate, and unfortunately he was beaten at
the polls.  That was in 1862.  So that while the Congressional
district was made by me, and for myself, I gave way to Mr. Swett,
and the opposition carried it.  Two years afterwards I was the
candidate and was elected.

The majority in the counties composing the district was ordinarily
Republican.  As a result of Mr. Swett's defeat, he left the district,
though a very prominent lawyer, and went to Chicago, never to return
to the Congressional district in which he had lived so many years,
really quitting politics entirely.

I suppose I ought to state the fact that, having made the district
for myself and then given it up to Mr. Swett, I determined to be
a candidate at the next election; whereupon I found that Mr. James
C. Conkling, a friend of mine, and a special friend of Mr. Lincoln
also, some of whose family are still living, was disposed to try
for the same office.  I made up my mind that in order to keep myself
in trim for the future it was well to keep in touch with the voters;
and I determined to run for the State Senate, though the four
counties composing the Senatorial district were all Democratic and
all in the Congressional district in which Swett was the defeated
candidate, yet I desired to run for the Senate, in order to keep
Conkling from getting such a hold on the district as to strengthen
him for the contest two years afterwards.

So I made the run, and was beaten, of course, every county in the
district being Democratic; and the rest of my plans also worked
out as I had calculated they would.

Soon after I was elected to Congress, and soon after Mr. Lincoln
was elected the second time, I came on to Washington.  Having been
intimate with Mr. Nicolay and Mr. Hay who were his secretaries, I
was in the habit of frequenting their rooms without ceremony.  One
evening, just after dusk, I went to the White House and quietly,
as usual, entered Mr. Nicolay's room.  It so happened that Mr.
Lincoln and Mr. Seward, with some other cabinet officers, were in
the room, holding a consultation.  I had opened the door before I
observed who were there.  President Lincoln saw me quite as soon
as I saw him, and I was very much embarrassed.  He sang out cheerily,
"Come in!" and turning to his Secretary of State, he added, "Seward,
you remember my old friend Stuart?  Here is the boy that beat him."
I stayed for only a moment, and then went out.  That is the nearest
I ever came to participating in a cabinet meeting.

That incident in my life, as I now look back, punctuates, in my
individual way of thinking at this moment, the substantial close
of what was mortal in that great man's earthly career.  The close
of the four years of civil war was clearly in sight.  It was in
many respects a record-making and a record-breaking war.  The navies
of the world, rendered helpless by the incidental effects of its
thundering guns, had to be rebuilt.  For the first time in the
world's history the railroad and the electric telegraph played a
very considerable part.  The grip of insatiate despotism on Democratic
institutions was effectually loosened far and wide.  For the first
time in war the lessons taught in the art of warfare by Alexander
and Caesar were utterly ignored, and the "Maxims of Napoleon" were
relegated to the shelf, there to gather dust.  In short, in
inaugurated a new era in the history not only of our own country
but of the entire world.

1860 to 1864

As days and years pass by and an enlightened humanity studies and
comprehends the real greatness and simplicity of Abraham Lincoln,
he comes nearer and becomes dearer to all.  No weak compliment of
words can add to his renown, nor will any petty criticism detract
from the glory which has crowned his memory.  The passing of time
has only added brightness to his character; the antagonisms of
bitter war have left no shade upon his name; and the hatred which,
for a brief time, spent itself in harmless words has turned to
reverence and love.

Had he lived until February 12, 1911, he would have been one hundred
and two years old.  Less than forty-five years ago, in the very
prime of life, he was the Chief Magistrate of the Nation, guiding
and controlling it in its great struggle for national existence.
Such a vast accumulation of history has been compressed into those
years, and such a wonderful panorama of events has passed before
us in that comparatively brief time, that we are apt to think of
Lincoln as of the long ago, as almost a contemporary of Washington
and of the Revolutionary fathers.  The immensity of the history
which has been crowded into those forty-five years has distorted
our mental vision, as ordinary objects are sometimes distorted by
refraction.  Yet when we reflect, the distortion disappears.  But
the wonder still remains.  The years during which the deeds of
Lincoln have been a memory to us do not carry us back to the early
days of our own country.  They do not carry us back even to the
time of Jackson, Webster, Clay, or Calhoun; yet the sacred halo of
patriotic veneration invests as completely the name of Lincoln as
of Washington.

The many personal memories of the martyred patriot that I can recall
seem almost a dream to me.  It seems almost a vision of the
unsubstantial imagination, when I think that I have known the one
immortal man of the century, and enjoyed his friendship.  He was
the very impersonation of humanity; his stature was above and beyond
all others.  One hand reached back to the very portals of Mount
Vernon, while the other, giving kindly protection to the oppressed,
still reaches forward to guide, encourage, and sustain the people
of this Nation.

It was my great good-fortune to know something of Abraham Lincoln
from the time I was about twelve years old, and even earlier than
that I have a distinct recollection of hearing my father advising
men to employ Lincoln in important litigation.  Lincoln at that
time was about thirty years old, and even then was regarded as a
really great lawyer.

The first time I ever saw him in court he, assisted by Colonel E.
D. Baker (afterwards a senator from Oregon, and killed at Ball's
Bluff), was engaged in the defence of a man on trial for murder.
The conduct of the defence made by those great lawyers produced an
impression on my mind that will never be forgotten.  Lincoln became
then my ideal of a great man, and has so remained ever since.

In 1846, Mr. Lincoln was the Whig candidate for Congress, and it
was then that I first heard him deliver a political speech.  The
county in which my father resided was a part of his Congressional
district.  When Lincoln came to the county my father met him with
his carriage and took him to all his appointments.  I went to the
meeting nearest my home--an open-air meeting held in a grove.  On
being introduced, he began his speech as follows:  "Fellow citizens,
ever since I have been in Tazewell County my old friend, Major
Cullom, has taken me around; he has heard all my speeches, and the
only way I can hope to fool the old Major and make him believe I
am making a new speech is by turning it end for end once in a

When I determined to abandon the hard work on the farm to enter
the study of law at Springfield, my father being so close to Mr.
Lincoln, I went to him for advice.  He expressed a willingness to
take me into his own office as a student, but said that he was
absent on the circuit so much that he would advise me to enter the
law office of Stuart and Edwards, two prominent Springfield lawyers,
of whom I have written more at length in an earlier chapter.  There
I would have the advantage of the constant supervision of one or
the other member of the firm.

From that time until he left Springfield never to return, I had
constant means of observing Lincoln as a lawyer.  I was at times
associated with him as a junior counsel in the trial of law suits.
I was employed in a murder case which Lincoln and Logan were
defending, I being the boy lawyer in the case.  They made a wonderful
defence.  I do not know whether the defendant was guilty or not,
but I do know that he was acquitted.

During my life I have been acquainted with very many able lawyers,
and I have no hesitation in saying that Lincoln was the greatest
trial lawyer I ever knew.  He was a man of wonderful power before
a court or jury.  When he was sure he was right, his strength and
resourcefulness were well-nigh irresistible.  In the court-room he
was at home.  He was frank with the court, the juries, and the
lawyers, to such an extent that he would state the case of the
opposite side as fairly as the opposing counsel could do it; he
would then disclose his client's case so strongly, with such honestly
and candor, that the judge and jury would be almost convinced at
once in advance of the testimony.  Judge Davis once said that the
framework of Lincoln's mental and moral being was honesty, and that
a wrong cause was poorly defended by him.

The story is told that a man offered to employ him in a case and
told him the facts, which did not satisfy Lincoln that there was
any merit in it.  He said to him:  "I can gain your case; I can
set a whole neighborhood at loggerheads; I can distress a widowed
mother and six fatherless children, and thereby get for you six
hundred dollars, which it appears to me as rightfully belongs to
them as to you.  I will not take your case, but I will give you a
little advice for nothing.  You seem to be a sprightly young man,
and I advise you to try your hand at making six hundred dollars in
some other way."

Mr. Lincoln was for a time employed by the Illinois Central Railroad
as one of its attorneys.  In a case in one of the counties of Judge
Davis's circuit to which the railroad was a party, it was announced
that the company was not ready for trial, and the court inquired
the reason; to which Mr. Lincoln replied that Captain McClellan
was absent.  The court asked, "Who is Captain McClellan?"  Lincoln
replied that all he knew about him was that he was the engineer of
the Illinois Central Railroad.

What a strange juggling of destiny and of fate!  In little more
than two years McClellan's fame had become world-wide as the general
in charge of all the armies of the Republic, only to prove in the
estimation of many people the most stupendous failure as a commander
in all our military history; Davis had become a Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States; and Lincoln had reached the

In the trial of the murder case to which I have referred, I never
saw more striking evidence of Mr. Lincoln's power over a court.
There came a question of the advisability of certain testimony
which was very vital to the defendant.  The question was thoroughly
argued by Judge Logan and Mr. Lincoln until the court took a recess
for dinner at noon.  The Judge announced that he would render his
decision when the court reconvened.  The courthouse was filled on
the reconvening of court in the afternoon, and the Judge began
rendering his opinion on the point in dispute.  It seemed to Mr.
Lincoln and those present that he was about to decide against the
admissibility of the evidence.  Lincoln sprang to his feet.
Apparently he towered over the Judge, overawing him.  He made such
a tremendous impression that the court apparently gave way, and
decided the point in the defendant's favor.

Mr. Lincoln was not only a great statesman, but he was one of the
ablest, most astute, and shrewdest politicians whom I have ever
known.  From my earliest recollection of him he took keen interest
in public affairs and was the foremost public man or politician in
his section of the State.  He was not among the first to join the
Republican party.  He clung to the old Whig party as long as a
vestige of it remained.  Almost immediately after he drifted into
the Republican party, he became its recognized leader in Illinois,
and his public utterances attracted the attention of the Nation to

I recollect having heard him utter the memorable words in the
Republican Convention of my State in 1858:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand.  This Government
cannot permanently endure half slave and half free.  I do not expect
the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but
I do expect that it will cease to be divided.  It will become all
one thing, or all the other."

What words of wisdom!  He looked through the veil between him and
the future and saw the end more clearly than any other man in public
life.  This was a carefully prepared speech, in which every word
was weighed.  Some of his friends, to whom it was read, advised
him not to use the clause I have quoted, "a house divided against
itself."  He was wiser than any of them.  With a self-reliance born
of earnest conviction he said that the time had come when the
sentiments should be uttered, and that if he should go down because
of their utterance by him, then he would go down linked with the

I listened to much of the great debate between Lincoln and Douglas,
the greatest political debate which ever took place in this country.
I have always felt that Lincoln never expected to be elected to
the Senate in 1858.  I think he saw more clearly than any of us
that the advanced position which he took in that debate made his
election to the Senate at that time impossible.  He was then fighting
for a great principle.  He did carry a majority of the popular
vote, but Douglas secured a majority of the Legislature.

His defeat apparently affected him little, if at all.  I felt very
badly when it became apparent that Douglas had secured a majority
of the Legislature.  I met Lincoln on the street one day, and said:
"Mr. Lincoln, is it true that Douglas has a majority of the
Legislature?"  His reply was an affirmative.  I then expressed the
great sorrow and disappointment that I felt.  He placed a hand upon
my shoulder, and said:  "Never mind, my boy; it will all come
right."  I believe that he then felt certain that the position he
took in that memorable debate would make him the logical candidate
of the Republican party for the Presidency in 1860, which it did.
And two years from that very day the Republican party celebrated
its first national victory in his election as President of the
United States.

It has been said that Mr. Lincoln never went to school; and he
never did to any great extent, but in a broad sense of the word,
he was an educated man.  He was a student, a thinker; he educated
himself, and mastered any question which claimed his attention.
There was no man in this country who possessed to a greater degree
the power of analyzation.

He was a student all his life.  One incident that occurred in
Springfield, some years before he finally left, will serve as an

An old German came through the town and claimed that he could teach
us all to read and speak German in a few weeks.  A class was
organized for the purpose of studying German.  Lincoln became a
member of the class, and I also was in it, and I can see him yet
going about with the German book in his pocket, studying it during
his leisure moments in court and elsewhere.  None of the rest of
us learned much, but Lincoln mastered it, as he did every other
subject which engaged his attention.

His home life was a pleasant one.  I often visited at his home,
and so far as my observation went, I do not hesitate to say that
not the slightest credence should be given to the many false stories
that have from time to time appeared, manufactured largely by those
who desired to write something new and sensational concerning the
life of President Lincoln in his home, and concerning Mrs. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln was regarded generally as an ungainly man, and so he
was; and yet on occasions he appeared to me to be superior in
dignity and nobility to almost any other man whom I have ever seen.
I was present when the committee from the National Convention, that
gave his first nomination for President, came to Springfield to
notify him of his nomination.  He stood in the rear of a double
parlor in his home, and as the Hon. George F. Ashmun, president of
the convention, presented the members of the delegation one by one
to him, I thought that he looked what he was--the superior of any
man present.  Many of the eminent men composing that delegation
had believed that Lincoln was some sort of a monster.  I stood
among them after they had met him and listened to their comments.
The lofty character, the towering strength, the majesty of the man
had made a great impression upon them.  They had come expecting to
see a freak; they discovered one of the princes of men.

In this connection, I must be permitted to refer to another occasion.
It so happened that I was in Washington when the President's son
Willie died.  The funeral ceremony took place in the East Room of
the White House, in the presence of the President and his cabinet
and a few other friends.  When the ceremony was about concluded
and President Lincoln stood by the bier of his dead boy, with tear-
drops falling from his face, surrounded by Seward, Chase, Bates,
and others, I thought I never beheld a nobler-looking man.  He was
at that time truly, as he appeared, a man of sorrow, acquainted
with grief, possessing the power and responsibilities of a President
of a great Nation, yet with quivering lips and face bedewed with
tears, from personal sorrow.

The morning that Abraham Lincoln left his home in Springfield never
to return is not to be forgotten.  It was early on the morning of
the eleventh of February, dark and gloomy, with a light snow falling.
There was a large crowd of his neighbors and friends at the station
to bid him good-bye.  He held a sort of impromptu reception in the
little railroad station.  There was no noisy demonstration.  As I
recollect it now, it was a solemn leave-taking.  Just before the
train pulled out, Mr. Lincoln appeared on the rear platform of his
car.  Every head was bared, as if to receive a benediction, as he
uttered his farewell address:

"My Friends:  No one not in my situation can appreciate my feeling
of sadness at this parting.  To this place, and the kindness of
these people, I owe everything.  Here I have lived a quarter of a
century, and have passed from a young to an old man.  Here my
children have been born and one is buried.  I now leave, not knowing
when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater
than that which rested upon Washington.  Without the assistance of
that Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed; with
that assistance, I cannot fail.  Trusting in Him, who can go with
me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us
confidently hope that all will yet be well.  To His care commending
you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an
affectionate farewell."

I was not present at the first inauguration of President Lincoln,
but I visited Washington many times during the years that he was
President, and, knowing him as well as I did, and having known both
Nicolay and Hay, his secretaries, in Springfield, I naturally spent
much time around the executive offices.  I had many conversations
with him during the early years of the war.  He had no military
education, but he soon demonstrated that he was in fact the real
commander-in-chief.  He liked General McClellan, and stuck to him
until McClellan had demonstrated his absolute inefficiency for
command.  McClellan was a great organizer.  He made the Army of
the Potomac the most perfect fighting machine, I might almost say,
that was ever known in military history.  But there he stopped.
He could organize, but he could not and did not, despite the urging
and the anxiety of Mr. Lincoln, push forward his army to victory.
I knew something of Mr. Lincoln's anxiety at the failure of McClellan
to inaugurate an aggressive campaign.

The late O. M. Hatch of Illinois told me of a rather interesting
incident which occurred on one occasion when the President,
accompanied by Mr. Hatch, visited McClellan's army a few days prior
to the battle of Antietam in September, 1862.  They spent the night
in a tent, and, rising very early, at the President's suggestion
they took a walk before sunrise about the great camp, inspecting
the field, the artillery, the quarters, and all the appurtenances
of the army.  Lincoln was in a pensive mood, and scarcely a word
was spoken.  Finally, just as the sun was rising, they reached a
commanding point; the President stopped, placed his left hand upon
Mr. Hatch's shoulder, and slowly waving his right in the direction
of the great city of tents, seriously inquired:  "Mr. Hatch, what
is all this before us?"

"Why, Mr. President," was the surprised reply, "this is General
McClellan's army."

"No, Mr. Hatch, no," returned Lincoln soberly, "this is General
McClellan's body-guard."

It will be understood what these utterances signified:  they
expressed perfectly the prevailing belief that McClellan had failed
to appreciate the purpose for which that magnificent fighting
machine had been created.

I think I am justified in saying that after the earlier contests
of the war had proven that great soldiers and great generals were
not always great leaders, President Lincoln became the able director,
the actual commander-in-chief of the forces of the United States.
He planned and ordered the larger movements of the War, and he held
the reins above and about all his armies, scarcely relaxing his
watchful care for a moment,--until events demonstrated the wisdom
with which he confided the military interests of our beloved country
and the conduct of the war to Ulysses S. Grant.

Some of us remember with what persistence during the Winter of 1862
and 1863 many newspapers and a large share of the Northern people
joined in the cry of "On to Richmond!"  Censure and criticism ran
riot even among Northern Republicans.  In a three-line memorandum
the President showed the fallacy of that outcry, when he wrote:
"Our prime object is the enemy's army in front of us, and not with
or about Richmond at all, unless it be incidental to the main
object."  At a later day he said to Hooker:  "I think Lee's army,
and not Richmond, is your sure objective point."

Modest and simple as he always was, never seeking power with
inordinate ambition, simply that he might use power; still he was
never afraid to assume responsibility when it was his duty to assume

I called on him one evening at the Soldiers' Home.  We spent the
evening together, and naturally we talked of the war.  He discussed
almost all of his generals, beginning with McClellan.  At that time
McClellan was down on the James, and Pope was in the saddle in
Virginia.  Pope, he feared, would be whipped, unless he could get
more troops, and he was trying to get McClellan back in order to
save Pope.  At that time he had not yet lost his faith in McClellan,
but he was complaining that McClellan was never ready for battle.
After making all possible preparations, and with the enemy in front,
he would overestimate the size of the enemy's force, and demand
more troops.  Yet Mr. Lincoln said that he would rather trust
McClellan to get his army out of a tight place than any other
general that he had.

After his election he invited his principal competitors for the
nomination to enter his cabinet.  He had not the slightest jealousy
of any living man.  He was not afraid, as some of our Presidents
have been, to have his cabinet composed of the greatest men of his
time.  He was a bigger man than any of them, and no thought of
jealousy ever entered his mind.  Both Seward and Chase fancied they
were greater men than Lincoln, and each of them, at the beginning
at least, entertained the idea that on him rested the responsibility
of the administration.  Seward felt that he should have been the
nominee of his party.  Chase felt perfectly sure that he, and not
Lincoln, should have been President.

Before many months had passed, Seward was compelled to acknowledge
that Mr. Lincoln was the superior of any of them, as he expressed
it in a letter to his wife.  He soon became one of the most devoted
friends and loyal supporters of the President.  The publication of
the diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy from 1861 to
1865, shows that Mr. Lincoln was the leader of them all, and was
in fact the real head of every department of his administration.

Chase was an able man, and loyal to the Union; but, unlike Seward,
he was never loyal to the President personally, and was constantly
plotting in his own interest to supplant Lincoln as the nominee of
his party in 1864,--a most reprehensible course on the part of a
cabinet officer.  This did not give concern to Mr. Lincoln in the
slightest degree.  He cared very little what Mr. Chase said or
thought of him personally, so long as he was doing his duty as
Secretary of the Treasury.

I was in Washington the latter part of February, 1864, before he
was nominated the second time.  I happened to hear of the Pomeroy
letter in behalf of Mr. Chase, and I learned with amazement that
Chase was conspiring with his friends to secure the nomination for
the Presidency, and was untrue and unloyal to his chief.  I felt
justly indignant.  I saw Mr. Lincoln and talked with him about it
with great earnestness.  I told him that Chase should be turned
out.  He answered by saying:  "Let him alone; he can do no more
harm in here than he can outside."

If things did not go to suit him, Chase was in the habit of tendering
his resignation every few days.  It was not accepted; but he offered
it once too often, and, very much to his surprise and chagrin, it
was promptly accepted; and Chase was relegated to private life,
where he belonged, and where he should have remained.

Chief Justice Taney passed away unmourned, the most pathetic and
desolate figure in the Civil War, with his long, faithful, and
distinguished service on the bench forgotten.  Chase's friends,
and Chase himself, at once commenced overtures of friendship toward
Mr. Lincoln, in the interest, solely, of securing Chase's appointment
as Chief Justice.  Considerable pressure was brought to bear in
behalf of Chase.  The President would give no intimation as to what
he intended to do, although I myself believe that he all the time
intended appointing him to the vacant position, and that the so-
called pressure on the part of Sumner and other radicals had little,
if any, influence with him.

During this period, after the death of Chief Justice Taney, Chase
was not at all averse to writing the President the most friendly
letters.  One day his secretary brought him a letter from Mr. Chase.
The President asked, "What is it about?"  "Simply a kind and friendly
letter," the secretary answered.  Mr. Lincoln, without reading it,
replied with his shrewd smile:  "File it with his other recommendations."

Chase was finally appointed Chief Justice of the United States.
After his conduct as a member of the cabinet, I do not believe we
have ever had another President, except Lincoln, magnanimous enough
to have made that appointment under similar circumstances.  Lincoln
entertained a very exalted opinion of Chase's ability as a lawyer
and a man.  He believed that he possessed the qualifications of a
great Chief Justice, and the appointment was made entirely free
from any personal feelings or prejudices.

I happened to be alone in Mr. Nicolay's room in the White House
when Mr. Chase called to thank the President for his nomination.
He came into Mr. Nicolay's room first, and inquired of me if the
President was in.  I told him I did not know, but his room was next
to the one we were in, and he might ascertain for himself.  Knowing
of Chase's disparaging remarks concerning Mr. Lincoln, and of his
disloyalty as a member of his cabinet, I was very curious to hear
what he would have to say to the President.  He left the door ajar,
and I overheard the conversation.  Mr. Chase proceeded to thank
the President for his nomination.  Mr. Lincoln's reply was brief,
merely that he hoped Mr. Chase would get along well and would do
his duty.  Very few words passed between them, and the interview

Montgomery Blair was Postmaster-General in President Lincoln's
cabinet.  He was appointed from the District of Columbia.  He was
a man of considerable ability, and was thoroughly loyal to the
President.  Montgomery Blair became exceedingly unpopular among
certain classes, not only on his own account, but because of his
brother Frank, whose home was in Missouri.  I thought his remaining
in the cabinet was injuring the Administration, and I told Mr.
Lincoln, in a conversation I had with him at the White House, that
under all the circumstances Montgomery Blair should be relieved
from office; that he was unpopular; that the people were not for
him.  Mr. Lincoln seemed annoyed, even to the extent of petulance
(a rare thing with him), that I should say anything against Montgomery
Blair.  He asserted that Blair was a loyal man, was doing his full
duty as Postmaster-General, and that he would not turn him out.

Later, Montgomery Blair, always loyal under all circumstances, told
the President that he was ready to tender his resignation whenever,
in the judgment of the President, his remaining in the cabinet
would be an embarrassment; and Mr. Lincoln in a very kindly note
sometime afterwards said that he felt himself compelled to accept
Mr. Blair's offer and ask for his resignation.  They continued
personal friends until the President's death.

The year 1862, on account of the proclamation of President Lincoln,
in September, that he would free the slaves in those States or
parts of States whose people continued in rebellion on and after
January 1, 1863, was a disastrous year to the Republican party;
but the final effect of the proclamation was beneficial to the
cause of the Union.  It stimulated greater enthusiasm on the part
of those who desired to see the end of slavery in this country.
Many people so hated that institution that they were more desirous
of having it abolished than to have the Union preserved with it.

While President Lincoln was always opposed to slavery, unequivocally
opposed to it, yet his oath called upon him to preserve the
Constitution and the Union.  He said that his paramount object was
to save the Union and not to save or destroy slavery.

In 1862 President Lincoln appointed three men, namely, Governor
George S. Boutwell, the Hon. Stephen T. Logan, and the Hon. Charles
A. Dana, a commission to go to Cairo, Illinois, and settle the
claims of numerous persons against the Government, arising from
property purchased by commissary officers and quartermasters in
the volunteer service before the volunteers knew anything about
military rules or regulations.  Judge Logan went to Cairo, remained
a few days, became ill, tendered his resignation, and returned
home.  The President telegraphed me an appointment, and asked me
to go at once to Cairo for duty, which I did.  I had not known
either Boutwell or Dana before.  The commission finished its work
in about a month, and forwarded to Washington all papers, with its
report.  The claims were paid on the basis of our allowance, and
justice was done to all concerned.

Early in 1862 an old friend of President Lincoln's, James Lamb,
came to see me, stating that he had been furnishing beef cattle to
the army; that he had received orders to furnish a given number on
the hoof at a certain place in the South, which he had done; but
before his cattle arrived the army had gone, and he had thereby
suffered great loss.  He asked me to look after his claim when I
went to the National capital, and I agreed to do so.  I knew nothing
about such things in Washington, nor how such business with the
Government was transacted.  I went to the President as the only
official with whom I was acquainted, and stated to him, "Uncle
Jimmie Lamb, your old friend, has a claim," setting forth the same
in full.  "You know he is a good man," I urged, "and he ought to
have his money."  Lincoln answered me by saying:  "Cullom, there
is this difference in dealing between two individuals and between
an individual and the Government:  if an individual does not do as
he agreed and the other person is injured thereby, he can sue the
one responsible for the injury, and recover damages; but in the
case of the Government, if it does not do right, the individual
can't help himself."  He gave me a note, however, to the proper
officer and the matter was arranged.

The gossip around the Capitol in Washington among Senators and
Representatives is a very poor gauge of public sentiment in the
country toward a President.  I was in Washington a few months before
the second nomination.  I talked with numerous Representatives and
Senators, and it really seemed to me as if there was hardly any
one in favor of the renomination of Mr. Lincoln.  I felt much
discouraged over the circumstance.  When I was about to leave for
home, I called at the White House.  I asked the President if he
permitted anybody to talk to him about himself.  He replied that
he did.  I said:  "I would like to talk to you about yourself."
He asked me to be seated.  Whereupon I told him that I had been in
Washington some ten days or more, and that everybody seemed to be
against him.

"Well, it is not quite so bad as that," he said.  He took down his
directory, and I soon discovered that he had a far more intimate
knowledge of the situation than I had.  He had every one marked,
knew how he stood, and the list made a better showing than I had

The truth is, however, that many of the strong men in Congress,
especially the radicals, were against his renomination, and would
have rejoiced to see some one else the nominee of the party; but
they knew full well, that the great body of the people of the North
were with him, and that it would be useless to attempt to prevent
his renomination.

The next time I called at the White House after the convention, he
reminded me of our previous conversation, and remarked that it did
not turn out so badly after all.

He was reminded of a little story.  A couple of Irishmen came to
America and started out on foot into the country.  They travelled
along until they came to a piece of woods.  They thought they heard
a noise, but did not know what it was.  They deployed on either
side of the road to find out, but were unable to do so, and finally
one called to the other, "Pat, Pat, let's go on; this is nothing
by a domned noise."  So the opposition to him, he said, was apparently
nothing but a noise.

But if he never had any doubts as to his renomination, he at one
time almost despaired of being re-elected, as did many of his
closest and most intimate friends.  The Democrats had not yet
selected their candidates, and as he remarked:  "At this period we
had no adversary, and seemed to have no friends."

An incident in this connection is related by the late Secretary,
John Hay.  The President felt that the campaign was going against
him, and he had made up his mind deliberately as to the course he
should pursue.  He resolved to lay down for himself a course of
action demanded by his then conviction of duty.  He wrote on the
twenty-third of August the following memorandum:

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable
that this administration will not be re-elected.  Then it will be
my duty to so co-operate with the President-elect as to save the
Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have
secured his election on such grounds that he cannot possibly save
it afterwards."

He then folded and pasted the sheet in such manner that its contents
could not be read, and as the cabinet came together he handed this
paper to each member successively, requesting him to write his name
across the back of it, without intimating to any member of the
cabinet what the note contained.  In this manner he pledged himself
to accept loyally the anticipated verdict of the people against him.

Mr. Hay's diary relates what took place at the next cabinet meeting
after the election, as follows:

"At the meeting of the cabinet to-day the President took out a
paper from his desk and said:  'Gentlemen, do you remember last
summer I asked you all to sign your names to the back of a paper
of which I did not show you the inside?  This is it.  Now, Mr. Hay,
see if you can open this without tearing it.'  He had pasted it up
in so singular a style that it required some cutting to get it
open.  He then read this memorandum (quoted above).

"The President said:  'You will remember that this was written at
the time, six days before the Chicago nominating convention, when
as yet we had no adversary and seemed to have no friends.  I then
solemnly resolved on the course of action indicated in this paper.
I resolved in the case of the election of General McClellan, being
certain that he would be the candidate, that I would see him and
talk matters over with him.  I would say, "General, the election
has demonstrated that you are stronger, have more influence with
the American people than I.  Now let us together, you with your
influence, and I with all the executive power of the Government,
try to save the country.  You raise as many troops as you possibly
can for the final trial, and I will devote all my energies to assist
and finish the war."'

"Seward said:  'And the General would have answered you, "Yes,
yes," and the next day when you saw him again and pressed these
views upon him, he would have said, "Yes, yes," and so on forever,
and would have done nothing at all.'

"'At least,' rejoined Lincoln, 'I should have done my duty and have
stood clear before my own conscience.'"

Not the least of his troubles and embarrassments during the trying
period preceding his second election was the overzealous advice,--
persistence, I might say--on the part of certain New Yorkers and
New Englanders who seemed to think that they had the interest of
the Union and the country more at heart than had Mr. Lincoln.

Horace Greeley was one of the most troublesome of this lot.  He
was an honest and a most loyal man, but was willing to temporize
upon the most vital questions.  At one time he advised that the
"erring sisters" should be permitted to depart in peace.  At this
particular time of which I speak he had devised a plan for a peace
conference, with certain prominent Confederates, Clement C. Clay,
among others, to be held in Canada.  Mr. Lincoln felt sure that
the conference would do no good, and that the Confederates were
fooling Mr. Greeley, and that they had no real power to act.

This turned out to be exactly the truth.  I was with the President
just as he was sending Mr. Hay to Niagara with written instructions,
which were given to see that nothing which threatened the interests
of the Government should be done.  The President was very much
annoyed, and he remarked to me:  "While Mr. Greeley means right,
he makes me almost as much trouble as the whole Southern

While, as I have previously observed, Greeley was intensely loyal
to the country, yet he was so nervous and unstable in his mind that
he could not resist the effort to bring about a condition of peace.
I think he would have consented to almost anything in order to
secure it.  He was very anxious for the issuance of a proclamation
abolishing slavery, and on the nineteenth of August, 1862, addressed
a very arrogant open letter to President Lincoln on the subject.

Lincoln's reply was so good, so perfect, and so conclusive that I
give it, as follows:

  "Executive Mansion,
  "Washington, _Friday, August 22, 1863_.

"Hon. Horace Greeley:

"Dear Sir:  I have just read yours of the nineteenth instant,
addressed to myself through _The New York Tribune_.

"If there be any statements or assumptions of facts which I may
know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them.

"If there may be any inferences which I may to believe to be falsely
drawn, I do not now and here argue against them.

"If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone,
I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always
supposed to be right.

"As to the policy 'I seem to be pursuing,' as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.  I would save the Union.  I would
save it in the shortest way under the Constitution.

"The sooner the National authority can be restored, the nearer the
Union will be--the Union as it was.

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could
at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could
at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.

"_My paramount object is to save the Union, and not either to save
or destroy slavery_.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do
it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do
it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone,
I would do that.

"What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I
believe it helps to save the Union, and what I forbear, I forbear
because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

"I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts
the cause, and shall do more whenever I believe doing more will
help the cause.

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall
adopt new views so fast as they will appear to be true views.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty, and I intend no modifications of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men everywhere could be free.

  "A. Lincoln."

It is said that Mr. Greeley remarked after reading the letter that
he had been knocked out by one letter from Mr. Lincoln, and that
he "would be damned if he ever wrote him another."

There was more personal bitterness evinced against Mr. Lincoln in
the campaign of 1864 than ever before or since in a Presidential
campaign.  He was denounced in the most intemperate language as a
tyrant, a dictator, whose administration had proven a failure.  A
certain element of so-called "high class" New Englanders, men of
the Wendell Phillips type, were particularly bitter in their
denunciation.  And I may remark in passing that the New England
men of letters never did have a proper appreciation of the worth
of Abraham Lincoln.

He was triumphantly re-elected amid the universal rejoicing of the
friends of liberty throughout the North.  He took the election very
quietly.  He apparently felt no sense of personal triumph over his
opponents and those who had so bitterly attacked him during the
campaign.  He seemed only to have a feeling of deep gratitude to
his fellow citizens who had testified their confidence in his
administration.  On the evening of election day, when it became
evident that he was re-elected to the Presidency, in response to
a serenade he said:

"I am thankful to God for this approval by the people.  While deeply
grateful for this mark of their confidence in me, if I know my
heart, my gratitude is free from any taint of personal triumph,
but I give thanks to the Almighty for this evidence of the people's
resolution to stand by free government and the rights of humanity."

And again in that eloquent, simple little response which he made
to the joint committee of Congress appointed to wait upon him to
notify him of his second election, after the count of the electoral
votes by a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives
in Congress, he said:

"With deep gratitude to my countrymen for this mark of their
confidence; with a distrust of my own ability to perform the duty
required under the most favorable circumstances, and now rendered
doubly difficult by existing national perils; yet with a firm
reliance on the strength of our free Government, and the eventual
loyalty of the people to the just principles upon which it is
founded, and, above all, with an unshaken faith in the Supreme
Ruler of Nations, I accept this trust.  Be pleased to signify this
to the respective Houses of Congress."

These utterances show more clearly than any one else can describe
the state of mind in which the President received his re-election,
and in which he was about to enter his second term as President of
the Republic.  Without any personal feeling of pride, he was certain
in his own mind that his re-election was necessary in order to save
the Union.

I attended the second inauguration, March 4, 1865.  I have a
particularly vivid recollection of the scene which took place in
the Senate chamber when Mr. Johnson took the oath as Vice-President.
The simple truth is, and it was plain to every one present in that
chamber, Mr. Johnson was intoxicated.  Johnson delivered a rambling,
senseless address.  I sat next to Senator Lane of Indiana, and I
remarked that somebody should stop him.  Lane sent up a note to
the Secretary of the Senate, telling him to get Johnson to cease
speaking and take the oath.  We felt Johnson was making an exhibition
of himself in the presence of the President, the Cabinet, the
Foreign Representatives, and two Houses of Congress, and a gathering
of the most distinguished men of the Nation.  The Secretary wrote
some lines and placed them before Mr. Johnson, who did not appear
to notice them.  Finally he was made to understand that he must
take the oath, as the time had come when the President, according
to usual custom, would have to go to the east front of the Capitol
to take the oath as President of the United States.  Johnson, with
a sort of wild sweep of his arm said, "I will take the oath, but
I regard my devotion to the Union as greater evidence of my loyalty
than any oath I could take."

I was close to Mr. Lincoln at the solemn moment when Chief Justice
Chase administered to him the oath of office.  There was a vast
crowd of people, great enthusiasm and rejoicing, and the war was
practically over,--a far different scene from the one which took
place just four years before, when Chief Justice Taney in the same
place administered the same oath.  At that time there was no noisy
demonstration.  There was a solemn hush, as every one realized that
the country was about to be plunged into one of the mightiest civil
wars of all history.  Indeed many men believed that there was a
concerted plot to assassinate Mr. Lincoln at that time, and that
he would never be permitted to enter upon the duties of his office.

I heard him deliver his second inaugural address,--one of his two
greatest speeches.

The last time I saw Abraham Lincoln alive was about three weeks
before his assassination, as I now recollect.  He was at the White
House.  There had been constant rumors throughout his first term
that he was in danger of some such outrage, but as the war drew to
a close, with the natural bitter and resentful feeling in the South,
these rumors seemed to increase.  I told him what I had heard, and
urged him to be careful.  It did not seem to concern him much, and
the substance of his reply was that he must take his chances; that
he could not live in an iron box, as he expressed it, and do his
duty as President of the United States.

It is difficult for one who did not live in those terrible days
from 1861 to 1865 to realize the awful shock of horror that went
through the whole Nation on the morning of April 15, 1865, when
the message came, "Abraham Lincoln is dead."  In his old home at
Springfield, it seemed the whole population assembled in the public
square, and the duty devolved upon me to announce to the assembled
people that the great President had passed away.  There was intense
suppressed excitement.  No one dared utter a word in disparagement
of Abraham Lincoln.  The crowd was in the humor for hanging to the
limb of the first convenient tree any one who dared to make a
slighting suggestion.  It was not alone in Springfield, but it was
throughout the entire North that this feeling prevailed.  There
was fear that the Government would go to pieces, almost that the
end of the world was at hand.

Soon the news came from different sources that he was to be buried
in Washington, or somewhere in the East.  The people of Springfield
became very much worked up.  A committee was appointed to go to
Washington to insist that the remains should be taken to Springfield.
I was a member of this committee.  We left immediately, but before
we arrived at Harrisburg it had been determined that the only
fitting final resting place of all that remained of the immortal
Lincoln was at his old home in Springfield; and the funeral train
had already left Washington.  The committee waited at Harrisburg
for its arrival.  Through the courtesy of Governor Curtin, of
Pennsylvania, we were permitted to board the train, and we accompanied
the remains from there to Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Buffalo,
Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago, and finally to Springfield.  At
each place the remains lay in state and were viewed by hundreds of
thousands of people.

In all, the entire journey consumed some twelve days from the time
the party left Washington until it arrived in Springfield.  It was
determined that the funeral train should follow the same route and
stop at practically the same places that Lincoln visited on his
way to Washington to be inaugurated as the first Republican President
of the United States.  The country was so wrought up no one seemed
certain what was to happen; no one knew but that there would be a
second and bloodier revolution, in which the Government might fall
into the hands of a dictator; and it was thought the funeral trip
would serve to arouse the patriotism of the people, which it did.

I never witnessed anything like the universal demonstration of
sorrow, not only at every city where the remains lay in state but
all during the entire route, at every little village and hamlet;
even at cross-roads thousands of people would be gathered to catch
a glimpse of the funeral train as it passed by.  In Philadelphia
the casket rested in Independence Hall.  In New York I suppose not
less than half a million people passed by to view the body.  General
Scott came down with the procession to the station, and to him I
introduced our Illinois friends.  His response was given in a most
dignified and ponderous style:  "Gentlemen, you do me great honor."

The farther west we proceeded, drawing constantly nearer to the
home of Lincoln, the more wrought up the people seemed to be.  In
the West there were not only expressions of deep sorrow, but of
vengeance as well, especially toward the South.  Before the facts
became fully known, it was thought that the assassination was the
result of a Southern conspiracy, and there was a feeling that the
whole South should be punished for the act of one of her misguided
sons.  The body lay in state for two days in Chicago, and then came
the last stage of the journey to Springfield.  It first was taken
to the State House, and was afterwards placed in the old vault at
the foot of the hill in Oak Ridge Cemetery, where it remained until
the monument was completed.  Bishop Simpson, one of the most eloquent
men in the Methodist Church, and a devoted friend of Mr. Lincoln
during his life, preached the funeral sermon.  The services at
Springfield were simple in the extreme, just as Mr. Lincoln would
have wished.  Steps were at once taken for the erection of the
monument, which stands in Oak Ridge Cemetery to-day.

So far as I can learn, every member of the funeral party that
accompanied the remains of Abraham Lincoln from Washington to
Springfield, with the exception of Mr. E. F. Leonard and myself,
has passed away.

It was my good fortune to know Abraham Lincoln in all the walks of
life.  I knew him as President, and I was permitted to know him in
the sacred precincts of his family at home.  I have studied the
lives of the great men of the world, and I do not hesitate to say
now, after nearly fifty years have passed away since his death,
that Abraham Lincoln was the peer in all that makes a man great,
useful, and noble, of any man in all the world's history.

1864 to 1870

I had a very active campaign for election to Congress in 1864.  As
I have stated elsewhere, I had, while Speaker, so framed the district
that I thought it would surely be a Republican one; but very much
to my surprise, it went Democratic when Mr. Swett was a candidate.
For a number of reasons I was more than anxious to carry the
district.  First, naturally I did not want to be defeated; second,
I wanted to show that it was really a Republican district, and more
especially still on President Lincoln's account, I was solicitous
that a Republican should be elected from the President's own
district, as was President Lincoln also.  The National Committee
assisted a good deal, and the President himself helped whenever
there was an opportunity.  I was elected by a good, safe majority,
and entered the Thirty-ninth Congress in December, 1865.

The Illinois delegation in the Thirty-ninth Congress, when I entered
the House, while containing few members, still compared favorably
with other delegations, and consisted of very good men who reflected
credit on the State, and some of whom had far more than ordinary
ability.  General John A. Logan, of whom I have written in another
part of these memoirs, was a very prominent member of the delegation
and of the House.  E. B. Washburne was also a leading member.  He
was very influential, and at one time was in a sense the leader of
the House.  He early became prominent as one of the intimate friends
and supporters of General Grant, who, every one supposed, would be
the nominee of the Republican party to succeed President Johnson.
Thaddeus Stevens was the real leader on every occasion when he
chose to assume that position.  His whole interest, however, seemed
to be concentrated on reconstruction, one of the greatest problems
that has ever confronted this country, and consequently he gave
little attention to general legislation.  This gave Washburne quite
a commanding voice in shaping the general legislation of the House.

John Wentworth was one of the best known citizens of Chicago of
his day, and was closely identified with the early history of the
city.  He was several times a member of the House.  I found him to
be a capable member of the Thirty-ninth Congress, a man of influence,
and I liked him very much.  He was Mayor of Chicago when President
Lincoln was assassinated, and I recall that he was at the station
at the head of the committee when the funeral train arrived in
Chicago.  John Wentworth was quite a character in our State politics,
but he was particularly noted as being one of the foremost citizens
of his home city.

Burton C. Cook, of Ottawa, was one of the ablest men in the Illinois
delegation.  He was a splendid man, a man of high character, one
of the leaders of the bar of the State of Illinois, and retired
from Congress to become general counsel of the Northwestern Railroad.
He occupied a very important place in the House, and was chairman
of the Committee on the District of Columbia.  He could not endure
ridicule, and he was not particularly quick in argument, although
a very good debater.

A rather humorous incident occurred on one occasion when he was
pushing a bill to have Pennsylvania Avenue paved.  Proctor Knott,
from Kentucky, was then a member of the House, and one of its
cleverest and wittiest speakers.  I was called to the chair because
Cook knew that I would take care of him the best I could in the
conduct of the bill through the committee of the whole.  We got
along with the bill very well for a good part of the day, until
Knott took the floor and made one of his incomparably funny speeches,
depicting the situation on Pennsylvania Avenue, with its fine
carriages and outfits, with buckles on the coachmen's hats as big
as garden gates.  He made so much fun of the bill that Cook, being
unable to stand it, moved that the committee rise.  We never heard
of the bill afterwards.

S. S. Marshall, a Democrat from Southern Illinois, and prominent
as such, was a member of Congress for many terms, and at one time
was the leader of the minority in the House.  At that time the
Democrats in the House were so few in number that occasionally they
were unable to secure the ayes and noes.  They exercised very little
influence on legislation, and were not much in evidence in debate,
the main contest then being between the radical and conservative
elements of the Republican party over Reconstruction.

General John F. Farnsworth of St. Charles was quite influential as
a member, and a very strong man, but was particularly noted for
his dauntless courage.  On one occasion I saw him shake his fist
in General Benjamin F. Butler's face, daring him to resent it.
Butler did not resent it, as the House was in session; and, any
way, excepting with his tongue, Butler was not a fighting man.

Ebon C. Ingersoll, who was familiarly called by his friends Clark
Ingersoll, served in that Congress.  He was a very clever man,
possessed of considerable talent, and could on occasions deliver
a capitally witty speech.  I remember a rather ingenious passage
from one of his speeches delivered when the controversy between
the President and Congress was at its height.  He asserted that
the country was sorely afflicted; that it suffered all sorts of
troubles, trials, embarrassments and difficulties.  First, he said,
it was afflicted with cholera, next with trichinae, and then with
Andy Johnson, all in the same year, and that was more than any
country could stand.  Ebon C. Ingersoll was a brother of the famous
Robert G. Ingersoll, the world's greatest agnostic.

Robert G. Ingersoll was one of the most eloquent men whom I have
ever heard.  He could utter the most beautiful sentiments clothed
in language equally beautiful.  Speaking of death and the hereafter
one day, I heard him express himself in about the same language he
afterward used on the lecture platform.  It made a wonderful
impression on me.  He said:

"And suppose after all that death does end all?  Next to eternal
joy, next to being forever with those we love and those who have
loved us, next to that, is to be wrapt in the dreamless drapery of
eternal peace.  Next to eternal life is eternal sleep.  Upon the
shadowy shore of death, the sea of trouble casts no wave.  Eyes
that have been curtained by the everlasting dark, will never know
again the burning touch of tears.  Lips touched by eternal silence
will never speak again the broken words of grief.  Hearts of dust
do not break.  The dead do not weep.  Within the tomb no veiled
and weeping sorrow sits, and in the rayless gloom is crouched no
shuddering fear.

"I had rather think of those I have loved, and lost, as having
returned to earth, as having become a part of the elemental wealth
of the world--I would rather think of them as unconscious dust, I
would rather dream of them as gurgling in the streams, floating in
the clouds, bursting in the form of light upon the shores of worlds,
I would rather think of them as the lost visions of a forgotten
night, than to have even the faintest fear that their naked souls
have been clutched by an orthodox God.  I will leave my dear where
Nature leaves them.  Whatever flower of hope springs up in my heart,
I will cherish, I will give it breath of sighs and rain of tears.
But I cannot believe that there is any being in this universe who
has been created for eternal pain."

Had it not been for the manner in which Robert Ingersoll outraged
the members of every Christian denomination by attacking and
ridiculing their beliefs, he would certainly have been called to
high office in the Nation.  He did not spare any denomination.
Beginning with the Catholics and ending with the Baptists, he abused
them all, made fun of them, and mercilessly pointed out their weak
points.  He was always particularly bitter against the Presbyterian
Church, because, he declared, he was raised a Presbyterian, and
knew more about that church than any other.  The two brothers were
very fond of each other, and Ebon C. never seemed to tire of talking
about his brother's great talent.  Robert G. was nearly broken-
hearted when his brother died.  One of the most touching and eloquent
addresses which I have ever heard was the address he delivered on
the occasion of Ebon's funeral.  He stood at the head of the casket
and once or twice nearly broke down.  It was in that address,
standing there in the presence of death, that he expressed some
doubts as to the truth of his own teaching and intimated the
possibility of some life beyond the grave.  This was the only public
occasion of which I have any knowledge in which Robert G. Ingersoll
seemed to falter in his course.

We were very intimate, and it is a real pleasure to me to pay him
here a tribute.  He was a man of extraordinary talent and ability,
one of the most lovable natures, and a man of the cleanest, most
delightful home life.  In many respects, I regard him as one of
the greatest men of his day; certainly he was the greatest agnostic
of his time, if not of all time.  No one has taken his place.  The
very name, Agnostic, is now rarely heard.  And why?  Because Robert
G. Ingersoll mercilessly tore down.  He did not create, or build
anything; he attempted to take away the beliefs in all religion,
and he offered nothing in return.  Hence it is that his teachings
have practically died with him.

Another member of the Illinois delegation in the Thirty-ninth
Congress, a well-known citizen of the State, was Anthony Thornton.
He had been a member of the Supreme Court of the State, was a fine
lawyer of the best type of manhood, and he enjoyed the confidence
and respect of the members of the House.  He resided in Shelbyville,
but after retiring from Congress he decided to go to Decatur, where
there was more business for a lawyer, and better opportunities.
He did not succeed very well, however, because it was too late in
his life to make a change and enter new fields.

A little incident connected with him occurred while I was Governor
of the State.  A young boy, whose parents the Judge knew, committed
a burglary and was sent to the penitentiary.  The parents of the
boy were naturally anxious to get him out, and appealed to Judge
Thornton to assist in securing his pardon.  The Judge and I had
served in Congress together, and, naturally, any plea bearing his
endorsement would have great weight with me.  Believing that the
boy had been influenced by bad companions, he yielded and came to
Springfield to see me.  I looked the case over and finally said:

"Judge Thornton, you are an older man than I am; you were in Congress
with me; you have been a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State;
if you will say that you would issue this pardon if you occupied
the chair I now occupy as Governor of this State, I will pardon

He replied:  "Governor, I would not ask you to do a thing I would
not do myself, to save my right arm."

Whereupon I at once issued the pardon.

"Judge," I told him, "the train will leave in a short time; go to
Joliet and take the boy home with you."

He did not do this; but he thanked me very cordially and said that
he would see the boy as soon as he got home.  The very night the
boy left the penitentiary and returned home, he committed another
burglary and was immediately arrested.  I happened to see an account
of the crime in the papers next morning, and I cut it out and sent
it to Judge Thornton, with the inquiry, "Judge, what does this
mean?"  He at once came to Springfield, and told me that he had
been fooled in prevailing upon me to pardon the young man, and
pledged me that he would follow him to the ends of the earth if
necessary in order to punish him for his crime.  The boy was sent
back to the penitentiary and I never heard of him afterwards.

Judge Thornton was one of the most honorable of men, a man of
learning and legal ability as well.

One day, before I was elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress, President
Lincoln was talking with me about the different members of that
body.  "There is a young man by the name of Blaine now serving in
Congress," said he, "who seems to be one of the brightest men in
the House.  His speeches are always short, always full of facts,
and always forcible.  I am very fond of him.  He is one of the
coming men of the country."

This was one of the reasons why I was early attracted to Mr. Blaine.

He was candidate for Speaker in the Forty-first Congress.  I was
rather zealous in his behalf, and had more or less of a prominent
part in his selection.  When Mr. Blaine concluded that he would be
a candidate for the Speakership, a little dinner was given at
Welkers', a rather famous restaurant in Washington, at which Judge
Kelley, Judge Orth, the late Senator Allison, who was then a member
of the House from the State of Iowa; Mr. Mercur of Pennsylvania,
the gentleman at the head of the Associated Press in Washington,
and myself were present.  After the dinner it was given out to the
press that Mr. Blaine was a candidate for Speaker.  As the campaign
progressed it seemed to depend on Mr. Allison and me more largely
than on any other members to take care of his interests.  He was
elected Speaker, and I had been given to understand by him, and
had so communicated to friends in Congress whom I had induced to
support Mr. Blaine, that I should be consulted in the make-up of
the committees.  Mr. Blaine never said a word to me on the subject,
but almost at the last moment wrote me this note:

"Dear Cullom:

"Which committee would you prefer, Territories or Claims?

  "James G. Blaine."

I selected Territories and became chairman of that committee.
Allison told me he never spoke to him in reference to committees,
although he gave him important assignments.

Probably the most bitter enemy Mr. Blaine ever had in public life
was Roscoe Conkling, a Senator from New York.  The quarrel between
Blaine and Conkling commenced in the Thirty-ninth Congress, over
some very trivial matter, and continued from that time on until
Blaine was nominated as the candidate of the Republican party for
the Presidency, in 1884, in which contest he was defeated by Grover

I occupied a seat next to Mr. Conkling during the early years of
my service in Congress.  He was a very friendly, companionable man,
especially to any one whom he did not consider a rival, and, as I
was a young man just entering Congress and politics, he gave me
his friendship.  I was present, sitting next to Conkling, when the
famous controversy in the House took place between Blaine and
Conkling.  During the session, from time to time, they had been
quarreling.  Conkling had seemed to have a little the best of the
argument.  Blaine became exasperated one day, and in the course of
the debate gave Conkling the worst "tongue lashing" probably ever
given by one man to another on the floor of the House.  Conkling,
although unable to reply effectively, demeaned himself with great
dignity.  His manners were placid and his reply was in measured
terms.  It was in striking contrast to what Mr. Blaine said.  To
use a phrase graphic if inelegant, he jumped on Conkling with both
feet and literally tore him to pieces without any attempt at dignity.
This controversy with Conkling probably caused the defeat of Mr.
Blaine for the nomination--first, in conventions prior to 1884,
and finally after he became the nominee of that year.

Blaine was a candidate for President for many years.  It seemed to
be his destiny, as it was that of Henry Clay, to be able to secure
the nomination only when the Republican party went down in defeat,
as it did for the first time since the election of Lincoln.  He
was beaten in the Republican National Conventions by men of mediocre
ability when the party was victorious.

He was a leading candidate at the Cincinnati Convention, when Hayes
was nominated.  I was there and heard Ingersoll's great speech
placing him in nomination.  I have always felt that Blaine would
have been nominated by that convention if a strong, courageous
presiding officer had been in the chair.  As I sat behind Mr.
McPherson, the presiding officer, and watched the proceedings, I
thought that if I had had that gavel in my hands there would have
been no adjournment and James G. Blaine would have been nominated.
An adjournment was secured, however; the lights were extinguished,
and the enemies of Blaine united, and Hayes became the nominee.

But at the convention held in Chicago, in 1884, no other candidate
was seriously considered, and Blaine was nominated for President
and Logan for Vice-President.

I had to do much in connection with Blaine in the campaign of 1884.
He was a very agreeable man so long as things went to suit him;
but he did not attempt to control himself when things went at all
against him.  He was campaigning through Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois,
in 1884; I had been on the platform with him at Massillon, Ohio,
when the people would scarcely listen to any one except Mr. McKinley.
It was arranged that Blaine should come from La Fayette, Indiana,
to Springfield, Illinois.  I was chairman of the delegation consisting
of one hundred of the most prominent men of the State, selected to
accompany him to Springfield.  The delegation went to La Fayette,
and the Adjutant-General of the State and I waited on Mr. Blaine
at the residence of Mr. George Williams, who is still living and
whom I have always known intimately.  Mr. Blaine's son came down
in response to our call, announcing that his father had retired,
ill, and would not be disturbed until eight o'clock in the morning.
At the hour appointed we still had difficulty in seeing him, and
finally I enlisted the assistance of Mr. McKinley, who was there,
and the Hon. Joseph Medill of _The Chicago Tribune_, to help me to
prevail upon Blaine to keep his engagement.  He had come to the
conclusion that he ought to go back East; that he was needed there
more than he was in the West.  The truth was that he was trying to
evade the Springfield engagement.  I told him that there would be
no less than a hundred thousand people from all parts of the State
gathered at Springfield to see him, and it would not do to disappoint
so vast a crowd.  He finally consented to go, but was very ungracious
about it, telling us not to disturb him during the trip from La
Fayette to Springfield, and at once retired to his drawing-room.

We soon came to a city in Indiana where there was a large crowd to
greet him, and following his orders, the train did not stop.  He
emerged from his drawing-room very angry because the train had not
been stopped when a crowd was waiting to hear him.  Afterwards we
halted at almost every station on the line to Springfield, where
we did not arrive until almost dusk.  Probably a hundred thousand
people had been gathered there during the day, and at least fifty
thousand waited until we arrived; but it was so dark that the
audience could scarcely see the speaker.  He left for Chicago that
night, hurrying through that city; hence to Wisconsin, I believe,
making enemies rather than friends.  He had gained the election by
his Western tour, but lost it during his stay in New York City.
"Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," the Delmonico dinner, the old row
with Conkling beginning in the Thirty-ninth Congress, caused his
defeat.  I told him afterwards that if he had broken his leg in
Springfield and been compelled to remain as my guest there, he
would have been elected.  He agreed with me that he would.

Notwithstanding his defeat, however, he continued as one of the
foremost leaders of the Republican party up to the time of his
death.  He might have been nominated at the Chicago Convention,
when Mr. Harrison received the nomination the first time had he
not retired to Europe, apparently so disgusted at his own defeat
four years before that he had not the heart to make the race again.

I do not think Harrison ever did like Blaine, but he invited him
to become the Premier of his cabinet, a position which Mr. Blaine
had held for a few months under General Garfield.  Harrison and
Blaine never got along.  As I say elsewhere in these recollections,
Harrison seemed jealous of Blaine, and Blaine was not true to his
chief.  Mr. Blaine sent for me one evening, and I called at his
house.  He related to me with considerable feeling how the President
had treated both his family and himself.  He urged me to become a
candidate for President, but I told him that I would not think of
doing so.  I afterwards supported Mr. Harrison for reasons personal
to myself, and not because I was particularly fond of Mr. Harrison.

James G. Blaine retired to private life and died soon afterwards,
a broken, disappointed man.  He was one of the greatest men of his
day, and was the most brilliant and probably the most popular man
with the masses in the history of the Republican party.

Rutherford B. Hayes was the nineteenth President of the United
States, and preceded General Garfield in that office.  He was
neither as great a man nor as great an orator as General Garfield,
although he was a much better executive officer, and in my opinion
gave a better administration than General Garfield would have given
had he served the term for which he was elected.  Rutherford B.
Hayes was an inconspicuous member of the House, as I recollect him
now.  He was what I would term a very good, conscientious man, who
never made any enemies; but I do not think that any one would say
that he was a great man.  He did not talk very much in the House,
nor accomplish very much.  I became quite friendly with him there.
Subsequently he was nominated for Governor of Ohio, and he invited
me to come to the State and campaign for him, which I did.

Thurman was his opponent, a very strong and able man, who subsequently
became a Senator from Ohio, and was a nominee of the Democratic
party for Vice-President.  But Hayes defeated him for the Governorship,
and was once re-elected.  He was nominated for President at the
Cincinnati Convention of 1876, when Blaine really should have been
the nominee, and would have been had the permanent chairman of the
convention, Edward McPherson, grasped the situation and held it
with a firm hand.

McPherson, while a man of good intentions, earnest and sincere,
was Clerk of the House for many years and had occupied what might
be termed a subordinate position.  The fact of the matter is that
he permitted the convention to get away from him; an adjournment
was secured, and the same night it was framed up to beat Blaine by
nominating Hayes.

Hayes was just the kind of man for a compromise candidate.  He was
seriously handicapped all through his administration owing to the
manner in which he secured the office.  The Electoral Commission,
an unheard-of thing, created by act of Congress, by eight to seven
declared that Hayes was elected over Tilden.  Very many people were
of the opinion that Tilden was entitled to the office.  The Electoral
Commission never would have been agreed to by the Democrats had
they known that Judge David Davis, of our own State, would retire
from the Bench to take a place in the Senate; and it is almost
certain that had Judge Davis remained on the bench he would have
been a member of the Electoral Commission, and would have surely
voted in favor of Tilden, which would have made him President.

While Hayes was President the "green-back craze" seemed to almost
take possession of the country.  I delivered an address at Rockford,
Illinois, before an agricultural society, taking issue to some
extent with the public sentiment of the country, and favoring sound
money.  The President was going through the country at that time
on a speaking tour, and in the course of some of his addresses he
commended what I had said.  He, accompanied by General Sherman,
visited Springfield, and I entertained them at the Executive

President Hayes, himself realizing the embarrassment under which
he entered the office of President, was not a candidate for
renomination, and very wisely so.  But as I have said, President
Hayes was a good man; he made a very commendable record as President
of the United States, and he was specially fortunate in the selection
of his cabinet, showing rare discrimination in selecting some of
the ablest men in the country as his advisers.  Evarts was his
Secretary of State, and John Sherman Secretary of the Treasury.

It is a rather peculiar coincidence that both James A. Garfield
and R. B. Hayes were members of the Ohio delegation in the Thirty-
ninth Congress, and both afterwards arrived at the Presidency.

James A. Garfield was a man of extraordinary ability.  I was very
intimate with him during our service in the House.  He was an
extremely likable man; I became very fond of him, and I believe
the feeling was reciprocated.  Also he was distinguished for his
eloquence, and I have heard him make some of the most wonderfully
stirring and impressive speeches in the House.  He was probably
not the orator that Robert G. Ingersoll was, but I should say that
he was one of the most effective public speakers of his period;
his speeches were deeper and more serious, uttered in a graver
style than the beautiful poetic imagery of the great agnostic.
President Lincoln liked Garfield, and he was one of the younger
men in the House who always supported the President, and on whom
the President relied.  He entered the Thirty-eighth Congress and
served many terms.  He enjoyed the peculiar distinction of being
a member of Congress from Ohio, Senator-elect from Ohio, and
President-elect of the United States, all at the same time.

I attended the National Republican Convention of 1880, in which
Grant and Blaine were the leading candidates.  I was at the time
Governor of Illinois and a candidate for re-election myself;
consequently I could not take any active part in the contest between
Blaine and Grant, but of course, naturally, my sympathies were with
General Grant.

I was not a delegate to the National Convention, but I attended
it, and it so happened that I occupied a room directly opposite
that occupied by General Garfield.

One evening, leaving my room, I met General Garfield just as he
was leaving his, and we dropped into general conversation and walked
along together.

I have always been considered a pretty fair judge of a political
situation in State and National conventions, and it struck me as
soon as Garfield had completed one of the most eloquent of all his
eloquent addresses, placing in nomination Mr. Sherman, that he was
the logical candidate before that convention.

To digress for a moment, it is a peculiar coincidence that McKinley
made his great reputation, in part, by nominating Mr. Sherman as
a candidate for the Presidency in the Minneapolis convention of
1892.  Like General Garfield in 1880, Mr. McKinley was perfectly
willing to receive the nomination himself, although he was then,
as Garfield was in 1880, the leader of the Sherman forces.

But to return.  General Garfield and I walked down the hall together,
and being very intimate friends, I used to call him by his first
name, as he did me.  I said:  "James, if you will keep a level
head, you will be nominated for the Presidency by this convention
before it is over."  This was a couple of days before he was actually

He replied:  "No, I think not."

But as we walked along together discussing the matter, I contended
that I was right.

At the end of that memorable struggle between Grant and Blaine, in
which the great Republican party refused to accept General Grant,
the foremost Republican and soldier of his time, Garfield was

I remember vividly the form and features of Garfield in that
convention.  I see him placing Sherman in nomination, probably not
realizing at the time that he was nominating himself.  I see him
taking an active part in all the debates, and as I look back now
I do not think I ever saw a man apparently so affected as General
Garfield was when it was announced that he was the nominee of the
Republican party for the Presidency of the United States.  Seemingly
he almost utterly collapsed.  He sank into his seat, overcome.  He
was taken out of the convention and to a room in the Grand Pacific,
where I met him a very few minutes afterward.

After General Garfield was elected to the Presidency, but before
his inauguration, I determined that I would urge upon him the
appointment of Mr. Robert T. Lincoln as a member of his cabinet.
I thought then that his selection would not only be an honor to
the State, but that the great name of Lincoln, so fresh then in
the minds of the people, would materially strengthen General
Garfield's administration.

With this purpose in view, I visited Garfield at his home in Mentor.
This journey was an extremely difficult one, owing to the circumstance
that the snow was yet deep on the ground; so I arranged with the
conductor to stop at the nearest point to General Garfield's house
to let me off, which he did.  I walked from the train through banks
of snow, and after the hardest kind of a walk, finally reached his

I at once told him the mission on which I had come.  We had quite
a long talk, at the end of which he announced that he would appoint
Mr. Lincoln his Secretary of War.

In this connection I desire to say a few words concerning Robert
T. Lincoln.  He is still living.  I have known him from boyhood.
He has the integrity and the character which so distinguished his
father, and was marked in his mother's people as well.  It is my
firm conviction that long ago Robert T. Lincoln could have been
President of the United States had he possessed the slightest
political aspiration.  He has never been ambitious for public
office; but, on the contrary, it has always seemed to me that the
Presidency was especially repugnant to him, which would be natural,
considering the untimely death of his father, if for no other
reason.  He was almost forced to take an active interest in public
affairs, but as soon as he was permitted to do so he retired to
private life to engage in large business undertakings, and finally
to become the head of the Pullman Company.

It seems strange to me that he should consider the presidency of
a private corporation, no matter how great the emoluments, above
the Presidency of the greatest of all Republics.  How unlike his
father!  He was a most excellent Secretary of War, and one of
General Garfield's cabinet officers whom General Arthur invited to
remain in his cabinet, which he did.

Under President Harrison he consented to become Minister to England.
Neither my colleague, Senator Farwell, nor I favored this appointment
--not because of any antipathy for Mr. Lincoln, for whom I not only
have the highest respect and admiration, but like personally as
well; but Mr. Blaine, who was Harrison's Secretary of State, called
on me one day and asked me to recommend some first-class man from
Illinois for the post.  After a consultation with my colleague, we
determined to recommend an eminent lawyer and cultured gentleman
of Chicago, John N. Jewett.  We did recommend him, and assumed that
his appointment was assured; but Harrison--probably to humiliate
Mr. Blaine--called Senator Farwell and me to him one day and
announced that he had determined to appoint Robert T. Lincoln
Minister to England.

Farwell was extremely angry, and wanted to fight the nomination.
However, I counselled moderation.  I pointed out that no criticism
could be made of Mr. Lincoln, and that since he was my personal
friend I could not very well oppose him.  So I was glad to favor
the appointment, although I was as humiliated as my colleague at
the cool manner with which Harrison had snubbed us after Mr. Blaine's

I recollect very well the telegram which Mr. Lincoln received when
he was in Springfield, attending the business of the Pullman Company.
It was from his office in Chicago.  It stated that there was a
letter there that demanded immediate attention, and asked whether
it should be forwarded.  He gave instructions to forward it to
Springfield.  It turned out to be the invitation of General Garfield
to enter his cabinet as Secretary of War, and asking an immediate
reply.  He brought it to me in the Governor's office, where he sat
down and wrote his reply accepting General Garfield's invitation.

But to return to General Garfield.  He was not a strong executive
officer.  In the brief period in which he occupied the White House,
he did not make a good President, and in my judgment would never
have made a good one.  He vacillated in the disposition of his
patronage.  When I visited him while he was yet President-elect,
he told me that Mr. Conkling would be with him the next day, and
asked my advice as to what he should say to him.  It was understood
that Conkling was coming to protest against the appointment of
Blaine as Secretary of State.  My advice was to let Mr. Conkling
understand that he would appoint whomsoever he pleased as members
of his cabinet; that he would run the office of President without
fear or favor; and that he would appoint Mr. Blaine as Secretary
of State because he considered him the very man best qualified for
that high office.  Garfield agreed with me, asserting that I had
expressed exactly what he intended saying to Conkling; but if we
are believe the stories of Senator Conkling's friends, he made far
different promises to Senator Conkling in reference to this as also
to other appointments.

But the culmination of the trouble between Garfield and Conkling
was the appointment of Robertson as Collector of Customs at the
Port of New York.  The President took the ground, for his own
reasons, that the Collector of Customs of New York was a National
office, in which every State had an interest, and was not to be
considered as Senatorial patronage.  Conkling strenuously contended
that it was exclusively Senatorial patronage, and in this he was
sustained by precedents.

It so happened that I was in Washington when the trouble between
Conkling and Garfield was at its height, over the appointment of
Robertson.  I called to see the President to pay my respects.  He
asked me if I knew what General Logan would do in reference to the
nomination of Mr. Robertson.  I told him I did not know, and he
asked me if I could find out, and to come to breakfast with him
next morning.  I did find out that General Logan expected to stand
by the President, and I so reported to him next morning.

I bade him good-bye and this was the last time that I ever saw him
alive.  I attended his funeral at Cleveland, and as I saw his body
laid away, I thought of the strange caprice of fate.  Was it
premonition that made him so sad and castdown--so utterly crushed,
as it seemed to me--when he became the Republican candidate for
President before that great convention of 1880?  Had he not been
elected President, he would probably have enjoyed a long, useful,
and highly creditable public career.  He would have been one of
the most distinguished representatives that Ohio ever had in the
upper branch of Congress.  He was to the most eminent degree fitted
for a legislator.  In the national halls of Congress his public
life had been spent; there he was at home.  He was not at all fitted
for the position of Chief Executive of the United States.  And I
say this not in a spirit of hostility, but in the most kindly way,
because I loved General Garfield as one of my earliest friends, in
those days of long ago, when I served in the Thirty-ninth Congress.

There was no man in the Thirty-ninth Congress with whom I was
afterwards so long and intimately associated as I was with the late
Senator William B. Allison of Iowa, with whom I served in the Senate
for a quarter of a century.

Senator Allison was quite a prominent member of the House when I
entered Congress, and was serving then as a member of the important
Ways and Means Committee.  He was regarded as one of the ablest
and most influential of the Western members.

From the very earliest time I knew him, Senator Allison was an
authority on matters pertaining to finance.  While he was in favor
of a protective tariff, he was not particularly a high-tariff
advocate; he, and the late General Logan who was then in the House,
and I worked together on tariff matters, as against the high-tariff
advocates, led by General Schenck.

On one occasion we defeated a high-tariff proposition that General
Schenck was advocating.  He was furious, and rising up in his place,

"I might as well move to lay the bill on the table and to write as
its epitaph--'nibbled to death by pismires!'"

The remark made General Logan terribly angry; but Senator Allison,
who had a quiet, keen sense of humor, and I were very much amused,
--as much at the fury of Logan as at the remark of Schenck.

As a member of the House, Senator Allison followed the more radical
element against President Johnson.  He was much more radical than
I was in those days, and he attacked President Johnson repeatedly
on the floor of the House, in tone and manner utterly unlike himself
when later he served in the Senate.

In the upper body he was decidedly a conservative.  He never
committed himself until he was absolutely certain.  He was always
regarded as a wise man, and he exercised an extraordinary control
over members, in settling troublesome questions and bringing about
harmony in the Senate.  He had powerful influence, not only with
members of his own party, but with members of the opposition.
Every one had confidence in him.  His statements were accepted
without question.  He never attempted oratory, but by cool statement
of facts he moulded the opinions of legislators.  He was one of
those even tempered, level-headed, sound, sensible men to whom we
naturally turned when there were difficult questions to settle.

There has been no man in our history who had a longer or more
distinguished public career, and I do not know of any man who was
more often invited to enter the cabinets of different Presidents
than was Senator Allison.  The Secretaryship of the Treasury was
urged and almost forced upon him repeatedly.  I visited Indianapolis
to see the President-elect, Mr. Harrison, and it so happened that
Senator Allison and I entered together, Mr. Harrison having sent
for him.  I saw Harrison first, and he told me that he was going
to ask Senator Allison to become his Secretary of the Treasury.
I assured him that I was confident that he would decline the office
--an assertion that occasioned much surprise, even a display of
temper.  Mr. Harrison seemed to think that it was Senator Allison's
duty to accept the place.  When Senator Allison saw him a short
time later, the office was tendered him and he promptly declined
to accept it.  Nothing that Mr. Harrison could do or say would
induce him to change his mind.

Mr. McKinley was anxious to have Senator Allison in his cabinet,
and I do not think I shall be violating any confidence, now that
they are both dead, in saying that in declining the appointment
Allison urged McKinley, as he afterwards told me, to appoint me as
Secretary of the Treasury, and McKinley gave him so strong an
assurance that he intended to invite me to enter his cabinet, that
when Allison saw me in Washington at the beginning of the session,
I being a member of his Committee on Appropriations, he said:
"Cullom, you are to enter the cabinet; now you will not be able to
do much work on the Appropriations Committee, and you had better
devote your time to getting your affairs in shape preparing to
leave the Senate and become Secretary of the Treasury."

I had urged President McKinley to beg Senator Allison to enter his
cabinet.  Coming from the source that Allison's assurance did, I
naturally took it more or less seriously, but I did not give the
matter much thought.

The nearest that Mr. McKinley came to inviting me to enter the
cabinet, was an inquiry he made of me, which position I would prefer
in a cabinet, Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasury.  I
replied that, personally, I should prefer the Treasury, as I had
at that time no particular interest or training in foreign affairs.
I know now that Mr. McKinley did fully intend to tender to me the
Treasury portfolio, and I also know, but I do not feel at liberty
at this time to reveal, the influence in Illinois which induced
him to change his mind.  I am very glad now that the position was
not tendered to me, as I might have accepted it, because of the
known desire of certain friends in this State to secure my seat in
the Senate, in which event I should have been long since retired
to private life.

Senator Allison was the trusted adviser of President after President
--Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt
all called upon him.  There was no Senator who had to a greater
extent their confidence.  Had he lived he would have been as close,
if not closer to President Taft.  He served in the Senate longer
than any other man in all our history.  He broke Benton's long
record.  He broke the long record of Senator Morrill.  He served
eight years in the House and more than thirty-five years in the
Senate, a total of forty-three years and five months in Congress.
For forty-three years the history of his life embodies the complete
financial legislative history of the United States.

Another conspicuous member of the Thirty-ninth Congress was Nathaniel
P. Banks of Massachusetts.  He had a long, varied, and interesting
career, both in public and private life.  He was many times elected
to Congress from Massachusetts, and in 1856, after a long contest
which lasted more than two months, was elected Speaker of the House
of Representatives.  He was Governor of his State, and in 1861,
for a short time, president of the Illinois Central Railroad, from
which position he resigned to enter the Union army as a major-
general, serving throughout the war.

I did not know him when he was stationed at Chicago but I became
very well acquainted with him in Congress.  He was Chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which committee I was a member.
Not only was General Banks a polite, agreeable man, but he was an
exceptionally effective speaker, and very popular in the House.

There occurs to me a little controversy which he had with the late
Senator Dawes, who was at that time a member of the House from

General Banks was undertaking to pass a bill to which Mr. Dawes
objected.  Banks was nettled.  Taking the floor, he accused his
colleague of always objecting to bills he attempted to pass.  Dawes
arose in his place, and in the most ponderous fashion, turned to

"I appeal to my colleague," he asked, "when did I ever before object
to any bill which he was attempting to pass?"

Banks jumped to his feet, and said in his high-pitched voice:  "I
do not know that my colleague ever did, but I always thought that
he was just about to."

General Banks served during the six years that I was a member of
the House, and several terms afterwards, his public service ending
with the Fifty-first Congress.  He died at his home in Massachusetts,
in 1894.

Daniel W. Voorhees was another celebrated member of the Thirty-
ninth Congress, and was later a Senator from Indiana.  Senator
Voorhees was a very able man and a zealous, consistent Democrat.
He was charged, and I have no doubt at all that it was true, with
being a Rebel sympathizer, and a prominent member of the Knights
of the Golden Circle.  A fine, gifted speaker, a kind-hearted
gentleman, he was very popular with the people of Indiana.  Dan
Voorhees and Thomas A. Hendricks, who was afterward Vice-President
of the United States, were the two most prominent Democrats of
Indiana in all its history, and indeed were two of the foremost
Democrats of the North.

Senator Voorhees' seat, as a member of the House in the Thirty-
ninth Congress, was successfully contested; and I can see him now,
with his imposing presence, making his final speech in the House,
after the result of the contest had become known.  Garbed in a long
cloak, he defended his right to his seat with the greatest dignity.
The vote was taken; his opponent was seated; then he drew his cloak
about him, and with the air of a king, walked out of the House,
almost triumphantly.  I had voted against him, but the dignity with
which he carried off the occasion certainly commanded my deepest

He was a great admirer of Mr. Lincoln.  He knew him well; had been
associated with him in many lawsuits on the circuit, at Danville,
and in the eastern part of the State; and although they belonged
to opposing political parties, he evinced for Lincoln a very warm

Senator Voorhees once told me a rather interesting story in connection
with President Lincoln.  It was the occasion of the dedication of
what was known as the Foundery Methodist Church in Washington.
Mr. Lincoln was present, Voorhees was there, and Bishop Simpson
delivered the dedicatory address.  The bishop was an eloquent
speaker and his sermon was a characteristic one.  The President
was seated in an armchair in front of the pulpit, with his back to
the minister, and after the sermon was over, an effort was at once
made to raise funds to pay the debt of the church.  This phase of
the meeting was tiresomely protracted, the minister, in the customary
style, earnestly urging an unresponsive congregation to contribute
until nearly every inducement had been exhausted.  Finally someone
started a movement to raise a certain definite amount of money,
the achievement of which would make the President a life member of
some church society.  But even this scheme was not accepted with
much enthusiasm, and Bishop Simpson renewed his plea for donations.
At last Mr. Lincoln, who had been growing tired and bored at the
performance, craned his head around toward Bishop Simpson, and said
in a tone that everybody heard:  "Simpson, if you will stop this
auction I will pay the money myself."

And since Bishop Simpson's name has been mentioned, another incident
in which he figured is suggested, which might as well be related

In the Methodist Church Bishop Simpson's name is a household word.
He was one of its most prominent divines, and in sympathy with that
branch which remained loyal to the Union.  Naturally he was a great
admirer of Mr. Lincoln--in fact, so close was he to the President
that it was his influence that secured the appointment of Senator
Harlan of Iowa as Secretary of the Interior.  What follows will
demonstrate that this statement is not made on hearsay.

Several prominent men of Illinois, and other parts of the country,
were in Washington trying to secure the appointment of Uncle Jesse
K. Dubois (the father of Senator Dubois of Idaho who served in the
United States Senate two terms with great credit to himself and
State), as Secretary of the Interior.  Uncle Jesse Dubois was there
himself, and we all met one evening at the National Hotel, at which
meeting I was designated to go to the White House and use my
influence with President Lincoln in Uncle Jesse's behalf.  Uncle
Jesse had no business coming to Washington when he was being pushed
for a cabinet office; but he did, nevertheless, and he was not in
good health.  About ten o'clock at night I saw the President, and
laid before him Uncle Jesse's claims.  His reply was:

"I cannot appoint him.  I must appoint Senator Harlan.  I promised
Bishop Simpson to do so.  The Methodist Church has been standing
by me very generally; I agreed with Bishop Simpson to give Senator
Harlan this place, and I must keep my agreement.  I would like to
take care of Uncle Jesse, but I do not see that I can as a member
of my cabinet."

I replied:  "If you have determined it, that is the end of the
matter, and I shall so report to the friends who are gathered at
the National, so that Uncle Jesse may go on home."

President Lincoln seemed much affected.  He followed me to the
door, repeating that he would like to take care of Uncle Jesse,
but could not do so.

Jesse Dubois went home to Springfield, but he remained as stanch
a friend to Lincoln as ever, and was one of the committee sent from
Springfield to accompany the remains of the immortal President to
their last resting-place.

George S. Boutwell was another member of the Thirty-ninth Congress
who merits some attention.  He afterward became very influential
among the radical element, and was one of the managers on the part
of the House in the impeachment of President Johnson.  It is hard
to understand in a man of his sober, sound sense; but I am convinced
that he firmly believed President Johnson to have been a conspirator
in securing the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.  He was Secretary of
the Treasury under President Grant, who had for him the greatest
respect and confidence.  I never was very intimate with him, but
I knew him fairly well, and considered him one of the leading public
men of Massachusetts of his day.

One of the leading members of the Pennsylvania delegation in the
Thirty-ninth Congress was William D. Kelley.  He was a prominent
member of the House, a good speaker, although he always prepared
his addresses at great length, principally on the tariff; but he
did not confine himself to his manuscripts entirely.  His specialty
in Congress was the tariff.  He was called "Pig-iron Kelley" because
he was for high duties on pig-iron and, in fact, everything
manufactured in Pennsylvania.  That State, as everybody knows, is
the great iron and steel manufacturing State of the Union, and its
representatives in Congress were in that day, as they are in this,
the highest of high protective tariff advocates.

Before entering Congress, William D. Kelley for a number of years
had been a judge of one of the more important courts of Philadelphia.
He was elected to and kept in the House, without any particular
effort on his own part, because he was considered one of the most
valuable men in Congress in matters pertaining to the tariff.  When
I was a candidate for re-election to the House he visited my district
and made several very able speeches for me at my request, and, with
his wife, was my guest in Springfield for several days.  At that
time Republicans were for a high protective tariff, and it was not
considered then, as it seems to be in these days of so-called
insurgency, a crime for a Republican to stand up and say that he
was in favor of high tariff duties.  In any event, Judge Kelley
did me much good in the speeches he made in my district.

We occupied apartments in the same house in Washington--on F Street
near the Ebbitt House, at which hotel we took our meals.  F Street
is now the heart of the business centre, but it was then one of
the principal residence streets, and many Representatives and
Senators lived in that vicinity.  The only objection I had to living
in the same house with Judge Kelley was that he was always preparing
speeches, and when he got ready to deliver a speech he would insist
on reading it all over to me; and as his speeches were generally
two or three hours long, and always on the tariff, in which I did
not take an extraordinary amount of interest, I became pretty tired
of hearing them.

On one occasion when he was making quite an eloquent speech in the
House, he was interrupted by a member from Kentucky, whose name I
do not remember.  He had already answered him once or twice and
then gone on.  He was interrupted again, and this time he answered:
"Oh, don't interrupt me when the glow is on."  The "glow" did happen
to be on at that time, and naturally he did not desire to be

In the same Pennsylvania delegation there were two members named
Charles O'Neill and Leonard Myers, who were very short in stature.
For some reason or other, some wag dubbed them "Kelley's ponies."
They heard of it and became very angry, and on every occasion, when
there was half a chance, they watched to see how Judge Kelley voted
and would then vote the opposite.

They were both good men and good Republicans, and O'Neill served
the same number of terms as Judge Kelley--fifteen--but O'Neill
remained his full fifteen terms and retired from Congress.  Judge
Kelley was serving his fifteenth term when he died in Washington, in

Samuel J. Randall was one of the prominent Democrats of his day;
but strange to say he favored a protective tariff.  He also served
about fifteen terms, two of them in the Speaker's chair.  He had
an anxious solicitude for the success of his party, and made many
political speeches.  He was a young member when I first knew him,
away back in the sixties, but even then he occupied an influential

I remember meeting him in Mr. Blaine's office one day, when the
latter was Secretary of State, and Mr. Blaine not being in, we sat
on the settee and had a talk.  He was in poor health, but curious
respecting the relations between President Harrison and his party.
I told him they were not getting along very well; that he satisfied
his party about as well as Mr. Cleveland satisfied his when he was
in the White House.

"I think," he observed, "he is better than our President.  We never
could do much with Cleveland."  Then he added this characteristic
remark:  "If you want an army to fight, you must feed it.  It is
the same with a political party:  if a party is to take care of
itself, its workers must be recognized in the distribution of its

I never saw Samuel J. Randall afterwards.

Judge Godlove S. Orth was one of my most intimate friends in the
House of Representatives.  He was a splendid man, and was regarded
as an honorable and able member.  He and I saw much of each other
every day, as we roomed in the same neighborhood and generally
visited the departments together.  We were seen with each other so
often on the streets, in fact, that when we were separated, friends
would ask either one or the other of us:  "What has become of your
partner?"  At one time I canvassed his district for him and he was

He had a peculiar name, "Godlove."  I never heard of a man named
Godlove, either before or since.  The story was told of a lady
sitting in the gallery, listening to the proceedings of the House.
She could not hear very well.  When the roll was being called, and
she heard the name "Godlove" called by the clerk, she did not
understand it; she wend down stairs and told her friends that the
House of Representatives was a most pious body; that every time
they called the roll, and the clerk got about half way through, he
would stop and exclaim:  "God love us all!"

Judge Orth has been dead for many years, but I have always remembered
with great pleasure our friendship when we served as colleagues in
the House, nearly half a century ago.

Oakes Ames of Boston was a prominent member of the House.  He had
charge of the Union Pacific Railroad construction, and it was
charged--and proven, I believe, afterwards--that he secured the
concessions for the railroad by undue influence,--the use of money,
gifts of stock, etc.,--and the whole thing finally culminated in
what is known as the _Crédit Mobilier_ scandal, the exposure of
which came after I retired from the House.

Ames was a member of the Thirty-eighth, Thirty-ninth, Fortieth,
Forty-first, and Forty-second Congresses, and I knew him very well
during my six years' service.  I was made chairman of the Committee
on Territories in the Forty-first Congress, by Mr. Blaine, who was
then Speaker.  Ames annoyed me very much by coming to me almost
every day in the interest of legislation in the Territories affecting
the Union Pacific, and I asked him one day, being a little out of
temper, whether he was so absorbed in the Pacific Railroad that he
had not time to devote to anything else.  He made some light
rejoinder; sometime later the exposure came, and I found that he
was engaged in most unfortunate and unlawful practices in securing
legislation in the interest of his road.

I never believed that Oakes Ames was naturally a dishonest man,
but the proof was against him, and the scandal resulted in his
death, as it also did in the death of James Brooks, of New York,
and the ruination of other public men.

I knew S. S. Cox ("Sunset" Cox, as he was called), as a member of
the Forty-first Congress.  He had served in some previous Congress
as a member from Ohio; but when I knew him he was serving as a
member from New York.

Cox was an able man, as a speaker, a writer, and a diplomat.  He
was always listened to with great respect and attention when he
addressed the House, but a considerable amount of fun was poked at
him after a certain occasion when he had interrupted General Butler
a time or two in debate, and the General, finally losing patience,
replied to one of his questions with the admonition:  "Shoo, fly,
don't bodder me!"  I was present at the time; the galleries were
filled, as they always were in those days; and when General Butler
uttered this reproof the whole House, galleries, and floor, was in
an uproar, maintaining the confusion for some minutes.  When it
seemed like subsiding, it would break out again and again, and so
it continued for quite a while.  When order was finally restored
Cox undertook to reply; but he could not do so.  He had been so
crippled by the response of the audience to Butler's remark that
he never recovered from it.

Cox was a splendid man.  He always thought in those days that he
had not been quite appreciated by his friends in the Democratic
party, and they thought the same way; but he was so good-humored,
and such a whole-souled man and so fond of wit that he really never
did get what he was entitled to.

I was trying to pass a bill which I had prepared for the purpose
of prohibiting and wiping out polygamy in Utah.  I had reported
the bill from the Committee on Territories, and I was doing my best
to pass it.  For some reason or other (afterwards I learned it was
an ulterior reason to help out a friend), General Schenck undertook
to defeat the measure, and for this purpose he asked to have it
referred to the Committee on Judiciary.  This committee probably
had jurisdiction over the subject; I did not think so at the time,
and believed that such a reference would kill the bill.  He seemed
to be making some headway with the Republicans, when Cox came over
to me from the Democratic side of the House, and proposed that if
I would yield to him for five minutes he would help me to pass the
bill.  I told him to go back to his seat and that I would yield to
him directly.  When I did Cox took the floor, and to my utter
astonishment he denounced the bill as the most outrageous bill that
had ever been brought before the House, declaring in the most
spirited manner that of course it ought to be referred to the
Judiciary Committee, because every one knew that such a reference
would kill it.

But he was shrewder than I apprehended at the moment.  His talk
had the desired effect, for the Republicans who had been following
Schneck determined that they would not be responsible for killing
the bill; they came back to me, and the measure was passed through
the House by a substantial majority.


As I look back now over the vista of years that have come and gone,
it seems to me that I entered the Lower House of Congress just at
the beginning of the most important period in all our history.
The great President had been assassinated; the war was over; Andrew
Johnson, a Union Democrat, was President of the United States.
Reconstruction was the problem which confronted us, how to heal up
the Nation's wounds and remake a Union which would endure for all
time to come.  These were the difficult conditions that had to be
dealt with by the Thirty-ninth Congress.

Andrew Johnson was the queerest character that ever occupied the
White House, and, with the exception of Lincoln only, he entered
it under the most trying and difficult circumstances in all our
history; but Lincoln had, what Johnson lacked, the support and
confidence of the great Republican party.  Johnson was never a
Republican, and never pretended to be one.  He was a lifelong
Democrat, and a slave-holder as well; but he was loyal to the Union,
no man living more so.  As a Senator from Tennessee, alone of all
the Southern Senators he faced his colleagues from the South in
denouncing secession as treason.  His subsequent phenomenal course
in armed opposition to the rebellion brought about his nomination
for the Vice-Presidency as a shrewd stroke to secure the support
of the War Democrats of the North and the Union men of his State
and section.

He came to the Presidency under the cloud of President Lincoln's
assassination, when the majority of the North believed that a
Southern conspiracy had laid the great President low.  The seceding
States hated him as a traitor to his own section; the North distrusted
him as a Democrat.  At first I believe the very radical element of
the Republican party in Congress, led by old Ben Wade of Ohio, than
whom there was no more unsafe man in either house of Congress, were
disposed, if not openly to rejoice, which they dared not do, to
see with some secret satisfaction the entrance of Johnson into the
White House.  It is well known that Wade did say in his first
interview with President Johnson, when, as a member of the committee
on the conduct of the war, he waited on him, "Johnson, we have
faith in you.  By the gods, there will be no more trouble in
running the Government."

I have already, in another chapter, described the scene which took
place in the Senate chamber when Johnson was inducted into office
as Vice-President; the exhibition he made of himself at the time
of taking the oath of office, in the presence of the President of
the United States and the representatives of the Governments of
the world.  All this, advertised at the time in the opposition
press, added to the prejudice against Johnson in the North and made
his position more trying and difficult.

There were two striking points in Johnson's character, and I knew
him well:  First, his loyalty to the Union; and, second, his utter
fearlessness of character.  He could not be cowed; old Ben Wade,
Sumner, Stevens, all the great leaders of that day could not,
through fear, influence him one particle.

In 1861, when he was being made the target of all sorts of threats
on account of his solitary stand against secession in the Senate,
he let fall this characteristic utterance:

"I want to say, not boastingly, with no anger in my bosom, that
these two eyes of mine have never looked upon anything in the shape
of mortal man that this heart has feared."

This utterance probably illustrates Johnson's character more clearly
than anything that I could say.  He sought rather than avoided a
fight.  Headstrong, domineering, having fought his way in a State
filled with aristocratic Southerners, from the class of so-called
"low whites" to the highest position in the United States, he did
not readily yield to the dictates of the dominating forces in

Lincoln had a well-defined policy of reconstruction.  Indeed, so
liberal was he disposed to be in his treatment of the Southern
States, that immediately after the surrender of Richmond he would
have recognized the old State Government of Virginia had it not
been for the peremptory veto of Stanton.  Congress was not in
session when Johnson came to the Presidency in April, 1865.  To do
him no more than simple justice, I firmly believe that he wanted
to follow out, in reconstruction, what he thought was the policy
of Mr. Lincoln, and in this he was guided largely by the advice of
Mr. Seward.

But there was this difference.  Johnson was, probably in good faith,
pursuing the Lincoln policy of reconstruction; but when the
Legislatures and Executives of the Southern States began openly
passing laws and executing them so that the negro was substantially
placed back into slavery, practically nullifying the results of
the awful struggle, the untold loss of life and treasure, Mr.
Lincoln certainly would have receded and would have dealt with the
South with an iron hand, as Congress had determined to do, and as
General Grant was compelled to do when he assumed the Presidency.

From April to the reassembling of Congress in December, Johnson
had a free hand in dealing with the seceded States, and he was not
slow to take advantage of it.  He seemed disposed to recognize the
old State Governments; to restrict the suffrage to the whites; to
exercise freely the pardoning power in the way of extending executive
clemency not only to almost all classes, but to every individual
who would apply for it.  The result was, it seemed to be certain
that if the Johnson policy were carried out to the fullest extent,
the supremacy of the Republican party in the councils of the Nation
would be at stake.

To express it in a word, the motive of the opposition to the Johnson
plan of reconstruction was the firm conviction that its success
would wreck the Republican party, and by restoring the Democrats
to power bring back Southern supremacy and Northern vassalage.
The impeachment, in a word, was the culmination of the struggle
between the legislative and the executive departments of the
Government over the problem of reconstruction.  The legislative
department claimed exclusive jurisdiction over reconstruction; the
executive claimed that it alone was competent to deal with the

This is a very brief summary of the conditions which confronted us
when I entered the Thirty-ninth Congress.  Representatives of the
eleven seceding States were there to claim their seats in Congress.
The Republican members met in caucus the Saturday evening preceding
the meeting of Congress on Monday.  I, as a member-elect, was
present, and I remember how old Thaddeus Stevens at once assumed
the dominating control in opposition to the President's plan.
Stevens was a most remarkable character,--one of the most remarkable
in the legislative history of the United States.  He believed firmly
in negro equality and negro suffrage.  As one writer eloquently
expresses it:

"According to his creed, the insurgent States were conquered
provinces to be shaped into a paradise for the freedman and a hell
for the rebel.  His eye shot over the blackened southern land; he
saw the carnage, the desolation, the starvation, and the shame;
and like a battered old warhorse, he flung up his frontlet, sniffed
the tainted breeze, and snorted 'Ha, Ha!'"

It was at once determined by the Republican majority in Congress
that the representatives of the eleven seceding States should not
be admitted.  The Constitution expressly gives to the House and
Senate the exclusive power to judge of the admission and qualification
of its own members.

We were surprised at the moderation of the President's message,
which came in on Tuesday after Congress assembled.  In tone and
general character the message was wholly unlike Johnson.  It was
an admirable state document, one of the finest from a literary and
probably from every other standpoint that ever came from an Executive
to Congress.  It was thought at the time that Mr. Seward wrote it,
but it has since been asserted that it was the product of that
foremost of American historians, J. C. Bancroft, one of Mr. Johnson's
close personal friends.

There existed three theories of dealing with the Southern States:
one was the President's theory of recognizing the State Governments,
allowing the States to deal with the suffrage question as they
might see fit; the Stevens policy of wiping out all State lines
and dealing with the regions as conquered military provinces; and
the Sumner theory of treating them as organized territories,
recognizing the State lines.

Johnson dealt in a masterful manner with the subject in his message.
He said:

"States, with proper limitations of power, are essential to the
existence of the Constitution of the United States.

"The perpetuity of the Constitution bring with it the perpetuity
of the States; their mutual relations makes us what we are, and in
our political system this connection is indissoluble.  The whole
cannot exist without the parts nor the parts without the whole.
So long as the Constitution of the United States endures, the States
will endure; the destruction of the one is the destruction of the
other; the preservation of the one is the preservation of the other.

"The true theory is that all pretended acts of secession were, from
the beginning, null and void.  The States cannot commit treason,
nor screen the individual citizens who may have committed treason,
any more than they can make valid treaties or engage in lawful
commerce with any foreign power.  The States attempting to secede
placed themselves in a condition where their vitality was impaired
but not extinguished, their functions suspended but not destroyed."

It was but the Johnson theory which we presented to the world,
denying the right of any State to secede; asserting the perpetuity,
the indissolubility of the Union.

But the question was, whether the members from the seceding States
should be admitted to the Senate and House; and he dealt with this
most difficult problem in a statesmanlike way.  He said:

"The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, it would remain
for the States whose powers have been so long in abeyance, to resume
their places in the two branches of the National Legislature, and
thereby complete the work of restoration.  Here it is for you,
fellow citizens of the Senate, and for you, fellow citizens of the
House of Representatives, to judge, each of you for yourselves, of
the elections, returns and qualifications of your own members."

On the suffrage question, he said:

"On the propriety of making freedmen electors by proclamation of
the Executive, I took for my counsel the Constitution itself, the
interpretations of that instrument by its authors, and their
contemporaries, and the recent legislation of Congress.  They all
unite in inculcating the doctrine that the regulation of the suffrage
is a power exclusively for the States.  So fixed was this reservation
of power in the habits of the people, and so unquestioned has been
the interpretation of the Constitution, that during the Civil War
the late President never harbored the purpose,--certainly never
avowed it,--of disregarding it; and in acts of Congress nothing
can be found to sanction any departure by the Executive from a
policy which has so uniformly obtained."

Aside from the worst radicals, the message pleased every one, the
country at large and the majority in Congress; and there was a
general disposition to give the President a reasonably free hand
in working out his plan of reconstruction.  But as I stated, the
Legislatures of the Southern States and their Executives assumed
so domineering an attitude, practically wiping out the results of
the war, that the Republican majority in Congress assumed it to be
its duty to take control from the Executive.

What determined Johnson in his course, I do not know.  It was
thought that he would be a radical of radicals.  Being of the "poor
white" class, he may have been flattered by the attentions showered
on him by the old Southern aristocrats.  Writers of this period
have frequently given that as a reason.  My own belief has been
that he was far too strong a man to be governed in so vital a matter
by so trivial a cause.  My conviction is that the radical Republican
leaders in the House were right; that he believed in the old
Democratic party, aside from his loyalty to the Union; and was a
Democrat determined to turn the Government over to the Democratic
party, reconstructed on a Union basis.

I cannot undertake to go into all the long details of the memorable
struggle.  As I look back over the history of it now, it seems to
me to bear a close resemblance to the beginning of the French
Revolution, to the struggle between the States General of France
and Louis XVI.  Might we not, if things had turned differently,
drifted into chaos and revolution?  If Johnson had been impeached
and refused to submit, adopting the same tactics as did Stanton in
retaining the War Department; had Ben Wade taken the oath of office
and demanded possession, Heaven only knows what might have been
the result.

But reminiscing in this way, as I cannot avoid doing when I think
back over those terrible times, I lose the continuity of my subject.

An extension to the Freedman's Bureau bill was passed, was promptly
vetoed by the Executive, the veto was as promptly overruled by the
House, where there was no substantial opposition, but the Senate
failed to pass the bill, the veto of the President to the contrary

I had not the remotest idea that Johnson would dare to veto the
Freedman's Bureau bill, and I made a speech on the subject, declaring
a firm conviction to that effect.  A veto at that time was almost
unheard of.  Except during the administration of Tyler, no important
bill had ever been vetoed by an Executive.  It came as a shock to
Congress and the country.  Excitement reigned supreme.  The question
was:  "Should the bill pass the veto of the President regardless

Not the slightest difficulty existed in the House; Thaddeus Stevens
had too complete control of that body to allow any question concerning
it there.  The bill, therefore, was promptly passed over the veto
of the President.

But the situation in the Senate was different.  At this time the
Sumner-Wade radical element did not have the necessary two-thirds
majority, and the bill failed to pass over the veto of the President.
The war between the executive and legislative departments of the
Government had fairly commenced, and the first victory had been
won by the President.

The Civil Rights bill, drawn and introduced by Judge Trumbull, than
whom there was no greater lawyer in the United States Senate, in
January, 1866, on the reassembling of Congress, was passed.  Then
began the real struggle on the part of the radicals in the Senate,
headed by Sumner and Wade, to muster the necessary two-thirds
majority to pass a bill over the veto of the President.

Let me digress here to say a word in reference to Charles Sumner.
For ten years he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
of the United States Senate, and no man, by education, experience,
knowledge of world politics, and travel, was ever more fitted to
occupy that high position.  He was one of the most cultivated men
of his day, a radical, and filled one of the most important places
in the history of his time.  When he entered the Senate, the South
dominated this Government; the great triumvirate, Webster, Clay,
and Calhoun, had just passed.  The day he entered, Clay for the
last time, feeble, emaciated, appeared on the Senate floor.
Compromise was the word, and the Southerners so dominated that it
was considered treason to mention the slavery question.  Charles
Sumner was an abolitionist; he was not afraid, and at the very
first opportunity he took the floor and denounced the institution
in no unmeasured terms.  Chase and Seward were present that day,
and quickly followed Sumner's lead.  Seward, however, was far more
conservative than either Sumner or Chase.

It was the mission of Charles Sumner to awake the public conscience
to the horrors of slavery.  He performed his duty unfalteringly,
and it almost cost him his life.  Mr. Lincoln was the only man
living who ever managed Charles Sumner, or could use him for his
purpose.  Sumner's end has always seemed to me most pitiful.
Removed from his high position as chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Senate, followed relentlessly by the enmity of
President Grant, than at the very acme of his fame; drifting from
the Republican party, his own State repudiating him, Charles Sumner
died of a broken heart.

But to return to the struggle between the President and Congress.
Trumbull, Sumner, Wade, and the leaders were bound in one way or
another to get the necessary two-thirds.  The vote was taken in
the Senate:  "Shall the Civil Rights bill pass the veto of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding?"  It was well understood
that the vote would be very close, and the result uncertain.

The excitement was intense.  The galleries were crowded; members
of the House were on the Senate floor.  The result seemed to depend
entirely upon the vote of Senator Morgan, of New York, and he seemed
to be irresolute, uncertain in his own mind which way he would
vote.  The call of the roll proceeded.  When his name was reached
there was profound silence.  He first voted nay, and then immediately
changed to yea.  A wonderful demonstration burst forth as it was
then known that the bill would pass over the veto of the President,
and that the Republican party in Congress at last had complete
control.  Senator Trumbull made a remarkable speech on that occasion,
and I was never prouder of any living man.

So the struggle went on from day to day and year to year, growing
all the time more intense.  I have always been disposed to be
conservative; I was then; and it was with profound regret that I
saw the feeling between the President and Congress becoming more
and more strained.

I disliked to follow the extreme radical element, and when the row
was at its height, Judge Orth, a colleague in the House from Indiana,
and I concluded to go and see the President and advise with him,
in an attempt to smooth over the differences.  I will never forget
that interview.  It was at night.  He received us politely enough,
and without mincing any words he gave us to understand that we were
on a fool's errand and that he would not yield.  We went away, and
naturally joined the extreme radicals in the House, always voting
with them afterwards.

The row continued in the Fortieth Congress.  Bills were passed,
promptly vetoed, and the bills immediately passed over the President's
veto.  Many of the bills were not only unwise legislation but were
unconstitutional as well.  We passed the Tenure of Office bill; we
attempted to restrict the President's pardoning power; and as I
look back over the history of the period, it seems to me that we
did not have the slightest regard for the Constitution.  Some of
President Johnson' veto messages were admirable.  He had the advice
and assistance of one of the ablest lawyers of his day, Jeremiah

To make the feeling more intense, just about this time Johnson made
his famous "swing around the circle," as it was termed.  His speeches
published in the opposition press were intemperate and extreme.
He denounced Congress.  He threatened to "kick people out of office,"
in violation of the Tenure of Office act.  He was undignified in
his actions and language, and many people thought he was intoxicated
most of the time, although I do not believe this.

The radicals in both the House and Senate determined that he should
be impeached and removed from office.  They had the votes in the
House easily, and they thought they could muster the necessary
number in the Senate, as we had been passing all sorts of legislation
over the President's veto.  When the subject was up, I was doubtful,
and I really believe, strong Republican that I was, that had it
not been for Judge Trumbull I would have voted against the impeachment
articles.  I advised with the Judge, for whom I had profound respect.
I visited him at his house.  I explained to him my doubts, and I
recall very clearly the expression he used in reply.  He said:
"Johnson is an obstruction to the Government and should be removed."
Judge Trumbull himself changed afterwards, much to the astonishment
of every one, and denounced the impeachment proceeding as unworthy
of a justice of the peace court.

It seems to me difficult to realize that it was as far back as
March 2, 1868, that I addressed the House in favor of the impeachment
articles.  I think I made a pretty good speech on that occasion
and supported my position very well.  I took rather an extreme view
in favor of the predominance of the legislative department of the
Government, contending that the executive and judiciary departments
of the Government, while they are finally responsible to the people,
are directly accountable to the legislative department.

The first and principal article in the impeachment proposed by the
House was the President's issuance of an order removing Edwin M.
Stanton as Secretary of War, he having been duly appointed and
commissioned by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and
the Senate having been in session at the time of his removal.

I contended then, on the floor of the House, that such a removal
was a violation of the Constitution and could not be excused on
any pretext whatever, in addition to being a direct violation of
the Tenure of Office act.

I do not intend to go into the details of the various articles
proposed by the House; suffice it to say that they were mainly
based on the attempted removal of Mr. Stanton, and the appointment
of Mr. Thomas as Secretary of War.

I was very serious in concluding my speech.  My words were:

"Mr. Chairman:  The administration of Mr. Johnson since he became
President of the United States has been characterized by an utter
disregard of the laws and Constitution of the United States.  And,
sir, I am of the opinion that there should be another article
adopted by this House, and sent to the Senate, upon which he should
be tried, the substance of which should be that Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, is guilty of high crimes in office,
in that he violated the Constitution and laws of the United States,
by using his influence, patronage and power of said office to
hinder, delay and prevent a restoration of the States lately in
rebellion against the Government, to their proper practical relations
to the Union.  Congress provided by law for the reconstruction of
the rebel States.  The President, from whatever motives it matters
not, stands in his Executive Office, and by all his influence and
power opposes restoration according to law.  As an Executive Officer,
he has no such right, and his opposition to the laws of Congress
on the subject of reconstruction has cost this Nation thousands of
loyal men who have been murdered in the South on account of their
devotion to the Flag, and millions of money which is to be added
to the enormous public debt to be cast upon the necks of the people.
Shall the Nation endure it longer?  Shall we struggle on and on
until the welcome day comes when his term shall expire?  The people
say 'No'; men struggling in business say 'No'; men longing for
peace and harmony in the land say 'No'; the loyal men of the South,
who have been abused and hunted by wicked rebels, say 'No'; and I
trust that the answer of all these may be the answer of this House
to-day, and the answer of the Senate of the United States within
a reasonable time after these articles shall be sent to them."

Needless for me to say, that as the subject continued feeling
remained at a high pitch in the House.  It was debated from day to
day.  Stevens was urging the impeachment with all the force at his
command; some were doubtful and holding back, as I was; some changed
--for instance, James G. Blaine, who was taunted by Stevens and
sneered at for his change of front.

Under the law then existing the President of the Senate succeeded
a Vice-President who became, by the death or removal of the President,
President of the United States.  The radicals in complete control
--and I have no doubt that Stevens had a hand in it--elected the
most radical of their number as President of the Senate--Ben Wade,
of Ohio.  Johnson removed, Wade would have been President, and the
extreme radicals would have been in supreme control of the legislative
and executive departments of the Government.

This condition is what made Mr. Blaine hesitate.  He told me on
one occasion:  "Johnson in the White House is bad enough, but we
know what we have; Lord knows what we would get with old Ben Wade
there.  I do not know but I would rather trust Johnson than Wade."
But in the end Blaine supported the impeachment articles, just as
I did, and as Senator Allison and other somewhat conservative
members did, all feeling at the same time not a little doubtful of
our course.

Stevens, Logan, Boutwell, Williams, and Wilson were appointed
managers on the part of the House, and solemnly and officially
notified the Senate of the action of the House in impeaching the
President of the United States.  The Senate proceeded without long
delay to resolve itself as a High Court of Impeachment, for the
purpose of trying the President of the United States for high crimes
and misdemeanors.  The most eminent counsel of the Nation were
engaged.  Mr. Evarts was President Johnson's principal counsel.
He was ably assisted by lawyers of scarcely less renown.

The trial dragged along from day to day.  Part of the time the
Senate considered the matter in executive session.  The corridors
were crowded; and I remember with what astonishment we heard that
Judge Trumbull had taken the floor denouncing the proceeding as
unworthy of a justice of the peace court.  The Illinois delegation
held a meeting, and Logan, Farnsworth, and Washburne urged that we
unite in a letter to Judge Trumbull, with a view to influencing
his vote for conviction, or of inducing him to withhold his vote
if he could not vote for conviction.  A number of our delegation
opposed it, and the letter was not sent.

I do not think that it would have made the slightest effect on
Judge Trumbull had we sent it.  All sorts of coercing methods were
used to influence wavering Senators.  Old Bob Schenck was the
chairman of this movement, and he sent telegrams broadcast all over
the United States to the effect that there was great danger to the
peace of the country and the Republican cause if impeachment failed,
and asking the recipients to send their Senators public opinion by
resolutions and delegations.  And responses came from all over the
North, urging and demanding the impeachment of the President.

It is difficult now to realize the intense excitement of that
period.  General Grant was there, tacitly acknowledged as the next
nominee of the Republican party for the Presidency.  He took no
active part, but it was pretty well understood, from the position
of his friends such as Logan and Washburne, that the impeachment
had his sympathy; and in the Senate Conkling was especially
vindictive.  Grimes, Fessenden, and Trumbull led the fight for
acquittal.  Many were noncommittal; but in the end the struggle
turned on the one doubtful Senator, Edmund G. Ross of Kansas.

It was determined to vote on the tenth article first, as that
article was the strongest one and more votes could be mustered for
it than any other.  It was well understood that the vote on that
article would settle the matter.

More than forty-three years have passed into history since that
memorable day when the Senate of the United States was sitting as
a Court of Impeachment for the purpose of trying the President of
the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.  The occasion
is unforgettable.  As I look back now, I see arising before me the
forms and features of the great men who were sitting in that high
court:  I see presiding Chief Justice Chase; I see Sumner, cold
and dignified; Wade, Trumbull, Hendricks, Conkling, Yates; I see
Logan as one of the managers on the part of the House; I see old
Thad Stevens, weak and wasted from illness, being carried in--all
long since have passed to the beyond, the accused President, the
members of the high court, the counsel.  Of all the eminent men
who were present on that day, aside from the Hon. J. B. Henderson,
I do not know of a single one now living.

As the roll was called, there was such a solemn hush as only comes
when man stands in the presence of Deity.  Finally, when the name
of Ross was reached and he voted "No"; when it was understood that
his vote meant acquittal, the friends of the President in the
galleries thundered forth in applause.

And thus ended for the first, and I hope the last, time the trial
of a President of the United States before the Senate, sitting as
a Court of Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

1871 to 1883

After my six years' service in the Lower House of Congress, I
returned home, not expecting ever again to take office, or engage
in politics.  There was a contest going on in the State over the
location of the State Capitol.  The State had committed itself to
the erection of a new Capitol building, and had really made
considerable progress on its construction.

In the meantime, the question of changing the location from
Springfield to some other city was agitated.  Peoria made a very
strong effort for the removal to that city.  The work on the new
building, as an immediate result, was stopped.  The Legislature
had adjourned, and another election of members was to occur.  This
condition of local affairs existed when I returned home after my
service was finished in Washington.

The friends in my home county, in which the State Capitol is located,
waited on me and expressed a desire that I should allow my name to
be used as a candidate for the Legislature.  I made known my resolve
not to enter politics again; but they based the proposal upon a
ground that made it extremely difficult and embarrassing not to
accede, to-wit:  they had been with me for anything I had ever
wanted, and now they wanted me to reciprocate, and do as _they_
desired.  I did not feel that I could disregard their wishes, and
so yielded to their demand; it was nothing less.

They then went to the Hon. Milton Hay, who was a great lawyer, and
as good a man as I ever knew, and made the same demand upon him.
He was under no special obligation to yield to their wishes, for
he had never asked for office at the hands of the people.  He
declined; but they also declined to take "No" for an answer.  The
result was that both Hay and I became candidates, were both elected,
and the contest over the removal of the State Capitol was renewed.

I was chosen Speaker.  Mr. Hay was the foremost lawyer of the
Legislature.  One million dollars was reported from the proper
committee of the House, and passed without opposition, and the work
on the Capitol was once more taken up.

Finding myself again in politics, I determined to become a candidate
for Governor.  To be successful, it seemed to be important that I
should go back into the Legislature, which I did.  After my re-
election I was supported by the Republican party for Speaker for
my second term.

However, the House of Representatives was in control of the
opposition, composed of Democrats and Independents, the latter
being more generally wrong than the Democrats, and much less
reliable.  The combination organized the House, the Hon. Elijah
Haines being elected Speaker, and the Republicans casting their
united vote for me.  This Legislature has ever since been known as
the "Haines Legislature," the most notorious Legislature ever known
in the State.  Haines was a man of ability--especially, to stir up
strife and produce confusion.

The Legislature convened in the Winter of 1875.  I was nominated
for Governor early in 1876, elected in November of the same year,
and sworn in January, 1877.

On re-examining my inaugural address, I find much stated there that
is at the present time, and must long remain, of historic interest
to the people of Illinois; but since its length precludes reproduction
here, I can merely touch upon certain points, more fully covered
in the address, that offer many curious aspects and contrasts in
the light of latter-day conditions.

To begin with, the Legislature of that year was the first to meet
in the new Capitol.  The effects of the financial panic of 1873
were still felt, but it was pointed out that the State's resources
were in no way impaired; that on the contrary--circumstances to be
proud of--the volume of private indebtedness had been materially
reduced, while the productive wealth of farms, buildings, factories,
mines, and railroads had never before been so great.

Of matters educational, there had been enrolled as pupils the
preceding year (1876) 687,446 persons, and appropriations for public-
school purposes for the corresponding period had amounted to

Among other matters of local interest adverted to, which to-day
are as alive and momentous as they were then, were the subjects of
navigation--particularly on the Illinois River and the canal--and
the supervision of the railroads by the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission.  At that time there were 7,285 miles of railroad in
the State--a greater mileage than any other State in the Union
could boast of.

Only eleven years had elapsed since the close of the Civil War,
and its after-effects still worked like an obnoxious ferment in
the State's political conditions; closely allied with this was the
influence of the Hayes-Tilden contest, all of which commanded a
large proportion of my speech.

One extract I wish to quote in full, since it was prelude to events
which followed so soon afterwards:

"I desire to add one suggestion in reference to the affairs of our
own State, by calling your attention to the Militia Law.  I believe
a more perfect law should be enacted, which will secure a more
thorough organization of the State militia.

"The spirit of our institutions and the temper of our people are
hostile to a standing army, and I am opposed to any policy, State
or National, looking to governing the people by bayonet; yet in
the most highly civilized communities a trained militia, recruited
from the intelligent and industrious classes, is an almost
indispensable auxiliary to the civil power in the interests of
peace and good order."

Little did I dream that within six months of my inauguration the
timeliness and force of the suggestions, and any recommendations
contained in the closing paragraphs above, would find convincing
illustrations in conditions throughout the Nation, and especially
in Illinois.

In July, 1877, the famous strike of the railway employees came on.
It was exceptionally strong in the cities of Illinois--Chicago,
Decatur, Springfield, Galesburg, East St. Louis, and every other
city of considerable size.  The State was ill prepared for such a
crisis.  The strike ran along for several days with the State
unready to bring the matter to a close.  Having been in office but
a few months, I had not yet secured any arms or other military
equipment with which to combat organized violations of the law.
The Illinois National Guard was inchoate--in fact, scarcely organized
at all, except in companies voluntarily formed, which were almost
entirely without military equipment.  Finally, however, I determined
to order the National Guard to East St. Louis.

I telegraphed to Chicago for a locomotive and car to take me to
East St. Louis about two o'clock on a specified night.  After
ordering the troops from different parts of the State to assemble
at East St. Louis on a given day, I went to East St. Louis myself,
three or four gentlemen accompanying me.  There I found several
thousand men sitting about on the curbs of the sidewalks, apparently
perfectly quiet and inoffensive, if not unconcerned, and I concluded
that there was no reason why trains should not move.

However, I first consulted with several railroad men, expressing
the opinion that the strikers and their sympathizers did not seem
desirous of disturbing anybody, and insisted that they proceed to
move out their trains.

The superintendent of one of the roads finally promised to have a
train made up, and undertake to move it.

"All right," said I.  "Fire up, and I will come around about the
time you are ready to move."  He did as he had promised, and I went
around with the friends who were accompanying me.

But about the time the train was ready to move, these mild-mannered
laboring men, to the number of five or six hundred, gently closed
in upon the train, and put out the fire in the engine so it could
not be moved.

Thereupon, I stood upon the sidewalk and addressed this crowd of
five or six hundred fire-extinguishers.  I told them that I had
come there to move the trains, and while I did not want to hurt
any one, that the trains would be started, if everybody who interfered
first had to be disabled.  They gradually skulked away, and I
ordered the fire built up again, asserting that I would be back in
half an hour to see the trains move.  But the men notified the
engineer that they would kill any man who undertook to take the
train out, and in the fact of that threat no one could be prevailed
upon the man engines or train.

Finally, however, one man agreed, if I would accompany him as far
as Decatur, about a hundred miles, to endeavor to go out with the
train.  I told him I could not do that, but I would stand by his
side while he was going through the streets of East St. Louis.
But he would not agree to this, so that my efforts to move a single
train had met with complete failure.  The result was that I was
driven to the expediency of calling upon the military arm of the
State authority.

That evening the troops began to arrive.  They were stationed at
the strategic points of the city during the night, and the next
morning the trains moved out without a single accident or

In Chicago, the National Guard did not seem to accomplish anything.
The people there did not take them seriously, and the result was
that I called upon the National Government to send to that city a
few companies of regular troops.  I think they came from Omaha.
When they arrived, and marched up the streets--that was the end of
the strike in that city.

So I managed to get through the trouble without injury to a single
person, or the loss of any property except that caused by the delay
in the transaction of business.  These results were quite different
from those in some other parts of the country.  My chief private
secretary was in the East somewhere, and could not return to me
until the trouble was all over.

As Governor of a State in a time when actual war was not flagrant,
I could only watch, as might any other American citizen, the exciting
proceedings at the National Capital, and hope that our country
might issue from the political contest without a weakening of our
institutions or loss of prestige.  At the same time, I felt that
I might appropriately express my approval of the attitude of the
National administration, which I did in a letter to the President.

When I was Governor of the State of Illinois, I had the good fortune
of becoming intimately acquainted with one of the great soldiers
of the recent Civil War, who was, in my judgment, the greatest
cavalry leader of modern times,--General Phil Sheridan.  He was
Commander of the Department of the Lakes during my administration,
and I had the pleasure of meeting him on numerous occasions.

At an immense reunion of volunteer soldiers from Northern Illinois,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, which was held in Aurora, I, as Governor
of the State, was invited to make the first address.  General
Sheridan was invited to be present and take part in this celebration,
and he came down from Chicago, accompanied by his wife.  I met them
at Aurora.  We rode in the same carriage, at the rear of the
procession, to the fair grounds, a mile or so distant from the
city.  The day was hot, and as we entered a dense grove, on the
road, the soldiers halted for a breathing spell, and while at rest
many of them went to a well near by for water.  It was observed by
some of the soldiers that General Sheridan remained in the carriage,
and they immediately surrounded us.  He greeted all cordially and
good-naturedly, being very fond of soldiers who had fought on the
Union side of the great struggle between the North and the South.
What immediately followed pleased Mrs. Sheridan and those who were
near, and amused Sheridan himself.  A big Irish soldier-boy got
hold of Sheridan's hand and pulled him out of the carriage.  Being
of small stature, General Sheridan was at the mercy of the stalwart
Irishman, who dealt with him in a very rough way, slapping him on
the back with great force, and with as much earnestness exclaiming:
"Boys, this is the damnedest, bravest little Mick in America!"

As is well known now, the operations of General Sheridan in the
Shenandoah Valley and the region of Richmond called forth the
plaudits of the Nation and the commendation of his superiors.  His
victories had much to do with bringing the Civil War to a close.
He was conscious of the power and value of the cavalry arm of the
army.  In discussing his great achievements he made the remarkable
statement that with a force of five or ten thousand cavalrymen,
will organized, he could run over an army of almost any size.
Whether this be true or not, it remains that General Grant had
implicit confidence in Sheridan's ability to command the cavalry
forces in a manner superior to any other officer in the Union Army.

It was on the suggestion of Grant that Sheridan was brought from
the West to take command of the cavalry.  After coming East, he
was presented to President Lincoln.  The President scrutinized him
closely.  He did not appear to be the officer recommended to him
by Grant as the one man who could bring the cavalry forces to that
standard which was so much desired.

The first time Lincoln met Grant after Sheridan called on him he
expressed his doubt.  "The officer you brought from the West seems
rather a little fellow to handle your cavalry," said he.

Grant, however, unshaken in the belief that he at last had an
officer under him whom he could trust in charge of all the armies
of the Union if necessary, replied:  "You will find him big enough
for the purpose before we get through with him."

Sheridan was not only popular with his superior officers and men
under him, but with the people generally.  He was held in the
highest esteem by the people of my State.  After his promotion to
the rank of Lieutenant-General, the citizens of Chicago presented
him with a house in Washington, as a mark of their friendship and

While Governor I rendered a decision in an extradition case, which
formed a precedent, and which is referred to by writers on

Moore comments on it as follows:

"In December, 1878, an interesting decision was made by Governor
Cullom, of Illinois, in the case of two persons named Gaffigan and
Merrick, whose surrender was demanded by the Governor of Pennsylvania
on a charge of murder committed in that State in January, 1865.
Accompanying the requisition was an indictment found against them
in Pennsylvania in March, 1865, for the crime for which their
rendition was demanded.  It was alleged in their behalf that soon
after the murder was committed, and before the indictment was found,
they left their place of residence in Pennsylvania and went to
Illinois, where they had resided continuously in an open manner,
bearing their own names, transacting daily business, and holding
responsible public positions.  In 1870 or 1871 Gaffigan was joined
by his father, who left their former place of residence in Pennsylvania
with the avowed purpose of joining his son in Illinois.  The
residence of the latter in Illinois was also known to other persons
in the particular locality in Pennsylvania, among whom were a
constable and a witness whose name was endorsed on the indictment.
On the other hand, the prosecuting attorney in Pennsylvania denied
that there had been any laches in the matter, and declared that he
had acted upon the first knowledge that he had acquired in respect
to the whereabouts of the persons charged.  Governor Cullom held
that while it might be inferred from the fact that the accused left
the State of Pennsylvania shortly after the date of the murder that
they were fugitives from justice, yet this character did not always
adhere to them; and that their long residence in Illinois, which
was so entirely unconcealed and well known, that the officers of
justice in Pennsylvania could have been ignorant of it only because
they made no effort to find it out, had purged them of the character
of fugitives from justice.  It may be argued that this decision
rests on moral rather than on strictly legal grounds.  It is
generally held that there is no limitation as to the time in recovery
of fugitives from justice other than such as may be established by
statutes of limitations of the Governments concerned, and it does
not appear to have been suggested in the case under consideration
that any such limitation had been established either by the laws
of Pennsylvania or of Illinois.  The decision of Governor Cullom
may also be thought to involve the theory that the authorities of
the demanding State may be called upon to show that they have used
due diligence in pursuing the fugitives and in seeking their

The decision created much comment at the time, some adverse,
suggesting that it amounted to the exercise of the pardoning power
by a Governor of one state for a crime committed in another.

My administration as Governor of Illinois was a very quiet, uneventful
one.  I endeavored to give the State strictly a business administration,
and I believe I succeeded.  I appointed the very best men that I
could find to State offices.  I did not interfere with the conduct
of the various departments and institutions, except to exercise a
general supervision over them.  I held my appointees strictly
accountable for the conduct of the affairs of their respective
offices, and did not attempt to dictate to them the appointment of
their subordinates.

During the six years I served as Governor there was not a single
scandal connected with the executive department of Illinois.  I
never had the slightest trouble with the Legislature.  I never
interfered in the organization of the Senate or House.  I believed
then, and I believe now, in the independence of the three co-ordinate
branches of the Government.  I no more thought of influencing the
Legislature than I would have thought of attempting to influence
the Judiciary.  My recommendations were made in official messages,
as the Constitution prescribes, and generally, I might say, the
Legislature carried out my recommendations.  The administration
was an economical one, and it was during this period that the entire
State debt was paid.


My acquaintance with General Grant began when he visited Springfield
the first time immediately after the beginning of the Civil War.
He came to Springfield with a company of soldiers raised at Galena.
General John A. Rawlins, afterwards Secretary of War under President
Grant, one of the best men whom I ever knew, and especially my
friend, was with this company.  General Grant offered his services
to Governor Yates in any capacity, and the Governor requested him
to aid General Mather, then our Adjutant-General.  General Grant,
having been a West Point graduate, and having served as a captain
in the regular army, rendered the Adjutant-General very material
service.  On the morning I saw him in the Adjutant-General's office
at Springfield, nobody ever dreamed that this quiet, unassuming
subordinate would, in less than four years, become one of the
greatest generals in all the world's history.  At the outbreak of
the war he resided at Galena, where he was in business.

He was sent by Governor Yates to muster in the various regiments,
and continued in that work until made Colonel of the Twenty-fist
Illinois Regiment.  This regiment had been raised and organized by
another man, whose habits were not regular, and under whose command
the regiment had become demoralized.  General Grant took the Twenty-
first Illinois on foot from Springfield into Missouri, and before
he had travelled very far with it, the men quickly learned that he
was a real commanding officer, a strict disciplinarian, and that
orders were issued to be obeyed.  The regiment became one of the
best in the service.

General Grant was soon made a Brigadier-General, the first to be
commissioned from Illinois, and was sent to command at Cairo.

I became pretty well acquainted with him at Springfield, and
subsequently I visited Cairo, and found there General Grant, Governor
Oglesby, and other Illinoisans in command of regiments.

General Grant's career as a soldier is too well known to the world
to be repeated by me here.  The history of his career is the history
of the Civil War.  He was formally received by the people of
Springfield on two occasions:  once while he was still in command
in the army; and again in 1880, after his trip around the world,
he was my guest at the Executive Mansion in Springfield.  He was
then accompanied by Mrs. Grant, and by E. B. Washburne, who had
been one of his closest personal friends during his administration.

The time was approaching for the National Convention at Chicago,
and General Grant's friends had prevailed upon him to permit the
use of his name as a candidate for a third term.  Washburne had
become considerably flattered by the demonstration that was made
over him on the road from Galena to Springfield, and I believe he
had an idea that he might be the nominee instead of General Grant,
and hence for some reason or other he did not want to identify
himself with General Grant at all.  When the time came to go to
the reception at the State House, Washburne could not be found.
It seemed that he had hid in his bedroom until the party left the
Executive Mansion for the State House, and then went by himself to
the State House, and secreted himself in the office of the Secretary
of State, where he surreptitiously watched proceedings from behind
the sheltering folds of a curtain.

His conduct in the evening was still more remarkable.  I had arranged
a reception to General and Mrs. Grant and Mr. Washburne at the
Executive Mansion that same evening, but Mr. Washburne gave some
excuse which he claimed necessitated his presence in the East, and
departed--apparently with the conviction that he might secure the
Presidential nomination himself, and feeling that his presence in
company with General Grant--an avowed candidate--created an
embarrassing situation that he could not endure.  I know that
General Grant was deeply grieved at his conduct.  The General's
friends were so outraged that they determined Washburne should have
no place upon the ticket at all.

General Grant was not a candidate for re-election at the end of
his second term; I am not at all sure whether he would not have
been glad to be re-elected for a third term--at least, he would
have accepted the nomination had it been tendered to him.  But the
third-term proposition, at that time, received a severe blow when,
in December, 1875, the House of Representatives passed a resolution
by a vote of 234 to 18, declaring that in its opinion, the precedent
established by Washington and other Presidents of the United States,
in retiring from the Presidential office after their second terms,
had become, by universal concurrence, a part of our republican
system of government, and that any departure from this time-honored
custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our
free institutions.

The passage of this resolution, the scandals in the administration,
the hard times, and the bitter and determined opposition to General
Grant at this time, put an end temporarily to all third-term talk.

But during his absence, when he was making his tour of the world,
after he had retired from the Presidency, Senator Conkling, General
Logan, Don Cameron, and other leading politicians concluded that
they would nominate him to succeed Rutherford B. Hayes, who was
not a candidate.  After his return to the United States, they
secured his consent to use his name as a candidate for the nomination
in 1880; but after a bitter fight in the Chicago Convention they
failed, and General Garfield obtained the nomination.

Mr. Blaine, before the Convention met, was the leading candidate
against General Grant.  I had been a warm friend of Mr. Blaine's
in Congress; but as General Grant was a candidate from my own State,
and as I was at that time Governor of Illinois and a candidate for
renomination, I did not feel that I could take any part in the
contest between Grant and Blaine.

When the State Convention met to select a candidate to succeed me
as Governor, the contest between Grant and Blaine was very bitter.
Mr. Blaine and I had been very friendly in the House; indeed, I
was one of the few personal friends who brought him out as a
candidate for Speaker of the House.  From our past relations, he
felt perfectly free to write me, and about the time of the Convention,
I received a letter from him, in which he said, among other things,
"Why cannot you put yourself at the head of my forces, and lead
them?  If you are not careful you will fall between."

The tone of the letter annoyed me, and I did not answer it until
the contest was over, which resulted in my own nomination, and
until after the National Convention met, in which Blaine was
defeated.  I then wrote him a letter, informing him that I had been
nominated; but, of course, I did not refer to his defeat.

During the session of the convention in Springfield, about the time
it was to convene, General Logan came down from Chicago, proceeding
at once to my house.  He told me that he desired I should help him
to secure the delegation for General Grant.

I replied:  "General Logan, if you are my friend, and I suppose
you are, you will not ask me to take any part in this contest, as
I am a candidate for renomination myself."

He was a little huffy about it, and seemed to be disappointed that
I would not do as he asked.  And I may remark that this was
characteristic of Logan.  He went away considerably out of humor,
but saying nothing especially to the point.

A short time afterwards the Hon. Charles B. Farwell, who was later
an honored colleague of mine in the Senate, drove up to my house
and said:  "Cullom, I want you to help me carry this State for

"Charley," I replied, "you know very well that I am a candidate
for re-election; and you know very well, also, that if I were to
take a hand in this contest, I would probably be beaten."  He agreed
with me, and went away satisfied, assuring me that in his opinion
I was doing the right thing.

The contest in our State Convention between Blaine and Grant lasted
for at least three days, and resulted in the division of the
delegation to the National Convention, part for Grant and part for
Blaine.  I had quite a contest for the nomination, but was finally
named on the fourth ballot.  I had expected to be nominated on the
third ballot.  Farwell was about my office a good deal during the
convention.  When the third ballot was taken, and I had not been
nominated, I said:  "Farwell, there is something wrong upstairs;
I wish you would go up and straighten it out."

He went; but what he did, if anything, I do not know.  However, I
was nominated on the next ballot.

General Grant was nominated both the first and second times without
opposition.  He was first nominated in Chicago, with great enthusiasm.
The second time he was nominated in Philadelphia.  I was chairman
of the Illinois delegation at Philadelphia, and as such placed him
in nomination.

I believe I made about the shortest nominating speech for a Republican
candidate for President ever made in a National Republican Convention.
I said:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:  On behalf of the great Republican
party of Illinois, and that of the Union--in the name of liberty,
of loyalty, of justice, and of law--in the interest of economy, of
good government, of peace, and of the equal rights of all--remembering
with profound gratitude his glorious achievements in the field,
and his noble statesmanship as Chief Magistrate of this great Nation
--I nominate as President of the United States, for a second term,
Ulysses S. Grant."

There was a considerable contest over the platform, and as usual,
it was determined to adopt the platform before making the nominations
of President and Vice-President.  But the Convention became very
restless after the day of speechmaking; evening was approaching,
and the Committee on Platform being still out, it was determined
to make the nomination for President that day.  I mounted the
platform, and in the brief speech I have quoted, placed General
Grant in nomination.  I never saw such a fervid audience.  The
floors and galleries were crowded, and the people seemed wild with
enthusiasm for Grant.  As I uttered the word "Grant," at the
conclusion of my speech, and his picture was lowered from the
ceiling of the hall, the demonstration was indescribable.

While we were waiting for the Committee on Platform to report,
there were quite a number of speeches by favorite sons of the
different States, Senator Logan and Governor Oglesby, from Illinois,
being among them.

Senator Logan's speech is not very clear in my memory; but I do
remember very well the speech by Governor Oglesby.  He made a
wonderful impression.  I do not recall that I ever saw a man
electrify an audience as did Governor Oglesby on that occasion.
It was the first convention where there were colored men admitted
as delegates.  Some of the colored delegates occupied the main
floor.  Old Garret Smith, the great abolitionist, was in the gallery,
at the head of the New York delegation.  Oglesby took for his theme
first the colored man, represented there on the floor of that
convention, and then Garret Smith.  He set the crowd wild.  They
cheered him to the echo.  We adjourned for luncheon immediately
after he concluded his speech, and many of the delegates asked me
who that man was.  I was proud to be able to tell them that it was
Governor Oglesby of Illinois; and the remark was frequently made
that it was no wonder that Illinois gave sixty thousand Republican
majority with such a man as its Governor.

The platform was finally adopted, and Wilson of Massachusetts was
nominated for Vice-President, in place of Schulyer Colfax.  Colfax
was much mortified at his defeat, but it turned out for the best,
because Colfax became involved in the _Crédit Mobilier_ before the
campaign was over, and his name on the ticket would have injured
the chances for success.  Wilson, who was nominated to succeed
Colfax for Vice-President, was a very good man.  He was a Senator,
and it was said of him that he came from the shoemaker's bench to
the Senate of the United States.

General Grant got along very well during his first term as President.
He was wonderfully popular, and no one could have beaten him; but
during his second term, so many scandals came to light, and the
finances were in such bad shape, that generally his second term as
President cannot be said to have been a success.  One trouble with
him as President was that he placed too much implicit reliance on
those about him, and he never could be convinced that any friend
of his could do a wrong.  Some of his friends were clearly guilty
of the grossest kind of misconduct, and yet he would not be convinced
of it, and stuck to them until they nearly dragged him down into
disgrace with them.  He was not a politician.  Before entering the
White House he had had no previous experience in public office.
For a considerable time he attempted to act as Chief Executive with
the same arbitrary power that he used as commander of an army;
hence he was constantly getting into trouble with Senators and

I remember one little experience along this line which I had with
him.  It is an unwritten rule that Representatives in Congress, if
in harmony with the Administration, control the post-office
appointments in their respective districts.  On my recommendation
Isaac Keyes was appointed postmaster of my own city of Springfield.
Much to my astonishment and mortification, in a month, without any
warning, without any request for Keyes' resignation, General Grant
sent in the appointment of Elder Crane.  When I came to inquire
the cause, he said he had just happened to remember that he had
promised the office to Elder Crane, and he immediately sent in the
appointment without considering for a minute the position in which
he left Keyes and the embarrassment it would cause me.

Sometime afterward, as Colonel Bluford Wilson tells me, General
Grant asked Colonel Wilson, then Solicitor of the Treasury, who
would make a good Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  Colonel Wilson
replied that Cullom was just the man for the place, and General
Grant said at once, "I will appoint him."  When Colonel Wilson went
to the White House with the commission prepared for my appointment,
General Grant said:  "I have changed my mind about making that
appointment.  I offended Cullom in reference to the appointment of
a postmaster of his town; and if I should appoint him Commissioner
of Internal Revenue now, I know he would decline it, so I will not
appoint him."

And in this he was quite right.  I would have declined the office,
not because I was offended at him, but because I would not accept
that or any other appointive office.

Not being quite certain that my memory served me correctly in
reference to this incident, I took occasion to ask Colonel Bluford
Wilson, who had called on me at Washington, to give me the facts,
which he later did in a long letter that sets forth the facts
somewhat more elaborately than I have given them, but presenting
the incident in an identical light.

While I would not say that General Grant was a failure as President,
certain it is that he added nothing to his great fame as a soldier.
Indeed, in the opinion of very many people, who were his friends
and well-wishers, when he retired from the White House he had
detracted rather than added to his name.  It would probably have
been better if General Grant had been content with his military
success, and had entered neither politics nor business.

General Grant was one of the greatest soldiers of modern times;
indeed, if not of all time.  Standing as he does the peer of
Frederick, Napoleon, Wellington, the time will come when the very
fact that he was President of the United States will be forgotten,
while he will be remembered only as one of the world's great

The last time I saw the General was about a month before he died.
I was in New York, with the select Committee on Interstate Commerce,
and on Sunday morning we learned that General Grant, General Arthur,
and ex-President Hayes were all in town, and that Grant and Arthur
were ill.  We determined to call on each of them.

We first called on General Grant at his home, and found that his
son, General Frederick D. Grant, was with him.  To him we sent our
cards and asked to see his father.  He said he would ascertain,
and he came back directly and said that his father would be glad
to see us, but cautioned us not to permit him to talk too much, as
the trouble was in his throat.  We went in and took seats for a
moment.  He greeted us all very cordially, and seemed to be specially
interested in meeting Secretary Gorman.  He wanted to talk, and
did talk so rapidly and so incessantly that, fearing it was injuring
him, we arose from our seats and told him that we had called simply
to pay our respects, and expressed our gratification that he was
so well.

I can see him yet, as I saw him then.  He was sitting up, surrounded
by the manuscript of his memoirs.  He knew that his end was
approaching, and he talked about it quietly and unconcernedly; said
he was about through with his book, that if he could live a month
or two longer he could improve it, but did not seem to feel very
much concern whether he had any more time or not.  Mrs. Grant and
Nellie, and Mrs. Frederick D. Grant were in an adjoining room, with
the door open, and knowing them all very well, I went in to pay my
respects.  Mrs. Grant at once inquired about my daughters.  I told
her that one of them was married, and she expressed surprise.
General Grant, hearing us, came into the room and said, "Julia,
don't you remember that we received cards to the wedding?"  He
again began to talk, so I took my leave.

From there we called on General Arthur, and then on General Hayes.
Both passed away within a short time.

I returned to my home in Springfield, and in about a month the news
came that General Grant was dead.  On the day of his funeral in
New York, in cities of any importance in the country, services were
held.  Services were conducted in Springfield, on which occasion
I delivered the principal address.


General John A. Logan was a man much more capable of accomplishing
results than either General Palmer or General Oglesby.

I first met him when he was a member of the Legislature, in 1856.
He was a Democrat then, and a very active and aggressive one.  It
was in that year that we first elected a Republican Administration
in Illinois, the Republican party having been organized only two
years previously.  Bissell was elected Governor; Hatch, Secretary
of State; and Dubois, Auditor.

Governor Bissell was ill, having suffered a stroke of paralysis,
and it became necessary for the Legislature, after organizing, to
go to the Executive Mansion to witness the administration of the
oath of office to him.  After the Legislature reconvened in their
respective Houses, General Logan immediately obtained recognition
and made a bitter attack on Governor Bissell on the ground that
the latter had sworn to a falsehood, he having challenged, or been
challenged by Jefferson Davis to fight a duel.  The duel was never
actually fought; but Governor Bissell took the ground that whatever
did occur was outside the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois,
and he therefore could truthfully take the oath of office.  Logan
was then about as strong a Democrat as he afterwards was a Republican.
His attack on Bissell was resented by Republicans and under the
circumstances was regarded as cruel.  I became very much prejudiced
against him.

After this episode Logan was elected to Congress as a Democrat,
and was a follower of Douglas.  Douglas was true to the Union, and
after he made his famous speech before the Legislature at Springfield,
General Logan entered the war and finally became a Republican.

It was alleged that there was an understanding between Douglas and
the Democratic delegation in Congress from Illinois that they should
all act together in whatever course they pursued.  The delegation
from Illinois contained some very able men, among them being General
Logan.  Douglas came out for the Union without consulting his
colleagues in the delegation, and it was said that General Logan
and the other Democratic members of the delegation were quite angry.
However, they all followed Douglas and became loyal Union men.

Like Governor Oglesby, General Logan had a brief military service
in the Mexican War, and also like Governor Oglesby, and General
McClernand, he was among the first to raise a regiment for service
in the Civil War.  He resigned his seat in Congress in 1861, and
immediately went into active service.  Senator Douglas and General
Logan did much to save Southern Illinois to the Union, and that
portion of the State contributed its full quota to the Union Army.

To describe the part General Logan took in the Civil War, after he
raised the Thirty-first Illinois Regiment and took the field, would
be to recite the history of the war itself.  The records of his
bravery at Belmont; of his gallant charge at Fort Donelson, where,
as a Colonel, he was dangerously wounded; of his service as Major-
General commanding the Army of the Tennessee; of the memorable
siege of Vicksburg, when with the great leader of the Union armies
he stood knocking at the door of that invincible stronghold; of
his service with Sherman on his famous march to the sea, all are
written on the pages of history and lend undying lustre to the name
of Logan.

He was a natural soldier.  His shoulders were broad, his presence
was commanding; with his swarthy face and coal black hair, "and
eye like Mars, to threaten and command," he was every inch a warrior.
There is no question that General Logan was the greatest volunteer
officer of the Civil War.

After the war Logan returned to Illinois, intending to re-enter
the practice of the law; but he loved public life and politics,
was the idol of the people of his section of the State, and was
soon elected Congressman-at-large on the Republican ticket.  When
I entered the House in 1865, I found General Logan there, ranking
as one of the leaders of the more radical Republicans.  He was a
forceful speaker, and did his full share as one of the mangers on
the part of the House in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

He was devoted to General Grant and General Grant was very fond of
him.  General Grant, in talking of General Logan and Senator Morton
of Indiana, used to say that they were the two most persistent men
in the Senate in securing offices for their friends; but there was
this difference between them:  if Morton came to him and wanted
ten offices and he gave him one, he would go away feeling perfectly
satisfied, and make the impression on the people that he was running
the Administration; while if Logan came to the White House to secure
ten offices, and did not get more than nine of them, he would raise
a great row, and claim that he could not get anything out of the

But Logan stood strongly for General Grant, no only during his two
terms, where he had little or no opposition, but he was one of the
leaders in the unsuccessful attempt to nominate him for a third
term.  Logan, Conkling, Cameron and others failed, and I believe
that General Logan felt the failure more than even General Grant

General Logan was a tremendously industrious man.  He was always
doing favors for his people, and seemed to delight in being of
service to any one.  That was the difference between him and Governor
Oglesby.  Logan was always willing and anxious to do favors for
people, while Oglesby was not.

I remember an incident that illustrates this very well.  Jacob
Bunn, of Springfield, as honest a man as ever lived and a man of
high standing, was compelled to take a distillery in part payment
of a very large debt which was owing to him, and to make it of any
account he had to operate it until such a time as he could dispose
of it.  He had some explanation he desired to make to the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, and he came to Washington and asked Governor
Oglesby, who was then in the Senate, to introduce him to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  Oglesby knew Bunn very well,
and yet he cross-examined him at great length and detail.  Bunn
left Oglesby and next morning sought Logan, who at once agreed to
perform the favor, with the result that Mr. Bunn very readily
adjusted the matter with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Bunn afterwards said to me:  "I had a good deal more trouble
convincing Governor Oglesby that I was an honest man than I had
convincing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue."

I give this incident as illustrating the difference between the
characters of Oglesby and Logan.

The latter's honesty and integrity were never doubted.  I believe
he would not have hesitated for a moment to kill any one who would
have questioned his honesty.  He was a poor man, and when I came
to the Senate as his colleague we often sat together condoling with
each other on our poverty, and "abusing" the men in the Senate who
were wealthy.  This was one of the common bonds between us.  When
I became well acquainted with General Logan, I believed in him and
admired him as one of the ablest men of Illinois.  He was a man of
intense feeling, intense friendships, and I might also add that he
was a man of the most intense hatreds.

General Logan, while never doubting his friends, yet expected his
friends to swear devotion to him every time they saw him.  He was
"touchy" in this respect, and would not readily overlook any fancied
slights.  On one occasion, my old friend, the Hon. David T. Littler,
now deceased, of Springfield, Illinois, who was also a warm friend
of Logan, went to Washington, and neglected to call on Logan until
he had been there several days.  Logan knew that he was in town,
and when he finally did call, Logan abused him roundly for not
coming to see him the first thing.  It made Littler angry for the
time being, and he showed his resentment as only Littler could.
He made Logan apologize and agree never to find fault with him
again.  They were on good terms as long as they lived.

General Logan was my friend, and was always for me when I was
running for office.  It was sometimes tolerably hard to him to be
for me as against a soldier, because there was never a man who was
more thoroughly devoted to the soldiers.  As colleagues in the
Senate, we got along very agreeably and never had any cross-purposes
or differences of opinion.

The only time I remember of ever having any feeling at all was on
one occasion when Senator Logan, Senator Evarts, and Senator Teller
were strongly advocating the seating of Henry B. Payne, of Ohio,
as a matter of right and without investigation.  I was disposed to
vote for the taking of evidence and an investigation.  When the
discussion was going on, I stated to Logan that I felt like voting
in favor of the investigation.  He was very much out of humor about
it.  I consulted with some friends in the Senate as to what I ought
to do under the circumstances, and they advised me, in view of
General Logan's personal feeling on the subject--and he felt that
he was personally involved--that I ought to vote with him.

After the vote was announced, I went around to General Logan's
seat, and he expressed intense gratification that I had voted with
him, remarking that if I had been involved in a struggle as he was,
he would take the roof off the house before he would let me be
beaten; and I believe he would have gone to almost any extent.

I then said to him:  "General Logan, I want to assure you that
hereafter you must not feel concerned about my vote being the same
as yours.  In other words, when I want to vote one way and you want
to vote another, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and shall have no
feeling against you on account of it; I want you to feel the same
way when conditions are reversed."  He acquiesced in this proposal;
but we never afterwards had occasion to differ on any important
question before the Senate.

General Logan had an ambition to become President, and I believe
he would have realized his ambition had he lived.

I placed him in nomination for President at the National Convention
which met at Chicago in 1884.  In _The Washington National Tribune_
appears the following report:

"The next State that responded was Illinois, and as Senator Cullom
mounted the platform to present the name of General John A. Logan,
cheer after cheer followed him.  When he was at last allowed to
proceed, he began by referring to the nominations of Lincoln and
Grant, both from Illinois, and both nominated at Chicago:

'In 1880, the party, assembled again at Chicago, achieved success
by nominating Garfield; and now in 1884, in the same State, Illinois,
which has never wavered in its adherence to the Republican party,
presents, as the standard-bearer of that party, another son, one
whose name would be recognized from one end of the land to the
other as an able statesman, a brilliant soldier, and an honest man
--John A. Logan.'

"The announcement of General Logan's name was received with a wild
burst of applause, a great many persons rising to their feet, waving
their hats and handkerchiefs, and the thousands of people in the
gallery joining in the roars of applause.  The cheers were renewed
again and again.  The speaker resumed:

'A native of the State which he represents in the Council of the
Nation, reared among the youth of a section where every element of
manhood is early brought into play, he is eminently a man of the
people.  The safety, the permanency, and the prosperity of the
Nation depend upon the courage, the integrity, and the loyalty of
its citizens. . . . Like Douglas, he believed that in time of war
men must be either patriots or traitors, and he threw his mighty
influence on the side of the Union; and Illinois made a record
second to none in the history of States in the struggle to preserve
the Union. . . .

'During the long struggle of four years he commanded, under the
authority of the Government, first a regiment, then a brigade, then
a division, then an army corps, and finally an army.  He remained
in the service until the war closed, when at the head of his army,
with the scars of battle upon him, he marched into the capital of
the Nation, and with the brave men whom he had led on a hundred
hard-fought fields was mustered out of the service under the very
shadow of the Capitol building which he had left four years before
as a member of Congress to go and fight the battles of his country.

'When the war was over and peace victoriously restored, he was
again invited by his fellow-citizens to take his place in the
Councils of the Nation.  In a service of twenty years in both Houses
of Congress he has shown himself to be no less able and distinguished
as a citizen than he was renowned as a soldier.  Conservative in
the advocacy of measures involving the public welfare, ready and
eloquent in debate, fearless--yes, I repeat again, fearless--in
defence of the rights of the weak against the oppression of the
strong, he stands to-day closer to the great mass of the people of
this country than almost any other man now engaging public

At the conclusion of my speech there was a tremendous demonstration,
and General Prentiss seconded the nomination.  General Logan received
sixty-three and one-half votes on the first ballot, and sixty-one
votes on the second and third ballots.

Immediately after the third ballot, I received this telegram from
General Logan, who was in Washington:

  "Washington, D. C., _June 6, 1884_.

"To Senator Cullom, Convention Hall, Chicago, Ill.:"

"The Republicans of the States that must be relied upon to elect
the President having shown a preference for Mr. Blaine, I deem it
my duty not to stand in the way of the people's choice, and recommend
my friends to assist in his nomination.

  "John A. Logan."

When Illinois was called on the fourth ballot, I attempted to read
the telegram to the convention, but a point of order was raised by
Senator Burrows, which the Chair sustained.  It was thoroughly well
understood in the convention that I had such a telegram, and after
the chair sustained the point of order I made the following statement:
"The Illinois delegation withdraws the name of General John A.
Logan, and gives for Blaine thirty-four votes, for Logan seven,
and for Arthur three."

This announcement was punctuated with another deafening outburst,
and Blaine was nominated amidst great enthusiasm.  After I withdrew
General Logan's name and cast the vote for Blaine the result was
a foregone conclusion.

There was immediately a strong disposition to place Logan on the
ticket as our candidate for Vice-President.  There was considerable
doubt as to whether he would accept.  Finally he sent a telegram
in which he said:  "The Convention must do what they think best
under the circumstances."

He was then nominated for Vice-President without much opposition.

It was a superb ticket, and every one thought it would sweep the
country.  Blaine, in the opinion of many people, was the most
popular statesman since the days of Henry Clay; Logan, the greatest
volunteer officer of the Civil War.

I do not, however, believe that Blaine and Logan got along very
well together in the campaign.  In my opinion Logan felt that he
would have been a stronger candidate for the Presidency than Blaine,
as after events proved that he would.  Had Logan headed the ticket,
there would have been none of the scandal nor charges of corruption
that were made in the campaign with Blaine at the head.  There
would have been no "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," which in the
opinion of many people resulted in the defeat of Blaine and Logan.

Whatever the causes, the ticket was defeated; and then came Logan's
famous fight for re-election to the Senate, continuing three and
a half months, the Legislature being tied; but the fight ended by
a rather clever trick on the part of Dan Shepard and S. H. Jones
of Springfield, in electing by a "still hunt" a Republican in the
thirty-fourth District to succeed a Democrat who died during the
session, and finally on May 19, 1885, I received a telegram from
Logan while in New York saying, "I have been elected."

Three or four days before General Logan's death he and Mrs. Logan
were at my house to dinner, to meet some friends--General and Mrs.
Henderson and Senator Allison.  After dinner, we were in the smoking-
room.  General Logan was talking about the book he had recently
written, showing a conspiracy on the part of the South, entitled
"The Great Conspiracy."  He had sent each of us a copy of the book,
and he remarked that he ventured to say that neither of us had read
a word of it; the truth was that we had not, and we admitted it.

General and Mrs. Logan went home a little early, because he was
then suffering with rheumatism.  They invited Mrs. Cullom and me
to dinner the following Sunday evening.  General Logan had grown
worse, and he could not attend at the table, but rested on a couch
in an adjoining room.  He never recovered, and passed away some
two or three days afterward.  I was present at his death-bed.  The
last words he uttered were, "Cullom, I am terribly sick."

The death of no other General, with the possible exception of
General Grant, was so sorrowfully and universally mourned by the
volunteer soldiery of the Union as was the death of General Logan.


General Palmer had a long, varied, and honorable career, beginning
as an Anti-Nebraska Democrat in the State Senate of Illinois, in
1855, and ending as a Gold Democrat in the United States Senate in
1897, after being for a time a Republican.

I first met him as a member of the State Senate, in which service
he showed considerable ability.  His one leading characteristic,
I should say, was his independence, without any regard to what
party he might belong to or what the question might be.  He would
not yield his own convictions to his party.  If the party to which
he belonged differed from him on any question, he did not hesitate
to abandon it and join the opposition party; and this change he
did make several times during his public career.  He was one of
the four Anti-Nebraska Democrats in the Legislature of 1855, who
might be said to have defeated Lincoln for the Senate by supporting
Trumbull, until it became apparent that if Lincoln continued as a
candidate, Governor Matteson would be elected.  Lincoln sacrificed
himself to insure the election of Judge Trumbull, a Free-soiler.
The other Anti-Nebraska Democrats, who with General Palmer, elected
Trumbull, were Norman B. Judd, Burton C. Cook, G. T. Allen, and
Henry S. Baker, the last two from Madison County.

For some reason or other General Palmer resigned from the Senate.
He was one of the first to join the Republican party.  He was a
delegate to the first Republican State Convention of Illinois.  I
attended that convention, and recall that General Palmer made quite
an impression on the assemblage, in discussing some question with
General Turner, himself quite an able man, and then Speaker of the
House of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature.  Intellectually,
General Palmer was a superior man, but he lacked stability of
judgment.  You were never quite sure that you could depend on him,
or feel any certainty as to what course he would take on any

His qualifications as a lawyer were not exceptional, nevertheless
I would rather have had him as my attorney to try a bad case than
almost any lawyer I ever knew; his talent for manipulating a jury
nearly, if not quite, offset all his legal shortcomings.

General Palmer was well known as the friend of the colored people,
both individually and as a race.  His sympathy for them was so
thoroughly understood, that whenever a colored man had an important
case, or whenever there was a case involving the rights of the
colored people--such, for instance, as the school question of Alton
--General Palmer was appealed to, and he would take the case, no
matter how much trouble and how little remuneration there would be
in it for him.

He started out as a Democrat, but became a strong Republican, and
so continued for many years; but finally he became dissatisfied
with the Republican party and left it to support Tilden for President.
He continued a Democrat, being elected to the United State Senate
as such; but he left the regular organization of that party, and
became the head of the Gold Democracy, was its candidate for
President, and as such advised his friends to vote for McKinley.

He was the Republican Governor of Illinois during the great Chicago
fire.  He acted with the poorest kind of judgment in his controversy
with General Sheridan and the National Administration, for using
the Federal troops in Chicago to protect the lives and property of
the people of that stricken city.  He had visited Chicago, witnessed
the splendid work which the troops were doing, seemed to be satisfied,
returned to Springfield, and commenced a quarrel with General
Sheridan and President Grant over the right of the National
Administration to send troops into Chicago, and this quarrel finally
became so bitter that it was one of the reasons for his leaving
the Republican party.

General Palmer had a fairly good record as an officer during the
Civil War; but he did far better at the head of the Department of
Kentucky than he did as a fighting general.  He was a native
Kentuckian, understood the people, was a man of good nature and
considerable tact, and handled that trying situation very much to
the satisfaction of Mr. Lincoln.  He might have had a brilliant
record as a general had it not been for his unfortunate controversy
with General Sherman at the capture of Atlanta, which resulted in
his resigning his command as the head of the Fourteenth Army Corps,
and being granted leave to return to Illinois, there to await
further orders.  General Sherman says of this incident in his

"I placed the Fourteenth Corps (Palmer's) under General Schofield's
orders.  This corps numbered at the time 17,288 infantry and 826
artillery; but General Palmer claimed to rank General Schofield in
the date of commission as Major-General, and denied the latter's
right to exercise command over him.  General Palmer was a man of
ability, but was not enterprising.  His three divisions were compact
and strong, well commanded, admirable on the defensive but slow to
move or to act on the offensive.  His corps had sustained up to
the time fewer hard knocks than any other corps in the whole army,
and I was anxious to give it a chance.  I always expected to have
a desperate fight to get possession of the Macon Road, which was
then the vital objective of the campaign.  Its possession by us
would in my judgment result in the capture of Atlanta and give us
the fruits of victory. . . . On the fourth of August I ordered
General Schofield to make a bold attack on the railroad, anywhere
about East Point, and ordered General Palmer to report to him for
duty.  He at once denied General Schofield's right to command him;
but, after examining the dates of their respective commissions,
and hearing their arguments, I wrote to General Palmer:

'From the statements made by yourself and General Schofield to-day,
my decision is, that he ranks you as a Major-General, being of the
same date of present commission, by reason of his previous superior
rank as a brigadier-general.  The movements of to-morrow are so
important that the orders of the superior on that flank must be
regarded as military orders and not in the nature of co-operation.
I did hope that there would be no necessity for my making this
decision, but it is better for all parties interested that no
question of rank should occur in actual battle.  The Sandtown Road
and the railroad if possible must be gained to-morrow if it costs
half your command.  I regard the loss of time this afternoon as
equal to the loss of two thousand men.'

"I also communicated the substance of this to General Thomas, to
whose army Palmer's corps belonged, who replied on the fifth:

'I regret to hear that Palmer has taken the course he has, and I
know that he intends to offer his resignation as soon as he can
properly do so.  I recommend that his application be granted.'

"On the fifth I again wrote to General Palmer, arguing the point
with him, as a friend, not to resign at that crisis lest his motives
might be misconstrued and because it might damage his future career
in civil life; but at the same time I felt it my duty to say to
him that the operations on that flank during the fourth and fifth
had not been satisfactory, not imputing to him any want of energy
or skill, but insisting that the events did not keep pace with my
desires. . . .

"I sanctioned the movement and ordered two of Palmer's divisions
to follow in support of Schofield, and summoned General Palmer to
meet me in person.  He came on the sixth to my headquarters and
insisted on his resignation being accepted, for which formal act
I referred him to General Thomas.  He then rode to General Thomas's
camp, where he made a written resignation of his office as commander
of the Fourteenth Corps and was granted the usual leave of absence
to go to his home in Illinois, there to await further orders."

I quote freely from General Sherman on this incident, as I do not
want to do General Palmer an injustice.  No one for a moment doubted
General Palmer's bravery, and I must say that it took a brave man,
and I might add an extraordinarily stubborn man, to resign a
magnificent command just before one of the great movements of the
war on a mere question of some other general's outranking him.

I happened to be on the same ferry-boat crossing from St. Louis
with General Palmer when he was taken home ill.  He had brought a
colored servant with him, who accompanied him to his home in
Carlinville.  It created considerable excitement, and General Palmer
was indicted for bringing the colored man into the State.  There
was not much disposition to try him, but he insisted on being placed
on trial, conducted his own defence, and was acquitted.

He made an honest, conscientious Governor, but did not work in
harmony with the Legislature.  He vetoed more bills than any Governor
before or since.  His vetoes became too common to bear any influence,
and a great many of the bills were passed over his veto.

I was very much opposed to his renomination.  I supported Governor
Oglesby, and I prepared a letter, to be signed by members of the
Legislature, asking Governor Oglesby to be a candidate.  Furthermore,
an agent was employed to go to Decatur to remain there until the
obtained a favorable reply from Oglesby, and then go to Chicago
and have the letter and reply published in the Chicago papers.

The scheme worked successfully.  Governor Oglesby was nominated
and elected.

Oglesby, Palmer, Logan, and Yates were all ambitious to go to the
Senate, and were rivals for the place at one time or another, and
they all succeeded in their ambition, Palmer being the last.  When
Governor Yates was a candidate, in 1865, Senator Palmer thought
that he should have been elected.  I liked Governor Yates and
believed that his record as Governor entitled him to a seat in the
Senate.  Governor Palmer complained of me for taking any active
part in the contest, and thought that as I was a member of Congress
I should remain neutral.  In those days Governor Palmer and I were
not on very friendly terms, although after he came to the Senate
we became quite intimate.  He had a struggle in securing his election
as Senator.  It was a long contest, but he was finally successful.

General Palmer was very popular with his colleagues in the Senate.
He was one of the best _raconteurs_ in the Senate, and he delighted
to sit in the smoking-room, or in his committee room, entertaining
those about him with droll stories.  During his term he made some
very able speeches, and was always sound on the money question.
He was consistently in harmony with President Cleveland, and
consequently he controlled the patronage in the State.  He was a
man of great good heart, full of generosity and good humor; and
altogether it would have been impossible to have a more agreeable

We had been neighbors in Springfield, and when General Palmer was
elected to the Senate, he felt quite free to write to me.  I retain
the letter and quote it here:

  "Springfield, _March 14, 1891_.

"Hon. S. M. Cullom,
  "Washington, D. C.

"My dear Sir:--

"I am just in receipt of your kind favor of the eleventh inst.,
and thank you for its friendly and neighborly expressions.  More
than once since my election, Mrs. Palmer has expressed the hope
that when she meets Mrs. Cullom at Washington, or here, they may
continue to enjoy the friendly relations that have so long existed
between them, to which I add the expression of my own wish that in
the future, as in the past, we may be to each other good neighbors
and good friends.

"I do not know what the usage is in such cases, but I suppose I
might forward my credentials at an early date to the Secretary of
the Senate, who is, I believe, my old army friend, Gen. Anson G.
McCook.  If such is the proper course I would be glad to do so
through you, if agreeable to you.  I will depend upon you also for
such information as your experience will enable you to furnish me.
I will be glad to know about what time you will probably leave

  "I am, very respectfully,
  "John M. Palmer."

While General Sherman and General Palmer were not particularly
friendly, General Palmer was always ready to forgive and forget
and do the agreeable thing.

On the occasion of a celebration in Springfield, where there was
a very large crowd, General Sherman was present, and, with General
Oglesby and General Palmer, occupied a seat on the platform.
Looking over the crowd, General Palmer recognized General McClernand
in the audience.  McClernand and Sherman were not friends, McClernand
being bitterly inimical to Sherman.  General Palmer, thinking only
of doing an agreeable act, at one pushed his way through the crowd
to where General McClernand was seated and invited him to come onto
the platform.  It was only after a great deal of urging that he
consented to go, but he finally said, "I will go, _pro forma_."
He did go "_pro forma,_" and paid his respects to General Sherman,
but remained only a short time.

General Palmer retired from the Senate at the end of his term, the
Legislature of Illinois being Republican.

I recollect that I went home from Washington to Springfield, and
on arriving there was informed that General Palmer had just died.
I immediately called at the house.  He had only just passed away,
and was still lying on his death-bed.  I attended the funeral at
his old home in Carlinville, and I do not know that I was ever more
impressed by such a ceremony.  He was buried with all the pomp
attending a military funeral.


I knew the late Governor Oglesby intimately for very many years.
As a young man, he served as a lieutenant in the gallant Colonel
E. D. Baker's regiment in the Mexican War, was at the battle of
Cerro Gordo, and fought the way thence to the City of Mexico.  He
remained with the army until he saw the Stars and Stripes waving
over the hall of the Montezumas.  Returning to Illinois, he took
up again the practice of law; but with the gold fever of 1849 he
took the pioneers' trail to California, where, in a short time, he
was financially successful, then returned home, and later went on
an extended tour through the Holy Land, where he remained nearly
two years.

On his return home, in 1860, he was elected to the State Senate.
I recall the night the returns came in.  He had a fisticuff encounter
with "Cerro Gordo" Williams, in which he came out victorious, having
knocked Williams into the gutter.  By many of the onlookers this
was regarded as the first fight of the Rebellion.

With his military experience in the Mexican War, it was only natural
that he should be one of the first to enlist for service in the
Civil War.  He resigned from the Senate, raised a regiment, was
appointed its Colonel, and participated in a number of important
engagements under General Grant, acquitting himself with great
honor at Donelson, and was subsequently appointed a Brigadier-
General.  He was severely wounded at Corinth, and his active service
in the Civil War was over.  Although he was elevated to the rank
of Major-General, he was assigned to duty at Washington, where he
remained until 1864, and saw no more service on the field of battle.

He enjoyed the distinction of being elected Governor of Illinois
three times, first in 1864, again in 1872, resigning the following
year, after having been elected to the United States Senate; and
after he had served one term in the Senate and retired to private
life, he was again elected Governor of Illinois in 1884.

Governor Oglesby was a remarkable man in many respects.  Judged by
the standards of Lincoln and Grant, he was not a great man.  In
some respects he was a man of far more than ordinary ability.  He
was a wonderfully eloquent speaker, and I have heard him on occasion
move audiences to a greater extent than almost any orator, aside
from the late Robert G. Ingersoll.

I have already referred, in these reminiscences, to the speech he
delivered at the Philadelphia Convention of 1872.  He produced a
greater impression on that assemblage than any orator who spoke.
On rare occasions he would utter some of the most beautiful
sentiments.  For instance, his speech on "Corn" at Chicago was a
masterpiece in its way.  But generally speaking, with all his
eloquence, he seldom delivered a speech that would read well in
print; hence it was that his speeches were hardly ever reported.
His earnestness, his appearance, his gestures, his personality,
all carried the audience with him, as much as, if not more, than
the actual words he used, and hence it was that when a speech
appeared in print, one was very apt to be disappointed.

His record in the Civil War was honorable, but not exceptional.
He was not the dashing, brilliant soldier that General Logan was,
and I may remark here in passing that after the war was over there
was considerable jealousy between General Logan and General Oglesby.
They were rivals in politics.  On one occasion both Governor Oglesby
and General Logan made each a splendid address, and each was cheered
to the echo by the audience, but Governor Oglesby sat silent and
glowering when the audience applauded General Logan, and General
Logan occupied the same attitude when the audience cheered Governor
Oglesby.  I was present, and was glad to cheer them both.

Under the administration of General Oglesby, as Governor, the
affairs of the State were administered in an honest, businesslike
manner.  There was no scandal or thought of scandal, so far as the
Executive was concerned, during all the years that he was Governor,
although there was considerable corruption in one or two of the
Legislatures, and some very bad measures were passed over his veto.

Having been a Major-General in the Civil War, and considering his
excellent record as Governor, his popularity, his eloquence, it
seemed certain that Governor Oglesby would take his place as one
of the foremost United States Senators, when he entered the Senate
in 1873; but strange to say, his service in that body added nothing
to the reputation he had made as a soldier and as Governor of
Illinois; indeed, I am not sure but that it detracted from rather
than added to his reputation.  Perhaps too much was expected of
him.  The environment did not suit him.  His style of oratory was
neither appreciated nor appropriate to a calm, deliberative body
such as the United States Senate.  He did not have the faculty of
disposing of business.  As Chairman of the Committee on Pensions,
he was so conscientious that he wanted to examine every little
detail of the hundreds of cases before his committee, and would
not trust even the routine to his subordinates.  The result was
the business of the committee was far behind, much to the
dissatisfaction of Senators.

I do not believe that Governor Oglesby ever did feel at home in
the Senate; but nevertheless he was much chagrined at his defeat,
and retired reluctantly.

But he was soon again elected Governor of Illinois, a place that
suited him much better than the Senate of the United States.

His honesty, his patriotism, his earnest eloquence, the uniqueness
of his character, made him beloved by the people of his State; and
wherever he went, to the day of his death, Uncle Dick Oglesby, as
he was called, was enthusiastically and affectionately received.

He was a true Republican from the very beginning of the party,
although toward the end of his life I do not believe that he was
quite satisfied with the expansion policy of the party.

The last campaign in which he took an active part was that of 1896.
Owing to his advanced years and failing health, and perhaps being
somewhat dissatisfied with our candidate for Governor, it took
considerable urging to induce him to enter that campaign actively;
but when it was arranged that all the living ex-Governors of Illinois
--Oglesby, Beveridge, Fifer, Hamilton, and myself--should tour the
State on a special train, he consented to join, and christened the
expedition "The Flying Squadron."  He did his full part in speaking,
and seemed to enjoy keenly the enthusiasm with which he was everywhere
received.  He was particularly bitter in his denunciation of Mr.
Bryan--even to the extent of using profanity (to which he was much
addicted), greatly to the delight of the thousands of people whom
he addressed.

Governor Oglesby was one of the most delightfully entertaining
conversationalists whom one would wish to meet.  He will go down
in the history of Illinois, as one of the most popular men among
the people of our State.

Late in life Governor Oglesby took up a church affiliation.  It
always seemed strange to me, in his later life, that a man of his
undoubted bravery should have such a perfect horror of death, which
was an obsession with him.  To his intimate friends he constantly
talked of it.  It was not the physical pain of dying; with a man
of his pronounced religious convictions it could not have been the
uncertainty of the hereafter.  What was the basis of the fear I
cannot imagine--but certain it is, I do not remember ever knowing
a man who seemed to have such a fear of death.

At an advanced age, he passed away peacefully and painlessly at
his beautiful home at Elkhart, Illinois, mourned by the people of
the whole State, whom he had served so long and faithfully and well.

1883 to 1911

After I was re-elected Governor of Illinois, in 1880, my friends
in the State urged me to become a candidate for the United States
Senate to succeed the late Hon. David Davis, whose term expired
March 3, 1883.  I finally consented.  There were several candidates
against me, Governor Richard Oglesby and General Thomas J. Henderson
being the two most prominent.  It was not much of a contest, and
I had no serious struggle to secure the caucus nomination.  The
objection was then raised in the Legislature itself that I was not
eligible under the Constitution of our State for election to the
United States Senate while I was serving as Governor of Illinois.
The point looked somewhat serious to me, and I consulted with my
friend, the Hon. Wm. J. Calhoun, then a member of the Legislature,
later Minister to China, for whose ability I had the most profound
respect.  I asked him to give attention to the subject and, if he
agreed with me that I was eligible, to make the fight on the floor
of the House.  He looked into it and came to the conclusion there
was no doubt as to my eligibility.  He made a speech in the
Legislature, which was regarded then as one of the ablest efforts
ever delivered on the floor of the House, and he carried the
Legislature with him.  When the time came, I received the vote of
every Republican member of both Houses, excepting one, the Hon.
Geo. E. Adams.  He was thoroughly conscientious in voting against
me, and did so from no ulterior motive, as he honestly believed
that I was not eligible.  We became very good friends afterwards,
and I never harbored any ill feeling against him on account of that

I appreciated the high distinction conferred upon me by the people
of the State, through the Legislature, in electing me to the United
States Senate, but I confess that I felt considerable regret on
leaving the Governorship, as during my six years I had enjoyed the
work and had endeavored to the best of my ability to give to the
people of my State a businesslike administration.

I retired from the office of Governor on February 5, 1883, and
remained in Springfield until sworn in as a member of the Senate,
December 4, 1883.  General Arthur was President at that time, having
succeeded to the office after the assassination of General Garfield.

I liked General Arthur very much.  I had met him once or twice
before.  I went with my staff to attend the Yorktown celebration,
and I may remark here that it was the first and only time during
my service of six years as Governor on which my whole military
staff accompanied me.  We stopped in Washington to pay our respects
to the President.  It was soon after the assassination of General
Garfield, and Arthur had not yet moved into the White House.  He
was living in the old Butler place just south of the Capitol, and
I called on him there and presented the members of my staff to him.
The President was exceedingly polite, as he always was, and was
quite interested, having been a staff officer himself, by appointment
of Governor Morgan of New York.  We were all very much impressed
with the dignity of the occasion and the kindly attention the
President showed us.

General Arthur had taken considerable interest in New York politics
and belonged to the Conkling faction.  He came into the office of
President under the most trying circumstances.  The party was almost
torn asunder by factional troubles in New York and elsewhere.
Blaine, the bitter enemy of Conkling, had been made the Secretary
of State; Garfield had made some appointments very obnoxious to
Conkling--among them the Collector of the Port of New York--and,
generally, conditions were very unsatisfactory.  Arthur entered
the office bent on restoring harmonious conditions in the party,
as far as he could.  He did not allow himself to be controlled by
any faction, but seemed animated by one desire, and that was to
give a good administration and unite the party.

He was a man of great sense of propriety and dignity, believing
more thoroughly in the observance of the etiquette which should
surround a President than any other occupant of the White House
whom I have known.  He was very popular with those who came into
contact with him, and especially was he popular with the members
of the House and Senate.  I have always thought that he should have
been accorded the honor of a nomination for President in 1884; as
a matter of fact most of the Republican Senators agreed with me,
and many of us went to the National Convention at Chicago, determined
to nominate him; but we soon found there was no chance, and that
the nomination would go to Blaine.

President Arthur was very kind to me in the way of patronage.  He
not only recognized my endorsement for Federal offices in my State,
but gave me a number of appointments outside.  One of the first of
these was the appointment of Judge Zane as Territorial Judge of
Utah.  President Arthur showed his confidence in me by appointing
Judge Zane, without any endorsement, excepting a statement of his
qualifications, written by me on a scrap of paper in the Executive
Office.  The Senate Committee on the Judiciary called on the
President for the endorsements of Judge Zane, and Senator Edmunds
was quite disgusted when the President could send him only this
little slip of paper written by me, which was all the President
had when he made the appointment.  Senator Edmunds hesitated to
recommend his confirmation.  There was no question about Judge
Zane's qualifications.  He had been a circuit judge in our State
for many years.  I saw Senator Teller, whom I knew, and who knew
something of Judge Zane, and asked him to help us, as he could do,
being then Secretary of the Interior.  On one occasion I spoke to
Teller about Judge Zane, and purposely spoke so loud that Senator
Edmunds could hear me.  I said, among other things, there had not
been a man nominated for Territorial Judge in the country who was
better qualified for the position.  Judge Zane's nomination was
soon reported from the committee and confirmed.  He made a great
record on the Bench and did much to break up the practice of
polygamy.  He is still living, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah.

I entered the Senate at a very uninteresting period in our history.
The excitement and bitterness caused by the Civil War and Reconstruction
had subsided.  It was what I would term a period of industrial
development, and there were no great measures before Congress.
The men who then composed the membership of the Senate were honest
and patriotic, trying to do their duty as best they could, but
there was no great commanding figure.  The days of Webster, Clay,
and Calhoun had passed; the great men of the Civil War period were
gone.  Stevens, Sumner, Chase of the Reconstruction era, had all
passed away.

Among the leaders at the beginning of the Forty-eighth Congress
were Senators Aldrich and Anthony, of Rhode Island; Edmunds and
Morrill, of Vermont; Sherman and Pendleton, of Ohio; Sewell, of
New Jersey; Don Cameron, of Pennsylvania; Platt and Hawley, of
Connecticut; Harrison, of Indiana; Dawes and Hoar, of Massachusetts;
Allison, of Iowa; Ingalls, of Kansas; Hale and Frye, of Maine;
Sawyer, of Wisconsin; Van Wyck and Manderson, of Nebraska; all on
the Republican side.  There were a number of quite prominent
Democrats--Bayard, of Delaware; Voorhees, of Indiana; Morgan, of
Alabama; Ransom and Vance, of North Carolina; Butler and Hampton,
of South Carolina; Beck, of Kentucky; Lamar and George, of Mississippi;
and Cockrell and Vest, of Missouri.

The Senate was controlled by the Republicans, there being forty
Republican and thirty-six Democratic Senators; and Senator George
F. Edmunds, of Vermont, was chosen President _pro tempore_.  In
the House the Democrats had the majority, and John G. Carlisle was
chosen Speaker.

Senator Edmunds is still living, and he has been for many years
regarded as one of the foremost lawyers of the American bar.  I
know that in the Senate when I entered it, he was ranked as its
leading lawyer.  He was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and, with Senator Thurman, of Ohio, dominated that
committee.  I became very intimately acquainted with him.  He was
dignified in his conversation and deportment, and I never knew him
to say a vicious thing in debate.

I believe I had considerable influence with Senator Edmunds.  He
always seemed to have a prejudice against appropriations for the
Rock Island (Illinois) Arsenal.  He had never visited Rock Island,
but he seemed to think that the money spent there was more or less
wasted, and he was disposed to oppose appropriations for its
maintenance.  One day we were considering an appropriation bill
carrying several items in favor of Rock Island, and I anticipated
Senator Edmunds' objections.  Sitting beside him, I asked him not
to oppose these items.  I told him that I did not think he was
doing right by such a course.  He asked me where they were in the
bill and I showed them to him without saying a word.  Just before
we reached them I observed him rising from his seat and leaving
the chamber.  He remained away until the items were passed, then
he returned, and the subject was never mentioned between us

Senator Edmunds resigned before his last term expired.  There were
two reasons for his resignation, the principal one being the illness
of his only daughter; but in addition, he had come to feel that
the Senate was becoming less and less desirable each year, and
began to lose interest in it.  He did not like the rough-and-tumble
methods of debate of a number of Western Senators who were coming
to take a more prominent place in the Senate.  On one occasion
Senator Plumb, of Kansas, attacked Senator Edmunds most violently,
and without any particular reason.

During his service in the Senate, Senator Edmunds seemed to be
frequently arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United
States.  His ability as a lawyer made him in constant demand in
important litigation before that court.  Personally, I do not
approve of Senators of the United States engaging in the active
practice of the law or any other business, but his practice before
the Supreme Court did not cause him to neglect his Senatorial

Justice Miller, one of the ablest members of the court, was talking
with me one day about Senator Edmunds, and he asked me why I did
not come into the Supreme Court to practise, remarking that Edmunds
was there a good deal.  I replied that I did not know enough law,
to begin with; and in addition it did not seem to me proper for a
Senator of the United States to engage in that kind of business.
Justice Miller replied that Senators did do so, and that there
seemed to be no complaint about it, and he urged me to come along,
saying that he would take care of me.  But needless for me to say,
I never appeared in any case before the Supreme Court of the United
States during my service as Senator.

Senator Edmunds' colleague, Justin S. Morrill, was one of the most
lovable characters I ever met.  I served with him in the House.
Later he was a very prominent member of the Senate, when I entered
it, and was Chairman of the Committee on Finance.  He was a
wonderfully capable man in legislation.  He had extraordinary power
in originating measures and carrying them through.  He was not a
lawyer, but was a man of exceptional common sense.  His judgment
was good on any proposition.  I do not believe he had an enemy in
the Senate.  Every one felt kindly toward him, and for this reason
it was very easy for him to secure the passage of any bill he was
interested in.

While Senator Morrill was chairman of the Committee on Finance,
owing to his advanced age and the feeble condition of his health
the real burden of the committee for years before his death fell
on Nelson W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island.  He was prominent as far
back as the Forty-eighth Congress, and was a dominant unit even
then.  His recent retirement is newspaper history and need not be
aired here.

Senator Aldrich has had a potent influence in framing all tariff
and financial legislation almost from the time he entered the
Senate.  Personally, I have great admiration for him and for his
great ability and capacity to frame legislation, and it is a matter
of sincere regret with me that he has determined to retire to
private life.  His absence is seriously felt, especially in the
Finance Committee.

The Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio, was one of the most valuable
statesmen of his day and one of the ablest men.  He was exceedingly
industrious, and well posted on all financial questions.  Toward
the close of his Senatorial term, he failed rapidly, but he was
just as clear on any financial question as he was at any time in
his career.  He was Secretary of the Treasury when in his prime,
and I believe his record in the office stands second only to
Hamilton's.  He was of the Hamilton school of financiers, and his
judgment was always reliable and trustworthy.  He was a very serious
man and could never see through a joke.  He was one of the very
best men in Ohio, and would have made a splendid President.  For
years he was quite ambitious to be President, and the business
interests of the country seemed to be for him.  His name was before
the National Convention of the Republican party many times, but
circumstances always intervened to prevent his nomination when it
was almost within his grasp.

I have always thought that one reason was that his own State had
so many ambitious men in it who sought the honor themselves, that
they were never sincerely in good faith for Sherman.  At least
twice he went to National Conventions, apparently with his own
State behind him, but he was unfortunate in the selection of his
managers, and, really, when the time came to support him they seemed
only too ready to sacrifice him in their own interests.

I have always regretted that he closed his career by accepting the
office of Secretary of State under President McKinley.  It was
unfortunate for him that it was at a most trying and difficult time
that he entered that department.  The Spanish-American War was
coming on, and there was necessity for exercising the most careful
and skillful diplomacy.  Senator Sherman's training and experience
lay along other lines.  He was not in any sense a diplomat, and
his age unfitted him for the place.  He retired from office very
soon, and shortly thereafter passed away.  His brief service as
Secretary of State will be forgotten, and he will be remembered as
the great Secretary of the Treasury, and one of the most celebrated
of Ohio Senators.

Senator George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, was quite prominent at
the beginning of the Forty-eighth Congress.  He was jealous of New
England's interests, and was always prejudiced in its favor, and
in favor of New England men and men with New England ancestry, or
affiliations.  He opposed the Interstate Commerce Act because he
thought it would injuriously affect his locality, although he knew
very well it would be of inestimable benefit to the country as a
whole.  Senator Hoar was a scholarly man.  Indeed, I would say he
was the most cultivated man in the Senate.  He was highly educated,
had travelled extensively, was a student all his life, and in debate
was very fond of Latin or Greek quotations, and especially so when
he wanted to make a point perfectly clear to the Senate.  He opposed
imperialism and the acquisition of foreign territory.  He opposed
the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain.  When the
Philippine question was up in the Senate, I made a speech in which
I compared Senator Hoar with his colleague, Senator Lodge, said
that Senator Lodge had no such fear as did Senator Hoar on account
of the acquirement of non-contiguous territory, and made the remark
that Senator Hoar was far behind the times.  He was not present
when I made the speech, but afterwards read it in the _Record_.
He came down to my seat greatly out of humor one day and stated
that if three-fourths of the people of his State were not in harmony
with his position he would resign.

He was one of the most kindly of men, but during this period he
was so deadly in earnest in opposition to the so-called imperialism
that he became very ill-natured with his Republican colleagues who
differed from him.  I do not know but the passing of time has
demonstrated that Senator Hoar was right in his opposition to
acquirement of the Philippines; but at the time it seemed that the
burden was thrust upon us and we could not shirk it.

Senator Hoar was disposed to be against the recognition of the
Republic of Panama, and it has been intimated that he was of the
opinion that the Roosevelt Administration had something to do with
the bloodless revolution that resulted in the uniting with the
United States of that part of Colombia which now forms the Canal

President Roosevelt entertained a very high regard for Senator
Hoar, and he wanted to disabuse his mind of that impression.  He
asked him to call at his office one morning.  I was waiting to see
the President and when he came in he told me that he had an engagement
with Senator Hoar, and asked me if I would wait until he had seen
the Senator first.  I promptly answered that he should see the
Senator first at any rate, as he was an older man than I, and was
older in the service.  Senator Hoar and the President entered the
room together.  Just as they went in, the President turned to me.
"You might as well come in at the same time," said he.  I accompanied
them.  And this is what took place:

The President wanted the Senator to read a message which he had
already prepared, in reference to Colombia's action in rejecting
the treaty and the canal in general; which message showed very
clearly that the President had never contemplated the secession of
Panama, and was considering different methods in order to obtain
the right of way across the Isthmus from Colombia, fully expecting
to deal only with the Colombian Government on the subject.  The
President was sitting on the table, first at one side of Senator
Hoar, and then on the other, talking in his usual vigorous fashion,
trying to get the Senator's attention to the message.  Senator Hoar
seemed adverse to reading it, but finally sat down, and without
seeming to pay any particular attention to what he was perusing,
he remained for a minute or two, then arose and said:  "I hope I
may never live to see the day when the interests of my country are
placed above its honor."  He at once retired from the room without
uttering another word, proceeding to the Capitol.

Later in the morning he came to me with a typewritten paper containing
the conversation between the President and himself, and asked me
to certify to its correctness.  I took the paper and read it over,
and as it seemed to be correct, as I remembered the conversation,
I wrote my name on the bottom of it.  I have never seen or heard
of the paper since.

Senator Hoar was very much interested in changing the date of the
inauguration of the President of the United States.  March, in
Washington, is one of the very worst months of the year, and it
frequently happens that the weather is so cold and stormy as to
make any demonstration almost impossible.  Inaugurations have cost
the lives of very many men.  I was looking into the subject myself,
and I took occasion to write Senator Hoar a letter, asking his
views.  He replied to me very courteously and promptly.  I was so
pleased with the letter that I retained it, and give it here.

  "Worcester, Mass., _August 26, 1901_.

"My dear Senator:--

"I do not think the proposed change of time of inauguration can be
made without change in the Constitution.  I prepared an article
for so changing the Constitution.  It has passed the Senate twice
certainly, and I think three times.  It was reported once or twice
from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and once from the
Committee on the Judiciary.  It received general favor in the
Senate, and as I now remember there was no vote against it at any
time.  The only serious question was whether the four years should
terminate on a certain Wednesday in April or should terminate as
now on a fixed day of the month.  The former is liable to the
objection that one Presidential term should be in some cases slightly
longer than another.  The other is liable to the objection that if
the thirtieth of April were Sunday or Saturday or Monday, nearly
all persons from a distance who come to the inauguration would have
to be away from home over Sunday.

"The matter would, I think, have passed the House, if it could have
been reached for action.  But it had the earnest opposition of
Speaker Reed.  It was, as you know, very hard to get him to approve
anything that was a change.

"I have prepared an amendment to be introduced at the beginning of
the next section, and have got some very carefully prepared tables
from the Coast Survey, to show the exact length of an administration
under the different plans.  The advantage of the change seems to
me very clear indeed.  In the first place, you prolong the second
session of Congress until the last of April; you add six or seven
weeks, which are very much needed, to that session.  And you can
further increase that session a little by special statute, which
should have Congress meet immediately after the November election,
a little earlier than now.  In that case, you can probably without
disadvantage shorten the first session of Congress so as to get
away by the middle of May or the first of June and get rid of the
very disagreeable Washington heat.

"I wish you would throw your great influence, so much increased by
the renewed expression of the confidence of your State, against
what seems to me the most dangerous single proposition now pending
before the people, a plan to elect Senators of the United States
by popular vote.

  "I am, with high regard, faithfully yours,
  "Geo. F. Hoar.

"Hon. S. M. Cullom,
  "Chicago, Ills."

Senator Dawes, of Massachusetts, Senator Hoar's colleague, was not
the cultivated man that Senator Hoar was, and neither would I say
he was a man of strong and independent character.  He was very
popular in the Senate, probably far more popular with Senators than
his colleague, and it was much easier for him to pass bills in
which he was interested.  He was influential as a legislator and
a man of great probity of character.

For some reason or other--why, I never knew--he was one of the very
few Eastern Senators of my time who gave special attention to Indian
affairs.  He was chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs for
years, and was the acknowledged authority on that subject in the
Senate.  When he retired he was placed at the head of the so-called
Dawes Commission, having in charge the interests of the tribes of
Indians in Oklahoma and the Indian territory.  He was an honest
man, and having inherited no fortune, he consequently retired from
the Senate a poor man.  The appointment was very agreeable to him
on that account, but it was given to him more especially because
he knew more about Indian matters than any other man.

As I have been writing these recollections of the men with whom I
have been associated in public life for the last half-century, I
have had occasion to mention a number of times, Senator Orville H.
Platt, of Connecticut, who was two years older than I, and who took
his seat in the Senate in 1879, serving there until his death in

We became very friendly almost immediately after I entered the
Senate.  One bond of friendship between us from the beginning was,
we each had a senior colleague a celebrated General of Civil War
fame--Hawley, of Connecticut and Logan, of Illinois.  Senator Platt
and I necessarily were compelled to take what might be termed a
back seat, our colleagues being almost always in the lime-light.
As a member of the select committee on Interstate Commerce, Senator
Platt rendered much valuable assistance in the investigation and
in the passage of the Act of 1887, although he was almost induced
finally to oppose it on account of the anti-pooling and the long-
and-short-haul sections.

He was a modest man, and it was some years before Senators that
were not intimate with him really appreciated his worth.  Had he
not yielded to the late Senator Hoar, he would have been made
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary instead of Senator Hoar,
a position for which there was no Senator more thoroughly qualified
than Senator Platt.  It seems strange that he never did succeed to
an important chairmanship until he was made chairman of the Committee
on Cuban Relations during the war with Spain, and he really made
that an important committee.  Not only in name but in fact was he
the author of those very wise pieces of legislation known as the
Platt Amendments.  I was a member of the Committee on Cuban Relations,
and know whereof I speak in saying that it was Senator Platt who
drafted these so-called amendments and secured their passage in
the Senate.  They were finally embodied in the Cuban Constitution,
and also in the treaty between Cuba and the United States.

After the late Senator Dawes retired, Senator Platt was an authority
on all matters pertaining to Indian affairs.

As the years passed by he became more and more influential in the
Senate.  Every Senator on both sides of the chamber had confidence
in him and in his judgment.  As an orator he was not to be compared
with Senator Spooner, but he did deliver some very able speeches,
especially during the debates preceding the Spanish-American War.

I have often said that Senator Platt was capable in more ways than
any other man in the Senate of doing what the exigencies of the
day from time to time put upon him.  He was always at his post of
duty, always watchful in caring for the interests of the country,
always just and fair to all alike, and ever careful and conservative
in determining what his duty should be in the disposition of any
public question; and I regarded his judgment as a little more
exactly right than that of any other Senator.

General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, was quite a figure in
the Senate when I entered it, and was regarded as one of the leaders,
especially on military matters.  He was a man of fine ability and
address, brave as a lion and enjoyed an enviable Civil War record.
He was president of the Centennial at Philadelphia and permanent
President of the Republican Convention of 1868, which nominated
General Grant.  He was a very ambitious man, and wanted to be
President; several times the delegation from his State presented
his name to national conventions.  He had no mean idea of his own
merits; and his colleague, Senator Platt, told me once in a jocular
way that if the Queen of England should announce her purpose of
giving a banquet to one of the most distinguished citizens from
each nation, and General Hawley should be invited as the most
distinguished citizen of the United States, he would take it as a
matter of course.

Senator F. M. Cockrell and Senator George Vest represented Missouri
in the United States Senate for very many years.

Senator Cockrell was one of the most faithful and useful legislators
I ever knew.  I served with him for years on the Committee on
Appropriations.  That committee never had a better member.  He kept
close track of the business of the Senate, and when the calendar
was called, no measure was passed without his close scrutiny,
especially any measure carrying an appropriation.  He was a Democrat
all his life, but never allowed partisanship to enter into his
action on legislation.  It was said of him that he used to make
one fiery Democratic speech at each Congress, and then not think
of partisanship again.  He was not given much to talking about
violating the Constitution, because he knew he had been in the
Confederate Army himself and that he had violated it.

One day Senator George, who was, by the way, a very able Senator
from the South, was making a long constitutional argument against
a bill, extending over two or three days.  I happened to be conversing
with Cockrell at the time, and he remarked:  "Just listen to George
talk.  He don't seem to realize that for four years he was violating
the Constitution himself."  Senator Cockrell retired from the Senate
in 1905, his State for the first time in its history having elected
a Republican Legislature.

President Roosevelt had the very highest regard for him, and as
soon as it was known he could not be re-elected, he wired Senator
Cockrell, tendering him a place on either the Interstate Commerce
Commission or the Panama Canal Commission.  He accepted the former,
serving thereon for one term.  He gave the duties of this position
the same attention and study that he did when a member of the

Senator Vest was an entirely different style of man.  He did not
pay the close attention to the routine work of the Senate that
Senator Cockrell did, but he was honest and faithful to his duty,
and an able man as well.  He was a great orator, and I have heard
him make on occasion as beautiful speeches as were ever delivered
in the Senate.  At the time of his death he was the last surviving
member of the Confederate Senate.

He told me a rather interesting story once about how he came to
quit drinking whiskey.  He said he came home to Missouri after the
war, found little to do, and being almost without means, took to
drinking whiskey pretty hard.  He awoke one night and thought he
saw a cat sitting on the end of his bed.  He reached down, took up
his boot-jack and threw it at the cat, as he supposed.  Instead,
a pitcher was smashed to atoms.  Needless to add there was no cat
at all, which he realized, and he never took another drink of

Senator Vest was not a very old man, but he was in poor health and
feeble for his years.  One day he looked particularly forlorn,
sitting at his desk and leaning his head on his hands.  I noticed
his dejected attitude, and said to Senator Morrill, who was then
eighty-five or eighty-six years old:  "Go over and cheer up Vest."
Morrill did so in these words:  "Vest, what is the matter?  Cheer
up!  Why, you are nothing but a boy."

Senator Vest retired from the Senate, and shortly thereafter died
at his home in Washington.

Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, was another very prominent Democrat in
this Congress.  He was one of the leading lawyers of the Senate,
ranking, probably, with Edmunds in this respect.  He was chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary for a brief period, was later
nominated for Vice-President of the United States, but was defeated
with the rest of the Democratic ticket.

Senator Eugene Hale, who retired from the Senate on his own motion,
March 4, 1911, was elected in 1881, and was always regarded as a
very strong man.  It was unfortunate for the Senate and country
that Senator Hale determined to leave this body.  He was chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, and chairman of the Republican
caucus, in which latter capacity I succeeded him in April, 1911.
He was for years chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs; and
there is no man in the country, in my judgment, who knows more
about the work and condition of the Navy and the Navy Department
than does Senator Hale.  Hence it has been for years past, that
when legislation affecting the Navy came up to be acted upon by
Congress, generally we have looked to Senator Hale to direct and
influence our legislative action.

He is a very independent character, and was just the man for chairman
of the great Committee on Appropriations.  Senator Hale was more
than ordinarily independent, even to the extent of voting against
his party at times, and was very little influenced by what a
President or an Administration might desire.  I regretted exceedingly
to see him leave the Senate, where for many years he served his
country so well.

Charles F. Manderson, of Nebraska, was twice elected to the United
States Senate, and was an influential member.  I have regarded him
as one of the most amiable men with whom I have served.  He was a
splendid soldier, a splendid legislator, and a splendid man generally.
He was the presiding officer of the Senate, and a good one.  I have
always thought that he ought to have been the Republican nominee
for Vice-President of the United States; but for some reason or
other he never seemed to seek the place, and finally became one of
the attorneys for the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad,
since when he seems to have lost interest in political affairs.
He visit old friends in Washington once each year, and it is always
a great pleasure for me to greet Mr. and Mrs. Manderson.

Another Senator who first served many years in the House, was
Philetus Sawyer, of Wisconsin.  It was in the Senate that I served
with him, and came to have for him a very great respect.  He was
not very well educated, not a lawyer nor an orator, and excepting
in a conversational way, not regarded as a talker; yet he was an
uncommonly effective man in business as well as in politics, and
was once or twice invited to become chairman of the National
Republican Committee.

I cannot resist the temptation to tell a little story in connection
with Senator Sawyer.  One day he was undertaking to pass an
unimportant bill in the Senate concerning some railroad in his own
State, and as was the custom when he had anything to say or do in
the Senate, he took his place in the centre aisle close to the
clerk's desk, so that he could be heard.  Senator Van Wyck offered
an amendment to the bill, and was talking in favor of the amendment,
when Sawyer became a little alarmed lest the bill was going to be
beaten.  He turned his back to the clerk, and said in a tone of
voice that could be distinctly heard:

"If you will stop your damned yawp I will accept your amendment."

Van Wyck merely said, "All right."  The amendment was adopted, and
the bill passed.

As is quite the custom in the disposal of new members, I was
appointed a member of the Committee on Pensions--really the only
important committee appointment I received during my first service
in the Senate.  I naturally felt very liberal toward the old
soldiers, and it seemed that every case that was referred to me
was a worthy one, and that a liberal pension should be allowed.
I became a little uneasy lest I might be too liberal, and I went
to Sawyer, knowing that he was a man of large wealth, seeking his
advice about it.

He said, and I have been guided by that advice largely ever since:
"You need not worry; you cannot very well make a mistake in allowing
liberal pensions to the soldier boys.  The money will get into
circulation and come back into the treasury very soon; so go ahead
and do what you think is right in the premises; and there will be
no trouble."

Senator Sawyer retired from the Senate voluntarily at a ripe old
age.  He was largely instrumental in selecting as his successor,
one of the greatest lawyers and ablest statesmen who has ever served
in that body, of whom I shall speak later, my distinguished friend,
the Hon. John C. Spooner.

In the Forty-eighth Congress the Democrats had a majority in the
House and the Republicans a majority in the Senate, and as is always
the case when such a situation prevails, little or no important
legislation was enacted.

I entered the Senate having three objects in view:  First, the
control of Interstate Commerce; second, the stamping out of polygamy;
third, the construction of the Hennepin Canal.

I was not quite as modest as I have since advised younger Senators
to be, because I see by the _Record_ that on January 11, 1884, a
little more than a month after I had entered the Senate, I made an
extended address on the subject of Territorial Government for Utah,
particularly referring to polygamy.  I was especially bitter in
what I said against the Mormons and the Mormon Church.  I used such
expressions as these:

"There is scarcely a page of their history that is not marred by
a recital of some foul deed.  The whole history of the Mormon Church
abounds in illustrations of the selfishness, deceit, and lawlessness
of its leaders and members.  Founded in fraud, built up by the most
audacious deception, this organization has been so notoriously
corrupt and immoral in its practices, teachings, and tendencies as
to justify the Government in assuming absolute control of the
Territory and in giving the Church or its followers no voice in
the administration of public affairs.  The progress of Mormonism
to its present strength and power has been attended by a continual
series of murders, robberies, and outrages of every description;
but there is one dark spot in its disgraceful record that can never
be effaced, one crime so heinous that the blood of the betrayed
victims still calls aloud for vengeance."

I introduced a bill on the subject, in which I provided for the
appointment of a legislative council by the President, this council
to have the same legislative power as the legislative assembly of
a Territory.  I distrusted the local Legislature because it was
dominated by men high up in the Mormon Church.

During this Congress I pushed the bill as best I could, but was
never able to secure its passage.  Laws were passed on the subject,
and the Mormon question is practically now a thing of the past.

Since that time conditions in Utah and in the Mormon Church have
changed greatly.  The Prophets received a new revelation declaring
polygamy unlawful, and I believe that the practice has ceased.  As
a matter of fact, Judge Zane, the Territorial Judge of Utah, did
more to stamp it out than any other one man.  He sentenced those
guilty of the practice to terms in the penitentiary, and announced
that he would continue to do so until they reformed.  I do not
think that the Church or the Mormon people deserve to-day the severe
criticism they merited twenty-five years ago.

1884 to 1887

The Republican Convention of 1884 was held at Chicago.  The names
of Joseph R. Hawley, John A. Logan, Chester A. Arthur, John Sherman,
George F. Edmunds, and James G. Blaine were presented as candidates
for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
Blaine and Logan finally were the nominees, neither of them having
much of a contest to secure the nomination for President and Vice-
President respectively.

The Democratic Convention met later, and nominated Grover Cleveland
and Thomas A. Hendricks.

The Presidential campaign of 1884 was unique in the extreme.  It
was the most bitter personal contest in our history.  The private
lives of both candidates, Cleveland and Blaine, were searched, and
the most scandalous stories circulated, most of which were false.

The tide was in favor of Blaine only a short time before the
election.  I do not intend to go into the cause of his defeat.  It
was accomplished by a margin so narrow that any one of a dozen
reasons may be given as the particular one.  The Burchard incident,
the dinner given by the plutocrats at Delmonico's, certainly changed
several hundred votes--important when we remember that a change of
less than six hundred votes in the State of New York would have
elected him.  Conkling, too, was accused of playing him false, and
it was alleged that there were hundreds of fraudulent votes cast
in the city of New York and on Long Island.  Colonel A. K. McClure,
in "Our Presidents and How We Make Them," says, with reference to
this contest:

"Blaine would have been matchless in the skilful management of a
Presidential campaign for another, but he was dwarfed by the
overwhelming responsibilities of conducting a campaign for himself,
and yet he assumed the supreme control of the struggle and directed
it absolutely from start to finish.  He was of the heroic mould,
and he wisely planned his campaign tours to accomplish the best
result.  In point of fact, he had won his fight after stumping the
country, and lost it by his stay in New York on his way home.  He
knew how to sway multitudes, and none could approach him in that
important feature of a conflict; but he was not trained to consider
the thousand intricacies that fell upon the management of every
Presidential contest."

Grover Cleveland was inaugurated on the fourth of March, 1885,
being the first Democratic President since James Buchanan, who was
elected in 1856, and marking the first defeat of the Republican
party since the election of Lincoln.

There was a wild scramble for offices on the part of the Democrats
as soon as Cleveland was inaugurated.  He proceeded to satisfy them
as rapidly as he could, and out of 56,134 Presidential positions
he appointed 42,992 Democrats.

I always admired Grover Cleveland.  I first saw him at the time of
his inaugural address, which he delivered without notes.  He never
faltered from the beginning to the end, never skipped a line or
missed a word, or made a false start.  He was the first, and so
far as I know the only President who did not read his inaugural
address.  His speeches, his messages, and his public utterances
generally all showed that he was a man of extraordinary ability.
He made a wonderful impression upon the country.  As Chief Executive,
he was strong-minded and forceful, and adhered to his views on
public questions with a remarkable degree of tenacity, utterly
regardless of his party.

He appointed a very fair cabinet.  There was really no great man
in it, but they were all men of some ability.  The Secretary of
State, Thos. F. Bayard, of Delaware, was one of the prominent
Democrats of the Senate when I entered it, and had represented his
State in that body for many years.  I believe he conducted the
affairs of the State Department satisfactorily, and he was later
made Minister to the Court of St. James.

Daniel Manning, of New York, was Secretary of the Treasury.  And,
referring to Manning, I am reminded of a little story.

Soon after he came into the office I had occasion to go to the
Treasury Department on some business.  I saw the office secretary,
who had been there under the previous Administration, and whom I
knew well.  He informed me that the Secretary of the Treasury was
not in, but that he would be in a few minutes.  I expressed a desire
to see him and said that I would like very much to be introduced
to him.  Mr. Manning came in presently, and I was introduced, after
which I disposed of my business without delay.  Looking around, I
saw Senator Beck and a number of other Senators, accompanied by a
horde of Democratic office-seekers from the South, sitting against
the wall waiting for me to get through with my business.  Beck came
forward, and in a half serious sort of way said to me:  "You do
not seem to know that the Administration has changed.  You march
in here and take possession, and we Democrats are sitting here
against the wall cooling our heels and waiting for an opportunity
to see the Secretary.  You have seen him already, and are ready to
go."  It did plague me a little, as I was not quite sure whether
Beck was in earnest or not.  He soon returned to the Senate from
the Treasury, and coming into the Senate Chamber a little later I
found that he had been telling my colleagues how he had "plagued
Cullom" and how Cullom was much embarrassed about it.  He considered
it quite a joke on me.

L. Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, was made Secretary of the Interior.
Lamar was also one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when
I entered it.  I had the very greatest respect for him as a Senator
and as a man.  Later, Mr. Cleveland nominated him for Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court.  The nomination pended before the
Judiciary Committee for a long time, as it was well known that Mr.
Lamar had not been an active, practising lawyer.

I happened to be at the White House one day, and Mr. Cleveland said
to me:  "I wish you would take up Lamar's nomination and dispose
of it.  I am between hay and grass with reference to the Interior
Department.  Nothing is being done there; I ought to have some one
on duty, and I can not do anything until you dispose of Lamar."

He had, I suppose, spoken to other Senators along the same line.
The nomination was taken up soon after, and he was confirmed.  I
voted against his confirmation in the Senate; not because I had
anything against him personally, or because he was a Southern
Democrat, but I understood that he had not practised law at all,
and I did not believe that sort of man should be appointed to fill
so high and responsible a position.

Generally speaking, I got along very well with President Cleveland,
considering the fact that he was a Democrat and I a Republican.
I visited the White House frequently, and he generally granted
anything that I asked for.

He was keenly interested in the passage of the first Interstate
Commerce Act.  It became a law under his administration, and although
the Democrats supported it, it succeeded mainly through the influence
of Republican Senators and a Republican Senate.  When the bill went
to the President, and while he had it under consideration, he sent
for me to explain one or two sections which he did not understand.
I called one night about nine o'clock and found him surrounded by
a multitude of papers, hard at work reading the bill.  I explained
the sections concerning which he was in doubt as best I could, and
he said:  "I will approve the bill."

I immediately took advantage of the occasion to say:  "Now, Mr.
President, I might just as well take this opportunity to talk with
you with reference to the appointment of a Commission.  A Republican
Senate has passed this bill, and as I had charge of it in the
Senate, I think you ought to permit me to recommend the appointment
of one commissioner."  He agreed to this, asking me to present the
name of some Republican whom I desired appointed.

Afterward there were complications with the members of his own
party in Congress, and he sent for me to tell me that Colonel
Morrison, of Illinois, had been recommended by the whole "Free
Trade Party," as he called it, and that he did not see how he was
going to avoid appointing him.  I suggested that he give Morrison
something else.  He undertook to do so; but Morrison, true to his
independent nature, declined to accept anything else, declaring
that he would like to have the office of commissioner, and if he
could not have that he would accept nothing.

The President sent for me again, and told me he could not satisfy
Morrison, and he did not know how he was going to solve the
complication.  I said, in effect, that I had been a Governor of a
State and I knew sometimes that an executive officer had to do
things he did not expect to do, and did not desire to do, but that
he had to yield to party pressure.  I ceased insisting upon an
appointment, and allowed Morrison to be named.  At the same time
I was a little provoked and out of patience and I added:  "Colonel
Morrison knows nothing about the subject whatever.  If you are
going to appoint broken-down politicians who have been defeated at
home, as a sort of salve for the sores caused by their defeat, we
might as well repeal the law."

I inquired of him:  "Who else are you going to appoint on that
Commission?"  I had previously recommended Judge Cooley.

"I will appoint Cooley," promised the President.

"Will Cooley take it?" I asked; to which he replied, "I will offer
any place on the Commission he desires, and will telegraph him at

I expressed my satisfaction with this arrangement.  He did telegraph
Judge Cooley, who accepted, and was the first and most distinguished
chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The Forty-ninth Congress assembled on December 7, 1885, with Thomas
A. Hendricks, Vice-President, presiding in the Senate, John Sherman
having been elected President _pro tempore_.  The Senate was still
in the control of the Republicans by a majority of five.  The
Democrats had a majority of something like forty in the House, and
elected John G. Carlisle Speaker.  This is practically the same
situation that had prevailed during the previous Congress, except
this time the Democrats, in addition to a majority, had the Chief
Executive as well.  But they were just as powerless to enact
legislation as they had been before.

Senators Evarts, of New York; Spooner, of Wisconsin; Teller, of
Colorado; Stanford, of California; Gray, of Delaware; Brown, of
Georgia; Blackburn, of Kentucky; and Walthall, of Mississippi, were
a few of the prominent men who entered the Senate at the beginning
of the Cleveland Administration.

Senator Evarts was recognized for many years as the leader of the
American Bar.  He was not only a profound lawyer, but one of the
greatest public speakers of the day.  I remember him as a good
natured, agreeable man, who was pre-eminently capable of filling
the highest places in public life.  He was Attorney-General under
President Johnson, Secretary of State under President Hayes, and
counsel representing the United States before many great international
tribunals.  He defended President Johnson in his impeachment
proceedings, and I remember yet his lofty eloquence on that memorable
occasion.  He did not accomplish much as a Senator, but he did take
an active part where a legal or constitutional question came before
the Senate.

Illustrating how great lawyers are as apt to be wrong on a legal
question as the lesser legal lights, Senator Evarts expressed the
opinion that Congress did not possess the constitutional power to
pass the Act of 1887 to regulate commerce.  He contended in the
debate that the act was a restriction and not a regulation of
commerce, and consequently was beyond the power of Congress.  The
Supreme Court of the United States very soon afterwards sustained
the constitutionality of the act.

Before his term expired he became partially blind, and the story
is told by the late Senator Hoar that Senator Evarts and he had
delivered speeches in the Senate on some great legal, constitutional
question, Senator Hoar on one side, Senator Evarts on the other.
The latter asked Senator Hoar to look over the proof of his speech
and correct it, and in reading over the proof Senator Hoar told me
that he became convinced that his position was wrong and that Evarts
was right.

I do not know of a Democrat with whom I have served in the Senate
for whom I have greater respect than George Gray, of Delaware.  We
became quite intimate and were paired all during his service.  He
was one of the few Senators that every Senator on both sides believed
in and was willing to trust.  Indeed, our country would not suffer
if he were elected President of the United States.  He has held
many important positions,--Senator, member of the Paris Peace
Commission, United States Circuit Judge, member of many arbitration
commissions,--in all of which he acquitted himself with great honor.

My friend, Senator Henry M. Teller, of Colorado, returned to the
Senate at the beginning of this Congress.  He had previously served
in the Senate, and resigned to accept a Cabinet position under
President Arthur.  Senator Teller has had a long and honorable
public career.  He was elected to the Senate several times as a
Republican, and appointed to the office of Secretary of the Interior
as a Republican.  He continued this affiliation until the silver
agitation, in 1896, when he regarded himself as being justified in
leaving the party, and was twice elected afterward to the Senate
by the Legislature of his State, and during this last term I believe
he became a pretty strong Democrat; yet he never allowed partisanship
to enter into his action on legislation, excepting where a party
issue was involved, when he would vote with his party.

I served with him on the Appropriation Committee and other committees
of the Senate, and regarded him as one of the best Senators for
committee service with whom I was ever associated.  The friendly
relations between Senator Teller and myself have been very close
and intimate since I first knew him, and I am glad to say that the
fact that he left the Republican party has not disturbed them in
the least.

Mr. Teller's withdrawal from the Republican party after its
declaration for the Gold Standard in the St. Louis Convention of
1896 was due to his abiding conviction in support of the principles
of bimetallism.  He had been a member of the party almost since
its organization, and up to '96, although independent upon many
points at issue, had been regarded as one of the party's stanchest
and most reliable adherents.  The severance of the ties of a lifetime
could not be made without producing a visible effect upon a man of
Mr. Teller's fine sensibilities, but I was pleased to observe that
he did not allow the incident to change his personal relations.
He continued as a member of the Senate for twelve or thirteen years
after he left the Republican party, and I am sure that he did not
lose the respect or personal regard of a single Republican member
of the body.  Personally, I regarded him just as warmly as a Democrat
as I had esteemed him as a Republican, and I am sure that my attitude
toward him was reflected by his attitude toward myself.

The Colorado Senator's nature is such that he cannot dissemble,
and when his conviction led him to condemn the Republican party
because of its position on the money question, he could not find
it in his conscience to remain in that party.  Time has shown that
he was mistaken as to the results that might follow the adoption
of the gold standard, but it has not served to alter the character
of the man.  He will stand for what he believes to be right, whatever
the consequences to himself.  As a legislator, he was faithful in
his work in committee and in the Senate.  No man was more constant
in his attendance, and none gave more conscientious attention to
the problems of legislation.  An unusually strong lawyer and a man
given to studious research, he never failed to strengthen any cause
which he espoused nor to throw light upon any subject which came
within his range of vision.  With the exception of three years
spent as Secretary of the Interior he was a member of the Senate
from 1876, the year of Colorado's admission to the Union, until
1909, during which time he had nine different colleagues from his
own State.

Mr. Teller was a resident of Illinois before he removed to Colorado
in 1861, and was one of the earliest supporters of Mr. Lincoln.
His father and mother remained in Illinois as long as they lived,
and Senator Teller always has retained interests in that State.
I think he still has relatives residing in Whiteside County.

William Eaton Chandler, of New Hampshire, was one of the first
government officials with whom I became acquainted when I came to
Washington, in 1865, as a member of the House of Representatives.
He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.  We became quite intimate
and our relations ever since have been the most cordial and

Senator Chandler is a man of wonderfully acute intellect.  For many
years he served his people in the Legislature of New Hampshire and
was a member of the Senate of the United States for several terms.
After he retired from the Senate in 1901, President McKinley
appointed him a member of the Spanish Claims Commission.  In the
discharge of the duties of that office he manifested the same high
conception of his trust as in every position he occupied, either
elective or appointive, and I think he saved to the government of
the United States many millions of dollars in the adjudication of
claims growing out of the Spanish-American War.

While Senator Chandler is very combative in his attitude toward
others, yet his innate sincerity draws one close to him after
becoming acquainted with him.  A little incident which will illustrate
this trait, occurred in the Senate of the United States some years
ago.  Mr. Chandler was induced to believe that the late Senator
Proctor, of Vermont, did not like him very much.  So Chandler went
up to Proctor, and said:  "Proctor, don't you like me?"  Proctor
in his coarse gruff voice replied:  "I have acquired a liking for
you."  He established the point without circumlocution or diplomacy.

As Chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate,
I objected to the appointment of Chandler as a member of that
committee.  I did not believe he would be very attentive.  It turned
out that I was mistaken and I often wished that he would stay away
from the meetings, because he was always stirring up some new
question that involved the time of the committee.  He was inspired,
however, by the highest motive, recognizing as he did that the
control of the railroads of the country was a matter of supreme
importance to the people of the United States.  He rendered valuable
service on the committee in the enactment of legislation on this
important subject.

Senator Leland Stanford, of California, was a man of large wealth,
and became famous on account of his having built the Central Pacific
Railroad.  He was a man of business experience and made a valuable
Senator.  He died as a member of the Senate, and his wife founded
Leland Stanford Jr. University.

Senator Stanford's colleague, Senator Hearst, who entered the Senate
two years after Senator Stanford, was also a man of very large
wealth and possessor of a interesting character.  Concerning him
many amusing stories are told.  He gave an elaborate dinner one
evening, which I attended.  There were twenty-five of us present
with our wives, and after dinner was over the men went down to the
smoking-room.  Senator Hearst had thought out a little speech to
make to us, in which he said:  "I do now know much about books; I
have not read very much; but I have travelled a good deal and
observed men and things, and I have made up my mind after all my
experience that the members of the Senate are the survival of the
fittest."  Senator Hearst died while serving as a member of the

Matthew Stanley Quay was a conspicuous figure in our political
history.  He had been a soldier in the Civil War and afterwards
occupied many positions of importance in the civil affairs in his
State.  Few men in American political life have had so constant a
struggle as did Senator Quay to retain his ascendancy in Republican
politics in Pennsylvania.  Quay in Pennsylvania, and T. C. Platt
in New York, were regarded as two of the greatest political bosses
in the country.  In national convention after national convention
they exercised a paramount influence over the nomination of
Presidents, and the two usually worked together.  Their political
methods were about the same.  Quay was the bigger man of the two;
but it must be said, in justice to both of them, that the word of
either was as good as his bond.  Senator Quay was returned to the
Senate after a desperate struggle.  I was glad to see him return,
but saddened to see that he was sorely afflicted with a disease
that finally proved fatal.  Senator Quay and Senator Platt have
both passed away.  They were the two last survivors of the old
coterie of politicians who so long dominated Republican national

Toward the close of the Cleveland Administration, a vacancy occurred
in the office of Chief Justice of the United States, to fill which
President Cleveland appointed the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, of
Illinois.  I had something to do with this appointment.

Chief Justice Fuller has only recently passed away, after serving
as Chief Justice of the United States for a longer period than any
of his predecessors in that high office, with the two exceptions
of Marshall and Taney.  I knew Melville W. Fuller for many years
before he became Chief Justice.  Away back in war times, I knew
him as a member of the Illinois Legislature and as a member of the
Constitutional Convention, and subsequently as one of the leading
lawyers of the Chicago Bar.

President Cleveland was in a considerable quandary over the
appointment of a Chief Justice.  He wanted to bestow the seat upon
an able lawyer, and he wanted a Democrat, but as the Senate was in
control of the Republicans he wanted to make sure to name some one
whom the Senate would confirm.  He at first seriously considered
Judge Phelps, of Vermont, a cultivated and able man, who had been
Minister to England, but for some reason or other--why I never knew
--he finally rejected Phelps as an available candidate and determined
upon a Western man as Chief Justice.

Prior to this, however, he had considered the appointment of Justice
Scholfield, of our own State, who was then a member of the Supreme
Court of Illinois, which never had an abler or better lawyer as a
member of its personnel.  He would have been given the honor had
he signified a willingness to accept; but when he was approached
by Representative Townsend, at the suggestion of President Cleveland,
after considering the matter, he demurred, asserting that although
he would enjoy the distinction of being Chief Justice of the United
States, he did not think that life in Washington, and especially
the social side of the life which the Chief Justice of the United
States naturally is expected to lead, would suit either him or his
family.  He had a family of growing children, who had been raised
in the country, and they would naturally have to accompany him to
Washington.  He feared that Washington life would ruin them, so he
finally declined the appointment.

Judge Fuller had been a close friend of President Cleveland, had
been a member of the national convention that nominated him, was
recognized as one of the leading Democrats of Illinois, and had
been consulted by Mr. Cleveland in the distribution of the patronage
in that State; so naturally Judge Fuller was considered in connection
with the office.  It was not surprising, considering that the Senate
was then in the control of the Republicans, that he would want to
enlist my aid in securing his confirmation.

I called on Mr. Cleveland about nine o'clock one morning in regard
to some personal matter.  He at once sent out word for me to come
in, that he wanted to see me.  I apologized for appearing at so
early an hour, whereupon he said that he was very glad that I had
come because he desired to have a talk with me.  Then he inquired
whom I considered the best lawyer, belonging to his party, in
Illinois, who would make a good Chief Justice.  He at once himself
mentioned Judge Fuller.  I told him that Judge Gowdy was probably
the ablest Democratic lawyer in Illinois, but that he was a railroad
attorney, and it would probably not be a good thing to appoint him.
He next questioned me particularly about Fuller.  I told him that
I knew Fuller very well indeed; that if I were called upon to name
five of the best lawyers of Illinois belonging to his party, I
would name Fuller among the five; that he was not only a good
lawyer, but a scholarly man, a gentleman who would grace the
position.  He at once intimated that he would send his name to the

I said to him:  "Mr. President, the selection of a Chief Justice
is one of the greatest duties you have to perform.  _You_ can make
a mistake; we can raise the devil in Congress; but with a capable
Supreme Court standing steady and firm, doing its full duty, the
country is safe."

He agreed with me; and very soon thereafter Melville W. Fuller was
nominated as Chief Justice of the United States.

But this was only the prelude to the real struggle.  The nomination
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which Senator
Edmunds, of Vermont, was chairman.  The latter was very much out
of humor with the President, because he had fully expected that
Judge Phelps, of his own State, was to receive the honor, and he
did not take it kindly that the appointment should go to Illinois.
He had told me himself, in confidence, that he had every assurance
that Judge Phelps was to be nominated.

The result was the Senator Edmunds held the nomination, without
any action, in the Judiciary Committee for some three months, as
I now recollect.  Finally there began to be more or less scandal
hinted at and suggestions of something wrong, and so forth; which
I considered so entirely uncalled for and unfair to Judge Fuller
that I appeared before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and
asked that the nomination be reported favorably if possible,
unfavorably if the committee so determined; and if the committee
was not disposed to report the nomination either favorably or
unfavorably that they report the nomination to the Senate without
recommendation, so that the Senate itself might have an opportunity
to act upon it.  The latter action was taken, and the nomination
was laid naked before the Senate.  The matter was considered in
executive session.  Senator Edmunds at once took the floor and
attacked Judge Fuller most viciously as having sympathized with
the Rebellion, together with much to the same effect.

In the meantime some one had sent me a printed copy of a speech
which Judge Phelps had delivered during the war, attacking Mr.
Lincoln in the most outrageous and undignified fashion.  When I
read that speech I then and there determined that Judge Phelps
would never be confirmed as Chief Justice, even though the President
might send his nomination to the Senate.  I put the speech in my
desk, determining that if I ever had a good chance I would read it
in the Senate, at the same time pointing out that the only objection
which Senator Edmunds opposed to Judge Fuller was his pique because
Phelps had not received the appointment.  Edmunds' attack on Judge
Fuller gave me the opportunity, and I read the speech of Judge
Phelps to the Senate, much to the chagrin and mortification of
Senator Edmunds.

The Democrats in the Senate enjoyed the controversy between Senator
Edmunds and myself; Senator Voorhees was particularly amused,
laughing heartily all through it.  Naturally, it appeared to them
a very funny performance, two Republicans quarreling over the
confirmation of a Democrat.  They sat silent, however, and took no
part at all in the debate, leaving us Republicans to settle it
among ourselves.  The vote was taken and Judge Fuller was confirmed
by a substantial majority.

Judge Fuller was very grateful to me for what I had done in behalf
of his confirmation, and afterwards he wrote me a letter of thanks:

  "Chicago, _July 21, 1888_.

"My dear Senator:--

"I cannot refrain from expressing to you my intense appreciation
at the vigorous way in which you secured my confirmation.  I use
the word 'vigorous' because, though it was more than that, that
was the quality that struck me most forcibly when I saw the newspapers
this morning.  When we meet, as I hope we will soon, I would very
much like to talk this matter over with you.  I hope you will never
have cause to regret your action.  I can't tell you how pleased I
am that Maine and Illinois, both so dear to me, stood by me.  But
because I love them, I do not love my country any the less, as you

"And so I am to be called 'Judge' after all!  This is between

  "Faithfully yours,
  "M. W. Fuller."

Senator Frye voted in favor of Judge Fuller's confirmation.  He
did this partly, I believe, because Fuller was a Maine man and a
classmate of his at Bowdoin College, he previously having entertained
some doubts, as he told me afterwards, whether Fuller was really
qualified to be Chief Justice of the United States.  Very soon
after his appointment, the Chief Justice was invited to deliver an
address before the Joint Session of the two Houses of Congress.
I think it was on the occasion of the one-hundredth anniversary of
the inauguration of the first President of the United States.
Senator Frye and I walked together over to the hall of the House
where the joint session assembled, and he said as we went along:
"I will determine to-day, after I hear Fuller deliver his address,
whether I did right or wrong in voting for his confirmation as
Chief Justice."  Judge Fuller delivered a most beautiful speech,
which would have done credit to any man, no matter how high a
position he occupied in this or any other country; and as we returned
together to our own chamber, Senator Frye remarked:  "Cullom, it
is all right.  I am satisfied now that I did right in voting in
favor of the confirmation of Fuller's nomination."

Melville W. Fuller filled the position of Chief Justice of the
United States with great credit and dignity.  He wrote, during his
long term of service, many very able opinions.  I did not agree
with his conclusions in the Income Tax case; but I think every
lawyer will conceded that this opinion was about as able a presentation
of that side of the case as could be made.  He was a most conservative
and safe man for the high position which he occupied.  Of necessity
the Chief Justice of the United States must be an executive officer
as well as an able lawyer and judge.  There was no better executive
officer than Chief Justice Fuller.  Justice Miller told me on one
occasion that Fuller was the best presiding judge that the Supreme
Court had had within his time; and in addition he was a most lovable,
congenial man.

The last time I saw Judge Fuller he was particularly agreeable.
I called to invite him to deliver an address at a great banquet to
be held in Springfield on Lincoln's birthday in February, 1909.
I have had a great deal of experience in trying to prevail upon
prominent men to deliver addresses in Illinois, and I know how they
always hesitate, and hem and haw, then, if they do accept, destroy
all feelings of gratitude and appreciation by the ungracious manner
in which they do so.  It was certainly a pleasant surprise and a
contrast to custom to hear Judge Fuller's reply when I extended
the invitation to him.  "Why, certainly," he responded promptly;
"I will be delighted to accept.  I have been wanting to visit
Springfield for twenty years, and I am glad to receive the

This reply was quite characteristic of Chief Justice Fuller.  I
could not imagine him saying an unkind word to any one.  His
disposition was to treat his colleagues on the Bench, the members
of the Bar who appeared before him, and every one with whom he came
in contact, with the greatest kindness and consideration.  He passed
away, quietly and peacefully, as he would have wished, honored and
respected by the Bench and Bar of the Nation, and by the people of
his home State, who took pride in the fact that Illinois had
furnished to the United States a Chief Justice for so long a period.

Chief Justice Fuller was succeeded by Hon. Edward D. White, of
Louisiana, with whom I served for three years in the Senate of the
United States.  Justice White was an able Senator, and in the
disposition of some of the most important cases which have come
before the Supreme Court in recent years affecting corporations he
has shown great ability and is a worthy successor of his predecessors
in that high office.

Aside from the act to regulate commerce, an act providing for
the Presidential succession, and an act in reference to polygamy,
there was very little, if any, important legislation during the
first Cleveland Administration.

It was a very quiet administration.  The country clearly comprehended
that the Senate stood in the way of any Democratic doctrine being
enacted into law, and generally, as I remember it now, the country
was fairly prosperous.  This condition continued until President
Cleveland's famous Free Trade message of December 5, 1887, came as
a startling blow to the business and manufacturing interests of
the United States.

Why he should have sent such a message to Congress when his
administration was about to come to a close, and when he knew
perfectly well that no tariff legislation could be enacted with a
Democratic House and a Republican Senate, I do not know.  He for
the first time stepped out boldly and asserted his Free Trade
doctrine, and made the issue squarely on tariff for protection as
against Free Trade, or tariff for revenue.  This message naturally
precipitated a tariff discussion in both House and Senate, and the
Democratic majority of the House considered it incumbent on them
to make some attempt to carry out the President's policy.  As a
result the so-called Mills Bill was reported, upon which debates
continued for many months.  One member in closing this discussion
very aptly said:

"This debate will perhaps be known as the most remarkable that has
ever occurred in our parliamentary history.  It has awakened an
interest not only throughout the length and breadth of our own
country, but throughout the civilized world, and henceforth, as
long as our government shall endure, it will be known as 'the great
tariff debate of 1888.'"

It was in this debate in the House that both Mr. Reed and Mr.
McKinley so distinguished themselves as the great advocates of
Protection.  Mr. Reed was then the floor leader of the minority.
He made a magnificent speech against Free Trade in which he used
many familiar allegories, one of which I have often used myself in
campaign speeches.  It is substantially as follows:

"Once there was a dog.  He was a nice little dog--nothing the matter
with him, except a few foolish Free Trade ideas in his head.  He
was trotting along, happy as the day, for he had in his mouth a
nice shoulder of succulent mutton.  By and by he came to a stream
bridged by a plank.  He trotted along, and looking over the side
of the plank, he saw the markets of the world, and dived for them.
A minute afterwards he was crawling up the bank the wettest, the
sickest, the nastiest, the most muttonless dog that ever swam

Thomas B. Reed was one whom I unquestionably would term a great
man.  He was conspicuous among the most brilliant presiding officers
that ever occupied the chair of the Speaker.  He ruled the House
with a rod of iron, thus earning for himself the nickname of "Czar."

And this was more or less warranted.  He was the first Speaker to
inaugurate the new rules.  He found a demoralized House in which
it was difficult to enact legislation, and in which the right of
the majority to rule was questioned and hampered.  He turned the
Lower House into an orderly legislative body in which legislation
was enacted expeditiously by the majority.  He had more perfect
control over the House than any former Speaker, and his authority
remained unquestioned until he retired.  He ruled alone; after he
became Speaker he had no favorites; he had no little coterie of
men around him to excite the jealousy of the members of the House,
and it has even been said that so careful was he in this respect
that he would scarcely venture to walk in public with a member of
the House.  He was a powerful man intellectually and physically,
and he looked the giant he was among the members of the House.  He
wanted to be President; and it seems rather a queer coincidence
that his election as Speaker paved the way for his rival, Mr.
McKinley, as by his acceptance of the chair Mr. McKinley became
the leader of the majority, chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means, the author of the McKinley Bill, which finally resulted in
its author's defeat for Congress, but in his election as President
of the United States in 1896.

But to return to the Mills Bill.  It passed the House by a substantial
majority and came to the Senate, where a substitute was prepared
by the Finance Committee and reported by Senator Allison early in
October.  I remember the discussion on it in the Senate very well.
We all thought it incumbent upon us to make speeches for home
consumption, for campaign use, showing the iniquities of the Mills
Bill, and of the Democratic tariff generally, although we knew it
was impossible for either bill to become law.

The Congressional session continued until about the middle of
October with nothing done in the way of practical legislation.

This was the situation when the National Republican Convention
assembled in 1888.

1888 to 1891

At the time the delegates gathered, Cleveland's Free Trade message
of 1887 was before the country, interest in it having been augmented
and enlivened by the passage of the Mills Bill and the renowned
tariff debate of that year.  The issue was clear.  It was Protective
Tariff _versus_ Free Trade.  After a rather strenuous contest in
the convention in which nineteen candidates were voted for, for
the nomination for President, including the leading candidates,
John Sherman, of Ohio, Walter Q. Gresham, of Indiana, Harrison, of
Indiana, and Allison, of Iowa, Benjamin Harrison finally was chosen
on the eighth ballot.

In his autobiography Senator Hoar affirms that William B. Allison
came nearer being the nominee of the party than any other man in
its history who was a candidate and failed to secure the endorsement.
According to Senator Hoar, it was the opposition of Senator Depew,
angered by the agrarian hostility toward himself, that prevented
Senator Allison's nomination.  I have no personal knowledge that
might refute this statement, but I have been disposed to question
its correctness.

President Cleveland was of course renominated.  The campaign came
on, and he was defeated squarely on the Tariff issue, and the
Republicans were again in the ascendancy in both branches of the
Government, the Senate being composed of forty-seven Republicans
and thirty-seven Democrats, while the House contained one hundred
and seventy Republicans and one hundred and sixty Democrats, Mr.
Reed being elected Speaker.

President Harrison was inaugurated with a great civic and military
display, equalling, if not surpassing, that of any other President.
There was great rejoicing among Republicans on account of the return
of the party to power.  The Cabinet was duly appointed, with Mr.
Blaine, the foremost Republican and statesman of his day, as
Secretary of State--which, by the way, was an unfortunate appointment
both for Mr. Harrison and Mr. Blaine.  There was the usual scramble
for offices, the usual changes in the foreign service, in the
executive departments in Washington and in the federal offices
generally throughout the country.  Robert T. Lincoln, of whom I
have already written, was appointed Minister to the Court of St.

Colonel Clark E. Carr, of Illinois, was appointed Minister to
Denmark, and made a splendid record in that position.  He was very
popular with the royal family.  I had the pleasure of visiting
Copenhagen while he was Minister there, and was the guest of Colonel
and Mrs. Carr, who entertained me very handsomely.  They gave a
dinner in my honor, which was attended by the whole diplomatic
corps at Copenhagen.  The Colonel also arranged for a private
audience with the King, and he presented me to him, as he also did
my friend, Colonel Bluford Wilson, who accompanied me on my visit
to Copenhagen.  Altogether, through the courtesy of Colonel Carr,
I enjoyed my stay in Copenhagen exceedingly.

He retired from office after Mr. Cleveland was elected, and has
since achieved distinction as an author.  He has written several
very interesting books which have had a wide circulation.  For many
years Colonel Carr has taken an active part in our State and National
campaigns.  He is a forceful speaker, so naturally his services
have been in constant requisition by the State and National Republican
Committees.  He has rendered very valuable service to the Republican
party both in the State and in the Nation.

I had known President Harrison for many years.  He represented a
neighboring State in the Senate, of which body he was a leader when
I entered it in 1883.  I probably knew him as well as any of my
Republican colleagues; but his was a very cold, distant temperament,
even in the Senate, hardly capable of forming a very close friendship
for any one, and he had no particular friends.

In justice to Mr. Harrison, however, it must be said that he was
a masterly lawyer, and his appointments generally were first-class.
Especially was he fortunate in his selection of Federal judges.
He selected them himself, and would tolerate no interference from
any one.  He did select the very best men he could find.  For
instance, he appointed such men as Justice Brewer, of Kansas;
Justice Brown, of Michigan; Judge Woods, of Indiana; and it was
Harrison who appointed President Taft as a Federal Judge.  He was
an exceptionally able President, and gave the country an excellent

But at the same time he was probably the most unsatisfactory
President we ever had in the White House to those who must necessarily
come into personal contact with him.  He was quite a public speaker,
and the story has often been told of him that if he should address
ten thousand men from a public platform, he would make every one
his friend; but that if he should meet each of those ten thousand
men personally, each man would go away his enemy.  He lacked the
faculty of treating people in a manner to retain their friendship.
Even Senators and Representatives calling on official business he
would treat with scant courtesy.  He scarcely ever invited any one
to have a chair.

Senator Platt, of Connecticut, asked me one day if I was going to
the White House to dine that evening, stating that he had an
invitation.  I told him no, that I had not yet been invited, that
I had never yet during the Harrison administration even been invited
to take a seat in the White House.  Some one overheard the remark
and it was published in the newspapers.  I visited the White House
shortly afterwards, and I assume that Harrison had seen it because
as soon as he saw me, without a smile on his face or a gleam in
his eye, he hastened to get me a chair, inviting me to be seated.
I declined to sit down, explaining that I was in a hurry, and closed
the business I had come for, and left.  Afterwards he invited me
to dinner and treated me with marked consideration.

I have sometimes wondered whether President Harrison's apparent
coldness may not be ascribed to an absorption in his duties that
made him unintentionally neglectful of the little amenities of
polite usage, they never even having occurred to him.  Despite his
cold exterior and frigid manner, it may have been he was sympathetic
at heart.  When the Tracey homestead was destroyed by fire, which
resulted in the death of several persons, including the daughter,
and finally resulted in the death of Mrs. Tracey, President Harrison
took the family into the White House and did everything a man could
do to relieve their sufferings.

I suppose he treated me about as well in the way of patronage as
he did any other Senator; but whenever he did anything for me it
was done so ungraciously that the concession tended to anger rather
than please.

In looking over the letters which I received from President Harrison,
I find one which would show that he placed considerable confidence
in my recommendations.

  "Executive Mansion,
  "Washington, _Oct. 24, 1889_.

"Hon. Shelby M. Cullom,
  "Springfield, Ills.

"My dear Senator:--

"I want to say a few words further to you about the Chicago
appointments.  There has been for some months a good deal of
complaint that changes were not made.

"I find that the Collector of Customs and the Collector of Internal
Revenue were appointed, the one Sept. 14, and the other Sept. 10,
1885, and that the first was confirmed May 17, 1886; and the last,
April 17, 1886.  I do not have before me the record as to the
appointment of the United States District Attorney.  The Assistant
Treasurer was appointed Sept. 29, 1885, and confirmed May 6, 1886.
If there had been no question raised as to the qualifications and
fitness of the persons recommended, it is quite possible that I
would have taken some steps in the matter during this month; but
the fact is, as you have told me, that at least one, and possibly
two, of the persons suggested were not of a high order of fitness,
to say the least, and some members of your Congressional delegation
interested have given me the same impression, while from outside
sources there have been a good many things said to the prejudice
of persons named for appointment.  I am informed that Senator
Farwell desires to leave the case just where his recommendations
have placed it, feeling that he cannot change to any one else.  I
write to know whether you also feel in that way, or whether you
desire to make any further suggestions about the matter.  I have
no other purpose in connection with these appointments than to find
men, the mention of whose names will commend them to the great
business community they are to serve.  No one of those named, so
far as I know, is suggestive of any personal claim upon me, and I
have no personal ends to serve.  You agreed with me, I think, when
we conversed, that the appointees there should be men of as high
character for integrity and intelligence, etc., as those they would

"In the case of the Assistant Treasurer I found on examining the
papers yesterday, very full and strong papers for Mr. Nichols, whom
I do not know.  He is supported, apparently, by the bankers and
many leading merchants of Chicago, and their letters give in detail
his business character and experience.  Of the gentleman recommended
by you and Senator Farwell, there is absolutely nothing said in
the papers, so that Mr. Windom or I could have any information as
to whether his business experience had been such as to fit him for
this place.  Now, I am sure that on reflection you will agree that
we ought to have full information, and that it should be upon

"I told Mr. Taylor, in conversation, day before yesterday, that I
could not appoint Mr. Babcock marshal, as I told you when you were
here; and I remember that you said you had yourself refused to
recommend him.  If things have assumed that shape that you are of
the opinion that it must be left to me as it stands, then I will
do the best I can with it.  I do not conceal the fact that after
the essential of fitness is secured that I have a desire to please
our party friends in these selections.  But I cannot escape the
responsibility for the appointments, and must therefore insist upon
full information about the persons presented, and upon my ultimate
right, in all kindness to everybody, to decide upon what must be
done.  It would be very gratifying to me if the responsibility were
placed upon some one else.

"Please let me have any suggestions you may care to make.

  "Very truly yours,
  "Benj. Harrison.

"P. S.  Responding to your telegram asking delay till Nov. 5, I
would say that I have no disposition to hurry a decision.  Others
have been pressing me and complaining bitterly of delay.  I think,
however, that the sooner some of these cases can be treated as
submitted for decision the better.  If the appointments are delayed
till the middle of Nov. there is little use of making temporary
appointments, as the appointee would have to make two bonds.  If
you can in writing, confidentially if you prefer, give me your
views and submit any alternative suggestions for these places I
will carefully consider them.  But if you prefer to see me personally
before any decision is made as to Collector of the Port I will of
course lay that case to one side till the time you have suggested.

  "B. H."

I never became entirely estranged from him, however, and when his
term was about to expire, and he wanted a renomination, I supported
him.  My motive in so doing was not so much that I favored Harrison
as because I felt outraged at the way _The Chicago Tribune_ had
treated me.  The _Tribune_ was then supporting Blaine with all its
power, and I determined that Mr. Medill should not have his way;
hence I became one of the leaders in the renomination of President

Before leaving Washington for the convention I called to see the
President to learn what information he had to impart to me as one
of the delegates who expected to support him.  He was more friendly,
free, and frank than he had ever been during his term as President.
We talked about different things, and in the course of the conversation
he adverted to Secretary Blaine.

Harrison and Blaine had fallen out.  Jealousy was probably at the
bottom of their disaffection.  Harrison did not treat Blaine with
that degree of confidence and courtesy one would expect from the
Chief Executive to the premier of his cabinet; while on the other
hand Blaine hated Harrison and was plotting more or less against
him while he was a member of the cabinet.  The President talked
very freely about Mr. Blaine.  He declared that he had been doing
the work of the State Department himself for a year or more; that
he had prepared every important official document, and had the
originals in his own handwriting in the desk before him.  And yet,
he said, Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, was giving out accounts
of what was being done in the State Department, taking all the
credit to himself.  He expressed himself as being perfectly willing,
to use a familiar figure, to carry a soldier's knapsack when the
soldier was sore of foot and tired, and all that he wanted in return
was acknowledgment of the act and a show of appreciation.  This
was all he expected of Mr. Blaine.  He said, in closing the
conversation, that he intended some day to disclose the true
condition of their relations.

The Harrison Administration was a very busy one, and should have
been a very satisfactory one to the country at large.  The first
great subject taken up by Congress was the tariff, the final
disposition of which was embodied in what afterwards became known
as the "McKinley Tariff Bill."  I never thought that Mr. McKinley
showed any particular skill in framing that tariff.  My understanding
is that it was prepared by the majority of the Committee on Ways
and Means.

The manufacturers of the country appeared before that committee
and made known what protective duties they thought they ought to
have in order to carry on their industries, and the committee gave
them just about the rate of duty they desired.  It was a high
protective tariff, dictated by the manufacturers of the country.
It resulted in a great stimulus to the country's industries, and
great prosperity followed its enactment.  It has been difficult
from then till now to reduce duties below the McKinley rate.  The
manufacturers have since persisted and insisted upon higher duties
than they really ought to have.

I may remark here, in passing, that the McKinley Law was not passed
until October, and we were immediately plunged into the campaign.
The McKinley Law was the issue, and the Democrats swept everything
before them, carrying the House by the overwhelming majority of
ninety-seven.  The Senate still remained Republican, forty-seven
Republicans to thirty-nine Democrats.  McKinley himself was beaten
and never afterwards returned to Congress.

It is strange what a revolution periodically occurs among the voters
of the United States.  When the Mills Bill was the issue the
Democratic party was beaten, and badly beaten; the Republican party
came into power; the McKinley Bill was passed, and we suffered
about as bad a defeat as had the Democrats two years previously.
The difference was that the Democrats were cleaned out on the shadow
of an issue, without the reality (the Mills Bill never having become
a law), and we went down in defeat on the reality, the McKinley
Bill having become a law.

It was during this time also that the bill known as the Sherman
Law, or the Coinage Act of 1890, was passed, which directed the
purchase of silver bullion to the aggregate of 4,500,000 ounces in
each month, and the issuance for such purchases silver bullion
treasury notes.  This was probably the beginning of the silver
agitation.  It created a long discussion in the Senate and House,
and that subject was constantly before Congress until it was finally
settled by the election of McKinley, in 1896.

It was this Congress also that passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
(April 8, 1890).  It was one of the most important enactments ever
passed by Congress; and yet, if it were strictly and literally
enforced, the business of the country would have come to a standstill.
The courts have given it a very broad construction, making it cover
contracts never contemplated when the act was passed.  It was never
seriously enforced until the coming in of the Roosevelt Administration,
when the great prosperity brought about under the McKinley
Administration tended to the formation of vast combinations which
seriously threatened the country.  The people do not seem disposed
to consent even to its amendment, much less its repeal; and yet we
all realize that if strictly enforced as construed by our courts,
it would materially affect the business prosperity of the nation.
The people take the same attitude towards the Sherman Law as they
take toward the anti-pooling section of the Interstate Commerce
Act; they will allow neither of them to be tampered with by Congress.
There has been considerable dispute as to the paternity of the
Sherman Anti-Trust Law.  Senator Hoar claims he wrote it; it bears
Senator Sherman's name; and my own opinion is that Senator Edmunds
had more to do with framing it than any other one Senator.

It was during the first and second session of the Fifty-first
Congress that the Federal Election Bill, so-called, or as it is
familiarly known, the "Force Bill," was discussed.  It was in charge
of Senator Hoar, and occupied the attention of both sessions for a
long time.  The Republicans seemed determined to force it through,
but the Democrats from the South were bitterly opposed to it,
resorting to all sorts of tactics to kill or delay it.

This measure I never considered much of a "force" bill.  I could
never see that there was any force to it, but on the contrary,
considered it a very mild measure, and gave it my support.  The
opposition to it was so bitter and strong and so skillfully managed
by the late Senator Gorman on the part of the minority, and it
stood for so long a time in the way of other legislation, that one
after Senator Wolcott arose in his seat and, very much to the
astonishment of every one, moved to lay it aside and take up some
other bill.  The motion carried, and that was the last we heard of
the Force Bill.

The McKinley Tariff, the Anti-Trust Law, the Sherman Coinage Act,
and the Federal Election Bill were the important bills passed before
this Congress.

Notwithstanding the magnificent record in the way of legislation
made by the first Congress under the Harrison Administration, the
Democratic victory was so complete that at the beginning of the
first session of the Fifty-second Congress, which met December 7,
1891, there were but eighty-eight Republicans in the House, as
against two hundred and thirty-six Democrats, and Mr. Charles F.
Crisp, of Georgia, was elected Speaker.  The Senate still remained
in the control of the Republicans.

It was during this Congress that the silver agitation came to the
front as one of the foremost issues.  Senator Stewart of Nevada,
introduced his bill for the free coinage of gold and silver bullion.
The free coinage question consumed months of the time of both Senate
and House, and finally came to naught.

The Act to establish the World's Fair at Chicago was passed.  I
took a very active interest in this in behalf of Chicago.  A meeting
was held in the Marble Room of the Capitol, where Senator Depew
represented New York, and Colonel Thomas B. Bryan, Chicago.  They
each made a speech.  Very much to my surprise, Colonel Bryan's was
the more effective.  We afterwards, by all sorts of efforts in the
House and Senate, captured the location for Chicago.  The Fair,
when it was finally held, was the greatest world's fair ever known.
There was an almost utter abandon in the expenditure of money, and
Congress assisted by a liberal appropriation.  That Fair was a
great injury, rather than a benefit, to the city of Chicago.  The
hard times came on, and it was years before the city was restored
to normal conditions.

Toward the end of this session, the Homestead riots were a subject
of debate and investigation by Congress.  A Presidential campaign
was approaching, and the Democrats were eager to throw upon the
Republicans the blame for all labor disturbances, the riots at
Homestead in particular.

1892 to 1896

I have already, in other parts of these recollections, referred to
the National Convention of 1892, and the reasons which induced me
to support President Harrison for renomination.  I attended as one
of the delegates, and took a more or less active part in the work
of the convention.  Harrison was chosen on the first ballot.  No
other candidate had any chance.  Mr. Blaine and Mr. McKinley on
that ballot received one hundred and eighty-two votes each, but
neither was really considered for the nomination.

Grover Cleveland, of course, was the principal candidate before
the Democratic Convention, and had no serious opposition aside from
the bitter personal enmity evinced toward him by David B. Hill, of
New York, who had succeeded him as Governor of that State, and had
hoped to succeed him as President.  Senator Hill has only recently
passed away.  He was one of the most astute and ablest politicians
in the history of the Democratic party.  President Cleveland
determined, for some reason or other, to drive him out of public
life, and he succeeded in doing so during his second administration
as President.

The campaign of 1892, just as the previous Presidential campaign
had been, was entirely fought out on the tariff issue; and the
question in general was the McKinley Law and its results.  The
Democrats were able to show that there had been increase in cost
in many articles regarded as necessaries, while the Republicans
pointed to a great era of national prosperity.  The Republicans
contended also that wages had advanced and prices declined under
the McKinley Law; but I have always doubted whether we were able
to sustain that contention.  For instance, the department stores
and retail merchants generally marked up prices, and wholly without
reason, on articles on which there had been no increase in the
tariff; and when asked why, they would reply, "It is because of
the McKinley tariff."

For these economic reasons, added to the labor disturbances, Mr.
Cleveland was again elected President of the United States, and
carried with him for the first time both the Senate and the House.
The Democrats now had complete control of all branches of the
Government, and were in a position, if united, to enact any
legislation they might desire.  The result of the election was a
complete surprise to every one.  Why the voters should have turned
against the Republican administration, it is hard to say.  Mr.
Harrison's personality had much to do with it.

The times were never more prosperous.  In his message to the Congress
which convened after his defeat, President Harrison appositely
said:  "There never has been a time in our history when work was
so abundant, or when wages were so high, whether measured in the
currency in which they are paid, or by their power to supply the
necessaries and comforts of life."  And yet, with this admitted
condition prevailing, the Democratic party was returned to power.

I felt very badly over President Harrison's defeat, as I had done
everything I could to secure, first, his renomination and then his
re-election.  After the election I wrote President Harrison as

  "U. S. Senate Chamber,
  "Washington, D. C., _Nov. 11, 1890_.

"Dear Mr. President:--

"I have delayed writing you since the election for the reason that
the result so surprised me I scarcely knew what to make of it.  We
lost Illinois by the overwhelming Democratic vote in Chicago.  I
feared that city all the time, but was assured by the committees
that it would not be very much against us.  I said all the time
that we would take care of the country and carry the State if the
Cook County vote could be kept below ten thousand Democratic, and
was assured by all hands there that it would be.  We did carry the
country about as heretofore.  As things have gone bad nearly
everywhere, I am not feeling so chagrined as I would if Illinois
had been the pivotal State.  I specially desire to say that the
cause of the defeat does not lie at your door personally.  Any man
in the country standing upon the doctrine of high protection would
have been defeated.  The people sat down upon the McKinley Tariff
Bill two years ago, and they have never gotten up.  They were
thoroughly imbued with the feeling that the party did not do right
in revising the tariff up instead of down.  They beat us for it in
'90 and now again.

"Hoping to see you in ten days, I am, with great respect,

  "Truly yours,
  "S. M. Cullom."

Curtis, in his work on the Republican party, in commenting on the
result of this election, said:

"It will be seen that to the Solid South were added, California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin; while Mr. Cleveland obtained one electoral vote in
Ohio, and five in Michigan.  The result was certainly disastrous,
and left no doubt that the people at large for the time being had
rebuked the Republican party for what they wrongly supposed to be
against their best interests.  And yet, though a large majority of
the people had voted for Mr. Cleveland, they were probably sorry
for it within twenty-four hours after the election.  There was no
such rejoicing as took place in 1885.  In fact, as soon as it was
determined without doubt that the next Congress would be Democratic
in both branches, and would enable Mr. Cleveland and his party to
carry out their threats to repeal the McKinley Law and enact in
its stead a Free Trade measure, apprehension and alarm took possession
of the industrial and financial interests of the country, and could
the election have been held over again within ten days, it may be
estimated that a million or more votes would have been changed from
the Cleveland column to that of Harrison.  The people, as it were,
awoke from a dream; they saw at once how they had been deceived by
the methods of the Democratic campaign managers, and how an incident
which had no bearing whatever upon the issue of the campaign had
influenced their vote in a time of temporary anger and resentment."

This perfectly sums up the situation, as I now recollect it, on
the election of President Cleveland; it was the beginning of the
most protracted era of hard times that this country has ever known.

Mr. Cleveland was inaugurated the second time on March 4, 1893,
and, as Mr. Curtis says, there was very little enthusiasm.  The
ceremonies were quiet and unenlivened.

Of course, it goes without saying, that I was not glad to see the
Democratic party returned to power; but I confess I was a little
pleased to meet President Cleveland in the White House again.  His
manner, his treatment of those with whom he came in contact, was
so different from that of his predecessor, that it was a real
pleasure, rather than a burden, to call at the executive offices.

Mr. Cleveland promptly proceeded to remove Republicans from
Presidential offices and appoint Democrats.  This even went to the
extent of the removal of postmasters, large and small, against whom
almost any sort of charge might be trumped up.

Adlai E. Stevenson was a past master in this respect.  He was First
Assistant Postmaster-General under Cleveland's first Administration
and removed Republican postmasters whose terms had not expired,
without cause or reason.  He was elected Vice-President when Mr.
Cleveland again came into office.  He was a great favorite among
the Democrats, because he believed in appointing Democrats to every
office within the gift of the Executive.

I remember, after Stevenson was elected, Senator Harris, of Tennessee,
remarking to me:  "Now we have got Cleveland and Stevenson elected,
if Cleveland would drop out and Stevenson was President, we would
get along finely."  He meant that Stevenson would never permit a
single Republican to remain in office, if he could help it.

Mr. Stevenson made a popular presiding-officer of the Senate.  He
has been a strong Democrat all his life, and it has repeatedly been
charged against him, although I believe he denies it, that he was
a Southern sympathizer during the Civil War.  He served in Congress
two terms, having been elected from the Bloomington district, and
was quite an influential member.  He was defeated as a candidate
for Vice-President with Mr. Bryan in 1900, and was also defeated
as a candidate of the Democratic party for Governor of Illinois,
in 1908.

As a candidate for Governor he made a splendid showing in 1908, as
he was defeated by 23,164 votes, while President Taft carried
Illinois by 179,122.

President Cleveland's Cabinet contained some very able men.  He
appointed Judge Walter Q. Gresham as Secretary of State.  Why he
should have appointed Gresham, I do not know.  It would seem to me
that there were men of as much ability in his own party whom he
might have selected, but for some reason or other he did appoint

Judge Gresham was then serving as United States Circuit Judge, at
Chicago.  He had always been a Republican, and in the convention
which nominated Harrison he received on one ballot one hundred and
twenty-three votes as the candidate of the Republican party for
President of the United States.  He probably supported Mr. Cleveland,
although of this I am not sure.  He was a bitter enemy of President
Harrison,--so much so, indeed, that he could scarcely be polite to
any one whom he thought favored Harrison.  He was holding court in
Springfield, during the Harrison Administration, when I met him,
and, not appreciating his feeling, I casually commended President
Harrison for some particular thing which I approved.  Gresham did
not like it, and he almost told me in so many words that he did
not think much of me or any one else who thought well of Harrison.
Whereupon we separated somewhat coolly, I giving him to understand
that I would insist upon my views and my right to commend a man
who I thought was following a proper course.  I do not believe he
ever avowed himself a Democrat, and in the State Department he
always declined to make any recommendations for appointments, on
the ground that he was not a Democrat, and that those appointments
must be left to the President himself.  I had more or less intercourse
with him as Secretary of State, and always found him polite and
agreeable.  He was regarded as an able Secretary, and served in
that office until his death.

Richard Olney succeeded him as Secretary of State.  He had been
the Attorney-General in the cabinet.  He was to me a much more
satisfactory Secretary than Judge Gresham, and fully as able as a

John G. Carlisle was appointed Secretary of the Treasury.  He had
been seven times elected to Congress and three times Speaker.  He
resigned his seat in the House, having been elected as a member of
the Senate from Kentucky, and remained in the Senate until he
resigned to accept the position of Secretary of the Treasury under

Mr. Carlisle was in entire harmony with the President on the tariff
and also on the monetary questions--and, indeed, I remark here that
Mr. Carlisle had very much to do toward the defeat of Mr. Bryan in
1896.  Although a life-long Democrat himself, he believed that Mr.
Bryan's theories on the monetary question would ruin the country,
and he stood with Mr. Cleveland in opposing his election.  Had
Cleveland, Carlisle, and other patriotic Gold Democrats stood with
their party, Mr. Bryan would probably have been elected and the
history of this country would have been written differently.

After Mr. Cleveland's election, our industrial conditions became
so depressed--and it was alleged by many that the cause for this
was the Sherman Coinage Act of 1890--that a special session of
Congress was called to meet August 7, 1893.  The President said in
his message to this Congress:

"The existence of an alarming and extraordinary business situation,
involving the welfare and prosperity of all our people, has
constrained me to call in extra session the people's representatives
in Congress, to the end that through a wise and patriotic exercise
fo the legislative duty with which they are solely charged, present
evils may be mitigated and danger threatening the future may be
averted. . . . With plenteous crops, with abundant promise of
remunerative production and manufacture, with unusual invitation
to safe investment, and with satisfactory returns to business
enterprise, suddenly financial fear and distrust have sprung up on
every side. . . . Values supposed to be fixed are fast becoming
conjectural, and loss and failure have involved every branch of
business.  I believe these things are principally chargeable to
Congressional legislation touching the purchase and coinage of
silver by the general Government."

And Mr. Cleveland earnestly recommended the prompt repeal of the
Sherman Coinage Act of 1890.

The extra session continued until October 30, when the Sherman Act
was finally repealed.

But the repeal of the Sherman Act did not at all remedy industrial
conditions.  It was not the Sherman Act that was at fault, but the
well-grounded fear on the part of our manufacturers of the passage
of a free trade measure.  The panic commenced, it is true, under
the McKinley Bill, but it was the direct result of what the business
interests felt sure was to come; and that was the passage of a
Democratic Tariff act.

The year 1893 closed with the prices of many products at the lowest
ever known, with many workers seeking in vain for work, and with
charity laboring to keep back suffering and starvation in all our
cities.  And yet, in view of the condition, Mr. Cleveland sent to
Congress at the beginning of the annual session a free trade message,
advocating the repeal of the McKinley Act and the passage of a
Democratic free trade, or Tariff for Revenue, measure.  From the
tone of this message, however, he seems to have changed somewhat
from his message of 1887; yet it was strong enough to startle the
business interests, and make more widespread financial panic.

Speaker Crisp at once proceeded to the formation of the committees
of the House, and particularly the Committee on Ways and Means.

I was naturally anxious concerning our industries in Illinois, and
I wanted one of our strongest Illinois Representatives placed on
that committee.  I happened to enjoy particularly friendly relations
with Mr. Crisp, he having been a House conferee on the Interstate
Commerce Act of 1887, and I felt quite free to call upon him.
After looking over the Illinois delegation, I came to the conclusion
that the Hon. A. J. Hopkins, my late colleague in the Senate, and
who was then serving in the House, was the very best man he could
select for that place.  I urged Mr. Crisp to appoint him, saying
that he was capable of doing more and better work on the committee
than any other man in the delegation.  Crisp was very nice about
it, and whether he did it on my recommendation or not I do not
know; but he appointed Hopkins.  Senator Hopkins was, during his
service on that committee, regarded as one of its leading members,
and had a prominent part in framing the Dingley tariff.  He served
in the House until elected to the Senate, where he remained for
six years.  Senator Hopkins is an able man, and was constantly
growing in influence and power in the Senate.  He was an agreeable
colleague, and I regretted very much indeed that he was not re-

It did not take long for the Democratic majority of the Committee
on Ways and Means of the House to frame and report the Wilson Bill,
repealing the McKinley Bill, and recommending in its stead the
enactment of a Tariff for Revenue, which was fairly in harmony with
Democratic Free Trade principles, and in harmony with the President's
message.  The bill was passed without long delay, Mr. Reed leading
the ineffectual opposition to its passage in the House, with a
speech of great eloquence, in which he depicted conditions that
would surely arise after the passage of such a measure.

But this bill still had to run the gantlet of the Senate, where
many Democratic Senators did not sympathize to the full extent with
the Cleveland-Carlisle Free Trade theory.  Senators Gorman, Hill,
Murphy, Jones, Brice, and Smith of New Jersey, led the opposition,
uniting with the Republicans in securing some seven hundred
amendments, all in the interest, more or less, of Protection.

The truth is, we were all--Democrats as well as Republicans--trying
to get in amendments in the interest of protecting the industries
of our respective States.  I myself secured the adoption of many
such amendments.  After I had exhausted every resource, I went to
Senator Brice one day and asked him if he would not offer some
little amendment for me, as I felt pretty sure that if Brice offered
it it would be adopted, and I knew if I did it myself it stood a
good chance of being defeated.  Brice, by the way, was a very bluff,
frank man; he replied to me, half jocularly, "Now, you know when
your party is in power you will never do anything for a Democrat,
and I won't offer this amendment for you.  You go and get your
colleague, Senator Palmer, to offer it for you."  I left him and
went to General Palmer; he presented the amendment, and it was

The bill passed the Senate; and after going to conference, when it
seemed likely the Conference Committee would not agree, the Democratic
leaders of the House, fearing the bill would fail entirely, decided
to surrender to the Senate and accept the Senate bill with all its
amendments.  President Cleveland denounced this temporizing, coining
the famous expression, "party perfidy and party dishonor" in the
Wilson letter, evidently referring to Mr. Gorman and other leaders
of the Senate.

There has been endless controversy and discussion over the attitude
of Senator Gorman on the Wilson Bill.  I myself have always believed
that Senator Gorman felt that the industries of the country could
not prosper under a Democratic Free Trade Tariff, and that he was
willing to afford them a certain amount of protection.  Especially
was he criticised on account of the sugar schedule.  Senator Tillman
in his memorial address in the Senate, on the occasion of the
delivery of eulogies on Senator Gorman, said in reference to this:

"In the conversations I had with the Democratic leaders, it was
clearly brought out that the sugar refineries were ready to contribute
to the Democratic campaign fund if it could be understood that the
industry would be fostered and not destroyed by the Democratic
Tariff policy, and I received the impression, which became indelibly
fixed on my mind then and remains fixed to this day, that President
Cleveland understood the situation and was willing to acquiesce in
it if we won at the polls.  I did not talk with Mr. Cleveland in
person on this subject, though I called at his hotel to pay my
respects, and I am thoroughly satisfied that the charge of party
perfidy and party dishonor was an act of the grossest wrong and
cruelty to Senator Gorman.  If Mr. Cleveland, as I was told, knew
of these negotiations and was the beneficiary of such a contribution,
it is inconceivable how he could lend his great name and influence
toward destroying Senator Gorman's influence and popularity, in
the way he did."

Senator Gorman himself was very justly indignant and displayed much
feeling when he addressed the Senate on July 23, 1894, replying to
Mr. Cleveland's letter.

He used, in part, the following language:

"As I have said, sir, this is a most extraordinary proceeding for
a Democrat, elected to the highest place in the Government, and
fellow Democrats in another high place, where they have the right
to speak and legislate generally, to join with the commune in
traducing the Senate of the United States, to blacken the character
of Senators who are as honorable as they are, who are as patriotic
as they ever can be, who have done as much to serve their party as
men who are now the beneficiaries of your labor and mine, to taunt
and jeer us before the country as the advocates of trust and as
guilty of dishonor and perfidy."

It was a Democratic controversy, and I am not in a position to say
whether Mr. Cleveland or Mr. Gorman was right; whether it was a
bargain in advance of the election to secure campaign funds; whether
the sugar schedule was framed to secure the support of the Louisiana
Senators; but I do know that Mr. Cleveland's attacks on Mr. Gorman
turned the State of Maryland over to the Republicans and relegated
Mr. Gorman to private life.

The Wilson Bill became a law without the approval of the President,
Mr. Cleveland taking the position that he would not permit himself
to be separated from his party to such an extent as might be implied
by a veto of the tariff legislation which, though disappointing to
him, he said was still chargeable to Democratic efforts.

There was one provision of the Wilson Bill which, I have been
convinced since, was a very wise measure, and which will yet be
enacted into law; and that is the income tax provision.  That bill
provided for a tax of two per cent on incomes above four thousand
dollars.  A separate vote was taken on this section and I voted
against it.  It was Republican policy then to oppose an income-tax,
and the view I took then was, that if we started out taxing incomes
the end would be that we would derive, from the source, sufficient
amount of revenue to run the Government and that it would gradually
break down the protective policy.  It was declared unconstitutional
by a vote of five to four of the Supreme Court.  A previous income-
tax had been declared constitutional during the Civil War, and I
am very strongly of the opinion that if the case is again presented
to the Court the decision will be in harmony with the first decision,
overruling the decision of 1895.  An income-tax is the fairest of
all taxes.  It is resorted to by every other nation.  It falls most
heavily on those who can best afford it.  The sentiment in the
Republican party has changed, and I believe that at no far distant
day Congress will pass an income-tax as well as an inheritance-tax

The passage of the Wilson Bill increased, rather than diminished,
the hard times commencing with the panic of 1893.  The Democratic
party, or the free silver element of it, claimed that the panacea
was the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen
to one.  The silver question was argued week after week in both
branches of Congress, and was never finally settled until the
election of McKinley and the establishment by law of the Gold
Standard.  In recent years we hear very little about free silver;
but the Democratic party split on that issue, Mr. Cleveland heading
the faction in favor of sound money.

In those closing days of the Cleveland Administration, it was very
seldom that a Democratic Senator was seen at the White House.  The
President became completely estranged from the members of his party
in both House and Senate, but it seemed to bother him little.  He
went ahead doing his duty as he saw it, utterly disregarding the
wishes of the members of his party in Congress.

I saw him many times during this period, and I remember on one
occasion I had seen a notice in one of the papers indicating that
the President was about to appoint my old friend Mr. Charles Ridgely,
of Springfield, Illinois, as Comptroller of the Currency.  I had
the highest regard for Mr. Ridgely, and I called at the White House
to congratulate the President on the selection.  He seemed to be
out of humor, and was more than usually abrupt.  He declared that
he knew nothing about it, that he did not know Ridgely, and never
had had any intention of appointing him.  I repeated that I had
seen the announcement in a newspaper, adding that it looked to me
as though the report were authentic, and that I only wanted to
congratulate him.  But the President merely reiterated, somewhat
curtly, that he knew nothing about it.  I became a little annoyed,
finally losing my temper.

"I don't care a damn whether you appoint him or not," I exclaimed;
"Ridgely's a Democrat, anyhow."

Thereupon his attitude quickly changed, and he inquired about
Ridgely, listening with interest to what I had to say.  He then
talked with me on the silver question and other matters, detaining
me while he kept his back to the crowd waiting to see him.  I almost
had to break away in order to give others a chance.

Among the other embarrassments and difficulties of the Cleveland
Administration were the famous Chicago riots of 1893.  The trouble
grew out of a railroad strike; much damage was done and a great
deal of property was destroyed, with consequent loss of life.  The
city itself seemed to be threatened, the business and manufacturing
interests appealed to the Governor first, and then to the President,
to send troops to Chicago to protect property.  When the Governor
failed to act, the President ordered Federal troops to Chicago.
The action was regarded as very wise, and it endeared him to the
business people of that city.  Governor Altgeld protested, and that
was one of the reasons why he became Mr. Cleveland's most bitter

I think I should say a few words in reference to Governor Altgeld.
He has been called an anarchist and a socialist.  In my judgment,
he was neither.  Of his honesty, his integrity, his sincerity of
purpose, his determination to give the State a good administration,
I never had the slightest doubt.  The mainspring of the trouble,
I believe, was an inability to select good men for public office.
He was not a good judge of men; he surrounded himself with a coterie
that betrayed his trust and used the State offices for personal
gain.  I have always sympathized with Governor Altgeld.  Had he
been eligible I believe he would have been the nominee of his party
for the Presidency; but he was born abroad.

One can scarcely imagine industrial conditions in a worse state
than they were at the close of the Cleveland Administration.  The
election of a Republican Congress in 1894 had helped some, but the
revenues were not sufficient to meet the ordinary running expenses
of the Government; bonds had to be issued, labor was out of
employment, the mills and factories were closed, and business was
at a standstill.

This was the condition of affairs when the Republican National
Convention assembled in 1896.

1896 to 1901

The hard times, the business depression, all attributable to the
Wilson Tariff Bill, made the Republicans turn instinctively to
Governor McKinley, the well-known advocate of a high protective
tariff, as the nominee of the Republican party, who would lead it
to victory at the polls.

The Republican National Convention of 1896 was held at St. Louis.
It was one of the few national conventions which I failed to attend.
Since entering the Senate, I have been usually honored by my party
colleagues in the State by being made chairman of the Illinois
delegation to Republican national conventions.  But for some reason
or other--just why I do not now recollect--I was not a delegate to
the St. Louis Convention.  Congress was in session until near the
time when the convention was to meet, and Mr. McKinley, who, it
was well known, would be the nominee of the party, invited me to
stop off in Canton on my way from Washington to Illinois and spend
a day with him.  I did so, arriving at Canton about nine in the
morning, Mr. McKinley meeting me at the station and driving me to
his house, where I remained until my train left at nine in the
evening.  From his residence in Canton, I wired the Illinois
delegation, appealing them to vote for McKinley.  He received all
but two of the votes of the delegation.  He was nominated without
any serious opposition, through the brilliant generalship of that
master of party manipulation, the Hon. Marcus A. Hanna.

I was talked about a little as a candidate for President during
the closing days of the Cleveland Administration.  I was urged to
lend my name for the purpose, particularly by men in the East whom
I always regarded as my friends.  I afterwards learned, although
I was not so informed at the time, that they had determined to beat
McKinley at all hazards and nominate Speaker Reed if they could,
their policy being to have the different States send delegations
in favor of "favorite sons."  Senator Allison was selected as the
"favorite son" from Iowa, and efforts were made to carry the Illinois
delegation for me.  They hoped by this means, when the delegates
assembled at St. Louis, to agree on some one, almost any one, except
McKinley--Reed if they could, or Allison, or me.

Mr. McKinley, through friends, about this time offered me all sorts
of inducements to withdraw.  Judge Grosscup was the intermediary,
and there was hardly anything in the Administration, or hardly any
promise, he would not have made me if I had consented to withdraw.
I felt that I could not do so.  When they found it was impossible
to beg me off they determined to carry the State over me.  Money
was spent freely in characteristic Hanna fashion, his motto being,
"accomplish results."  McKinley was exceedingly popular, in addition,
and after our State Convention had assembled and endorsed him, I
withdrew from the contest.  At the time I thought that if I could
have carried the delegation from my own State, as Senator Allison
did his, it would have broken the McKinley boom, and one or the
other of us would have been nominated.  But as I look back on it
now, it seems to me that no one could have beaten McKinley; and
even if he had lost Illinois, as he lost Iowa, he still would have
had sufficient delegates to secure his nomination.

The McKinley campaign was one of the most interesting and quite
the liveliest in which I have ever participated.  It was a campaign
of education from beginning to end.  At first the Republicans tried
to make the tariff the issue, and in a sense it remained one of
the most important; but we were soon compelled to accept silver as
the issue, and fight it out on that line.  Silver was comparatively
a new question; the people did not understand it, and they attended
the meetings, listening attentively to the campaign speeches.

There was considerable satisfaction in speaking during the campaign
of 1896:  one was always assured of a large and interested audience.
In addition to this, the prevailing sentiment was one of cheerful
good-feeling; and while there had been several candidates before
the St. Louis Convention, including Speaker Reed, Senator Allison,
and Levi P. Morton, the convention left no bitterness--the party
was united, and every Republican did his full duty.  Southern
Illinois was a little uncertain; but it finally came around, and
the full Republican vote was cast for McKinley and Hobart.

I took a very active part in this campaign.  Mr. McKinley was
exceedingly polite to me and invited Senator Thurston and me to
open the campaign in Canton, which invitation I accepted, addressing
there a vast audience.  It was said that some fifty or seventy-five
thousand people were assembled there that day.  Subsequently I
spoke in Kentucky and Michigan, and made a thorough campaign in my
own State.

While the Republicans were united, the Democrats were hopelessly
divided.  The so-called Gold Democrats held a convention and
nominated my colleague, Senator Palmer, and General Buckner as its
candidates for President and Vice-President respectively.  They
did not receive a very large vote, because I believe they advised
the Gold Democrats to vote for McKinley.  The Gold Democrats had
great influence in the election.  General Palmer was thoroughly in
earnest on the silver question, more so perhaps than any Democrat
whom I knew.  He believed strongly in the Democratic doctrine on
the tariff, and was a Democrat on every other issue; but he could
not follow his party in espousing free silver.

There was doubt all the time over the result of the election.
After the Democratic convention was held in Chicago, and in the
early Summer and Fall, the Democrats certainly seemed to have the
best of it; but later in the campaign, as the people became educated,
it began to look brighter.  I was very much surprised at the result,
however.  McKinley carried the election by a vote of 7,111,000 as
against 6,509,000 for Mr. Bryan, and the electoral vote by 271 as
against 176 for Mr. Bryan.

When Mr. McKinley was inaugurated I cannot forget the expression
of apparent relief in President Cleveland's face, as he accompanied
his successor to the ceremony.  He seemed rejoiced that he was
turning his great office over to Mr. McKinley.  The last days of
his Administration had been troublesome ones.  Estranged from his
own party, war clouds appearing in the near distance,--I do not
wonder that he gladly relinquished the office.

Mr. McKinley came into office under the most favorable circumstances.
A Congress was elected fully in harmony with him, whose members
gladly acknowledged him as not only the titular, but the real head
of the Republican party.  We never had a President who had more
influence with Congress than Mr. McKinley.  Even President Lincoln
had difficulties with the leaders of Congress in his day, but I
have never heard of even the slightest friction between Mr. McKinley
and the party leaders in Senate and House.

In many respects, President McKinley was a very great man.  He
looked and acted the ideal President.  He was always thoroughly
self-poised and deliberate; nothing ever seemed to excite him, and
he always maintained a proper dignity.  He had the natural talent
and make-up to be successful to a marked degree in dealing with
people with whom he came into contact.  He grew in popular favor
from the day of his election until his death, and I have always
maintained that he would go down in history as our most popular
President among all classes of people in all sections of the country.
His long training in public life--his service as a member of the
House and Governor of Ohio--had well fitted him for the high office
of President.  He had many favorites whom he desired to get into
office; and on many occasions, instead of going ahead and appointing
his friends without consulting any one, he asked me if I would have
any objection to his appointing some personal friend living in
Illinois to one office or another in or out of the State.  I always
yielded; in fact it was impossible to resist him.

Illustrating this, there happened to be a vacancy in a Federal
Judgeship in Chicago.  Presidents usually have selected their own
judges regardless of Senatorial recommendation, and McKinley selected
his; but he managed to secure Senatorial recommendation at the same
time.  I was in favor of the appointment of a certain lawyer in
Chicago whom I regarded as thoroughly well qualified for the place,
and the President wanted to appoint Judge Christian C. Kohlsaat.
My colleague and I insisted for a long time on our recommendation.
The President and I debated the question frequently, he always
listening to me and seeming impressed with what I had to say, at
the same time remaining fully determined to have his own way in
the end.  Finally, when I was in the executive office one day, he
came over to where I was and, putting his arm on my shoulder, said:
"Senator, you won't get mad at me if I appoint Judge Kohlsaat,
will you?"  I replied:  "Mr. President, I could not get mad at you
if I were to try."  He sent the nomination in; Judge Kohlsaat was
confirmed, and is now serving on the United States Circuit Bench.

Mr. McKinley wanted to appoint his old friend and commander, General
Powell, as Collector of Internal Revenue at East St. Louis.  I did
not want General Powell to have the office, as I did not believe
he had rendered any service to the party sufficient to justify
giving him one of the general Federal offices in the State.  State
Senator P. T. Chapman, who has since been elected to Congress
several times, and Hon. James A. Willoughby, then a member of the
Illinois State Senate, were both candidates, and I should have been
very glad to have had either one of them appointed.

Chapman came to Washington to my office, where he waited while I
went to the White House to attempt to have the matter of the
appointment settled.  I saw the President, to whom I expressed a
willingness to have the post of Collector of Internal Revenue for
the East St. Louis District to go either to Chapman or Willoughby.

"Cullom," returned the President, "if you had come to me this way
in the first place, and urged me to appoint one of them, I would
have done it; but you have waited until everything is filled, and
now I must either appoint Powell to this place, or turn him out to
grass."  He continued:  "I was a boy when I entered the army, and
General Powell took me under his wing; he looked after me, and I
became very much attached to him.  I was standing only a little
way off and saw him shot through."  The tears came to the President's
eyes and ran down his cheeks.  When I saw with what feeling he
regarded the matter, I threw up my hands.

"I am through," said I; "I have nothing more to say."

General Powell was given the office.  This illustrates the manner
in which Mr. McKinley always managed to get his own way in the
matter of appointments without the slightest friction with Senators
and Representatives.

During the early days of his Administration I did not feel so close
to him as I had felt toward some of his predecessors.  I did not
feel that he quite forgave my not yielding to him, and declining
to become a candidate for President in 1896.  He was always polite
to me, as he was to every one, yet I could not but feel that he
was holding me at arm's length.  My colleague, Senator Mason, who
was an old friend of his, had secured a number of appointments,
and the President himself was constantly asking me to yield to the
appointment of this or that "original McKinley man," mostly either
my enemies or men of whom I knew nothing.  I was much out of humor
about it, and several consular appointments having been made about
that time, I wrote some one in the State a letter setting forth
that those appointments were but the carrying out of promises made
in advance of McKinley's nomination.  This letter, or a copy of
it, was sent to the President.  I called at the White House one
day concerning the appointment of some man, whose name I do not
remember, but whom I regarded as my personal enemy.  I told him I
had no objection, but that I regarded the man as a jackass.  McKinley
evidently did not like my remark very well; he reached back on his
table, pulled out this letter, or a copy of it, and asked me if I
had written it.  I replied that I did not know whether I had or
not, but that it sounded very much as I felt at the moment.  He
said that he had not expected an expression of that sort from me.
Whereupon we had a general overhauling, in the course of which I
told him with considerable feeling that I had been more or less
intimate with every President since, and including, Mr. Lincoln,
and had always been treated frankly and not held at arm's length;
but with himself that I had been constantly made to feel that he
was reserved with me.  We quarrelled about it a little, and finally
he asked me what I wanted done.  I told him.  He promptly promised
to do it, and did.

That quarrel cleared the atmosphere, and we remained devoted friends
from that day until his death.

Had it not been for the Hon. Marcus A. Hanna, Mr. McKinley would
probably never have been nominated or elected President of the
United States.

I knew Mr. Hanna very many years before he became identified with
the late President McKinley.  He always took an interest in Republican
politics, particularly in Ohio politics; and when Mr. Blaine was
a candidate for the Presidency, and I was campaigning in Ohio, I
rode with Mr. Hanna from Canton to Massillon, some seven or eight
miles distant, where a great meeting was held, with Mr. Blaine as
the central figure.  I was even then very much impressed with Mr.
Hanna as a man of the very soundest judgment and common sense.

But it was not until Mr. McKinley became a candidate for President
that Hanna took a very great interest in national political affairs.
He had the deepest affection for the late President, and was
determined that he should be nominated and elected President of
the United States, at whatever cost.  Mr. Hanna took hold of Mr.
McKinley's campaign for the nomination and controlled it absolutely
and, to use the common expression, he "ran every other candidate
off the track."

He came into Illinois and carried the State easily.  He was not
sparing in the use of money, but believed in using it legitimately
in accomplishing results.

It must have been a great satisfaction to him when the St. Louis
Convention nominated his candidate, William McKinley, of Ohio, on
the first ballot by a vote of 661 as against 84 votes for Thomas
B. Reed, of Maine, the next highest candidate.  He had it all
organized so perfectly that the St. Louis convention was perfunctory
so far as Mr. McKinley's nomination was concerned.  The Convention
recognized that it was Mr. Hanna had achieved this great triumph;
and after Senator Lodge, Governor Hastings, and Senators Platt and
Depew had moved that the nomination of Mr. McKinley be made unanimous,
a general call was made for Mr. Hanna.  He finally yielded in a
very brief address:

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention:--I am glad there
was one member of this Convention who has had the intelligence at
this late hour to ascertain how this nomination was made--by the
people.  What feeble effort I may have contributed to the result,
I am here to lay the fruits of it at the feet of my party and upon
the altar of my country.  I am now ready to take my position in
the ranks alongside of my friend, General Henderson, and all good
Republicans from every State, and do the duty of a soldier until
next November."

Naturally, Mr. Hanna was made chairman of the Republican National
Committee, and as such conducted Mr. McKinley's campaign for election
just as he had conducted the preliminary campaign for the nomination.
He there showed the shrewdest tact and ability in its management,
and many people believe that he elected McKinley very largely by
his own efforts.

I do not know whether Mr. Hanna was very ambitious to enter the
Senate or not, but I do believe that Mr. McKinley saw that he would
be probably the most useful Senator to his Administration; and he
contrived to make a vacancy in the Senatorship from Ohio by inducing
John Sherman to accept the position of Secretary of State in his
Cabinet, thereby making a place for Mr. Hanna in the Senate.
Senator Sherman resigned to enter the State Department; and on
March 5, 1897, Mr. Hanna was appointed by Governor Bushnell to fill
the vacancy.

From the very first Mr. Hanna took rank as one of the foremost
leaders of the Senate.  Of course, he had everything in his favor.
He had nominated and elected McKinley; he had been Chairman of the
Republican National Committee, and it was known that he stood closer
to the President than any other man in public life.

But notwithstanding this, he had the real ability naturally to
assume his place as a leader.  He assumed a prominent place more
rapidly than any Senator whom I have ever known.  He took hold of
legislation with a degree of skill and confidence that was remarkable,
and carried his measures thorough apparently by his own individual
efforts and energy.  He changed the whole attitude of the Senate
concerning the route for an interoceanic canal.  We all generally
favored the Nicaraguan route.  Senator Hanna became convinced that
the Panama route was best, and he soon carried everything before
him to the end that the Panama route was selected.

During the first McKinley campaign, Mark Hanna was probably the
most caricatured man in public life.  He was made an issue in the
campaign and was usually pictured as being covered with money-bags
and dollars.  But it is very strange how public sentiment changed
concerning him.  Before the first McKinley Administration was over,
Mark Hanna enjoyed quite a degree of popularity; but it was not
until he entered the campaign of 1900 that he really became one of
the popular figures in American politics.

Some one, I do not know who, induced him to go among the people
and show himself, and try to make some speeches.  His first few
efforts were so successful that it was determined he should make
a speech-making tour.  Senator Frye, of Maine, one of the oldest
and most experienced and finest orators in the country, accompanied
him on his tour.  Senator Frye told me that he prevailed upon
Senator Hanna to make short campaign speeches first.  He requested
him to try a fifteen-minute speech, then extend them to thirty
minutes.  Before their tour was ended, he was making just as long
and just as good a speech as any old experienced campaigner.  During
this campaign, there were more calls on the Republican National
Committee for Senator Hanna than there were for any other campaign
speaker.  Everywhere he went he made friends, not only for President
McKinley, the nominee of the party, but for himself as well.  Mark
Hanna became one of the most popular leaders in the Republican
party, and I have never for a moment doubted that he could have
been the nominee of the party for the Presidency in 1904, had he
consented to accept it.  He told me in a private conversation had
been gratified when he had seen his great personal friend, Mr.
McKinley, twice elected President of the United States, and now
that he had passed away he had no particular ambition on his own

Mr. McKinley promptly proceeded to call a special session of
Congress, which convened March 15, 1897, and in which Mr. Reed was
elected Speaker of the House.  This session was called for the
purpose of enacting a law for the raising of sufficient revenue to
carry on the Government; and on March 31 the Dingley Bill passed
the House.  The bill was debated in the Senate for several weeks,
and after eight hundred and seventy-two amendments were incorporated,
it passed the Senate July 7, 1897.  The conference report was agreed
to, and the act was approved July 24, 1897.  The country was in
such condition then that we heard no complaint concerning the high
protective tariff.  The Republicans were united in advocating such
a protective tariff as would enable the mills and factories to
open, thereby affording employment and restoring prosperity.

From the election of President McKinley and the enactment of the
Dingley Law I do not hesitate to say that we can date the greatest
era of prosperity, and the greatest material advancement, of any
period of like duration in our history.

Toward the close of the Cleveland Administration and all during
the first part of the McKinley Administration, conditions were
leading up inevitably to the Spanish-American War.  The enthusiasm
of some Senators, especially Senator Proctor, of Vermont, and my
own colleague, Senator Mason, of Illinois, became so intense that
war was brought on before the country was really prepared for it.
Mr. McKinley held back.  He knew the horrors of war and, if he
could avoid it, did not desire to see his country engage in
hostilities with any other country.  He acted with great discretion,
holding things steadily until some degree of preparation was made;
and I have no doubt at all that the war would have been averted
had not the _Maine_ been destroyed in Havana harbor.  The country
forced us into it after that appalling catastrophe.

The entire Nation stood behind the President, and so did Congress.
One of the most dignified and impressive scenes I ever witnessed
since I became a member of the Senate was the passage of the bill
appropriating fifty million dollars to be expended under the
direction of the President, in order to carry on the war.  The
Committee on Appropriations, of which I had long been a member,
directed Senator Hale to report the bill.  It was agreed in committee
that we should endeavor to secure its passage without a single
speech for or against it.  Some of the Senators who seemed disposed
to talk, were prevailed upon to desist, and it was passed without
any speeches.  The ayes and nays were called, and amid the most
solemn silence the bill was passed.  The galleries were crowded;
a great many members of the House were on the floor, and it reminded
me of the days when the great Reconstruction legislation was being
enacted, in the sixties.  It was a demonstration to the country
and the world of our confidence in the President, and the determination
on the part of Congress to do what was necessary to uphold the
dignity and honor of the United States.  The vote for the bill in
the Senate was unanimous.

The war came on immediately afterwards.  The history of it is yet
too fresh in the minds of the people to need repetition here.  It
was soon over, and with its conclusion came new and greater
responsibilities.  Whether it was wise for the United States to
assume these new responsibilities, I am not prepared to say.  Time
alone can determine that.

I have always had great sympathy for General Russell A. Alger, of
Michigan, who was in President McKinley's Cabinet as Secretary of
War.  It was not his fault that conditions in the War Department
were as they existed in 1897, when he assumed office.  We must
remember that the country had enjoyed a continuous period of peace
from 1865 to 1898.  We were unprepared for war, and in the scramble
and haste the Department of War was not administered satisfactorily,
the whole blame being laid upon General Alger.  It had been the
policy of the Democratic party in Congress to oppose liberal
appropriations for the maintenance of the War Department and the
Army.  Many Republicans thought that the best means of limiting
appropriations was in cutting down the estimates for the War
Department.  They seemed to think that we would never again engage
in a foreign war.

General Alger was a thoroughly honest man, of whose integrity I
never had any doubt.  He was made the scapegoat, and President
McKinley practically was forced by public sentiment to demand his
resignation.  Personally, I have always believed the President
should have stood by General Alger.  I was much gratified when his
own people in Michigan showed their confidence in him, very soon
after he was forced out of the McKinley Cabinet, by electing him
to a seat in the United States Senate made vacant by the death of
the late Senator McMillan.

During his Administration, President McKinley did me quite an honor
by appointing me chairman of a commission to visit the Hawaiian
Island, investigate conditions there, and report a form of government
for those islands.  He appointed with me my colleague, Senator
Morgan of Alabama, and my friend the Hon. R. R. Hitt, chairman of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  In all my public life this
was the second executive appointment that I ever received, the
first being from President Lincoln during the Civil War, to
investigate commissary and quartermasters' accounts, to which I
have already referred.

It had been the well-known policy of the United States for many
years that in no event could the entity of Hawaiian statehood cease
by the passage of the islands under the domination or influence of
another power than the United States.  Their annexation came about
as the natural result of the strengthening of the ties that bound
us to those islands for many years.  The people had overthrown the
monarchy and set up a republic.  It seemed certain that the republic
could not long exist, and they appealed to the United States for
annexation.  The treaty of annexation was negotiated and then
ratified by Hawaii, but it was withdrawn by President Cleveland
before the Senate acted upon it; finally, the islands were annexed
by the passage of an act of Congress during the McKinley

It was under these circumstances that Senator Morgan, Mr. Hitt,
and I visited the islands.  The appointment came about in this way.
I had been urging the President to appoint Mr. Rheuna Lawrence, of
Springfield, Illinois, as one of the commissioners.  The Hon. James
A. Connolly, then representing the Springfield district in Congress,
had also been very active in trying to secure Lawrence's appointment.
He came to me in the Senate one day and told me that there was no
chance of Lawrence being appointed and that the President had
determined to appoint me.  I told Connolly I did not see how I
could accept an appointment, under the circumstances, and that
Lawrence might misunderstand it.  Connolly said he thought I must
take the place.  The President himself afterwards talked with me
about it.  I hesitated.  He urged me, insisting that I could not
very well afford to decline.  Finally I said that if he insisted,
I would accept.  He nominated us to the Senate for confirmation.
This precipitated considerable debate in the Senate, for, by the
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the appointment of Senators
and members on such a commission was regarded as unconstitutional;
but the committee determined to take no action on the nominations
at all, so we were neither confirmed nor rejected.  President
McKinley urged us to go ahead, however, visit the islands, and make
our report, which we did.  This was the beginning of expansion, or
Imperialism, in the campaign of 1900.

One writer, in speaking of the acquisition of these islands, said:

"One of the brightest episodes in American history was the acquisition
of the Hawaiian Islands, and Senator Cullom's name is prominently
associated with that act.  He read aright our history as a nation
of expansionists.  He was not afraid to permit the great republic
to become greater.  He deemed it wise that to the lines of our
influence on land should be added a national influence on the seas.
This view was accepted by the people and by the national Legislature.
By President McKinley, Senator Cullom was appointed chairman of
the Hawaiian Commission, composed of Senator Morgan of Alabama,
and Congressman Hitt of Illinois, and Senator Cullom, to visit the
islands and frame a new law providing for their civil government
and defining their future relations with the United States.  Since
the days of Clyde in India, few men have been clothed with a more
important duty than this commission, whose mission it was to prepare
a Government for the Hawaiian Islands.  The bill recommended by
the commission was enacted by Congress, and stands as the organic
law of the islands to-day."

We had an exceedingly interesting time in the Hawaiian Islands.
They were not known so well then as they are to-day.  We visited
several of the islands composing the group, and publicly explained
our mission.  The people seemed to have the impression that American
occupancy of the islands was only temporary, and that as soon as
the Spanish-American War was over they would return to old conditions.
We told them that annexation was permanent, and they would remain
a part of the United States for all time to come.  I did not favor
giving them statehood.  There was not a sufficient number of whites
and educated natives to justify giving them the franchise as an
independent State in the American Union.  Senator Morgan and I
differed on this a great deal, and on several occasions in the
hearings of the commission, he stated that they were to become a
State.  I always interposed to the effect that, so far as my
influence was concerned, they would remain a Territory.

There was one island of the group called Molokai devoted entirely
to the care of lepers, leprosy being quite common in the Hawaiian
Islands.  We deemed it our duty to visit this island as well as
the others.  It was one of the most interesting and pathetic places
of which the human mind can conceive--a place of grim tragedies.
There were about twelve hundred lepers on the island, divided into
two colonies, one at each end of the island.  The island itself
forms a natural fortress from which escape is almost impossible,
the sea on one side and mountains on the other.  We spent the day
there and ate luncheon on the island.  We saw the disease in all
its stages.  We entered a schoolhouse in which there were a crowd
of young girls ranging from ten to sixteen years of age.  They were
all lepers.  They sang for us.  It was very pathetic.  We visited
the cemetery and saw the monument erected to the memory of a Catholic
priest, Father Damien, who went there from Chicago, to devote his
life to the spiritual care of the unfortunates, but who, like all
others residing on the island, finally succumbed to the disease.
We met an old lady at the cemetery and I asked her if there was
any danger of contracting the disease.  She said there was not
unless we had some abrasions on the skin, and advised us as a matter
of caution to wear gloves.  I promptly put mine on and kept them
on until I left the island.

I was told that they expected me to speak to them, and I did make
them a speech.  A large number of them assembled.  I have addressed
many audiences in my life, but this was the queerest I was ever
obliged to face.  There were men and women in all stages of the
disease.  Leprosy attacks the fingers and they fall off, and some
natural instinct prompts the victim to hide his hands; but as my
speech was translated to them, in the excitement they would forget
and throw out their hands and applaud.  It was a hideous sight and
I most fervently wish never to see the like of it again.

For our expenses one hundred thousand dollars had been appropriated.
I am not one of those who believe in lavish expenditures of public
money by commissions.  While I was willing as chairman of the
commission to permit travelling expenses and the reasonable
necessaries and probably the luxuries of life while abroad, yet I
differed with my colleague, Senator Morgan, and insisted that no
money should be spent for entertaining.  Out of the hundred thousand
dollars we spent something like fifteen thousand; and Senator
Morgan, Mr. Hitt, and I agreed that it would not be lawful or right
for us to accept any compensation for our services as members of
the commission.  Something like eight-five thousand dollars reverted
to the Treasury.

We returned and made our report to Congress, and the bill which we
recommended was enacted.  I do not think the present form of
government of Hawaii will be changed for many years to come.  I
have regretted exceedingly that, despite the repeated recommendations
of Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt, Congress has not seen fit to
make an appropriation to improve the harbor and fortify the islands.
It is true they afford us a coaling station in the middle of the
Pacific, but that is all.  Should hostilities break out in the Far
East, our country being a party, it would be almost impossible for
us to defend them, and they would become easy prey to foreign
aggression.  I hope that this policy will change in the near future,
and that Pearl Harbor will be improved and the islands fortified.

The important events of the first McKinley Administration were the
enactment of the Dingley Tariff, the successful conclusion of the
war with Spain, the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, the
independence of Cuba, and the acquisition of Porto Rico, the
Philippines, and the Island of Guam; the establishment of the gold
standard by law, and the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands.

At the close of the Administration no one questioned that the
country was in a more prosperous condition than it ever had been
before, and that McKinley was probably the most popular President
that ever occupied the White House.  He was unanimously nominated
at the Republican Convention, at Philadelphia, for a second term.

The campaign of 1900 was fought out on the issue of Imperialism;
the tariff was almost forgotten, and the silver question was only
discussed incidentally.

Mr. McKinley's popular vote was not much greater than it was in
1896.  He received 7,207,000 as against 6,358,000 votes cast for
Mr. Bryan.

During the short session which convened after his election, the
Platt amendment concerning our future relations with Cuba was
passed.  The War Revenue Act was reduced.  It was an uneventful
session, and Mr. McKinley was again inaugurated March 4, 1901.

On September 6, 1901, the President attended the Buffalo Exposition,
accompanied by Mrs. McKinley and the members of his cabinet, and
during the reception which he held at the Temple of Music on that
day, he was shot and wounded by an assassin, one Leon F. Czolgosz.
After lingering along until Saturday, September 14, he passed away,
and Theodore Roosevelt, Vice-President, was sworn in as President
of the United States.  On taking the oath of office, he uttered
but one sentence:

"I wish to say that it shall be my aim to continue absolutely
unbroken the policy of President McKinley for the peace, prosperity,
and the honor of our beloved country."

1901 to 1909

Colonel Roosevelt served as President of the United States from
September 13, 1901, to March 4, 1909.  What he accomplished during
those years is still too fresh in the minds of the people of the
United States to justify its recital by me here; suffice it to say
that he gave one of the best Administrations ever known in the
history of the United States.  He accomplished more in that term
than any of his predecessors; more laws were enacted, laws of more
general benefit to the people; but above all, his Administration
enforced all laws on the statute books as they had never been
enforced before.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Law was a dead letter until Mr. Roosevelt
instructed the Attorney-General to prosecute its violators, both
great and small.  No fear or favor was shown in the enforcement of
the laws against the rich and poor alike.  There were many other
notable features of his administration, but that, to my mind, stands
out conspicuously before all the others.  By his speeches, by his
public messages, he awakened the slumbering conscience of the
Nation, and he made the violators of the law in high places come
to realize that they would receive the same punishment as the lowest
offenders.  He did more than any of his predecessors to prevent
this country from drifting into socialism.

I have known Colonel Roosevelt for many years.  I knew him as Civil
Service Commissioner under President Harrison.  In that position,
as in every other public office he held, he saw to it that the law
was strictly enforced.  I once wrote him a note, when he was Civil
Service Commissioner, requesting him to act favorably on some
matter, which he considered was contrary to his duty.  He promptly
returned this characteristic reply:  "You have no right to ask me
to do this, and I have no right to do it."

As Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinley, he
was able, aggressive, and pushing in preparing the Navy for the
Spanish-American War.  He seemed so interested in what he was doing
that he would appear to an outsider to be nervous and excitable.
My old friend, the Hon. W. I. Guffin, than whom there was no better
man, was visiting the Department with me one day, and I took occasion
to introduce him to Colonel Roosevelt, who was then Assistant
Secretary. Guffin was astonished at Roosevelt's manners and his
way of speaking, and I recall Guffin's remark when we left the
office.  I was very much amused at it.  He said:  "Well, that is
Roosevelt, is it!  He is one hell of a Secretary."  Doubtless that
was the impression that Colonel Roosevelt left on many people whom
he met in the Navy Department, who did not know him and who had
not yet come to know the degree of promptness and ability with
which he despatched public business.

I was at the Philadelphia Convention which nominated Colonel
Roosevelt for Vice-President.  I know that he did not desire the
nomination, but it was thrust on him through the manipulation of
Senator T. C. Platt, of New York, then the acknowledged "easy boss"
of that State.  Platt himself said afterwards that he did it to
get rid of him as Governor of New York, and that he regretted it
every day of his life after Roosevelt became President.  The
politicians of New York did not want Roosevelt in control at Albany,
and they thought it would be an admirable plan to remove him from
the State, and eventually relegate him to private life--to nominate
him for Vice-President.  But the fates willed differently, and the
nomination for Vice-President opened the way for him to become Mr.
McKinley's successor, in which position he made such a splendid
record that no one thought of opposing him for the nomination for
President in 1904.

As President, Colonel Roosevelt was not popular with Senators
generally.  Personally, I got along with him very well.  In all
the years that he was President, I do not think he ever declined
to grant any favor that I asked of him, with one exception.  In
that case, while he declined to give a very distinguished gentleman
in Illinois a position, for which I thought him admirably qualified,
and for which I was urging him, he later tendered him another
office, which my friend declined to accept.  His methods of
transacting business were far more expeditious than those of any
of his predecessors.  President McKinley, in every case, insisted
on Senators placing in writing their recommendations for Federal
offices; I do not think he ever made an appointment without such
written endorsements; but Colonel Roosevelt never bothered much
about written endorsements.  He would either do or not do what you
asked, and would decide the question promptly.

He took a deep interest in the passage of the necessary amendments
to the Interstate Commerce Act, and as I have said elsewhere, had
it not been for Colonel Roosevelt, the Hepburn Bill would not have
been passed.  He thought that I could be of very great service in
securing the passage of the amendments which both he and I deemed
necessary to the Interstate Commerce Act, by remaining chairman of
the Senate's Committee on Interstate Commerce, and when the time
came for me to decide whether I should remain chairman of that
committee, or accept the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, he took occasion personally to urge me to remain at the
head of the Interstate Commerce Committee.  But at the time the
personnel of the committee was such that I had despaired of securing
favorable action in the committee on an amended Interstate Commerce
Act, and I retired to accept the chairmanship of the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

Colonel Roosevelt has proven over and over again, in every position
he has occupied, from Police Commissioner of New York to the
Presidency itself, that he is a marvellous man, a man of great
resources, great intellect, great energy and courage, and a man of
the highest degree of integrity.  He will go down in the history
of this country as the most remarkable man of his day.

The Hon. John Hay, at the urgent request of Colonel Roosevelt,
continued to act as Secretary of State (to which position he had
been appointed by President McKinley) until his death in 1905.
John Hay was the most accomplished diplomat, in my judgment, who
ever occupied the high position of Secretary of State.

I knew him from his boyhood, and knew his father and all the members
of his family.  The Hon. Milton Hay, whom I have mentioned elsewhere,
and who was my law partner, was an uncle of John Hay.  John was a
student in our law office in Springfield, and as a student of the
law he showed marked intellectual capacity and grasp.  It was from
our law office that President Lincoln took him to act as one of
his private secretaries when he left Springfield for Washington to
be inaugurated as President of the United States, and Mr. Hay
continued to act as such until the President's death.  He abandoned
the law as a profession and became finally the editor of _The New
York Tribune_.  I probably knew him more intimately than any one
else in public life, and when Mr. McKinley became President I urged
him to appoint Hay as Ambassador to Great Britain.  He served in
that position with great credit to himself and his country.  He
was very popular with the members of the British Government, and
seemed to have more influence, and to be more able to accomplish
important results, than any of his predecessors in that office.
When it was rumored that there was to be a vacancy in the State
Department, by the retirement of Mr. Day, who was ambitious to go
on the Federal Bench, I wrote Mr. McKinley a letter, in which I
told him that he could find no better man to succeed Mr. Day as
Secretary than his Ambassador to Great Britain, John Hay.  And he
was appointed.

As Secretary of State, Mr. Hay was successful in carrying to a
triumphant conclusion our Far Eastern diplomacy.  For years the
situation in the Far East, and especially in China, had been delicate
and critical to an extreme.  The acquisition of Hawaii and the
Philippines gave to the United States an extraordinary interest in
events occurring in the Orient.  The United States stood for the
"open door" in China; and as the result of the diplomacy and
influence of Secretary Hay, freedom of commerce was secured, and
the division of China among the powers has been prevented.  In our
relations with China, we have pursued a disinterested policy of
disavowal of territorial aggrandizement, and a disposition to
respect the rights of that Government, confining our interests to
the peaceful development of trade.  Secretary Hay never hesitated
on all proper occasions to assert our influence to preserve its
independence and prevent its dismemberment.

For many centuries China had been a hermit nation, successfully
resisting foreign influence and invasion; but gradually, on one
pretext or another, she was compelled to open her ports, and Great
Britain, Russia, and Germany had gained special advantages and
exceptional privileges in portions of China, where, under the guise
of "spheres of interest," they were exercising considerable control
over an important part of that Empire.  It seemed probable that
not only would these nations absorb the trade of China, but that
the Empire itself would be dismembered and divided among the powers.
To prevent this, Secretary Hay advanced the so-called "open door"
policy and successfully carried it out.

In September, 1899, he addressed communications to the Governments
of Great Britain, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, suggesting
that, as he understood it to be the settled policy and purpose of
those countries not to use any privileges which might be granted
them in China as a means of excluding any commercial rival, and
that freedom of trade for them in that ancient empire meant freedom
of trade for all the world alike, he considered that the maintenance
of this policy was alike urgently demanded by the commercial
communities of these several nations, and that it was the only one
which would improve existing conditions and extend their future
operation.  He further suggested that it was the desire of the
United States Government that the interests of its citizens should
not be prejudiced through exclusive treatment by any of the
controlling powers within their respective spheres of interest in
China, and that it hoped to retain there an open market for all
the world's commerce, remove dangerous sources of international
irritation, and promote administrative reform.  Secretary Hay
accordingly invited a declaration by each of them in regard to the
treatment of foreign commerce in their spheres of interest.  Without
inconsiderable delay the Governments of Great Britain, Russia,
Germany, Italy, and Japan replied to his circular note, giving
cordial and full assurance of endorsement of the principles suggested
by our Government.  Thus was successfully begun the since famous
"open door" policy in China.

But this great triumph in the interest of the freedom of the world's
commerce was followed by the Boxer outbreak of 1900.  The German
Minister was murdered in the streets of Peking, the legations were
attacked and in a state of siege for a month.

The Boxer outbreak was made the occasion of a joint international
expedition for the relief of the diplomatic representatives and
other foreigners whose lives were in peril.  Congress was not in
session, but on Secretary Hay's advice, there was despatched a
division of the American Army composed of all arms of the service.
This almost amounted to a declaration of war, or the waging of war
without the consent of Congress.  The Executive was justified,
however, and did not hesitate to assume the responsibility.

In the midst of the intense excitement throughout the world, when
the downfall of the Empire of China seemed almost certain, Secretary
Hay, with the foresight which always distinguished his official
acts, issued a circular note on July 3, 1900, to all the powers
having interests in China, stating the position of the United
States; that it would be our policy to find a solution which would
bring permanent safety and peace to China, preserve its territorial
and administrative entity, protect all rights guaranteed by treaty
and international law, and safeguard for the world the principle
of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire.
Secretary Hay's note gave notice to the world that the United States
would not permit the dismemberment of China, and it was so in accord
with the principles of justice that it met with the approval of all.

After the relief of the legations and the suppression of the Boxer
troubles by the allied powers, there followed a long period of
negotiation, and an enormous and exorbitant demand was made by the
allies as an indemnity.  So exorbitant was it as first that China
probably never would have been able to pay.  Secretary Hay constantly
intervened to reduce the demands of the powers and cut down to a
reasonable limit the enormous indemnity they were seeking to exact.
Finally the protocol of 1901 was signed, imposing very heavy and
humiliating burdens on China.  It has been the province of the
United States to alleviate these burdens, and we have only recently
remitted a very large portion of the indemnity which was to have
come to the United States.

Later, Secretary Hay negotiated a very favorable commercial treaty
with China which further strengthened the "open door," gave increased
privileges to our diplomatic and consular officers, and to our
citizens in China, and opened new cities to international trade
and residence.

One of Secretary Hay's last acts in the State Department was another
diplomatic triumph in the interest of China.  It had been apparent
for some time that war between Russia and Japan was inevitable,
and Mr. Hay realized that war might seriously impair the integrity
of China and the benefits of the "open door" policy.  Immediately
after the war commenced, therefore, on February 10, 1904, Mr. Hay
addressed to the Governments of Russia, Japan, and China, and to
all other powers having spheres of influence in China, a circular
note in which he said:

"It is the earnest desire of the Government of the United States
that in the military operations which have begun between Russia
and Japan, the neutrality of China, and in all practicable ways
her administrative entity, shall be protected by both parties, and
that the area of hostilities shall be localized and limited as much
as possible, so that undue excitement and disturbance of the Chinese
people may be prevented, and the least possible loss to the commerce
and peaceful intercourse of the world may be occasioned."

Mr. Hay's proposition was commended by the world and was accepted
by the neutral nations, and also by China, Russia, and Japan.

Secretary Hay's measures respecting China were of the greatest
importance and significance, because they not only tended to the
peace of the world, but they have preserved the extensive territory
and enormous population of that empire to the free and untrammelled
trade and commerce of all countries.

In addition to securing from Great Britain, through the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, thereby making
it possible for the United States to construct the Isthmian Canal,
Secretary Hay succeeded in settling the controversy over the Alaskan
boundary, which had been a subject of dispute between the United
States and Great Britain for half a century.  The treaty of 1868,
between the United States and Russia, by which we acquired Alaska,
in describing the boundary of Alaska, adopted the description
contained in the treaty of 1825, between Great Britain and Russia.
Years ago it was discovered that the boundary described in the
treaty of 1825 was incorrect as a geographical fact.

While the country remained unsettled the definite boundary was not
so material, but since the first Cleveland Administration the
Alaskan boundary had been an important subject of dispute.  The
feeling among our people in Alaska and among the Canadians became
very bitter.  This was one of the principal reasons for the creation
of the Joint High Commission in 1899, whose purpose it was to settle
all outstanding questions between the United States and Canada,
the principal one being the Alaskan boundary.  The Joint High
Commission made considerable progress in adjusting these questions,
but failing to reach an agreement as to the Alaskan boundary, the
commission adjourned without disposing of any of the subjects in
controversy.  President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay, in view of
our long and undisputed occupation of the territory in question,
declined to allow the reference of the Alaskan boundary to a regular
arbitration at the Hague, but instead, Secretary Hay proposed the
creation of a judicial tribunal composed of an equal number of
members from each country, feeling confident that our claim would
be successfully established by such a body.  There was very great
opposition, and there were many predictions of failure, but on
January 24, 1903, a treaty between the United States and Great
Britain was signed, providing for such a tribunal.

The treaty was duly ratified, and the tribunal appointed, and on
October 20, 1903, reached a conclusion which was a complete victory
for the United States, sustaining as it did every material contention
of our Government.

The settlement of the Alaskan boundary was a very notable diplomatic
triumph, and Secretary Hay is entitled to much credit for it.

I cannot go into the many important matters which Mr. Hay disposed
of as Secretary of State.  He left a splendid record.  I made it
a point to keep in constant touch with him by visiting at his office
frequently, and he always talked with me frankly and freely concerning
the important negotiations in which he was engaged.  The only
criticism I have to make of him as Secretary of State is, that he
was disposed, wherever he could possibly do so, to make international
agreements and settle differences without consulting the Senate.
And, in addition, I never could induce him to come before the
Committee on Foreign Relations and explain to the committee personally
various treaties and important matters in which the State Department
was interested.  Why he would not do so I do not know.  He was an
exceedingly modest man and shrank from all controversy.  It is
seldom, however, that the State Department has had at its head so
brilliant and scholarly a man as John Hay.  He will go down in
history as among the greatest of our Secretaries of State.

I will make some further references to the important results of
the Roosevelt Administration in what I shall say in a later chapter
concerning the work of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

William Howard Taft, now President of the United States, was
President Roosevelt's Secretary of War, and a very able Secretary
he was.  I first knew him in Washington when, as a young man but
thirty-three years of age, he was serving as Solicitor General
under President Harrison.  I followed his career very closely from
the time that I first became acquainted with him.

As a United States Circuit Judge, to which position he was appointed
by President Harrison, he was regarded as one of the ablest in the
country.  The Circuit Court of Appeals on which he served was a
notable one.  It was composed of three men who have since occupied
the highest positions in the United States.  William R. Day was
first Assistant Secretary of State, then Secretary of State, one
of the negotiators of the Paris Peace Treaty, Circuit Judge, and
later a Supreme Court Justice.  Judge Taft was first civil Governor
of the Philippines, Secretary of War, and then President; and he
has only recently appointed his old colleague, Judge Lurton, the
third member of the Court of Appeals, to the position of Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Taft has occupied many high positions, all of which he has
filled with great honor and distinction.  I doubt whether he has
enjoyed the high office of President of the United States.  I myself
have always thought that he would have made one of our greatest
Chief Justices had he been appointed to that position.

Just before the National Convention of 1908 assembled at Chicago,
in which convention I was chairman of the Illinois delegation, when
every one knew that Taft was sure to be the nominee, I called on
him at the War Department, and in the course of the conversation
I took occasion to remark that I had always been in favor of him
for Chief Justice, but it seemed now that he was certain to be the
nominee for President, and his career would consequently go along
another line.  He replied:  "If your friend Chief Justice Fuller
should retire and the President should send me a commission as
Chief Justice, I would take it now."

It is my purpose to practically close these memoirs with the end
of the Roosevelt Administration, for the reason that I do not feel
at liberty to write in detail of events occurring within the past
two years.  All that I will venture to say is that my relations
with Mr. Taft as President have been of the most cordial and friendly
character; and no one can question that he has been thoroughly
conscientious in the discharge of the duties of President of the
United States.  That in 1910 the party went down in defeat for the
first time in eighteen years cannot be charged to President Taft.
Nothing that he did as Chief Executive was responsible for that
defeat.  I myself believe that it was simply the result of the
people becoming tired of too much prosperity under Republican
administration.  The newspaper agitation over the Aldrich-Payne
Tariff Bill was mainly instrumental in turning the House of
Representatives over to the Democracy.

The Hon. Philander C. Knox was Attorney-General in President
Roosevelt's cabinet, as he had been in the cabinet of his predecessor.
He is now serving as Secretary of State under President Taft.  He
has had a long and highly distinguished career at the bar, and is
probably one of the greatest lawyers of his day.  He served in the
Senate of the United States for some years, and upon entering that
body he at once took his place as a leader on all questions of a
legal and constitutional nature.  As a member of the Judiciary
Committee, he had quite a commanding influence on important
legislation coming from that committee.  As Secretary of State Mr.
Knox has been successful to an eminent degree, and I have no doubt
that his career as the Premier of the Taft Administration will add
to his great fame as a lawyer and statesman.

I cannot refrain from saying a word in reference to the Hon. James
Wilson, who was appointed Secretary of Agriculture by President
McKinley, in which position he has been retained by both President
Roosevelt and President Taft.  He has served as a cabinet officer
for a longer consecutive term than any man in our history.

I have been more or less familiar with the administration of the
Agricultural Department ever since its creation, and I do not
hesitate to say that Mr. Wilson has been the most efficient Secretary
of Agriculture that we have ever had.  He has accomplished greater
results in that office than any of his predecessors, and should
remain there as long as he will consent to serve.


At the time I am writing these lines, no question of governmental
policy occupies so prominent a place in the thoughts of the people
as that of controlling the steady growth and extending influence
of corporate power, and of regulating its relations to the public.
And there are no corporations whose proceedings so directly affect
every citizen in the daily pursuit of his business as the corporations
engaged in transportation.

Of the many new forms introduced into every department of civilized
life during the past century, none have brought about more marvellous
changes than the railroad, as an instrumentality of commerce.  The
substitution of steam and electricity for animal power was one of
the most important events in our industrial history.  The commercial,
social, and political relations of the nations, have been revolutionized
by the development of improved means of communication and
transportation.  With this changed condition of affairs in the
commercial world came new questions of the greatest importance for
the consideration of those upon whom devolved the duty of making
the nation's laws.

In the early days of railroads, the question was not how to regulate,
but how to secure them; but in the early seventies their importance
grew to such proportions that the railroads threatened to become
the masters and not the servants of the people.  There were all
sorts of abuses.  Railroad officers became so arrogant that they
seemed to assume that they were above all law; rebating and
discrimination were the rule and not the exception.  It was the
public indignation against long continued discrimination and undue
preferences which brought about the Granger Movement, which resulted,
seventeen years later, in the enactment of the first Interstate
Commerce Act.

With the Granger Movement of the early seventies, and the passage
of State laws for the control of railroad transportation, began
the discussion which is still before Congress and the public as
one of the live issues of the day.

It so happens that I have been intimately connected with this
subject from the time I was serving as Speaker of the Illinois
House of Representatives in 1873.

The State of Illinois, like most of the Western States, had a law
on the subject of railroad regulation; but it was ineffective, and
the commission under it had no practical power.  I appointed the
committee of the House of Representatives of the Illinois Legislature
in 1873, of which John Oberly, of Cairo, Illinois, was a member,
and it was that committee that reported to the House the bill which
finally became a law, known as the Railroad and Warehouse Law of
1873.  It is still the existing law in Illinois, and was for many
years regarded as one of the broadest and most far-reaching of
State enactments.

After I became Governor of the State, in 1877, I appointed a new
Railroad and Warehouse Commission under the new law, and naturally
took a deep interest in its work.  During my term as Governor a
resolution was adopted by the General Assembly really looking to
the abolition of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, but on its
face inquiring of me as Governor for information concerning the
cost of maintaining the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and the
benefits, if any, of the commission, to the people of the State of

To this resolution I promptly responded in a message to the General
Assembly, dated February 17, 1879, which in part I take the liberty
of quoting here, because never afterwards in Illinois, so far as
I know, was there any movement to abolish the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission and repeal the Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Act.

After giving the pay and expenses of the board, I continued:

"To answer this portion of the resolution in a manner satisfactory
to myself would include a recital of the many attempts that have
been made in this and other countries to control railroad corporations
by legislation.  In a paper of this kind such a reply can not be
made.  I must therefore be satisfied with a glance at the advance
that resulted in the enactment of the railroad and warehouse laws
of this State.

"Since the passage of the laws creating the railroad and warehouse
commission, in 1871, Illinois has made very important advances
toward the solution of the railroad problem.

"The questions involved in this problem have not only been before
the people of this State, but in other States and countries.

"In England, after the railroad had become a fact, it was recognized
as a public highway.  The right of Parliament to fix rates for the
transportation of passengers and freight by railroad corporations
was therefore asserted, and schedules of rates were put into their
charters.  Those familiar with the subject need not be told that
the attempt to establish rates in this manner was a failure.  Then
it was asserted that competition, if encouraged by the Government,
would prove a remedy for the abuses with which the railroads were
charged.  The suggestion was acted upon.  The Government encouraged
the construction of competing lines.  As a result, rates fell.
Competition, however, finally began to entail disaster upon the
competitors and compel them to become allies to escape destruction.
The competitors combined; railroads were consolidated; rival lines
were united, and competition was thus destroyed.  The danger of
great combinations of this kind, not only to the business interests
of the country, but also to the State, was at once suggested, and
occasioned alarm.  This alarm resulted in a public opinion that
the Government should own the railroads.  But consolidation, to
the surprise of the prophets of evil, did not result in higher
rates.  On the contrary, lower rates and higher dividends resulted.

"Thus by a logical process of attempt and failure to control railroad
corporations, the conclusion was reached that wise policy required
permission to such corporations to operate their railroads in their
own way upon ordinary business principles.  But at the same time
a board of commissioners was wisely created and authorized to hear
and determine complaints against railroad corporations, and to
exercise other important powers.  This board was created about five
years ago; and the most notable feature in its career, says Charles
Francis Adams, junior, is the very trifling call that seems to have
been made upon it.  The cases which come before it are neither
numerous nor of great importance.  It would, however, be unwholly
safe to conclude from this fact that such a tribunal is unnecessary.
On the contrary, it may be confidently asserted that no competent
board of railroad commissioners clothed with the peculiar power of
the English board, will, either there or anywhere else, have many
cases to dispose of.  The mere fact that a tribunal is there, that
a machinery does exist for the prompt and final decision of that
class of questions put an end to them.  They no longer arise.

"The process through which the public mind in America has passed
on the railroad question is not dissimilar to that through which
the public mind of England passed.  But here competition was relied
on from the first.  To all who asked for them railroad charters
were granted.  The result has been the construction of railroads
in all parts of the country, many of them through districts of
country without business, or even population, as well as between
all business centres and through populous, fertile, and well
cultivated regions.  Free trade in railroad building, and the too
liberal use of municipal credit in their aid, has induced the
building of some lines which are wholly unnecessary, and which
crowd, duplicate, and embarrass lines previously built and which
were fully adequate to the needs of the community.

"In Illinois, railroad enterprises have been particularly numerous
and have made the State renowned for having the most miles of
railroad track--for being the chief railroad State.

"But competition did not result according to public anticipation.
The competing corporations worked without sufficient remuneration
at competing points, and, to make good the losses resulting, were
often guilty of extortion at the non-competing points.  They
discriminated against persons and places.  Citizens protested
against these abuses in vain.  The railroad corporations, when
threatened with the power of the Government, indulged in the language
of defiance, and attempted to control legislation to their own
advantage.  At last public indignation became excited against them.
They did not heed it.  They believed the courts would be their
refuge from popular fury.  The indignation of the people expressed
itself in many ways and finally found utterance in the Constitution
of 1870.  In this Constitution may be found all the phases of
opinion on the railroad question through which the English mind
has run.  The railroad is declared a public highway.  The establishment
of reasonable rates of charges is directed; competition between
railroads is recognized as necessary to the public welfare; and
the General Assembly is required to pass laws to correct abuses
and to prevent unjust discrimination and extortion in the rates
and passenger tariffs on the different railroads of the State, and
enforce such laws by adequate penalties to the extent, if necessary
for that purpose, of forfeiture of their property and franchises.

"The Constitution did more than this.  To correct abuses of the
interests of the farmers from whose fields warehousemen in combination
with corporate common carriers had been drawing riches, it declared
all elevators or structures where grain or other property was stored
for a compensation, public warehouses, and expressly directed the
General Assembly to pass laws for the government of warehouses,
for the inspection of grain, and for the protection of producers,
shippers, and receivers of grain and produce.

"Promptly after the adoption of the Constitution the Legislature
attempted to give these provisions vitality by the enactment of
laws to carry them out.  One of these created the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission and imposed on it important duties.  Another
was an act to regulate public warehouses and warehousing.  By this
act other important duties were imposed upon the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission."

After reviewing the attempt to enforce these laws the message

"In 1873, the present law to prevent extortion and unjust discrimination
in rates charged for the transportation of passengers and freight
on railroads in this State was passed.  It was prepared and enacted
with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of _Illinois_
vs. _C. and A. R. R._, fresh in the minds of the members of the
General Assembly, and every suggestion made by the court was

"The Commission since the enactment of this statute has brought
many suits against railroad corporations for violation of the law."

After reviewing the various cases I proceeded:

"In 1871, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission was established.
Its creation was resisted by both railroad corporations and public
warehousemen, and after its organization they treated it with little
consideration.  They refused to recognize its authority, but after
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring
the doctrine that the Government may regulate the conduct of its
citizens to each other, and, when necessary, for the public good,
the manner in which each shall use his own property, the railroad
corporations and public warehousemen began to grow less determined
in their opposition to the attempts to control them, until at this
time there is very little opposition.  They now give prompt attention
to requests of the Commission for the correction of abuses called
to its notice by their patrons; and thus the Commissioners not only
settle questions arising between railroad corporations and those
who patronize them, but it may as truthfully be said of this as of
the English or Massachusetts Commission, that the very fact of its
existence has put an end to many of the abuses formerly practised
by such corporations, and which were angrily complained of by the
people. . . .

"It is a curious fact that the conclusion reached by the English
statesmen in 1874, was reached in Illinois in 1873; the conclusion
that railroad companies ought to have the right to control their
own affairs, fix their own rates of transportation, be free from
meddlesome legislation, and, as has been said, work out their own
destiny in their own way, just so long as they show a reasonable
regard for the requirements of the community."

After analyzing the law of 1873, referring to the procedure under
it, to the decision of the courts, and the fact that the Railroad
and Warehouse Commissioners made under it a schedule of maximum
rates of charges, I said:

"The schedule will require revision from time to time, and this
work can only be done by men who can give it their whole time, and
who will become students of the great subject of transportation.

"Before action by the Supreme Court it has not been deemed advisable
that the Commissioners should revise the schedule, and put the
State thereby to what might be unnecessary expense; nor that they
should multiply suits under the law of 1873, against railroad
companies for similar offences to those set up in the cases now

"Ever since its organization the board has been putting into
operation new laws founded upon old principles applied to new facts
and it has been compelled to walk with slow step.  It has been
required, in the assertion of its authority to go from one court
to another, and await the approval by the Supreme Court of the
legislation directed by the Constitution of 1870.

"It has won a victory in the warehouse controversy and secured the
judicial endorsement of doctrines which in this age of concentration
and monopoly, are absolutely necessary to the public welfare. . . .

"Leaving out of view the benefits that have resulted to the people
by the mere fact of the existence of the Board, which has prevented
many abuses that would have been committed save for its presence
in the State, it has been at work, and useful.  It has perfected
the organization of the Grain Inspection Department at Chicago; it
has gathered statistics in reference to transportation that are of
very great benefit to the public; it has adopted the policy of
railroad examinations with a view to security of life; and, in my
judgment, the authority of the Commission ought to be enlarged so
as to enable it to compel the railroad companies to improve their
tracks and bridges, when, in the judgment of the Commission, such
portions of railroads become unsafe.  The Railroad Commissioners
act as arbitrators between the railroad companies and their patrons;
and in the Commissioners' report they say they have succeeded in
settling most of the complaints made to them in a manner satisfactory
to all the parties to the controversies.

"In my judgment if the Commission were dispensed with by the
Legislature, difficulties would soon arise, agitation would commence
again, and controversies would run riot.  New legislation would
follow, another board of some kind would soon be created, and the
track we have just passed over would be again travelled by the
people's representatives.

"The Board should be sustained in the interest of all the people.
Instead of being destroyed it should be strengthened.  It should
not only have the authority with which it is now vested, but more.
It should be made a legal arbitrator in all matters of controversy
between railroad companies and warehouses and their patrons; and
it should be required to make examination of roads, and be invested
with authority to compel reparation of unsafe and defective bridges,
culverts, track, and rolling-stock.

  "(Signed) S. M. Cullom,

My experience, as Chief Executive of the State, with the practical
workings of the Railroad and Warehouse Law, clearly demonstrated
to me that a State statute, no matter how drastic it might be, was
utterly inadequate to meet the evils complained of, and that
effective regulation must be Federal and not State, or probably
Federal and State combined.  Some of the States had attempted to
exercise control over interstate traffic which originated in the
State, but it seemed perfectly clear from a long line of decisions
of the Supreme Court, beginning with _Gibbons_ vs. _Ogden_, and
continuing with _Reading Railway_ vs. _Pennsylvania; Baltimore and
Ohio_ vs. _Maryland_, and many other cases, that the States as such
had no control over interstate commerce.  But it was not until our
own Illinois case (_Wabash Railroad_ vs. _Illinois_), that the
Supreme Court settled it once and for all.  It was clearly stated
in that case that the power of Congress was exclusive, and the
Court said that, "notwithstanding whatever _dicta_ might appear in
other cases, this court holds now and has never consciously held
otherwise, that a statute of a State intended to regulate or tax
or to impose any restriction upon the transmission of persons or
property from one State to another is not within the class of
legislation which the States may enact in the absence of legislation
by Congress, and that such statutes are void."

This decision of the Supreme Court was rendered just about the time
I was elected to the United States Senate, and I then and there
determined that I would make it one of my great aims in the Senate
to secure the enactment of a Federal statute regulating interstate

It would seem astonishing that the Commerce clause of the Constitution
should have remained dormant, as it did for nearly a century.
Aside from two unimportant acts, no statute had been passed under
it from the beginning of the Government until the Act to Regulate
Commerce was passed in 1887.

Not even a serious attempt had been made to pass an act for the
regulation of interstate commerce.  Bills were introduced from
Congress to Congress and laid aside; some investigations were made
--as, for instance, the Windom investigation by a select committee
of the House in 1873--but it all came to naught.  It seemed that
no one man, either in the Senate or House, had made it his business
to secure the passage of such an act.

Very fortunately, as I see it now, when I first came to the Senate,
I received no important committee assignments.  Having been in
public life for many years, member of Congress, Governor of my
State, I naturally felt that I would be properly taken care of
without appealing to my older colleagues for assistance.  Even my
own colleague, General Logan, did not interest himself in the
matter.  I attended the caucus when the committee announcements
were made, and observing that I received nothing of any consequence,
I addressed the caucus and protested that I had not been treated
properly.  Later Senator Edmunds resigned his place as a regent of
the Smithsonian Institution and I was appointed to succeed him in
that position.

I was assigned, however, to the Committee on Railroads--which was
then what we know now in the Senate as a non-working committee.
I determined that the committee should have something to do, and
I immediately became active in securing the consideration of an
act for the regulation of interstate commerce.  I drew up a bill,
introduced it, had it referred to the committee, and finally secured
its consideration and report to the Senate.  No one paid any
particular attention to what I was doing until then.  When the bill
was reported to the Senate, and I was pushing and urging and doing
everything in my power to secure its consideration, Senator Allison,
always my friend, always wanting to assist me in any way in his
power, came to me one day and said:

"Cullom, we know nothing about this question; we are groping in
the dark; and I believe that there ought to be a select committee
of the Senate appointed to investigate the question, to go out
among the people, take testimony, and find out what they know about
it,--what the experts know, what the railroad officials know, what
public opinion generally is, and report their conclusions to the
Senate at the beginning of the next session.  I am willing to help
you secure the passage of a resolution with that end in view."

This was perfectly agreeable to me and, on March 17, 1885, a
resolution of the Senate, introduced by me, was adopted.  This
resolution provided--

"That a select committee of five Senators be appointed to investigate
and report upon the subject of the regulation of the transportation
by railroad and water routes in connection or in competition with
said railroads of freights and passengers between the several
States, with authority to sit during the recess of Congress, and
with power to summon witnesses, and to do whatever is necessary
for a full examination of the subject, and report to the Senate on
or before the second Monday in December next.  Said committee shall
have power to appoint a clerk and stenographer, and the expenses
of such investigation shall be paid from the appropriation for
expenses of inquiries and investigations ordered by the Senate."

The committee, of which I was made chairman, was appointed in due
course, my colleagues being Senator O. H. Platt, of Connecticut;
Senator Warner Miller, of New York; Senator Arthur Pugh Gorman, of
Maryland; and Senator Isham G. Harris, of Tennessee.  Leaving out
any reference to myself, the selection was regarded as having been
most judicious and suitable.

And here let me digress to say a few words in reference to my
colleagues on that committee.

Senator Warner Miller was a strong man intellectually, and a good
business man.  He had succeeded Senator T. C. Platt on March 4,
1881, and readily took his place in the Senate as one of its
influential members, although he served but one term.  He was a
valuable man as a member of the committee, and took a very prominent
part in the debates preceding the passage of the act.

Senator Gorman had a remarkable public career.  Without the advantages
of influential family, without wealth, with only limited education,
through his own exertions alone he arose from the position of a
page in the United States Senate to the position of Senator and
leader of his party in the Senate.  He was a _protégé_, friend,
and follower of that illustrious son of Illinois, Stephen A. Douglas.
He was one of the most sagacious politicians of his day.  By his
shrewd management of the Cleveland campaign he secured the defeat
of Mr. Blaine and the election of Mr. Cleveland.  His charming
personality, his suavity of manner, his magnetic influence over
men with whom he came into contact, combined with his marked ability,
made it easy for him to retain the difficult position of a leader
of his great party.  He enjoyed in the highest degree the respect
and confidence of every Senator with whom he served, on both sides
of the chamber, and specially was his influence felt in securing
the support of the Democratic Senators in the passage of the Act
of 1887.

Senator Harris, of Tennessee, was a very useful member of the
Senate, and was a man possessed of more than ordinary ability.
His ability, perhaps, was not as great as Senator Gorman's, although
he was a very influential and highly respected member of the Senate.
He was a hard worker; and one trait in particular that I remember
about him was, he never failed to attend promptly on time the
meeting of any committee of which he was a member.  Indeed, I do
not know of any man with whom I have served in the Senate, aside
from my respected colleague, Senator Frye, who was so punctual.

He was a man of convivial habits, and used to poke considerable
fun at me because I would not drink or play poker.  At the time
when the select committee was to meet in Memphis, the home of
Senator Harris, the prominent business men of that place waited on
him and told him they understood a very eminent committee was coming
there in a few days, and they would like to show them some courtesies.
Harris replied that he did not know who would be there; that Senator
Platt would not, and he did not believe Senator Gorman would--in
fact, he did not believe any one would be there, excepting the
chairman and himself; and so far as the chairman, Senator Cullom,
was concerned, they could not do anything for him, as he did not
drink or smoke, and was "one of the damnedest, poorest card-players
he had ever known."  So, about all the entertaining they could do
for him would be to show him about the city.

Many amusing stories were told of him.  When I called the committee
together, preliminary to starting out on our tour, I told them that
I would be very glad to allow them everything within reason that
was necessary, but the Government would not pay for their whiskey
and cigars.  Harris promptly replied:  "That's right, Mr. Chairman.
So far as I am concerned, if I can't get my whiskey by standing
around the bar when other people are drinking, I will pay for it

When the committee were in Minneapolis, we were sitting at a long
table at dinner; I was at one end, and Harris was at the other,
facing me.  An old soldier came up to speak to me, and glancing
down toward the other end of the table, he asked:  "Is n't that
old Harris of Tennessee?"  When I replied that it was, he continued:
"Well, well!  The last time I saw him, he was wearing a linen-
duster, riding a mule, and going South like hell."

Harris was a man of the most rigid honesty.  He not only rendered
valuable assistance in conducting the investigation, especially
through the South, which section of the country he particularly
represented, but took a prominent part in the debates and generally
performed his full share toward securing the passage of the act.

Of Senator O. H. Platt I have already written.

But to return.  Immediately after the adjournment of Congress this
select committee visited Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo,
Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Des Moines, Omaha, Minneapolis, and
St. Paul, where we adjourned to meet in the South.  We went to
Memphis first, then to New Orleans and Atlanta, whence we returned
to Washington, where I prepared the report of the committee which
was submitted to the Senate, January 18, 1886.

The committee began its work impressed with the importance of the
duty with which it had been charged, and with each step taken in
prosecuting the inquiry we realized more fully how heavy were the
obstacles to be overcome, how serious were the abuses that existed,
how the public sentiment over the entire country was aroused, and
how difficult it was going to be to frame and secure the passage
of a measure adequate to relieve the situation.  After many sessions
and long conferences the select committee finally agreed upon a
bill which, in its opinion, would correct the evils complained of.

Even after the committee had agreed to the bill, I was not entirely
satisfied; I feared the existence of some absurdities, some features,
which the railroads could not possibly comply with; and so I asked
Senator Platt to meet me in New York, previously having arranged
with Mr. Fink and Mr. Blanchard, two of the great railroad men of
their day, and a gentleman representing specially the people's
interests, whose name I do not recall, but who had been interested
in securing regulation in New York and was an expert on the
proposition, to meet with us in that city.  We all met as planned.
I stated that I desired to take the bill up with them, section by
section, paragraph by paragraph, and if anything absurd or
impracticable was found, or anything that could not be carried out,
attention should be called to it, and we would discuss it and amend
it if necessary.  We went ahead on this line and were arguing over
some proposition, when Mr. Fink got up and remarked:  "Let it go;
the whole thing is absurd anyhow."  I arose and said that if that
was the attitude of the railroad men, when the committee's only
object was to report to the Senate a fair bill, that the conference
might as well end.  The other members of the conference intervened
and said it was not fair that the chairman of the committee should
be treated in this way, that Senator Cullom was acting in absolute
good faith, whereupon Mr. Fink apologized, and the reading was
resumed, and some amendments made where found necessary.

And this incident recalls to mind another aspect of the investigation.
While the select committee was considering the subject, travelling
from city to city, the high railroad officials paid no attention
to us; rather, I might say, they avoided being called before us,
probably considering it a waste of time, as they had no serious
thought that anything would come of the investigation.  They
considered the railroads superior to the laws of Congress, and
depended upon their old State charters.  In those days they were
the most arrogant set of men in this country; they have since
learned that they are the servants and not the masters of the
people.  But when the bill seemed pretty certain to pass, the
attitude of the railroad officials suddenly changed.  They came to
Washington and complained that they had not been given the opportunity
to be heard; that it would not be fair under the circumstances to
pass a bill so largely affecting them; and they seemed to be sorely
aggrieved when they could not prevent or delay its passage.

I introduced the bill in the first session of the Forty-ninth
Congress, and after a great deal of difficulty, even with my
colleague, General Logan, against it, finally had it made the
special order.  General Logan knew nothing about the subject; he
cared nothing about it, and on one occasion he told me that I would
ruin myself by advocating it.

When I called the bill up for consideration, I was so anxious to
press it along that I did not care to make any general speech,
excepting to explain as carefully and minutely as I could the
various provisions of the measure.  I said, in opening:

"I believe I am justified in saying that there is no subject of a
public nature that is before the country about which there is so
great unanimity of sentiment as there is upon the proposition that
the National Government ought in some way to regulate interstate
commerce.  The testimony taken by the Committee shows conclusively
to my mind, and I think to every man's mind who reads it, that
there is necessity for some legislation by the National Government,
looking to the regulation of interstate commerce by railroad and
by waterways in connection therewith.

"I believe the time has gone by when it is necessary for any one
to take up the time of the Senate in discussing the proposition
that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.  These
questions have been discussed over and over again in Congress, and
the highest judicial tribunals of the country have decided over
and over again that Congress has the power to regulate commerce
among the States.  So I do not feel at liberty, if I were disposed,
to occupy the attention of the Senate in discussing the general
subject of whether there is any necessity for our doing anything,
or the question of constitutional right of Congress to pass some
act regulating commerce among the States.

"If the three propositions are correct:  that the public sentiment
is substantially unanimous that we should act; that the necessity
for action exists; and that the power of Congress is admitted,--
the only question left is, what Congress ought to do specifically;
in other words, what kind of an act should Congress pass.  The
committee has reported a bill which is the best judgment that the
committee had upon the subject."

I then proceeded to explain the bill carefully, section by section,
and concluded by saying:

"I am led to believe that the bill as it stands is perhaps a more
perfect bill on this subject than has ever been introduced in the
Congress of the United States before.  There may be many suggestions
of amendment by honorable Senators during the consideration of the
bill; and if any Senator has any suggestion of amendment to make,
of course it is within the privilege of the Senate to adopt it,
but I am very anxious that this bill shall be as promptly considered
as possible, and as promptly acted upon and passed as possible, if
in the judgment of the Senate it ought to be passed at all.

"As the Senate know, this subject has been up for consideration
from one term of Congress to another, almost time out of mind;
until the people of the United States have come almost to believe
that there is no real purpose on the part of Congress to do anything
more than introduce and report bills and discuss them a while, and
then let them die before any final action is reached upon them.

"I said in the outset that in my judgment there is no public question
before the American people to-day about which there is greater
unanimity of sentiment than there is upon the proposition that the
Congress of the United States ought to enact some law looking to
the regulation of commerce among the several States, and I trust
without taking up the time of the Senate longer that every Senator
will give attention to this subject until we can pass some bill
and get it to the other branch of Congress in the hope that before
this session adjourns we shall get some legislation on this subject
that will be of some service to the people and reasonably satisfy
public opinion."

I pressed the bill on the attention of the Senate every day, never
allowing it to be displaced where I could avoid it.  I was determined
that some bill should be passed at that session.  The debate was
long and interesting.  There were comparatively few set speeches.
It was a hot, running debate almost from the beginning, participated
in by the strongest men in the Senate, many of whom were the ablest
men of their day.  Senators Aldrich, Edmunds, Evarts, Gorman, Hoar,
Ingalls, Manderson, Miller, Mitchell, Morrill, Platt, Sewell,
Sherman, Spooner, Teller, Vest, Morgan, Cameron, Dawes, Frye, Hale,
Harrison, and Voorhees all engaged in it.

The bill was finally passed May 12, 1886.

In the meantime, Mr. Reagan, of Texas, who had been urging a bill
in the House, and had it up for consideration during the same time
the Senate bill was being considered, passed his bill, which differed
essentially from the Senate bill.  Both bills went to conference
together, Mr. Reagan being the head of the conferees on the part
of the House, and I being the head of the conferees on the part of
the Senate.  Then came the real struggle, the two measures remaining
in conference from June to the following January.  The contention
finally centred on the pooling provision.  Reagan had yielded on
nearly everything else; but Platt of Connecticut was bound there
should be no prohibition against pooling.  Reagan affirmed that
the whole matter would have to drop, that he would never yield on
that.  I came back and consulted the leaders in the Senate, Allison
among others, and they advised me to yield; that the country demanded
a bill, and I had better accept Reagan's anti-pooling prohibition
section than offer no measure at all--which I did.

Whether it is right or wrong, I do not know even to this day.  I
have never been quite certain in my mind on the question of pooling,
and it is still a subject on which legislators and statesmen differ.
But one thing does seem certain--public sentiment is as much opposed
to pooling to-day as it was twenty years ago.  There was a great
fight in the Senate to secure the adoption of the conference report.
Its adoption was opposed by such Senators as Cameron, Frye, Hawley,
Hoar, Morrill, Sawyer, Sewell, Sherman, and Spooner.  The pooling
and long-and-short-haul clauses were the most fought over.  Senator
Platt, although a member of the conference, made a very able speech
on the subject of pooling, in which he showed considerable feeling,
and I at one time feared that he would oppose the adoption of the
conference report on that account altogether.  He concluded a very
able address during the last days of the consideration of the
report, by saying:

"Nine-tenths of all the interstate commerce business done to-day
is done under these arrangements which are sought to be damned
because of the evil meaning which has been given to the word
'pooling.'  Whatever stability has been given to the railroad
business, and through it to other business of the country, has been
secured by these traffic arrangements, and in my judgment a bill
which breaks them all up ruthlessly within sixty days, which invites
the competition which is to demoralize business, will be far-reaching
in its injurious results.  For one I prefer to stand by my judgment.
I will try to have the courage of my convictions; I will try to do
what I believe to be right, and I cannot consent to a bill which,
though I accept its other provisions, contains a provision which
I regard as positively vicious and wrong."

I was greatly provoked, almost outraged, at the manner in which
Senators opposed the adoption of the conference report.  It became
almost a personal matter with me, and I finally concluded on the
very day the vote was to be taken, whether the adoption of the
report was to be beaten or not, that I would make a speech, and in
that speech I indicated just how I felt.  I said in part:

"I have been sitting here to-day listening to the assaults upon
this bill, until I have become almost convinced that I am the most
vicious man toward the railroads of any man I know.  I started in
upon the investigation of this subject two or three years ago with
no prejudices, no bias of sentiment or judgment, no disposition
whatever to do anything except that which my deliberate judgment
told me was the best thing to do.  I have believed I have occupied
that position ever since, until within the last twenty-four hours,
when the attacks upon this bill have become such that I have become
a little doubtful whether I have not been inspired from the beginning,
so far as my action has been concerned, with a determination to
destroy the railroads of this country.  To listen to the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] descanting upon the provisions of the
bill, one can scarcely resist the conclusion that it is a bill to
destroy the commerce of the country, and especially to break down
all the railroads.

"So far as I am concerned, I repeat that I have no disposition of
that kind, and I am unaware that either of the Senators on the
conference committee have had any such disposition.  We tried to
do the best we could with the bill the Senate passed during the
last session, to keep the bill as near to what the Senate had it
as we could do, and to arrive at an agreement between the House
and Senate conferees.

"I submit that the majority of the assaults have been against
provisions that were in the bill when the Senate voted for it during
the last session of Congress.  I am of the opinion that if this
discussion lasted another day Senators would find in every line of
the bill a very serious objection to its adoption.  They started
in to object to some provisions of the fourth and fifth sections.
The Senator who has just concluded his remarks got over to the
thirteenth section and I believe went one or two sections beyond
that, and if there are any more speeches to be made against the
bill I suppose the very last section of it will be attacked before
a vote is taken.

"The Senate conferees regarded it as their duty to cling to every
portion of the Senate bill, as it was passed, that they could cling
to and reach an agreement between the conferees of the House and
Senate.  Hence it was that all these portions of the Senate bill
not objected to by the House conferees were allowed to remain in
the bill by the Senate conferees, the Senate conferees, as a matter
of course, believing that the Senate of the United States knew what
it was doing when it voted for the bill in the first place, and
thinking that it remained of the same mind still. . . .

"The Senator from Georgia assaults the bill because he says that
under it the provisions are so rigid that the railroads of the
country can do no business at all.  The Senator from Oregon assaults
the bill because he says the fourth section amounts to nothing,
and that the words 'under like circumstances and conditions' ought
to be taken out.

"The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] assaults the bill because
he says it is going to interfere with foreign commerce, and that
the fourth section will be construed as not allowing a rebate of
five cents a hundred upon commerce shipped across the country for
exportation. . . .

"So I might go on referring to every Senator who has spoken against
the bill, and nearly every one of them has founded his objections
to the bill upon the use of the language that he had previously
voted for in the Senate of the United States before the bill went
to conference at all."

Men who opposed any legislation at all never supposed that the
conference report would be agreed to, and I so stated in the Senate
of the United States.  I pointed out, moreover, that when they were
met by a conference report the railroad men of the Senate rallied
to the support of the transportation companies.  I continued:

"Sir, it has just come to the point where you have got to face the
music and vote for an interstate commerce bill, or vote it down.
That is all there is to it.  I have nothing more to say.  I have
discharged my duty as best I knew how.  I reported on the part of
the Senate conferees the bill that is before you.  I am not
responsible for what the Senate does with it.  I am not going to
find fault with anybody upon the question whether we concur in the
report or reject it, but I warn Senators that the people of the
United States for the last ten years have been struggling to assert
the principle that the Government of the United States has the
power to regulate transportation from one end of the country to
another.  I believe that if this report is rejected it is very
doubtful whether we shall get any legislation at all during this
present Congress, so when the Senate acts upon the question my duty
will have been done so far as I am able to see it.

"I have believed from the time I have given any attention to public
affairs that it was necessary to bring into force the provisions
of the Constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce
among the States.  The Senator from New York [Mr. Evarts] attacked
the bill and said that it was unconstitutional because, as I
understand it, the Constitution was framed for the purpose of
facilitating commerce, and this was a bill to hinder or to militate
against it.

"I undertake to say that the purpose of the bill, at least, whatever
may be the strained construction which has been placed upon it or
which may be placed upon it by the transportation companies of the
country, has been to facilitate commerce and to protect the individual
rights of the people as against the great railroad corporations.
I have no disposition to interfere with their legitimate business.
I have no disposition, God knows, to interfere with the commerce
of the country, properly conducted, but I do say that it is the
duty of the Congress of the United States to place upon the statute
book some legislation which will look to the regulation of commerce
upon the railroads that they will not treat one man differently
under similar circumstances and conditions. . . .

"The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan] says that we had better go
slow and remain quiet under the old regime.  Well, Mr. President,
I remember only a few days ago hearing the Senator from Alabama
alleging that the railroads, the common carriers of the country,
were eating up the people, were destroying the interests of the
people.  I do not know whether he confined his remark to his own
State or extended it to the country, but I should have inferred
from the language he used against the railroad companies that he
would have been in favor of almost any legislation that would in
any way restrict them in their reckless disregard of the rights of
the people.  I can only conclude that the Senator from Alabama
would rather that destructive system should go on, as he charged
it to exist when he made his speech the other day, without control,
than to trust a commission who he says are individually liable to
corrupt influences either at the hands of the President or somebody
else outside.

"Sir, we have got to trust somebody.  We must either leave this
matter to the discretion and judgment and sense of honor of the
officers of the railroad companies, or we must trust the commission
and the courts of the country to protect the people against unjust
discrimination and extortion on the part of the common carriers.
Is it the President of the United States as against a corporation?
Is it an honest commission honestly selected by the President of
the United States as against a railroad company?  I say that there
are not those inducements to be placed in the hands of a set of
men selected for their integrity, selected for their ability,
selected for their capacity to regulate railroads and enforce the
law, that are left in the hands of the officers of the railroad
companies themselves.

"I take it that there is somebody honest in this country, and that
the President, if this bill becomes a law, will select the broadest
gauge men, the men highest in integrity and intelligence as the
men to enforce this law as against the corporations and as a go-
between, if you please, between the shippers and the railroads of
the country.  I am willing to trust them.  If they are not honest
the President has the right to remove them; and if the shipper is
unwilling to submit to their judgment, under the bill he has a
right to go directly to the courts.  I say that there is not anything
that can be done by these corporations against individuals where
the shipper himself has not a right to get into court in some way
or other, if he is not willing to abide by the decision of the
commissioners appointed by the President."

The conference report was adopted by a vote of thirty-seven yeas
to twelve nays; but it was a rather significant fact that there
were twenty-six absent, including Senators Aldrich, Dawes, Evarts,
Morgan, and some of the most bitter opponents of railroad

The provisions of the Act of 1887 are too well known to need any
recital here.  In a word, it was partly declaratory of the common
law, its essential features being that railroad charges must be
reasonable; that there must be no discriminations between persons
and no preference between localities; railroads were prohibited
from charging less for a long haul than for a shorter haul, "included
within it under substantially similar circumstances"; pooling was
prohibited; and a commission was established with power to hear
and decide complaints, to make investigations and reports, and
generally to see to the enforcement of the Act.

Considering the abuses that existed, the Act of 1887 was conservative
legislation, but in Congress and among the people generally it was
considered radical, until the courts robbed it by judicial construction
of much of its intended force.  During the debates, Senators remarked
that never in the history of governments was a bill under consideration
which would inevitably affect directly or remotely so great financial
and industrial interests.  It marked the beginning of a new era in
the management of the railway business of the United States.  It
was the beginning of Governmental regulation which has finally
culminated in the legislation of the Sixty-first Congress.  And it
is no little satisfaction to me to say that the fundamental principles
of the original Act of 1887 have been retained in all subsequent
acts.  No one has seriously advocated that the fundamental principles
of the Act of 1887 be changed, and subsequent legislation has been
built upon it.

After the passage of the original Act of 1887, a permanent Interstate
Committee of the Senate, of which I had the honor to be chairman,
and in which position I remained for many years, was created.  It
was a very active committee at first.  Necessarily, amendments were
made to the law, and the railroads generally observed the law in
good faith.  Even the long-and-short-haul clause was observed, as
it was intended by Congress that it should be.  That is, the
railroads did not set up at first that competition would create a
dissimilarity of conditions and circumstances so as to justify them
in charging more for the short haul than for the long haul.  But
it was not many years before the railroads attacked first one and
then another provision of the law, and they generally secured
favorable decisions from the courts.  I do not intend to go into
the details of these decisions, the last one being the decision in
the case which held that the Commission had no power to fix a future
rate, because the act did not give it that express power.  My own
judgment is, and was at the time, that the original act by implication
did give to the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to say
after complaint and hearing, and after a given rate had been declared
to be unreasonable, what in that case would be a reasonable rate;
but the courts decided otherwise.  Immediately, I drew up and
introduced a bill, number 1439, of the Fifty-sixth Congress, and
had it referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce.  This bill
contained provisions substantially the same as were contained in
the Hepburn Bill which passed the Senate in 1906.  And in addition
it was designed to give effect to the provisions of the original
act which had been nullified by judicial construction.  I worked
my hardest to secure a favorable report of this bill.  We had many
hearings; but the Committee on Interstate Commerce, far from being
in favor of favorably reporting the bill, were inclined to decline
to allow me to report it to the Senate at all.  I insisted that I
would report it even though adversely, which I was finally permitted
to do.  But when reported to the Senate I stated that I reported
it adversely because a majority of the committee were against it,
but that I favored the bill personally, and would do what I could
to secure its passage.  This was in the year 1899.

It was not until seven years later that public sentiment was aroused
to such an extent that it was possible to secure the amendments to
the Act of 1887 which were embodied in Senate bill 1439.

I think it is only justice to myself to say--and I say it with much
regret--that there were two reasons why it was impossible to secure
at that time the report and passage of Senate bill 1439.  First of
all, the Executive did not manifest any special interest in securing
additional railroad regulation.  Secondly, the railroads themselves
had been very active in securing a change of the personnel of the
Committee on Interstate Commerce, and men had been elected to the
Senate and placed on that committee whose sympathies were in favor
of very conservative regulation, if any regulation at all.  The
railroads had firmly determined to stop any further railroad
regulation.  And finally, in the make-up of the Committee, a majority
of the Senators placed on the Committee on Interstate Commerce were
men whose sympathies were with the railroads.

But even with the personnel of the committee made up against me,
I have thought that had the late President McKinley given me the
active support which he could have given, I could have secured, in
1899, practically all the legislation that was secured six years
later.  It is only justice to ex-President Roosevelt to say that
had it not been for his earnest advocacy of railroad rate regulation
the Hepburn Bill would never have been passed.  With a chairman of
the Committee on Interstate Commerce well known for his conservatism
on the subject, with a majority of Republicans on the committee in
sympathy with him, without the arousing of public sentiment by
President Roosevelt, nothing would have been done.

I continued to take an exceptionally active part in railroad
regulation until I was placed at the head of the Foreign Relations
Committee of the Senate, and even afterwards I remained as the
ranking member, next to the Chairman, of the Committee on Interstate
Commerce, where I was glad to further as best I could such measures
as came before the Committee in the way of strengthening and giving
force to the original act.

I consented very reluctantly to leave the chairmanship of the
Committee on Interstate Commerce, where I had served during all my
term in the Senate, and I do not believe I would have done so had
it not been for the manner in which the committee was packed against
me in the interest of non-action.  At the last it became so that
even the simplest measures which affected the railroads in the
slightest degree would receive adverse action or none at all.  I
was utterly disgusted, and on several occasions told prominent
railroad men that if they continued such methods the time would
surely come when the people would become so aroused that they would
see enacted the most drastic of railroad rate laws.

I had much to do with the passage of the Hepburn Act of 1906.
After President Roosevelt had repeatedly urged it in his messages
to Congress, and privately brought influence to bear on Senators,
it seemed pretty certain that public sentiment demanded that
practically the amendments to the original act embodied in Senate
bill 1439, to which I have already referred, would sooner or later
have to be enacted into law.  As usual, those opposed to such
legislation demanded that hearings be held, and the Committee on
Interstate Commerce was authorized to sit during the recess of
Congress and to hold hearings.  Many weeks were consumed in these
hearings, and many volumes of testimony were taken.  I do not
believe that I missed a session of the committee, and I tried as
best I could to bring forth from the numerous witnesses summoned
before the committee evidence to assist in securing the passage of
the amendments to the original act, which I then thought necessary
to perfect it.

I had expected to render what assistance I could during the next
session, which convened in December, in framing the bill in committee
and to assist in its passage in the Senate.  But very unfortunately,
just at the beginning of the next session of Congress, when the
hearings were all concluded and the committee was prepared to go
into executive session to consider the bill itself, I was taken
ill and compelled to spend a couple of months in Florida to recover
my health.  It may seem strange, but the fact is, that my absence
expedited the consideration of the bill by the committee and its
report to the Senate.  I had telegraphed and written my late
colleague, Senator Dolliver, to record me as voting for the favorable
report of the bill from the committee to the Senate.  It was expected
that the committee would have to hold many sessions to consider the
numerous amendments that had been offered.  Senator Dolliver, at
one of the first meetings of the committee called to consider the
bill, read my telegram and letter asking to be voted in favor of
reporting the bill.  Objection was made to recording me, and one
distinguished Senator raised the point respecting how I was to be
recorded on the question of amendments.  Considerable controversy,
I understand, took place, and Senator Dolliver then moved to report
the bill to the Senate with the amendments already adopted in
committee.  This closed the discussion in the committee; the vote
was taken, and the bill was ordered reported to the Senate, my vote
being recorded in the affirmative; after which Senator Aldrich, in
order to make it appear all the more ridiculous, moved that Senator
Tillman, a minority member of the committee, be authorized to report
the bill.  This motion prevailed; Senator Tillman did report it,
and he had charge of its passage in the Senate.  So, as I have
stated, my absence, through the controversy over counting my vote,
really expedited the bill through the committee.

I returned to my seat in the Senate in February, while the bill
was being considered, and assisted as best I could through conferences
with President Roosevelt and members of the Senate in agreeing on
sections of the bill which were in controversy, particularly the
court review section.  I was also one of the conferees on the part
of the Senate that finally settled the differences between the two

It was a very satisfactory bill, in the form in which it finally
became a law.


I have always admired Mr. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who has
served some thirty-five years as a member of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and who for a time after the death of Chief
Justice Fuller acted as Chief Justice of the United States.

Upon the death of Judge Allen, who had for many years been United
States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, it
was suggested that his portrait be placed in the court room of the
United States Circuit and District Court at Springfield, Illinois.
The movement developed into the broader suggestion that portraits
of other distinguished judges, who had presided over the United
States Court at Springfield, and also a portrait of Chief Justice
Marshall, be procured and added to the collection.  The portraits
of Judges John Marshall, Walter Q. Gresham, David Davis, Samuel H.
Treat, Thomas Drummond, William J. Allen, John McLean, Nathaniel
Pope, and John Marshall Harlan were procured, and it was planned
that a suitable ceremony should take place in Springfield on June
2, 1903.

Judge Humphrey wrote me, telling me of the plans of the committee
appointed by the Bar of the United States Court at Springfield,
and asking me to say something concerning any one of these
distinguished judges whom I might designate, leaving the selection
to me.

I thought the matter over and determined that, inasmuch as I had
known Justice Harlan more or less intimately ever since I became
a member of the Senate, I should like to talk about him.

The occasion was quite a notable one.  Vice-President Fairbanks
delivered an address on Judge Gresham; Judge Kohlsaat, on Chief
Justice Marshall; Lawrence Weldon, on David Davis; Judge Creighton,
on Samuel H. Treat; Mr. John W. Jewett, on Thomas Drummond; J. C.
Allen, on W. J. Allen; Mr. Logan Hay, on John McLean; General Alfred
Orendorff, on Nathaniel Pope; and the portraits were accepted in
the name of the Court at Springfield by the Hon. J. Otis Humphrey,
the District Judge.

There was a very distinguished gathering of lawyers, of Federal
and State judges from Illinois and adjacent States, and of many
members of the families of the deceased jurists.  Judges Kohlsaat,
Humphrey, and Anderson occupied the bench.  The whole proceeding
was a very dignified and appropriate one.

I cannot give a better estimate of my regard for Justice Harlan
than by quoting some extracts from the address I delivered on that

"The Supreme Court to-day is composed on nine eminent justices, of
one of whom I have been asked to speak; and I do believe that the
Justice of whom I speak, in all that goes to make a noted and able
jurist, is second only to that learned Chief Justice, John Marshall,
of whom Judge Kohlsaat has so interestingly spoken.

"I speak of John Marshall Harlan, who has been an honored member
of the Supreme Court of the United States for more than a quarter
of a century.

"Justice Harlan from his youth was the architect of his own fortune;
he has been a man of remarkable individuality and force of character;
he impressed himself from boyhood upon the community in which he
lived.  Before he reached his nineteenth year he was made Adjutant-
General of the State of Kentucky.  Like Lincoln, he performed the
obligations of a citizen, both in private and official life, with
zeal and faithfulness to duty. . . .

"When Justice Harlan was but a young man, slavery became the
paramount issue of the day, and naturally being a staunch Union
man, he took an active part in the discussion and struggles that
became more or less bitter in his very early manhood.  He was one
of the first to enlist and lead his regiment in the field in favor
of the Union and was assigned a place in that division of the army
commanded by the gallant old soldier and patriot, General Thomas. . . .

"Justice Harlan's record as a soldier was a brilliant one.  Certain
promotion and higher honors were assured him, and he was nominated
by President Lincoln to the position of Brigadier-General; but the
responsibilities resulting from the death of his father compelled
him to abandon what was certain to have been a distinguished military
career, and he reluctantly returned to Kentucky. . . .

"Following the struggle in arms came important reconstruction
legislation and important Constitutional amendments, necessitating
judicial interpretations.  These grave questions of state gave
opportunity for the development of great statesmen and judges.

"Great crises produce great men.  Justice Harlan was at home in
the thickest of the struggle, through the period of reconstruction,
an able lawyer, an uncompromisingly bold man, asserting his position
without fear or favor.  While many of the important judicial and
Constitutional questions growing out of reconstruction legislation
remained unsettled, Justice Harlan took his place on the Supreme
Bench, having been appointed by President Hayes in 1877, and an
examination of the decisions of the Court since that year will show
the prominent part he has taken in the disposition of these
Constitutional questions.

"It has been said that there never was a very powerful character,
a truly masculine, commanding man, who was not made so by struggles
with great difficulties.  Daily observation and history prove the
truth of this statement.  Hence I believe that the rough-and-tumble
existence to which the majority of ambitious young men of our
country are subjected, does much to prepare them for the higher
duties of substantial, valuable citizenship.  The active life and
early struggles of Justice Harlan in his State have had their
influence in making him the fearless jurist that he is.

"Shortly after his appointment, Justice Harlan was assigned as the
Supreme Justice for this circuit, and served here for eighteen
years.  Many of you present remember his visit to Springfield and
his holding court in this room.

"To be a member of the Federal Judiciary is the highest honor that
can be conferred upon an American lawyer.  The crowning glory of
our Nation was the establishment, by the fathers, of the independent
Federal Judiciary, which is the conservator of the Constitution.
I have unbounded faith in it.  It is the protector of those
fundamental liberties so dear to the Anglo-Saxon race.  State
Legislatures and the Congress may be swayed by the heat and passion
of the hour; but so long as our independent Federal Judiciary
remains, our people are safe in their legal, fundamental, Constitutional

"Perhaps there is nothing that illustrates so well Justice Harlan's
character, the equality of all men before the law, as do some of
his dissenting opinions."

I then referred to his famous dissent in the Civil Rights case,
delivered in 1883; to his dissent in the Income Tax case, and others
of his notable utterances from the Supreme Bench; and at the same
time I referred to the fact that he had written more than seven
hundred opinions, covering nearly every branch of the law, the
opinions on Constitutional questions being unusually large.  I

"In many respects Justice Harlan resembles his namesake, John
Marshall.  Like John Marshall, he received his early training for
the bench in the active practice at the Bar.  Like John Marshall,
he enlisted and fought for his country.  Like John Marshall, while
still a young man, he was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court,
and has for more than a quarter of a century occupied that position.
And like John Marshall, his great work on the bench has been in
cases involving the construction and application of the Constitution.
He has been especially assigned by the Court to the writing of
opinions on Constitutional Law.  In my opinion he stands to-day as
the greatest living Constitutional lawyer.

"If the Court please, I desire to refer to one more phase of Justice
Harlan's character.  He is a religious man.  He does not parade
his belief before the world, yet he possesses deep and devout
convictions and has given deep study to church questions.  And it
may be said that the great men of the world from the earliest dawn
of civilization, with but few exceptions, have believed that the
life of the soul does not end with the death of the body.  Cicero,
long before the birth of the Saviour, said:

'When I consider the wonderful activity of the mind, so great a
memory of what has passed, and such a capacity of penetrating into
the future; when I behold such a number of arts and sciences, and
such a multitude of discoveries thence arising, I believe and am
firmly persuaded that a nature which contains so many things within
itself can not be mortal.'

"Centuries later the famous Dr. Johnson well said:  'How gloomy
would be the mansions of the dead to him who did not know that he
should never die; that what now acts shall continue its agency,
and what now thinks shall think on for ever.'

"Justice Harlan is a firm and devout believer in the immortality
of the soul.

"He is now approaching the age when under the law he may retire
from the bench, yet he is in the vigor of health and is perhaps
the greater judge to-day than at any time in his past career.  I
am sure I voice the general desire of the Bar of the whole country
that he shall, so long as his health and strength continue, remain
an active member of that great Court."

It is more than eight years since I delivered that address.  In
the ensuing period, five justices of the Supreme Court have either
retired under the law, or passed away, none of whom enjoyed a length
of service equal to Judge Harlan's; and yet Justice Harlan is
attending daily to his duties as a member of that court, apparently
in vigorous health and certainly as profound and learned a judge
to-day as at any time in his past career.  And I repeat now what
I said eight years ago--that I hope he shall for years to come
remain an active member of that great court.


It has been said that Charles Sumner considered the chairmanship
of the Committee on Foreign Relations as the highest honor that
could have been conferred upon him by the United States Senate.

I have been chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations for a
longer consecutive period than any man in our history, aside from
Mr. Sumner, who served as chairman for ten years.  If I continue
as chairman during the remainder of my term, I shall have exceeded
the long service of Mr. Sumner.

The Committee on Foreign Relations was among the first of the
permanent standing committees of the Senate.  Prior to 1816, there
were no permanent standing committees, the custom being to appoint
select committees to consider the different portions of the
President's messages, and for the consideration of any other subject
which the Senate might from session to session determine necessary
for committee reference.  On December 13, 1816, the Senate, by
rule, proceeded to the appointment of the following standing
committees, agreeably to the resolution of the tenth instant, which
was as follows:

"Resolved, that it shall be one of the rules of the Senate that
the following standing committees be appointed at each session:
a Committee on Foreign Relations, a Committee on Finance, a Committee
on Commerce and Manufactures, a Committee on Military Affairs, a
Committee on the Militia, a Committee on Naval Affairs, a Committee
on Public Lands, a Committee on Claims, a Committee on the Judiciary,
a Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, and a Committee on

It will be noted that under this rule, the Committee on Foreign
Relations was named first, and Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, was its
first chairman.  Whether it was at that time considered the most
important committee, I do not know; but I do know that from the
date of its formation, the Committee on Foreign Relations has been
among the most important committees of the Senate, and at times in
our history it has been _the_ most important committee.  It has
been from the beginning particularly noted for the high character
of the men who composed its membership, and we find in the archives
of the Senate the names of some of the greatest men in our national
history, who have from time to time acted as its chairmen.

Barbour of Virginia, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, Rives, Benton,
King, Cass, Sumner, Windom, John F. Miller, John T. Morgan, John
Sherman, and Cushman K. Davis are a few of those who have at
different times occupied the position of chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations.

My predecessors, as their names will indicate to those familiar
with American history, have been noted for their conservatism in
dealing with matters pertaining to our foreign relations, and there
is no position in the Senate where conservatism is so essential.
My ambition has been so to conduct the business coming before the
committee as to keep up the high standard set and the high standing
maintained by the distinguished statesmen who have preceded me in
the position.

The work of the Foreign Relations Committee is almost exclusively
executive and confidential, and consists largely in the consideration
of treaties submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification.
Very little important legislative business comes before this
committee, although it has jurisdiction over claims of foreign
citizens against the United States, and all legislation that in
any wise affects our relations with other nations.

It was almost, I might say, by accident that I became a member of
this important committee.  I had been a member of the Committee on
Commerce for a number of years, and took quite an interest in the
very important legislation coming before that committee; and the
improvement of rivers and harbors was a subject in which Illinois
was greatly interested.

The late Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, was in 1895 chairman of the
Committee on Organization, having in charge the make-up of the
committees of the Senate, and he wanted a place on the Committee
on Commerce for some Western Senator.  He came to me and explained
his embarrassment, and asked me if I would be willing to be
transferred from the Committee on Commerce to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.  I wanted to accommodate Senator Mitchell, and
I told him that I would consent to be transferred, but at the same
time I was not at all anxious to leave the Committee on Commerce.
The transfer was made in due course, and I have served continuously
on the Foreign Relations Committee since that time, 1895.

John Sherman was chairman of the committee when I became a member
of it.  It was at a period when there were very few material foreign
matters to engage the attention of the Senate.  Sherman served as
chairman of the committee, at different periods, for nearly ten
years.  He was a wise, conservative chairman; not especially
brilliant, as was Senator Davis, or Senator Sumner; but every one
had confidence in him and felt that in his hands nothing unwise or
foolish would emanate from the committee.

I was chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce at that
time, and the work of that committee, added to the work devolving
upon me as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, engrossed
most of my time; and while I regularly attended the meetings of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, I cannot say that I took a
prominent part, or, indeed, a very deep interest, in it until I
became its chairman, succeeding the late Cushman K. Davis in 1901.

Cushman K. Davis was a warm personal friend of mine.  As the years
passed by and I grew to know him more and more intimately, I became
more deeply attached to him, and my respect for him as a statesman
constantly increased.  He was what I would term a specialist in
legislation.  He took little or no interest in any other subject
than matters pertaining to our foreign relations.  He was a prominent
figure in public affairs for many years.  A soldier in the Civil
War, serving in many prominent places in civil affairs in his State,
including the position of Governor, he came to the Senate as a
ripened statesman.  He entered the Senate in 1887, and in 1891
became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and very early
became one of its leading members.  Succeeding the late Senator
Sherman, in 1897, he became its chairman and served in that position
until his death.  Few more scholarly or cultivated men have ever
occupied a seat in the Senate.

He was a peculiar man in many respects, and did not court, or even
encourage, the advice of his colleagues on the committee, or even
of the Secretary of State.  I had served on the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House when Mr. Seward was Secretary of State and I
knew what a help it was to the committee to have the Secretary meet
with us personally and discuss matters of more or less importance.
We all listened to Secretary Seward with the profoundest respect
and attention; but as I look back on it now, I think that Secretary
Seward probably entertained more than he instructed the members.
He seemed to enjoy attending the sessions.

I thought that it would be a help if we could have Mr. Olney, then
Secretary of State, before us.  I suggested to Senator Davis at
one meeting, that Secretary Olney should be invited to come and
explain some question concerning which we seemed to be in doubt.
Senator Davis declined to invite him, and said so in so many words.
Apparently he did not desire any interference or information from
the Executive Department.  I felt pretty free to express my opinion
to Senator Davis, and I told him that inasmuch as he did not care
to invite Secretary Olney, I would invite him myself, if he did
not object.  I did so, and Secretary Olney, at a subsequent meeting,
met with the committee and very quickly explained the question
under consideration.

Senator Davis was a well recognized authority on international law,
both as a lecturer on that subject and a writer.  Judging from his
display of ability, he ought to have been able to write a monumental
work on the subject.  But he was an indolent man and contented
himself with publishing merely a little volume containing a _résumé_
of his lectures before a Washington college of law.  The publication
of this work detracted from, rather than added to, his reputation
as a student and writer.

He was not an orator, but on occasions, in executive session, when
great international questions were before the Senate, I have heard
him deliver wonderfully eloquent speeches.  He always commanded
the closest attention whenever he spoke in the Senate, whether in
executive or open session (which latter he only infrequently did,
by the way), and he always exhausted the subject.

President McKinley appointed him a member of the Paris Peace
Commission to frame the treaty of peace with Spain.  How well he
performed that service those of his colleagues on the commission
who are still living, can attest.  He returned from Paris and had
charge of the ratification of the treaty in the Senate.

I have always believed that Senator Davis's death was the result
of his indolent habits.  I do not believe he ever took any physical
exercise; at least he did not do so during the time that I knew
him.  He was so much of a student, and so interested in books, that
he seemed to think that time devoted to the proper care of his
physical condition was so much time wasted.  The result was that
when disease attacked him he became an easy prey, and when he passed
away it was said that he bore all the marks of a very old man, even
though he was comparatively young in years.  It was my sad duty,
as a member of the United States Senate, to attend his funeral in
St. Paul, in 1900.

The northwest section of the United States has not now, and never
had before, as capable a scholar and statesman as Cushman K. Davis.

I succeeded Senator Davis as chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations.  I have enjoyed my work on the committee more than I
have enjoyed any other work that I have done in the Senate.  There
are a number of reasons for this.  First, the members of the
committee, during my service, have been particularly able and
agreeable men, and during those years some of the greatest men of
the Senate have been numbered among its members.  Aside from one,
whom I have long since forgiven, I do not recall now that I have
had a single controversy or unkind word with any member.  In
addition, the work is not only of the greatest importance, but it
has been very satisfactory, because partisanship has not at all
entered into the disposition of matters pertaining to our foreign
affairs.  The members of the committee during my time have always
seemed to take a deep interest in the work coming before them, and,
unlike most of the committees of the Senate, it has never been
difficult to secure the attendance of a working quorum.  In the
ten years that I have been chairman, I do not believe the committee
has ever been compelled to adjourn for want of a quorum when any
important business was before it.

Until his death in 1911, Senator Wm. P. Frye, of Maine, was in
point of service the oldest member of the committee.  He had served
as one of its members ever since 1885.  He could have been chairman,
by right of seniority, when Mr. Davis was made chairman in 1891,
on the retirement of Mr. Sherman; and again he could have become
chairman when Senator Davis died.  He did act in that capacity for
nearly a year, but he always seemed to prefer the chairmanship of
the Committee on Commerce.

I believe that the late Senator Hanna had a good deal to do with
Senator Frye's declining to succeed the late Senator Davis as
chairman.  Ship-subsidy and the building up of the merchant marine
of the United States were then before the Senate, and Senator Hanna,
a ship owner himself, was deeply interested in that legislation.
Senator Hanna and Senator Frye were devoted friends; and, although
I do not know, I have always felt that it was Senator Hanna who
induced Senator Frye to remain at the head of the Committee on

Senator Frye was a very capable and faithful Senator, and enjoyed
the confidence and respect of the people of his State to a greater
degree than any other Maine statesman, with the exception of Mr.
Blaine.  As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I would say he
dominated that committee, and at the same time he was a most
satisfactory chairman to every Senator who served on it.  He was
thoroughly familiar with every question pertaining to rivers and
harbors, the shipping interests, and the multitude of matters coming
before the committee.  Senator Burton, of Ohio, is probably the
only member of the United States Senate at present who is as well
posted on matters before the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. Frye was an active member of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
and during the brief periods when I have been compelled by reason
of illness to remain away from the Senate I always designated
Senator Frye to act in my stead.

Among his colleagues in the Senate, he enjoyed the greatest degree
of popularity; and aside from one or two occasions when his own
colleague opposed him, no Senator ever objected to any ordinary
bill which Senator Frye called up and asked to have placed on its
passage.  In fact it was his custom to report a bill from his
committee, or the Committee on Foreign Relations, the only two
working committees of which he was a member, and ask for its
immediate consideration.  No one ever objected, and the bill went
through as a meritorious measure without question, on his word
alone to the Senate.

He was an ideal presiding officer.  For years he was president _pro
tempore_, and the death of Vice-President Hobart, and the accession
of Mr. Roosevelt to the Presidency, necessitated his almost constant
occupancy of the chair.  With the peculiar rules existing in the
Senate, the position of presiding officer is comparatively an easy
one.  Senator Frye made an especially agreeable presiding officer,
expediting the business of the Senate in a degree equal to that of
any presiding officer during my service.

I recollect when he was elected president _pro tempore_, in 1896,
I had been talked of for the place, but he had not heard that I
desired it; and a Republican caucus was held which named him
president.  Senator Chandler, for whom I have always had the greatest
respect as a man and as a Senator, after the caucus was held told
Senator Frye that he had heard I had some ambition for the place.
Mr. Frye came at once to my house and to my study and asked me, in
so many words, if I had desired to be president of the Senate.  I
replied that I had not, adding that I had had no particular concern
about it at any time.  He thereupon asserted that he had called
simply to apprise me that whenever I wanted the position he would
very cheerfully resign and yield it to me.  I assured him that if
he did not yield it until I asked him to do so, he would hold it
for a long time.  He never had any opposition, and on both sides
of the chamber he was, as presiding officer, equally popular.  He
voluntarily relinquished the office at the beginning of the Sixty-
second Congress.

When the tariff was one of the issues--during the first Cleveland,
the Harrison, and the second Cleveland campaigns and to a lesser
degree in 1896 and 1900,--Senator Frye was regarded as one of the
foremost orators and stump speakers on the tariff question.  During
his later years it was very much to be regretted that he did not
feel able to take an active part in national campaigns.

The news of Senator Frye's death comes to me while I am engaged in
reading the proof of what I have said about him in this book.  He
died at four o'clock on the eighth day of August, 1911, passing
away at the age of eighty-one years.  When asked by a newspaper
man for a brief estimate of Mr. Frye's character, I said:  "He was
not only one of the ablest and most devoted of public servants,
but one of the most charming men that I have ever known."  This
expression I desire to repeat here for perpetuation in endurable

Seldom has this country commanded the services of a more enlightened
or more self-sacrificing man than Mr. Frye.  He was patriotic to
the very heart's core; no sacrifice for the country would have been
too great for him.  He, and his colleague Mr. Hale, and Senators
Allison, of Iowa, Platt, of Connecticut, Teller, of Colorado,
Cockrell, of Missouri, Morgan, of Alabama, and Spooner, of Wisconsin,
constitute a coterie of public men of the last half century such
as any nation should be proud of.  Unselfish, energetic, and
patriotic, they have done much to keep the United States on the
proper level.  Let us hope, as we must, that the public councils
of the nation may always be guided by men of their character and

Senator Frye's death leaves me the oldest member of the Senate in
point of service.  He entered the Senate in March, 1881, giving
him more than thirty years of service, while I entered in March,
1883, which gives me more than twenty-eight years up to date.  It
thus will be seen that we have served together for almost an average

Senator Jacob H. Gallinger of New Hampshire, who was promoted from
the House to the Senate in 1891, now becomes the second member of
the latter body in respect to length of service.  Mr. Gallinger is
not a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, of whose
membership I am now especially speaking, but it cannot be out of
place for me to pause here to give him a word of commendation and
salutation as I pursue my way through this maze of memory.  A
physician by profession, and a native of Canada, Mr. Gallinger has
shown marked adaptability in taking on the American spirit and in
performing the public's service.  He has for many years been Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, which, possessing
many of the attributes of an ordinary city council, requires minute
attention to detail.  Mr. Gallinger is the second member of the
important Committee on Commerce, and one of the leading members of
the Committee on Appropriations.  His committee work therefore
covers a wide range of subjects.  Never has he been known to fail
in the performance of his duties in all these connections.  Moreover,
he is a constant attendant upon the sessions of the Senate, and
one of the most alert of its members.  Apparently, often, he is
impulsive and explosive, and occasionally under the excitement of
debate says what seems to be a harsh thing.  If, however, his manner
is indicative of feeling, such a feeling, like a passing summer
cloud, is soon dissipated, and almost immediately gives way to the
sunshine of his really genial and lovable nature.  Senator Gallinger
as a member of the House and Senate has given the American public
as much genuine and patriotic service as any man in public life
during the past quarter of a century.  I hope he may continue long
to adorn the Senate.

Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, was appointed a member of the
Foreign Relations Committee in 1879, and served continuously as a
member of it until his death in 1907, a total service of twenty-
eight years.  I do not know of any other Senator who served on that
committee for so long a period.  When the Senate was in control of
the Democrats under the second Cleveland Administration, he was
chairman of the committee.

Senator Morgan was an extraordinary man in many respects.  He had
a wonderful fund of information on every subject, but was not a
man of very sound judgment, and I could not say that he was a man
on whose advice one could rely in solving a difficult problem.  At
the same time, no one could doubt his honesty and sincerity of
purpose.  He did not have the faculty of seeing both sides of a
question, and once he made up his mind, it was impossible to change
him, or by argument and reason to move him from a position deliberately
taken.  I probably had as intimate an acquaintance with him as any
other Senator enjoyed, for we not only served as colleagues on the
Committee on Foreign Relations, but, as I have stated in another
chapter, we served together on the Hawaiian Commission.  He was
one of the most delightful and agreeable of men if you agreed with
him on any question, but he was so intense on any subject in which
he took an interest, particularly anything pertaining to the
interoceanic canal, that he became almost vicious toward any one
who opposed him.

If an Isthmian canal be finally constructed, Senator Morgan must
be accorded a large share of the credit; and his name will go down
as the father of it, even though he himself affirmed in debate in
the Senate one day, after the Panama route had been selected, that
he would not be "the father of such a bastard."  Senator Morgan
fought for the Nicaraguan route with all the power at his command.
He fought the treaties with Colombia and Panama, first for many
weeks in the committee, and then in the executive sessions of the
Senate.  He wanted to arouse public sentiment against the Panama
route, and he addressed the Senate about five hours every day for
thirteen days on the subject, desisting only when we consented to
publish his speeches and papers on the subject, notwithstanding
they had been made and presented in executive session.  Nevertheless,
it was Senator Morgan who for very many years kept the subject of
an interoceanic canal before Congress and the country, and finally,
partially through his efforts, interest in the project was kept
alive until it was determined, first, that the canal should be
constructed; and second, that it should be over the Panama route.
Many people thought that the selection of the Panama route would
break Senator Morgan's heart; but they did not know him.  He made
the best fight he could, and when the Panama route was selected he
took the same deep interest in the legislation to carry the work
forward that he had always taken in the possible alternative route.
He was firmly convinced that the canal, on account of certain
physical reasons, could never be constructed across the Isthmus of

Time alone will tell whether or not Senator Morgan was right.  Time
has demonstrated that he was right in his contention that the Panama
Canal could never be constructed for the amount estimated by the
engineers, one hundred and eighty-three million dollars.  It has
already cost over two hundred million dollars, and it is not yet
nearly completed.  The latest estimates are that it will cost over
three hundred and eighty-five million dollars.  How much more it
will cost the United States, no one can say.

During the later years of his life, he was probably the most
interesting and unique figure in the Senate.  Toward the close of
his Senatorial career he became very feeble, but he attended to
his Senatorial duties as long as he was able to be about at all.
The last time I saw him alive was on the fourth of March, 1907,
the last day of the session, and the last time he ever entered the
Senate or the Capitol.  He looked very emaciated and feeble.  I
spoke to him, inquiring about his health.  He replied, "I am just
tottering around," and after a pause, added, "Cullom, when I die
and you die and Frye dies, and one or two others, this Senate will
not amount to much, will it?"

He died a few months afterwards at his home in Washington, and in
his death there passed away the last of the old familiar type of
Southern statesmen, so frequently to be met with in Washington
before the Civil War, and the last Senator who served as a Brigadier-
General in the Confederate Army.

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, became a member of
the committee at the same time that I was placed on it; but, by
reason of my longer service in the Senate, according to the usual
custom, I outranked him.

Senator Lodge, by general consent I believe, is regarded to-day as
the most cultivated man in the Senate.  He is a scholar, an author,
and a noted historian.  He is a very able man in any position in
which he is placed.  Judged by the standard of his great predecessor
in the Senate from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, he is not an
orator, but he is a very effective speaker and a good debater.  He
is one of the very active members and has always taken a prominent
part in the disposition of matters coming before the Upper House.
He is always ready to work, and when I desire any matter to be
disposed of without delay, I refer it to Senator Lodge as a
subcommittee, with confidence that it will be attended to quickly
and correctly.

He is a strong, active Republican, and a politician (using that
term in its higher sense) of no mean order.  For years in Republican
National Conventions he has been a conspicuous figure; and twice
at least--once at Philadelphia in 1900, and again in Chicago in
1908--he has been permanent chairman.  On both occasions--and I
attended both conventions--he proved himself to be a splendid
presiding officer.  He regards his position as the senior Senator
from Massachusetts, the successor of Webster and Sumner and a long
line of noted men, as even a higher honor then the Presidency

I have seen it repeatedly stated that Senator Lodge is unpopular
in the Senate,--that he is cold and formal.  From my long acquaintance
with him, extending over some seventeen years, I have not found
this to be true.  In times of trouble and distress in my own life,
I have found him to be warm and sympathetic.

I hope that he will remain in the Senate for many years to come.
Should he retire, his loss would be severely felt both as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations and as a member of the Senate.

Senator Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, is now the senior member of
the minority on the committee; and should the control of the Senate
pass into the hands of the Democrats, he will, if he remain in the
Senate, naturally become its chairman.  He is an able lawyer, and
if subject to criticism at all, I would say that he is a little
too technical as a jurist.  I do not say this to disparage him,
because in the active practice of his profession at the bar this
would be regarded to his credit rather than otherwise; and even as
a member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, this disposition
to magnify technicalities makes him one of the most valuable members
of that committee.  As a Senator, he is jealous of the prerogatives
of the Senate, and vigorously resists the slightest encroachment
on the part of the Executive.  He is one of the effective debaters
on the Democratic side of the Senate, and seems to enjoy a controversy
for its own sake.  My intercourse with Senator Bacon as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations has been most agreeable, and
I have come to like and respect him very much.  In my time, he has
been an exceptionally active, useful member, and he has often told
me that he prefers his place as a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee to any other committeeship in the Senate.  He is well
equipped, by education and training, for the work of the committee,
and gives close attention to important treaties and other measures
coming before it.  He stood with Senator Morgan in opposing the
ratification of the Panama canal treaty, and he was as much in
earnest in his opposition to it as was Senator Morgan; but unlike
the Senator from Alabama, he did not attack Senators personally
who differed from him.  When technical matters of importance came
before the committee I usually appointed Senator Spooner and Senator
Bacon as a subcommittee, as I felt that anything that these two
might agree upon would be right, and would be concurred in by the
committee and by the Senate as well.

Senator Clarence D. Clark, of Wyoming, was a member of the House
for two terms, and has served in the Senate for about fifteen years.
In point of service, he is one of the oldest of the Western Senators.
Unlike the Eastern States, very few of the Western States return
their Senators for term after term; and the value of this, as a
matter of State pride, is well demonstrated in the case of Senator
Clark.  It has enabled him to reach the high position of chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, the successor of a long line of able
lawyers,--Trumbull, Edmunds, Thurman, Hoar, and O. H. Platt being
a few of his immediate predecessors.

Senator Clark has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations
for thirteen years, and a more agreeable member of a committee it
would be difficult to find.  He is a capable lawyer, and a man of
sound common sense.  I regret that his arduous duties as chairman
of the Judiciary Committee do not permit him to give as close
attention to the Foreign Relations Committee as I would like; but
he always attends when there are matters of particular importance
before it; and I have great respect for his judgment in the
disposition of matters in which he takes any interest at all.

The Hon. Hernando de Soto Money, of Mississippi, has for years been
one of the leading Democratic members of Congress.  For fourteen
years he was a member of the House of Representatives, a prominent
member, too, and he has been a member of the Senate since 1897.
His long service in the House at once enabled him to take his place
as a leader of his party, a Senator admired and respected by his
colleagues on both sides.  He was appointed to the Foreign Relations
Committee in 1899, and I have been intimately acquainted with him

Senator Money is a highly educated, cultured gentleman, and has
travelled extensively over the world.  His broad liberal education,
added to his travel, and his extensive knowledge of world history,
made him an especially valuable member of the committee of which
I am chairman.  During the past few years I have sympathized with
him very greatly as he has suffered physical pain to a greater
degree than any other man whom I have known, and yet has insisted
on attending diligently to his official duties.  He must be a man
of extraordinary will power, or he would never have been able to
conquer his physical suffering to such an extent as to enable him
to attend to his Senatorial duties, and at the same time to obtain
the fund of information which he possesses, as he demonstrated over
and over again in the Senate.

He retired voluntarily from the Senate on the fourth of March, 1911.

Of the many Senators with whom I have been associated in the
committee on Foreign Relations, and especially since I became its
chairman, there are two, both now retired to private life, in whom
I had the greatest confidence and for whom I entertained great
affection, as they both did for me--these Senators were the Hon.
J. B. Foraker of Ohio, and the Hon. John C. Spooner of Wisconsin.

Senator Foraker preceded Senator Spooner as a member of this
committee by some four years.  I do not know how it first came
about, but I became very intimate with Senator Foraker almost
immediately after he entered the Senate, and at once grew to admire
him exceedingly.  He is a very brilliant man, and has had a notable
career.  He enlisted in the Union Army as a private when sixteen
years old, and retired at the close of the war, a Captain.  He then
completed his education, and entered upon the practice of the law.
He was elected Judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati, and later
became a candidate for Governor.  The occupant of many civil
positions of importance in his State, a prominent figure in national
convention after national convention, nominating Senator Sherman
for the Presidency in 1884 and 1888, and placing in nomination Mr.
McKinley in 1896, Senator Foraker had established a record in public
life, and had gathered a wealth of experience, sufficient to satisfy
the ambitions of most men, before his great public career really
commenced as a member of the United States Senate, in 1897.  He
also nominated McKinley in 1900.

Senator Foraker was one of the most independent men with whom I
ever served in the Senate.  He was a man of such ability and
unquestioned courage that he did not hesitate to take any position
which he himself deemed to be right, regardless of the views of
others.  It would inure to the advantage of the country if there
was a more general disposition among public men to adhere to their
own convictions, regardless of what current opinion might be.
Senator Foraker always made up his mind on public questions and
clung to his own opinion in the face of all criticism.  The most
striking instance of this trait was when he, the only Republican
Senator to do so, voted against the Hepburn Rate Bill, because he
believed it to be unconstitutional.  The very fact that he stood
alone in his opposition to that bill did not seem to bother him in
the least.

On the recommendation of President Roosevelt, the Committee on
Immigration of the Senate attempted to pass a very drastic Chinese
exclusion law.  I examined the bill and became convinced at once
that it was absolutely contrary to and in violation of our treaties
with China.  I was very much surprised at the time that even Senator
Lodge, one of the most conservative of Senators, supported the
bill.  I was deluged with telegrams from labor organizations, as
I knew Senator Foraker was, favoring the passage of the bill; but
he, with Senator Platt of Connecticut, and some others in the
Senate, whom I assisted as best I could, led the opposition to the
bill reported by the Committee on Immigration and defeated it.
Senator Foraker very well knew that his opposition to this bill
would not strengthen him at home, but he disregarded that fact and
opposed it because he believed it was contrary to our treaty

A more recent case in which he showed his independence was his
taking up the fight of the troops dismissed on account of the so-
called Brownsville affair.  This was very unselfish on the part of
Senator Foraker.  He had nothing to gain by espousing the cause of
a few negroes, but much to lose by antagonizing the National
administration.  He did not hesitate a moment, however.  There is
no question that President Roosevelt acted hastily in dismissing
the entire company; but this was one occasion when President
Roosevelt would not recede even though it became perfectly clear
to almost every one in Congress that he was wrong.

Senator Foraker always did make it a point to attend the meetings
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but for some reason or other
he was never punctual and was seldom in attendance when the committee
was called to order.  But at the same time he was prepared on all
important questions coming before the committee.  He seemed to me
to have given attention beforehand to subjects which he knew would
come before a particular meeting, and his opinion on any treaty or
bill before the committee was always sought by his colleagues and
listened to with respect, and almost without exception his opinion

I regretted exceedingly to see him retire from the Senate.  From
the time he entered that body, he was consistently one of the
principal defenders of Republican policies and Republican
administrations on the floor of the Senate.

Senator John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, was, in my judgment, one of
the best lawyers who ever served as a member of the Senate, and
among its membership we find the names of the greatest lawyers and
judges of America.  He had served in the Civil War, having retired
at its close with the brevet of Major.  He early took up the law
as a career, and never abandoned it, even when elected to the
Senate; and as I write this, I believe he is regarded as one of
the foremost lawyers of New York.

He came into the Senate two years after I entered that body, and
I remember him there as opposing the conference report on the
Interstate Commerce Act.  His State having passed into the control
of the Democrats, he retired from the Senate in 1891, but was re-
elected in 1897.  He declined several tenders of cabinet positions,
preferring to remain independent as a Senator.

I knew him for a good many years.  Representing a neighboring State,
as he did in the Senate, I became very intimate with him, and never
had the slightest hesitancy in seeking his advice when I was in
doubt concerning any legal or constitutional question.

Senator Spooner was a much more technical lawyer than Senator
Foraker, but not quite so technical as Senator Bacon.  On questions
coming before the Committee on Foreign Relations, his advice was
always to be trusted.  My judgment in this respect may be influenced
by our close personal friendship; but I always felt that when I
had his support on any question I was safe and right in the position
I took respecting it.  Seldom within my knowledge did the Senate
fail to agree with any attitude that Senator Spooner assumed on a
controverted question.

Senator Spooner was placed on the committee at the time I became
its chairman.  At that time there were before the committee treaties,
legislation, and matters of the utmost importance.  He entered upon
the work with the greatest interest, and exercised commanding
influence in the disposition of matters under consideration.  He
always seemed to take particular interest in my success as chairman
of the committee, and always wanted to assist and help me wherever
he could.

We were wrestling with the Reciprocity treaty with Cuba at a meeting.
It had been before the committee for a number of meetings; Senator
Spooner feared that I was about to turn the treaty over to another
Senator to report, and he sent me, while the committee was in
session, a brief note marked "Confidential."  It read:

"The report is that you will give this treaty to another to report.
I think you should report it yourself, as you are not only chairman
of the committee, but you are also a member of the Committee on
Relations with Cuba.  Platt spoke to me about it.  He felt sensitive
in the first place because the treaty did not go to his committee.
The fact that you and others on this committee were on his committee
reconciled him.  I will stand to your shoulder in the fight for
its ratification.


I hope Senator Spooner, if he does me the honor of glancing through
these rambling recollections, will forgive my quoting this confidential
note without his consent; but I do so only to show the very friendly
and confidential relationship that existed between us.

I doubt very much whether the Colombia or Panama treaty would have
been ratified, or the Panama route selected in preference to the
Nicaraguan route for the Isthmian canal, despite the great influence
of Senator Hanna, had not Senator Spooner joined in advocating the
Panama route.

It was a long and difficult struggle, not only before the Committee
on Foreign Relations, but before the Committee on Interoceanic
Canals, and resulted in the retirement of Senator Morgan as chairman
of the last-mentioned committee--a position he had held for many
years--and in the selection of Senator Hanna to succeed him.  But
Senator Spooner, through his technical knowledge, dominated the
Committee on Interoceanic Canals, and succeeded finally in the
passage of the Spooner act which designated Panama, if that route
could be purchased, as the route for the canal.

Senator Spooner was one of the real leaders of the Senate from 1897
until he retired.  He was one of the most eloquent men who served
in the Senate during that period.  During all the debates on the
Cuban question, the important results growing out of the Spanish-
American War, the question of Imperialism--his participation in
all these momentous subjects was above criticism.  I have heard
him in the Senate, speaking day after day.  He never grew tiresome;
never repeated himself; always held the most profound attention of
the Senate; and his closing words were listened to with the same
attention and with the same interest, by his colleagues and by the
galleries, as marked the beginning of any of his speeches.  After
his conclusions his Republican colleagues invariably gathered around
him, offering their congratulations.

Senator Spooner and Senator Foraker have both retired.  It was
thought at the time that their places could not be filled, and I,
as one of the older Senators who remember them well, can not believe
that their places have been filled.  Of all the Senators with whom
I have served, Spooner and Foraker were most alike in their combative
natures, in their willingness to take the responsibility to go to
the front to lead the fight.  Senators come and go, the personnel
of the Senate changes, one Senator will be replaced by another,
but the Senate itself will go on as long as the Republic endures.

One of the most dignified, honest, straightforward, capable men
with whom I have served, was the Hon. Charles W. Fairbanks, of
Indiana.  He was a devoted adherent, friend, and follower of the
late President McKinley, and had been his friend long before he
was nominated for President in 1896.  Senator Fairbanks took a very
prominent part in that convention, was its temporary chairman, and
in 1900 was chairman of the Committee on Resolutions of the National
Convention which met at Philadelphia.  He entered the Senate in
1897, and during the following year was appointed by President
McKinley a member of the United States and British Joint High
Commission for the adjustment of all outstanding questions concerning
the United States and Canada.  The commission was an exceedingly
important one, but failing to agree on the Alaskan boundary, it
was compelled to adjourn without settling any of the questions
before it.  Its labors were not wasted, however, as it furnished
the nucleus for the final adjustment of those questions under the
administration of Mr. Root, in the State Department.

Senator Fairbanks was a close personal friend of President McKinley,
and almost immediately assumed quite an important position in the
Senate.  He was appointed to the Committee on Foreign Relations,
of which he was quite an able and influential member, as he was of
every committee of the Senate on which he served.  He accepted the
nomination of the Republican Convention of 1904 for Vice-President.
I considered that his proper place was in the Senate; but for some
reason or other he gave it out that he would not decline the
nomination for the office of Vice-President, and neither would he
seek it.  The Convention very wisely determined that he was the
best candidate that could be nominated.  The duties of the Vice-
President are not very arduous; but in all my service in the Senate
I do not know of a Vice-President who so strictly observed the
obligation adherent to the office as did Mr. Fairbanks.  He was a
candidate for President in 1908 but was defeated by President Taft.

Since his retirement from the Vice-Presidency, he has at least
twice been tendered high appointments in the diplomatic service,
first as Ambassador to the Court of St. James, and, later (it having
been rumored while he was travelling in China that he had expressed
himself as favorably inclined toward the acceptance of the position
of minister to that country), Secretary Knox indicated a desire
through mutual friends to have him appointed.  Mr. Fairbanks thanked
his friends, but declined the appointment.

In his tour around the world after retiring from the office of Vice-
President, he conducted himself with great dignity and propriety.

Senator Albert J. Beveridge succeeded Senator Fairbanks, as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations.  For years Senator Beveridge
had seemed more than anxious to become a member of this committee.
When he first entered the Senate he thought he should have been
made one of its members, as he had always taken a deep interest in
foreign matters; but the Committee on Organization determined that
his colleague, Senator Fairbanks, was entitled to the preference.
When Senator Fairbanks retired, I requested the Committee on
Organization to place Senator Beveridge on my committee, which it

I have always admired Senator Beveridge.  He is an exceptionally
engaging speaker, a brilliant man, and so talented that one cannot
help being attracted to him.  I had heard of him years before he
entered the Senate.  The late Senator McDonald of Indiana, a strong,
gifted lawyer and the highest type of a man, told me one day that
he had a young man in his office, named Beveridge, who knew more
about the politics of the day than almost any other man in the
State, and he believed he would be a controlling factor in Republican
politics in Indiana.

Senator Beveridge is a popular magazine writer, as he is one of
the most popular public speakers of to-day.  As a campaign orator,
his services are constantly in demand.

I regret very much to say, that notwithstanding Senator Beveridge's
prior anxiety to become a member of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, after his appointment he attended very few meetings and
apparently took little interest in its business.  His duties as
Chairman of the Committee on Territories, combined with work on
other committees, necessarily consumed most of his time.

For a number of years after the Hon. John Kean, of New Jersey,
entered the Senate, I had no special acquaintance with him, and I
did not welcome him particularly when he was made a member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, in 1901.  Since then I have become
very intimate with Senator Kean, and there have been few men on
the committee for whom I entertained a higher regard, or in whom
I placed more confidence.  He was a very industrious and useful
member, as he is in the Senate.  He filled quite a prominent place
in the Senate, and watched legislation probably more closely than
any other member.  He was always familiar with the bills on the
calendar, and made it a point to object to any questionable measures
that came before the Senate.  He advanced in influence and power
very rapidly in the last few years of his service.  Through Senator
Kean, I have been enabled very often to expedite the passage of
measures, not only coming from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
but bills in which I have been interested pertaining to the affairs
of my own State.  If the Senate had what is known as a "whip," I
would say that Senator Kean comes more nearly being the Republican
"whip" than any other Senator, with the possible exception, in
recent years, of Senator Murray Crane, of Massachusetts.

Senator Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, a member of the committee in
the Sixty-first Congress, was one of the most popular members of
the Senate.  His ability as a lawyer and legislator, combined with
his wit and keen sense of humor, enabled him to assume quite a
commanding position in that body.  When feeling ran high in debate,
sometimes almost to the point of personal encounter, Senator Carter
would appear, and by a few well-chosen words, voiced in his calm,
quiet manner, throw oil upon the troubled waters, and peace again
reigned supreme.

I have known Senator Carter for very many years.  I knew him as a
young man.  His home was at one time in Illinois, at the little
town of Pana, about twenty-five miles from my own home at Springfield.
He has held many public offices.  Delegate from the Territory of
Montana, member of the Fifty-first Congress, Commissioner of the
General Land Office, Senator from 1895 to 1901 and from 1905 to
1906, Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1892, he
has in all these positions distinguished himself as a man of a high
order of ability.  I have always liked Senator Carter very much,
and I was glad indeed that he was named a member of the Committee
on Foreign Relations.  He is a very useful and influential member,
as he is of the Senate.

Senator William Alden Smith, of Michigan, was only recently placed
on the Committee on Foreign Relations, quite a distinction for a
Senator who had served for so brief a time as a member of the
Senate.  Senator Smith, however, was a prominent member of the
House for many years, and was elected to the Senate while serving
as a member of the House of Representatives.  He has taken position
in the Senate very rapidly.  He is a lawyer of experience and long
practice, and an industrious and competent legislator.  He is always
watchful of the interests of his State.  He took a prominent part
in the consideration of the treaties between the United States and
Great Britain concerning Canada, more especially the boundary and
water-way treaties.  It was through his efforts that an amendment
to the latter treaty was adopted, which he considered necessary to
protect the interests of his State, and which I greatly feared
would result in the rejection of the treaty by the Canadian
Parliament.  I am very glad to say, however, that the treaty has
been ratified by both Governments, and only recently proclaimed.

Senator Smith has taken a keen interest in matters before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, and with his experience, industry,
and capacity, he is bound to become a very useful member of the

One of the last members to be appointed on the Committee on Foreign
Relations was the Hon. Elihu Root, of New York.  He is one of the
greatest men and ablest Senators who have ever been members of the
committee.  When he became a member of it, he was not at all a
stranger, for the reason that he, on my invitation, had, while
Secretary of State, for two years previous to his retirement from
that office, attended almost every meeting of the committee.
Between Mr. Hay and the members of the Senate, there was not the
close relationship which should have existed between that body and
the State Department.

Secretary Hay was not disposed to cultivate friendly relations with
Senators, and certain remarks he made concerning the Senate as a
body were very distasteful to Senators; and although I had invited
him, he seemed very averse to coming before the Committee on Foreign
Relations.  I did not press the point.  The result was that important
treaties and other matters were constantly sent in, with which the
members of the committee were not familiar, and we had to grope in
the dark, as it were, and inform ourselves concerning them as best
we could.

But when Mr. Root became Secretary of State, I resolved to insist
that the Secretary meet with us from time to time, and explain such
treaties and measures as might need explanation, and upon which
the Administration was anxious to secure favorable action.  In
other words, there should be closer relationship between the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the State Department than had
formerly existed.  I first saw President Roosevelt and told him I
hoped Mr. Root would come before the committee as occasion might
require.  The President seemed at once impressed with the propriety
of the proposed plan, and remarked in his own characteristic fashion:
"That is just the thing."  I then saw Mr. Root, whom I knew very
well as Secretary of War, and he was more than pleased with the
suggestion, asserting that it was just what he wanted to do.  It
so happened that during his administration of the State Department
he found it necessary to negotiate more treaties, and treaties of
greater importance, than any of his more recent predecessors in
that high office, and he became so constant and punctual in his
attendance at the meetings of the committee that we grew almost to
regard him as a regular member, even before he entered the Senate.

He has served on the committee but two sessions, but even in that
short time he has proved his fitness to fill the gap left by the
retirement of Senators Spooner and Foraker.  As a lawyer he is as
brilliant as either of those men, and probably, owing to his
executive experience, a more efficient statesman.  I regard him as
the best qualified man in this country for any position in the
public service which he would accept.  He would make a strong
President, and as a Senator he is equipped with extraordinary
qualifications.  If he remains in the Senate, by sheer force of
ability alone he is bound to become its acknowledged leader.  We
have never had a stronger Secretary of State.  Mr. Hay was a very
great man in many respects, and could handle an international
question, especially pertaining to the Far East, with more skill
than any of his predecessors; but Mr. Root, while probably not as
well versed in diplomacy as Mr. Hay, is one of the foremost lawyers
in America, and has the faculty of going into the minutest details
of every question, large or small, even to the extent of reorganizing
all the multitude of details of the State Department.  He was the
real head of the department, and supervised every matter coming
before it.

As Secretary of State he made it one of his policies to bring the
republics of this hemisphere into closer relationship with one
another.  He visited South and Central America, and did much to
bring about a friendly feeling with the republics of those regions.

He is one of those who insisted upon the absolute equality of
nations, both great and small; and in this he was particularly
pointed in his instructions to the delegates representing the United
States at the Second Peace Conference at The Hague.

He did not retire from the State Department until he had adjusted
almost, if not all, outstanding questions between the United States
and other Nations.  He closed up the work of the Joint High
Commission, and by a series of treaties adjusted every factor of
difference between the United States and Great Britain concerning

Bringing the consideration of the personnel of the committee up to
the close of the Sixty-first Congress, there remain to be mentioned
only William J. Stone, of Missouri, and Benjamin F. Shively, of
Indiana, both Democrats.  Mr. Stone and Mr. Shively are not only
new men on the committee, but both of them are comparatively new
to the Senate.  They had, however, been sufficiently tried in other
fields of effort to justify their States in sending them to this
exalted body, and the records both have made here have well vindicated
their selection.  In a comparatively brief time they have attained
to positions of leadership on the Democratic side of the chamber,
and since they have become members of this committee they have
manifested an unusual grasp of international subjects.  They are
from States which adjoin my own State of Illinois, and I am especially
pleased to have them as members of the committee of which I am


When I became chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in
1901, I found a large quantity of undisposed of matter on the
dockets, both legislative and executive.  I determined that I would
at once proceed to clear the docket and endeavor to make the
committee an active working one.  I have since made it a policy,
as best I could, to secure some action, favorable or unfavorable,
on every matter referred to the committee by the Senate.

The first subject to which I turned my attention was the reciprocity
treaties between the United States and Barbados, Bermuda, British
Guiana, Turk Islands and Caicos, Jamaica, Argentine Republic,
France, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Denmark.

These treaties had been pending before the committee for two years,
and I resolved as I expressed it to one Senator, who was opposed
to them, that I would get them out of the committee "if I had to
carry them out in a basket."  These treaties were negotiated under
the authority contained in the fourth section of the Dingley Act,
which provided:

"Section 4.  That whenever the President of the United States, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, with a view to secure
reciprocal trade with foreign countries, shall, within a period of
two years from and after the passage of this act, enter into
commercial treaty or treaties with any other country concerning
the admission to such country of goods, wares, or merchandise of
the United States . . . and in such treaty or treaties shall provide
for reduction during a specified period of the duties imposed by
this act, to the extent of twenty per centum thereof, upon such
goods, wares, or merchandise as may be designated therein, . . .
or shall provide for the transfer during such period from the
dutiable list of this act to the free list thereof of such goods,
wares, or merchandise the product of foreign countries; and when
. . . any such treaty shall have been duly ratified by the Senate
and approved by Congress, then and thereafter the duties which
shall be collected by the United States upon any of the designated
goods, wares, or merchandise from the foreign country with which
such treaty has been made, shall, during the period provided for,
be the duties specified and provided in such treaty, and none

There was a considerable opposition to the ratification of these
treaties in the Senate, and very strong opposition to them in the
committee.  President McKinley was very much in favor of their
ratification, and as one treaty after another expired, a new one
would be made reviving it.

The first problem which confronted me was this:  The fourth section
of the Dingley Act provided that such treaties should be made only
within two years after the passage of the act; the two years had
long since expired--could the Senate ratify them at all?

I submitted to the Senate a report on the constitutional question.
The single question covered was, whether the treaties not having
been ratified by the Senate within the two years specified in the
Dingley Act were still within its jurisdiction.

The committee determined that the President and the Senate are,
under the Constitution, the treaty-making power.  The initiative
lies with the President.  He can negotiate such treaties as may
seem to him wise, and propose them to the Senate for the advice
and consent of that body.  The power of the President and the Senate
is derived from the Constitution.  There is under our Constitution
no other source of treaty-making power.  The Congress is without
power to grant to the President or to the Senate any authority with
respect to treaties; nor does the Congress possess any power to
fetter or limit in any way the President or the Senate in the
exercise of this constitutional function.  It cannot in any way
enlarge, limit, or attach conditions to the treaty-making power,
and the subcommittee concluded their report on this branch of the
subject with this statement:

"The committee is clearly of the opinion that nothing contained in
section four of the Dingley Act constitutes any valid restriction
upon the jurisdiction and power of the Senate to act upon the
commercial treaties now pending."

That question being disposed of to my satisfaction, I proceeded to
urge the consideration of the treaties at every meeting of the
committee for many months, but it was not until June, 1902, that
I secured the favorable report of all the treaties, excepting the
treaty with the Argentine Republic and that with Jamaica.

There was another very serious question which I raised myself, and
that was, whether legislation was necessary to carry them into
effect, or whether the treaties were self-executing.  None of the
treaties contained any provision for legislation, and by their
terms, they would go into effect without legislation.  John A.
Kasson, who negotiated them, told me that he purposely left out
any reference to legislative action, because the executive department
had serious doubts on the subject, and preferred to permit the
Senate itself to pass upon it.

I have always contended that reciprocity treaties, like other
treaties in general, are self-executing, if by their terms they do
not provide for legislative action.

I made a very extended address in the Senate on January 29, 1902,
because I wanted to get the attention of the Senate to this important
constitutional subject.  I said in opening:

"Has Congress any power or authority, under the Constitution, over
treaties?  This subject has been discussed at different times during
our entire Constitutional history.  It is a very complicated
question, not only because the authority of the House on the subject
of treaties has been disputed and argued almost from the very
adoption of the Constitution, but the fourth section of the Dingley
Act specifically provides how and when such treaties shall be made.
. . . In my opinion the fourth section of the Dingley Act, so far
as it attempts to confer, limit, or define the treaty-making power
is not only an unwarranted interference with the powers of the
President and Senate, but is unconstitutional, because it comes in
conflict with that clause of the Constitution which says that the
President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate to make treaties.  No law of Congress can in any way
modify or limit those powers.  The Dingley Law can not limit the
time in which we shall be allowed to make a treaty; it can not give
to Congress any power on the subject of treaties not given it by
the Constitution, and under the Constitution Congress as a legislative
body is not a part of the treaty-making power."

I contended that the fourth section of the Dingley Act, if considered
by the Executive at all, should be merely as an expression of the
views of Congress in the adjustment of the specific terms of each

But the particular question in which I was more interested and to
which I devoted most of my remarks was, whether a reciprocity
treaty, which by its terms provides that the duties to be collected
after its ratification shall be those specified in the treaty, and
none other (and which makes no reference to further Congressional
action), would of its own force operate to repeal so much of the
tariff act as may come in conflict with it, or whether it would be
necessary for Congress to act on a treaty before those duties are
reduced, and before the treaty shall become the supreme law of the

I then proceeded to a minute examination into the history of the
treaty-making provision in the Constitution, tracing it through
the Constitutional Convention, and giving the views of the framers
of the Constitution as to its scope and effect.  It was Alexander
Hamilton who drafted the treaty-making clause of the Federal
Constitution, and it was purposely so framed as to exclude the
House from all consideration of treaties.  Twice it was proposed
in the Constitutional Convention to unite the House of Representatives
with the Senate in the approval of treaties, but both times it was
rejected almost unanimously, Pennsylvania alone voting in the
affirmative.  The treaty-making clause of the Federal Constitution
was adopted in the Constitutional Convention only after a most
vigorous fight against it by those who contended that the authority
conferred was too great.  Patrick Henry thought that, "If the clause
were adopted as it was submitted to the State, two-thirds of a
quorum of the Senate would be empowered to make treaties that might
relinquish and alienate territorial rights and our most valuable
commercial advantages.  In short, should anything be left, it would
be because the President and Senators would be pleased to admit
it.  The power of making treaties under the Constitution extends
farther than in any country in the world.  Treaties have more force
here than in any part of Christendom."  And he begged the convention
to stop before it conceded this power unguarded and unaltered.

The power was conferred on the President and the Senate, unguarded
and unaltered, when the Constitution was adopted.

The question came before the House of Representatives the first
time just seven years after the Constitution was adopted, and has
been before the House many times since then.  The Jay Treaty called
for an appropriation of eighty thousand dollars.  It was a very
unpopular treaty, and a very notable debate took place on the
resolution requesting the President to lay before the House copies
of the correspondence and other papers relating to the treaty.
President Washington declined to furnish the papers, on the ground
that the treaty needed no legislative action, and the House had
nothing whatever to do with treaties, but was morally bound to make
the appropriation, thereby carrying out the contract.  The House
responded by passing a long series of resolutions; but finally the
appropriation was made.

The whole question has been discussed in the House, practically
every time an appropriation has been called for to carry out a
treaty; but the House, while always contending that it had a voice
in the treaty-making power, never declined to make the appropriation,
and only on one occasion do I now recall that the House declined
to enact legislation to carry out a treaty where the treaty
specifically itself provided for such legislation.  This was in
the case of the reciprocity treaty with Mexico, negotiated by
General Grant.

I concluded my speech in the Senate with this statement:

"This question before us here has been before the Senate for a
hundred years.  The Executive and Senate have taken one position,
and that is a treaty is the supreme law of the land.  That position
has been sustained by the Supreme Court.  On the other hand, during
all these hundred years, the House of Representatives has, as a
rule, insisted that they should be considered in reference to
certain treaties.  That does not relieve the Senate from standing
by its prerogatives and rights and insisting that the rights of
the Executive be maintained.  The point here is this:  the Constitution
gives to the Executive, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
the right to negotiate treaties.  We have been negotiating commercial
treaties continuously prior and subsequent to the adoption of the
Constitution, and those treaties have been sustained as the supreme
law of the land.

"It is said that the Constitution has given to Congress the right
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to lay and collect taxes,
duties, and imposts, and to the House of Representatives the right
to originate bills for raising revenues, and to the President and
Senate the right to make and ratify treaties.  These are all co-
equal and independent powers.  One does not interfere with the
other.  One is not exclusive of the other.  A law passed in any of
the ways provided by the Constitution is the supreme law of the
land until it is changed or repealed.  A treaty made by the Executive
and ratified by the Senate is the supreme law of the land as well
as an act of Congress.  If the Congress is not satisfied with the
treaty, it has a perfect right to repeal it, as it has any other
law; but until such action is taken, the treaty remains as a part
of the supreme law of the land; and I cannot see any distinction
between treaties which affect the tariff laws, and treaties affecting
any other law."

The subject was very seriously and carefully considered, but it
was thought expedient that the committee should not take any position
either for or against the unlimited power of the Senate over
reciprocity treaties.  It was Senator Spooner who suggested that
each of the treaties be amended by inserting therein a provision
that "the treaty not take effect until the same shall have been
approved by the Congress."

The merits of the question were not considered; but my position
was, and still is, that amending the treaties in the manner suggested
by Senator Spooner, by inference indicated that if such a provision
had not been inserted, the treaties would go into effect immediately
without any Congressional action.

Aside from the reciprocity treaty with France, none of the treaties
was considered by the Senate itself.  I pressed them as best I
could, but Senator Aldrich, Senator Hanna, and other advocates of
high protection, were so bitterly opposed to them--no one in the
Senate aside from myself seeming to have much interest in them--
that they were dropped and allowed to expire by their own terms.
I particularly regretted that the Kasson treaties were not ratified.

Had the Senate ratified those treaties, a large number of other
treaties probably would have been negotiated, and we would not have
been compelled to go through the long struggle and agitation over
the passage of the Aldrich-Payne Tariff Bill.  There would have
been no tariff revision necessary.  At the same time, we could not
possibly help vastly increasing our foreign commerce.  It was a
very short-sighted policy on the part of Senator Aldrich and others
in the Senate when they insisted that those treaties should be
killed.  After it was determined, and it became so known to the
country that it would be impossible to secure the ratification of
reciprocity treaties, the agitation for tariff revision commenced,
and finally culminated in the act of 1909, which resulted in the
election of a Democratic House of Representatives.

The committee did favorably report, and the Senate ratify, a
reciprocity treaty with Cuba.  This was the treaty of December 11,
1902, and it was the third reciprocal agreement in all our history
ratified, proclaimed, and placed in effect.  The first one was the
treaty of 1854, providing for reciprocity with Canada.  The second
was the treaty of 1875, with the Hawaiian Islands, and the third
and the only one now in effect is the treaty with Cuba.

That treaty would never have been ratified, and would have suffered
the same fate as the Kasson treaties, had it not been for the
determined, vigorous fight made by President Roosevelt for its
ratification, and had not Cuba stood in a relation to us entirely
different from any other country.  We bound her to us by insisting
that the Platt amendments be made a part of her Constitution, and
in addition that a treaty be made between the two countries embodying
those amendments.

This treaty with Cuba and the law carrying it into effect were the
occasion of a very bitter struggle in both Senate and House.  The
sugar and tobacco interests used all the power at their command to
defeat, first the treaty, and then the law carrying the treaty into
effect.  The beet-sugar people asserted that it would ruin that
industry, and that a reduction of twenty per cent on Cuban sugar
would enable the Cubans to ship their sugar into the United States
and undersell the beet sugar.  I never could see that there was
any force in their contention, because the United States does not
produce more than half the sugar we consume, and it was absolutely
necessary to import sugar from Cuba and other sugar-producing

When the treaty was before the committee for consideration, it was
amended by inserting the following proviso:

"Provided that while this convention is in force, no sugar exported
from the Republic of Cuba and being the product of the soil or
industry of the Republic of Cuba, shall be admitted to the United
States at a reduction of duty greater than twenty per centum of
the rates of duty thereon as provided by the tariff act of the
United States, approved July 24, 1897; and no sugar, the product
of any other foreign country, shall be admitted by treaty or
convention into the United States, while this convention is in
force, at a lower rate of duty than that provided by the tariff
act of the United States, approved July 24, 1897."

The effect of this amendment was not only to prevent a greater
reduction being made on Cuban sugar, but it had a more important
effect that it made reciprocity treaties with the sugar-producing
countries, including the West Indies, impossible so long as the
Cuban treaty remains in force.

I had charge of this treaty in the Senate, and addressed the Senate
at considerable length explaining its provisions.

There was a spirited contest in the Senate over the ratification
of the treaty, but there was more of a contest both in the Senate
and the House when the bill to carry the treaty into effect came
up at the next session of Congress, it first having been considered
at a special session called by President Roosevelt in November,
1903.  A provision was inserted in the treaty (which I opposed, as
I thought it was unnecessary), that it should not go into effect
until it was approved by the Congress.  The bill was passed in the
House and came to the Committee on Foreign Relations, was considered
there, and favorably reported to the Senate.  The bill, of course,
was considered in open session, and I again made some remarks,
probably more in the nature of a report than a speech, trying to
show where the treaty was not only absolutely necessary, if Cuba
was to be prosperous at all, but that it would open a considerable
market for American products.

The Cuban reciprocity treaty has increased very materially our
trade with that Republic.  Since that treaty went into effect our
imports from Cuba have increased from $62,942,000 in value to
$122,528,000 in value; and our exports to Cuba have increased from
$21,000,000 in 1903, to nearly $53,000,000 in 1910, or more than
doubled.  But even with this considerable increase in our exports
to Cuba, I had hoped that by this time we should have increased
them to at least one hundred million dollars.  Our own exporters
and manufacturers are at fault, because they will not do business
with the Cubans on the same credit basis as will the exporters of
Spain, Germany, and England; and American exporters do not cater
to the peculiar needs of the Cubans.  They seem to go on the theory
that if their goods are good enough for Americans they should be
good enough for Cubans, too.

The Cuban treaty is a good illustration of the scare and the
unwarranted opposition on the part of American industries when even
the slightest reduction of the tariff is attempted.  To listen to
the beet-sugar and tobacco interests during the consideration of
the Cuban treaty, one would think they would have been absolutely
ruined if the treaty were ratified.  The Cuban treaty has not in
the slightest degree injuriously affected the American sugar or
tobacco interests.

The principle of Reciprocity as heretofore applied in this country
has been extended somewhat by the agreement of 1911 between the
United States and Canada.  This compact was negotiated by President
Taft and Secretary Knox on the one side, and by Premier Laurier
and Mr. Fielding on the other.  Under this agreement a wide exchange
of articles of every-day use is provided for, and it is hoped and
believed that if the treaty becomes effective it will prove more
satisfactory and enduring than the previous reciprocal agreement
with the Dominion of Canada.

The pending agreement was entered into between representatives of
the two Governments in January, 1911, but it was not until the
latter part of July of that year that a law was enacted by Congress
to provide for its enforcement.  Much opposition was manifested,
especially in the Senate, in both the Sixty-first and Sixty-second
Congresses, on the ground that under its terms a great many
agricultural products are admitted free from Canada; but this
objection has been, I think, successfully met by the Administration
and its friends in the argument that any injury that might be
sustained by agriculture would be more than compensated for by the
benefits derived by the manufacturing interests.  For one I have
never believed that agriculture would suffer in any degree through
the operation of the agreement, and I do believe that the general
industries of the country will experience much benefit.  Too much
is to be gained through the cultivation of proper trade relations
with our great and growing neighbor on the North to abandon the
general principle involved in the agreement on account of an
apprehension which may not and probably will not be realized.

In many respects nations are like individuals, and in their relations
with one another they should be controlled by the same rules of
amity and equity as pertain to the associations of mankind generally.
In the end no nation can lose any material thing through an act of
generosity or fair-dealing.

Notwithstanding the United States has acted favorably upon the
agreement, it is not yet in force.  This circumstance is due to
the fact that in the matter of ratification Canada has waited upon
this country.  There is opposition there as there was here, and at
this writing (August, 1911) Sir Wilfred Laurier is engaged in a
struggle for favorable endorsement such as that from which President
Taft has just emerged.


Probably the most important work before the Committee on Foreign
Relations since the treaty of peace with Spain, were the several
treaties concerning the construction of the Isthmian Canal.

In 1850, the United States entered into what is known as the Clayton-
Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain, the purpose of which was to
facilitate the construction of a canal; but instead of operating
to this end, it stood for fifty years or more as an effectual
barrier against the construction by the United States of any canal
across the Isthmus of Panama.  Succeeding Administrations had
endeavored to secure the consent of Great Britain to its abrogation,
but it was not until Secretary Hay's time that Great Britain
finally agreed to annul it and substitute in its place a new treaty.
Secretary Hay had been Ambassador to Great Britain, and he enjoyed
the confidence of the then existing British Ministry to a greater
degree than almost any minister or ambassador we have ever sent to
Great Britain.  After entering the State Department, Mr. Hay at
once directed his attention to the making of a new treaty with
Great Britain and this resulted in the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
This convention was considered by the committee, but was not found
satisfactory, and certain amendments were added to it.  These
amendments Great Britain would not accept, and the treaty died.

Secretary Hay was very much disappointed, but he at once set to
work to negotiate such a treaty as would go through the Senate
without amendment and such a one as Great Britain would consent
to.  He wrote to a number of Senators, members of the committee,
I suppose, asking for suggestions as to just what the Senate would
agree to.  I was not at that time chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, but I was very deeply interested in the subject
and had given it considerable study and thought.  Secretary Hay
wrote me, and I replied at length, giving my views both as to the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and what I thought should be inserted in the
new treaty.

Mr. Hay promptly renewed negotiations, which resulted in what is
known as the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.  After a good deal of
effort this agreement was ratified without amendment.  This act
signalized the beginning of my service as chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations.

The principal contention arose over the subject of fortifications,
a question that is still a mooted one.  It occurs to me that the
proper reasoning is this--and I believe I took the same position
when the treaty was under consideration:

The first and second Hay-Pauncefote treaties must be construed
together; the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty contained a prohibition
against fortification; the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty neither
prohibited nor in terms agreed to fortifications, but was silent
on the subject; therefore, the legal construction would be that
Great Britain had receded from the position that the canal should
not be fortified.  In any event, we will go ahead and fortify the
canal, and do with it whatever we please, regardless of any of the
nations of the world.

That obstacle having been finally removed, the question which next
arose was:  What route should be selected?  The selection of the
route was not a subject over which the Foreign Relations Committee
had jurisdiction; but after the Panama route was decided on, it
became necessary to negotiate with Colombia, the owner of that
route, for the right of way for the canal.  Secretary Hay promptly
proceeded with the negotiation, as it was his duty to do, under
the Spooner Act, and on January 3, 1903, submitted the treaty to
the Senate for its Constitutional action thereon.  Senator Morgan
and others led the fight against it; but a vote was taken, and the
treaty was ordered favorably reported.  On February 12, 1903, I
called it up in the Senate and made quite an extended speech,
explaining its provisions, and urging its ratification.  The session
was to close on March 4, and it finally became manifest that it
would be hopeless to attempt to ratify it before that day, and the
effort was abandoned.  President Roosevelt called a special session
of the Senate after the fourth of March, when there would be nothing
for the Senate to consider except the Colombian treaty and other
executive matters.  According to the usual rule, the treaty was
referred back to the committee, at the beginning of the special
session, and the subject was again gone over in committee as if
there had been no proceedings on it at all during the regular
session.  The proposed agreement was finally reported to the Senate,
and ratified.  There is no need for me to go over the story of its
rejection by Colombia.  The action of the Colombian Congress was
a hold-up pure and simple, and the treaty was rejected in the hope
that the United States would offer a greater amount for the right-
of-way.  Panama promptly seceded, which she had a perfect right to
do.  Many people have charged that the Roosevelt Administration
actually incited the revolution.  Whether this is true or not, I
do not know.  I contended at the time, and still believe, that it
is not true.  I hope it is not; but the correspondence did show
that the State Department had pretty close knowledge of events
which were occurring on the Isthmus, and had seen to it that there
was a sufficient naval force in the vicinity "to protect American
interests."  It was a remarkable revolution--I think the most
remarkable I have ever read of in history.  It was practically
bloodless.  One or two shots were fired, a Chinaman was killed,
and yet a new and independent republic entered the family of

We were able to make with Panama a much more satisfactory treaty
than we had with Colombia.  Senator Morgan this time was assisted
by most of his Democratic colleagues; he denounced the treaty and
made all sorts of charges against the Administration; but after
numerous long sessions of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I
was authorized to report it to the Senate with certain minor
amendments, which, in my opening speech, I asked the Senate to
reject, and to ratify the treaty without amendment.  I did this at
the earnest insistence of the State Department.  And, in addition,
I did not think that the amendments were of such importance as
would justify resubmitting the treaty to Panama after that little
country had once ratified it.  The State Department was led to this
action by the receipt of the following cable from Mr. Buchanan,
the first Minister of the United States to Panama:

  "Panama, _January 22, 1904_.

"Hay, Washington:

"I can not refrain from referring to my belief that no amendment
to the treaty should be made.  The delimitation of Panama and Colon
involves several things which can only be satisfactorily adjusted
on the ground by joint action.  There are several other points in
the treaty which will require a mutual working agreement, or
regulation, including sanitation.  While the treaty covers broadly
all these things, my observation here is that the details of
development of the authority conferred by the treaty in these
regards can not be satisfactorily carried out by amendments, but
should be done through a mutually agreed upon regulation or
understanding reached here on the ground between the two countries.
The executive power here can secure for the convention ample
authority to do such things without their being referred to the
convention hereafter.  Would it not be possible and best to adopt
this course with these amendments to the treaty; will bring up here
much discussion of many articles which can all be avoided and our
purpose gained by above course.  Any time when any specific grants
of land or power not implied in the treaty is desired, it appears
to me the wise course to take will be to do this by a supplemental

  "(Signed) Buchanan."

Secretary Hay showed the most eager anxiety to have the treaty
ratified as it stood, and he wrote me quite a lengthy letter on
the subject, which I now feel at liberty to quote.

  "Department of State, Washington.
  "_January 20, 1904_.

"Dear Senator Cullom:--

"I enclose a copy of a letter from the Panama Minister which he
sent me last night.  He, as well as Mr. Buchanan, who is on the
ground, is greatly disturbed over the possible complications which
may arise if amendments are added to the treaty in the Senate.  Of
course, I need not say nobody questions the right of the Senate to
amend the treaty as may seem to them best.  I am only speaking of
the matter of opportuneness and expediency.  We insisted on an
immediate ratification of the treaty by the Panama Government, and
they acceded to our wishes.  If we now, after a very long delay,
send the treaty back to them amended, you can at once imagine the
state of things that it will find there.  The moment of unanimity
and enthusiasm, which only comes once in the life of a revolution,
will have passed away and given way to the play of politics and
factions.  They will have a certain advantage which they have not
had before in dealing with the matter.  We shall have ratified the
treaty with amendments, which gives them another chance to revise
their perhaps hasty and enthusiastic action.  They will consider
themselves as entitled to make amendments as well as we, and it
needs only a glance at the treaty to show what an infinite field
of amendments there is from every point of view.  The Junta in
making their report to the present Constitutional Convention said
that, although many of the provisions seemed harsh and hard, yet
it was judged for the public good to accept it as it was.  When
they get the amended treaty in their hands again, they will compare
it with the treaty we made with Colombia, and see how vastly more
advantageous to us this treaty is than that one was, and there are
never lacking in a body of men like the Constitutional Convention
a plenty of members who like to distinguish themselves by defending
the interests of their country through the advantageous amendment
of a treaty.  Meanwhile the country will be open to the intrigues
of the Colombians, and even to the military attacks upon the

"All these considerations would, of course, have no weight whatever
if the amendments were vital to our interests, but, as I said to
you yesterday, it was the opinion of all of us who have studied
the matter that every point made by the amendments was intended to
be covered--I do not say how successfully--by the provisions of
the treaty itself.  This letter of Mr. Varilla's shows that the
intentions of each Government were thoroughly understood by the
other, exactly in the sense of the amendments now proposed.  I
earnestly hope that our friends in the Senate may see the strength
of our present position if the treaty is ratified without amendment,
and the certain complications that will arise if, after a long
debate here, the treaty is put once more in the hands of the Panamans
for reconsideration and amendment.

"If the object of the amendments, as some people say, is to get it
ratified by the new permanent Government, nothing is easier.  I
have no doubt we can have a solemn resolution of that sort adopted
by the Convention at any time.

  "Very sincerely yours,
  "John Hay.

"The Honorable S. M. Cullom,
  "United States Senate."

After nearly a month and a half of debate in executive session,
devoted to its consideration, the treaty was finally ratified
without amendment.

Considerable discussion arose over the question of the recognition
of Panama and the right of that country to make the treaty at all.
I contended in the Senate, in open as well as executive session,
that the new Republic of Panama had a perfect right to make the
treaty with the United States because it was a complete, sovereign,
and independent State.  The recognition given the new Government
was the highest recognition we could accord.  It was not a recognition
of belligerency, which is only a recognition that war exists; it
was not a virtual recognition, which is a recognition only for
commercial purposes; but it was what Pomeroy and Fillmore define
to be a formal recognition--that is, an absolute recognition of
independence and sovereignty.  The recognition of the Republic was
a complete and formal recognition of independence, because the
President had received an envoy-extraordinary and minister-
plenipotentiary from that State.  The United States Senate was a
party to that complete and formal recognition, because we confirmed
the nomination of Mr. Buchanan as envoy-extraordinary and minister-
plenipotentiary to that country.

This ended the long fight over the construction of the Panama Canal
--at least, so far as it in any way involved the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.  With the ratification of the
treaty, the subject was transferred to the Committee on Interoceanic
canals, where, during every session, matters of more or less
importance connected with the canal are considered.

I do not know whether or not it was wise to change from the Nicaraguan
to the Panama route.  Senator Hanna and Senator Spooner were
responsible for the change; and time alone will demonstrate whether
we acted wisely.


For some years the Santo Domingo protocol and treaty were before
the Committee on Foreign Relations, and in the Senate.  They came
before the Senate very suddenly.  On January 20, 1905, there appeared
in the press what purported to be a protocol, agreed to by Commander
Dillingham on the one hand, and Minister Sanchez of the Dominican
Republic on the other, by the terms of which the United States was
to take charge of the custom houses of the Dominican Republic,
adjust and liquidate its debt, and generally to take charge of the
fiscal affairs of the Republic.  By the terms of this protocol, it
was to go into effect February 1, and there was no provision at
all for Senatorial action.  Senator Bacon and other Democratic
Senators became very much aroused over this as a usurpation of the
rights of the Senate.  Resolutions were introduced, calling upon
the State Department for information, and the subject was considered
by the committee at several meetings.

I confess that I too was considerably surprised at the action of
the State Department, and I called on Secretary Hay one morning
and asked to be informed as to the facts.

Secretary Hay stated that he would communicate with me in writing,
which he did on March 13, 1905, saying:

"In answer to your verbal request, I submit herewith a statement
of the facts with reference to the making of the Santo Domingo
protocol, and enclose herewith a copy of the protocol of January
20, 1905.  That protocol was not drawn up by the Department of
State and was never seen by any of its officials until it appeared
in the newspapers on January 22d last, as given out by the Dominican
officials.  The Department has never authorized its signing; it
never gave any instructions authorizing its signature; and no full
powers had ever been given authorizing the signature on the part
of the United States Government.  The Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Dominican Republic visited Washington during the Spring of
1904, and during a stay of nearly three months repeatedly solicited
the assistance of the United States Government for the restoration
of order in the island and for the regeneration of his country,
but the responsible officials of the Department advised against
meeting his request, and the President, to whom the matter was
referred, decided against taking any action as long as it could
wisely be avoided.

"The Dominican Government again brought the matter to the attention
of the United States Minister at Santo Domingo the latter part of
1904.  In the meantime an investigation had been going on quietly
by our Government through Commander Dillingham, to obtain information
as to the real condition in the island.  After the President became
thus familiar with the situation there, and on the report of the
United States Minister, and after repeated requests for help from
the Dominican Government, the Department of State, on January 6,
1905, prepared a cablegram setting forth the basis on which alone
the United States would be able to render assistance. . . .

"Neither that cablegram nor any other despatch whatsoever went
further than simply lay down a basis; and acting on this, but
without instructions authorizing it, the Dillingham-Sanchez protocol
was signed.  The Department was advised by cable on January 20 that
an arrangement had been agreed to, and thereupon the Department
officials at once set to work to prepare a treaty; and its officials
were actually engaged in drafting one to send to Santo Domingo,
when the publication of the protocol of January 20 appeared.  The
Department at once cabled to Santo Domingo to forward a copy of
the protocol; and as soon as its text could be received, the
Department began work in making amendments and adjusting terms on
which the United States Government could consent to act.  As soon
as the two Governments could arrive at substantial agreement as to
the terms, full powers were communicated to Dawson, and the protocol
now before the Senate was accordingly signed.

"In view of the misapprehensions that at once arose, growing out
of publication of the protocol, which upon its face stated it was
to go into effect February 1st, and from which it might naturally
be inferred it was intended to go into effect before the Senate
could have an opportunity to consider it, and without its having
been referred to the Senate for consideration, I considered the
question of the propriety of stating the fact that no instructions
and no powers had ever been granted authorizing the signing of the
protocol of January 20.  The decision was reached that repudiation
of the action of Dillingham and Dawson might be construed as a
censure, and that it might cause offence to them as well as to
their friends, who might feel that when the circumstances should
become fully known, that Dillingham and Dawson were justifiable in
assuming the responsibility they did in signing the protocol instead
of making a formal memorandum of the basis agreed on and communicating
it to the Department for the drafting of a treaty.  Both of these
officials have a record of faithful and skilful service and
competency, and it was hoped when the facts should become more
fully known, a correct understanding of the actual situation would
remove any ill effects of previous misapprehension.

"The department has been advised that the protocol of January 20
was given out for publication by the Dominican Government in order
to calm the popular mind on account of its uncertainty as to the
character of negotiations which were actually being carried on
between the two Governments.

  "(Signed) John Hay."

From 1865, until the time that the United States assumed the
collection of customs, conditions in Santo Domingo were about as
bad as they could be in every respect.  One revolution succeeded
another.  There had been twenty-six different Administrations since
1865, only one of which was brought about by means of a regular
election.  Most of the others were caused by revolutions, assassination,
forced resignations, and a general condition of anarchy.  Debt
after debt, bond issue after bond issue, piled up, each Administration
seemingly bent only on seeing how much actual cash could be raised,
utterly regardless of obligations assumed.  None of the principal
and only a trifling portion of the interest were paid, and it seems
that the different Administrations never had any intention of
liquidating the obligations of the Republic.  The principal portion
of the bonds was held by European creditors.

But finally the Santo Domingo Improvement Company, an American
corporation, succeeded as the fiscal agents of the Republic, to
float its bond issues.  The improvement company was displayed, and
its claim was settled for four million, five hundred thousand
dollars.  Then a protocol was entered into between the United States
and Santo Domingo by which the manner of payment was submitted to
arbitration, our arbitrators being Judge George Gray and John G.
Carlisle.  An award was rendered providing that an agent of the
United States should take possession of certain custom houses, in
order to pay a debt which the Government of Santo Domingo had
acknowledged to be due an American corporation.

This did not satisfy foreign creditors, French, Belgian and Italian,
who had actually been given, by an agreement with Santo Domingo,
the right to collect revenues at certain custom houses.  Santo
Domingo appealed to the United States and the foreign Governments
threatened that if the United States did not enforce some remedial
plan, they would be compelled to take action for the relief of
their own citizens, whose claims aggregated twenty million dollars.
Italian warships were already in Santo Domingo waters ready to
enforce their demands.  This, briefly, was the condition of affairs
when the protocol of 1905 was submitted to the Senate for

For more than a quarter of a century we have had a peculiar interest
in Santo Domingo.  As is well known, under the Administration of
President Grant a treaty was negotiated and sent to the Senate
providing for the annexation of Santo Domingo.  Senator Sumner was
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and as such was
able to prevent the consideration of the treaty by the committee,
and its ratification by the Senate.  Some one said that the only
objection that Charles Sumner had to the treaty was that President
Grant had suggested it first.  This was one of the reasons why
Senator Sumner was deposed as chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee.  It would probably have been better for the United
States, and it certainly would have been better for the Dominican
Republic, if the treaty had been ratified.

The protocol submitted to the Senate involved very large responsibilities
on the part of the United states.  It provided that the United
States was to adjust all the obligations of the Republic, the
arrangement of the payment, to pass upon all claims of Santo Domingo,
determine their amount and validity, take charge of all the custom
houses, and collect and disburse the customs receipts, giving to
Santo Domingo forty-five per cent of the customs receipts and
devoting the balance to the liquidation of her debts.

This protocol had the active opposition of the minority of the
committee and in the Senate and, in addition, such conservative
members as Senator Hale and other prominent Republicans opposed
it.  We fought over it in committee month after month; but finally,
on March 10, 1905, it was reported by me to the Senate with a large
number of amendments.  It was considered by the Senate, recommitted
at the end of the Congress, and again reported at the following
Congress.  But those in favor of it became convinced that we did
not have the two-thirds necessary to ratify it, and it was never
brought to a vote.  It was thought that nothing more would be heard
of the Santo Domingo protocol; but Senator Root, when Secretary of
State, took the subject up _de novo_, and made a new treaty, in
which the United States did not assume the broad obligations it
assumed under the first one, and which was not generally of so
complicated a character.

It imposed the duty upon the Santo Domingo Republic itself of
arriving at an adjustment with its creditors, conditioned only on
the administration of the custom houses by the United States.

In the meantime, an arrangement was made by American banking houses
to furnish the money to liquidate the debt; the creditors were
satisfied; the foreign debt was liquidated on a basis of fifty per
cent of the face value, and domestic debts and other claims less
than ten per cent.  A loan of twenty million dollars was made
through Kuhn, Loeb & Company, of which the Dominican Republic
received nineteen million dollars for the payment of its debts;
seventeen million dollars was used to satisfy thirty-one million,
eight thousand dollars worth of bonded debts, and the remaining
two million, two thousand dollars were to go for internal

There was some objection to the ratification of the treaty negotiated
by Secretary Root, but not of a very serious character, and the
treaty went through, even Senator Morgan not opposing it.  I had
the honor of reporting it and having charge of it in the Senate.

The treaty has now been in force several years, and it has proved
even more advantageous than was expected when it was ratified.  It
has restored order in the Republic, and the country's debts are
rapidly being liquidated.  The time may come when the United States
may be compelled to take similar action with some of the other
republics south of us.  Such action would be beneficial both to
the United States and to the people of those republics.


During the public discussion of the Santo Domingo question and the
protocol by which the Santo Domingo Improvement Company claim was
sent to arbitration, and later during the consideration of it,
there was criticism of the Executive branch of the Government on
account of its disposition to make international agreements of
various kinds, and put them into operation without submitting them
to the Senate.  The practice became more general under President
McKinley and Secretary Hay than it had under other Administrations,
and it seemed the policy to get along in every case, if possible,
without Senatorial action.  It was a subject in which I took very
great interest; I came to the conclusion that the practice had
become too general, and I took occasion to tell Secretary Hay my

I found that the State Department, under different Administrations,
had submitted private claims of our citizens against foreign
Governments to arbitration by protocol.  This has been the rule
frequently adopted for very many years.  There were cases, I found,
where the protocol submitting a claim to arbitration had been sent
to the Senate and ratified, and it was the general rule that where
a claim is presented by a foreign Government against this government,
and the same is submitted to arbitration, it is done by treaty.

I took occasion to look into the question of the effect of an
unratified protocol.  It may be said generally that an unratified
protocol differs from a treaty in that the protocol is not ratified
by the Senate and is not a part of the supreme law of the land.
Under our system of government, treaties occupy a unique position.
They are not only binding internationally, but the Constitution
makes treaties a part of the supreme law of the land--that is, a
part of our own municipal law.  A treaty, if of later date, and in
conflict with a law passed by Congress, repeals so much of the law
as it conflicts with; but an unratified protocol, or any other
international agreement, no matter by what name it is called, not
submitted to the Senate, does not have the effect of a treaty, as
that term is defined in the Constitution.  A protocol is binding
merely on the Executive who makes it, and, as has been well said,
such protocol is binding on the administration in a moral sense

Nevertheless it has been the practice to make so-called diplomatic
agreements concerning very important matters without their submission
to the Senate.

For instance, the agreement of 1817, concerning the naval forces
on the Great Lakes, was considered in force and observed by the
two Governments for a year or more before it was submitted to the
Senate at all.  Horse Shoe Reef, in Lake Erie, was transferred to
the Government by a mere exchange of notes between Lord Palmerston
and Mr. Lawrence, our Minister to Great Britain; and I might refer
to a long list of arbitrations, some of very great importance,
agreed to by unratified protocols.  The very important protocol
concluded by the powers after the Boxer troubles in China was not
sent to the Senate.  Important agreements are often made under the
name of _modus vivendi_ without submission to the Senate.

Very little comment is to be found in books on international law
concerning protocols or diplomatic agreements.  There is no doubt
that the Executive has the right to enter into a protocol preliminary
to the negotiation of a treaty.  This is a common practice.  We
have such protocols preliminary to treaties of peace.  As to the
claims protocols, the Executive Department has taken the position
that the President, who is in charge of our foreign relations, has
wide discretion in settling disputes by diplomacy; and that a claims
protocol is in the nature of a settlement of a claim of a citizen
of our country against a foreign Government, by diplomacy.

The term "protocol," or diplomatic agreement, or _modus vivendi_,
is not found in the Constitution.  The Constitution uses only one
term in describing agreements between this Government and foreign
powers, and that is the term "treaty"; and every agreement between
the United States and a foreign Government, to have the effect of
a treaty, to be a part of the supreme law of the land, must be
ratified as the Constitution prescribes, by a two-thirds vote of
the Senate.

When Mr. Root entered the State Department, it seems to me that he
stopped the practice very largely of making diplomatic agreements.
It seemed to be his policy, and a very wise one, to seek, rather
than avoid, consulting the Senate.  I know that under his administration
agreements were made in the form of a treaty and sent to the Senate
which other administrations would consider they had a perfect right
to make without consulting the Senate.  It will be wise for future
Administrations to adhere to Mr. Root's policy in this respect.


During the year 1904, there was a great general movement all over
the world in the direction of arbitration treaties.  Indeed, so
general did it become, and so universal was the form used, that it
became known as the Mondel or world treaty.  The treaties were very
brief, and merely provided that differences which may arise of a
legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing
between two contracting parties, and which it may not have been
possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the permanent
court of arbitration established at The Hague; provided, nevertheless,
that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or
the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern or
involve the interests of third States.  There was a second article
in the treaty, which provided that in each case a special agreement
should be concluded defining clearly the matter in dispute, the
scope of the powers of the arbitrator, the periods to be fixed for
the formation of the arbitral tribunal, and the several stages of
the procedure.

President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay were very much in favor of
these treaties, and sent to the Senate, for its ratification,
treaties in substantially the foregoing form, with France, Portugal,
Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Sweden,
Norway, and Mexico.  The treaties were considered with great care
by the Committee on Foreign Relations.  We all favored arbitration
in theory, and I do not think any one wanted to oppose the treaties;
but a number of questions confronted us.  I neither have the right
nor do I expect to detail what has taken place in the Committee on
Foreign Relations; but I can say that the subject was discussed in
the press, whether such treaties would not compel us to consider
as matters for arbitration claims against the States, growing out
of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

In the judgment of some, such claims were proper subjects of
arbitration under this Mondel form of treaty.

President Roosevelt, who was following closely the treaties in the
Senate, and with whom I had talked concerning these objections,
wrote me a letter, which he marked personal, but which appeared in
the afternoon papers almost before the letter reached me, it having
been given out at the White House, in which he said:

  "_January 10, 1905_.

"My dear Senator Cullom:

"I notice in connection with the general arbitration treaties now
before the Senate, that suggestions have been made to the effect
that under them it might be possible to consider as matters for
arbitration claims against certain States of the Union in reference
to certain State debts.  I write to say, what of course you personally
know, that under no conceivable circumstances could any such
construction of the treaty be for a moment entertained by any
President.  The holders of State debts take them with full knowledge
of the Constitutional limitations upon their recovery through any
action of the National Government, and must rely solely on State
credit.  Such a claim against a State could under no condition be
submitted by the general Government as a matter for arbitration,
any more than such a claim against a county or municipality could
thus be submitted for arbitration.  The objection to the proposed
amendment on the subject is that it is a mere matter of surplusage,
and that it is very undesirable, when the form of these treaties
has already been agreed to by the several Powers concerned, needlessly
to add certain definitions which affect our own internal policy
only; which deal with the matter of the relation of the Federal
Government to the States which it is of course out of the question
ever to submit to the arbitration of any outside tribunal; and
which it is certainly absurd and probably mischievous to treat as
possible to be raised by the President or by any foreign power.
No one would even think of such a matter as being one for arbitration
or for any diplomatic negotiation whatever.  Moreover, these treaties
run only for a term of five years; until the end of that period
they will certainly be interpreted in accordance with the view
above expressed.

  "Very truly yours,
  "(Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

"Hon S. M. Cullom, U. S. Senate."

But a more serious question was met when we came to consider the
second article of the treaty, which provided that in each case a
special agreement should be made defining clearly the matter in
dispute, the scope and powers of the arbitrators, and the periods
to be fixed for the formation of the arbitral tribunal.  The
difficulty confronting us was whether it was the intention to submit
the special agreements referred to in article two for the ratification
of the Senate.  It was the unanimous opinion that these special
agreements should be submitted to the Senate.

I believe that as the treaties were drafted it would be the
Constitutional duty of the President to have each special agreement
submitted for ratification, because the article provided that "the
high contracting parties shall conclude such special agreement."
The Senate is a part of the treaty-making power, and would be
included in the term "high contracting parties."  But the wording
of article two left some doubt as to the intention of those
negotiating the treaty; and then, again, it might have been claimed
that article one, agreeing to arbitrate the questions therein
enumerated, might be construed as an agreement in advance on the
part of the Senate, to give to the Executive the general power to
make arbitration agreements without reference to the Senate.  Of
course, the Senate, even if it so desired, could not thus delegate
the treaty-making power to the Executive alone.

There was so much difference of opinion that I took occasion to
submit the question to both President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay,
whether it was the intention on the part of the executive department
to send these special agreements to the Senate for ratification.
They both replied that it was not; that one of the purposes of the
Executive in making the treaties was to enable the Administration
to go ahead and make the special agreements without consulting the

Under these circumstances, it was almost the unanimous judgment of
the Senate that the treaties should be amended by striking out the
words "special agreement": and substituting the word "treaty," a
Constitutional term about which there could be no doubt.  I considered
at the time that the declaration and agreement contained in these
treaties in favor of arbitration were just as strong, just as broad,
and just as obligatory with the proposed amendment as without it.
It was an agreement on the part of the President and Senate that
the President and Senate, the treaty-making power, would submit
differences to arbitration.

The Senate was severely criticised at the time for being too
technical and standing in the way of arbitration; but in my judgment
it was not a trifling question.  It could not be put aside.  Even
if the amendment had not been adopted, the President, if he followed
the Constitution, should have submitted these special agreements
to the Senate for ratification; but he took the positive stand that
he would not submit them, and nothing remained for the Senate to
do but to assert and uphold its rights as a part of the treaty-
making power, and adopt the amendment to which I have referred.

I do not think I violate any of the rules of etiquette by quoting
here President Roosevelt's letter written to me after he had learned,
through the press, that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
had amended the treaties.

  "White House, Washington,
  "_February 10, 1905_.

"My dear Senator Cullom:

"I learn that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has reported
the arbitration treaties to the Senate, amending them by substituting
for the word 'agreement' in the second article the word 'treaty.'
The effect of the amendment is to make it no longer possible, as
between its contracting parties, to submit any matter whatever to
arbitration without first obtaining a special treaty to cover the
case.  This will represent not a step forward but a step backward.
If the word 'agreement' were retained it will be possible for the
Department of State to do as, for instance, it has already done
under The Hague treaty in the Pious Fund arbitration case with
Mexico, and submit to arbitration such subordinate matters as by
treaty the Senate had decided could be left to the Executive to
submit under a jurisdiction limited by the general treaty of
arbitration.  If the word 'treaty' be substituted the result is
that every such agreement must be submitted to the Senate; and
these general arbitration treaties would then cease to be such,
and indeed in their amended form they amount to a specific
pronouncement against the whole principle of a general arbitration

"The Senate has, of course, the absolute right to reject or to
amend in any way it sees fit any treaty laid before it, and it is
clearly the duty of the Senate to take any step which, in the
exercise of its best judgment, it deems to be for the interest of
the Nation.  If, however, in the judgment of the President a given
amendment nullifies a proposed treaty it seems to me that it is no
less clearly his duty to refrain from endeavoring to secure a
ratification by the other contracting power or powers, of the
amended treaty; and after much thought I have come to the conclusion
that I ought to write and tell you that such is my judgment in this

"As amended, we would have a treaty of arbitration which in effect
will do nothing but recite that this Government will when it deems
it wise hereafter enter into treaties of arbitration.  Inasmuch as
we, of course, now have the power to enter into any treaties of
arbitration, and inasmuch as to pass these amended treaties does
not in the smallest degree facilitate settlements by arbitration,
to make them would in no way further the cause of international
peace.  It would not, in my judgment, be wise or expedient to try
to secure the assent of the other contracting powers to the amended
treaties, for even if such consent were secured we would still
remain precisely where we were before, save where the situation
may be changed a little for the worse.  There would not even be
the slight benefit that might obtain from the more general statement
that we intend hereafter, when we can come to an agreement with
foreign powers as to what shall be submitted, to enter into
arbitration treaties; for we have already, when we ratified The
Hague treaty with the various signatory powers, solemnly declared
such to be our intention; and nothing is gained by reiterating our
adherence to the principle, while refusing to provide any means of
making our intention effectual.  In the amended form the treaties
contain nothing except such expression of barren intention, and
indeed, as compared with what has already been provided in The
Hague arbitration treaty, they probably represent not a step forward
but a slight step backward, as regards the question of international
arbitration.  As such I do not think they should receive the sanction
of this Government.  Personally it is not my opinion that this
Government lacks the power to enter into general treaties of
arbitration, but if I am in error, and if this Government has no
power to enter into such general treaties, then it seems to me that
it is better not to attempt to make them, rather than to make the
attempt in such shape that they will accomplish literally nothing
whatever when made.

  "Sincerely yours,
  "(Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

"Hon. S. M. Cullom, U. S. Senate."

This letter was read to the Senate, and notwithstanding the positive
declaration by Mr. Roosevelt that he would not ask any of the
foreign Governments to consent to the amendment made by the Senate,
the treaties were amended and ratified by the Senate.

I told the President in advance of the action of the Senate what
would be done, and he rather curtly remarked that the matter was
closed, and that he would not ask the other Governments to agree
to the treaties as amended.  And no further action was taken on
the treaties.

When Secretary Root entered the State Department he took an entirely
different view of the subject.  I do not know whether Mr. Root was
of the opinion that the Senate was right in insisting on what it
considered to be its duty in amending the treaties, but I do know
that he negotiated arbitration treaties with Austria, China, Costa
Rica, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
The Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Salvador, Spain,
Sweden, and Switzerland, every one of which treaties contained the
stipulation that the special agreements referred to in article two
were to be made by the President of the United States, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.  These treaties were promptly
ratified and are a part of the supreme law of the land to-day.

Secretary Root was very wise in negotiating and sending to the
Senate this series of Mondel or world treaties.  All the Nations
of the world were agreeing to these treaties among themselves, and
it would have been a rather remarkable condition if the United
States, of all the great Nations, should have remained aloof.  I
do not believe that Mr. Root had any difficulty in obtaining the
consent of the signatory powers to the treaties, with the stipulation
that the special agreement should come to the Senate for ratification;
but for some reason or other, at the time when the first treaties
were under consideration, President Roosevelt, as indicated in the
letter which I have quoted, and probably more particularly Secretary
Hay, were both very much incensed at the action of the Senate, and
permitted the first treaties to expire.

This general movement in the direction of arbitration was one of
the most important events of the beginning of the twentieth century.
The importance of the adoption of this principle by the Nations of
the world cannot be overestimated.  It has been well said that
international arbitration is the application of law and of judicial
methods to the determination of disputes between Nations, and that
this juristic idea in the settlement of international disputes is
largely an outgrowth of the international relations, the new and
advanced civilization of the nineteenth century.

I do not believe the time will ever come when wars will cease,--
the United States obtained its independence by means of a revolution
and war; but peace and arbitration have been advocated by the great
majority of the enlightened statesmen of the world.  There were
many great wars during the nineteenth century, including our own
Civil War, the greatest, the bloodiest, recorded in all history;
but during this century arbitration has made wonderful strides.
In the same period there were four hundred and seventy-one instances
of international settlements involving the application of the
principle of international arbitration.  Many of these arbitrations
were of the greatest importance; and I remark here that in the
number of arbitrations and the importance of the questions involved,
the United States and Great Britain have unquestionably led the
way.  In fact, since the War of 1812, every subject of dispute
between the two Nations, which it was found impossible to settle
by diplomacy, has been submitted to arbitration.  Only within a
few years the Alaskan boundary was settled by arbitration, and
within the past year a fisheries dispute, a cause of embarrassment
since 1818, was submitted to The Hague tribunal and a decision
rendered, which, though not entirely satisfactory to the United
States, we accepted as the final settlement.

We have uniformly adopted arbitration as a means of settlement for
disputes with the Central and South American Republics.  With Mexico
the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of 1848, stipulates that future
disputes between the two republics shall be submitted to arbitration.
We have a general arbitration treaty for the settlement of pecuniary
claims with all the Central and South American Republics.  At the
first Hague Conference, which met in 1899, a general arbitration
treaty was agreed to.  It was a non-compulsory arbitration, and at
the time represented the farthest steps in advance in the direction
of arbitration which all the Nations were willing to take together.
That treaty was perfected at the second Hague Conference of 1907;
and, in addition, a series of treaties were agreed to concerning
the opening of hostilities, the laws and customs of war on land,
the rights and duties of neutrals, submarine contact mines,
bombardment by naval forces, the right of capture in naval war,
neutral powers in naval war, an international prize court, and the
discharge of projectiles from balloons, and the Geneva Convention
was revised.  Aside from the prize court treaty, concerning which
there were Constitutional objections, these treaties were ratified
by the Senate, the United States being one of the first Nations of
the world to take this step.  Unlike the first Hague Conference,
the South American Republics participated in the Second Conference,
and it was the first time in all the world's history that the
representatives of all the independent Nations in the world gathered
together in the interest of peace and agreed on certain principles
which should guide them in the conduct of war, if war must come.

I take pride in the fact that the treaties agreed to at the first
Hague Conference, and the treaties agreed to at the second Hague
Conference, and the series of Mondel treaties, were reported from
the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ratified by the Senate
during my chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The last step to date in the interest of the peaceful settlement
of international disputes has been taken by President Taft in the
arbitration treaties between the United States and Great Britain
and between the United States and France, both of which were signed
by the representatives of this and the other two Governments in
August, 1911.  The ban of secrecy has been removed from these
documents, and I feel at liberty to make brief mention of them,
although, as they still are pending in the Senate, I should not
feel disposed to discuss them at length.  The treaties mark an
advance over the arbitration treaties of 1908 in that they bring
into arbitration a much wider range of subjects than is covered by
the older conventions.  In the latter, questions of "national
honor," "vital interest," etc., were excluded from consideration,
whereas, under the pending agreements, "all differences which are
justiciable in their nature by reason of being susceptible of
decision by the application of the principles of law and equity,"
are made subject to arbitration under the rules laid down in the

There also is a provision granting to the Commission created by
the treaties the right to determine whether any given question
presented to it may be considered justiciable under the language
of the treaties.  This latter provision is regarded by the President
and Secretary Knox as highly desirable in the interest of the
expedition of business, but it met such opposition in the Committee
on Foreign Relations that its elimination from the treaties was
recommended to the Senate.  The objection to the provision is based
upon the theory that it would deprive the Senate of its constitutional
right to pass upon all treaties.  I have not accepted this view,
because I do not believe in hampering working bodies when such a
course can be avoided without doing violence to the fundamental
law as I believe in this case it can be.

With this provision expunged, the Committee is largely favorable
to the treaties, and they are now pending in the Senate.  It,
however, has become evident that they cannot be speedily acted
upon, and as I write, in the closing days of the special session,
called at the beginning of the Sixty-second Congress, the indications
are strong that they will be compelled to go over to the regular
session in December for final consideration.  What their fate then
may be no one can foretell.

It is well understood that if these treaties should be ratified
they will be followed by similar agreements with the other civilized
nations of the world.  The spirit of arbitration has taken strong
hold on our big-hearted and peace-loving President, and I am
confident that he will leave no stone unturned to promote good will
among nations as he is wont to do among men.  Whatever differences
of opinion there may be, regarding the details of any particular
negotiation, no person of whatever party or creed can doubt President
Taft's splendid patriotism and devotion to the highest ideals of
citizenship.  I am sure that these treaties have been inspired by
these sentiments, and, being honest and benevolent in their purpose,
the principle they embody must prevail in the end.


The Constitution of the United States provides:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and
no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall,
without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument,
office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or
foreign State."

When I became chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, there
were numerous bills pending, and numerous requests submitted through
the State Department, for authority, on the part of officers of
the United States, to accept gifts and decorations from foreign
Governments.  At first I was disposed to consent to the report and
passage of such bills, and during the first year or two they were
reported from the committee from time to time and passed in the
Senate.  The House did not act upon the individual bills, but a so-
called "omnibus bill" was passed in the House containing all the
bills that previously had been passed by the Senate, and in addition
quite a number of House bills.  I had not realized until then how
extensive the practice had become, and I thereupon determined to
use what influence I had to put a stop to it.  Since then but two
decorative bills of an exceptionally meritorious nature, one in
favor of Captain T. deWitt Wilcox, and one in favor of Admiral B.
H. McCalla, have been enacted by Congress.

I thoroughly disapprove of the practice, and wanted to put an
effectual stop to it.  At the same time the requests came pouring
in from session to session, and certain Senators, both on the
committee and others who were not members of it, insisted and urged
that favorable action be taken in behalf of officers of the United
States in whom they were interested.  After more than two hundred
requests had accumulated, I determined to appoint a subcommittee
to consider the whole matter and report to the committee such cases
as were meritorious, or to adopt a general rule against the whole
practice.  As chairman of that subcommittee, I appointed Mr. Root,
and with him Mr. Lodge, Mr. Carter, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Stone.  The
subcommittee, on March 10, 1910, submitted its report, which was
adopted by the full committee and submitted to the Senate.  Besides
reviewing at considerable length the reasons for legislation, the
report included the following salient features:

First, the existence of the provision in the Constitution indicates
that the presumption is against the acceptance of the present,
emolument, office, or title.  A habit of general and indiscriminate
consent by Congress upon such applications would tend practically
to nullify the Constitutional provision, which is based upon an
apprehension, not without foundation, that our officers may be
affected in the performance of their duties by the desire to receive
such recognition from other Governments.  A strong support for the
view that the practice should not be allowed to become general is
to be found in the fact that the Government of the United States
does not confer decorations or titles, or--unless in very exceptional
cases--make presents to the officers of other Governments.  The
report then recommended that the following five rules be observed;

"1.  That no decoration should be received unless possibly when it
is conferred for some exceptional, extraordinary, and highly
meritorious act, justifying beyond dispute a special mark of

"2.  That no presents should be received except such articles as
are appropriate for souvenirs and marks of courtesy and appreciation,
and having an intrinsic value not disproportionate to such a

"3.  That the acceptance of presents within the limitation above
stated should be further limited to cases in which some exceptional
service or special relation justifying the mark of courtesy exists
between the recipient and the Government offering the present.

"4.  That no offer of any other title or emolument or office should
be considered.

"5.  We consider that membership in learned societies, even though
the appointment thereto may have a _quasi_ Governmental origin,
should not be considered as coming within the Constitutional
provision, and it may well be that as to certain trifling gifts,
such as photographs, the rule of _de minimis lex non curat_ should
be deemed to apply."

I agreed to the report of the subcommittee and agreed to the bill,
permitting certain officers to accept the presents tendered to
them, where there were good reasons therefor; but I am free to say
that I was somewhat disappointed that the subcommittee had not
reported in favor of abolishing the practice entirely, instead of
discriminating between presents and decorations, as they did.

The bill passed the Senate without debate and without objection.
It went to the House, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
through Mr. Denby, of Michigan, submitted a most admirable report,
which was far more in line with my own ideas than was the report
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  I agree with the
conclusions arrived at by the Committee on Foreign Affairs so
thoroughly that I am going to give most of that report here:

" . . . The subcommittee expresses the hope that this adverse
disposition of these bills, which contains items fairly representative
of the great majority of the requests for Congressional sanction
for the acceptance of foreign orders, decorations, or presents, by
officials of the United States, will be regarded as notice to
officials of the United States that this committee at least, and
it is hoped all future committees dealing with this subject-matter,
will refuse to consider such requests, except as hereinafter noted.

"The Committee of Foreign Affairs has been required to devote much
time to the consideration of bills to grant permission to accept
such gifts.  The committee has in the past very generally declined
to recommend favorably any such legislation, except in the case of
decorations offered to American citizens by official or quasi-
official scientific associations for eminent scientific achievements."

Article 1, section 9, paragraph 8, of the Constitution of the United
States is quoted, and the report proceeds:

"The Congress has been frequently importuned since the adoption of
the Constitution to grant its consent for the acceptance of orders,
decorations, and presents offered to officials of our Government,
frequently upon pretexts the most trivial and for services the most
commonplace, when services of any kind were rendered at all.  A
glance at the requests now on file, summarized in Calendar No. 378,
which accompanies S. 7096, will show that the offers of foreign
gifts, decorations, etc., have been made in the great majority of
cases to officials for services in the direct line of their duty,
and which in themselves, in the majority of cases, were not deserving
of any special commendation.  Following a practice which, because
of reciprocal considerations, probably operates satisfactorily
between foreign powers, the Governments of the world frequently
tender to our officers decorations or presents upon such occasions
as the first visit of a fleet to a foreign power, or the presence
of individual officers representing our Government at reviews and
public ceremonials, and to our diplomatic officials upon the
termination of their missions, or upon occasions of rejoicing,
jubilees of sovereigns, etc.  While the practice of exchanging such
graceful souvenirs is not unpleasing among the nations which
recognize and reciprocate the courtesy, it is entirely inappropriate
that officials of this Government should accept, or desire to
accept, such presents.

"The prohibition of the Constitution appears to have been put there
out of a well-founded desire to safeguard our officials from the
insidious influence of a natural but not desirable sense of obligation
toward the powers donor.  The history of nations abounds with
instances of the giving of rich presents to retiring ambassadors
and ministers upon the conclusion of treaties or the satisfactory
termination of negotiations.  There can be no doubt of the danger
of recognizing that the agent of our Government may properly be
compensated by another to which he is accredited.  Another and
obvious objection to permitting our officials to receive gifts or
decorations from foreign powers is that, having no orders of nobility
and no decorations in this country, and not recognizing the propriety
of offering to officials of other powers, we can in no way reciprocate.
It is beneath the dignity of the American Government to receive,
through its representatives, presents for which it can make no
return.  The Constitutional prohibition is, in the opinion of the
subcommittee, a wise one, to which Congress should very seldom
permit any exception.

"Therefore the subcommittee earnestly hopes that the Committee may
put itself on record so unequivocally in this instance as to clearly
indicate that it will not, except under circumstances the most
unusual and extraordinary, grant permission to any official of the
Government to receive such presents.

"To that end the subcommittee further recommends that this report
may, by resolution, be adopted as expressing the view of the members
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives;
that this report may be printed, and that a copy may be communicated
to the Secretary of State.

  "(Signed) Edwin Denby,
  "H. W. Palmer,
  "H. D. Flood, Subcommittee,

"Adopted by the Committee of Foreign Affairs, April 7, 1910.
  "Frederic L. Davis, Clerk."

I have no doubt that these two reports, first the report of the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and second, the report
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, taken together,
will effectually stop the application for permission to accept both
presents and decorations from foreign Governments.  Indeed, I do
not think that the Secretary of State will again consent to apply
to Congress in behalf of officers who have been tendered presents
and decorations.


For a number of years there was considerable controversy over the
ownership of the Isle of Pines, a small island separated from Cuba
by about thirty miles of water, containing 1200 square miles.  This
dot of land was not of the slightest account to the United States,
so far as I could see; but after the treaty of peace with Spain,
a number of Americans purchased land there for the purpose of
establishing homes.  When the United States withdrew from Cuba and
the Cuban Republic was established, and the flag of Cuba was extended
over the Island of Pines, those American residents protested and
insisted that the island belonged to the United States.  They had
considerable ground for this contention, as Mr. Meikeljohn, when
Assistant Secretary of War, had written a number of letters in
which he stated that the Isle of Pines had been ceded to the United
States by Spain, and therefore was a part of our territory, although
attached at the time to the division of Cuba for governmental

The treaty of peace provided in article one that Spain relinquishes
all claims of sovereignty over, and title to, Cuba; and in article
two, that Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto
Rico, and other islands under Spanish sovereignty in the West
Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

A strict construction of the treaty of peace with Spain would
probably give the island to the United States under article two.

Cuba, however, insisted that the island was a part of Cuban territory,
but it was provided in article six of the Platt amendments that
the title to the island should be left to future adjustment by

Cuba granted to the United States two very valuable coaling stations,
and the United States on its part agreed to enter into a treaty by
which we should relinquish whatever title we might have to the
Island of Pines in favor of Cuba.

A rather interesting incident occurred in connection with this
treaty which I believe I violate no confidence in now detailing,
as both Presidents have retired from office.  President Roosevelt
was very anxious that the treaty be ratified; he was also most
solicitous that we should retain friendly relations with the Republic
of Cuba, and felt that the island was not of the slightest importance
to the United States from any standpoint, declaring that he would
not accept it.  I was at the White House one day when the treaty
was before the committee, and he showed me a letter written to him
by President Palma, of Cuba, and my recollection is that he gave
me a copy of it for such use as I might desire to make.  Mr. Palma
urged in that letter that the Senate act favorably on the treaty,
because if it did not his re-election as President of the Cuban
Republic would thereby be endangered.

So much opposition to the treaty developed in the Senate that I
deemed it useless to endeavor to bring it to a vote; and really,
as I look at it now, there is very little use for the treaty at
all, as Cuba is and has been exercising jurisdiction over the Isle
of Pines.  Cuba must be giving the island a good government for
the American residents, as I have heard nothing from the island
for several years.

It was during the Fifty-seventh Congress that the treaty with
Denmark, providing for the purchase by the United States of the
Danish West Indies, consisting of the Islands of St. Thomas, St.
John, and St. Croix, came before the committee.  I reported the
treaty to the Senate and urged, and finally secured, its

The United States by this treaty agreed to pay five million dollars
to Denmark for the islands.

We first attempted to purchase the islands in 1865, during the
administration of President Lincoln.  Secretary Seward was particularly
anxious that the United States should acquire them, and a treaty
was negotiated and agreed to by Denmark.  The treaty was not acted
upon during the administration of President Johnson, and because
President Grant was particularly anxious for its ratification,
Charles Sumner, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (as
in the case of the Santo Domingo treaty), opposed its ratification
by the Senate, and it was defeated.

President Grant showed a far-sighted policy in favoring the
acquisition of every foot of territory which we could secure in
the West Indies.  The Danish islands are of great importance to
the United States in a strategic way, whether the strategy be
military or commercial.  St. Thomas is the natural point of call
for all European trade bound for the West Indies, Central America,
or Northern South America.  These islands, together with Porto
Rico, occupy the north-eastern corner of the Caribbean Sea; and
they are of more importance now than ever, because of the fact that
we are constructing the Isthmian canal.  In view of that canal,
and the European settlements in South America, every additional
acquisition by the United States in the West Indies is invaluable.
Porto Rico is difficult of defense.  The harbors are poor, while
the harbor in the Island of St. Thomas can be made one of the very
best in the West Indies.  Our own officers who investigated the
subject reported that the Island of St. Thomas possesses all the
natural advantages of a second Gibraltar.

The Danish Parliament, after a long debate, declined to ratify the
treaty of 1901 which had been ratified by the Senate, and for the
present at least the subject is in abeyance.

I still hope, before I shall retire from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, that the United States may succeed in purchasing these
valuable islands.

During the Winter of 1906 there occurred in the Senate a very
interesting debate over the appointment of representatives of the
United States to participate in the so-called Algeciras Conference,
held in Algeciras in 1905 to consider conditions in Morocco.  No
action was taken by the Senate, and in due course the act or treaty
agreed to at that conference was submitted to the Senate for

I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that President
Roosevelt had full authority to appoint the delegates on the part
of the United States, and that he was thoroughly justified in
contending that it was not only the right but the duty of the United
States to participate in this conference.  The action of the
President in accepting the invitation to the conference and appointing
the delegates, and the very important part therein which he took
personally, in addition to the interest manifested through his
representatives, very properly received the commendation of the
people of this country and of the whole European world.

The Moroccan Empire was one of the earliest and most interesting
of the world's Governments.  During the latter part of the eighteenth
century Morocco occupied the attention of the maritime nations of
the civilized world, as it was the home of the Barbary pirates who
preyed upon the commerce of all the nations.  The United States
itself paid tribute for the purchase of immunity from these pirates.
One of our earliest treaties, made before the adoption of the
Constitution in 1787, was a treaty of peace and friendship with
Morocco.  We entered into several treaties with Morocco later, and
joined in treaties concerning that country in 1865 and 1880 with
Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, Portugal,
and other Nations.

For many years Great Britain and France have claimed to have superior
rights in Morocco, and it has seemed to be the desire of France to
annex it.  Germany has intervened, and the country has been a bone
of contention among the European Nations.  In 1904 Great Britain
and France, by a secret treaty, agreed that France should have the
dominating control in Morocco, and that Great Britain should dominate
in Egypt.  Germany opposed the French Protectorate and insisted
that an international conference of the powers should be called.
At one time it seemed that war was inevitable, and it probably was
averted only by the Algeciras Conference.  The United States was
asked to participate, as we had participated in the conference of
1880.  If we had not accepted the invitation there would have been
no conference, as two of the great powers had served notice that
all nations represented at the 1880 conference must participate in
the Algeciras Conference, or they would withdraw.  Our participation
was in the interest of averting a European war.

The General Act or Treaty agreed to at that conference was a lengthy
and important one.  Its details are not of much importance, as our
delegates signed it under a significant reservation that we would
not assume any obligation or responsibility for the enforcement of
the Act.

When it came to the Senate, there was quite a combat over its
ratification.  We could not secure its endorsement during the
session which closed the first of July, 1906, but we were able to
reach an agreement that it should be voted on in committee and in
the Senate during the month of December following.

President Roosevelt was very much concerned about its ratification,
and on June 26, 1906, when it seemed pretty certain that the Senate
would adjourn without acting on the general Act, he wrote me this
quite characteristic letter:

  "White House, Washington, _June 26, 1906_.

"My dear Senator Cullom:

"Having reference to the letter which Secretary Root wrote you
yesterday about the Algeciras Convention, I can only add that I
earnestly hope this matter will receive favorable report from the
committee at this session.  I am literally unable to understand
how any human being can find anything whatever to object to in this
treaty; and to reject it would mean that for the first time since
the adoption of the Constitution this Government will be without
a treaty with Morocco.  It seems incredible that there should be
a serious purpose to put us in such a position.

  "Sincerely yours,
  "(Signed) Theodore Roosevelt."

The General Act would probably not have been ratified by the Senate
had we not agreed on the form of the resolution of ratification.
That resolution provided:

"Resolved further, that the Senate, as a part of this act of
ratification, understands that the participation of the United
States in the Algeciras Conference and in the formation and adoption
of the general Act and Protocol which resulted therefrom, was with
the sole purpose of preserving and increasing its commerce in
Morocco, the protection as to life, liberty, and property of its
citizens residing and travelling therein, and of aiding by its
friendly offices and efforts in removing friction and controversy
which seemed to menace the peace between powers signatory with the
United States to the treaty of 1880, all of which are on terms of
amity with this Government, and without purpose to depart from the
traditional American foreign policy which forbids participation by
the United States in the settlement of political questions which
are entirely European in their scope."

After this form of resolution had been agreed to by those favoring
and those opposing the treaty, I showed it to President Roosevelt.
He expressed his satisfaction with it, and the Act was ratified by
the Senate.

I have endeavored to cover only a very few of the more important
matters which have come before the Committee on Foreign Relations
since I have been its chairman.  The treaties before the committee
have embraced almost every subject of contact between two independent
Nations.  Numerous treaties involving extradition, boundaries,
naturalization, claims, sanitation, trade-marks, consular and
diplomatic friendship, and commerce, and many other subjects, have
been before the committee and have been acted upon and ratified by
the Senate.  During the period of which I am now writing, I believe
that we have ratified treaties with almost every independent Nation
of the world.  The many important matters now pending, or of more
recent date, I am not at liberty to refer to, the injunction of
secrecy not yet having been removed.

The Foreign Relations Committee will continue in the future, as it
has in the past, one of the Senate's foremost committees.


It had been my intention to close these recollections with the
beginning of the Taft Administration, but their publication has
been deferred until the Administration extended so far that it
seems proper to bring my observations up to date.  I am especially
impelled to this course by the fact that the present era has
developed a very marked change in the character of the Senate, and,
to a limited extent at least, in the trend of political thought in
the country at large--a change which should be noted in any permanent
writing dealing with the period.  Still, I have no intention of
entering upon a detailed consideration of men or of conditions.
My only purpose is to make brief mention of these conditions and
to refer in very general terms to some who have given direction to
recent public affairs.

Observers of public events and students of political questions
probably were given their first insight into the tendency of the
times through the resignation from the Senate of Honorable John C.
Spooner, of Wisconsin, which was tendered March 30, 1907.  I have
made frequent reference to Mr. Spooner's connection with the Senate,
and I do not intend to say more of him here than that he stood for
conservatism and the old traditions.  Sensitive to a degree to the
promptings of his conscience, and still desirous of representing
the sentiment of his constituents, apparently he found himself
embarrassed by the growth in his State of what, without intending
any disrespect, I may designate as "La Follette-ism."

Gradually Hon. Robert M. La Follette, who previously had served
several terms in the House of Representatives, had been forging
his way to the front in Wisconsin politics until in 1905 he was
elected to serve as Mr. Spooner's colleague in the Senate.  He
stood for radicalism in the Republican party as against Mr. Spooner's
conservatism; he was the advocate of many innovations and experiments,
while Mr. Spooner held to the old and tried forms of procedure in
public affairs.  Whether Mr. La Follette was the leader of this
new propaganda or the follower of a growing sentiment in the State
does not matter to this record.  It is sufficient to know that
apparently Wisconsin public opinion did not support Mr. Spooner to
a sufficient extent to justify a man of his conscientious disposition
in retaining his place as the representative of the people of that
State in the highest legislative body of the Nation.  Moreover,
splendid lawyer that he was, he knew that he could find much more
lucrative employment outside the halls of legislation, and he felt
the need of making adequate provision for his family.  In consequence
of these conditions, he left the Senate, and thus opened the way
for the more rapid promotion in that body of the new school of
politics for which his colleague stood, a school which, while it
has found some exponents in the House of Representatives, is not
comparatively so largely represented there as in the Senate.

The La Follette group is designated by its own disciples as
"Progressivism," whereas by outsiders it is generally referred to
as "Insurgency."  Mr. La Follette came to the Senate with the Fifty-
ninth Congress, and no sooner had he entered that body then he
began to propound his doctrines there.  At first, he stood alone,
but natural inclination soon drew to him such of the older Senators
as the late Jonathan P. Dolliver, of Iowa, and Moses E. Clapp, of
Minnesota, both of them men of splendid attainments and of high
moral character.  With the incoming of Mr. Taft as President came
also Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, Joseph L. Bristow, of Kansas, and
Coe I. Crawford, of South Dakota, all of whom joined heartily with
Mr. La Follette in his efforts to shape legislation.

During the Sixty-first Congress, the tariff law was revised.  The
Dingley Act of 1897 had grown unpopular in some portions of the
country, because it was believed that under it the duties were not
equitably distributed, and the campaign of 1908 had been fought
upon a platform declaring for a revision.  When, therefore, Congress
met in March, 1909, being called together in extraordinary session
by President Taft, every one recognized the necessity for entering
upon this work.  There had been no specific declaration in the
platform as to the character of the revision.  Some, commonly called
"stand-patters," contended for a readjustment without any general
lowering of rates, while others held out stiffly for a reduction
all along the line.  The result of the work of Congress was the
enactment of what is known as the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Law of 1909,
the measure taking its name on account of the joint efforts in its
behalf of the Honorable Sereno Payne, of New York, Chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means of the House, and Honorable Nelson W.
Aldrich, of Rhode Island, Chairman of the Committee on Finance of
the Senate.  The Payne-Aldrich law is a Protective measure, as it
was intended to be.  The Progressives, in both the Senate and House,
sought at every step to reduce the schedules, but generally without
success.  In this effort, they were supported by Democratic Senators
and Representatives, but the "Old Guard" controlled such a pronounced
majority in both Houses as to render the opposing efforts futile,
fierce though they were.  So general was this conflict that in many
matters the Progressives soon established a faction of their own.
There were many skirmishes all along the line.  Their divergence
from the views of Regular Republicanism was indicated not on the
tariff alone, but on many other questions of public policy which
I may say I regard as extremely visionary and impracticable.

The controversy also covered the methods of procedure of both the
Senate and the House, and the fight on "Uncle" Joe Cannon as Speaker,
or on "Cannonism," which characterized the last session of the
Sixty-first Congress, was one of the instances of this difference
of opinion in the party.  In a less pronounced manner the Progressives
also have shown an inclination to antagonize and overturn the
customs of the Senate.  They feel the restraint of some of the
Senate's established rules, and, together with the radical element
which has been introduced on the Democratic side of the Senate
Chamber, they manifest evident impatience with these regulations.
That fine old term "senatorial courtesy" has lost much of its
meaning as a result of the brusque and breezy manner of the time.
No longer is it said that the young Senator must be seen rather
than heard.  Indeed, while formerly the spectacle of a Senator
rising to make a speech before the close of his second year in the
Senate was regarded as unusual, it recently has come to be remarked
upon if a new man remains in his seat for two months before
undertaking to enlighten the Senate as to its duties towards itself
and the world.

I am not undertaking here to pronounce against these innovations,
but merely to record facts.  I have shown my advocacy of proper
railroad legislation and of other progressive legislation which
commended itself to my judgment.  However, I am classed as a Regular
and desire to be.  My votes have been with the party organization.
I have made it a rule throughout my political career to stand for
the general principles of the party as enunciated by its authorized
bodies; but while that is my course, I do not pretend to say that
that organization always represents all that is good and best for
the country or that in many cases the Progressives and Insurgents
may not be nearer right than the Regulars.  In the main, however,
I have found that the best results are obtained through following
the course indicated by the united wisdom of the party.  My plan
has been to exert my influence in the direction of careful and
conservative progression within established party lines, and in
such a course do I believe that the Republican party can best insure
its perpetuity.

Senator Spooner's resignation from the Senate was followed by the
refusal of Senators Hale and Aldrich to stand for re-election in
1911.  The retirement of those three distinguished leaders constitutes
the best index of the tendency of the times.  Men of experience,
dignity, and conservatism, they voluntarily gave way before the
press of public exigency.  True, they consulted their own inclinations,
but I always have thought that if the old conditions had continued
in the Senate they would have elected to remain there.  Their seats
are filled by good and true men, but by men of very different
characteristics, unless an exception may be made in Senator Aldrich's
case, whose successor, Henry F. Lippitt, appears to be a man much
like his predecessor.  Whether the change will be beneficial or
otherwise remains to be seen, but my optimism is so great I do not
believe that anything but good can come permanently to this great
country of ours.  I confess to a liking for the old methods.

This general change of public sentiment has brought into the Senate
not only Mr. La Follette, Mr. Bristow, Mr. Clapp, Mr. Cummins, and
Mr. Crawford, but also a number of other men of similar views, so
that within six or seven years the progressive group has increased
to thirteen members, more than one-fourth of the membership of the

I shall not undertake to mention all of those contained in this
little body, but I have been so impressed with the bearing of
Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, and Senator Joseph M. Dixon,
of Montana, that I do not feel justified in passing them by unnoticed.
They are both very able men and men of high purpose.  They do not
stand with this group all the time; neither goes where his convictions
do not lead.

Moreover, these Republicans of supposedly advanced thought have
found their counterpart in a number of new Senators who have taken
their seats on the Democratic side.  The Democrats, as well as the
Republicans, have their Progressive, or Radical, element, and while
the Democratic representatives of this thought differ from those
on the Republican side on the subject of Protection, they have co-
operated in the interest of what they consider a closer approach
to the demands of the people on other subjects of legislation.  On
the tariff schedules, which have been presented during the special
session of the Sixty-second Congress now coming to a close, they
also have stood together, forming what some have been pleased to
christen the "Unholy Alliance."  Both Republicans and Democrats of
the radical type are contending for a lower tariff, but this one
important difference is noticeable:  while there is a tendency on
the Democratic side toward free trade, the Republican members of
the alliance hold out for the protective principle.

It is pleasant to me to be able to record that while a sufficient
number of new men have come into the Senate to cause a modification
of its general appearance and apparent purposes, there still are
enough representatives of the old element to cause it to retain
its distinctive character as the most conservative deliberative
body in this country.  In addition to the new men, such capable
legislators remain as Lodge and Crane, of Massachusetts, Brandegee,
of Connecticut, Burton, of Ohio, Jones, of Washington, Root, of
New York, Gallinger and Burnham, of New Hampshire, Heyburn, of
Idaho, Penrose and Oliver, of Pennsylvania, Perkins, of California,
Smoot and Sutherland, of Utah, Clark and Warren, of Wyoming,
Dillingham and Page, of Vermont, Wetmore, of Rhode Island, Curtis,
of Kansas, McCumber, of North Dakota, Gamble, of South Dakota,
William Alden Smith and Charles E. Townsend, of Michigan, Bradley,
of Kentucky, and others, all Republicans, while among the old-time
Democrats should be mentioned such stanch and true men as Martin,
of Virginia, Bacon, of Georgia, Bailey and Culberson, of Texas,
Taylor, of Tennessee, Shively, of Indiana, Tillman, of South
Carolina, Fletcher, of Florida, Foster, of Louisiana, Johnston and
Bankhead, of Alabama, Stone, of Missouri, Clarke, of Arkansas,
Newlands, of Nevada, and still others who, though their names may
not be mentioned, all command the high regard of their colleagues.

The question is often asked, "Who has succeeded Aldrich as leader
of the Senate?"  No one.  Practically, there are three parties in
the Senate, consisting of thirty-seven Regular Republicans, forty-
one Democrats, and thirteen Insurgent Republicans.  In caucus, the
Insurgents act with the Regulars, but in legislation, they more
frequently line up with the Democrats.  The consequence is that no
party is in control, and therefore that no party can dictate the
course of leadership.  Under such circumstances, real leadership
is out of the question.  Senator Penrose succeeds Senator Aldrich
as Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and is proving thoroughly
competent for his work in that capacity.  If emergency should arise
throwing the direction of affairs into the hands of the Republican
party, he might also succeed the Rhode Island Senator to the
leadership of the Republican forces, but until such emergency
presents itself, no one can see whether that position would fall
to him or to some other Republican.  Leaders are born, not made.
Leadership is not a matter of selection, but of fitness.

Up to the present writing (August, 1911), President Taft has been
in office almost two and a half years, and while, like all Presidents,
he has been criticised, I am confident that in the end the first
half of his administration will receive the approval of the historian.
Personally, no more popular man ever occupied the office of Chief
Executive, and his popularity is due to his honesty of purpose and
his love for his fellow man.  His administration has witnessed such
a prosecution of the unlawful trusts as never before has been known,
and the President himself has been engaged in a constant endeavor
for legislation which would equalize the benefits of American
citizenship, relieve the distresses of the less fortunate, and put
a stop to graft, wherever found.  Under his direction, the Interstate
Commerce Law has been vastly improved, postal savings banks have
been established, and the conservation of our natural resources
has been placed upon a safe and sane basis.  He has pressed
Reciprocity and Arbitration with other Nations, and he has established
such an era of good fellowship among public men of all parties and
beliefs as seldom has been known in our history.  If the remainder
of his administration proves as successful as that which has passed,
he will deserve, as I believe he will receive, the endorsement of
the people through an election to a second term.

The present presiding officer of the Senate is  Hon. James Schoolcraft
Sherman, who was elected Vice-President on the national ticket of
1908 with President Taft.  Mr. Sherman brings to this office an
experience of twenty years as a member of the House of Representatives
from the Utica district, much of which time he was a member of the
Committee on Rules.  He is an accomplished parliamentarian, a fact
which taken in connection with his genial disposition, his kindness
of heart, and, above all, his love of justice, renders him one of
the most acceptable presiding officers that the Senate ever has
had.  He has held his office during all of the regular session of
the Sixty-first Congress and has been constantly in his seat during
the special session of the Sixty-second Congress, and it is safe
to say that in so brief a time no man has more thoroughly endeared
himself to members of the Senate of whatever party or faction.
Occasionally, of course, as is the case with all presiding officers,
his decisions are challenged; but I believe he has been uniformly
sustained; and even such proceedings are stripped of all appearance
of rancor through his kindness of manner and his evident conviction.
He is a fit successor of Hobart and Fairbanks.


The name of Springfield will forever be immortalized as the home
and burial-place of Abraham Lincoln.  As the hundredth anniversary
of his birth approached, it was determined to hold a great celebration,
and it was generally agreed that Springfield was the fitting and
proper place in which to hold it.

In 1907 the Legislature of Illinois passed a joint resolution

"Whereas, the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Abraham
Lincoln will occur on the twelfth day of February, 1909; and,

"Whereas, it is fitting and proper that the State of Illinois should
celebrate the anniversary of the birth of this greatest of all
American statesmen; therefore, be it

"Resolved, by the Senate of the State of Illinois, the House of
Representatives concurring therein, that the one hundredth anniversary
of the birth of Abraham Lincoln be celebrated in the City of
Springfield, on the twelfth day of February, 1909, and, be it

"Resolved, that the Governor is hereby authorized and empowered to
appoint a commission of fifteen representative citizens of this
State to have charge of all arrangements for such celebration."

The Governor thereupon appointed fifteen of the most distinguished
citizens of Springfield as the State Centennial Commission to have
charge of the celebration.

It was determined that the celebration should not be a local one,
but should be more in the nature of a State celebration, and that
it would be well to incorporate it under the name of "The Lincoln
Centennial Association."  The original incorporators were:

The Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States;
the Hon. Shelby M. Cullom, United States Senator; the Hon. Albert
J. Hopkins, United States Senator; the Hon. Joseph G. Cannon,
Speaker of the National House of Representatives; the Hon. Adlai
E. Stevenson; the Hon. Charles S. Deneen, Governor of Illinois;
the Hon. John P. Hand, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
State of Illinois; the Hon. J. Otis Humphrey, Judge of the United
States District Court; the Hon. James A. Rose, Secretary of State
of Illinois; the Hon. Ben. F. Caldwell, Member of Congress; the
Hon. Richard Yates; Melville E. Stone, Esq.; Horace White, Esq.;
John W. Bunn, Esq.; and Dr. William Jayne.

I was requested to secure speakers of national reputation, and it
at once occurred to me that I would invite the Ambassadors of France
and Great Britain, and Senator J. P. Dolliver, to visit Springfield,
on February 12, 1909, and deliver addresses.  These distinguished
gentlemen at once accepted the invitation which I extended them on
behalf of the Governor and the committee.  Later, the Hon. William
Jennings Bryan was invited to be present also and deliver an address,
which invitation he accepted.

The memorial exercises celebrating the hundredth anniversary of
Lincoln's birth were held under the direction of the State Centennial
Commission, appointed by the Governor, working in conjunction with
the Lincoln Centennial Association.  There were a number of distinct
events, but the most important were the great memorial exercises
held in the State Armory, at which addresses were made by Ambassadors
Jusserand and Bryce, and by Senator Dolliver and Mr. Bryan, and a
banquet served to eight hundred guests.  The celebration was in
every way a great success, largely due to the efforts of Judge

It was quite an event in the history of Springfield, as it was the
first time, so far as I know, that the Ambassadors of two great
Nations visited Springfield.

I regretted very much that I was so engaged in matters pertaining
to my official duties in Washington that it seemed impossible for
me to be present.  I was requested to write something which could
be read at the banquet, and so I addressed to Judge Humphrey the
following letter:

  "Washington, D. C.,
  "_February 6, 1909_.

"Hon. J. Otis Humphrey,
  "President Lincoln Centennial Association,
  "Springfield, Illinois.

"My dear Judge:

"It is a matter of sincere regret to me that I am unable to be
present at your great anniversary celebration of the birth of the
immortal Lincoln, and to welcome to my home city the Ambassadors
of Great Britain and France and the distinguished guests who are
to be with you.

"Abraham Lincoln, greatest of Americans, greatest of men, emancipator,
martyr, his service to his country has not been equalled by any
American citizen, not even by Washington.  His name and life have
been an inspiration to me from my earliest recollection.

"On this one hundredth anniversary of his birth, the people, without
regard to creed, color, condition, or section, in all parts of this
Union which he saved, are striving to do honor to his memory.  No
American has ever before received such deserved universal praise.
Not only in his own country, but throughout the civilized world,
Abraham Lincoln is regarded as one of the few, the very few, truly
great men in history.  His memory is as fresh to-day in the minds
and hearts of the people as it was forty years ago, and the passing
years only add to his fame and serve to give us a truer conception
of his noble character.  The events of his life, his words of
wisdom, have been gathered together in countless volumes to be
treasured up and handed down to generations yet to come.

"I knew him intimately in Springfield; I heard him utter his simple
farewell to his friends and neighbors when he departed to assume
a task greater than any President had been called upon to assume
in our history; it was my sad duty to accompany his mortal remains
from the capital of the Nation to the capital of Illinois; and as
I gazed upon his face the last time, I thanked God it had been my
privilege to know him as a friend; and I felt then, as I more fully
realize now, that the good he had done would live through all the
ages to bless the world.

"Springfield, his only real home, the scene of his great political
triumph, was his fitting resting-place.  In the midst of this great
continent his dust shall rest a sacred treasure to myriads who
shall pilgrim to his shrine to kindle anew their zeal and

"Again expressing regret that I can not be with you to take part
in honoring the memory of our greatest President, on the one
hundredth anniversary of his birth, and feeling sure that the
Springfield celebration will be the most notable of all, as it
should be, I remain

  "Sincerely yours,
  "(Signed) S. M. Cullom."

Of all the notable celebrations held on the one hundredth anniversary
of the birth of Lincoln in every part of the United States, the
Springfield observance was the most dignified and impressive; and
it was determined that on Lincoln's birthday each year, under the
auspices of the Lincoln Centennial Association, fitting memorial
exercises should take place in Springfield, to which guests and
speakers of national and international renown, from all parts of
the United States, should be invited.

Springfield has a great public library, called the "Lincoln Library,"
toward which Andrew Carnegie very generously contributed seventy-
five thousand dollars.  I took considerable interest in the
Springfield Library, and I did what I could to prevail upon Mr.
Carnegie to make as generous a contribution as he would toward the
project.  I remember that I wrote him a letter on the subject.

It was at first proposed by the Springfield people to name the
Library "The Lincoln-Carnegie Memorial Library"; but after Mr.
Carnegie had made his contribution, through his secretary he informed
the Rev. E. S. Walker, of Springfield, who carried on the correspondence
with him, that he would consider it a desecration to have any name
listed with that of Lincoln.  "He trusts that the library will be
known as the 'Lincoln Library,' not the 'Lincoln Memorial Library,'
as Lincoln needs no memorial, being one of the dozen supremely
great rulers of men the world has ever seen."

The Library was completed in 1904, and I was invited to deliver
the dedicatory address, which invitation I was very glad to accept.
It was an interesting occasion, held in the main room of the library
building, which was crowded with the very best people of the city.
I give a few extracts from the speech I delivered that evening:

"Mr. Chairman:  It was a great pleasure to me to be invited by your
library board to participate in these exercises attending the
opening of this splendid library building.

"I can not resist on this occasion the inclination to say a few
words in reference to Springfield and my early relations to it.

"Old historic Springfield!  Here have taken place many of the most
important events in the history of Illinois.  Springfield has been
the centre of the political struggles of both parties since it has
been the capital of the State.  Many of the great statesmen of
Illinois have occupied seats in the legislative hall in Springfield.
Here were mobilized during the Civil War the thousands of troops
who went forth to do and die for the Union.  Here the greatest
General of the age received his first command.  Here Lincoln and
Douglas met, and from here Lincoln went forth to assume a task
greater than any President has been called upon to undertake in
all our history.

"Springfield is endeared to me by all the sacred memories of
friendship, family, and home.

"I came here fifty years ago.  In Springfield I received my legal
education, was admitted to the Bar, and in your old courthouse here
I practised my profession.  In Springfield I married and reared my
family, and here my children are laid in their final resting-place.

"Those early days of my residence here are among the happiest of
my life.  Official duties have necessitated my absence a great part
of the time for the past twenty years, but my heart lingers with
it, and the ties which made those early days so happy will never
be broken so long as I shall live."

After giving a history of the library and referring to the generosity
of Mr. Carnegie, I continued:

"This is a material age.  Carnegie, the great captain of industry,
is a typical representative of the leaders of this age.  It is well
worth our while to stop to consider why he should devote a part of
his great wealth to the founding of public libraries.

"Andrew Carnegie was a poor boy, enjoying none of the advantages
and opportunities which are afforded by a good library.  He missed
in his early life the opportunity for culture which is now obtained
through the facilities supplied by libraries in the towns and
cities.  He knew that there was no other agency so valuable for
the purpose of spreading culture among the people as the public
library.  No word so precisely describes the influence of good
reading as does the word 'culture'.  Emerson tells us that the word
of ambition of the present day is 'culture.'

"Andrew Carnegie, the great leader of the industrial world, desiring
to give to the young men and the young women of this day an
opportunity for education, for culture, whose value to the young
he realizes so well, has devoted the enormous fortune of over one
hundred million dollars for the founding of public libraries. . . .

"There should be no pleasure like the pleasure derived from reading
a good book.  Emerson, expressing our debt to a book says:  'Let
us not forget the genial, miraculous, we have known to proceed from
a book.  We go musing into the vaults of day and night; no
constellation shines, no muse descends, the stars are white points,
the roses brick-colored leaves; and frogs pipe, mice cheep, and
wagons creak along the road.  We return to the house and take up
Plutarch or Augustine, and read a few sentences or pages, and lo,
the air swims with life, secrets of magnanimity and grandeur invite
us on every hand, life is made of them.  Such is our debt to a

"The founding of public libraries is the surest mark of advanced
civilization.  The origin of libraries is lost in the dim twilight
of the early ages.  When they commenced, how they commenced, we do
not know; but we have authentic records that centuries before the
Christian era the temples of those countries of the East where
civilization had made the greatest advances, contained libraries
of clay tablets, carefully shelved in regular order.  Among the
Greeks, private libraries existed at least four hundred years before
the birth of Christ.  The Roman Caesars returning from conquest to
the development of the arts of peace, established libraries in the
then great Capital of the World.

"But the United States is pre-eminently the home of the free public
libraries, supported by taxation.  This country has more free public
libraries than any other country in the world.

"What a great thing it is for our people to have these advantages!
The foundations of our Republic are being well laid.  The family,
the church, the school--and the library!  A people who will adhere
to the great principles of the sacredness of the family, the church,
and the school, will not perish from the earth.  Virtue and
intelligence are the necessary foundations on which a republic must
rest.  Education is more necessary in a republic, where the people
are the sovereigns, than it is in a monarchy, where the people are
subjects.  With education and the library comes culture.  The
family, the church, the school, and the library are all necessary
to qualify the citizen for the great duties of life. . . .

"Mr. Carnegie has given us this building and has requested that it
be named in honor of the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.  Like
a number of others who are in this room to-night, I knew Abraham
Lincoln intimately and well.  We are proud that this city was the
home of Abraham Lincoln while living, and now that he has passed
away, it is the home of his sacred dust.  The words of Mr. Carnegie,
that no name should be coupled with the name of Mr. Lincoln manifested
the highest appreciation by him of the great name of Lincoln.  He
was a noble man.  Only forty-three years ago, he was going in and
out among us, interested in the local affairs of our city, doing
his duty in the common affairs of our community, and at the same
time grappling with the great questions pressing upon the attention
of the people and touching the life of the Nation.

"My friends, in the language of Mr. Carnegie, Lincoln has been 'one
of a dozen supremely great rulers of men that the world has seen.'
He was one of a few men in the world's history whose great and
noble life and deeds will be remembered forever.  I rejoice that
he lived among us and that he was loved by our people while he
lived, and that his memory is fresh and green in our hearts.

"My friends, as we reflect upon the progress of our Nation in wealth
and power and influence among the Nations of the world in the
century just closed, our hearts swell with pride and thankfulness
that we have been so favored.  As a Nation we are now in the first
rank of the nations of the earth.

"Let us do our part in maintaining our national supremacy.  We can
hold our place by standing by the right as a community, as a State,
and as a Nation, adhering rigidly to the foundation principles of
our Republican Government, cherishing liberty, and obeying law;
upholding the sacredness of the family, the church, and the school;
with school, the library will follow, and in the time to come our
Nation will endure, and its people will cultivate from generation
to generation, a better and higher civilization."


I was twice elected Governor of Illinois, and have been elected to
the United States Senate for five consecutive terms, and as I write
this narrative I have served in the Senate more than twenty-eight
years.  I consider this a greater honor than an election to the
Presidency of the United States.  I owe the deepest debt of gratitude
to the people of the State of Illinois, who have for so many years
continued me in the public service.  To my many friends who have
so loyally supported me during all these years, I am profoundly

I have already referred to my first election to the United States
Senate.  At the conclusion of my first term, I was, on January 22,
1889, re-elected without opposition.

The country had turned the Republican party out of power and elected
Mr. Cleveland in 1892; and for the first time since 1856, the State
of Illinois went Democratic and elected Mr. Altgeld as Governor.
I returned to Illinois, from Washington, to enter the campaign in
1894, having little or no hope that I could be re-elected to the
Senate, as I supposed, of course, that the State would continue in
the control of the Democratic party.  Having been twice elected to
the United States Senate, I deemed it my duty to make the best
fight I could for Republican success, regardless of my own personal
interest in the matter.  The Democrats were confident they would
carry the Legislature, and Mr. Franklin MacVeagh, who is now
Secretary of the Treasury under a Republican President, was the
candidate of the Democratic party for the Senate to succeed me.
Mr. MacVeagh made a canvass of the State as a candidate for United
States Senator against me.  Very much to his surprise, the State
went overwhelmingly Republican and elected a Republican Legislature,
insuring the election of a Republican to the Senate.

While I had made the canvass of the State, it was not until after
the election, when it became known that we had elected a Republican
Legislature, that opposition to my re-election developed in the
Republican party.

Mr. George E. Adams, and Mr. George R. Davis who had served in
Congress and been Director General of the World's Columbian Exposition
at Chicago, were candidates against me.  Mr. Joseph E. Medill, the
owner of _The Chicago Tribune_, also considered the question whether
he would be a candidate.  He advised with the late Hon. John R.
Tanner, asking him if he thought that he (Medill) could be elected
if he could secure the solid support of the Cook County delegation.
Mr. Tanner replied that he could not, that I had a sufficient number
of votes in the country outside of Cook to defeat every candidate;
whereupon he declined to consider the possibility of election at

The Hon. John R. Tanner managed my campaign.  He had served in the
Legislature, where he had been a very influential member, and was
then chairman of the State Central Committee.  He was popular and
possessed shrewd political sagacity.  Tanner was very loyal to me
then, and for many years I considered him my closest and most
devoted political friend.  I have always had the firm conviction
that if he had remained loyal and had supported me for re-election
in 1900, he would have been re-elected Governor himself, and would
have succeeded the late John M. Palmer as my colleague in the

The Legislature met in January, 1895.  I secured the caucus nomination,
and on January 22, in the joint session of the Thirty-ninth General
Assembly, I was elected the third time to succeed myself in the
United States Senate.

There were a number of very complimentary speeches made on that
occasion.  My old friend, the Hon. David T. Littler, who then
represented the Springfield District in the Senate, made the first
speech.  He began by saying:

"Mr. President:  Twelve years ago, from my seat as a member of the
Lower House of this General Assembly, I had the honor to place in
nomination as the candidate of the Republican party for the great
office of United States Senator, the Hon. Shelby M. Cullom.  I took
occasion at that time to predict that in the office to which he
had been elected he would show his usefulness and increase his
reputation not only among the people of our own State, but the
whole people of this country.  After the lapse of twelve years and
with his record perfectly familiar to the people of the whole
country, I ask you Senators whether my prediction has not been
fulfilled.  His name has been connected with every important measure
introduced in the United States Senate; and his discussion of
important questions there on many occasions testified as to his
patriotism and as to his ability as a statesman.  I take great
pleasure on this occasion to place in nomination for that high
office the same Shelby M. Cullom who has served the people of this
State so long and so creditably.  In doing so I believe I state
but the truth when I say he has the longest and most distinguished
record in public life of any man who ever lived in the State of

Speeches were made in the Senate by Senators Coon, Aspinwall, and
Mussett; and in the House of Representatives William J. Butler, of
Springfield, E. Callahan, George W. Miller, D. S. Berry, A. J.
Dougherty, J. E. Sharrock, and Charles E. Selby.

I was present in Springfield, and was invited before the joint
session of the General Assembly, after they had elected me, to
deliver an address.  I appeared before the joint session and
expressed my obligations to the members of the Thirty-sixth General
Assembly for the high honor conferred upon me.  I made a short
address, reviewing conditions in the State and the country generally,
and concluded by saying:

"The prosperity and happiness of the people depend upon wise and
just laws to be enacted both by the State and by the Nation.  In
the discharge of the high duty which you have just imposed upon
me, it shall be my single aim to dy my part in so shaping the policy
of the country, that we shall soon stand upon the high ground of
permanent prosperity.

"Gentlemen, it should be our ambition so to legislate that the
freedom and rights of every citizen shall be secured and respected;
that all interests shall be protected; that one portion of our
people shall not oppress another, and so that ample remedies shall
be found and applied for every existing wrong.  To this end an
enlarged humanity bids us look forward with renewed hope and trust."

My reference to the Hon. Joseph E. Medill in connection with this
contest reminds me that I should say something of Mr. Medill.  I
regarded him as one of the three really great editors of his day--
Horace Greeley, Henry Watterson, and Joe Medill.

He made _The Chicago Tribune_ one of the most influential newspapers
of the United States.  At time Medill and I were very friendly,
and he gave me his hearty support.  At other times he was against
me, but we always remained on speaking terms at least, and I admired
and respected him very much.

He was one of the most indefatigable and inveterate letter-writers
within my experience.  From the time I was Governor of Illinois,
and even before that, and almost to the time of his death, he wrote
me at great length upon every conceivable public question.  His
letters were always interesting, but as he did not avail himself
of a stenographer, and as he wrote a very difficult hand to read,
they became at times a trifle tiresome.  I have retained a large
number of his letters, and as they are so characteristic of the
man I venture to quote a few of them.

  "The Chicago Tribune, Editorial Rooms.
  "_Feb. 6, 1887_.

"Hon. S. M. Cullom,

"Dear Sir:--

"Well, he signed the bill, and it out of the woods.  All right so
far.  His signing it shows that he is a candidate for a second
term.  That was the test.  The next thing is the composition of
the Board of Commissioners.  The successful working of the law
depends upon the action of the Board.  There is an impression that
he will probably let you name one of the commissioners and Reagan
another.  If that be so, let me suggest among other names Mr. C.
M. Wicker, manager Chicago Freight Bureau, for the position.  You
probably know him.  He has had large experience in freighting, and
is widely known to both shippers and railroad men, and is well
liked.  He is a friend of the law, and supported it vigorously
while before Congress, writing some good letters in its explanation
and defence for _The Tribune_.  He is a sound Republican though
not much of a politician.  You may find other and better men to
recommend, but I don't think of any belonging to this State at this
moment.  I hear Judge Cooley's name mentioned.  He is of course a
first-class A No. 1 man, but I write on the hypothesis that your
preference will be for an Illinois man if you are allowed to have
a say in it.

"The passage of the bill is a great triumph for you, if the bill
works well.  People always judge of measures by their effect; hence
the act should have fair play.

"Now that it is safely in the shape of a law, I thought _The Tribune_
might indulge in a little horn-blowing as per enclosed article,

  "Yours truly,
  "(Signed) J. Medill."

  "Hotel Ponce de Leon,
  "St. Augustine, Fla.,
  "_March 13, 1888_.

"Hon. S. M. Cullom,

"My dear Sir:--

"I have just received your favor of 9 inst. and confess that I am
taken a little by surprise.  I had got the impression from various
quarters that you did not desire to secure the Illinois delegation,
and did not want to be considered a candidate.  Acting on this idea
_The Tribune_ has been leaning towards Gresham as an available
candidate, as you have noticed.  However, you have lost no ground
by standing in the shade.  If I was managing your boom I would keep
your name in the background and out of the newspapers as a candidate
seeking the nomination until the last.  A few strong judicious
friends among the Illinois delegation is all you want to watch
events and move quickly at the opportune moment, if it arrives.
I should say that on general principles you would be the second
choice of any set of Illinois delegates and the chances are all in
the direction of some second-choice candidate.  Harrison is likely
to have a pledged delegation from Indiana, but what good will it
do him?  Logan had a pledged delegation from Illinois; Sherman,
from Ohio; Windom, from Minn.; and Hawley, from Conn.  The convention
will be largely chiefly actuated and governed by the stability
idea.  Personal friendship won't count for much in that search for
the most available candidate.  This you see as clearly as I do.
Whatever Western man the New York delegates (or a majority of them)
favor will stand a good chance of getting it.  It is almost impossible
to figure out a victory without the electoral vote of New York.
Indiana and Connecticut would be absolutely indispensable in the
absence of New York.  But even then we have doubtful States that
voted for Blaine.  Michigan, for instance, and the three Pacific
Coast States, in case any such man as Sherman, Harrison, or Hawley,
who voted against restricting Chinese immigration, should be
nominated.  And then it remains to be seen what sort of action will
be had in Congress on tariff reduction.  If we are obliged to go
before the people defending the present tariff, that is breeding
trust monopolies all over the country, a nomination will not be
worth having.  High protection is a nice thing for those who pocket
it, but not so fascinating to the unprotected classes who have to
pay the big bounties out of their pockets sold at free trade prices.
All those things must be taken into consideration.  I am about
leaving Florida for home, either via Atlantic or Washington.  If
the latter, I shall see you when I get there, when we can talk over
the whole matter more fully than on paper.  All I can really say
is, I am peering about in the dark for the strongest candidate,
the most available man on an available platform, and even then we
shall have desperate hard work to win in the face of the immense
losses our party is suffering from the ravages in the rank and
file, committed by the prohibitionists.  We shall have to face a
loss of fifty thousand in New York.  How is that to be made good?
and twenty-five to thirty thousand in Illinois and five to seven
thousand in Indiana, and thirty thousand in Michigan.  How can we
stand this loss of blood and men?

  "(Signed) J. Medill."

  "Niagara Falls, N. Y.,
  "_Aug. 5, 1888_.

"My dear Sir:--

"Searching for a cool place I found it here, where I shall remain
a few days and then proceed to Kaetershill Mountain top, which is
the best hot-weather place I found last year.

"I take it for granted that none of your friends keep you posted
about the secret negotiations going on between Palmer and the
Socialistic Labor element for a fusion.  You have seen by _The
Tribune_ that all the labor element is not disposed to support
Palmer, in consideration of his pardoning the imprisoned anarchists.
You may rely on _The Tribune_ ventilating this unholy alliance.
At the same time there are ten thousand to twelve thousand of these
socialists who will vote for Palmer and the Democratic ticket in
Cook County; and this fusion may with the aid of the prohibitionists
cost the Republicans second seats in the Legislature, which is the
phase of the matter in which you are specially interested.  There
is considerable coldness among the Irish Catholics toward Cleveland,
but whether it will continue until election night remains to be
seen.  They think he is too pro-English, but they dislike Harrison.
Blaine was their ideal.

"I have spent a good deal of spare time to point out flaws and
tricks in the sugar and whiskey sections of the Mills bill.  The
latter really opens and invites universal evasion of taxes and the
multiplication of small moonshine distilleries; and the former
perpetuates the sugar trust profits and affords the public no

"The Republican members of the House did not expose these defects
enough.  Cannon did well on sugar, but nobody dissected the whiskey
section which bored gimlet holes into the bottom of every barrel
of high wine to let it out without paying a cent of tax.  The
Democrats are therefore the real free whiskeyites.  This ought to
be shown up thoroughly in the Senate.  Our miserable platform places
us on the defensive.  The Mills bill places the Democrats on the
defensive if it is rightly handled.  I do not mean attacking the
free wool part of it, for that portion if enacted would do your
constituents certainly ten or twenty times more good than harm,
nor the free lumber or free salt or free soap, etc., etc., which
would benefit all Illinois; but I mean fraud free sugar, and fraud
free whiskey, and a hundred per cent tax on rice--these are the
things to hit.  On these the Democrats are placed with their noses
on the grindstone.

"I have been reading the discussion in the Senate over your resolution
in regard to the competition of the Canadian railways with our
transcontinental railway freight charges.  It is well enough perhaps
to inquire into the matter, but I have a notion that the sharp
competition is of great benefit to the masses.  I know that I am
a little heterodox in looking at the interest of the consumers
instead of railroad plutocrats, of the millions instead of the
millionaires, but I can't help it.  Senator Gorman had much to say
in his speech about the undue advantage the Canadian roads had over
ours by reason of Government subsidies received in constructing
the Canadian railways, and to a line of steamers from Victoria to
Japan and Hongkong.  But his memory failed in the most astonishing
manner to recall and perceive the fact that all the American roads
west of the Mississippi to the Pacific have been enormously subsidized
by our Government.  In fact the subsidies amount to a good deal
more than the actual total cost of the construction of the whole
of them.  For twenty years some of these roads have been plundering
the American people by the most outrageous charges, and Congress,
the people's representatives, have not lifted a finger to stop the
rapacious robbery.  And now, when the Canadian road, built by
Government subsidies, begins to compete with the American roads
built with Government subsidies, the latter who have pocketed
hundreds of millions of subsidy spoils and overcharge plunder,
appeal to the Senate to protect the scoundrels against a little
healthy competition, and Senator Gorman pleads for the robbers on
the floor of the Senate with tears in his eyes!  So whatever extent
the competing Canadian roads cause our contiguous roads to lower
their freights so much the better for the public.  They act just
the same as competing waterways.  The Grand Trunk, beginning at
Chicago and running through Michigan to Sarma; crossing at Niagara
Falls and feeding the Lackawanna and Erie to New York; running to
Boston through Vermont, etc., and also to Montreal; and the Alden
line of steamers carrying cattle to England, as a healthy competition
with our pooling trunk lines east from Chicago, is of enormous
value to Chicago and all the shippers, cattle-dealers, grain-raises,
farmers, and merchants of half a dozen States in the Northwest.
Any interference with its competitive activity will harm millions
of Western people, tending as it will to increase cost of transportation
and re-establish trunk line pooling monopoly.

"So the competition of the Canadian transcontinental at the Red
River and at the '500' ensures cheaper freights for all Minnesota
and Dakota, and the effect extends clear down into Nebraska and
Iowa.  So, too, the Canadian road's rates at its Pacific terminal
--Victoria--are exercising a most beneficent and ameliorating
influence on the charges of the enormously subsidized Northern
Pacific, forcing down to a reasonable rate Pacific Coast; and as
it climbs down from its extortionate schedule of charges the Union
and Central and Southern and Santa Fe Pacifics will be forced to
do likewise.  I'd give something handsome to have had the opportunity
to reply for thirty minutes to Senator Gorman, to present the other
side of the question from the American standpoint.  On one point
I am in agreement with you, viz.:  that the British flag should be
removed from this continent.  This territory along our northern
border should be incorporated into the American Union.  It is
ridiculous that Uncle Sam should allow a foreign power to hold it.
We have as much need for it and right to it as England has for
Scotland.  If we had a respectable navy and a supply of fortification
guns the problem would be easy of solution, and won't be until then.

"Each day convinces me more and stronger that if we lose this
election McKinley--will be the cause.  They make the party say in
its platform 'Rather than surrender any part of our protective
system, the whiskey, tobacco, and oleomargarine excises shall be
repealed.'  The Democrats are making much capital out of this.
The tax on lumber and on salt are parts of our 'protective system.'
Now the Mc. plank discloses that rather than reduce the tax on
lumber, the Rep. party will repeal the tax on oleo butter.  How
many farmers' votes will that give us?  Rather than allow any
lowering of the high taxes on clothes, or salt, or lumber or
crockery, etc., the tax on whiskey must be repealed, and the old
evil era of cheap rotgut and still-houses everywhere shall be
restored!  Do you really think that position will make votes for
us this fall among the farmers?  The final outcome will probably
turn on the character of the Senate bill, of which I am not sanguine.
About two thousand millionaires run the policies of the Rep. party
and make its tariffs.  What modifications will they permit the Rep.
Senators to support?  We other thirty million of Republicans will
have precious little voice in the matter.  Turn this over in your
mind, and you will see that I am right.  Whatever duties protect
the two thousand plutocrats is protection to American industries.
Whatever don't is free trade.

  "(Signed) J. Medill."

  "The Windsor, N. Y.,
  "_Nov. 25, 1890_.

"Senator Cullom.

"Dear Sir:

"I did not think the blow would be a cyclone when I saw you just
before the election.  I knew that a storm was coming, but did not
dream that its severity would be so dreadful.

"The thing to do this Winter is to repeal the McKinley bill, and
strengthen the reciprocity scheme by giving Blaine the sugar duties
to work on--freeing no sugar before reciprocal equivalents are
secured from respective cane-sugar tropical countries; or (2) fail
to pass the chief appropriation bills, so that an extra session of
the Dem. Congress would be called, and that party must deal with
the tariff and be responsible for their action or failure to act;
or (3) pass the apn. bills; adjourn; next year, have the Senate
defeat the Dem. tariff bill, or the President veto it, and go before
the people in 1892 on the issue of standing by the McKinley bill
till overwhelmed and wiped out in Nov. of that year, as the Whigs
were in '52 when standing by the Forsythe-Stone Law of Fillmore
and Clay.

"The last course I presume is the one that will be pursued.  When
men who are statesmen of the Quay-Reid-McKinley calibre start in
wrong their pride keeps them in the same downward path till they
tumble the whole outfit into the bottomless pit.

"I do not consider a Presidential nomination for any man worth a
nickel on the issue of standing by the McKinley bill.  The fate of
Gen. Scott in '52 surely awaits him.

"Either of the other mentioned courses might give our party a
fighting chance.  But it won't get it, if the perverse members who
have landed us in the ditch have their way.

"Read the suggestions from the article in _The N. Y. Times_ for

  "Yours truly,
  "(Signed) J. Medill."

I was elected to the Senate, the fourth time, in January, 1901.
This time I had a very serious contest.  More opposition had
developed, and there were more strong men against me, than at any
previous election.  This was largely the outgrowth of the opposition
of the late Governor Tanner, who had just completed his term as
Governor of Illinois, and who had announced he would not be a
candidate for renomination, but would be a candidate to succeed
me.  I believe it was mainly through the efforts of Governor Tanner
and his friends that the Hon. Robert R. Hitt, the Hon. Joseph G.
Cannon, and the Hon. George W. Prince were induced to become
candidates, in the hope of weakening me in their respective districts.
I do not believe that either Mr. Hitt or Mr. Cannon was a party to
any particular scheme to defeat me.  They were candidates in good
faith, and aspired to the office of United States Senator, but
neither of them had any desire to defeat me unless he could get
the office himself.

The campaign continued for a year or more.  My friends were active,
as were the friends of Governor Tanner.  He had a horde of office-
holders whom he had given places while Governor, who had been more
or less actively working for him as my successor almost from the
very time that the Governor entered that office.  The bitter personal
attacks made on me by the Governor and his friends did not help
him, but tended rather to help me.

The preliminary contest was in the State Convention held at Peoria
in 1900.  There were a number of candidates for Governor before
that convention.  The Hon. Walter Reeves, the Hon. O. H. Carter,
and Judge Elbridge Hanecy were the leading aspirants.  My friends
had insisted that I should be endorsed for re-election by the State
Convention, and my friends controlled the organization of the
convention and elected the Hon. Charles G. Dawes temporary chairman
and the Hon. Joseph W. Fifer permanent chairman.

Governor Fifer has always been my friend, as I have always been
his.  He was a brave, gallant soldier in the Civil War, in which
he served as a private until he was so badly wounded that his life
was despaired of.  He has been forced to go through life under
exceptionally difficult circumstances, never fully recovering from
his wound.  He is entitled to far more than ordinary credit for
the success which he achieved in life.  He is an able lawyer, and
as State's Attorney he was one of the most vigorous of prosecutors.
He was nominated and elected Governor, and gave the State an honest
and capable administration.  He was renominated, but local questions
in the State, combined with the Democratic landslide of 1892,
resulted in his defeat.  President McKinley, on my recommendation,
appointed Governor Fifer a member of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, in which position he served with credit for some years.
He resigned voluntarily and returned to his home in Bloomington to
resume the practice of law.  I have always liked Governor Fifer,
and consider him one of the foremost citizens of the State living

Returning to the Peoria Convention, over which Governor Fifer
presided, I will only say that Mr. Reeves had the votes in that
convention to be nominated; but for reasons I do not have to discuss,
he did not secure the nomination, and the Hon. Richard Yates became
the nominee.  I was endorsed by the convention as the candidate of
the Republican party to succeed myself as United States Senator.
The opposition to me in the convention was by Governor Tanner and
his friends, he being the only avowed candidate against me.  I
thought that the endorsement of that convention should have settled
the matter; but the contest went on, and Messrs. Hitt, Cannon, and
Prince entered it actively.  Several others were standing around
waiting for a chance, and this continued to be the situation until
the Legislature met in January.  A sufficient number of the members
of the Legislature to elect me had pledged themselves in writing
to stand by me as long as I was a candidate.  The other candidates,
probably aside from Governor Tanner, did not believe I had these
written pledges.  I told them so, but they did not believe me.
Governor Tanner and his friends realized that I would have a majority
of the caucus, and they then began scheming for the purpose of
having a secret ballot in the caucus, hoping that if certain members
who had been pledged to me would not have to vote openly, they
would go back on the pledges and vote secretly for one of the other
candidates, thus defeating me.  I had enough votes to defeat the
secret ballot proposition, as many of the supporters of Tanner were
really in favor of my re-election.  Hon. Fred A. Busse, one of the
most influential members of the State Senate at that time, and more
recently Mayor of Chicago--one of the best the city ever had--and
who has long been my personal friend, was pledged to vote for the
Governor, but at heart was strongly for me.  With many others,
Busse would not consent to a secret caucus, and this really ended
the contest.  Tanner, after trying to induce the other candidates
to unite on him, or on some one else to defeat me (which proposition
Mr. Cannon and Mr. Hitt rejected), announced that he would withdraw.
Friends of the Governor in the Legislature came to me and announced
that Tanner had quit the race, and later Mr. Cannon and Mr. Hitt
came to my room and announced their withdrawal.

This ended the contest; my name was the only one presented to the
caucus, and I was the only Republican voted for in the joint session
of the Legislature.  It was an interesting fight, and as it may
well be supposed, the result was very satisfactory to my friends
and to me.

When I returned to Washington after having been re-elected, I was
warmly greeted by my colleagues in the Senate who had been watching
the contest; and I recollect that Senator Hanna was particularly
warm in his congratulations, and remarked that it was the prettiest
political fight he had witnessed in a long time.

I want to say something in reference to the Hon. Joseph G. Cannon,
who was a candidate against me at this time, and who is now, as he
has been for years past, the leading member of the Illinois

I regard him as my personal friend, and was very glad indeed to
support his candidacy for the Presidency in 1908, I being chairman
of the Illinois delegation to the Chicago convention that year.

At the time he entered the contest against me, he had long been
one of the leaders of the House of Representatives in Congress.
After refusing to enter the scheme of Governor Tanner to defeat
me, as I have stated, he retired from the contest, was soon re-
elected to Congress, and almost immediately elected as Speaker, in
which position he continued for a larger number of consecutive
terms than any statesman in our history.  He is a strong, courageous
man, and a man of splendid ability.  He had rather a stormy career
as Speaker, but he controlled the situation all the time.  During
his last term as Speaker he might have gotten along with the House
a little more smoothly, and at the same time just as satisfactorily
to himself, if he had yielded a little to his colleagues in his
party who differed from him.  If he had been disposed to do so,
much friction could have been avoided, and at the same time he
would have had his own way in caring for the interests of the
country.  I have believed in him and have stood by him through
thick and thin, and I know he has done nothing but what he himself
believed right.

Joseph G. Cannon has his own notions of what is right and what is
wrong, and fearlessly follows what he thinks is right, without
reference to what anybody else may think or say.  The apparently
determined effort on the part of the masses of the people, and
especially the newspapers, to discredit the Payne-Aldrich Tariff
Bill resulted in the Democrats carrying the House in the campaign
of 1910 with the result that in the Sixty-second Congress the
Democratic party has a substantial majority, causing the retirement
of Mr. Cannon from the Speakership.

For a time Mr. Cannon was apparently very unpopular and the people
seemed disposed to hold him responsible for much they did not
approve of in legislation; but his feeling is passing away, and
Mr. Cannon will be regarded as an able legislator, an able Speaker,
a man who has during his service in Congress saved the Government
untold millions.  His honesty and devotion to duty cannot be doubted,
and he will go down in history as one of the foremost leaders in
Congress of his day, when those who are now criticising him are

On January 16, 1907, I was by the Forty-fifth General Assembly
elected for the fifth time as United States Senator from the State
of Illinois.  This was an entirely different contest from any
previous one I had ever had, as the State had enacted a primary
law which contained a proviso that the names of candidates for
United States Senator could be placed on the ballot and voted for
at the primaries, but that such vote was advisory merely.  This is
as far as the primary law can go on the question of the election
of United States Senators.  I had not the slightest objection to
having my name go before the people, the individual voters, as a
candidate for the Senate.  The first primary law was declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the State, and as soon as
I heard the decision I promptly wired the Governor, commending him
for his announcement that he would call a special session of the
Legislature to enact a new primary law, and I took occasion to add
that I hoped by friends would work with him in the passage of the
law, and that it would provide for a vote on United States Senator.

The Legislature did enact a new law, providing that the primaries
be held in August, 1906.  Former Governor Richard Yates was the
only candidate against me.  He made a canvass of the State, and a
very thorough one.  He had a considerable advantage in that he had
almost all the politicians in the State who were holding State
offices actively working for him.  I made no canvass and personally
did very little about it at all.  I was willing to leave the matter
to the people, and determined, if it was a fair vote, to abide by
the result of the primaries, and if defeated at the primaries to
support Governor Yates.  I believe that Governor Yates had the same
determination,--at least his conduct after the primaries, in
withdrawing from the contest, would indicate that he had.  I am
glad to be able to say that throughout the contest and at its close,
he acted very fairly.  He made a straight, fair fight, and lost,
then abided by the result, just as I would have done had I lost.
My friends in different parts of the State took an active interest
in my behalf, for which I want to avail myself of this opportunity
to express to them my appreciation.  I might add here that all
during my public career it has been my good fortune to have the
support and friendship of a very high class of men, men whose honor
and integrity were beyond question, and who were capable of filling
any office.  I cannot undertake to name them, but I know that they
will understand the deep debt of gratitude that I owe to them.

It was very flattering to me that I carried the primaries by a
substantial majority, having carried the popular vote, a majority
of the Senatorial districts, and a majority of the Congressional
districts.  It demonstrated to me that the people had confidence
in me and were satisfied with my record as a Senator.  It was the
first time that I had been voted for directly by the people for
any office since my re-election as Governor in 1880.  The result
could not but be gratifying.

Every one in the State accepted the result of the primaries, and
the question was regarded as settled.  When the Legislature convened,
I was the unanimous choice of the Republican caucus and was voted
for by every Republican in the Legislature on joint ballot.  There
seemed to be no bitterness or hard feeling on the part of any one.

After the general election in November, I returned to Washington
to prepare for the session of Congress, and there was so much
important work before my committee and in the Senate generally,
that it seemed impossible for me to leave there in order to thank
the members of the Legislature for the high honor they had conferred
upon me.

I addressed a letter to the members of the Forty-fifth General
Assembly, which was read, and from which I will quote:

"I desire to express to the Republican members of the Forty-fifth
General Assembly my profound gratitude for your action in unanimously
declaring in favor of my re-election to again represent Illinois
in the United States Senate.

"In electing me to the United States Senate for five consecutive
terms, a greater distinction will be conferred by the State than
has been conferred upon any other man in the history of Illinois.

"I shall appreciate this election the more, because for the first
time the question of the selection of a United States Senator was
submitted to the people, and without any active campaign on my
part, the great majority of the voters declared me to be their

"Until the recent primaries, my name had not been submitted directly
to the voters of the State since I was re-elected Governor in 1880,
and it was no small gratification to me, after twenty-six years
had come and gone, to have this expression of continued confidence
and approval of my record as a Senator.

"I wish now to return my most sincere thanks to the people of the
State who have thus signally honored me.

"During the twenty-four years I have represented the State in the
Senate, I have endeavored to the best of my ability to perform my
whole duty to the country and the State, and the only pledge I can
make is, that I shall continue in the performance of my duty in
the future as in the past.

"I would prefer to have the pleasure of being present when a
Senatorial election takes place, in order to express personally to
the Legislature my appreciation; but there are so many important
questions to settle, and so much important legislation to enact
during the short session of Congress, ending as it does on March
4, that it has seemed to me to be more in accord with my duty to
remain in Washington in the performance of my official business.

"Your Legislature assembles this year in the midst of the greatest
era of prosperity that has ever prevailed in this country.  There
has never been a time in our history that we have had so long an
uninterrupted period of prosperity.  This prosperous and happy
condition has come as the result, in a large part, of Republican
rule and Republican policy.

"For nearly forty-five years the history of the United States has
been the history of the Republican party, because, with the exception
of two short periods, Republican administration has guided the
destinies of the Nation; and the achievements of Republican
administrations during those forty-five years constitute the greatest
record in our history, and that record is a complete defence of
the party against assaults from whatever quarter.

"We stand to-day at the head of all the Nations in the value of
imports and exports, and these maintain the prosperity our country
has enjoyed since the American people declared in favor of a
protective tariff and a sound-money standard.

"The people do not prosper under vicious government.  Good government
is essential to real prosperity, to properly develop and to advance
it.  The Republican party has always secured for the Nation stability,
confidence and prosperity at home, and respect and prestige abroad.

"We are to-day at peace with all the Nations of the world.  Perhaps
never before in our history have we had such intimate and friendly
relations with all the great Nations as we have to-day.  Our country
has the respect of all the Governments of the world, great and
small.  We are gradually assuming the first place among the naval
powers; but, unlike the older Nations, we are acquiring a great
navy in the interest of peace.  Under the policy of this Government,
such a navy is one of the surest assurances against war.  The
Nations know that the United States stands for peace, and under
Roosevelt's Republican administration, greater progress has been
made in the direction of international arbitration as a means of
settling disputes among nations than under any other previous
administration in our history.

"While the nations know that we stand for peace, they also know
that we will not tamely submit to the imposition of wrong, or to
offenses against our own honor and dignity, or to the oppression
of our sister republics in this Western world.  We have no desire
to rob these republics of their independence, or a single foot of
their territory.  Our recent action in Cuba has been an object
lesson to these republics, and to the world at large, of our
disinterested friendship.  As we have repeatedly assured them, our
only desire is that they shall follow us in peace and prosperity.

"The construction of the great canal across the isthmus of Panama
will bind them closer to us, and at the same time will almost double
our strength as a naval power.

"Too much credit cannot be given to President Roosevelt for the
great and wonderful results which he has accomplished in the interest
of the country, but the legislative branch of the Government has
done its full share.

"The record made during the last session of Congress in the enactment
of wise laws for the direct benefit of the people has not been
equalled since the Civil War--if at all, since the adoption of the

"I will not detain the caucus longer than to repeat my sincere
obligations to you and to express through you my thanks to the
people of the State, whose representatives you are, for the signal
honor that has been conferred upon me."


Generally I might say that I am quite content; but as I sit down
now in the evening time of my life, it is a source of sadness and
wonder to me that I have survived both my wives and all of my
children.  One by one I have laid them away in beautiful Oak Ridge
Cemetery, in Springfield, where I myself will one day be laid beside
them.  I have had a delightful home life; no man could have had a
more happy and peaceful one.  As I look back now, I cannot remember
that either wife or children ever caused me one moment's pain.  I
was twice married.  My first wife, Hannah M. Fisher, to whom I was
married in 1855, and who died in 1861, was of a very amiable spirit,
a woman of more than ordinary culture, and was the mother of my
first two children, Mrs. Ridgely and Mrs. Hardie, who lived to
womanhood, but both of whom have passed away.  My second wife,
Julia Fisher, was the sister of my first wife.  No better or truer
woman ever lived.  She was a devoted helpmate to me during all the
years that I have occupied high public office and needed the support
and help of a woman.  She did her full part and filled her place
on every occasion with dignity and propriety.  It seems that her
death is the last great sorrow I shall have to bear.

The memory of the children whom I lost in their infancy is naturally
dimmed by the passage of time, but it is hard for me to understand
the justice of things when I remember the death of my two daughters,
Ella, wife of William Barret Ridgely, and Carrie, wife of Robert
Gordon Hardie, who were taken just in the very prime of womanhood,
just in the most beautiful period of a woman's life, and just at
a time when they had the most to live for.

As I think of it now, I do not know where I obtained the strength
to survive all these sorrows.  I have no great fear of death, except
the natural dread of the physical pain which usually accompanies
it.  I certainly wish beyond any words I have power to express that
I could have greater assurance that there will be a reuniting with
those we love and those who have loved us in some future world;
but from my reading of Scripture, and even admitting that there is
a hereafter, I cannot find any satisfactory evidence to warrant
such a belief.  Could I believe that I should meet the loved ones
who have gone before, I do not know but that I should look forward
with pleasure to the "passing across."  Not having this belief, I
am quite content to stay where I am as long as I can; and finally,
when old Charon appears to row me over the river Styx, I shall be
ready to go.

INDEX [omitted]

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Fifty Years of Public Service" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.