Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet

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

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: Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet - An Autobiography.
Author: Sherman, John
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet - An Autobiography." ***

Transcriber's note:

The dieresis is transcribed by a preceding hyphen. "Employe" is
replaced by "employee". The author's capitalization and spelling
are followed when consistent, but probable mistakes of the typesetter
have been corrected.

The right brackets (}) in the heading of quoted letters
represent a single bracket grouping those lines in the book, which
indicates a typeset heading on the stationery used.

LoC call number: E664.S57 1968

JOHN SHERMAN'S
RECOLLECTIONS
OF
FORTY YEARS
IN
THE HOUSE, SENATE AND CABINET.
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

VOLUME I.

ILLUSTRATED
WITH PORTRAITS, FAC-SIMILE LETTERS, SCENES, ETC.

GREENWOOD PRESS, PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK 1968

SHERMAN BOOK.

First Greenwood reprinting, 1968

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS catalogue card number: 68-28647

Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE

These Recollections grew out of a long deferred purpose to publish
a selection of my speeches on public questions, but in collecting
them it became manifest that they should be accompanied or preceded
by a statement of the circumstances that attended their delivery.
The attempt to furnish such a statement led to a review of the
chief events of my public life, which covers the period extending
from 1854 to the present time. The sectional trouble that preceded
the Civil War, the war itself with all its attendant horrors and
sacrifices, the abolition of slavery, the reconstruction measures,
and the vast and unexampled progress of the republic in growth and
development since the war, presented a topic worthy of a better
historian than I am. Still, as my life was interwoven with these
events, I concluded that it was better that I state my recollection
of what I saw or heard or did in those stirring times rather than
what I said. Whether this conclusion was a wise one the reader must
judge. Egotism is a natural trait of mankind. If it is exhibited
in a moderate degree we pardon it with a smile; if it is excessive
we condemn it as a weakness. The life of one man is but an atom,
but if it is connected with great events it shares in their dignity
and importance. Influenced by this reasoning I concluded to postpone
the publication of my speeches except so far as they are quoted or
described in these memoirs.

When I entered upon their preparation the question arose whether
the book to be written was to be of my life, including ancestry
and boyhood, or to be confined to the financial history of the
United States with which I was mainly identified. This was settled
by the publishers, who were more interested in the number of copies
they could sell than in the finances of the United States.

Every man has a theory of finance of his own, and is indifferent
to any other. At best the subject is a dry one. Still, the problem
of providing money to carry on the expensive operations of a great
war, and to provide for the payment of the vast debt created during
the war, was next in importance to the conduct of armies, and those
who were engaged in solving this problem were as much soldiers as
the men who were carrying muskets or commanding armies. As one of
these I feel it my duty to present the measures adopted and to
claim for them such merit as they deserve.

These volumes do contain the true history of the chief financial
measures of the United States government during the past forty
years. My hope is that those who read them will be able to correct
the wild delusions of many honest citizens who became infected with
the "greenback craze," or the "free coinage of silver."

My chief regret is that the limit of these volumes did not permit
me to extend my narrative to the memorable battles and marches of
the Civil War, nor to a more general notice of my associates who
distinguished themselves in civil life. The omission of military
narrative is admirably compensated by the memoirs of the great
commanders on either side, and better yet by the vast collection
and publication, by the United States, of the "Records of the
Rebellion." The attempt to include in these volumes my estimate
of distinguished men still living who participated in the events
narrated would greatly extend them and might lead to injustice.

One of the fortunate results of the Civil War has been to diminish
the sectional prejudice that previously existed both in the north
and in the south. I would not check this tendency, but will gladly
contribute in every way possible to a hearty union of the people
in all sections of our country, not only in matters of government,
but also in ties of good will, mutual respect and fraternity. The
existence of slavery in some of the states was the cause of the
war, and its abolition was the most important result of the war.
So great a change naturally led to disorder and violence where
slavery had existed, but this condition, it is believed, is passing
away. Therefore I have not entered in detail into the measures
adopted as the result of the abolition of slavery.

This preface is hardly necessary, but I comply with the general
custom of adding at the beginning, instead of the end, an apology
for writing a book. This seems to me to be the chief object of a
preface, and I add to it an appeal for the kindly consideration of
the readers of these volumes.

John Sherman.
Mansfield, Ohio, August 30, 1895.

ILLUSTRATIONS
VOLUME I.

John Sherman
Dedham Street, Dedham, Essex County, England
Birthplace of John Sherman at Lancaster, Ohio
Mr. Sherman at the Age of Nineteen
Charles T. Sherman
First Court House at Mansfield, Ohio
Mr. Sherman's First Home in Mansfield, Ohio
Kansas Investigating Committee
Mr. Sherman at the Age of Thirty-five
Mr. Sherman's First Residence in Washington, D. C.
Senator Justin S. Morrill
Abraham Lincoln
General W. T. Sherman
Three Ohio Governors--Dennison, Tod, Brough
Colfax, Douglas, Fessenden, Ewing (Group.)
Edwin M. Stanton
U. S. Grant
United States Senators--43rd Congress
Mr. Sherman's Present Residence at Mansfield, Ohio
Library of Mr. Sherman's Mansfield Residence

AUTOGRAPH LETTERS
VOLUME I.

Certificate of Admission to Practice in Supreme Court, January 21,
1852
T. Ewing, December 31, 1848
Wm. H. Seward, September 20, 1852
Certificate of Election as United States Representative, December
9, 1854
Justin S. Morrill, April 1, 1861
W. B. Allison, March 23, 1861
John A. Dix, February 6, 1861
Simon Cameron, November 14, 1861
Edwin M. Stanton, December 7, 1862
Horace Greeley, February 7, 1865
Thurlow Weed, February 28, 1866
Schuyler Colfax, February 17, 1868
Vote on the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, May 16, and 26, 1868
U. S. Grant, June 14, 1871
M. H. Carpenter, July 20, 1871
Roscoe Conkling, October 13, 1871
J. A. Garfield, September 25, 1874
R. B. Hayes, June 19, 1876
R. B. Hayes, February 19, 1877
Cyrus W. Field, March 6, 1877
Wm. M. Evarts, August 30, 1877

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOLUME I.

CHAPTER I.
ANCESTRY OF THE SHERMAN FAMILY.
Family Name is of Saxon Origin--"Conquer Death by Virtue"--Arrival
of Rev. John Sherman at Boston in 1634--General Sherman's Reply to
an English Sexton--Career of Daniel Sherman--My First Visit to
Woodbury--"Sherman's Tannery"--Anecdote of "Uncle Dan"--Sketch of
My Father and Mother--Address to Enlisting Soldiers--General Reese's
Account of My Father's Career--Religion of the Sherman Family--My
Belief.

CHAPTER II.
MY BOYHOOD DAYS AND EARLY LIFE.
Born at Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823--Death of My Father and Its
Effect on Our Family--Early Days at School--A Dead Sheep in the
Schoolroom--Lesson in Sunday Sport--Some of My Characteristics--My
Attack on the Schoolmaster--Robbing an Orchard--A Rodman at Fourteen
and My Experiences While Surveying--Debates at Beverly--Early Use
of Liquor--First Visit to Mansfield in 1839--The Famous Campaign
of 1840--I Begin the Study of Law.

CHAPTER III.
OHIO, ITS HISTORY AND RESOURCES.
Occupation by the Indians--Washington's Expedition to the Head of
the Ohio River--Commencement of the History of the State--Topography,
Characteristics, etc., in 1787--Arrival of the First Pioneers--The
Treaty of Greenville--Census of 1802 Showed a Population of 45,028
Persons--Occupation of the "Connecticut Reserve"--Era of Internal
Improvement--Value of Manufactures in 1890--Vast Resources of the
Buckeye State--Love of the "Ohio Man" for His Native State.

CHAPTER IV.
ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND EARLY POLITICAL LIFE.
Law Partnership with my Brother Charles--Change in Methods of Court
Practice--Obtaining the Right of Way for a Railroad--Excitement of
the Mexican War and its Effect on the Country--My First Visit to
Washington--At a Banquet with Daniel Webster--New York Fifty Years
Ago--Marriage with Margaret Cecilia Stewart--Beginning of My
Political Life--Belief in the Doctrine of Protection--Democratic
and Whig Conventions of 1852--The Slavery Question--My Election to
Congress in 1854.

CHAPTER V.
EARLY DAYS IN CONGRESS.
My First Speech in the House--Struggle for the Possession of Kansas
--Appointed as a Member of the Kansas Investigating Committee--The
Invasion of March 30, 1855--Exciting Scenes in the Second District
of Kansas--Similar Violence in Other Territorial Districts--Return
and Report of the Committee--No Relief Afforded the People of Kansas
--Men of Distinction in the 34th Congress--Long Intimacy with
Schuyler Colfax.

CHAPTER VI.
BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The Name Formally Adopted at Jackson, Michigan, in 1854--Nomination
of John C. Fremont at Philadelphia--Democratic Convention Nominates
James Buchanan--Effect of the Latter's Election on the North--My
Views Concerning President Pierce and His Administration--French
Spoilation Claims--First Year of Buchanan's Administration--Dred
Scott Case Decision by Supreme Court--The Slavery Question Once
More an Issue in Congress--Douglas' Opposition to the Lecompton
Scheme--Turning Point of the Slavery Controversy.

CHAPTER VII.
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL PANIC OF 1857.
Its Effect on the State Banks--My Maiden Speech in Congress on
National Finances--Appointed a Member of the Committee on Naval
Affairs--Investigation of the Navy Department and its Results--Trip
to Europe with Mrs. Sherman--We Visit Bracklin's Bridge, Made Famous
by Sir Walter Scott--Ireland and the Irish--I Pay a Visit to
Parliament and Obtain Ready Admission--Notable Places in Paris
Viewed With Senator Sumner--The Battlefield of Magenta--Return Home.

CHAPTER VIII.
EXCITING SCENES IN CONGRESS.
I am Elected for the Third Term--Invasion of Virginia by John Brown
--His Trial and Execution--Spirited Contest for the Speakership--
Discussion over Helper's "Impending Crisis"--Angry Controversies
and Threats of Violence in the House--Within Three Votes of Election
as Speaker--My Reply to Clark's Attack--Withdrawal of my Name and
Election of Mr. Pennington--Made Chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means--President Buchanan Objects to Being "Investigated"--
Adoption of the Morrill Tariff Act--Views Upon the Tariff Question
--My Colleagues.

CHAPTER IX.
LAST DAYS OF THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION.
My First Appearance Before a New York Audience--Lincoln's Nomination
at the Chicago Convention--I Engage Actively in the Presidential
Canvass--Making Speeches for Lincoln--My Letter to Philadelphia
Citizens--Acts of Secession by the Southern States--How the South
was Equipped by the Secretary of the Navy--Buchanan's Strange
Doctrine Regarding State Control by the General Government--Schemes
"To Save the Country"--My Reply to Mr. Pendleton on the Condition
of the Impending Revolution--The Ohio Delegation in the 36th Congress
--Retrospection.

CHAPTER X.
THE BEGINNING OF LINCOLN'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
Arrival of the President-Elect at Washington--Impressiveness of
His Inaugural Address--I am Elected Senator from Ohio to Succeed
Salmon P. Chase--Letters Written to and Received from My Brother
William Tecumseh--His Arrival at Washington--A Dark Period in the
History of the Country--Letter to General Sherman on the Attack
Upon Fort Sumter--Departure for Mansfield to Encourage Enlistments
--Ohio Regiments Reviewed by the President--General McLaughlin
Complimented--My Visit to Ex-President Buchanan--Meeting Between
My Brother and Colonel George H. Thomas.

CHAPTER XI.
SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE WAR.
Condition of the Treasury Immediately Preceding the War--Not Enough
Money on Hand to Pay Members of Congress--Value of Fractional Silver
of Earlier Coinage--Largely Increased Revenues an Urgent Necessity
--Lincoln's Message and Appeal to the People--Issue of New Treasury
Notes and Bonds--Union Troops on the Potomac--Battle of Bull Run--
Organization of the "Sherman Brigade"--The President's Timely Aid
--Personnel of the Brigade.

CHAPTER XII.
PASSAGE OF THE LEGAL TENDER ACT IN 1862.
My Interview with Lincoln About Ohio Appointments--Governmental
Expenses Now Aggregating Nearly $2,000,000 Daily--Secretary Chase's
Annual Report to Congress in December, 1861--Treasury Notes a Legal
Tender in Payment of Public and Private Debts--Beneficial Results
from the Passage of the Bill--The War Not a Question of Men, but
of Money--Proposed Organization of National Banks--Bank Bills Not
Taxed--Local Banks and Their Absorption by the Government--The 1862
Issue of $150,000,000 in "Greenbacks"--Legal Tender Act a Turning
Point in Our Financial History--Compensation of Officers of the
Government.

CHAPTER XIII.
ABOLISHMENT OF THE STATE BANKS.
Measures Introduced to Tax Them out of Existence--Arguments That
Induced Congress to Deprive Them of the Power to Issue Their Bills
as Money--Bill to Provide a National Currency--Why Congress Authorized
an Issue of $400,000,000, of United States Notes--Issue of 5-20
and 10-40 Bonds to Help to Carry on the War--High Rates of Interest
Paid--Secretary Chase's Able Management of the Public Debt--Our
Internal Revenue System--Repeal of the Income Tax Law--My Views on
the Taxability of Incomes.

CHAPTER XIV.
LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
Slavery in the District of Columbia Abolished--Law Goes Into Effect
on April 10, 1862--Beginning of the End of Slavery--Military Measures
in Congress to Carry on the War--Response to the President's Call
--Beneficial Effects of the Confiscation Act--Visits to Soldiers'
Camps--Robert S. Granger as a Cook--How I Came to Purchase a
Washington Residence--Increase of Compensation to Senators and
Members and Its Effect--Excitement in Ohio over Vallandigham's
Arrest--News of the Fall of Vicksburg and Defeat of Lee at Gettysburg
--John Brough Elected Governor of Ohio--Its Effect on the State.

CHAPTER XV.
A MEMORABLE SESSION OF CONGRESS.
Dark Period of the War--Effect of the President's Proclamation--
Revenue Bill Enacted Increasing Internal Taxes and Adding Many New
Objects of Taxation--Additional Bonds Issued--General Prosperity
in the North Following the Passage of New Financial Measures--Aid
for the Union Pacific Railroad Company--Land Grants to the Northern
Pacific--13th Amendment to the Constitution--Resignation of Secretary
Chase--Anecdote of Governor Tod of Ohio--Nomination of William P.
Fessenden to Succeed Chase--The Latter Made Chief Justice--Lincoln's
Second Nomination--Effect of Vallandigham's Resolution--General
Sherman's March to the Sea--Second Session of the 38th Congress.

CHAPTER XVI.
ASSASSINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Johnson's Maudlin Stump Speech in the Senate--Inauguration of
Lincoln for the Second Term--My Trip to the South--Paying off a
Church Debt--Meetings to Celebrate the Success of the Union Army--
News of the Death of Lincoln--I Attend the Funeral Services--General
Johnston's Surrender to General Sherman--Controversy with Secretary
Stanton Over the Event--Review of 65,000 Troops in Washington--Care
of the Old Soldiers--Annual Pension List of $150,000,000--I am Re-
elected to the Senate--The Wade-Davis Bill--Johnson's Treatment of
Public Men--His Veto of the Civil Rights Bill--Reorganization of
the Rebel States and Their Final Restoration to the Union.

CHAPTER XVII.
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1865.
Organization of the Greenback Party--Total Debt on October 31st
amounts to $2,805,549,437.55--Secretary McCulloch's Desire to
Convert All United States Notes into Interest Bearing Bonds--My
Discussion with Senator Fessenden Over the Finance Committee's Bill
--Too Great Powers Conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury--His
Desire to Retire $10,000,000 of United States Notes Each Month--
Growth of the Greenback Party--The Secretary's Powers to Reduce
the Currency by Retiring or Canceling United States Notes is
Suspended--Bill to Reduce Taxes and Provide Internal Revenue--My
Trip to Laramie and Other Western Forts with General Sherman--
Beginning of the Department of Agriculture.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THREE MONTHS IN EUROPE.
Short Session of Congress Convened March 4, 1867--I Become Chairman
of the Committee on Finance, Succeeding Senator Fessenden--Departure
for Europe--Winning a Wager from a Sea Captain--Congressman Kasson's
Pistol--Under Surveillance by English Officers--Impressions of John
Bright, Disraeli and Other Prominent Englishmen--Visit to France,
Belgium, Holland and Germany--An Audience with Bismarck--His Sympathy
with the Union Cause--Wonders of the Paris Exposition--Life in
Paris--Presented to the Emperor Napoleon III and the Empress Eugenie
--A Dinner at the Tuileries--My Return Home--International Money
Commission in Session at Paris--Correspondence with Commissioner
Ruggles--His Report--Failure to Unify the Coinage of Nations--
Relative Value of Gold and Silver.

CHAPTER XIX.
IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON.
Judiciary Committee's Resolution Fails of Adoption by a Vote of 57
Yeas to 108 Nays--Johnson's Attempt to Remove Secretary Stanton
and Create a New Office for General Sherman--Correspondence on the
Subject--Report of the Committee on Impeachment, and Other Matters
Pertaining to the Appointment of Lorenzo Thomas--Impeachment
Resolution Passed by the House by a Vote of 126 Yeas to 47 Nays--
Johnson's Trial by the Senate--Acquittal of the President by a Vote
of 35 Guilty to 19 Not Guilty--Why I Favored Conviction--General
Schofield Becomes Secretary of War--"Tenure of Office Act."

CHAPTER XX.
THE FORTIETH CONGRESS.
Legislation During the Two Years--Further Reduction of the Currency
by the Secretary Prohibited--Report of the Committee of Conference
--Bill for Refunding the National Debt--Amounted to $2,639,382,572.68
on December 1, 1867--Resumption of Specie Payments Recommended--
Refunding Bill in the Senate--Change in My Views--Debate Participated
in by Nearly Every Senator--Why the Bill Failed to Become a Law--
Breach Between Congress and the President Paralyzes Legislation--
Nomination and Election of Grant for President--His Correspondence
with General Sherman.

CHAPTER XXI.
BEGINNING OF GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION.
His Arrival at Washington in 1864 to Take Command of the Armies of
the United States--Inaugural Address as President--"An Act to
Strengthen the Public Credit"--Becomes a Law on March 19, 1869--
Formation of the President's Cabinet--Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution--Bill to Fund the Public Debt and Aid in the Resumption
of Specie Payments--Bill Finally Agreed to by the House and Senate
--A Redemption Stipulation Omitted--Reduction of the Public Debt--
Problem of Advancing United States Notes to Par with Coin.

CHAPTER XXII.
OUR COINAGE BEFORE AND AFTER THE WAR.
But Little Coin in Circulation in 1869--General Use of Spanish
Pieces--No Mention of the Dollar Piece in the Act of 1853--Free
Circulation of Gold After the 1853 Act--No Truth in the "Demonetization"
Charge--Account of the Bill Revising the Laws Relative to the Mint,
Assay Offices and Coinage of the United States--Why the Dollar was
Dropped from the Coins--Then Known Only as a Coin for the Foreign
Market--Establishment of the "Trade Dollar"--A Legal Tender for
Only Five Dollars--Repeated Attempts to Have Congress Pass a Free
Coinage Act--How It Would Affect Us--Controversy Between Senator
Sumner and Secretary Fish.

CHAPTER XXIII.
SOME EVENTS IN MY PRIVATE LIFE.
Feuds and Jealousies During Grant's Administration--Attack on Me
by the Cincinnati "Enquirer"--Reply and Statement Regarding My
Worldly Possessions--I Am Elected to the Senate for the Third Term
--Trip to the Pacific with Colonel Scott and Party--Visit to the
Yosemite Valley--San Diego in 1872--Return via Carson City and Salt
Lake--We call on Brigham Young--Arrival Home to Enter Into the
Greeley-Grant Canvass--Election of General Grant for the Second
Term.

CHAPTER XXIV.
THE PANIC OF 1873 AND ITS RESULTS.
Failure of Jay Cooke and Co.--Wild Schemes "for the Relief of the
People"--Congress Called Upon for Help--Finance Committee's Report
for the Redemption of United States Notes in Coin--Extracts from
my Speech in Favor of the Report--Bill to Fix the Amount of United
States Notes--Finally Passed by the Senate and House--Vetoed by
President Grant and Failure to Pass Over His Objection--General
Effect Throughout the Country of the Struggle for Resumption--
Imperative Necessity for Providing Some Measure of Relief.

CHAPTER XXV.
BILL FOR THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS.
Decline in Value of Paper Money--Meeting of Congress in December,
1874--Senate Committee of Eleven to Formulate a Bill to Advance
United States Notes to Par in Coin--Widely Differing Views of the
Members--Redemption of Fractional Currency Readily Agreed to--Other
Sections Finally Adopted--Means to Prepare for and Maintain Resumption
--Report of the Bill by the Committee on Finance--Its Passage by
the Senate by a Vote of 32 to 14--Full Text of the Measure and an
Explanation of What It Was Expected to Accomplish--Approval by the
House and the President.

CHAPTER XXVI.
RESUMPTION ACT RECEIVED WITH DISFAVOR.
It Is Not Well Received by Those Who Wished Immediate Resumption
of Specie Payments--Letter to "The Financier" in Reply to a Charge
That It Was a "Political Trick," etc.--The Ohio Canvass of 1875--
Finance Resolutions in the Democratic and Republican Platforms--R.
B. Hayes and Myself Talk in Favor of Resumption--My Recommendation
of Him for President--A Democrat Elected as Speaker of the House--
The Senate Still Republican--My Speech in Support of Specie Payments
Made March 6, 1876--What the Financial Policy of the Government
Should Be.

CHAPTER XXVII.
MY CONFIDENCE IN THE SUCCESS OF RESUMPTION.
Tendency of Democratic Members of Both Houses to Exaggerate the
Evil Times--Debate Over the Bill to Provide for Issuing Silver Coin
in Place of Fractional Currency--The Coinage Laws of the United
States and Other Countries--Joint Resolution for the Issue of Silver
Coins--The "Trade Dollar" Declared Not to Be a Legal Tender--My
Views on the Free Coinage of Silver--Bill to Provide for the
Completion of the Washington Monument--Resolution Written by Me on
the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence--Unanimously
Passed in a Day by Both Houses--Completion of the Structure Under
the Act.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HAYES-TILDEN PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST.
Nomination of R. B. Hayes for President--His Fitness for the
Responsible Office--Political Shrewdness of Samuel J. Tilden, His
Opponent--I Enter Actively Into the Canvass in Ohio and Other States
--Frauds in the South--Requested by General Grant to Go to New
Orleans and Witness the Canvassing of the Vote of Louisiana--
Departure for the South--Personnel of the Republican and Democratic
"Visitors"--Report of the Returning Board--My Letter to Governor
Hayes from New Orleans--President Grant's Last Message to Congress
--Letter from President Hayes--Request to Become his Secretary of
the Treasury.

CHAPTER XXIX.
I BEGIN MY DUTIES AS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
Legislative Training of Great Advantage to Me in My New Position--
Loan Contract in Force When I Took the Portfolio--Appointment of
Charles F. Conant as Funding Agent of the Treasury Department in
London--Redeeming Called Bonds--Sale of Four Per Cent. Bonds Instead
of Four and a Half Per Cents.--Popularity of the New Loan--Great
Saving in Interest--On a Tour of Inspection Along the Northern
Atlantic Coast--Value of Information Received on This Trip--Effect
of the Baltimore and Pittsburg Railroad Strikes in 1877 Upon Our
Public Credit.

CHAPTER XXX.
POLICY OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION.
Reception at My Home in Mansfield--Given by Friends Irrespective
of Party--Introduced by My Old Friend and Partner, Henry C. Hedges
--I Reply by Giving a Résumé of the Contests in South Carolina and
Louisiana to Decide Who Was Governor--Positions Taken by Presidents
Grant and Hayes in These Contests--My Plans to Secure the Resumption
of Specie Payments--Effects of a Depreciated Currency--Duties of
the Secretary of the Treasury--Two Modes of Resuming--My Mansfield
Speech Printed Throughout the Country and in England--Letters to
Stanley Matthews and General Robinson--Our Defeat in Ohio--An Extra
Session of Congress--Bills Introduced to Repeal the Act Providing
for the Resumption of Specie Payments--They All Fail of Passage--
Popular Subscription of Bonds All Paid for.

The family name of Sherman is, no doubt, of Saxon origin. It is
very common along the Rhine, and in different parts of the German
Empire. It is there written Shearmann or Schurmann. I found it
in Frankfort and Berlin. The English Shermans lived chiefly in
Essex and Suffolk counties near the east coast, and in London.
The name appears frequently in local records. One Sherman was
executed for taking the unsuccessful side in a civil war. It was
not until the beginning of the 16th century that any of the name
assumed the arms, crest, and motto justified by their pride, property
or standing. The motto taken, "Conquer Death by Virtue," is a
rather meaningless phrase. It is modest enough, and indicates a
religious turn of mind. Nearly every family of the name furnished
a preacher. A few members of it attained the dignity of knighthood.
A greater number became landed property-holders, and more were
engaged in trade in London. Sir Henry Sherman was one of the
executors of the will of Lord Stanley, Earl of Derby, May 23, 1521.
William Sherman, Esq., purchased Knightston in the time of Henry
VIII; and a monument to him is in Ottery St. Mary, dated 1542. As
a rule the family belonged to the middle class and were engaged in
active occupations, earning their own bread, with a strong sense of
their rights and liberties as Englishmen.

The principal family of the name in the 16th century were the
Shermans of Yaxley in the county of Suffolk, a full detail of which
is given in Davy's Collections of that county. Edmond Sherman,
my ancestor, was a member of this family. He was born in 1585 and
was married to Judith Angier, May 26, 1611. He resided at Dedham,
Essex county, England, then a place of some importance. He was a
manufacturer of cloth, a man of means and high standing. He was
a Puritan, with all the faults and virtues of a sectary. He resisted
ship-money and the tax unlawfully imposed on tonnage and poundage.
He had the misfortune to live at the time when Charles I undertook
to dispense with Parliament, and to impose unlawful taxes and
burdens upon the people of England, and when the privileges of the
nobility were enforced with great severity by judges dependent upon
the crown. He had three sons, John, baptized on the 4th of January,
1614; Edmond, baptized June 18, 1616, and Samuel, baptized July
12, 1618. He had a nephew, known as "Captain John," somewhat older
than his sons, who was an active man in 1634.

At this time the migration to Boston, caused chiefly by the tyranny
of Charles I, was in active operation. Hume, in his history, says:

"The Puritans, restrained in England, shipped themselves off for
America, and laid there the foundations of a government which
possessed all the liberty, both civil and religious, of which they
found themselves bereaved in their native country. But their
enemies, unwilling that they should anywhere enjoy ease and
contentment, and dreading, perhaps, the dangerous consequences of
so disaffected a colony, prevailed on the king to issue a proclamation,
debarring those devotees access, even into those inhospitable
deserts. Eight ships, lying in the Thames, and ready to sail, were
detained by order of the council; and in there were embarked Sir
Arthur Hazelrig, John Hampden, John Pym, and Oliver Cromwell, who
had resolved, forever, to abandon their native country, and fly to
the other extremity of the globe; where they might enjoy lectures
and discourses, of any length or form, which pleased them. The
king had afterward full leisure to repent this exercise of
authority."

It appears that, influenced the same motives, Edmond Sherman
determined to remove his family, with his nephew, "Captain John,"
to Boston. In one statement made in respect to them it is said
that the father and his three sons and nephew embarked for Boston,
but this is doubtful. It is certain, however, that his son, Rev.
John Sherman and his son Samuel, and his nephew "Captain John,"
did go to Boston in 1634. It is quite as certain that if they were
accompanied by their father and their brother Edmond, that the two
latter returned again to Dedham in 1636. Edmond Sherman, senior,
lived and died at Dedham. One of his descendants, Rev. Henry Beers
Sherman, a few years ago visited Dedham and there found one of the
church windows of stained glass bearing the initials of Edmond
Sherman as having been his gift, and the record shows that one of
the buttresses of the church was erected at his expense. Mr. Henry
Beers Sherman there saw the pupils of a free school, endowed by
Edmond Sherman and still in operation, attending the church in
procession.

When in London, in the summer of 1889, I concluded to make a visit
to "the graves of my ancestors." I examined Black's Universal
Atlas to locate Dedham, but it was not to be found. I made inquiries,
but could discover no one who knew anything about Dedham, and
concluded there was no such place, although I had often read of
it. I was compelled, therefore, to give up my visit.

Senator Hoar, a descendant, through his mother, of Roger Sherman
of Revolutionary fame, was more fortunate or more persistent than
I, for he subsequently found Dedham and verified the accounts we
had of our common ancestor, and procured photographs, copies of
which I have, of the monument of Edmond Sherman, of the church near
which he was buried, and of the handsome school building, still
called "the Sherman Library," that he had left by his will for the
youth of Dedham, with a sufficient annuity to support it. Dedham
is but two or three miles from Manningtree, a more modern town on
the line of railroad, which has substantially obscured the ancient
and decayed village of Dedham.

The sexton of this church wrote General Sherman soon after he had
become distinguished as a military leader, calling his attention
to the neglected monument of his ancestor, Edmond Sherman, in the
churchyard, and asking a contribution for its repair. The general
sent a reply to the effect that, as his ancestor in England had
reposed in peace under a monument for more than two centuries,
while some of his more recent ancestors lay in unmarked graves, he
thought it better to contribute to monuments for them here and
leave to his English cousins the care of the monuments of their
common ancestors in England. This letter is highly prized by the
sexton and has been shown to visitors, among others to Senator
Hoar, as a characteristic memento of General Sherman.

Captain John Sherman, "Captain John," soon after his arrival in
Boston, settled in Watertown, Mass., where he married and had a
large family of children. Among his descendants was Roger Sherman
of the Revolution, by far the most distinguished man of the name.
He had the good fortune to contribute to and sign the three most
important papers of American history, the "Address to the King,"
the "Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution of the
United States." Among other descendants of Captain John Sherman
were Hon. Roger Minot Sherman, of New Haven, a nephew of Roger
Sherman, a distinguished lawyer and a leading participant in the
Hartford Convention. William M. Evarts, George F. Hoar and Chauncey
M. Depew are descendants of Roger Sherman or of his brother.

Rev. John Sherman, the eldest son of Edmond Sherman, was born on
the 26th of December, 1613, at Dedham, England. He graduated at
Immanuel College, Cambridge, left college a Puritan and came over
to America in 1634, as above stated. He preached his first sermon
at Watertown, Massachusetts, under a tree, soon after his arrival
in this country. In a few weeks he went to New Haven, Connecticut,
and preached in several places, but finally settled at Watertown,
where he had a large family of children. His numerous descendants
are well distributed throughout the United States, but most of them
in the State of New York.

Samuel Sherman, the youngest son of Edmond Sherman, is the ancestor
of the family to which I belong. At the age of sixteen years he
came with his brother, Rev. John and his cousin "Captain John," in
April, 1634, in the ship "Elizabeth" from Ipswich, and arrived in
Boston in June, and for a time settled in Watertown, Massachusetts.
He afterward moved to Weathersfield, Connecticut, thence to Stamford
and thence to Stratford.

In Cothron's "History of Ancient Woodbury" there are found full
details of the life of Samuel Sherman and his numerous descendants
to the present generation. Of Samuel Sherman Mr. Cothron says:

"He was from Dedham, Essex county, England, came to this country
in 1634, and previous to the date of the new plantation, at Woodbury,
had been a leading man in the colony of Connecticut. He had assisted
in the settlement of several other towns in the colony, and now
undertook the same for Woodbury. He had been a member of the Court
of Assistants, or Upper House of the General Court, and Supreme
Judicial Tribunal, for five or six years from 1663, and held various
offices and appointments of honor and trust. He is referred to in
ancient deeds and documents as the 'Worshipful Mr. Sherman.' In
1676 he was one of the commission for Stratford and Woodbury."

The order of succession of the descendants of Samuel Sherman, the
ancestor of the family to which I belong, is as follows:

1. John Sherman, the fifth child of Samuel Sherman, was born at
Stratford, Conn., February 8, 1650. He early moved to Woodbury.
He died December 13, 1730.

2. John Sherman 2nd, the fifth child of John, was baptized June,
1687. He married Hachaliah Preston, July 22, 1714. He died 1727.

3. Daniel Sherman, the third child of John 2nd, was born August
14, 1721, and died July 2, 1799.

4. Taylor Sherman, the sixth child of Daniel, was born in 1758.
He married Elizabeth Stoddard in 1787, and died in Connecticut May
15, 1815. His widow died at Mansfield, Ohio, August 1, 1848.

5. Charles Robert Sherman, the eldest child of Taylor, was born
September 26, 1788, married Mary Hoyt, of Norwalk, Conn., May 8,
1810. He died on the 24th of June, 1829. His widow died at
Mansfield, Ohio, September 23, 1852. The had eleven children, six
sons and five daughters, all of whom lived to maturity. I am the
eighth child of this family.

The names and dates of the birth of the children of my parents are
as follows:

Charles Taylor Sherman . . . . . February 3, 1811.
Mary Elizabeth Sherman . . . . . April 21, 1812.
James Sherman . . . . . . . . . December 10, 1814.
Amelia Sherman . . . . . . . . . February 11, 1816.
Julia Ann Sherman . . . . . . . July 24, 1818.
William Tecumseh Sherman . . . . February 8, 1820.
Lampson Parker Sherman . . . . . October 31, 1821.
John Sherman . . . . . . . . . . May 10, 1823.
Susan Denman Sherman . . . . . . October 10, 1825.
Hoyt Sherman . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 1827.
Fanny Beecher Sherman . . . . . May 3, 1829.

Mr. Cothron, in his "History of Ancient Woodbury," after referring
to Samuel Sherman, makes this reference to his son John:

"The fame of his son John is particularly the property of the town.
He was distinguished, not only at home, but also in the colony.
He was Justice of the Quorum, or Associate County Judge, for forty-
four years from 1684; a Representative of the town for seventeen
sessions, and Speaker of the Lower House in May and October, 1711,
and Captain in the Militia, a high honor in those days. He was
the first Judge of Probate for the District of Woodbury, from its
organization in 1719, for nine years. The District them comprised
all of Litchfield county, and Woodbury in New Haven county. He
was an assistant, or member of the Upper House, for ten years from
1713."

John Sherman 2nd, does not seem to have taken any active part in
public affairs, and died before his father, at the age of forty.
His son Daniel, who lived to the age of eighty, covering the period
of the Indian wars, the French Canadian war, and the war of the
Revolution, took an active part in all the great events of that
period. Mr. Cothron says of him:

"Judge Daniel Sherman was perhaps the most distinguished man that
had arisen in the town previous to his day. He was a descendant
of Samuel Sherman, of Stratford, Connecticut, who emigrated to this
country from England, in company with his brother, Rev. John Sherman,
and his nephew, Captain John Sherman, ancestor of Hon. Roger Sherman.
He was a Justice of the Quorum for twenty-five years, and Judge of
the Litchfield County Court five years from 1786. For sixteen
years he was Probate Clerk for the District of Woodbury, and Judge
of that District thirty-seven years. He represented his native
town in the General Assembly sixty-five semi-annual sessions,
retaining the unbounded confidence of his fellow citizens. This
was by far the longest period of time anyone has ever represented
the town. He was a man of commanding powers of mind, of sterling
integrity, and every way qualified for the various public trusts
confided to this care. He died at a good old age, full of honor,
and was followed by the affectionate recollections of the inhabitants
of the town, among whom he had so long lived."

No portion of the people of the United States took a more decisive
part in the Revolutionary contest of 1775 than those of Connecticut.
The people of Woodbury caught the prevailing spirit, and, as early
as September 20, 1774, had a public meeting and made patriotic
resolves, and entered into associations for defense. Daniel Sherman,
then fifty-four years old, presided at this meeting and was appointed
president of the association of the delegates. Among other duties
they were to perform, was to ascertain whether any persons within
the limits of the town were hostile to the objects of the association,
and in that case they, using the spelling of the time, were to

"Cause the truth of the case to be published in the Gazette, to
the End that all such foes to ye Rights of British americai may be
publikly known and universially Comtemned as enemies to american
Liberty and thensforth we Do bind ourselves to break off all Dealings
With Such Persons and also will all Persons in other Towns and
Citys who shall be found Guilty as above Expressed, and that it
shall be ye Duty and Business of the sd Comtee to Receive and
Communicate all Such intelligence as they shall judge to be conducive
to ye Peace and Tranquility of this and the Neighboring Colonies;
this meeting presents their most thankfull acknowledgments to those
truly Honourable and Worthy Gentlemen members of ye Congress who
have Shewn themselves able advocates of the civil and Religious
liberty of the american Colonys.

"Voated, that the doings of this meeting be Recorded by the Town
Clerk, and a Copy thereof be forthwith sent to one of the printers
of the Connecticut Journal to be published accordingly. The Whole
of the above Written as voated in said Meeting."

He was a member of the "Committee of Inspection" of thirty, appointed
at the beginning of the war. On the 12th of April, 1784, they
resolved as follows:

"Voted, that those persons who joined the enemies of the United
States in the course of the late Civil war of what description
soever are denyed a residence in this Town from this date until
the Genll Assembly shall grant them full liberty for that purpose."

At a meeting held on the 3d of April, 1777, at which Daniel Sherman
was the Moderator, it was:

"Voated, that Each Able Bodied Effective man, who hath or shall
voluntarily Inlist into the Continental Army in such way and Manner
toward makeing the Quota of this Town for the space of Three years,
or during the war shall be Intitled to Receive out of the publick
Treasury of the Town the sum of Twenty Shillings Lawful money, as
an Addition to Each month's Wages he shall continue in the service,
to be paid to him, or to his order, at the End of Each six month's
service."

This was kept up during the war. Provision was made for a Council
of Safety, appointed annually by the Assembly, of from nine to
fourteen of the most distinguished men in the state, to aid the
governor in the organization and conduct of troops, of which Daniel
Sherman, his cousin Roger Sherman, Benjamin Huntington, and other
distinguished men were members. This committee was frequently in
session and the most responsible, arduous and difficult details of
the service were confided to its care. It was shown that during
the war Daniel Sherman contributed provisions to soldier's families
to the value of 2,718 pounds, 7 shillings and 8 pence. It would
seem from the following anecdote told of Daniel Sherman, that some
of his neighbors thought he had enjoyed his full share of honor:

"Mr. Sherman was a representative at the May session of the General
Assembly in 1791, and, it is related, desired to be elected to the
October session of the same year, in order to make the full number
of thirty-three years that he would have then represented the town.
But at the time of the election for the October session, the
Moderator of the meeting happened to think that he had his share
of honors, and when he made proclamation that the ballot-box was
open for the reception of votes, remarked in a loud tone of voice,
'Gentlemen, the box is now open; you will please to bring in your
ballots for him whom you _will have_ for your first representative
--_Honorable Daniel Sherman, of course!_ This simple incident gave
a change to the popular current, and on counting the votes it was
found that Honorable Nathaniel Smith was elected, instead of Mr.
Sherman."

Taylor Sherman, my grandfather, the son of Judge Daniel Sherman,
was born in 1758. He was married in 1787 to Elizabeth Stoddard
and removed to Norwalk, Connecticut, where he lived during the
remainder of his life. He died on the 15th of May, 1815.

My grandmother was born at Woodbury, Connecticut, on the 14th of
June, 1767. She lived to a good old age and died at Mansfield,
Ohio, on the 1st of August, 1848. She was a remarkable woman in
many respects, a Puritan of the strictest faith, of large mold,
being nearly six feet tall, and well proportioned. She was a
granddaughter of Rev. Anthony Stoddard, a man whose history strikingly
presents the peculiar characteristics of life in Connecticut during
the 18th century. The contract between the church and town of
Woodbury and Mr. Stoddard, for employment as pastor, commences as
follows:

"At a lawfull Towns-meeting ye 13th of August, 1700, in ordr to ye
settling of ye Reverend mr. Anthony Stoddard amongst us, in ye work
of ye ministry. And for his encouragement so to do;

"It was voted and agreed to allow him, as Maytenance in ye Work of
ye Ministry, seventy pounds per Anuu, in provision pay, or to his
Satisfaction, in Case of Faylure of provision pay. By provision
pay, is intended, whet, pease, indian corn & pork, proportionally:
Also fire wood:

"We do also promise, to build him an house here in Woodberry of
known Demensions; yt is to say, the Carpetners work & Masons work;
hee providing nayles and glass; by building ye sd house is intended,
doors, floures, fitting up and playstering and partitions, finishing
it, as also a well."

Then follow many other mutual stipulations, to which was added a
supplemental agreement as follows:

"Since wch time at a Lawfull Towns-meeting ye 25th of Novembr,
1700, It was Voted and agreedyt ye abovesd specices for mr Stoddard's
yearly maytenance bee levyed at ye prices following: Wheat at 4s
6d per Bush: pork at 3d pr lb: Indian Corn 2s 6d per Bush: Pease
three shillings per Bushll: And these prices for this yeare ye
Town will not vary from for ye future Exterordinary providences
interposing being exceapted.

"Recorded from ye originalls pr Jon Minor, Recorder, March, 1700-
1701."

Under this contract Mr. Stoddard served his congregation for sixty
years, and died September 7, 1760, in his eighty-third year, and
the sixty-first of his ministry. He was educated at Harvard College
and graduated in 1679. Mr. Cothron, in 1872, says of him:

"He was at the same time minister, lawyer and physician. Like many
of the early ministers of the colony, he prepared himself for the
practice of physic, that he might administer to the wants of the
body, as well as those of the mind. In this capacity he was often
called. The only person the author has found who ever saw him,
was Deacon Amos Squire, of Roxbury, who died two or three years
ago, aged ninety-nine, and who recollected having seen him when a
lad about eight years of age, while on a visit in this capacity to
his father, who had received a severe wound from an ax. He had
also done what other ministers did not, and that was to perfect
himself in legal knowledge."

It must be remembered that the pastor of a church in those days
was in quite a different position than one now, when the constitution
guarantees to every one liberty to worship God according to the
dictates of his conscience. The Congregational mode of worship
was then adopted and established by law in Connecticut, but it was
provided that all sober orthodox persons dissenting therefrom
should, on representing it to the General Court, be allowed to
worship in their own way. Such a privilege, however, was regarded
with distrust. Our fathers who desired religious freedom and
periled all for it in the wilderness, had not anticipated that they
would speedily have an opportunity to extend that toleration to
others which in the fatherland they had in vain sought for themselves.
The town church was, therefore, in substance, the only church, and
the preacher was the autocrat of the place.

Mr. Stoddard was not only a preacher, lawyer and doctor, but he
was also a fighter. In 1707 an expedition was made by the French
and Indians against New England, which created general alarm
throughout the country. Woodbury was exposed to the raids made by
the Indians, and suspicions were entertained that the neighboring
tribes would join the French and Indians in their foray. During
the continuance of this war, on one Sabbath evening, after the
conclusion of the services at church, while he was walking in his
garden, he discovered an Indian skulking among the surrounding
trees and bushes. Apparently without noticing the movements of
the Indian, he contrived to re-enter his house, and obtained his
gun. After playing the same game of skulking with his adversary
for a while, Mr. Stoddard got a fair view of him, discharged his
piece, and the Indian fell among the bushes. He dared not investigate
farther that night, but having quietly given the alarm, the
inhabitants sought their palisaded houses for the night. Early in
the morning he discovered another red foe, in the vicinity of his
companion, and whom he also laid low with his musket. By this time
the people had assembled, and after the country was scoured in all
directions for several hours, and no other savages were found, the
alarm subsided.

Before leaving my Woodbury ancestors, who resided there nearly one
hundred and fifty years, I wish to relate my first visit to Woodbury.
I was at West Point, as one of the Board of Visitors, one Saturday
in June, 1873, when I concluded to respond to an invitation I had
received, and go to Woodbury and spend the Sabbath there. I did
so and found, as I had anticipated, beautiful valleys with picturesque
hills, a rural air and a quiet, peaceful, Sunday outlook. I knew
no one except Hon. William Cothron, and him only by correspondence.
I believe he was superintendent of the Sunday school; but, at all
events, upon my presenting myself, and stating my desire to explore
Woodbury, he kindly consented, and went with me. I located many
of the most interesting objects in the town. The large, well-built
stone house of Daniel Sherman was still standing, made after the
usual pattern, two stories high with a lean-to roof in the rear,
and with low ceilings. He had lived there during most of his active
life, and had entertained Washington and Lafayette, when they at
different times visited the French vessels at Newport. The fortified
house of Rev. Anthony Stoddard was in a good state of preservation,
with its projecting eaves and loop holes for defense. We visited
the old church and graveyard, and drove southward to what were
called the "Sherman settlements." Evidently the comparatively few
families in Woodbury were in a state of comfort as they were found
to be living in good houses and drawing, no doubt, an income from
investments in the great and growing West.

On that quiet Sabbath day the village of Woodbury recalled to me
Mr. John H. Bryant's description of his native village:

"There lies a village in a peaceful vale,
With sloping hills and waving woods around,
Fenced from the blasts. There never ruder gale
Bows the tall grass that covers all the ground;
And planted shrubs are there, and cherish'd flowers,
And a bright verdure born of gentle showers."

Subsequently I again visited Woodbury with General Sherman. Mr.
Cothron was still there and was very kind to us. It seemed to me
that the old place had run down a little, that the walks were not
so clean, the grass was not as fresh in the fields, and evidently
the graveyards had lost some of their monuments, but a prominent
one had been erected in the churchyard to Rev. Anthony Stoddard,
to which General Sherman had contributed. We heard of no one of
our name in Woodbury, but when General Sherman saw an old sign,
"Sherman's Tannery," he said that he believed he had at last found
some tangible evidence of the residence of our fathers in Woodbury;
that Sherman had been a good honest tanner no doubt, and that was
the most that could be said of any one.

As I have said, my grandfather, Taylor Sherman, and his wife,
Elizabeth Stoddard, moved from Woodbury to Norwalk, where he
practiced his profession as a lawyer. He attained a good position
as such, and for many years he was a Judge of Probate. He became
early associated with the proprietors of the half million acres of
land lying in the western part of the Western Reserve in Ohio,
called "Sufferers' Land."

In the period immediately before and after the adoption of the
constitution several of the states laid claim to western lands,
founded upon grants by James I, the chief of which were the claims
of Virginia to the region north and west of the Ohio River, and
the claim of Connecticut to all the land lying west of Pennsylvania
to the South Seas and north of the 41st parallel of latitude.
These claims were finally compromised by Congress granting to
Virginia all the land lying between the Scioto and the Miami Rivers
in Ohio, and to Connecticut the land in Ohio north of the 41st
parallel, extending westward of Pennsylvania one hundred and twenty
miles.

During the Revolutionary War the coasts of Connecticut had been
subjected to several raids by the British and Tories, and several
towns, including Norwalk, Greenwich, Fairfield, Danbury, New Haven
and New London, had been burned. Indemnity had been proposed, but
the state was in no condition to pay such losses.

In the year 1800, the State of Connecticut granted to her citizens,
who were sufferers by fire during the Revolutionary War, a half
million acres of land, lying within the State of Ohio, which was
to be taken off the west part of what was called the "Western
Connecticut Reserve," now embraced in the counties of Huron and
Erie. By an act of the legislature of the State of Ohio, passed
in 1803, the sufferers were incorporated under the name of "The
proprietors of the half million acres of land, lying south of Lake
Erie, called 'Sufferers' Land.'" The affairs of this company, by
that act, were to be managed by a Board of Directors which, among
other things, was authorized to locate and survey said half million
acres of land, and partition it among the different claimants.

On the first day of November, 1805, Taylor Sherman was appointed
by the Board of Directors an agent to survey the above tract of
land, and, on the 16th day of December, of the same year, he entered
into a contract with John McLane and James Clarke, Jr., to survey,
or have surveyed, said tract. Taylor Sherman visited the fire
lands, and fully performed the duty imposed upon him. He also
purchased a considerable tract of this land in Sherman township,
Huron county, which was the foundation of the little fortune which
he left to his widow and children.

The whole of the Western Reserve, especially the western part of
it, was at that time in the possession of the Indians, who soon
afterwards engaged in open warfare with the white settlers. Surveys,
especially along the shores of Lake Erie, were extremely difficult,
owing to extensive bayous and swamps, but the surveys were made
where practicable, and where lines could not be run, straight lines
were drawn on the map, and the contents estimated. This gave rise
to long litigation, one case being reported in the 13th Volume of
Ohio Supreme Court Reports.

The gift of Connecticut to the sufferers was a wise and liberal
one, and after the War of 1812 it led to the migration to the
counties of Huron and Erie of a great number of persons from the
towns of Norwalk, Greenwich, Danbury, New Haven and New London.
The losses of the sufferers in these different towns had been
carefully examined and stated, and the sufferers were allowed land
in proportion to their losses. The formidable list of these
sufferers is a striking proof of the savage and destructive manner
in which the Revolutionary War was conducted by the British troops.
The whole Western Reserve at the beginning of the 19th century was
a wilderness, with not a single white inhabitant. The census of
1820, however, showed that it then contained a population of 58,608,
while that of 1890 showed a population of 678,561. Of these a
larger number and proportion were descendants of Connecticut parents
than are most inhabitants of that state. The industries, commerce,
wealth and intelligence of this region are not excelled by any
community of the same size anywhere else in the country.

As an illustration of the condition of this region in 1812, it may
be worth while to here record a truthful anecdote of Daniel Sherman,
the son of Taylor Sherman, and whom we knew as "Uncle Dan." In
the spring of 1812, when twenty-two years of age, he was sent by
his father to make improvements on his land in Huron county, by
building a log cabin and opening a clearing. He had with him a
hired man of the name of John Chapman, who was sent to Milan, twelve
miles away, to get a grist of corn ground, it being the nearest
and only mill in the county. Either on the way there, or while
returning, Chapman was killed by the Indians. Uncle Dan did not
hear of this until the next day, when, with a knapsack on his back,
he started for Mansfield, forty miles away. For thirty miles there
was a dense and unbroken forest without a settler. He arrived at
a blockhouse, six miles from Mansfield, but concluded that was not
strong enough to protect him. He then went to Mansfield, where
they had a better blockhouse, but he heard so many stories of
Indians that he did not feel safe there, and walked thence to his
brother's house in Lancaster, about seventy-five miles away, through
an almost continuous forest.

In November, 1813, Taylor Sherman was appointed, by President
Madison, Collector of Internal Revenue for the Second District of
Connecticut. He enjoyed the office but a short time and died, as
already stated, on the 15th day of May, 1815.

A sketch of my mother and father will throw some light upon the
lives of their children, but it is a delicate task to write of
one's parents. As I was but six years old when my father died I
have only a dim recollection of him, but materials for an interesting
sketch of his brief but active career are abundant. I know of no
citizen of Ohio of whom more anecdotes have been told, or whose
general and social life has been more highly appreciated, or whose
popularity has been more marked, than that of my father. During
the early years of my life at the bar I met many of the older
lawyers, contemporary with my father, and they all spoke of him in
the highest praise, and generally had some incident to tell of him
that happened in the days of the "Stirrup Court."

Charles Robert Sherman, my father, was born in Norwalk, Connecticut,
September 26, 1788, the eldest son of Judge Taylor Sherman and
Elizabeth Stoddard. He received the best educational advantages
of his day, and, when fully prepared, commenced the study of law
in the associated offices of his father and the Hon. Judge Chapman.
He was admitted to the bar in 1810, and on May 8, of that year,
married Mary Hoyt, also of Norwalk, who had grown up with him from
childhood. He could not go into the northern part where his father's
land lay, as it was then roamed over by hostile Indians, but followed
the usual route to Ohio by Pittsburg and Wheeling to Zanesville.
He located at Lancaster, but returned to Norwalk, Connecticut, in
the fall of 1810. In 1811 he returned to Lancaster, accompanied
by his wife. Ohio was then a frontier state, and in large portions
of its territory an unbroken wilderness. The way to it from their
New England home was far and weary, beset with many hardships and
exposed to great dangers. My father and mother were obliged to
journey the greater part of this distance on horseback, alternately
carrying their infant child upon a pillow before them. I only
advert to these incidents as they illustrate the self-reliant
character of the man, and the brave, confiding trust of his wife.
The little boy they carried upon the pillow, then their only son,
was Charles Taylor Sherman.

Soon after their arrival in Lancaster my father took a leading part
in the measures of defense against the British and Indians. I find
in an old and weather-beaten newspaper of Lancaster, Ohio, called
the "Independent Press," that on the 16th of April, 1812, at a
meeting of the first regiment of the first brigade of the third
division of the militia of Ohio, assembled at Lancaster for the
purpose of raising a company of volunteers to march immediately to
Detroit, my father, then major of that regiment, made a very
effective address to the regiment, the result of which was the
voluntary enlistment of the company required from Fairfield county.
He was then twenty-four years of age, and as this address is short,
and is the best evidence of his mental qualities, and of the standing
he had so early attained among the hardy settlers of that section,
mostly from Pennsylvania, I here insert a portion of it:

"_Fellow Soldiers:_--The crisis has arrived in which your country
calls upon you, her constitutional guardians, to rally round her
standard and to defend her rights and liberties--you are this day
assembled to declare whether you will voluntarily answer this call
or not. Fellow soldiers, the general of brigade and at whose
command and in whose name I now address you, cannot help but believe
that in this regiment which he once had the honor, personally, to
command, those choice spirits are to be found, that will not for
a moment hesitate to come forward and give the answer to their
country's call.

"You are not called upon to guard a tyrant's throne, or to enslave
a nation of freemen, neither are your exertions required to redress
a fancied wrong, or to revenge a supposed insult; but you are called
upon to preserve your own dwellings from the flames--your families
from destruction. Neither are you requested to go unprotected nor
unprovided;--everything that the patriot soldier could possibly
wish will be furnished you by the government--food complete and
sufficient for the necessities or conveniences of life--compensation
for your clothing,--arms of the best quality will be placed in your
hands, which will be generously given you if you do, as I know you
will, your duty.

"Should you chance to be disabled in the service, a pension will
be given you that will enable you to live in comfort and in ease;
or should the fortune of war number you with those brave and gallant
patriots that fearlessly poured out their life's blood upon the
heights of Bunker, the plains of Saratoga, or at the siege of
Yorktown--your families shall not be left unprotected or unprovided;
a generous and faithful government has promised that one hundred
and sixty acres of land shall be given to your heirs, the more than
means of existence, the means of every comfort that can render that
existence desirable.

"These, then, fellow soldiers, are the terms upon which sixty-four
of you are requested to draw your swords, shoulder your arms and
march to Detroit to defend the frontiers of your own territory.
And from these columns are there not more than this small number
that would rush upon even certain death at their country's call?

"The services required of you will not be arduous--'tis not that
you should invade the territory of a distant enemy--'tis not that
you should march far from your homes to fight battles in which you
are not, and which you do not feel yourselves, interested; but it
is to prevent the hostile foot of a foe from invading your territory
--it is to guard the sacred altar of your liberties, cemented by
the blood of your fathers, from the profanation of a tyrant's
polluting touch--it is to guard your dwellings, your friends, your
families, your all, from the desolating warfare of a fell savage
foe--it is that the midnight and sleeping couch of our infants may
not be awakened to death by the tremendous yell of an Indian warwhoop
--it is that the gray hairs of our fathers may not become the bloody
trophies of a cruel and insidious foe. Cruelty and a thirst for
blood are the inmates of an Indian's bosom, and in the neighborhood
of two contending powers they are never peaceful. If the strong
hand of power does not bend them down they will raise the tomahawk
and bare the scalping knife for deeds of blood and horror: The
purity of female innocence, the decrepitude of age, the tenderness
of infancy afford no security against the murderous steel of a
hostile Indian: to guard against the probable incursions of bands
of these murderers, I will not call them by the dignified name of
warriors, are you called upon to arm: and who in such a cause would
refuse to march or to bleed? And who would refuse to protect the
scattered settlements on our frontiers--the humble cottage and its
peaceful inhabitants?--Who would refuse to guard our fields from
desolation, our villages from destruction, or our towns from ruin?
--None, in whom there is a spark of patriot valor.

"But, fellow soldiers, you may be called upon the meet the legions
of Great Britain; every appearance indicates a state of approaching
hostilities--year after year has insult been added to insult--injury
has followed injury with rapid strides, and every breeze comes
laden with its tale of wrongs, and while we have borne their injuries
and their insults our government has endeavored, but in vain, to
reconcile our differences by amicable negotiation.

"The cup of our wrongs is full, and the voice of an indignant people
demands redress and revenge by every means in our power; 'tis that
voice that calls upon you to arm and meet the hosts of England.

"Do you fear the event of the contest? Call but to mind the period
of '76, without a government, without friends, without armies,
without men, without money, our fathers dared to resist her
aggressions upon our liberties; she determined to enslave us, and
a hardy band of freemen resolved on death rather than slavery,
encountered and conquered her boasted legions, established our
independence and left it as their richest legacy for us to maintain:
and do we, their sons, possessing all the advantages that we could
wish, all that they were deprived of, do we fear the contest when
half the world is confederate against her? Where is the spirit of
our fathers that urged them to battle and to victory? Is there no
latent spark of patriot ardor that the wrongs and indignities of
our country will kindle into a flame? Is there no thirst in our
bosoms for glory? Is it nothing for your names to be enrolled on
the list of fame? Does it rouse no generous and noble feelings in
your breasts to be a guardian shield and avenging sword to your
country? Are the grateful thanks of your countrymen and posterity
no inducement to valorous acts?

"Go then, fellow soldiers, assist to shield your country from the
destruction of an internal warfare, awake to honor and to glory,
rouse the native courage of an American freeman and march to deeds
of valor!

"Let the wings of fame come laden with the tale of your honors,
and bring joy to your mothers' hearts, and the pride of valorous
deeds to your fathers' bosoms; then shall your country reward and
bless you--posterity shall venerate your names, the world shall
own you as the constituent guardians of liberty and the bulwark of
your nation's freedom!"

I presume the soldiers enlisted at Lancaster were a part of the
army infamously surrendered by General Hull on the 16th of August,
1812. This event opened up the whole of the then western states
and territories to the inroads of the British and Indians, but was
brilliantly compensated by the splendid victory of Commodore Perry
at the battle of Lake Erie, on the 10th of September, 1813, in
which he destroyed the British fleet and announced his victory in
the stirring words, "We have met the enemy, and they are ours!"
This was followed by the complete triumph of General Harrison in
the battle of the Thames, October 5, 1813, in which Tecumseh was
killed, and the power of the British and Indians in that portion
of the field of operations practically destroyed.

My father was appointed by Mr. Madison, on the 9th of November,
1813, as Collector of Internal Revenue for the Third District of
Ohio. He was then engaged in the active practice of his profession.
He was required to employ deputies in each of the counties of
Fairfield, Pickaway, Madison, Franklin, Delaware, and Knox to
collect internal revenue taxes, when assessed. He took great care
in the selection of his deputies, and in all cases required bonds,
with security, from each deputy. At this period the only money in
Ohio was local bank paper money. No silver or gold coins could be
had, and the purchasing power of notes varied with the success or
defeat of our armies in the field. Internal taxes were imposed on
distilled spirits, on the retailing of spirits, on salt, sugar,
carriages, sales at auction, a stamp duty of one per cent. on bank
notes, on all notes discounted by a bank, and on inland bills of
exchange.

It is clearly shown by the papers on file in the treasury department
that Mr. Sherman exercised the utmost care in the collection of
these taxes through his deputies. No difficulty seems to have
occurred until July, 1817, when the government, without previous
notice, refused to take the paper then in circulation in Ohio, but
demanded notes of the Bank of the United States, or its branches,
one of which was located at Chillicothe. This left upon the hands
of his deputies a large amount of money that soon became utterly
worthless. The system of local banking failed and the loss fell
upon the holders of notes, and, largely, upon the collectors of
internal revenue and their deputies. Among my father's deputies
the principal one seems to have been Peter Apple, of Pickaway
county, who at the time of his appointment held a county office,
was postmaster, and a justice of the peace. He was a leading man,
of high character and standing, and supposed to be of considerable
wealth. In 1817 he became embarrassed and insolvent, and was
removed from his position as deputy. His bonds proved worthless,
and the whole loss and liability fell upon my father. This, with
other losses occurring through the failure of other deputies, was
the most unfortunate event of his life. His correspondence with
the Internal Revenue Bureau shows that he exercised the utmost care
in keeping and reporting his accounts, and the difficulties and
losses he sustained in converting local bills into such notes as
the government would receive in payment of taxes. It is clearly
shown that the loss was not caused by any failure or neglect on
his part. In like circumstances, under the existing law, Congress
has, in all cases where due diligence on the part of the collector
has been proven, relieved the collector. My father declined to
make any appeal for such relief, but applied the proceeds of all
his property, and a large part of his earnings, to make good, as
far as he could, the defalcations of his deputies. This loss was
a great embarrassment for him and his family during his life. It
did not affect his standing, either at home or with the government,
but it deprived him of many comforts, and his family of advantages
and opportunities for education which they otherwise would have had.

In the spring of 1815 my father was notified of the illness of his
father in Norwalk, and immediately went to Connecticut, but, owing
to the nature of the long journey, did not arrive until after his
father's death. The will of Taylor Sherman gave to his wife, and
daughter Elizabeth, all his real and personal estate in the State
of Connecticut, subject to the payment of his debts, which were
very small. He bequeathed to his two sons, Charles Sherman and
Daniel Sherman, ceratin lands in the town of Sherman, county of
Huron, Ohio, being part of the "Sufferers' Lands." The remainder
of his property lying in the State of Ohio he gave equally to his
wife and children. The estate was soon settled, and in the following
year, 1816, my grandmother and her daughter, Elizabeth, moved to
Ohio and became a part of the family of my father.

Under the old constitution of Ohio prior to 1850, the Supreme Court
was composed of four judges. They met at Columbus in the winter
to hold the court of last resort, but at other seasons they divided
into circuit courts composed of two judges, and went from county
to county attended by a bevy of the leading lawyers of the state,
all mounted on horseback and always ready for fun or frolic. I
gladly acknowledge that I have received many a kindness, and much
aid in business as well as political and social life, from the
kindly memory of my father. I shrink from writing of his personal
traits and genial nature, but insert, instead, brief extracts from
a sketch of him written, in 1872, as a part of a local history of
Fairfield county, Ohio, by General William J. Reese, who knew him
intimately. General Reese says:

"Established permanently at Lancaster in the prosecution of his
profession, the subject of this sketch rapidly rose to eminence as
a polished and eloquent advocate, and as a judicious, reliable
counsellor at law--indeed, in the elements of mind necessary to
build up and sustain such a reputation, few men were his equals,
and fewer still his superiors, in the State of Ohio or out of it.
But it was not only in the higher region of legal attainments that
he gained superiority; his mind was enriched with choice classic
cultivation also.

"Judge Sherman not only mastered the intricacies of Coke and
Littleton, but, as I have stated, he made himself familiar with
whatever was worthy of reading outside the books of law, and was
therefore fitted to shine in the domain of general literature as
well as in the realm of technical jurisprudence.

"During the pioneer years of Ohio its lawyers were obliged to
perform extensive circuits to practice their profession; they were
accustomed to accompany the courts from county to county, and in
this way to traverse an extent of country which, being uncalled
for at present, would appear fabulous in statement and difficult
to realize.

"Those early days also commemorated the warmest personal friendships
in the profession, and, indeed, this could hardly have been otherwise,
as they compelled its members into the closest habitual companionship.
They rode together in the same primitive style, their saddle-bags
stuffed with papers, documents, briefs, law-books, clothing, and,
peradventure, some creature delectation also. They were exposed
in common to the same inclemencies and impediments of travel, they
lodged together at the same inns or taverns, messed at the same
table, slept in the same rooms, and were not unfrequently coerced
by twos into the same bed. Free, jovial, genial, manly, and happy
times they were, when, after a hard-fought field-day of professional
antagonisms in court, the evening hours were crowded with social
amenities, and winged with wit and merriment, with pathos, sentiment
and song.

"If the sayings and doings at the festive evenings of the early
Ohio bar could be collected, there would be materials in rich
abundance from which a sympathetic and facile pen could compile a
volume of equal piquancy and sentimental refinement of patriotic
detail and humor, that alternate the pages of Sir Jonah Barrington,
or any other winsome work of the kind. This will not be questioned
for a moment when it is remembered that Henry Clay, Lewis Cass,
Philip Doddridge, Willis Silliman, David K. Este, and Charles
Hammond were frequent participants; that Philoman Beecher, William
W. Irvin, Thomas Ewing, William Stanberry, Benjamin Tappan, John
M. Goodenow, Jacob Parker, Orris Parrish, and Charles Goddard
habitually contributed to their entertainment, and that these were
often signalized with the hilarious fun of Creighton and the quaint
drolleries of Douglas. At these symposiums of recreation, and they
were held whenever the courts used to meet, Charles R. Sherman was
always the most welcome of companions, and contributed his full
share even to the ambrosial feasts,

'When all such clustering portions had
As made their frolic wild, not mad.'

"Thus endowed and so associated, he became a leading and a popular
people's lawyer, from the Ohio River to our northern lake.

"In 1823 he was elected by the legislature to the bench of the
Supreme Court of Ohio, and perhaps the only man in the state who
doubted his ability for this high position was himself. He told
the writer of these lines when speaking on the subject of his
appointment, that he assumed its duties with great personal diffidence
and apprehension. He feared that he lacked the ripe experience of
years necessary to hear and determine cases of magnitude in a court
of the last resort. His official associates were Calvin Pease,
Jacob Burnet, and Peter Hitchcock, and these are names of renown
in the judicial history of Ohio.

"Judge Sherman upon the bench fully realized the large expectations
of his professional friends and the public.

"His written opinions, published in 'Hammond's Reports of the
Supreme Court,' demonstrate a mind of the choicest legal capabilities.
They are clear, compact, yet comprehensive, intuitive, logical,
complete, and conclusive, and are respected by the bar and courts
in this and other states as judicial _dicta_ of the highest authority.
He won upon the bench, as he did at the bar, the affection and
confidence of his associates. They esteemed him for his gentle
and genial nature, for the brilliant flashes of his mind and the
solid strength of his judgment; above all, for the stainless
integrity of his character, as a judge and as a man.

"Under the provisions of our old constitution, the Supreme Court
was required to hold an annual term or sitting in each county of
the state, two of the judges officiating. In every court-room in
Ohio where Judge Sherman presided he made friends. His official
robes were worn by him as the customary habiliments of the man.
He was never distant, haughty, morose, austere, or overbearing on
the bench. It was not in his nature to be so anywhere, and it was
therefore always a personal pleasure to practice in his courts.
The younger members of the profession idolized him in every part
of the state; for them and their early efforts he systematically
sympathized, and he uniformly bestowed upon them the most gracious
compliment that any judge upon the bench can render to the oldest
practitioner at the bar--he gave them his interested and undivided
attention.

"He had entered upon the sixth year of his official term, was in
his manly meridian of life, in the full fruition of his matured
intellectual powers, in the plenitude of his public usefulness,
and in the enjoyment of apparent robust physical health, out upon
his circuit, and about to hold a session of the Supreme Court at
Lebanon, in Warren county, when suddenly, without any premonition,
he was struck down with a fatal malady, that was frightfully rapid
in its termination. The best medical aid was summoned from
Cincinnati; it was in vain. An express messenger was hurried to
Lancaster for Mrs. Sherman, but before she reached him her lamented
husband was dead.

"He died in Lebanon, June 24, 1829, in the 41st year of his age.

"I will not attempt to describe the outburst of public sorrow that
prevailed over this event. It was general and sincere, touching
and outspoken; but it was in Lancaster, it was here in his happy
home, which he made the home always of genial and open-hearted
hospitality--here among his neighbors and fellow-citizens of every
class and description, all of whom knew him and all of whom loved
him--that the intelligence of his death came with the most painful
and startling abruptness. They could not comprehend it. But
yesterday he was among them in perfect health, and now he is dead.
Men wept in our public streets. I do not believe he had a single
personal enemy on earth.

"Had Judge Sherman lived, higher and broader spheres of public
usefulness would have opened before him. There is no doubt whatever
that the same spontaneity of opinion that placed him upon the
supreme bench would have again united, when the vacancy happened,
to have sent him to the Senate of the United States, and those who
know him knew full well that his first prepared public utterance
in that chamber upon any pending matter of national importance
would have secured to him a brilliant national name. This is no
fancy penciling. It was conviction with his contemporaries, and
it would have been the record of history had he lived. As it is,
he has left to his children the heritage of his spotless public
reputation--of his loved and honored name.

"This fragmentary sketch would be more incomplete did I not mention
that Judge Sherman was a zealous and prominent member of the Masonic
fraternity, and that he filled its highest offices of honor in the
several grand bodies of Ohio."

General Reese, the author of this sketch, was born in Philadelphia,
Pa., on the 5th of August, 1804. He was a graduate of the University
of Pennsylvania, studied law and was admitted to practice in
Philadelphia. He then came to Ohio and was admitted to the bar in
Cincinnati and soon after settled in Lancaster. In 1829, soon
after the death of my father, he married my eldest sister, Mary
Elizabeth. He did not long pursue his profession but became a
merchant. He was prominent as a member of the board of public
works. In old militia times he was in command of the forces of
the state as its only major-general. He was grand master of the
Grand Lodge of Masons in Ohio for a series of years, and at the
same time held high rank in the Grand Lodge of the United States.
He was a handsome and accomplished gentleman, of pleasing manners
and liberal to a fault. He died on the 17th of December, 1883, at
Lancaster, in his eightieth year.

Of my mother I can scarcely write without emotion, though she died
more than forty years ago. Her maiden name was Mary Hoyt. She
was a member of a family, mostly merchants and sailors, who had
lived in Norwalk, Connecticut, since its first settlement. At the
period of the American Revolution the Hoyt family, composed of
several brothers, was divided in their allegiance, some as Tories,
some as Whigs. My mother's grandfather was a Whig. It is a
tradition in the family that one of the Tory brothers pointed out
the house of his brother, at the capture of Norwalk by the British
and Tories, as the nest of a rebel, and it was burned to the ground.
In this it shared the fate of the greater part of the town. The
Tories of the family went to St. Johns, but years after the war
was over they and their descendants returned to Connecticut and
New York, and many of them became prominent and respected citizens.
Isaac Hoyt, my grandfather, was a prominent citizen of Norwalk,
possessing considerable wealth for those days.

My mother was carefully educated at the then famous female seminary
at Poughkeepsie, New York. I remember the many embroidered pictures,
made with the needle and silk thread by the handicraft of my mother,
as a school girl, carefully framed, that decorated the old house
in Lancaster. The women of that day were trained more for the
culture and ornament of the house, more to knit stockings and weave
home spun than to make speeches on woman's rights. Soon after her
graduation she married Charles Robert Sherman, as before stated,
and their lives were blended. She sometimes rode with him when on
the circuit, and always on horseback. It was an adage in the
family, even to her grandchildren, that she was always ready for
a visit. I never knew her to scold, much less to strike, her
children. She was our sure refuge against grandmother, between
whom and my mother there was, however, the warmest affection. When
Aunt Elizabeth married Mr. Parker, grandmother followed her daughter
to their home in Mansfield.

When my mother, by the death of her husband, was left a widow with
eleven children and spare means of support, she received the sympathy
of all her neighbors and the kindly encouragement of everyone in
Lancaster. As her children scattered her resources increased, so
that after one year of widowhood she was quite independent. Like
Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield she was "passing rich" on four
hundred dollars a year. Soon the houses of her children were open
to her, but she clung to Lancaster until all her children had taken
flight, when, in the summer of 1844, she accepted the invitation
of her sons to make her home in Mansfield and removed there. She
had there her house and home. Her two youngest daughters, and the
writer of this, were her family, but in a very brief period all
around her were married. She still continued to occupy her home,
and always with some of her numerous grandchildren as guests. She
often visited her children, and her coming was always regarded by
them as a favor conferred by her. And so her tranquil life flowed
on until 1852, when she attended the state fair at Cleveland and
contracted a bad cold. She returned to Mansfield only to die on
the 23rd day of September, 1852, at the residence of her daughter,
Mrs. Bartley.

Before closing this sketch of my ancestors, it seems proper that
I refer to their religious beliefs and modes of worship. In England
they were classed as Puritans, and were members of the Presbyterian
church. In Connecticut they followed the doctrine and faith of
the Congregational church of Anthony Stoddard. Daniel Sherman had
his father were deacons of the congregation of Mr. Stoddard, and
his granddaughter, the wife of Taylor Sherman, carried her faith
and practice into her family, and maintained to her death the strict
morals, and close observance of the Sabbath day, that was the
established rule and practice of the Connecticut Congregationalist.

My mother's family, the Hoyts, were, with scarcely an exception,
members of the Episcopal church. My mother was reared in that
faith and practice from infancy, and was a member of that church
at the time of her marriage. When she emigrated to Lancaster she
found there no church of that denomination, and, therefore, joined
the Presbyterian church under the pastorage of Rev. John Wright,
who baptized all her children. At a later period, perhaps about
1840, when an Episcopal church was established in Lancaster, she
resumed her attendance and worship in that church. When she removed
to Mansfield she attended the Episcopal church at that place,
partook of its sacraments and usages, and died in that faith and
worship. All her living children and their families recognized
and supported the Episcopal church as their church, except the
children of General Sherman, who followed their mother and her
maternal ancestors in the faith and worship of the Catholic church.

The writer of this has a firm belief in the Bible as the only creed
of religious faith and duty, and willingly accords to every human
being the right to choose his form of worship according to his
judgment, but in case of doubt it is best to follow the teachings
of his mother.

With this, the sketch of my ancestors closes. Many will think it
is not part of my life, and that I have given too much space and
importance to it. If so, I hope they will pass it over without
reading. Each individual life is molded by one's ancestry, by the
incidents of his childhood, the training he receives in the family
and the school and the conditions and surroundings of his early
days. The boy is father to the man. It is difficult for one in
advanced age to recall or to measure the influence of each of these
in forming his character, but a statement of them is a necessary
preface to a history of his later life. My information as to my
ancestry is chiefly derived from the admirable local histories of
Connecticut, and, especially, from "Cothron's History of Ancient
Woodbury," "Hutchinson's History of Connecticut," and the local
records and traditions of Essex and Sussex counties in England.

I cannot claim for my ancestors superior rank, wealth or ability.
They were not specially distinguished for any of these, but they
were men of useful and honorable lives, of untarnished reputation,
highly esteemed by their contemporaries, thorough republicans in
the broad sense of that word, always for their country in any
contest for the right, and willing to yield equal political and
civil rights to all their countrymen of every creed and color.

I was born at Lancaster, Ohio, on the 10th day of May, 1823, the
eighth child of Charles and Mary Sherman. My first distinct
recollection of events is connected with the scenes and incidents
that followed the death of my father on the 24th day of June, 1829.
I have a dim recollection before that time of being sent to school
with my elder brothers to keep me out of mischief, and of my father
praising me for learning the alphabet, but all other impressions
of my infancy were absorbed in the great family tragedy. We were
warned to keep quiet, and to remain out of doors, so as not to
disturb mother, who was critically ill, and, as our grandmother
was then supreme in the household, we knew that her will was law,
and that punishment invariably followed an offense. During these
enforced absences many were the wise resolves, or, rather, the
conceits, that the boys discussed for "helping mother."

But time, which mellows every misfortune, brought so many changes.
My sister, Elizabeth, was soon married to General William J. Reese.
My brother, Charles, came home a full-fledged graduate, and, as we
thought, very learned. Everybody was kind. The affairs of my
father were settled. The homestead and garden were secured to my
mother, and she had, in addition, a settled income from her father's
estate of $400 a year, while grandmother had her "fire lands," and
an assured but small income besides. In those days a little money
went a great way; but there were eleven children of us to be cared
for,--from Charles, aged eighteen, to Fanny, aged three months.
The separation of this family was imperative, but the friends of
my father were numerous, and their offerings were generous and
urgent. Charles entered the family of our cousin, Mr. Stoddard,
an old and leading lawyer in Dayton, Ohio, studied law, and in two
years was admitted to the bar. James, the next eldest brother,
accepted a clerkship in a store in Cincinnati, and from that time
paid his own way, becoming a merchant, first in Lancaster, and
later in Des Moines, Iowa. William Tecumseh was adopted into the
family of Hon. Thomas Ewing, who lived in the same square with us
in Lancaster. The two families were bound by ties and mutual aid
which were highly creditable to both. My father, Judge Sherman,
had been able to help Mr. Ewing in the beginning of his professional
career, and Mr. Ewing gratefully and generously responded. They
maintained the most intimate and cordial relations during their
lives and their families have since continued them, the bond being
strengthened by the marriage of William Tecumseh to Mr. Ewing's
daughter, Ellen. Lampson P., the fourth son, was adopted into the
family of Charles Hammond, of Cincinnati, a distinguished lawyer
of marked ability, the reporter of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and
editor and chief proprietor of the "Gazette," the leading newspaper
published in his day in Cincinnati.

While the reduction of our family was thus taking place I was kept
at school at Lancaster, where I made considerable advance in such
studies as a lad from six to eight years of age can pursue. I have
forgotten the names of my tutors. The present admirable system of
common schools in Ohio had not then been adopted, but the private
schools in Lancaster were considered very good, and most of the
boys of school age were able at little cost to get the rudiments
of an education.

In the spring of 1831, my father's cousin, John Sherman, a prosperous
merchant of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, accompanied by his bride, visited my
mother, and proposed to take me into his family and to keep me at
school until I was prepared to enter Kenyon College, five miles
from Mt. Vernon. This was a kindly offer and was gratefully
accepted. But I remember well the sadness I felt, and the tears
I shed, over the departure from home into the midst of strangers.
The old-fashioned stage coach was then the only medium of travel
and the fifty miles between Lancaster and Mt. Vernon were to me a
wearisome journey. For days after I arrived at Mt. Vernon I was
moping either at the house or at the store, but ere long became
accustomed to the change, and commenced my studies in the schools,
which, as I remember them, were admirably conducted by teachers of
marked ability, among whom were some who became distinguished in
professional and business life. One of the families that I became
intimate with was that of Mr. Norton, one of whose sons, J. Banning
Norton, who lately died in Dallas, Texas, was my constant companion.
We studied our lessons together, but frequently had quarrels and
fights. It was a "fad" of his to wear his finger-nails very long.
On one occasion I pummeled him well, but he scratched my face in
the contest. When I went home, marked in this way, I was asked
how I came to be so badly scratched and the best answer I could
make was that I had fallen on a "splintery log," and this got to
be a by-word in the school.

According to the usages of the time I was put early to the study
of Latin, which then seemed to be regarded as the necessary foundation
for an education. I must confess that during my stay in Mt. Vernon
I was rather a troublesome boy, frequently involved in controversies
with the teachers, and sometimes punished in the old-fashioned way
with the ferule and the switch, which habit I then regarded as
tyrannical and now regard as impolitic. I do not believe that the
policy of punishment adopted in the schools of those times would
be expedient to-day. It tended to foster a constant irritation
between the teacher and the pupil.

Among my school adventures at Mt. Vernon was one I heartily regret.
We had a teacher by the name of Lord. He was a small man, and not
able to cope with several of the boys in the school. We called
him "Bunty Lord." One evening after school four boys, of whom I
was one, while playing on the commons, found a dead sheep. It was
suggested that we carry the sheep into the schoolroom and place it
on Lord's seat. This was promptly done and I wrote a Latin couplet,
purporting that this was a very worthy sacrifice to a very poor
Lord, and placed it on the head of the sheep. The next morning
Lord found the sheep and made a great outcry against the indignity.
Efforts were made at once to ascertain the actors in this farce,
and proof was soon obtained. My handwriting disclosed my part in
the case, and the result was a prompt discharge of the culprits
from school; but poor Lord lost his place, because of his manifest
inability to govern his unruly pupils.

Another teacher I remember was of a very different type. This was
Matthew H. Mitchell. He was severe and dogmatic, allowing no
foolishness in his school. He was strict and impartial in his
treatment of the boys, and, though we did not like him, we respected
his power.

I had one adventure during these early boyhood days which nearly
cost me my life, and which Uncle John (as I called Mr. Sherman)
converted into a religious warning. One Sunday there was a freshet
in Owl Creek, on the south side of the town, and many people went
to see it, I among the rest. I was reckless, and, against the
advice of others, went out on a temporary foot-bridge which fell
and I dropped into the raging waters. How I escaped I hardly know,
but it was by the assistance of others. Uncle John said that I
was punished by the Almighty for violating the Sabbath. Ever after
that I was careful about Sunday sport.

I remember, while living at Uncle John's, witnessing the wedding
of his niece, Miss Leavenworth, to Columbus Delano. I sat upon
the stair steps during the ceremony, the first of the kind I ever
saw. I mention this because of my long acquaintance with Mr. Delano
and his family. He became a great lawyer and filled many offices
of high public trust, and is now (1895) living in vigorous health,
eighty-six years old. I also remember very well Henry B. Curtis
and his family. He married a sister of Mrs. Sherman of Mt. Vernon,
and had a number of children. He was a brother of Colonel Samuel
R. Curtis, distinguished in the Civil War, was an accomplished
lawyer, a careful business man, and a gentleman in every sense of
the word.

On the whole I regard my four years at Mount Vernon as well spent.
I advanced in my studies so that I could translate Latin fairly
well, I went through the primary studies, and obtained some
comprehension of algebra, geometry and kindred studies. In the
meantime the condition of our family had greatly changed and
generally improved. My sister Amelia was happily married to Robert
McComb, a merchant of Mansfield. My father's only sister was
married to Judge Parker, of Mansfield, to which place my grandmother
had followed her daughter, and my brother Charles had entered upon
his career as a lawyer in the same town.

Uncle John had a family of small children growing up and I felt I
was in the way. My mother was anxious for me to return home as
all her boys were away. I wanted to go. Uncle John, however,
expressed his desire for me to stay and enter Kenyon College, but
I knew that Mrs. Sherman preferred that I should leave as she had
her young children to care for. The result was my return to
Lancaster at the age of twelve. Mrs. Sherman is now living at
Washington, D. C., at the age of eighty-seven, with her son John.
I shall always remember with sincere gratitude her care and
forbearance manifested toward a rather wild and reckless boy at
the disagreeable age of from eight to twelve years. Affection may
make a mother bear with the torment of her own child at that age,
but will rarely induce an equal leniency toward that of another.

My return to Lancaster was a happy event in my life. I renewed my
old acquaintance with boys of my age, and was on intimate terms
with Philemon Ewing, Charles Garaghty, Frederick Reese, W. P. Rice,
W. Winthrop Sifford and others. My brother, William Tecumseh, was
three years my senior, and he and his associates of his own age
rather looked down upon their juniors. Still, I had a good deal
of intercourse with him, mainly in the way of advice on his part.
At that time he was a steady student, quiet in his manners and
easily moved by sympathy or affection. I was regarded as a wild,
reckless lad, eager in controversy and ready to fight. No one
could then anticipate that he was to be a great warrior and I a
plodding lawyer and politician. I fired my first gun over his
shoulder. He took me with him to carry the game, mostly squirrels
and pigeons. He was then destined to West Point, and was preparing
for it. To me the future was all unknown.

I entered, with all the boys referred to and many others, the
Academy of Mark and Matthew Howe, then well established, and of
great reputation,--and deservedly so. The schoolrooms were large,
and furnished with desks and chairs, an improvement upon the old
benches with boards in front. The course of studies mapped out
for me was much the same as I pursued at Mount Vernon, with a
specialty of the first six books of Euclid, and of algebra. Latin
was taught but little. From the first, arithmetic, algebra and
surveying were my favorite studies, and in those I became proficient.
We had an improvised theatre in which we acted plays and made
speeches.

When I entered the school Matthew Howe was the regulator, teacher
and dominie. He was the supreme autocrat, from whom there was no
appeal. All the boys respected him, for he certainly was a good
teacher, but they did not like his domineering way. I got along
with him pretty well for some months, but one day after I had
mastered my lessons I rested my head on my desk when I was sharply
reproved by him. I said that I did not feel very well and had
learned my lessons. He called me to the black-board and directed
me to demonstrate some problem in my lesson of Euclid. I went,
and, as I believed, had made the drawing and demonstrated the
problem. He said I had not, that I had failed to refer to a
corollary. I answered that he had not required this in previous
lessons. Some discussion arose, when, with the ferule in his hand,
he directed me to hold out mine. I did so, but as he struck my
right hand, I hit him with all the force I could command with my
left. This created great excitement in the school, all the students
being present, my brother Tecumseh among them. It was said at the
time that the boys were disposed to take sides with me, but I saw
no signs of it. The result was that I was expelled from the school,
but, by the intercession of my mother, and Mrs. Reese, after
explanations, I was restored, and during my two years with Mr. Howe
I had no other contention with him. He moved some years later to
Iowa, where he established another academy, and lived a long and
useful life. We had friendly correspondence with each other, but
neither alluded to our skirmish over a corollary in Euclid.

The pupils had the usual disposition among boys to play tricks on
each other. The academy was in a large square, the greater part
of which was an orchard of apple trees. Mr. Howe lived on the
corner of the square, some distance from the academy. The boys
were forbidden to climb the trees to shake down the fruit, but were
quite welcome to the fruit on the ground. One fall, when the apples
were ripe, the boys conspired to play a trick upon some of the
students and outsiders,--among them my brother Lampson, then on a
visit home from Cincinnati,--who were easily persuaded to rob the
orchard, none more willing than "Lamp." Those in the plot were to
watch and prevent interference. When the time came we had detailed
two or three boys in the academy to fire off muskets, well loaded
with powder and nothing else, when the signal was given. Everything
moved on according to programme. The boys detailed to shake down
the apples were in the trees, when, all at once, the firing of
musketry commenced. The boys dropped from the trees and scattered
in every direction. Some of them were caught in the pea vines of
Mr. Howe's garden, but most of them, with great labor, climbed over
the high fence around the ground and dropped on the outside "with
a thud," safe from powder! The dogs in the neighborhood lent their
aid to the outcry, and everybody was convinced that ruffians had
robbed Howe's orchard.

I suppose it will never occur that a generation of boys will not
do these things. At seventy-two I know it was wrong. At thirteen
I thought it was fun.

I now recall many pleasing memories of what occurred in the two
years "at home" at that period when the life of a boy is beginning
to open to the future. It is the period of greatest danger and
highest hope. At that time, 1835 to 1837, everybody was prosperous.
The development created by our system of canals had opened markets
for our produce. The public national debt had been paid. The pet
banks chartered after the destruction of the Bank of the United
States started upon a wild scheme of inflation. A craze to purchase
public land created an overflowing revenue. All causes combining
created a deceptive prosperity that could end only in one way.
All this was Greek to me. All I wanted, and the controlling wish
of my life, was to help mother. She was always kind, loving and
forbearing. No word of reproach ever fell from her lips to me.
She was the same to all her children, but if there was any difference,
or favor, it was for me. Even at that early age I had day dreams
for the future, and mother was the central picture. If fortunes
could be made by others why could I not make one! I wished I was
a man. It began to appear to me that I could not wait to go through
college. What were Latin and Greek to me, when they would delay
me in making my fortune!

Near the close of 1836 I wrote to my brother Charles at Mansfield,
asking him to get me employment. He discouraged me and said I
should stick to my studies, but I insisted that I was strong and
could make my own living. At this time Ohio had decided upon the
improvement of the Muskingum River from Zanesville to Marietta,
and the Board of Public Works had selected Colonel Samuel R. Curtis,
a graduate of West Point, as chief engineer. He was a brother of
Mr. Curtis, of Mount Vernon, and a friend of our family.

Charles had no difficulty in securing me employment as junior rodman
if, at the age of fourteen, I could perform the duties requed,--
which Colonel Curtis doubted. The work was not to commence until
the spring, when I was to be given a trial. I worked hard that
winter, for hard work, I thought, was the way to fortune. I studied
the mode of leveling. I saw a man on the Hocking canal operate
his instrument, take the rear sight from the level of the water in
the canal, then by a succession of levels backwards and forwards
carry his level to the objective point. Then the man was kind
enough to show me how, by simple addition and subtraction, the
result wanted could be obtained. I was well advanced in arithmetic
and in mathematics generally, and was confident, even if I was
hardly fourteen years old, that I could do the work of a junior
rodman.

About the first of May, 1837, the day of deliverance came. I was
to be my own master and make my own living! A fortune gilded with
hope was before me. I was to go in the stage thirty-six miles to
Zanesville, and thence by stage-route down the Muskingum River,
twenty-eight miles to McConnelsville. When the stage arrived at
my mother's house it was rather full, but there was still room
enough for me. All the family, and my comrades, had gathered to
see me off. My baggage, all new, was thrown into the boot, and I
took my seat in the stage. My heart sank a little as the stage
rolled over the hill and down the valley beyond, but the passengers
wanted to know who I was, where I was going, and what I was going
to do, and I think they got all the information they wanted, for
why should I not tell them of my visions of hope, sometimes called
plans! Oh! the golden dreams of childhood, the splendid anticipations
of boyhood, the fields of conquest to be won, the fortunes to be
made, all to vanish into thin air by the touch of reality.

I arrived at Zanesville long after dark, and very weary. I had
never been in so large a town before. The hotel was full of people,
but no one noticed me. I was hungry, but could only get the scraps
left, as the supper hour was past. I was to leave in the morning
at daylight without breakfast. I was shown into a small dark room,
on the third floor, and was to be called in the morning. I did
not like the place and was alone and in fear. I had more money
than ever before. Might I not be robbed? I took the precaution
to deposit my jack-knife on a chair within reach, to defend myself
in case of attack! My fears were soon lost in sleep. In the
morning I was aroused to take by place in the stage, but forgot my
knife, my only weapon of defense, and it was lost to me forever.
The bright morning revived my spirits. A hearty breakfast at
Taylorsville revived all my hopes and plans.

I arrived at McConnelsville about noon and stopped at the only
tavern in the place. I called at the headquarters of Colonel Curtis
and introduced myself to him. He received me very kindly and
introduced me to the office clerks, and to James M. Love, who, I
was told, would take me within a week to the engineer corps, then
running their levels at Beverly, sixteen miles away. I spent the
week pleasantly with him, and was intimately associated with him
during my service of two years. He subsequently studied law and
practiced his profession at Coshocton. When the Mexican War was
progressing he enlisted in one of the Ohio regiments, became a
captain, and, I think, a major, and rendered good service. He
subsequently migrated to Iowa and was appointed judge of the District
Court of the United States for that state. This position he held
for many years with distinction and honor. He died July 2, 1891.

When the time came for joining the corps Love proposed that we
start in the morning for Beverly, but I insisted that, as it was
only sixteen miles to Beverly, we could easily make the trip after
dinner. I had never walked so far as sixteen miles in my life,
but had walked or run three or four miles in an hour, and, by the
rules of arithmetic, we could easily go sixteen miles in five or
six hours. He yielded to my wishes, and, as our baggage had been
sent by the stage, we started about one o'clock, light of heart
and foot. When we had climbed the long hill south of McConnelsville,
about a mile and a half, I was a little tired, and I asked how far
we had gone; he said, "a mile and a half!" I began then to appreciate
my folly in not starting in the morning. He said nothing, but kept
at my slower pace, giving me a rest occasionally. It was sun-down
when we were six miles from Beverly, and I was completely tired
out. Still neither of us proposed to stop, as we could have done
at a farmer's house on the roadside. We reached the town of Beverly
about ten o'clock, weary and hungry. This tramp taught me a lesson
I never forgot,--not to insist upon anything I knew nothing about.
We found the corps the next day in camp in one large tent on the
east bank of the Muskingum River.

I had another experience, equally unpleasant, during our first
evening in camp. The members of our corps, five or six in number,
had been invited by Mr. Lindsley to attend a party at his house
near by. They accepted, and, as Love and I had no invitations, we
were left on guard in the tent containing the instruments and
supplies. When we were alone there came up suddenly a storm of
wind and rain,--not uncommon along the valley,--which flattened
the tent and flooded the ground on which it stood. We were thoroughly
soaked and utterly helpless, and, for a time, in real danger. I
remember my utter collapse at this new misfortune, but all we could
do was to wait and hope for the return of the corps. I must confess
that I quietly mingled my tears with the rain, but I did not tell
this to the boys when they returned after the storm was over. No
great damage was done. The tent was soon raised and secured in
place. The next morning I was given a rod and instructed how to
use it. I noticed that my associates did not have much confidence
in my ability to perform the duties, and, especially the senior
rodman, John Burwell. I followed instructions, however, and reported
my rod correctly. After a day or two they gave me a book in which
I was to enter the levels. In a very short time they were satisfied
that I could perform my duties, and I was soon trusted to make up
the record of levels, and the necessary additions and subtractions
in my book.

This little corps was composed of men, some of whom afterwards
became proficient as engineers, lawyers or preachers. Among them
were John B. Straughn, Wright Coffinberry, John Scott, John Burwell,
and James M. Love. The line of surveys were soon completed to
Marietta, the locks and dams were located, estimates of cost were
carefully made, the materials to be used were purchased and the
excavations and embankments to be made were computed. My associates
soon found that I could do the work assigned me, and in this way
I won their respect and forbearance.

After the surveys were completed, the members of the corps were
located at different places to take charge of the work. Mr.
Coffinberry was assigned to Lowell, and I was attached to him as
an assistant. John Scott, who had been at West Point, and, I think,
was a graduate, was assigned to Beverly, where a dam, lock and a
short canal were to be constructed. In the fall of 1837 he was
dismissed, I think, for intemperance. I was detailed, not exactly
to take his place, for which I was unfitted, but to look after some
details, and to keep the headquarters advised of the progress of
the work. It was soon found that I was able to measure embankments,
excavations, stone and other materials. The result was that I was
continued, at my early age, practically in charge of the work I
have mentioned. All plans came from headquarters and I was carefully
instructed from there what to do and how to do it. This was a
great and useful experience for me, and it continued until the
summer of 1839.

During most of that time I lived in the family of Mr. Paul Fearing,
an old and respected citizen of Beverly, who had long been engaged
in what was called the river trade. He transported the produce of
the country, chiefly pork, apples, wheat, and corn, from the
neighboring region on flats and scows down the Muskingum, Ohio and
Mississippi to New Orleans, stopping at the riverside towns, selling
his commodities and buying others. The boats were sold at New
Orleans for lumber. The captain and crew, generally consisting of
two men, would return by steamer with the proceeds of their traffic
in sugar, molasses and other productions of the south. This was
the early mode of traffic, but it had largely been broken up by
steamboats, so that at the time I refer to, Mr. Fearing's occupation
was gone; but he had a comfortable little fortune, and, with his
wife and only daughter, lived in a neat cottage on the banks of
the river at Beverly, where I became practically a member of his
family.

The community at Beverly was a very intelligent one, composed mainly
of settlers from Massachusetts on the Ohio Company's purchase.
The valley of the Muskingum is exceedingly fertile, but it is
comparatively narrow and confined by picturesque hills and ridges,
broken by water courses. The settlements were mostly in the valley,
for the hill lands were rough, covered by poor soil, and were
occupied chiefly for grazing. The portion of the valley at Beverly,
and south of it, was singularly fertile and pleasing, and very
valuable. Its owners and occupants were mostly of New England
birth and descent. Their productions had a ready market down the
river, and in that age, before railroads, the valley had a great
advantage in transportation and supplies over the interior parts
of the state. The people were, as a rule, educated in good schools,
and they had a college at Marietta and a female college at Zanesville.
The proposed improvement of the Muskingum, they believed, would
give them another advantage, by securing them water of a depth
sufficient for boats in the dry seasons of the year, as well as
during the "freshets," which they then had to depend upon, but
which at best were not very reliable in their habits, as I found
to my cost. This was to be corrected by the "improvement," which,
in their delusive hope, was to give them cheap water transportation
all the year around.

At that time railroads were in their infancy. They have since
practically destroyed or crippled all internal navigation on inland
rivers, reaching their iron arms over the United States, traversing
north and south, east and west--a vast gridiron of roads, in value
greater than the market value of all the land in the United States
in 1837. Before the first railroad was built in Ohio the Muskingum
improvement was completed, but it proved to be a bad investment.
The canals of Ohio and this improvement were, perhaps, the necessary
forerunner of the railroads to come, but the money expended on them
was practically lost. And I believe that the experiment now being
made by the United States in the improvement of the Ohio, Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers will end in a like result on a grander scale.
By the demolition of the forests which covered this great valley,
the supply and distribution of the waters and rivers in this region
will be so diminished at certain seasons as to render these water-
ways worthless for navigation. Engineers may make dams that will
hold water and locks that may lift a steamboat, but if the clearing
away of forests prevents the usual fall of rain and causes its
absorption into the earth, and if the dispersion of water by its
use and waste in cities, are to continue, the dam will not be
filled, and the lock will be like a stranded vessel, fit only as
a quarry for cut stone, or for a railway arch over a street of
asphalt in a growing city. Captain Fearing railed against the
steamboats as many now inveigh against the railroads, but these
two great agencies will divide the commerce of the world between
them. The railroads will possess the land, the steamboats the
ocean and the great fresh waters of the world. Possibly steamboats
may be utilized on short stretches of rivers, but even on these
they will have to compete with railroads having wide-reaching
connections which they do not possess. The money expended to levee
the Mississippi may be lost by the United States, but the planters
will receive some benefit from it in the protection given to their
crops. The steamboats in interior waters will be exchanged for
iron whalebacks, and new forces of a new nature, as yet only partly
developed, such a electricity, will contest with steam as a motive
power.

During the period of my stay on the Muskingum improvements I had
very excellent opportunities for study, of which I regret to say
I did not avail myself as well as I might have done. Still, I
occupied my leisure in reading novels, histories, and such books
as I could readily get. Many books were sent to me from Lancaster.
I purchased a number, and found some in Beverly which were kindly
lent to me. I read most of the British classics, as they are
called, the Spectator, Shakespeare, Byron, and Scott. I read all
I could find of the history of America. I tried to brush up my
Latin, but without much success. I had the frequent company of my
associates on the corps, all of whom were bright, able men, several
years in advance of me in age. We were frequently called to
headquarters at McConnelsville, a trip usually made on horseback,
and where we always had not only a cheerful, but a very instructive
time. Colonel Curtis was highly esteemed by us all, and his
treatment of me was kind and fatherly. He frequently complimented
me upon my work, and when he came through Beverly he visited me.

Among the diversions at Beverly we had occasional debates. One of
these was upon the dangerous subject of temperance, a topic not
then much discussed, for drinking of something stronger than water
was almost as universal as eating, and considered equally necessary.
However, there sprang up about this time a movement in favor of
temperance. It was thought best to discuss the subject at a public
meeting, a school teacher and I taking the side of temperance, and
two other young men opposing us. The meeting was well attended,
largely by the men employed on the public work who habitually
received a certain number of "jiggers" of whisky a day, at regular
hours. Whisky, not being taxed, was worth from fifteen to twenty-
five cents a gallon. It was not an expensive luxury, and was
regarded by all the workingmen on the improvement as a necessity.
At the end of the debate, which I do not remember to have been a
very notable one, the audience decided that we had the best of the
argument. The discussion created a great excitement. The workingmen
took up the cry that the Cumberland Presbyterians, the prevailing
sect there, and other Christians, were interfering with their habits
and comforts, and when the young schoolmaster appeared the next
day, they raised a shout and pursued him with sticks and stones.
He escaped with difficulty across the river, thus getting out of
the way. I heard of the trouble, but went up to the canal and made
my usual measurements. Not a word was said to me and no unkindness
shown. I understood afterwards that this was caused by a warning
given them by the contractor, who, hearing of the assault upon the
schoolmaster, told them that I was a part of the government and it
would not do to attack me; that to disturb me would have a very
bad effect upon them all. So, I was forgiven, and, indeed, I never
had any controversy during my time there with anyone connected with
the work, from John McCune, the contractor, to the humblest water
carrier about the works.

Early in the winter of 1838, I think in November, I had made up my
mind to go to Cincinnati on the usual leave after the close of
the works. As an excuse, and to procure means of paying for the
trip, I purchased, partly on credit, a barge and loaded it with
barreled salt, apples and other commodities, intending before the
freeze-up to avail myself of the usual rise in the river to float
to the Ohio and thence to Cincinnati. All went smoothly, the boat
was loaded and floated as far as Luke Shute, when the river was
found to be too low to proceed. Consequently the boat was tied up
and placed under the care of a man who slept aboard. We waited
for the river to rise, but it did not come. Both the Muskingum
and Ohio Rivers were very low that season and finally froze up
before the freshet came. This closing of navigation created a
great demand for salt in Cincinnati, as that article could not be
obtained from the up-river country, and it advanced to a price that
would have yielded me a little fortune had my boat not been among
those thus detained. I undertook to carry some of the salt by
flatboats, but they were frozen up. The packing season in Cincinnati
was going forward and salt bore a high price, but I knew it would
fall the moment the river opened. It was apparent that I would
lose on the salt, but I still clung to my purpose to go down the
river. Finally the freshet came, some time in January, I think,
and then, with three men on the barge, I floated down the river,
tying up at nights for safety, and stopping occasionally to sell
apples to the Kentucky farmers, I arrived at last in Cincinnati
and soon found that salt had greatly fallen in value, so I sold
the salt, boat and cargo upon the best terms I could get. The
result was a loss of about one hundred dollars. However, I had a
very pleasant visit in Cincinnati with my brother Lampson, who was
connected with the "Cincinnati Gazette." He was a member of the
family of Mr. Charles Hammond, his daughter, and son-in-law Mr.
L'Hommedieu. Mr. Hammond had been a warm friend of my father's
and was certainly one of the ablest writers of his day and generation,
as well as an accomplished lawyer. He was much pleased at my
adventure and especially with my rough shoes and warm Kentucky
jeans. He told me not to be discouraged, and flattered me with
the statement that a young fellow who could, at fifteen years of
age, do what I had done would make his way in the world.

At that time I saw Judge Burnett at his residence. He had been a
colleague of my father on the supreme bench, and during all his
manhood had been distinguished as a lawyer and a man of marked
ability. He wore a long queue, preserved the habits of the gentleman
of the old school, and was proud of being a Federalist. His book
called "Burnett's Notes" is perhaps the most valuable collection
of historical data pertaining to the early history of Ohio now
extant.

At this time I visited what was called Powers' "Hell." My brother
Lampson and I took the boatmen with us, and "Lamp," who was fond
of playing practical jokes, and knew the place better than I did,
took care to warn one of the roughest of my boatmen to seize hold
of a bar which was before him, and which "Lamp" knew would be
charged later with electricity, and to hold on to it for dear life.
We heard a rumbling sound inside, and finally saw flashes resembling
lightning, and we naturally seized on whatever was before us to
await the opening of "Hell." After more sheet lightning the veil
was drawn aside and there were before us representations of human
beings in every attitude of agony. At the same moment the electric
current was passed through certain bars before us, on one of which
the boatman held a firm grip, but no sooner was he charged with
electricity than his hair flew on end, he looked the picture of
terror, shouted in a loud voice, "O, hell!" and broke for the door.
Soon after we followed also, and that, to us, was the end of a
scene that ought never to have been exhibited.

I returned to Beverly in a steamboat and soon settled all the bills
of the salt speculation, but had to call upon Mr. McComb and my
brother, Charles, for a small sum to make up the deficit. I repaid
this sum later on, but Mr. McComb never failed, whenever I made a
business proposition that seemed hazardous, to say, with a great
haw-haw: "Well, John, that is one of your salt speculations."

The election in the fall of 1838 resulted in the choice of a
Democratic governor and state legislature, which, according to the
politics of the time, involved an entire change of state officials
and employees. Mr. Wall became a member of the Board of Public
Works, and was assigned, among other works, to the charge of the
Muskingum improvement. In the course of a few months, I think
about the last of June, 1839, Col. Curtis was removed, and Mr.
Macaboy was appointed superintendent in his place. At first it
was uncertain whether changes would be made in the subordinates of
the corps. Some of its members had become so much attached to Col.
Curtis that they thought it right and proper to send him a letter
expressing in substance their regret at his removal, their high
estimate of his services, and thanks for his kindness to them.
This was signed by Mr. Coffinberry, Mr. Burwell, Mr. Love and
myself. I am not certain that the others did not express the same
friendly feelings, but, at all events, the four whose names I have
mentioned were summarily dropped from the service.

Thus, after two years of faithful work with small pay, I was, at
the age of sixteen, turned adrift on account of politics.

I find among my papers, dingy with age, the correspondence with
Col. Curtis, and also the subsequent correspondence between Mr.
Wall and myself, in respect to my removal. My letter to Mr. Wall
was a disclaimer of any intention of disrespect to him in our letter
to Col. Curtis, and his reply was that we alleged that Col. Curtis
was removed without a cause, which he denied. I have no doubt,
from a present reading of the papers, but that he would have retained
me as a juvenile offender if I had made a suitable apology, but
the instinct of a boy to stand up for his party was strong. I was
a Whig of sixteen, and it was glorious to be a victim of
persecution.

I also find among my papers of that time, which I thought worthy
of preservation, a multitude of essays on as many different subjects,
and some efforts at poetry, all of which I consign to flames. Most
boys have had the same experience. The only benefit I derived was
the habit I formed of writing upon such subjects as attracted my
attention by reading, a habit I continued when studying law, in
preparing a case for trial, and in preparation for a debate in
Congress.

I returned at once to Lancaster. The great financial depression,
commencing in 1837, was now at its height. It was said that Ohio
State six per cent. bonds had been sold at fifty cents on the
dollar. Many banks were embarrassed and refused to discount notes,
while several failed, and their circulating notes became worthless.
I found that Lancaster had especially suffered, that many of its
leading business firms had suspended or were on the brink of failure.
I was then in excellent health, tall and slender and willing to
work. I received temporary employment from Dr. Kreider, who was
either Clerk of the Court or Recorder of Deeds, I do not remember
which. He gave me a dollar and a half a day, which I regarded as
a great favor, but the records were soon made up and I had nothing
to do.

It was at this period of my life that I fell into very bad habits.
Many of the boys about my age who were with me in Howe's school
were still about Lancaster, and were out of employment like myself.
We would meet on the street, or at the post office, or some place
of resort, to talk over old times, and got into the habit of drinking
poor wine, mostly made of diluted whiskey and drugs. The general
habit of drinking spirits was more common than now, but I had not
been subject to this temptation, as Col. Curtis was very strict in
prohibiting all such drinking. With the jolly good fellows I met
at Lancaster who had nothing to do, I could not refuse to join in
drinking the health of each other, and thus I was conscious frequently
of being more or less intoxicated. On one occasion, in the fall
of 1839, I went home very sick from drinking. My mother received
me with much surprise and sorrow, but neither complained nor scolded,
and, with the utmost kindness, put me to bed and watched over and
cared for me. I was not stupid enough to be unconscious of my
degradation and her affection, and then and there resolved never
to be in such a condition again, and from that time to this I am
not conscious of having been under the influence of liquor. I have
partaken of wine and spirits at weddings, feasts and dinners, I
have used it as a medicine, and in response to toasts and compliments,
but never to an extent to addle my brain or disturb my walk.

At that time intemperance was a common vice. Of the young men who
were my contemporaries a very large proportion became habitual
drunkards and died prematurely. No reform in my time has been so
general and beneficial as that of the disuse of drinking intoxicating
liquors, commencing in 1841. Formerly liquors were put on the
sideboard or table, and the invitation "take a drink" was as common
then as "take a seat" is now. This method of treating was shared
in by preachers of the Gospel, and by all who observed the courtesies
of social life. Now these conditions have greatly changed. Whisky
is banished to the drug store, the grocery and the saloon, and even
there it is under surveillance and so highly taxed as to furnish
a large proportion of the national revenue.

Some time in the autumn of 1839 I visited Mansfield for the first
time, on some business for General Reese, and it was then arranged
that early in the next spring I should return to study law with my
brother Charles. Mansfield was then a very unattractive village,
badly located on parallel ridges and valleys, but precisely in the
center of the very large county of Richland, then containing 900
square miles. The county covered a part of the high table-land
that separated the waters of Lake Erie and the Ohio River. It was
an almost unbroken forest during the War of 1812, with a few families
living in log houses, protected by block houses of logs from the
incursions of Indians, many of whom lived in the county. After
the war it was rapidly settled, chiefly from Pennsylvania, and
divided into farms of 160 acres or less, according to the new
congressional plan of townships six miles square, sections one mile
square, and subdivisions of forty, eight, and one hundred and sixty
acres. The topography of the country was high and rolling, from
900 to 1,350 feet above the sea, with innumerable springs of the
purest water, and small streams and creeks, all rising in the county
and flowing north or south into the Muskingum or Sandusky rivers.
The timber was oak, sugar, elm, hickory and other deciduous trees.
This valuable timber was the chief obstruction to the farmers. It
had to be deadened or cut away to open up a clearing for the cabin
and the field. The labor of two or three generations was required
to convert it into the picturesque, beautiful and healthy region
it now is.

The village of Mansfield has been converted into a flourishing city
of more than 15,000 inhabitants, with extensive manufacturing
establishments and a network of railroads reaching out to Cleveland,
Chicago, Pittsburg, Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis. There
was no sign of this development when I first visited the place.

On my return to Lancaster I applied myself closely to study and
reading, mainly of history. I read Hume, Smollett and Miller's
histories of England, Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," and such histories of the United States as I could procure.
It was at this time that the memorable "Log Cabin and Hard Cider
Campaign" of 1840 commenced. General Harrison had been nominated
in December, 1839, at Harrisburg, by the Whig party. He was a
distinguished general in the War of 1812, but had lived mainly a
quiet, modest life on his farm at South Bend, near Cincinnati.
The Democratic papers ridiculed him as a feeble old man, living in
a cabin and drinking hard cider. The Whigs turned these sarcasms
with great effect upon their adversaries. They compared the old
soldier and his excellent war record, living in a cabin with the
latch string out and eating corn bread, with "Matty Van, the used
up man," living in a palace, with roast beef every day, eating from
silver plate, with gold spoons, and drawing a salary of $25,000 a
year. This was no doubt demagoguism, but there was back of it the
great questions of protection to American industries, sound and
stable currency, and the necessity of economy in public expenditures.
A great meeting was held in Columbus in February, 1840. In the
procession were log cabins, filled with farmers and hauled by a
number of horses and oxen, and hard cider was on tap for all who
chose to drink. Songs were improvised, especially by Greiner, the
poet of the canvass. One of these songs, with the refrain, "The
Log Cabin Candidate will March to Washington," became famous and
prophetic.

Some time in March, 1840, taking the stage for Mansfield, I saw
signs of political excitement all along the way, even at that early
period of the canvass. My sister Susan, two years younger than I,
was with me. We met with no adventure worthy of notice until we
arrived at our destination, when, in ascending the hill to the
public square, the coach slipped and fell over on its side. This
we considered a bad omen. It was not, however, an unusual accident,
as the roads were always bad in March, and the coaches of the day
not worthy of the name. We were heartily welcomed into the family
of Robert McComb, who had married my sister, Amelia.

I was to study law, but under the laws of Ohio I could not be
admitted to practice until I arrived at the age of twenty-one years.
Our liberal laws presumed that a man of ordinary capacity could
master this profession in two years. What was I to do during the
two spare years? This question was left to the decision of my
uncle, Judge Parker, husband of my father's only sister. He was
a peculiar character, and, as I will have occasion to refer to him
again, I will give of him a brief biography. He was born in Nova
Scotia. His father was a merchant of some wealth who early decided
that his son should be educated in Ohio, and chose for him the
college at Athens. There young Parker not only received his
collegiate diploma, but became thoroughly attached to western habits
and opinions. He studied law with my father at Lancaster, and,
when admitted to the bar, went to Mansfield, where he practiced
law. He was genial, social, and especially fond of the society of
young people. I have often seen him stop on the streets of Mansfield
to watch boys playing marbles. He was conceded to be an able
lawyer, perhaps the best land lawyer and special pleader in that
part of Ohio. But he was not an advocate, partly owing to occasional
stuttering, but in jury cases employed my father until the latter
became a judge of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Parker had for some years before 1840 retired from active
practice, and was engaged with Robert McComb as a general merchant.
During, or about 1842, he was elected by the legislature of Ohio
presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and became eminently
popular, and deservedly so. He was to be my guide and counselor.

A few words in regard to my brother, Charles Taylor, will explain
our relations, the confidence he reposed in me, and my deep
obligations to him. He was then a bachelor thirty years old, with
quite a lucrative practice, mainly in collecting debts due to New
York and other eastern merchants. Our banking system was then as
bad as it could be, exchange on New York was always at a premium,
and there was no confidence in our local banks. Charles was
substantially the banker in Mansfield and surrounding counties for
eastern merchants. He was a good speaker when he addressed a judge,
and his briefs were clear statements of the law of the case, but
when forced to speak to a jury he was exceedingly shy and sensitive.
He avoided jury trials. He was a fair speaker on popular topics,
and took great interest in current politics as a Whig. He was a
member of the Harrisburg convention that nominated General Harrison
for President, and made several creditable speeches in that canvass.
He was married in the fall of 1840 to Miss Elizabeth Williams, of
Dayton, Ohio, and I became a member of his family soon after.

The influence of the special traits and tendencies of Judge Parker
and my brother Charles upon my life was soon manifest. My course
of study, outlined by Judge Parker, commenced with Blackstone,
followed soon after by Coke on Littleton. As a compromise I was
allowed to read Kent's Commentaries, but Chitty's Pleadings had to
go along with Kent. The disinclination of Charles to have anything
to do with contested litigation became more marked, and I was
compelled, long before my admission to the bar, to look after such
cases as grew out of his practice. The pleadings then in vogue
were the declarations, pleas and replications of the English common
law. These I prepared after I had been a student for a year, and,
in cases within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, I
habitually appeared either in prosecution or defense.

As a matter of course, I was often outwitted and defeated, much to
my chagrin. In one case submitted to arbitration, a pettifogger
of bad repute by the name of Baldwin secured an award palpably
unjust. I felt more keenly than my client the injustice done him,
and never forgave Baldwin until he was indicted for perjury and
driven out of the county in disgrace.

While pursuing my studies, I was able in various ways to make enough
money to support myself. I wrote deeds and agreements, and drew
the first map of Richland county, showing subdivisions in farms,
the course of creeks and rivulets, and roads. I was also employed
to collect small debts, and, toward the close of my probation, I
was intrusted with large collections, one of which was in closing
the business of an old firm with outstanding credits of more than
$20,000.

In those days of primitive barter the merchant was the banker of
all the farmers dealing with him. The farmer sold to the merchant
most of his surplus products, including live stock and pork, and
purchased his supplies, mainly of clothing, tea, coffee, and the
like, and the merchant made advances on the growing crop. At the
close of the year the account was settled, generally with a balance
in favor of the merchant. Little money was used. It was a traffic
in commodities. It was not unusual for the merchant to drive horses
and cattle to Pittsburg or further east, and send the proceeds to
the eastern merchant.

In the fall of the year it was quite common for the farmer to load
upon his wagon his surplus wheat and haul it fifty miles to Sandusky
and Milan, receiving in return salt and farming implements, and
the balance in money. Wheat was then the only article that would
command cash. At this season the highway was often blocked with
long trains of wagons that would not give way for other vehicles.
At night the wagons would be parked on the roadside near a creek,
and the farmers and their boys would have a regular joyous picnic
on provisions brought from home. This was the life of a farmer
before the days of railroads, and I am not sure but it was a more
happy one than now. Then the village blacksmith or shoemaker, the
tinker, the carpenter and the mechanic of every trade had his shop
and was a far more important and independent citizen than now, when
grouped into large manufacturing and machine works.

While a student, I was frequently sent by my brother to Wooster,
the nearest bank, with large sums of money to purchase exchange on
New York for his clients. These trips I always made on horseback.
Once, as I was to start quite early in the morning, I received
nearly $2,000 in bills the night before, in two packages, and placed
them in my overcoat. In the morning I threw my overcoat over my
arm and went for my horse. Before mounting I felt for the money
and found it was gone. I started in alarm for the house and on my
way found one package of $1,000 lying on the sidewalk at the corner
of the street where I had passed, but the other was nowhere to be
seen. I felt sure it was picked up by some one. I at once gave
notice to my brother, and he took immediate measures to trace the
finder. I cannot express the chagrin and anxiety which I suffered
on account of my carelessness, but Charles uttered no reproach,
but prepared to replace the loss. Fortunately within a month the
lost money was traced to an "early drunkard," who found the package
on the pavement while going for his morning grog. He was watched
and at night was seen to take some money from his trunk. A search
warrant soon led to the restoration of the money, except a small
sum he had spent. This incident attached me the more to my brother.

The social life in Mansfield, while I was a student, was very
pleasant and instructive. The freedom, and yet propriety of
intercourse among the young people, was notable. We had social
meetings, parties, dances, and an occasional ball during the winter,
but in summer, riding in carriages and on horseback was the recreation
of the day. Fleming's Ravine, about five miles from Mansfield,
was the general gathering place for young and old. A small stream
had cut a deep ravine with rocky banks on either side. An old mill
with its overshot wheel spanned the ravine and filled it with noisy
rattle. The adjacent woods, where the fire was lit and the coffee
made, and the farm lands stretching beyond, made a picturesque
scene often described and always admired. Here we had dances,
frolics, speeches and fun, with healthy exercise in the open air.
These frolics were often made the subject of description in the
newspapers. On a notable occasion of one of these visits to
Fleming's Ravine, Mr. Franklin Barker, a law student, wrote for
one of the local papers a pleasing description of the scene under
the name of "The Fairy's Tale." He paraphrased Byron as follows:

"There was a sound of revelry by _day_
And Richland's capital gathered then
Her beauty and her chivalry and fair eyes
Looked love to eyes that spoke again."

Many of the persons present were named, or so described as to be
recognized. There was a good deal of egotism and assumption in
the narrative which created much feeling among those who had not
the good fortune to attend. Though I was present, and greatly
enjoyed the picnic, I thought it was a good opportunity to prick
the bubble of self esteem assumed by Barker, and wrote for the
rival newspaper a counter description signed "A Looker On." This
excited a good deal of interest at the time, but it has probably
faded, after half a century, from the memory of the few who survive;
it then created a rivalry and left its mark upon the future. The
destruction of the mill by a flood, the cutting away of the wood
and other causes, have changed this, so that the gathering place
of the young of my day is a thing of the past.

During my study of law, the bar at Mansfield was considered a very
able one, including among its members James Stewart, Thomas W.
Bartley, Jacob Brinkerhoff, Charles Sherman and others. All of
those named became judges, either of the courts of Ohio or of the
United States. During the same period there were also many law
students in the offices of these gentlemen, among them Samuel J.
Kirkwood, George W. Geddes, Thomas H. Ford, Henry C. Hedges, Willard
Slocum, Joseph Newman, Patrick Hull and others, who afterwards
became distinguished in civil or military life. These students,
myself among the number, organized a moot court, presided over by
Joseph Newman, then in active practice as a partner of Mr. Stewart.
We held famous moot courts in which cases were tried with all the
earnestness, industry and skill that could have been evoked by real
cases. In these trials Mr. Kirkwood and I were usually pitted
against each other, although he studied late in life, and was then
more than thirty years old. He was then a Democrat, but moved to
Iowa in 1856, became a Republican war governor of that state and
United States Senator. I have always regarded our contests in this
moot court as the most important part of my legal training.

The course of study pursued under the direction of Judge Parker
continued until my admission to the bar, though much interrupted
by the variety and nature of my employment. I read, in addition
to the routine works prescribed by Judge Parker, a great variety
of literary and historical works, and had substantially practiced
my profession a year or more in advance of my admission to the bar.

I arrived at the age of twenty-one on the 10th day of May, 1844,
and promptly on time on that day I was presented to the Supreme
Court "on the circuit," then sitting at Springfield, Ohio, for
admission to the bar. Several other students were presented, and,
according to the custom of that time, we were all referred to a
committee composed of General Samson Mason, Hon. Charles Anthony,
and one other lawyer whose name I do not recall. All were leading
lawyers of that place, and had been busily occupied in the court.
We met that evening at the office of one of these gentlemen to pass
the ordeal for which we had been preparing for years. A few
questions were put to us which were answered, when some question
was asked, the answer to which led to a decided difference of
opinion among the examiners, and a practical suspension of our
examination. It soon occurred to them that they were more interested
in the cases coming on "to-morrow" than in our efficiency as
incipient lawyers. I was asked under whom I studied. I answered
Judge Parker, and they all agreed that anyone who was certified by
him ought to be admitted.

My old and dearest friend, and boon companion, Dr. J. C. Buckingham,
of Springfield, was then entering upon his profession. He was an
admirable penman. He obtained leave of the clerk of the court, to
write out my certificate of admission as a member of the bar, and
this he did in beautiful form, handsomely illustrated. He attached
to it an enormous seal, and it was duly signed by the clerk of the
court. I have kept it as a memento of him, but have never had
occasion to present it to anyone. He, poor fellow, died prematurely
at Springfield, when in the full employment of his duties as a
physician, and with the most hopeful prospects of success in his
profession.

I must not forget that in my boyhood days I had a strong penchant
for military parade. I remember well the respect always shown to
Revolutionary veterans, who survived to the period of my boyhood.
At every meeting, political or otherwise, where these soldiers
appeared to share in the assemblage of citizens, they were received
with profound respect. Hats came off. They were given the best
seats, and every mark of honor was shown them. What boy did not
feel the gushings of patriotic emotion when one of these old veterans
appeared upon the stage. To a less degree, similar marks of respect
were shown to the soldiers of the War of 1812; but, though this
was as great and important an event in our history, it did not
light the spark of patriotic fire like the Revolutionary War.

Before the war for the Union broke out, military spirit died away,
especially in Ohio. Military organizations had fallen into disuse
and popular contempt. We had, it is true, in times far apart, what
were called militia musters, but Jack Falstaff's regiment was
nothing to our militia. I had the honor to be a member of the
staff of Colonel Urie, of Ashland, when the venerable General Wilson
was the Commander-in-Chief of the militia of that part of Ohio.
He was a hero of the War of 1812, and, as I remember, a gallant
and fine-looking old gentleman. The regiment--so called--without
guns, uniform, or anything proper for a soldier, was with some
difficulty formed into line, but a wavering line, across the public
square at Mansfield and along East and West Market streets, when,
by some misunderstanding of orders, the right of the regiment
marched to the right, and the left to the left. With some difficulty,
and a good deal of swearing, they were brought back into line and
dismissed. Militia day was a day of drunkenness and fighting. No
wonder that years passed without muster. Such was the military
condition of the United States when the War of the Rebellion sounded
the tocsin of alarm, and our generation was called upon to meet
the gravest struggle in American history.

The life of a man is greatly influenced by the place of his birth,
the surroundings of his boyhood, and the habits and customs of the
community in which he lived. As I have been all my life a resident
of Ohio, and for more than forty years have been one of its
representatives in Congress, or the Cabinet, I feel that a brief
sketch of the history and resources of the state may not be out of
place in this biography. No adequate history of the state has been
written, though many works have given general outlines. The
materials are copious, but I can only state a few events that mark
the changes in its civilization. That it was once occupied by a
race now entirely extinct is evidenced by numerous mounds, earthworks
and lines of fortifications so extensive as to have required to
construct them a dense population with a knowledge of mathematics
far beyond that of any tribe or race existing on the American
continent, when discovered by Columbus. The works of the mound
builders can be seen, and have been described, but no ray of light
has been cast upon, or plausible suggestion made to account for,
the origin, existence or disappearance of this race.

Long after the settlement on the Atlantic Coast of the Thirteen
Colonies, the territory now included in the State of Ohio was part
of a vast unknown region north and west of the Ohio River. It was
roamed over by numerous tribes of Indians living in tents of bark
or skins, whose residence was generally as transitory as that of
the wandering tribes of Arabia. Many of these Indian tribes were
composed of a few families under the domination of a chief who went
out from his kindred as Abraham did, and planted his tents where
fancy led him, and moved at his whim or with his game. Every one
of the Indian tribes that had been driven by the white man from
the east and the south chose his camping and hunting grounds in
the region of the O-hi-o, often driving away a weaker tribe. Their
contests with white men had given them some knowledge of fire-arms,
and some of them had been marshaled under arms in the wars between
the English and the French, but, as a rule, the Indians encountered
by our race since the landing at Jamestown were all of the same
type of wandering savages. The difference between these tribes
can be accounted for by their location, whether on the seashore or
in the forest or plain, and by the strength of the tribe, from the
powerful Six Nations to the feeble band in possession of some chosen
valley.

Whatever may be said of the irrepressible conflicts between the
white man and the Indians, waged often with savage and relentless
cruelties on both sides, it may as truly be said that the same
savage conflicts have been carried on between the different tribes
of Indians, which often ended by the extermination of the weaker
tribe, or the absorption of the feeble remnant with the stronger
tribe. This was certainly the case with the Indian tribes of the
northwest territory. Ohio was the battleground for destructive
warfare between the Indian tribes long before the white man gained
a foothold on its soil.

In 1755, when the war with France commenced, the English settlements
covered the Atlantic Coast, but did not extend across the Alleghany
Mountains, though a few hardy pioneers may have wandered into the
wilderness beyond. But French missionaries, inspired with religious
zeal, had penetrated all the northwest territory, including the
great lakes. In 1673 Marquette and Joliet, two of these missionaries,
after years spent with the Indians on the shores of the lakes,
winning their confidence by humility and care, followed the lines
of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers from the shores of Lake Michigan,
and discovered the great river "with a joy that could not be
expressed," and floated upon its waters to the mouth of the
Arkansas.

It is impossible to read the interesting narratives of these
missionaries, of their life among the Indians of the northwest,
and their enthusiastic description of the new and wonderful land
they had discovered, without a feeling of admiration and reverence.
The adventures and trials of these zealous priests read like romance;
but their description of natural scenes, of great rivers, mountains
and plains, now familiar to fifteen million of people, attest the
accuracy of their statements and the courage and zeal with which
they pursued their task.

The discovery of Marquette was diligently followed by Chevalier de
la Salle, a knight of fortune, of wonderful endurance, who, after
overcoming incredible difficulties, conducted an expedition by the
way of the lakes and the Mississippi River to its mouth. Thus the
King of France, by the piety and zeal of a priest and the courage
of an adventurer, was able to base his claims to fully half the
continent of North America upon grounds recognized as valid by
European law, namely, the discovery of the St. Lawrence, the
occupation of Canada, and the discovery of the Mississippi from
its source to its mouth. The great body of the continent is drained
by these two rivers. Their discovery and occupation was sufficient
at that time to give to France the right of exclusive possession
of that vast territory, for the title of the Indian tribes was not
considered valid by Christian powers. While the priests of France
were seeking to save the souls of the Indians, the Kings of France
were seeking to rob them of their property.

The French, during this period, erected a line of posts from the
mouth of the Mississippi, by way of the Wabash, Maumee and the
lakes, to Montreal, and finally, in 1733, established a line of
posts from Lake Erie to the junction of the Monongahela and Alleghany
Rivers, where Pittsburg now stands, and claimed the whole country
north of the Ohio from its source to its mouth.

And here, for the first time, comes into view the majestic form of
George Washington, then a young man of twenty-two. He was sent by
Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, to visit the several Indian tribes
at the head of the Ohio River and the French forces at Venango.
In the dead of winter he made his trip into the wilderness, and
soon ascertained that it was the fixed purpose of the French
authorities to occupy all the country to the sources of the Ohio,
including a large section of what is now a part of Pennsylvania
and New York. The commander, St. Pierre, declared his purpose of
seizing every Englishman within the Ohio valley. The result of
the expedition of Washington left no choice to the English government,
except to abandon their claim to the northwest territory, or to
declare war. The English title was based upon their occupation of
the shores of the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to Georgia.
It was claimed that this occupation carried the right to possession
westward from sea to sea.

In the earliest grants to the colonies, especially to Virginia and
Connecticut, their western boundaries extended to the South Sea.
Where the South Sea lay, and what was the breadth of the continent,
was not defined by these kingly grants. James I and his councilors
then knew but little about America. There was no way to settle
this disputed title between the two powers but by war. A Virginia
company had built a fort on the south side of the Ohio, below the
site of the present city of Pittsburg. In 1754 the French troops
occupied the point at the junction of the Monongahela and Alleghany,
where the city of Pittsburg now is, and erected a fort.

Then followed the well-known war of the French and English, Braddock's
defeat, the heroism of Washington, the capture of Quebec and the
cession of Canada and the northwestern territory to Great Britain.
It is impossible to overrate the importance of these events upon
the future of America. The result was that the region east of the
Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River was the property of
Great Britain and the inheritance of the English race. The great
northwest was theirs, and fairly won.

The extinction of the French title to the Ohio territory was at
once followed by the claims of several colonies to parts of this
territory under grants from the British crown; but the English
government declared all the land west of the sources of the Atlantic
rivers as under the dominion of the king for the use of the Indians,
and all persons were forbidden to settle or remain within it. This
dispute was postponed by the War of the Revolution. An event during
the war, apparently of small importance, had a controlling influence
in securing to the United States the northwestern territory.

The State of Virginia, claiming title under a grant from the British
crown to the regions west of the Alleghanies, in 1778, organized
an expedition, under Colonel George Rogers Clark, to punish and
repel incursions of Indians, and capture the old French posts then
held by the English. This he accomplished, so that when negotiations
for peace were entered upon in 1782 our plenipotentiaries could
maintain the title of the United States to the northwestern territory,
not only by grants to the English colonies, but by conquest in war,
and actual possession at the time of the negotiations. The British
insisted on making the Ohio River a boundary of the United States.
Mr. Adams said that sooner than yield the western territory he
would exhort his countrymen to continue the war as long as they
could keep a soldier in the field. Mr. Jay was equally determined,
and finally the line of the lakes was agreed to.

The treaty of peace recognized the St. Lawrence, the lakes and the
49th parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the United
States and Canada. But the question arose whether the western
territory was the property of the United States as the result of
their joint struggle for independence, or of the several states
under the grants of the English crown. This dangerous controversy
delayed the formation of the federal government; but it was happily
settled by the cession of the territory to the United States, with
or without conditions and reservations, by the several states
claiming western lands.

As a part of this cession and settlement, and almost equal in
importance to the constitution of the United States, was the
celebrated ordinance organizing the northwestern territory. This
ordinance guaranteed the subdivision of the territory into states,
and secured to them, by a perpetual compact, the forms and substance
of a republican government, a proper disposition of the public
lands, and the formal prohibition of slavery in the territories,
and may be properly considered the commencement of the history of
the State of Ohio.

We may here pause to consider the condition, topography and
characteristics of the Territory, now the State, of Ohio in 1787,
when the first territorial government was organized by Congress.
It was bounded on the south and east by the Ohio River, touching
on its northeast border the States of Pennsylvania and New York;
on the north by Lake Erie, and on the west by an arbitrary line
not then defined, and contained about 40,000 square miles. Its
topography may be described as an elevated plain, its highest
elevation being 1,540 feet above the sea, its lowest depression
being 440 feet above the sea, and its mean altitude about 800 feet
above the sea. It is traversed by the comb of a watershed between
the river and the lakes, running from northeast to southwest across
the state, much nearer the lake than the river, at an elevation
above the sea of from 1,000 to 1,300 feet. The shed on either side
is penetrated by rivers of clear, pure water, in valleys of great
fertility, and usually with hillsides of a gentle slope and fertile
soil.

In 1787 it was an unbroken wilderness covered with great forests
and sparsely inhabited by savage tribes of Indians, only here and
there tempered by the civilizing teachings of the missionary. One
of the earliest descriptions I find of the famous Miami Valley is
as follows:

"The land beyond the Scioto, except the first twenty miles, is rich
and level, bearing walnut trees of huge size, the maple, the wild
cherry and the ash; full of little streams and rivulets; variegated
by beautiful natural prairies, covered with wild rye, blue grass
and white clover. Turkeys abounded, and deer and elks, and most
sorts of game; of buffaloes, thirty or forty were frequently seen
feeding in one meadow. Nothing is wanting but cultivation to make
this a most delightful country."

This favored land was thrown open for settlement at a time when
the people of the states had been impoverished by the war, when
there was neither money, credit nor commerce, when the government
of the Continental Congress had fallen into contempt, and the new
government was passing the ordeal of a vote in states jealous of
each other. It was the only land subject to sale by the United
States, for Kentucky was covered by Virginia grants, Western New
York was the property of land companies, and all beyond was a _terra
incognita_. There was a struggle for Ohio land among all the
northern states, including Virginia and Maryland. Companies were
formed, composed mostly of officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary
War, to secure from Congress favorable land grants. Virginia and
Connecticut had their ample reserves, New York had a large unoccupied
region in her territory, and the other northern states demanded
their shares in the common property of the United States. The
result was that all the states established settlements in Ohio,
and, for the first time in our history, the descendants of the
Puritans of New England, the Dutch of New York, the Germans and
Scotch-Irish of Pennsylvania, the Jersey Blues, the Catholics of
Maryland, the Cavaliers of Virginia and the loyal refugees of Canada
united their blood and fortunes in establishing a purely American
state on the soil of Ohio.

Among these early settlers were the foremost men of all the states,
the Revolutionary stock that won independence, who carried their
love of liberty and the principles and instincts of their localities
to a soil more fertile than any of the old states, and with natural
resources, climate and facilities for settlement and civilization
as favorable as any within their reach. The limits of this sketch
will not permit details of the progress of this migration. The
first difficulty it encountered was the toilsome way to the promised
land. All roads, such as they were, crossed the Alleghany Mountains,
or followed the longer route by the lakes. A voyage now easily
made in a day then occupied sixty days on foot or on horseback,
and every article of civilized life had to be transported with
painful labor over rude paths and roads, relieved sometimes by
barges and canoes on creeks and rivers.

When the first pioneers reached their destination, their land was
already occupied. Every part of Ohio was then in the possession
of Indians. The war they had maintained with the pioneers of
Kentucky only prepared them for the desperate struggle with new
invaders. The first settlement of the New England colony was made
in Marietta, April, 1788. From that day to the close of the war
with Great Britain in 1815 there were hostilities in some part of
Ohio with the Indians. There is not a county in Ohio that was not
at some time the scene of a battle with the Indians, or a skirmish,
or a massacre.

The interesting "Historical Collections," recently published by
Henry Howe, give many details of this local warfare. But, aside
from the danger that lurked at all times over the cabin of the
pioneer, there were more regular battles with the Indians fought
on the soil of Ohio than in any other state of the Union. The
defeat of General Harmer with 1,300 men, in 1790, in two battles
in the Scioto valley, laid open to predatory warfare all the
settlements in Ohio, and some in Kentucky. Every attempt at
negotiations was defeated by British interference.

In the following year, 1791, a force of over 2,000 men was organized
at Cincinnati under General St. Clair, and marched against the
Indians at the head waters of the Maumee. While encamped they were
attacked by the Indians and ignominiously defeated, losing a large
number of officers and men. They retreated in disorder, abandoning
their baggage and artillery, and throwing away their arms and
accoutrements. The loss in this disastrous campaign was more than
900 men, of whom 600 were killed. This calamity spread terror
throughout all the settlements as far as Pittsburg, and arrested
for a time the migration to Ohio.

The successive defeats of Harmer and St. Clair greatly impressed
General Washington with the necessity of marching an overwhelming
force against the Indians, and he appealed to Congress for the
necessary aid; but there was a manifest reluctance in Congress to
vote supplies, even if the failure to do so involved the abandonment
to the Indians of all the territory northwest of the Ohio. The
supplies, however, were granted, and General Wayne, a Revolutionary
hero, was placed in command.

In August, 1794, with a force of over 3,000 men, he advanced to
the confluence of the Maumee and the Auglaize, and there destroyed
the Indian villages and their abundant crops.

Following the Indians down the Maumee to a fort recently built by
the British, the forces of General Wayne attacked the Indians and
inflicted upon them a disastrous defeat. This victory settled
forever the occupancy of this territory by the white man, and the
irreversible fate of the poor Indian, though, as it will appear
hereafter, he struggled for this, his favorite region, for twenty
years more.

In looking back over a period of one hundred years it is impossible
to suppress a sense of injustice, and a feeling of sympathy for
the Indian in his unequal struggle. After their defeat by General
Wayne, a general conference of all the Indian tribes in the northwest
was proposed, and agreed upon, to be held during the following year
at Greenville. The full details of this conference are given by
Judge Burnet, in his "Notes on the Northwestern Territory." General
Wayne, in many "council fires," explained to the chiefs of the
numerous tribes the terms of the treaties made at Forts McIntosh
and Harmer, and demanded that they be ratified with additional
concessions and grants. Many of the replies, in the figurative
language of the Indians, are eloquent appeals to their "Great
Father" and their "Elder Brothers" to allow them to possess in
peace the land of their fathers; that they were not represented
when these treaties were made, and that their terms had not been
observed by their white brethren.

It was the same old story of injustice and wrong, of might against
right. They were compelled to accept the terms offered them. The
result was the cession by the Indians to the United States of 25,000
square miles of southern and eastern Ohio and many other tracts
west of Ohio. The Indians were to receive in return $20,000 in
presents, and an annuity of $9,500, to be distributed among the
tribes. By this treaty confidence was restored to the settlements,
and the tide of migration was renewed, and continued until the
breaking out of the War of 1812. But the treaty of Greenville did
not put an end to Indian hostilities. They still occupied northwestern
Ohio, and that part of the reserve west of the Cuyahoga River.
Occasional aggressions by both races led to outrages and murder,
usually followed by encroachments on Indian territory. In 1805
the remainder of the Western Reserve was ceded by treaty. In 1818
the northwestern part of Ohio was purchased by the United States
by treaty, subject to certain reservations, all of which were
subsequently ceded to the United States, the last by the Wyandots
in 1842, when the remnant, about 700 souls, moved to Kansas.

The most important, and by far the most dangerous, conspiracy of
Indians since the treaty of Greenville was organized by the "Prophet,"
a crazy enthusiast denounced as an impostor and accused of witchcraft,
and his brother, Tecumseh, a warrior of approved courage, possessed
of all the craft of the Indian, with remarkable intelligence and
comprehensive views. They united most of the tribes who had
participated in that treaty, and threatened with death all the
chiefs who were concerned in the subsequent treaties. This excited
the attention of General Harrison, then Governor of the Territory
of Indiana, who, in 1811, after many ineffectual conferences with
Tecumseh and the "Prophet," organized a force of 800 men and marched
against the "Prophet's" town, in what is now Cass county, Indiana.
The battle of Tippecanoe ensued, in which the Indians were totally
defeated and the town burned. The loss of the troops was so great
that General Harrison made a speedy retreat. The war with Great
Britain soon followed, and Tecumseh entered the British service.
He participated in most of the battles in Ohio and Michigan during
that war, and was killed at the battle of the Thames on the 5th of
October, 1813. With him ended all organized Indian hostilities in
Ohio.

Prior to 1798 all the laws governing the northwestern territory
were selected from the laws of the states by the territorial judges
appointed by the President. In that year it was ascertained that
the territory contained 5,000 white male inhabitants, when they
were authorized, as a matter of right, to organize and elect
representatives to a general assembly, who, with a legislative
council, were authorized to pass laws, subject to the veto of the
governor. The general assembly was duly organized on the 16th of
September, 1799, and was remarkable for the ability and distinction
of its members, most of whom had been soldiers in the Revolutionary
War. This was the beginning of home rule in Ohio. The life of
the territorial legislature was brief. Early in January, 1802, a
census was taken of the inhabitants in the eastern division of the
Territory, now the State of Ohio, by which it was found that it
contained 45,028 persons. Congress promptly authorized the people
to form a constitution and state government. This authority was
speedily acted upon, a convention of thirty-five members was elected,
and a constitution adopted November, 1802, without being submitted
to the people.

This constitution remained unaltered in a single particular for
fifty years. It was regarded at the time, and ever since, as a
model framework of state government, clear and brief in its
provisions, but comprehensive enough to meet the necessities of a
people growing in population from 45,000 to 1,980,329 in 1850.
The present constitution of Ohio was framed by a convention, which
met at Columbus, on the 6th of May, 1850, and adjourned on the 10th
of March, 1851. This constitution was ratified by a majority of
the people, and is still in force.

The decennial growth of the population of Ohio is here shown:

1802 . . . . 45,028
1810 . . . 230,760
1820 . . . . 381,295
1830 . . . 937,903
1840 . . . . 1,519,467
1850 . . . 1,980,329
1860 . . . . 2,339,511
1870 . . . 2,665,260
1880 . . . . 3,198,062
1890 . . . 3,672,316

In 1802 Ohio was eighteenth in rank among her sister states; in
1810 the thirteenth; in 1820 the fifth; in 1830 the fourth; in 1840
the third, and so continued until the recent census when the
marvelous growth of Chicago placed Illinois in advance of Ohio.
This remarkable growth was accompanied by rapid changes in the
habits and conditions of the people. Within a century they had
their struggle with the Indians; then their contest with nature in
a new country covered by forests--the "age of the pioneers;" then
the period of internal improvements, when roads and canals and
means of transportation were the great objects of desire; then the
marvelous development of railroads, followed by manufactures.
These changes, following in succession, are the most striking
features of the history of Ohio. I have already referred to the
pioneers who planted the first settlement, who bore the brunt of
Indian warfare, and firmly founded free institutions in Ohio.

After this period, and the organization of the state government,
the great migration to Ohio commenced which, within a century, was
destined to extend across the continent. The settler was generally
poor, bringing all his earthly possessions, with wife and children,
in a covered wagon, slowly traversing difficult roads to the new
and only land, then open to settlement. But the land was cheap,
the title clear, the soil good, and all were on the same footing,
willing to help each other. The task before him was discouraging.
He found his quarter-section in the unbroken forest, its boundary
blazed on the trees by the surveyor, and all around him a wilderness.
His first work was to erect a rough cabin of logs for a shelter;
his next to clear an opening for a crop. Every new settler was a
welcome neighbor, though miles away. The mail, the newspaper, the
doctor and the preacher were long in coming. In this solitary
contest with nature the settler had often to rely upon his gun for
food, upon simple remedies for new and strange diseases, and upon
the hope that his crop would be spared from destruction by wild
beasts.

This was the life of the early settler in every county in Ohio, as
each in its turn was organized and opened to settlement. A life
so hard, was yet so attractive that many pioneers, when a few
neighbors gathered around them, preferred to sell their clearings
and push further into the wilderness. In the meantime the older
settlements attracted newcomers. Mechanics and tradesmen came
along them. Then towns sprang up, and incipient cities, with corner
lots and hopeful speculators, tempted eastern capitalists to invest
their money in Ohio.

Ohio, in these early days, was the only outlet of the population
of the northern and middle states. Emigrants from the south,
following lines of latitude, went into Kentucky and Tennessee.
The great west, with its vast prairies and plains, was not then
accessible. Had it been so, the forests of Ohio might have been
left in solitude for many years to come. During all this period,
which we may properly call the pioneer stage, the settlers had no
market for their produce, except to supply the demand of incoming
immigrants. Grain and fruit would not bear the expense of
transportation. The only way to obtain ready money was to convert
corn and grain into hogs, horses and cattle, which were driven on
the hoof to Pittsburg and eastern cities. But little money
circulated, and that was chiefly irredeemable bank notes. The
clothing of the people was mainly of linsey-woolsey, home-made.
The spinning wheel, big and little, was to be found in every
household. Settlers near the banks of the Ohio River, and its
tributaries, had the advantage of floating their surplus products
in rough barges down the Ohio to New Orleans for a market, so that
the southern part of the state advanced rapidly, while the northern
part was still in the possession of the Indians.

When the Indian title was extinguished settlers came from Pennsylvania
into the counties immediately west of it, which are still, in the
habits of the people, in the location of houses and barns and the
cultivation of the soil, the precise counterpart of the region from
which the settlers came. The "Connecticut Reserve" was slowly
filled by the northern route of the lakes, almost exclusively from
New England, and the habits and customs of that region were
transported to their new homes, so that the "Western Reserve" to-
day is a striking type of old Connecticut in habits, and with the
same ideas. The lakes became the highway of commerce, and the
inhabitants of the interior carried their surplus grain and produce
in long lines of wagons to the new towns along the lake shore,
where it was exchanged for the necessaries of life and enough money
to pay taxes. All trade in the interior was by barter with merchants,
who became the bankers of the people.

The construction of the Erie Canal, and the introduction of steamboats
on the rivers and lakes, was the beginning of a great revolution.
Then followed in Ohio the era of internal improvement by the
construction of two lines of canal across the state, one from
Cleveland, on Lake Erie, to Portsmouth, on the Ohio River, and the
other from Toledo, on Maumee Bay, to the city of Cincinnati, with
the lateral canal to Pittsburg, and the improvement of the Muskingum
River by locks and canals.

Salmon P. Chase, then a young attorney at Cincinnati, in his
introduction to his compilation of the laws of the state, published
in 1833, thus describes the effect of these improvements upon the
prosperity of Ohio:

"They have afforded to the farmer of the interior an easy access
to market, and have enhanced the value of his farm and his productions.
They have facilitated intercourse between different sections of
the state, and have thus tended to make the people more united, as
well as more prosperous. They have furnished to the people a common
object of generous interest and satisfaction. They have attracted
a large accession of population and capital. And they have made
the name and character of Ohio well-known throughout the civilized
world, as a name and character of which her sons may be justly
proud."

This period of prosperity continued for twenty years, when, in
1846, a still greater revolution was introduced by the building of
railroads. The first object of this was to furnish cheaper
transportation of the produce of the farmer to the Ohio River and
Lake Erie. The first railroads were from the interior, north and
south. They were little better than tramways, supported by cross-
ties with longitudinal stringpieces covered with thin strips of
iron. The carriages were propelled by feeble engines, and it was
thought a matter of great importance when, by this new motive power,
a bushel of wheat could be transported from the interior to distances
of from fifty to a hundred miles for from six to ten cents. While
a young attorney, I thought it a grievous injustice that my client,
one of the new railroad companies, was compelled by a jury to pay
$2,000 for the right-of-way over twenty miles of farm land. It
was soon discovered that railroads were to be so successful that
they would supersede for the transportation of persons and passengers
all kinds of water transportation, and that lines running long
distances east and west would have the benefit of the through travel
and traffic. In rapid succession several lines of railroad were
built from the eastern cities across the state to the northwest,
west and southwest. Within twenty years from the first construction
of railways they had almost superseded all former modes of
communication, and had reduced the rates of travel and transportation
to less than one-half the former rates.

After the close of the Civil War the construction of railroads
rapidly increased, so that in 1890 the total miles of railway track
in Ohio was 10,464, and the valuation for taxes was $102,950,642,
a development in a single branch of industry far greater than in
any other. This improvement led to the adoption of a system of
free turnpikes in most of the counties in Ohio, constructed by
local taxation, so that now Ohio is as well supplied with well-
constructed turnpikes and railroads as any state in the Union, and
perhaps, as well as many European states.

Another great change in the industry of the people of Ohio rapidly
followed the construction of railroads. Manufacturing establishments
of almost every kind were rapidly constructed, mostly since the war.

It appears by census, prior to 1890, that in 1850 the total value
of manufactures of Ohio was $62,692,279; in 1860 it was $121,000,000;
in 1870 it was $269,713,610; in 1880 it was $348,298,300. In 1890
it was over $500,000,000. During the single year 1889 there were
incorporated over 400 new companies with a capital stock of
$25,584,500. Almost every article needed for use by the people is
thus produced at home, and great quantities of machinery, especially
of farming machines of every variety, are exported to every state
of the Union and to many foreign countries. The manufacturing
industry has thus become second only to that of agriculture, and
it is believed that, under the great impetus given by our protective
laws, the time is not far distant when the value of manufactured
products will be equal to, or greater than, the productions of the
farm.

The most striking result of the change in the industries of Ohio
is the rapid increase of city population, compared with farming
population. The following table will show the population of twenty
cities, by the censuses of 1850 and 1890:

1850. 1890.
Akron . . . . . . . 3,266 27,601
Canton . . . . . . 2,603 26,189
Chillicothe . . . . 7,100 11,288
Cincinnati . . . . 115,435 296,908
Columbus . . . . . 17,882 88,150
Cleveland . . . . 17,034 261,353
Dayton . . . . . . 10,977 61,220
Findlay . . . . . 1,256 18,553
Hamilton . . . . . 3,210 17,565
Ironton . . . . . ---- 10,939
Lima . . . . . . . 757 15,987
Mansfield . . . . 3,557 13,473
Newark . . . . . . 3,654 15,286
Portsmouth . . . . 4,011 12,394
Sandusky . . . . . 5,087 18,471
Springfield . . . 5,108 31,895
Steubenville . . . 6,140 13,394
Tiffin . . . . . . 2,718 10,801
Toledo . . . . . . 3,829 81,434
Zanesville . . . . 7,929 21,009
221,553 1,053,910

While the aggregate population of Ohio has increased 185 per cent.
since 1850, that of the cities named has increased 475 per cent.

The growth of cities and manufactures has been accompanied by the
discovery and development of a diversity of mineral resources of
great and increasing value.

The mining of coal was insignificant in 1850, while the product of
coal in 1890 is estimated at exceeding 12,000,000 tons.

Recently petroleum was discovered near Marietta and Lima, places
in Ohio remote from each other, thus supplying a new element for
commerce and a new agent for manufactures. Its properties and
innumerable uses have already been tested in Pennsylvania. The
annual supply by the census of 1890 was 12,471,466 barrels, second
only to that of Pennsylvania, and has not yet reached its maximum.

About the same period came the discovery of natural gas at Findlay,
in Hancock and surrounding counties. This subtle and mysterious
creation of nature has been applied locally as fuel for manufacture,
and as light and heat in many cities and towns. The duration of
its supply, however, cannot be determined.

The lakes on the north and the river on the south secure to the
people of Ohio cheap water transportation for the importation and
exportation of raw materials and finished products, while the
physical features of the country north and south of Ohio, in a
measure, compelled the construction of the great routes of railway
over its soil.

From the beginning Ohio has taken a leading part in furnishing
facilities for education to the rising generation. In early days,
when the population was sparse and scattered, day schools were
established, by voluntary effort, in counties, towns and neighborhoods
where the population was sufficient to justify it. At an early
period the State of Ohio established the common-school system, by
which every child between the ages of seven and fourteen years is
furnished with the rudiments of a good education. Some of these
schools have been so far advanced that in them any child showing
proficiency can secure, without cost, an education fully equal to
that furnished by the colleges of the country forty years ago.
The amount expended in 1890 for the support of public schools was
$11,407,499. The number of teachers employed was 19,526. The number
of persons enrolled between the ages of six and twenty-one was
1,123,985. The number of scholars who attended was 797,439. The
average attendance was 549,269. The excellence of the system of
common schools in Ohio is admitted on all hands to be equal to that
of any other state or section.

The charitable institutions of the state, including children's
homes, are equal to the best in any country in the world.

The building of churches and places of public worship commenced
with the first settlement in Ohio, and has kept pace fully with
the growth of population. In every community, great or small,
churches are open for the worship of the Almighty God. The broadest
toleration is not only permitted, but favored, by a universal public
sentiment. Every denomination of Christians who number enough to
make a congregation can readily secure a house of worship, not only
by gifts from its members, but by contributions made by other
professing Christians. The same charity is extended to Jews and
Gentiles professing any creed or having any form of worship.

The standing, ability and influence of the men engaged in the
professions in Ohio will compare favorably with any in the Union,
and especially is this true of the lawyers of the state. Many of
the lawyers who engaged in the fervent discussion which led to the
Revolution and then participated in the war, thrown upon their own
resources after the war, were among the early founders of the new
settlements in Ohio. They chiefly framed the first laws of the
state. Judge Burnet, one of them, had intrusted to him the
preparation of most of the laws of the territorial government.
The principal lawyers appeared in the constitutional convention
and in the legislatures subsequent, and contributed more than their
share in ingrafting upon our statutes the republican principles
and ideas found in the first constitution and laws of the state.
They shared with other settlers in all the hardships of pioneer
life. Innumerable anecdotes of their voyages through the forests
of southern and eastern Ohio, and the swamps of northwestern Ohio,
are preserved among the traditions of the bar.

It was the habit in those early days for the principal lawyers of
the state to follow the judges in their rounds from county to
county, attending the courts and aiding local attorneys in the
trial of important causes. They rode on horseback, with their
clothing and books in their saddlebags, and, where a better lodging
could not be found, camped in the woods by the roadside. The early
judges of the Supreme Court, some of whom were transferred to the
Supreme Court of the United States, rode in the same manner on
their circuit, administering justice impartially, but firmly, for
the salary of $1,000 a year, only raised to $100 a month about the
year 1820. The doctors and preachers shared the general life and
condition and the same homely fare as their patients and hearers.

A life like this developed individual character and produced many
men of odd characteristics, strange manners and peculiar dress and
conversation. The almost universal use of whisky during the pioneer
period in the family circle and in social life, and the habit of
treating and drinking, led to many wild scenes and fights, but,
unlike their brethren of the south, the contestants commonly were
content with the weapons nature gave them. It was not unusual,
when a quarrel arose, to gather around them, form a circle and give
them fair play and a free fight. There can be no doubt that in
those early days many rude scenes and fights and violence of many
kinds occurred, and such crimes were indulged with more charity
than now prevails. But it is equally true that thefts and the
meaner crimes were more rare than now, and when disclosed were
punished with greater severity than acts of violence. The stealing
of a horse was considered a greater crime than manslaughter without
malice or premeditation.

But all these habits and ideas have been greatly changed for at
least fifty years. The habit of drinking spirituous liquor at the
homestead, in the family circle, or on the farm, has almost entirely
ceased. As a rule, it is confined to saloons and bar-rooms, mostly
in the cities and large towns, and a "free fight" in the presence
of spectators could not now occur in any community in the state.
The enforcement of the criminal laws is as certain as in any other
community. The discipline of penitentiaries and reformatories and
houses of correction is founded upon the best examples of such
institutions in the older states, and the most civilized countries
of Europe.

There is one other quality developed by the people of Ohio which
will be readily conceded by all. The people from the earliest days
were born politicians, vigorous in the defense of their opinions
and firm in the maintenance of all their rights. The events in
their history developed a military instinct which led them to take
an active part whenever their country became involved in war. In
the pioneer age nearly every able-bodied man served either in the
Indian wars or in the War of 1812. In the Mexican war the State
of Ohio furnished her full quota of soldiers, and tendered thousands
more. In the political contests that preceded the Civil War the
lines between the two parties were sharply drawn, though when war
was commenced by the firing upon Fort Sumter the people were
practically united for its prosecution until the Union was restored
by the unconditional surrender of the Confederate armies. Questions
arose involving individual rights upon which the Democratic party
was divided, but it is due to history to say that in the great
struggle for national life the people of Ohio, without distinction
of party, with few individual exceptions, were on the side of the
Union.

The share taken by the several states in the Civil War is familiar
to all. Invidious comparisons ought not to be made. It will be
conceded that Ohio did its full part in this supreme contest. She
furnished to the Union army 319,659 soldiers, or more than one-
tenth of the national armies, out of a then population of 2,339,000,
some of whom served in every considerable battle of the war. She
furnished from among her sons the leading commanders of the Union
army, and a long list of distinguished officers who were conspicuous
in every battle of the war. The war Governors of Ohio were
conspicuous in their zeal and ability in organizing recruits, and
in care and attention to their comfort and wants. The people of
Ohio, both men and women, contributed freely in many ways for the
relief of the sick and wounded during the war, and after its close
provided homes for needy soldiers, and for the children of those
who fell.

I have carefully refrained from mentioning the names of the many
illustrious citizens of Ohio who contributed most to the organization,
growth and development of that state and of the United States, lest
I omit others equally worthy of honorable mention. The Governors
of Ohio have been selected for conspicuous service to the state,
or to the United States, and, though the powers of that officer,
under the constitution of Ohio, are not so great as in many of the
states, they were distinguished for ability, integrity and high
personal character. The roll of statesmen who have served Ohio in
the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States includes
many of commanding influence in the national councils, two of whom
have been Presidents of the United States, two Chief Justices of
the Supreme Court of the United States, and many others have occupied
seats as Justices of the Supreme Court, as heads of departments of
the executive branch of government, and representatives of the
highest rank in our diplomatic service.

It is not intended to make a comparison of the merits of individuals
or parties, nor of Ohio with other states, old or new. I concede
that all the states, old or new, have contributed to the strength
of the republic, the common hope and pride of all American citizens.
Local or state pride is entirely consistent with the most devoted
loyalty to the Union. All I have sought is to present truthfully
a mere outline of the history and resources of a state carved within
a century out of a wilderness, having at the beginning no inhabitants
but savage men and wild beasts, no mark of civilization except that
made by an extinct race leaving no name or date or history, and
now converted into the peaceful home of four millions of human
beings, possessed of a full share of property and wealth, a soil
rich and fertile, well cultivated by independent farmers, yielding
more than the entire production of all the colonies that rebelled
against Great Britain, and producing by varied industries and
developed resources more than all the states produced when the
constitution was adopted.

In intelligence, means of education, temperance, order and religious
observance, Ohio may fairly take its place among the most favored
communities in the world. It is a type of what can be accomplished
under favorable circumstances by a free people under a free
government, where each citizen enjoys the full and undisputed
possession of equal rights and opportunities. Ohio commenced its
existence on the western border line of civilization on the continent.
The center of population has already passed its borders, so that
it now takes its place, not in the west, but in the east. The new
communities that have been founded in the west are largely composed
of the sons and daughters of Ohio, who, following the example of
their ancestors, seek new fields for enterprise and industry. I
have observed that whenever I traveled in the west, however remote
the place, I found the "Ohio man" well advanced among his fellow
citizens, and actively contributing his full share to the growth
and prosperity of the community in which he lived, but retaining
his love for his native state, and always proud to say he was born
in Ohio.

After I was admitted to the bar I felt the natural elation of one
who had reached the end of a long journey after weary waiting. I
spent two or three weeks in visiting my relatives in Dayton and
Cincinnati, attending the courts in those cities, where I observed
closely the conduct of judges and lawyers in the trial of cases,
and returned to Mansfield full of confidence, and with a better
opinion of myself than I have entertained since.

The first object I sought to accomplish was the removal of my mother
and her two unmarried daughters, Susan and Fannie, from Lancaster
to Mansfield. At this time all her sons were settled at homes
distant from Lancaster, and her other daughters were married and
scattered. By an arrangement between my brothers, Charles and
Tecumseh, and myself, I was to keep house with mother in charge,
Susan and Fannie as guests. This family arrangement was continued
until Susan and I were married and mother died.

To return to my admission to the bar. I felt that I was now a man.
I had heretofore banked mainly on the treasures of hope. My brother,
Charles Sherman, admitted me as an equal partner in his lucrative
practice, and thus I gained a foot-hold in the profession.
Fortunately for me, his timidity required me to attend stoutly
contested cases brought to us. The old distinction between law
and equity proceedings was then preserved, and Charles was a very
good equity counselor. With this line of distinction between us
we never had any difficulty in arranging our business, or in dividing
our labor. He was then agent and attorney for New York and eastern
creditors, the confidential adviser of our leading business men,
and the counselor of a very interesting sect, then quite numerous
in Richland county, called Quakers, or Friends, who could not
conscientiously take the usual oath, but in witnessing all necessary
legal papers, and in contests, made their affirmations. There was,
therefore, left to me the pleadings, oral or written, and the
struggle of debate and trial. The practice of the bar in Ohio had
greatly changed from that of the early decades of this century.
As I have stated, the judges, in the earlier decades, accompanied
by leading lawyers, mounted on horses, went from county to county
and disposed of the docket. The local lawyers had but little to
do. Now all this is changed. Each county has its bar and its
leading lawyers, and only when the case is of great importance a
"foreign" lawyer is called in. The change has been caused by the
abnormal growth of population. In 1830 the total population of
the state was only 938,000, that of many of the counties being very
small. In 1850 the population had more than doubled, amounting to
1,980,000. In 1890 it was 3,672,000, well distributed among the
counties according to their capacity for supporting this increase.

Other remarkable changes have also taken place during the same
period. The entire mode of conducting business in early days has
been abandoned. Cash payments and short accounts have taken the
place of barter and credit. The Ohio banking law of 1846, followed
and superseded by the national banking act of 1863, produced a
radical change in the forms, credit and solvency of paper money,
and, more than any other cause, has encouraged the holding of small
savings of money in savings banks and like institutions. These
favorable conditions tended to limit credits, to encourage savings,
and to change the vocation and habits of lawyers.

Changes in methods have also affected the legal profession. The
adoption of a code of laws, and of new and simple pleadings, rendered
useless half the learning of the old lawyers, driving some of them
out of practice. I knew one in Mansfield who swore that the new
code was made by fools, for fools, and that he never would resort
to it. I believe he kept his word, except when in person he was
plaintiff or defendant. Yet, the code and pleadings adopted in
New York have been adopted in nearly all the states, and will not
be changed except in the line of extension and improvement.

These reforms, and the many changes made in the organization of
our state and federal courts, have to a considerable extent lessened
the fees and restricted the occupation of lawyers. But it can be
said that the leading members of the legal profession proposed and
adopted these reforms, and always advocated any legislation that
tended to simplify and cheapen litigation and at the same time
protect life, property or reputation.

While these causes were operating against lawyers, agents of nature,
hitherto unknown, undiscovered, and wonderful, were being developed,
which were to completely revolutionize the methods of travel, the
transportation of goods, and the modes of production, thus opening
new fields for the employment of lawyers. Instead of assault and
battery cases, suits for slander and the collection of debts, the
attention of lawyers was directed to the development of railroads,
banking institutions and other corporations.

The construction of railroads caused a most remarkable revolution
in the habits and industries of our people. The first built in
Ohio ran from Lake Erie or the Ohio River, north or south into the
center of the state. Among them was the Sandusky & Mansfield road,
originally a short line from Sandusky to Monroeville, intended to
be run by horse power. It was soon changed to a steam road, the
power being furnished by a feeble, wheezing engine, not to be
compared with the locomotive of to-day. It was then extended to
Mansfield, and subsequently to Newark, but was not completed until
1846. It was built of cross-ties three feet apart, connected by
string pieces of timber about six by eight inches in dimensions,
and a flat iron bar two and one-half inches wide and five-eighths
of an inch thick. The worthlessness and danger of such a railroad
was soon demonstrated by innumerable accidents caused by the spreading
of rails, the "snaking" of the flat bars of iron through the cars,
and the feebleness of the engines. Both road and engines soon had
to be replaced. In every case which I recall the original investment
in the early railroads was lost.

It was thought when the first railroad from Sandusky to Mansfield
was completed that the road would save the farmer five or six cents
a bushel on his wheat in its transit to the lake, and yield a
handsome profit to the stockholders of the railroad. That was the
great benefit anticipated. No one then thought of the movement by
railroad, over vast distances, of grain, stock, and merchandise,
but regarded the innovation as a substitute for the old wagon trains
to the lake.

The construction of this railroad was considered at that time a
great undertaking. It was accomplished mainly by the leading
business men of Mansfield, but the road turned out to be a very
bad investment, bankrupting some and crippling others. I was
employed by the company to collect the stock and to secure by
condemnation the right-of-way from Plymouth to Mansfield. Much of
the right-of-way was freely granted without cost by the owners of
the land. As the chief benefit was to inure to the farmers, it
was thought to be very mean and stingy for one of them to demand
money for the right-of-way through his farm. I went over the road
from Mansfield to Plymouth with a company of five appraisers, all
farmers, who carefully examined the line of the railroad, and much
to my mortification, assessed in the aggregate for twenty miles of
railway track, damages to the amount of $2,000. I honestly thought
this an exorbitant award, but the same distance could not be
traversed now at a cost for right-of-way of ten times that sum.

The present admirable roads in Ohio have been built mainly by the
proceeds of bonds based upon a right-of-way.

In the meantime other railroads of much greater importance were
being built, and the direction of the roads, instead of being north
and south was from east to west, to reach a business rapidly
developing west of Ohio of far greater importance than the local
traffic of that state.

Among the most valuable of these railroads was the Pittsburg, Ft.
Wayne & Chicago, now a part of the system of the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, by which it is leased. This road was built in
sections by three different corporations, subsequently combined by
authority of the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois. The first section was the Pittsburg & Ohio railroad from
Pittsburg to Crestline, twelve miles west of Mansfield.

There is perhaps no more remarkable material development in the
history of mankind than that of railroads in the United States
since 1845. The number of miles of such roads is now 171,804.72,
the actual cost of which with equipment amounting to $9,293,052,143.
The value of these railroads and their dependent warehouses and
stations is probably greater to-day than the value of the entire
property of the United States in 1840.

Contemporaneous with railroads came the telegraph, the cable, and
the telephone. The first telegraph wire was strung between Baltimore
and Washington in 1844. The first telegraph line through the State
of Ohio was from Cleveland via Mansfield to Columbus and Cincinnati,
and was established in 1848. At the close of the session of the
Supreme Court at Mansfield in that year, Judge Hitchcock, who
presided, asked me the road to Mt. Gilead, in Morrow county, a
county then recently created. I pointed to the telegraph wire
stretched on poles, and told him to follow that. The old Judge,
who had been on the supreme bench for over twenty years was quite
amused at the directions given. He laughed and said he had been
mislead by guideboards all his life, and now he was glad to be
guided by a wire.

The development and changes, soon after my admission to the bar,
turned somewhat the tide of my hopes and expectations. Our firm
soon lost the business of collecting debts for eastern merchants
by the establishment of numerous and safe banks under the state
act of 1846. Several of the old banks, especially those at Wooster,
Norwalk, and Massillon had utterly failed, and, I believe, paid no
part of their outstanding notes. The new banks, founded upon a
better system, one of which was at Mansfield, rapidly absorbed the
collections of eastern merchants from the part of Ohio in which we
lived. This loss was, however, more than made good by our employment
as attorneys for the several railroads through Richland county.
My brother gradually withdrew from his business in Mansfield, and
became the general attorney for the Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago
Railroad.

In the meantime I had taken a junior part in the trial of several
cases in which I was greatly favored by Mr. Stewart, the most
eminent member of his profession at Mansfield. He gave me several
opportunities for testing my qualities before a jury, so that I
gradually gained confidence in myself as a speaker.

My Uncle Parker was then judge of the Court of Common Pleas. So
far from favoring me on account of my relation to him, he seemed
to wish to demonstrate his impartiality by overruling my pleadings
or instructing the jury against me. I am quite sure now that this
was fanciful on my part, for he was universally regarded as being
an excellent example of a just judge without favor or partiality.

During the early period of practice at the bar I studied my cases
carefully and had fair success. I settled more cases by compromises,
however, than I tried before a jury. I got the reputation of being
successful by full preparation and a thorough knowledge of the
facts and law of the case. In addressing a jury I rarely attempted
flights of oratory, and when I did attempt them I failed. I soon
learned that it was better to gain the confidence of a jury by
plain talk than by rhetoric. Subsequently in public life I preserved
a like course, and once, though I was advised by Governor Chase to
add a peroration to my argument, I did not follow his advice.
While I defended many persons for alleged crimes I never but once
prosecuted a criminal. My old friend, Mr. Kirkwood, was the
prosecuting attorney of the county, and I renewed with him my "moot
court" experience in frequent contests between real parties.

During this period I became a member of the order of Odd Fellows
in Mansfield. I took an active interest in the order, and was at
one time Noble Grand of the lodge. I have continued every since
to pay my dues, but have not been able to attend the meetings
regularly for some years. I have always thought, without any
reference to its supposed secrecy, that it is an association of
great value, especially in bringing young men under good social
influences with men of respectable character and standing.

Among the political incidents of this period I recall the excitement
that grew out of the Mexican War. The general feeling among all
classes, and the universal feeling among the Whigs was, that the
Mexican War was purposely and unjustly entered upon to extend the
institution of slavery. There is, now, no doubt that such was the
object of the war. After the battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de
la Palma a call was made upon the people of Ohio for two regiments
of volunteers. These were raised without much difficulty, one
being placed under the command of Col. Thomas L. Hamer, the other
under my old commander, Col. Samuel R. Curtis. I was somewhat
tempted to enter the service, though I did not believe in the
justice of the war. My old friend, Gen. McLaughlin, raised a
company in Mansfield, and my comrade on the Muskingum Improvement,
James M. Love, raised one in Coschocton, and Col. Curtis was to
command the regiment. My brother, William Tecumseh, then captain
in the regular army, was eager to go into the war. He had been
stationed at Pittsburg, on recruiting service, but during the
excitement visited us at Mansfield, and chafed over the delay of
orders to join the troops, then under General Taylor. No doubt
his impatience led him to be assigned to the expedition around Cape
Horn to occupy California, this, greatly to his regret, keeping
him out of the war with Mexico.

Whatever may have been the merits of this war in the beginning,
its fruits were undoubtedly of immense value to this country.
Without this war California might, like other provinces of Mexico,
have remained undeveloped. In the possession of the United States
its gold and silver have been discovered and mined, and, together
with all the vast interior country west of the Mississippi, it has
been developed with a rapidity unexampled in history.

In the winter of 1846-7, I for the first time visited the cities
of Washington, New York and Boston. I rode in a stage coach from
Mansfield to the national road south of Newark, and thence over
that road by stages to Cumberland, the railroads not having yet
crossed the mountains. From Cumberland I rode in cars to Baltimore,
occupying nearly a day. From Baltimore I proceeded to Washington.

On my arrival I went to the National Hotel, then the most popular
hotel in Washington, where many Senators and Members lodged. I
found there, also, a number of charming young ladies whose company
was much more agreeable to me than that of the most distinguished
statesmen. We had hops, balls and receptions, but I recall very
few public men I met at that time. Mr. Vinton, then the veteran
Member from Ohio, invited me to join for a few days his mess; he
was then boarding in a house nearly opposite the hotel, kept by an
Italian whose name I cannot recall. He was a famous cook. The
mess was composed entirely of Senators and Members, one of the
former being Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky. I was delighted and
instructed by the free and easy talk that prevailed, a mixture of
funny jokes, well-told stories and gay and grave discussions of
politics and law.

My stay at the capital was brief as I wished to go to New York and
Boston. In New York I received from a relative a letter of
introduction to Benj. R. Curtis, then an eminent lawyer, and latterly
a more eminent justice of the Supreme Court. When I presented my
letter I was received very kindly and after a brief conversation
he said he was able to do me a favor, that he had a ticket to a
grand banquet to be attended by the leading men of Boston at Plymouth
Rock, on the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers,
and that Daniel Webster would preside. I heartily thanked him,
and on the next day, prompt on time, I entered the train at Boston
for Plymouth. When I arrived at the hotel, which is also a station-
house of the railway, I did not know a single person in the great
assemblage. In due time we were ushered into the dining hall where
the banquet was spread. There was no mistaking Webster. He sat
at the center of a cross table with the British minister on his
right and Jeremiah Mason on his left. At the other end of the room
sat Abbott Lawrence and other distinguished men. The residue of
the guests, merchants, poets, and orators of Massachusetts, filled
every seat at the tables. I sat some way down on the side and
introduced myself to my neighbors on the right and left, but my
eye was on Webster, from whom I expected such lofty eloquence as
he alone could utter.

Much to my surprise, when the time came for the oratory to commence,
Mr. Lawrence acted as toast master. We had stories, songs, poetry
and oratory, generally good and appropriate, but not from Webster.
And so the evening waned. Webster had been talking freely with
those about him. He displayed none of the loftiness associated
with his name. He drank freely. That was manifest to everyone.
His favorite bottle was one labeled "Brandy." We heard of it as
being "more than a hundred years old." It did not travel down to
us. Webster was plainly hilarious. At this time the conductor
appeared at a side door and announced that in fifteen minutes the
cars would start for Boston. Then Webster arose--with difficulty
--he rested his hands firmly on the table and with an effort assumed
an erect position. Every voice was hushed. He said that in fifteen
minutes we would separate, nevermore to meet again, and then, with
glowing force and eloquence, he contrasted the brevity and vanity
of human life with the immortality of the events they were celebrating,
which century after century would be celebrated by your children
and your children's children to the latest generation.

I cannot recall the words of his short but eloquent speech, but it
made an impress on my mind. If his body was affected by the liquor,
his head was clear and his utterance perfect. I met Mr. Webster
afterwards on the cars and in Washington. I admired him for his
great intellectual qualities, but I do not wonder that the people
of the United States did not choose him for President.

Soon after the national Whig convention of 1852, of which I was a
member, I heard this story told by his secretary. In the evening,
when Mr. Webster was at his well-known residence on Louisiana
Avenue, near Sixth street, he was awaiting the ballots in the
convention. When it came by the telegraph, "Scott 159, Fillmore
112, Webster 21," he repeated it in his deep tones and said: "How
will this read in history?" He did not like either Scott or
Fillmore, and was disappointed in the votes of southern members.
To be third in such a contest wounded his pride. He died before
the year closed. He was, perhaps, the greatest man of intellectual
force of his time, but he had faults which the people could not
overlook. Another incident about Mr. Webster, and the house in
which he lived, may not be without interest. On New Year's day of
1860, Mr. Corwin, Mr. Colfax and myself made the usual calls
together. Among the many visits we made, was one on a gentleman
then living in that house. As we entered, Mr. Corwin met an old
well-trained negro servant who had been a servant of Mr. Webster
in this house. I noticed that Mr. Corwin lost his usual gayety,
and as we left the house he turned to us, and, with deep emotion,
asked that we leave him at his lodgings, that his long associations
with Mr. Webster, especially his meetings with him in that house
during their association as members of the cabinet of Fillmore,
unfitted him to enjoy the usual greetings of the day. I felt that
the emotion of such a man as Corwin was the highest possible
compliment to the memory of Daniel Webster.

From Boston I returned to New York. There, in the families of two
brothers of my mother, both then living, I had a glimpse of New
York society. With Mr. Scott, the son-in-law of my uncle, James
Hoyt, I made nearly one hundred of the usual New Years' visits, then
customary in New York. This custom I am told has been abandoned,
but the New York of to-day is quite different from the New York of
1847. It still retained some of the knickerbocker customs of the
olden time. The site of the Fifth Avenue Hotel was then a stone-
yard where grave stones were cut. All north of Twenty-third street,
now the seat of plutocracy, was then sparsely occupied by poor
houses and miserable shanties, and the site of Central Park was a
rough, but picturesque body of woodland, glens and rocky hills,
with a few clearings partly cultivated. Even then the population
of New York was about 400,000, or more than three-fold that of any
city in the United States, and twenty-fold that of Chicago. Now
New York contains 2,000,000 inhabitants, and Chicago, according to
recent reports, about 1,700,000. Many cities now exist containing
over 100,000 inhabitants, the sites of which, in that year, were
within the limits of Indian reservations.

From New York I returned to Washington. Many incidents recur to
me but they were of persons now dead and gone, the memory of whom
will not be recalled by the present generation. Mr. Polk was then
President. He was a plain man, of ordinary ability and more
distinguished for the great events that happened during his presidency
than for anything he did himself. I attended one of his receptions.
His wife appeared to better advantage than he. I then saw Mr.
Douglas for the first time. I think he was still a Member of the
House of Representatives, but had attained a prominent position
and was regarded as a rising man. I wished very much to see Henry
Clay, the great favorite of the Whigs of that day, but he was not
then in public life.

There was nothing in Washington at that time to excite interest,
except the men and women in public or social life. The city itself
had no attractions except the broad Potomac River and the rim of
hills that surrounded the city. It then contained about 30,000
inhabitants. Pennsylvania avenue was a broad, badly paved,
unattractive street, while all the other streets were unpaved and
unimproved. All that part of the city lying north of K street and
west of Fourteenth street, now the most fashionable part of the
city, was then a dreary waste open, like all the rest of the city,
as free pasturage for cows, pigs, and goats. It was a city in
name, but a village in fact. The contrast between Washington then
and now may be referred to hereafter.

Upon my return from the east in February, 1847, I actively resumed
the practice of the law. I was engaged in several important trials,
but notably one at Mount Vernon, Ohio, where the contesting parties
were brothers, the matter in dispute a valuable farm, and the chief
witness in the case the mother of both the plaintiff and defendant.
It was, as such trials are apt to be, vigorously contested with
great bitterness between the parties. Columbus Delano was the
chief counsel for the plaintiff, and I was his assistant. I remember
the case more especially because during its progress I was attacked
by typhoid fever. I returned home after the trial, completely
exhausted, and on the Fourth of July, 1847, found myself in a raging
fever, which continued more than two months before I was able to
rise from the bed, and then I was as helpless as a child. I was
unable to walk, and was lifted from the house into the carriage to
get the fresh air, and continued under disability until October,
when I was again able to renew my business.

During my practice thus far, I had been able to accumulate in
property and money more than ten thousand dollars. I had, in
addition to my practice, engaged in a profitable business with
Jacob Emminger, a practical mechanic, in the manufacture of doors,
blinds and other building materials. We acquired valuable pine-
lands in Michigan and transported the lumber to our works at
Mansfield. We continued this business until I was appointed
Secretary of the Treasury, in March, 1877, when I sold out my
interest and also abandoned the practice of the law.

I spent the winter of 1847-8 at Columbus, where I made many
acquaintances who were of great service to me in after life, and
had a happy time also with the young ladies I met there. Columbus
was then the headquarters of social life for Ohio. It had a
population of about fifteen thousand, with few or no manufactures.
It has now a population of more than one hundred thousand, the
increase being largely caused by the great development of the
numerous railroads centering there, and of the coal and iron mines
of the Hocking Valley. It was also the natural headquarters of
the legal profession, the Supreme Court of Ohio, then under the
old constitution, and the District Court of the United States
holding their sessions there.

On the first day of August, 1848, my grandmother, Elizabeth Stoddard
Sherman, died at Mansfield at the residence of her daughter, Mrs.
Parker. Her history and characteristics have already been referred
to. She was to our family the connecting link between the
Revolutionary period and our times. She had a vivid recollection
of the burning of the principal towns of Connecticut by the British
and Tories, of the trials and poverty that followed the War of the
Revolution, of the early political contests between the Federalists
and Republicans, of the events of the War of 1812, and of her
journey to Ohio in 1816. She maintained a masterly care of her
children and grandchildren. She was the best type I have known of
the strong-willed, religious Puritan of the Connecticut school,
and was respected, not only by her numerous grandchildren, but by
all who knew her.

My brother-in-law, Thomas W. Bartley, was District Attorney of the
United States during the administration of Mr. Polk, and, as he
expected a change would be made by the incoming administration of
Taylor, he advised me to become a candidate for his place, as that
was in the line of my profession. I told him I doubted if my
experience of the bar would justify me in making such an application,
but he thought differently. I wrote to Mr. Ewing upon the subject
and he answered as follows:

"Washington, D. C., Dec. 31, 1848.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--I believe you would be able to perform the duties
of District Attorney, but your youth would be an objection to your
appointment, and in competition with one so long known, and so
highly esteemed, as Mr. Goddard is both professionally and politically,
would probably make your prospects but little encouraging. If you
conclude to withdraw your name, signify the fact and the reason by
letter to Mr. Goddard and it may be of use to you hereafter. I
am, with great regard,

"Yours, T. Ewing."

I complied with his advice, though Mr. Goddard, I think, declined
and Mr. Mason was accepted.

On the thirty-first of the same month I was married to Margaret
Ceclia Stewart, the only child of Judge Stewart, whom I had known
since my removal to Mansfield. She had been carefully educated at
the Female College at Granville, Ohio, and at the Patapsco Institute,
near Baltimore, Maryland. After the usual wedding tour to Niagara
Falls, Montreal and Saratoga, we settled in Mansfield, and I returned
to my profession, actively pursuing it until elected a member of
Congress.

It is not worth while to follow my professional life into further
detail. I shall not have occasion to mention that subject again.
Sufficient to say that I was reasonably successful therein. During
this period Henry C. Hedges studied law with my brother and myself,
and when admitted to the bar became my partner. Mr. Stewart was
elected by the legislature a judge of the Court of Common Pleas,
and after the adoption of the new constitution of 1851, he was
elected by the people to the same office.

I had determined in the fall of 1853 to abandon Mansfield and settle
in Cleveland, then rapidly growing in importance as the leading
city in the northern part of the state. I went so far as to
establish an office there and place in it two young lawyers,
nominally my partners, but the great political currents of that
time soon diverted me from the practice of the law into the political
contests that grew out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

"The direful spring of woes unnumbered."

Before entering upon an account of my political life it seems
appropriate for me to state my political bias and position. I was
by inheritance and association a Whig boy, without much care for
or knowledge of parties or political principles. No doubt my
discharge from the engineer corps by a Democratic Board of Public
Works strengthened this bias. I shouted for Harrison in the campaign
of 1840. In 1842 I was enthusiastic for "Tom Corwin, the wagon-
boy," the Whig candidate for Governor of Ohio. In that canvass
Governor Corwin addressed a great meeting at Mansfield. I heard
his speech, and was full of enthusiasm. Mr. Corwin was certainly
the greatest popular orator of his time. His face was eloquent,
changeable at his will. With a look he could cause a laugh or a
tear. He would move his audience at his pleasure. I vividly
remember the impression he made upon me, though I cannot recall
anything he said. At the close of the meeting I was requested by
the committee in charge to take Mr. Corwin in a buggy to Bucyrus.
This I cheerfully did. I noticed that Mr. Corwin was very glum
and silent, and to cheer him up I spoke of his speech and of the
meeting. He turned upon me, and with some show of feeling, said
that all the people who heard him would remember only his jokes,
and warned me to keep out of politics and attend to my law. He
told me that he knew my father, and was present at his death at
Lebanon, where he, Mr. Corwin, lived. And then, brightening up,
he gave me an interesting account of the early settlement of Ohio,
and of the bar and bench, and of his early life as a wagon boy in
Harrison's army. His sudden fit of gloom had passed away. I do
not recall any circumstance that created a deeper impression on my
mind than this interview with Mr. Corwin. His advice to keep out
of politics was easy to follow, as no one could then dream of the
possibility of a Whig being elected to office in Richland county,
then called "the Berks of Ohio." Mr. Corwin was defeated at that
election.

I took but little part in the campaign of 1844, when Mr. Clay was
a candidate for President, but I then made my first political speech
to a popular audience and cast my first vote. The meeting was held
at Plymouth, and Honorable Joseph M. Root, the Whig candidate for
Congress, was to be the orator. For some reason Mr. Root was
delayed, and I was pressed into service. Of what I said I have
not the remotest recollection, but my audience was satisfied, and
I was doubly so, especially when Mr. Root came in sight. After
that I made a few neighborhood speeches in support of the Whig
candidate for governor, Mr. Mordecai Partley, a gentleman who for
several years had lived in Mansfield, but had long since retired
from public office after eight years' service in the United States
House of Representatives. Mr. Bartley received 147,378 votes, Mr.
Tod, Democrat, 146,461 votes and Mr. King, Third Party, 8,411 votes;
so close were parties divided in Ohio in 1844.

At this time I had but two definite ideas in respect to the public
policy of the United States. One was a hearty belief in the doctrine
of protection to American industries, as advocated by Mr. Clay,
and, second, a strong prejudice against the Democratic party, which
was more or less committed to the annexation of Texas, and the
extension of slavery. I shared in the general regret at the defeat
of Mr. Clay and the election of Mr. Polk. I took some part in the
local canvasses in Ohio prior to 1848, but this did not in the
least commit me to active political life. I was appointed a delegate
to the national Whig convention, held in Philadelphia, in 1848, to
nominate a presidential candidate. I accepted this the more readily
as it gave me an opportunity to see my future wife at her school
at Patapsco, and to fix our engagement for marriage upon her return
home. The chief incident of the convention was the struggle between
the friends of General Scott and General Taylor.

When the convention was being organized, Colonel Collyer, chairman
of the Ohio delegation, said there was a young gentleman in that
convention who could never hope to get an office unless that
convention gave him one, and nominated me for secretary of the
convention. Mr. Defrees said there was a delegate from Indiana in
the same condition and moved that Schuyler Colfax be made assistant
secretary. We then marched together to the platform and commenced
our political life, in which we were to be closely associated for
many years.

The nomination of General Taylor, cordially supported by me, was
not acceptable to all the Whigs of Ohio. The hostility to slavery
had grown chiefly out of the acquisition of Texas as a slave state.
An anti-slavery party headed in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase cast 35,354
votes for Van Buren. General Taylor was defeated in Ohio mainly
by this defection, receiving 138,360 votes. General Cass received
154,755 votes. General Cass received the vote of Ohio, but General
Taylor was elected President, having received a majority of the
electoral vote.

General Taylor proved a very conscientious and acceptable President.
His death, on the ninth day of July, 1850, preceded the passage of
the compromise measures of Henry Clay, commonly known by his name.
They became laws with the approval of Millard Fillmore.

It was my habit during this period to attend the annual state
conventions of the Whig party, not so much to influence nominations
as to keep up an acquaintance with the principal members of the
party. I had not the slightest desire for public office and never
became a candidate until 1854. In the state convention of 1850 I
heartily supported the nomination of General Scott for President,
at the approaching election of 1852. In this convention an effort
was made to nominate me for Attorney-General in opposition to Henry
Stanbery. I promptly declined to be a candidate, but received a
number of votes from personal friends, who, as they said, wanted
to introduce some young blood into the Whig party.

I then began seriously to study the political topics of the day.
I was classed as a conservative Whig, and heartily supported the
compromise measures of 1850, not upon their merits, but as the best
solution of dangerous sectional divisions. Prior to this time I
do not remember to have given any study, except through the newspapers
of the day, to the great national questions that divided the
political parties.

In the spring of 1852 I was designated by the state convention as
a delegate at large in association with Honorable Samuel F. Vinton
to the national Whig convention of that year. I was an earnest
advocate of General Scott, and rejoiced in his nomination. Here,
again, the slavery question was obtruded into national politics.
The clear and specific indorsement of the compromise measures,
though supported by a great majority, divided the Whig party and
led to the election of Franklin Pierce. In this canvass I took
for the first time an active part. I was designated as an elector
on the Scott ticket. I made speeches in several counties and
cities, but was recalled to Wooster by a telegram stating that my
mother was dangerously ill. Before I could reach home she died.
This event was wholly unexpected, as she seemed, when I left home,
to be in the best of health. She had accompanied her daughter,
Mrs. Bartley, to Cleveland to attend the state fair, and there, no
doubt, she was attacked with the disease of which she died. I took
no further part in the canvass.

I wish here to call special attention to the attitude of the two
great parties in respect to the compromise measures.

The Democratic national convention at Baltimore was held in the
first of June, 1852. The resolutions of that convention in reference
to slavery were as follows:

"12. _Resolved_, That Congress has no power under the constitution
to interfere with, or control, the domestic institutions of the
several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges
of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by
the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others,
made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or
to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead
to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such
efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of
the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union,
and ought not to be countenanced by any friends of our political
institutions.

"13. _Resolved_, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is
intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in
Congress, and, therefore, _the Democratic party of the Union,
standing on this national platform, will abide by, and adhere to,
a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures
settled by the last Congress, 'the act for reclaiming fugitives
from service labor' included; which act, being designed to carry
out an express provision of the constitution, cannot, with fidelity
thereto, be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its
efficiency_.

"14. _Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts
at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery
question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made_."

The Whig convention, which met at Baltimore on the 16th of June,
1852, declared as follows:--

"8. _That the series of acts of the 32nd Congress, the act known
as The Fugitive Slave Law included, are received and acquiesced in
by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle
and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they
embrace, and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them,
and insist upon their strict enforcement_, until time and experience
shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard
against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of
their powers on the other--not impairing their present efficiency;
and we _deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled
as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to
continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever or however the
attempt may be made_, and we will maintain the system as essential
to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the
Union."

It will be noticed that these platforms do not essentialy differ
from each other. Both declare in favor of acquiescence in the
compromise measures of 1850. The Democratic party more emphatically
denounces any renewal in Congress, or out of it, of the agitation
of the slavery question under whatever name, shape or color, the
attempt may be made. The Whig platform, equally positive in its
acquiescence in the settlement made, known as the compromise
measures, declared its purpose to: "Maintain them, and to insist
upon their strict enforcement until time and experience shall
demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against
the evasion of the laws."

It would seem that under these platforms both parties were committed
to acquiescence in existing laws upon the subject of slavery, and
to a resistance of all measures to change or modify them.

I took quite an active part in this canvass and wrote to Mr. Seward,
then the great leader of the Whig party, inviting him to attend a
mass meeting in Richland county, to which I received the following
reply:

"Auburn, Sept. 20, 1852.
"John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"Dear Sir:--I have the honor of receiving your letter urging me to
accept the invitation of the Whig central committee to address a
mass meeting in Richland county, Ohio, on the second of October.
I appreciate fully the importance of the canvass in which we are
engaged, and I have some conception of the responsibilities of the
Whigs of Ohio. I wish, therefore, that it was in my power to comply
with the wishes, expressed in several quarters, by going among them
to attempt to encourage them in their noble and patriotic efforts,
but it is impossible. Public and professional engagements have
withdrawn me from my private affairs during the past two years,
and the few weeks of interval between the last and the next session
of Congress are equally insufficient for the attention my business
requires and for the relaxation of public labors which impaired
health demands. I am, dear sir, with great respect, you friend
and humble servant,

"William H. Seward."

The election of 1852 resulted in the overwhelming defeat of General
Scott, and the practical annihilation of the Whig party. Franklin
Pierce received 244 electoral votes, and General Scott but 42.

The triumphant election of Mr. Pierce, on the platform stated,
justified the expectation that during his term there would be no
opening of the slavery controversy by the Democratic party. If
that party had been content with the compromise of 1850, and had
faithfully observed the pledges in its platform, there would have
been no Civil War. Conservative Whigs, north and south, would have
united with conservative Democrats in maintaining and enforcing
existing laws. The efforts of the opponents of slavery and of
aggressive pro-slavery propagandists would have been alike ineffective.
The irrepressible conflict would have been indefinitely postponed.
Yet, as will appear hereafter, the leaders of the 33rd Congress of
both parties, and mainly on sectional lines, openly and flagrantly
violated the pledges of their party, and renewed a contest that
was only closed by the most destructive Civil War of modern times,
and by the abolition of slavery. As this legislation brought me
into public life, I wish to justify my statement by the public
records, with all charity to the authors of the measures who no
doubt did not anticipate the baleful events that would spring from
them, nor the expanded and strengthened republic which was the
final result. "Man proposes, but God disposes."

When the 33rd Congress met, on the 6th day of December, 1853, the
tariff issue was practically in abeyance. The net ordinary receipts
of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1853, were
$61,587,031.68. The net ordinary expenditures of the government
for the same year were $47,743,989.09, leaving a surplus of revenue
over expenditures of $13,843,042.59, of which, $6,833,072.65 was
applied to the payment of the public debt, leaving in the treasury,
unexpended, about $7,000,000.00. The financial and political
condition of the United States was never more prosperous than when
this Congress met. The disturbance of this condition can be
attributed only to the passage of the act to organize the territories
of Nebraska and Kansas approved by President Franklin Pierce, May
30, 1854. The 32nd section of that act contained this provision:--

"That the constitution and all laws of the United States which are
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within
the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States,
except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred
and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-
intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories,
as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty,
commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared
inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this
act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the constitution of the United States:
_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to
revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed
prior to the act of March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, either
protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery."

This act contained a similar clause relating to Nebraska.

To understand the effect of this provision it is necessary to review
the status of slavery in the United States under the constitution
and existing laws.

The articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery or slaves.
During and after the Revolution the general feeling was that slavery
would be gradually abolished by the several states. In the Ordinance
of 1787 for the government of the territories of the United States,
northwest of the Ohio River, it was expressly provided that:

"There shall be no slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the
parties shall have been duly convicted; provided, always, that any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service as aforesaid."

This provision applied to all the territory of the United States
that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Continental Congress.

The constitution of the United States did not mention either slaves
or slavery. Its two provisions relating to the subject were the
following:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and
eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each person. . . .

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service
or labor may be due."

The first clause quoted was intended to enable Congress to prohibit
the introduction of slaves after the year 1808, and this was promptly
done. The second provision was intended to authorize the recapture
of slaves escaping from their owners to another state. It was the
general expectation of the framers of the constitution that under
its provisions slavery would be gradually abolished by the acts of
the several states where it was recognized.

The first great controversy that grew out of slavery was whether
Missouri should be admitted into the Union as a slave state, and
whether slavery should exist in the western territories.

The following provision became part of the law of March 6, 1820,
approved by President James Monroe, and known as the compromise
measure of that year:

"That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States
under the name of 'Louisiana,' which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min.
north latitude, not included within the limits of the state
contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall
have been duly conviced, shall be and is hereby, forever prohibited:
_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state of
territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or
service, as aforesaid."

This compromise measure fixed the boundary line between free and
slave states in all the territories then belonging to the United
States. Slavery was thus forever prohibited within the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska. This happy solution was regarded as
something more than a mere enactment of Congress. It was a
territorial division between the two great sections of our country,
acquiesced in by both without question or disturbance for thirty-
four years. The memorable controversy that arose in the 31st
Congress in 1850 in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico
did not in the least affect or relate to the Territories of Nebraska
and Kansas. The subject-matter of the several bills originally
embraced in Mr. Clay's report of the committee of thirteen, defined
the northern boundary of the State of Texas on the line of 36 deg.
30 min. north latitude, provided for the addition of the State of
California, for territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah,
and for the surrender of fugitive slaves.

In the resolution annexing Texas to the United States there is this
express recognition of the Missouri Compromise line:

"New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in
addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population,
may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of
the territory thereof, which shall be _entitled to admission_ under
the provisions of the Federal constitution; and such states as may
be formed out of that portion of said territory lying _south_ of
36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri
Compromise line, _shall be_ admitted into the Union with or without
slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire."

The convention providing for the admission of California expressly
stipulated by a unanimous vote that slavery should be forever
prohibited in that state. The bill providing for a territorial
government for New Mexico, the great body of the territory which
lay south of the parallel of latitude 36 deg. 30 min., provided,
"That, when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion
of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without
slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their
admission."

The act organizing the Territory of Utah, lying entirely north of
the 37th degree of latitude, contains no provision recognizing the
right of the people of that territory to permit slavery within its
borders. The situation of the state and its population precluded
the possibility of establishing slavery within its borders.

It will be perceived by the compromise measures of 1820 and 1850,
the existence or prohibition of slavery was fixed by express laws,
or by conditions which it was fondly believed defined the limits
of slavery, and thus set at rest the only question that threatened
the union of the states. This settlement was indorsed and ratified
by the two great parties in their national platforms of 1852, with
the solemn pledge of both parties that they would resist the re-
opening of these questions.

The Senate of the 33rd Congress was composed of 36 Democrats, 20
Whigs and 2 Free Soilers. The House was composed of 159 Democrats,
71 Whigs, and 4 Free Soilers, with Franklin Pierce as President of
the United States.

I need not narrate the long struggle in both Houses over the bill
to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It was a direct
invitation for a physical struggle between the north and south for
the control of these territories, but it finally passed on the 30th
of May, 1854.

This act repealed in express terms the Missouri Compromise of 1820,
and falsely stated the terms of the compromise of 1850, which, as
I have shown, had no reference whatever to the Territories of
Nebraska and Kansas. It re-opened, in the most dangerous form,
the struggle between freedom and slavery in the western territories,
and was the congressional beginning of the contest which culminated
in the War of the Rebellion.

It is difficult, at this distance of time, to describe the effect
of the act of 1854 upon popular opinion in the northern states.
The repeal was met in Ohio by an overwhelming sentiment of opposition.
All who voted for the bill were either refused a nomination or were
defeated by the people at the polls. Party lines were obliterated.
In every congressional district a fusion was formed of Democrats,
Whigs and Free Soilers, and candidates for Congress were nominated
solely upon the issues made by the Kansas and Nebraska bill.

I had carefully observed the progress of the bill, had read the
arguments for and against it, and was strongly convinced that it
was the duty of every patriotic citizen to oppose its provisions.
The firm resolve was declared by the state convention of Ohio,
composed of men of all parties, that the institution of slavery
should gain no advantage by this act of perfidy. It was denounced
as a violation of a plain specific pledge of the public faith made
by acts of Congress in 1820 and in 1850. With this feeling there
ran current a conviction that the measure adopted was forced by
southern domination, and yielded to by ambitious northern dough-
faces anxious to obtain southern support.

Unfortunately the drift of parties was on sectional lines. The
whole south had become Democratic, so that a united south, acting
in concert with a few members from the north, could control the
action of Congress. I believe that a feeling did then prevail with
many in the south, that they were superior to men of the north,
that one southern man could whip four Yankees, that their institution
of slavery naturally produced among the masters, men of superior
courage, gentlemen who could command and make others obey. Whether
such a feeling did exist or not, it was apparent that the political
leaders in the south were, as a rule, men of greater experience,
were longer retained in the service of their constituents, and held
higher public positions than their associates from the north.
Besides, they had in slavery a bond of union that did not tolerate
any difference of opinion when its interests were involved. This
compact power needed the assistance only of a few scattered members
from the north to give it absolute control. But now the south was
to meet a different class of opponents. There had been growing
all over the north, especially in the minds of religious people,
a conviction that slavery was wrong. The literature of the day
promoted this tendency. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
aroused the combative feeling of the north until it became general
among all parties and sects. Still, the north recognized the legal
existence of slavery in the south, and did not propose to interfere
with it, and was entirely content to faithfully observe the
obligations of the constitution and the laws, including those for
the return of fugitive slaves. A smaller, but very noisy body of
men and women denounced the constitution as "a covenant with hell
and a contract with the devil." A much large number of conservative
voters formed themselves into a party called the Free Soil party,
who, professing to be restrained within constitutional limits, yet
favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. They
invoked the moral influence and aid of the government for the
gradual prohibition of slavery in the states. "Liberty is National,
Slavery is Sectional," was their motto.

The strong controlling feeling of the great body of the Whigs and
of the Democrats of the north, who opposed the Nebraska and Kansas
law was that the law was a violation of existing compromises,
designed to extend slavery over free territory, that it ought to
be repealed, but, if repeal was impracticable, organized effort
should be made to make both territories free states. "Slavery
shall gain no advantage over freedom by violating compromises,"
was the cry of a new party, as yet without a name.

It was on this basis in the summer of 1854, I became a candidate
for Congress. Jacob Brinkerhoff and Thomas H. Ford, both residents
of Richland county, Ohio, and gentlemen of experience and ability,
were also candidates, but we agreed to submit our pretensions to
a convention in that county, and I was selected by a very large
majority. A district convention was held at Shelby, in July. Mr.
James M. Root, for several terms a Member of Congress, was my chief
competitor, but I was nominated, chiefly because I had been less
connected with old parties and would encounter less prejudice with
the discordant element of a new party.

I made a thorough canvass through the district, composed of the
counties of Huron, Erie, Richland and Morrow. I visited and spoke
in every town and township in the district. William D. Linsley,
a Member of the 33rd Congress, was my competitor. He was a farmer,
of popular manners, but defective education. When first a candidate
a letter of his was published in which he spelled the word "corn"
"korne." The Whig newspapers ridiculed him for his faulty spelling,
but Democrats, who were offended at this criticism, said they would
show the Whigs how to plant corn, and the incident proved a benefit
rather than an injury to Lindsley. He had been elected to Congress
in 1852 against a popular Whig by a majority of 754. He had voted
against the Nebraska bill, but had cast one vote that opened the
way to the consideration of that bill, which action was made the
subject of criticism. This did not enter as a national element in
the canvass. The real issue was whether the Democrats and Free
Soilers would vote for a Whig. Among the Free Soilers I was regarded
as too conservative on the slavery question. They were not content
with the repeal of the offensive provisions of the Nebraska act,
but demanded the prohibition of slavery in all the territories and
in the District of Columbia. This feeling was very strong in the
important county of Huron.

When I spoke in North Fairfield I was interrupted by the distinct
question put to me by the pastor of the church in which I spoke,
and whose name I do not recall, whether I would vote for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I knew this was
a turning point, but made up my mind to be frank and honest, whatever
might be the result. I answered that I would not, that the great
issue was the extension of slavery over the territories. I fortified
myself by the opinions of John Q. Adams, but what I said fell like
a wet blanket on the audience. I understood that afterwards, in
a church meeting, the preacher commended my frankness and advised
his people to vote for me.

This canvass, more than any other, assumed a religious tone, not
on sectarian, but on moral grounds. Our meetings were frequently
held in churches, and the speaker was invited to the pulpit, with
the Bible and hymn-book before him, and frequently with an audience
of men, women and children, arranged as for religious worship.

The probable course of Democrats opposed to the Nebraska bill was
more than a matter of doubt. They were in the main content with
Mr. Lindsley and voted for him. But out of the general confusion
of parties there arose what was known as the "Know-nothing" order,
or American party, opposed to the Catholics, and to free immigration.
It was a secret organization, with signs and grips. There were
perhaps one thousand of them in my district, composed about equally
of Democrats and Whigs. They were indifferent, or neutral, on the
political issue of the day.

The result of the election in October was against the Democratic
party in Ohio. Every Democratic candidate for Congress was defeated.
Twenty-one Members, all opposed to the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, but differing in opinion upon other questions, were
elected to Congress. The composition of the delegation was somewhat
peculiar, as the party had no name, and no defined principles except
upon the one question of the extension of slavery. On the day of
the election everyone was in doubt. Mr. Kirkwood, who supported
Mr. Lindsley, told me it was the strangest election he had ever
seen, that everyone brought his ticket in his vest pocket, and
there was no electioneering at the polls. He expressed his opinion,
but not with much confidence, that Mr. Lindsley was elected. When
the votes were counted, it was found that I had 2,823 majority,
having carried every county in the district. Richland county, in
which I lived, for the first time cast a majority adverse to the
Democratic party, I receiving a majority of over 300 votes.

During the summer of 1855, the elements of opposition to the
administration of President Pierce organized as the Republican
party. County conventions were generally held and largely attended.
The state convention met at Columbus on the 13th day of July, 1855.
It was composed of heterogenous elements, every shade of political
opinion being represented. Such antipodes as Giddings, Leiter,
Chase, Brinkerhoff, and Lew Campbell met in concert. The first
question that troubled the convention was the selection of a
president. It was thought impolitic to take one who had been
offensively conspicuous in one of the old parties. The result was
that I was selected, much to my surprise, and, for a time, much to
my chagrin. Mr. Allison, since a distinguished Member of the United
States Senate, was elected secretary of the convention. I had
never presided over any assembly excepting an Odd Fellows' lodge.
When I assumed the chair I no doubt soon exposed my ignorance. A
declaration of principles was formulated as follows:

"1. _Resolved_, That the people who constitute the supreme power
in the United States, should guard with jealous care the rights of
the several states, as independent governments. No encroachment
upon their legislative or judicial prerogatives should be permitted
from any quarter.

"2. _Resolved_, That the people of the State of Ohio, mindful of
the blessings conferred upon them by the 'Ordinance of Freedom,'
whose anniversary our convention this day commemorates, should
establish for their political guidance the following cardinal rules:

"(1). We will resent the spread of slavery under whatever shape
or color it may be attempted.

"(2). To this end we will labor incessantly to render inoperative
and void that portion of the Kansas and Nebraska bill which abolishes
freedom in the territory withdrawn from the influence of slavery
by the Missouri Compromise of 1820; and we will oppose by every
lawful and constitutional means, the extension of slavery in any
national territory, and the further increase of slavery territory
or slave states in this republican confederacy.

"3. _Resolved_, That the recent acts of violence and Civil War in
Kansas, incited by the late Vice President of the United States,
and tacitly encouraged by the Executive, command the emphatic
condemnation of every citizen.

"4. _Resolved_, That a proper retrenchment in all public expenditures,
a thoroughly economical administration of our state government, a
just and equal basis of taxation, and single districts for the
election of members of the legislature, are reforms called for by
a wise state policy and justly demanded by the people.

"5. _Resolved_, That a state central committee, consisting of
five, be appointed by this convention, and the said committee, in
addition to its usual duties, be authorized to correspond with
committees of other states for the purpose of agreeing upon a time
and place for holding a national convention of the Republican party
for the nomination of President and Vice President."

Joshua R. Giddings was the solitary member of the committee opposed
to the resolutions, not, he said, because he objected to the
resolutions themselves, but he thought they were a little too
tender. They were not strong enough for the old guard and still
they were better than none. If it offended his brother to eat meat
he would eat no more while time lasted. He was opposed to this
milk for babes. He disagreed with his colleagues, but had had the
misfortune to disagree with people before. He was used to disagreement
and hoped everybody would vote for the platform.

Lewis D. Campbell said his friend from Ashtabula wanted to make an
issue with Frank Pierce. He did not wish to raise an issue with
the dead. He hoped everybody would vote for the platform. He did
not consider the resolutions milk for babes, but strong meat.

The platform was adopted by a unanimous vote.

The real contention was upon the nomination of governor. Salmon
P. Chase was nominated, but there was difference of opinion concerning
his somewhat varied political associations and some criticism of
them. In 1845 he had projected what was called a liberty convention.
In 1848 he had been a member of the Free Soil convention held at
Buffalo and since 1849 had been a Senator of the United States.
Thomas H. Ford, my townsman, was nominated as lieutenant governor,
as the representative of the Whig party. Jacob Brinkerhoff, also
of Mansfield, was nominated as judge of the Supreme Court. He had
been a Member of Congress from 1843 to 1847 as a Democrat, but
early took decided ground against the extension of slavery. He
was the reputed author of what is known as the "Wilmot Proviso."

On the 8th day of August this famous proviso was offered as an
amendment to a bill authorizing the President of the United States
to employ $3,000,000 in negotiations for a peace with Mexico, by
purchase of territory, by David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, a Member
of the House. "That, as an express fundamental condition to the
acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the
United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should
ever exist in any part of said territory." This proviso was adopted
by the House, but was rejected by the Senate. It was the basis of
the organization known as the Free Soil party of 1848, and of the
Republican party in 1856.

The other candidates on the ticket were fairly distributed.

The canvass of 1855 was conducted mainly by Senator Chase and
Colonel Ford. I participated in it to some extent, but was chiefly
engaged in closing my business in preparation for the approaching
session of Congress. The result of the election was as follows:
Chase, 146,770 votes; Medill, 131,019; Allen Trimble, 24,276.

The election of Senator Chase, upon a distinctly Republican platform,
established the fact that the majority of the voters of Ohio were
Republicans as defined by the creed of that party.

In the summer of 1855 I made my first trip to Iowa, accompanied by
Amos Townsend and James Cobean. At that time Iowa was a far-off
state, thinly populated, but being rapidly settled. We passed
through Chicago, which at that time contained a population of about
50,000. The line of railroad extended to the Mississippi River.
From thence we traveled in a stage to Des Moines, now the capital
of Iowa, but then a small village with about 1,000 inhabitants.
The northern and western parts of the state were mostly unsold
public lands, open to entry. My three brothers, James, Lampson,
and Hoyt, were living in Des Moines. James was a merchant in
business. Lampson was the editor and proprietor of a newspaper,
and Hoyt was actively engaged in the purchase and sale of land.
With Hoyt for a guide we drove in a carriage as far north as Fort
Dodge, where a new land office had been recently established. The
whole country was an open plain with here and there a cabin, with
no fences and but little timber. We arrived at Fort Dodge on
Saturday evening, intending to spend some time there in locating
land. The tavern at which we stopped was an unfinished frame
building with no plastering, and sash without glass in the windows.
On the next day, Sunday, Cobean invited us to join him in drinking
some choice whisky he had brought with him. We did so in the dining
room. While thus engaged the landlady came to us and told Cobean
that she was not very well, and would be glad if he would give her
some whisky. He handed her the bottle, and she went to the other
end of the room and there poured out nearly a glass full and drank
it. Cobean was so much alarmed lest the woman should become drunk
that he insisted upon leaving the town immediately, and we acquiesced
and left. Afterwards we learned that she became very drunk, and
the landlord was very violent in denouncing us for giving her
whisky, but we got outside the county before the sun went down.
I had frequent occasion to be in Fort Dodge afterwards, but heard
nothing more of the landlord or his wife.

The road to Council Bluffs from Des Moines was over a high rolling
prairie with scarcely any inhabitants. The village of Omaha,
opposite Council Bluffs, contained but a few frame houses of little
value. The settlement of Iowa and Nebraska after this period is
almost marvelous. Iowa now (1895), contains over 2,000,000 and
Nebraska over 1,200,000 people. The twelve states composing the
north central division of the United States contained 5,403,595
inhabitants in 1850, and now number over 24,000,000, or more than
quadruple the number in 1850, and more than the entire population
of the United States in that year. I have frequently visited these
states since, and am not surprised at their wonderful growth. I
believe there is no portion of the earth's surface of equal area
which is susceptible of a larger population than that portion of
the United States lying north of the Ohio River, and between the
Alleghany Mountains and the Missouri River.

In 1854 the Whig party had disappeared from the roll of parties in
the United States. It was a bad name for a good party. English
in its origin, it had no significance in American politics. The
word "Democratic," as applied to the opposing party, was equally
a misnomer. The word "Democracy," from which it is derived, means
a government of the people, but the controlling power of the
Democratic party resided in the southern states, where a large
portion of the people were slaves, and the ruling class were
slaveholders, and the name was not applicable to such a people.
The Republican party then represented the progressive tendency of
the age, the development of the country, the opposition to slavery
and the preservation of the Union. It was about to engage in a
political contest for the administration of the government. It
was in the minority in the Senate, and had but a bare plurality in
the House. It had to contest with an adverse Executive and Supreme
Court, with a well-organized party in possession of all the patronage
of the government, in absolute control of the slaveholding states,
and supported by strong minorities in each of the free states.

This was the condition of parties when the 34th Congress met in
the old halls of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
3rd of December, 1855. The Senate was composed of 43 Democrats
and 17 Republicans. There were four vacancies. The House was
composed of 97 Republicans, 82 Democrats, and 45 classed as Third
Party men, mostly as Americans. Eight Members were absent, and
not yet classified. An unusual proportion of the Members were new
in public life, the result of the revolution of parties caused by
the Nebraska bill. The Senate was already organized with Mr.
Bright, of Indiana, as president _pro tempore_.

The first duty of the House was to elect a speaker, a majority of
the Members present being necessary to a choice. The balloting
for speaker continued until February 2, 1856, when Nathaniel P.
Banks was elected under the plurality rule. During these two months
the House was without a speaker, and also without rules except the
general principles of parliamentary law. The clerk of the last
House of Representatives presided. Innumerable speeches were made,
some of them very long, but many brief ones were made by the new
Members who took the occasion to air their oratory. Timothy Day,
one of my colleagues, a cynical bachelor and proprietor of the
Cincinnati "Commercial," who sat by my side, was constantly employed
in writing for his paper. When a new voice was heard he would put
his hand to his ear, listen awhile and then, turning impatiently
to his writing, would say to me: "Another dead cock in the pit."
This cynical suppression of a new Member rather alarmed me, but on
the 9th of January, as appears from the "Globe," I ventured to make
a few remarks. When I sat down I turned to Mr. Day and said:
"Another dead cock in the pit." He relieved me by saying: "Not
quite so bad as that." The first speech I made in the House
contained my political creed at the time. I here insert a paragraph
or two:

"I desire to say a few words; and I would preface them with the
remark, that I do not intend, while I have a seat in this House,
to occupy much of its time in speaking. But I wish to state now
why I have voted, and shall continue to vote, for Mr. Banks. I
care not whether he is a member of the American party or not. I
have been informed that he is, and I believe that he is. But I
repeat I care not to what party he belongs. I understood him to
take this position,--that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was an act of great dishonor, and that under no circumstances
whatever will he--if he have the power--allow the institution of
human slavery to derive any benefit from that repeal. That is my
position. I have been a Whig, but I will yield all party preferences,
and will act in concert with men of all parties and opinions who
will steadily aid in preserving our western territories for free
labor; and I say now, that I never will vote for a man for speaker
of this house, unless he convinces me, by his conduct and by his
voice, that he never will, if he has the power to prevent it, allow
the institution of slavery to derive any advantage from repealing
the compromise of 1820.

"I believe Mr. Banks will be true to that principle, and, therefore,
I vote for him without regard to his previous political associations,
or to his adherence to the American party. I vote for him simply
because he has had the manliness to say here, that, having the
power, he will resist the encroachments of slavery, even by opposing
the admission of any slave state that may be formed out of the
territory north and west of Missouri."

Notwithstanding the promise I made not to occupy much of the time
of the House in speaking, and the cynicism of my friend Day, I did
partake frequently in the debate on the organization of the House.
I became involved in a contest with Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, who had
steadily refused to vote for Mr. Banks for speaker, to which I
deemed proper to refer. He said he was not to be deterred from
performing his duty, as he understood it, by the criticisms of the
"neophyte" from Ohio. I replied at considerable length and with
some feeling. In my reply I repeated my position in respect to
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, declaring: "If the repeal
was wrong all northern and southern men alike ought to help to
reinstate that restriction. Nothing less than that will satisfy
the country; and if it is not done, as it probably will not be, we
will maintain our position of resisting the admission of Kansas as
a slave state, under all possible circumstances."

Later on in the debate I declared:

"I am no Abolitionist in the sense in which the term is used; I
have always been a conservative Whig. I was willing to stand by
the compromises of 1820 and 1850; but, when our Whig brethren of
the south allow this administration to lead them off from their
principles, when they abandon the position which Henry Clay would
have taken, forget his name and achievements, and decline any longer
to carry his banner--they lose all their claims on me. And I say
now, that until this wrong is righted, until Kansas is admitted as
a free state, I cannot act in party association with them. Whenever
that question is settled rightly I will have no disposition to
disturb the harmony which ought to exist between the north and
south. I do not propose to continue agitation; I only appear here
to demand justice,--to demand compliance with compromises fully
agreed upon and declared by law. I ask no more, and I will submit
to no less."

This was a narrow platform, but it was the one supported by public
opinion. I believed that a majority of the Members called Americans,
especially those from the south, were quite willing that Kansas
should be admitted as a free state, but local pride prevented such
a declaration. It is easy to perceive now that if this had been
promptly done the slavery question would have been settled for many
years. But that opportunity was permitted to pass unused. The
people, both north and south, were thoroughly aroused. No compromise
was possible. The contest could only be settled by the force of
superior numbers. That was the logic of the Nebraska bill, which
was an appeal to the people of both sections, already greatly
excited, to struggle for, and, if necessary, to fight for the
possession of a large and beautiful territory. It forced the
irrepressible conflict in the most dangerous form.

On the one side were the border ruffians of Missouri, hereafter
described, backed by the general sentiment of the south, and actively
supported by the administration and by leading Democrats who had
held high positions in the public service. On the other side were
a large number of free state men in the western states, who looked
forward to the opening of Nebraska and Kansas as a new field of
enterprise. They were quite ready to fight for their opinions
against slavery. They were supported by a general feeling of
resentment in the north, caused by the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise.

Long before the meeting of Congress the actual struggle for the
possession of Kansas commenced. After the passage of the Kansas
bill we had reports in the newspapers of gross frauds at pretended
elections of rival legislatures, of murder and other crimes, in
short, of actual civil war in Kansas; but the accounts were
contradictory. It was plainly the first duty of Congress to
ascertain the exact condition of affairs in that territory. This
could not be done until a speaker was elected.

On the 24th day of January, 1856, President Pierce sent to the
House of Representatives, still unorganized, a message upon the
condition of affairs in Kansas. A question was made whether a
message from the President could be received before a speaker had
been elected, but it was decided that the message should be read.
The first paragraph is as follows;

"Circumstances have occurred to disturb the course of governmental
organization in the Territory of Kansas, and produce there a
condition of things which renders it incumbent on me to call your
attention to the subject, and urgently to recommend the adoption
by you of such measures of legislation as the grave exigencies of
the case appear to require."

The President then gave his exposition of the condition of affairs
in that territory. This exposition was regarded as a partisan one
in favor of the so-called pro-slavery legislative assembly, which
met the 2d day of July, 1855. He recommended "that a special
appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become
requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public
order in the Territory of Kansas."

This was regarded as a threat of the employment of the army to
enforce the enactments of a usurping legislature. Congress took
no action upon the message until after the organization of the
House. On the 14th of January, 1856, a motion was made by Mr.
Houston that the message of the President, in reference to the
Territory of Kansas, be referred to the committee of the whole on
the state of the Union. This motion was agreed to. No further
action was taken upon the message, but it remained in abeyance.
Congress was not prepared to act without full information of the
actual condition of affairs in that territory.

On the 19th of March, 1856, the House of Representatives adopted
a series of resolutions offered by Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of three of the Members of this House,
to be appointed by the speaker, shall proceed to inquire into and
collect evidence in regard to the troubles in Kansas generally,
and particularly in regard to any fraud or force attempted, or
practiced, in reference to any of the elections which have taken
place in said territory, either under the law organizing said
territory, or under any pretended law which may be alleged to have
taken effect since. That they shall fully investigate and take
proof of all violent and tumultuous proceedings in said territory
at any time since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, whether
engaged in by residents of said territory, or by any person or
persons from elsewhere going into said territory and doing, or
encouraging others to do, any act of violence or public disturbance
against the laws of the United States, or the rights, peace, and
safety of the residents of said territory; and for that purpose
said committee shall have full power to send for and examine and
take copies of all such papers, public records, and proceedings,
as in their judgment will be useful in the premises; and also, to
send for persons and examine them on oath, or affirmation, as to
matters within their knowledge touching the matters of said
investigation; and said committee, by their chairman, shall have
the power to administer all necessary oaths or affirmations connected
with their aforesaid duties.

"_Resolved, further_, That said committee may hold their investigations
at such places and times as to them may seem advisable, and that
they may have leave of absence from the duties of this House until
they shall have completed such investigation. That they be authorized
to employ one or more clerks, and one or more assistant sergeants-
at-arms, to aid them in their investigation; and may administer to
them an oath or affirmation faithfully to perform the duties assigned
to them respectively, and to keep secret all matters, which may
come to their knowledge touching such investigation as said committee
shall direct, until the report of the same shall be submitted to
this House; and said committee may discharge any such clerk or
assistant sergeant-at-arms for neglect of duty or disregard of
instructions in the premises, and employ others under like
regulations.

"_Resolved, further_, That if any persons shall in any manner
obstruct or hinder said committee, or attempt so to do, in their
investigation, or shall refuse to attend on said committee, and to
give evidence when summoned for that purpose, or shall refuse to
produce any papers, book, public record, or other proceeding in
their possession or control, to said committee, when so required,
or shall make any disturbance where said committee are holding
their sittings, said committee may, if they see fit, cause any and
every such person to be arrested by said assistant sergeant-at-
arms, and brought before this House, to be dealt with as for a
contempt.

"_Resolved, further_, That for the purpose of defraying the expenses
of said commission, there be and hereby is appropriated the sum of
ten thousand ($10,000) dollars, to be paid out of the contingent
fund of this House.

"_Resolved, further_, That the President of the United States be
and is hereby requested to furnish to said committee, should they
be met with any serious opposition by bodies of lawless men in the
discharge of their duties aforesaid, such aid from any military
force as may, at the time, be convenient to them, as may be necessary
to remove such opposition, and enable said committee, without
molestation, to proceed with their labors.

"_Resolved, further_, That when said committee shall have completed
said investigation, they report all the evidence so collected to
this House."

On the 25th of March, 1856, the speaker appointed Lewis D. Campbell,
of Ohio, William A. Howard, of Michigan, and Mordecai Oliver, of
Missouri, as the special committee of the House under the above
resolution. On the same day Mr. Campbell requested to be excused
from the committee referred to, and I was appointed by the speaker
in his place, leaving Mr. Howard as chairman.

I accepted the position assigned me with much diffidence. I knew
it was a laborious one, that it would take me away from my duties
in the House, expose me to a great deal of fatigue and some danger,
yet I felt that the appointment on so important a committee was a
high compliment when given to a new Member, and at once made
preparations for the task before me.

The committee organized at the city of Washington, on the 27th of
March, 1856.

Mrs. Sherman expressed a strong desire to accompany me. I tried
to frighten her from going, but this made her more resolute, and
I consented. She remained with or near us during our stay in Kansas
and Missouri, and for a time was accompanied by Mrs. Oliver, a
charming lady, to whom we were much indebted for kindness and
civility where most of her sex were unfriendly.

The investigation continued from our arrival at St. Louis, on the
12th day of April, 1856, until our arrival at Detroit, on the 17th
day of June following, and was conducted in all respects like a
judicial trial. The testimony taken filled an octavo volume of
1,188 pages.

Mr. Howard, during our stay in Kansas, was not in very good health,
but he never relaxed in his labor until the testimony closed. He
was a man of marked ability, a good lawyer, conservative in all
his ideas and tendencies, and throughly fair and impartial. At
his request I accompanied him, with our excellent corps of assistants,
to his home in Detroit, where his health so failed that he was
confined to his bed for a week. This threw upon me the preparation
of the report. The resolutions, under which we were acting, did
not require a report from the committee, but only required a report
of all the evidence collected, to the House of Representatives,
but we felt that such a report without a summary of the evidence
and principal facts proven would not be satisfactory to the House.

The majority and minority reports contained 109 pages of printed
matter and entered into full details as to the condition of affairs
in that territory, and of every election held therein. When the
act to organize the Territory of Kansas was passed, May 30, 1854,
the greater portion of the eastern border of the territory was
included in Indian reservations not open for settlements, and in
no portion were there more than a few white settlers. The Indian
population of the territory was rapidly decreasing, while many
emigrants from different parts of the country, were anxiously
waiting the extinction of the Indian title, and the establishment
of a territorial government, to seek new homes on the fertile
prairies which would be opened to settlement. It cannot be doubted
that if the free condition of Kansas had been left undisturbed by
Congress, that territory would have had a rapid, peaceful, and
prosperous settlement. Its climate, its soil, and its easy access
to the older settlements, would have made it the favored course
for the tide of emigration constantly flowing to the west, and in
a brief period it would have been admitted to the Union as a free
state, without sectional excitement. If so organized, none but
the kindest feelings would have existed between its citizens and
those of the adjoining State of Missouri. Their mutual interests
and intercourse, instead of endangering the harmony of the Union,
would have strengthened the ties of national brotherhood.

The testimony taken by the committee clearly showed that before
the proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise was introduced
into Congress, the people of western Missouri were indifferent to
the prohibition of slavery in the territory, and neither asked nor
desired its repeal.

When, however, the prohibition was removed by the action of Congress,
the aspect of affairs entirely charged. The whole country was
agitated by the reopening of a controversy which conservative men
in different sections believed had been settled in every state and
territory by some law beyond the danger of repeal. The excitement
which always accompanied the discussion of the slavery question
was greatly increased by the hope, on the one hand, of extending
slavery into a region from which it had been excluded by law; and,
on the other, by a sense of wrong done by what was regarded as a
breach of public faith. This excitement was naturally transferred
into the border counties of Missouri and the territory, as settlers
favoring free or slave institutions moved into them.

Within a few days after the organic law passed, and as soon as its
passage could be known on the border, leading citizens of Missouri
crossed into the territory, held "squatter meetings," voted at
elections, committed crimes of violence, and then returned to their
homes. This unlawful interference was continued in every important
stage in the history of the territory; _every election_ was
controlled, not by the actual settlers, but by the citizens of
Missouri; and, as a consequence, every officer in the territory,
from constable to legislator, except those appointed by the President,
owed his position to non-resident voters. None were elected by
the settlers, and no political power whatever, however important,
was exercised by the people of the territory.

In October, 1854, the Governor of Kansas, A. H. Reeder, and other
officers appointed by the President, arrived in the territory.
Settlers from all parts of the country came in great number, entering
their claims and building their cabins. The first election was
for delegate to Congress and was held on the 29th of November,
1854. The governor divided the territory into seventeen election
districts, appointed judges, and prescribed proper rules for the
election. The report of the committee enters into full details as
to this election and all subsequent thereto in each district. The
conduct of the election in the second district, held at the village
of Douglas, nearly fifty miles from the Missouri line, is a fair
specimen of all the elections in Kansas. The report says:

"On the second day before the election large companies of men came
into the district in wagons and on horseback, and declared that
they were from the State of Missouri, and were going to Douglas to
vote. On the morning of the election they gathered around the
house where the election was to be held. Two of the judges appointed
by the governor did not appear, and other judges were selected by
the crowd; all then voted. In order to make a pretense of right
to vote, some persons of the company kept a pretended register of
squatter claims, on which anyone could enter his name, and then
assert he had a claim in the territory. A citizen of the district,
who was himself a candidate for delegate to Congress was told by
one of the strangers that he would be abused, and probably killed,
if he challenged a vote. He was seized by the collar, called a
damned Abolitionist, and was compelled to seek protection in the
room with the judges. About the time the polls were closed these
strangers mounted their horses and got into their wagons and cried
out, 'All aboard for Westport.' A number were recognized as
residents of Missouri, and among them was Samuel H. Woodson, a
leading lawyer of Independence. Of those whose names are on the
poll-books, 35 were resident settlers and 226 were non-residents."

In January and February, 1855, the governor, A. H. Reeder, caused
a census to be taken of the inhabitants and qualified voters in
Kansas. On the day the census was completed he issued his proclamation
for an election to be held March 30, 1855, for members of the
legislative assembly of the territory. The proclamation prescribed
the boundaries of the districts, the places for polls, the names
of judges, the apportionment of members, and the qualification of
voters. Had it been observed, a just and fair election would have
reflected the will of the people of Kansas. Before the election,
however, false and inflammatory rumors were busily circulated among
the people of western Missouri. They grossly exaggerated and
misrepresented the number and character of the emigration then
passing into the territory. By the active exertions of many of
the leading citizens, the passions and prejudices of the people of
that state were greatly excited. Several residents of Missouri
testified to the character of the reports circulated among and
credited by the people. These efforts were successful. By an
organized movement, which extended from Andrew county, in the north,
to Jasper county, in the south, and as far eastward as Boone and
Cole counties (Missouri), companies of men were collected in
irregular parties and sent into every council district in the
territory, and into every representative district but one. The
men were so distributed as to control the election in every district.
They went to vote, and with the avowed design to make Kansas a
slave state. They were generally armed and equipped, carrying with
them their own provisions and tents, and so marched into the
territory.

As this election was for a legislature, the validity of which was
contested, the committee took great pains to procure testimony as
to the election in each election district. The election in the
second district is a fair specimen. In that district, on the
morning of the election, the judges appointed by the governor
appeared and opened the polls. Their names were Harrison Burson,
Nathaniel Ramsay and Mr. Ellison. The Missourians began to arrive
early in the morning, some 500 or 600 of them in wagons and carriages
and on horseback, and under the lead of Samuel J. Jones, then
postmaster of Westport, Missouri; Claiborne F. Jackson and a Mr.
Steeley, of Independence, Missouri. They were armed with double-
barreled guns, rifles, bowie-knives and pistols, and had flags
hoisted. They held a sort of informal election off at one side,
at first for governor of Kansas Territory, and shortly afterwards
announced Thomas Johnson, of Shawnee Mission, elected governor.
The polls had been opened but a short time when Mr. Jones marched
with the crowd up to the window and demanded that they be allowed
to vote, without swearing as to their residence. After some noisy
and threatening talk, Claiborne F. Jackson addressed the crowd,
saying that they had come there to vote; that they had a right to
vote if they had been there but five minutes, and he was not willing
to go home without voting; this was received with cheers. Jackson
then called upon them to form into little bands of fifteen or
twenty, which they did, and went to an ox-wagon filled with guns,
which were distributed among them, and proceeded to load some of
them on the ground. In pursuance of Jackson's request, they tied
white tape or ribbons in their button holes, so as to distinguish
them from the "Abolitionists." They again demanded that the judges
resign. Upon their refusing to do so they smashed in the window,
sash and all, presented their pistols and guns, and at the same
time threatened to shoot. Some one on the outside cried out not
to shoot, as there were pro-slavery men in the house with the
judges. They then put a pry under the corner of the house, which
was built of logs, lifted it up a few inches, and let it fall again,
but desisted upon being again told that there were pro-slavery men
in the house. During this time the crowd repeatedly demanded to
be allowed to vote without being sworn, and Mr. Ellison, one of
the judges, expressed himself willing, but the other two judges
refused; thereupon a body of men, headed by Sheriff Jones, rushed
into the judges' room with cocked pistols and drawn bowie-knives
in their hands, and approached Burson and Ramsay. Jones pulled
out his watch and said he would given them five minutes to resign
in, or die. When the five minutes had expired and the judges had
not resigned, Jones now said he would given them another minute
and no more. Ellison told his associates that if they did not
resign there would be one hundred shots fired in the room in less
than fifteen minutes, and then snatching up the ballot-box ran out
into the crowd, holding up the ballot-box and hurrahing for Missouri.
About that time Burson and Ramsay were called out by their friends,
and not suffered to return. As Mr. Burson went out he put the
ballot poll-books in his pocket and took them with him, and as he
was going out Jones snatched some papers away from him, and shortly
afterwards came out himself, holding them up, crying, "Hurrah for
Missouri!" After he discovered they were not the poll-books he
took a party of men with him and captured the books from a Mr.
Umberger, to whom Burson had given them. They then chose two new
judges and proceeded with the election. They also threatened to
kill the judges if they did not receive their votes, or resign.
They said no man should vote who would submit to be sworn; that
they would kill any man who would offer to do so. Some of the
citizens who were about the window, but had not voted when the
crowd of Missourians marched up, upon attempting to vote were driven
back by the mob, or driven off. One of them, Mr. I. M. Mace, was
asked if he would take the oath, and upon his replying that he
would if the judges required it, he was dragged through the crowd
away from the polls, amid cries of "kill the damned nigger-thief,"
"cut his throat," "tear his heart out," etc. After they got into
the outside of the crowd they stood around him with cocked revolvers
and drawn bowie-knives, one man putting a knife to his breast to
that it touched him, another holding a cocked pistol to his ear,
while another struck at him with a club.

The Missourians declared that they had a right to vote, if they
had been in the territory but five minutes. Some said they had
been hired to come there and vote, and got a dollar a day, "and by
God they would vote or die there." They said the 30th day of March
was an important day, as Kansas would be made a slave state on that
day. They began to leave in the direction of Missouri in the
afternoon, after they had voted, leaving some thirty or forty around
the house where the election was held, to guard the polls till
after the election was over. The citizens of the territory were
not armed, except those who took part in the mob, and a large
portion of them did not vote. Three hundred and forty-one votes
were polled there that day, of which but some thirty were citizens.
A protest against the election was prepared and sent to the
governor.

A similarly organized and conducted election was held in each of
the other districts of the territory, varying only in degrees of
fraud and violence. In the fifteenth district it was proven that
several hundred Missourians appeared and voted. Several speeches
were made at the polls, and among those who spoke was Major Oliver,
one of our committee. He urged all persons to use no harsh words
and expressed a hope that nothing would be said or done to wound
the feelings of the most sensitive on the other side, giving some
reasons, based on the Missouri Compromise, why they should vote,
but he himself did not vote. The whole number of votes cast in
that district was 417. The number of legal voters was about 80.
Of the names on the poll-book but 62 were on the census roll. But
a small portion, estimated at one-fourth of the legal voters, voted.

The validity of the so called pro-slavery legislature rested upon
this election. It is hardly necessary at this late day to say that
such a legislative body could not rightly assume or lawfully exercise
legislative functions over any law-abiding community. Their
enactments were, by every principle of law and right, null and
void. The existence of fraud at the election was admitted by every
one, but it was defended on the ground that the New England Emigrant
Aid Society had imported a great number of emigrants into Kansas
for the sole purpose of making that territory a free state. This
claim was thoroughly investigated and the organization and history
of the society examined. The only persons who emigrated into the
territory under the auspices of this company in 1855, prior to the
election in March, was a party of 169 persons who came under the
charge of Charles Robinson, and of whom sixty-seven were women and
children. They came as actual settlers, intending to make their
homes in the territory, and for no other purpose. Some of them
returned, but most of them became settlers. A few voted at the
election in Lawrence but the number was small. The names of these
emigrants were ascertained and thirty-seven of them were found upon
the poll-books. This company of peaceful emigrants, moving with
their household goods, was distorted into an invading horde of
pauper Abolitionists, who were, with others of a similar character,
to control the domestic institutions of the territory, and then
overturn those of a neighboring state.

The invasion of March 30 left both parties in a state of excitement,
tending directly to produce violence. The successful party was
lawless and reckless, while assuming the name of the "Law and Order"
party. The Free State party, at first surprised and confounded,
was greatly irritated, but soon resolved to prevent the success of
the invasion. In some districts, protests were sent to the governor;
in others such action was prevented by threats, in others by want
of time, and in others by the belief that a new election would
bring a new invasion. About the same time, all classes of men
commenced carrying deadly weapons about their persons. Under these
circumstances, a slight or accidental quarrel produced unusual
violence. Lawless acts became frequent and passed unpunished.
This unhappy condition of the public mind was further increased by
acts of violence in western Missouri, where, in April, a newspaper,
called the "Parkville Luminary," was destroyed by a mob, and numerous
acts of violence and homicides committed. Some innocent persons
were unlawfully arrested and others ordered to leave the territory.
The first one notified to leave was William Phillips, a lawyer of
Leavenworth, and upon his refusal the mob forcibly seized him, took
him across the river, carried him several miles into Missouri, and
then tarred and feathered him, shaving one side of his head and
committing other gross indignities upon his person. Judge Lecompte,
chief justice of the territory, Colonel L. N. Burns, of Weston,
Missouri, and others, took part in and made speeches at a bitterly
partisan meeting, the tendency of which was to produce violence
and disorder.

After the most careful examination of the poll-books and the
testimony taken, we were convinced beyond all doubt that the election
of the 30th of March, 1855, was utterly void. It was the result
of an organized invasion from the State of Missouri, a lawless
seizure of the conduct of the election, and the open voting by
thousands of persons who neither resided in nor pretended to be
residents of Kansas. Not content with voting they made false
returns of votes never cast, and excluded legal voters because they
were "Abolitionists."

A more wanton and shameless overthrow of popular rights cannot be
found in history.

The so-called legislative assembly, thus elected, met at Pawnee,
on the 2nd of July, 1855. It attempted to make laws for Kansas,
and to that end adopted, in substance, the laws of the State of
Missouri in gross as the laws for the territory, but, to retain
its power, it provided that every officer of the territory, executive
and judicial, was to be appointed by the legislature, or by some
officer appointed by it.

The legality of this legislature was denied by the great majority
of the people who never acquiesced in or obeyed its enactments,
thus taking the only course open to them to secure a lawful
government.

While the alleged legislative assembly was in session, a movement
was instituted to form a state government, and apply for admission
into the Union as a state. The first step taken by the people of
the territory, in consequence of the invasion of March 30, 1855,
was the circulation, for signature, of a graphic and truthful
memorial to Congress. Every allegation in this memorial was
sustained by the testimony. No further step was taken, as it was
hoped that some action by the general government would protect them
in their rights. When the alleged legislative assembly proceeded
to construct the series of enactments referred to, the settlers
were of the opinion that submission to them would result in entirely
depriving them of the rights secured to them by the organic law.

Their political condition was freely discussed in the territory
during the summer of 1855. Several meetings were held in reference
to holding a convention to form a state government, and to apply
for admission into the Union as a state. Public opinion gradually
settled in favor of such an application to the Congress to meet in
December, 1855. The first general meeting was held at Lawrence,
on the 15th of August, 1855. Other meetings were held in various
parts of the territory, which indorsed the action of the Lawrence
meeting, and delegates were selected in compliance with its
recommendation. An election was called by a proclamation addressed
to the legal voters of Kansas, requesting them to meet at their
several precincts at the time and places named in the proclamation,
then and there to cast their ballots for members of a constitutional
convention, to meet at Topeka, on the fourth Tuesday of October.

Elections were held at the time and places designated, and the
returns were sent to the executive committee.

The result of the election was proclaimed by the executive committee,
and the members elect were required to meet on the 23rd of October,
1855, at Topeka. In pursuance of this proclamation and direction
the constitutional convention met at the time and place appointed,
and framed a state constitution. A memorial to Congress was also
prepared, praying the admission of Kansas into the Union as a state
under that constitution. The convention also provided that the
question of the adoption of the constitution, and other questions,
be submitted to the people, and required the executive committee
to take the necessary steps for that purpose.

Accordingly, an election was held on the 15th day of December,
1855, in compliance with the proclamation issued by the executive
committee who then issued a proclamation reciting the results of
the election of the 15th of December, and at the same time provided
for an election, to be held on the 11th day of January, 1856, for
state officers and members of the general assembly of the State of
Kansas. The election was accordingly held in several election
precincts, the returns of which were sent to the executive committee
who announced the result by a proclamation.

Thus, when we arrived in Kansas, two rival governments were in
existence, one the result of fraud and force, the other confessedly
incomplete, being without executive power or recognition. Congress
alone could settle the controversy by recognizing one or the other.
Its action and its failure to act will be stated further on.

A brief narrative of incidents while the committee was in Kansas
may be of interest.

We arrived by steamer at a place called Westport Landing, near the
mouth of the Kansas River. As I remember the place it was a mere
hamlet, composed of three dwellings, a store, a tavern, and a
blacksmith shop. We passed over the high rolling prairie, where
but a few and scattered cabins then existed, but which is now the
site of Kansas City, a beautiful city of 90,000 inhabitants. About
six miles from the landing we entered Westport, the headquarters
of the Santa Fé trade. This important trade in 1854 was conducted
with "prairie schooners," wagons of great dimensions rudely but
strongly built, each hauled by four or six mules or Indian ponies,
and all driven by as rough a set of men of mixed color, tribe and
nativity as could be found anywhere in the world. Their usual
dress was a broad brimmed felt hat, a flannel shirt, home-spun
trousers, without suspenders, and heavy cowhide boots outside of
their trousers, with a knife or pistols, or both, in their belts
or boots. They were properly classed as border ruffians, and as
a rule were whisky soaked.

The contrast of this region between then and now is a marked evidence
of the wonderful change that has been made within a single generation.
I have several times visited Kansas City and its environs since
1856. I have noted the change at each visit! The rolling prairie
has been checkered with streets and avenues, and the squares and
suburbs are dotted all over with residences, stores and workshops.
The landing, once a single pier, now extends miles along the Missouri
River. The border ruffians have disappeared with the Indians and
"greasers," and have been replaced by an active, intelligent and
prosperous community.

Mrs. Sherman and myself started in advance for Lawrence in an open
buggy drawn by one horse, and were told to follow the trail, and
this we had no difficulty in doing. We passed through one or more
Indian reservations, over as beautiful a country as the sun shines
upon, but without house or habitation, except Indian huts. We
arrived at Lawrence, a town less than two years old, and were
cordially received. The people there were fearing a raid by the
"border ruffians," but this was fortunately postponed until our
departure for Leavenworth.

The committee proceeded immediately to take testimony. Governor
Reeder acted in behalf of the Free State side, and General Whitfield
in behalf of the pro-slavery side, this being the conceded line of
demarcation between the opposing factions. The town was in embryo,
nothing finished, and my wife and I were glad to have a cot in a
room in the unfinished and unoccupied "Free State Hotel," soon
after burned to the ground by Jones, the marshal of Kansas, or his
deputies. There was no difficulty in obtaining witnesses or
testimony, but, as a rule, the witnesses on one side would only
testify in Lawrence, and those on the other in Lecompton or
Leavenworth. They were like soldiers in hostile armies, careful
to keep outside of the enemy's camp.

Dr. Robinson, afterwards Governor Robinson, was then by far the
ablest and bravest leader of the Free State cause. His history of
the Kansas conflict is the most interesting yet published. When
the committee visited Lecompton to take testimony, it was a surprise
to us that he not only offered, but insisted upon going to that
place, the headquarters and capital of the pro-slavery party. It
was then scarcely a hamlet, and its existence depended entirely
upon the success of that party. Dr. Robinson and I rode together
into the place. It was easy to see that he was not a welcome
visitor. Everyone but the committee carried arms. Several murders
and affrays had recently occurred, in regard to which we had taken
evidence. Here we had access to the poll-books of the contested
elections, and met on friendly terms with the officers of the
territory, the chief of whom were Judge Lecompte, chief justice of
the territory, after whom the town had been named, and Jones, the
marshal of the United States. Governor Shannon was, I think, also
there for a time. The quarters for lodging were even more limited
here than in Lawrence. I slept in a cot side by side with the one
occupied by Judge Lecompte, who, though a terror to the Free State
men, seemed to me to be a good humored gentleman, more violent in
his words than in his acts. We had no unpleasant incident while
there, though such had been prophesied at Lawrence.

From Lecompton the committee went to Topeka, then quite a small
village, now a city of 33,000 inhabitants. It was already ambitious
to become the Free State capital of Kansas, by reason of its central
position. There was then no settlement of any importance west of
Topeka. Some testimony was taken, but we soon returned to Lawrence,
and from thence went to Leavenworth. A large part of the distance
between these places was an Indian reservation. Mrs. Sherman and
I rode over it in a buggy, and found no white man's habitation on
the way. Its great value and fertility was easily perceived, and
it is now well settled by an active and prosperous population of
white men. On the road we met an Indian seated near his wigwam,
with a gun in his hand, and for a moment I feared he might use it.
He uttered some Indian gibberish, which we construed as an invitation
to enter his hut. We tied our horse, entered, and found no one
there but an old squaw. I gave the Indian some silver which he
greedily took, but indicated by his motions that he wanted a drink
of whisky, but this I was not able to give him.

Leavenworth was a new town near Fort Leavenworth, the then western
military post of the army of the United States. We placed ourselves
in communication with Colonel Sumner, then in command, but we had
no occasion to summon his official aid, though authorized by the
resolutions under which we were acting to call for such assistance
from any military force which was at the time convenient to us.
However, our meetings there were more disturbed than at any other
place. The trouble commenced at Lawrence shortly after our arrival
at Leavenworth. A company of about 700 armed men, the great body
of whom were not citizens of the territory, were marched into the
town of Lawrence under Marshal Donaldson and Sheriff Jones, officers
claiming to act under the law, and they then bombarded and burned
to the ground a valuable hotel and one private house, and destroying
two printing presses and material. The posse, being released by
the officers, proceeded to sack, pillage, and rob houses, stores,
trunks, even taking the clothing of women and children. The people
of Leavenworth were much alarmed, as threats were made to clean
out the "Black Republican Committee" at Leavenworth. No attempt
of that kind was made. Later on, Dr. Robinson was arrested on a
steamboat on the way with his wife to St. Louis. We had confided
to him a copy of the testimony taken, to be delivered to Mr. Banks,
speaker of the House. We believe that a knowledge of that fact
caused the arrest, but, fortunately, Mrs. Robinson, who had the
testimony safely secured in her clothing, was allowed to proceed
to Washington. Dr. Robinson was taken back to Leavenworth and
placed in prison, where I called upon him, but was rudely threatened,
and was only allowed to speak to him in the presence of the jailer.

We were frequently threatened through anonymous letters. On one
occasion, upon going in the morning to the committee room, I found
tacked upon the door a notice to the "Black Republican Committee"
to leave Kansas "upon penalty of death." I cut it from the door
and called upon a bystander to testify to the contents and the
place from which it was taken.

On one Sunday morning, while sitting in my lodging, a very rough
looking man entered, and I indicated to Mr. W. Blair Lord, our
stenographer, to take down what was said. With many oaths and
imprecations he told us that he had been robbed by ruffians of his
horses and wagon a few miles from Leavenworth; that he had offered
to fight them, but they were cowards; that he was born in Richland
county, Ohio, near Mansfield, and he wanted me to help him get his
traps. I knew his family as famous fighters. I asked him if he
would swear to his story. He said he would, and Mr. Lord read it
to him, oaths and all, from his stenographic notes. He stared at
Lord and demanded "Where in hell did you get that?" He was handed
the stenographic notes and, after looking at them, he exclaimed:
"Snakes, by God; but it is all true!" Whether he got his outfit
and traps I never knew.

The evidence at Leavenworth being closed the committee returned to
Westport, Missouri. While we were there we saw an armed and
organized body of residents of Missouri march across the line into
Kansas to retaliate, as we were told, the murder of five pro-slavery
men at Osawatamie. While they were marching into Westport from
the east, Governor Shannon, in obedience to the summons of the
committee, came into Westport from the territory, and in his presence
they filed off in regular array into the territory. It was difficult
to ascertain the precise causes of these murders, but it was shown
that they were in retaliation for those of certain Free State men,
one of whom was the son of John Brown, later the famous leader of
the attack on the fort at Harper's Ferry, and who had acted for
the committee in summoning witnesses to Lawrence. The testimony
in respect to these murders was vague, and the murderers were not
identified. Two years afterwards I met John Brown in Chicago, and
asked him about the murder of the pro-slavery men at Osawatamie;
he replied with spirit that they were not murdered, but that they
had been arrested, tried by a jury, convicted and executed. The
arrest, trial and execution must have been done during one night.
He did not disclose the names of the executioners, but his cool
statement was a striking picture of the scenes then enacted in
Kansas by both sides; both appealed to the law of force and crime,
and crime was justified by crime.

The evidence taken at Westport closed the investigation and Mr.
Howard and I returned to Detroit, as already stated.

The report was approved by Mr. Howard, and presented by him to the
House of Representatives, July 1, 1856, as a question of privilege.
The reception of it gave rise to much debate, but in the end I was
permitted on the same day to read it. The minority report of Mr.
Oliver was presented July 11 of that year. No action was taken on
the reports, but they were widely published.

On July 31, 1856, I made a speech on the Kansas contested election
between General Whitfield and Governor Reeder, during which I was
drawn into a discussion with Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia,
and Mr. Oliver, of Missouri, in which the general questions involved
in the Kansas controversy were fully debated. I closed with this
language:

"The worst evil that could befall our country is civil war, but
the outrages in Kansas cannot be continued much longer without
producing it. To our southern brethren I especially appeal. In
the name of southern rights, crimes have been committed, and are
being committed, which I know you cannot and do not approve. These
have excited a feeling in the northern states that is deepening
and strengthening daily. It may produce acts of retaliation. You
are in a minority and, from the nature of your institutions, your
relative power is yearly decreasing. In excusing this invasion
from Missouri--in attempting to hold on to an advantage obtained
by force and fraud--you are setting an example which, in its
ultimate consequences, may trample your rights under foot. Until
these wrongs are righted, you must expect northern men to unite to
redress them. It may not be this year, but, as sure as there is
a God in heaven, such a union will be effected; and you will gain
nothing by sustaining northern agitators in violating the compromise
of your fathers."

On July 28, 1856, I offered, as an amendment to the army appropriation
bill, the following proviso:

"_Provided, nevertheless_, That no part of a military force of the
United States herein provided for, shall be employed in aid of the
enforcement of the enactments of the alleged legislative assembly
of the Territory of Kansas, recently assembled at Shawnee Mission,
until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was not a
valid legislative assembly, chosen in conformity with the organic
law, by the people of said territory. And _Provided_, That until
Congress shall have passed on the validity of the said legislative
assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use
the military force in said territory to preserve the peace, suppress
insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons and property
therein, and upon the national highways in the State of Missouri,
from unlawful seizures and searches. And _be it further provided_,
That the President is required to disarm the present organized
militia of the Territory of Kansas and recall all the United States
arms therein distributed, and to prevent armed men from going into
said territory to disturb the public peace, or aid in the enforcement
or resistance of real or pretended laws."

After long debate, this was agreed to by a vote of 80 yeas to 47
nays. The deliberate purpose of a majority of the House was to
prevent any further support of the Lecompton territorial legislature.
This amendment, however, was disagreed to by the Senate and referred
to a committee of conference. On the 18th of August, the last day
of the session, the disagreement continued and the conference report
was taken up for action. A motion was made that the House insist
upon its amendments and agree to another committee of conference.
This was defeated, but no definite action was taken, as a majority
of the House was opposed to a further conference, and so the army
bill failed.

On the same day the President, by proclamation, convened the two
Houses in extra session to meet on the 21st day of August, three
days later. The President, in his message, urged Congress to recede
from the Kansas proviso in the army bill. The Republicans of the
House were determined to insist upon that proviso, and, by repeated
votes, refused to withdraw it or to reconsider it, but, after a
session of nine days, the House finally yielded, but only after
the Senate had agreed to an amendment, which contained the substance
of the proviso offered by me, as follows;

"_Provided_, That no part of the military force of the United
States, for the support of which appropriations are made by this
act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactment
heretofore passed by the bodies claiming to be the territorial
legislature of Kansas."

This amendment was agreed to and thus, in the final struggle, while
no effective measures to relieve the people of Kansas from the
tyranny imposed upon them were adopted, the declaration was made
that the military force of the United States should not be used to
aid in the enforcement of any enactment theretofore passed by bodies
claiming to be the territorial legislature of Kansas.

Thus it appears that during this long and wearisome session (for
in fact the two were but one), I was almost exclusively occupied
in a futile effort to restore the prohibition of slavery in Kansas,
according to the Missouri Compromise, but the struggle made was
fruitful in good. It strengthened the Free State sentiment in
Kansas, it aroused public sentiment in the north, and drove the
south to adopt new and strange theories which led to divisions in
the Democratic party and its disruption and overthrow in 1860.
The compromise made was understood to be the work of Mr. Seward,
and, though not satisfactory to the Republicans of the House, it
was at least a drawn battle, and, like Bunker Hill to Yorktown,
was the prelude to the Revolution that ended at Appomattox.

Among the many who attained distinction in the 34th Congress I can
only refer to a few, the chief of whom was Nathaniel P. Banks, who,
after a long struggle, was elected speaker. He was born in Waltham,
Massachusetts, January 30, 1816. He had risen into prominence
without any aid or advantage of early education or training. He
was the son of an overseer in a cotton factory at Waltham, where
he was for a time employed. He improved his leisure hours by the
study of history, political economy and the science of government.
He learned the trade of a machinist. He early acquired the habit
of speaking well on various subjects, and was elected as a Democratic
member of the legislature from his native town. In 1852 he was
elected to Congress, running upon the ticket with General Pierce,
the Democratic candidate for President. He took a decided stand
against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. He was a man of
striking presence, with a fine voice and engaging manners. He
filled the difficult position of speaker with great credit, and is
still remembered by his associates as perhaps the best fitted for
the special duties of speaker of the House of any Member since the
time of Henry Clay. He was afterward elected Governor of Massachusetts
and continued in that position for several years. When the war
broke out he was appointed major-general of volunteers, but his
service in the army was not marked. After the war was over he was
re-elected to Congress, but seemed to have lost his power and
influence. In later years his memory was impaired and he "lagged
superfluous on the stage." He died September 1, 1894.

Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, was elected to Congress in 1848 as a
Whig, and re-elected to each successive Congress down to 1856, when
his seat was contested and the House of Representatives decided
against him. He and Banks were the leading candidates for the
speakership of the 34th Congress, but the majority of the anti-
Nebraska Members voted for Banks, and upon his election Campbell
was made chairman of the committee of ways and means, and had
substantial control of the business of that Congress. He never
was in hearty sympathy with the Republican party. He was subsequently
elected to the 42nd Congress in 1870 as a Democrat, but had lost,
in a great measure, his influence. He served for a time as colonel
of a regiment in the war. He was a man of marked ability but was
too erratic to be a successful leader in any cause or party.

In 1850, at the early age of twenty-seven, Galusha A. Grow was
elected a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania. He was an
active and very useful Member. He took strong ground against the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and in 1859 was a competitor
with me for the position of speaker, but withdrew in my favor after
the first ballot. In the following Congress he was chosen speaker
and rendered very valuable service as such. After a continuous
service in Congress for fourteen years, he retired from active
political life and engaged in important business enterprises, but
always took an interest in political affairs. He was elected by
an overwhelming majority as a Member of the 53rd Congress at large
from his state.

Schuyler Colfax was a conspicuous Member of Congress from 1855
until he was nominated for the office of Vice President, in 1868,
on the ticket with General Grant. During this long period he
represented one district, and served for six years as speaker. He
was a very industrious, active Member. As we were of about the
same age, and our lives ran in parallel lines, we were often thrown
together. We and our families in Washington messed together in a
household for several years, and our intercourse was always friendly
and intimate. When he became Vice President he remarked to me that
I was first to enter the Senate, but he was first to become Vice
President. After his service as Vice President, he retired from
public life and delivered lectures upon many topics.

Many other Members of Congress, equally worthy of note, have passed
away from the scenes of life, and some few survive. I would gladly
recall their memory if my space would allow.

During the first session of the 34th Congress, the opponents of
slavery were without a party name or organization. They agreed
only in the one demand, that slavery should not be established in
Kansas. On other questions they voted on old party lines. The
Members elected in 1854 in the northern states were Democrats,
Whigs or Free Soilers. Many of the Democrats still supported the
administration of President Pierce, and acquiesced in the doctrine
of popular sovereignty in the territories. A few of the Whigs, of
conservative leanings, acted with the Americans, or "Know-Nothings,"
of the south. A strong popular movement was initiated in some of
the western states as early as 1854 in favor of a new party. This
was especially the case in Wisconsin and Michigan. On the 6th of
July, 1854, a popular convention was held at Jackson, Michigan,
composed of hundreds of men of all parties, who denounced slavery
as a great moral, social and political evil, and resolved that,
postponing and suspending all differences with regard to political
economy or administrative policy, they would act cordially and
faithfully in unison to oppose the extension of slavery, and be
known as Republicans until the contest was terminated. This name
was assumed in other states of the north.

The state convention held in Ohio on July 13, 1855, formally declared
itself a convention of the Republican party. The long struggle in
Kansas, the elections in 1855, and the contest for the speakership
of the House, added strength to this movement, and the name
"Republican" was formally given to the new party by the national
convention held at Philadelphia, June 17, 1856, as the best expression
of its views and principles.

It appeared for the time that the new party would carry the country
in a blaze of enthusiasm. And, looking over the past, I am clearly
of the opinion that this would have been the result but for the
faulty nomination of Colonel John C. Fremont as the Republican
candidate for President, and the sagacious nomination of James
Buchanan as the Democratic candidate. The Republican party, still
composed of uncertain elements, sought only for a candidate that
was available. Seward or Chase was the natural candidate. They
were fully identified with the principles and purposes of their
party. They were men of marked ability, strong in their respective
states, each elected governor of his state and sure of its support,
but Chase was opposed on account of his advanced opinions on the
slavery question, and Seward was actively opposed by the so-called
American party, for his open hostility to its principles and policy.
All these sought for a new man, and public opinion gradually, but
strongly, turned to John C. Fremont. He had no experience in public
life, but he attracted attention by his bold explorations in the
west and, especially, by his marching to California, and occupation
of this Mexican territory. A strong effort was made to secure the
nomination of Justice McLean of the United States Supreme Court.
He had been long in public life, had been a cabinet officer in two
administrations, had been appointed to the supreme bench by Jackson,
had held this position for twenty-six years, and was a man of
spotless integrity. His nomination was strongly urged by conservative
Republicans in all the northern states, and by the delegates from
Pennsylvania, especially by Thaddeus Stevens, who asserted that the
nomination of Fremont would not only lose the State of Pennsylvania,
to the Republicans, but that the party would be defeated at the
presidential election. But the current of opinion in the west, in
New England and New York, was too strong in favor of Fremont, and
he was nominated.

The Democratic national convention met at Cincinnati, June 2, 1856,
for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President.
Popular feeling was then strongly aroused against that party by
the assault of Brooks on Sumner, the removal of Reeder, the
appointment of Shannon, the crimes in Kansas, and the recent sacking
of Lawrence. A large proportion of northern Democrats, who still
adhered to their party, were restless under the violence of their
southern associates. It was this feeling, no doubt recognized by
both northern and southern Democrats, that prevented the nomination
of either Pierce or Douglas. Buchanan was regarded as a conservative
man of great experience, who, being absent from the country during
the entire period of the Kansas contest, would, it was believed,
and as his supporters affirmed, pursue a quieting policy that would
arrest and prevent further outrages and would secure fair elections
in that territory. He was popular in Pennsylvania, had served for
many years in each House of Congress, had creditably represented
the United States as minister to Russia and Great Britain, had been
Secretary of State and the head of the cabinet of President Polk.
He was unanimously supported by the delegation from Pennsylvania,
then a doubtful state, and, after many ballots and the defeat of
Pierce, was nominated with the acquiescence of Douglas. This
nomination greatly strengthened the Democratic party. It held in
that party the protection Democrats, and a large proportion of
those who in 1854 voted for anti-Nebraska Members of Congress.
The appointment of Colonel Geary of Pennsylvania as Governor of
Kansas, in the place of Governor Shannon, and his firm and impartial
administration, greatly aided the Democratic party. It was regarded
as evidence of a change of policy in Kansas, made at the request
of Mr. Buchanan.

The American party met at the city of Philadelphia soon after the
election of Banks as speaker, and nominated Millard Fillmore for
President and Donelson for Vice President. This movement did not
at first excite much attention, as it was known in the north it
would draw equally from the two great parties, and in the south
could only affect injuriously the Democratic party. Its platform
of principles was condemned by both the Republican and Democratic
conventions.

Mr. Fillmore took strong ground against what he called a sectional
ticket presenting both candidates from the free states, with the
avowed purpose of one part of the Union ruling over the whole United
States.

The nomination of Fremont, however, greatly strengthened the movement
in favor of Fillmore. There was a large element of the old Whig
party in the north, which, though friendly to Republican principles
and willing to support Seward or McLean, yet would not vote for
Fremont, who had none of the qualities that commanded their respect.
Such men as Ewing, Everett, Winthrop and Hilliard, conspicuous
leaders and eminent statesmen, announced their purpose to vote for
Fillmore. Mr. Choate, the eminent lawyer and statesman of
Massachusetts, declared his purpose to vote for Buchanan, upon the
plausible ground that, as the choice was between Buchanan and
Fremont, he was compelled, by a sense of duty, to vote for Buchanan.

At the same time leading Democrats in the south declared that if
Fremont was elected the Union could not and ought not to be preserved.
The Whigs of the south, with scarce an exception, were committed
to the support of Fillmore and Donelson, and joined in an outcry
of danger to the Union.

As the canvass progressed this feeling increased, and before its
close it became apparent that some of the older and more populous
Republican states would be lost by the Republican party. I shared
in this feeling of distrust of Fremont, but gave him my support.

I was nominated without any opposition for re-election to Congress
by a convention held at Shelby on the 12th day of August, 1856,
and was elected in October by a majority of 2,861.

I took an active part in the canvass, after the adjournment of
Congress, mainly in southern Ohio, where it was apparent that the
nomination of Buchanan was popular. In Pennsylvania, especially
in Philadelphia, the cry was for "Buck, Breck and free Kansas."
John G. Forney, the chairman of the Democratic state committee,
promised that if Buchanan was elected there would be no interference
with the efforts of the people of Kansas to make that territory a
free state. The result of the canvass was that Buchanan carried
the states of Pennsylvnia, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois and
California at the November election and was elected.

In reviewing the past it is apparent that the election of Buchanan
was necessary to convince the people of the north that no successful
opposition to the extension of slavery could be made except by a
party distinctly pledged to that policy. Mr. Buchanan encountered
difficulties which no human wisdom could overcome. Whatever may
have been his desire he was compelled, by the prevailing sentiment
in his party, to adopt measures that made a conflict between the
sections inevitable. The election of Fremont would probably have
precipitated this conflict before the north was ripe for it. His
conduct during the early period of the war proves that he would
have been unequal to such an emergency. His defeat was the
postponement of the irrepressible conflict until it became apparent
to all that our country must be all free or all slave territory.
This was the lesson taught by the administration of Buchanan, and
Lincoln was best fitted to carry it into execution.

Pierce was still President, but after his defeat for the nomination
he changed his policy materially. Events were allowed to develop
in Kansas with a growing tendency in favor of the Free State party.
Judge Lecompte was removed from an office the duties of which he
was totally unfit to perform. A large number of emigrants from
many of the northern states were preparing to move in the spring
to Kansas. Governor Geary of that territory, who had taken a
decided stand in favor of equal and exact justice to all men, was
met by opposition from the pro-slavery faction. His life was
threatened and strong demands were made for his removal. He became
satisfied that he would not be sustained by the administration,
and on the 4th of March, 1857, resigned his position.

Immediately upon the assembling of Congress in December, 1856, and
before the usual message had been sent to the President, notifying
him that the House of Representatives was prepared to enter upon
the duties of the session, a contest sprang up over the question
of administering the oath of office to Mr. Whitfield as a delegate
from the Territory of Kansas, and a struggle resulted which continued
until the 9th of December, when the oath of office was administered
to him and he took his seat.

President Pierce sent to the House of Representatives, December 2,
1856, his last message. He commenced it with a careful review of
the Kansas question and this led to a debate which continued during
the entire session. On the 8th of December I undertook to answer
as much of the message as related to the slavery question. He had,
in the message, defended the repeal of the restriction of slavery
contained in the Missouri Compromise, asserting that this compromise
was unconstitutional and abortive, but I showed that it had been
recognized as in full force by every administration since and
including that of Monroe, that it did not extend to the territory
acquired from Mexico, and that it was consistent with the compromise
acts of 1850. He asserted that the purpose was not only to exclude
slavery from Kansas, but also from places where it then existed.
I showed this to be inaccurate by the express denial of such purpose
in every platform of the Republican party. I then declared that
"If I had my voice, I would not have one single political Abolitionist
in the northern states. I am opposed to any interference by the
northern people with slavery in the slave states; I act with the
Republican party, with hundreds of thousands of others, simply
because the Republican party resists the extension, but does not
seek the abolition, of slavery."

My speech, as reported, expresses, as I believe, the limit and
extent of the aims of the Republican party at that time. The only
regret I feel is that the tone and temper of my remarks were not
such as should be addressed to the President of the United States
by a Member of Congress.

What I say of myself can be truthfully said of many other Members.
The feeling against the President was embittered by the firm stand
taken by him in support of a policy which we regarded as unpatriotic,
and dangerous in the highest degree to the public peace and the
national Union. In his last message he defended or excused the
lawless efforts made by residents of Missouri to establish slavery
in Kansas. He made no effort to prevent the invasion of Kansas or
the crimes committed against its citizens. He appointed many
governors for this territory, and in every instance where they
sought to protect the rights of its people, he either removed them
or denied them his support. This was the case with Reeder and
Shannon. Even Governor Geary, whom he praised in his message, and
whom Buchanan had lauded during the canvass, was abandoned by both,
and compelled to resign because he sought to protect all citizens
alike.

President Pierce was properly, according to usage, a candidate for
re-election when the convention met to nominate his successor, but
he was defeated by Buchanan. Mr. Douglas, the chief instrument in
the passage of the Nebraska bill, met a like fate. Buchanan was
saved only by the popular cry of "Buchanan, Breckenridge and Free
Kansas," and the confident belief, founded upon his declaration,
that his election would secure freedom to Kansas.

The political excitement existing during the whole of President
Pierce's term entered into social life in Washington. The President
was not brought into contact with those who differed with him in
opinion. His family afflictions were, no doubt, the partial cause
of this. The sincere friendship that often exists between political
adversaries in public life were not possible during this period.
Social lines were drawn on sectional lines, and in the north party
lines became hostile lines. Such causes, no doubt, led to unjust
criticism of the President, and, in turn, caused him to regard his
political adversaries as enemies to their country and disturbers
of the public peace. I scarcely remember seeing him during this
Congress, and was strongly prejudiced against him. A more careful
study of the motives and conduct of public men during this period
has changed my opinion of many of them, and, especially, of President
Pierce. That he was a genial, social and agreeable companion is
affirmed by all who were familiar with him. That his opinions were
honestly entertained, and firmly supported, is shown by his adherence
to them without change or shadow of turning. In this respect he
compares favorable with many leading men of his party, who stifled
their opinions to meet the currents of the day. He had been a
general of distinction in the Mexican War and a Member of both the
Senate and House of Representatives. He was a leading lawyer in
his state. His messages to Congress, considered in a literary
view, were able state papers, clearly and strongly expressed. It
was his great misfortune to have to deal with a controversy that
he did not commence, but he did not shrink from the responsibility.
He believed in the policy of non-intervention in the territories,
and so did not prevent the "border ruffians" of Missouri crossing
the line and voting at every election in Kansas, setting up a bogus
legislature, adopting the laws of Missouri as the laws of Kansas,
and establishing negro slavery in that territory. Fortunately a
more numerous, courageous and intelligent population reversed all
this, and led, not only to the exclusion of slavery in Kansas, but
also to its abolition in the United States.

With the kindly biography of President Pierce, written by his
friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, before me, I can appreciate his ability,
integrity and agreeable social qualities, and only regret that he
was President of the United States at a time when the sagacity of
a Jefferson, the determined courage of a Jackson, or the shrewdness
and wisdom of a Lincoln, were needed to meet the difficulties and
dangers which he had to encounter.

There is but one more personal incident of the 34th Congress I care
to mention. Mr. Banks designated me as a member of the committee
on foreign affairs. Mr. Alexander C. M. Pennington, as chairman
of that committee, handed me the voluminous papers in reference to
the French Spoilation Claims. They covered an interesting period
of American history, embracing all that between 1793 and 1801, in
which were involved important negotiations both in England and
France, and outrages committed upon our, then, infant government
by the government of France and Great Britain. I had all the
feeling of natural indignation against those great powers who sought
to draw the United States into their controversies, and practice
upon us enormities and outrages that we would not submit to for a
moment in our day. Yet, after a full and careful examination of
all the papers in the case, I became thoroughly satisfied that
these claimants, whatever might be said as to their claims against
the French government, had absolutely no foundation for a claim
against the United States.

I wrote an adverse report, but it was suppressed in the committee.
Bills for the payment of these claims were presented from time to
time. In 1870 Senator Sumner reported favorably to the Senate a
bill for the purpose from the committee on foreign relations. It
was opposed by Senator Thurman and myself and again laid aside.
On the 14th of December, 1882, the bill was again pressed, the
debate which ensued clearly showing that the United States pressed
these claims against France to the verge of war.

The whole case is this: Certain depredations were committed by
the French government and by the citizens of France, upon the
citizens of the United States, previous to the beginning of the
present century. The government of the United States did all it
could to secure payment and compensation to its citizens for these
depredations. The French government denied the validity of the
claims, holding, on the other hand, that the government of the
United States had violated the treaties made with it under
circumstances of sacred obligation, that its citizens therefore
were justified in doing what they had done in seizing upon American
vessels, and taking from them goods called contraband of war, and
in committing these depredations. It uniformly justified and
maintained the action of its cruisers in doing these things. In
other words, our claims were repudiated by France, their payment
being refused, and, as we could not force their payment, we simply
abandoned them. Recently they have been referred to the court of
claims, without regard to the lapse of time, and large sums of
money are now being paid by the United States for the depredations
committed by the French nearly one hundred years ago, to descendants,
three generations removed, of merchants and ship owners, who, with
all their losses, enjoyed the most profitable commerce in the
history of our mercantile marine. Their payment is, perhaps, the
most striking evidence of the improvidence of Congress in dealing
with antiquated claims against the government.

The first year of Buchanan's administration, 1857, will always be
noted as one of great political excitement, of sudden changes and
unexpected results. At its beginning the Democratic party was in
complete possession of all branches of the government. The House
of Representatives, elected in the fall of 1856, had a strong
Democratic majority. The Senate was composed of 37 Democrats, 20
Republicans and 4 Americans. The Supreme Court was composed of 5
Democrats from the slave states, and 2 Democrats and 2 Whigs from
the free states. The cabinet of Buchanan had four members from
the southern states and three from the northern. The south had
full control of all departments of the government, with the President
in hearty sympathy with the policy of that section. The condition
of Kansas alone caused it trouble. The firm and impartial course
of Governor Geary had imparted confidence and strength to the Free
State citizens of that territory, who were now in an unquestioned
majority through the large emigration from the north during the
spring of 1857. The doctrine of popular sovereignty could not,
therefore, be relied upon to establish slavery in Kansas, and it
was abandoned. New theories had to be improvised and new agencies
called into action.

I was present when the oath of office was administered to Mr.
Buchanan, on the 4th of March, 1857. With my strong sympathy for
the Free State people of Kansas, I hoped and believed that he would
give some assurance that the pledges made for him in the canvass
would be carried out, but the statement in his inaugural address,
that the difference of opinion in respect to the power of the people
of a territory to decide the question of slavery for themselves
would be speedily and finally settled, as a judicial question, by
the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case then pending
before it, naturally, excited suspicion and distrust. It was
regarded as a change of position, a new device in the interest of
slavery. In two days after the inauguration, Chief Justice Taney
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case,
as to the status of negroes in the United States. He said:

"They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings
of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
white race, either in social or political relations; and so far
inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to
respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced
to slavery for his benefit."

He said negroes "were not intended to be included in the word
'citizens' in the constitution, and therefore could claim none of
the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and
secures to the citizens of the United States;" and announced as
the opinion of the court that the Missouri Compromise act was not
warranted by the constitution and was therefore void.

These declarations were in no sense necessary to the decision of
the case before the court, as it was held that Dred Scott was a
resident of Missouri and subject as a slave to the laws of that
state.

Justices McLean and Curtis dissented from the decision of the court,
and in elaborate opinions refuted, as I think, every position of
the Chief Justice.

Thus the Kansas question became a political question in the Supreme
Court. At once the south rejected the doctrine of popular sovereignty,
and demanded, as a constitutional right, that slaves moved into a
territory must be protected like other property, whether the people
of the territory wish it or not. This was the first time in our
history when this great tribunal entered into the political arena.
Its action encouraged the south, but produced a strong feeling of
resentment in the north, and widened the breach between the two
great sections of the country.

Mr. Buchanan, early in his administration, found it necessary to
appoint a Governor of Kansas. He selected Robert J. Walker, of
Mississippi, who had held high positions in the national government,
having been Secretary of the Treasury and Senator of the United
States. He appointed Fred. P. Stanton, of Tennessee, as secretary
of the territory. Mr. Stanton had long been a Member of high
standing of the House of Representatives. Both were southern men
and both wished to see Kansas a slave state, but both were honorable
men who would not seek to gain their ends by dishonest means.
After a careful estimate, made by them, it was believed that there
were, in the territory, 9,000 Free State Democrats, 8,000 Republicans,
6,000 pro-slavery Democrats, and 500 pro-slavery Americans. A
strong effort was made by Governor Walker to induce these elements
to join in a movement for a convention to frame a constitution,
with a view to admit Kansas as a state in the Union. The Free
State men, while anxious for such a result, were not willing to
trust their adversaries with the conduct of such an election,
without some safeguards against the repetition of the frauds and
violence of the previous elections. The result was that only 2,200
persons took part in choosing delegates to what became the notorious
Lecompton convention.

Both before and after this so-called election Governor Walker
promised that the constitution, when adopted, should be submitted
to a vote of the people, and he added his assurance that the
President of the United States would insist upon this condition.
On the 12th of July Mr. Buchanan wrote to Governor Walker:

"On the question of submitting the constitution to the _bona fide_
resident settlers of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall. In
sustaining such a principle we cannot fail. It is the principle
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the principle of popular sovereignty,
and the principle at the foundation of all popular government.
The more it is discussed, the stronger it will become. Should the
convention of Kansas adopt this principle, all will be settled
harmoniously."

This promise was soon after violated, and the President declared
in an open letter:

"At the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act slavery
existed, and still exists, in Kansas, under the constitution of
the United States. This point has at last been finally decided by
the highest tribunal known to our laws. How it could ever have
been seriously doubted is a mystery."

It was known that the delegates elected would adopt a pro-slavery
constitution and ask for admission to the Union. It was equally
well known that no such constitution would be adopted by the people
of Kansas. Under these circumstances the President, pressed by
his cabinet, yielded to the demands of the south, violated his
pledges, and supported the convention in the extreme measures
adopted by it.

In the meantime the Free State party in Kansas, composed of nearly
equal proportions of Republicans and Democrats, was persuaded by
Governor Walker to take part in the regular election for the
territorial legislature. The result was, the Free State party
elected nine of the thirteen councilmen, and twenty-four of the
thirty-nine representatives. This should have settled the Kansas
controversy, and it would have done so on the principle of popular
sovereignty, but a broader constituency in the south demanded that
the doctrine of the Dred Scott case should be applied to and
enforced, not only in Kansas, but in all the states. Henceforth
the Lecompton constitution must be considered, not as a local
question, but as a national one. The imperative issue, as pithily
stated by Lincoln, was, all slave or all free states. The battle
was to commence in Kansas, but was to become national in its scope.

The constitutional convention met on the 19th of October, 1857,
within two weeks after the election of the legislature, but in its
action little interest was taken, a quorum being preserved with
difficulty. It adopted a pro-slavery constitution, which, it was
well known, if submitted to the people, would be rejected by an
overwhelming majority, and if not submitted would be resisted, if
necessary, by open force. The President, Governor Walker, and all
parties, had promised that the constitution, when framed, would be
submitted to a popular vote. How not to do it, and yet appear to
do it, was a problem worthy of a gang of swindlers, and yet the
feeling was so strong in administration circles, that the plan
devised as below given was cordially approved by the cabinet and
acquiesced in by the President.

The constitution adopted by the convention provided: "The right
of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction,
and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase
is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any
property whatever." Another provision of the constitution was that
it could not be amended until after the year 1864, and even then
no alteration should "be made to affect the rights of property in
the ownership of slaves."

The election was to be held on December 21, 1857. The people might
vote for the "constitution with slavery" or the "constitution with
no slavery." In either event, by the express terms of the
constitution, slavery was established for a time in Kansas and the
doctrine of the Dred Scott case was to be embodied in our laws.
No opportunity was offered to the people to vote against the
constitution.

It is difficult to characterize in proper terms the infamy of these
proceedings. The Free State party would take no part in the proposed
election on December 21, and it resulted, for the constitution with
slavery, 6,226 votes, of which 2,720 were proven to be fraudulent;
for the constitution without slavery, 589. Governor Walker promptly
denounced the outrage. He said: "I consider such a submission of
the question a vile fraud, a base counterfeit, and a wretched device
to prevent the people voting even on the slavery question." "I
will not support it," he continued, "but I will denounce it, no
matter whether the administration sustains it or not."

Mr. Buchanan supported the scheme after the constitution had been
adopted by the convention. The elections in the fall preceding
were favorable to the Democrats, and Mr. Buchanan was naturally
encouraged to hope that his party had regained popular ascendancy,
but the Lecompton juggle created a profound impression in the north,
and divided the Democratic party to a greater extent than did the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, especially in the northwest and in Ohio,
where the feeling of resentment was almost universal. Mr. Douglas,
the great leader for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, took
immediate ground against the pro-slavery plan, and protested to
the President against it. An open breach occurred between them.

When Congress assembled, the Lecompton scheme became the supreme
subject for debate. Mr. Douglas assumed at once the leadership of
the opposition to that measure. He said: "Up to the time of
meeting of the convention, in October last, the pretense was kept
up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I
thought believed by them, that the convention intended to submit
a constitution to the people, and not to attempt to put a government
into operation without such a submission." But instead of that,
"All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or
not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against slavery."
Again he said: "I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen
who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and still
a larger number of persons who are their friends, and I have received
the same answer from every one of them. . . . They say if they
allowed a negative vote the constitution would have been voted down
by an overwhelming majority, and hence the fellows should not be
allowed to vote at all." He denounced it as "a trick, a fraud upon
the rights of the people."

Governor Walker declared: "I state it as a fact, based on a long
and intimate association with the people of Kansas, that an
overwhelming majority of that people are opposed" to the Lecompton
constitution, "and my letters state that but one out of twenty of
the press of Kansas sustains it. . . . Any attempt by Congress to
force this constitution upon the people of Kansas will be an effort
to substitute the will of a small minority for that of an overwhelming
majority of the people."

On the 28th of January, 1858, during the debate on the Lecompton
constitution, I made an elaborate speech, entering fully into the
history of that constitution and the events that preceded it, and
closed as follows:

"In conclusion, allow me to impress the south with two important
warnings she has received in her struggle for Kansas. One is, that
though her able and disciplined leaders on this floor, aided by
executive patronage, may give her the power to overthrow legislative
compacts, yet, while the sturdy integrity of the northern masses
stands in her way, she can gain no practical advantage by her well-
laid schemes. The other is, that while she may indulge with impunity
the spirit of filibusterism, or lawless and violent adventure, upon
a feeble and distracted people in Mexico and Central American, she
must not come in contact with that cool, determined courage and
resolution which forms the striking characteristic of the Anglo-
Saxon race. In such a contest, her hasty and impetuous violence
may succeed for a time, but the victory will be short-lived and
transient, and leave nothing but bitterness behind. Let us not
war with each other; but with the grasp of fellowship and friendship,
regarding to the full each other's rights, and kind to each other's
faults, let us go hand in hand in securing to every portion of our
people their constitutional rights."

I may as well here briefly follow the progress and end of the Kansas
controversy. Mr. Stanton, the acting governor in the absence of
Governor Walker, convened an extra session of the territorial
legislature, in which the Free State men had a majority. The
legislature provided for an election to be held January 4, 1858,
at which a fair vote might be taken on the constitution. At this
election the vote stood: For the constitution with slavery, 138;
for the constitution without slavery, 24; against the constitution,
10,226.

Notwithstanding this decisive evidence of the opposition to the
Lecompton constitution by the people of Kansas, Mr. Buchanan sent
a copy of it to Congress, and, recommending the admission of Kansas
under that organic act, said:

"It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal
known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the
constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore at this
moment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina."

During the controversy Gen. Denver, a conservative Democrat, a
native of Virginia, long a resident of Ohio and a representative
from California in the 34th Congress, was appointed Governor of
Kansas. His predecessors, four of his own party, Reeder, Shannon,
Walker and Stanton, had been either removed or compelled to resign,
every one refusing to execute the extreme pro-slavery policy of
the President. His efforts to secure justice to the citizens of
Kansas would in all probability have led to his removal, but the
march of events withdrew the question involved from the people of
Kansas to the halls of Congress. The policy of the administration
was driving a wedge into the Democratic party. The bill for the
admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution passed the
Senate by a vote of 33 yeas to 25 nays, four northern Democrats
and two southern Americans voting with the Republicans against it.

In the House of Representatives, composed of 128 Democrats, 92
Republicans and 14 Americans, the bill was defeated by the adoption
of an amendment which provided that the Lecompton constitution
should be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, but this
amendment was disagreed to by the Senate, and the disagreement was
referred to a committee of conference. The result was the adoption
of a substitute known as the English bill. This bill, though
faulty, and partisan, provided for the admission of Kansas under
the Lecompton constitution, but provided also for a submission of
the English bill to a vote of the people of Kansas. On the 2nd of
August a vote was taken in Kansas, and 11,300, out of a total vote
of 13,088, were cast against the English proposition. Thus the
Lecompton constitution and the English bill were defeated, the
exclusion of slavery made absolute, and the State of Kansas admitted
into the Union as a free state, under a constitution approved by
the people, but not until January 29, 1861.

This memorable result was the turning point of the slavery controversy.
The people of the south hastened preparations for a dissolution of
the Union and a civil war. The Confederate congress, meeting four
days later, on February 9, elected Jefferson Davis as its president,
he having resigned as United States Senator, January 21, 1861,
eight days before Kansas was admitted to the Union.

I have given much space to this Kansas controversy, for I wish to
impress upon the readers of this volume that the war was not caused
by agitation for the abolition of slavery, but by aggressive measures
for the extension of slavery over free territory. A large and
influential class of southern men were born politicians, and were
mainly slaveholders. They had, from the beginning of the government,
a large influence, and held more public offices of chief importance
than their northern associates. They were constantly complaining
of opinions expressed by a comparatively few Abolitionists against
slavery, while the great body of the north were either indifferent
to or sympathized with them in their opposition to the Abolitionists.

In the summer of 1857 there occurred one of those periodical
revulsions which seem to come after a term of apparent prosperity.
On the 24th of August the Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Company
failed. That single event, in itself unimportant, indicated an
unhealthy condition of trade, caused by reckless speculation, high
prices, the construction of railroads in advance of their need, a
great increase of imports, and the excessive development of cities
and towns. All credits were expanded. The immediate results of
the panic were the suspension of credits, the diminution of imports,
the failure of banks, and the general or partial suspension or
lessening of all industries. The revenues of the government were
greatly diminished.

On the 1st of July, 1857, the balance in the treasury was $17,710,000.
On the 1st of July, 1858, the balance was reduced to $6,398,000,
and during the year preceding, the United States borrowed $10,000,000.
On the 1st of July, 1859, the surplus was reduced to $4,320,000,
and during the year preceding the United States borrowed $20,774,000.
This sudden change in the financial condition of the treasury was
an indication of a like or greater change in the condition of every
person engaged in productive industries.

The panic especially affected the state banks. These banks were
authorized by the laws of several states to issue notes as money
payable on demand, with no common system or methods of redemption,
and varying in value according to the solvency of the banks issuing
them. The banks in a few of the states maintained their notes at
par, or at a small discount, but the great body of the notes could
circulate only in the states where issued, and then only because
their people could get no other money in exchange for their products.
The necessities created by the Civil War compelled the United States
to borrow large sums, and to aid in this a national currency was
provided, concerning which a statement of the measures adopted will
be made hereafter. It is sufficient here to state that the national
currency adopted proved one of the most beneficial results of the
war.

The financial stringency of 1857 led to a careful scrutiny of
appropriations for the support of the government.

On the 27th of May, 1858, I expressed my views in respect to the
expenditures of the United States. This speech was the first effort
I made in Congress to deal with the finances of the national
government. In the previous Congresses I had devoted my time to
the struggle in Kansas. At the meeting of the 35th Congress, I
naturally turned to the condition of the finances, then the paramount
subject of interest in the country, and, especially in Ohio, devoting
most of my time to a careful study thereof. The speech referred
to on national finances was the result of much labor, and I believe
it will bear favorable scrutiny even at this late day. It certainly
attracted the attention of my colleagues, and no doubt led to my
transfer, at the next Congress, to the committee of ways and means.

In this speech I state fully the increase of expenditures and the
diminution of the revenues, and the then condition of the treasury.
I quote as follows:

"And yet, sir, for this alarming condition of the public finances,
the administration has no measures of relief except loan bills and
paper money in the form of treasury notes. No provision is made
for their payment; no measure of retrenchment and reform; but these
accumulated difficulties are thrust upon the future, with the
improvidence of a young spendthrift. While the secretary is waiting
to foresee contingencies, we are prevented by a party majority from
instituting reform. If we indicate even the commencement of
retrenchment, or point out abuses, on this side of the House, we
are at once assailed by members of the committee of ways and means."

I cited the abuses and usurpations of the executive departments in
diverting specific appropriations to purposes not authorized by
law. I said: "The theory of our government is, that a specific
sum shall be appropriated by a _law_ originating in this House,
for a specific purpose, and within a given fiscal year. It is the
duty of the executive to use that sum, and no more, especially for
that purpose, and no other, and within the time fixed."

I pointed out cases where the departments assumed the power to
transfer appropriations made for one purpose, to other purposes in
the same department. Another abuse by the executive departments
was the habit of making contracts in advance of appropriations,
thus, without law, compelling Congress to sanction them or violate
the public faith. All these evils have since been remedied by
restrictive legislation. The habit of the Senate to load down
appropriation bills with amendments already refused by the House
of Representatives, and then insist that, if not agreed to, the
bill would fail, was more frequent then than now, but under the
practice now established an amendment finally disagreed to by either
House is abandoned.

An illustration of the former practice in the Senate occurred in
the 36th Congress, when I was chairman of the committee on ways
and means. An appropriation bill was loaded down with amendments,
among them an appropriation of $500,000 each for the construction
of public buildings in Charleston and New Orleans. The amendments
were disagreed to and referred to a committee of conference, of
which Senator Toombs was a member. His first expression in the
committee was that the House must agree to the items for Charleston
and New Orleans or the bill would fail. I promptly answered that
I would report what he said to the House, and _the bill would fail_.
He said nothing further, the conference agreed, and the bill passed
without any mention of Charleston or New Orleans. Even now the
abuse I refer to sometimes occurs, but the general rule and practice
is to exclude any item of an appropriation bill not freely agreed
to by both Houses.

It was generally agreed that the views expressed by me on the 27th
of May were sound in principle, but the strong partisan feeling
that ran through the speech weakened its effect. I insert the last
two paragraphs:

"But, sir, I have no hope, while this House is constituted as it
is now, of instituting any radical reform. I believe that the
House of Representatives should be in opposition to the President.
We know the intimate relations made by party ties and party feelings.
We know that with a party House, a House a majority of whose Members
are friends of the President, it is impossible to bring about a
reform. It is only by a firm, able, and determined opposition--
not yielding to every friendly request, not yielding to every urgent
demand, not yielding to every appeal--that we can expect to reform
the abuse in the administration of the government.

"At the beginning of this session, I did hope that a majority of
this House would compose such an opposition; and while on the one
hand it crushed the unholy attempt to impose an odious constitution
--by force, or with threats or bribes--upon a free people, it would
be prepared to check the reckless extravagance of the administration
in the disbursement of the public funds. But the power of party
ties and the executive influence were too potent. We can only look
now to the virtue and intelligence of the people, whose potent will
can overthrow Presidents, Senators, and majorities. I have an
abiding hope that the next House of Representatives will do what
this should have done, and become, like its great prototype, the
guardian of the rights and liberties of the people."

At the beginning of the 35th Congress I was appointed by Speaker
Orr a member of the committee on naval affairs, with Mr. Bocock as
chairman. Among the subjects referred to the committee was the
capture, by Commodore Paulding of the United States navy, of William
Walker, engaged in an armed foray against Nicaragua. It was fully
considered, and on the 3rd of February, 1858, the majority of the
committee, through Mr. Bocock, made a full report, accompanied by
the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That the act of Hiram Paulding, a captain of the United
States navy, in arresting General William Walker, was not authorized
by the instructions which had been given him from the navy
department.

"_Resolved_, That while we have no reason to believe that the said
Paulding acted form any improper motives or intention, yet we regard
the act in question as a grave error, and deserving, for the reason
already given, the disapproval of the American Congress."

By direction of the minority of the committee I submitted a minority
report as a substitute, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That Commodore Hiram Paulding, in arresting William
Walker and his associates, and returning them to the jurisdiction
of the United States, acted within the spirit of his orders, and
deserves the approbation of his country."

It appeared, from the documents submitted, that in September, 1857,
Walker was fitting out, within the limits of the United States, a
military expedition against the Republic of Nicaragua, that on the
18th of September, Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, issued a circular
letter, warning all persons against setting on foot such expeditions,
and urging all officers of the United States to enforce the provisions
of the law cited by him, to prevent such expeditions "so manifestly
prejudicial to the national character and so injurious to the
national interests."

A copy of this circular was transmitted to Commodore Paulding, for
his guidance, by the Secretary of the Navy, and he was required to
regard the instruction contained in it as addressed to himself.
Commodore Chatard was suspended for failing to arrest Walker within
the port of San Juan. Commodore Paulding arrived at San Juan on
the 6th day of December. Walker and his men were in sight on shore,
at Punta Arenas, opposite San Juan. This point, though within the
limits of Nicaragua, has been successively claimed and occupied by
Costa Rica, Nicaragua and the so-called Mosquito Kingdom, under
British protection. It was an almost deserted point, to which a
British subject had set up a doubtful title, founded upon a purchase
from a pilot of the port of San Juan. Its occupants were engaged
as a military force, and were then waging war against the existing
government of Nicaragua--a government with which ours was at peace,
and one so weak that it was inhuman to fight it. Although freshly
landed from our shores, in violation of our laws, and controlling
no spot except that they occupied--receiving, so far as we know,
no accession or aid from the natives of the country, they issued
orders and manifestoes headed;

"Headquarters Army of Nicaragua,
Punta Arenas, December 2, 1857."

Their leader signed these orders:

"William Walker,
Commander-in-Chief, Army of Nicaragua."

There was no doubt that the expedition was the very one denounced
by the Secretary of State in the circular, and by the Secretary of
the Navy in his orders, for Walker and his men sought no disguise.

Under these circumstances, Commodore Paulding arrested Walker and
his men and returned them to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This brief and imperfect sketch of the voluminous majority and
minority reports of the committee will convey but a faint idea of
the excitement created by this arrest. An attempt was made to
censure Commodore Paulding, but it utterly failed. The purpose of
Walker was to seize Nicaragua, adopt slavery and convert the Central
American states into slaveholding communities, and thus strengthen
slavery in the United States. It was the counterpart of the
movements in Kansas, and was supported by powerful influence in
the southern states.

Another investigation of great importance was ordered by the House
of Representatives, upon the following resolution introduced by me
on the 18th of January, 1859:

"Whereas, D. B. Allen, a citizen of the State of New York, specifically
charges that certain officers in the navy department, in awarding
contracts for the construction of vessels of war of the United
States, have been guilty of partiality, and of violation of law
and their public duty: and whereas, grave charges have been made
that money appropriated for navy yards and for the repair of vessels
of the United States, has been expended for partisan purposes, and
not for the purposes prescribed by law: Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That a committee of five members be appointed to
examine, 1. Into the specifications and bids for, and the terms
of, the contracts for the work and labor done, or materials furnished
for the vessels of the United States, constructed, or in process
of construction or repair, by the United States, since the 4th day
of March, 1857, and the mode and manner of awarding said contracts,
and the inducements and recommendations influencing such awards.
2. Into the mode and manner, and the purpose, in which the money
appropriated for the navy and dock yards, and for the repair and
increase of vessels, has been expended. That said committee have
power to send for persons and papers, and have leave to report by
bill or otherwise."

This investigation occupied most of the remaining session of that
Congress. The committee of five was composed of Messrs. Sherman,
Bocock, Ritchie, Groesbeck and Ready, three Democrats and two
Republicans, of which I was chairman. The committee took a mass
of testimony, disclosing abuses and frauds of a startling character,
covering over 1,000 printed pages. The majority of the committee,
Messrs. Bocock, Groesbeck and Ready, submitted a report condemning
the glaring abuses proven, and, while reporting the inefficiency
and incompetency of subordinate officers and employees, yet declared
that nothing had been proven which impeached the personal or official
integrity of the Secretary of the Navy. They proposed the following
resolutions:

"1. _Resolved_, That the testimony taken in this investigation
proves the existence of glaring abuses in the Brooklyn navy yard,
and such as require the interposition of legislative reform; but
it is due to justice to declare that these abuses have been slowly
and gradually growing up during a long course of years, and that
no particular administration should bear the entire blame therefor.

"2. _Resolved_, That it is disclosed, by the testimony in this
case, that the agency for the purchase of anthracite coal for the
use of the navy has been, for some time past, in the hands of a
person wholly inefficient and grossly incompetent, and that reform
is needed in the regulations which exist on that subject; but there
is no proof which traces any knowledge of such inefficiency and
incompetency to the responsible authorities in Washington, nor any
which shows that the need of reform grows especially out of any
act of theirs; but, on the contrary, it is expressly proven that
the supply of coal for the naval service has been purchased during
this administration upon terms relatively as favorable as ever
heretofore.

"3. _Resolved_, That while we could never sanction or approve any
arrangement, on the part of an officer of the government, which,
under pretense of making contracts for supplies, was designed to
confer especial and exclusive favor upon individuals, yet, in the
contract entered into in September, 1858, between the navy department
and W. C. N. Swift, for the supply of live oak to said department,
it is clearly proven by the testimony that, if the Secretary of
the Navy did contemplate any favor to said Swift, he did not design
to bestow it to the detriment of the government, but that in all
he did in this matter he kept always in view the good of the public
and the interests of the service.

"4. _Resolved_, That in the letting of the contracts for the
construction of the steam machinery for the vessels of the navy
during the present administration, nothing has been shown which
calls for the interposition of the Congress of the United States;
but it is manifest that the present head of the navy department
has displayed a very laudable zeal to secure the greatest amount
of speed and efficiency attainable for said vessels.

"5. _Resolved_, That nothing has been proven in this investigation
which impeaches, in any way, the personal or official integrity of
the Secretary of the Navy."

The minority report was made by Ritchie and myself on the 24th of
February, 1859, in which we recommended the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy has, with the sanction
of the President, abused his discretionary power in the selection
of a coal agent and in the purchase of fuel for the government.

"_Resolved_, That the contract made by the Secretary of the Navy,
under date of September 23, 1858, with W. C. N. Swift, for the
delivery of live oak timber, was made in violation of the law, and
in a manner unusual, improper, and injurious to the public service.

"_Resolved_, That the distribution, by the Secretary of the Navy,
of the patronage in the navy yard among Members of Congress was
destructive of discipline, corrupting in its influence, and highly
injurious to the public service.

"_Resolved_, That the President and Secretary of the Navy, by
receiving and considering the party relations of bidders for
contracts with the United States, and the effect of awarding
contracts upon pending elections, have set an example dangerous to
the public safety and deserving the reproof of the House.

"_Resolved_, That the appointment, by the Secretary of the Navy,
of Daniel B. Martin, chief engineer, as a member of the board of
engineers, to report upon proposals for constructing machinery for
the United States, the said Martin at the same time being pecuniarily
interested in some of said proposals, is hereby censured by this
House."

No action was taken on these reports during that session, which
terminated on the 4th of March; but in the succeeding Congress the
resolutions of the minority were reported favorably from the
committee on the expenditures of the navy department, and, after
debate, were adopted, a separate yea and nay vote being taken on
each resolution, and the vote generally being 119 in favor of the
resolution and 60 against, a large number of Democrats voting for
each resolution.

This investigation, and the action of the House of Representatives
upon it, led to radical reforms in the purchase of supplies in the
navy department, and stamped with deserved censure the Secretary
of the Navy, and his subordinates, who participated in his action.

In the spring of 1859, Mrs. Sherman and I started on my first trip
to Europe, on the steamer "Vanderbilt," without any definite route
or plan. Fortunately, we formed on shipboard some pleasant
acquaintances, among others Judge Harris of the Supreme Court of
New York, afterwards Senator of the United States, and his wife.
Each had children by a former marriage, who had arrived at or near
manhood or womanhood, and all were pleasant traveling companions.
Mr. Platt and his wife, of New York, a young married couple, were
of the party. We were fortunate in the weather and the sea. I
had often encountered the waves of Lake Erie, but the ocean was to
me the great unknown, and I imagined that from its magnitude, its
waves would be in proportion to its size, but, instead, the waves
of the Atlantic were a gentle cradle compared with the short and
chopping movement of the lake. Since then I have crossed the ocean
many times, but never was sea sick. We thought the voyage of eleven
days a brief one, but now it is reduced to six or seven days, on
vessels much greater and stronger. We landed safely at Southampton
late in the evening. Many of the passengers left immediately for
London, but our party, with others, went to the hotel. We seemed
to overcrowd the capacity of the place. One of our passengers, a
young gentleman from Baltimore, said to me he would drive out those
Englishmen, who were quietly enjoying themselves in the waiting
room. He had been a quiet gentlemanly passenger, but he changed
his tone and manner, was boisterous in his talk and rather rude.
One by one the Englishmen departed, slamming the door after them,
casting a sour look at their persecutor, but he was not disturbed
until "the coast was clear," and then quieting down in his usual
manner he said he knew these Englishmen, and thought he would give
them a chance to abuse the d----d Americans. After long waiting
we had a good supper.

On the next day, or the day following, we visited the Isle of Wight,
and what is misnamed the "New Forest"--which is very old instead
of new, and is an open park instead of a forest--in the neighborhood.
Like most travelers we soon went to London. This great city
impressed me more by the association of great men and women who
had lived and died in it than by the grandeur of its buildings and
public works. Every street and many houses in it recalled the
names of persons whose writings I had read, and of others whose
deeds made them immortal. As Parliament was not in session we
shortened our visit in London until our return. My trip to Scotland
was especially interesting. Mrs. Sherman, a daughter of Judge
Stewart, was in her face and affinities a thorough Scotch woman,
though her ancestors for several generations were born in America.
She was familiar with Scottish history, and with the geography of
Scotland. Our visit to Edinburgh and its environs was to her like
a return to familiar scenes. In our slow progress towards the
lakes we stopped at Callender over Sunday. After looking into the
well-filled church we started for Bracklinn bridge, made famous in
Scott's "Lady of the Lake." "Bracklinn's thundering wave" is a
beautiful cascade made at a place called the Bridge of Bracklinn,
by a mountain stream called the Keltie, about a mile from the
village of Callender, in Mentieth. Above a chasm where the brook
precipitates itself from a height of at least 50 feet, there is
thrown, for the convenience of the neighborhood, a rustic foot
bridge, of about three feet in breadth, and without ledges, which
is scarcely to be crossed by a stranger without awe and apprehension.
We were told it was but a short walk, a mile or two, but we soon
found that Scottish miles were very long. On the way we encountered
an old woman, dressed in Scotch plaid, of whom we inquired the way
to Bracklinn bridge. She pointed out the way, and in return asked
us where we lived. We told her the United States. She replied,
in language we could hardly understand, "Ah, ye maun come a lang
way to spay it." She then told us where to leave the road and how
to find the bridge. There was nothing remarkable at the bridge,
nothing to justify "But wild as Bracklinn's thundering roar," but
the genius of Sir Walter invested it with his glamour.

"It had much of glamour might
To make a lady seem a knight."

The lakes of Scotland we would call bays. The waters of the ocean
fill these deep depressions between high hills. A boat ride over
these interlocked waters was pleasing, but the views did not impress
me like the lakes in Switzerland in the midst of high mountains,
nor did they compare with the grandeur of the Yellowstone Lake,
6,000 feet above the sea, with surrounding mountains rising to the
height of 12,000 feet, and covered with snow. We were much pleased
with Scotland and its people until we arrived at Glasgow. Here we
walked about the city. It seemed to be crowded with discontented,
unhappy people, with sad faces and poorly clad. We were told not
to go into certain portions of the city, as we might be insulted.

We soon left Glasgow for Belfast and visited different parts of
Ireland, and especially the city of Cork, and Lake Killarney. The
southern part of Ireland was very beautiful, the herbage was fresh
and green, and the land productive. The great drawback was the
crowds of beggars, who would surround us wherever we went, soliciting
alms, but they were generally good humored. I saw little of the
disposition to fight attributed to them. At a subsequent visit I
saw much more of Ireland and the Irish people, but on this, my
first visit, I left with a very kindly impression of the country
and the people. We have more people of Irish descent in the United
States than now live in Ireland, and they have done their full part
in our development, not only as laborers, but in all the walks and
professions of life. They are heartily welcomed in our midst. If
all the discontented people of Ireland would migrate to the United
States we would welcome them if they would leave their Irish vs.
English politics behind them. We have enough possible points of
controversy on this continent with Great Britain, without importing
from that country old controversies that have been the occasion of
wars and rumors of war for centuries.

We made but a short stay in Dublin and crossed the channel to
Caernarvon. Here we took the old tally-ho coach. Despite all that
is said about railroads and steamboats, I believe in the old-
fashioned stage coach, and especially in the one in which we crossed
the hills of Wales, in full view of Mount Snowdon. We remained
over Sunday in a village on the way, inquired for the church, and
were shown to a very pretty church building near by. When we
entered we found perhaps ten or fifteen persons, mostly women.
The pastor, with an assistant, soon entered, and services commenced.
The pastor read his part, and the assistant led, and practically
made, the responses. The singing was led by the assistant and
shared in by the few women present. The sermon was short and
lifeless and the entire service--though read from the Book of Common
Prayer, as fine a model of impressive English as exists--was
spiritless. When we left the church we met lines of well-dressed,
but plain, proper men, women and children in Sunday garb. I inquired
where these people came from, and was informed they were Methodists
on the way home from their meeting house. This settled the question
with me. The church I attended was the "established church,"
supported by taxes on all the people, and the Methodist meeting
was the church of the people, supported by their voluntary
contributions. How such a policy could have been sustained so long
was beyond my comprehension. Our policy of respect and toleration
for all religious sects, but taxes for none, is a better one.

Our party, still consisting of Judge Harris and family, Mr. Platt
and wife, and Mrs. Sherman and myself, visited several of the
central counties and towns of England, chiefly the towns of Warwick,
Stratford, Kenilworth and Leamington. This is well trodden ground
for tourists, and I need not repeat the many descriptions of
interesting places and the historic names and events attached to
them.

When we returned to London, I visited the courts of law, Westminster
Abbey, and the new Parliament House. I had no difficulty in gaining
free access to the gallery of the House of Commons by stating that
I was a Member of the House of Representatives. Though I had
letters of introduction to members of Parliament I did not present
them. Judge Harris was greatly interested in the proceedings of
the courts of London, while I wandered through every part of the
great city. We attended, by invitation, a dinner given by the
Goldsmith's Guild, and accepted some invitations, among them that
of Mr. Morgan, the leading American banker in London.

Our congenial party then separated with mutual regret, Judge Harris
going to the Rhine and Mrs. Sherman and I to Paris. Here we remained
some time. Senator Sumner, not yet recovered from the blows of
Brooks, had been some time in Paris and accompanied us to many of
the noted places in that city--among them I remember the grave of
Lafayette.

Our visit was during the Franco-Italian-Austrian War. I was anxious
to reach the seat of war. On the way we made hurried visits to
Geneva, and Lake Leman. After traversing this lake we took the
coach over the Alps, on the road to Milan, stopping several times
on the way. We passed over the battle field at Magenta but a few
days after the battle was fought. We saw there the signs of
destructive war. The killed had been buried and the wounded were
in hospitals, but the smell of dead horses poisoned the air, and
the marks of the battle were on almost every house. We pushed on
to Milan and were comfortably quartered. The city was full of
soldiers on the way to the army to the eastward. It was then known
that a battle was about to be fought at Solferino. I was very
anxious to witness a battle. General Crittenden, of the United
States army, was attached as an aid to the French army, and I sought
the same facility, but the authorities would not permit it. I was
assured that my horse would be taken from me, especially as I could
not speak French, and that I would be treated as a spy unless I
was formally attached to a particular command. I therefore gave
up my contemplated trip and awaited the battle, which occurred in
a day or two. I then returned to Switzerland by the Simplon Pass,
and visited Berne, Luzerne, and Neuchâtel. From thence I returned
to London and soon after embarked on the "Vanderbilt" for home.

On the 29th of July, 1858, I received the congressional nomination
for my third term without opposition, and, in October following,
was elected as a Member of the 36th Congress, by a majority of
2,331 over S. J. Patrick, Democrat.

The memorable campaign in Illinois in that year excited profound
interest throughout the United States, the debate between Douglas
and Lincoln attracting universal attention. The result was favorable
to Douglas, and the legislature re-elected him Senator, but Mr.
Lincoln attained such distinction and prominence as to place him
at once in the position of a formidable candidate for the presidency
in 1860. This debate made it clear that the struggle between free
and slave institutions was to be continued and to become the
controlling issue of the future.

The murder of Broderick by Terry, in California, on the 13th of
September, 1859, under color of a duel, excited profound interest
and made that state Republican. The election of a governor in
Ohio, in the fall of that year, preceded by a debate of much interest
between William Dennison, the Republican candidate, and Judge
Ranney, the Democratic candidate, added greatly to the political
excitement then existing, and ended in the election of Mr. Dennison.
A few days after this election--on the 17th of October--the invasion
of the State of Virginia by John Brown startled the country, and,
more than all other causes, aroused the southern people to a state
of great excitement, amounting to frenzy. Brown, with a few
followers of no distinction, captured the United States arsenal at
Harper's Ferry, took possession of the bridge which crosses the
Potomac, fortifying it with cannon, stopped trains, cut telegraph
wires, killed several men, and seized many prominent citizens,
holding them as hostages. Wild reports were circulated of a rise
of the negroes in the neighborhood, the uprising accompanied by
all the horrors of a servile war, and a general alarm prevailed
throughout the State of Virginia and the south. The insurrection
was, however, speedily suppressed, mainly by the state militia,
and the few insurgents not killed were captured by United States
marines under Colonel Robert E. Lee, soon afterwards to be commander-
in-chief of the rebel forces in the Civil War.

Brown was tried for murder and executed. This foolish and criminal
invasion was the work of a fanatic who all his lifetime had been
a violent opposer of slavery, and who while in Kansas had participated
more or less in the Osawatamie murders. His son was killed by the
"border ruffians" near his home in Kansas, for which a fearful
revenge was taken upon the murderers. Brown, having always been
an Abolitionist, and being crazed by these events, believed it his
duty to wage a relentless war against slavery, and, with the courage
but shortsightedness of a fanatic, and with the hope of the resistance
of the slaves of the south, undertook this wild scheme to secure
their freedom.

Under such exciting conditions Congress convened on the 5th day of
December, 1859, divided politically into 109 Republicans, 101
Democrats and 27 Americans. No party having a majority, it was
feared by some that the scenes of 1855, when Banks was elected
speaker only after a long struggle, would be repeated. That contest
was ended by the adoption of the plurality rule, but in this case
a majority could not agree upon such a rule, and the only possible
way of electing a speaker was by a fusing of Members until a majority
voted for one person.

It was well understood that the Republican vote would be divided
between Galusha A. Grow and myself, and it was agreed between us
that whichever received a majority of the Republican vote should
be considered as the nominee of that party. On the first vote for
speaker, Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, the Democratic candidate,
received 86 votes, I received 66, Galusha A. Grow 43, and 21
scattering. Mr. Grow then withdrew his name. On the same day John
B. Clark, of Missouri, offered this resolution:

"Whereas certain Members of this House, now in nomination for
speaker, did indorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned,

"_Resolved_, That the doctrine and sentiments of a certain book,
called 'The Impending Crisis of the South--How to meet it,' purporting
to have been written by one Hinton R. Helper, are insurrectionary
and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquility of the country,
and that no Member of this House who has indorsed and recommended
it, or the compend from it, is fit to be speaker of this House."

In the absence of rules, Mr. Clark was allowed to speak without
limit and he continued that day and the next, reading and speaking
about the Helper book. John A. Gilmer, of North Carolina, offered
as a substitute for the resolution of Mr. Clark a long preamble
closing with this resolution:

"_Therefore resolved_, That, fully indorsing these national
sentiments, it is the duty of every good citizen of this Union to
resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the
slavery agitation, under whatever shape and color the attempt may
be made."

A motion was made to lay both resolutions on the table, and was
lost by a tie vote of 116 yeas and 116 nays. In the absence of
rules a general debate followed, in which southern Members threatened
that their constituents would go out of the Union. The excitement
over the proposition to compile a political pamphlet, by F. P.
Blair, an eminent Democrat and slaveholder, from a book called "The
Impending Crisis" written and printed by a southern man, seemed so
ludicrous that we regarded it as manufactured frenzy. After John
S. Millson, of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, who was opposed
to the introduction of the Clark resolution, had exhibited unusual
feeling, I said:

"I have until this moment regarded this debate with indifference,
because I presumed it was indulged in for the purpose of preventing
an organization. But the manner of the gentleman from Virginia,
my respect for his long experience in this House, my respect for
his character, and the serious impression which this matter seems
to have made upon his mind, induce me to say a few words. I ask
that the letter which I send up may be read."

The following letter was thereupon read from the clerk's desk:

"Washington City, December 6, 1859.
"Dear Sir:--I perceive that a debate has arisen in Congress in
which Mr. Helper's book, the 'Impending Crisis,' is brought up as
an exponent of Republican principles. As the names of many leading
Republicans are presented as recommending a compendium of the
volume, it is proper that I should explain how those names were
obtained in advance of the publication. Mr. Helper brought his
book to me at Silver Spring to examine and recommend, if I thought
well of it, as a work to be encouraged by Republicans. I had never
seen it before. After its perusal, I either wrote to Mr. Helper,
or told him that it was objectionable in many particulars, to which
I adverted; and he promised me, in writing, that he would obviate
the objections by omitting entirely or altering the matter objected
to. I understand that it was in consequence of his assurance to
me that the obnoxious matter in the original publication would be
expurgated, that Members of Congress and other influential men
among the Republicans were induced to give their countenance to
the circulation of the edition so to be expurgated.

"F. P. Blair,
"Silver Spring.
"Hon. John Sherman."

I then continued:

"I do not recollect signing the paper referred to; but I presume,
from my name appearing in the printed list, that I did sign it.
I therefore make no excuse of that kind. I never read Mr. Helper's
book, or the compendium founded upon it. I have never seen a copy
of either. And here, Mr. Clerk, I might leave the matter; but as
many harsh things have been said about me, I desire to say that
since I have been a Member of this House, I have always endeavored
to cultivate the courtesies and kind relations that are due from
one gentleman to another. I never addressed to any Member such
language as I have heard to-day. I never desire such language to
be addressed to me, if I can avoid it. I appeal to my public
record, during a period of four years, in this body; and I say not
that there is not a single question agitating the public mind, not
a single topic on which there can be sectional jealousy or sectional
controversy, unless gentlemen on the other side of the House thrust
such subjects upon us. I repeat, not a single question. We have
pursued a course of studied silence. It is our intention to organize
the House quietly, decently, in order, without vituperations; and
we trust to show to Members on all sides of the House that the
party with which I have the honor to act can administer this House
and administer this government without trespassing upon the rights
of any."

Soon after, in answer to an inquiry from Shelton F. Leake, of
Virginia, I said:

"Allow me to say, once for all, and I have said it five times on
this floor, that I am opposed to any interference whatever of the
people of the free states, with the relation of master and slave
in the slave states."

This was followed by a heated debate, the manifest purpose of which
was to excite sectional animosity, and to compel southern Americans
to co-operate with the Democratic Members in the election of a
Democrat for speaker. The second ballot, taken on the close of
the session of December 8, exhibited no material change except that
the Republican vote concentrated on me. I received 107 votes, Mr.
Bocock 88, Mr. Gilmer 22, and 14 scattering.

The debate continued and was participated in by my colleague, S.
S. Cox, who asked me about the fugitive slave law. I declined, as
I had before, to answer any interrogatories and said: "I will
state to him, and to gentlemen on the other side of the House, that
I stand upon my public record. I do not expect the support of
gentlemen on that side of the House, who have, for the last four
years, been engaged in a series of measures--none of which I approve.
I have no answers to give to them."

The third ballot produced no material change. I received 110,
Bocock 88, Gilmer 20, and 13 scattering.

In the meantime, the invasion of Harper's Ferry was debated in the
Senate at great length and with extreme violence, producing in both
houses intense irritation and excitement. Keitt, of South Carolina,
charged upon the Republicans the responsibility of Helper's book
and John Brown's foray, exclaiming: "The south here asks nothing
but its right. . . . I would have no more; but, as God is my judge,
as one of its Representatives, I would shatter this republic from
turret to foundation-stone before I would take one tittle less."
Lamar, of Mississippi, declared that the Republicans were not
"guiltless of the blood of John Brown and his co-conspirators, and
the innocent men, the victims of his ruthless vengeance." Pryor,
of Virginia, said Helper's book riots "in rebellion, treason, and
insurrection, and is precisely in the spirit of the act which
startled us a few weeks since at Harper's ferry." Crawford, of
Georgia, declared: "We will never submit to the inauguration of
a black Republican President."

The Republicans generally remained silent and demanded a vote.

Mr. Corwin, then a Representative from Ohio, elected after a long
absence from public life, endeavored to quiet the storm. Frequent
threats of violence were uttered. Angry controversies sprang up
between Members, and personal collisions were repeatedly threatened
by Members, armed and ready for conflict. No such scenes had ever
before occurred in the Congress of the United States. It appeared
many times that the threatened war would commence on the floor of
the House of Representatives. The House remained in session the
week between Christmas and New Year's Day. During this excitement
my vote steadily increased until on the 4th day of January, 1860,
on the 25th ballot, I came within three votes of election; the
whole number of votes cast being 207; necessary to a choice 104,
of which I received 101. John A. McClernand, of Illinois, received
33, Gilmer 14, Clement L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, 12, and the
remainder were scattering.

At this time Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, an American, said to
me, and to others, that whenever his vote would elect me it should
be cast for me. J. Morrison Harris, also an American from the same
state, was understood to occupy the same position. Garnett B.
Adrain, of New Jersey, an anti-Lecompton Democrat, who had been
elected by Republicans, it was hoped would do the same. Horace F.
Clark, of New York, also an anti-Lecompton Democrat who had been
elected by Republicans, could at any moment have settled the
controversy in my favor. It was well known that I stood ready to
withdraw whenever the requisite number of votes could be concentrated
upon any Republican Member. The deadlock continued.

On the 20th of January, 1860, Mr. Clark, who had introduced the
Helper resolution, said:

"I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to my personal
feelings in the matter of this resolution. I never read the letter
of which the gentleman from Georgia speaks, and do not take to
myself articles that appear in newspapers, unless they make
imputations against my moral integrity. That resolution was
introduced by me, as I have frequently remarked, with no personal
ill-feeling towards Mr. Sherman, the Republican candidate for
speaker, apart from what I considered to be an improper act of his
--namely, the recommendation of that book. So far as that affects
his political or social character, he must of course bear it."

I replied as follows:

"The gentleman from Missouri, for the first time, I believe, has
announced that it was his purpose, in introducing this resolution,
to give gentlemen an opportunity to explain their relations to the
Helper book. I ask him now whether he is willing to withdraw the
resolution for the purpose he has indicated, temporarily, or for
any time?"

Mr. Clark said:

"I will endeavor to answer the gentleman. I avowed my purpose
frankly at the time I introduced the resolution, in the remarks
with which I accompanied its introduction. The gentleman from Ohio
propounds the question more directly whether I am willing to withdraw
the resolution for the purpose which I avow? Sir, at the very
instant it was offered, I gave the gentleman that opportunity and
I have given it to him since. I say to the gentleman that he has
had two opportunities to make that explanation; but he has failed
to relieve himself of the responsibility he took when he signed
that book and recommended its circulation."

I replied:

"I will say that that opportunity has never been rendered to me.
When the gentleman introduced his resolution, offensive in its
character, at an improper time, in an improper manner, he cut off
--what he says now he desires to give--an opportunity for explanation.
It is true that three days afterward, when the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Millson) appealed to me, I stated to him frankly how
may name became connected with that paper. I did not sign the
paper; but it seems that the Hon. E. D. Morgan, a Member of the
last Congress, and a friend of mine, came to me when I was in my
place, and asked me to sign a recommendation for the circulation
of a political pamphlet, to be compiled by a committee, of which
Mr. Blair, a slaveholder of Missouri, was one, from a large book
by Helper, a North Carolinian. I said to him that I had not time
to examine the book; but if there was nothing offensive in it, he
might use my name. Thereupon, this gentleman attached my name to
that paper. This information I did not have at the time the
gentleman from Virginia addressed me, but I said to him I had no
recollection of having signed the paper, but presumed I had, from
my name appearing in the printed list. I subsequently acquired it
from Mr. Morgan, whose letter was published. That I believe was
sufficient under the circumstances. I know there are Members on
that side of the House who have considered it as satisfactory; and
my friends so regard it. At the time I stated that I had not read
the book, that I did not know what was in it.

"The gentleman alludes to another time. The other day, when this
subject was again brought before the House by him, in language
which, although he claims to be courteous, I could not regard as
such, when I was, by implication, but with a disclaimer of personal
offense, charged with disseminating treason, with lighting the
torch in the dwelling of my southern brethren, and of crimes of
which, if I was guilty, I should not be entitled to a seat upon
this floor, I then rose in my place and told the gentleman from
Missouri that if he would withdraw that resolution I would answer
this book page by page, or those extracts one by one, and tell him
whether I approved them or not. The gentleman refused to withdraw
the resolution. Long ago he was notified by me, and my friend from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Morris) announced on the floor, that this resolution
was regarded by me as a menace, and, if withdrawn, would lead to
a frank avowal, or disavowal.

"I say now that I do not believe it is the desire of the gentleman
to give me that opportunity. If he does desire it, I am willing
to do now what I said I would have done then. And I say, with
equal emphasis, that never, so help me God, whether or not the
speaker's chair is to be occupied by me, will I do so while that
resolution is before this body, undisposed of. I regard it as
offensive in its tone, unprecedented, unparliamentary, and an
invasion of the rights of representation. Under the menace clearly
contained in it, I never will explain a single word contained in
those extracts.

"If the gentleman will withdraw his resolution, even for a moment,
to relieve me from the menace--he may reinstate it afterwards if
he chooses--I will then say what I have to say in regard to those
extracts. But while it stands before the House, intended as a
stigma upon me, and sustained by an argument without precedent in
parliamentary history, he cannot expect me to say more than I have
done. I believe not only my friends, but the gentlemen on the
other side of the House, who have a sense of honor, believe that
my position is correct. I know that some of them regard my statement
made on the third day of the session as full and satisfactory, and
all that, under the circumstances, it was proper for me to indicate.

"For gentlemen now to press this matter; to agitate the country;
to spread these extracts all over the south, and to charge the
sentiments of this book upon me, and my associates here; to proclaim,
day after day, that the Republicans entertain these sentiments and
indorse them, is not that ingenuous, candid and manly course which
a great party like the Democratic party ought to pursue. While we
may conduct our political quarrels with heat, and discuss matters
with zeal and determination, it ought to be done with fairness and
frankness. The mode in which this resolution has been pressed
before the country, and I, with my hands tied and my lips sealed
as a candidate, have been arraigned day by day, is without a
precedent, not only in history but in party caucuses, in state
legislatures, in state conventions or anywhere else.

"I said when I rose the other day that my public opinions were on
record. I say so now. Gentlemen upon the other side have said
that they have examined that record to ascertain what my political
opinions were. They will look in vain for anything to excite
insurrection, to disturb the peace, to invade the rights of states,
to alienate the north and south from each other, or to loosen the
ties of fraternal fellowship by which our people have been and
should be bound together. I am for the Union and the constitution,
with all the compromises under which it was formed, and all the
obligations which it imposes. This has always been my position;
and these opinions have been avowed by me on this floor and stand
now upon your records. Who has brought anything from that record
against me that is worthy of answer? . . .

"I have never sought to invade the rights of the southern states.
I have never sought to trample upon the rights of citizens of the
southern states. I have my idea about slavery in the territories,
and at the proper time and in the proper way I am willing to discuss
the question. I never made but one speech on the subject of slavery,
and that was in reference to what I regarded as an improper remark
made by President Pierce in 1856. I then spread upon the record
my opinions on the subject; and I have found no man to call them
into question. They are the opinions of the body of the Republicans.
They are the opinions which I now entertain. Gentlemen are at
liberty to discuss these questions as much as they choose, and I
will bear my share of the responsibility for entertaining those
opinions. But I now speak to my personal record. . . .

"Again these gentlemen, while publishing in their speeches all over
the country that I am in effect a traitor, etc., by implication,
it is true, disavowing, as I am glad to say each of them have done,
any design to be personally offensive, but in a way which answers
the same purpose; yet when called upon to show proof or specifications,
they fail to do so; and the only act for which I have been arraigned
before the American people is that, in a moment when I was sitting
here, busy at my desk, and one of my friends, and late a Member of
this House, came to me and asked me to sign a paper recommending
the publication of a political tract; that, when I authorized my
name to be put to that recommendation, by that very act I became
a traitor and would place the torch in the hands of the incendiary.
I say this is not fair argument. And I again repeat that if the
Member from Missouri (Mr. Clark) desires to know what my sentiments
are in regard to the extracts read at the clerk's table, the only
portion of the Helper book I have seen or read, I will give them
if he will remove a menace from me. I never did do anything under
menace. I never will. It is not in my blood and these gentlemen
cannot put it there."

Mr. Clark rose to speak, but I continued:

"The gentleman will excuse me, I have, so far as I am concerned in
this contest, been quiet and patient. I desire to see an organization
of the House opposed to the administration. I think it is our
highest duty to investigate, to examine and analyze the mode in
which the executive powers of this government have been administered
for a few years past. That is my desire. Yes sir, I said here,
in the first remark I made, that I did not believe the slavery
question would come up at all during this session. I came here
with the expectation that we would have a business session, that
we would analyze the causes of the increased expenditures of the
government and the proper measures of redress and retrenchment.
I did not believe that the slavery question would come up, and but
for the unfortunate affair of Brown at Harper's Ferry, I did not
believe there would be any feeling on the subject. Northern Members
came here with kindly feelings, no man approving the foray of John
Brown and every man willing to say so; every man willing to admit
it as an act of lawless violence. We came here hoping that, at
this time of peace and quiet, we might examine, inquire into, and
pass upon, practical measures of legislation tending to harmonize
the conflicting elements of the government and strengthen the bonds
of Union. The interests of a great and growing people present
political questions enough to tax the ability and patriotism of us
all.

"Such was our duty; but the moment we arrived here--before, sir,
we even had a formal vote,--this question of slavery was raised by
the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman from Missouri.
It has had the effect of exciting the public mind with an irritating
controversy. It has impaired the public credit and retarded the
public business. The debate founded upon it has been unjust,
offensive, wrong, not only to the Republicans here, not only to
those with whom I act, but to all our common constituents, north
and south. The gentlemen who have advocated that resolution have
stirred up bad blood, and all because certain gentlemen have
recommended that a compilation be made of a book. Even yet we may
retrieve the loss of valuable time. We could now go to work,
organize the House and administer the powers of this House with
fairness and impartiality.

"In conclusion, let me say that by no act or effort have I sought
the position I now occupy before the House. The honor was tendered
me by the generous confidence and partiality of those with whom it
has been my pride to act, politically. Their conduct in this
irritating controversy has justified my attachment.

"If I shall ever reach the speaker's chair, it will be with
untrammeled hands and with an honest purpose to discharge every
duty in the spirit which the oath of office enjoins; and to organize
the House with reference to the rights and interests of every
section, the peace and prosperity of the whole Union, and the
efficient discharge of all the business of the government. And
whenever friends who have so gallantly and liberally sustained me
thus far believe that my name in any way presents an obstacle to
success, it is my sincere wish that they should adopt some other.
Whenever any one of my political friends can combine a greater
number of votes than I have been honored with, or sufficient to
elect him by a majority or plurality rule, I will not stand in this
position one hour; I will retire from the field, and yield to any
other gentleman with whom I act, the barren honors of the speaker's
chair; and I promise my friends a grateful recognition of the
unsolicited honor conferred upon me, and a zealous and earnest co-
operation."

Pending the vote on the 39th ballot and before it was announced,
Robert Mallory, of Kentucky, an American, appealed to the Democrats
to vote for William N. H. Smith, of North Carolina, also an American,
which would elect him. The Democrats thereupon changed their votes
to Mr. Smith, making many speeches in explanation of their action.
Perceiving that this would elect Mr. Smith I arose and for the
first time cast my ballot for speaker, voting for Mr. Corwin.
Three other Members who had voted for Mr. Smith changed their votes,
which defeated the election on that ballot.

After this vote I conferred with Davis and George Briggs, of New
York, Americans, and Adrain. I had the positive assurance of these
three gentlemen that if I would withdraw they would vote for William
Pennington, of New Jersey, and thus secure a Republican organization
of the House. I referred this proposition to my Republican
associates, and a majority of them were opposed to any change.
Francis E. Spinner, of New York, said he would never change his
vote from me, and Thaddeus Stevens said he never would do so until
the crack of doom. When afterwards reminded of this Mr. Stevens
said he thought he "heard it cracking."

I felt the responsibility, but on the 30th of January, 1860, I
determined to withdraw. In doing so I made the following remarks,
as printed in the "Congressional Globe:"

"Mr. clerk--[Loud cries of 'Down,' 'Down,' 'Order,' 'Order,' 'Let
us have the question,' etc.] Eight weeks ago, I was honored by
the votes of a large plurality of my fellow Members for the high
office of speaker of this House. Since that time they have adhered
to their choice with a fidelity that has won my devotion and respect;
and, as I believe, the approbation of their constituents. They
have stood undismayed amidst threats of disunion and disorganization;
conscious of the rectitude of their purposes; warm in their attachment
to the constitution and Union, and obedient to the rules of order
and the laws. They have been silent, firm, manly. On the other
hand, they have seen their ancient adversary and their only natural
adversary, reviving anew the fires of sectional discord, and broken
into fragments. They have seen some of them shielding themselves
behind a written combination to prevent the majority of the House
from prescribing rules for its organization. They have heard others
openly pronounce threats of disunion; proclaim that if a Republican
be duly elected President of the United States, they would tear
down this fair fabric of our rights and liberties, and break up
the union of these states. And now we have seen our ancient
adversary, broken, dispersed and disorganized, unite in supporting
a gentleman who was elected to Congress as an American, in open,
avowed opposition to the Democratic organization.

"I should regret exceedingly, and believe it would be a national
calamity, to have anyone who is a supporter, directly or indirectly,
of this administration, or who owes it any allegiance, favor or
affection, occupying a position of importance or prominence in this
House. I would regard it as a public calamity to have the power
of this House placed, directly or indirectly, under the control of
this administration. It would be, it seems to me, a fatal policy
to trust the power of this House to the control of gentlemen who
have proclaimed that under any circumstances, or in any event, they
would dissolve the union of these states. For this reason we would
be wanting in our duty to our God and our country, if we did not
avert such a result of this contest. I regard it as the highest
duty of patriotism to submerge personal feelings, to sacrifice all
personal preferences and all private interests, to the good of our
common country. I said here a few days ago, and I always stood in
the position, that when I became convinced that any of my political
friends or associates could receive further support outside of the
Republican organization, I would retire from the field and yield
to him the honor of the position that the partiality of friends
has assigned to me. I believe that time has now arrived. I believe
that a greater concentration can now be made on another gentleman,
who, from the beginning, has acted with me.

"Therefore, I respectfully withdraw my name as a candidate. And
in doing so, allow me to return my heartfelt thanks for the generous
and hearty support of all my political friends, and especially to
those gentlemen with whom I have not the tie of a party name, but
the higher one of a common purpose and sympathy. And if I can ask
of them one more favor, it would be that in an unbroken column,
with an unfaltering front and unwavering line, each of them will
cast his vote in favor of any one of our number who can command
the highest vote, or who can be elected speaker of this House."

A ballot was immediately taken, but, much to my chagrin, the
gentlemen named did not change their votes, and Mr. Pennington
still lacked three votes of an election. I again appealed to Davis
and Briggs, and finally, on the 1st of February, Mr. Pennington
received their votes. The result was announced; Pennington, 117
votes; McClernand, 85; Gilmer, 16; 15 scattering; giving Pennington
a majority of one, and thus, after a long and violent contest, a
Republican was elected speaker of the House of Representatives.

I was entirely satisfied with the result. I had received every
Republican vote and the votes of a large number of anti-Nebraska
Democrats and Americans. No cloud rested upon me, no allegation
of misconduct or unfitness was made against me. I would have been
easily and quickly elevated but for the abnormal excitement created
by Brown's invasion and the bitterness of political antagonism
existing at that time. Many Members who felt it their duty to oppose
my election, subsequently expressed their regret that I was not
elected. I had voted for Mr. Pennington during the contest, had
a high respect for him as a gentleman of character and influence,
long a chancellor of his state, and a good Republican.

When the canvass was over, I felt a sense of relief. During its
continuance, I had remained, with rare exceptions, silent, though
strongly tempted, by political criticism, to engage in the debate.
I had, during the struggle, full opportunity to estimate the capacity
and qualifications of different Members for committee positions,
and had the committees substantially framed, when Pennington was
elected. I handed the list to him, for which he thanked me kindly,
saying that he had but little knowledge of the personal qualifications
of the Members. With some modifications, made necessary by my
defeat and his election as speaker, he adopted the list as his own.
He designated me as chairman of the committee of ways and means,
of which I had not previously been a member.

The organization of the House was not completed until the 9th day
of February, 1860. The officers designated by the Republicans were
generally elected. Congress seemed to appreciate the necessity of
prompt and vigorous action on the business of the session. Still,
whatever question was pending, political topics were the object of
debate, but were rarely acted upon, as the condition of the House
prevented anything like political action. Nearly all the measures
adopted were of a non-political character. The chief work of the
session was devoted to appropriations, and the preparation and
enactment of a tariff bill. At that time, the great body of
legislation was referred to the committee of ways and means, which
then had charge of all appropriations and of all tax laws, and
whose chairman was recognized as the leader of the House, practically
controlling the order of its business.

By the 13th of March, I was able to say, in behalf of the committee,
that all the annual appropriation bills were ready for the
consideration of the House, and promised that if the House would
sustain the committee, all these bills could be passed before the
meeting of the Charleston convention. Notwithstanding the partisan
bitterness which was exhibited against me while I was a candidate
for speaker, I had no cause to complain of a want of support by
the House, in the measures reported from that committee. Since
then the work of that committee has been distributed among a number
of committees.

The first political contest was caused by a message of President
Buchanan, protesting against action under a resolution by the House
of Representatives, passed on the 5th of March, providing for a
committee of five members, to be appointed by the speaker, for the
purpose of investigating "whether the President of the United
States, or any other officer of the government, has, by money,
patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action
of Congress for or against the passage of any law pertaining to
the rights of any state or territory." The committee appointed
came to be commonly known as the Covode committee.

This message was regarded as a plain interference with the
unquestionable power of the House to investigate the conduct of
any officer of the government, a process absolutely necessary to
enable the House to exercise the power of impeachment. Upon the
reception of the message I immediately replied to it, and a general
debate arose upon a motion to refer it to the committee on the
judiciary. That motion was adopted and the committee reported a
resolution in the following words, which was finally adopted after
debate, by a vote of 88 yeas and 40 nays:

"_Resolved_, That the House dissents from the doctrines of the
special message of the President of the United States of March 28,
1860;

"That the extent of power contemplated in the adoption of the
resolutions of inquiry of March 5, 1860, is necessary to the proper
discharge of the constitutional duties devolved upon Congress;

"That judicial determinations, the opinions of former Presidents
and uniform usage, sanction its exercise; and

"That to abandon it would leave the executive department of the
government without supervision or responsibility, and would be
likely to lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the
President, dangerous to the rights of a free people."

This resolution was regarded as a severe reproach to the President,
who was not content to let the matter rest there, but on the 25th
of June sent to the House of Representatives, a message restating
the position in his former message. He denounced the proceedings
of that committee as a violation of the letter and spirit of the
constitution. But for the lateness of the session the message
would have been the subject of severe animadversion. Late as it
was Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, entered his protest and moved that
the message be referred to a select committee of five, with power
to report at the next session. This, after a brief debate, was
adopted.

During the entire session, while the current business was progressing
rapidly, the political questions involved in the pending presidential
canvass, the topics of Kansas and slavery, were frequently obtruded
into the debate. On the 23rd of April, William T. Avery, a Democratic
Member from Tennessee charged that "an overwhelming majority of
the Republican party in this House, headed by Mr. Sherman--in fact,
every member of that party present when the vote was taken, excepting
some fourteen or fifteen--indorsed the doctrine of the abolition
of slavery everywhere."

In the course of a reply to this charge I said:

"I think there is not a Member on this side of the House who is
not now willing to make the declaration broadly, openly, that he
is opposed to any interference whatever with the relations of master
and slave in the slave states. We do believe that Congress has
the power to prohibit slavery in the territories; and whenever the
occasion offers, whenever the proper time arrives, whenever the
question arises, we are in favor of exercising that power, if
necessary, to prevent the extension of slavery into free territory.
We are frank and open upon this subject. But we never did propose,
and do not now propose, to interfere with slavery in the slave
states. I hope the gentleman will put these observations in his
speech, so that the gentleman's constituents may see that we 'black
Republicans' are not so very desirous of interfering with their
interests or rights, but only desirous of preserving our own."

Mr. Ashmore inquired: "Are you not in favor of abolishing slavery
in the District of Columbia?"

I replied:

"I have stated to my constituents, over and over again, that I am
opposed to interference with slavery in the District of Columbia.
That is my individual position. The Republican party never took
a position on the subject. Some are for it, and some against it.
I have declared to my constituents, over and over again, that I
did not think it proper to agitate the question of the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia; because I believe that this
is the very paradise of the free negro. I believe that practically,
though not legally, he is better off in the District than in any
portion of the United States. There are but few slaves here, and
the number is decreasing daily. As an institution, slavery scarcely
exists here, and I am willing to leave it to the effect of time."

On the 12th of March, 1860, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, by
instruction of the committee of ways and means, reported a bill
"to provide for the payment of outstanding treasury notes, to
authorize a loan, to regulate and fix duties on imports, and for
other purposes." This became the law commonly known as the Morrill
tariff act, which, from the time of its introduction to this day,
had been the subject of debate, amendment, criticism and praise.
It was referred to the committee of the whole on the state of the
Union, and its consideration occupied a large proportion of the
remainder of the session. Nearly one hundred Members entered into
the debate and some of them made several speeches upon the subject.
Being at the time much occupied with the appropriation bills, I
did not give much attention to the debate, but had taken part in
the preparation of the bill in the committee of ways and means,
and concurred, with rare exceptions, in the principles and details
of the measure.

Mr. Morrill was eminently fitted to prepare a tariff bill. He had
been engaged in trade and commerce, was a man of sound judgment,
perfectly impartial and honest. Representing a small agricultural
state, he was not biased by sectional feeling or the interests of
his constituents. He regarded the tariff as not only a method of
taxation, but as a mode of protection to existing industries in
the United States with a view to encourage and increase domestic
production. He was moderate in his opinions, kind and fair in
expressing them, and willing to listen with patience to any
proposition of amendment. He still lives at the venerable age of
eighty-five, and has been, during all the long period since the
report of the bill named after him, to this time, in public life,
and still retains the confidence and affection of his constituents
and colleagues.

I did not participate in the debate until the time came when, in
the judgment of the committee of ways and means, it was necessary
to dispose of the bill, either by its passage or defeat. On the
7th of May, 1860, the bill being before the House, I moved that
all debate on it should cease at one o'clock the next day. Some
opposition was evinced, but the motion was adopted. I then made
my first speech upon the subject of the tariff. The introductory
paragraphs state the then condition of the treasury as follows:

"The revenue act of March 3, 1857, which it is now proposed to
repeal, has proved to be a crude, ill-advised, and ill-digested
measure. It was never acted upon in detail in either branch of
Congress, but was the result of a committee of conference in the
last days of the session, and was finally passed by a combination
of hostile interests and sentiments. It was adopted at a time of
inflated prices, when the treasury was overflowing with revenue.
When that condition of affairs ceased, it failed to furnish ordinary
revenue, and by its incidental effects operated injuriously to
nearly every branch of industry.

"It went into operation on the 1st of July, 1857. At that time
there was in the treasury of the United States a balance of
$17,710,114. The amount of the public debt then remaining unpaid,
none of which was then due, was a little over $29,000,000. So that
there was in the treasury of the United States, when the tariff
act of 1857 went into operation, nearly enough to have paid two-
thirds of the public debt. Within one year from that time, the
public debt was increased to $44,910,777.

"On the 1st of July, 1859, the public debt had increased to
$58,754,699. On the 1st of May, 1860, as nearly as I can ascertain,
the public debt had risen to $65,681,099. The balance in the
treasury on the first of July next, as estimated by me, will be
$1,919,349.

* * * * *

"Under the operation of the tariff of 1857, the deficit in the
revenue is over $52,000,000. It may be stated thus:

Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1857 . . . . . . . . . $17,710,114
Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1860, estimated . . . 1,919,349
$15,790,765
Amount of public debt May 1, 1860 . . . $65,681,199
Amount of public debt July 1, 1857 . . 29,060,386 36,620,813
$52,411,578"

It was manifest from these statements that there was an imperative
necessity for the passage of some measure to increase the revenues.
We could hardly hope that, in the excited state of the public mind
and the known position of the Senate, the bill could pass at that
session. The government had been conducted for three years by
borrowing money in time of peace. The appropriations had been
reduced during that session by the committee of ways and means
below the estimate of the treasury, as stated by me to the House.
I then said:

"I desire now to say that the committee of ways and means, who have
had charge of appropriation bills, have endeavored, faithfully and
honestly, without regard to party divisions--and all parties in
this House are represented in that committee--to cut down the
appropriations to the lowest practicable point; and thus to reduce
the expenses of the government. I have before me a table showing
that, upon the estimates submitted to us, by the Secretary of the
Treasury, for the ordinary expenses of the government, we have been
able to reduce the amount about $1,230,000."

After a careful statement of the condition of the treasury and the
necessity for further supplies, I expressed this opinion of the
pending bill:

"In my judgment Mr. Morrill's bill is a great improvement on the
tariff of 1857. It is more certain. It is more definite. It
gives specific duties. There is another reason why it is better
than the tariff of 1857. That tariff is made up of complex and
inconvenient tables. The number of tables is too great; and in
some cases the same article is in two tables. Thus, flaxseed comes
in with a duty of ten per cent.; and yet linseed, the same thing,
yielding the same product, the same oil, is admitted duty free.
The bill of Mr. Morrill, on the other hand, fixes three _ad valorem_
tables; one at ten per cent., one at twenty, and the other at
thirty. There is a number of specific duties, and then there is
a free list. It conforms to our decimal currency, and the duties
under it are easily calculated. There can be but little dispute
about home and foreign valuation under it. It will yield a revenue
sufficient to pay the expenses of the government. It is more simple
and more certain. It substitutes specific for _ad valorem_ duties
whenever practicable. For these reasons, it is obvious Mr. Morrill's
bill ought to receive the sanction of Congress."

The bill not only provided for a sufficient revenue, but was
distinctively a bill for incidental protection to all American
industries, impartially and fairly applied. I said I desired to
have this bill passed,

"Because it is framed upon the idea that it is the duty of the
government, in imposing taxes, to do as little injury to the industry
of the country as possible; that they are to be levied so as to
extend a reasonable protection to all branches of American industry.
I think that is right. Every President of the United States, from
Washington to this time, has recognized that principle, including
Mr. Buchanan.

"We may make a tariff to raise the sum of $40,000,000, and injure
every industrial interest of the country. The committee of ways
and means report a tariff bill which will produce $65,000,000, and
will do no injury to any industrial interest. I believe that it
will give a reasonable fair protection for the great industries of
agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, which lie at the basis of
the prosperity of this country."

Mr. Morrill participated in this debate by brief but clear statements
in respect to the details of the bill. On the 8th of May, 1860,
he said, in the course of some remarks upon the bill:

"I think if the gentleman will examine this bill, he will find that
the average rates of duties upon manufactured articles are not
higher, but rather lower, than they are now; but being to a large
extent specific, they will prove of great value to the country, in
giving steadiness to our markets, as well as to the revenue; and
because frauds will be to a very great extent obviated, which are
now practiced under our _ad valorem_ system, and which have made
our government almost equal in infamy to that of Mexico and other
countries, where their revenue laws are a mere farce."

The bill, despite its merits, was assailed with all forms of
amendments from all parts of the House. Many of the amendments
were adopted, until the bill became so mottled that Mr. Morrill,
discouraged and strongly inclined against the bill as changed, was
disposed to abandon it to its fate. He was not familiar with the
rules, and, for this reason, labored under a disadvantage in the
conduct of the bill. I believed not only in the merits of the
measure, but that by a process strictly in accordance with the
rules, it might be restored substantially as it was reported by
the committee. To secure that effect Mr. Morrill offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill. To that I
offered as an amendment a bill which embodied nearly all of the
original bill as reported, with such modifications as were evidently
favored by the House, without affecting the general principles of
the measure.

The vote, upon my substitute being adopted in place of the substitute
offered by Mr. Morrill, prevented any amendment to my amendment
except by adding to it. The result of it was that the House, tired
with the long struggle, and believing that the measure thus amended
was in substance the same as the original bill reported, finally
passed the bill on the 10th day of May, 1860, by the vote of 105
yeas to 64 nays.

As this was my birthday, I remember to have celebrated it, not only
as my birthday, but as the day on which the Morrill tariff bill
passed the House of Representatives.

We knew upon the passage of this bill that it could not pass the
Senate during that session. It was taken up in that body, debated
at length, and finally, on the 20th of June, it was, in effect,
postponed until the next session.

I might as well here follow the Morrill tariff bill to its final
passage at the next session of this Congress.

On the 20th of December, 1860, Mr. Hunter, from the committee on
finance, to whom was referred the tariff bill, reported it back
with a recommendation that it be postponed until the 4th day of
March following. This was, in effect, to reject the bill, as
Congress terminated on that day. The committee on finance, and a
majority of the Senate as then constituted, was opposed to the
passage of the bill, but the secession movements, then openly
threatened, soon changed the political complexion of the Senate,
by the resignation of Senators on account of the secession of their
states. On the 18th of January, 1861, Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania,
moved to take up the bill, and, upon his motion, it was made a
special order for the following Wednesday. On the 23rd of January
it was referred to a committee of five members, consisting of Mr.
Simmons, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Bigler, Mr. Fessenden, and Mr. Gwin. This
was done on the same day when the committees of the Senate were
reorganized on account of the withdrawal of Senators. The special
committee appointed by the Vice President was friendly to the bill.
Then for the first time it became possible to secure favorable
action in the Senate. Many amendments were proposed and adopted
by the Senate, but they did not materially affect the general
principles upon which the bill was founded. It passed the Senate
with these amendments by the decided vote of 25 yeas to 14 nays.
All of the amendments of the Senate but one were promptly agreed
to by the House, and a conference between the two Houses was ordered.
Messrs. Simmons, Bigler and Hunter were the managers on the part
of the Senate and Messrs. Sherman, Phelps and Moorhead on the part
of the House.

On the 27th day of February, five days before the close of the
session, the conferees reported to the Senate their agreement and
the report of the committee was adopted without objection or division
of that body, and also by the House of Representatives, and the
bill was signed by President Buchanan.

This law, passed in the throes of a revolution, and only possible
as the result of the withdrawal of Senators to engage in the war
of secession, met all the expectations of its friends. It was
fair, just and conservative, and would, in peaceful times, yield
about $50,000,000 a year, the amount of national expenditures in
1860, and, at the same time, protect and strengthen all existing
home industries, and lay the foundation for great increase in
production. It was destined, however, to begin its existence at
a period of revolution. The secession of eleven states precipitated
the war, involving enormous expenditures, in the face of which all
revenue laws were inadequate and powerless. The credit of the
government, its resources and capacity for taxation, had to be
appealed to. Resort was had to every possible mode of taxation
that could be devised by the ingenuity of man, to supply the
requirements of the war, and to maintain the public credit. The
Morrill tariff act was, therefore, greatly modified by subsequent
laws, the duties doubled and in some cases trebled. Internal taxes,
yielding twofold the amount collected from customs, were levied,
and cheerfully paid, and duties on imported goods were quickly
increased. The details of this act became the victim of the war,
but the general principles upon which it was founded, the application
of specific duties where possible, and the careful protection
extended to the products of the soil and the mine, as well as of
the workshop, have been maintained to a greater or less extent
until the present time.

I have participated in framing many tariff bills, but have never
succeeded in securing one that I entirely approved. The Morrill
tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double
requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the
government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries.
No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed
at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing
importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The
government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and
in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including
articles of prime necessity and universal use. In addition to
these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home
production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants,
and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as sprits,
tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet
expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war
debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and
to their widows and orphans.

These conditions have, in a measure, been fulfilled. The war is
over; the public debt has been diminished to one-third of the amount
due at the close of the war. The pension list is the chief and
almost only outstanding obligation growing out of the war, but this
is fully met by internal taxes on spirits, tobacco and beer. What
is needed now is a tariff or tax on imported goods sufficient in
amount to meet the current expenditures of the government, and
which at the same time will tend to encourage the production in
this country of all articles, whether of the farm, the mine or the
workshop, that can be readily and at reasonable cost produced in
this country.

And here we meet the difficulty that the mode, extent, manner and
objects of tariff taxation are unhappily mixed up in our party
politics. This should not be so. Whether the mode of taxation
should be by a percentage on the _value_ of goods imported, or by
a duty imposed on the weight or quantity, depends upon the nature
of the article. If the article is sold in the market by weight or
quantity, the duty should be specific, _i. e._, a certain rate on
the unit of weight or quantity. If it is of such a nature that
its value cannot be measured by weight or quantity the duty should
be _ad valorem, i. e._ a percentage of its value. This is matter
of detail to be fixed by the custom of merchants. As a rule it is
better to fix the duty upon weight or measure, rather than upon
value, for by the former mode the amount is easily ascertained by
the scale or yard stick, while to base the duty upon value, changing
from day to day, is to invite fraud and litigation.

The extent or rate of duty to be imposed should depend entirely
upon the pecuniary wants of the government, and the nature of the
article imported. If the article is one of luxury, mainly consumed
by the rich, the duty should be at a higher rate than upon an
article in general use. This principle is sometimes disputed, but
it would seem that in a republic a just discrimination ought to be
made in favor of the many rather than of the few. On this principle
all political parties have acted. The rates have been higher on
silks, satins, furs and the like than on goods made of cotton,
wool, flax or hemp. To meet the changing wants of the government
all articles should be classified in schedules, so that the rate
of duty on a single schedule, or on many schedules, could be advanced
or lowered without disturbing the general scheme of taxation.

As to the manner of taxation and the places where duties should be
collected, all will agree that they should be paid as nearly as
possible where the goods are to be consumed. The concentration of
importations at any one port on the coast, or at several ports,
gives to the people residing at or near such favored ports an
advantage over the people living in the interior of the country.
The system of interior ports, or places of delivery to which goods
may be consigned, has been adopted and generally approved. The
object is that all parts of the country shall have equal facilities
and bear equally the burdens of taxation.

The method of importations should be so simplified that any person,
in any part of the United States, may order from any commercial
port or country any article desired and be able to receive it and
pay the prescribed duty, at any considerable port or city in the
United States that he may designate.

As to the objects of tariff taxation there is and always will be
an honest difference of opinion. The main purpose is to secure
the revenue from foreigners seeking our market to dispose of their
products. The United States has the right, exercised by every
nation, to determine upon what terms the productions of foreign
nations shall be admitted into its markets, and those terms will
be such as its interests may demand. Great Britain may admit nearly
all commodities free of duty, but even that country is guided by
her interests in all her commercial regulations. All other nations
classified as civilized seek, like the United States, by tariff
laws, not only to secure revenue, but to protect and foster domestic
industries. Japan has won its entrance among civilized nations by
securing treaties with European countries and the United States,
by which she has been relieved from restrictions as to her duties
on imports, and now has the right to regulate and fix her import
duties as her interest dictates.

The United States has from the beginning of its government declared
that one object of duties on imports is the encouragement of
manufactures in the United States, and, whatever may be the dogma
inserted in a political party platform, tariff legislation will
continue to have a double object, _revenue and protection_. This
was strikingly exemplified by the recent action of Congress in the
passage of the tariff law now in force.

The real difficulty in our tariff laws is to avoid unequal and
unjust discrimination in the objects of protection, made with a
view to favor the productions of one state or section at the cost
of another state or section. The dogma of some manufacturers, that
raw materials should be admitted free of duty, is far more dangerous
to the protective policy than the opposition of free traders. The
latter contend that no duties should be levied to protect domestic
industry, but for revenue only, while the former demand protection
for their industries, but refuse to give to the farmer and miner
the benefit of even revenue duties. A denial of protection on
coal, iron, wool and other so-called raw materials, will lead to
the denial of protection to machinery, to textiles, to pottery and
other industries. The labor of one class must not be sacrificed
to secure higher protection for another class. The earth and all
that is within it is the work of God. The labor of man that tends
to develop the resources buried in the earth is entitled to the
same favor and protection as skilled labor in the highest branch
of industry, and if this is not granted impartially the doctrine
of protection proclaimed by the founders of our government, supported
for more than a hundred years of wonderful progress, will be
sacrificed by the hungry greed of selfish corporations, who ask
protection for great establishments and refuse to grant it to the
miner, the laborer and the farmer.

Another principle must be ingrafted into our tariff laws, growing
out of new modes of production by corporations and combinations.
Until recently each miner, each artisan, and each manufacturer,
had to compete in the open market with everyone engaged in the same
industry. The general public had the benefit of free competition.
This tended to lower prices on many commodities, to increase the
quantity produced, and to supply the home market, thus excluding
importations. The tendency since the Civil War in every branch of
industry has been to consolidate operations. To effect this,
corporations have been created in most of the states and granted
such liberal corporate powers, without respect to the nature of
the business to be conducted, and with terms and privileges so
favorable, that private enterprise without large capital cannot
compete with them. Instead of small or moderate workshops, with
a few hands, we now have great establishments with hundreds of
employees, and all the capital of scores of stockholders under the
control of a few men, and often of one man. This may be of benefit
by reducing the cost of production, but it also involves two dangers,
one the irrepressible conflict of labor with capital, and the other
the combination of corporations engaged in the same business to
advance prices and prevent competition, thus constituting a monopoly
commanding business and controlling the market.

This power in the hands of a few is at this moment the disturbing
element in many of our great industries. It is especially dangerous
when it is promoted by rates of duty on imported goods higher than
are necessary to cover the difference in the cost of labor here
and abroad. When such conditions occur, the monopoly becomes
offensive. Such combinations are denounced and punished by the
laws of almost every civilized government and by the laws of many
of our states. They should be denounced and punished by the laws
of the United States whenever they affect any matter within the
jurisdiction of the United States. Whenever the tendency of a
monopoly is to prevent mutual competition, and to advance prices
for any articles embraced in our tariff laws, the duty on the
article should be at once reduced or repealed.

As Members of Congress, divided by party lines and crude platforms,
must in the main, care for and protect local interests, I do not
believe any fair, impartial and business tariff can be framed by
them. It would be better for Congress, the law-making power, after
determining the amount to be raised, to sanction and adopt a careful
tariff bill, framed by an impartial commission, large enough to
represent all sections and parties, all employers and employees.
Hitherto, the tariffs framed by Congress have been rejected by the
people. Each party, in its turn, has undertaken the task with a
like result. Let us try the experiment of a tariff framed, not by
a party upon a party platform, but by the selected representatives
of the commercial, industrial, farming and laboring classes. Let
Congress place upon the statute book such a law, and the tariff
question will cease to be the foot ball of partisan legislation.

The remainder of the session was occupied chiefly in the consideration
of appropriation bills. These were carefully scrutinized; many
estimates of the departments were reduced. As usual, appropriations
were increased in the Senate, but most of the amendments were
rejected in conference.

The bill authorizing a loan for the redemption of treasury notes
was passed on the 22nd day of June. Congress adjourned at noon
June 25, 1860.

This memorable Congress, commencing with a contest which threatened
violence on the floor of the House of Representatives, was held
unorganized for sixty days by a defeated party upon a flimsy pretext,
and during all that time we had to listen to open threats of
secession and disunion made by its members. No previous Congress
had exhibited such violence of speech and action. When fully
organized it quieted down, and, with occasional exceptions, proceeded
rapidly to the discharge of its public duties. A greater number
of contested bills were passed at this Congress than usual. Most
of these measures came from the committee of ways and means. The
members of that committee were Messrs. John Sherman, of Ohio, Henry
Winter Davis, of Maryland, John S. Phelps, of Missouri, Thaddeus
Stevens, of Pennsylvania, Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, John S.
Millson, of Virginia, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, Martin J.
Crawford, of Georgia, and Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York. Of
these but two, Mr. Morrill and myself, survive. A brief notice of
those who are numbered with the dead may not be out of place.

Henry Winter Davis was the most accomplished orator in the House
while he was a Member. Well educated in college, well trained as
a lawyer, an accomplished writer and eloquent speaker, yet he was
a poor parliamentarian, a careless member in committee, and utterly
unfit to conduct an appropriation or tariff bill in the House. He
was impatient of details, querulous when questioned or interrupted,
but in social life and in intercourse with his fellow Members he
was genial, kind and courteous. On one occasion, when I was called
home, I requested him to take charge of an appropriation bill and
secure its passage. He did as I requested, but he was soon
embarrassed by questions he could not answer, and had the bill
postponed until my return. I felt for Mr. Davis a personal
attachment, and I believe this kindly feeling was reciprocated.
He served in the House of Representatives during most of the war,
and joined with Senator Wade in opposition to Mr. Lincoln's re-
election in 1864. He died at Baltimore on the 20th of December,
1865, when in the full vigor of matured manhood.

John S. Phelps in 1860 was an old and experienced Member. Born in
Connecticut he removed to Missouri as early as 1837. In 1844 he
was elected to Congress as a Democrat, and continued as a Member
sixteen years, being chairman of the committee of ways and means
during the 35th Congress. He was a valuable Member, patient,
careful, industrious, and had the confidence of the House. He was
moderate in his political opinions, and, though a resident of
Missouri, he took the Union side in the Civil War.

Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most remarkable men of the last
generation, was born in Vermont near the close of the last century;
and was well educated. He taught school and studied law. He
removed to Pennsylvania and there engaged in turbulent politics;
served several years as a member of the state legislature; was
elected to Congress in 1848 and served four years. He was known
to be an aggressive Whig and a dangerous opponent in debate; was
re-elected in 1858 as a Republican and at once took the lead in
the speakership contest. His sarcasm was keen and merciless. He
was not a very useful member of the committee. He was better in
the field of battle than in the seclusion of the committee. Still,
when any contest arose in the House over bills reported by the
committee, he was always ready to defend its action. Though a
cynical old bachelor, with a deformed foot and with a bitter tongue
for those he disliked, he was always charitable and kind to the
poor. He was quiet and impartial in his charity, recognizing no
distinction on account of color, but usually preferring to aid
women rather than men. I was often the witness of his charities.
He continued in active public life until his death on the 11th of
August, 1868. For some time before his death he was unable to walk
up the marble steps of the capitol and two stout negroes were
detailed to carry him up in a chair. On one occasion when safely
seated he grimly said to them, "Who will carry me when you die?"
Mr. Stevens was a brave man. He always fought his fights to a
finish and never asked or gave quarter.

Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, was one of three brothers, Members
of this Congress. Israel was the eldest, and, perhaps, the most
active, of the three. He received a classical education, studied
law and was admitted to the bar in 1830. He was a good debater
and a useful member of the committee. He had been in Congress ten
years, including the 36th. He subsequently became governor of
Maine, and collector of customs at Portland.

John S. Millson, of Virginia, had long been a Member of Congress,
was fifty-two years old, and regarded as a safe, conservative man
of fair abilities.

Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, was a lawyer of good standing. He
was elected a Member of Congress in 1854, and continued as such
until the rebellion, in which he took an active part. When Georgia
seceded, he, with his colleagues, formally withdrew from Congress.
Crawford and I had been friendly, and somewhat intimate. He was
a frank man, openly avowing his opinions, but with respectful
toleration of those of others. After he withdrew we met in the
lobby; he bade me good-bye, saying that his next appearance in
Washington would be as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
of the Confederate States. I told him that he was more likely to
appear as a prisoner of war. I then warned him that the struggle
would be to the death, and that the Union would triumph. Long
afterwards, when I visited the fair at Atlanta, he recalled our
conversation and admitted I was the best prophet. We spent the
evening and far into the night talking about the past and the
future. He evinced no regret for the result of the war, but quietly
acquiesced, and was then a judge in one of the courts in that state.

Elbridge G. Spaulding, of New York, was an excellent Member. He
had a taste for financial problems and contributed a good deal to
the measures adopted, in this and the 37th Congress, to establish
a national currency and to build up the public credit. These
Members, with Mr. Morrill and myself, were charged with the most
important legislation in the 36th Congress, and I believe that the
general opinion of the House was that we did our duty well.

I have followed this important session of Congress to its close,
but while the debate continued in Congress a greater debate was
being conducted by the people. Never before was such interest felt
in the political questions of the day. In many of the cities of
the country clubs were organized for political discussions, and
persons in public life were pressed to make speeches or lectures
on the topics of the day. The Young Men's Central Republican Union,
of New York, arranged a series of lectures, the first of which was
delivered by Frank P. Blair, the second by Cassius M. Clay, and
the third by Abraham Lincoln. The remarkable address of the last
named had great influence in securing his nomination for President.
It was the first time Mr. Lincoln had spoken in New York, where he
was then personally almost unknown. His debate with Douglas had
excited general attention. Using the language of his biographers:

"When, on the evening of February 27, 1860, he stood before his
audience, he saw not only a well-filled house, but an assemblage
of listeners in which were many whom, by reason of his own modest
estimate of himself, he would have been rather inclined to ask
advice from than to offer instruction to. William Cullen Bryant
presided over the meeting.

* * * * *

"The representative men of New York were naturally eager to see
and hear one who, by whatever force of eloquence or argument, had
attracted so large a share of the public attention. We may also
fairly infer that, on his part, Lincoln was no less curious to test
the effect of his words on an audience more learned and critical
than those collected in the open air meetings of his western
campaigns. This mutual interest was an evident advantage to both;
it secured a close attention from the house, and insured deliberation
and emphasis by the speaker, enabling him to develop his argument
with perfect precision and unity, reaching perhaps the happiest
general effect ever attained in any one of his long addresses."

His speech was printed by the leading papers of the city, and, in
pamphlet form, was widely distributed and read.

I was invited by the Republican Union to make one of these addresses,
and, though very much occupied and having little time for preparation,
I accepted the invitation, and spoke at Cooper Institute in the
city of New York on the 30th of April, 1860. It was my first
appearance before a New York audience, and I confess that I was
not satisfied with the address. I undertook, what I never attempted
before, to read a political speech to a popular audience. While
I was treated kindly I felt quite sure my speech was a disappointment.
A recent reading of it confirms my opinion that it was not equal
to the occasion or the audience.

I was also invited by the Republican Club of Philadelphia to make
a speech ratifying the nomination of Lincoln and Hamlin and spoke
at a meeting held May 28, 1860. My address was entirely impromptu,
and was far better, both in manner and matter, than the speech in
New York, and was received with great applause. Since that time,
I have never attempted to make a popular address from manuscript.
Every speaker should know the substance of what he intends to say,
but ought to rely for his words upon the spirit and temper of the
audience.

The summer of 1860 was ominous of domestic discord and civil war.
The success of the Republicans in the House of Representatives,
the violent scenes in the House, notably those between Potter,
Pryor, Barksdale, and Lovejoy, were indications that the south was
aggressive, and that the north would fight. The meeting of the
Democratic convention at Charleston, on the 23rd of April, soon
disclosed an almost equal division of its members as to slavery in
the territories. The southern platform was adopted by a majority
of one in its committee on resolutions, but rejected by a majority
of the convention. This was the vital issue between the followers
of Davis and Douglas, and Douglas won. A majority of the delegates
from six of the southern states thereupon withdrew from the convention
and adjourned to Richmond. Thus, the first secession was from a
Democratic convention. The remainder of that convention adjourned
to Baltimore, at which city Douglas was nominated for President.
The seceding delegates nominated Breckenridge. Thus, the Democratic
party, which, in every stage of the slavery controversy, had taken
sides with the south, was itself broken on the rock of slavery,
and condemned to certain defeat.

The Republican convention met at Chicago on the 16th of May, with
a defined line of public policy which was adopted unanimously by
the convention. The only question to be determined was, who should
be the candidate for President, who would best represent the
principles agreed upon. Seward, Chase and Bates were laid aside,
and Abraham Lincoln, one stronger than any of these, was unanimously
nominated. The nomination of a candidate by a third party, ignoring
the slavery question, did not change the issue. The conflict was
now between freedom and slavery, an issue carefully avoided by the
two great parties prior to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

Thus Douglas, as a consequence of his own act, was destined to
defeat, and the irrepressible conflict was to be finally determined
by the people in the choice between Lincoln and Breckenridge, with
the distinct declaration, made by the delegates seceding from the
Charleston convention, that if Lincoln was elected their states
would secede from the Union, and establish an independent government
founded upon slavery. This was the momentous issue involved in
the election.

Congress adjourned on the 28th of June, 1860. On the 17th of July,
I was unanimously renominated at Shelby. John Shauck, a venerable
Quaker, 80 years of age, claimed to right to nominate me as he had
done in previous conventions. He was absent at the moment, but
the convention, in deference to his known wishes, awaited his
coming. From that time until the election, I was actively engaged
in the presidential canvass. I spent but little time in my district,
as there was but a nominal opposition to my election. The Democratic
candidate, Barnabus Burns, was a personal friend, and sympathized
with me on many subjects. Scarcely a week day passed that I did
not speak at least once.

Of the many speeches made by me in that canvass, I recall but very
few. I have already referred to my debate with Cox, if it can
properly be called a debate. It was friendly badinage. He charged
me with pulling the Morrill tariff bill through by a trick. I
answered that if it was a trick, it was a trick well played, as
the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64, many Democrats voting for
it. He complained of the duties on wool, declaring that the farmers
were sacrificed. I showed that the duties on wool had been advanced.
He said I was president of a Know Nothing Lodge in Mansfield. I
said this was simply a lie, and that there were plenty of Douglas
Democrats before me who knew it. He said that I initiated therein,
Sam Richey in a stable. I asked who told him that story, when the
audience called out loudly for Burns. Mr. Burns rose and said he
did not tell Mr. Cox so. I said I was glad to hear it, that it
was a silly lie made up out of whole cloth, and asked if Richey
was present. Richey was in the crowd, and rose amid great laughter
and applause and said: "Here I am." I said: "Well, friends, you
see my friend, Richey, is a genuine Irishman, but he knows, as I
know, that Cox's story is a falsification. Mr. Cox says I am a
political thief; don't think he charges me with stealing sheep, he
only means to say I stole squatter sovereignty. It is petty larceny
at best. But I did not steal Douglas squatter sovereignty."

I then proceeded to define the difference between the only two
parties with definite principles. The real contest was, not between
Lincoln and Douglas, or between Cox and me, but between Breckenridge
and Lincoln, between free institutions and slave institutions,
between union and disunion. I refer to this debate with Cox to
show how local prejudices obscured the problem then involved. The
people of Ohio were divided on parallel lines, for Cox and I agreed
on Kansas, but he was for Douglas and I for Lincoln, while the
south was brooding over secession, if either Lincoln or Douglas
should be elected.

I went into most of the congressional districts of Ohio and perceived
a strong leaning in favor of Lincoln, but Douglas also had many
supporters. The Democratic party of Ohio was satisfied with Douglas'
popular sovereignty, especially as it, as they alleged, had secured
freedom for Kansas. Breckenridge had no great following in Ohio,
and Bell and Everett less.

I spent several days in the canvass in Pennsylvania, Indiana, New
Jersey and Delaware, all warmly contested states, the votes of
which would determine the election. It soon became apparent that
Lincoln was the only candidate who could secure a majority of the
electoral vote. This fact, and the known difficulty of securing
an election by the House in case of failure of an election by the
Electoral College, greatly aided Mr. Lincoln. I presented this
argument with care and fullness in a speech delivered at Philadelphia
on the 12th of September, 1860. It was printed at the time and
largely circulated. I quote a paragraph, which contains the one
fact upon which my argument rested:

"Owing to the division of the Democratic party, the Republican
party is the only one that can hope to succeed by a direct vote of
the people. This is a fact I need not discuss, for it was written
at the threshold of the contest by the conventions of Charleston
and Baltimore. If the election were to be determined by the rule
of plurality--a rule now adopted in every state in the Union--
intelligent men would consider it already decided; but the rule of
the majority is fixed by the constitution, and if Pennsylvania does
not vote for Lincoln, then the election devolves upon the House of
Representatives. In that event the constitution requires the House
to choose immediately, by ballot, a President from the persons,
not exceeding three, having the highest number of electoral votes.
The vote must be taken by states, and not by Representatives. The
three millions of people of Pennsylvania will have only the same
political power as the one hundred thousand people of Delaware."

I recently read this speech, and, in view of the events that followed
I can say that every prophecy made, and every argument stated, has
been verified and sustained by the march of events. My opening
criticism of Mr. Buchanan's administration may seem to be partisan
and unjust, but the general opinion now is that his fault was
feebleness of will, not intentional wrong. Mr. Buchanan was
surrounded by men who had already made up their minds to destroy
the Union, one of whom had already committed acts of treachery in
the distribution of arms and military supplies, and all of whom
avowed the legality and rightfulness of secession. I think what
I said was justified by the conditions existing when the speech
was made. The residue of my speech was certainly moderate enough
to satisfy the most conservative mind. I give the closing
paragraphs:

"These are, so far as I know, the leading ideas of the Republican
party. I appeal to your candor if they do not commend themselves
to the judgment of reasonable men. Is this the party which you
would combine and conspire against, and to defeat which you would
unite hostile elements? Is it to defeat these ideas that you would
risk scenes of violence in the House, or the subversion of the
constitution by the Senate of the United States? Is it to defeat
this noble policy that you would longer trust a broken-down, corrupt
and demoralized administration? Is it for this that you would
continue in power a party that, by a long enjoyment of the patronage
of the government, has become reckless and corrupt?

"If you will take the responsibility of preventing the triumph of
the Republican party, you may do so, but it will require a close
fusion of all the elements to defeat it. It is young and vigorous.
It has all the unity and discipline of the old Democratic party.
It holds most of the opinions, modified by experience, of the old
Whig party. It has the conservative moderation of the People's
party, which has influenced its nominations. It adheres to every
principle proclaimed by the old Republican party of Jefferson. We
have confidence in the integrity and patriotism, and wisdom of our
standard bearers--Lincoln and Hamlin. If Mr. Lincoln cannot be
recommended as a parlor President, like General Pierce, and is not
familiar with the etiquette of foreign courts, as is Mr. Buchanan,
we know that he is honest, faithful, courageous and capable. No
man can read his celebrated debates with Mr. Douglas, without
forming a high opinion of his capacity. He is better for having
lived but a short time in Washington, for that city of politicians
is not particularly celebrated for sound principles or right morals.
Born in Kentucky, descended from a Pennsylvania stock, the son and
grandson of Virginians, raised in Indiana and Illinois, familiar
by his own experience with the wants and interests and aspirations
of the people, he possesses the same traits of character which made
Jackson and Clay, in their day and generation, leaders of parties
and of men. Let us, my friends, unite in electing him President
of the United States."

Lincoln was elected. He received 180 electoral votes; Breckenridge
72; Douglas 12; Bell 39. The question then was whether the people
of the seceding states would try to carry into effect their
declaration. I had no doubt they would try, but I was equally
confident they would fail.

As events progressed in the south, citizens of the north held
popular meetings in nearly all our cities and in many rural
communities. I was invited by leading citizens of Philadelphia to
attend a public dinner in that city in December, 1860. I could
not attend in person, but wrote them a letter which defined clearly
my convictions and my conception of the duties of our people in
view of passing events. I insert it here:

"Washington, December 22, 1860.
"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 15th inst., inviting me to attend a
public dinner in your city, on Friday evening next, was duly
received.

"I remember with pleasure the kindness shown me during the recent
canvass by our political friends in Philadelphia, and would gladly
avail myself of the proposed celebration, to mingle my personal
thanks with your rejoicings, over the recent triumph of our political
principles. Other engagements and duties, however, will not allow
me that pleasure.

"No state can dispute with Pennsylvania the honor of this triumph.
Her own son was upon trial, and her voice of condemnation was
emphatic and decisive. The election of Governor Curtin foreshadowed
her decision, and strengthened our cause in every state where
freedom of election is allowed to the people. Her verdict in
November reconsidered and reaffirmed her verdict in October. And
now, since the victory is won, let us not lose the fruits of it.

"Fidelity to principle is demanded by the highest patriotism. The
question is not whether this or that policy should prevail; but
whether we shall allow the government to be broken into fragments,
by disappointed partisans, condemned by four-fifths of the people.
It is the same question answered by General Jackson in his proclamation
of 1833. It is the same question answered by Henry Clay in the
Senate in 1850. It is the same question answered by Madison and
Jefferson, and recently by Wade and Johnson. It is a question
which, I feel assured, every one of you will answer, in the patriotic
language of General Jackson--'_The Union, it must be preserved_.'

"Such would be the voice of the whole country, if the government
was not now administered by those who not only threaten treason,
but actually commit it, by turning the powers of the government
against itself. They kill the government they have sworn to maintain
and defend, because the people, whose agents they are, have condemned
them. In this spirit we have seen a Secretary of the Treasury,
charged with the financial credit of the government, offering for
sale the bonds of the government, and at the same moment declaring
that it will be overthrown, and that he would aid in overthrowing
it. We see other high officers receiving _pay_ for services to
the government, and yet, at the same moment, plotting its destruction.
We see the treasury robbed by subordinate officers amid the general
ruin. Stranger still, we see the President of the United States
acknowledging his duty to execute the laws, but refusing to execute
them. He admits that the constitution is the supreme law; that
neither a state nor the citizens of a state can disregard it; and
yet, armed as he is with all the executive power, he refuses even
to protect the property of the United States against armed violence.
He will not heed General Cass, the head of his cabinet. He will
not heed General Scott, the head of the army. He has transferred
to southern states more than one hundred thousand arms, of the
newest pattern and most effective calibre, to be turned against
the government.

"The American people are now trembling with apprehension lest the
President allow our officers and soldiers to be slaughtered at
their posts, for want of the aid which he has refused, or, what is
far more disgraceful, shall order the flag of the Union to be
lowered, without resistance to lawless force.

"Treason sits in the councils, and timidity controls the executive
power. The President listens to, and is controlled by, threats.
He theorizes about coercing a state when he should be enforcing
the laws against rebellious citizens. He admits that the states
have surrendered the power to make treaties, coin money, and regulate
commerce, and yet we will probably have the novel and ridiculous
farce of a negotiation between the President and a state, for the
surrender of forts, and arsenals, and sovereignty. Congress can
do nothing, for the laws now are sufficient, if executed. Impeachment
is too slow a remedy. The constitution provided against every
probable vacancy in the office of President, but did not provide
for utter imbecility.

"The people, alarmed, excited, yet true to the Union and the
constitution, are watching with eager fear, lest the noble government,
baptized in the blood of the Revolution, shall be broken into
fragments, before the President elect shall assume the functions
of his office.

"What pretext is given for this alarming condition of affairs?--
for every treasonable act has its pretext. We are told that the
people of the southern states _apprehend_ that Mr. Lincoln will
deprive them of their constitutional rights. It is not claimed
that, as yet, their rights have been invaded, but upon an _apprehension_
of evil, they will break up the most prosperous government the
providence of God ever allowed to man.

"We know very well how groundless are their apprehensions, but we
are not even allowed to say so to our fellow-citizens of the south.
So wild is their apprehension, that even such statesmen as Stephens,
Johnson, Hill, Botts and Pettigrew, when they say, 'wait, wait,
till we see what this Republican party will attempt,' are denounced
as Abolitionists--Submissionists. You know very well that we do
not propose to interfere in the slightest degree with slavery in
the states. We know that our leader, for whose election you rejoice
has, over and over again, affirmed his opposition to the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia, except upon conditions that
are not likely to occur; or to any interference with the inter-
state slave trade, and that he will enforce the constitutional
right of the citizens of the slave states to recapture their fugitive
slaves when they escape from service into the free states. We know
very well that the great objects which those who elected Mr. Lincoln
expect him to accomplish will be to secure to free labor its just
right to the territories of the United States; to protect, as far
as practicable, by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to
secure the public lands to actual settlers, instead of non-resident
speculators; to develop the internal resources of the country, by
opening new means of communication between the Atlantic and the
Pacific, and to purify the administration of the government from
the pernicious influences of jobs, contracts, and unreasoning party
warfare.

"But some of you may say, all this is very well, but what will you
do to save the Union? Why don't you compromise?

"Gentlemen, remember that we are just recovering from the dishonor
of breaking a legislative compromise. We have been struggling,
against all the powers of the government, for six years, to secure
practically what was expressly granted by a compromise. We have
succeeded. Kansas is now free. The Missouri restriction is now
practically restored by the incipient constitution of Kansas, and
safer yet, by the will of her people. The baptism of strife through
which she has passed has only strengthened the prohibition. There
let it stand.

"But our political opponents, who have dishonored the word compromise,
who trampled, without a moment's hesitation, upon a compromise,
when they expected to gain by it, now ask us to again compromise,
by securing slavery south of a geographical line. To this we might
fairly say: There is no occasion for compromise. We have done no
wrong; we have no apologies to make, and no concessions to offer.
You chose your ground, and we accepted your issue. We have beaten
you, and you must submit, as we have done in the past, and as we
would have done if the voice of the people had been against us.
As good citizens, you must obey the laws, and respect the constituted
authorities. But we will meet new questions of administration with
a liberal spirit. Without surrendering our convictions in the
least, we may now dispose of the whole territorial controversy by
the exercise of unquestioned congressional power.

"The only territory south of the line, except that which, by treaty
with Indian tribes, cannot be included within the jurisdiction of
a state, is New Mexico. She has now population enough for admission
as a state. Let Congress admit her as a state, and then she has
the acknowledged right to form, regulate, change, or modify her
domestic institutions. She has now a nominal slave code, framed
and urged upon her by territorial officers. Practically, slavery
does not exist there. It never can be established there. In a
region where the earth yields her increase only by the practice of
irrigation, slave labor will not be employed. At any rate, it is
better to settle all questions about slavery there, by admitting
the territory as a state. While a territory, it is insisted that
slavery shall be protected in it. We insist that Congress may
prohibit it, and that the people have an undisputed right to exclude
slaves. Why not, by terminating their territorial condition,
determine this controversy? The same course might now properly be
adopted with all the territories of the United States.

"In each of the territories there are, now, small settlements
scattered along the lines of transit. Within five years, the least
populous will contain sufficient population for a Representative
in Congress. Dakota, Washington, Nevada, and Jefferson are destined
soon to be as familiar to us as Kansas and Nebraska. It is well
worthy the consideration of the old states, whether it is not better
to dispense with all territorial organizations--always expensive
and turbulent--and, at once, to carve the whole into states of
convenient size, for admission. This was the Jeffersonian plan,
which did not contemplate territories, but states. It was also
sanctioned by General Taylor, and, but for his death, would have
been adopted.

This is an easy, effectual remedy, within the power of Congress,
and in its nature an irrevocable act. There is no necessity of an
amendment to the constitution. It is not at all probable that two-
thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states
can agree to any amendments. Why attempt it, unless to invite new
contests, to again arouse sectional animosities? We know that if
Mexico is acquired the south will demand it for slavery, and the
north for free institutions. We must forego, for the present, new
conquests, unless the love of acquisition is stronger than the love
of domestic peace.

"Suppose it to be conceded that the constitution should be amended,
what amendment will satisfy the south? Nothing less than the
protection of slavery in the territories. But our people have
pronounced against it. All who voted for Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Douglas
--over three million three hundred thousand citizens--voted against
this claim. Less than a million voted for it. Should the great
majority yield to a meagre minority, especially under threats of
disunion? This minority demand that slavery be protected by the
constitution. Our fathers would not allow the word 'slave' or
'slavery' in the constitution, when all the states but one were
slaveholding. Shall we introduce these words when a majority of
the states are free, and when the progress of civilization has
arrayed the world against slavery? If the love of peace and ease,
and office, should tempt politicians and merchants to do it, the
people will rebel. I assure you, whatever may be the consequence,
they will not yield their moral convictions by strengthening the
influence of slavery in this country. Recent events have only
deepened this feeling.

"The struggle to establish slavery in Kansas; the frequent murders
and mobbings, in the south, of northern citizens; the present
turbulence and violence of southern society; the manifest fear of
the freedom of speech and of the press; the danger of insurrection;
and now the attempt to subvert the government rather than submit
to a constitutional election--these events, disguise it as you may,
have aroused a counter irritation in the north that will not allow
its representatives to yield merely for peace, more than is prescribed
by the letter and spirit of the constitution. Every guarantee of
this instrument ought to be faithfully and religiously observed.
But when it is proposed to change it, to secure new guarantees to
slavery, to extend and protect it, you invoke and arouse the anti-
slavery feeling of the north to war against slavery everywhere.

"I am, therefore, opposed to any change in the constitution, and
to any compromise that will surrender any of the principles sanctioned
by the people in the recent contest. If the personal-liberty bills
of any state infringe upon the constitution, they should at once
be repealed. Most of them have slumbered upon the statute book
for years. They are now seized upon, by those who are plotting
disunion, as a pretext. We should give them no pretext. It is
always right and proper for each state to apply to state laws the
test of the constitution.

"It is a remarkable fact that neither of the border free states--
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, nor Iowa--have
any such upon their statute books. The laws of these states,
against kidnapping, are similar to those of Virginia and Kentucky.
The laws of other states, so-called, have never operated to release
a single fugitive slave, and may be regarded simply as a protest
of those states against the harsh features of the fugitive slave
law. So far as they infringe upon the constitution, or impair, in
the least, a constitutional right, they are void and ought to be
repealed.

"I venture the assertion that there have been more cases of kidnapping
of free negroes in Ohio, than of peaceable or unlawful rescue of
fugitive slaves in the whole United States. It has been shown that
the law of recapture and the penalties of rescue have been almost
invariably executed. Count up all the cases of rescue of negroes
in the north, and you can find in your newspapers more cases of
unlawful lynching and murder of white men in the south. These
cases have now become so frequent and atrocious, as to demand the
attention of the general government. The same article of the
constitution that secures the recapture of fugitives from service
and justice, also secures the rights of citizens of Pennsylvania
and Ohio to all the immunities and privileges of citizens of the
several states. No law has been passed by Congress to secure this
constitutional right. No executive authority interposes to protect
our citizens, and yet we hear no threats of retaliation or rebellion
from northern citizens or northern states. So, I trust, it ever
may be.

"The great danger that now overshadows us does not arise from real
grievances. Plotters for disunion avail themselves of the weakness
of the executive to precipitate revolution. South Carolina has
taken the lead. The movement would be utterly insignificant if
confined to that state. She is still in the Union, and neither
the President nor Congress has the power to consent to her withdrawal.
This can only be by a change in the constitution or the acquiescence
of the people of the other states. The defense of the property of
the United States and the collection of the revenues need not cause
the shedding of blood, unless she commences a contest of physical
force. The increase, in one year, of our population is greater
than her entire population, white and black. Either one of several
congressional districts in the west has more white inhabitants than
she has. Her military power is crippled by the preponderance of
her slaves. However brave, and gallant, and spirited her people
may be, and no one disputes these traits, yet it is manifest she
is weak in physical force. This great government might well treat
with indulgence paper secession, or the resolves of her convention
and legislature, without invoking physical force to enforce the
laws among her citizens.

"Without disrespect to South Carolina, it would be easy to show
that Shay's rebellion and the whisky insurrection involved the
government in greater danger than the solitary secession of South
Carolina. But the movement becomes imposing when we are assured
that several powerful states will very soon follow in the lead of
South Carolina; and when we know that other states, still more
powerful, sympathize with the seceding states, to the extent of
opposing, and perhaps resisting, the execution of the laws in the
seceding states.

"In this view of the present condition of public affairs, it becomes
the people of the United States seriously to consider whether the
government shall be arrested, in the execution of its undisputed
powers, by the citizens of one or more states, or whether we shall
test the power of the government to defend itself against dissolution.
Can a separation take place without war? If so, where will be the
line? Who shall possess this magnificent capital, with all its
evidences of progress and civilization? Shall the mouth of the
Mississippi be separated from its sources? Who shall possess the
territories? Suppose these difficulties to be overcome; suppose
that in peace we should huckster and divide up our nationality,
our flag, our history, all the recollections of the past; suppose
all these difficulties overcome, how can two rival republics of
the same race of men, divided only by a line of a river for thousands
of miles, and with all the present difficulties aggravated by
separation, avoid forays, disputes, and war? How can we travel on
our future march of progress in Mexico, or on the high seas, or on
the Pacific slope, without collision? It is impossible. To
peacefully accomplish such results we must change the nature of
man. Disunion is war! God knows, I do not threaten it, for I will
seek to prevent it in every way possible. I speak but the logic
of facts, which we should not conceal from each other. It is either
hostilities between the government and the seceding states; or, if
separation is yielded peaceably, it is a war of factions--a rivalry
of insignificant communities, hating each other, and contemned by
the civilized world. If war results, what a war it will be!
Contemplate the north and south, in hostile array against each
other. If these sections do not know each other _now_ they will
_then_.

"We are a nation of miliary men, naturally turbulent because we
are free, accustomed to arms, ingenious, energetic, brave and
strong. The same qualities that have enabled a single generation
of men to develop the resources of a continent, would enable us to
destroy more rapidly than we have constructed. It is idle for
individuals of either section to suppose themselves superior in
military power. The French and English tried that question for a
thousand years. We ought to know it now. The result of the contest
would not depend upon the first blow of the first year, but blood
shed in civil war will yield its baleful fruit for generations.

"How can we avert a calamity at which humanity and civilization
shudder? I know no way but to cling to the government framed by
our fathers, to administer it in a spirit of kindness, but in all
cases, without partiality, to enforce the laws. No state can
release us from the duty of obeying the laws. The ordinance or
act of a state is no defense for treason, nor does it lessen the
moral guilt of that crime. Let us cling to each other in the hope
that our differences will pass away, as they often have in times
past. For the sake of peace, for the love of civil liberty, for
the honor of our name, our race, our religion, let us preserve the
Union, loving it better as the clouds grow darker. I am willing
to unite with any man, whatever may have been his party relations,
whatever may be his views of the existing differences, who is
willing to rely on the constitution, as it is, for his rights; and
who is willing to maintain and defend the Union under all circumstances,
against all enemies, at home or abroad.

"Pardon me, gentlemen, for writing you so fully. I feel restrained,
by the custom of the House of Representatives, from engaging there
in political debate; and yet I feel it is the duty of every citizen
to prepare his countrymen for grave events, that will test the
strength and integrity of the government.

"Believing that our only safety is in a firm enforcement of the
laws, and that Mr. Lincoln will execute that duty without partiality,
I join my hearty congratulation with yours that he is so soon to
be President of the United States. With great respect, I remain,
very truly,

"Your obedient servant,
"John Sherman.
"Messrs. Wm. Reid, D. J. Cochran, L. S. Fletcher, H. E. Wallace,
Chas. O'Neill, _Committee_."

The leading events in the progressive secession may be briefly
stated. The States of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida,
Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia, severally in the order named, adopted ordinances of
secession. Each of them committed acts of war against the United
States. They seized forts, navy yards, arsenals, customhouses,
post offices and other public buildings of the United States.
South Carolina, on the 27th of December, 1860, seized Fort Moultrie
and Castle Pinckney, a light-house tender, and a schooner. On the
31st, she took possession of the United States arsenal, post office,
and customhouse in Charleston, the arsenal containing seventy
thousand stand of arms and other stores. On the 9th of January,
1861, she took possession of the steamer "Marion" at Charleston,
and on that day the "Star of the West" was fired upon.

Georgia, on the second day of January, 1861, took possession of
Forts Pulaski and Jackson and the United States arsenal. On the
12th of January, she took possession of the arsenal at Augusta,
containing howitzers, cannon, muskets and large stores of powder,
ball and grape. On the same day she seized the United States
steamer "Ida." On the 8th of February, she took possession of all
the money received from customs. On the 21st, she seized three
New York vessels at Savannah. Florida, on the 12th of January,
1861, took possession of the navy yards at Forts Barrancas and
McRae; also the Chattahoochie arsenal, containing 800,000 cartridges
of different patterns and 50,000 pounds of gunpowder.

Alabama took possession of Fort Morgan, the Mount Vernon arsenal,
some pieces of cannon, and large amounts of munitions of war. She
took possession also of the revenue cutter "Lewis Cass."

Mississippi, on the 20th of January, seized the fort at Ship Island
and the United States hospital on the Mississippi River.

On the 11th of January, Louisiana took possession of Forts Jackson,
St. Philip, and Pike, and the arsenal at Baton Rouge containing
fifty thousand small arms, twenty heavy pieces of ordnance, three
hundred barrels of powder and other military supplies. On the
28th, she took possession of all commissary and quartermaster stores
in the possession of the United States officials within her borders.
On the first of February, she seized the mint and customhouse
containing $599,303 in gold and silver.

Texas, on the 20th of February, took Forts Chadbourne and Belknap
with all the property of the Overland Mail Company. On the 25th,
General Twiggs, an officer of the army of the United States,
traitorously surrendered all government stores in his command,
estimated at $1,300,000 in value, including money and specie, thirty-
five thousand stand of arms, twenty-six pieces of mountain artillery,
and other military stores.

On the 2nd of March, she seized the revenue cutter "Dodge" and Fort
Brown.

Arkansas seized the arsenal at Little Rock, containing nine thousand
small arms, forty cannon, and a quantity of ammunition.

Virginia, according to the statement of Governor Letcher, would
have seized Fortress Monroe, but that it was firmly held by national
troops.

These were some of the acts of war committed by the seceding states
before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

What was done by the administration of James Buchanan to meet these
acts of war? The answer to this question is a most painful confession
of feebleness, vacillation and dishonor. It was shown conclusively
that Floyd, the Secretary of War, during 1860 transferred from
Springfield and other armories to southern arsenals 65,000 percussion
muskets, 40,000 altered muskets and 10,000 rifles. On the 20th of
October, he ordered 40 columbiads and four 32 pounders to be sent
from the arsenal to the Fort, at Galveston in Texas, the building
of which had hardly been commenced. It was shown by a report of
a committee of the House that the vessels of the United States were
dispersed by the Secretary of the Navy to distant ports, for the
purpose of preventing their use in the defense of the property of
the United States.

The Mobile "Advertiser" said:

"During the past year, 135,430 muskets have been quietly transferred
from the northern arsenal at Springfield alone, to those in the
southern states. We are much obliged to Secretary Floyd for the
foresight he has thus displayed in disarming the north and _equipping
the south for this emergency_."

Jefferson Davis, on January 9, 1860, in introducing into the Senate
a bill to authorize the sale of public arms to the several states
and territories, significantly said: "There are a number of
volunteer companies wanting to purchase arms, but the states have
not a sufficient supply."

This bill was agreed to by the Senate by a party vote, yeas 28,
nays 18. In the House the bill was never reported.

Mr. Buchanan, in his annual message at the beginning of the 2nd
session of the 36th Congress, announced the startling doctrine that
a state could not be coerced by the general government, and said:

"After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion
that no such power has been delegated to Congress nor to any other
department of the federal government. It is manifest, upon an
inspection of the constitution, that this is not among the specific
and enumerated powers granted to Congress; and it is equally apparent
that its exercise is not 'necessary and proper for carrying into
execution' any one of these powers."

Again he says:

"Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that
the power to make war against a state is at variance with the whole
spirit and intent of the constitution. . . .

"The fact is, that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can
never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war.
If it cannot live in the affections of the people it must one day
perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by
conciliation; but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve
it by force."

This doctrine, if acquiesced in, would leave the United States
utterly powerless to preserve its own life, whatever might be the
exigencies, even against the most insignificant state in the Union.
It was manifest that while Buchanan remained President, and Commander-
in-Chief of the army and navy, it was utterly futile to resist the
secession of the least of these states, or even to protect the
public property in them.

On the 4th of December, 1860, the House of Representatives organized
what is known as the "committee of thirty-three," of which Mr.
Corwin, of Ohio, was chairman. So much of the President's message
as related to the perilous condition of the country was referred
to it. Propositions of all kinds were sent to the committee, but
the final result was, as anticipated, a disagreement upon all the
measures proposed.

On the 16th of January, 1861, Mr. Crittenden offered his celebrated
resolutions, proposing certain amendments to the constitution of
the United States, in relation to slavery, but they were rejected
in the Senate and were not acted upon in the House.

A peace conference was held at Washington, at the request of the
legislature of Virginia, composed of delegates from the several
states appointed by the governors thereof. John Tyler was president
and Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, was one of the most active and influential
members of the conference. It sat during nearly all the month of
February and recommended seven articles of amendment to the
constitution. These propositions were adopted by the conference
and reported to the Senate on the 2nd of March, and were rejected
by a vote of 3 yeas and 34 nays. Subsequently they were again
offered by Mr. Crittenden and rejected by a vote of 7 yeas and 28
nays. They were presented to the House on the 1st of March, 1861,
and were there rejected.

A Senate committee of 13 was organized on the 18th of December,
1860, to consider the condition of the country, but its report was
disagreed to by the Senate. Many other propositions of adjustment
were made both in the Senate and House, but none of them were agreed
to. Not only were no measures adopted to prevent secession, but
it was proposed by Mr. Mason, that, to avoid the possibility of a
conflict between the forces of the army and navy and of the seceding
states, all the laws providing for the use of the army in aid of
the civil authorities in executing the laws of the United States,
should be suspended and made inoperative in those states. These
were the laws passed during the term of President Jackson and, at
his earnest request, to enable the government to enforce the laws
of the United States against the opposition of the State of South
Carolina. It was a striking presentation of the difference between
General Jackson and James Buchanan.

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, proposed to retrocede to the seceding
states, the property of the United States. The last act of Jefferson
Davis was to offer a joint resolution providing:

"That upon the application of a state, either through a convention
or legislature thereof, asking that the federal forces of the army
and navy may be withdrawn from its limits, the President of the
United States shall order the withdrawal of the federal garrisons,
and take the needful security for the safety of the public property
which may remain in said state.

"That whenever a state convention, duly and lawfully assembled,
shall enact that the safety of the state requires it to keep troops
and ships of war, the President of the United States be, and he is
hereby authorized and directed to recognize the exercise of that
power by the state, and by proclamation to give notice of the fact
for the information and government of all parties concerned."

On the 11th of February, 1861, Burton Craige, of North Carolina,
offered a joint resolution:

"That the President of the United States be, and is hereby required
to acknowledge the independence of said government (The Confederacy
of the United States South) as soon as he is informed officially
of its establishment; and that he receive such envoy, ambassador,
or commissioner as may or shall be appointed by said government
for the purpose of amicably adjusting the matters in dispute with
said government."

Such was the hopeless condition of the United States in the last
months of the administration of James Buchanan. It would appear
from the resolute action of the seceding states, their union as
Confederate States, the hopeless imbecility of the President of
the United States, the presence of the seceded traitors in both
houses of Congress, the weakness and feebleness of that body, left
but little hope for the preservation of the Union. The future
presaged a civil war, and opened up a dark prospect, a discouraging
example for future republics, but the 4th of March came, and a new
life was infused into the national councils.

The second session of the 36th Congress commenced on the 3rd day
of December. The message of the President I have already commented
upon. It was regarded as a feeble wail of despair, an absolute
abnegation of the powers of the general government. No expectation
or hope was indulged in that the President would do any act or say
any word to arrest or delay the flagrant treason, then being
committed in South Carolina. "After me the deluge" was written on
every page of his message. Our only hope was in the good time
coming, when, at the close of his term, he would retire to private
life.

Having charge of the appropriation bills as chairman of the committee
of ways and means, of the 36th Congress, I was only solicitous to
secure the passage of these bills, so that the new administration
would have money to meet the current wants of the government.
Within a few days, all these bills were reported, and were pushed
forward and passed at an early period of the session.,

I purposely postpone consideration of the financial condition of
the United States during this session so as to consider it in
connection with the measures adopted at the called session in July,
1861.

The House of Representatives was almost constantly occupied in
considering and rejecting the many schemes "to save the country,"
already referred to. The only political speech I made was in reply
to an ingenious speech of my colleague, George H. Pendleton, made
on the 18th day of January, 1861. I replied on the same day without
preparation, but with a lively appreciation of the dangers before
us. As I believe that it states fully and fairly the then condition
of the impending revolution, I insert extracts from it here:

"I have listened with respect and attention to all that has fallen
from my colleague. Much that he has said I approve; but it seems
to me that instead of appealing to this side of the House for
conciliation, kindness and forbearance, he should appeal to those
around him, who alone, provoke the excitement now prevailing in
this country.

"He says the army should not be used to coerce a state. If by this
he means that the army should not be used to conquer a state, to
compel her to be represented, to maintain the courts or post offices
within her limits, to burn her cities or desolate her fields, he
is entirely correct. I do not believe any administration will
pursue such a policy. But, sir, we have a government, a great
government, to maintain. It is supreme within the powers delegated
to it; and it is provided with ample authority to protect itself
against foreign or domestic enemies. It has the exclusive right
to collect duties on imports. It is the exclusive owners of forts,
arsenals, navy yards, vessels, and munitions of war. It has a
flag, the symbol of its nationality, the emblem of its power and
determination, to protect all those who may of right gather under
its folds. It is our duty, as the representatives of this government,
to maintain and defend it in the exercise of its just powers. Has
it trespassed upon the rights of a single individual? Does any
citizen of South Carolina allege that this government has done him
wrong? No man can say that. The government for years has been in
the hands of the Democratic party, whose power and patronage have
been controlled chiefly by southern citizens; and now, when the
Republican party is about to assume the reins, these citizens seek
to subvert it. They organize revolution under the name of
secession.

"What have they done? The State of South Carolina has seized the
customhouse in the city of Charleston, has closed that port, and
prevented the United States from the exercise of their conceded
exclusive power of collecting the revenue from imports. It has
taken, by force, money from the treasury of the United States, and
applied it to its own use. It has seized the arms and munitions of
war of the United States deposited in arsenals within the conceded
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and turned them against
the army of the United States. It has seized a loyal citizen of
the United States engaged in the discharge of his duty, imprisoned
him, and threatened his life, for the exercise of a plain constitutional
duty, charging him with treason against the State of South Carolina.
It has taken citizens of different states rightfully and peacefully
attending to their business, insulted them, inflicted the most
degrading indignities upon them, and then forcibly expelled them.
It has raised a military force of artillery, cavalry, and infantry,
with the avowed purpose of expelling, or, to use their own chosen
word, coercing, the United States from the forts, arsenals, and
other property of the United States. When Major Anderson removed
from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, it seized Fort Moultrie, Fort
Pinckney, and other property of the United States.

"More recently they fired upon a vessel in the employ of the United
States, conveying reinforcements and provisions to our troops. In
this act of war, they used the cannon and munitions of war paid
for out of our treasury. Forts ceded by the State of South Carolina
to the United States were used to expel a vessel of the United
States in the pursuit of its lawful commerce. WHen the 'star-spangled
banner' was hoisted to her mast-head, as a sign of nationality,
appealing to all the patriotic recollections which cluster around
it--your flag, my flag, the flag of Virginia, of Ohio, of Kentucky,
of Massachusetts, the flag of every state and of the whole Union,
the rustle of whose folds has so often excited the pride and
patriotic ardor of Americans in every part of the habitable globe
--that flag, invoked for the protection of an unarmed vessel,
carrying provisions to our own troops, was fired upon and dishonored.
An act of war by citizens of the United States, and therefore an
act of treason, was applauded by officers and citizens of that
state, and perhaps by those of other states. It was not an act of
war against you and me merely, but against every loyal and patriotic
citizen of this great republic. Up to that moment we had done
nothing. This government had been more forbearing, more quiet,
more complacent, under this series of offenses, than any government
instituted since the foundation of governments.

"And now, Mr. chairman, the same lawless violence is breaking out
in other parts of the country. Forts, arsenals, navy yards, and
vessels of war, intrusted without defense to the patriotism of the
people, have, upon one pretext or another, been seized, and are
now held by lawless force. Upon the recommendation of Members of
Congress, Fort Pulaski was seized by troops, under an order from
the Governor of Georgia. I suppose there is not a Member upon the
opposite side who will declare that it would be given up peacefully
to the troops of the United States if it were demanded by our
national authorities. More recently still, the navy yard at
Pensacola was taken by an armed force, under the order of the
Governor of Florida. I have here a telegraphic dispatch sent to
this government:

'_January 12, 1861_.--Commissioners appointed by the Governor of
Florida with a regiment of armed men at the gate, demanded the
surrender of this navy yard, having previously taken possession of
one of the magazines. I surrendered the place and struck my flag
at half-past one o'clock, p. m., this day.'

"Mr. chairman, suppose Great Britain, suppose France, suppose all
the powers of the world combined, had thus outraged the flag of
the United States; would not every one of us have demanded men and
money to wipe out the indignity, and to repel further like assaults,
at whatever hand? Yet, sir, the Governor of Florida, before the
State of Florida had seceded, goes with an armed force, seizes upon
our property, and turns the guns of the people of the United States
against the army and the navy of the United States. I am also told
--with what truth I do not know--that cannon are planted upon the
banks of the Mississippi River, at or near the city of Vicksburg,
in the State of Mississippi, and that our steamboats are now
compelled to land there and to give an account of themselves. We
do not know at what moment they may be subject to tribute and
seizure. To whom? To the State of Mississippi? I agree with all
my colleagues from the State of Ohio, from both sides of the House,
that there is one thing immutable--a law that is a higher law. It
is, that the Mississippi River, gathering all the rivulets of the
northwest into one current, must be permitted to float our commerce,
uninterrupted and untrammeled, to the sea, or thousands of men will
float down upon its waters and make it free.

"No one doubts, I suppose, that the forts at the mouth of the
Mississippi are in the possession, not of the troops of the United
States, but troops that will resist the troops of the United States.
There is no doubt that Baton Rouge has been seized; no doubt, sir,
that act after act of war has been repeated.

"I ask you, as the representative of a brave people, what shall we
do? The question is not, shall we coerce a state? but shall we
not defend the property of the United States against all enemies,
at home and abroad, here or wherever the flag of our country floats?
Must this government submit to insult and indignity? Must it
surrender its property, its flag, its nationality? Do you, gentlemen
from Virginia, whose great statesman had so large a share in laying
the foundations of our government, desire to see it thus dishonored?
Are you ready to join excited men, who will not listen to reason;
who even spurn your patriotism as timidity; who reject your counsels,
and who would drag you as unwilling victims at the heel of their
car of juggernaut, crushing under its weight all hope of civil
liberty for ages to come? Are you aroused into madness by political
defeat?

"Sir, it was but the other day that I was told by a distinguished
citizen of an absolute monarchy--and the remark made a deep impression
on my mind--that he deplored the events now transacting around us;
that he deplored what he considered the inevitable fall of this
republic, but, said he, one good will result from it; it will stop
forever the struggle for free institutions in Europe; it will
establish upon a secure basis the existing governments of the Old
World. I felt that the remark was true. If this government cannot
survive a constitutional election; if it cannot defend its property
and protect our flag; if this government crumbles before the first
sign of disaffection, what hope is there for free institutions in
countries where kings and nobles and marshals and hereditary
institutions and laws of primogeniture have existed for ages? Sir,
when the masses of any people, inspired by the love of country,
have demanded in modern times the right of self-government, they
have been pointed to France with its revolution of 1798, to South
America, where changing republics rise and disappear so rapidly
that not ten men in this House can tell me their names, and also
to Mexico. God forbid that the despots of the Old World should
ever adorn their infernal logic by pointing to a disrupted Union
here! It is said, with a poet's license, that--

'Freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell.'

"But, sir, freedom will die with the fall of this republic, and
the survivors of the calamity will find springing into existence
military despotisms north, south, east and west. Instead of two
divisions, there will be many divisions. The condition of this
country will be worse than that of Mexico, because we are a braver,
a more powerful, people, who will fight each other with greater
tenacity. If this republic is dissolved, the man now lives who
will be the Napoleon of some section thereof. All history teaches
us that whenever a free government is disrupted a military despotism
of force is substituted for the will of the people; and we have no
right to suppose that our country will be an exception to the
general rule.

"I appeal to the Representatives of the border states to arrest
the progress of this storm for a little time, at least. Let us
see whether there is any hope for peace and conciliation. If there
is not, then, if we cannot agree, let us fight; but if we can agree,
let us do it like men, and not be hurried off by wild and insane
feelings of rage and disappointment, by the weakest state in this
confederacy. Sirs, if you do calm this storm, peace will again
smile upon our country. If you do not, I see nothing but civil
war before us. My colleague may paint in beautiful language the
blessings of peace; and cry 'peace! peace!' when there is no peace;
but, Mr. chairman, you and I see already rising in the west, where
military feeling is so rife, a spirit which will not brook much
longer the insults already cast upon the flag of our country. I
do not threaten, for I dread--nor for you or me, or the Members of
this House, for I suppose we have the ordinary courage of our race,
and we are but atoms in the storm--but thousands and millions of
men, like us, will regret the day when this government was hurried
into revolution, without opportunity for parley or delay.

"If your people will not aid the government in maintaining the
public property in the seceding states, then we must do it in spite
of you, or perish in the attempt. We must not allow the government
to crumble at our feet. You can arrest this movement, and you
alone can do it. I ask you, gentlemen from Virginia and the south,
does not your blood boil with indignation when you read of the
surrender of our forts and the dishonor of our flag? Are they not
yours as well as mine? Has the feeling of sectionalism become
stronger than love of country? I ask if the same patriotism which
brought your fathers and mine into common battlefields, amid all
the storms of the Revolution, does not now rebel when you are forced
into a civil war by the madness of a few men in the southern states?
Sir, I do not believe it. For the moment, under the smart of
imaginary wrongs, under the disappointment of political defeat,
your people may be hurried into acts of madness; but when returning
reason comes, woe be to them who have led them astray! Then a
single wave of the star-spangled banner will silence the miserable
party cries with which you have misled them.

"Let us not deceive ourselves with the idea that this government
can be broken up on Mason and Dixon's line, or upon any other line,
without involving us in all we dread. There is no man, with a head
to reason and a heart to feel, who does not shudder at the idea of
civil war. Do you suppose that this government can be divided into
two, according to the plan of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Garnett), with this capitol, with the mouth of the Mississippi,
with the territories, and a thousand things that unite us, without
provoking civil war? Why, sir, we may do all we can to prevent
it; we may throw ourselves into the breach; we may stand up and
yield everything, or cringe down and yield everything; but I tell
you that will not stop the surging waves. If this government is
divided, though we may agree to separate in peace--though every
man here may sign the bond--we know that events hurriedly running
forward will bring these two sections in hostile array against each
other; and then, what a war is there, my countrymen! I know that
your southern people are brave, spirited, active, quick; no man
doubts that; but if you have made any misapprehension about the
northern people--if you suppose that, because they are cold, because
they are not fired by your hot blood, they will not perform their
duty everywhere, you are very much mistaken. We are the equals of
each other; we are of the same blood, the same parentage, the same
character; your warm sun has quickened your blood, but our cold
climate has steadied our intellects and braced our energies.

"I again repeat, Mr. chairman, that we should not allow ourselves
to be deceived by words. The question is not whether the United
States will coerce a state, but whether a state shall coerce the
government; whether this noble fabric, devised by our fathers,
shall fall without a blow. I appeal to you again; I appeal to the
Representatives of all the states, whether we shall allow Fort
Sumter, the only place where our flag floats in the harbor of
Charleston, to be surrendered at discretion.

"For one, I say, NEVER! NEVER! Even if to-morrow I should vote to
give South Carolina license to leave the confederacy, if I had the
power, yet, while that flag floats, it is the bounden and sacred
duty of this government to protect it against all enemies, and at
all hazards. I had fondly hoped, while we disagreed, and while I
knew that our disagreement was marked and decided, that you,
gentlemen of the south, would yourselves take the lead in the
defense of our property and our honor; therefore I sat silent. I
had hoped that, while we were discussing, you would insist upon
the protection of the property of the United States, and that our
flag should not be dishonored until we separated, in peace or in
war.

"I was much struck by a remark made the other day by the honorable
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis), that if we could not agree
with each other, we ought to separate in peace--that we should take
this old flag, and fold it away, and keep it as a much-loved memento
for us all. But, sir, we cannot do that now. It has been lowered
and tarnished, and we all know and feel it.

"I was surprised that my colleague (Mr. Pendleton) did not vote
for the resolution offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, in
regard to Major Anderson. I hoped that the Ohio delegation would
unite in favor of the resolution. I was still more surprised,
allow me to say to the Representatives of Kentucky, that when their
own gallant son had but performed his bounden duty they should have
refused to vote to sustain him in his removal from Fort Moultrie
to the strongest point in his command.

"The resolution simply expressed a desire to enforce the laws and
to preserve the Union--no more. I am willing to stand on this
platform. I can join heartily with all those who made that pledge,
whatever else they may think or believe about the questions that
divide our people. If we can stand by each other, if our constituents
will stand by us in that emphatic declaration, I do believe the
good ship that has borne us thus far on a prosperous voyage will
outlive the storm. But, sir, if we yield too far to the fury of
the waves; if we now surrender, without resistance, the forts,
arsenals, dock-yards, and other property of the government, we only
demonstrate that we are not fit for the duties assigned us; and,
if our names survive our times, they will only be recorded as those
of a degenerate race, who had not the manhood to preserve what
their fathers won.

"Gentlemen cannot come here and say, 'We demand this; or, we demand
that; stand and deliver.' That is the language of the highwayman.
This is a great tribunal, where men reason and judge and weigh and
doubt and hesitate and talk--and we have a good deal of that. No
section and no state can, because the presidential election has
gone against it, say, 'We will have this change in the constitution,
or we will fire upon your flag; we will have that change in the
constitution, or we will seize upon your forts.' That is not the
principle upon which this government was founded. Mr. Jefferson,
when elected President in 1801, declared the true principle. He
said it was the duty of all good citizens to obey the constitution;
to submit to a constitutional election; and he congratulated the
country that the Federalists were willing to give the Democrats a
fair trial. . . .

"Under the grave responsibility upon which we are acting, I feel
it to be my duty to you, my fellow Members, and to my countrymen,
north and south, to say frankly, that, in voting for this army
bill, I vote with the expectation that the army will be used in
protecting the acknowledged property of the United States, in
recovering that which has been unlawfully taken, and in maintaining
the Union.

"It may be said that the gravity of the events that surround us
demands a greater force than is provided by this bill. The regular
army is a mere skeleton. The present force will scarcely defend
our frontier from Indian incursions; but it forms a nucleus capable
of any re-enforcement demanded by the exigencies of the times. I
do not contemplate, in any event, hostile invasions of the soil of
any state, unless demanded for the defense of the acknowledged
property of the United States. It is the duty of the government
to suppress insurrection in a state; but in this event the military
power can only be used in strict subordination to the civil authority.
If the civil authority refuse to call for such aid, or suppress
the courts, the military power cannot interfere. If the courts
are closed, the duties of postmasters must necessarily be suspended.
No doubt this measure will soon be adopted. If the revenue is
refused, or cannot be collected, then goods cannot be imported,
and ports must be closed. If a state shall, in violation of the
constitution, undertake to regulate commerce, then her commerce
must be suspended.

"No doubt other measures can be devised that will preserve the
peace of the country until the people of the states may confer in
a constitutional way, unless one or more of the seceding states
shall, by military force, shed the blood of their fellow-citizens,
or refuse to surrender to the proper authorities the acknowledged
property of the government. I know that all the gentlemen around
me must deeply deplore a civil war, especially if that war shall
involve the fate of this capital and the disruption of the government.
No man can contemplate the inevitable results of such a war without
the most serious desire to avert it. It is our duty as Members of
the House, it is the duty of Congress, I am happy to say it is now
the acknowledged duty of the President, as it is of the incoming
administration, to use forbearance to the extremest point. Let
not physical force be arrayed in civil war until the last hope of
peace and conciliation has been exhausted; then let each branch of
the government, acting in concert with each other, perform its
respective duties, though the heavens fall!

"What can we do for peace and conciliation? I anticipate at once
your reply; you say, 'Let us compromise; yield what we demand of
you. Let us compromise, and we will preserve the Union; civil war
will be averted.' This, I know, is the earnest appeal of patriotic
men in the southern states, who would gladly give their lives to
stop the march of treason in those states. How useless it is to
talk about compromises, concessions, conciliation, adjustment,
when, if everything was conceded, the integrity of the government
may be broken up by a majority of a single state. If we hold this
Union, and all the rights it secures to us, and all the hopes we
have upon it, upon the whim or will of a single state, then, indeed,
it is the weakest government ever devised by man. If a single
state may destroy our nationality, then, indeed, is the wisdom of
our fathers the wisdom of babes. We can no longer talk about the
weakness of the old confederacy or anarchy of Mexico.

"Sir, we owe it as the most sacred of duties to put down this
heresy. If it now fortifies itself by sectional animosities, if
it rises from party rebellion to sectional and civil war, still it
must, and will, be met with determined resistance. Upon this point,
I am glad to say, the people of Ohio are united, if the unanimous
voice of the legislature of that state is a true indication.

"Again, I say, what is the use of concession, conciliation, or
compromise, when, if we yield everything you demand, you cannot
say to us 'It will save us from disunion or war?' Are we not in
danger of quarreling about terms of conciliation, when traitors
are overthrowing the government we wish to preserve? Are we not
dividing ourselves for their benefit? What will satisfy South
Carolina and Florida and Mississippi and Alabama? They want
disunion, and not compromise or conciliation. The Democratic party
would not agree to their terms, and they seceded from the Charleston
and Baltimore conventions. Is it likely that we will yield what
our northern Democratic friends could not yield? Can you expect
this 'black Republican party,' as you please to call it, will yield
to you what your northern Democratic associates dare not? It is
utterly idle to talk about any such terms of concession. I do not
believe any terms which our people could yield, and preserve their
own self-respect, would satisfy South Carolina, Florida, or some
of the other southern states, because they are bent upon disunion.

"We know that gentlemen who represented South Carolina on this
floor, if the newspapers correctly report them, declared in the
Charleston convention, held recently, that they had brooded over
this matter for long years, and that they only sought an opportunity,
an occasion, or, if I may use the word, a pretext, for the secession
of the State of South Carolina and the disruption of the Union.
Some stated that they had brooded over disunion and prayed for its
consummation since boyhood. We know, sir, that the seeds of this
revolution were sowed in the time of Andrew Jackson and John C.
Calhoun. We know that in 1832 the doctrines upon which this
revolution is going forward were initiated, and from that time the
young men of South Carolina have been educated in the school of
disunion. They have cherished these doctrines in their innermost
hearts. All the concessions we might make, all the compromises we
could agree to, all the offerings of peace we could make for the
salvation of the Union, would not be able to secure the desired
end, if South Carolina could prevent it.

"Again, we might, on this side, properly say we have done nothing
to impair any constitutional right. We propose to do nothing to
infringe yours. We have succeeded in a constitutional way in
electing a President of the United States. All we ask is that he
may be inaugurated in peace, and may develop his policy in the
usual manner. We can add that this is the demand of all our people,
not only of those who voted for Mr. Lincoln, but of every loyal
citizen. You tell us your people are excited and alarmed, that
they apprehend that an overwhelming anti-slavery element is about
to be inaugurated in power that will, directly or indirectly, affect
the constitutional rights of your states.

"Perhaps you will confess, what you know to be true, that for
political purposes, in the struggle of partisans for ascendancy,
both parties in the south have united to fire the southern mind
against the hated 'black Republicans' of the north. Speeches have
been distorted, single sentences have been torn from their context
and made to deceive and mislead. Garrison, Wendell Phillips,
Seward, Lincoln and latterly Douglas, have been mixed in a hated
conglomerate, and used to excite your people. A philosophic opinion
of Mr. Seward has been construed as the statement of a settled
purpose to overthrow slavery in the states, although in the very
paragraph itself all idea of interference by the people of the free
states with slavery in the slave states is expressly excluded. It
is but a year since you inflamed your constituents because some of
your fellow-Members recommended, without reading, a book written
by one of your own citizens, containing obnoxious opinions about
slavery. Nearly all of you gave birth, vitality, and victory to
the Republican party, by adopting a policy you now join in condemning.
Some of you broke down the only political organization that could
compete with us, and thus gave us an easy victory. You have all
contributed, more or less, in perverting the public mind as to our
principles and purposes. And I tell you, gentlemen, that when you
call the Republican party an abolition party, in the sense you use
the word abolition; when you quote from Garrison, Wendell Phillips,
and from like extreme men, and circulate their opinions all over
the south, telling the people of your states that the people of
the north have been educated in these sentiments, profess them,
and are going to put down slavery in the states, you do a great
injustice to the intelligence and the safety of your people.

"I have heard here, over and over again, this course of agitation,
pursued only the other day in the Senate of the United States.
Mr. Douglas quoted from one of the speeches of Mr. Lincoln that
passage so familiar to us all, that, in his opinion, that states
would at some day be all slave or all free. Sir, in this time when
the people of the southern states are in a storm of excitement,
that speech of the Senator from Illinois is sent over those states
as tending to show that Mr. Lincoln would in some way interfere
with slavery in the states. Mr. Lincoln answered this inference
with a solemn disclaimer over and over again on the same 'stump'
with that Senator. I ask whether it was just to quote the opinion
without giving the disclaimer? It certainly was not. We might
answer all you say by declaring that the Republican party does not
propose to interfere with your constitutional rights. I have no
doubt that the administration of Mr. Lincoln will carry out the
doctrines of the Chicago platform; but not the platform as you
pervert it. Sir, it will convince the southern people that all
the things said about us are unfounded. What, then, will be the
fate of hundreds of politicians in the southern states who have
stirred their people up to the present intense excitement?

"Yet the baptism of misrepresentation, through which this Republican
party has thus far advanced, does not excuse us from doing all in
our power to produce conciliation, harmony, peace, quiet, a fair
and honest adjustment of all the difficulties that surround us. . . .

"Now, Mr. chairman, I have gone over the whole field. I have given
my views, speaking for no other man, frankly and fearlessly, and
I will stand by them now and in the future. I have given you my
opinion upon all these points. I tell you that this whole controversy
was fought and won by us two years ago, and all you have to do now
is to admit Kansas. That is the only act of power now needed.
There let it stand. Let us live together like a band of brothers.
If we cannot agree with you about slavery, why, you do not agree
with us. I know there has been a great deal of intemperance of
language on this subject; but I ask, if it has been used upon our
side, has it not been used upon yours? If there has been harsh
and violent words used, I have not uttered them that I know of.
If I have, I beg every man's pardon; because I think that violent
language, calculated to stir up excitement and agitation, ought
not be used in a deliberative assembly. I ask you if you have not
sins to repent of, if we have? Let us be at peace. Let us go on
with the administration of the government kindly, harmoniously,
hopefully, trusting in that providence of Almighty God which has
thus far guided and guarded us, until this nation has become a
marvel to the world. Can we not go on in the same way in which we
have gone on in the past? Why not let the Republican administration
be inaugurated in peace and quiet? Try it in the name of God!
Are you cowards, that you would flee from an apprehension? I know
you are not. Stand by the old ship of state! Give the Republican
administration a fair chance. If it does not do right, you will
find thousands--ay, millions--in the northern states who will stand
by you. I believe it will do right. Give it a trial. That is
all we ask, and what we demand at all hazards."

The delegation from Ohio, during this Congress, was regarded as a
very strong one. I do not disparage any by a brief reference to
a few.

Thomas Corwin was, by far, the most distinguished member of the
delegation. I have already referred to his eminence as a popular
orator. His speech against the Mexican War, though unfortunate as
a political event, has always been regarded as one of the most
eloquent ever made in either House of Congress. His speech in
reply to Crary, of Michigan, is still remembered as the best specimen
of humorous satire in our language. He had served in the legislature
of Ohio, as a Member of Congress for ten years, as Governor of
Ohio, as a Member of the Senate, and as Secretary of the Treasury.
After an absence from public life for six years, he was elected a
Member of the 36th Congress. Here he was regarded as the "peacemaker"
of the House. In the contest for speaker, he made a long speech,
in which he exhibited marked ability, humor, pathos and persuasive
eloquence. As chairman of the committee of thirty, he did all that
man could do to quiet the storm, to compromise and soothe the
contending factions, but this was beyond human power. He was re-
elected to the 37th Congress, but in 1861 was appointed minister
to Mexico by Mr. Lincoln. In December, 1865, he attended a party
of his Ohio friends, at which I was present. He was the center of
attraction, and, apparently, in good health and spirits. He was
telling amusing anecdotes of life in Ohio "in the olden times," to
the many friends who gathered around him, when, without warning,
he suffered a stroke of apoplexy and died within two or three days,
leaving behind him none but friends. Tom Corwin, "the wagon-boy,"
had traveled through all the gradations of life, and in every stage
was a kind friend, a loving father, a generous, noble and honest
man.

The life of George H. Pendleton was a striking contrast to that of
Corwin. He was a favorite of fortune. His father was a distinguished
lawyer and a Member of Congress. George had the advantage of a
good education and high social position, a courtly manner, a handsome
person and a good fortune. He served several terms in the House
of Representatives and six years in the Senate. He was the candidate
for Vice President on the Democratic ticket with McClellan, and a
prominent candidate for nomination as President in 1868. He was
minister to Germany during the first term of Cleveland as President.
He died November 24, 1889. My relations with him were always
pleasant.

Samuel S. Cox was an active, industrious and versatile Member of
Congress for more than twenty years. He was born in Ohio, graduated
at Brown University, was admitted to the bar, but, I believe, rarely
practiced his profession. His natural bent was for editorial and
political conflicts, in which most of his life was spent. He was
a good debater, overflowing with humor without sarcasm. In the
campaign of 1860, he and I had a running debate at long range. In
a speech at Columbus, then his residence, I spoke of his erratic
course on the Lecompton bill. He replied at Mansfield with
shrewdness, humor and ability. I reviewed his speech at the same
place, and we kept up a running fire during that canvass, but this
did not disturb our friendly relations. Some years later, he
removed to New York, where he was soon taken into favor, and was
elected several times to Congress. He was the author of several
books of merit, and was the champion of a measure establishing the
life-saving service of the country upon its present footing. He
may be classified as a leading Member of the House of Representatives,
a bright and successful speaker and a copious author. He died
September 10, 1889.

John A. Bingham was regarded, next to Mr. Corwin, as the most
eloquent member of the Ohio delegation, and, perhaps with one or
two exceptions, of the House of Representatives. He studied law
and was admitted to the bar in 1840. He served for sixteen years
in the House of Representatives on the judiciary and other important
committees, and took an active and leading part in all the debates
during this long period. He was a man of genial, pleasing address,
rather too much given to flights of oratory, but always a favorite
with his colleagues and associates. He was subsequently appointed
United States minister to Japan, where he remained for many years.
He still lives at a ripe old age at Cadiz, Ohio.

During the existence of the 36th Congress, I do not recall any
political divisions in the committee of ways and means, unless the
tariff is considered a political measure. It was not so treated
by the committee. The common purpose was to secure sufficient
revenue for the support of the government. The incidental effect
of all duties was to encourage home manufactures, but, as the rule
adopted was applied impartially to all productions, whether of the
farm, mine, or the workshop, there was no controversy except as to
the amount or rate of the duty. The recent dogma that raw materials
should not have the benefit of protection did not enter the mind
of anyone. The necessity of economy limited the amount of
appropriations, but if the war had not changed all conditions, the
revenues accruing would have been sufficient for an economical
administration of the government.

In a retrospect of my six years as a Member of the House of
Representatives, I can see, and will freely admit, that my chief
fault was my intense partisanship. This grew out of a conscientious
feeling that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an act of
dishonor, committed by a dominating party controlled by slaveholders
and yielded to by leading northern Democrats, headed by Douglas,
with a view on his part to promote his intense ambition to be
President of the United States. I felt that this insult to the
north should be resented by the renewed exclusion, by act of
Congress, of slavery north of the line of latitude 36 degrees 30
minutes. This feeling was intensified by my experience in Kansas
during the investigation of its affairs. The recital by the Free
State men of their story, and the appearance and conduct of the
"border ruffians," led me to support extreme measures. The political
feebleness of Mr. Buchanan, and the infamy of the Dred Scott
decision, appeared to me conclusive evidence of the subserviency
of the President and the Supreme Court to the slave power. The
gross injustice to me personally, and the irritating language of
southern Members in the speakership contest, aroused my resentment,
so that in the campaign of 1860 I was ready to meet the threats of
secession with those of open war.

It was unfortunate that the south at this time was largely represented
in Congress by men of the most violent opinions. Such men as Keitt,
Hindman, Barksdale, and Rust, were offensive in their conduct and
language. They were of that class in the south who believed that
the people of the north were tradesmen, hucksters, and the like,
and therefore were cowards; that one southern man was equal in a
fight to four northern men; that slavery was a patent of nobility,
and that the owner of slaves was a lord and master. It is true
that among the southern Members there were gentlemen of a character
quite different. Such men as Letcher, Aiken and Bocock entertained
no such opinions, but were courteous and friendly. But even these
shared in the opinions of their people that, as slavery was recognized
by the constitution, as an institution existing in many of the
states, it should not be excluded from the common territory of the
Union, except by the vote of the people of a territory when assuming
the dignity and power of a state. It would appear that as in 1860
the exclusion of slavery from Kansas was definitely settled by the
people of that state, and that as the only region open to this
controversy was New Mexico, from which slavery was excluded by
natural conditions, there was no reason or ground for an attempt
to disrupt the Union. In fact, this pretense for secession was
abandoned by South Carolina, and the only ground taken for attempting
it was the election of Mr. Lincoln as President of the United
States. If this was conceded to be a just cause for secession,
our government would become a rope of sand; it would be worse than
that of any South American republic, because our country is more
populous, and sections of it would have greater strength of attack
and defense. This pretense for secession would not have been
concurred in by any of the states north of South Carolina, but for
the previous agitation of slavery, which had welded nearly all the
slaveholding states into a compact confederacy. This was done,
not for fear of Lincoln, but to protect the institution of slavery,
threatened by the growing sentiment of mankind. Upon this question
I had been conservative, but I can see now that this contest was
irrepressible, and that I would soon have been in favor of the
gradual abolition of slavery in all the states. This could not
have been effected under our constitution but for the Rebellion,
so that, in truth, South Carolina, unwittingly, led to the only
way by which slavery could be abolished in the present century.

The existence of slavery in a republic founded upon the declaration
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among them are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is an anomaly so pregnant
with evil that it is not strange that while it existed it was the
chief cause of all the serious contentions that threatened the life
of the republic. The framers of the constitution, finding slavery
in existence in nearly all the states, carefully avoided mention
of it in that instrument, but they provided against the importation
of slaves after a brief period, and evidently anticipated the
eventual prohibition of slavery by the voluntary action of the
several states. This process of prohibition occurred until one-
half of the states became free, when causes unforeseen made slavery
so profitable that it dominated in the states where it existed,
and dictated the policy of the United States. The first controversy
about slavery was happily settled by the Missouri Compromise of
1820. But a greater danger arose from the acquisition of territory
from Mexico. This, too, was postponed by the compromise of 1850,
but unhappily, within four years, the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise re-opened the controversy that led to the struggle in
Kansas. Douglas prescribed the doctrine of popular sovereignty.
Davis contended that slaves were property and must be protected by
law like other property. Lincoln declared that "a house divided
against itself cannot stand," that slavery must be lawful or unlawful
in all the states, alike north as well as south. Seward said that
an irrepressible conflict existed between opposing and enduring
forces, that the United States must and would become either entirely
a slaveholding nation or entirely a free labor nation. Kansas
became a free state in spite of Buchanan and then the conflict
commenced. The southern states prepared for secession. Lincoln
became President. The war came by the act of the south and ended
with the destruction of slavery. This succession of events,
following in due order, was the natural sequence of the existence
of slavery in the United States.

"God moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform."

Abraham Lincoln, the President elect, arrived in the city of
Washington on the 23rd day of February, 1861, and, with Mrs. Lincoln,
stopped at Willard's Hotel where I was then living. On the evening
of his arrival I called upon him, and met him for the first time.
When introduced to him, he took my hands in both of his, drew
himself up to his full height, and, looking at me steadily, said:
"You are John Sherman! Well, I am taller than you; let's measure."
Thereupon we stood back to back, and some one present announced
that he was two inches taller than I. This was correct, for he
was 6 feet 3½ inches tall when he stood erect. This singular
introduction was not unusual with him, but if it lacked dignity,
it was an expression of friendliness and so considered by him.
Our brief conversation was cheerful, and my hearty congratulations
for his escape from the Baltimore "roughs" were received with a
laugh.

It was generally understood when Mr. Lincoln arrived that his
cabinet was definitely formed, but rumors soon prevailed that
dissensions existed among its members, that Seward and Chase were
rivals, that neither could act in harmony with the other, and that
both were discontented with their associates. I became satisfied
that these rumors were true. I do not feel at liberty, even at
this late day, to repeat what was said to me by some of the members
selected, but I was convinced that Lincoln had no purpose or desire
to change the cabinet he had selected in Springfield, and that he
regarded their jealousies (if I may use such a word in respect to
the gentlemen so distinguished) as a benefit and not an objection,
as by that means he would control his cabinet rather than be
controlled by it.

Mr. Lincoln delivered his inaugural address from the east steps of
the capitol, on the 4th day of March, 1861. I sat near him and
heard every word. Douglas stood conspicuous behind him and suggesting
many thoughts. I have witnessed many inaugurations, but never one
so impressive as this. The condition of the south already organized
for war, the presence of United States troops with general Scott
in command, the manifest preparation against threatened violence,
the sober and quiet attention to the address, all united to produce
a profound apprehension of evils yet to come. The eloquent peroration
of Mr. Lincoln cannot be too often repeated, and I insert it here:

"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 loth 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."

Salmon P. Chase, then Senator, was appointed Secretary of the
Treasury. I know with what doubt and reluctance he accepted this
office. On the 7th of March his resignation as Senator was
communicated to the Senate. In anticipation of it the legislature
of Ohio was canvassing for his successor. My name was mentioned
with many others. I was in doubt whether I ought to be a candidate,
or even to accept the position if tendered. I had been elected as
a Member of the next Congress and was quite certain of election as
speaker of the House of Representatives. The Republicans had a
decided majority in that body and a feeling was manifest that I
should have, without opposition, the position to which I had been
unjustly deprived by the previous House. This was to me a coveted
honor. I, therefore, did not follow the advice of my friends and
go to Columbus. A ballot was taken in the caucus of Republican
members of the general assembly, and I received a plurality but
not a majority, the votes being scattered among many other candidates
of merit and ability. My name was then withdrawn. Several ballots
were taken on a number of days without result. I was then telegraphed
to come to Columbus. I went and was nominated on the first vote
after my arrival, and promptly elected as Senator, to fill the
vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Chase.

I received many letters of congratulation, among which were two
which I insert:

"Dubuque, March 23, 1861.
"Hon. John Sherman:--Allow me to sincerely congratulate you upon
your signal triumph at Columbus. I can assure you that no recent
event has given me so much sincere gratification as your election,
which I think a most worthy reward to a faithful public servant.
Republics are not so ungrateful as I supposed when I was defeated
for Dist. Atty.

"Sincerely your friend,
"Wm. B. Allison."

"Strafford, April 1, 1861.
"Hon. John Sherman, Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--I congratulate you upon your election to the Senate
of the U. S., but still I regret that you have left the House where
I think you might have rendered more important services to your
country than you will find opportunity to do in the Senate. You
could without doubt, I think, have been Speaker, had you possessed
any ambition for the position. That would have been for two years
only, but it would be at a crisis that will figure in our history.
Then you are greatly needed in economical questions with our party
--many of whom have no just idea of the responsibility of the
Republican party or a Republican Representative. I see no material
worth mentioning for leaders in our House, and though I am glad to
have you suited, I do much regret your translation to the higher
branch. I suppose we may be called back by Seward about the 1st
of June.

"Our tariff bill is unfortunate in being launched at this time, as
it will be made the scape-goat of all difficulties. In fact the
southern Confederacy would have made a lower tariff had we left
the old law in force and precisely the same troubles would have
been presented.

"Yours, very sincerely,
"Justin S. Morrill."

The Senate being then in special session, the oath prescribed by
law was administered to me, and on the 23rd of March, 1861, I took
my seat in that body. I had, however, before my election, witnessed,
with deep humiliation, the Senate debates, feeling that the Republican
Senators were too timid in the steps taken to purge that body of
persons whom I regarded as traitors. I cannot now read the debates
without a feeling of resentment. Breckenridge, Mason, Hunter and
Powell still retained their seats as Senators from Kentucky and
Virginia, and almost daily defended the secession of the southern
states, declaring that the states they represented would do likewise.
These and other declarations I thought should have been promptly
resented by the immediate expulsion of these Senators. Wigfall,
of Texas, though his state had seceded, was permitted to linger in
the Senate and to attend executive sessions, where he was not only
a traitor but a spy. His rude and brutal language and conduct
should have excluded him from the Senate in the early days of the
session, but he was permitted to retire without censure, after a
long debate upon the terms of his proposed expulsion. I took no
part in the debates of that session, which closed March 28, 1861,
five days after my becoming a Member. I remained in Washington
until after the fall of Sumter in April following.

During this period my brother, William Tecumseh, came to Washington
to tender his services in the army in any position where he could
be useful. I had corresponded with him freely in regard to his
remaining in Louisiana, where he was president of the Louisiana
State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy. He had been
embarrassed in his position by my attitude in Congress, and,
especially, by the outcry against me for signing the Helper book.
He was very conservative in his opinions in regard to slavery, and
no doubt felt that I was too aggressive on that subject. In the
summer of 1860 he made his usual visit to Lancaster, and, finding
that I was engaged in the canvass and would on a certain day be at
Coshocton, he determined to go and hear me "to see whether I was
an Abolitionist." He was greatly embarrassed by a memorable speech
made by Mr. Corwin, the principal speaker on that occasion. We
sat upon the stand together, and he very excitedly said: "John,
you must not speak after Corwin." He was evidently impressed with
the eloquence of that orator and did not wish me to speak, lest
the contrast between our speeches would be greatly to my disparagement.
I told him that he need not trouble himself, that I was to speak
in the evening, though I might say a few words at the close of Mr.
Corwin's address. He remained and heard me in the evening, and
concluded on the whole that I was not an Abolitionist.

After the election of Mr. Lincoln I wrote him a letter, which will
speak for itself, as follows:

"Mansfield, Ohio, November 26, 1860.
"My Dear Brother:--Since I received your last letter, I have been
so constantly engaged, first with the election and afterwards in
arranging my business for the winter, that I could not write you.

"The election resulted as I all along supposed. Indeed, the division
of the Democratic party on precisely the same question that separated
the Republican party from the Democratic party made its defeat
certain. The success of the Republicans has saved the country from
a discreditable scramble in the House. The disorders of the last
winter, and the fear of their renewal, have, without doubt, induced
a good many citizens to vote for the Republican ticket. With a
pretty good knowledge of the material of our House, I would far
prefer that any one of the candidates be elected by the people
rather than allow the contest to be determined by Congress. Well,
Lincoln is elected. No doubt, a large portion of the citizens of
Louisiana think this is a calamity. If they believe their own
newspapers, or, what is far worse, the lying organs of the Democratic
party in the free states, they have just cause to think so. But
you were long enough in Ohio, and heard enough of the ideas of the
Republican leaders, to know that the Republican party is not likely
to interfere, directly or indirectly, with slavery in the states
or with the laws relating to slavery; that, so far as the slavery
question is concerned, the contest was for the possession of Kansas
and perhaps New Mexico, and that the chief virtue of the Republican
success was in its condemnation of the narrow sectionalism of
Buchanan's administration and the corruption by which his policy
was attempted to be sustained. Who doubts but that, if Buchanan
had been true to his promises in submitting the controversy in
Kansas to its own people, and had closed it by admitting Kansas as
a free state, that the Democratic party would have retained its
power? It was his infernal policy in that state (I can hardly
think of the mean and bad things he allowed there without swearing)
that drove off Douglas, led to the division of the Democratic party
and the consequent election of Lincoln.

"As a matter of course, I rejoice in the result, for in my judgment
the administration of Lincoln will do much to dissipate the feeling
in the south against the north, by showing what are the real purposes
of the Republican party. In the meantime, it is evident we have
to meet in a serious way the movements of South Carolinian
Disunionists. These men have for years desired this disunion; they
have plotted for it. They drove Buchanan from his Kansas policy;
they got up this new dogma about slave protection, they broke up
the Charleston convention merely to advance secession; they are
now hurrying forward excited men into acts of treason, without
giving time for passion to cool or reason to resume its sway. God
knows what will be the result. If, by a successful revolution,
they can go out of the Union, they establish a principle that will
break the government into fragments. Some local disaffection or
temporary excitement will lead one state after another out of the
Union. We shall have the Mexican Republic over again, with a
fiercer race of men to fight with each other. Secession is
revolution. They seem bent upon attempting it. If so, shall the
government resist? If so, then comes civil war, a fearful subject
for Americans to think of.

"Since the election I have been looking over the field for the
purpose of marking out a course to follow this winter, and I have,
as well as I could, tested my political course in the past. There
has been nothing done by the Republican party but what merits the
cordial approval of my judgment. There have been many things said
and done by the Republican leaders that I utterly detest. Many of
the dogmas of the Democratic party I like, but their conduct in
administering the government, and especially in their treatment of
the slavery question, I detest. I know we shall have trouble this
winter, but I intend to be true to the moderate conservative course
I think I have hitherto undertaken. Whatever may be the consequences,
I will insist on preserving the unity of the states, and all the
states, without exception and without regard to consequences. If
any southern state has really suffered any injury or is deprived
of any right, I will help reduce the injury and secure the right.
These states must not, merely because they are beaten in election,
or have failed in establishing slavery where it was prohibited by
compromise, attempt to break up the government. If they will hold
on a little while, they will find no injury can come to them,
unless, by their repeated misrepresentation of us, they stir up
their slaves to insurrection. I still hope that no state will
follow in the wake of South Carolina; then the weakness of her
position will soon bring her back again or subject her to ridicule
and insignificance.

"It may be supposed by some that the excitement in the south has
produced a corresponding excitement in the north. This is true in
financial matters, especially in the cities. In political circles
it only strengthens the Republican party. Even Democrats of all
shades say, 'The election is against us; we will submit and all
must submit.' Republicans say, 'The policy of the government has
been controlled by the south for years, and we have submitted; now
they must submit.' And why not? What can the Republicans do half
as bad as Pierce and Buchanan have done?

"But enough of this. You luckily are out of politics, and don't
sympathize with my Republicanism, but as we are on the eve of
important events, I write about politics instead of family matters,
of which there is nothing new.

"Affectionately yours,
"John Sherman."

In December I received this letter from him:

"Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy,}
"Alexandria, December 1, 1860. }
"Dear Brother:--. . . The quiet which I thought the usual acquiescence
of the people was merely the prelude to the storm of opinion that
now seems irresistible. Politicians, by heating the prejudices of
the people and running with the current, have succeeded in destroying
the government. It cannot be stopped now, I fear. I was in
Alexandria all day yesterday, and had a full and unreserved
conversation with Dr. S. A. Smith, state senator, who is a man of
education, property, influence, and qualified to judge. He was,
during the canvass, a Breckenridge man, but, though a southerner
in opinion, is really opposed to a dissolution of our government.
He has returned from New Orleans, where he says he was amazed to
see evidences of public sentiment which could not be mistaken.

"The legislature meets December 10, at Baton Rouge. The calling
of a convention forthwith is to be unanimous, the bill for army
and state ditto. The convention will meet in January, and only
two questions will be agitated,--immediate dissolution, a declaration
of state independence, and a general convention of southern states,
with instructions to demand of the northern states to repeal all
laws hostile to slavery and pledges of future good behavior. . . .
When the convention meets in January, as they will assuredly do,
and resolve to secede, or to elect members to a general convention
with instructions inconsistent with the nature of things, I must
quit this place, for it would be neither right for me to stay nor
would the governor be justified in placing me in this position of
trust; for the moment Louisiana assumes a position of hostility,
then this becomes an arsenal and fort. . . .

"Let me hear the moment you think dissolution is inevitable. What
Mississippi and Georgia do, this state will do likewise.

"Affectionately,
"W. T. Sherman."

On the 15th of December I wrote him:

"I am clearly of the opinion that you ought not to remain much
longer at your present post. You will, in all human probability,
be involved in complications from which you cannot escape with
honor. Separated from your family and all your kin, and an object
of suspicion, you will find your position unendurable. A fatal
infatuation seems to have seized the southern mind, during which
any act of madness may be committed. . . . If the sectional
dissensions only rested upon real or alleged grievances, they could
be readily settled, but I fear they are deeper and stronger. You
can now close your connection with the seminary with honor and
credit to yourself, for all who know you speak well of your conduct,
while be remaining you not only involve yourself, but bring trouble
upon those gentlemen who recommended you.

"It is a sad state of affairs, but it is nevertheless true, that
if the conventions of the southern states make anything more than
a paper secession, hostile collisions will occur, and probably a
separation between the free and the slave states. You can judge
whether it is at all probable that the possession of this capital,
the commerce of the Mississippi, the control of the territories,
and the natural rivalry of enraged sections, can be arranged without
war. In that event, you cannot serve in Louisiana against your
family and kin in Ohio. The bare possibility of such a contingency,
it seems to me, renders your duty plain, to make a frank statement
to all the gentlemen connected with you, and with good feeling
close your engagement. If the storm shall blow over, your course
will strengthen you with every man whose good opinion you desire;
if not, you will escape humiliation.

"When you return to Ohio, I will write you freely about your return
to the army, not so difficult a task as you imagine."

General Sherman then wrote me as follows:

"Alexandria, La., December, 1861.
"Events here seem hastening to a conclusion. Doubtless you know
more of the events in Louisiana than I do, as I am in an out-of-
the-way place. But the special session of the legislature was so
unanimous in arming the state and calling a convention that little
doubt remains that Louisiana will, on the 23rd of January, follow
the other seceding states. Governor Moore takes the plain stand
that the state must not submit to a 'black Republican President.'
Men here have ceased to reason; they seem to concede that slavery
is unsafe in a confederacy with northern states, and that now is
the time; no use of longer delay. All concessions, all attempts
to remonstrate, seem at an end.

"A rumor says that Major Anderson, my old captain (brother of
Charles Anderson, now of Texas, formerly of Dayton and Cincinnati,
Larz, William and John, all of Ohio), has spiked the guns of Fort
Moultrie, destroyed it, and taken refuge in Sumter. This is right.
Sumter is in mid-channel, approachable only in boats, whereas
Moultrie is old, weak, and easily approached under cover. If Major
Anderson can hold out till relieved and supported by steam frigates,
South Carolina will find herself unable to control her commerce,
and will feel, for the first time in her existence, that she can't
do as she pleases. . . .

"A telegraph dispatch, addressed to me at Alexandria, could be
mailed at New Orleans, and reach me in three days from Washington."

I wrote him the following letter on the 6th of January, 1861:

"Dear Brother:--. . . I see some signs of hope, but it is probably
a deceptive light. The very moment you feel uncomfortable in your
position in Louisiana, come away. Don't for God's sake subject
yourself to any slur, reproach, or indignity. I have spoken to
General Scott, and he heartily seconds your desire to return to
duty in the army. I am not at all sure but that, if you were here,
you could get a position that would suit you. I see many of your
friends of the army daily.

"As for my views of the present crisis, I could not state them more
fully than I have in the inclosed printed letter. It has been very
generally published and approved in the north, but may not have
reached you, and therefore I send it to you.

"Affectionately your brother,
"John Sherman."

Later he wrote me:

"Alexandria, January 16, 1861.
"My Dear Brother:--I am so much in the woods here that I can't keep
up with the times at all. Indeed, you in Washington hear from New
Orleans two or three days sooner than I do. I was taken aback by
the news that Governor Moore had ordered the forcible seizure of
the Forts Jackson and St. Philip, at or near the mouth of the
Mississippi; also of Forts Pike and Wood, at the outlets of Lakes
Bogue and Pontchartrain. All these are small forts, and have rarely
been occupied by troops. They are designed to cut off approach by
sea to New Orleans, and were taken doubtless to prevent their being
occupied, by order of General Scott. But the taking the arsenal
at Baton Rouge is a different matter. It is merely an assemblage
of store-houses, barracks, and dwelling-houses, designed for the
healthy residence of a garrison, to be thrown into one or the other
of the forts in case of war. The arsenal is one of minor importance,
yet the stores were kept there for the moral effect, and the garrison
was there at the instance of the people of Louisiana. To surround
with the military array, to demand surrender, and enforce the
departure of the garrison, was an act of war. It amounted to a
declaration of war and defiance, and was done by Governor Moore
without the authority of the legislature or convention. Still,
there is but little doubt but that each of these bodies, to assemble
next week, will ratify and approve these violent acts, and it is
idle to discuss the subject now. The people are mad on this
question.

"I had previously notified all that in the event of secession I
should quit. As soon as knowledge of these events reached me, I
went to the vice president, Dr. Smith, in Alexandria, and told him
that I regarded Louisiana as at war against the federal government,
and that I must go. He begged me to wait until some one could be
found to replace me. The supervisors feel the importance of system
and discipline, and seem to think that my departure will endanger
the success of this last effort to build up an educational
establishment. . . . You may assert that in no event will I forego
my allegiance to the United States as long as a single state is
true to the old constitution. . . .

"Yours,
"W. T. Sherman."

And again:

"Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy,}
"Alexandria, January 18, 1861. }
"Dear Brother:--Before receiving yours of the 6th, I had addressed
a letter to Governor Moore at Baton Rouge, of which this is a copy:--

'_Sir:_--As I occupy a quasi military position under the laws of
the state, I deem it proper to acquaint you that I accepted such
position when Louisiana was a state in the union and when the motto
of this seminary was inscribed in marble over the main door: "By
the liberality of the General Government. The Union Esto perpetua."
Recent events foreshadow a great change, and it becomes all men to
choose. If Louisiana withdraw from the federal Union, I prefer to
maintain my allegiance to the old constitution as long as a fragment
of it survives, and my longer stay here would be wrong in every
sense of the word. In that event, I beg that you will send or
appoint some authorized agent to take charge of the arms and
munitions of war here belonging to the state, or advise me what
disposition to make of them. And furthermore, as president of the
board of supervisors, I beg you to take immediate steps to relieve
me as superintendent the moment the state determines to secede;
for on no earthly account will I do any act or think any thought
hostile to, or in defiance of, the United States.

'With respect, etc.,
'W. T. Sherman.'

"I regard the seizure by Governor Moore of the United States arsenal
as the worst act yet committed in the present revolution. I do
think every allowance should be made to southern politicians for
their nervous anxiety about their political powers and the safety
of slaves. I think that the constitution should be liberally
construed in their behalf, but I do regard this civil war as
precipitated with undue rapidity. . . . It is inevitable. All
legislation now would fall powerless on the south. You should not
alienate such states as Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri.
My notice is that this war will ruin all politicians, and that
military leaders will direct the events.

"Yours
"W. T. S."

On the first of February he wrote as follows:

"I have felt the very thoughts you have spoken. It is war to
surround Anderson with batteries, and it is shilly-shally for the
south to cry 'Hands off! No coercion!' It was war and insult to
expel the garrison at Baton Rouge, and Uncle Sam had better cry
'Cave!' or assert his power. Fort Sumter is not material save for
the principle; but Key West and the Tortugas should be held in
force at once, by regulars if possible, if not, by militia. Quick!
They are occupied now, but not in force. While maintaining the
high, strong ground you do, I would not advise you to interpose an
objection to securing concessions to the middle and moderate states,
--Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri. Slavery there is
local, and even if the world were open to them, its extension would
involve no principle. If these states feel the extreme south wrong,
a seeming concession would make them committed. The cotton states
are gone, I suppose. Of course, their commerce will be hampered. . . .

"But of myself. I sent you a copy of my letter to the Governor.
Here is his answer:

'_Dear Sir:_--It is with the deepest regret I acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 18th instant. In the pressure of
official business I can only request you to transfer to Professor
Smith the arms, munitions, and funds in your hands, whenever you
conclude to withdraw from the position you have filled with so much
distinction. You cannot regret more than I do the necessity which
deprives us of your services, and you will bear with you the respect,
confidence, and admiration of all who have been associated with you.

'Very truly, your friend and servant,
'Thos. D. Moore.'

"This is very handsome, and I do regret this political imbroglio.
I do think it was brought about by politicians. The people in the
south are evidently unanimous in the opinion that slavery is
endangered by the current of events, and it is useless to attempt
to alter that opinion. As our government is founded on the will
of the people, when that will is fixed, our government is powerless,
and the only question is whether to let things slide into general
anarchy, or the formation of two or more confederacies which will
be hostile sooner or later. Still, I know that some of the best
men of Louisiana think this change may be effected peacefully.
But even if the southern states be allowed to depart in peace, the
first question will be revenue.

"Now, if the south have free trade, how can you collect revenues
in the eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans to St. Louis,
Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati, and even Pittsburg, would be about
the same as by rail from New York, and importers at New Orleans,
having no duties to pay, would undersell the east if they had to
pay duties. Therefore, if the south make good their confederation
and their plan, the northern confederacy must do likewise or
blockade. Then comes the question of foreign nations. So, look
on it in any view, I see no result but war and consequent changes
in the form of government."

These letters, written at their dates, on the spur of the moment,
present the condition of affairs as viewed by General Sherman and
myself when they occurred.

With the conviction just stated General Sherman came to Washington
about the time of my election to the Senate. He was deeply impressed
with the certainty of war and of its magnitude, and was impelled
by the patriotic sentiment that, as he had been educated at the
expense of the government for military service, it was his duty,
in the then condition of the country, to tender his services. I
therefore escorted him to the White House. His statement of the
interview given in his "Memoirs" is not very full, for, while Mr.
Lincoln did say, in response to his tender, "I guess we will manage
to keep house," he also expressed a hope, which General Sherman
knew to be delusive, that the danger would pass by and that the
Union would be restored by a peaceful compromise. This was,
undoubtedly, the idea then uppermost in the minds of both the
President and Mr. Seward. At this time the public mind in the
north was decidedly in favor of concessions to the south. The
Democrats of the north would have agreed to any proposition to
secure peace and the Union, and the Republicans would have acquiesced
in the Crittenden Compromise, or in any measure approved by Lincoln
and Seward.

The period between the 4th of March and the 12th of April was the
darkest one in the history of the United States. It was a time of
humiliation, timidity and feebleness. Fortunately for the future
of our country the rebels of the south were bent upon disunion;
they were hopeful and confident, and all the signs of the times
indicated their success. They had possession of all the forts of
the south, except Fortress Monroe, Fort Sumter, and two remote
forts in Florida. They had only to wait in patience, and Fort
Sumter would necessarily be abandoned for want of supplies. Fortress
Monroe could not be held much longer by the regular army, weakened
as it was by the desertion of officers and men, and public sentiment
would not justify a call for troops in advance of actual war. The
people of South Carolina were frenzied by their success thus far,
and, impatient of delay, forced an attack on Fort Sumter, then held
by a small garrison under command of Major Robert Anderson. The
first gun fired on the 12th of April, 1861, resounded throughout
the United States and the civilized world, touching an electric
chord in every family in the northern states and changing the whole
current of feeling. From this time forth, among the patriotic
people of the loyal states, there was no thought or talk of
compromise. That this insult to our flag must be punished, "that
the Union must and shall be preserved," were the resolves of millions
of men, without respect to party, who but the day before were eager
for compromise. The cold and cautious men of the north were at
last awakened from their indifference.

The impression made upon my mind by the attack on Fort Sumter is
expressed in a letter I wrote from Washington to my brother, General
Sherman, as he was then called, at midnight of the 12th of April:

"Washington, April 12, 1861.
"Dear Brother:--I was unexpectedly called here soon after receiving
your letter of the 8th, and at midnight write you. The military
excitement here is intense. Since my arrival I have seen several
officers, many citizens, and all the heads of departments except
Blair. There is a fixed determination now to preserve the Union
and enforce the laws at all hazards. Civil war is actually upon
us, and, strange to say, it brings a feeling of relief; the suspense
is over. I have spent much of the day in talking about you. There
is an earnest desire that you go into the war department, but I
said this was impossible. Chase is especially desirous that you
accept, saying that you would be virtually Secretary of War, and
could easily step into any military position that offers.

"It is well for you seriously to consider your conclusion, although
my opinion is that you ought not to accept. You ought to hold
yourself in reserve. If troops are called for, as they surely will
be in a few days, organize a regiment or brigade, either in St.
Louis or Ohio, and you will then get into the army in such a way
as to secure promotion. By all means take advantage of the present
disturbances to get into the army, where you will at once put
yourself in a high position for life. I know that promotion and
every facility for advancement will be cordially extended by the
authorities. You are a favorite in the army and have great strength
in political circles. I urge you to avail yourself of these
favorable circumstances to secure your position for life; for,
after all, your present employment is of uncertain tenure in these
stirring times.

"Let me now record a prediction. Whatever you may think of the
signs of the times, the government will rise from this strife
greater, stronger, and more prosperous than ever. It will display
energy and military power. The men who have confidence in it, and
do their full duty by it, may reap whatever there is of honor and
profit in public life, while those who look on merely as spectators
in the storm will fail to discharge the highest duty of a citizen,
and suffer accordingly in public estimation. . . .

"I write this in great hurry, with numbers around me, and exciting
and important intelligence constantly repeated, even at this hour;
but I am none the less in earnest. I hope to hear that you are on
the high road to the 'General' within thirty days.

"Affectionately your brother,
"John Sherman."

Two days later I wrote him:

"Washington, Sunday, April 14, 1861.
"Dear Brother:--. . . The war has really commenced. You will have
full details of the fall of Sumter. We are on the eve of a terrible
war. Every man will have to choose his position. You fortunately
have a military education, prominence, and character, that will
enable you to play a high part in the tragedy. You can't avoid
taking such a part. Neutrality and indifference are impossible.
If the government is to be maintained, it must be by military power,
and that immediately. You can choose your own place. Some of your
best friends here want you in the war department; Taylor, Shiras,
and a number of others, talk to me so. If you want that place,
with a sure prospect of promotion, you can have it, but you are
not compelled to take it; but it seems to me you will be compelled
to take some position, and that speedily. Can't you come to Ohio
and at once raise a regiment? It will immediately be in service.
The administration intends to stand or fall by the Union, the entire
Union, and the enforcement of the laws. I look for preliminary
defeats, for the rebels have arms, organization, unity; but this
advantage will not last long. The government will maintain itself
or our northern people are the veriest poltroons that ever disgraced
humanity.

"For me, I am for a war that will either establish or overthrow
the government and will purify the atmosphere of political life.
We need such a war, and we have it now. . . .

"Affectionately yours,
"John Sherman."

He wrote in reply:

"The time will come in this country when professional knowledge
will be appreciated, when men that can be trusted will be wanted,
and I will bide my time. I may miss the chance; if so, all right;
but I cannot and will not mix myself in this present call. . . .

"The first movements of the government will fail and the leaders
will be cast aside. A second or third set will rise, and among
them I may be, but at present I will not volunteer as a soldier or
anything else. If Congress meet, or if a national convention be
called, and the regular army be put on a footing with the wants of
the country, if I am offered a place that suits me, I may accept.
But in the present call I will not volunteer."

He criticised the call for 75,000 militia for three months, saying
that the best of men could only be made indifferent soldiers in
three months, and that the best of soldiers could accomplish nothing
in three months in such a country as ours. He therefore would not
volunteer for such a service, but his mind was occupied with military
plans. The correspondence between us shows that he had a better
conception of the magnitude and necessities of the war than civilians
like myself.

He wrote to Mr. Cameron, Secretary of War, from St. Louis, on May
8, 1861:

"I hold myself now, as always, prepared to serve my country in the
capacity for which I was trained. I did not and will not volunteer
for three months, because I cannot throw my family on the cold
support of charity, but for the three years' call made by the
President an officer could prepare his command and do good service.
I will not volunteer, because, rightfully or wrongfully, I feel
myself unwilling to take a mere private's place, and having for
many years lived in California and Louisiana, the men are not well
enough acquainted with me to elect me to my appropriate place.
Should my services be needed, the record or the war department will
enable you to designate the station in which I can render best
service."

When Mr. Lincoln was elected President, there was no general feeling
among the northern people that war would result from his election.
It was not believed, although it had been threatened, that the
southern states would take up arms to resist the accession of a
President not of their choice. The love of Union and the orderly
obedience to constituted authority had been so well established
among our people that, while politicians might threaten, but few
really believed that war, of which they knew nothing, was to come
upon us. The result was that when the southern states, one by one,
seceded, and Fort Sumter was fired upon, and the forts and arsenals
of the south were captured, a new inspiration dawned upon the people
of the north, a determination became general that, cost what it
would, the Union should be preserved to our children and our
children's children. That feeling was not confined to party lines.
I am bound to say that the members of the Democratic party in the
loyal States, in the main, evinced the same patriotic determination
to maintain the cause of the Union, as those of the Republican
party. Their sons and their kindred formed part of every regiment
or force raised in the United States.

At this distance of time from the opening of the Civil War, I have
endeavored to take an impartial retrospect of the causes that led
the south to engage therein. Undoubtedly, the existence of negro
slavery in the south was the governing excitement to war. The
owners of slaves knew that the tenure of such property was feeble.
Besides the danger of escape, there was the growing hostility to
slavery in a preponderance of the people of the United States,
restrained only by its recognition by the constitution. The slave
owners believed that, by secession, they could establish a republic,
founded on slavery, with an ample field in Mexico and Central
America for conquest and expansion. They had cultivated a bitter
sectional enmity, amounting to contempt, for the people of the
north, growing partly out of the subserviency of large portions of
the north to the dictation of the south, but chiefly out of the
wordy violence and disregard of constitutional obligation by the
Abolitionists of the north. They believed in the doctrine of an
irrepressible conflict long before it was announced by Seward.

South Carolina, far in advance of other southern states, led in
promulgating the legal rights of secession, until they came to be
acquiesced in by all these states. They committed themselves to
it in the Charleston convention. Their speakers declared, during
the canvass, that if Lincoln was elected, their states would secede.
When elected, the first gun was fired on Fort Sumter, in South
Carolina, where all the people were determined on war. The struggle
once commenced, the natural sympathy of the southern states was
with South Carolina. The States of Virginia, North Carolina and
Tennessee, where a strong Union sentiment prevailed, hesitated and
delayed, but the young and active spirits were with the south, and
these carried the states named into the general conflict. Once in
the war, there was no way but to fight it out. I have no sympathy
with secession, but I can appreciate the action of those who were
born and reared under the influence of such teachings. Who of the
north can say, that in like conditions, he would not have been a
rebel?

Looking back from my standpoint now, when all the states are re-
united in a stronger Union, when Union and Confederate soldiers
are acting together in both Houses of Congress in legislating for
the common good, when, since 1861, our country has more than doubled
its population and quadrupled its resources, when its institutions
have been harmonized by the abolition of slavery, when the seceding
states are entering into a friendly and hopeful rivalry, in the
development of their great resources, when they have doubled or
trebled their production of cotton, when they are producing the
greater part of their food, when they are developing their manufactures
of iron and steel, and introducing the spindle and loom into the
cities and villages, it seems to me that men of the south surely
will appreciate, if they do not approve, what I said in the Senate
early in the war:

"I would stake the last life, the last dollar, the last man, upon
the prosecution of the war. Indeed, I cannot contemplate the
condition of my country if it shall be dissevered and divided.
Take the loyal states as they now stand and look at the map of the
United States, and regard two hostile confederacies stretching
along for thousands of miles across the continent. Do you not know
that the normal condition of such a state of affairs would be
eternal, everlasting war? Two nations of the same blood, of the
same lineage, of the same spirit, cannot occupy the same continent,
much less standing side by side as rival nations, dividing rivers
and mountains for their boundary. No, Mr. president, rather than
allow this war to terminate except upon the restoration of the
Union intact in all its breadth and length, I would sacrifice the
last man and see the country itself submerged.

"Rather than yield to traitors or the intervention of foreign
powers, rather than bequeath to the next generation a broken Union,
and an interminable civil war, I would light the torch of fanaticism
and destroy all that the labor of two generations has accumulated.
Better a desert and universal poverty than disunion; better the
war of the French Revolution than an oligarchy founded upon the
labor of slaves. But, sir, there is no need of this. The resources,
wealth, and labor of twenty millions of freemen are amply sufficient
to meet not only the physical, but financial, difficulties of the
war. Thank God! the test to which all nations in the course of
their history are subjected, is applied to us when we have a
insignificant national debt; when our resources were never more
manifest; when the loyal states are so throughly united; when our
people are filled with a generous enthusiasm that will make the
loss of life and burden of taxation easy to bear. If we conquer
a peace by preserving the Union, the constitution, our nationality,
all our ample territories, the rebound of prosperity in this country
will enable a single generation easily to pay the national debt,
even if the war is protracted until desolation is written upon
every rebel hearthstone."

This, I believe, expressed the spirit and determination of the
loyal states of the north, at the beginning of the war. With
opinions so widely divergent in the two sections, and with a fixed
purpose of each to stand by them, there was no way that poor frail
human nature could devise to decide the controversy except to fight.

From the graves of the dead, who fought on opposite sides for their
country of their state, there has been a resurrection, honorable
to both sections, a Union stronger, more united and glorious than
the Union established by our fathers, and with a rebound of prosperity
greater than we could conceive of in 1862. This war, though fearful
in the sacrifice of property and life, has resulted in a better
understanding among the people of both sections. Each has for the
other a higher respect and regard. I sincerely hope and believe
in the good time coming when sectional lines will not divide
political parties, and common interests and a broader nationality
will have destroyed sectional feeling and jealousy.

As the result of the war we command the respect of all foreign
nations. The United States, as a great republic, has become an
example already followed by European nations. It has at least
secured the respect and forbearance of the ruling class in Great
Britain, who never forgot or forgave the rebellion of our ancestors
against King George III and the parliament of Great Britain. It
has stamped the language, the laws, and the boasted freedom of
Englishmen, upon a population double that in the mother country,
and they, in turn, are taking lessons from us in extending to their
people equality of rights and privileges.

I remained in Washington a few days and then started for my home
at Mansfield, to encourage enlistments, but found that no help was
needed; that companies were enlisted in a day. One was recruited
by William McLaughlin, a gallant soldier in the war in Mexico, a
major general of the Ohio militia who had arrived at the age of
sixty years. He dropped his law books and in twelve hours had a
company of one hundred men ready to move at the command of the
governor. A like patriotism was aroused in all parts of the state,
so that in a very short time two full regiments, numbering 2,000
men, were organized under the command of Colonel A. McD. McCook,
of the United States army, and were on the way to Washington, then
blockaded by the roughs of Baltimore. I met them at Harrisburg
and went with them to Philadelphia. They were camped at Fairmount
Park, and were drilled with other regiments by Colonel Fitz John
Porter, the entire force being under the command of General
Patterson.

When the blockade was opened, by the skill and audacity of General
Benjamin F. Butler, the two Ohio regiments were ordered to Washington
and were there reviewed by President Lincoln, at which time a
pleasant incident occurred which may be worthy of mention. I
accompanied the President to the parade, and passed with him down
the line. He noticed a venerable man with long white hair and
military bearing, standing in position at the head of his company
with arms presented, and inquired his name. I said it was General
McLaughlin and hurriedly told him his history, his politics and
patriotism. The President, as he came opposite him, stopped, and
leaving his party advanced to McLaughlin and extended his hand.
McLaughlin, surprised, had some difficulty in putting his sword
under his left arm. They shook hands and Lincoln thanked him,
saying when men of his age and standing came to the rescue of their
country there could be no doubt of our success. McLaughlin highly
appreciated this compliment. He afterwards enlisted for the war
and died in the service of his country.

These two regiments were subsequently ordered to Harrisburg, to
which place they went, accompanied by me, and there they formed a
part of the command of General Patterson, which was to advance on
Martinsburg and Winchester to aid in a movement of General McDowell
against the enemy at Bull Run. I was serving on the staff of
General Patterson as a volunteer aid without pay. While at Harrisburg
it was suggested to me that ex-President Buchanan, then at his
country home near that city, had expressed a wish to see me. As
our personal relations had always been pleasant, though our political
opinions were widely different, I called upon him, I think with
Colonel Porter, and we were cordially received. I was surprised
at the frankness and apparent sincerity of the opinions expressed
by him in relation to the war. He said he had done all he could
to prevent the war, but now that it was upon us it was the duty of
all patriotic people to make it a success, that he approved all
that had been done by Mr. Lincoln, of whom he spoke in high terms
of praise. I believe he was sincere in the opinions he then
expressed, and know of nothing said or done by him since that time
that could create a doubt of his sincerity.

About the middle of June the command of General Patterson moved
slowly to Chambersburg, where it remained several days under constant
drill, then to Hagerstown and to the village of Williamsport on
the Potomac. While at the latter place General Sherman, who had
been at Washington and received his commission as colonel of the
13th United States infantry, then being recruited, came to visit
me at my lodgings in a country tavern. He then met for the first
time in many years his old classmate, Colonel, afterwards Major-
General, George H. Thomas, who then commanded a regular regiment
of the United States army in the force under the command of General
Patterson. The conversation of these two officers, who were to be
so intimately associated in great events in the future, was very
interesting. They got a big map of the United States, spread it
on the floor, and on their hands and knees discussed the probable
salient strategic places of the war. They singled out Richmond,
Vicksburg, Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga. To me it has
always appeared strange that they were able confidently and correctly
to designate the lines of operations and strategic points of a war
not yet commenced, and more strange still that they should be
leading actors in great battles at the places designated by them
at this country tavern.

The next day General Thomas crossed the river into Virginia, but
the order was soon countermanded, it is said, by General Scott,
and General Thomas returned to the north bank of the Potomac.
General Sherman returned to Washington to drill his raw troops for
the battle of Bull Run. I soon after returned by stage to Frederick,
Maryland, to take my seat in the Senate, Congress having been
convened to meet in special session on the 4th of July.

To understand the measures to be submitted to Congress at its
approaching session, it is necessary to have a clear conception of
the condition of the treasury at that time, and of the established
financial policy of the government immediately before the war.

On the meeting of Congress in December, 1860, the treasury was
empty. There was not enough money even to pay Members of Congress.
The revenues were not sufficient to meet the demands for ordinary
expenditures in time of peace. Since 1857 money had been borrowed
by the sale of bonds and the issue of treasury notes bearing
interest, to meet deficiencies. The public debt had increased
during the administration of Mr. Buchanan about $70,000,000. The
Secretary of the Treasury, Howell Cobb, resigned on the 10th of
December, 1860, declaring that his duty to Georgia required such
action. He had aided in every possible way to cripple the department
while in charge of it.

On the 16th of the same month Congress authorized the issue of
$10,000,000 treasury notes, to bear interest at the lowest rate bid.
On the 18th Secretary Philip F. Thomas, Mr. Cobb's successor,
invited bids for $5,000,000 of treasury notes, part of the $10,000,000
authorized, at the rate of interest offered by the lowest bidder.
Offers at 12 per cent. or less were made for $1,831,000 (the bulk
of the offers being at 12 per cent.) which were accepted and
additional offers were received at interest varying from 15 to 36
per cent., but were refused. Immediately after the decision of
the department on these offers was announced, the assistant treasurer
at New York advised the secretary that certain parties would take
the residue of the $5,000,000 offered, through the Bank of Commerce,
at 12 per cent. This proposition was accepted, on condition that
the amount required to make up the five millions should be deposited
without delay. The whole amount was applied to the payment of
overdue treasury notes and other pressing demands on the treasury.

Secretary Thomas resigned on the 11th of January, 1861, and John
A. Dix became Secretary of the Treasury. In answer to my inquiry
Secretary Dix, in an official letter, dated January 18, 1861, stated
the terms of the sale of treasury notes and that: "The amount
required to meet the outstanding current and accruing dues before
the close of the present fiscal year, besides any additional charges
on the treasury created by legislation during the present session
of Congress, is $44,077,524.63." He recommended a further issue
of $25,000,000 of bonds, and suggested that the states which had
received deposits under the act for the distribution of surplus
revenue in General Jackson's time might be called upon to return
such deposits, and added: "If, instead of calling for these
deposits, it should be deemed advisable to pledge them for the
repayment of any money the government might find it necessary to
borrow, a loan contracted on such a basis of security, superadding
to the plighted faith of the United States that of the individual
states, could hardly fail to be acceptable to capitalists."

In this connection I received the following note:

"Treasury Department, February 6, 1861.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--I send a preamble and resolution, and a letter to your
governor. Will you read and send them at once? You, as a Member
of Congress, can say what I cannot with propriety--that no states
which guarantee bonds of the United States to the amount of the
public moneys in its hands, will be likely to be called on to repay
these moneys--at all events during the twenty years the bonds of
the United States will run.

"I am truly yours,
"John A. Dix.
"P. S.--I cannot put out my notice for a loan till your state acts,
and the time is very short."

Subsequently I received the following letter:

"Treasury Department, February 11, 1861, 7 p. m.
"Dear Sir:--My plan for raising money to meet the outstanding
liabilities of the government, and to enable the incoming administration
to carry on its financial operations without embarrassment till it
shall have time to mature a plan for itself, has met with an obstacle
quite unexpected to me. The committee of ways and means in the
House has declined to report a bill to authorize me to accept the
guaranties voluntarily tendered by the states. Mr. Spaulding, of
New York, and Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, I learn, have objections.
Unless they withdraw their opposition the bill cannot be reported,
and the plan must fail. In that case I shall not deem it proper
to ask for a loan of more than two millions to meet the redemption
of treasury notes, which fall due before the 4th of March. The
state of the country is such that a larger amount thrown on the
market would have a most disastrous influence on the public credit.
I do not think I can borrow two millions at more than 90 per cent.
With a guaranty such as the states have offered, I can get eight
millions at par. The alternative is to authorize me to accept the
guaranty, or leave the treasury with scarcely anything in it and
with outstanding demands, some of them very pressing, of at least
six millions of dollars, for you and your political friends to
provide for. If anything is done it should be to-morrow, as I
ought to publish the notice on Wednesday. Perhaps you can see the
gentlemen referred to to-night and remove their objections. I am,
very truly, your obedient servant,

"John A. Dix."

On the 8th of February, 1861, a bill became a law providing for
the sale of $20,000,000 six per cent. bonds, and these were sold
at the rate of $89.10 for $100, yielding $18,415,000.

Such was the humiliating financial condition of the government of
the United States at the close of Mr. Buchanan's administration.
The expenditures of the government for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1861, were $84,577,258.60, of which $42,064,082.95 was procured
from loans and treasury notes, leaving a balance in the treasury,
at the close of the fiscal year 1861, of $2,395,635.21. This
condition still existed when Congress subsequently met in special
session.

Under the sub-treasury laws then in force, the revenues of the
government were received and held only in the treasury at Washington,
and in sub-treasuries located in a few of the principal cities of
the United States, and could be paid out only upon the draft of
the treasurer of the United States, drawn agreeably to appropriations
made by law. No money could be received into the treasury except
gold and silver coin of the United States, and such treasury notes
as were receivable for bonds. State bank notes were not received
for government dues. This exclusion grew out of the general failure
of banks after the War of 1812 and the panic of 1837, and had caused
the outcry in 1840 of: "Gold for the office holders; rags for the
people." But this policy of the government to receive only its
own coin or notes was sustained by popular opinion.

Silver dollars were not in circulation in 1861. Their issue was
provided for at the beginning of our government, but, as they were
most of the time more valuable than gold coin of like face value,
they were hoarded or exported. Their coinage was suspended by an
order of President Jefferson in 1805, and after this order only
1,300 silver dollars were coined by the United States prior to
1836. From 1836 to 1861 silver dollars were coined in small
quantities, the aggregate being less than one and one-half million,
and they were generally exported. It is probable that when Mr.
Chase became Secretary of the Treasury, there was not in the United
States one thousand silver dollars. In 1853, and prior to that
year, fractional silver coins were worth for bullion more than
their face value, and, therefore, did not circulate. Small change
was scarce, and fractional notes, called "shinplasters," were issued
in many parts of the United States. Mexican coin, debased and
worn, was in circulation. To remedy this evil Congress, by the
act of February 21, 1853, during Pierce's administration, prescribed
the weight of the silver half dollar as 192 grains instead of 206¼
grains, fixed by the coinage act of 1792, and the weight of the
quarter, dime and half dime of silver was reduced in the same
proportion. As these new coins were less valuable than gold at
the rate coined, they were made a legal tender in payment of debts
only for sums not exceeding five dollars. The silver bullion for
these coins was purchased at market value, and the privilege
theretofore granted to a depositor of silver bullion to have it
coined for him was repealed. This law had the beneficial effect
of driving out of circulation "shinplasters" and worn coins, and
supplied in ample quantity new full weight silver coins of handsome
device, the government receiving the profit of the difference
between the market value of the silver and its coinage value.
Under this law the coinage of silver rapidly increased, so that,
within two years after the passage of the act of 1853, more silver
was converted into fractional coins and was in active use among
the people than was contained in all the silver dollars coined
under "free coinage" from the beginning of the government to 1878.

While silver was thus made useful to the fullest extent possible,
it was, from its weight and bulk, inadequate and inconvenient for
the vast demands of the government during the war. Silver and gold
together could not meet this demand. There was known to be in the
country at that time, of specie in circulation, $250,000,000, of
state bank notes, $180,000,000, in all $430,000,000. This amount,
experience had shown, was necessary to meet exchanges in ordinary
times of peace. The disturbance of a civil war would likely
stimulate production for a time and require even more circulation
for current business. This circulation, if drawn from its ordinary
channels, would bring no end of confusion and distress to the
people, and the government, to meet the demand occasioned by carrying
on a war, must look elsewhere for a circulating medium with which
to meet its enormous disbursements which must necessarily be made
almost wholly in actual cash--checks being, from the character of
payments, of little avail.

There was no escaping the issue of credit money in some form, and
of whatever form adopted we knew that gold and silver would soon
disappear under the shadow of war--that they would be hoarded or
exported.

This is the universal result of great wars long protracted. It
was our experience during our Revolution and the War of 1812, and
of Great Britain and all European nations during the Napoleonic
wars. What should take the place of gold and silver for currency?
The only answer was to substitute for the time the notes of the
United States, with all the sanction and credit which the republic
could confer, in the place of coin. We could not, with safety,
accept bank notes issued by state corporations, varying in terms
and credit according to the laws of twenty-three separate states.

To establish a credit of our bonds and notes these measures at
least were necessary: First, to increase largely the revenues from
customs duties to be paid in coin; second, impose all forms of
internal taxes authorized by the constitution; third, create a
national currency redeemable in coin, with no fixed time for
redemption, but made a legal tender for all debts, public and
private, except customs duties; fourth, borrow any moneys needed
on the most favorable terms possible.

On the 4th of July, 1861, the Senate convened in compliance with
the proclamation of the President, from whom it received a message
containing a clear statement of the events that followed his
inaugural address. He described the attack upon Fort Sumter and
said:

"By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances,
that point was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the
government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or
in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort,
sent to that harbor years before for their own protection, and
still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. In
this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country
the distinct issue, 'immediate dissolution or blood.'

"And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States.
It presents to the whole family of man the question, whether a
constitutional republic, or democracy--a government of the people
by the same people--can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity
against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether
discontented individuals, too few in number to control administration
according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretenses
made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily,
without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically
put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask:
'Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?'
'Must a government, of necessity, be too _strong_ for the liberties
of its own people, or too _weak_ to maintain its own existence?'

"So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war
power of the government; and so to resist force employed for its
destruction, by force for its preservation."

He closed with this appeal to the people:

"It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty
of employing the war power in defense of the government forced upon
him. He could but perform this duty, or surrender the existence
of the government. No compromise by public servants could in this
case be a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that
no popular government can long survive a marked precedent that
those who carry an election can only save the government from
immediate destruction by giving up the main point upon which the
people gave the election. The people themselves, and not their
servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions.

"As a private citizen, the Executive could not have consented that
those institutions should perish; much less could he, in betrayal
of so vast and so sacred a trust as these free people have confided
to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink, or even to
count the chances of his own life, in what might follow. In full
view of his great responsibility, he has, so far, done what he has
deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment,
perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and your action
may so accord with him as to assure all faithful citizens who have
been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration
of them, under the constitution and the laws.

"And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure
purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear
and with manly hearts."

Secretary Chase also submitted to Congress, on the first day of
the session, a clear statement of the financial condition of the
United States. He estimated the sum needed for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1862, at $318,519,581. He recommended a large
increase of duties on imports, especially upon such articles as
were then free from duty; also a direct tax of $20,000,000, to be
apportioned among the states according to population; also a tax
on distilled spirits, ale, beer, tobacco, bank notes, and other
articles of domestic production. He also suggested the property
of those engaged in insurrection or in giving aid and comfort to
insurgents should be made to contribute to the expenditures made
necessary by their criminal misconduct. As the receipts from
taxation would still be inadequate to meet the expenses of the war,
he discussed the best mode and form of borrowing money, including
bonds running for a long period with a fixed rate of interest, and
treasury notes bearing interest, payable on demand.

Kansas having recently been admitted into the Union, twenty-three
states were represented in the Senate by forty-six Senators. Eleven
states being in open war against the United States, twenty-one of
their Senators withdrew, but Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, remained
in the Senate, making the total of Senators forty-seven. Some of
these Senators were new in congressional life, and some had been
transferred from the House of Representatives. This transfer of
a Member, though eagerly sought, is not for a time agreeable.
However conspicuous the Member may have been in the House, he must
take his place in the Senate at the bottom of the ladder, and,
according to Senatorial usage, must be reasonably modest in expressing
his opinions. The withdrawal of so many Senators in 1861, however,
gave the new Members better positions than usual. I was assigned
to the committee on finance and on naval affairs.

At that time the committee on finance had charge of all bills
appropriating money for the support of the government, all tax or
revenue bills, all loan and coinage bills, and, generally, all
bills relating to the treasury department, and to the finances of
the government. It was soon manifest that, in view of the war,
and the enormous sums required to conduct it, the task of the
committee would be a Herculean one, and that the labor required
would fall chiefly on Mr. Fessenden, the chairman of the committee,
and, I may with due modesty add, myself. My former position in
the House of Representatives, as chairman of the committee of ways
and means, and my personal association with Secretary Chase, with
whom I was intimate, led to my taking an active part in financial
legislation, which was considered my specialty. Congress, in
substantial conformity with the recommendations of Secretary Chase,
passed the act to authorize a loan which was approved July 17,
1861, providing for the issue of $250,000,000 of bonds running
twenty years, bearing not exceeding seven per cent. interest, or
treasury notes for not less than fifty dollars each, bearing interest
at not less than seven and three-tenths per cent. annually, and
payable in three years, and treasury notes of less denomination
than fifty dollars, not bearing interest and not exceeding $50,000,000,
payable on demand, and commonly known as demand notes. We knew
that this act was entirely inadequate for the great struggle before
us. The problem was not whether we could muster men, but whether
we could raise money. We had to create a system of finance that
would secure an enlarged revenue, unquestioned credit, absolute
certainty of payment of interest in coin, a national currency, and
such economy as is possible during war.

The first feeble attempt to create a national currency was the
issue of demand notes under the act of July 17, 1861, described as
follows:

"And the Secretary of the Treasury may also issue, in exchange for
coin, and as part of the above loan, or may pay for salaries or
other dues from the United States, treasury notes of a less
denomination then fifty dollars, not bearing interest, but payable
on demand by the assistant treasurer of the United States, at
Philadelphia, New York or Boston."

The fatal defect of these notes was the promise to pay on demand.
How could they be paid? In what kind of money? They could not be
paid out of the current revenue, for that was insufficient to meet
current expenses. No reserve was provided for their payment, and,
when paid, there was no authority for their re-issue. All other
forms of securities bore interest, and these notes, not bearing
interest, were convertible into bonds and that was the end of them.
If that was the process why issue them at all? They did not prevent,
but rather expedited, the disappearance of gold. Of American silver
dollars there were none. Even the new fractional silver coins rose
to a premium, and were hoarded or exported. Still, the necessity
existed for some form of paper money that would be available for
circulation. The solution of this problem was properly left to
the next regular session of Congress.

Congress did not act upon the recommendations for internal taxes,
but this subject was also left over until the next session. It
did provide, however, for a large increase of revenue from imports,
mainly upon articles that were then free from taxation and upon
articles regarded as luxuries; also for a direct tax on the states
of $20,000,000, and for a graded tax, from and after the first day
of January, 1862, upon the annual income of every person residing
in the United States, from whatever source the income should be
derived; if such annual income should exceed the sum of $800 a tax
of three per cent. on the excess above that limit. A provision
was made reducing the tax on incomes from treasury notes and other
securities of the United States one-half. The tax on incomes of
citizens of the United States residing abroad was placed at five
per cent., except on that portion derived from interest on treasury
notes and other securities of the United States, which was taxed
one and one-half per cent.

While Congress was engaged in legislative duties in Washington,
the military forces of the Confederate States were gathering in
Virginia, with the principal force at Manassas, about twenty-five
miles southwest of Washington, under the command of General
Beauregard. The Union troops, composed mainly of three months'
volunteers, were in camp occupying the region about Washington on
both banks of the Potomac River, under the immediate command of
General McDowell, but with Lieutenant General Scott in full command.
I frequently visited the Union camps where the soldiers, fresh from
civil life and confident of easy success over the "rebels," were
being drilled. The cry was, "On to Richmond!" They could not
foresee the magnitude of the task they had undertaken. I will not
attempt to narrate the incidents of the Battle of Bull Run. I knew
it was to be fought on Sunday, the 21st of July. Soon after noon
of that day I mounted my horse, and with James Rollins, a Member
of Congress from Missouri, called on General Scott, and inquired
for news of the battle then going on. He told us he was quite sure
of a favorable result, but feared the loss of his gallant officers
as, the troops being raw, it would be necessary for their officers
to lead them. We crossed the pontoon bridge from Georgetown, and
then, passing by Arlington, we went to a new fort on the main road
from the Long Bridge. As we approached we could hear the distant
firing of cannon. We asked a sentinel on duty if he had heard the
sound all day. He said, "Yes, but not so loud as now." This was
significant but not encouraging. We returned to my lodgings on
Fifteenth street. Everywhere there was an uneasy feeling. At
eight o'clock in the morning I started for the residence of the
Secretary of War to get information of the battle. As I approached
I was seized by the arm, and, turning, saw Secretary Cameron. I
asked about the battle, but, without answering, he hurried me into
the house and said: "Our army is defeated, and my brother is killed."
He then gave way to passionate grief. His brother, Colonel Cameron,
had been killed, and the Union army was in full retreat. I was
enjoined to say nothing until morning. I obeyed his injunction.
At eleven o'clock that night I heard the clatter of a horse's feet
in full gallop. My nephew, Robert McComb, a boy about nineteen,
a private soldier in an Ohio regiment, but detailed as an orderly,
had been sent to the rear with a message. He saw the army in
retreat, and, being well mounted and believing that discretion was
the better part of valor, rode rapidly to my lodgings in Washington.
It is uncertain whether he or "Bull-Run" Russell, an English
reporter, made the best time to the Long Bridge. McComb gave me
a doleful account of the battle and retreat. The official reports
from both armies show that it was a drawn battle. General Sherman,
in his "Memoirs," gives a graphic history of the battle and expresses
the same opinion.

Still, the battle of Bull Run was an important event. It dispelled
the illusion of the people of the north as to the duration and
gravity of the war. It demonstrated the folly of ninety days'
enlistments. It brought also, to every intelligent mind, the
dangers that would inevitably result from disunion. On the 22nd
of July, the day after the battle, the bill to authorize the
employment of 500,000 volunteers became a law.

On the 29th of July two bills, one for the increase of the military
establishment of the United States, and one to provide for the
suppression of the rebellion, were passed. On the 5th of August
an act passed for the better organization of the military establishment.
Armed with the largest military power ever conferred upon a President,
with the almost unlimited power of taxation, the administration of
Mr. Lincoln entered upon the task before it.

Having passed these provisions in aid of the government, the special
session of Congress closed on the 6th of August, 1861.

I immediately returned to my home at Mansfield. Regiments were
being organized but it seemed to me that the mode of enlistment
was too slow. The people, though still resolute, were somewhat
troubled by the failure of military operations. I felt this so
strongly that I determined at once to adopt some plan to raise a
brigade to be composed of two regiments of infantry, one battery
of artillery and one squadron of cavalry. When I made application
to Governor Dennison for the requisite authority, he feared my plan
might interfere with existing organizations then being enlisted in
the different parts of the state, and I was persuaded to wait until
after the 15th regiment was recruited and in the field, and the
42nd was well under way. I also made up my mind to delay actual
recruiting until after the election in October of that year, so
that no political bias might enter into it.

On the 24th of September I addressed a letter to the Hon. Simon
Cameron, Secretary of War, as follows:

"Mansfield, Ohio, September 24, 1861.
"Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War:

"Dear Sir:--I respectfully ask for an order granting me leave to
recruit and organize, in this part of Ohio, a brigade of two
regiments of infantry, one squadron of cavalry, and two companies
of artillery. I know I can do it promptly. The squadron of cavalry
authorized to Major McLaughlin may, if desired, be considered as
part of the brigade.

"For reasons that are probably unjust the governor and state military
authorities are less successful than I hoped, and I know that I
can get you recruits that they cannot. I wish no rank, pay, or
expenses for myself, and will freely act without compensation. I
care not who are the field officers, so I know they are men of
honor, honesty and experience. I will only ask of the department
the usual rations, pay and armament and equipage for the men; I
ask nothing for myself, will undertake upon my individual responsibility
to purchase any of them desired, receiving in return government
securities therefor.

"I will so execute the order as not to interfere with the state
authorities, and will act in subordination to them. I will freely
confer with the government as to details, but would rather be left
as free as practicable in the selection of officers.

"I hope, my dear sir, this application will receive your sanction,
and I will stake my reputation and property that what I offer shall
be accomplished.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

On the same day, in order to secure the active co-operation of
Secretary Chase, I wrote him as follows:

"Mansfield, Ohio, September 24, 1861.
"Hon. S. P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury:

"My Dear Sir:--I have to-day written to General Cameron, asking an
order allowing me to recruit a brigade in this part of Ohio. I
know I can do it. I ask no office, rank, pay, or expenses for
myself, and will undertake to recruit this force in subordination
to the state and general government, and within such limits as may
be allowed. Whatever may be the reason, it is manifest that
voluntary enlistment needs the spur of active exertion and
solicitation. This I am willing to give, and, from offers freely
made to me by personal acquaintances, know that I can enlist hundreds
whom the state authorities cannot reach.

"Can I ask your favorable influence and co-operation? I will pay
my own expenses, and ask only rations, tents and armament for the
men. Any of these I am willing to purchase upon my individual
credit, receiving in payment government securities. I pledge you
my reputation and all I am worth to accomplish what I offer.

"If it is objected that my operation will interfere with state
enlistments, I will agree to subordinate my movements to the orders
of the governor, but for the good of the service I hope to be left
as free as possible. In the selection of officers I should want
to be especially consulted, so as to insure the honor, probity and
personal habits of such officers. Further than this I have no
choice.

"If this meets your approbation promptly say so to General Cameron,
and let him set me to work.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

About the same time I had arranged with Governor Dennison for a
plan of enlistment which enabled the recruits to select their
officers, by allowing persons securing a certain number of recruits
to be captains, a less number first lieutenants, and a less number
second lieutenants. The governor very kindly agreed that he would
commission the persons selected in this way, leaving the regimental
organization to be composed of the best material that could be
found anywhere. On the 28th of September I issued and distributed,
mainly in the region near the line of the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne &
Chicago railroad, this circular:

"TO THE YOUNG MEN OF OHIO.

"I am authorized by the governor of Ohio to raise at once two
regiments of infantry and a battery of artillery, and a squadron
of cavalry.

"I am also authorized to recommend one lieutenant for each company,
who shall at once receive their commissions and be furnished with
proper facilities for enlisting. I am now ready to receive
applications for such appointments, accompanied with evidence of
good habits and character, the age of applicant, and his fitness
and ability to recruit a company.

"Major Wm. McLaughlin will command the squadron of cavalry.

"The company officers will be designated by the soldiers of each
company, subject to the approval of the governor.

"The field officers are not yet designated, but shall be men of
experience, and, if possible, of military education.

"The soldiers shall have, without diminution, all they are entitled
to by law.

"Danger is imminent. Promptness is indispensable. Let the people
of Ohio now repay the debt which their fathers incurred to the
gallant people of Kentucky for the defense of Ohio against the
British and Indians. They now appeal to us for help against an
invasion more unjustifiable and barbarous.

"Letters can be addressed to me, marked 'Free,' at Mansfield, Ohio.

"John Sherman.
"Mansfield, Ohio, September 28, 1861."

The matter thus rested until after the election on the 9th of
October, when squads rapidly formed into companies, and within
twenty days Camp Buckingham was opened near Mansfield.

In the performance of this self-imposed duty, I encountered but
one difficulty, and at one time a very serious one, the selection
of regimental officers, and especially of commanders of regiments.
I knew that military warfare was an art, a trade, an occupation,
where education, experience and preparation are absolutely essential
to effective service. The materials for soldiers abound everywhere,
but without discipline, order, obedience, and severe drilling men
are not soldiers. It was my desire to secure for the commanders
of regiments two graduates of West Point. I made application direct
to Washington for various details of officers of the regular army,
so that the soldiers in Camp Buckingham might have experienced
drill masters from the beginning. I failed to receive an answer,
and went to Washington, earnestly impressed with the importance of
my mission, and determined, if possible, that these men enlisted
by me should not be placed in the front of the enemy until they
had had all the benefit they could derive from military discipline
and drilling. When I arrived I found that Secretary Cameron was
indisposed to interfere with the purely military details of the
army, while General Scott, a brave old soldier whom I always loved
and admired, was firmly of the opinion that the favorable result
of the war depended upon strengthening the regular army, maintaining
its force and discipline, and especially retaining its valuable
officers. The regular army, almost disbanded at the beginning of
the war, was gradually filling up upon the basis of a new organization
and long enlistments, but it was idle, it seemed to me, to expect
that the young men of the country would enlist in the regular
service. While ready to respond to the call of their country in
its actual peril, they had no purpose to become regular soldiers
for life. It appeared to me, therefore, that the manifest policy
of the government should be to allow the regular army to be gradually
absorbed into the volunteer service, where the young officers
educated at the expense of the government might impart instruction
to regiments and brigades, instead of to squads and companies. I
spoke to General Scott about this, and the result of my interview
was very unpleasant. I fear we both lost our temper, though I
never ceased to respect the old general for the great service he
had rendered his country; but his day was past.

After consulting Major Garesche, Assistant Adjutant-General, as to
the names of officers, I then applied to the President, explained
to him fully the situation of affairs, my promise, the gathering
of the soldiers in Camp Buckingham, their inexperience, and want
of drill masters, their ardent patriotism, stated my interview with
General Scott, and appealed to him to help me out of the dilemma.

I never shall forget the interview with Mr. Lincoln, for he did
not hesitate, but sent for Major Garesche, and gave me the coveted
order before I left him, directing the Secretary of War to detail
two second lieutenants, James William Forsyth, of Ohio, and Charles
Garrison Harker, of New Jersey, and Sergeants Bradley and Sweet, of
the regular army, for service in the Ohio Volunteers, under my
direction. This order was the key that unlocked the difficulty
and gave to the force the elements of military discipline. At the
same time the requisite orders were given for uniforms, arms of
the best pattern, cannon, horses and various equipments.

I then procured the detail of Major Robert S. Granger, of the United
States army, to command the camp and to organize the force. He
had graduated as a cadet from Ohio, was one of the officers of the
regular army surrendered by General Twiggs to the State of Texas
before the beginning of the war, and had given his parole not to
serve in the army until exchanged. Though this was not held to
apply to the enlistment of volunteers he so construed his parole
as to prevent him from serving in his regiment until duly exchanged.
When this was done he entered the service and was rapidly promoted
to Major General of Volunteers.

Within sixty days 2,340 young men of Ohio were formed into the 64th
and 65th regiments, the 6th battery of artillery, and McLaughlin's
squadron of cavalry, armed with the best arms then in the service,
uniformed, equipped and partly drilled as soldiers, ready to march,
and actually marching, to the seat of war. No better material for
soldiers, and no better soldiers in fact, ever enlisted in any
cause or any service.

I insert a letter from General Garfield written when he was in
command of this brigade:

"Headquarters, 20th Brigade, }
"In the Field, 6 Miles from Corinth, Miss., May 17, 1862.}
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"Dear Sir:--I am now in command of the 20th Brigade, composed of
the 64th and 65th Ohio (the regiments raised by yourself) and the
13th Michigan and 51st Indiana Regiments. I have sent forward to
Washington the name of Lt. D. G. Swain (65th Ohio) of Salem, O.,
for appointment as A. A. Gen. on my staff. He is an excellent
officer, and his nomination has been approved by Gen. Buell. I
will be particularly obliged to you if you will aid in securing
his appointment as soon as possible. The whole army advances toward
Corinth this morning.

"Very respectfully yours,
"J. A. Garfield,
"Brig. Gen. Vols. U. S. A."

When General Sherman was in Louisville in October, 1861, he was
called upon by Secretary Cameron, and they engaged in a general
discussion of the military situation. General Sherman said that
for aggressive movements, the United States would require 200,000
men. This was so far beyond the ideas of the time that he was
regarded as crazy, and was soon after relieved from his command by
General Buell. Secretary Cameron was blamed for this, but his
letter to me, here inserted, shows that he was absent from Washington
when the order was made:

"War Department, Nov. 14, 1861.
"Sir:--Your letter of the 10th inst. is received. General Sherman
was recalled from the command in Kentucky during my absence at the
north on official business. Since my return on the 11th, I have
not had time to make any inquiries concerning the cause of the
change, but I feel certain it was not from any want of confidence
in the patriotism or capacity of your brother. He has been ordered
to Missouri, under the immediate command of Major General Halleck,
of the regular army, and the fact that he has been so assigned is
evidence of the confidence reposed in him.

"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"Simon Cameron, Secretary of War."

About this time I had an interview with Mr. Lincoln which may be
of interest. In making the local appointments in Ohio he was
naturally governed largely by his strong affinities for old Whig
associates in Congress, of one of whom, General Schenck, he was
especially fond. I thought some of his appointments in Ohio were
not judicious, and concluded I would go to him and make a general
complaint of the distribution of these offices. I felt that he
failed to consider the fact that the Republican party contained
many men who had not belonged to the Whig party. I requested an
interview with him which was promptly granted, and called at his
office one evening. He was seated in an easy chair and seemed to
be in excellent humor. I proceeded to complain of some of his
appointments in Ohio and as I progressed the expression of his face
gradually changed to one of extreme sadness. He did not say a
word, but sank in his chair, placing his feet upon the table, and
looking, as I thought, the picture of despair. I proceeded with
my complaint until I began mentally to reproach myself for bothering
the President of the United States with so unimportant a matter as
the choice of persons to fill local offices in Ohio, when the
country was in the throes of revolution. Finally I told him I felt
ashamed to disturb him with such matters and would not bother him
again with them. His face brightened, he sat up in his chair and
his whole manner changed, until finally he almost embraced me. He
then told me many interesting stories of his short service in
Congress and of the men with whom he was brought in contact. The
close of the interview was very pleasant and I kept my promise to
him about his appointments.

When Congress convened on the 2nd of December, 1861, the financial
condition of the government was more alarming than at any other
period during the war.

The Secretary of the Treasury had ample and complete authority,
given him by the act of July, 1861, to borrow money on the credit
of the government, but he could not deal with the system of state
banks then existing in the several states. He was forbidden, by
the sub-treasury act of 1846, to receive notes of state banks and
was required to receive into and pay from the treasury only the
coin of the United States; but by the act of August 5, 1861, he
was permitted to deposit to the credit of the Treasurer of the
United States, in such solvent specie-paying banks, as he might
select, any of the moneys obtained from loans, the moneys thus
deposited to be withdrawn only for transfer to the regularly
authorized depositaries, or for the payment of public dues, including
certain notes payable on demand, as he might deem expedient. He
had, however, no authority to receive from individuals or banks
any money but coin.

The coin received from the Boston, New York, and Philadelphia banks,
in payment of their subscriptions to the government loans, to the
amount of nearly $150,000,000, had to be sent to every point in
the United States to meet public obligations, and, when thus
scattered, was not readily returned to the banks, thus exhausting
their resources and their ability to loan again.

The demand notes, authorized by the act of July 17, 1861, were also
paid out by the treasury; but from time to time were presented for
redemption in coin or in payment of customs duties to the exclusion
of coin, and thus both the banks and the government were greatly
crippled, the banks suspending specie payments on the 30th day of
December, 1861.

At this time an army of 500,000 Union soldiers was in the field,
and a powerful navy, with vast stores of artillery and ammunition,
had been created. In providing for their sustenance, comfort and
equipment the government had been obliged to incur expenses far
exceeding in magnitude any which had been hitherto known in its
history, aggregating nearly $2,000,000 per day.

It was apparent that a radical change in existing laws relating to
our currency must be made, or the government would practically be
unable to make the current disbursements on account of the war,
and the destruction of the Union would be unavoidable, notwithstanding
the immense resources of the country which had then hardly been
touched.

The annual report of Secretary Chase reached Congress on the 10th
of December, having been delayed by the press of business. So much
of it as related to the currency was the basis of the long debates
that followed. The circulation of the banks of the United States
on the 1st of January, 1861, was reported at $202,000,767. Of this
$152,000,000, in round numbers, was in the loyal states, including
West Virginia, and $50,000,000 in the rebel states, the whole
constituting a loan without interest from the people to the banks,
costing the latter only the expense of issue and redemption and
the interest on the specie kept in hand for the latter purpose.
The secretary called especial attention to the organization and
nature of these banks, and questioned whether a currency of banks
issued by local institutions under state laws was not in fact
prohibited by the national constitution. He said:

"Such emissions certainly fall within the spirit, if not within
the letter, of the constitutional prohibition of the emission of
'bills of credit' by the states, and of the making by them of
anything except gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of
debts. However this may be, it is too clear to be reasonably
disputed that Congress, under its constitutional powers to lay
taxes, to regulate commerce, and to regulate the value of coin,
possesses ample authority to control the credit circulation which
enters so largely into the transaction of commerce, and affects in
so many ways the value of coin. In the judgment of the secretary,
the time has arrived when Congress should exercise this authority."

He described with great force the weakness of the state banking
system, and the repeated losses by the people of the United States
on account of the failure of such banks. He recommended two plans
by either of which he held that these banks might be absorbed, and
a national currency be substituted in the place of their issues.
One plan proposed the gradual withdrawal from circulation of the
notes of private corporations, and the issue in their stead of
United States notes, payable in coin on demand, in amounts sufficient
for the useful ends of a representative currency. The other proposed
a system of national banks authorized to issue notes for circulation
under national direction, to be secured as to prompt convertibility
into coin by the pledge of United States bonds and other needful
regulations. He discussed these two plans at length, but concluded
by recommending a system of national banks, the advantages of which
would be uniformity in currency, uniformity in security, an effectual
safeguard against depreciation, and protection from losses from
discounts and exchanges. He expressed the opinion that such notes
would give to the government the further advantage of a large demand
for government securities, of increased facilities for obtaining
the loans required for the war, a reduction of interest, and a
participation by the government in the profit of circulation without
risking the perils of a great money monopoly. It will be noticed
that the secretary nowhere suggested the suspension of coin payments,
or making the notes a legal tender in payment of public and private
debts, or the redemption in coin of the bank notes to be issued.

These recommendations were referred to the committee of ways and
means of the House, and by it to a sub-committee, of which Elbridge
G. Spaulding, of New York, was chairman. Undoubtedly we owe to
him, more than to any other individual Member, the important and
radical changes made in our currency system by the act reported by
him to the House and amended in the Senate. Mr. Spaulding perceived
the objection to the recommendations of Secretary Chase that they
did not provide for any payments but in coin, or call for a suitable
provision that the notes when issued should be a legal tender for
public and private debts, or for their reissue in case of payment,
nor did they provide for the absorption of the demand notes
outstanding, which were, on their face, payable on demand, an
obligation that could not be ignored without severely impairing
the public credit. It was also apparent that the system of national
banks proposed by the secretary could not be organized and put in
effective force for a year or more, and that in the meantime the
state banks would be in a condition of suspension, without coin or
the possibility of obtaining it, and, with no effective money which
the people were bound to receive, or which the government could
receive, it would have been difficult to carry on the operations
of the war.

The first bill introduced by Mr. Spaulding, on the 30th of December,
met some of these difficulties. It provided for the issue of
$50,000,000 treasury notes, payable on demand, the notes to be
receivable for all debts and demands due to or by the United States,
to be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public or private,
within the United States, and exchangeable at their face value,
the same as coin, at the treasury of the United States, and the
offices of the assistant treasurers in New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
St. Louis and Cincinnati, for any of the coupon or registered bonds
which the secretary was authorized to issue. It also contained
this provision: "Such treasury notes may be reissued from time to
time as the exigencies of the public service may require," the
first authority ever given for the reissue of treasury notes after
redemption.

On the 7th of January, 1862, Mr. Spaulding reported the bill to
the House with some important changes, and it soon became the
subject of a long and interesting debate. On the 22nd of January,
Secretary Chase returned Mr. Spaulding's bill to him and suggested
some modifications, referring to the legal tender clause as follows,
being his first reference to that clause:

"Regretting exceedingly that it is found necessary to resort to
the measure of making fundable notes of the United States a legal
tender, but heartily desiring to co-operate with the committee in
all measures to meet existing necessities in the most useful and
least hurtful to the general interest, I remain," etc.

In a letter to the committee of ways and means, on the 29th of
January, the secretary said:

"The condition of the treasury certainly needs immediate action on
the subject of affording provision for the expenditures of the
government, both expedient and necessary. The general provisions
of the bill submitted to me seem to me well adapted to the end
proposed. There are, however, some points which may, perhaps, be
usefully amended.

"The provision making United States notes a legal tender has
doubtless been well considered by the committee, and their conclusion
needs no support from any observation of mine. I think it my duty,
however, to say, that in respect to this provision my reflections
have conducted me to the same conclusion they have reached. It is
not unknown to them that I have felt, nor do I wish to conceal that
I now feel, a great aversion to making anything but coin a legal
tender in payment of debts. I has been my anxious wish to avoid
the necessity of such legislation. It is, however, at present
impossible, in consequence of the large expenditures entailed by
the war, and the suspension of the banks, to procure sufficient
coin for disbursements; and it has, therefore, become indispensably
necessary that we should resort to the issue of United States notes.
. . . Such discrimination should, if possible, be prevented; and
the provision making the notes legal tender, in a great measure at
least, prevents it, by putting all citizens, in this respect, on
the same level, both of rights and duties."

On the 3rd of February the secretary wrote to Mr. Spaulding as
follows:

"Mr. Seward said to me on yesterday that you observed to him that
my hesitation in coming up to the legal tender proposition embarrassed
you, and I am very sorry to observe it, for my anxious wish is to
support you in all respects.

"It is true that I came with reluctance to the conclusion that the
legal tender clause is a necessity, but I came to it decidedly,
and I support it earnestly. I do not hesitate when I have made up
my mind, however much regret I may feel over the necessity of the
conclusion to which I come."

On the 5th of February the secretary became more urgent, and wrote
to Mr. Spaulding the following brief note:

"My Dear Sir:--I make the above extract from a letter received from
the collector of New York this morning. It is very important the
bill should go through to-day, and through the Senate this week.
The public exigencies do not admit of delay.

"Yours truly,
"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. E. G. Spaulding."

It will thus be perceived that, whatever may have been the
constitutional scruples of Secretary Chase in respect to the legal
tender clause, he yielded to it under the pressure of necessity,
and expressed no dissent from it until, as chief justice, his
opinion was delivered in the case of Hepburn vs. Griswold, in the
Supreme Court of the United States.

The bill, much modified from the original, passed the House of
Representatives by the decided vote of yeas 93, nays 59. As it
passed the House it contained authority to issue, on the credit of
the United States, United States notes to the amount of $150,000,000,
not bearing interest, payable to bearer at the treasury of the
United States, at Washington or New York. It provided that
$50,000,000 of said notes should be in lieu of the demand treasury
notes authorized by the act of July 17, 1861, and that said demand
notes should be taken up as rapidly as practicable. It provided
that the treasury notes should be receivable in payment of all
taxes, duties, imports, excise, debts and demands of all kinds due
to the United States, and all debts and demands owing by the United
States to individuals, corporations and associations within the
United States, and should be lawful money and a legal tender, in
payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States.

This bill came to the Senate on the 7th of February. It was followed
on the same day by a letter from Secretary Chase to Mr. Fessenden,
as follows:

"Sir:--The condition of the treasury requires immediate legislative
provision. What you said this morning leads me to think that the
bill which passed the House yesterday will hardly be acted upon by
the Senate this week. Until that bill shall receive the final
action of Congress, it seems advisable to extend the provisions of
the former acts, so as to allow the issue of at least $10,000,000
in United States notes, in addition to the $50,000,000 heretofore
authorized. I transmit a bill framed with that object, which will,
I trust, meet your approval and that of Congress. Immediate action
on it is exceedingly desirable."

The request for authority to issue $10,000,000 additional demand
notes was immediately granted, and the bill was passed without
opposition.

The currency bill was considered in the committee on finance of
the Senate, and four important and radical amendments were reported
by that committee. These amendments were as follows:

First--That the legal tender notes should be receivable for all
claims and demands against the United States, of every kind
whatsoever, "_except for interest on bonds and notes, which shall
be paid in coin_."

Second--That the secretary might dispose of United States bonds,
"at the market value thereof, for coin or treasury notes."

Third--A new section authorizing deposits in the sub-treasuries at
five per cent., for not less than thirty days, to the amount of
$25,000,0000, for which certificates of deposit might be issued.

Fourth--An additional section, No. 5, "that all duties on imported
goods and proceeds of the sale of public lands," etc., should be
set apart to pay coin interest on the debt of the United States;
and one per cent. for a sinking fund, etc.

It was felt that if no provision was made for the payment of the
interest on the bonds in coin, they would depreciate more and more,
while such payment would tend, as it did, to maintain them nearer
to their specie standard. In order to obtain coin for the payment
of interest, provision was made that all duties on imported goods,
and the proceeds of the sale of public lands, should be payable in
coin and be set apart to pay coin interest on the debt of the United
States, and one per cent. for a sinking fund to provide for ultimate
redemption of the bonds. These amendments were considered of prime
importance. It was felt that the duty on imported goods should
not be lessened by any depreciation of our local currency. Such
importations were based upon coin values, and the tax levied upon
them was properly required to be paid in coin. This security of
coin payment enabled the government to sell bonds at a far higher
rate than they would have commanded without it, and tended also to
limit the depreciation of United States notes. The bill and
amendments were reported on the 12th, and became the subject of
what was regarded as a very able debate.

There was decided opposition in the Senate to the legal tender
clause, headed by Mr. Fessenden. Mr. Collamer, who also was opposed
to it, made a motion to strike it out. Upon that subject I made
my first lengthy speech in the Senate, a few extracts from which
I insert:

"The motion of the Senator from Vermont now for the first time
presents to the Senate the only question upon which the members of
the committee of finance had any material difference of opinion,
and that is, whether the notes provided for in this bill shall be
made a legal tender in payment of public and private debts. Upon
this point I will commence the argument where the Senator from
Maine left it.

"In the first place, I will say, every organ of financial opinion
--if that is a correct expression--in this country agrees that
there is such a necessity, in case we authorize the issue of demand
notes. You commence with the Secretary of the Treasury, who has
given this subject the most ample consideration. He declares, not
only in his official communications here, but in his private
intercourses with the members of the committee, that this clause
is indispensably necessary to the security and negotiability of
these demand notes. We all know from his antecedents, from his
peculiar opinions, that he would probably be the last man among
the leading politicians of our country to yield to the necessity
of substituting paper money for coin. He has examined this question
in all its length and breadth. He is in a position where he feels
the necessity. He is a statesman of admitted ability, and
distinguished in his high opinion. He informs us that, without
this clause, to attempt to circulate as money the proposed amount
of demand notes of the United States, will prove a fatal experiment.

"In addition to his opinion, we have the concurring opinion of the
Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York. With almost entire
unanimity they have passed a resolution on the subject, after full
debate and consideration. That resolution has been read by your
secretary. You have also the opinion of the committee of public
safety of the city of New York, composed of distinguished gentlemen,
nearly all of whom are good financiers, who agree fully in the same
opinion. I may say the same in regard to the Chambers of Commerce
of the city of Boston, of the city of Philadelphia, and of almost
every recognized organ of financial opinion in this country. They
have said to us, in the most solemn form, that this measure was
indispensably necessary to maintain the credit of the government,
and to keep these notes anywhere near par. In addition, we have
the deliberate judgment and vote of the House of Representatives.
After a full debate, in which the constitutionality, expediency
and necessity of this measure were discussed, in which all the
objections that have been made here, and many more, were urged,
the House of Representatives, by a large vote, declared that it
was necessary to issue United States notes, and that this clause
was indispensable to their negotiation and credit. . . .

"A hard necessity presses the government. $100,000,000 is now
due the army, and $250,000,000 more up to July first. The banks
of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, have exhausted their capitals
in making loans to the government. They have already tied up their
capital in your bonds. Among others, Mr. Vail, the cashier of the
Bank of Commerce, the largest bank corporation in the United States,
and one that has done much to sustain the government, appeared
before the finance committee, and stated explicitly that the Bank
of Commerce, as well as other banks of New York, could aid the
government no further, unless your proposed currency was stamped
by, and invested with, the attributes of lawful money, which they
could pay to others as well as receive themselves.

"Bonds cannot be sold except at a great sacrifice, because there
is no money to buy them. As soon as the banks suspended, gold and
silver ceased to circulate as money. You cannot sell your bonds
for gold and silver, which is the only money that can now be received
under the sub-treasury law. This currency made a legal tender was
necessary to aid in making further loans. I insisted that the bill
was constitutional. The Senator from Vermont has read extracts
from the debates in the national convention, and from Story's
'Commentaries,' tending to show that Congress cannot authorize the
issue of bills of credit. But I submit to him that this question
has been settled by the practice of the government. We issued such
bills during the War of 1812, during the war with Mexico, and at
the recent session of Congress. We receive them now for our
services; we pay them to our soldiers and our creditors. These
notes are payable to bearer; they pass from hand to hand as currency;
they bear no interest. If the argument of the Senator is true,
then all these notes are unauthorized. The Senator admits that
when we owe a debt and cannot pay it, we can issue a note. But
where does he find the power to issue a note in the constitution?
Where does he find the power to prescribe the terms of the note,
to make it transferable, receivable for public dues? He draws all
these powers as incidents to the power to borrow money. According
to his argument, when we pay a soldier a ten dollar demand bill,
we borrow ten dollars from the soldier; when I apply to the secretary
of the Senate for a month's pay, I loan the United States $250.
This certainly is not the view we take of it when we receive the
money. On the other hand, we recognize the fact that the government
cannot pay us in gold. We receive notes as money. The government
ought to give, and has the power to give, to that money, all the
sanction, authority, value, necessary and proper, to enable it to
borrow money. The power to fix the standard of money, to regulate
the medium of exchanges, must necessarily go with, and be incident
to, the power to regulate commerce, to borrow money, to coin money,
to maintain armies and navies. All these high powers are expressly
prohibited to the states and also the incidental power to emit
bills of credit, and to make anything but gold and silver a legal
tender. But Congress is expressly invested with all these high
powers, and, to remove all doubt, is expressly authorized to use
all necessary and proper means to carry these powers into effect.

"If you strike out the legal tender clause you do so with the
knowledge that these notes will fall dead upon the money market of
the world. When you issue demand notes, and announce to the world
your purpose not to pay any more gold and silver, you then tender
to those who have furnished you provisions and services this paper
money. What can they do? They cannot pay their debts with it;
they cannot support their families with it, without a depreciation.
The whole then depends on the promise of the government to pay at
some time not fixed on the note. Justice to our creditors demands
that it should be a legal tender; it will then circulate all over
the country, and it will be the lifeblood of the whole business of
the country, and it will enable capitalists to buy your bonds.
The only objection to the measure is that too much may be issued.
He did not believe the issue of $150,000,000 would do any harm.
It is only a mere temporary expedient. . . .

"I have thus, Mr. president, endeavored to reply to the constitutional
argument of the Senator from Vermont. Our arguments must be
submitted finally to the arbitration of the courts of the United
States. When I feel so strongly the necessity of this measure, I
am constrained to assume the power, and refer our authority to
exercise it to the courts. I have shown, in reply to the argument
of the Senator from Maine, that we must no longer hesitate as to
the necessity of this measure. That necessity does exist, and now
presses upon us. I rest my vote upon the proposition that this is
a necessary and proper measure to furnish a currency--a medium of
exchange--to enable the government to borrow money, to maintain an
army and support a navy. Believing this, I find ample authority
to authorize my vote. We have been taught by recent fearful
experience that delay and doubt in this time of revolutionary
activity are stagnation and death. I have sworn to raise and
support your armies; to provide for and maintain your navy; to
borrow money; to uphold your government against all enemies, at
home and abroad. That oath is sacred. As a Member of this body,
I am armed with high powers for a holy purpose, and I am authorized
--nay, required--to vote for all laws necessary and proper for
executing these high powers, and to accomplish that purpose. This
is not the time when I would limit these powers. Rather than yield
to revolutionary force, I would use revolutionary force. Here it
is not necessary, for the framers of the constitution did not assume
to foresee all the means that might be necessary to maintain the
delegated powers of the national government. Regarding this great
measure as a necessary and proper one, and within our power to
enact, I see plain before me the path of duty, and one that is easy
to tread."

The motion to strike out the legal tender clause in the bill was
defeated by a vote of yeas 17, nays 22. The amendments proposed
by the finance committee were agreed to substantially as reported
by the committee. The bill finally passed by a vote of yeas 30,
nays 7. The House agreed to the amendment providing for the payment
of the interest on bonds and notes in coin, and disagreed to the
remaining amendments, and these were referred to a committee of
conference, composed of Messrs. Fessenden, Sherman and Carlisle,
of West Virginia, of the Senate and Messrs. Stevens, Horton, and
Sedgwick, of the House. The conference met, and, after two or
three days of full discussion, the material parts of the disagreements
between the two Houses were settled. The provision that coin only
be received for duties on imports, and that it be held as a fund
to pay the interest on the bonded debt, was retained. The report
of the conference was agreed to by both Houses, and on the same
day the bill was approved by the President. Thus, the legal tender
act, after a most able and determined opposition, became a law on
the 25th of February, 1862.

It would be difficult to measure the beneficial results that rapidly
followed the passage of this bill. The public credit was greatly
strengthened by the provision for the payment of interest in coin
furnished by duties on imported goods. The legal tender clause
was acquiesced in by all classes, and we had, for the first time,
in circulation national paper money as the actual standard of value.
It was silent as to time of its payment, but each note contained
a promise of the United States to pay a specific sum, and the
implied obligation was to pay in coin as soon as practicable.

On the 11th of July, 1862, a further issue of $150,000,000 United
States treasury notes (or "greenbacks," as they were commonly called
from their color) of the same description was authorized, and
subsequent issues increased the total amount to $450,000,000, the
extreme limit. By the act of March 31, 1863, fractional currency
was authorized to an amount not exceeding $50,000,000, to take the
place of fractional silver coins, which had entirely disappeared
from circulation, and this amount was issued.

The passage of the legal tender act was the turning point of our
physical and financial history. Less than a year before the
government was bankrupt; our bonds bearing six per cent. interest
were sold at a discount; our national expenditures exceeded our
receipts; loans could only be made upon the basis of coin, and this
coin was disappearing from circulation. We had to appeal to the
patriotism of bankers to accept the demand notes of the United
States as money, with no prospect of being able to pay them. Our
regular army was practically disbanded by the disloyalty of many
of its leading officers. Washington was then practically in a
state of siege, forcing me, in May, 1861, to go there at the heels
of the 7th regiment of New York militia, avoiding the regular
channels of travel. The city of Baltimore was decked under the
flag of rebellion. Through the State of Maryland, loyal citizens
passed in disguise, except by a single route opened and defended
by military power. The great State of Kentucky, important as well
from its central position as from the known prowess and courage of
its people, hung suspended in doubt between loyalty and secession.
In the State of Missouri, St. Louis was the only place of unquestioned
loyalty, and even there we regarded it a fortunate prize that we
were able to take the public arms from a government arsenal. The
whole State of Virginia, with the single exception of Fortress
Monroe, was in the possession of the revolutionary force.

But from the passage of the legal tender act, by which means were
provided for utilizing the wealth of the country in the suppression
of the rebellion, the tide of war turned in our favor. Delaware,
after a short hesitation, complied with the proclamation of the
President. Maryland had, by clear and repeated votes and acts,
arrayed herself on the side of the Union. Her rebellious sons who
fought against the old flag could not tread in safety on a single
foot of the soil of that state. Western Virginia, the eastern
peninsula, and many ports on the eastern coast, were securely
reclaimed. The State of Kentucky had distinctly, by the vote of
her people, and by the action of all her constituted authorities,
proclaimed her loyalty, and her sons were fighting side by side
with the soldiers of other states to expel traitors who, in her
days of doubt, had seized upon a small portion of her soil, which
they still occupied. In the State of Missouri the constituted
authorities, organized by a convention of the people duly elected,
were sustained by physical power in nearly all the state, and the
rebellion there was subsiding into bands of thieves, bridge burners,
and small parties of guerillas, who could soon be readily controlled
by local militia. In nearly every rebellious state, the government
had secured a foothold, and an army of half a million men, armed,
organized and disciplined, impatiently awaited the word of command
to advance the old banner of our country against every foe that
stood in its way. Where does the history of nations present an
example of greater physical weakness followed so soon by greater
physical strength? When have results more wonderful been accomplished
in eight months?

At the beginning of the year 1862 we were physically strong but
financially weak. Therefore, I repeat, the problem of this contest
was not as to whether we could muster men, but whether we could
raise money. There was great wealth in the country but how could
it be promptly utilized? To that question the diligent attention
of Congress was applied. The banks which had aided us with money
were crippled and had suspended coin payments. The Secretary of
the Treasury was begging at the doors of both Houses for means to
meet the most pressing demands. On the 15th of January, 1862, the
London "Post," the organ of Lord Palmerston, said:

"The monetary intelligence from America is of the most important
kind. National bankruptcy is not an agreeable prospect, but it is
the only one presented by the existing state of American finance.
What a strange tale does not the history of the United States for
the past twelve months unfold? What a striking moral does it not
point? Never before was the world dazzled by a career of more
reckless extravagance. Never before did a flourishing and prosperous
state make such gigantic strides towards effecting its own ruin."

The legal tender act, with its provision for coin receipts to pay
interest on bonds, whatever may be said to the contrary by theorists,
was the only measure that could have enabled the government to
carry on successfully the vast operations of the war. Our annual
expenditures at that time were four times the amount of our currency;
were three times the aggregate coin of the country; were greater
than any ever borne by any nation in ancient or in modern times.
The highest expenditure of Great Britain during her war with
Napoleon, at a time when her currency was inflated, when she made
the Bank of England notes a legal tender, was but £100,000,000.

Anticipating these enormous expenditures I introduced a bill which
became a law on the 31st of July, 1861, which provided for a
commission to examine and report as to the compensation of all
offices for the government, the commission to be composed of two
Members of the Senate, three Members of the House of Representatives,
one officer of the navy, and one officer of the army, who were
directed to examine and report, as soon as practicable, a fair and
just compensation for each officer of the government, and such
regulations as would secure a more economical collection of the
revenue. When this bill was pending I stated its purpose and my
hope to accomplish a reduction of the expenditures of the government,
or, at least, an equalization of the salaries then paid to the
different officers. We sought economy by the reduction of expenses.
I was chairman of this commission, and Senator Clark, of New
Hampshire, was my associate. The commission collected a mass of
information, and upon it based several bills introduced in the
second session of the 37th Congress. Some of these were made
nugatory by the rise of prices, measured in most cases by the fall
in value of our currency, but many of their provisions were ingrafted
into other bills that became laws.

The organization of national banks, authorized to issue circulating
notes, is so intimately connected with legal tender United States
notes that I think it proper to consider them in connection, though
the banking law did not pass until 1863. The two forms of currency,
one issued directly by the government as lawful money of the United
States and a legal tender, and the other issued by private
corporations, but secured by bonds of the United States, constitute
a system of national currency which, organized in the midst of war,
was an important aid to the government in its great struggle, and
when placed at par with coin by the resumption act has proven to
be the best paper money created by legislation in this or any other
country.

The issue of circulating notes by state banks had been the fruitful
cause of loss, contention and bankruptcy, not only of the banks
issuing them, but of all business men depending upon them for
financial aid. Inflation and apparent prosperity were often followed
by the closing of one bank and distrust of all others. The notes
of a broken bank were rarely paid, the assets of such bank being
generally applied to the payment of other liabilities, leaving the
loss to fall on the holders of the notes, mostly innocent persons
of limited means. This led to the adoption in 1846 of the sub-
treasury system, by which all payments to the treasury were required
to be in coin, to be held until required for disbursements on
government account. This protected the United States, but it did
not save the people from loss, as, from necessity, they were
compelled to use bank bills authorized by the several states,
varying in value and security, and chiefly limited in circulation
to the state in which issued. With a narrow view of the powers of
the national government, Congress had repeatedly refused to authorize
a national bank, a policy I heartily approve, not from a doubt of
the power of Congress to grant such a charter, but from the danger
of intrusting so vast a power in a single corporation, with or
without security. This objection did not lie against the organization
of a system of national banks extending over the country, which
required every dollar of notes issued to be secured by a larger
amount of bonds of the United States, to be deposited in the treasury
of the United States, thus saving the note holder from all possibility
of loss.

Secretary Chase, in his report of December 9, 1861, recommended
that a tax be imposed upon notes issued by state banks and also
that Congress should exercise its authority to establish a system
of national banks, with proper safeguards and limitations. A bill
was introduced for the latter purpose in the House of Representatives
in 1861, but, owing to the urgency for legislation on war measures,
it was not acted upon.

Long before I became a Member of Congress I had carefully studied
the banking laws of the several states. The State of Ohio adopted,
in 1846, an improved system of banking. My study and experience
as a lawyer in Ohio convinced me that the whole system of state
banks, however carefully guarded, was both unconstitutional and
inexpedient and that it ought to be overthrown. When I entered
Congress I was entirely prepared, not only to tax the circulation
of state banks, but to tax such banks out of existence. But, while
this feeling prevailed in the west, the opposite feeling prevailed
in the New England and Middle States, where their banking system
had been so improved that bank failures were rare, and bank bills
were protected by mutual guaranties.

The Secretary of the Treasury had, in two annual messages, proposed
a tax on the circulation of bank bills. He believed that the
existing bank circulation prevented or embarrassed the process of
funding, by which alone the bonds of the United States could be
absorbed. He was forbidden by law to receive bank bills in exchange
for bonds or for any purpose, so that the current money of the
people was not available for the purchase of bonds. This was an
additional argument for taxing the state banks out of existence.
I introduced a measure for this purpose as an amendment to the
revenue bill, but it was postponed to save it from defeat.

I introduced a bill in January, 1863, containing two sections, the
first to levy a tax of two per cent. per annum on the circulation
of all bank bills, and the second to provide for a tax of ten per
cent. on all fractional currency under one dollar issued by
corporations or individuals. Upon this bill I made a carefully
prepared speech, not only defending the proposed tax, but declaring
my purpose to urge a gradual increase of the tax until all state
bank bills were excluded from circulation. As the reversal of this
policy is threatened I feel justified in briefly restating the
argument that induced Congress to deprive all state banks of the
power to issue their bills as money.

I drew the distinction between the ordinary powers of banking and
the issue of bank bills. I said that the business of banking proper
consisted in loaning money, discounting bills, facilitating exchanges
of productions by the agency of commercial paper, and in receiving
and disbursing the deposits of individuals. The issue of bank
bills was an exclusive privilege conferred only on a few corporations.
It was a privilege that an individual could not enjoy. No person
could issue his bills in the form of paper money without a corporate
franchise granted him and his associates, either by a general
banking law, or by an act of incorporation. All the business of
banking might be exercised by private individuals except this
franchise. There was no reason why any one individual or a
partnership might not carry on all the business incident to banking
except this one of issuing bills to circulate as money. The largest
banking houses in the world did not exercise the privilege of
issuing bills. The strongest banks in the United States, such as
the Bank of Commerce of New York, had but little or no circulation,
while the weakest banks supported themselves and made profit by
issuing the largest quantity of bills authorized. The law then
existing taxed heavily the business of banking proper. All commercial
paper--checks, drafts, orders, bills of exchange, protests, bonds
--every instrument that was used in the ordinary process of banking
--was heavily taxed, while bank bills were not taxed at all. A
private banker doing business had to pay a license of $100, but a
bank of circulation was expressly exempted from the necessity of
procuring a license. The tax law, as it stood, had this significant
provision: "But not to include incorporated banks legally authorized
to issue notes as circulation." Every commercial instrument was
required to pay a stamp tax, but this did not attach to a bank
bill. Bank notes issued for circulation were expressly excepted.
The only tax levied upon banks of circulation was a tax of three
per cent. on the net income. This tax could be deducted from the
dividend of the stockholders. The discrimination in favor of banks
of circulation ran through all the tax laws, while other corporations,
such as railroad companies, insurance companies and the like, were
subject to heavy taxes.

The profits of banking were then very great. The average profits
of the banks of New York were twelve and one half per cent. per
annum. The burdens imposed upon the banks by their charters were
lessened by the suspension of specie payments. When the banks had
to keep in their vaults coin to the amount of one-third of their
circulation, and were liable to be called upon any day for the
redemption of their notes in gold and silver, they might claim
exemption from taxes on their circulating notes. But during the
suspension of coin payment there ws no such liability. Whether
right or wrong the banks suspended specie payments, and increased
their currency without paying either principal of it or interest,
or tax on it, though in direct violation of law in some states.

I referred in my speech to an interview which was sought by the
banks of our chief commercial cities with the Secretary of the
Treasury, to which they invited the financial committees of the
two Houses to hear their propositions for carrying on the financial
operations of the government. We all went to the office of the
Secretary of the Treasury, and the proposition was there made that
the United States should issue no paper money whatever, that the
specie clause, as it is called, of the sub-treasury act should be
repealed, and that we should carry on the war upon the basis of
the paper money of the banks, legalizing the suspension of specie
payments, and that the government should issue no paper except upon
an interest of six per cent., or higher if the money markets of
the world demanded more. That was their plan of finance, the plan
substantially adopted in the War of 1812, and which had been
condemned by every statesman since that time, a plan of carrying
on the operations of our government by an association of banks over
which Congress had no control, and which could issue money without
limit so far as national laws affected it. That was the scheme
presented to us by very intelligent gentlemen engaged in the banking
business. They were honest and in earnest, but it appeared to me
as pretentious and even ludicrous.

It was claimed that a tax on banks interfered with vested rights.
I said that all taxes that were levied by the government were to
maintain vested rights, liberty and life. All these corporate
franchises were held subject to the power of taxation in Congress,
which was sometimes necessary to be exercised in the most potent
manner in order to maintain the government. The state could not,
by an act of incorporation, place their property beyond the power
of Congress. The only question was what rate of taxation ought to
be adopted. The rate proposed--two per cent.--I insisted was not
too high, because it was only one-third of the profit derived from
the issue of paper money without interest, the principal of which
was not paid in coin. I stated distinctly that the purpose of the
bill was not merely to levy a reasonable tax on the banks, but also
to induce them to withdraw their paper, in order to substitute for
it a national currency. I then reviewed in considerable detail
the history of our currency legislation, from the act chartering
the first bank of the United States to the beginning of our Civil
War, showing the view taken by the most eminent statesmen of our
country in favor of the establishment of uniform national currency
as the highest object of legislation. Mr. Madison said in his
message:

"It is, however, essential to every modification of the finances
that the benefits of a uniform national currency should be restored
to the community. The absence of the precious metals will, it is
believed, be a temporary evil; but, until they can again be rendered
the general medium of exchange, it devolves on the wisdom of Congress
to provide a substitute which shall equally engage the confidence
and accommodate the wants of the citizens throughout the Union."

I said that when coin, the best of currency, was driven out of
circulation, by the existence of war or extraneous circumstances,
it was the duty of Congress to provide a substitute. In 1816
Congress did this by establishing the Bank of the United States.
Most of the state banks shortly afterward exploded, and almost
their entire issue outstanding at the time fell as a loss to the
people of the United States. The Bank of the United States did
furnish for a while a stable currency. After its charter expired
in 1836, the controversy was between gold and silver, and paper
money as a currency. Nearly all the statesmen of that time believed
it was necessary to have a national currency in some form, but
there was a part in the country that believed the only true national
currency was gold and silver coin. After a controversy that I
would not review, the sub-treasury system was finally adopted.
The government had then no occasion to borrow money. Its debt was
paid off and there was a large surplus in the treasury, which was
distributed among the states. The agency of a United States bank
was no longer necessary to sustain the public credit. The object
then was to secure a safe deposit and custody of the public revenues.
The state banks failed to furnish a safe redeemable currency. In
1837 their notes were in the hands of the people, depreciated and
dishonored, if not entirely worthless. Therefore, I thought wisely,
the sub-treasury system was adopted, by which gold and silver coin
was the only money received or paid out by the government. I
believed that such was a true policy in the absence of national
banks. I also stated that if peace were restored to our country,
we ought, as soon as possible, to go back to the basis of gold and
silver coin, but, in the meantime, we must meet the exigencies of
the hour. Paper money was then a necessity. Gold and silver were
hoarded. War always had led, and always would lead, to the hoarding
of the precious metals. Gold and silver flee from a state of war.
All nations in the midst of great wars have been compelled to resort
to paper money. It was resorted to by our fathers during the
Revolution. It was only by the use of paper money that England
maintained her wars with Napoleon. At several periods during these
wars gold and silver were at a greater premium in England than they
were in this country.

I then proceeded to discuss the power of Congress to issue paper
money. I quoted an extract from the report of Mr. Dallas, in
December, 1815, in which he stated:

"By the constitution of the United States, Congress is expressly
vested with the power to coin money, to regulate the value of
domestic and foreign coin in circulation, and (as a necessary
implication from positive provisions) to emit bills of credit;
while it is declared by the same instrument that 'no state shall
coin money, or emit bills of credit.' The constitutional authority
to emit bills of credit has also been exercised in a qualified and
limited manner. . . .

"The constitutional and legal foundation of the monetary system of
the United States is thus distinctly seen; and the power of the
federal government to institute and regulate it, whether the
circulating medium consist of coin or of bills of credit, must, in
its general policy, as well as in the terms of its investment, be
deemed an exclusive power."

These extracts from a document of great ability, state the whole
question in a few words. Congress has the power to regulate
commerce; Congress has the power to borrow money, which involves
the power to emit bills of credit; Congress has the power to regulate
the value of coin. These powers are exclusive. When, by the force
of circumstances beyond our control, the national coin disappears,
either because of war or of other circumstances, Congress alone
must furnish the substitute. No state has the power to interfere
with this exclusive authority in Congress to regulate the national
currency, or, in other words, to provide a substitute for the
national coin.

I next stated the objections to local banks. The first was the
great number and diversity of bank charters. There were 1,642
banks in the United States, established by the laws of twenty-eight
different states, and these laws were as diverse, I might say, as
the human countenance. We had the state bank system with its
branches. We had the independent system, sometimes secured by
local bonds, sometimes by state bonds, sometimes by real estate,
sometimes by a mixture of these. We had every diversity of the
bank system in this country that has been devised by the wit of
man, and all these banks had the power to issue paper money. With
this multiplicity of banks, depending upon different organizations,
it was impossible to have a uniform national currency, for its
value was constantly affected by their issues. There was no common
regulator; they were dependent on different systems. The clearing
house system adopted in the city of New York applied only to that
city. There was no check or control over these banks. There was
a want of harmony and concert among them. Whenever a failure
occurred, such as that of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company,
it operated like a panic in a disorganized army; all of the banks
closed their doors at once and suspended specie payments.

Another objection to these local banks was that of their unequal
distribution among the states. In New England the circulation of
the banks was about $50,000,000, while in Ohio, a state with three-
fourths of the population of all New England, it was but $9,000,000.
The contrast, if made with other states, was still more marked.
I called attention to the fact that the circulation of banks in
the eastern states had then reached about $130,000,000, and of that
amount, $40,000,000 was circulating in the west. If these notes
were driven out of circulation and the United States notes substituted,
a contribution would be made to the treasury of the United States
of $2,400,000 a year, for the mere interest of a currency which
the west did not prefer, but was compelled to use.

I called attention to the loss to the people by counterfeiting,
which could not be avoided when we had such a multitude of banks.
It then required experts to detect counterfeits. It was impossible
to prevent counterfeiting. An expert could save the banks, but
the loss fell upon the people. By the substitution of national
currency we substantially could lose nothing by counterfeiting.
The notes would be few in kind, only three or four of them, all
issued by the United States, all of a uniform character, that could
not be counterfeited. I described, with some detail, the loss to
the people of the United States by bills of broken banks, computed
them to be equivalent to five per cent. per annum of all the bills
issued. On an average, every twenty years the entire bank circulation
ceased to exist or deteriorated.

The loss of exchange from the west to the east on local currency
was one per cent. This loss was usually made a gain to themselves
by the bankers and "shavers." Under the most favorable state of
trade between the east and west an exchange of one per cent. was
demanded from drafts and bills of exchange. With a national
currency, uniform and equal throughout the country, this cost for
exchange would not exist or would be greatly reduced. I called
attention to the then increasing volume of local currency in the
United States. When the United States had issued $250,000,000 of
notes, the banks had largely increased their circulation. This
tended to depreciate both United States and bank notes.

I discussed at similar length the proposition that, as the states
were forbidden by the constitution to authorize the issue of bills
of credit, they were equally forbidden to authorize corporations
to issue circulating notes, which were bills of credit. Upon this
point it seemed to me that the authorities were absolutely conclusive.
That position was taken by the most eminent members of the
constitutional convention, by Joseph Story in his "Commentaries,"
by Daniel Webster, and other great leaders of both parties since
that time. It was in reference to these bills that Mr. Webster
used the language often quoted:

"A disordered currency is one of the greatest of political evils.
It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social
system, and encourages propensities destructive of its happiness.
It wars against industry, frugality, and economy; and it fosters
the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the
contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none
has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper
money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the
rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary
tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly on the
happiness of the mass of the community, compared with a fraudulent
currency, and the robberies committed by depreciated paper."

In speaking of the bank circulation then afloat in the country, he
further said:

"It is further to be observed that the states cannot issue bills
of credit; not that they cannot make them a legal tender, but that
they cannot issue them at all. Is not this a clear indication of
the intent of the constitution to restrain the states, as well from
establishing a paper circulation as from interfering with the
metallic circulation? Banks have been created by states with no
capital whatever, their notes being put into circulation simply on
the credit of the state or the state law. What are the issues of
such banks but bills of credit issued by the state? I confess,
Mr. president, that the more I reflect on this subject, the more
clearly does my mind approach the conclusion that the creation of
state banks, for the purpose and with the power of circulating
paper, is not consistent with the grants and prohibitions of the
constitution."

I insisted that if there was no money in this country but United
States notes, the process of funding would be going on day by day.
Whenever there was too great an accumulation of these notes they
would be converted into bonds; the operation would go on quietly
and silently. I quoted the authority of Secretary Chase that it
was his deliberate judgment, after watching this process with all
his conceded ability, that but for the influence of this local bank
paper he would be able to carry on the war without the issue of
more paper money, that the currency then outstanding and that which
by law he was authorized to issue would be sufficient to carry it
on. Such a currency would lead to the conversion of the notes into
bonds, and by this process the people would absorb the national
loan and enable him to carry on the government without any sacrifice
to them.

It was not strange that Mr. Jefferson, near the close of the War
of 1812, stated more clearly than I could do the conflict between
local bank paper and United States notes. He, who during his whole
life was so mindful of the rights of the states, and so jealous of
paper money, in brief and terse language designated the only way
in which our country could carry on war. In his letter to Mr.
Cooper, dated September 10, 1814, just at the close of the war, he
said:

"The banks have discontinued themselves. We are now without any
medium, and necessity, as well as patriotism and confidence, will
make us all eager to receive treasury notes, if founded on specific
taxes.

"Congress may now borrow of the public, and without interest, all
the money they may want, to the amount of a competent circulation,
by merely issuing their own promissory notes of proper denominations
for the larger purposes of circulation, but not for the small.
Leave that door open for the entrance of metallic money. . . .
Providence seems, indeed, by a special dispensation, to have put
down for us, without a struggle, that very paper enemy which the
interest of our citizens long since required ourselves to put down,
at whatever risk.

"The work is done. The moment is pregnant with futurity, and if
not seized at once by Congress, I know not on what shoal our bark
is next to be stranded. The state legislatures should be immediately
urged to relinquish the right of establishing banks of discount.
Most of them will comply, on patriotic principles, under the
convictions of the moment, and the non-complying may be crowded
into concurrence by legitimate devices."

I also quoted another extract to show that this matter filled the
mind of Mr. Jefferson. He said:

"Put down the banks, and if this country could not be carried
through the longest war, against her most powerful enemy, without
ever knowing the want of a dollar, without dependence on the
traitorous classes of her citizens, without bearing hard on the
resources of the people, or loading the public with an indefinite
burthen of debt, I know nothing of my countrymen. Not by any novel
project, not by any charlatanry, but by ordinary and well-experienced
means; by the total prohibition of all paper at all times, by
reasonable taxes in war, aided by the necessary emissions of public
paper of circulating size, this bottomed on special taxes, redeemable
annually as this special tax comes in, and finally within a moderate
period--even with the flood of private paper by which we were
deluged--would the treasury have ventured its credit in bills of
circulating size, as of five or ten dollars, etc., they would have
been greedily received by the people in preference to bank paper."

On the 26th of January, 1863, I introduced in the Senate a bill to
"provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States
stocks, and for the circulation and redemption thereof." This bill
took the usual course, was referred to the committee on finance,
was reported favorably with a number of amendments, and was fully
debated in the Senate. On the 9th of February, 1863, a cursory
debate occurred between Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, and myself, which
indicated a very strong opposition to the passage of the banking
bill. Various amendments were proposed and some adopted. I became
satisfied that if a strong effort was not made the bill would either
be defeated or postponed. I then, without preparation, made a
long, and as I think, a comprehensive, speech covering the general
subject and its principal details. It was the only speech of
considerable length that was made in favor of the bill in the
Senate. There seemed to be a hesitancy in passing a measure so
radical in its character and so destructive to the existing system
of state banks.

I said the importance of the subject under consideration demanded
a fuller statement than had as yet been made of the principle and
object of the bill. It was the misfortune of war that we were
compelled to act upon matters of grave importance without that
mature deliberation that would be secured in peaceful times. The
measure affected the property of every citizen of the United States,
and yet our action for good or evil must be concluded within a few
days or weeks of that session. We were to choose between a permanent
system designed to establish a uniform national currency based on
the public credit, limited in amount, and guarded by all the
restraints which the experience of men had proved necessary, and
a system of paper money without limit as to amount, except for the
growing necessities of war.

I narrated the history of the bill, of its introduction in December,
1861, its urgent recommendation by the Secretary of the Treasury
in two annual reports, and the conditions that then demanded
immediate action upon it. I stated the then financial condition
of the country. Gold was at a premium of between fifty and sixty
per cent. and was substantially banished from circulation. We were
in the midst of war, when the necessities of the government required
us to have large sums of money. We could not choose as to the mode
in which we should get that money. If we pursued the ordinary
course, the course that had been sufficient in times of peace to
raise money, of putting our bonds into the market and selling them
for what they would bring, it would be at a great sacrifice. We
knew this from the history of other nations and from our own
experience. We therefore must look for some system of finance that
would give us all the aid possible, either in the form of paper
money or by the agencies of associated banks. We knew very well
that after the war was over the government would still be largely
in need of money.

I then reviewed the various financial measures since the commencement
of the war. We were then in the peculiar condition of a nation
involved in a war without any currency whatever which by law could
be used in the ordinary transactions of public business. Gold was
withdrawn by the suspension of specie payments. The money of the
banks could not be used because the laws of the United States
forbade it, and we were without any currency whatever. Under these
circumstances, Congress had authorized the issue of $400,000,000
of United States notes. That this measure was wise but few would
controvert. We were compelled, by a necessity as urgent as could
be imposed upon any legislature, to issue these notes. To the
extent to which they were issued they were useful; they were a loan
by the public and without interest; they were eagerly sought by
our people; they were taken by our enemies in the south, by our
friends in the north; they were taken in the east and the west.
They furnished the best substitute for gold and silver that could
then be devised, and if we could limit United States notes to the
amount then authorized by law they would form a suitable and valuable
currency.

We had but four expedients from which to choose. First, to repeal
the sub-treasury act and use the paper of local banks as a currency;
second, to increase largely the issue of United States notes; third,
to organize a system of national banking, and fourth, to sell the
bonds of the United States in the open market. I discussed each
of these expedients in considerable detail. The practical objection
to the further issue of United States notes was that there was no
mode of redemption; they were safe; they were of uniform value,
but there was no mode pointed out by which they were to be redeemed.
No one was bound to redeem them. They were receivable but not
convertible. They were debts of the United States but could not
be presented anywhere for redemption. No man could present them
except for the purpose fo funding them into the bonds of the United
States. They were not convertible into coin. They lacked that
essential element in currency.

Another objection was that they were made the basis of state bank
issues. Under the operation of the act declaring United States
notes to be a legal tender, the state bank circulation had increased
from $120,000,000 to $167,000,000. The banks sold their gold at
a large premium, and placed in their vaults United States notes
with which to redeem their own notes. While the government had
been issuing its paper money some of the banks were inflating the
currency, by issuing paper money on the basis of United States
money. Illustrations of this inflation were given of existing
banks, showing enormous issues based upon a comparatively small
amount of legal tender notes. The issue of United States notes by
the government, and the making them a legal tender, was made the
basis of an inflated bank circulation in the country, and there
was no way to check this except by uniting the interest of the
government, the banks, and the people, together, by one uniform
common system.

I said that during war local banks were the natural enemies of a
national currency. They were in the War of 1812. Whenever specie
payment was suspended, the power to issue a bank note was the same
as the power to coin money. The power granted to the Bank of France
and the Bank of England to issue circulating notes was greatly
abused during the period of war. It was a power that ought never
to be exercised except by the government, and only when the state
was in danger. It was the power to coin money, because when a bank
issued its bill without the restraint of specie payments, it
substantially coined money and false money. This was a privilege
that no nation could safely surrender to individuals or banks.
Upon this point I cited a number of authorities, not only in our
own country, but in Europe. While I believed that no system of
paper money should depend upon banks, I was far from objecting to
their agency. They were useful and necessary mediums of exchange,
indispensable in all commercial countries. The only power they
derived from corporation not granted to all citizens was to issue
notes as money, and this power was not necessary to their business
or essential to their profit. Their business connected them with
the currency, and whether it should be gold or paper they were
deeply interested in its credit and value. Was it not then possible
to preserve to the government the exclusive right to issue paper
money, and yet not injuriously affect the local banks? This was
the object of that bill.

But, it was asked, why look at all to the interest of the banks,
why not directly issue the notes of the government, and thus save
to the people the interest on the debt represented by the notes in
circulation? The only answer to this was that history taught us
that the public faith of a nation alone is not sufficient to maintain
a paper currency. There must be a combination between the interests
of private individuals and the government. Our revolutionary
currency, continental money, depreciated until it became worthless.
The assignats of France, issued during her revolutionary period,
shared the same fate. Other European countries which relied upon
government money alone had a similar experience. An excessive
issue of paper money by the government would produce bankruptcy
and repudiation, not only of the notes abroad, but of bonds also.
The government of the United States had in circulation nearly
$400,000,000 United States notes. We had a bank circulation of
$160,000,000. If we increased our circulation, as was then proposed,
it would create an inflation that would evidently lead to the
derangement of all business affairs in the country. Whatever might
be the hazards, we had to check this over expansion and over issue.
If a further issue of United States notes were authorized, it would
be at once followed by the issue of more bank paper, and then we
would have the wildest speculation. Hitherto the inflation had
not extended to many articles. Real estate had not been much
affected by it.

The question then occurred whether the bank bill proposed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and introduced by me into the Senate,
would tend to secure a national currency beyond the danger of
inflation. This, the principal question involved, was discussed
at length. I contended that the notes issued would be convertible
into United States notes while the war lasted, and afterwards into
coin; that the currency would be uniform, of universal credit in
every part of the United States, while the bank bills, which it
would supersede, were current only in the states in which they were
issued. It would furnish a market for our bonds by requiring them
to be held as the security for bank notes, and thus advance the
value of the bonds. The state bank bills would be withdrawn, and
the state banks would be converted into national banks with severe
restrictions as to the amount of notes issued, and these only issued
to them by the general government upon ample security. The similarity
of notes all over the United States would give them a wider
circulation. I insisted that the passage of the bill would promote
a sentiment of nationality.

The policy of this country ought to be to make everything national
as far as possible. If we were dependent on the United States for
a currency and a medium of exchange, we would have a broader and
more prosperous nationality. The want of such nationality, I then
declared, was one of the great evils of the times; and it was that
principle of state rights, that bad sentiment that had elevated
state authority above the great national authority, that had been
the main instrument by which our government was sought to be
overthrown. Another important advantage the banks would derive
from this system, I urged, would be that their notes would be
guarded against all frauds and all alterations. There would be
but five or six kinds of notes in the United States, instead of
the great diversity there was then. In 1862 the number of banks
existing was 1,500, and the number whose notes were not counterfeited
was 253. The number of kinds of "imitations" was 1,861. The number
of kinds of "alterations" was 3,039. The number of kinds of
"spurious" was 1,685. This was the kind of currency that was
proposed to be superseded. Under the new system, the banks would
be relieved from all this difficulty.

Other advantages to the banks would be that they might become
depositaries of the public money, that their notes, being amply
secured, would be received in all payments due to or from the United
States, while the notes of state banks could not be so received,
as they were dishonored and disgraced from the beginning, being
refused by the national government.

This is an imperfect view of the question as it was then presented
to my mind. I knew the vote upon the passage of the bill would be
doubtful. The New England Senators, as a rule, voted for the bill,
but Senators Collamer and Foote had taken decided grounds against
it, and it was believed that Mr. Anthony and his colleague would
do likewise. I informed Secretary Chase of my doubt as to the
passage of the bill, and especially whether Mr. Anthony would vote
for it; without his vote I did not think it would pass. Mr. Chase
called at the Senate and had an interview with Mr. Anthony, in my
presence, in which he urged him strongly, on national grounds, to
vote for the bill, without regard to local interests in his own
state. His remarks made an impression upon Mr. Anthony who finally
exclaimed that he believed it to be his duty to vote for the bill,
although it would be the end of his political career. When the
vote was taken his name was the first recorded in favor of the
bill. It passed by a vote of 23 yeas and 21 nays, so that I was
entirely correct that if he had voted against the bill it would
have been defeated by a tie vote.

These two measures, the absorption of the state banks, and the
establishment of the system of national banks, taken in connection
with the legal tender act, were the most important financial measures
of the war, and, tested by time, have fully realized the anticipations
and confident assurance of their authors.

This system of national banks has furnished to the people of the
United States a currency combining the national faith with the
private stock and private credit of individuals. They have a
currency that is safe, uniform, and convertible. Not one dollar
of the notes issued by national banks has been lost to any person
through the failure of a bank. We have a currency limited in
amount, restrained and governed by law, checked by the power of
visitation and by the limitation of liabilities, safe, uniform,
and convertible in every part of the country. Every one of these
conditions prophesied by me has been literally realized.

Next in importance to a national currency was the problem of the
public debt. The issue of $50,000,000, demand notes, authorized
in 1861, was a forced expedient to meet immediate demands. A
prudent man, engaged in business, would not borrow money payable
on call unless he had securities which he could immediately convert
into money. Such liabilities are proper in a stock exchange or in
a gambling operation, to be settled by the receipt or payment of
balances on the rise or fall in the market of stocks or produce.
These demand notes gave Secretary Chase more trouble than any other
security, and they were finally absorbed in the payment of customs
duties.

On the 17th of July, 1861, Congress authorized the Secretary of
the Treasury to borrow, on the credit of the United States, within
twelve months, $250,000,000, for which he was authorized to issue
bonds, coupon or registered, or treasury notes, the bonds to bear
interest not exceeding seven per cent., payable semi-annually,
irredeemable for twenty years. The treasury notes were to be of
any denominations fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, not less
than fifty dollars, and to be payable three years after date, with
interest at the rate of seven and three-tenths per cent. per annum,
payable semi-annually. He was also authorized to issue, in exchange
for coin, as a part of the loan of $250,000,000, treasury notes
payable on demand, already referred to, or treasury notes bearing
interest at the rate of three and sixty-five hundredths per cent.
per annum, and payable in one year from date and exchangeable at
any time for treasury notes of fifty dollars and upwards. These
forms of security were the most burdensome that were issued by the
government during the war. The terms of these securities were
somewhat altered by the act approved August 5, 1861.

These laws were superseded by the act of February 28, 1862, which
may be regarded as the most important loan law passed during the
war. It authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue, on the
credit of the United States, $150,000,000 of United States notes,
commonly called greenbacks, already described. Of these, $50,000,000
were to be in lieu of the demand treasury notes authorized to be
issued by the act of July, 1861, above referred to. It also
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue $500,000,000 of
coupon, or registered, bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the
United States after five years, and payable twenty years from date,
bearing interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable
semi-annually. These are what were known as the 5-20 bonds. In
reference to these securities, Secretary Chase, in his report of
December 4, 1862, said:

"These measures have worked well. Their results more than fulfilled
the anticipations of the secretary. The rapid sale of the bonds,
aided by the issue of United States notes, furnished the means
necessary for the conduct of the war during that year."

On the 3rd of March, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized to borrow, from time to time, on the credit of the United
States, a sum not exceeding $300,000,000 for the current fiscal
year, and $600,000,000 for the next fiscal year, payable in coin,
at the pleasure of the government, after such periods as may be
fixed by the secretary, not less than ten, or more than forty,
years from date. These bonds, known as the 10-40's, bearing five
per cent. interest, were exempt from taxation by or under state or
municipal authority. This act also provided for the issue of a
large increase of non-interest bearing treasury notes, which were
made lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public
or private, within the United States, except for duties on imported
goods and interest on the public debt. Additional 10-40 bonds were
authorized by the act of June 30, 1864. But it may be said that
the 5-20 and 10-40 bonds became the well-known, recognized securities
of the United States, the sale of which at par, in connection with
the treasury notes of different forms, furnished the United States
the money to carry on the war. In the sale of these securities
the secretary was actively assisted by the banks and bankers of
the United States, and especially by Jay Cooke, who was the most
effective agent of the government in the sale of 5-20 bonds.

Secretary Chase, in his report of December 10, 1863, discussed at
length the objects to be kept studiously in view in the creation
of debt by negotiations of loans or otherwise: First, moderate
interest; second, general distribution; third, future controllability;
and, fourth, incidental utility.

The first loans were made upon the extravagant rate of interest of
seven and three-tenths per cent. The reason for this was the fact
that there was no currency the secretary could receive in exchange
for bonds. As already stated, specie payments were suspended by
the banks December 31, 1861. He was forbidden by law to receive
bank bills, and he knew that Congress would not and ought not to
repeal this law. After such suspension coin was scarce and difficult
to obtain. Afterwards, when the legal tender notes were authorized
and issued, he sold his bonds bearing six per cent. interest at
par for notes, but these notes had already largely depreciated
compared with coin. Still, they were money, readily taken for all
supplies, and enabled him to sell securities running a shorter
period. A diversity of securities maturing at different times were
exchanged for notes, and finally he was able to sell five per cent.
bonds at par, so that, on the 30th of September, 1863, two months
previous to his report, securities and notes then outstanding
amounted to $1,222,113,559. The fist bonds were irredeemable for
twenty years. The second bonds were redeemable in five, but payable
in twenty, years. The third bonds, bearing five per cent. interest,
were redeemable after ten years. It will be perceived that under
this arrangement the rate of interest on securities issued was
constantly reduced. The notes received in payment of bonds
depreciated or advanced in sympathy with the progress of our armies
and the prospects of success. The general purpose was to secure
as low a rate of interest as possible, to distribute the securities
among the largest number of persons possible, to provide the best
mode, time and terms for redemption, and to put the securities in
such form as to be used as a currency. No one can question the
wisdom of the management of the public debt by Secretary Chase.

The origin and development of the present system of internal taxes
must be interesting to every student of finance. The policy of
the government had been to confine, as far as possible, national
taxes to duties on imports, and, in ordinary times, this source of
revenue, exclusively vested in the United States, together with
the proceeds of the sale of public lands, was ample to defray the
current expenses of the government. During and shortly after the
War of 1812 resort was had to direct taxes apportioned among the
states respectively, and to internal taxes authorized by the
constitution under the name of excises, but the necessities of the
treasury becoming more urgent, and the reliance on the public credit
becoming more hazardous, Congress, at the special session which
convened in May, 1813, determined to lay the foundations of a system
of internal revenue, selecting in particular those subjects of
taxation which would be least burdensome. These taxes were at
first limited to one year, but were extended from time to time, so
that they acquired the name of "war taxes." A direct tax of
$3,500,000 was laid upon the United States, and apportioned among
the states respectively for the year 1814. Taxes were imposed on
sugar refined in the United States, on carriages, on licenses to
distillers of spirituous liquors, and other forms of internal
production. It was estimated that the internal taxes and the direct
tax would yield $3,500,000. For the fiscal year ending June 30,
1815, internal taxes yielded $5,963,000. In 1816 they yielded
$4,396,000. In 1817 they yielded $2,676,000, after which there
was no revenue from internal taxes except from the collection of
arrears, amounting in 1818 to $947,946, the law providing for such
taxes having expired by limitation. A comparison between the
receipts from this source then and the receipts subsequently derived
from internal revenue, is a significant indication of the difference
in population and wealth between 1812 and 1862.

When the Civil War commenced and the necessity of a large increase
of revenue became apparent, Secretary Chase, in his report to
Congress of the date of July 4, 1861, called attention to the
necessity of provision for a gradual increase in the revenue to
maintain the public credit, and to meet the current demands. His
recommendation as to internal taxes has already been referred to.
The act of August 5, 1861, previously mentioned, levied a direct
tax of $20,000,000 and an income tax. This act proved to be a
crude and imperfect measure, and it was modified or superseded by
the act of July 1, 1862. This act, carefully framed, was the basis
of the present system of internal revenue. It created a new office
in the treasury department, to be called the office of commissioner
of internal revenue. No less than thirteen acts of Congress were
passed prior to August 1, 1866, enlarging and defining the duties
of the office, and prescribing the taxes imposed by these several
laws. When this act was first framed we anticipated much greater
difficulties in the collection of the tax than actually occurred.
We had doubts whether the taxation imposed by this law would be
patiently submitted to by our constituents, but these misgivings
soon disappeared and the taxes imposed by that act were cheerfully
and promptly paid. I gave to the study and consideration of this
act, and the various amendatory acts, a large portion of my time.
At the end of the war internal taxes were cheerfully paid by the
people, and yielded far more revenue to the government than the
customs duties and all other sources of revenue combined.

The receipts from internal revenue for the first four years under
this law were as follows;

For the year ending June 30, 1863 . . . . $37,640,787
For the year ending June 30, 1864 . . . . 117,145,748
For the year ending June 30, 1865 . . . . 211,129,529
For the year ending June 30, 1866 . . . . 310,906,984

These taxes were mainly upon spirits, tobacco and beer, but they
also included stamp taxes of various kinds, special taxes on
particular industries, and income taxes, so that practically nearly
all forms of domestic manufactures were subject to a greater or
less tax, according to the nature of the article. So sweeping were
the provisions that it was frequently a matter of joke as well as
comment.

Some one remarked to Senator Collamer that everything was taxed
except coffins. He rejoined: "Don't say that to Sherman or he
will have them on the tax list before night!"

The general prosperity that existed during the war under such a
burden of taxation was frequently a matter of surprise. The truth
is that all productive industries were active because of the enormous
demand made by the army for supplies of all kinds, and everyone
who was willing to work could find plenty of employment. The
depreciation of the currency caused by the war did not embarrass
anyone, as the interest on securities was promptly paid in coin,
and greenbacks were the favorite currency of the people. The people
did not stop to inquire the causes of the nominal advance in prices;
they only knew that the United States note was cheerfully received
in every part of the United States as the current money of the
country. At the beginning the tax on whisky was 20 cents per
gallon, but it was gradually increased until it reached $2 a gallon,
when frauds and illicit distilling became serious evils. The tax
was then reduced to 90 cents a gallon.

When I became Secretary of the Treasury, I was impressed with the
magnitude of illicit distilling, even after the rate was reduced.
At that time several hundred men, mostly in the mountain regions
of North Carolina and Tennessee, were under arrest for violation
of the laws against illicit distilling. A delegation of them,
accompanied by Senator Ransom, appeared before me, and I heard
their apologies for distilling, and their complaints against the
officers. We entered into a formal engagement by which they agreed
to stop illicit distilling upon condition that they should be
relieved of punishment for their past acts, and, so far as I could
learn, they substantially observed their obligation. As a rule,
they were rough mountaineers who regarded whisky as a prime necessity
of life, and thought they ought to be allowed to convert their
grain into something better.

As the necessity for excessive taxation diminished after the war
was over, taxes on various articles were gradually repealed, until,
in 1894, they consisted of practically four items, spirits, tobacco,
fermented liquors, and oleomargarine. These are the figures for
two years:

Receipts during fiscal years
Objects of Taxation. ended June 30--
1893. 1894.
Spirits . . . . . . $94,720,260.55 $85,259,252.25
Tobacco . . . . . . 31,889,711.74 28,617,898.62
Fermented Liquors . 32,548,983.07 31,414,788.04
Oleomargarine . . . 1,670,643.50 1,723,479.90

In respect to these taxes, that on oleomargarine was not intended
as, nor is it, a very material revenue tax. The purpose was
especially to prevent the fraudulent imitation of butter by using
an extract of beef. The tax on spirits, tobacco and beer ought to
be retained as the best objects of taxation either of domestic or
imported goods. Neither of these is an article of necessity, but
all are used purely to gratify an appetite, in many cases indulged
to excess.

All civilized nations have come to regard these articles as the
best subjects of taxation. To the extent that whisky is used as
a beverage it is hurtful in its influence upon the individual and
upon society at large. It is the cause of innumerable crimes, of
poverty and distress in the family and home. Still, it is an
appetite that will be gratified, however severe may be the laws
against its use, and while this habit exists the tax upon whisky,
by limiting the quantity consumed, is beneficial to society at
large. It is true that alcohol, the base of whisky, is useful in
the arts and in the preparation of medicines and vinegar. If some
feasible plan could be prescribed by which alcohol or spirits thus
used could be freed from tax, it would be right to exempt it, but
no such plan has been found that includes security against frauds
being practiced to evade the tax on whisky. The tax on tobacco
and cigars is a moderate one, but the consumption of them is far
less dangerous than that of spirits in their influence upon society.
The tax on the cheaper form of tobacco and cigars is comparatively
small and does not add materially to the cost of tobacco in any of
its forms. No complaint is made of it. Its consumption is so
general that the tax is fairly distributed and falls mainly on the
richer classes, as the tax is increased in proportion to the value
of the tobacco. Beer, a beverage of almost universal use, yields
the large sum of $30,000,000 a year, at the rate of one dollar a
barrel. This does not cause a perceptible increase of the cost to
the consumer, but rather tends to maintain the good quality of beer
by the surveillance of the officers of internal revenue. No general
complaint has been made of this tax. All internal taxes are
collected at less cost than any other form of taxation devised,
and should be maintained as long as the expenses growing out of
the war shall remain unpaid.

The patience and even cheerfulness with which the people of the
United States submitted to this severe taxation on their domestic
productions, was a matter of surprise, not only among our own
people, but in European countries. In 1867, accompanied by Mr.
Adams, our minister to England, I had the pleasure of breakfasting
with Mr. Gladstone at his official residence, and he referred to
the ease with which we collected, without complaint, taxes so
burdensome as ours then were. He asked me if it was true that we
had collected $1,600,000 annually from a tax on matches. I told
him that we not only did so but that I had never heard a word of
complaint, and the quality of matches was vastly improved while
their price was actually reduced. He threw up his hands and said
that the people of England would not submit to such tax and if any
ministry would propose it, it would soon be out of power. Strange
to say an administration of which Mr. Gladstone was at the head
did subsequently propose such a tax, but it was so severely arraigned
that it was at once abandoned.

The income tax, varied somewhat in terms from year to year, continued
in force until 1870, when it was proposed to repeal it as no longer
necessary. By the terms of the then existing law it expired in
1872. I urged as strongly as I could its retention at least until
the time expired, but it was repealed. I then believed, and now
believe, that a moderate income tax, levied on all incomes above
the sum of $1,000, or above a sum that will supply the ordinary
wants of an average family in the United States with the necessaries
of life, should be levied, according to the exigencies of the public
service. In the present condition of affairs, I doubt the expediency
of such a tax, especially in view of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States recently rendered.

The distinction made by that court between incomes from the rent
of land and other incomes seems narrow and technical. A tax upon
the value of land is a direct tax, and must be apportioned among
the states according to population, but it does not follow that a
tax on incomes from land is a direct tax. An income means that
gain which results from business, or property, of any kind, from
the proceeds of a farm, the profits derived from trade and commerce,
and from any occupation or investment. In common language the word
income applies to money received from any source. It may be
qualified as gross income and net income. It may be limited by
words defining the source of the income, as, from land, merchandise
or banking, but, in its general sense, it means gross savings from
all sources. When received in money it is an income and not until
then. An income tax was paid, and cheerfully paid, by American
citizens during and since the war, in vast sums, and it did not
occur to citizen, lawyer or judge that the constitution of the
United States made a distinction between incomes from rents and
income from notes or bonds. The states tax both land and bonds.
Why may not the United States tax income from each alike? Many of
the largest incomes in the United States are derived from rents.
To except them by technical reasoning from a general tax on incomes
will tend to disparage the Supreme Court among "plain people." If
incomes from rents must be excepted, then no income tax ought to
be assessed. This decision, if adhered to, may cripple the government
in times of emergency. If made when the income tax was first
imposed, it would have reduced the national revenue $347,000,000,
for no income tax would have been enacted if rents were excluded
from taxable incomes.

I do not propose to narrate the numerous internal revenue laws,
which have been enacted and modified at every session of Congress
since 1861, or the innumerable objects of taxation embraced in
them, for such a narrative would fill too much space. The discussion
of these laws occupied a large portion of the time of Congress.
The articles or productions subject to taxation included for a time
nearly everything for the use of man. I trust the time is far
distant when such sweeping internal taxation will be required again,
but if it should come, the Congress of that day can find in our
experience resources more bountiful than Aladdin's lamp.

Direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states, are not likely
to be again assessed after the experience we had as to the last
direct tax. Besides the difficulty of collecting it, there is the
palpable objection that it is an unequal, and therefore an unjust,
tax. New states, and especially agricultural states, have not the
same ability to pay direct taxes as older commercial and manufacturing
states, having within them great cities with accumulated wealth,
in the form of stocks, bonds and patents.

The office of commissioner of internal revenue has fortunately been
filled, as a rule, by gentlemen of standing and character of a high
order of intelligence, and their work has been of great service to
the United States. This important bureau ought to be, and no doubt
will be, retained as a part of the organized machinery of the
government, and the taxes collected by it will be necessary as long
as our public debt remains, and until the list of pensioners will
be obliterated by the hand of time.

Another question of grave political significance was presented to
the 37th Congress early in this session, that of the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia. I had from the beginning
declared my opposition to any interference with slavery in the
District, but the changed condition of the country demanded a change
of public policy in this respect. Slavery was made the pretext
for, and, I believe, was, the real cause of the war. It had a
foothold in the District of Columbia, but it existed there in its
mildest form. By the census of 1860 there were, in the District
of Columbia, 11,107 free negroes, 3,181 slaves, and 60,785 white
people. It was considered the paradise of free negroes, where they
were almost exclusively employed as laborers in household service.

When the war broke out a considerable number of slaves ran away
from disloyal masters in Virginia and Maryland, seeking safety
within our lines and finding employment in the District of Columbia.
As the war approached, most of the slaves in the District were
carried away by their owners into Virginia, and other southern
states, so that in 1862 it was estimated there were not more than
1,500, and probably not 1,000, slaves in the District, while the
number of free negroes increased to 15,000. As a matter of course,
when Virginia seceded no attempt was made to recapture runaway
slaves from that state, and they became practically free. It was
known that there was at that time a strong disposition in Maryland
to try the experiment of emancipation, and it was believed that
after the war was over Virginia would adopt the same policy. Little
doubt was felt as to the power of Congress to abolish slavery in
the District, should such a course be deemed expedient. By the
constitution Congress was invested with express "power to exercise
exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district
as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of
Congress, become the seat of government of the United States."
This power had been recognized by the most eminent statesmen of
our country, and also by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Until Mr. Calhoun doubted or denied the power it was not questioned
by any considerable number. The real question was whether that
was the time for emancipation. I endeavored to give to the subject
careful consideration, and came to the conclusion that it was
expedient then to emancipate the very few slaves in the District,
fewer than there had been at any time within forty years, and fewer
than would likely be in case the war should end. I believed also
that the social influence of Washington, and the wealth and property
controlled and owned in a great measure by slaveholding residents
there, had been always against the government of the United States
and in favor of the Rebellion. While slavery existed it was a
constant source of annoyance and irritation. The great mass of
our constituents were opposed to slavery, morally, socially and
politically. They felt it was wrong and would not change their
opinion. As long as slavery existed in the District, where Congress
had the power to abolish it, agitation and excitement would be
ceaseless. The great body of the people of the northern states
were opposed to the institution theoretically, as were very many
of the most intelligent people of the southern states. I felt that
now was the time when this moral conviction should be heard and
heeded by the national legislature. I felt that we were bound to
consult the material interest of the people of the District, and
that emancipation would add to the value of their property and also
add to the population of the city. The abolition of slavery would
bring to the city intelligent mechanics and laboring men who would
never compete with the labor of slaves, and who, finding none there
but freemen, would develop the great advantages of the city. In
a speech I made upon the subject I enlarged upon this consideration
and said:

"I see no reason why Washington, with a free population and as a
free city, situated here at the head of the Potomac, with remarkable
facilities of navigation, with great conveniences of communication,
reaching to the west by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the
political capital of the country, might not be a great free city,
illustrating by its progress the operation of free institutions.
But it can only be done by the active, interested labor of free
people. Simply as a municipal regulation it would be wise to
abolish slavery in this district, because slavery is opposed to
the moral convictions of the great mass of the people of this
country, and the existence of slavery here keeps out of this District
an active, loyal, true, manly, generous body of laborers, who will
never compete in their labor with the labor of slaves."

There was another reason why the experiment of emancipation could
be best tried in the District of Columbia. Emancipation was
evidently the ultimate end of this question. We had the power to
try the experiment. It would be an example likely to be followed
at the close of the war by many of the border states. I therefore
made up my mind in favor of the measure, made a long speech for
the bill and voted for it. It became a law on April 10, 1862.

At that early day, I believed that it was the duty of Congress to
confiscate the slaves in the seceding states as the natural result
of the war. These states had placed themselves in a position by
rebellion where they had no constitutional rights which we were
bound to observe. The war being open and flagrant to break up the
Union, they were not entitled to the benefit of any stipulation
made in their favor as states in the Union. I also favored the
granting of aid to any policy of emancipation that might be adopted
in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, but Congress
was indisposed to extend the provisions of the then pending measure
beyond the District of Columbia.

The President of the United States, on September 22, 1862, issued
his proclamation containing the following declaration:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any state of designated part of a state, the people whereof
shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever, free; and the executive government of
the United States, including the military and naval authority
thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons,
and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,
in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

This was carried out in a subsequent proclamation of January 1,
1863, in which the President declared:

"And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves, within said
designated states and parts of states, are, and henceforward shall
be, free; and that the executive government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize
and maintain the freedom of said persons."

This was the beginning of the end of slavery.

In following the important financial measures of the 37th Congress,
I have purposely passed by, in their order of time, other measures
of vital interest that were acted upon in that Congress. The
military measures adopted were on the same grand scale as the
financial measures I have referred to. In 1861 the United States
contained a population of 32,000,000 people, of whom about 10,000,000
were in the seceding states, some of whom were opposed to secession,
but a greater number living in states that did not secede were in
hearty sympathy with the rebellion. No preparation for war had
been made in any of the loyal states, while in the disloyal states
preparations had been made by the distribution of arms through the
treachery of Secretary Floyd. When the seceding states organized
a confederate government, the executive branch of the general
government was under the management and control of those who favored
the rebellion, or were so feeble or indifferent that they offered
no resistance whatever to such organization. The President of the
United States declared, in an executive message, that the general
government had no power to coerce a state. On the accession of
President Lincoln, the confederate government was better organized
for resistance than the Union was for coercion. When war actually
commenced, the capital at Washington was practically blockaded,
and in the power of the Confederates.

The response of the loyal states to the call of Lincoln was perhaps
the most remarkable uprising of a great people in the history of
mankind. Within a few days the road to Washington was opened, but
the men who answered the call were not soldiers, but citizens,
badly armed, and without drill or discipline. The history of their
rapid conversion into real soldiers, and of the measures adopted
by Congress to organize, arm and equip them, does not fall within
my province. The battles fought, the victories won, and the defeats
suffered, have been recorded in the hundred or more volumes of "The
Records of the Rebellion," published by the United States. The
principal events of the war have been told in the history of Abraham
Lincoln by Nicolay and Hay, and perhaps more graphically by General
Grant, General Sherman, General Sheridan, Alexander H. Stephens,
Fitz Hugh Lee, and many others who actively participated in the
war, and told what they saw and knew of it.

The military committees of the two Houses, under the advice of
accomplished officers, formulated the laws passed by Congress for
the enlistment, equipment and organization of the Union armies.
Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, was chairman of the committee on
military affairs of the Senate, and he is entitled to much of the
praise due for the numerous laws required to fit the Union citizen
soldiers for military duty. His position was a difficult one, but
he filled it with hearty sympathy for the Union soldiers, and with
a just regard for both officers and men.

Among the numerous bills relating to the war, that which became
the act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion,
and to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, excited the
greatest interest, giving rise to a long debate. It was founded
on the faulty idea that a territorial war, existing between two
distinct parts of the country, could be treated as an insurrection.
The law of nations treats such a war as a contest between two
separate powers, to be governed by the laws of war. Confiscation
in such a war is not a measure to be applied to individuals in a
revolting section, but if the revolt is subdued, the property of
revolting citizens is subject to the will of the conqueror and to
the law of conquest. The apparent object of the law referred to
was to cripple the power of the Confederate States, by emancipating
slaves held in them, whenever such states fell within the power of
the federal army. This object was accomplished in a better and
more comprehensive way by the proclamation of the President. The
confiscation act had but little influence upon the result of the
war, except that it gathered at the wake of our armies in the south
a multitude of negroes called "contrabands," who willingly performed
manual labor, but were often an incumbrance and had to be fed and
protected.

The freedom of these "contrabands" was the result of the war, and
not of the confiscation act. In the later period of the war, they,
in common with the free negroes from the north, were organized into
regiments commanded by white men, and rendered valuable service to
the Union cause.

When the confiscation bill was pending, on the 23rd of April, 1862,
I made a speech in support of an amendment offered by me and in
substance adopted. A few extracts of my speech will show my opinions
on this subject:

"Confiscation is not only justified by the laws of war, by the
practice of many nations, but it is practiced by our enemies in
the most obnoxious way. They seize all kinds of property of loyal
citizens; they destroy contracts; confiscate debts. All the property
of citizens of loyal states which is within a disloyal state is
seized without exception, and that whether such citizen has aided
the government or not. They also seize the property of all citizens
in disloyal states who will not commit an act of treason by aiding
them. Yet they profess to be governed by a constitution similar
to the constitution of the United States, so far as it relates to
the rights of person and property. They draw the distinction
between the laws of war and the laws of peace. . . .

"Sir, it is time there was an end of this. We are at war. We must
destroy our enemies or they will destroy us. We must subdue their
armies and we must confiscate their property. The only question
with me is as to the best measure of confiscation. That some one
should be enacted, and that speedily, is not only my conviction of
duty, but it will be demanded by those who will have to bear the
burdens of the war. Now, it is the interest of every citizen in
a seceding state to be a rebel. If a patriot, his property is
destroyed. If a rebel, his property is protected alike by friend
and foe. Now, the burdens of war will fall, by heavy taxation,
upon loyal citizens, but rebels are beyond our reach. How long
can we conduct such a war? Sir, we have been moderate to excess.
War is a horrible remedy, but when we are compelled to resort to
it, we should make our enemies feel its severity as well as
ourselves. . . .

"If too much is attempted in the way of confiscation, nothing will
be accomplished. If nothing is confiscated, you array against you
all who wish in a civil war merely to preserve their property and
to remain quiet. This is always a large class in every community.
If rebellion will secure their property from rebels and not endanger
it to the government, they are rebels. Those whose position or
character have secured them offices among the rebels can only be
conquered by force. Is it not, therefore, possible to frame a bill
which will punish the prominent actors in the rebellion, proclaim
amnesty to the great mass of citizens in the seceding states, and
separate them from their leader? This, in my judgment, can be done
by confining confiscation to classes of persons. The amendment I
propose embraces five classes of persons."

The confiscation act was more useful as a declaration of policy
than as an act to be enforced. It was denounced by the Confederates
and by timid men in the north, but the beneficial results it aimed
at were accomplished, not by law, but by the proclamation of the
President and by the armed forces of the United States.

The several acts providing for enrolling and calling out the national
forces gave rise to much debate, partly upon sectional lines. The
policy of drafting from the militia of the several states, the
employment of substitutes and the payment of bounties, were contested
and defended. I insisted that if a special fund for hiring
substitutes was raised, it ought to be by a tax upon all wealthy
citizens, and not confined to the man who was drafted. These and
numerous questions of a similar character occupied much time, and
created much feeling. It is now hardly worth while, in view of
the results of the war, to revive old controversies. It is sufficient
to say that all the laws passed to organize the national forces
and call out the militia of the several states in case of emergency
contributed to the success of the Union armies. I do not recall
any example in history where a peaceful nation, ignorant of military
discipline, becoming divided into hostile sections, developed such
military power, courage and endurance as did the United States and
Confederate States in our Civil War. Vast armies were raised by
voluntary enlistments, great battles were fought with fearful losses
on both sides, and neither yielded until the Confederates had
exhausted all their resources and surrendered to the Union armies
without conditions, except such as were dictated by General Grant
--to go home and be at peace.

During the entire war Washington was a military camp. Almost every
regiment from the north on the way to the army in Virginia stopped
for a time in Washington. This was especially the case in 1861.
It was usual for every new regiment to march along Pennsylvania
Avenue to the White House. Among the early arrivals in the spring
of 1861 was a regiment from New Hampshire, much better equipped
than our western regiments. My colleague, Ben Wade, and I went to
the White House to see this noted regiment pass in review before
Mr. Lincoln. As the head of the line turned around the north wing
of the treasury department and came in sight, the eyes of Wade fell
upon a tall soldier, wearing a gaudy uniform, a very high hat, and
a still higher cockade. He carried a baton, which he swung right
and left, up and down, with all the authority of a field marshal.
Wade, much excited, asked me, pointing to the soldier: "Who is
that?" I told him I thought that was the drum major. "Well," he
said, "if the people could see him they would make him a general."
So little was then known of military array by the wisest among our
Senators.

It was quite a habit of Senators and Members, during the war, to
call at the camps of soldiers from their respective states.
Secretary Chase often did this and several times I accompanied him.
The "boys," as they preferred to be called, would gather around
their visitors, and very soon some one would cry out "a speech, a
speech," and an address would usually be made. I heard very good
speeches made in this way, and, in some cases, replied to by a
private soldier in a manner fully as effective as that of the
visitor.

In the early period of the war the private soldier did not forget
that he was as good as any man. One evening Major, afterwards
Major-General, Robert S. Granger and I were strolling through "Camp
Buckingham," near Mansfield, Ohio, and came to a young soldier
boiling beans. He was about to take them off the fire when Granger
said: "My good fellow, don't take off those beans; they are not
done." The young soldier squared himself and with some insolence
said: "Do you think I don't know how to boil beans?" Granger,
with great kindness of manner, said: "If you had eaten boiled
beans in the army as many years as I have you would know it is
better to leave them in the pot all night with a slow fire." The
manner of Granger was so kindly that the soldier thanked him and
followed his advice. General Granger died at Zanesville, Ohio,
April 25, 1894, after having been on the retired list for over
twenty-one years. He was a gallant, as well as a skillful, officer.
Peace to his memory.

It was my habit, while Congress was in session during the war, to
ride on horseback over a region within ten miles of Washington,
generally accompanied by some army officer. I became familiar with
every lane and road, and especially with camps and hospitals. At
that time it could be truly said that Washington and its environs
was a great camp and hospital. The roads were generally very muddy
or exceedingly dusty. The great army teams cut up and blocked the
roads which were either of clay or sand, but the air was generally
refreshing and the scenery charming. I do not know of any city
that has more beautiful environs, with the broad Potomac at the
head of tide water, the picturesque hills and valleys, the woodland
interspersed with deciduous and evergreen trees, the wide landscape,
extending to the Blue Ridge on the west, the low lands and ridges
of Maryland and the hills about Mt. Vernon. The city of Washington,
however, was then far from attractive. It was an overgrown village,
with wide unpaved avenues and streets, with 61,000 inhabitants
badly housed, hotels and boarding houses badly kept, and all
depending more or less upon low salaries, and employment by the
government. All this has been changed. The streets and avenues
have been paved and extended. The old site is now well filled with
comfortable mansions and business blocks, and a large portion of
the District outside the city is being occupied with villas and
market gardens. The mode of living has greatly changed. Before
and during the war, Senators and Members lived in boarding houses
in messes, formed of families of similar tastes and opinions.
Society, if it may be so called, was chiefly official, of which
justices of the Supreme Court and cabinet officers were the head,
and Senators and Members of Congress were the most numerous guests.

When I entered Congress my pay as a Member was $8 a day during the
season, and it was said we had "roast beef;" but we paid for it if
we had it. At the close of the 34th Congress the compensation was
increased to $3,000 a year. During the latter part of the war and
afterwards, prices of food, board and lodging were considerably
advanced.

In 1864 I offered the proprietor of Willard's Hotel my monthly pay
of $250 for board and lodgings, in very modest quarters, for my
wife and myself, but he demanded $300 a month. This led me to
purchase a house in which to live, a change which I have never
regretted. It was quite the fashion then for the old families,
who were in full sympathy with the Confederates, to underrate
property (even their own) in Washington, on the ground that when
the Confederacy was acknowledged the capital would be removed, and
real estate could, therefore, be obtained upon very reasonable
terms.

After the war the feverish revival of business growing out of our
expanded currency led to such reckless extravagance in improvements
by public officials in Washington that for a time it threatened
the bankruptcy of the city, but, as this leads me in advance of
events, I will recur hereafter to the Washington of to-day.

During 1870 Congress passed a law increasing the compensation of
Senators and Members from $3,000 to $5,000 a year, and justified
this increase by the inflated prices of everything measured by a
depreciated currency. There would have been but little complaint
of this by the people had not the law been made retroactive. It
was made to take effect at the beginning of that Congress, though
when the law was passed Congress was nearly ended. This "back
pay," amounting to over $3,000, was very unpopular, and led to the
defeat of many Members who voted for it. At home they were called
"salary grabbers." Several Senators and Members, I among the
number, declined to receive the back pay. But it was said that
the Congressmen could apply for it at any time in the future when
the excitement died away. This led me to write Francis E. Spinner,
Treasurer of the United States, to ascertain how I could cover into
the treasury my back pay. His answer was characteristic, and is
here inserted. Spinner, long since dead, was a peculiar character.
He was with me in the House of Representatives, was appointed
Treasurer of the United States by President Lincoln, and continued
as such until 1875. He was a typical officer, bold, firm and
honest. He was also a true friend, a model of fidelity and courage.

"Treasury of the United States,}
"Washington, July 3, 1873. }
"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 28th ultimo has been received.

"I sympathize with you most fully. I too have had my share of lies
told on me, by Dana and his 'Sun,' and shall be disappointed if
the libels are not continued, especially if I do right. Really
you have a white elephant on your hands. You can neither take the
back pay, nor leave it where it is, nor draw it and redeposit it,
without subjecting yourself to the yelping of the damned curs, that
bark at the heels of every honest man.

"If you will turn to the proviso in Section 5, of the General
Appropriation Bill, approved July 12, 1870, at page 251, volume
16, of the Statutes at Large, you will, I think, be satisfied that
your back pay would never lapse to the treasury. Should you leave
it, as it now is, I think it would at all times be subject to your
order, and to the order of your heirs afterwards. The department
has decided that the appropriations for the pay of Members of
Congress is _permanent_. The papers say that the Comptroller has
decided that the back pay would lapse in two years. I called on
him to-day, and he furnished me with a copy of his opinion, which
is herewith inclosed you, and wrote me a note, a copy of which is
also inclosed, in which he says--'it could not be carried back
until after two years; whether it can be carried back is another
question, which I do not intend to decide.' There are two ways
that the amount can be carried back into the treasury: First, by
drawing out the amount, and redepositing it; and second, by directing
the secretary of the senate, by written order, to turn the amount
into the treasury. I, of course, can't advise you what to do.

"Very respectfully yours,
"F. E. Spinner, Tr., U. S.
"Hon. John Sherman, Mansfield, Ohio."

In the spring of 1863, the financial operations of the government
were eminently successful. In the fall of 1862, Secretary Chase
endeavored to sell the $500,000,000 5-20 six per cent. bonds,
authorized by the act of February 25, 1862, through experienced
officers in New York, and could not get par for them. He then
employed Jay Cooke, of Philadelphia, to take charge of this loan,
and within a year it was sold by him, to parties all over the
country, at par. The entire cost of placing the loan was less than
three-eighths of one per cent. It furnished the greater part of
the means necessary to conduct the war during 1863.

The early victories of Grant and Forts Henry and Donelson had
rescued Kentucky, and opened up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers
to the heart of the south. The battle of Shiloh, though won at a
great sacrifice, inspired the western army with confidence, and
gave General Sherman his first opportunity to prove his ability as
a soldier. The timid handling of that army by Halleck and its
subsequent dispersion by his orders, and the general operations of
both the armies in the west and in Virginia, created a feeling of
despondency in the loyal states which was manifested in the election
in the fall of 1862. The military operations in the early part of
1863 did not tend to restore confidence.

At this period I received the following letter from Secretary
Stanton, which evidenced his appreciation of General Sherman:

"Washington, D. C., December 7, 1862.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--The general's letter is returned herewith, having been
read with much interest and great admiration of his wisdom and
patriotism. If our armies were commanded by such generals we could
not fail to have a speedy restoration of the authority of the
government, and an end of the war.

"I beg you to give him my warmest regards, and no effort of mine
will be spared to secure to the government the fullest exercise of
his abilities. With thanks for the favor, I am,

"Yours truly,
"Edwin M. Stanton."

The attack by General Sherman upon the defenses of Vicksburg had
been repulsed, but the effect of this had been counteracted by the
capture of Arkansas post with over 5,000 prisoners. General Grant
had failed in his operations in Mississippi. General Hooker had
been defeated at Chancellorsville, and Lee was preparing to make
an advance into Maryland and Pennsylvania.

On May 1, 1863, Clement L. Vallandigham, for several years a Member
of Congress from Ohio, in a speech made at Mount Vernon, denounced
the government with great violence, and, especially, an order issued
by General Ambrose E. Burnside, commanding the department of the
Ohio, announcing that "all persons, found within our lines, who
commit acts for the benefit of the enemies of our country, will be
tried as spies or traitors, and if convicted will suffer death."
Burnside enumerated among the things which came within his order,
the writing or carrying of secret letters, passing the lines for
treasonable purposes, recruiting for the Confederate service. He
said: "The habit of declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be
allowed in this department; persons committing such offenses will
be at once arrested, with a view to being tried or sent beyond our
lines into the lines of their friends."

Vallandigham denounced this order as a base usurpation of arbitrary
power; said that he despised it, and spat upon it, and trampled it
under his foot. He denounced the President, and advised the people
to come up together at the ballot box and hurl the tyrant from his
throne. Many of his hearers wore the distinctive badges of
"copperheads" and "butternuts," and, amid cheers which Vallandigham's
speech elicited, was heard a shout that Jeff. Davis was a gentleman,
which was more than Lincoln was.

This speech was reported to General Burnside. Early on the 4th of
May a company of soldiers was sent to arrest Vallandigham, and the
arrest was made. Arriving at Cincinnati, he was consigned to the
military prison and kept in close confinement. This event caused
great excitement, not only in Cincinnati, but throughout the State
of Ohio. On the evening of that day a great crowd assembled at
Dayton, and several hundred men moved, hooting and yelling, to the
office of the Republican newspaper, and sacked and then destroyed
it by fire. Vallandigham was tried by a military commission, which
promptly sentenced him to be placed in close confinement in some
fortress of the United States, to be designated by the commanding
officer of the department, there to be kept during the continuance
of the war. Such an order was made by General Burnside, but it
was subsequently modified by Mr. Lincoln, who commuted the sentence
of Vallandigham, and directed that he be sent within the Confederate
lines. This was done within a fortnight after the court-martial.
Vallandigham was sent to Tennessee, and, on the 25th of May, was
escorted by a small cavalry force to the Confederate lines near
Murfreesboro, and delivered to an Alabama regiment.

Vallandigham made a formal protest that he was within the Confederate
lines by force, and against his will, and that he surrendered as
a prisoner of war. His arrest for words spoken, and not for acts
done, created great excitement throughout Ohio and the country.
A public meeting was held in New York on May 16, which denounced
this action as illegal--as a step towards revolution. The Democratic
leaders of Ohio assumed the same attitude, and made a vigorous
protest to the President. It is not necessary to state this incident
more fully. Nicolay and Hay, in their history of Lincoln, narrate
fully the incidents connected with this arrest, and the disposition
of Vallandigham. The letters of the President in reply to Governor
Seymour, and to the meeting in Ohio, are among the most interesting
productions of Mr. Lincoln. He doubted the legality of the arrest.
He quoted the provision of the constitution that the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus "should not be suspended unless, in cases
of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require it." He
had suspended the privileges of that writ upon the happening of
contingencies stated in the constitution and, therefore, the
commanding officer was justified in making the arrest, and he did
not deem it proper to interfere with the order of the commanding
officer.

This incident was made more important when, on the 11th of June,
the Democratic convention of the State of Ohio met at Columbus and
there formally nominated Vallandigham as the candidate of that
party for Governor of Ohio. This presented directly to the people
of that state the question of the legality and propriety of the
arrest of Vallandigham. The Republican party subsequently met and
nominated for governor John Brough, a lifelong Democrat, but in
through sympathy with the Union cause.

It is difficult, now, to describe the intense excitement in Ohio
over the issue thus made--at times breaking into violence.
Vallandigham was received with great favor in the different cities
of the south, and finally, embarking on board of a vessel which
ran the blockade at Wilmington, he arrived at Bermuda on the 22nd
of June, from which place he took passage to Canada, arriving at
Niagara Falls about the middle of July.

The feeling of anger and excitement among the loyal people of Ohio
increased, so that it was manifest that if Vallandigham entered
the state he would be in great danger, and a quasi civil war might
have arisen. I heard men of character and influence say distinctly
that if Vallandigham came into the state he would be killed, and
they, if necessary, would kill him. It was then understood that
Mr. Lincoln was disposed to allow him to enter the state. Senator
Wade and I met at Washington and had a conversation with Mr. Lincoln.
We told him the condition of feeling in Ohio, and of our confident
belief that if his order of banishment was revoked, it would result
in riots and violence, in which Vallandigham would be the first
victim. He gave us no positive assurance, but turned the conversation
by saying that he thought Vallandigham was safer under British
dominion, where he would have plenty of friends.

In June, 1863, my health was somewhat impaired, and Mrs. Sherman
and I concluded to visit New England for a change of scene, and
for the benefit of the ocean air. We visited Newport in advance
of the season and found it deserted. We went to Boston, and there
heard of the advance of Lee in Pennsylvania, and the fierce contest
going on in the rear of Vicksburg. I became uneasy and started
for home with the intention of proceeding to Vicksburg, but at
Cleveland we heard the glad tidings of great joy, the fall of
Vicksburg and the defeat of Lee at Gettysburg.

These victories, occurring on the same day, aroused the enthusiasm
and confidence of the loyal people of the United States, especially
the people of Ohio. Instead of a trip to Vicksburg I was soon
enlisted in the political canvass, and this for three months occupied
my attention. Meetings were held in every county and in almost
every township of the state. All on either side who were accustomed
to speak were actively engaged. My opening speech was made at
Delaware on the 29th of July. I was intensely interested in the
canvass, and therefore insert a few paragraphs from that speech,
as an indication of the state of feeling existing at that time:

"The political campaign in Ohio this season presents some singular
features. We are in the midst of a great civil war, in which it
is safe to say that one million of men are now arrayed in arms
against each other. There are, perhaps, now, from Ohio, one hundred
thousand of her best and bravest citizens in the field, in hospitals
or camps, sharing the burdens of war. The immediate stake involved
is nothing less than national existence; while the ultimate stake
involves nothing less than civil liberty for generations yet to
come. In the midst of this contest the Democratic party, through
its most eloquent orators, endeavor to make a personal issue. They
propose to withdraw our armies, to abandon the war, and to try the
question whether their candidate for governor has been legally
convicted as a traitor to his country.

"We are assured by Mr. Pugh, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant
governor, who is one of the most eloquent and able young men in
the state, that here in Ohio we have been subjected to a tyranny
as intolerable as that of King Bomba of Naples. When we ask for
evidence of this tyranny, we are told that Clement L. Vallandigham
has been illegally convicted and illegally banished; and that if
we are fit to be free we must stop and examine the record in his
case, and not be turned from it by clamors about prosecuting the
war, or of concluding peace. And we are told that if we don't do
all this we are helpless slaves and deserve no better fate. Now,
as I do not desire to be a slave, and do not wish the people of my
native state to be slaves, I will so far depart from my usual course
in political discussion as to examine the personal issue thus made.

"I had supposed, fellow-citizens, that nowhere in the wide world
did people live as free from oppression as in the State of Ohio.
But the Democratic party has sounded the alarm that our liberties
were jeopardized in that Mr. Vallandigham has been, as they assert,
illegally convicted and banished. Before alluding to matters of
more general interest I propose to consider that question.

"The candidate of the Democratic party was convicted by a military
tribunal for aiding the enemy with whom we are at war. For this
he was expelled beyond our lines, and was within the lines of the
enemy when nominated for governor of Ohio. By the judgment of a
military tribunal, composed mainly of his political friends, approved
by General Burnside, the chief military officer within the state,
sanctioned by Judge Leavitt--a judge selected by Vallandigham
himself--of the United States court, he was convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment during the war. By the mercy of the President he
was released from imprisonment and sent beyond our lines. While
thus banished as a convicted traitor, by military authority, the
Democratic party of the State of Ohio nominated this man as a
candidate for governor, and you are called upon to ratify and
confirm that nomination, to intrust this man, convicted as a traitor,
with the chief command of our militia, the appointment of all its
officers, and the management of the executive authority of the
state; and that, too, in the midst of a war with the rebels he was
convicted of aiding. . . .

"And here is the marked distinction between the two parties. The
Union party strikes only at the rebels. The Democratic party
strikes only at the administration. The Union party insists upon
the use of every means to put down the rebels. The Democratic
party uses every means to put down the administration. I read what
is called the Democratic Platform, and I find nothing against the
rebels who are in arms against the best government in the world;
but I find numerous accusations against the authorities of the
government, who are struggling to put down the rebels. I find no
kindly mention of the progress of our arms, no mention of victories
achieved and difficulties overcome; no mention of financial measures
without a parallel in their success; no promise of support, no word
of encouragement to the constituted authorities; no allowance made
for human error; not a single patriotic hope. It is a long string
of whining, scolding accusations. It is dictated by the spirit of
rebellion, and, before God, I believe it originated in the same
malignant hate of the constituted authorities as has armed the
public enemies. I appeal to you if that is the proper way to
support your government in the time of war. Is this the example
set by Webster and Clay, and the great leaders of the Whig party
when General Jackson throttled nullification; or is it the example
of the tories of the Revolution?"

Brough visited, I think, every county in the state. Everywhere
his meetings were large and enthusiastic, but it must be said also
that the Democratic meetings, which were equally numerous, were
very largely attended. The people were evidently anxious to hear
both sides.

Towards the close of the campaign I accompanied Mr. Brough through
the populous central counties of the state. We spoke, among other
places, in Newark, Zanesville and Lancaster. The meetings were
not merely mass meetings, but they were so large that no human
voice could reach all those present, and speeches were made from
several stands in the open air, each surrounded by as many as could
hear. This indication of public feeling was somewhat weakened by
the fact that the Democratic meetings were also very large, and
the ablest members of that party were actively engaged in the
canvass. The "martyr" in Canada was the hero of these meetings,
and his compulsory arrest and absence from the state, but near its
border, was the constant theme of complaint. It was observed that
the rival meetings were attended by men of both parties in nearly
equal numbers, so that it was difficult to form an opinion of the
result. Mr. Brough kept a memorandum book containing the names of
the counties in the state and the estimated majorities for or
against him in each county. At night, when the crowds dispersed,
he would take out his book, and, upon the information received that
day, would change the estimate of his majorities. In view of the
enormous attendance at, and interest in, the Democratic meetings,
he was constantly lowering his estimated majority on the home vote,
until finally it declined to 5,000, with the army vote known to be
very largely in his favor. At Lancaster, where he had lived and
published a strong Democratic paper for many years, and where I
was born, he carefully analyzed his list, and, throwing his book
upon the table, emphatically said that he would not reduce his
majority of the home vote one vote below 5,000. The Democratic
party, however, seemed confident of Vallandigham's election. The
result was that Brough was elected by the unprecedented majority
of 101,000, of which 62,000 was on the home vote and 39,000 on the
vote of the soldiers in the field, they having the privilege of
voting.

This settled once for all the position of Ohio, not only on the
question of the war, but on the determination of its people to
support Mr. Lincoln in the use of all the powers granted by the
constitution as construed by him, and to prosecute the war to final
success. Vallandigham remained in Canada until June, 1864, when
he returned quietly to Ohio, where he was permitted to remain.
His presence injured his party. His appearance in the national
convention at Chicago in 1864, and active participation in its
proceedings, and his support of General McClellan, greatly, I think,
diminished the chances of the Democratic ticket. He died seven
years later by an accidental wound inflicted by himself.

I have always regarded Brough's election in Ohio upon the issue
distinctly made, not only as to the prosecution of the war, but in
support of the most vigorous measures to conduct it, as having an
important influence in favor of the Union cause equal to that of
any battle of the war. The results of all the elections in the
several states in 1863 were decidedly victories for the Union cause,
and especially in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Maryland.

The 38th Congress met on the 7th of December, 1863. The Members
of the House of Representatives were elected in the fall of 1862,
perhaps the darkest period of the war for the Union cause. The
utter failure of McClellan's campaign in Virginia, the defeat of
Pope at the second battle of Bull Run, the jealousies then developed
among the chief officers of the Union army, the restoration of
McClellan to his command, the golden opportunity lost by him at
Antietam, the second removal of McClellan from command, the slow
movement of Halleck on Corinth, the escape of Beauregard, the
scattering of Halleck's magnificent army, the practical exclusion
of Grant and his command, and the chasing of Bragg and Buell through
Kentucky--these, and other discouraging events, created a doubt in
the public mind whether the Union could be restored. It became
known during the happening of these events that Mr. Lincoln had
determined upon the emancipation of slaves in states in rebellion
by an executive act. He said to the artist, F. B. Carpenter:

"It had got to be midsummer, 1862; things had gone on from bad to
worse, until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the
plan of operations we had been pursuing; that we had about played
our last card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game. I
now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy; and
without consultation with, or the knowledge of, the cabinet, I
prepared the original draft of the proclamation."

Of the cabinet, Blair deprecated this policy on the ground that it
would cost the administration in the fall elections. Chase doubted
the success of the measure and suggested another plan of emancipation,
but said that he regarded this as so much better than inaction on
the subject that he would give it his entire support. Seward
questioned the expediency of the issue of the proclamation at that
juncture. The depression of the public mind consequent upon repeated
reverses was so great that he feared the effect of so important a
step.

In consequence of the opposition, the proclamation was postponed.
On the 22nd of September, the President, having fully made up his
mind, announced to the cabinet his purpose to issue the proclamation
already quoted. What he did, he said, was after full deliberation
and under a heavy and solemn sense of responsibility.

The effect of this proclamation upon the pending elections in Ohio
was very injurious. I was then actively engaged in the canvass
and noticed that when I expressed my approbation of the proclamation,
it was met with coldness and silence. This was especially so at
Zanesville. The result was the election in Ohio of a majority of
Democratic Members of Congress. This, following the overwhelming
Republican victory in 1861, when Tod was elected governor by a
majority of 55,203, was a revolution which could only be ascribed
to the events of the war and to the issue of the proclamation. It
may be also partially ascribed to the discontent growing out of
the appointments, by Governor Tod, of officers in the volunteers.
The same discontent defeated the renomination of Governor Dennison
in 1861. Such is the usual result of the power of appointment,
however prudently exercised.

The House of Representatives was promptly organized on the 7th of
December, 1863, by the election of Schuyler Colfax as speaker.
The session of Congress that followed was perhaps the busiest and
most important one in the history of our government. The number
of measures to be considered, the gravity of the subject-matter,
and the condition of the country, demanded and received the most
careful attention. The acts relating to the organization of the
army and the one increasing the pay of soldiers, made imperative
by the depreciation of our currency, as well as the draft and
conscription laws, received prompt attention. The enrollment act,
approved February 24, 1864, proved to be the most effective measure
to increase and strengthen the army. The bounty laws were continued
and the amount to be paid enlarged. The laws relating to loans,
currency, customs duties and internal taxes required more time and
occupied a great portion of the session. The revenue bill enacted
at that session was far more comprehensive and the rates much higher
than in any previous or subsequent law. It provided for an increase
of all internal taxes contained in previous laws, and added many
new objects of taxation, so as to embrace nearly every source of
revenue provided for by American or English laws, including stamp
duties upon deeds, conveyances, legal documents of all kinds,
certificates, receipts, medicines and preparations of perfumery,
cosmetics, photographs, matches, cards, and indeed every instrument
or article to which a stamp could be attached. It also provided
for taxes on the succession to real estate, legacies, distributive
shares of personal property, and a tax of from five to ten per
cent. on all incomes above $600, upon all employments, upon all
carriages, yachts, upon slaughtered cattle, swine and sheep, upon
express companies, insurance companies, telegraph companies,
theaters, operas, circuses, museums and lotteries, upon all banks
and bankers, brokers, and upon almost every article of domestic
production. It placed a heavy tax upon licenses, upon dealers in
spirits, upon brokers, lottery-ticket dealers and almost every
employment of life.

It largely increased the tax on spirits, ale, beer, porter, and
tobacco in every form. Not content with this, on the last day of
the session, Congress levied a special income tax of five per cent.,
to provide for the bounties promised to Union soldiers. This
drastic bill occupied the attention of both Houses during a
considerable portion of the session, and became a law only on the
30th of June, 1864, within four days of the close of the session.
It was greatly feared that the law could create discontent, but it
was received with favor by the people, few if any complaints being
made of the heavy burden it imposed. The customs duties were
carefully revised, not in the interest of protection but solely
for revenue. Nearly all the articles formerly on the free list
were made dutiable, and they proved to be copious sources of revenue,
especially the duties on tea, coffee, spirits of all kinds, wines,
cigars, and tobacco in every form.

During that session Congress passed two important loan bills, which
practically confided to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to
borrow money in almost any form that could be devised. The first
act, approved March 3, 1864, authorized him to borrow, on the credit
of the United States, $200,000,000 during the current fiscal year,
redeemable after any period not less than five years, and payable
at any period not more than forty years from date, in coin, and
bearing interest at six per cent. per annum. It also provided for
the issue of $11,000,000 5-20 bonds which had been sold in excess
of the $500,000,000 authorized by law. By the act approved June
30, 1864, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to borrow,
on the credit of the United States, $400,000,000, on bonds redeemable
at the pleasure of the United States after a period of not less
than five, nor more than forty, years from date, bearing an annual
interest of not exceeding six per cent., payable semi-annually in
coin. He was authorized to receive for such bonds lawful money of
the United States, or, at his discretion, treasury notes, certificates
of indebtedness or certificates of deposit, issued under any act
of Congress. These bonds were similar in general description to
the 5-20 bonds already provided for, but bore interest at five per
cent. instead of six.

By these measures the people of the United States had placed in
the power of the government almost unlimited sources of revenue,
and all necessary expedients for borrowing. Strange as it may
appear, under the operation of these laws the country was very
prosperous. All forms of industry hitherto conducted, and many
others, were in healthy operation. Labor was in great demand and
fully occupied. This will account for the passage of several laws
that would not be justified except in an emergency like the one
then existing. Among these was an act to encourage immigration,
approved July 4, 1864. This act grew out of the great demand for
labor caused by the absence of so many men in the army. A commission
of immigration was provided. Immigrants were authorized to pledge
their wages, for a term not exceeding twelve months, to repay the
expense of their immigration. These contracts were declared to be
valid in law and might be enforced in the courts of the United
States or of the several states and territories. It provided that
no immigrant should be compulsorily enrolled for military service
during the existing insurrection, unless such immigrant voluntarily
renounced, under oath, his allegiance to the country of his birth,
and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States.
This law could only be justified by the condition of affairs then
existing.

Another law, alike indefensible, but considered important at the
time, regulating the sale of gold, was approved June 17, 1864.
It declared unlawful a contract for the purchase or sale and delivery
of any gold coin or bullion, to be delivered on any day subsequent
to the making of the contract. It also forbade the purchase or
sale and delivery of foreign exchange, to be delivered at any time
beyond ten days subsequent to the making of such contract, or the
making of any contract for the sale and delivery of any gold coin
or bullion, of which the person making such contract was not at
the time of making it in actual possession. It also declared it
to be unlawful to make any loans of money or currency to be repaid
in coin or bullion or to make any loan of coin or bullion to be
repaid in currency. All these provisions were made to prevent what
were regarded as bets on the price of gold. This law, however,
proved to be ineffective, as all such laws interfering with trade
and speculation must be, and was soon repealed.

The national banking act, which passed at the previous session,
was carefully revised and enacted in a new form, and it still
remains in force, substantially unchanged by subsequent laws. By
this new act the office of comptroller of the currency was created.
Under its provisions, aided by a heavy tax on the circulating notes
of state banks, such banks were converted into national banks upon
such conditions as secured the payment of their circulating notes.

The financial measures, to which I have referred, were the work of
the committees of ways and means of the House and on finance in
the Senate. They occupied the chief attention of both Houses, and
may fairly be claimed by the members of those committees as successful
measures of the highest importance. I was deeply interested in
all of them, took a very active part in their preparation in
committee, and their conduct in the Senate, and, with the other
members of the committee, feel that the measures adopted contributed
largely to the final triumph of the Union cause. Certainly, the
full power of the United States, its credit and the property of
its people were by these laws intrusted to the executive authorities
to suppress the rebellion.

In addition to military and financial measures, that session was
prolific in many other measures of primary importance. The Union
Pacific Railroad Company, which had been chartered by the previous
Congress, found itself unable to proceed, and appealed to Congress
for additional aid. This was granted by the act of July 2, 1864.
Under this act, the first lien of the United States for bonds
advanced to the company, provided for by the act of 1862, was made
subordinate to the lien of the bonds of the company sold in the
market--a fatal error, which led to all the serious complications
which followed. The proceeds of the sale of the first mortgage
bonds of the company, with a portion of those issued by the United
States in aid of the company, built both the Union and Central
Pacific, so that the constructors of those roads, who were mainly
directors and managers of the company, practically received as
profit a large portion of the bonds of the United States issued in
aid of the work, and almost the entire capital stock of the company.
If the act had been delayed until after the war, when the securities
of the United States rapidly advanced in value, it could not have
passed in the form it did. The construction of the road was
practically not commenced until the war was over. The constructors
had the benefit of the advancing value of the bonds and of the
increasing purchasing power of United States notes.

It was unfortunate that the bill for the construction of the Northern
Pacific Railroad came up at the same time. It was a faulty measure,
making excessive grants of public lands to aid in the construction
of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound.
It was an act of incorporation with broad and general powers,
carelessly defined, and with scarcely any safeguards to protect
the government and its lavish grants of land. Some few amendments
were made, but mostly in the interest of the corporation, and the
bill finally passed the Senate without any vote by yeas and nays.

These two bills prove that it is not wise during war to provide
measures for a time of peace.

During the same session the Territories of Colorado, Nebraska and
Nevada were authorized to form state governments for admission into
the Union, and a government was provided for each of the Territories
of Montana and Idaho. The great object of organizing all the Indian
country of the west into states and territories was to secure the
country from Indian raids and depredations.

By far the most beneficial action of Congress at this session was
the passage of the 13th article of the constitution of the United
States, viz., "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction."

It was thoroughly debated, and passed the Senate by the large vote
of 38 yeas and 6 nays. It subsequently received the sanction of
the House and of the requisite number of states to make it a part
of the constitution. This was the natural and logical result of
the Civil War. In case the rebellion should fail, it put at an
end all propositions for compensation for slaves in loyal states,
and all question of the validity of the emancipation proclamation
of Abraham Lincoln.

The following letter of Secretary Chase shows the extremity of the
measures deemed to be necessary at this period of the war:

"Treasury Department, May 26, 1864.
"My Dear Sir:--I inclose two drafts of a national bank taxation
clause--one marked 'A,' providing for the appropriation of the
whole tax to the payment of interest or principal of the public
debt and repealing the real estate direct tax law, and another
marked 'B,' dividing the proceeds of the tax between the national
and the loyal states. In either form the clause will be vastly
more beneficial to the country than in the form of the bill, whether
original or amended.

"I also inclose a draft of a section providing for a tax on banks
not national in the internal revenue act. It substantially restates
the House proposition limiting it to banks of the states. Some
discrimination in favor of the national system which affords
substantial support to the government as compared with the local
system, which circulates notes in competition with those issued by
the government, seems to me indispensably necessary. It is impossible
to prevent the depreciation of the currency unless Congress will
assume its constitutional function and control it; and it is idle
to try to make loans unless Congress will give the necessary support
to the public credit. I am now compelled to advertise for a loan
of fifty millions, and, to avoid as far as practicable the evils
of sales below par, must offer the long bonds of '81. Should the
provisions I ask for be denied, I may still be able to negotiate
the loan on pretty fair terms; but I dread the effects on future
loans.

"Hitherto I have been able to maintain the public credit at the
best points possible with a surcharged circulation. My ability to
do so is due mainly to the legislation of the session of 1862-63.
I must have further legislation in the same direction if it is
desired to maintain that ability.

"Yours truly,
"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. John Sherman."

A few days before the close of the session, on the 29th of June,
1864, Mr. Chase tendered his resignation as Secretary of the
Treasury. This created quite a sensation in political circles.
It was thought to be the culmination of the feeling created by the
nomination of Lincoln and the alleged rivalry of Chase, but the
statements made in the "History of Lincoln," by Nicolay and Hay,
and the "Biography of Chase," by Schuckers, clearly show that the
cause of the resignation arose long anterior to this event and
gradually produced a condition of affairs when either Mr. Lincoln
had to yield his power over appointments or Mr. Chase retire from
his office. No good would result from analyzing the events which
led to this resignation. The cause was perhaps best stated by Mr.
Lincoln in accepting it, as follows:

"Your resignation of the office of Secretary of the Treasury, sent
me yesterday, is accepted. Of all I have said in commendation of
your ability and fidelity I have nothing to unsay, and yet you and
I have reached a point of mutual embarrassment in our official
relation which it seems cannot be overcome or longer sustained
consistently with the public service."

The nomination of David Tod, of Ohio, as Secretary of the Treasury
to succeed Mr. Chase, was not well received in either House. If
the Members had known Tod as well as I did, they would have known
that he was not only a good story teller, but a sound, able,
conservative business man, fully competent to deal with the great
office for which he was nominated. His declination, however,
prevented a controversy which would have been injurious, whatever
might have been the result. An anecdote frequently told by him
may, perhaps, explain his nomination.

When he was elected Governor of Ohio, he went to Washington to see
Mr. Lincoln, to find out, as he said, what a Republican President
wanted a Democratic Governor of Ohio to do in aid of the Union
cause. He called at the White house, sent in his card, and was
informed that the President was engaged, but desired very much to
see Governor Tod, and invited him to call that evening at 7 o'clock.
Promptly on time Governor Tod called and was ushered into the room
where, for the first time, he saw Mr. Lincoln. Mutual salutation
had scarcely been exchanged before the announcement was made that
David K. Cartter was at the door. Mr. Lincoln asked the governor
if he had any objection to Cartter hearing their talk. The governor
said no, that Cartter was an old friend and law partner of his.
Soon after Governor Nye of Nevada was announced. The same inquiry
was made and answered, and Nye joined the party, and in the same
way Sam. Galloway, of Ohio, and a famous joker from New York, whose
name I do not recall, came in. Then grouped around the table, Nye
led off with a humorous description of life in the mines in the
early days of California, and the others contributed anecdotes,
humor and fun, in which Lincoln took the lead, "and I" (as Tod told
the story), "not to be behindhand, told a story;" and so the hours
flew on without any mention of the grave matters he expected to
discuss with the President. When the clock announced the hour of
eleven, Mr. Lincoln said he made it a habit to retire at eleven
o'clock, and, turning to Tod, said: "Well, Governor, we have not
had any chance to talk about the war, but we have had a good time
anyway; come and see me again." It then dawned upon the governor
that this little party of kindred spirits, all friends of his, were
invited by the President to relive him from an interview about the
future that would be fruitless of results. Neither could know what
each ought to do until events pointed out a duty to be done.
Lincoln knew that Tod was a famous story teller, as were all the
others in the party, and availed himself of the opportunity to
relieve his mind from anxious care.

Governor Tod told me this anecdote and related many of the stories
told at that symposium.

The nomination of William P. Fessenden as Secretary of the Treasury
was a natural one to be made, and received the cordial support of
Members of the Senate, even of those who did not like his occasional
ill temper and bitterness. And here I may properly pause to notice
the traits of two men with whom I was closely identified in public
life, and for whom I had the highest personal regard, although they
widely differed from each other.

Mr. Fessenden was an able lawyer, a keen incisive speaker, rarely
attempting rhetoric, but always a master in clear, distinct statement
and logical argument. He had been for a number of years dyspeptic,
and this, no doubt, clouded his temper and caused many of the bitter
things he said. When I entered the Senate, I was, at his request,
placed on the committee on finance, of which he was chairman. He
was kind enough to refer to my position in the House as chairman
of the committee of ways and means, and my action there, and to
express the hope that I would be able to aid him in dealing with
financial question, in which he had no training and but little
interest. I accepted the position with pleasure, and in general
co-operated with him, though on many important subjects we widely
differed. His appointment as Secretary of the Treasury left me
chairman of the committee on finance, but my intercourse with him
continued while he was secretary. During the short period in which
he held that office, I had many conferences with him in respect to
pending questions. When he returned to the Senate, on the 4th of
March, 1865, he resumed his old place as chairman of the committee
on finance, and continued in that position nearly two years, when,
his health becoming more feeble, he resigned his membership of that
committee, and I again took his place as chairman and held it until
appointed Secretary of the Treasury in 1877. His health continued
to fail and he died at Portland, Maine, September 8, 1869.

With Mr. Chase I had but little acquaintance and no sympathy during
his early political career. His edition of the "Statutes of Ohio"
was his first work of any importance. He was at times supposed to
be a Whig and then again classed as a Democrat. Later he became
a member of the national convention of Free Soilers held at Buffalo,
August 9, 1848, over which he presided. This convention was composed
of delegates from eighteen states, and included in its active
members many of the most eminent Whigs and Democrats of a former
time. It nominated Martin Van Buren for the Presidency, and Charles
Francis Adams for Vice President. General Taylor, the nominee of
the Whig party, was elected President, but Mr. Van Buren received
291,342 votes, being nearly one-eighth of the whole number of votes
cast.

It so happened that when the Ohio legislature met in December,
1848, it was composed of an equal number of Whigs and Democrats
and of two members, Townsend and Morse, who classed themselves as
Free Soilers. They practically dictated the election of Mr. Chase
as United States Senator. They secured his election by an
understanding, express or implied, with the Democratic members,
that they would vote for Democrats for all the numerous offices,
which, under the constitution of the state as it then stood, were
appointed by the legislature. This bargain and sale--so-called--
created among the Whigs a strong prejudice against Chase. But
events in Congress, especially the act repealing the Missouri
Compromise, practically dissolved existing parties, and left Mr.
Chase in the vantage ground of having resisted this measure with
firmness. He was universally regarded as a man of marked ability
and honest in his convictions. In the election for Members of
Congress in 1854, he supported what were known as the anti-Nebraska
candidates, and, no doubt, contributed to their election. When he
was nominated for governor, I was naturally brought into friendly
relations with him, and these, as time advanced, were cordial and
intimate. Our correspondence was frequent, mostly of a personal
character, and our intimacy continued while he lived. When he was
Secretary of the Treasury I was frequently consulted by him, and
had, as I believe, his entire confidence. I have a great number
of letters from him written during that period.

In September, 1864, Mr. Chase was my guest at Mansfield for a day
or two. He was evidently restless and uneasy as to his future.
I spoke to him about the position of chief justice, recently made
vacant by the death of Taney. He said it was a position of eminence
that ought to satisfy the ambition of anyone, but for which few
men were fitted. Early in October I received a letter from him
which shows he was actively engaged in the canvass, and that the
common belief that he did not desire the election of Mr. Lincoln
was without foundation. He wrote as follows:

"Louisville, October 2, 1864.
"My Dear Sir:--Some days since I informed the secretary of the
state central committee that I would, as far as possible, fill the
appointments which ill-health had obliged Gov. Tod to decline.
Seeing afterwards, however, that he had determined to meet them
himself, I acceded to requests from other quarters to given them
what help I could. The first intimation I had that he would fail
in any of them was your letter, put into my hands just as I was
leaving Cincinnati for New Albany last Friday. It was then too
late to recall my own appointments, and, of course, I cannot be at
Mansfield. I should be glad to be there; but regret the impossibility
of it the less since I should not meet you. I am really glad you
are going to Logansport. The election of Gov. Morton is of vast
importance to our cause. And, then, Colfax, I feel most anxious
for him. I hope you can go to his district. I wanted to go myself;
but was urged to other parts of Indiana, and was left no chance to
reach it till this week; which must be given to Ohio in aid of
Stevenson and Bundy, except that I speak here to-morrow (Monday),
and Tuesday night in Covington.

"There has been a very large accumulation of troops here, for
Sherman. Col. Hammond telegraphed the department at Washington
yesterday that, communications being now re-established from
Nashville to Atlanta, he could commence sending them forward
immediately; and doubtless the movement will begin tomorrow. I
congratulate you most heartily of his splendid success thus far
and on the certainty that no effort will be spared to maintain his
army at the highest possible point of efficiency.

"There appears to be no truth in the report of a co-operative
movement in aid of Sheridan for Tennessee. Burbridge's expedition
is for a point beyond Abingdon where there are important salt works,
and he intends returning thence through Knoxville. So I learn from
one who ought to know; but don't understand it. _That game_ seems
hardly worth the candle.

"We had a splendid meeting in Aurora yesterday and our friends are
confident of Gov. Morton's re-election. Thousands of people stood
in a pouring rain to hear me and Gov. Lane talk to them, and
profounder or more earnest attention I never witnessed. It will
gratify you, I am sure, to know that I receive, wherever I go,
unequivocal manifestations of a popular confidence and appreciation,
which I did not suppose I possessed.

"There is not now the slightest uncertainty about the re-election
of Mr. Lincoln. The only question is, by what popular and what
electoral majority. God grant that both may be so decisive as to
turn every hope of rebellion to despair!

"You ask about Mr. Fessenden's remaining in the cabinet. He will
be a candidate for re-election to the Senate; and if successful
will leave his present post in March, or sooner if circumstances
allow. He has been in communication with me since he took charge,
and in every step, with perhaps one slight exception, his judgment
has corresponded with mine. He sees several matters now in quite
a different light from that in which they appeared to him when
Senator. He would now, for example, _cordially support_ your
proposition for a heavy discriminating tax upon all unnational
circulation. And he is more than just--he is very generous in his
appreciation of the immense work of organization and effective
activity to be found in the department.

"How signally are events confirming my views as to the value of
gold, compared with national currency. How clear it is now that
if Congress had come boldly to the act of marked discriminative
taxation on all non-national circulation and final prohibition
after a few years, say two--or at most three--gold would now have
been at not more than fifty per cent. premium and that resumption
of specie payments might have been effected within a year. I trust
the next session will witness bolder and better legislation. It
will be one of your brightest honors that you so clearly saw and
so boldly followed the path of reform; for certainly no greater
boon--except liberty itself--can be conferred upon a nation than
a truly national and thoroughly sound currency.

"Yours most truly,
"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. John Sherman."

After the election he wrote me the following letter, in which he
referred to the appointment of a chief justice, with an evident
desire for the office:

"Cincinnati, November 12, 1864.
"My Dear Sir:--The papers still state you are in Washington. I am
glad of it, and hope you may be able to render good service to our
friend, Fessenden. The task of preparing a report is no light one.
At least it always made me sweat and keep late hours. May he find
a safe deliverance from the labor.

"All sorts of rumors are afloat about everything. Those which
concern me most relate to the vacant seat on the bench; but I give
little heed to any of them. My experience in Washington taught me
how unreliable they are. If what I hear is any index to the state
of opinion, Mr. Lincoln must be satisfied that in acting on the
purpose expressed in your letters, he will have the almost, if not
quite, unanimous approval of the Union men throughout the country.
So I 'possess my soul in patience,' and urge nothing.

"If it did not seem to me a sort of indelicacy even to allow to
anyone the slightest occasion to say that I solicit or even ask
such an appointment as a favor or as a reward for political service,
I should now be on my way to Washington; but I think it due to
myself as well as the President to await his decision here; though,
if appointed, I hope the appointment will be considered as made
from the country at large rather than from Ohio alone. My legal
residence is here; but my actual domicile is still in the District.

"Please write me, if you can, when the President will act. Let me
know too how the military and political aspects at Washington appear
to you. We have achieved a glorious political victory, which must
greatly help our military prospects and possibilities.

"Mr. Miller has just come in and says he goes to Washington to-
night. Had he come before I began, I should have spared you this
letter; only asking him to make verbally the inquiries I have just
set down; but I will send it with 'answer respectfully solicited.'

"Yours very cordially,
"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. John Sherman."

Early in December I received the following letter, which indicates
very clearly that Mr. Chase was anxious for the position of chief
justice, and wished his appointment made, if at all, before his
arrival in Washington:

"Cleveland, December 2, 1864.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 27th of November reached me here to-
day. Yesterday I fulfilled my appointment to make an address on
the dedication of the college edifice recently erected at Mount
Union, under the patronage of the Pittsburg conference of the
Methodist church. A number of leading men of the denomination were
present and assured me of the profound wishes of themselves and
the most influential men of the connection for my appointment.
These indeed seem to be universal except with an inconsiderable
number whom various circumstances have made unfriendly personally.
So that I cannot doubt that the President's adherence to his declared
intention is more important to our cause and to his administration
than it is to me personally. Not to be appointed after such
declaration and such expressions would, no doubt, be a mortification;
but it would not, I think, be any serious injury to me.

"I expect to be in Washington, Tuesday or Wednesday. I should have
been there long since had this appointment been determined either
way; but I must come now. My personal duties, unconnected with
it, have required and now require my attention, and though I hated
to come before I knew that there remains nothing to hope or fear
concerning it, I must. I will be at the Continental, Philadelphia,
Tuesday morning.

"Our news from Tennessee is important and encouraging. Garfield's
success against Forrest was brilliant. I hope Thomas will succeed
as well against Hood.

"General Sherman must now be near the coast. His enterprise is
full of hazard, but a hazard wisely incurred as it seems to me.
I ardently hope that 'out of the nettle, danger, he will pluck the
flower, safety.'

"Our majority on the presidential election in Ohio turns out much
less than I anticipated. It will hardly, if at all, exceed fifty
thousand.

"Faithfully yours,
"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. John Sherman."

When I returned to Washington at the beginning of the next session
I called upon the President and recommended the appointment of Mr.
Chase. We had a brief conversation upon the subject in which he
asked me pointedly the question whether if Chase was appointed he
would be satisfied, or whether he would immediately become a
candidate for President. I told him I thought his appointment to
that great office ought to and would satisfy his ambition. He then
told me that he had determined to appoint him and intended to send
the nomination to the Senate that day and he did so, December 6,
1864. After Mr. Chase had become chief justice he still had a
lingering interest in the financial policy of the country. On
March 1, 1865, I received from him the following letter. The
portion which refers to the legal tender laws will naturally excite
some interest in view of his decision against the power of Congress
to make the notes of the United States a legal tender. He wrote:

"At Home, March 1, 1865.
"My Dear Sir:--More to fulfill a promise than with the hope of
service I write this note.

"Your speech on the finances is excellent. There are one or two
points on which I shall express myself otherwise; but, in the main,
it commands the fullest assent of my judgment.

"Your appreciation of the currency question exactly corresponds
with my own; only I would not give up the national currency even
if we must endure for years depreciation through the issues of
state banks before getting rid of them.

"The clause in the bill, as it came from the House, imposing a tax
of ten per cent. on all notes not authorized by Congress which may
be paid out after this year by any bank, whether state or national,
will do much towards making our currency sound.

"I will briefly indicate what I should prefer and what I should
most zealously labor to have sanctioned by Congress if I were at
the head of the treasury department.

"1. Let the monthly tax on state bank circulation be increased to
one-half of one per cent.

"2. Provide that any bank may pay into the national treasury the
amount of its circulation in United States notes or national currency
and that on such payment the bank making it shall be exempt from
taxation on circulation.

"3. Provide for the application to the redemption of the circulation
represented by such payments, of the United States notes or national
currency so paid in, and strictly prohibit the paying out of such
notes for any other purpose.

"This measure contemplates:

"1. An exclusive national currency.

"2. Relief of the state banks from taxation upon circulation which
they cannot get in.

"3. The assumption of the duty of redemption by the national
treasury with means provided by the state banks.

"4. Reduction in the amount in circulation while the payments into
the treasury are being made and opportunity of some provision for
redemption which will not again increase it.

"The effect will be:

"1. Healthful condition of currency and consequent activity in
production and increase of resources.

"2. Gradual restoration of national notes to equality with specie
and the facilitating of resumption of specie payments.

"3. Improvement of national credit.

"4. Diminution of national expenditures and possible arrest of
the increase of national debt.

"Half measures are better than no measures; but thorough measures
are best.

"I will only add, that while I have never favored legal tender laws
in principle, and never consented to them except under imperious
necessity, I yet think it unwise to prohibit the making of any of
the treasury notes authorized by the bill now before Congress legal
tenders. The compound interest legal tender notes have then
fulfilled all my expectations for their issue and use; and may be
made most useful helps in gradual reduction of the volume of
circulation by substituting them for legal tenders bearing no
interest.

"I cannot elaborate this now. You will see how the thing will work
without any suggestion of mine. Faithfully your friend,

"S. P. Chase.
"Hon. John Sherman."

From my long and intimate acquaintance with Chief Justice Chase I
am quite sure that the duties of the great office he then held were
not agreeable to him. His life had been a political one, and this
gave him opportunity for travel and direct communion with the
people. The seclusion and severe labor imposed upon the Supreme
Court were contrary to his habits and injurious to his health. It
took him some years to become accustomed to the quiet of judicial
life. He presided over the Senate while acting as a court of
impeachment during the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. While
strongly opposed to the impeachment, he manifested no sign of
partiality. He died in New York city on the 7th of May, 1873, at
the age of sixty-five.

While Congress was in session, the Republican national convention
met at Baltimore on the 7th day of June, 1864, to nominate candidates
for President and Vice President of the United States, and to
announce the principles and policy of the Republican party of the
United States. The nomination of Mr. Lincoln had already been made
by state legislatures and by the loyal people of the United States
in every form in which popular opinion can be expressed. The feeble
expressions of dissent were but a whisper compared with the loud
proclamations coming from every loyal state in favor of Lincoln.
The convention, with unanimous assent, ratified and confirmed the
popular choice.

The nomination for Vice President was dictated by the desire to
recognize the loyalty and patriotism of those who, living in states
in rebellion, remained true and loyal to the Federal Union. Though
Mr. Johnson disappointed the expectations of those who nominated
him, yet at that time his courage and fidelity and his services
and sacrifices for the cause of the Union fully justified his
nomination.

More important, even, than the choice of candidates, was the
declaration by the convention of the policy of the Republican party.
The key-note of that policy was the third resolution, as follows:

"_Resolved_, that as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes
the strength of this rebellion, and as it must be always and
everywhere hostile to the principles of republican government,
justice and the national safety demand its utter and complete
extirpation from the soil of the republic; and that we uphold and
maintain the acts and proclamations by which the government, in
its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at the gigantic evil. We
are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the constitution,
to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as
shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within
the limits or the jurisdiction of the United States."

This was the logical result of the war. If it was carried into
full execution, it would settle on a just and sure foundation the
only danger that ever threatened the prosperity of the Union. This
was happily carried into full effect by the constitutional amendment
to which I have already referred.

The Democratic convention met at Chicago on the 29th of August,
1864, and nominated George B. McClellan as the candidate for
President and George H. Pendleton as Vice President; but far more
important and dangerous was the second, and the only material
resolution of the platform which was drawn by Vallandigham and was
as follows:

"_Resolved_, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the
sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to
restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under
the pretense of a military necessity of a war power higher than
the constitution, the constitution itself has been disregarded in
every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden
down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially
impaired, justice, humanity, liberty and the public welfare demand
that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities with
a view to an ultimate convention of all the states, or other
peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable
moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the federal union of
all the states."

This was a false declaration, and was also a cowardly surrender to
enemies in open war. These two resolutions made the momentous issue
submitted to the American people. From the moment it was made the
popular mind grew stronger and firmer in favor of the prosecution
of the war and the abolition of slavery, and more resolute to resist
the surrender proposed to rebels in arms. Prior to the adoption
of this resolution, there was apparent languor and indifference
among the people as to who should be President, but after its
adoption there could be no doubt as to the trend of popular opinion.
Every sentiment of patriotism, the love of flag and country, the
pride of our people in the success of our soldiers, and the resentment
of the soldiers themselves at this slur on their achievements--all
contributed to the rejection of the candidates and the platform of
the Democratic party, and the overwhelming victory of the Republican
party.

I had already entered into the canvass when this resolution of
Vallandigham was adopted. It was only necessary to read it to the
people of Ohio to arouse resentment and opposition. The scattered
opposition to Mr. Lincoln, much of it growing out of his conservatism,
at once disappeared. The discontented Republicans who met in
convention at Cleveland again became active in the Republican ranks.
The two parties that grew out of factional politics in New York,
the Blair party and its opponents in Missouri, and the army of
disaffected office-seekers, waived their dissensions and griefs.
Horace Greeley and the extreme opponents of slavery, represented
by Wendell Phillips, not satisfied with the slow, but constitutional
process of emancipation proposed by Lincoln, when compelled to
choose between that plan of abolition and unconditional surrender
to slavery, naturally voted for Lincoln. The great body of patriotic
Democrats in all the states, who supported the war, but were still
attached to their party, quietly voted for Lincoln. In Ohio,
especially, where a year before they voted against Vallandigham
for his disloyalty, they naturally voted against his resolution
for surrender to the rebels.

During the campaign I accompanied Johnson to Indiana where he made
patriotic speeches to great audiences. His arraignment of the
autocracy of slaveholders in the south was very effective. The
current of opinion was all in favor of Lincoln. The result of the
election for Members of Congress in the states voting in October
was a decisive indication of the result in November. All the
central states elected a large majority of Republican Members of
Congress. In Ohio the Union party had a majority of over 50,000
and elected 17 Republican and 2 Democratic Members of the House of
Representatives. In 1862 Ohio elected 14 Democratic and 5 Republican
Members. The presidential election that followed on the 8th of
November, 1864, resulted in an overwhelming victory for Lincoln.
He received 212 and McClellan 21 electoral votes, the latter from
the States of New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky. This political
victory had a more decisive effect in defeating the rebellion than
many battles. I returned to Washington soon after the election.

I was naturally deeply interested in the movements of General
Sherman's march to the sea. Towards the close of November we had
all sorts of rumors from the south, that General Sherman was
surrounded by Confederate troops, that his supplies were cut off,
that successful attacks had been made upon his scattered forces.
I naturally became uneasy, and went to President Lincoln for
consolation and such news as he could properly give me. He said:
"Oh, no, we have no news from General Sherman. We know what hole
he went in at, but we do not know what hole he will come out of,"
but he expressed his opinion that General Sherman was all right.
Soon after, authentic information came that General Sherman had
arrived at Savannah, that Fort McAllister was taken, and the army
was in communication with the naval forces. The capture of Savannah
and the northward march of General Sherman's army is part of the
familiar military history of the country.

The second session of the 38th Congress convened on the 5th of
December, 1864. It was a busy and active session confined mainly
to appropriations, loan and currency bills. The necessary expenditures
had been so greatly increased by the war that the aggregate amounts
appropriated naturally created some opposition and alarm, but there
was no help for it. As chairman of the committee on finance I did
all I could to reduce the appropriations for civil expenses, but
in respect to military expenditures there could scarcely be any
limit, the amount necessary being dependent upon military success.
The hopeful progress of the war gave encouragement that in a brief
period the power of the Confederate States would be exhausted and
peace would follow. We had, however, to legislate upon the basis
of the continued prosecution of the war, and it therefore became
necessary to increase the revenues in every possible way, and to
provide for new loans. The act approved March 3, 1865, authorized
the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow not exceeding $600,000,000,
and to issue therefore bonds or treasury notes of the United States
in such form as he might provide. This was the last great loan
authorized during the war. An act to provide internal revenue to
support the government was approved on the same day, which modified
many of the provisions of the previous act, but added subjects of
taxation not embraced in previous laws. It especially increased
the taxes on tobacco in its various forms. The 6th section
provided:

"That every national banking association, state bank, or state
banking association, shall pay a tax of ten per centum on the amount
of notes of any state bank or state banking association, paid out
by them after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-
six."

This tax on state bank circulation was a practical prohibition of
all state bank paper, and before the time fixed for the commencement
of the tax, this circulation entirely disappeared. Additional
duties were placed upon certain foreign importations. Provisions
were also made for the collection in the insurrectionary districts
within the United States of the direct taxes levied under the act
of 1862. During the entire season my labor was excessive, and when
it closed my health and strength were greatly impaired.

On the 4th of March, 1865, at the inauguration of the President
and Vice President elect, a scene occurred in the Senate chamber,
which made a serious impression, and was indicative of what was to
occur in the future. About eleven o'clock of that day Andrew
Johnson, Vice President, was shown into the room in the capitol
assigned to the Vice President. He complained of feeling unwell
and sent for either whisky or brandy, and must have drunk excessively
of it. A few minutes before twelve o'clock he was ushered into
the Senate to take the oath of office and to make the usual brief
address. He was plainly intoxicated and delivered a stump speech
unworthy of the occasion. Before him were assembled all the
principal officers of the government and the diplomatic corps. He
went on in a maudlin and rambling way for twenty minutes or more,
until finally he was suppressed by the suggestion of the secretary
that the time for the inauguration had arrived, and he must close.

The procession was formed for the inauguration at the east front
of the capitol, where a great multitude was gathered. There Mr.
Lincoln delivered his memorable inaugural address. Referring to
the condition of the controversy at the time of his former inaugural,
he said:

"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would _make_ war
rather than let the Union survive; and the other would _accept_
war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

He hopefully predicted the result of the war, but he said:

"Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by
the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall
be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall
be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand
years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord
are true and righteous altogether.'"

His peroration will always be remembered for its impressive
eloquence:

"With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in
the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to
finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care
for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and
his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and
lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Soon after the adjournment I was invited by Secretary Stanton, with
many other Senators and our families, to take a trip to the south
in the steamer "Baltic." Among those on board were Senators Simon
Cameron, Wade, Zach. Chandler, and Foster, of Connecticut, then
president _pro tempore_ of the Senate. The sea was exceedingly
boisterous. Nearly all on board were sea sick, but none so badly
as Wade and Chandler, both of whom, I fear, violated the third
commandment, and nearly all the party were in hearty sympathy with
them. I was a good sailor and about the only one who escaped the
common fate. We visited the leading places of interest along the
coast, but especially Charleston, Beaufort and Savannah. Charleston
had but recently been evacuated. General Sherman was then on his
march through North Carolina. In Charleston everything looked
gloomy and sad. I rode on horseback alone through different parts
of the city, and was warned by officers not to repeat the ride,
as, if my name was known, I would be in danger of being shot.

We arrived in Beaufort on Sunday morning. The town was then full
of contrabands. We remained there that day and received an invitation
from a negro preacher to attend religious services at his new
meeting-house. About fifteen or twenty of the party went to the
"meeting-house," a new unfinished skeleton-frame house of considerable
size without any plastering--a mere shell. We were shown to seats
that had been reserved for us. The rest of the congregation were
negroes in every kind of dress and of every shade of color. The
scene was very interesting, but the sermon of the preacher was
little better than gibberish. He was a quaint old man, wearing
goggles and speaking a dialect we could hardly understand. At the
close of his sermon he narrated how the meeting-house had been
built; that John had hauled the logs, Tom, Dick and Harry, naming
them, had contributed their labor, but they were in debt something
over $200, and, with a significant glance at our little party, he
thought this was a good time to take up a collection. No sooner
was this said than Cameron, whispering to me, said: "Let's pay
it; I'll give twenty dollars," and when the hat came around, instead
of the usual dimes and quarters in ragged currency, it received
greenbacks of good denominations. In the meantime the old preacher,
highly elated, called upon the audience to sing "John Brown's Body."
A feeble, piping voice from an old negro woman started the singing
and the rest of the negroes, with loud melodious voices, joined
in, and, before it was through, the rest of us joined in. The hat,
when returned to the preacher, was found to contain more than fifty
dollars in excess of the amount necessary to pay off the debt.
Then, with many thanks to us by the preacher, the audience was
requested to remain standing until their visitors left.

Our visit at Savannah was very interesting. We there found many
leading citizens of the town who were social and kind, treating us
in a friendly way by rides around the city.

In the latter part of March, I was invited by General Sherman, then
on a visit to Grant near Petersburg, Virginia, to go with him to
Goldsboro, North Carolina, where his army was then encamped.
Secretary Stanton was my next door neighbor, and our families were
intimately associated. I invited his eldest son, Edwin, then a
young man studying law, to accompany me, an invitation which he
gladly accepted. We joined General Sherman at Fortress Monroe and
accompanied him on the steamer "Bat" to Newbern and thence by rail
to Goldsboro. There was a sense of danger in traveling by rail
through a country mostly unoccupied, but we reached the army at
Goldsboro safely. There I had my first view of a great army in
marching garb. Most of the troops had received their new uniforms
and equipments, but outlying regiments were constantly coming in,
ragged, with tattered hats, shoes and boots of every description,
almost black from exposure and the smoke of the pine woods, and as
hardy a looking set of men as one could conceive of. They had
picked up all kinds of paraphernalia, "stove pipe" hats being the
favorite, and had all sorts of wagons gathered in their march.
Their appearance was rapidly changed by new uniforms. After a
brief visit I returned to Washington, and thence to my home in
Mansfield.

I was invited soon after, on the 14th of April, to attend a mass
meeting at Columbus to celebrate the success of the Union army.
I accepted the invitation and attended an immense meeting in the
open air on the capitol grounds, and there Samuel Galloway and
myself made addresses. Meetings were held, congratulations uttered
in the evening of that day. The whole city was in holiday attire,
ornamented with flags, and everywhere and with everybody, there
was an expression of joy. I retired late at night to my room in
the hotel, and after my fatigue slept soundly.

Early the next morning Rush Sloane, a personal friend, rapped at
my door and announced to me the news of the assassination of Lincoln,
and, as then reported, that of Seward. The change from joy to
mourning that day in Columbus was marked and impressive. No event
of my life created a more painful impression than this news following
the rejoicings of the day before. I returned to Washington and
attended the funeral services over the body of Mr. Lincoln, then
about to be carried on the long journey to his old home in Springfield,
Illinois.

On the 6th of May, in response to the invitation of my neighbors
in Mansfield, I made an address upon the life and character of the
dead President. It expressed the opinion and respect I then
entertained for him, and now I could add nothing to it. As time
moves on his name and fame become brighter, while most of his
contemporaries are one by one forgotten.

Soon after the death of Mr. Lincoln, the terms of the surrender of
General Johnston to General Sherman became the subject of a violent
controversy. On the 21st of April, Secretary Stanton issued an
order to General Grant to proceed immediately to the headquarters
of General Sherman and direct operations against the enemy. He
issued a bulletin in which he intimated that Davis and his partisans
were on their way to escape to Mexico or Europe with a large amount
of gold plundered from the Richmond banks and from other sources,
and that they hoped to make terms with General Sherman by which
they would be permitted with their effects, including their gold
plunder, to go to Mexico or Europe. The most violent and insulting
paragraphs were published in the newspapers, substantially arraigning
General Sherman as a traitor and imputing to him corrupt motives.
I felt myself bound at once, not to defend the terms of surrender,
but to repel the innuendoes aimed at General Sherman. This led me
into a controversy with Mr. Stanton, not worth while to recall.

I believed then and still believe that he was under the influence
of perhaps a well-grounded fear that his life was in danger. The
atmosphere of Washington seemed to be charged with terror, caused
by the assassination of Lincoln, the wounding of Seward and the
threats against all who were conspicuous in political or military
life in the Union cause. Now, since we are fully informed of all
the surrounding circumstances connected with the surrender, and
the belief of General Sherman that he was strictly carrying out
the policy of President Lincoln, it is plain that he acted in what
he supposed was the line of duty. He did not comprehend that the
fatal crime in Washington changed the whole aspect of affairs.
His agreement with Johnston was on its face declared to be inoperative
until approved by the authorities at Washington, and, while the
political features of the surrender could not be approved, a simple
notification of disapproval would have been cheerfully acted upon
and the orders of the President would have been faithfully carried
out.

General Sherman, when he received notice of the disapproval of his
action, at once notified Johnston, and new terms were arranged in
exact accordance with those conceded by General Grant to General
Lee.

I remained in Washington until the arrival, on the 19th of May, of
General Sherman's army, which encamped by the roadside about half
way between Alexandria and the Long Bridge. I visited the general
there and found that he was still smarting under what he called
the disgrace put upon him by Stanton. I advised him to keep entirely
quiet, said the feeling had passed away and that his position was
perfectly well understood. I persuaded him to call on the President
and such members of the cabinet as he knew, and accompanied him.
He was dressed in full uniform, well worn, was bronzed and looked
the picture of health and strength. As a matter of course he
refused to call on Stanton and denounced him in unmeasured terms,
declaring that he would insult him whenever the opportunity occurred.
When he came in contact with his fellow officers and found that
they sympathized with him his anger abated, and by the time the
great review took place, he seemed to have recovered his usual
manner.

The review of General Meade's army was to occur on Tuesday, May
23, and that of General Sherman's, as it was called, on the 24th.
General Sherman, with his wife and her father, Hon. Thomas Ewing,
and myself, were present on the reviewing stand on the first day
of the review. He received on the stand the congratulations of
hundreds of people and seemed to enjoy every moment of time. He
was constantly pointing out to Mr. Ewing and myself the difference
between the eastern and western armies, in which he evidently
preferred the Army of the West. On the next day, prompt to the
time stated, attended by a brilliant staff, he rode slowly up
Pennsylvania avenue at the head of his column, and was followed by
a magnificent army of 65,000 men, organized into four army corps,
and marching with that precision only possible with experienced
troops. His description of the scene in his "Memoirs" proves his
deep interest in the appearance of his army and his evident pride
in it. When he arrived at the grand stand, where the President
reviewed the troops, he dismounted, left the line, came upon the
stand and took his place by the side of the President. Everyone
knew his relations to Stanton, and was curious to see the result
of their meeting. I stood very near the general, and as he approached
he shook hands with the President and the members of the cabinet,
but when Stanton partially reached out his hand, General Sherman
passed him without remark, but everyone within sight could perceive
the intended insult, which satisfied his honor at the expense of
his prudence. However, it is proper to say that these two men,
both eminent in their way, became entirely reconciled before the
death of Mr. Stanton. General Sherman always stopped with me when
he was temporarily in Washington, and I know that in a brief period
they met and conversed in a friendly way. When Mr. Stanton lay
upon his death bed, General Sherman not only called upon him, but
tendered his services, and exhibited every mark of respect for him.

The great body of the volunteer forces was disbanded, the officers
and soldiers were returning to their homes. To most of them the
war was a valuable lesson. It gave them a start in life and a
knowledge and experience that opened to door to all employment,
especially to official positions in state and nation. In all
popular elections the soldier was generally preferred. This was
a just recognition for his sacrifices and services. I hope and
trust that while a single survivor of the War of the Rebellion is
left among us, he will everywhere be received with honor and share
all the respect which the boys of my generation were so eager to
grant and extend to the heroes of the Revolutionary War. The
service of one was as valuable as the other, rendered on a broader
field, in greater numbers, with greater sacrifices, and with the
same glorious results of securing the continuance of an experiment
of free government, the most successful in the history of mankind
and which is now, I profoundly trust, so well secured by the heroism
and valor of our soldiers, that for generations and centuries yet
to come no enemy will dare to aim a blow at the life of the republic.
For the wounded and disabled soldiers and the widows and orphans of
those who fell, a larger provision of pensions was freely granted
than ever before by any nation in ancient or modern times.
Provision was made by the general government, and by most of the
loyal states, for hospitals and homes for the wounded. The bodies
of those who died in the service have been carefully collected into
cemeteries in all parts of the United States. If there has been
any neglect or delay in granting pensions, it has been caused by
the vast number of applications--more than a million--and the
difficulty as time passes in securing the necessary proof. The
pension list now, thirty years after the war, requires annually
the sum of more than $150,000,000, or three times the amount of
all the expenses of the national government before the war. No
complaint is made of this, but Congress readily grants any increase
demanded by the feebleness of age or the decay of strength. I
trust, and believe, that this policy will be continued until the
last surviving soldier of the war meets the common fate of all.

I participated in the canvass of 1865, when General Jacob D. Cox,
the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio, and a Republican
legislature were elected with but little opposition. The first
duty of this legislature was to elect a Senator. There was a
friendly contest between General Robert C. Schenck, Hon. John A.
Bingham and myself, but I was nominated on the first ballot and
duly elected.

I received many letters from Horace Greeley, in the following one
of which he showed great interest in my re-election to the Senate:

"New York, February 7, 1865.
"Hon. John Sherman:

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 5th inst. at hand. I can assure you
that the combination to supplant you in the Senate is quite strong
and confident of success. I did not mean to allude to the controversy,
but was compelled to by the dispatch which got into our columns.
I observe J. W. wrote 'locality' as he says, but the change to
'loyalty' was a very awkward one in these days; so I felt compelled
to correct it.

"I fear more the raids of Thad. Stevens on the treasury than those
of Mosby on our lines.

"Yours,
"Horace Greeley."

When Congress met on the 4th of December, 1865, it had before it
two important problems which demanded immediate attention. One
was a measure for the reconstruction of the states lately in
rebellion and the other was a plan for refunding and paying the
public debt. It was unfortunate that no measure had been provided
before the close of the war defining the condition of the states
lately in rebellion, securing the freedmen in their new-born rights,
and restoring these states to their place in the Union. Therefore,
during the long vacation, from April to December, the whole matter
was left to executive authority. If Lincoln had lived, his action
would have been acquiesced in. It would have been liberal, based
upon universal emancipation of negroes, and pardon to rebels. It
was supposed that President Johnson would err, if at all, in imposing
too harsh terms upon these states. His violent speeches in the
canvass of 1864, and his fierce denunciation of the leaders in the
Rebellion, led us all to suppose that he would insist upon a
reconstruction by the loyal people of the south and that reasonable
protection would be extended to the emancipated negroes. The
necessity of legislation for the reconstruction of the Confederate
states was foreseen and provision had been made by Congress, during
the war, by what was known as the Wade-Davis bill, to provide for
the reorganization of these states. During the 37th Congress,
Henry Winter Davis, though not then a Member of the House of
Representatives, prepared a bill to meet this exigency. It was a
bill to guarantee to each state a republican form of government.
It embodied a plan by which these states, then declared by Congress
to be in a state of insurrection, might, when that insurrection
was subdued or abandoned, come back freely and voluntarily into
the Union. It provided for representation, for the election of a
convention and a legislature, and of Senators and Members of
Congress. It was a complete guarantee to the people of the
insurrectionary states that upon certain conditions these states
might resume their place in the Union when the insurrection had
ceased. This bill he handed to me. I introduced it at his request.
It was referred to the judiciary committee, but was not acted upon
by it.

Afterwards Mr. Davis came into the 38th Congress as a Member of
the House of Representatives. Among the first acts performed by
him after taking his seat was the introduction of this same bill.
On the 15th of December, 1863, it was debated in the House of
Representatives and passed by a very decided vote, and was sent to
the Senate. It was reported to the Senate favorably, but in place
of it was substituted a proposition offered by B. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri. This substitute provided a mode by which the eleven
Confederate states might, when the Rebellion was suppressed within
their limits, be restored to their old places in the Union. The
bill was sent back to the House with the proposed substitute. A
committee of conference was appointed, and the House preferring
the original bill, the Senate receded from its amendment, and what
was known as the Wade-Davis bill passed. It went to President
Lincoln, who did not approve it, and it did not become a law, but
on the 8th of July, 1864, after the close of the session, he issued
the following proclamation:

"Whereas, at the late session Congress passed a bill to guaranty
to certain states, whose governments have been usurped or overthrown,
a republican form of government, a copy of which is hereunto annexed;
and whereas the said bill was presented to the President of the
United States for his approval less than one hour before the _sine
die_ adjournment of said session, and was not signed by him; and
whereas the said bill contains, among other things, a plan for
restoring the states in rebellion to their proper practical relation
in the Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that
subject, and which plan it is now thought fit to lay before the
people for their consideration:

"Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States,
do proclaim, declare, and make known, that while I am (as I was in
December last, when by proclamation I propounded a plan for
restoration) unprepared, by a formal approval of this bill, to be
inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration; and while
I am also unprepared to declare that the free state constitutions
and governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and
Louisiana shall be set aside and held for naught, thereby repelling
and discouraging the loyal citizens who have set up the same as to
further effort, or to declare a constitutional competency in Congress
to abolish slavery in states, I am at the same time sincerely hoping
and expecting that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery
throughout the nation may be adopted."

He added his reasons for not approving the Wade-Davis bill. He
did not entirely disapprove of it, but said it was one of numerous
plans which might be adopted. Mr. Sumner stated, on the floor of
the Senate, that he had had an interview with President Lincoln
immediately after the publication of that proclamation, and it was
the subject of very minute and protracted conversation, in the
course of which, after discussing the details, Mr. Lincoln expressed
his regret that he had not approved the bill. I have always thought
that Mr. Lincoln made a serious mistake in defeating a measure,
which, if adopted, would have averted many if not all the difficulties
that subsequently arose in the reconstruction of the rebel states.

The next and closing session of that Congress neglected to provide
for the reorganization of these states, and, thus, when Mr. Johnson
became President, there was no provision of law to guide him in
the necessary process of reconstruction. Thus, by the disagreement
between Congress and President Lincoln, which commenced two years
before the close of the war, there was no law upon the statute book
to guide either the President or the people of the southern states
in their effort to get back into the Union. It became imperative
during the long period before the meeting of Congress that President
Johnson should, in the absence of legislation, formulate some plan
for the reconstruction of these states. He did adopt substantially
the plan proposed and acted upon by Mr. Lincoln. After this long
lapse of time I am convinced that Mr. Johnson's scheme of reconstruction
was wise and judicious. It was unfortunate that it had not the
sanction of Congress and that events soon brought the President
and Congress into hostility. Who doubts that if there had been a
law upon the statute book by which the people of the southern states
could have been guided in their effort to come back into the Union,
they would have cheerfully followed it, although the conditions
had been hard? In the absence of law both Lincoln and Johnson did
substantially right when they adopted a plan of their own and
endeavored to carry it into execution. Johnson, before he was
elected and while acting as military governor of Tennessee, executed
the plan of Lincoln in that state and subsequently adopted the same
plan for the reorganization of the rebel states. In all these
plans the central idea was that the states in insurrection were
still states, entitled to be treated as such. They were described
as "The eleven states which have been declared to be in insurrection."
There was an express provision that:

"No Senator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch
of Congress from _any of said states_ until Congress shall have
declared _such state_ entitled to such representation."

In all the plans proposed in Congress, as well as in the plan of
Johnson, it was declared that states had no right while in insurrection
to elect electors to the electoral college; they had no right to
elect Senators and Representatives. In other words they could not
resume the powers, rights and privileges conferred upon states by
the Constitution of the United States, except by the consent of
Congress. Having taken up arms against the United States, they by
that act lost their constitutional powers within the United States
to govern and control our councils. They could not engage in the
election of a President, or of Senators or Members of Congress;
but they were still states. The supreme power of Congress to
change, alter or modify the acts of the President and to admit or
reject these states and their Senators and Representatives at its
will and pleasure, and the constitutional right of the respective
Houses to judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its
own Members were recognized. When Mr. Johnson came into power he
found the Rebellion substantially subdued. His first act was to
retain in his confidence, and in his councils, every member of the
cabinet of Abraham Lincoln, and, so far as we know, every measure
adopted by him had the approval and sanction of that cabinet.
Every act passed by Congress, with or without his assent, upon
every subject whatever, connected with reconstruction, was fairly
and fully executed. He adopted all the main features of the Wade-
Davis bill--the only one passed by Congress. In his proclamation
of May 9, 1865, he provided:

"First, That all acts and proceedings of the political, military,
and civil organizations which have been in a state of insurrection
and rebellion within the State of Virginia against the authority
and laws of the United States, and of which Jefferson Davis, John
Letcher, and William Smith were late the respective chiefs, are
declared null and void."

Thus, with a single stroke, he swept away the whole superstructure
of the Rebellion. He extended the tax laws of the United States
over the rebel territory. In his proclamation of May 29, he says:

"To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of
the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and
freedom may be established, I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all
persons who have directly or indirectly participated in the existing
Rebellion, _except as hereinafter excepted_, amnesty and pardon,
with restoration of all rights of property, _except as to slaves_,
and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the
United States providing for the confiscation of property of person
engaged in rebellion, have been instituted, &c."

He enforced in every case full and ample protection to the freedmen
of the southern states. No complaint from them was ever brought
to his knowledge in which he did not do full and substantial justice.
The principal objection to his policy was that he did not extend
his proclamation to all the loyal men of the southern states,
including the colored as well as the white people. It must be
remembered in his justification that in every one of the eleven
states before the Rebellion the negro was, by the laws, excluded
from the right to vote. In Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York that
right was limited. In a large majority of the states, including
the most populous, negro suffrage was then prohibited. It would
seem to be a great stretch of power on his part, by a simple
mandatory proclamation or military order, to confer the franchise
on a class of people, who were then prohibited from voting not only
in the eleven southern states, but in a majority of the northern
states. Such a provision, if it had been inserted, could not have
been enforced, and, in the condition in which slavery left the
negro race, it could hardly be defended. I cannot see any reason
why, because a man is black, he should not vote, and yet, in making
laws, as the President was then doing, for the government of the
community, he had to regard the prejudices, not only of the people
among whom the laws were to be executed, but also of the army and
the people who were to execute those laws, and no man can doubt
but what at that time there was a strong and powerful prejudice in
the army and among all classes of citizens against extending the
right of suffrage to negroes, especially down in the far south,
where the great body of the slaves were in abject ignorance.

It must be also noted that in the Wade-Davis bill Congress did not
and would not make negro suffrage a part of its plan. Even so
radical an anti-slavery man as my colleague, Senator Wade, did not
propose such a measure. The effort was made to give emancipated
negroes the right to vote, and it was abandoned. By that bill the
suffrage was conferred only upon _white_ male loyal citizens. And
in the plan of the President, he adopted in this respect the very
same conditions for suffrage as those proposed by Congress. I
believe that all the acts and proclamations of President Johnson
before the meeting of Congress were wise and expedient, and that
there would have been no difficulty between Congress and the
President but for his personal conduct, and, especially, his
treatment of Congress and leading Congressmen. The unfortunate
occurrence, already narrated, at his inauguration, was followed by
violent and disrespectful language, unbecoming the President,
especially, his foolish speech made on the 22nd of February, 1866,
in which he selected particular persons as the objects of denunciation.
He said:

"I fought traitors and treason in the south. I opposed the Davises,
the Toombses, the Slidells, and a long list of others, which you
can readily fill without my repeating the names. Now, when I turn
round, and at the other end of the line find men, I care not by
what name you call them, who still stand opposed to the restoration
of the Union of these states, I am free to say to you that I am
still in the field."

And again he said:

"I am called upon to name three at the other end of the line; I am
talking to my friends and fellow-citizens, who are interested with
me in this government, and I presume I am free to mention to you
the names of those whom I look upon as being opposed to the
fundamental principles of this government, and who are laboring to
pervert and destroy it."

Voices: "Name them!" "Who are they!"

He replied:

"You ask me who they are. I say Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania,
is one; I say Mr. Sumner, of the Senate, is another; and Wendell
Phillips is another."

The violence of language, so unlike that of Abraham Lincoln, added
to the hostility to Mr. Johnson in Congress, and, I think, more
than any other cause, led to his impeachment by the House of
Representatives.

In the beginning of the controversy between Congress and the
President, I tried to act as a peacemaker. I knew Mr. Johnson
personally, his good and his bad qualities. I sat by his side in
the Senate chamber during the first two years of the war. I was
with him in his canvass in 1864. I sympathized with him in his
struggles with the leaders of the Rebellion and admired his courage
during the war, when, as Governor of Tennessee, he reorganized that
state upon a loyal basis. The defect of his character was his
unreasoning pugnacity. He early became involved in wordy warfare
with Sumner, Wade, Stevens and others. In his high position he
could have disregarded criticism, but this was not the habit of
Johnson. When assailed he fought, and could be as violent and
insulting in language and acts as anyone.

Under these circumstances I made a long and carefully considered
speech in the Senate on the 26th of February, 1866, in which I
stated the position of Congress on the reconstruction measures,
and the policy adopted by Johnson from Lincoln. Either of these
plans would have accomplished the provisional restoration of these
states to the Union, while all agreed that, when admitted, they
would be armed with all the powers of states, subject only to the
constitution of the United States. I believed then, and believe
now, that the quarrel with Johnson did much to weaken the Republican
party. In consequence of it several Republican Senators and Members
severed their connection with that party and joined the Democratic
party. Johnson, irritated by this antagonism, drifted away from
the measures he had himself advocated and soon after was in open
opposition to the party that elected him. I here insert passages
from my speech, which expressed my views at the time, and which I
now feel were justified by the then existing opinions and conditions
of political life:

"Sir, I can imagine no calamity more disgraceful than for us by
our divisions to surrender, to men who to their country were enemies
in war, any or all of the powers of this government. He, who
contributes in any way to this result, deserves the execrations of
his countrymen. This may be done by thrusting upon the President
new issues on which the well-known principles of his life do not
agree with the judgment of his political associates. It may be
done by irritating controversies of a personal character. It may
be done by the President turning his back upon those who trusted
him with high power, and thus linking his name with one of the most
disgraceful in American history, that of John Tyler. I feel an
abiding confidence that Andrew Johnson will not and cannot do this;
and, sir, who will deny that the overbearing and intolerant will
of Henry Clay contributed very much to the defection of John Tyler?
But the division of the Whig party was an event utterly insignificant
in comparison with the evil results of a division in the Union
party.

"Where will be the four million slaves whom by your policy you have
emancipated? What would be their miserable fate if now surrendered
to the custody of the rebels of the south? Will you, by your demand
of universal suffrage, destroy the power of the Union party to
protect them in their dearly purchased liberty? Will you, by new
issues upon which you know you have not the voice of the people,
jeopard these rights which you can by the aid of the Union party
secure to these freedmen? We know that the President can not and
will not unite with us upon the issues of universal suffrage and
dead states, and he never agreed to. No such dogmas were contemplated,
when, for his heroic services in the cause of the Union, we placed
him, side by side, with Mr. Lincoln as our standard-bearer. Why,
then, present these issues? Why decide upon them? Why not complete
the work so gloriously done by our soldiers in securing union and
liberty to all men without distinction of color, leaving to the
states, as before, the question of suffrage.

"Sir, the curse of God, the maledictions of millions of our people,
and the tears and blood of new-made freedmen will, in my judgment,
rest upon those who now for any cause destroy the unity of the
great party that has led us through the wilderness of war. We want
now peace and repose. We must now look to our public credit. We
have duties to perform to the business interests of the country,
in which we need the assistance of the President. We have every
motive for harmony with him and with each other, and for a generous
and manly trust in his patriotism. If ever the time shall come
when I can no longer confide in his devotion to the principles upon
which he was elected, I will bid farewell to Andrew Johnson with
unaffected sorrow. I will remember when he stood in this very
spot, five years ago, repelling with unexampled courage the assaults
of traitors. He left in their hands wife, children, property, and
home, and staked them all on the result. I will remember that when
a retreating general would have left Nashville to its fate, that
again, with heroic courage, he maintained his post. I will remember
the fierce conflicts and trials through which he and his fellow-
compatriots in east Tennessee maintained our cause in the heart of
the Confederacy. I will remember the struggles he had with the
aristocratic element of Tennessee, never ashamed of his origin and
never far from the hearts of the people.

"Sir, you must not sever the great Union party from this loyal
element of the southern states. No new theories of possible utopian
good can compensate for the loss of such patriotism and devotion.
Time, as he tells you in his message, is a great element of reform,
and time is on your side. I remember the homely and encouraging
words of a pioneer in the anti-slavery cause, an expelled Methodist
preacher from the south, who told those who were behind him in his
strong anti-slavery opinions: 'Well, friends, I'll block up awhile;
we must all travel together.' So I say to all who doubt Andrew
Johnson, or who wish to move more rapidly than he can, to block up
awhile, to consolidate their great victory with the certainty that
reason and the Almighty will continue their work. All wisdom will
not die with us. The highest human wisdom is to do all the good
you can, but not to sacrifice a possible good to attempt the
impracticable. God knows that I do not urge harmony and conciliation
from any personal motive. The people of my native state have
intrusted me with a position here extending four years beyond the
termination of the President's term of office. He can grant me no
favor.

"If I believed for a moment that he would seek an alliance with
those who, by either arms or counsel or even apathy, were against
their country in the recent war, and will turn over to them the
high powers intrusted to him by the Union party, then, sir, he is
dishonored, and will receive no assistance from me; but I will not
force him into that attitude. If he shall prove false to the
declaration made by him in his veto message, that his strongest
desire was to secure to the freedmen the full enjoyment of their
freedom and property, then I will not quarrel with him as to the
means used. And while, as he tells us in this same message, he
only asks for states to be represented which are presented in an
attitude of loyalty and harmony and in the persons of representatives
whose loyalty cannot be questioned under any constitutional or
legal test, surely we ought not to separate from him until, at
least, we prescribe a test of their loyalty, upon which we are
willing to stand. We have not done it yet. I will not try him by
new creeds. I will not denounce him for hasty words uttered in
repelling personal affronts.

"I see him yet surrounded by the cabinet of Abraham Lincoln, pursuing
Lincoln's policy. No word from me shall drive him into political
fellowship with those who, when he was one of the moral heroes of
this war, denounced, spit upon him, and despitefully used him.
The association must be self-sought, and even then I will part with
him in sorrow, but with the abiding hope that the same Almighty
power that has guided us through the recent war will be with us
still in our new difficulties until every state is restored to its
full communion and fellowship, and until our nation, purified by
war, will assume among the nations of the earth the grand position
hoped for by Washington, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, and hundreds of
thousands of unnamed heroes who gave up their lives for its glory."

I received many letters in commendation of this speech, among others
the following from Thurlow Weed, who was in full sympathy with
Secretary Seward:

"Albany, N. Y., February 28, 1866.
"Dear Sherman:--You have spoken words of wisdom and patriotism--
spoken them boldly at the right time. They will help save the
Union--and they will save the Union particularly if fanatics and
despots will allow it to be saved. Just such a speech at the moment
it was made is worth more than all that has been said in Congress
since the session commenced. I thank you gratefully for it.

"Yours truly,
"Thurlow Weed."

I still hoped that the pending civil rights bill would be approved
by the President, and that then the controversy would end. On the
17th of March, 1866, I made a speech at Bridgeport, Conn., in which
I said:

"Now, I say, that upon all these various propositions, upon the
necessity of a change in the basis of representation, upon the
necessity for protecting the negroes, upon this question of suffrage
--upon all these questions that have arisen in our politics of
late, the differences between Andrew Johnson and Congress are not
such as need excite the alarm of any patriotic citizen. No, my
friends, we have a great duty to perform to our country. Every
man in public life now has a heavy responsibility resting upon him,
in the discharge of which he is bound to follow the dictates of
his own conscience, given to him by Almighty God. There are, there
must be, differences of opinion; God has so made us that we must
differ; it is the established nature of the human mind to disagree.
It is only by discussion and comparison of views that the highest
human wisdom is elicited. Therefore, I say again, that no Union
man need feel anxious or uneasy because of the differences between
the President and Congress. Let me tell you, as the solemn conviction
with which I address you to-night, that Andrew Johnson never will
throw the power we have given him into the hands of the Copperhead
party of the United States.

"I have many reasons for this faith. One is that no nomination
has ever been sent by Andrew Johnson to the Senate of the United
States of any man of that stripe of politics. No flattery, no
cajolery can draw him from that line. He is a man who fights his
own battles, and whether they are old friends or foes that assail
him he fights them with equal freedom and boldness, and sometimes,
perhaps indiscreetly; but that is a fault of his character, which
need excite no uneasiness in the minds of the people.

"On Thursday, the day that I left Washington, we sent to him a bill
which secures to all the colored population of the southern states
equal rights before the law, the civil rights bill. It declares
that no state shall exclude any man on account of his color from
any of the natural rights which, by the Declaration of Independence,
are declared to be inalienable; it provides that every man may sue
and be sued, may plead and be impleaded, may acquire and hold
property, may purchase, contract, sell and convey; all those rights
are secured to the negro population. That bill is now in the hands
of the President. If he sign it, it will be a solemn pledge of
the law-making power of the nation that the negroes shall have
secured to them all these natural and inalienable rights. I believe
the President will sign it."

Unfortunately at the end of ten days the President sent to the
Senate the civil rights bill, referred to, with his message vetoing
it. It passed both Houses with the requisite two-thirds majority,
and thus became a law. This veto was followed by other vetoes,
and, practically, the President abandoned his party. From this
time forth, I heartily joined with my political associates in the
measures adopted to secure a loyal reorganization of the southern
states. I was largely influenced by the harsh treatment of the
freedmen in the south under acts adopted by the reconstructed
legislatures. The outrages of the Ku-Klux-Klan seemed to me to be
so atrocious and wicked that the men who committed them were not
only unworthy to govern, but unfit to live. The weakness of the
position of Congress in the controversy with Mr. Johnson, was, that
it had furnished no plan of reconstruction and he was compelled to
act upon the urgency of events. Many efforts were made to provide
legislation to take the place of the proclamations and acts of the
President, but a wide divergence of opinion in the Republican party
manifested itself, and no substantial progress was made until near
the close of the second session of the 39th Congress. Several
bills were then pending in each House to provide governments for
the insurrectionary states. On the 13th of February, 1867, during
the short session, a bill with that title came from the House of
Representatives. It was manifest unless this bill could be acted
upon, that, in the then condition of Congress, all legislation
would fail. It was kept before the Senate and thoroughly debated.
On the 16th of February, after consultation with my political
colleagues, I moved a substitute for the House bill. The fifth
section of this substitute embodied a comprehensive plan for the
organization of the rebel states with provision for elections in
said states, and the conditions required for their administration
and restoration to the Union and the exercise by them of all the
powers of states, and provided for the election of Senators and
Members of Congress. In presenting this substitute, I briefly
stated my reasons for it, as follows:

"The principle of this bill is contained in the first two lines of
the preamble. It is founded upon the proclamation of the President
and Secretary of State made just after the assassination of President
Lincoln, in which they declared specifically that the Rebellion
had overthrown all civil governments in the insurrectionary states,
and they proceeded by an executive mandate to create governments.
They were provisional in their character, and dependent for their
validity solely upon the action of Congress. These are propositions
which it is not now necessary for me to demonstrate. These
governments have never been sanctioned by Congress, nor by the
people of the states where they exist. Taking that proclamation
and the acknowledged fact that the people of the southern states,
the loyal people, whites and blacks, are not protected in their
rights, but that an unusual and extraordinary number of cases occur
of violence, and murder, and wrong, I do think it is the duty of
the United States to protect these people in the enjoyment of
substantial rights.

"Now, the first four sections of this substitute contain nothing
but what is the present law. There is not a single thing in the
first four sections that does not now exist by law.

"The first section authorizes the division of the rebel states into
military districts. That is being done daily.

"The second section acknowledges that the President is the commanding
officer of the army, and it is made his duty to assign certain
officers to those districts. That is clearly admitted to be right.

"The third section does no more than what the Supreme Court in
their recent decision have decided could be done in a state in
insurrection. The Supreme Court in their recent decisions, while
denying that a military tribunal could be organized in Indiana
because it never had been in a state of insurrection, expressly
declared that these tribunals might have been, and might now be,
organized in insurrectionary states. There is nothing in this
third section, in my judgment, that is not now and has not been
done every month within the last twelve months by the President of
the United States. The orders of General Sickles, and many other
orders I might quote, have gone further in punishment of crime than
this section proposes.

"Now, in regard to the fourth section, that is a limitation upon
the present law. Under the present law many executions of military
tribunals are summarily carried out. This section requires all
sentences of military tribunals which affect the liberty of the
citizen to be sent to the commanding officer of the district. They
must be approved by the commanding officer of the district; and so
far as life is concerned the President may issue his order at any
moment now, or after this bill passes, directing that the military
commander of the district shall not enforce a sentence of death
until it is submitted to him, because the military officer is a
mere subordinate of the President, remaining there at the pleasure
of the President.

"There is nothing, therefore, in these sections, that ought to
alarm the nerves of my friend from Pennsylvania, or anybody else.
I cannot think that these gentlemen are alarmed about the state of
despotism that President Johnson is to establish in the southern
states. I do not feel alarmed; nor do I see anything in these
sections as they now stand that need endanger the rights of the
most timid citizen of the United States. They are intended to
protect a race of people who are now without protection.

"Now, in regard to the fifth section, which is the main and material
feature of this bill, I think it is right that the Congress of the
United States, before its adjournment, should designate some way
by which the southern states may reorganize loyal state governments
in harmony with the constitution and laws of the United States,
and the sentiment of the people, and find their way back to these
halls. My own judgment is that the fifth section will point out
a clear, easy, and right way for these states to be restored to
their full power in the government. All that it demands of the
people of the southern states is to extend to all their male
citizens, without distinction of race or color, the elective
franchise. It is now too late in the day to be frightened by this
simple proposition. Senators can make the most of it as a political
proposition. Upon that we are prepared to meet them. But it does
point out a way by which the twenty absent Senators, and the fifty
absent Representatives can get back to these halls, and there is
no other way by which they can justly do it.

"It seems to me that this is the whole substance of the bill. All
there is material in the bill is in the first two lines of the
preamble and the fifth section, in my judgment. The first two
lines may lay the foundation adopting the proclamation issued first
in North Carolina, that the Rebellion had swept away all the civil
governments in the southern states; and the fifth section points
out the mode by which the people of those states in their own
manner, without any limitations or restrictions by Congress, may
get back full representation in Congress. That is the view I take
of this amended bill; and taking that view of it I see no reason
in the world why we should not all vote for it."

The substitute was adopted on the same day and the bill, thus
amended, was passed by a vote of yeas 29, nays 10. In the House
it was agreed to with slight amendments, which were finally concurred
in by the Senate, on February 20, 1867. It was sent to the President
and was not approved by him, but was, on the 2nd of March, passed
over his veto by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.

Upon the law, long deferred, the several states mentioned in it
were organized and restored to their place in the Union. The
preamble and fifth and sixth sections of this law are as follows:

"An Act to Provide for the More Efficient Government of the Rebel
States.

"Whereas, no legal state governments or adequate protection for
life or property now exists in the rebel states of Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana,
Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that
peace and good order should be enforced in said states until loyal
and republican state governments can be legally established:
Therefore,

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled:_ . . .

"Sec. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That when the people of any
one of said rebel states shall have formed a constitution of
government in conformity with the constitution of the United States
in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by
the male citizens of said state, twenty-one years old and upward,
of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been
resident in said state for one year previous to the day of such
election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in
the Rebellion, or for felony at common law, and when such constitution
shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all
such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors
of delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a
majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who
are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution
shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval,
and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said state, by
a vote of its legislature, elected under such conditions, shall
have adopted the amendment to the constitution of the United States,
proposed by the 39th Congress, and known as article fourteen, and
when said article shall have become a part of the constitution of
the United States, said state shall be declared entitled to
representation in Congress, and Senators and Representatives shall
be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law,
and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall
be inoperative in said state: _Provided_, That no person excluded
from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to
the constitution of the United States shall be eligible to election
as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of
said rebel states, nor shall any such person vote for members of
such convention.

"Sec. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the people of
said rebel states shall be by law admitted to representation in
the Congress of the United States, any civil government which may
exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects
subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time
to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all
elections to any office under such provisional governments all
persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled
to vote, under the provisions of the fifth section of this act;
and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such
provisional governments who would be disqualified from holding
office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional
amendment."

At the same time, the financial question, embracing the currency,
the public debt and the national revenue were of the highest
importance and demanded immediate consideration. Hugh McCulloch,
the Secretary of the Treasury, had been during most of his life a
banker in the State of Indiana, of acknowledged ability as such,
but with little or no experience as a financier dealing with public
questions. He was the first comptroller of the currency under the
banking act, and rendered valuable service in organizing the system
of national banks, though he had not originally favored the system,
but was, at the time of its adoption, a strong supporter of sound
state banks. In his first report to Congress on the 4th of December,
1865, he, as Secretary of the Treasury, took strong ground against
United States notes as a circulating medium and their being made
a legal tender as money. He regarded the legal tender acts as war
measures, and, while he did not recommend their repeal, he expressed
his opinion that they ought not to remain in force one day longer
than would be necessary to enable the people to prepare for a return
to the constitutional currency. He denied the authority of Congress
to issue these notes except in the nature of a loan, and affirmed
that the statute making them a legal tender for all debts, public
and private, was not within the scope of the duties or the
constitutional powers of Congress; that their issue as lawful money
was a measure necessary in a great emergency, but, as this emergency
did not then exist, the government should, as speedily as possible,
withdraw them, and he recommended that the work of retiring the
notes should be commenced without delay and carefully and persistently
continued until all were retired. He proposed to do this by the
sale of bonds for United States notes outstanding and their withdrawal
and cancellation. He recommended as a substitute the notes of
national banks, but even these notes he thought redundant, and said:

"There is no fact more manifest that the plethora of paper money
is not only undermining the morals of the people by encouraging
waste and extravagance, but is striking at the root of our material
prosperity by diminishing labor . . . and if not speedily checked,
will, at no distant day, culminate in widespread disaster. The
remedy, and the only remedy within the control of Congress, is, in
the opinion of the secretary, to be found in the reduction of the
currency."

The chief part of his report was devoted to the danger of inflation
and the necessity of contraction. He said the longer contraction
was delayed the greater must the fall eventually be, and the more
serious its consequences.

In accordance with the recommendations of Secretary McCulloch, a
bill was introduced in the House by Justin S. Morrill, which
authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to
sell any of the description of bonds authorized by the act of March
3, 1865, the proceeds to be used only to retire treasury notes or
other obligations issued under any act of Congress. This bill as
reported would have placed in the power of the secretary the
retirement of all United States notes at his discretion. An
amendment was made in the House which provided:

"That of United States notes not more than ten millions of dollars
may be retired and canceled within six months from the passage of
this act, and thereafter not more than four millions of dollars in
any one month."

The bill as it came to the Senate was as follows:

"An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide ways and means
to support the government,' approved March third, eighteen hundred
and sixty-five.

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the act
entitled 'An act to provide ways and means to support the government,'
approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, shall be
extended and construed to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury,
at his discretion, to receive any treasury notes or other obligations
issued under any act of Congress, whether bearing interest or not,
in exchange for any description of bonds authorized by the act to
which this is an amendment; and also to dispose of any description
of bonds authorized by said act, either in the United States or
elsewhere, to such an amount, in such manner, and at such rates,
as he may think advisable, for lawful money of the United States,
or for any treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, or
certificates of deposit, or other representatives of value, which
have been or which may be issued under any act of Congress, the
proceeds thereof to be used only for retiring treasury notes or
other obligations issued under any act of Congress; but nothing
herein contained shall be construed to authorize any increase of
the public debt: _Provided_, That of United States notes not more
than ten millions of dollars may be retired and canceled within
six months from the passage of this act, and thereafter not more
than four millions of dollars in any one month: _And provided
further_, That the act to which this is an amendment shall continue
in full force in all its provisions, except as modified by this act.

"Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of the
Treasury shall report to Congress at the commencement of the next
session the amount of exchanges made or money borrowed under this
act, and of whom and on what terms; and also the amount and character
of indebtedness retired under this act, and the act to which this
is an amendment, with a detailed statement of the expense of making
such loans and exchanges."

This bill, without change, became a law April 12, 1866. I believed
then, and now know, that the passage of this law was a great
misfortune. It enabled the Secretary of the Treasury to retire at
a rapid rate United States notes and to largely increase the bonded
indebtedness of the United States. It would no doubt have brought
us abruptly to the specie standard and made us dependent for
circulating notes upon the issues of national banks.

At this time there was a wide difference of opinion between Secretary
McCulloch and myself as to the financial policy of the government
in respect to the public debt and the currency. He was in favor
of a rapid contraction of the currency by funding it into interest
bearing bonds. I was in favor of maintaining in circulation the
then existing volume of currency as an aid to the funding of all
forms of interest-bearing securities into bonds redeemable within
a brief period at the pleasure of the United States, and bearing
as low a rate of interest as possible. Both of us were in favor
of specie payments, he by contraction and I by the gradual advancement
of the credit and value of our currency to the specie standard.
With him specie payments was the primary object, with me it was a
secondary object, to follow the advancing credit of the government.
Each of us was in favor of the payment of the interest of bonds in
coin, and the principal, when due, in coin. A large proportion of
national securities were payable in lawful money, or United States
notes. He, by contraction, would have made this payment more
difficult, while I, by retaining the notes in existence, would
induce the holders of currency certificates to convert them into
coin obligations bearing a lower rate of interest.

During this period a party sprang up composed of men of all parties
called the Greenback party, who favored an increase of United States
notes, and the payment of all United States bonds and securities
in such notes. This difference of opinion continued until the
resumption of specie payments, in January, 1879.

I propose to state here the measures adopted in respect to the
national currency and debt during the rest of the administration
of President Johnson.

The total debt of the United States on the 31st of October, 1865,
was $2,808,549,437.55 in twenty-five different forms of indebtedness
of which, $1,200,000,000 was payable at the option of the Secretary
of the Treasury, or within a brief period. The amount of United
States notes outstanding was then $428,160,569, and of fractional
currency $26,057,469, in all $545,218,038. All of this money was
in active circulation, in great favor among the people, worth in
use as much as national bank notes, and rapidly rising in value
compared with coin. It was the least burdensome form of indebtedness
then existing. The treasury notes and compound interest notes were
in express terms payable in this lawful money, and, therefore, bore
a higher rate of interest than the bonds, which, by their express
terms or necessary implication, were payable in coin only.

It was insisted that the amount of United States notes was in excess
of what was needed for currency in time of peace and might safely
be gradually reduced. This effort to contract the currency was
firmly resisted by several Senators, myself among them. The Supreme
Court decided that Congress had full power to make these notes a
legal tender. They were far better than any form of currency
previously existing in the United States. During the war, when
the expenditures of the government reached nearly $1,000,000,000
a year they were indispensable. Those most opposed to irredeemable
paper money acknowledged this necessity. The only objection to
them was that they were not equivalent to coin in purchasing power.
After the war was over, the general desire of all was to advance
these notes nearer to par with coin, but not to withdraw them.
The rising credit and financial strength of the United States would,
it was believed, bring them to par without injustice to the debtor,
but the rapid withdrawal of the notes would add to the burden of
debts and cripple all forms of industry. It would convert the
compound interest notes and treasury notes bearing seven and three
tenths per cent. interest, amounting to over $1,000,000,000 expressly
payable in United States notes, into coin liabilities. The bill
prepared at the treasury department contemplated the conversion of
all United States notes into bonds. In that form the bill was
defeated in the House of Representatives, but it was reconsidered
and an amendment was then made limiting the retirement of notes to
$4,000,000 a month. This gained for the bill enough votes to secure
its passage. Even the withdrawal of $48,000,000 a year was soon
found to be oppressive and was subsequently repealed.

When this bill came before the committee on finance, I found myself
alone in opposition to it. I could not impress my colleagues of
the committee with the grave importance of the measure, and its
wide-reaching influence upon our currency, debt and credit. They
regarded it simply as a bill to change the form of our securities.
I felt confident that without the use of United States notes we
could not make this exchange. When the bill was brought before
the Senate by Mr. Fessenden, chairman of the committee, he made no
statement of its terms, but only said:

"I have merely to say that this bill is reported by the committee
on finance without amendment as it came from the House of
Representatives. The committee on finance, on careful examination
of it, came to the conclusion that the bill was well enough as it
stood, and did not deem it advisable to make any amendment. It
has been before the Senate a considerable time, and I presume every
Senator understands it. I ask, therefore, for the question."

I replied:

"I regret very much that I differ from the committee on finance in
regard to this bill. This is the only bill on the subject of the
public debt on which I have not been able to concur with that
committee. . . .

"If Senators will read this bill they will find that it confers on
the Secretary of the Treasury greater powers than have ever been
conferred, since the foundation of this government, upon any
Secretary of the Treasury. Our loan laws, heretofore, have generally
been confined to the negotiation of a single loan, limited in
amount. As the war progressed, the difficulties of the country
became greater, and we were more in the habit of removing the
limitations on the power of the Secretary of the Treasury; but
generally the power conferred was confined to a particular loan
then in the market. This bill, however, is more general in its
terms. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to sell
any character of bonds without limit, except as to the rate of
interest. The authority conferred does not limit him to any form
of security. It may run for any period of time within forty years.
He may sell the securities at less than par, without limitation as
to rate. He may sell them in any form he chooses. He may put them
in the form of treasury notes or bonds, the interest payable in
gold or in paper money. He may undertake, under the provisions of
this bill, to fund the whole debt of the United States. The only
limit as to amount is the public debt, now $2,700,000,000. The
power conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury is absolute. It
is not only for this year, or during the current fiscal year, or
for the next year, but it is for all time, until the act shall be
repealed. It gives him absolute power to negotiate bonds of the
United States to the amount of $2,700,000,000, without limiting
the rate at which they shall be sold, and only limiting the rate
of interest inferentially. The description of the bonds in the
act of March 3, 1865, referred to here, would probably limit the
rate of interest to six per cent. in coin, and seven and three-
tenths per cent. in currency; but with this exception there is no
limitation.

"It seems to me that in the present condition of our finances there
is no necessity for conferring these large powers on the Secretary
of the Treasury. The people are not generally aware of the favorable
condition of our finances. The statement of the public debt laid
on our tables the other day does not show fully the condition of
the finances. It is accurate in amounts, but does not give dates
of the maturity of our debts. But a small portion of the debt of
the United States will be due prior to August, 1867, that will give
the secretary any trouble. But little of the debt which he will
be required to fund under the provisions of this bill matures before
August, 1867. The temporary or call loan, now over one hundred
millions, may readily be kept at this sum even at a reduced rate
of interest. The certificates of indebtedness, amounting to sixty-
two millions, may easily be paid from accruing receipts, or, if
necessary, may be renewed or funded at the pleasure of the secretary.
None of the compound interest notes or the seven-thirty notes mature
until August, 1867. . . .

"There is, therefore, no immediate necessity for these vast powers.
The question then naturally occurs, why grant them? I have carefully
considered this question, and I do not think there is now any
immediate necessity for granting these powers. No debt is maturing
that is likely to give the government any trouble; and yet we are
now about to confer upon the Secretary of the Treasury, powers that
we cannot, in the nature of things, recall. It is true we may
repeal this law next year, but we know very well that when these
large powers are granted they are very seldom recalled; they are
made the precedents of further grants of powers and are very rarely
recalled. It seems to me that the whole object of the passage of
this bill is to place it within the power of the Secretary of the
Treasury to contract the currency of the country, and thus, as I
think, to produce an unnecessary strain upon the people. This
power I do not think ought to be given to him. The House of
Representatives did not intend to give him this power. They debated
the bill a long time, and it was defeated on the ground that they
would not confer on the secretary this power to reduce the currency,
and finally it was only passed with a proviso contained in the bill
which I will now read:

'_Provided_, That of United States notes not more than $10,000,000
may be retired and canceled within six months from the passage of
this act, and thereafter not more than $4,000,000 in any one month.'

"The purpose of the House of Representatives was, while giving the
secretary power to fund the debt as it matured or even before
maturity, giving him the most ample power over the debt of the
United States, to limit his power over the currency, lest he might
carry to an extreme the view presented by him in his annual report.
If this proviso would accomplish the purpose designed by the House
of Representatives, I would cease all opposition to this bill; but
I know it will not, and for the very obvious reason, that there is
no restraint upon the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to
accumulate legal tender notes in the treasury. He may retire
$200,000,000 of legal tender notes by retaining them in his possession
without cancellation, and thus accomplish the very purpose the
House of Representatives did not intend to allow him to accomplish.
He may sell the bonds of the United States, at any rate he chooses,
for legal tenders, and he may hold those legal tenders in his
vaults, thus retiring them from the business of the country, and
thus produce the very contraction which the House of Representatives
meant to deny him power to do. Therefore, this proviso, which only
limits the power of canceling securities or notes, does not limit
his power over the currency, and he may, without violating this
bill, in pursuance of the very terms of this bill, contract the
currency according to his own good will and pleasure.

"My own impression is, that the Secretary of the Treasury, in
carrying out his own policy, will do so. He says he will not
contract it unreasonably or too rapidly, but I believe he will
contract the currency in this way. He has now in the vaults of
the treasury $60,000,000 in currency and $62,000,000 in gold--a
larger balance, I believe, than was ever before kept in the treasury
until within the last two or three months; a larger balance than
was ever found in the treasury during the war. What is the object
of accumulating these vast balances in the treasury? Simply to
carry out his policy of contraction. With this power of retaining
in the treasury the money that comes in, what does he care for the
limitation put upon this bill by the House of Representatives?
That says that he shall not retire and cancel more than $10,000,000
of United States notes within six months, and not more than $4,000,000
in any one month thereafter; but why need he retire and cancel them
when he can retain them in the vaults of the treasury, and thus
contract the currency? . . .

"I do not doubt in the least either the integrity or the capacity
of the present incumbent of the treasury department. I have as
much confidence in him as anyone; but this question of the currency
is one that affects so intimately all the business relations of
life, the property of every man in this country, his ability to
pay taxes, his ability to earn food and acquire a living, that no
man ought to have the power to vary the volume of currency. It
ought to be regulated by law, and the law ought to be so fixed and
so defined that every business man may transact his business with
full knowledge of the amount of the currency, with all its limits
and qualifications. I ask you, sir, how any prudent or judicious
man can now engage in any important business, in which he is
compelled to go into debt, with this large power hanging over him.
It would be unsafe for him to do so. The amount of the currency
ought to be fixed by law, whether much or little. There ought to
be a limit, and no man ought to have the power at pleasure to
enlarge or contract that limit. . . .

"Then there is the further power to reduce the currency, a power
that has not heretofore been granted to any Secretary of the
Treasury. The amount heretofore has been fixed and limited by law.
By the first clause of this bill the secretary is authorized to
receive treasury notes, or United States notes of any form or
description, and there is no limitation to this power, except the
clause which I have read to you. That limits his power to retire
and cancel the United States notes, but not to accumulate the
enormous balances on hand. My own impression has been, and when
this bill was before the committee on finance I believed, it would
be better for that committee to report to the Senate a financial
project to fund the debt of the United States. I believe that now
is the favorable time to do it. If a five per cent. bond, a long
bond of proper description and proper guarantee, was now placed
upon the market, with such ample powers to negotiate it as ought
to be given to the Secretary of the Treasury, such a loan as was
authorized two years ago, at a reduced rate of interest, to be
exempt from taxation, I have no doubt whatever, the Secretary of
the Treasury could fund every portion of the debt of the United
States as it matured. . . .

"I do not like to embarrass a bill of this kind with amendments,
because I know it is difficult to consider amendments of this sort,
requiring an examination of figures and tables. I have prepared
a bill very carefully, with a view to meet my idea, but I will not
present it now in antagonism to this bill passed by the House of
Representatives and the view taken by the finance committee, because
I know, in the present condition of the Senate, it would not probably
be fully considered. My only purpose now is to point out the fact
that is perfectly clear to the mind of every sensible man who has
examined this bill, that the bill as it stands does not carry out
the manifest intention of the House of Representatives when they
passed it, and that the proviso, limiting the power of the secretary
over the legal tender currency, does not accomplish the purpose
which they designed, and without which I know the bill never could
have passed the House of Representatives."

Mr. Fessenden: "If the House of Representatives did not understand
what they were doing when they passed this bill, it arises from
the fact that they did not give the rein to their imagination, as
the honorable Senator from Ohio seems to have done to his, and take
it for granted that the Secretary of the Treasury had a purpose to
accomplish, and that he would not hesitate to take any means in
his power to accomplish it, improperly against the manifest will
of Congress, against the interests of the country, and against his
own interests as Secretary of the Treasury."

I replied:

"I appeal to the Senator whether that is a fair statement of my
argument?"

Mr. Fessenden: "That is the way precisely that I understand it."

I said:

"That is precisely as no gentleman could have understood me. I
never said that the secretary improperly would do so and so by any
means. It is one of the honorable Senator's modes of stating
propositions."

Mr. Fessenden: "I certainly did not mean to say that the honorable
Senator supposed he designed to do so, but such seems to be the
result of his argument--that the Secretary of the Treasury having
the power, as he says, there is danger that he might abuse it in
that precise way; else his argument amounts to nothing at all as
against the bill. I certainly acquit my friend of any sort of
desire or intention to throw any imputation on the Secretary of
the Treasury. That he did not mean to do. . . ."

I said:

"I do not think it wise to confer on the Secretary of the Treasury
the power to meet the indebtedness not accruing for a year, or two,
or three years. I do not think it is necessary, in our present
financial condition, to authorize him to go into market now and
sell bonds at current market rates with a view to pay debts that
do not mature for a year or two. I have no doubt before the five-
twenty loans are due we shall retire every dollar of them at four
or five per cent. interest. No one who heeds the rapid developments
of new sources of wealth in this country, the enormous yield of
gold now, the renewal of industry in the south, the enormous yield
of cotton, the growing wealth of this country, and all the favorable
prospects that are before us, doubts the ability of this government
before this debt matures to reduce it to four or five per cent.
interest. . . .

"The Secretary of the Treasury may sell bonds at any rate to meet
debts as they accrue, but that is not the purpose of this bill."

Mr. Fessenden: "That is all the purpose there is in it."

I said:

"Then there is no necessity for it."

Mr. Fessenden: "Yes, there is. I differ from you."

I continued:

"We have here the tables before us. The honorable Senator and I
know when this debt matures. . . .

"That is the power now given, and he will use the power. He may
think it to his interest to retire the whole of the seven-thirties
or the ten-forties; but is it wise for us to give him that power
now, at the heel of the war and before things have settled down?
I do not think it is.

"I repeat, I do not wish to call in question the integrity of the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Senator interjects by saying we
must look ahead. I have done so. The difference between us is
that I anticipate that the future of this country will be hopeful,
buoyant, joyous. We shall not have to beg money of foreign nations,
or even of our own people, within two or three years. Our national
debt will be eagerly sought for, I have no doubt. I take a hopeful
view of the future. I do not wish now to cripple the industry of
the country by adopting the policy of the Secretary of the Treasury,
as he calls it, by reducing the currency, by crippling the operations
of the government, when I think that under any probability of
affairs in the future, all this debt will take care of itself. I
believe that if the Secretary of the Treasury would do nothing in
the world except simply sit in his chair, meet the accruing
indebtedness, and issue his treasury warrants, this debt will take
care of itself, and will fund itself at four or five per cent.
before very long. All that I object to in this bill is the power
it gives the Secretary of the Treasury over the currency, to affect
the currency of the country now and to anticipate debts that are
not yet due. . . .

"That is what I am afraid of, his interference to contract the
currency. The honorable Senator from Maine, however, would seem
to think that I impute to him a wrong motive, and therefore I
corrected him when he made the remark that I seemed to suppose the
secretary was doing this improperly. I think not. The Secretary
of the Treasury informed us that he desired to reduce the currency,
and he has been doing it as far as he could. He has been accumulating
large balances. He was opposed to the proviso which has been
inserted in this bill, and yielded to it only with reluctance.
That is admitted on all hands, and he is not precluded either in
honor or propriety from carrying out his policy if you gave him
the power to do it."

This bill became a law on the 12th of April, 1866. President
Johnson relied entirely upon McCulloch, and had no opinions upon
financial topics.

Now, nearly thirty years after the passage of this act, it is
manifest that it was far the most injurious and expensive financial
measure ever enacted by Congress. It not only compelled the United
States to pay the large war rates of interest for many years, but
postponed specie payments until 1879. It added fully $300,000,000
of interest that might have been saved by the earlier refunding of
outstanding bonds into bonds bearing four or five per cent. interest.
Mr. Fessenden, then chairman of the committee on finance, committed
a grave error in hastily supporting the bill, an error which I
believe he greatly regretted and which, in connection with his
failing health, no doubt led him to resign his position as chairman
of that committee. Although our debate was rather sharp, it did
not disturb our friendly relations. With McCulloch in the treasury
department, nothing could be done.

If the funding clauses of this act had been limited to the conversion
of compound interest notes, treasury notes bearing interest,
certificates of indebtedness, and temporary loans into bonds
redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after a brief time,
bearing not exceeding five per cent. interest, retaining in
circulation during this process of refunding all the then outstanding
United States notes, the result would have been greatly beneficial
to the United States, but this was not the chief object of the
Secretary of the Treasury. His primary object was to convert United
States notes into interest-bearing bonds, and thus force the
immediate resumption of specie payments or the substitution of
national bank notes for United States notes. The result of his
refunding was largely to increase the amount of six per cent. bonds,
the most burdensome form of security then outstanding. In October,
1865, the amount of six per cent. bonds was $920,000,000; on the
1st of July, 1868, the six per cent. bonds outstanding were
$1,557,844,600. The increase of these bonds under the operation
of this law was thus over $637,000,000.

The result of this policy of contraction was not only to increase
the burden of the public debt, but it created serious derangement
of the business of the country. It excited a strong popular
opposition to the measures adopted.

The Greenback party, as it was called, grew out of this policy of
contraction, and for a time threatened to carry the election of a
majority of the Members of Congress. It contended practically for
an unlimited issue of legal tender United States notes, and the
payment of all bonds and securities in United States notes. This,
however, did not disturb Secretary McCulloch. In his annual report
of December 3, 1866, he again urged the policy of a further reduction
of United States notes. He was not satisfied with the reduction
already provided for, and recommended that the reduction should be
increased from $4,000,000 a month, as contemplated by the act of
April 12, 1866, to $6,000,000 a month for the fiscal year, and to
$10,000,000 a month thereafter. He said:

"The _policy_ of contracting the circulation of the government
notes should be definitely and unchangeably established, and the
_process_ should go on just as rapidly as possible without producing
a financial crisis or seriously embarrassing those branches of
industry and trade upon which our revenues are dependent. That
the policy indicated is the true and safe one, the secretary is
thoroughly convinced. If it shall not be speedily adopted and
rigidly, but judiciously, enforced, severe financial troubles are
in store for us."

He insisted that the circulation of the country should be further
reduced, not by compelling the national banks to retire their notes,
but by the withdrawal of United States notes. When reminded of
the great saving of interest in the issue of $400,000,000 United
States notes, he answered:

"Considerations of this nature are more than counterbalanced by
the discredit which attaches to the government by failing to pay
its notes according to their tenor, by the bad influence of this
involuntary discredit upon the public morals, and the wide departure,
which a continued issue of legal tender notes involves, from the
past usages, if not from the teachings of the constitution itself."

He said:

"The government cannot exercise powers not conferred by its organic
law or necessary for its own preservation, nor dishonor its own
engagements when able to meet them, without either shocking or
demoralizing the sentiment of the people; and the fact that the
indefinite continuance of the circulation of an inconvertible but
still legal tender currency is so generally advocated indicates
how far we have wandered from old landmarks both in finance and in
ethics."

The growing opposition of the people at large to the contraction
of the currency seemed to have no effect upon his mind.

He again recurs to the same subject in his annual report to Congress,
in December, 1867. After stating that the United States notes,
including fractional currency, had been reduced from $459,000,000
to $387,000,000, and the funded debt had been increased $684,548,800,
he urged as a measure regarded by him as important, if not
indispensable for national prosperity, the funding or payment of
the balance of interest-bearing notes, and a continued contraction
of the paper currency. He urged that the acts authorizing legal
tender notes be repealed, and that the work of retiring the notes
which had been issued under them should be commenced without delay,
and carefully and persistently continued until all were retired.

This policy of contraction, honestly entertained and persistently
urged by Secretary McCulloch in spite of growing stringency, led
Congress, by the act of February 4, 1868, to suspend indefinitely
the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction
of the currency by retiring or canceling United States notes.

Who can doubt that if he had availed himself of the power given
him to refund the interest-bearing notes and certificates of the
United States into bonds bearing a low rate of interest, leaving
the United States notes bearing no interest to circulate as money,
he would have saved the government hundreds of millions of dollars?
If irredeemable notes were a national dishonor, why did he not urge
their redemption in coin at some fixed period and then reissue
them, and maintain their redemption by a reserve in coin?

The act of February 25, 1862, under which the original United States
notes were issued, provided that:

"Such United States notes shall be received the same as coin, at
their par value, in payment for any loans that may be hereafter
sold or negotiated by the Secretary of the Treasury, and may be
reissued from time to time as the exigencies of the public interest
shall require."

This provision would have maintained the parity of United States
notes at par with bonds, but under the pressure of war it was deemed
best by Congress, upon the recommendation of Secretary Chase, to
take from the holder of United States notes the right to present
them in payment for bonds after the first day of July, 1863. If
this privilege, conferred originally upon United States notes, had
been renewed in 1866, with the right of reissue, bonds and notes
would together have advanced to par in coin. But this is what the
contractionists especially opposed. They demanded the cancellation
of the notes when presented, a contraction of the currency when
offering our bonds. It is easy now to perceive that a conservative
use of United States notes, convertible into four per cent. bonds,
would have steadily advanced both notes and bonds to par in coin.
But the equally erroneous opposing opinions of contractionists and
expansionists delayed for many years the coming of coin resumption
upon a fixed quantity of United States notes.

Among the acts of this Congress of chief importance is the act
approved July 13, 1866, to reduce taxes and provide internal revenue.
The passage of such an act required much labor in both Houses, but
especially so in the House of Representatives, where tax bills must
originate. It was a compromise measure, and, unlike previous acts,
did not reach out for new objects of taxation, but selected such
articles as could bear it best, and on some of these the tax was
increased. A great number of articles that enter into the common
consumption of the people and are classed as necessities of life
were relieved from taxation. The general purpose of the bill was
in time to concentrate internal taxes on such articles as spirits,
tobacco and beer. The tax on incomes was continued but limited to
the 30th of June, 1870. I have already stated the marked development
of internal taxation, and this measure was one of the most important
in the series to produce great revenue at the least cost, and of
the lightest burden to the taxpayer.

Soon after the passage of the act, approved April 12, 1866, to
contract the currency, I introduced a bill, "To reduce the rate of
interest on the national debt and for funding the same." In view
of the passage of that act I did not expect that a funding bill
would meet with success, but considered it my duty to present one,
and on the 22nd of May, 1866, made a speech in support of it. The
bill provided for the voluntary exchange of any of the outstanding
obligations of the United States for a bond running thirty years,
but redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after ten years
from date, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent., payable
annually. On reading that speech now I find that, though I was
much more confident than others of converting our maturing securities
into five per cent. bonds, the general opinion then prevailing,
and acted upon by the Secretary of the Treasury, was to issue six
per cent. bonds as already stated. I soon found that it was idle
to press the funding bill upon Congress, when it was so much occupied
with reconstruction and with Andrew Johnson. The refunding and
many other measures had to be postponed until a new administration
came into power. Congress had unfortunately authorized the issue
of six per cent. bonds for accruing liabilities, and thus postponed
refunding at a lower rate of interest.

The long and exciting session of Congress that ended on the 28th
day of July, 1866, left me in feeble strength and much discouraged
with the state of affairs. I had arranged with General Sherman to
accompany him in an official inspection of army posts on the western
plains, but did not feel at liberty to leave Washington until
Congress adjourned. The letter I wrote him on the 8th of July
expresses my feelings as to the political situation at that time:

"United States Senate Chamber,}
"Washington, July 8, 1866. }
"Dear Brother:--It is now wise for you to avoid all expressions of
political opinion. Congress and the President are now drifting
from each other into open warfare. Congress is not weak in what
it has done, but in _what it has failed to do_. It has adopted no
unwise or extreme measures. The civil rights bill and constitutional
amendments can be defended as reasonable, moderate, and in harmony
with Johnson's old position and yours. As Congress has thus far
failed to provide measures to allow legal Senators and Representatives
to take their seats, it has failed in a plain duty. This is its
weakness, but even in this it will have the sympathy of the most
of the soldiers, and the people who are not too eager to secure
rebel political power. As to the President, he is becoming Tylerized.
He was elected by the Union party for his openly expressed radical
sentiments, and now he seeks to rend to pieces this party. There
is a sentiment among the people that this is dishonor. It looks
so to me. What Johnson is, is from and by the Union party. He
now deserts it and betrays it. He may varnish it up, but, after
all, he must admit that he disappoints the reasonable expectations
of those who intrusted him with power. He may, by a coalition with
copperheads and rebels, succeed, but the simple fact that nine-
tenths of them who voted for him do not agree with him, and that
he only controls the other tenth by power intrusted to him by the
Union party, will damn him forever. Besides, he is insincere; he
has deceived and misled his best friends. I know he led many to
believe he would agree to the civil rights bill, and nearly all
who conversed with him until within a few days believed he would
acquiesce in the amendments, and even aid in securing their adoption.
I almost fear he contemplates civil war. Under those circumstances
you, Grant and Thomas ought to be clear of political complications.
As for myself, I intend to stick to finance, but wherever I can I
will moderate the actions of the Union party, and favor conciliation
and restoration.

"Affectionately yours,
"John Sherman."

After the adjournment I proceeded to St. Louis, and with General
Sherman and two staff officers, went by rail to Omaha. This handsome
city had made great progress since my former visit. We then went
by the Central Pacific railroad to Fort Kearney, as far as the
rails were then laid. There our little party started through the
Indian Territory, riding in light wagons with canvas covers, each
drawn by two good army mules, escorted by a squad of mounted
soldiers. We traveled about thirty miles a day, camping at night,
sleeping in our wagons, turned into ambulances, the soldiers under
shelter tents on blankets and the horses parked near by. The camp
was guarded by sentinels at night, and the troopers lay with their
guns close at hand. Almost every day we met Indians, but none that
appeared to be hostile. In this way we traveled to Fort Laramie.
The country traversed was an unbroken wilderness, in a state of
nature, but singularly beautiful as a landscape. It was an open
prairie, traversed by what was called the North Platte River, with
scarcely water enough in it to be called a creek, with rolling
hills on either side, and above, a clear sky, and air pure and
bracing. It was the first time I had been so far out on the plains,
and I enjoyed it beyond expression. I was soon able to eat my full
share of the plain fare of bread and meat, and wanted more.

After many days we reached Fort Laramie, then an important post
far out beyond the frontier. We remained but a few days, and then,
following south along the foot hills, we crossed into the Laramie
plains to Fort Sanders. This was the last post to the west in
General Sherman's command. From thence we followed the course of
the Cache la Poudre. On the way we camped near a station of the
Overland Stage Company, for change of horses and for meals, in a
charming and picturesque region. The keeper of the station soon
called and inquired for me, and I found that he was a former resident
of Mansfield, who married the daughter of an old friend. He invited
our party to his house, and there I met his wife, who, in this
region without any neighbors or habitations near, seemed to be
perfectly happy and fearless, though often disturbed by threatened
Indian outbreaks. We were handsomely entertained. It was a great
relief to sleep one night in a comfortable bed, after sleeping for
many nights with two in a narrow wagon. We then proceeded to
Greeley, where we found a small settlement of farmers. From thence
to Denver, we found a few cabins scattered over a vast open plain
stretching as far as the eye could reach to the east, with the
mountains on the west rising in grandeur and apparently presenting
an insurmountable barrier. I have seen many landscapes since that
were more bold and striking, but this combination of great mountains
and vast plains, side by side, made an impression on my mind as
lasting as any natural landscape I have seen.

At Denver, General Sherman and I were handsomely entertained by
the citizens, many of whom General Sherman knew as soldiers under
his command during the war, and some of whom I knew as former
residents of Ohio. They were enthusiastic in their praise of
Colorado. It seemed to me the air was charged with a superabundance
of ozone, for everyone was so hopeful of the future of Denver, that
even the want of rain did not discourage them and some of them
tried to convince me that irrigation from the mountains was better
than showers from the sky. Denver was then a town of less than
5,000 inhabitants and now contains more than 110,000. Colorado
had less than 50,000 inhabitants in 1870, and in 1890 it had 412,198,
an increase of nearly ten fold in twenty years. But this marvelous
growth does not spring from the invigorating air and flowing springs
of Colorado, but from the precious metals stored in untold quantities
in her mountains. From Denver General Sherman had to continue his
inspection to the southern posts, and I was called home to take
part in the pending canvass. I started in a coach peculiar to the
country, with three or four passengers, over a distance of about
four hundred miles to Fort Riley, in Kansas. We had heard of many
Indian forays on the line we were to travel over and there was some
danger, but it was the only way to get home. Each of the passengers,
I among the number, had a good Winchester rifle, with plenty of
ammunition. The coach was a crude rattle-trap, noisy and rough,
but strong and well adapted to the journey. It was drawn by four
horses of the country, small but wiry. We had long reaches between
changes. The stations for meals had means of defense, and the food
set before us was substantial, mainly buffalo beef, chickens and
bread. A good appetite (always a sure thing on the plains) was
the best sauce for a substantial meal, and all the meals were
dinners with no change of courses. We saw on the way many evidences
of Indian depredations, one of which was quite recent, and two or
three settlers had been killed. We met no Indians on the way, but
we did meet myriads of buffaloes, scattered in vast herds to the
north and south of us as far as the eye could reach. It is sad to
reflect that all these animals have been exterminated, mainly in
wanton sport by hunters who did not need their flesh for food or
their hides for leather or robes. This destruction of buffaloes
opened the way for herds of domestic cattle, which perhaps in equal
numbers now feed upon the native grass of the prairies.

In a recent visit to western Nebraska and South Dakota, I saw these
cattle in great numbers in good condition, cheaply cared for and
sold for four cents a pound on the hoof. The owners of these cattle
purchased land from settlers who had acquired title under the
homestead or pre-emption laws, as suitable sites for ranches,
including a permanent lake or pond for each, an indispensable
requisite for a ranch. This being secured, they built houses to
live in and sheds for the protection of their cattle in winter,
and thus obtained practical possession, without cost or taxes, of
all the government land needed for their ranges. Sad experience
has convinced settlers in all the vast rainless region of the west,
that they cannot produce grain with any certainty of harvesting a
crop, and thousands who have made the experiment in western Kansas
and Nebraska and in eastern Colorado and Wyoming have recently
abandoned their improvements and their claims. It seems now that
this part of our country must be given up to the herders of cattle.
The Indians and buffaloes have disappeared and the "cowboys" and
domestic cattle and horses have taken their place, to give way, no
doubt, in time, to the farmer, when the water will be drawn from
the earth by artesian wells, and life and vitality will thus be
given to a soil as rich as the Kansas valley.

We reached the end of our stage ride at Fort Riley, and were glad
to enter into the cars of the Kansas Pacific railroad, though they
were as dirty and filthy as cars could well be. All this has been
changed. Now the ride over the plains from Kansas City to Denver
can be made, in a comparatively few hours, in comfort and safety.

I returned to Ohio to take my usual part in the canvass in the fall
of 1866, and returned to Washington in time for the meeting of
Congress on the first Monday in December.

Prior to 1862 but little attention was given by Congress to the
greatest and most important industry of mankind, that of agriculture.
This is especially true of the United States, where the majority
of its inhabitants are engaged in farming. Agriculture has furnished
the great body of our exports, yet this employment had no representative
in any of the departments except a clerk in the Patent Office.
The privileges granted by that bureau to inventors had no relation
to work on the farm, though farming was greatly aided by invention
of farm implements during the period of the war, when a million of
men were drawn from their occupations into the army. This anomaly
led to the passage, on the 15th of May, 1862, of the act to establish
the department of agriculture. Though called a department its
chief officer was a commissioner of agriculture, who was not for
many years a member of the cabinet. The first commissioner, Isaac
Newton, appointed by Lincoln, was a peculiar character, a Quaker
of Philadelphia, a gardener rather than a farmer, but he was an
earnest and active officer. The appropriations for his department
were very small, but enabled him to distribute valuable seeds and
cuttings, which were in great demand and of real service to farmers.
I early took an active part in promoting his efforts and especially
in producing him appropriations and land where he could test his
experiments. He applied for authority to use that portion of
Reservation No. 2 between 12th and 14th streets of the mall in
Washington, then an unsightly waste without tree or shrub, but he
was notified that the use of it was essentially necessary to the
war department as a cattle yard. When the war was over Congress
appropriated it for the use of his department. He took possession
of it about the middle of April, 1865, and, though the ground was
an unbroken soil of tenacious clay, he fertilized and pulverized
a part of it and planted a great variety of seeds for propagation,
and covered the remaining portions of it with grass and cereals.
His reports increased in interest and were in great demand. His
office work was done in inconvenient parts of the Patent Office,
and the necessity of better accommodations was constantly pressed
upon Members of Congress. I took an active interest in the subject,
and offered an amendment to the civil appropriation bill to
appropriate $100,000 for a suitable building for the department of
agriculture on the reservation mentioned. There was a disposition
in the Senate to ridicule Newton and his seeds, and Mr. Fessenden
opposed the appropriation as one for an object not within the
constitutional power of Congress. The amendment, however, was
adopted on the 28th day of February, 1867. Newton died on the 19th
of June of that year, but on the 22nd of August, John W. Stokes,
as acting commissioner, entered into a contract for the erection
of the building, and Horace Capron, as commissioner, completed the
work within the limits of his appropriation, a rare result in the
construction of a public building. The building is admirably
adapted for the purposes designed. The unsightly reservation has
been converted by Mr. Capron and his successors in office into one
of the most beautiful parks in Washington. The department of
agriculture is now represented in the cabinet, and in practical
usefulness to the country is equal to any of the departments.

During the last session of the 39th Congress the relations between
President Johnson and Congress became such that it was deemed
advisable to provide by law for a session of the new Congress on
the 4th of March, 1867, that being the commencement of the term
for which the Members were elected.

The law, in my opinion, ought to be a permanent one, so that the
will of the people, as evidenced by the elections, may be promptly
responded to. But such was not the purpose of this act. The reason
was that, under the claim of authority made by the President, there
was a fear that he might recognize the states in insurrection before
they had complied with the conditions prescribed by law for
reconstruction.

In pursuance of this law the 40th Congress met on the day named.

I took the oath as Senator, my colleague, Benjamin F. Wade, president
_pro tem._ of the Senate, administering it. I became chairman of
the committee on finance by the voluntary retirement of Mr. Fessenden.
I knew this had been his purpose during the session just closed.
He complained of his health, and that the confinement and labor of
the position he held added to his infirmity. At the same time it
was agreed that the duties of the committee should be divided by
referring all appropriations to a committee on appropriations, and
I was to choose between the two committees. The House of
Representatives had already divided the labors of the committee of
ways and means, a corresponding committee to that on finance, among
several committees, and the experiment had proved a success. I
preferred the committee on finance, and remained its chairman until
I became Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Fessenden took the easy
and pleasant position of chairman of the committee on public
buildings and grounds, and held that position until he died in
September, 1869. I have already expressed my opinion of his
remarkable ability as a debater and as a statesman of broad and
conservative views. His only fault was a hasty temper too often
displayed, but as often regretted by him.

Congress adjourned on the 30th of March, to meet again on the 3rd
of July. The Senate was called to a special session by proclamation
of the President on the 1st day of April, 1867. It remained in
session until the 20th of April and then adjourned _sine die_.

I did not remain until the close of the session, but about the 10th
of April sailed from New York for Europe in the steamer "City of
Antwerp." I went for needed rest, a change of air and scene, and
had in view, as one of the attractions of the voyage, a visit to
the exposition at Paris in that year. My associates on the ocean
were Colonel Morrow, United States Army, and John A. Kasson, Member
of Congress from Iowa, and we remained together until I left London.

I had no plan, route or business, except to go where I drifted with
such companions as I met. The only limitation as to time was the
duty of returning to meet the adjourned session of the Senate in
July. I have no memoranda in respect to the voyage and preserved
no letters about it. Still, the principal scenes and events are
impressed on my mind and I will narrate them as I now recall them.

The passage on the ocean was a favorable one. We had some rain
but no winds that disturbed my digestion. But few on the vessel
were seasick, and these mainly so from imagination. The captain,
whose name I do not recall, was a jolly Englishman, but a careful,
prudent and intelligent officer. I sat by his side at his table.
After leaving port we soon took our places at table for our first
meal on board. He inquired of me if I was a good sailor. I told
him I would be as regular in my attendance at meals as he. He
laughed and said he would like to wager some wine on that. I
cheerfully accepted his bet, and, true to my promise, I did not
miss a meal during the voyage, while he three or four times remained
at his post on deck when the air was filled with fog or the waves
were high. He paid the bet near the end of the voyage, and a number
of his passengers, including Morrow and Kasson, shared in the treat.

I can imagine no life more pleasing than a tranquil, but not too
tranquil, sea, with a good ship well manned, with companions you
like, but not too many. The quiet and rest, the view of the ocean,
the sense of solitude, the possibility of danger, all these broken
a little by a quiet game of whist or an interesting book--this I
call happiness. All these I remember to have enjoyed on this, my
fifth trip on the ocean.

In due time we arrived at Queenstown in Ireland. It was about the
time a party of Irishmen, in some town in England rescued some of
their countrymen from a van in charge of English constables, one
or more of whom were killed or wounded. Morrow, Kasson and I
concluded we would spend a few days in "Ould Ireland." Morrow and
Kasson believed they were of Irish descent, though remotely so as
their ancestors "fought in the Revolution." We remained in and
about Cork for two or three days. We visited and kissed the Blarney
Stone, saw the Lakes of Killarney, and drove or walked about the
interesting environs of Cork and Queenstown. We sought no acquaintance
with anyone.

We were all about the age of forty, physically sound, and both
Morrow and Kasson had the military air and step of soldiers. We
soon became conscious that we were under surveillance. One day an
officer called at our lodgings and frankly told us that there was
so much excitement about Fenian disturbances in England, and such
political ferment in Ireland, that an examination of the baggage
of passengers was required and he wished to examine ours. I told
him who we were, and introduced him to Morrow and Kasson, and
offered my trunk for inspection. They did the same, Kasson producing
also a small pistol from his valise. The officer had heard of that
pistol. Kasson had fired it at the birds hovering about the vessel.
This had been reported to the police. The officer took the pistol
and it was returned to Kasson some days after at Dublin. Morrow
ridiculed the pistol and told the officer that Kasson could not
hit or hurt him at ten paces away, but the officer was only half
satisfied. We soon after went to Dublin, but we felt that we were
under suspicion. All Americans were then suspected of sympathizing
with the Irish. We told our consul at Dublin of our adventures at
Cork, and he said we were lucky in not being arrested. We went to
a steeple chase a few miles from Dublin, where gentlemen rode their
own horses over a long and difficult route, leaping barriers and
crossing streams. We enjoyed the scene very much and mingled freely
in the great crowd, but always feeling that we were watched. The
next day we started to cross the channel to Holyhead.

We took the steamer at Dublin Bay and found aboard a large company
of well-dressed passengers, such as we would find on a summer
excursion from New York. Morrow, who was a handsome man of pleasing
manners and address, said he could pick out Americans from the
crowd. I doubted it. He said: "There is an American," pointing
out a large, well-built man, who seemed to be known by the passengers
around him. I said he was an Englishman. Morrow stepped up to
him and politely said that he had a wager with a friend that he
was an American. "Not by a d----d sight," replied the Englishman.
Morrow apologized for the intrusion, but the gentleman changed his
tone and said that his abrupt answer was caused by a letter he had
lately received from a nephew of his whom he had sent to America
to make his fortune. His nephew had written him now that the rebels
were put down, the next thing to do would be to put down "old
England." Morrow said there was too much of that kind of gasconade
in America, and that after our desperate struggle at home we would
not be likely to engage in one with England.

We arrived safely in London. In my first visit in 1859, with my
wife, we were sight-seers. Now I sought to form acquaintance with
men whose names were household words in all parts of the United
States. By the courtesy of our consul general at Liverpool, Thomas
H. Dudley, I met John Bright, Disraeli, and many others less
conspicuous in public life. I have already mentioned my breakfast
with Gladstone during this visit. Mr. Dudley, then in London,
invited Mr. Bright to a dinner as his principal guest. Of all the
men I met in London, Mr. Bright impressed me most favorably. Finely
formed physically, he was also mentally strong. He was frank and
free in his talk and had none of the hesitation or reserve common
with Englishmen. He was familiar with our war and had no timidity
in the expression of his sympathy for the Union cause. If we ever
erect a monument to an Englishman, it should be to John Bright.
I heard Disraeli speak in the House of Commons and was introduced
to him at a reception at Lord Stanley's. In the ten days I spent
in London I saw as much of social life as could be crowded into
that time. Charles Francis Adams was then United States minister
at London, and I am indebted to him for many acts of kindness.
When we were Members of the House of Representatives together he
had the reputation of being cold and reserved and he was not popular
with his fellow Members, but in London he was distinguished for
his hospitality to Americans. He certainly was very kind to me,
entertaining me at dinner and taking pains to introduce me to many
peers and members whose names were familiar to me. While receptions
are very common in London during the session, the Englishman prefers
dinners as a mode of entertainment. It is then he really enjoys
himself and gives pleasure to his guests. The sessions of parliament,
however, interfere greatly with dinners. The great debates occur
during dining hours, so that, as Mr. Adams informed me, it was
difficult to arrange a dinner that would not be broken up somewhat
by an unexpected debate, or a division in the House of Commons.
The precedence of rank had to be carefully observed. The unsocial
habit of not introducing guests to each other tended to restrain
conversation and make the dinner dull and heavy. Still the forms
and usages in social life in London are much like those in Washington.
But here the ordinary sessions of each House of Congress terminate
before six o'clock, leaving the evening hours for recreation.

The presidential mansion is the natural resort of all who visit
Washington. The doors are always open to visitors at stated hours,
and the President is easy of access to all who call at such hours.
Formerly presidential receptions were open to all comers, and the
result was a motley crowd, who formed in line and shook hands with
the President, bowed to the attending ladies, passed into the great
east room and gradually dispersed. In late years these receptions
have become less frequent, and in their place we have had diplomatic,
military and navy, and congressional receptions, for which invitations
are issued. During the usual period before Lent card receptions
are given by the cabinet, by many Senators and Members, and by
citizens, for which invitations are issued. I know of no place
where the entrance into society is so open and free as in
Washington.

From London I went, by way of Dieppe and Rouen, to Paris, where my
first call was on General Dix and his family. Next I visited the
exposition, and wandered through and about and around it. I have
attended many exhibitions, but never one before or since that
combined such magnitude and completeness in size, form and location,
and such simplicity in arrangement and details, as the Paris
Exposition of 1867. I spent ten days in this inspection, and in
walking and driving around Paris and its environs. Through the
kindness of General Dix, then envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary, I received invitations to many meetings and
receptions given by Mayor Haussman and other officers of the French
government to visitors from abroad connected with the exposition.
I accepted some of them, but purposely postponed this social part
of my visit until I returned from Berlin.

From Paris I went to Antwerp via Brussels. At this latter place
I met Doctor John Wilson, then United States consul at Antwerp.
He was an old friend at Washington, where he served during the
greater part of the war as an army surgeon. He was a man of
remarkable intelligence, familiar with nearly every part of Europe,
and especially with France, Belgium and Prussia. He readily
acquiesced in my invitation to accompany me to Berlin. On the
invitation of Henry S. Sanford, our minister to Brussels, I returned
to that city, and met at dinner the principal officers of Belgium,
such as we designate cabinet ministers. I drove with Mr. Sanford
to Waterloo and other famous historic places in and about that
beautiful city.

From Brussels we went to the Hague, where General Hugh Ewing, a
brother-in-law of General Sherman, was United States minister.
After a brief stay in Holland, General Ewing, Doctor Wilson and
myself went to Berlin. Prussia was then a kingdom of rising power,
and Berlin was a growing city, but not at all the Berlin of to-day.
Bismarck was recognized as a great statesman and, although far less
prominent than he afterwards became, he was the one man in Germany
whom I desired to see or know. Mr. Joseph A. Wright, late United
States minister at Berlin, had recently died, and his son, John C.
Wright, who was in charge of the legation, had no difficulty in
securing me an audience with Bismarck, accompanying me to the
official residence, where I was introduced to him. Bismarck spoke
English with a German accent, but was easily understood. When I
spoke of recent events in Europe he would turn the conversation to
the United States, asking me many questions about the war and the
principal generals in the opposing armies. He was in thorough
sympathy with the Union cause, and emphatically said that every
man in Prussia, from the king to his humblest subject, was on the
side of the Union, and opposed to the Rebellion. What a pity, he
said, it would have been if so great a country as the United States
had been disrupted on account of slavery. I mentioned my visit to
the international fair at Paris and my intention to return, and he
said he would be there.

This interview, which lasted, perhaps, forty minutes, was as informal
and frank as the usual conversation of friends. Bismarck was then
in full health and strength, about fifty years old, more than six
feet high, and a fine specimen of vigorous manhood in its prime.

I found the same feeling for the United States expressed by a
popular meeting in the great exposition hall in Berlin. Our little
party was escorted to this place on Sunday afternoon by Mr. Kreismann,
our consul at Berlin. As we entered the hall, Mr. Kreismann advanced
to the orchestra, composed of several military bands, and said
something to the leader. When we took our seats at one of the
numerous tables he told me to pay attention after the first item
of the second part of the programme before me, and I would hear
something that would please me. At the time stated, a young man
advanced to the front of the stage, with a violin in his hand, and
played exquisitely the air "_Yankee Doodle Is the Tune_," and soon
after the entire band joined in, filling the great hall with American
music. The intelligent German audience, many of whom knew the
national airs of all countries, realized at once that this addition
to the programme was a compliment to the Americans. They soon
located our little party and then rose, and fully two thousand
persons, men, women and children, waved their handkerchiefs and
shouted for America.

The feeling in favor of the United States was then strong in all
parts of Europe, except in France and England. In these countries
it was somewhat divided--in France by the failure of Maximilian,
and in England by the rivalry of trade, and sympathy with the south.
Generally, in referring in Europe to the people of the United
States, the people speak of us as Americans, while those of other
parts of America are Canadians, Mexicans, etc.

After a pleasant week in Berlin I went by way of Frankfort, Wiesbaden
and Cologne to Paris. The exposition was then in full operation.
It may be that greater numbers attended the recent exposition at
Chicago, but, great as was its success, I think, for symmetry, for
plans of buildings, and arrangement of exhibits, the fair at Paris
was better than that at Chicago. The French people are well adapted
for such exhibits. The city of Paris is itself a good show. Its
people almost live out of doors six months of the year. They are
quick, mercurial, tasteful and economical. A Frenchman will live
well on one-half of what is consumed or wasted by an American. I
do not propose to describe the wonderful collection of the productions
of nature or the works of men, but I wish to convey some idea of
life in Paris during the thirty days I spent in it.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was then Emperor of the French, and Haussman
was mayor of the city of Paris. General Dix, as before stated,
was United States minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary
at the court of France. Upon my arrival, I hired what in Paris is
called an apartment, but which includes several rooms, comprising
together a comfortable residence. Many similar apartments may be
in the same building, but with them you need have no communication,
and you are detached from them as fully as if each apartment was
a separate house. The concierge, generally a woman, takes charge
of your room, orders your breakfast if you require one, and keeps
the key of your apartment when you are absent. It is a charming
mode of living. You can dine or lunch when you will, and are master
of your time and your apartment. I employed a neat, light carriage
and one horse, with a driver who knew a smattering of several
languages, and found him trusty and faithful--all this at a cost
that would disgust the ordinary hotel proprietor in the United
States, and especially the hack driver of any of our cities. This,
in Paris, was the usual outfit of a gentleman.

General Dix advised me on whom and when and how I should make my
calls. My card in the usual form announced that I was "Sénateur
des États Unis d'Amérique." A Parisian could not pronounce my name.
The best he could do was to call me "Monsieur le Sénateur." With
a few words of French I acquired, and the imperfect knowledge of
English possessed by most French people, I had no difficulty in
making my way in any company. I received many invitations I could
not accept. I attended a reception at the Palais Royal, the
residence of the mayor, dressed in the ordinary garb for evening
parties, a dress coat and trousers extending to the knees, and
below black silk stockings and pumps. I felt very uncomfortable
in this dress when I entered the reception room, but, as I found
every gentleman in the same dress, we become reconciled to it.
Subsequently I attended a reception at the Tuileries, at which I
was presented by General Dix to the emperor and empress.

One feature of this presentation I shall always remember. The
general company had been gathered in the great hall. The diplomatic
representatives of many countries were formed in line according to
their rank, attended by the persons to be presented. Soon a door
was opened from an adjoining room and the Emperor of the French,
escorting, I think, the Empress of Russia, passed along the line
and saluted the ambassadors and ministers in their order, and the
ladies and gentlemen to be presented were introduced by name to
the emperor. General Dix presented Fernando Wood, of New York,
and myself. Following the French emperor came the Emperor of Russia
escorting the Empress Eugenie of France, and the same mention of
our names was made to her. Following them came kings, the Prince
of Wales and others of like rank, each accompanied by distinguished
peers of his country. Third or fourth in this order came the King
of Prussia, Prince Bismarck, and General Von Moltke. When Bismarck
passed he shook hands with Dix and recognized me with a bow and a
few words. If the leaders in this pageant could have foreseen what
happened three years later--that King William would be an emperor,
that Bonaparte would be his prisoner and Eugenie a refugee from
republican France--the order of the march would have been reversed.

Soon after this reception, I was invited by the emperor to attend,
with General Dix and his daughter, a dinner at the Tuileries. Such
an invitation is held to be in the nature of a command. I accompanied
them, and was agreeably surprised to find that the dinner was quite
informal, though more than forty sat at table. When I entered the
room one of the ladies in waiting came to me and introduced me to
a lady whom I was to escort to the table. Presently she returned
and said: "Oh, I understand monsieur does not speak French, and
marquise does not speak English. Will monsieur allow me to be a
substitute?" I agreed with great pleasure. Both the guests and
the hosts were promptly on time. I was introduced to the emperor
and empress. She was very gracious to her guests, passing from
one to another with a kindly word to all. I noticed her greeting
to Miss Dix was very cordial. The emperor engaged in a conversation
with me that continued until the dinner was announced,--fully ten
minutes. He asked many questions about the war, and especially
about General Sherman. I answered his questions as I would to any
gentleman, but felt uneasy lest I was occupying time that he should
bestow on others. General Dix was by my side, and encouraged the
conversation. When the dinner was announced each guest knew his
place from the card furnished him, and the party was seated without
confusion.

I need not say that the young lady I escorted was a charming woman.
I did not learn whether she was married or not, but have always
regarded her action in relieving me from a silent dinner as the
highest mark of politeness. She was bright and attractive, and I
certainly did and said all I could to amuse her, so what I expected
to be a dull dinner turned out to be a very joyful one.

It is impossible for an American to visit Paris without enjoyment
and instruction. The people of Paris are always polite, especially
to Americans. The debt of gratitude for the assistance of France
in our War of the Revolution is never forgotten by a true American,
and Frenchmen are always proud of their share in establishing the
independence of America. The two Bonapartes alone did not share
in this feeling. The Americans are liberal visitors in Paris.
They spend their money freely, join heartily in festivities, and
sympathize in the success and prosperity of the French republic.
If I was not an American I certainly would be a Frenchman. I have
visited Paris three times, remaining in it more than a month at
each visit, and always have been received with civility and kindness.
Though it is a great manufacturing city, chiefly in articles of
luxury requiring the highest skill, yet it is also a most beautiful
city in its location, its buildings, public and private, its museums
and opera houses, its parks and squares, its wide streets and
avenues, and especially the intelligence of its people. Science
and art have here reached their highest development. We may copy
all these, but it will require a century to develop like progress
in America.

I returned to England for a few days and then took the steamer
"City of Paris" for New York, where I arrived on the 13th of July.
I took the cars for Washington and arrived ten days after the
session had commenced.

While I was in Paris a special international commission, composed
of delegates from seventeen nations, was sitting to consider, and,
if possible, agree on a common unit of money for the use of the
civilized world. Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, a gentleman of the highest
standing and character, was the representative of the United States
on this commission. It should be remembered that at this time the
only currency in circulation in the United States was the legal
tender notes of the United States and the notes of national banks.
Neither gold nor silver coin was in circulation, both being at a
premium in currency. At this time silver bullion was at a premium
over gold bullion, the legal ratio being sixteen to one. In other
words, sixteen ounces of silver were worth, in the open market,
three to five cents more than one ounce of gold. All parties in
the United States were then looking forward to the time when United
States notes would advance in value to par with gold, the cheaper
metal.

The question before the commission was how to secure a common coin
that would be the measure of value between all nations, and thus
avoid the loss by exchange of the coins of one nation for those of
another. Mr. Ruggles knew that I had studied this question, and
therefore wrote this letter:

"Paris, May 17, 1867.
"My Dear Sir:--You are, of course, aware that there is a special
committee now in session, organized by the Imperial Commission of
France, in connection with the 'Paris Exposition,' composed of
delegates from many of the nations therein represented. Its object,
among others, is to agree, if possible, on a common unit of money,
for the use of the civilized world.

"I perceive that the opinions of the committee are running strongly
in favor of adopting, as the unit, the existing French five-franc
piece of gold.

"May I ask what, in your opinion, is the probability that the
Congress of the United States, at an early period, would agree to
reduce the weight and value of our gold dollar, to correspond with
the present weight and value of the gold five-franc piece of France;
and how far back such a change would commend itself to your own
judgment?

"I would also ask the privilege of submitting your answer to the
consideration of the committee.

"With high respect, faithfully your friend,
"Samuel B. Ruggles,
"U. S. Commissioner to the Paris Exposition and Member of the
Committee.
"Hon. John Sherman,
"Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate of the United
States, etc., etc., etc., now in Paris."

To this letter I made the following reply:

"Hotel Jardin des Tuileries, May 18, 1867.
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of yesterday, inquiring whether Congress
would probably, in future coinage, make our gold dollar conform in
value to the gold five-franc piece, has been received.

"There has been so little discussion in Congress upon the subject
that I cannot base my opinion upon anything said or done there.

"The subject has, however, excited the attention of several important
commercial bodies in the United States, and the time is now so
favorable that I feel quite sure that Congress will adopt any
practical measure that will secure to the commercial world a uniform
standard of value and exchange.

"The only question will be, how can this be accomplished?

"The treaty of December 23, 1865, between France, Italy, Belgium,
and Switzerland, and the probable acquiescence in that treaty by
Prussia, has laid the foundation for such a standard. If Great
Britain will reduce the value of her sovereign two pence, and the
United States will reduce the value of her dollar something over
three cents, we then have a coinage in the franc, dollar and
sovereign easily computed, and which will readily pass in all
countries; the dollar as five francs and the sovereign as 25 francs.

"This will put an end to the loss and intricacies of exchange and
discount.

"Our gold dollar is certainly as good a unit of value as the franc;
and so the English think of their pound sterling. These coins are
now exchangeable only at a considerable loss, and this exchange is
a profit only to brokers and bankers. Surely each commercial nation
should be willing to yield a little to secure a gold coin of equal
value, weight, and diameter, from whatever mint it may have been
issued.

"As the gold five-franc piece is now in use by over 60,000,000 of
people of several different nationalities, and is of convenient
form and size, it may well be adopted by other nations as the common
standard of value, leaving to each nation to regulate the divisions
of this unit in silver coin or tokens.

"If this is done France will surely abandon the impossible effort
of making two standards of value. Gold coins will answer all the
purpose of European commerce. A common gold standard will regulate
silver coinage, of which the United States will furnish the greater
part, especially for the Chinese trade.

"I have thought a good deal of how the object you propose may be
most readily accomplished. It is clear that the United States
cannot become a party to the treaty referred to. They could not
agree upon the silver standard; nor could we limit the amount of
our coinage, as proposed by the treaty. The United States is so
large in extent, is so sparsely populated, and the price of labor
is so much higher than in Europe, that we require more currency
per capita. We now produce the larger part of the gold and silver
of the world, and cannot limit our coinage except by the wants of
our people and the demands of commerce.

"Congress alone can change the value of our coin. I see no object
in negotiating with other powers on the subject. As coin is not
now in general circulation with us, we can readily fix by law the
size, weight, and measure of future issues. It is not worth while
to negotiate about that which we can do without negotiation, and
we do not wish to limit ourselves by treaty restrictions.

"In England many persons of influence and different chambers of
commerce are earnestly in favor of the proposed change in their
coinage. The change is so slight with them that an enlightened
self-interest will soon induce them to make it, especially if we
make the greater change in our coinage. We have some difficulty
in adjusting existing contracts with the new dollar; but as contracts
are now based upon the fluctuating value of paper money, even the
reduced dollar in coin will be of more purchasable value than our
currency.

"We can easily adjust the reduction with public creditors in the
payment or conversion of their securities, while private creditors
might be authorized to recover upon the old standard. All these
are matters of detail to which I hope the commission will direct
their attention.

"And now, my dear sir, allow me to say in conclusion that I heartily
sympathize with you and the others in your efforts to secure the
adoption of the metrical system of weights and measures.

"The tendency of the age is to break down all needless restrictions
upon social and commercial intercourse. Nations are now as much
akin to each other as provinces were of old. Prejudices disappear
by contact. People of different nations learn to respect each
other as they find that their differences are the effect of social
and local custom, not founded upon good reasons. I trust that the
industrial commission will enable the world to compute the value
of all productions by the same standard, to measure by the same
yard or meter, and weigh by the same scales.

"Such a result would be of greater value than the usual employments
of diplomatists and statesmen.

"I am very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

As the result of its investigation the commission agreed, with
entire unanimity, that the gold five-franc piece should be adopted
as the unit of value, and that the coins of all nations represented
should be based upon that unit or multiples thereof. This would
require a slight change in the quantity of gold in the dollar of
the United States, amounting to a reduction of about three cents,
a reduction in the pound sterling of England of about one penny,
and a slight reduction or increase in the gold coins of other
countries.

Mr. Ruggles reported the proceedings and recommendation of the
commission to the President, and his report was referred to
Congress.

A private letter to me from Mr. Ruggles, dated December 30, 1867,
shows the nature of the opposition to the measure proposed, being
entirely from British opposition to a change in the pound sterling.
He wrote:

"New York, December 30, 1867.
"My Dear Mr. Sherman:--You may have perceived, within the last
week, articles in the 'New York Evening Post,' the 'New York Times'
and the 'World,' on the subject of the proposed monetary unification;
the first denying its _propriety_, the second its _practicability_,
and the third underrating its _importance_.

"The articles are hastily and ignorantly and, in some respects,
bitterly written. My first impulse was to briefly answer each of
them in its respective newspaper. On further reflection, it seemed
more decorous that, as a member of the 'conference,' I should first
appear before the Senate committee now in possession of all the
papers, and there render any proper explanations, and not obtrude
myself as a combatant in the newspapers, prematurely and only
partially defending my official action. If, however, you should
think that the articles should be answered without delay, I could
readily cause it to be done, by other persons.

"I cannot but think that the dignity of the subject, formally
presented as it now is, to our national authorities, by a diplomatic
assemblage representing nearly all the civilized nations of the
Christian world, entitles it to a full discussion before the Senate
committee, to be followed by a maturely considered report, fairly
weighing and presenting to the country all the merits and demerits,
facilities and difficulties of the measure.

"I am just at the moment confined to my house by an 'influenza,'
but if I can be of any service, either before the committee or
elsewhere, I shall hold myself subject to your official call, for
any duty, after the 7th or 8th of January, which you may indicate.

"You must have perceived that my report to the department of state,
having in view the possibility of European readers, abstained from
some considerations which might properly be brought to the notice
of the committee of the American Senate.

"It is strange, indeed, to see American newspapers eagerly maintaining
the inviolability of the 'pound sterling,' when it has become
entirely evident that the great monetary struggle of the future
must lie between the British pound and the American dollar. In
truth, this was virtually admitted in the 'conference' by Mr.
Graham, one of the British delegates, and master of the royal mint.

"With high regard, faithfully yours,
"Samuel B. Ruggles.
"Hon. John Sherman,
"Chairman Senate Finance Comittee, etc., etc., etc."

We were called upon to legislate upon the subject. The French
government promptly acquiesced in the coin proposed. Mr. Ruggles'
report said that several governments had already assented to it.
The report was referred to the committee on finance of the Senate,
who submitted a favorable report with a bill to carry out the
recommendations, and that report was published. There was no
dissent from the plan except that Senator Morgan, of New York,
thought it would interfere with the profit of New York brokers in
changing dollars into pounds. As a matter of course, it would have
interfered with the exchanges of New York and London, the great
money centers of the world. It would have interfered with bullion
dealers who make profit in exchanging coins; but the whole of it
was for the benefit of each country.

No man can estimate the benefit it would have conferred upon our
own people. It was only defeated by the refusal of Great Britain
to assent to the change of her pound sterling by the reduction of
its value about one penny. But pride in the existing coins, so
strong in that country, defeated the measure, although it had been
assented to by her representatives in that monetary congress; and
so the thing ended.

It is easy now to perceive that if this international coin had been
agreed to it would have passed current everywhere, as it could
rapidly be exchanged at sight without going through the hands of
brokers. I do not believe that Mr. Morgan would have insisted on
his opposition, as the only ground of his objection was, it would
have destroyed the business of the money changers of New York.
Even his resistance would have been ineffectual, as the committee
and the Senate were decidedly in favor of the bill and the opposition
of New York brokers would have added strength to the measure.

The greatest statesmen of Europe and America have sought for many
years to unify the coinage of nations, and to adopt common standards
of weights and measures, so that commerce may be freed from the
restrictions now imposed upon it, but Great Britain has steadily
opposed all these enlightened measures, and thus far has been able
to defeat them.

My report from the committee on finance, made to the Senate June
7, 1868, contains a full statement of the acts of the monetary
conference at Paris, and of the approval of its action by many of
the countries there represented, and of the support given to the
plan in Great Britain by many of her ablest statesmen and the great
body of her commercial classes, but the party then in power in
parliament refused its sanction, and thus, as already stated, the
measure failed.

It has been quite common, during recent discussion about silver,
to attribute the alleged demonetization of that metal to the action
of the Paris monetary conference. In 1867, when this conference
was in session, as already stated, sixteen ounces of silver were
worth more than one ounce of gold. Fifteen and one-half ounces of
silver were the legal equivalent of one ounce of gold in all European
countries. No suggestion was made or entertained to disturb the
circulation of silver. The only object sought was to secure some
common coin by which other coins could be easily measured. As gold
was the most valuable metal in smallest space, and the five-franc
gold piece of France was the best _unit_ by which other coins could
be measured, other gold coins were to be multiples of the unit, so
that five francs would be a dollar and five dollars would be a
pound. The coins of other nations would be made to conform to
multiples of this unit.

It was perfectly understood that, while silver was the chief coin
in domestic exchanges in every country, it was not convenient for
foreign commerce, owing to its bulk. The ratio between gold and
silver was purely a domestic matter, to be determined by each
country for itself. It is apparent that the chief cause of the
fall of the market value of silver is its increased production.
This affects the price of every commodity, cotton, corn, or wheat
as well as silver. The law of supply and demand regulates value.
It is the "higher law" more potent than acts of Congress. If the
supply is in excess of demand the price will fall, in spite of
legislation. The most striking evidence of this was furnished by
our recent legislation by which we purchased over 400,000,000 ounces
of silver at its market value and hoarded it, and yet the price of
it steadily declined. We can coin it into silver dollars, but we
can keep these dollars at par with gold only be receiving them as
the equal of gold when offered.

During the spring and summer of 1867 the question of impeaching
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, was frequently
discussed in the House of Representatives. The resolutions relating
to his impeachment were introduced by James M. Ashley, of Ohio, on
the 7th of March, 1867, and they were adopted on the same day.
These resolutions instructed the judiciary committee, when appointed,
to continue the inquiry, previously ordered, into certain charges
preferred against the President of the United States, with authority
to sit during the sessions of the House, and during any recess the
Congress might take.

On the 25th of November, 1867, a majority of the committee on the
judiciary reported a resolution of impeachment, as follows:

"_Resolved_, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."

This resolution was accompanied by a long report and the testimony,
all of which was ordered to be printed, and made the special order
for Wednesday, December 4, 1867. James F. Wilson, of Iowa, made
a minority report against the resolution of impeachment, signed by
himself and Frederick E. Woodbridge, of Vermont. Samuel S. Marshall,
of Illinois, also made a minority report in behalf of himself and
Charles A. Eldridge, of Wisconsin.

On the 7th of December, the resolution of impeachment reported by
the committee on the judiciary at the previous session was disagreed
to by a vote of 57 yeas and 108 nays. This decision of the House
of Representatives against an impeachment on the charges then made
was entirely justified. This imposing process was not authorized
for misconduct, immorality, intoxication or neglect of duties, such
as were alleged in the report of the committee, but only for high
crimes or misdemeanors. The House properly made this distinction,
and here the accusations against the President would have ended,
but for his attempt, in violation of the constitution and law, to
place General Lorenzo Thomas in an important office without the
advice and consent of the Senate, then in session.

In the latter part of 1867, and the early part of 1868, I became
involved in a controversy, between President Johnson, General Grant
and General Sherman, which caused the last-named serious embarrassment.
As much of the correspondence between these parties has been
published in the "Sherman Letters," I at first thought it best not
to make any reference to the matter, but upon reflection, and to
explain subsequent events, I insert the letters in their order.

General Sherman was summoned to Washington, by the President, and
upon his arrival there wrote me the following letter:

"Washington, October 11, 1867.
"Dear Brother:--I have no doubt that you have been duly concerned
about my being summoned to Washington.

"It was imprudently done by the President without going through
Grant. But I think I have smoothed it over so that Grant does not
feel hurt. I cannot place myself in a situation even partially
antagonistic with Grant. We must work together. Mr. Johnson has
not offered me anything, only has talked over every subject, and
because I listen to him patiently, and make short and decisive
answers, he says he would like to have me here. Still he does not
oppose my going back home. . . .

"On Monday I will start for St. Louis by the Atlantic and G. W.
road, and pass Mansfield Tuesday. Can't you meet me and ride some
miles? I have been away from home so much, and must go right along
to Fort Laramie, that I cannot well stop at Cleveland or Mansfield,
and would like to see you for an hour or so to hear your views of
the coming events. . . .

"Yours affectionately,
"W. T. Sherman."

And on his return to St. Louis he continues:

. . . "I have always talked kindly to the President, and have
advised Grant to do so. I do think that it is best for all hands
that his administration be allowed to run out its course without
threatened or attempted violence. Whoever begins violent proceedings
will lose in the long run. Johnson is not a man of action but of
theory, and so long as your party is in doubt as to the true mode
of procedure, it would be at great risk that an attempt be made to
displease the President by a simple law of Congress. This is as
much as I have ever said to anybody. I have never, by word or
inference, given anybody the right to class me in opposition to,
or in support of, Congress. On the contrary, I told Mr. Johnson
that from the nature of things he could not dispense with a Congress
to make laws and appropriate money, and suggested to him to receive
and make overtures to such men as Fessenden, Trumbull, Sherman,
Morgan, and Morton, who, though differing with him in abstract
views of constitutional law and practice, were not destructive.
That if the congressional plan of reconstruction succeeded, he
could do nothing, and if it failed or led to confusion, the future
developed results in his favor, etc.; and that is pretty much all
I have ever said or done. At the meeting of the society of the
army of the Tennessee on the 13th inst., I will be forced to speak,
if here, and though I can confine myself purely to the military
events of the past, I can make the opportunity of stating that in
no event will I be drawn into the complications of the civil politics
of this country.

"If Congress could meet and confine itself to current and committee
business, I feel certain that everything will work along quietly
till the nominations are made, and a new presidential election will
likely settle the principle if negroes are to be voters in the
states without the consent of the whites. This is more a question
of prejudice than principle, but a voter has as much right to his
prejudices as to his vote. . . ."

I answered:

"Mansfield, Ohio, November 1, 1867.
"Dear Brother:-- . . . I see no real occasion for trouble with
Johnson. The great error of his life was in not acquiescing in
and supporting the 14th amendment of the constitution in the 39th
Congress. This he could easily have carried. It referred the
suffrage question to each state, and if adopted long ago the whole
controversy would have culminated; or, if further opposed by the
extreme radicals, they would have been easily beaten. Now I see
nothing short of universal suffrage and universal amnesty as the
basis. When you come on, I suggest that you give out that you go
on to make your annual report and settle Indian affairs. Give us
notice when you will be on, and come directly to my house, where
we will make you one of the family.

"Grant, I think, is inevitably the candidate. He allows himself
to drift into a position where he can't decline if he would, and
I feel sure he don't want to decline. My judgment is that Chase
is better for the country and for Grant himself, but I will not
quarrel with what I cannot control.

"John Sherman."

And later I wrote:--

"If you can keep free from committals to Johnson, you will surely
as you live be called upon to act as President. The danger now is
that the mistakes of the Republicans may drift the Democratic party
into power. If so, the Rebellion is triumphant, and no man active
in suppressing it will be treated or honored. Grant is not injured
by his correspondence with Johnson, but no doubt feels annoyed. . . ."

At this time President Johnson had come to open disagreement with
Mr. Stanton, his Secretary of War, and wished to force him from
the cabinet. Mr. Stanton had refused to resign and had been upheld
by Congress. The President then turned for help in his difficulties
to General Grant, commanding the army; but the latter found that
any interference on his part would be illegal and impossible.

Mr. Johnson then planned to create a new office for General Sherman,
that of brevet general of the army, in order to bring him to
Washington.

The following letters and telegrams refer to this difficulty:

"(Confidential.)
"Library Room, War Department, }
"Washington, D. C., January 31, 1868.}
"To the President:--Since our interview of yesterday I have given
the subject of our conversation all my thoughts, and I beg you will
pardon my reducing the result to writing.

"My personal preferences, if expressed, were to be allowed to return
to St. Louis to resume my present command, because my command was
important, large, suited to my rank and inclination, and because
my family was well provided for there, in house facilities, schools,
living, and agreeable society.

"Whilst, on the other hand, Washington was for many (to me) good
reasons highly objectionable. Especially because it is the political
capital of the country and focus of intrigue, gossip, and slander.
Your personal preferences were, as expressed, to make a new department
east adequate to my rank, with headquarters at Washington, and to
assign me to its command--to remove my family here, and to avail
myself of its schools, etc.; to remove Mr. Stanton from his office
as Secretary of War, and have me to discharge the duties.

"To effect this removal two modes were indicated: To simply cause
him to quit the war office building and notify the treasury department
and the army staff departments no longer to respect him as Secretary
or War; or to remove him, and submit my name to the Senate for
confirmation. Permit me to discuss these points a little, and I
will premise by saying that I have spoken to no one on the subject,
and have not even seen Mr. Ewing, Mr. Stanbery, or General Grant
since I was with you.

"It has been the rule and custom of our army, since the organization
of the government, that the officer of the army second in rank
should be in command at the second place in importance, and remote
from general headquarters. To bring me to Washington would put
three heads to an army,--yourself, General Grant, and myself,--and
we would be more than human if we were not to differ. In my judgment
it would ruin the army, and would be fatal to one or two of us.

"Generals Scott and Taylor proved themselves soldiers and patriots
in the field, but Washington was fatal to them both. This city
and the influences that centered here defeated every army that had
its head here from 1861 to 1865, and would have overwhelmed General
Grant at Spottsylvania and Petersburg, had he not been fortified
by a strong reputation already hard earned, and because no one then
living coveted the place. Whereas in the west we made progress
from the start, because there was no political capital near enough
to poison our minds and kindle into light that craving itching for
fame which has killed more good men than battles. I have been with
General Grant in the midst of death and slaughter--when the howls
of people reached him after Shiloh; when messengers were speeding
to and fro, between his army and Washington, bearing slanders to
induce his removal before he took Vicksburg; in Chattanooga, when
the soldiers were stealing the corn of the starving mules to satisfy
their own hunger; at Nashville, when he was ordered to the 'forlorn
hope' to command the army of the Potomac, so often defeated--and
yet I never saw him more troubled than since he has been in
Washington, and has been compelled to read himself a 'sneak and
deceiver,' based on reports of four of the cabinet, and apparently
with your knowledge. If this political atmosphere can disturb the
equanimity of one so guarded and so prudent as he is, what will be
the result with one so careless, so outspoken, as I am? Therefore,
with my consent, Washington never.

"As to the Secretary of War, his office is twofold. As cabinet
officer he should not be there without your hearty, cheerful consent,
and I believe that is the judgment and opinion of every fair-minded
man. As the holder of a civil office, having the supervision of
money appropriated by Congress, and of contracts for army supplies,
I do think Congress, or the Senate by delegation from Congress,
has a lawful right to be consulted. At all events, I would not
risk a suit or contest on that phase of the question. The law of
Congress of March 2, 1867, prescribing the manner in which orders
and instructions relating to 'military movements' shall reach the
army, gives you, as constitutional commander in chief, the very
power you want to exercise, and enables you to prevent the secretary
from making any such orders and instructions, and consequently he
cannot control the army, but is limited and restricted to a duty
that an auditor of the treasury could perform. You certainly can
afford to await the result. The executive power is not weakened,
but, rather, strengthened. Surely he is not such an obstruction
as would warrant violence or even a show of force which could
produce the very reaction and clamor that he hopes for, to save
him from the absurdity of holding an empty office 'for the safety
of the country.'

"With great respect, yours truly,
"W. T. Sherman."

"Headquarters Military Division of the Missouri,}
"St. Louis, Mo., February 14, 1868. }
"To the President:

"Dear Sir:--It is hard for me to conceive you would purposely do
me an unkindness, unless under the pressure of a sense of public
duty, or because you do not believe me sincere.

"I was in hopes, since my letter to you of the 31st of January,
that you had concluded to pass over that purpose of yours, expressed
more than once in conversation, to organize a new command for me
in the east, with headquarters in Washington; but a telegram, from
General Grant, of yesterday, says that 'the order was issued ordering
you' (me) 'to Atlantic division;' and the newspapers of this morning
contain the same information, with the addition that I have been
nominated as 'brevet general.' I have telegraphed to my own brother
in the Senate to oppose my nomination, on the ground that the two
higher grades in the army ought not to be complicated with brevets,
and I trust you will conceive my motives aright. If I could see
my way clear to maintain my family, I should not hesitate a moment
to resign my present commission and seek some business wherein I
would be free from those unhappy complications that seem to be
closing about me, in spite of my earnest efforts to avoid them;
but necessity ties my hands, and I submit with the best grace I
can, till I make other arrangements.

"In Washington are already the headquarters of a department, and
of the army itself, and it is hard for me to see wherein I can
render military service there. Any staff officer with the rank of
major could surely fill any gap left between those two military
offices; and by being placed at Washington I shall be universally
construed as a rival to the general in chief, a position damaging
to me in the highest degree. Our relations have always been most
confidential and friendly, and if, unhappily, any cloud of difficulty
should arise between us, my sense of personal dignity and duty
would leave me no alternative but resignation. For this I am not
yet prepared, but I shall proceed to arrange for it as rapidly as
possible, that when the time does come (as it surely will if this
plan is carried into effect), I may act promptly.

"Inasmuch as the order is now issued, I cannot expect a full
revocation of it, but I beg the privilege of taking post at New
York, or at any point you may name, within the new military division,
other than Washington.

"This privilege is generally granted to all military commanders,
and I can see no good reasons why I, too, may not ask for it; and
this simple concession, involving no public interest, will much
soften the blow which, right or wrong, I construe as one of the
hardest I have sustained in a life somewhat checkered with
adversity.

"With great respect, yours truly,
(Signed) "W. T. Sherman, Lieutenant General."

"Headquarters Military Division of Missouri,}
"St. Louis, February 14, 1868. }
"Dear Brother:-- . . . I am again in the midst of trouble, occasioned
by a telegram from Grant saying that the order is out for me to
come to the command of the military division of the Atlantic,
headquarters at Washington. The President repeatedly asked me to
accept of some such position, but I thought I had fought it off
successfully, though he again and again reverted to it.

"Now, it seems, he has ordered it, and it is full of trouble for
me. I wrote him one or two letters in Washington, which I though
positive enough, but have now written another, and if it fails in
its object I might as well cast about for new employment. The
result would be certain conflict, resulting in Grant's violent
deposition, mine, or the President's.

"There is not room on board of one ship for more than one captain.

"If Grant intends to run for President I should be willing to come
on, because my duties would then be so clearly defined that I think
I could steer clear of the breakers--but now it would be impossible.
The President would make use of me to beget violence, a condition
of things that ought not to exist now.

"He has no right to use us for such purposes, though he is commander
in chief. I did suppose his passage with Grant would end there,
but now it seems he will fight him as he has been doing Congress.
I don't object if he does so himself and don't rope me in. . . .

"If the President forces me into a false position out of seeming
favor, I must defend myself. It is mortifying, but none the less
inevitable.

"Affectionately,
"W. T. Sherman."

(Telegram.)
"Washington, February 14, 1868.
"From St. Louis, February 14, 1868.
"To General U. S. Grant, Commander U. S. Army:

"Your dispatch informing me that the order for the Atlantic division
was issued, and that I was assigned to its command, is received.

"I was in hopes I had escaped the danger, and now, were I prepared,
should resign on the spot, as it requires no foresight to predict
such must be the inevitable result in the end.

"I will make one more desperate effort by mail, which please await.

(Signed) "W. T. Sherman, Lieutenant General."

(Telegram.)
"Dated St. Louis, February 14, 1868.
"Received at House of Representatives, February 14.
"To Hon. John Sherman:

"Oppose confirmation of myself as brevet general on ground that it
is unprecedented, and that it is better not to extend the system
of brevets above major general. If I can't avoid coming to Washington
I may have to resign.

"W. T. Sherman, Lieutenant-General."

This correspondence, some of which was published, excited a great
deal of attention, and I received many letters in regard to it,
one of which I insert:

"Washington, D. C., February 17, 1868.
"Dear Sherman:--How nobly and magnanimously your gallant brother
has acted. If A. J. was not callous to all that would affect
gentlemen generally, he would feel this rebuke stingingly. But
since he has betrayed the men who elected him he is proof against
such things.

"Yours very truly,
"Schuyler Colfax."

Upon the receipt of General Sherman's telegram I requested the
committee on military affairs to take no action upon his nomination,
as he did not desire, and would not accept, the proposed compliment.
This correspondence then followed:

"Headquarters Military Division of the Missouri.}
"St. Louis, Mo., February 17, 1868. }
"Dear Brother:-- . . . I have not yet got the order for the Atlantic
division, but it is coming by mail, and when received I must act.
I have asked the President to let me make my headquarters at New
York, instead of Washington, making my application of the ground
that my simply being in Washington will be universally construed
as rivalry to General Grant, a position which would be damaging to
me in the extreme.

"If I must come to Washington, it will be with a degree of reluctance
never before experienced. I would leave my family here on the
supposition that the change was temporary. I do not question the
President's right to make the new division, and I think Congress
would make a mistake to qualify his right. It would suffice for
them to nonconfirm the brevet of general. I will notify you by
telegraph when the matter is concluded.

"Affectionately,
"W. T. Sherman."

(Telegram.)
"Received Washington, February 20, 1868.
"From St. Louis, Mo., February 20, 1868.
"To General U. S. Grant:

"The President telegraphs that I may remain in my present command.
I write him a letter of thanks through you to-day. Congress should
not have for publication my letters to the President, unless the
President himself chooses to give them.

(Signed) "W. T. Sherman, Lieut. General."

"Headquarters Army of the United States.}
"Washington, February 21, 1868. }
"Dear Sir:--By General Grant's direction I inclose a copy of a
dispatch from General Sherman, seeming to indicate his preference
that the correspondence in question should not now be made public.

"Respectfully yours,
"C. B. Comstock, B. B. S.
"Hon. John Sherman, United States Senate."

A few days after this, General Sherman went to Washington in response
to the President's order, and while there had several interviews
with the President relating to the change of his command. He
objected very strongly, as has been seen, to any such change,
because he felt that he could not hold a command in Washington
without interfering with Grant's interests, and because he had a
rooted objection to living in Washington in the midst of the turmoil
of politics. These objections were embodied in three letters which
General Sherman wrote and showed to Grant before he sent them to
the President. One of them found its way into the public press,
and created a disturbance which called forth the following letters:

"Headquarters Army of the United States,}
"Washington, D. C., February 22, 1868. }
"Hon. J. Sherman, United States Senate.

"Dear Sir:--The 'National Intelligencer' of this morning contains
a private note which General Sherman sent to the President whilst
he was in Washington, dictated by the purest kindness and a
disposition to preserve harmony, and not intended for publication.
It seems to me that the publication of that letter is calculated
to place the general in a wrong light before the public, taken in
connection with what correspondents have said before, evidently
getting their inspiration from the White House.

"As General Sherman afterwards wrote a semi-official note to the
President, furnishing me a copy, and still later a purely official
one sent through me, which placed him in his true position, and
which have not been published, though called for by the 'House,'
I take the liberty of sending you these letters to give you the
opportunity of consulting General Sherman as to what action to take
upon them. In all matters where I am not personally interested,
I would not hesitate to advise General Sherman how I would act in
his place. But in this instance, after the correspondence I have
had with Mr. Johnson, I may not see General Sherman's interest in
the same light that others see it, or that I would see it in if no
such correspondence had occurred. I am clear in this, however,
the correspondence here inclosed to you should not be made public
except by the President, or with the full sanction of General
Sherman. Probably the letter of the 31st of January, marked
'confidential,' should not be given out at all.

"Yours truly,
"U. S. Grant."

The following letter was addressed to the "National Intelligencer,"
a Washington newspaper:

"United States Senate Chamber, }
"Washington, February 22, 1868.}
"Gentlemen:--The publication in your paper yesterday of General
Sherman's note to the President, and its simultaneous transmission
by telegraph, unaccompanied by subsequent letters withheld by the
President because they were 'private,' is so unfair as to justify
severe censure upon the person who furnished you this letter,
whoever he may be. Upon its face it is an informal private note
dictated by the purest motives--a desire to preserve harmony--and
not intended for publication. How any gentleman receiving such a
note could first allow vague but false suggestions of its contents
to be given out, and then print it, and withhold other letters
because they were 'private,' with a view to create the impression
that General Sherman, in referring to ulterior measures, suggested
the violent expulsion of a high officer from his office, passes my
comprehension. Still I know that General Sherman is so sensitive
upon questions of official propriety in publishing papers, that he
would rather suffer from this false inference than correct it by
publishing another private note, and as I know that this letter
was not the only one written by General Sherman to the President
about Mr. Stanton, I applied to the President for his consent to
publish subsequent letters. This consent was freely given by the
President, and I therefore send copies to you and ask their
publication.

"These copies are furnished me from official sources; for while I
know General Sherman's opinions, yet he did not show me either of
the letters to the President, during his stay here, nervously
anxious to promote harmony, to avoid strife, and certainly never
suggested or countenanced resistance to law--or violence in any
form. He no doubt left Washington with his old repugnance to
politics, politicians, and newspapers very much increased by his
visit here.

"John Sherman."

"United States Senate Chamber, February 23, 1868.
"Dear Brother:--I received your letters and telegrams, and did not
answer because events were moving so rapidly that I could say
nothing but might be upset before you got the letter.

"Now you can congratulate yourself upon being clear of the worst
complications we have ever had. Impeachment seems to be a forgone
conclusion so far as the House of Representatives is concerned,
based upon the alleged _forcible_ expulsion of Stanton. No one
disputes the right of the President to raise a question of law upon
his right to remove Stanton, but the forcible removal of a man in
office, claiming to be in lawfully, is like the forcible ejectment
of a tenant when his right of possession is in dispute. It is a
trespass, an assault, a riot, or a crime, according to the result
of the force. It is strange the President can contemplate such a
thing, when Stanton is already stripped of power, and the courts
are open to the President to try his right of removal. The President
is acting very badly with respect to you. He creates the impression
that you acted disingenuously with him. He has published your
short private note before you went to Annapolis, and yet refuses
to publish your formal one subsequently sent to him, because it
was 'private.' The truth is, he is a slave to his passions and
resentments. No man can confide in him, and you ought to feel
happy at your extrication from all near connection with him. . . .
Grant is anxious to have your letters published, since the note
referred to was published. I will see Grant and the President this
evening, and if the latter freely consents, I will do it informally;
but if he doubts or hesitates, I will not without your expressed
directions. In these times of loose confidence, it is better to
submit for a time to a wrong construction, than to betray confidential
communications. Grant will, unquestionably, be nominated. Chase
acquiesces, and I see no reason to doubt his election. . . .

"Affectionately,
"John Sherman."

"Headquarters Military Division of the Missouri.}
"St. Louis, Mo., February 25, 1868. }
"Dear Brother:-- . . . I am in possession of all the news up to
date--the passage of the impeachment resolution, etc.--but I yet
don't know if the nomination of T. Ewing, Senior, was a real thing
or meant to compromise a difficulty.

"The publication of my short note of January 18, is nothing to me.
I have the original draft which I sent through Grant's hands, with
his indorsement back to me. At the time this note must have been
given to the reporter, the President had an elaborate letter from
me, in which I discussed the whole case, and advised against the
very course he has pursued, but I don't want that letter or any
other to be drawn out to complicate a case already bad enough.

"You may always safely represent me by saying that I will not make
up a final opinion until called on to act, and I want nothing to
do with these controversies until the time comes for the actual
fight, which I hope to God may be avoided. If the Democratic party
intend to fight on this impeachment, which I believe they do not,
you may count 200,000 men against you in the south. The negroes
are no match for them. On this question, the whites there will be
more united than on the old issue of union and secession. I do
not think the President should be suspended during trial, and, if
possible, the Republican party should not vote on all side questions
as a unit. They should act as judges, and not as partisans. The
vote in the House, being a strictly party vote, looks bad, for it
augurs a prejudiced jury. Those who adhere closest to the law in
this crisis are the best patriots. Whilst the floating politicians
here share the excitement at Washington, the people generally
manifest little interest in the game going on at Washington. . . .

"Affectionately yours,
"W. T. Sherman."

"United States Senate Chamber.}
"Washington, March 1, 1868. }
"Dear Brother:--Your letter of the 25th is received. I need not
say to you that the new events transpiring here are narrowly watched
by me. So far as I am concerned, I mean to give Johnson a fair
and impartial trial, and to decide nothing until required to do
so, and after full argument. I regard him as a foolish and stubborn
man, doing even right things in a wrong way, and in a position
where the evil that he does is immensely increased by his manner
of doing it. He clearly designed to have first Grant, and then
you, involved in Lorenzo Thomas' position, and in this he is actuated
by his recent revolt against Stanton. How easy it would have been,
if he had followed your advice, to have made Stanton anxious to
resign, or what is worse, to have made his position ridiculous.
By his infernal folly we are drifting into turbulent waters. The
only way is to keep cool and act conscientiously. I congratulate
you on your lucky extrication. I do not anticipate civil war, for
our proceeding is unquestionably lawful, and if the judgment is
against the President, his term is just as clearly _out_ as if the
4th of March, 1869, was come. The result, if he is convicted,
would cast the undivided responsibility of reconstruction upon the
Republican party, and would unquestionably secure the full admission
of all the states by July next, and avoid the dangerous questions
that may otherwise arise out of the southern vote in the Presidential
election. It is now clear that Grant will be a candidate, and his
election seems quite as clear. The action of North Carolina removed
the last doubt of his nomination.

"Affectionately yours,
"John Sherman."

"Headquarters Military Division of the Missouri,}
"St. Louis, March 14, 1868. }
"Dear Brother:--I don't know what Grant means by his silence in
the midst of the very great indications of his receiving the
nomination in May. Doubtless he intends to hold aloof from the
expression of any opinion, till the actual nomination is made,
when, if he accepts with a strong radical platform, I shall be
surprised. My notion is that he thinks that the Democrats ought
not to succeed to power, and that he would be willing to stand a
sacrifice rather than see that result. . . . I notice that you
Republicans have divided on some of the side questions on impeachment,
and am glad that you concede to the President the largest limits
in his defense that are offered. I don't see what the Republicans
can gain by shoving matters to an extent that looks like a foregone
conclusion.

"No matter what men may think of Mr. Johnson, his office is one
that ought to have a pretty wide latitude of opinion. Nevertheless,
the trial is one that will be closely and sternly criticised by
all the civilized world. . . .

"Your brother,
"W. T. Sherman."

At this time I wrote from Washington:

"You notice the impeachment proceedings have commenced. As a matter
of course, I have nothing to say about them. It is strange that
they have so little effect on prices and business. The struggle
has been so long that the effect has been discounted. . . .

"The President was very anxious to send you to Louisiana, and only
gave it up by reason of your Indian command. He might think that
your visit to Europe now was not consistent with the reason given
for your remaining at St. Louis. Still, on this point you could
readily ask his opinion, and if that agrees with Grant's you need
feel no delicacy in going. No more favorable opportunity or time
to visit Europe will likely occur. . . ."

General Sherman replied:

"I hardly know what to think of the impeachment. Was in hopes Mr.
Johnson would be allowed to live out his term, and doubt if any
good will result by a change for the few months still remaining of
his term. A new cabinet, and the changes foreshadowed by Wade's
friends, though natural enough, would have insufficient time to do
any good. I have a private letter from Grant as late as March 18,
but he says not a word of his political intentions. So far as I
know, he would yet be glad of a change that would enable him to
remain as now. . . ."

On the 27th of February, 1868, Mr. Stevens made the following
report:

"The committee on reconstruction, to whom was referred, on the 27th
of January last, the following resolution:

'_Resolved_, That the committee on reconstruction be authorized
to inquire what combinations have been made or attempted to be made
to obstruct the due execution of the laws; and to that end the
committee have powers to send for persons and papers, and to examine
witnesses on oath, and report to this House what action, if any,
they may deem necessary; and that said committee have leave to
report at any time.'

"And to whom was also referred, on the 21st day of February, instant,
a communication from Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, dated
on said 21st day of February, together with a copy of a letter from
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, to the said Edwin
M. Stanton, as follows:

'Executive Mansion, }
'Washington, D. C., February 21, 1868.}
'Sir:--By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as
President, by the constitution and laws of the United States, you
are hereby removed from office as secretary for the department of
war, and your functions as such will terminate upon the receipt of
this communication.

'You will transfer to Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant
General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered
to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_, all records, books, papers,
and other public property now in your custody and charge.

'Respectfully yours,
'Andrew Johnson.
'Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Washington, D. C.'

"And to whom was also referred by the House of Representatives the
following resolution, namely:

'_Resolved_, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.'

"Have considered the several subjects referred to them, and submit
the following report:

"That in addition to the papers referred to the committee, the
committee find that the President, on the 21st day of February,
1868, signed and issued a commission or letter of authority to one
Lorenzo Thomas, directing and authorizing said Thomas to act as
Secretary of War _ad interim_, and to take possession of the books,
records, and papers, and other public property in the war department,
of which the following is a copy:

'Executive Mansion, }
'Washington, February 21, 1868.}
'Sir:--Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from
office as secretary for the department of war, you are hereby
authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War _ad interim_,
and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining
to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to
you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now
in his custody and charge.

'Respectfully yours,
'Andrew Johnson.
'To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the
United States Army, Washington, District of Columbia.

'Official copy respectfully furnished to Hon. Edwin M. Stanton.

'L. Thomas
'Secretary of War _ad interim_.'

"Upon the evidence collected by the committee, which is herewith
presented, and in virtue of the powers with which they have been
invested by the House, they are of the opinion that Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and
misdemeanors. They therefore recommend to the House the adoption
of the accompanying resolution:

"Thaddeus Stevens,
"George S. Boutwell,
"John A. Bingham,
"C. T. Hulburd,
"John F. Farnsworth,
"F. C. Beaman,
"H. E. Paine.

"Resolution providing for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States:

'_Resolved_, That Andrew Johnson, President of the United States,
be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.'"

On the 24th of February the resolution providing for impeachment
was adopted by a vote of 126 yeas and 47 nays.

On the same day Mr. Stevens introduced the following resolution,
which was agreed to:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of two be appointed to go to the
Senate and, at the bar thereof, in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to
impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high
crimes and misdemeanors in office, and acquaint the Senate that
the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular
articles of impeachment against him and make good the same; and
that the committee do demand that the Senate take order for the
appearance of said Andrew Johnson to answer to said impeachment.

"2. _Resolved_, That a committee of seven be appointed to prepare
and report articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, President
of the United States, with power to send for persons, papers, and
records, and to take testimony under oath."

The speaker then announced the following committees under these
resolutions:

"Committee to communicate to the Senate the action of the House
ordering an impeachment of the President of the United States:--
Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, and John A. Bingham, of Ohio.

"Committee to declare articles of impeachment against the President
of the United States:--George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; Thaddeus
Stevens, of Pennsylvania; John A. Bingham, of Ohio; James F. Wilson,
of Iowa; John A. Logan, of Illinois; George W. Julian, of Indiana;
and Hamilton Ward, of New York."

The trial of this impeachment by the Senate was an imposing spectacle,
which excited profound interest during its continuance. It was
soon developed that the gravamen of the charges was not the removal
of Stanton, but was the attempt of the President to force General
Lorenzo Thomas into a high office without the advice and consent
of the Senate.

In the trial of this impeachment I wished to be, and I think I was,
absolutely impartial. I liked the President personally and harbored
against him none of the prejudice and animosity of some others.
I knew he was bold and rash, better fitted for the storms of
political life than the grave responsibilities of the chief magistrate
of a great country. His education, such as it was, was acquired
late in life, when his character was formed and his habits fixed.
Still, his mind was vigorous and his body strong, and when thoroughly
aroused he was an able speaker; his language was forcible and apt
and his influence over a popular audience was effective. I disliked
above all things to be a judge in his case. I knew some of my
associates were already against the President, and others were
decided in his favor. I resolutely made up my mind, so far as
human nature would admit, to fairly hear and impartially consider
all the evidence produced and all the arguments made.

The counsel for the President were Henry Stanbery, B. R. Curtis,
Jeremiah S. Black, William M. Evarts, William S. Groesbeck, and
Thomas A. R. Nelson. The managers on the part of the House of
Representatives were John A. Bingham, George S. Boutwell, James F.
Wilson, John A. Logan, Thomas Williams, Benjamin F. Butler and
Thaddeus Stevens. The trial lasted nearly two months, was ably
conducted on both sides, and ended by the acquittal of the President,
on the eleventh article of impeachment, by a vote of 35 guilty and
19 not guilty. Two-thirds of those voting not having pronounced
"guilty," as required by the constitution, the President was
acquitted upon this article. Two other articles were voted on with
the same result. Thereupon, on the 26th day of May, 1868, the
Senate sitting as a court of impeachment adjourned without day.
Mr. Stanton resigned and General Schofield became Secretary of War.

I voted for conviction for the reasons stated in the opinion given
by me. I have carefully reviewed this opinion and am entirely
content with it. I stated in the beginning my desire to consider
the case without bias or feeling. I quote in full the opening
paragraphs:

"This cause must be decided upon the reasons and presumptions which
by law apply to all other criminal accusations. Justice is blind
to the official station of the respondent, and to the attitude of
the accusers speaking in the name of all the people of the United
States. It only demands of the Senate the application to this cause
of the principles and safeguards provided for every human being
accused of crime. For the proper application of these principles
we ourselves are on trial before the bar of public opinion. The
novelty of this proceeding, the historical character of the trial,
and the grave interests involved, only deepen the obligation of
the special oath we have taken to do impartial justice according
to the constitution and laws.

"And this case must be tried upon the charges now made by the House
of Representatives. We cannot consider other offenses. An appeal
is made to the conscience of each Senator of guilty or not guilty
by the President of eleven specific offenses. In answering this
appeal a Senator cannot justify himself by public opinion, or by
political, personal, or partisan demands, or even grave considerations
of public policy. His conscientious conviction of the truth of
these charges is the only test that will justify a verdict of
guilty. God forbid that any other shall prevail here. In forming
this conviction we are not limited merely to the rules of evidence,
which, by the experience of ages, have been found best adapted to
the trial of offenses in the double tribunal of court and jury,
but we may seek light from history, from personal knowledge, and
from all sources that will tend to form a conscientious conviction
of the truth. And we are not bound to technical definitions of
crimes and misdemeanors.

"A willful violation of the law, a gross and palpable breach of
moral obligations tending to unfit an officer for the proper
discharge of his office, or to bring the office into public contempt
and derision, is, when charged and proven, an impeachable offense.
And the nature and criminality of the offense may depend on the
official character of the accused. A judge would be held to higher
official purity, and an executive officer to a stricter observance
of the letter of the law. The President, bound as a citizen to
obey the law, and specially sworn to execute the law, may properly,
in his high office as chief magistrate, be held to a stricter
responsibility than if his example was less dangerous to the public
safety. Still, to justify the conviction of the President there
must be specific allegations of some crime or misdemeanor involving
moral turpitude, gross misconduct, or a willful violation of law,
and the proof must be such as to satisfy the conscience of the
truth of the charge.

"The principal charges against the President are that he willfully
and purposely violated the constitution and the laws, in the order
for the removal of Mr. Stanton, and in the order for the appointment
of General Thomas as Secretary of War _ad interim_. These two
orders were contemporaneous--part of the same transaction--but are
distinct acts, and are made the basis of separate articles of
impeachment."

I stated the grounds of my conviction that the action of the
President, in placing Lorenzo Thomas in charge of the office of
Secretary of War, without the advice and consent of the Senate,
was a clearly illegal act, committed for the purpose of obtaining
control of that office. I held that the President had the power
to remove Secretary Stanton, but that he had not the power to put
anyone in his place unless the person appointed was confirmed by
the Senate.

Did the act of March 2, 1867, commonly known as the "tenure of
office act," confer this authority? On the contrary, it plainly
prohibits all temporary appointments except as specially provided
for. The third section repeats the constitutional authority of
the President to fill all vacancies happening during the recess of
the Senate by death or resignation, and provides that if no
appointment is made during the following session to fill such
vacancy, the office shall remain in abeyance until an appointment
is duly made and confirmed, and provision is made for the discharge
of the duties of the office in the meantime. The second session
provides for the suspension of an officer during the recess, and
for a temporary appointment _during the recess_. This power was
exercised and fully exhausted by the suspension of Mr. Stanton
until restored by the Senate, in compliance with the law. No
authority whatever is conferred by this act for any temporary
appointment during the session of the Senate, but, on the contrary,
such an appointment is plainly inconsistent with the act, and could
not be inferred or implied for it. The sixth section further
provides:

"That every removal, appointment, or employment, made, had, or
exercised, contrary to the provisions of this act, and the making,
signing, sending, countersigning, or issuing of any commission or
letter of authority for, or in respect to, any such appointment or
employment, shall be deemed, and are hereby declared to be, high
misdemeanors, and, upon trial and conviction thereof, every person
guilty thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000,
or by imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both said punishments,
in the discretion of the court."

This language is plain, explicit, and was inserted not only to
prohibit all temporary appointments except during the recess, and
in the mode provided for in the second section, but the unusual
course was taken of affixing a penalty to a law defining the official
duty of the President. The original bill did not contain penal
clauses; but it was objected in the Senate that the President had
already disregarded mandatory provisions of law, and would this;
and therefore, after debate, these penal sections were added to
secure obedience to the law, and to give to it the highest sanction.

I quote my view of the action of the President:

"Was not this act willfully violated by the President during the
session of the Senate?

"It appears, from the letter of the President to General Grant,
from his conversation with General Sherman, and from his answer,
that he had formed a fixed resolve to get rid of Mr. Stanton, and
fill the vacancy without the advice of the Senate. He might have
secured a new Secretary of War by sending a proper nomination to
the Senate. This he neglected and refused to do. He cannot allege
that the Senate refused to relieve him from an obnoxious minister.
He could not say that the Senate refused to confirm a proper
appointee, for he would make no appointment to them. The Senate
had declared that the reasons assigned for suspending Mr. Stanton
did not make the case required by the tenure of office act, but I
affirm as my conviction that the Senate would have confirmed any
one of a great number of patriotic citizens if nominated to the
Senate. I cannot resist the conclusion, from the evidence before
us, that he was resolved to obtain a vacancy in the department of
war in such a way that he might fill the vacancy by an appointment
without the consent of the Senate, and in violation of the constitution
and the law. This was the purpose of the offer to General Sherman.
This was the purpose of the appointment of General Thomas. If he
had succeeded as he hoped, he could have changed his temporary
appointment at pleasure, and thus have defied the authority of the
Senate and the mandatory provisions of the constitution and the
law. I cannot in any other way account for his refusal to send a
nomination to the Senate until after the appointment of General
Thomas. The removal of Mr. Stanton by a new appointment, confirmed
by the Senate, would have complied with the constitution. The
absolute removal of Mr. Stanton would have created a temporary
vacancy, but the Senate was in session to share in the appointment
of another. An _ad interim_ appointment, without authority of law,
during the session of the Senate, would place the department of
war at his control in defiance fo the Senate and the law, and would
have set an evil example, dangerous to the public safety--one which,
if allowed to pass unchallenged, would place the President above
and beyond the law.

"The claim now made, that it was the sole desire of the President
to test the constitutionality of the tenure of office act, is not
supported by reason or by proof. He might, in August last, or at
any time since, without an _ad interim_ appointment, have tested
this law by a writ of _quo warranto_. He might have done so by an
order of removal, and a refusal of Mr. Stanton's requisitions. He
might have done so by assigning a head of department to the place
made vacant by the order of removal. Such was not his purpose or
expectation. He expected by the appointment of General Sherman at
once to get possession of the war department, so when General Thomas
was appointed there was no suggestion of a suit at law, until the
unexpected resistance of Mr. Stanton, supported by the action of
the Senate, indicated that as the only way left."

It is difficult to convey, by extracts, a correct idea of a carefully
prepared opinion, but this statement shows my view of the case,
and, entertaining it, I felt bound, with much regret, to vote
"guilty" in response to my name, but I was entirely satisfied with
the result of the vote, brought about by the action of several
Republican Senators. There was some disposition to arraign these
Senators and to attribute their action to corrupt motives, but
there was not the slightest ground for the imputations. Johnson
was allowed to serve out his term, but there was a sense of relief
when General Grant was sworn into office as President of the United
States.

During the 40th Congress, extending from the 4th of March, 1867,
to the 4th of March, 1869, the chief subjects of debate were the
contraction of the currency, the refunding of the public debt, the
payment of United States notes in coin, and a revision of the laws
imposing internal taxation and duties on imported goods.

Early in the first session of this Congress, the opposition of the
people to the policy of contraction, constantly pressed by Secretary
McCulloch, became so imperative that both Houses determined to take
from him all power to diminish the volume of currency then in
circulation. On the 5th of December, 1867, Robert C. Schenck,
chairman of the committee of ways and means, reported a bill in
the following words:

"_Be it enacted, etc._, That so much of an act entitled 'An act to
amend an act to provide ways and means to support the government,'
approved April 12, 1866, as authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury
to retire United States notes to an amount not exceeding $4,000,000
in any one month, is hereby repealed.

"Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That from and after the
passage of this act the further reduction of the currency by retiring
or canceling United States notes shall be, and hereby is,
prohibited."

This bill was taken up for consideration on the 7th of December,
and, after a brief debate, with little opposition, passed the House
by the vote of 127 yeas and 32 nays. It was sent to the Senate,
referred to the committee on finance, and was carefully considered.
That committee, with but two dissenting voices, directed me to
report the bill to the Senate with a single amendment. On the 9th
of January, 1868, I called up the bill for consideration, and made
a brief explanation, in which I said the committee, after full
reflection, had thought proper to recommend the passage of the bill
of the House of Representatives, in substance as it was sent to
us, only changing the phraseology. I said that the bill contemplated
further legislation during that session. It was understood by all
that some more comprehensive measures must be adopted during that
session, but until further legislation there should be no more
contraction of the currency. I thus stated the reasons which, in
my opinion, justified the passage of the bill:

"_First_. It will satisfy the public mind that no further contraction
will be made when industry is in a measure paralyzed. We hear the
complaint from all parts of the country, from all branches of
industry, from every state in the Union, that industry for some
reason is paralyzed, and that trade and enterprise are not so well
rewarded as they were. Many, perhaps erroneous, attribute all this
to the contraction of the currency--a contraction that I believe
is unexampled in the history of any nation. $140,000,000 has been
withdrawn out of $737,000,000 in less than two years. There is no
example, that I know of, of such rapid contraction. It may be
wise, it may be beneficial, but still it has been so rapid as to
excite a stringency that is causing complaint, and I think the
people have a right to be relieved from that.

"_Second_. This bill will restore to the legislature their power
over the currency, a power too important to be delegated to any
single officer of the government. I do not wish to renew the
discussion that occurred here two years ago on the passage of the
law of April 12, 1866; but it is still my opinion, as it has been
always, that the question of the amount of currency ought to be
fixed by Congress. We have the power to coin money, and to regulate
the value thereof. We have coined money in the form of paper money,
and certainly the power of Congress in this respect ought not to
be delegated to any single officer. If contraction ought to be
established as a policy it should be by Congress, not by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and it is not wise to confer upon any
officer of the government a power of this kind, which can be and
may be properly controlled and limited by Congress.

"_Third_. This will strongly impress upon Congress the imperative
duty of acting wisely upon financial measures, for the responsibility
will then rest entirely upon Congress, and will not be shared with
them by the Secretary of the Treasury.

"_Fourth_. It will encourage business men to continue old, and
embark in new, enterprises, when they are assured that no change
will be made in the measure of value without the open and deliberate
consent of their representatives.

"These considerations are amply sufficient to justify this measure,
but it is only preliminary to others of far greater importance that
must command our attention. These involve--

"1. The existence of the banking system of the United States.

"2. The time and manner of resuming specie payments.

"3. The mode of redeeming the debt of the United States and the
kind of money in which it may be redeemed; and, in this connection,
the taxes, if any, that may be levied upon the public creditors.

"4. Such a reduction of our expenditures and taxes as will relieve
our constituents, as far as practicable, from the burdens resulting
from the recent war."

This led to a long debate, which continued until the 15th of January,
when the bill, as amended, passed by a vote of 33 years and 4 nays.

These decisive votes against contraction definitely settled the
policy of the government to retain in circulation the then existing
volume of United States notes. The disagreement between the two
Houses was referred to a committee of conference, and the conferees
reported the bill in the following form:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_,

"That, from and after the passage of this act, the authority of
the Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction of the currency,
by retiring or canceling United States notes, shall be, and is
hereby, suspended; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the
cancellation and destruction of mutilated United States notes, and
the replacing of the same with notes of the same character and
amount."

This bill was sent to the President, and, not having been returned
by him within ten days, it became a law without his approval, under
the constitution of the United States.

On the 17th of December, 1867, I reported from the committee on
finance a bill for refunding the national debt and for a conversion
of the notes of the United States. This bill was accompanied by
an elaborate report. This report was carefully prepared by me,
and met, I believe, the general approval of the committee on finance.
In that Congress there were but five Democratic Senators, and it
so happened that all the members of the committee on finance were
Republicans, but these represented widely different opinions on
financial subjects. I undertook, in this report, to deal in a
general way with these topics. Upon a careful reading of it now
I find but little that I do not approve. The general policy set
out in this report was subsequently embodied into laws, but the
measures relating to refunding the debt and the resumption of specie
payments were not adopted until several years after the date of
the report.

The ascertained debt on the first day of December, 1867, as stated
by the Secretary of the Treasury, was $2,639,382,572.68, divided
as follows:

Debt bearing coin interest.
5 per cent. bonds, 10-40's, and old fives $205,532,580.00
6 per cent. bonds of 1867 and 1868 . . . . 14,690,941.80
6 per cent. bonds, 1881 . . . . . . . . . 282,731,550.00
6 per cent. 5-20 bonds . . . . . . . . . . 1,324,412,550.00
Navy pension fund . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,000,000.00
----------------
$1,840,367,891.80
Debt bearing currency interest.
6 per cent. bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . $18,601,000.00
3-year compound interest notes . . . . . . 62,249,360.00
3-year 7-30 notes . . . . . . . . . . . . 285,587,100.00
3 per cent. certificates . . . . . . . . . 12,855,000.00
----------------
$379,292,460.00
Matured debt not presented for payment.
3 year 7-30 notes, due August 15, 1867 . . $2,855,400.00
Compound interest notes, matured June 10,
July 15, August 15, and October 15, 1867 7,065,750.00
Bonds, Texas indemnity . . . . . . . . . . 260,000.00
Treasury notes, acts July 17, 1861 and
prior thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,011.64
Bonds, April 15, 1842 . . . . . . . . . . 54,061.64
Treasury notes, March 3, 1863 . . . . . . 868,240.00
Temporary loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,880,900.55
Certificates of indebtedness . . . . . . . 31,000.00
----------------
$14,178,363.83
Debt bearing no interest.
United States notes . . . . . . . . . . . $356,212,473.00
Fractional currency . . . . . . . . . . . 30,929,984.05
Gold certificates of deposit . . . . . . . 18,401,400.00
----------------
$405,543,857.05
Total debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$2,639,382,572.68
Amount in treasury, coin . . . . . . . . . $100,690,645.69
Amount in treasury, currency . . . . . . . 37,486,175.24
Amount of debt less cash in treasury . . . . . . . . . . .
$2,501,205,751.75

Besides the amounts thus stated there were large balances due to
loyal states, upon accounts not then rendered or ascertained, and
to individuals for losses sustained during the war.

The ascertained debt consisted of twenty different forms of liability,
some payable in coin and some in lawful money. Much of this debt
was due on demand, but the great body of it was payable in from
one to twenty years, while the unascertained debt was being stated
from time to time and had to be met from accruing revenues. Nearly
$300,000,000 of debt had been paid out of current revenue since
the close of the war. The first recommendation of the committee
was that the debt should be refunded as rapidly as practicable into
bonds bearing as low a rate of interest as possible, payable in
twenty or thirty years, but redeemable at the pleasure of the United
States in five or ten years. This recommendation was based on the
fixed policy of the government to limit the duration of a bond
within its lifetime, and thus leave it to the option of the government
to pay its indebtedness and to reduce the rate of interest after
a brief period, if the condition of the public revenues and of the
money market should enable it to do so.

Here the question arose whether the bonds known as the 5-20 bonds
could be paid in lawful money after the period of five years, when,
by their terms, they were redeemable. These bonds promised to pay
so many dollars. Other bonds were specifically payable in coin,
and still other bonds were payable in lawful money; that is, in
United States notes. These notes were then at a discount, being
worth in the market about 88 cents in coin. But the notes were
obligations of the United States, and it was the duty, and then
within the power of the United States, to advance these notes to
par in coin.

The majority of the committee, I among them, believed that the
United States should not take advantage of its own wrong, in not
redeeming its notes in coin, but should either advance these notes
to par in coin, or pay its bonds in coin. The committee, therefore,
recommended that both the notes and bonds should be received in
exchange for the funding bonds, and that the notes should be reissued
and maintained at par with coin, and be supported by a reserve of
coin ample to maintain the notes at par with coin. In other words,
the United States would resume specie payments. The committee
expressed the opinion that, with the system of taxation then in
existence, this policy of refunding and resumption could be
maintained, and that the rate of interest then paid could be reduced
to four or five per cent., and the money then in circulation would
be kept at par with coin at the cost only of the interest on the
bullion and coin held to meet any notes presented for redemption.
The committee also recommended that the internal and tariff taxes
be revised to correct irregularities or defects, and to repeal such
as were oppressive.

While the committee opposed any contraction of the currency it also
opposed any increase of it. The general theory of the report was
to advance both bonds and notes to par in coin, and to issue bonds
in such form and terms that the government could redeem them, or
renew them at lower rates of interest.

The report states:

"Your committee are therefore of opinion that no legal tender notes,
beyond the amount now limited by law, should be issued under any
pressure of financial or political necessity until they are
convertible into gold and silver. Our duty is to elevate the
'greenback,' the standard of national credit, to the standard of
gold, the money of the world. Until then we are not on a substantial
foundation. Let us make the dollar of our promise in the pocket
of a laboring man equal to the dollar of our mint. The rapidity
of the process is a question of public policy. It may be by
gradually diminishing the volume of currency, or be left at its
present amount until increased business or improved credit bring
it up to the specie standard."

The refunding bill was taken up by the Senate on the 27th of
February, 1868, and was fully discussed by me. After stating its
general objects I said:

"It is with this view, and actuated by this principle, that the
committee on finance have endeavored to make this a bill of relief,
reducing, if possible, consistent with the public faith, the interest
of the public debt, and giving increased value to United States
notes. We have endeavored in this bill to accomplish three results:
First, to reduce the rate of interest with the voluntary consent
of the holders of our securities; second, to make a distinct
provision for the payment of the public debt; and third, to give
increased value to United States notes, and to provide for a gradual
resumption of specie payments. All these are objects admitted to
be of the highest importance. The only question is, whether the
measure proposed tends to accomplish them."

I then quoted the example of the United States and Great Britain
in reducing the rate of interest on public securities. I do not
approve all I said in that speech. It has been frequently quoted
as being inconsistent with my opinions and action at a later period.
It is more important to be right than to be consistent. I then
proposed to use the doubt expressed by many people as to the right
of the government to redeem the 5-20 bonds in the legal tender
money in circulation when the bonds were sold, as an inducement to
the holders of bonds to convert them into securities bearing a less
rate of interest but specifically payable in coin. Upon this policy
I changed my opinion. I became convinced that it was neither right
nor expedient to pay these bonds in money less valuable than coin,
that the government ought not to take advantage of its neglect to
resume specie payments after the war was over, by refusing the
payment of the bonds with coin. I acted on this conviction when
years afterwards the resumption act was adopted, and the beneficial
results from this action fully justified my change of opinion.

The debate on this bill was participated in by nearly every Senator,
and was conceded to be the most comprehensive and instructive debate
on financial questions for many years.

The bill, as it then stood, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue registered or coupon bonds of the United States, in such
form and of such denominations as he might prescribe, payable,
principal and interest, in coin, and bearing interest at the rate
of five per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually, such bonds to
be payable forty years from date and to be redeemable in coin after
ten years.

It authorized the exchange of the bonds commonly known as the 5-20
bonds for the bonds authorized by that bill. It also authorized
the holders of United States notes to the amount of $1,000, or any
multiple of that sum, to convert them into the five per cent. bonds
provided for by the bill. This bill passed the Senate on the 14th
of July, 1868. It passed the House of Representatives soon after,
with amendments that were disagreed to by the Senate. The bill
and amendments were referred to a conference committee which reported
a modified bill which passed both Houses and was sent to President
Johnson, but at so late a period of the session that it was not
approved by him and thus failed to become a law.

The committee on finance at the next and closing session of that
Congress deemed it useless to report another funding bill, and on
the 16th of December, 1868, I reported, by direction of that
committee, the following resolution:

"_Resolved by the Senate_, That neither public policy nor the good
faith of the nation will allow the redemption of the 5-20 bonds
until the United States shall perform its primary duty of paying
its notes in coin or making them equivalent thereto; and measures
shall be adopted by Congress to secure the resumption of specie
payments at as early a period as practicable."

This resolution was the foundation of the act "to strengthen the
public credit," the first act subsequently adopted in General
Grant's administration. Neither this nor any other financial
measure was pressed to a conclusion, as we knew that any measure
that would be sanctioned by Congress would probably be vetoed by
the President. This, however, did not stop the almost continuous
financial debate which extended to the currency, banking, funding
and taxation. The drift of opinion was in favor of resumption
without contraction, and funding at low rates of interest on a coin
basis. The wide breach between Congress and the President paralyzed
legislation. But one vital question had been settled, that no
further contraction of the currency should occur; and it was well
settled, though not embodied in law, that no question would be made
as to the payment of bonds in coin.

While Congress was drifting to a sound financial policy, the
President and his Secretary of the Treasury were widely divergent,
the former in favor of repudiation, and the latter in favor of
paying and canceling all United States notes.

President Johnson, in his last annual message to Congress, on the
9th of December, 1868, substantially recommended a repudiation of
the bonds of the United States, as follows:

"Upon this statement of facts it would seem but just and equitable
that the six per cent. interest now paid by the government should
be applied to the reduction of the principal in semi-annual
installments, which in sixteen years and eight months would liquidate
the entire national debt. Six per cent. in gold would, at present
rates, be equal to nine per cent. in currency, and equivalent to
the payment of the debt one and half times in a fraction less than
seventeen years. This, in connection with the other advantages
derived from their investment, would afford to the public creditors
a fair and liberal compensation for the use of their capital, and
with this they should be satisfied. The lessons of the past admonish
the lender that it is not well to be over anxious in exacting from
the borrower rigid compliance with the letter of the bond."

While the President wished to apply the interest on the United
States bonds to the redemption of the principal, the Secretary of
the Treasury was pressing for the restoration of the specie standard.
I quote from his report to Congress, made on the same day the
message of the President was sent us:

"The first and most important of these measures are those which
shall bring about, without unnecessary delay, the restoration of
the specie standard. The financial difficulties under which the
country is laboring may be traced directly to the issue, and
continuance in circulation, of irredeemable promises as lawful
money. The country will not be really and reliably prosperous
until there is a return to specie payments. The question of a
solvent, convertible currency, underlies all the other financial
and economical questions. It is, in fact, a fundamental question;
and until it is settled, and settled in accordance with the teachings
of experience, all attempts in other financial and economical
reforms will either fail absolutely, or be but partially successful.
A sound economy is the lifeblood of a commercial nation. If this
is debased the whole current of its commercial life must be disordered
and irregular. The starting point in reformatory legislation must
be here. Our debased currency must be retired or raised to the
par of specie, or cease to be lawful money, before substantial
progress can be made with other reforms."

Under these circumstances, it was manifest that no wise financial
legislation could be secured until General Grant should become
President of the United States.

The Republican national convention met at the city of Chicago, on
the 20th of May, 1868. It declared its approval of the reconstruction
policy of Congress, denounced all forms of repudiation as a national
crime, and pledged the national good faith to all creditors at home
and abroad, to pay all public indebtedness, not only according to
the letter, but the spirit, of the law. It favored the extension
of the national debt over a fair period for redemption, and the
reduction of the rate of interest whenever it could be honestly
made. It arraigned, with severity, the treachery of Andrew Johnson,
and deplored the tragic death of Abraham Lincoln. The entire
resolutions were temperate in tone; they embodied the recognized
policy of the Republican party, and made no issue on which Republicans
were divided.

The real issue was not one of measures, but of men. The nomination
of General Grant for President, and Schuyler Colfax for Vice
President, upon the basis of reconstruction by loyal men, was
antagonized by the nomination, by the Democratic convention, of
Horatio Seymour for President, and Francis P. Blair for Vice
President, upon the basis of universal amnesty, and immediate
restoration to power, in the states lately in rebellion, of the
men who had waged war against the government.

In this contest, Grant was the representative Union soldier of the
war, and Seymour was the special representative of the opponents
in the north to the war. Grant received 197 electoral votes, and
Seymour 72.

A few hours in advance of the meeting of the national convention,
there was a great mass meeting of soldiers and sailors of the war,
a delegation from whom, headed by General Lucius Fairchild, of
Wisconsin, entered the convention after its organization and
presented this resolution:

"_Resolved_, That as the soldiers and sailors, steadfast now as
ever to the Union and the flag, fully recognize the claims of Gen.
Ulysses S. Grant to the confidence of the American people, and
believing that the victories won under his guidance in war will be
illustrated by him in peace by such measures as will secure the
fruits of our exertions and restore the Union upon a loyal basis,
we declare our deliberate conviction that he is the choice of the
soldiers and sailors of the Union for the office of President of
the United States."

This resolution was received with great applause. Henry S. Lane,
of Indiana, leaped upon a chair, and moved to nominate Grant by
acclamation. This was done without rules and amid great excitement.

I need not say that I gave to General Grant my cordial and active
support. From the beginning of the canvass to the end, there was
no doubt about the result. I spoke on his behalf in several states
and had frequent letters from him. Assuming that his election was
already foreordained, I invited him to stop with me in Mansfield,
on his way to Washington, and received from him the following
autograph letter, which, though dated at Headquarters Army of the
United States, was written at Galena, Illinois:

"Headquarters Army of the United States,}
"Washington, D. C., October 26, 1868. }
"Dear Senator:--Your invitation to Mrs. Grant and myself to break
our journey east and spend a day or two with you was duly received,
and should have been sooner acknowledged. I thank you for the
invitation and would gladly accept it, but my party will be large
and having a special car it will inconvenience so many people to
stop over. Mrs. Grant too and her father are anxious, when they
start, to get through to Washington before they unpack.

"Yours truly,
"U. S. Grant.
"Hon. J. Sherman, U. S. S."

On the same day he wrote a letter to General Sherman, which was
referred to me by the latter. I regard this letter, which exhibits
closely the cordial relations existing, at the time, between the
two men, as of sufficient interest to justify its publication:

"Headquarters Army of the United States,}
"Washington, D. C., October 26, 1868. }
"Dear General:--Your letter inclosing one from your brother was
duly received. As I did not want to change your determination in
regard to the publication of the correspondence between us, and am
getting to be a little lazy, I have been slow in answering. I had
forgotten what my letter to you said but did remember that you
spoke of the probable course the Ewings would take, or something
about them which you would not probably want published with the
letters. The fact is, general, I never wanted the letters published
half so much on my own account as yours. There are a great many
people who do not understand as I do your friendship for me. I do
not believe it will make any difference to you in the end, but I
do fear that, in case I am elected, there will be men to advocate
the 'abolition of the general' bill who will charge, in support of
their motion, lack of evidence that you supported the Union cause
in the canvass. I would do all I could to prevent any such
legislation, and believe that without my doing anything the confidence
in you is too genuine with the great majority of Congress for any
such legislation to succeed. If anything more should be necessary
to prove the falsity of such an assumption the correspondence
between us heretofore could then be produced.

"I agree with you that Sheridan should be left alone to prosecute
the Indian War to its end. If no treaty is made with the Indians
until they can hold out no longer we can dictate terms, and they
will then keep them. This is the course that was pursued in the
northwest, where Crook has prosecuted war in his own way, and now
a white man can travel through all that country with as much security
as if there was not an Indian in it.

"I have concluded not to return to Washington until after the
election. I shall go very soon after that event, however. My
family are all well and join me in respects to Mrs. Sherman and
the children.

"Yours truly,
"U. S. Grant.
"Lt. Gen. W. T. Sherman, U. S. Army."

In the spring of 1871 there was a good deal of feeling against
Grant, and some opposition indicated to his renomination for the
presidency. Several influential papers had recommended the nomination
of General Sherman, who then, as always afterwards, had resolutely
announced his purpose not to allow his name to be used in connection
with the office of President. This suggestion arose out of the
feeling that injustice had been done to General Sherman by the
Secretary of War, Mr. Belknap, who practically ignored him, and
issued orders in the name of the President, greatly interfering
with the personnel of the army. This led to the transfer of General
Sherman from Washington to St. Louis. General Sherman made no
complaint of Grant, who had the power to control the action of the
Secretary of War, but the general impression prevailed that the
friendly relations that had always subsisted between the President
and General Sherman had been disturbed, but this was not true. I
have no doubt that Grant, in the following letter, stated truthfully
his perfect willingness that General Sherman should, if he wished,
be made his successor as President:

"Long Branch, N. J., June 14, 1871.
"Dear Senator:--Being absent at West Point until last evening, for
the last week, your letter of the 5th inst., inclosing one to you
from General Sherman, is only just received. Under no circumstances
would I publish it; and now that the 'New York Herald' has published
like statements from him it is particularly unnecessary. I think
his determination never to give up his present position a wise one,
for his own comfort, and the public, knowing it, will relieve him
from the suspicion of acting and speaking with reference to the
effect his acts and sayings may have had upon his claims for
political preferment. If he should ever change his mind, however,
no one has a better right than he has to aspire to anything within
the gift of the American people.

"Very truly yours,
"U. S. Grant.
"Hon. J. Sherman, U. S. S."

President Grant entered into his high office without any experience
in civil life. In his training he was a soldier. His education
at West Point, his services as a subordinate officer in the Mexican
War, and as the principal officer in the Civil War of the Rebellion,
had demonstrated his capacity as a soldier, but he was yet to be
tested in civil life, where his duties required him to deal with
problems widely differing from those he had successfully performed
in military life. I do not recall when I first met him, but was
confident it was before his coming to Washington, in March, 1864,
to take command of the armies of the United States. His arrival
in Washington then was not generally known until he entered the
dining hall at Willard's hotel. He came in alone, and was modestly
looking for a vacant seat when I recognized him and went to him
and invited him to a seat at my table. He quietly accepted, and
then the word soon passed among the many guests to the tables, that
General Grant was there, and something like an ovation was given
him. His face was unknown, but his name and praise had been sounded
for two years throughout the civilized world. His coming to take
full command of the Union forces was an augury of success to every
loyal citizen of the United States. His personal memoirs, written
in the face of death, tell the story of his life in a modest way,
without pretension or guile. I am not sure that he added to his
fame by his eight years of service as President of the United
States, but what he did in subduing the Rebellion will always keep
his name among those of the greatest benefactors of his country.
He was elected because of his military services, and would have
been elected in 1868 by any party that put him in nomination,
without respect to platform or creed.

He opened his inaugural address with these words:

"Your suffrages, having elected me to the office of President of
the United States, I have, in conformity with the constitution of
our country, taken the oath of office prescribed therein. I have
taken this oath without mental reservation and with the determination
to do to the best of my ability all that it requires of me. The
responsibilities of the position I feel but accept them without
fear. The office has come to me unsought. I commence its duties
untrammeled. I bring to it a conscientious desire and determination
to fill it to the best of my ability to the satisfaction of the
people.

"On all leading questions agitating the public mind I will always
express my views to Congress, and urge them according to my judgment;
and when I think it advisable will exercise the constitutional
privilege of interposing a veto to defeat measures which I oppose.
But all laws will be faithfully executed whether they meet my
approval or not.

"I shall on all subjects have a policy to recommend, but none to
enforce against the will of the people. Laws are to govern all
alike, those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know no
method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective
as their stringent execution."

And closed with these words:

"In conclusion I ask patient forbearance one toward another throughout
the land, and a determined effort on the part of every citizen to
do his share toward cementing a happy Union; and I ask the prayers
of the nation to Almighty God in behalf of this consummation."

I believe he strictly performed what he thought was his duty, and
if he erred, it was from a want of experience in the complicated
problems of our form of government. The executive department of
a republic like ours should be subordinate to the legislative
department. The President should obey and enforce the laws, leaving
to the people the duty of correcting any errors committed by their
representatives in Congress.

The first act of the 41st Congress, entitled "An act to strengthen
the public credit," was introduced in the House of Representatives
by General Schenck, on the 12th of March, 1869, and was passed the
same day. It came to the Senate on the 15th of March, and, on my
motion, was substituted for a similar bill, reported from the
committee on finance, and, after a brief debate, was passed by the
decisive vote of 42 yeas and 13 nays, as follows:

"That in order to remove any doubt as to the purpose of the government
to discharge all just obligations to the public creditors, and to
settle conflicting questions and interpretations of the law by
virtue of which said obligations have been contracted, it is hereby
provided and declared that the faith of the United States is solemnly
pledged to the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all obligations
of the United States not bearing interest, known as United States
notes, and of all interest-bearing obligations of the United States,
except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of any such
obligations has expressly provided that the same may be paid in
lawful money or other currency than gold and silver. But none of
said interest-bearing obligations not already due shall be redeemed
or paid before maturity, unless at such time United States notes
shall be convertible into coin at the option of the holder, or
unless at such time bonds of the United States bearing a lower rate
of interest than the bonds to be redeemed can be sold at par in
coin. And the United States also solemnly pledges its faith to
make provision, at the earliest practicable period, for the redemption
of United States notes in coin."

It was approved by the President and became a law on the 19th of
March. Thus the controversy as to the payment of bonds in coin
was definitely decided.

But little else of importance was done by Congress during this
session. The usual general appropriation bill for the Indian
department having failed in the previous Congress, a bill for that
purpose was introduced in the House of Representatives and became
a law on the 10th of April. The bill to provide for deficiencies
was passed on the same day. A change was made in the tax on
distilled spirits and tobacco, and provision was made for submitting
the constitutions of Virginia, Mississippi and Texas to a vote of
the people. A number of measures of local importance were passed,
and, on the 10th of April, the Congress adjourned without day.

The Senate convened in pursuance of a proclamation of the President
immediately on the adjournment of Congress, and after a few days,
confined mainly to executive business, adjourned.

The early movements of Grant as President were very discouraging.
His attempt to form a cabinet without consultation with anyone,
and with very little knowledge, except social intercourse with the
persons appointed, created a doubt that he would not be as successful
as a President as he had been as a general, a doubt that increased
and became a conviction in the minds of many of his best friends.
The appointments of Stewart and Borie were especially objectionable.
George S. Boutwell was well fitted for the office of Secretary of
the Treasury, to which he was appointed after Stewart was excluded
by the law. Washburne was a man of ability and experience, but he
was appointed Secretary of State only for a brief time, and was
succeeded by Hamilton Fish. Mr. Fish was eminently qualified for
the office, and during both of the terms of Grant discharged the
duties of it with great ability and success. Jacob D. Cox, of
Ohio, was an educated gentleman, a soldier of great merit, and an
industrious and competent Secretary of the Interior.

The impression prevailed that the President regarded these heads
of departments, invested by law with specific and independent
duties, as mere subordinates, whose function he might assume. This
is not the true theory of our government. The President is intrusted
by the constitution and laws with important powers, and so by law
are the heads of departments. The President has no more right to
control or exercise the powers conferred by law upon them than they
have to control him in the discharge of his duties. It is especially
the custom of Congress to intrust to the Secretary of the Treasury
specific powers over the currency, the public debt and the collection
of the revenue. If he violates or neglects his duty he is subject
to removal by the President, or impeachment by the House of
Representatives, but the President cannot exercise or control the
discretion reposed by law in the Secretary of the Treasury, or in
any head or subordinate in any department of the government. This
limitation of the power of the President, and the distribution of
power among the departments, is an essential requisite of a republican
government, and it is one that an army officer, accustomed to give
or receive orders, finds it difficult to understand and to observe
when elected President.

Congress convened on the 6th of December, 1869. The chief
recommendations submitted to Congress by the President related to
the gradual reconstruction of the states lately in rebellion, to
the resumption of specie payments and the reduction of taxation.
The relations of Great Britain and the United States growing out
of the war were treated as a grave question, and a hope was expressed
that both governments would give immediate attention to a solution
of the just claims of the United States growing out of the Civil
War. The message was brief, modest, conservative and clear. He
closed by saying that on his part he promised a rigid adherence to
the laws and their strict enforcement.

The most important measure consummated during this Congress was
the adoption of the 15th amendment of the constitution of the United
States, declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State,
dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified by the legislatures of
twenty-nine of the thirty-seven states, as follows:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

It is a question of grave doubt whether this amendment, though
right in principle, was wise or expedient. The declared object
was to secure impartial suffrage to the negro race. The practical
result has been that the wise provisions of the 14th amendment have
been modified by the 15th amendment. The latter amendment has been
practically nullified by the action of most of the states where
the great body of this race live and will probably always remain.
This is done, not by an express denial to them of the right of
suffrage, but by ingenious provisions, which exclude them on the
alleged ground of ignorance, while permitting all of the white
race, however ignorant, to vote at all elections. No way is pointed
out by which Congress can enforce this amendment. If the principle
of the 14th amendment had remained in full force, Congress could
have reduced the representation of any state, in the proportion
which the number of the male inhabitants of such state, denied the
right of suffrage, might bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age, in such state. This simple remedy, easily
enforced by Congress, would have secured the right of all persons,
without distinction of race or color, to vote at all elections.
The reduction of representation would have deterred every state
from excluding the vote of any portion of the male population above
twenty-one years of age. As the result of the 15th amendment, the
political power of the states lately in rebellion has been increased,
while the population, conferring this increase, is practically
denied all political power. I see no remedy for this wrong except
the growing intelligence of the negro race, which, in time, I trust,
will enable them to demand and to receive the right of suffrage.

The most important financial measure of that Congress was the act
to refund the national debt. The bonds known as the 5-20's, bearing
interest at six per cent., became redeemable, and the public credit
had so advanced that a bond bearing a less rate of interest could
be sold at par. The committee on finance of the Senate, on the
3rd day of February, 1870, after more care and deliberation, than,
so far as I know, it has ever bestowed on any other bill, finally
reported a bill to fund the public debt, to aid in the resumption
of specie payments, and to advance the public credit.

The first section authorized the issue of $400,000,000 of bonds,
redeemable in coin at the pleasure of the United States, at any
time after ten years, bearing interest at five per cent.

The second section authorized the issue of bonds to the amount of
$400,000,000, redeemable at the pleasure of the government, at any
time after fifteen years, and bearing interest at four and a half
per cent.

The third section authorized the issue of $400,000,000 of bonds,
redeemable at any time after twenty years, and bearing interest at
the rate of four per cent.

The proceeds of all these bonds were to be applied to the redemption
of 5-20 and 10-40 bonds, and other obligations of the United States
then outstanding.

It will be perceived that this bill provided for the issue of
securities, all of which were redeemable within twenty years, and
two-thirds of which were redeemable within fifteen years, so that
if the bill, as reported by the committee on finance, had become
the law, no such difficulty as we labored under eighteen years
later, when we had a large surplus revenue, would have existed.

The bill passed the Senate, in substantially the form reported from
the committee on finance, by the large vote of 33 to 10, and was,
perhaps, the most carefully prepared of any of the financial measures
of the government.

In opening the debate, I called the attention of the Senate to the
great advantage the government had derived from making its bonds
redeemable at brief periods, like the 5-20 bonds, the 10-40 bonds,
and the treasury notes. I also called attention to the fact that
the same principle of maintaining the right to redeem had been
ingrafted in the bill then before the Senate, that the duration of
the bonds was divided into three periods of ten, fifteen, and twenty
years, during which time, by the gradual application of the surplus
revenue, the whole debt might be paid. This was the bill sent by
the Senate to the House of Representatives, and if it had been
adopted by the House, there would have been no trouble about the
application of the surplus revenue, but by common consent it would
have been used in the speedy extinction of the public debt.

The bill was sent to the House of Representatives on the 11th of
March, and there seems to have slept for nearly three months without
any action on the part of the House.

On the 6th of June the committee on ways and means reported House
bill 2167, covering the same subject-matters as were contained in
the Senate bill. The consideration of this bill was commenced, by
sections, on the 30th of June. The material part of the first
section of this bill is as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue,
in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000,
coupon or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as
he may prescribe, and of denomination of $50, or some multiple of
that sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value at the
pleasure of the United States after thirty years from the date of
their issue, and bearing interest payable semi-annually in such
coin at the rate of four per cent. per annum."

Thus it will be perceived that instead of the three series of bonds
provided by the Senate, the House proposed to authorize the issue
of $1,000,000,000, redeemable in coin after thirty years from the
date of their issue, with interest at four per cent. This difference
in the description of the bonds was the chief difference between
the propositions of the House and the Senate. To emphasize this
difference I quote what was said by the chairman of the House
committee, Mr. Schenck, in reporting the bill:

"It is a proposition to refund a portion of the public debt of the
country at a very much lower rate of interest. It is a proposition
that $1,000,000,000 of that debt shall take the form of bonds, upon
which the United States will agree to pay only four per cent. per
annum. But, in order to make those bonds acceptable to capitalists
at home and abroad, further provision is made that the bonds
themselves shall have a longer time to run, not merely for thirty
years, but that they shall only be redeemable after thirty years;
thus giving them, without the objections, the advantages which in
a great degree attach to a perpetual loan."

This bill, with a very limited debate, passed the House on the 1st
of July, and then immediately was offered as a substitute for the
Senate bill, and was adopted.

Those two rival propositions, differing mainly upon the question
of the character of the bonds to be issued, were sent to a committee
of conference, composed on the part of the Senate of Messrs. Sherman,
Sumner and Davis. The chief controversy in the conference was as
to the description of funding bonds to be provided for. After many
meetings it was finally agreed that the bonds authorized should be
$200,000,000 five per cent. bonds, $300,000,000 four and a half
per cent. bonds, of the character described in the Senate bill,
and $1,000,000,000 of four per cent. bonds, as described in the
House bill. In other words, it was a compromise which, like many
other compromises, was in its results an injury of great magnitude,
but it was an honest difference of opinion between the Senate and
the House, in which, tested by the march of time, the Senate was
right and the House was wrong. But it was perfectly manifest that
without this concession by the Senate to the House, the bill could
not have passed, and even with this concession, the first report
of the committee of conference was disagreed to by the House,
because of certain provisions requiring the national banks to
substitute the new bonds as the basis of banking circulation.

This disagreement by the House compelled a second committee of
conference, in which the contested banking section was stricken
out, and the bill agreed to as it now stands on the statute books.

And thus thirty-year securities, subsequently at a premium of more
than twenty-five per cent., were forced into the law by the determined
action of the House.

This proved to be an error. No bonds should have been authorized
that did not contain a stipulation that the government might pay
them at pleasure, after a brief period and before they became due.
This stipulation during the war was inserted in the 5-20 and the
10-40 bonds. Its wisdom and importance were demonstrated by the
early substitution of bonds bearing a lower rate of interest for
the 5-20 six per cent. bonds. When this precedent was cited, and
its saving to the government shown, it was strongly urged by the
House conferees that such a provision would prevent the sale of
bonds, and that there was no probability that bonds bearing less
than four per cent. could be sold at any time at par. This was
proven to be an error within a short period, for securities of the
United States bearing three per cent. interest have been sold at
par.

Some years later, Senator Beck, of Kentucky, arraigned me for
consenting to the issue of bonds running thirty years, but I was
able to show by the public records that I resisted this long duration
of the four per cent. bonds, that the House insisted upon it, and
that Mr. Beck, then a Member of the House, voted for it. The same
objection was made by the Senate conferees to the bonds bearing
four and a half and five per cent., that no stipulation was made
authorizing the government to anticipate the payment of these bonds.
Under the Senate bill the bonds would have been redeemable in a
brief period, and would, no doubt, have been redeemed by bonds
bearing four, three and a half, or three per cent. interest.

The bill, as it passed, authorized the conversion of all forms of
securities, then outstanding, into the bonds provided for by the
refunding act at par one with the other. The Secretary of the
Treasury could sell the bonds provided for by the refunding act at
par, and with the proceeds pay off the then existing securities as
they became redeemable. In the discussion of this bill in the
Senate, on the 28th of February, 1870, I made a carefully prepared
speech, giving a detailed history of the various securities
outstanding, and expressed the confident opinion that the existing
coin bonds bearing six per cent. interest, and other securities
bearing interest in lawful money, could be refunded into bonds
running for a short period, bearing a reduced rate of interest.
I said:

"After a long and memorable debate of over two months in both Houses
of Congress, the act of February 25, 1862, was adopted. That was
a revolutionary act. It was a departure from every principle of
the financial policy of this government from its foundation. It
overthrew, not only the mode and manner of borrowing money, but
the character of our public securities, and was the beginning of
a new financial system, unlike anything that had been ventured upon
by any people in the world before. This new policy was adopted
under the pressure of the severest necessities, and only because
of those necessities, and was intended to meet a state of affairs
never foreseen by the framers of the constitution.

"Now, sir, it is important to understand the principles of this
act; for this act was the foundation of all the financial measures
during the war. It was upon the basis of this act, enlarged and
modified from time to time, that we were enabled to borrow
$3,000,000,000 in three years and to put down the most formidable
rebellion in modern history. This act was based upon certain
fundamental conditions.

"Extraordinary power was conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury
to borrow money in almost any form, at home or abroad, practically
without limitation as to amount, or with limits repeatedly enlarged.
Every form of security which the ingenuity of man could devise was
provided for by this act or the acts amending it. Under these acts
bonds were issued, payable in twenty years, treasury notes were
issued, certificates of indebtedness, compound-interest notes, and
other forms of indebtedness, with varying rates of interest. There
were, however, distinct limitations upon the nature and character
of these loans. It was stipulated first, that more than six per
cent. interest in gold should not be paid on the bonds issued, nor
more than seven and three-tenths interest in currency should be paid
on the notes issued; and _second, all the loans provided by this
act were short loans_, redeemable within a short period of time at
the pleasure of the United States. Thus the gold bonds were
redeemable after five years, the treasury notes were redeemable
after three years, and all forms of security were within the power
of the United States at the end of five years at furthest. And
third, no securities were to be sold at less than par. Their
unavoidable depreciation was measured, not by the rate of their
discount, but by the depreciation of the currency. We held our
bonds at par in paper money, though at times they were worth only
forty per cent. of gold. . . .

"Now, Mr. president, it may be proper to state the reasons for this
policy. Short loans were adopted that we might not bind the future
to the payment of usurious rates of interest. We recognized the
existence of a great pressing necessity that would tend to depreciate
the public credit; and we took care, therefore, not to make these
loans for a long period, so as to bind the future to the payment
of the rates which we were then compelled to pay.

"We provided for gold interest and gold revenue, to avoid the
extreme inflations of an irredeemable currency. We wished to rest
our paper fabric on a coin basis, and to keep constantly in view
ultimate specie payments. I believe but for that provision in the
loan act of February 25, 1862, that in 1864 our financial system
would have been utterly overthrown. There was nothing to anchor
it to the earth except the collection of duties in coin and the
payment of the interest on our bonds in coin.

"But, sir, the most important and the most revolutionary principle
of the act of February 25, 1862, was the legal tender clause. This
was a measure of imperious and pressing necessity. I can recall
very well the debates in the Senate and in the House of Representatives
upon the legal tender clause. We were then standing in the face
of a deficit of some $70,000,000 of unpaid requisitions to our
soldiers. Creditors in all parts of the country, among them the
most powerful corporations of this country, had refused our demand
notes, then very slightly depressed. We were under the necessity
of raising two or three million dollars per day. We were then
organizing armies unheard of before. We stood also in the presence
of defeat, constant and imminent, which fell upon our armies in
all parts of the country. It was before daylight was shed upon
any part of our military operations. We adopted the legal tender
clause then as an absolute expedient. Remembering the debate, I
know with what slow steps the majority of the Senate came to the
necessity of adopting legal tenders."

The debt of the United States on the 31st of August, 1866, when it
reached its maximum, amounted to $2,844,649,627. On the 1st of
March, 1870, the debt had been reduced to less than $2,500,000,000,
of which about $400,000,000 was in United States notes, for the
redemption of which no provision was made. It was the confident
expectation of Congress, which proved to be correct, that before
the refunding operations were complete, the debt would be gradually
reduced, so that the sum of $1,500,000,000, provided for in the
law, would be sufficient to refund all existing debts, except United
States notes, into the new securities.

The process of refunding progressed slowly, was confined to the
five per cent. bonds, and was somewhat interrupted by the financial
stringency of 1873.

By the act approved January 20, 1871, the amount of five per cent.
bonds authorized by the act approved July 14, 1870, was increased
to $500,000,000, but the act was not to be construed to authorize
any increase of bonds provided for by the refunding act.

Prior to the 24th of August, 1876, there had been sold, for refunding
purposes, the whole of the $500,000,000 five per cents. authorized
by that act, and on that day Lot M. Morrill, Secretary of the
Treasury, entered into a contract for the sale of $40,000,000 of
the four and a half per cent. bonds authorized by the refunding
act. By this process of refunding an annual saving had been made
of $5,400,000 a year, by the reduction of interest in the sale of
$540,000,000 bonds. On the 9th day of June, 1877, I, as Secretary
of the Treasury, terminated the contract made by Mr. Morrill, my
predecessor, and placed on the market the four per cent. bonds
provided for by the refunding act. The subsequent proceedings
under this act will be more appropriately referred to hereafter.

The more difficult problem remained of advancing United States
notes to par in coin. This could be accomplished by reducing the
amount of these notes outstanding, and, thus, by their scarcity,
add to their value. They were a legal tender in payment for all
debts, public and private, except for duties on imported goods and
interest on the public debt. As long as these notes were at a
discount for coin they could circulate only in the United States,
and until they were at par with coin, coin would not circulate as
money in the United States, except to pay coin liabilities. The
notes were a dishonored, depreciated promise, the purchasing power
of which varied day by day, the football of "bulls and bears." In
many respects these notes were better than any other form of
depreciated paper money, for the people of the United States had
full confidence in their ultimate redemption. They were much better
and in higher favor with the people than the state bank notes which
they replaced and which were not only depreciated like United States
notes but had been often proven worthless in the hands of innocent
holders. They were as good as national bank notes, however well
secured, for these notes were not payable in coin, but could be
redeemed by United States notes. Still, with all their defects
the United States notes were the favorite money of the people, and
any attempt to contract their volume was met by a strong popular
opposition.

As already stated, the gradual reduction of the volume of United
States notes, urged so strongly by Secretary McCulloch, and provided
for by the resumption act, met with popular opposition and was
repealed by Congress. Under these conditions it became necessary
to approach the specie standard of value without a contraction of
the currency. The act to strengthen the public credit, already
referred to, was the beginning of this struggle. The government
was, by this act, committed to the payment of the United States
notes in coin or its equivalent. But when and how was not stated
or even considered. The extent to which Congress would then go,
and to which popular opinion would then consent, was the declaration
that the "United States solemnly pledges its faith to make provision
at the earliest practicable period for the redemption of United
States notes, in coin." Many events must occur before the fulfillment
of this promise could be attempted.

At the date of the passage of the act "to strengthen the public
credit," on March 19, 1869, there was but little coin in circulation
in the United States except gold coin, and that was chiefly confined
to the Pacific coast, or to the large ports of entry, to be used
in payment of duties on imported goods. Silver coins were not in
circulation. The amount of silver coined in 1869 was less than
one million dollars and that mainly for exportation. Fractional
notes of different denominations, from ten to fifty cents, were
issued by the treasury to the amount of $160,000,000, of which
$120,000,000 had been redeemed, and $40,000,000 were outstanding
in circulation or had been destroyed. These fractional notes
superseded silver coin as United States notes superseded gold coin.
The coinage laws as they then existed were scattered through the
laws of the United States from 1793 to 1853, and were in many
respects imperfect and conflicting.

The ratio fixed by Alexander Hamilton, of fifteen ounces of silver
as the equivalent of one ounce of gold, was, at the time it was
adopted, substantially the market ratio, but the constant tendency
of silver to decline in relative value to gold had been going on
for years and it continued to decline, almost imperceptibly perhaps,
and the legal ratio in France having been fixed at fifteen and a
half to one, there was an advantage in shipping gold to that country
from this, and consequently very little if any of our gold, even
if coined, came into circulation. By the act of 1793 foreign coins
were made a legal tender for circulation in this country, and the
Spanish silver dollar, on which ours was founded, with the 8th or
"real" pieces, found great favor. Singularly enough, in Mexico
and the West Indies, the Spanish population would exchange their
dollars for ours, dollar for dollar, although their pieces, if not
worn, were each three grains heavier. This led to an exchange of
our dollars for the Spanish ones, which were promptly recoined at
the mint at a fair profit to the depositor.

This put upon the government the expense of manufacturing coins
with no advantage. The evil grew so great that in 1806 the further
coinage of our silver dollars was prohibited by President Jefferson,
in an order issued through the state department, as follows:

"Department of State, May 1, 1806.
"Sir:--In consequence of a representation from the director of the
Bank of the United States, that considerable purchases have been
made of dollars coined at the mint for the purpose of exporting
them, and as it is probable further purchases and exportations will
be made, the President directs that all the silver to be coined at
the mint shall be of small denominations, so that the value of the
largest pieces shall not exceed half a dollar.

"I am, etc.,
"James Madison.
"Robert Patterson, Esq., Director of the Mint."

The coinage of the silver dollar at our mint was not resumed until
1836. The small and worn Spanish pieces, being legal tender, also
drove from circulation our fractional coins coming bright and plump
from the mint. Bank notes and these worn pieces furnished the
circulation of the country.

The condition of the currency became so objectionable that in 1830
the subject was taken up by a special committee of the House of
Representatives, appointed for the purpose. Three reports were
submitted, in one of which the committee stated that of $37,000,000
coined at our mints only $5,000,000 remained in circulation. A
bill was submitted to the House fixing the ratio at 15.625 to one,
and was strongly urged. There appeared no special opposition to
the measure for a time, but the feeling of opposition to the
circulation of bank bills had become very strong among the people
and was reflected by the administration.

In the Senate the opposition to bank bills was headed by Thomas H.
Benton, who openly advocated so changing the coinage ratio that
gold would circulate to the exclusion of the notes, and perhaps
incidentally of silver also. The matter of providing for silver,
however, received little attention. The ratio was changed to
sixteen to one, John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster joining with
Calhoun and Benton in bringing it about. It was well understood
at the time that the operation of this act would banish silver.
The object of the change was distinctly stated, especially by Mr.
Benton, who said:

"To enable the friends of gold to go to work at the right place to
effect the recovery of that precious metal, which their fathers
once possessed; which the subjects of European kings now possess;
which the citizens of the young republics to the south all possess;
which even the free negroes of San Domingo possess; but of which
the yeomanry of America have been deprived for more than twenty
years, and will be deprived forever, unless they discover the cause
of the evil and apply the remedy to its root."

By the act of 1834, superadded to by the act of 1837, the ratio of
sixteen to one instead of fifteen to one was adopted. The result
was that gold coins were largely introduced and circulated; but as
sixteen ounces of silver were worth more than one ounce of gold,
the silver coins disappeared, except the depreciated silver coin
of other countries, then a legal tender. To correct this evil,
Congress, on the 21st of February, 1853, provided for the purchase
of silver bullion by the government, to be coined by it and not
for the owners of the bullion. That was the first time the government
had ever undertaken to buy bullion for coinage purposes. It provided
for the purchase of silver bullion and the coinage of subsidiary
silver coins at the ratio of less than fifteen to one. No mention
was made of the dollar in the act of 1853. It had fallen into
disuse and when coined was exported, being more valuable as bullion
than as coin.

As the value of the minor coins was less that gold at the coinage
ratio, they were limited as a legal tender to five dollars in any
one payment. They were, in fact, a subsidiary coin made on government
account, and, from their convenience and necessity, were maintained
in circulation. They were similar to the coins now in use, revived
and re-enacted by the resumption act of 1875.

It was not the intention of the framers of this law to demonetize
silver, because they were openly avowed bimetallists, but it limited
coinage to silver bought by the government at market price. They
saw, in this expedient, a way in which silver could be more generally
utilized than in any other. Mr. R. M. T. Hunter, an avowed
bimetallist, in a report to the United States Senate, said:

"The mischief would be great indeed if all the world were to adopt
but one of the precious metals as the standard of value. To adopt
gold alone would diminish the specie currency more than one-half;
and the reduction the other way, should silver be taken as the only
standard, would be large enough to prove highly disastrous to the
human race."

He evidently did not consider the purchase of silver bullion at
its coinage value by the government, instead of the free coinage
of silver, as monometallism.

After the passage of the act of 1853, gold in great quantities,
the produce of the mines of California, was freely coined at the
ratio of sixteen to one, and was in general circulation. If, then,
the purchase of silver, instead of the free coinage of silver, is
the demonetization of silver, it was demonetized practically in
1834, and certainly in 1853, when the purchase of silver and its
use as money increased enormously. In 1852 the coinage of silver
was less than $1,000,000. In the next year the coinage of silver
rose to over $9,000,000, and reached the aggregate of nearly
$50,000,000 before the beginning of the Civil War. Then, as now,
the purchase of silver bullion led to a greater coinage than free
coinage.

This was the condition of our coinage until the war, like all other
great wars in history, drove all coins into hoarding or exportation,
and paper promises, great and small, from five cents to a thousand
dollars, supplanted both silver and gold.

When, therefore, it became necessary to prepare for the coinage of
gold and silver to meet the requirements of the act of 1869, "to
strengthen the public credit," it was deemed by the treasury
department advisable to revise and codify the coinage laws of the
United States. Mr. Boutwell, then Secretary of the Treasury, with
the assistance of John Jay Knox, deputy comptroller, afterwards
comptroller, of the currency, and the officers of the mints of the
United States, prepared a complete code of the coinage laws. It
was submitted to experts, not only to those in the treasury but
also to all persons familiar with the subject. The bill was
entitled, "An act revising and amending the laws relative to the
mint, assay offices, and coinage of the United States."

The law, tested by experience, is conceded to be an excellent
measure. A single provision of the bill has been the subject of
charges and imputations that the silver dollar was, in a fraudulent
and surreptitious way, "demonetized" by this act. There is not
the slightest foundation for this imputation. The bill was sent
to me as chairman of the committee on finance, and submitted to
the Senate with this letter:

"Treasury Department, April 25, 1870.
"Sir:--I have the honor to transmit herewith a bill revising the
laws relative to the mint, assay offices, and coinage of the United
States, and accompanying report. The bill has been prepared under
the supervision of John Jay Knox, deputy comptroller of the currency,
and its passage is recommended in the form presented. It includes,
in a condensed form, all the important legislation upon the coinage,
not now obsolete, since the first mint was established, in 1792;
and the report gives a concise statement of the various amendments
proposed to existing laws and the necessity for the change recommended.
There has been no revision of the laws pertaining to the mint and
coinage since 1837, and it is believed that the passage of the
inclosed bill will conduce greatly to the efficiency and economy
of this important branch of the government service.

"I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"Geo. S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury.
"Hon. John Sherman,
"Chairman Finance Committee, United States Senate."

Section 15 of the original bill omitted the silver dollar. It was
as follows:

"Sec. 15. _And be it further enacted_, That of the silver coin,
the weight of the half dollar, or piece of 50 cents, shall be 192
grains; and that of the quarter dollar and dime shall be, respectively,
one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half dollar. That
the silver coin issued in conformity with the above section shall
be a legal tender in any one payment of debts for all sums less
than one dollar."

Section 18 prohibited all coins except those named, as follows:

"Sec. 18. _And be it further enacted_, That no coins, either gold,
silver, or minor coinage, shall hereafter be issued from the mint
other than those of the denominations, standards, and weights herein
set forth."

Special attention was called to the dropping out of the silver
dollar, both by Secretary Boutwell and Mr. Knox, and the opinion
of experts was invited and given on this special matter and
communicated to Congress. These sections, in the three years that
the bill was pending in Congress, were changed either in the House
or Senate in only one or two unimportant particulars.

Accompanying the report of Mr. Knox were the statements of Robert
Patterson, of Philadelphia, confessedly one of the ablest scientists
and metallists in the United States, in favor of dropping from our
coinage the silver dollar. Dr. Linderman, the director of the
mint, made the same recommendation. In the report accompanying
the introduction of the bill, under date of April 25, 1870,
Comptroller Knox gives the history of the silver dollar and the
reasons for its discontinuance as follows:

"The dollar unit, as money of account, was established by the act
of Congress April 2, 1792, and the same act provides for the coinage
of a silver dollar, 'of the value of a Spanish milled or pillar
dollar, as the same is now current.' The silver dollar was first
coined in 1794, weighing 416 grains, of which 371¼ grains were pure
silver, the fineness being 892.4. The act of January 18, 1837,
reduces the standard weight to 412½ grains, but increases the
fineness to 900, the quantity of pure silver remaining 371¼ grains
as before, and at these rates it is still coined in limited
amounts."

He then says:

"The coinage of the silver dollar piece, the history of which is
here given, is discontinued in the proposed bill. It is, by existing
law, the dollar unit, and assuming the value of gold to be fifteen
and one-half times that of silver, being about the mean ratio for
the past six years, is worth in gold a premium of about three per
cent. (its value being 103.12) and intrinsically more than seven
per cent. premium in our other silver coin, its value thus being
107.42. The present laws consequently authorize both a gold dollar
unit and a silver dollar unit, differing from each other in intrinsic
value. The present gold dollar piece is made the dollar unit in
the proposed bill, and the silver dollar piece is discontinued.
If, however, such a coin is authorized, it should be issued only
as a commercial dollar, not as a standard unit of account, and of
the exact value of the Mexican dollar, which is the favorite for
circulation in China and Japan and other oriental countries.

"Note.--Assuming the value of gold to be fifteen and one-half times
that of silver, the French 5-franc piece is worth about 96½ cents
(96.4784); the standard Mexican dollar 104.90, our silver dollar
piece 103.12, and two of our half-dollar pieces 96 cents."

The finance committee carefully examined the bill. We were not in
any hurry about it. It was sent to us in April, 1870, and was
printed and sent, by order of the Senate, to everyone who desired
to read it or look over it.

That committee was composed of Messrs. Sherman, Williams, Cattell,
Morrill, Warner, Fenton and Bayard.

The bill was reported unanimously to the Senate December 19, 1870,
after lying in the committee room for eight months.

The dollar was dropped from the coins in the bill framed in the
treasury department. It was then an unknown coin. Although I was
quite active in business which brought under my eye different forms
of money, I do not remember at that time ever to have seen a silver
dollar. Probably if it had been mentioned to the committee and
discussed it would have been thought, as a matter of course, scarcely
worthy of inquiry. If it was known at all, it was known as a coin
for the foreign market.

No one proposed to reissue it. The Pacific coast had six intelligent,
able, and competent Senators on the floor of the Senate. They
would have carefully looked out for the interest of silver, if the
bill affected them injuriously. The authority given in the bill
as it finally passed for coining the so-called trade dollar, met
all the demands of the silver producing states. But the silver
dollar at that time was worth more than the gold dollar. California
and Nevada were on the gold standard.

The bill was printed over and over again, finally reported, and
brought before the Senate. It was debated there for three days.
Every Senator from the Pacific coast spoke upon the measure.
Representing the committee, I presented the questions as they
occurred from time to time, until finally we differed quite seriously
upon the question of a charge for the coinage of gold. The only
yea and nay vote in the Senate on the passage of that bill, after
two days debate, occurred on the 10th of January, 1871. Those who
voted in favor of the bill were Messrs. Bayard, Boreman, Brownlow,
Casserly, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan,
Jewett, Johnston, Kellogg, McCreary, Morton, Nye, Patterson, Pomeroy,
Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Saulsbury, Spencer, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner,
Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, Vickers, Warner, Willey, Williams, Wilson
and Yates--36.

Every one of the six members of the Pacific coast voted for the
bill after full debate.

Against this bill were Messrs. Abbott, Ames, Anthony, Buckingham,
Carpenter, Chandler, Fenton, Hamiliton, of Texas, Harris, Howell,
Morrill, of Vermont, Pratt, Scott and Sherman--14.

So on the only yea and nay vote which was ever taken upon the bill
I voted against it. It was not on account of demonetizing the
silver dollar. I did not do it because of that, but I did it
because gold was then only coined for the benefit of private
depositors; we were not using gold except for limited purposes.
Gold was the standard in California, and we thought the people of
that state ought to continue to pay the old and reasonable rate
for coinage of one-fifth of one cent to the dollar. No action was
taken on the bill in the House of Representatives, and it failed
to pass during that Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress
the bill was introduced by Wm. D. Kelley, and reported by him
favorably to the House of Representatives. It gave rise to
considerable debate, especially the section defining the silver
coins. No one proposed to restore the old silver dollar, but the
House inserted a coin precisely the equivalent of five francs, or
two half dollars of our subsidiary coin, and this franc dollar, as
it was called, was made, like other subsidiary coins, a legal tender
only for five dollars. On the 9th of April, 1872, Mr. Hooper,
having charge of the bill, called especial attention to the dropping
of the old dollar and the substitution of the French dollar. He
said, on April 9, 1872:

"Section 16 re-enacts the provisions of existing laws defining the
silver coins and their weights, respectively, except in relation
to the silver dollar, which is reduced in weight from 412½ to 384
grains; thus making it a subsidiary coin in harmony with the silver
coins of less denomination, to secure its concurrent circulation
with them. The silver dollar of 412½ grains, by reason of its
bullion and intrinsic value being greater than its nominal value,
long since ceased to be a coin of circulation, and is melted by
manufacturers of silverware. It does not circulate now in commercial
transactions with any country, and the convenience of those
manufacturers, in this respect, can better be met by supplying
small stamped bars of the same standard, avoiding the useless
expense of coining the dollar for that purpose. The coinage of
the half dime is discontinued for the reason that its place is
supplied by the copper nickel five-cent piece, of which a large
issue has been made, and which, by the provisions of the act
authorizing its issue, is redeemable in United States currency."

When the bill was sent to the Senate it, in compliance with the
memorial of the legislature of the State of California, inserted
in place of the French dollar, of 384 grains of standard silver,
a dollar containing 420 grains of standard silver, called the "trade
dollar." This was urged upon the ground that, as the Mexican dollar
contained 416 grains, or 3½ grains more than the old silver dollar,
it had an advantage in trade with China and Japan over our dollar,
and that a coin containing a few grains more than the Mexican dollar
would give our people the benefit of this use for silver. This
dollar was, in conference, agreed to by the House, but was a legal
tender for only five dollars. On final action on that bill, the
conferees on the part of the Senate were Messrs. Sherman, Scott
and Bayard. The amendment of the Senate adopting the trade dollar
was agreed to by the House, and the bill passed in both Houses
without a division.

There never was a bill proposed in the Congress of the United States
which was so publicly and openly presented and agitated. I know
of no bill in my experience which was printed, as this was, thirteen
times, in order to invite attention to it. I know no bill which
was freer than any immoral or wrong influence than this act of 1873.

During the pendency of this bill, the Senators and Representatives
from the Pacific coast were in favor of the single standard of gold
alone. This was repeatedly shown during the debates, but now they
complain that the silver dollar was demonetized, and that, though
present, taking the most active interest in the consideration of
the bill, they did not observe that the silver dollar was dropped
from the coinage. The public records are conclusive against this
pretense. Mr. Stewart, Senator from Nevada, and all the Senators
from the Pacific coast, who took an active part in the debate on
the bill, must have known of the dropping of the silver dollar from
the coinage. It appears from the "Congressional Record" that, on
the 11th of February, 1874, Mr. Stewart said:

"I want the standard gold, and no paper money not redeemable in
gold; no paper money the value of which is not ascertained; no
paper money that will organize a gold board to speculate in it."

Again, only a few days after this, on the 20th of February, when
he was speaking in favor of the resolution, instructing the committee
on finance to report a bill providing for the convertibility of
treasury notes into gold coin of five per cent. bonds, he said:

"By this process we shall come to a specie basis, and when the
laboring man receives a dollar it will have the purchasing power
of a dollar, and he will not be called upon to do what is impossible
for him or the producing classes to do, figure upon the exchanges,
figure upon the fluctuations, figure upon the gambling in New York;
but he will know what his money is worth. Gold is the universal
standard of the world. Everybody knows what a dollar in gold is
worth."

To review the history of the act of 1873: It was framed in the
treasury department after a thorough examination by experts,
transmitted to both Houses of Congress, thoroughly examined and
debated during four consecutive sessions, with information called
for by the House of Representatives, printed thirteen times by
order and broadly circulated, and many amendments were proposed,
but no material changes were made in the coinage clause from the
beginning to the end of the controversy. It added the French dollar
for a time, but that was superseded by the trade dollar, and neither
was made a legal tender but for five dollars. It passed the Senate
on the 10th of January, 1871--36 yeas and 14 nays--every Senator
from the Pacific coast voting for it.

It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Kelley,
at the next session. It was debated, scrutinized, and passed
unanimously, dropping the silver dollar, as directly stated by Mr.
Hooper. It was reported, debated, amended, and passed by the Senate
unanimously. In every stage of the bill, and every print, the
dollar of 412½ grains was prohibited, and the single gold standard
recognized, proclaimed, and understood. It was not until silver
was a cheaper dollar that anyone demanded it, and then it was to
take advantage of a creditor.

It has always been within the power of Congress to correct this
error, if error was made; but Congress has refused over and over
again to do it. When the controversy arose, in 1878, on the Bland
bill, and the House of Representatives proposed the free coinage
of silver, the Senate rejected it after a deliberate contest, and
substituted in place of it what is called the Bland-Allison act,
which required the purchase, by the government, of silver bullion
at its market value, and its coinage to a limited amount. Every
effort has been made, from that time to this, to have the Congress
of the United States pass a free coinage act.

If this is done, it will be to secure a cheaper dollar of less
purchasing power, with the view to enable debtors to pay debts,
contracted on the basis of gold coin, with silver coins, worth,
with free coinage, less than one-half of gold coins.

In reviewing, at this distance of time, the legislation of 1873,
in respect to the coinage of silver, I am of the opinion that it
was fortunate that the United States then dropped the coinage of
the old silver dollar. No one then contemplated the enormous yield
of silver from the mines, and the resulting fall in the market
value of silver, but, acting upon the experience of the past, that
a parity between silver and gold could not be maintained at any
fixed value, Congress adopted gold as the standard of value, and
coined silver as a subsidiary coin, to be received and maintained
at a parity with gold, but only a legal tender for small sums.
This was the principle adopted in the act of 1853, when silver was
more valuable than gold at the legal ratio. Silver was not then
coined into dollars, because it was then worth more as bullion than
as coin. It was needed for change, and, under the law of 1853, it
was furnished in abundance. Similar laws are now in force in all
countries where gold is the sole standard. Under these laws, a
larger amount of silver is employed as subsidiary coins than when
the coinage of silver was free.

The same condition of coinage now exists in the United States.
While silver is reduced in market value nearly one-half, silver
coins are maintained at par with gold at the old ratio, by fiat of
the government. It is true that the purchase of silver, under
recent laws, involved a heavy loss to the government, but the free
coinage of silver, under the ratio of sixteen to one, would exclude
gold from our currency, detach the United States from the monetary
standard of all the chief commercial nations of the world, and
change all existing contracts between individuals and with the
government. In view of these results, certain to come from the
free coinage of silver, I am convinced that until some international
arrangement can be made, the present system of coinage should
continue in force. This has now became a political, or, rather a
monetary question, to be decided sooner or later, by popular opinion,
at the polls. This subject will be further discussed at a later
period, when efforts were made to adopt the free coinage of silver
at the old ratio.

Prior to the meeting of Congress in December, 1870, a controversy
had arisen between Senator Sumner and Secretary Fish, which created
serious embarrassment, and I think had a very injurious influence
during that and succeeding sessions of Congress. Mr. Sumner had
long been chairman of the committee on foreign relations, and no
doubt exercised a domineering power in this branch of the public
service. Mr. Fish and Mr. Sumner had differed widely in respect
to the annexation of San Domingo and certain diplomatic appointments
and former treaties, among them the highly important English
negotiations for the settlement of claims growing out of the war.
On these topics the President and Mr. Sumner could not agree. Mr.
Sumner insisted that the hasty proclamation by Great Britain of
neutrality between the United States and the Southern Confederacy
was the gravamen of the Alabama claims. The President and Mr. Fish
contended that this proclamation was an act of which we could not
complain, except as an indication of an unfriendly spirit by Great
Britain, and that the true basis of the Alabama claims was that
Great Britain, after proclaiming neutrality, did not enforce it,
but allowed her subjects to build cruisers, and man, arm and use
them, under cover of the rebel flag, to the destruction of our
commercial navy.

This difference of opinion between the President and Mr. Sumner
led to the removal of John L. Motley, our minister to England, who
sided with Sumner, and unquestionably intensified the feeling that
had arisen from the San Domingo treaty.

As to that treaty it was a conceded fact that before the President
had become publicly committed to it he had, waiving his official
rank, sought the advice and counsel of Mr. Sumner, and was evidently
misled as to Mr. Sumner's views on this subject. The subsequent
debating, in both open and executive session, led to Mr. Sumner's
taking the most extreme and active opposition to the treaty, in
which he arraigned with great severity the conduct of the naval
officers, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Fish and the President.
This was aggravated by alleged public conversations with Mr. Sumner
by "interviewers," in which the motives of the President and others
were impugned.

In the meantime, social relations between the Secretary of State
and Mr. Sumner had become impossible; and--considering human passion,
prejudice and feeling--anything like frank and confidential
communication between the President and Mr. Sumner was out of the
question.

A majority of the Republican Senators sided with the President. We
generally agreed that it was a false-pretended neutrality, and not
a too hasty proclamation of neutrality, that gave us an unquestionable
right to demand indemnity from Great Britain for the depredations
of the Alabama and other English cruisers. And as for the San
Domingo treaty, a large majority of Republican Senators had voted
for it--though I did not; and nearly all of us had voted for the
commission of inquiry of which Mr. Wade was the chief member.

When we met in March, it was known that both these important subjects
would necessarily be referred to the committee on foreign relations,
and that, aside from the hostile personal relations of Mr. Sumner
and the Secretary of State, he did not, and could not, and would
not, represent the views of a majority of his Republican colleagues
in the Senate, and that a majority of his committee agreed with
him. Committees are and ought to be organized to represent the
body, giving a majority of the members to the prevailing opinion,
but fairly representing the views of the minority. It has been
the custom in the Senate to allow each party to choose its own
representatives in each committee, and in proportion to its numbers.

In the Republican conference the first question that arose was as
to Mr. Sumner. He was the oldest Senator in consecutive service.
He was eminent not only as a faithful representative of Republican
principles, but as especially qualified to be chairman of our
foreign relations. He had long held that position, and it was not
usual in the Senate to change the committees, but to follow the
rule of seniority, placing Senators of the majority party in the
order of their coming into the Senate and those of the minority at
the foot of the list.

In deciding Mr. Sumner's case, in view of the facts I have stated,
two plans were urged;

First--To place him at the head of the new and important committee
of privileges and elections, leaving the rest of the committee on
foreign relations to stand in the precise order it had been, with
one vacancy to be filled in harmony with the majority.

Second--To leave Mr. Sumner to stand in his old place as chairman,
and to make a change in the body of the committee by transferring
one of its members to another committee, and fill the vacancy by a
Senator in harmony with the majority.

My own opinion was that the latter course was the most polite and
just; but the majority decided, after full consideration and debate,
upon the first alternative.

Simon Cameron was next to Mr. Sumner on the list of Republican
members of the committee, and, by uniform usage, became its
chairman.

This affair created feeling in the Senate which it is difficult
now to realize, but it was decided in a Republican caucus, in which
there was an honest difference of opinion. We foresaw, whichever
way it should be decided, that it would create--and it did create
--bad feeling among Senators, which existed as long as Mr. Sumner
lived. I think it proper to make this statement of my own views
at the time, though by the happening of great events this incident
has almost passed out of memory.

Mr. Sumner died in Washington, March 11, 1874. He was distinguished
for his literary attainments, and his strong opposition to the
institution of slavery and his severe arraignment of it. The brutal
attack made upon him by Preston S. Brooks created profound sympathy
for him.

I have purposely followed the legislation of Congress on financial
questions until the passage of the act of 1873, passing over other
events in my personal history and that of President Grant.

It can hardly be said that we had a strictly Republican administration,
during his two terms. While Republicans were selected to fill the
leading offices, the policy adopted and the controlling influence
around him were purely personal. He consulted but few of the
Senators or Members, and they were known as his personal friends.
Mr. Conkling, by his imperious will, soon gained a strong influence
over the President, and from this came feuds, jealousies and
enmities, that greatly weakened the Republican party and threatened
its ascendency. This was a period of bitter accusations, extending
from the President to almost everyone in public life. During the
entire period of Grant's administration, I was chairman of the
committee on finance of the Senate, and had to act upon all questions
of taxation, debt, banking or finance, and had occasion to talk
with the President upon such measures, but he rarely expressed any
opinion or took any interest in them. His veto of the bill to
increase the amount of United States notes, on the 22nd of April,
1874, was an exception, but on this he changed his mind, as he had
expressed his approval of the bill when pending. He was charged
with being in a whisky ring and with other offensive imputations,
all of which were without the slightest foundation. General Grant
was, in every sense of the word, an honest man. He was so honest
that he did not suspect others, and no doubt confided in, and was
friendly with, those who abused his confidence. It was a period
of slander and scandal.

I did not escape the general crimination. I usually met accusations
with silence, as my accusers were answered by others. In March,
1871, the Cincinnati "Enquirer" contained the following imputation:

"We are informed that a gentleman who lately filled a responsible
office in this city, who has recently returned from Washington,
says that the Southern Railroad bill would have passed the United
States Senate if it had not, unfortunately, happened that Senator
Sherman had no direct pecuniary interest in it. In these days,
and with such Congresses, it takes grease to oil the wheels of
legislation."

On the 12th of March I wrote to the editors of the "Enquirer" the
following note, after quoting the editorial:

"United States Senate Chamber,}
"Washington, March 12, 1871. }
"To the Editors of the 'Enquirer:'

"Gentlemen:--Some one, perhaps in your office, sends me the following
editorial, cut from your paper:

* * * * *

"All I can say in reply is that it contains a falsehood and a
calumny. I introduced the bill for the Southern Railroad; am
strongly in favor of it, and pressed it at every stage as rapidly
as the rules of the Senate and the strong opposition to it would
allow. This is known by every Senator, and I am quite sure Judge
Thurman and Mr. Davis would say so. I alone took an active interest
in the bill, and at the very moment your editorial was received I
was pressing a Republican caucus to make it an exception to a
resolution not to take up general legislation at this session.
Everyone familiar with our rules knew that it was the sheerest
folly to try to pass the bill on the last day of the session,
especially as against our appropriation bills. When it does pass
it will take days of debate, and will not receive support from any
of your political associates, who think Kentucky can block up all
intercourse between the north and south. Still I yielded to the
earnest desire of the trustees to try to get a vote, but failed to
get the floor at 3 o'clock in the morning, the only moment it was
possible to submit even the motion to take it up. The bill to
abolish the duty of coal was taken up and was not acted on, nor
would the railroad bill, or any other contested bill, have passed
at that stage of the session.

"As to the base imputation you attribute to 'a gentleman who lately
filled a responsible office in this city,' I can only say that,
whether it originates with you or anyone else, it is utterly false.
Neither in this nor in any measure that has passed Congress, or is
pending, have I had any direct pecuniary interest. I respectfully
ask that you print this, and also the name of the 'gentleman' you
refer to.

"I intend, in the interests of the city of Cincinnati and of the
whole country, to press the Southern Railroad bill, and to secure
its passage as soon as possible, but it is rather poor encouragement
to read such libels in a prominent paper in your city.

"Yours etc.,
"John Sherman."

This was followed by an article in the "Enquirer" embodied in my
reply, as follows:

"Washington, March 20, 1871.
"Gentlemen:--In your editorial in the 'Enquirer' of March 17, in
commenting on my card to you as to my action on the Cincinnati
Southern Railroad bill, you repeat my statement that 'neither in
this nor in any measure that has passed Congress, or is pending,
have I any pecuniary interest,' and you say:

'If this is true, he has certainly been a very badly slandered
gentleman. Somehow or other there is a popular impression that
Mr. Sherman has contrived to make his connection with politics a
highly lucrative business, and that he has exhibited, since he has
been in Congress, a worldly thrift that is remarkable. There is
a further impression that he is now a very rich man, whereas, a
few years ago, before he was in public affairs, his circumstances
were decidedly moderate. Perhaps our senatorial friend may not be
aware of the existence of these derogatory reports, and will thank
us for giving him an opportunity, now that he knows of their
existence, to disprove them.'

"I have not been ignorant that there has been a studied effort--
ascribed by me to the common tactics of political warfare--to create
the impression, by vague innuendo, that I have used my official
position to make money for myself. I know that this charge or
imputation is without the slightest foundation, and I now repeat
that I never was pecuniarily interested in any question, bill or
matter before Congress; that I never received anything in money,
or property, or promise, directly or indirectly, for my vote or
influence in Congress or in the departments; that I have studiously
avoided engaging in any business depending upon legislation in
Congress. The only enterprise in which I ever engaged, which rests
upon an act of Congress, is that in 1862, after the bill passed
authorizing the construction of a street railroad in this city, I,
with others, openly subscribed stock, and undertook to build it in
pursuance of the act of Congress.

"From the position assigned me here, I have had to deal with great
questions involving our financial system of currency, taxes and
debt, and I can appeal to all my associates in Congress, to each
of the eminent men with whom, as Secretaries of the Treasury, I
have been intimate, and to every man of the multitude with whom I
have been brought into contact, to say whether I have ever been
influenced in my course by pecuniary interest.

"But you say that the impression is that I am a very rich man,
whereas, before I was in public affairs, my circumstances were
decidedly moderate. This allegation contains two gross exaggerations.
When I entered public life, I was largely engaged in my profession
and other lucrative business. If I had not engaged in politics,
I might have been the rich man you suppose. I am not this day
relatively richer, considering the changed value of property, than
I was when I entered the Senate. Some time ago it was stated in
your paper that I was worth millions. A very small fraction,
indeed, of one million dollars will cover all I am worth. My
property consists mainly of real estate, palpable to the eye, and
the rest of it is chiefly in a railroad with which I was connected
before I entered public life.

"I have managed my business affairs with reasonable care, prudence,
economy and success. What I have is the result of this.

"You kindly offer me an opportunity to disprove to you these reports.
Well, how can I? What charge is made against me? How can I fight
shadows? How can a man prove himself innocent against an innuendo?

"But as you offer me the opportunity, I now invite Mr. Faran to
come to my home at Mansfield, and I will show him all I possess
there, and render him a full account of all I have elsewhere, and
if I can't fairly account for it without being suspected of receiving
bribes, or gifts, or stealing, then he can repeat these baseless
accusations with an easy conscience.

"You may ask why I have not met these derogatory reports before.
Perhaps I ought, but I feel the humiliation of such a controversy,
and thought it time enough when a specific charge was made. And
I am told by Mr. Hedges, my former law partner, that in my absence,
last summer, he corrected some gross misstatements in your paper
about me, and that you refused or neglected to publish it--even to
notice it. As, however, you now, in a courteous way, invite this
letter, I take great pleasure in accepting your offer.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Messrs. Faran & McLean, editors of the 'Enquirer.'"

I doubted the policy of my publishing such a letter, or of taking
any notice of so indefinite a charge, but the response from the
press was fair, especially from the "Shield and Banner," a Democratic
paper printed in Mansfield, as follows:

"We publish a letter of Hon. John Sherman to the editors the
Cincinnati 'Enquirer.' It is hardly necessary that we should say
that we have no sympathy with the political creed of John Sherman.
Between him and us there is a vast and wide difference; but we are
not, we trust, so much of the partisan that we cannot do justice
to a neighbor, if that neighbor differs with us. We have known
John Sherman, not only during all his public life, but from the
time we became a resident of Mansfield, now covering a period of
thirty years, and we have always known him as industrious, prudent
and careful in his profession, and economical and thrifty in his
business. We placed very little credence in the rumors that he
was a man of immense wealth. His property is mostly in real estate.
He was fortunate in getting hold of very desirable property in and
around our city, and the advance in that has doubtless given him
a competence; but it is folly to charge him with being a millionaire.
We have, in common with our neighbors, enjoyed his hospitality,
and his style of living is neither extravagant nor ostentatious.

"Mr. Sherman is one of our townsmen, and although all wrong as a
politician and statesman, and holding to a creed we utterly
disapprove, he is a highminded and honorable man, and we are bound
to accept his statement about his pecuniary affairs as true."

I have often since been accused of the crime of "being rich," but
as nearly all my possessions are visible to the naked eye, and
their history and acquisition are known to so many, I think I am
not required to prove that I have not made them as the result of
legislation or my holding public trusts.

My second term in the Senate expired on the 4th of March, 1873.
The election of my successor devolved upon the legislature that
convened on the first Monday of January, 1872.

The canvass in Ohio, in the summer and fall of 1871, was an active
and exciting one and attracted great interest in other states.
The result would indicate the strength or weakness of Grant's
administration. I felt it was necessary, not only for my re-
election, but for the success of the Republican party, that every
effort should be made to elect a Republican majority in the
legislature, and I, therefore, at the state convention and in most
of the congressional districts of Ohio, made earnest speeches in
behalf of the state ticket and members of the legislature. I
received many letters of encouragement, one of which, from Senator
Carpenter in reference to my speech in the convention, I insert:

"Washington, D. C., July 20, 1871.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--I have just read your speech to the state convention
of Ohio. _It is splendid_. The only fault I have to find with it
is, that you have covered the whole ground and reduced us 'lesser
lights' to the necessity of repeating and elaborating. This is
_very mean of you;_ you might have left some topic of the next
campaign untouched, for us to dwell upon. But you have pre-empted
everything and we must follow after.

"Very truly yours,
"Matt H. Carpenter."

The legislature was elected in October, 1871, but the majority for
the Republicans was so small that the election of a Republican
Senator was in doubt.

I received many hearty letters of congratulation on our success in
Ohio from my colleagues in the Senate, among them one from Senator
Conkling as follows:

"Utica, N. Y., October 13, 1871.
"Hon. John Sherman, Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--Having waited for certainties touching your election
and the legislature, and having watched the canvass with sincere
solicitude, I congratulate you most heartily upon the result.

"Your own speeches have been among the best you ever made, and your
canvass has been full of the pluck without which no canvass and no
political contest is thorough or truthful.

"This state is ours unless the people are discouraged from voting
in the country by the belief that with Tammany to count, it matters
not what majority rolls up above the Highlands.

"Notwithstanding the grievous statements of the 'Tribune' and inspired
by the 'Tribune,' we have done nothing harsh to the anti-administration
minority, but the least and mildest thing which would prevent a
split in our organization with trouble for the future, and probably
a double delegation in the next national convention.

"Yours sincerely,
"Roscoe Conkling."

It was conceded that a decided majority of the Republican members
of the legislature were in favor of my re-election, but it was
believed that an effort would be made by five Republican members
to combine with the Democratic members and thus secure the election
of ex-Governor Jacob D. Cox.

A Republican legislative caucus was convened on the evening of
January 4th, to nominate a candidate. The first and informal ballot
gave me 61 votes to 14 scattering and the second ballot 71 votes
to 4 scattering. This settled the matter unless the few dissenting
votes could combine with the solid Democratic vote upon some other
candidate. It was soon found that this attempt would be abortive,
as several Democrats, and especially those from Richland and
Fairfield counties, would vote for me it the choice came between
Cox and myself. Every effort was made by General Ashley and the
few others who were opposed to my nomination to combine upon anyone
who could defeat me. They offered their support to Governor Hayes,
but this was promptly refused by him. The same effort was made
with Governor Dennison, General Garfield and General Schenck, and
failed.

The joint convention for the election of a Senator was held on the
second Tuesday of January. It was an open meeting. The voting
was soon over on roll call, and the result was as follows: Sherman
73; Morgan 64; Cox 1; Schenck 1; Perry 1. Thus I was elected by
six majority over all. When this result was known five Democrats
changed from Morgan to Cox, and others were preparing to do so when
Lieutenant Governor Mueller announced the result of the vote. He
was an educated German of high standing, but his English was very
imperfect. His decision that I, having received a majority of the
votes cast, was duly elected, was clearly right, and this was
conceded, but his imperfect English created great noise and merriment.
It was printed in the "Ohio Statesman," on the same day, as follows:

"John Sherman, having received seventy-three votes for President
in Congress [laughter], I mean for Senator in Congress, which being
a majority over all them others, I declares John Sherman duly
elected Senator in Congress from Ohio."

If the changing of the minority vote had proceeded, some of the
Democratic votes would have been cast for me, and my majority would
have been increased, but I preferred the election as it occurred.
My election for the third term was after a hot political contest,
but it left no wounds unhealed. Most of the gentlemen opposed to
me became afterwards my warm friends.

In July, 1872, two months after the close of the session of Congress,
I received the following letter from Thomas A. Scott, President of
the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company:

"Philadelphia, July 19, 1872.
"Hon. John Sherman, Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--A few gentlemen connected with the Texas and Pacific
road, and myself, propose to go to the Pacific coast, leaving
Philadelphia about the 12th to the 15th of August.

"If your engagements will permit, I shall be very glad indeed to
have you go with us.

"I am going from San Francisco to San Diego, and shall return by
way of San Francisco; the trip will occupy about thirty days.

"Please let me hear from you, and, if possible, let me have the
pleasure of your company.

"Very truly yours,
"Thomas A. Scott, President."

I accepted the invitation, and with a very agreeable party of ladies
and gentlemen, among whom were Mr. W. T. Walters, of Baltimore,
and his daughter, made my first voyage to the Pacific coast. Mr.
Scott, as president of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, had
command, by courtesy, of every convenience of travel. We had a
dining car which we could attach to any train, with ample room for
beds, and a full supply of provisions. The journey to San Francisco
was broken by several stops on the way at places that we thought
interesting.

Great changes had occurred in the brief period since my trip in an
ambulance with General Sherman. The Indians and buffaloes had
disappeared from the plains, the former placed on reservations
distant from the railroad, and the latter by gradual extinction.
When we crossed the Laramie plains I was in, to me, a "terra
incognita." The great basin of Salt Lake, with the varied and
picturesque scenery to the east and west of it, attracted our
attention, but the want of water, the dry air, the dust and the
absence of tress and vegetation of any kind, condemn all that
country to waste and desolation, except in a few places where
irrigation can be had. The Nevada range of mountains was crossed
at night, but we were to explore them on our return. When the
broad valley of the Sacramento opened to our view, we could hardly
express our delight. Here, indeed, was the land of gold, with its
clear air, its grand mountains, its rich plains.

Aside from the wonderful variety of its scenery, the history of
California has always excited poetic interest--its long settlement
by mixed races living in quiet peaceful harmony, mainly as herdsmen
and shepherds, suddenly disturbed and conquered without firing a
gun, by an aggressive race who soon revolutionized the habits of
the natives, and planted a new civilization, with all the bad as
well as the good elements of our race. Then the discovery of gold,
immediately following the conquest of California, drew to it, from
all parts of the United States, the most restless and adventurous
of our population, some of the worst and many of the best. The
rapid admixture of these diverse elements threatened for a time
hostile conflicts, in which criminals, under cover of law, committed
murder and other crimes, and peaceful, law-abiding citizens were
compelled to appeal to force and mob law to preserve civilization.

The railway soon brought us through Sacramento to San Francisco,
where we remained several days. We were kindly received and
entertained. The enterprise of Scott was not then favored in San
Francisco, but this did not prevent our hearty welcome. Here I
met Mr. Hollister, whom I had known in Ohio. He was the great
shepherd of California. I was informed that he owned 100,000 sheep,
divided into flocks of about 3,000 each. These flocks were wintered
at a large ranch near the Pacific coast belonging to him. The
climate was mild, and the sheep could live without shelter during
the winter. The flocks would start eastwardly over the great
valley, each flock cared for by a shepherd, a boy and a dog, feeding
in the open country, some of the flocks reaching the Mariposa
valley, one hundred miles away. When the grass failed they were
turned to the west to their home. Whether this tale is an exaggeration
I cannot say, but certain it is that at that time sheep raising
and the production of wool was one of the chief industries of
California. Hollister was also interested in woolen manufacture,
especially of blankets, equal to any in the world. When I knew
him in Ohio, he and his brother were the owners, by inheritance,
of a large and valuable farm in Licking county. When gold was
discovered in California, Hollister sold to his brother one-half
of the farm, and with the proceeds purchased a large flock of the
best Ohio sheep, and drove them to California, taking two years
for the journey. He was fond of telling his adventures, and proud
of his success. He died a few years since in California, but
whether his good fortune followed him to the close of his life I
do not know. He was very kind to our party and accompanied us to
San Diego.

From San Francisco we made a trip to the Mariposa Grove, and the
Yosemite valley. We traveled by rail to a small station nearest
the grove. Then by stage we rode to the terminus of the line.
From there we went but a short distance to the grove. This majestic
survivor of the forest has been so often been described that details
are not necessary. We measured the trees, and rode on horseback
nearly one hundred feet through one of the fallen monsters. We
also attempted to form a ring with hands and arms extended around
one of these trees, but our party was not numerous enough to encircle
it. I felt a sense of insignificance when I realized the long life
of some of these trees, estimated to span forty generations of men,
and still in health and strength. We returned to the stage station
and again mounted our horses and mules for the perilous adventure
of a descent into the Yosemite valley. It so happened that Mr.
Bell, the keeper of the station, was a former resident of Bellville,
in Richland county, Ohio, in which I live. He knew me well, and
his wife I knew as the daughter of a leading farmer of that county.
I thought I might utilize this acquaintance by asking him to see
that I was well mounted to descend to the valley. Much to my
surprise a spirited horse, well accoutered, was brought out for
Colonel Scott, and a shaggy short-legged mule, with a California
saddle and a common but stout bridle, was brought out for me. I
felt that Bell had disregarded the obligation of "auld acquaintance,"
but said nothing.

My mount started at the heels of the cavalcade in a steady walk,
but I noticed he was sure-footed, and that, at the end of two or
three weary hours, he had passed most of the party and soon after
was close in the wake of Colonel Scott. In the meantime, I had
noticed that I was the subject of merriment. My feet were in close
proximity to the ground. The length of my legs was out of proportion
to that of the legs of the mule. When we came to descend the
mountain, however, at an angle of nearly forty-five degrees, on a
very narrow path, I found that my mule could turn the bends of the
track, and, by a peculiar gathering of his feet, could slide down
difficult places, while Colonel Scott, on his already jaded horse,
was troubled and worried. He dismounted when the path widened and
asked me to go ahead. He then followed me, leading his horse.
After that, I made up my mind that my Richland county friend had
not failed me in my hour of need.

As for the scenery through which we were passing, no language could
describe it. We saw, four thousand feet below, a beautiful little
valley about half a mile wide at the widest part, with what appeared
to be a very small stream dancing along from side to side of the
valley, and surrounded by precipitous mountains in every direction.
The eye and mind can now vividly recall the picture of the scenes
than around me. My mule had my confidence, but I feared lest some
fatal mishap might befall some of my companions, and especially I
feared for a lady who ventured the journey, but she fortunately
displayed pluck and coolness, and at the end of the day we all
arrived at the hut in the valley safe and sound, but very weary.
Since that time, I understand that a good road has been made up
the valley, by which tourists can enjoy the grandest scenery in
nature, without the risk we took.

We enjoyed a hearty supper of plain food, and a sound sleep on corn-
husk mattresses. The next day we explored the valley, and enjoyed
the changing views of near and distant mountains. These have often
been described, but they can only be appreciated by a personal
visit. We left the valley by another route to the north, and
reached the railroad by a different line of stages.

Returning to San Francisco, we took the boat for San Diego, stopping,
on the way, at Santa Barbara and San Pedro. From this place we
drove to Los Angeles, then a typical Mexican town of great interest.
The good people hoped for the railroad, but Colonel Scott expected
the road of which he was president would be able to reach San Diego.

Our arrival at San Diego was an event of interest to the few people
of that town. We inspected the remarkable harbor and the surrounding
country. It was apparently a good site for a great city. Fresh
water was the great want and rain-falls were rare, but it was
claimed that an ample supply of water could be had from the hills.
The real obstacle to that site, as a terminus for the railroad,
was the mountains east of San Diego, which, upon a survey, were
found to be extremely difficult, and this turned the route to Los
Angeles, over natural passes and through the beautiful region of
San Bernardino.

We returned, by boat, to San Francisco, and soon after turned our
way eastward. We stopped at Reno, and went by rail to Carson City,
the capital of Nevada. It was then an embryo town. From there we
went to Lake Tahoe, one of the finest bodies of water on the earth.
Its clear, cold waters filled a natural basin in the midst of the
Nevada range of mountains, which was supplied by the melting snows.
We then returned to Carson City, ascended, by rail, an inclined
plane of high grade, to Virginia City. Most of the party descended
into the mines, but I was prevented from doing so by an attack of
neuralgia, a complaint from which I never suffered before or since,
caused, as it was said, by the high altitude and thin air. Here
I met several natives of Ohio, who had sought their fortunes in
the far west. They were very kind to the party and to myself. It
got to be a common remark, that Ohio has everything good in the
west. I could answer that they all seemed to deserve what they
had. I was disposed to be proud of them and of my native state,
but soon after, on the way east, we heard of an atrocious murder
committed by two Ohio men. This turned the tables on my native
state, and I was compelled to confess that bad men came from Ohio
as well as from other states; but, if so, Ohio people excelled in
the atrocity of their crimes as well as in the excellence of their
merits!

Our next stopping place was at Salt Lake City. Whatever opinion
we may have of the religious creed and dogmas of the Mormons, we
cannot deny the industry and courage of that sect in building up
a city in a wilderness where natural conditions seemed to forbid
all hope of success in such an enterprise. And yet there it was,
a well-ordered city laid out with squares, avenues, streets, and
reservations for schools, churches and other public uses, with
water introduced in great abundance. All the needs of city life
were provided, such as stores, markets and shops. We were invited
by the delegate to Congress, from Utah, to call on Brigham Young,
and did so. He was a large, well-built man, then about sixty years
old. He took great interest in the enterprise of Colonel Scott
and seemed familiar with all the railways built or projected in
the western country. There was nothing in his conversation or
manner that indicated the "crank," nor did he exhibit any of the
signs of a zealot or fanatic. He made no allusions to his creed
or the habits of his followers and betrayed no egotism or pride.
He has died since but the organization he left behind him is still
in existence, and the Mormon faith is still the creed and guide of
the great body of those who followed Brigham Young into the
wilderness, and of their numerous descendants. It is to be hoped
that the government and people of the United States will let the
Mormons severely alone, allowing them to believe what they will,
and to do in the way of worship what they choose. In this way only
can their confidence in alleged revelations be shaken, and Mormonism
will disappear among the many vain attempts of humanity to explore
the mysteries of life and death. Persecution never weakens delusions,
nor disturbs faith, however ignorant and groundless.

From Salt Lake our party went to Cheyenne and thence to Denver.
This city was growing rapidly and was plainly destined to be the
principal center of the mineral development of several states. I
had, on a previous trip, visited the interesting region of the
"Garden of the Gods," Colorado Springs and Pike's Peak. Our party
left Denver for home. On the long stretch via Kansas City, St.
Louis and Indianapolis we saw nothing new, as we were traveling
over familiar ground. It was early in September, when corn, the
great western staple, was approaching maturity, and the earth was
giving forth its increase. We were crossing the largest and perhaps
most fertile valley of the world. All of it had been redeemed from
nature and the Indians, within one hundred years. During our trip
we had passed through great cities, prosperous towns and amidst
wonderful scenery. All of the route except through the Yosemite
valley was passed over in a palace car. The ocean voyage was in
a steamboat even more luxurious then the palace car. All this
rapid development did not satisfy the desire of Colonel Scott and
Mr. Walters. Their minds were occupied with vast railroad projects,
some of which were accomplished before their death. I also had my
dreams but they related to public policies rather than internal
improvements and some of these have been realized.

I was awakened one bright morning in September and told that the
car was in Ohio. This was enough to drive sleep from my eyelids.
I looked out upon the rich lands of the Miami valley, the comfortable
homesteads on every farm, the fat cattle and herds of sheep, the
broad fields of yellow corn, and every sign of fertility. All
these, and perhaps a little admixture of state pride, led me to
say that, after all, the people of Ohio need not go beyond the
bounds of that state with any hope to improve their condition or
to secure a better opportunity for a happy life. I soon parted
with my friends with sincere regrets, for in our journeyings we
were in truth a happy family.

The canvass in Ohio was then progressing for the election of a
President and Members of Congress, in which I was expected, as
usual, to take a part. The strange anomaly of Horace Greeley
running on a Democratic ticket was enough in itself to excite
opposition, especially in the southern states. The result was that
General Grant, in November, 1872, was elected President by 31 states
with 286 electoral votes. Greeley died after the election, and
before the electors voted, so that no electoral vote was counted
for him. If he had lived he would probably have received 60
electoral votes.

CHAPTER XXIV.
THE PANIC OF 1873 AND ITS RESULTS.
Failure of Jay Cooke and Co.--Wild Schemes "for the Relief of the
People"--Congress Called Upon for Help--Finance Committee's Report
for the Redemption of United States Notes in Coin--Extracts from
My Speech in Favor of the Report--Bill to Fix the Amount of United
States Notes--Finally Passed by the Senate and House--Vetoed by
President Grant and Failure to Pass Over His Objection--General
Effect Throughout the Country of the Struggle for Resumption--
Imperative Necessity for Providing Some Measure of Relief.

During the first four years of General Grant's administration the
financial condition of the United States was eminently prosperous.
The total reduction of the national debt, from the 1st of March,
1869, to the 1st of November, 1873, was $383,629,783, the annual
saving of interest resulting therefrom being $27,432,932. During
this period the value of United States notes compared with coin
steadily increased. The funding of the six per cent. bonds into
five per cent. bonds, under the refunding act, continued at the
rate of about $85,000,000 a year. The credit of the United States
steadily advanced during this period, so that the Secretary of the
Treasury, in his report of 1873, stated that it had not stood higher
since the close of the Rebellion than it did at that time. This
improvement of the public credit was accompanied with a large
reduction of internal taxes and duties on imported goods. The
business of the country was prosperous, the increase and extension
of railroads and the development of new industries was marked,
indicating great prosperity.

All this was subsequently changed by the happening of a panic in
September, 1873. The cause of this was attributed to over-trading,
to the expansion of credits, and to rash investment made in advance
of public needs. This panic commenced by the failure of Jay Cooke
& Co., of Philadelphia, an enterprising firm of high standing, then
engaged in selling the bonds of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company. I was engaged at that time, with a committee of the
Senate, of which William Windom was chairman, in examining many
plans of public improvements, especially in the increase of facilities
for water transportation at the mouth of the Mississippi river,
and at the great lakes on our northern boundary, improvements since
then made with great benefit to the commerce of the United States.
Roscoe Conkling, of New York, was a member of that committee. We
were at Buffalo when the failure of Cooke & Co. was announced. We
all felt that for the present, at least, our duties as a committee
were at an end. The panic spread so that in a month all industries
were in a measure suspended. The wildest schemes for relief were
proposed, in and out of Congress. The panic spread to the banks,
which were compelled in self-defense to call in their loans, to
withhold their circulating notes, and contract their business. As
usual on the happening of such a panic, an appeal was made to the
treasury for relief, a demand was made for an increase in the volume
of the United States notes, and that the Secretary of the Treasury
should use the money of the government to buy exchange.

The New York Produce Exchange applied to the Secretary of the
Treasury on the 29th of September, 1873, in resolutions, as follows:

"Whereas, The critical condition of the commercial interests of
the country requires immediate relief by the removal of the block
in negotiating foreign exchange; therefore be it

"_Resolved_, That we respectfully suggest to the Secretary of the
Treasury the following plans for relief in this extraordinary
emergency:

"First, That currency be immediately issued to banks or bankers,
upon satisfactory evidence that gold has been placed upon special
deposit in the Bank of England, by their correspondents in London,
to the credit of the United States, to be used solely in purchasing
commercial bills of exchange.

"Second, That the President of the United States and the Secretary
of the Treasury are respectfully requested to order the immediate
prepayment of the outstanding loan of the United States due January
1, 1874."

This request had, as a matter of course, to be denied. But the
secretary did purchase $13,000,000 of bonds for the sinking fund,
to the full extent the condition of the treasury allowed. It is
difficult to realize or to convey by description the wild ideas
developed by such a panic. The government for the time being is
expected to provide a remedy for a condition it did not create,
but, instead of aiding, the government is most likely to need aid.
The revenues from importations fell off and the value of United
States notes declined.

When Congress convened in December, 1873, the wildest schemes for
relief to the people were proposed. A large increase of United
States notes was demanded. More than sixty bills, resolutions and
propositions were introduced in the Senate in respect to the
currency, the public debt and national banks, all bearing upon the
financial condition of the country, expressing every variety of
opinion, from immediate coin payments to the wildest inflation of
irredeemable paper money. All these were referred to the committee
on finance, then composed as follows: Messrs. Sherman (chairman),
Morrill, of Vermont, Scott, Wright, Ferry, of Michigan, Fenton and
Bayard.

The several measures referred to the committee were taken up and
considered, but the same wide divergence of opinion was developed
in the committee as existed outside of Congress among the people.

The majority of the committee reported to the Senate the following
resolution:

"_Resolved_, That it is the duty of Congress during its present
session to adopt definite measures to redeem the pledge made in
the act approved March 18, 1869, entitled 'An act to strengthen
the public credit,' as follows: 'And the United States also pledges
its faith to make provision, at the earliest practicable period,
for the redemption of United States notes in coin;' and the committee
on finance is directed to report to the Senate, at as early a day
as practicable, such measures as will not only redeem the pledge
of the public faith, but will also furnish a currency of uniform
value, always redeemable in gold or its equivalent, and so adjusted
as to meet the changing wants of trade and commerce."

Mr. Ferry, of Michigan, a member of the committee, offered the
following substitute for the pending resolution:

"That the committee on finance is directed to report to the Senate,
at as early a day as practicable, such measures as will restore
commercial confidence and give stability and elasticity to the
circulating medium through a moderate increase of currency."

Upon these adverse propositions a long debate followed without
practical results. I made a long speech on the 16th day of January,
1874, in favor of the resolution of the committee. I then said:

"At the outset of my remarks I wish to state some general propositions
established by experience, and the concurring opinions of all
writers on political economy. They may not be disputed, but are
constantly overlooked. They ought to be ever present in this
discussion as axioms, the truth of which has been so often proven
that proof is no longer requisite.

"The most obvious of these axioms, which lies at the foundation of
the argument I wish to make to-day, is that a specie standard is
the best and the only true standard of all values, recognized as
such by all civilized nations of our generation, and established
as such by the experience of all commercial nations that have
existed from the earliest period of recorded time. While the United
States, as well as all other nations, have for a time, under the
pressure of war or other calamity, been driven to establish other
standards of value, yet they have all been impelled to return to
the true standard; and even while other standards of value have
been legalized for the time, specie has measured their value as it
now measures the value of our legal tender notes.

"This axiom is as immutable as the law of gravitation or the laws
of the planetary system, and every device to evade it or avoid it
has, by its failure, only demonstrated the universal law that specie
measures all values as certainly as the surface of the ocean measures
the level of the earth.

"It is idle for us to try to discuss with intelligence the currency
question until we are impressed with the truth, the universality,
and the immutability, of this axiom. Many of the crude ideas now
advanced spring from ignoring it. The most ingenious sophistries
are answered by it. It is the governing principle of finance. It
is proved by experience, is stated clearly by every leading writer
on political economy, and is now here, in our own country, proving
its truth by measuring daily the value of our currency and of all
we have or produce. I might, to establish this axiom, repeat the
history of finance, from the shekels of silver, 'current money with
the merchant,' paid by Abraham, to the last sale of stock in New
York. I might quote Aristotle and Pliny, as well as all the writers
on political economy of our own time, and trace the failure of the
innumerable efforts to establish some other standard of value, from
the oxen that measured the value of the armor of Homeric heroes to
the beautifully engraved promise of our day; but this would only
be the hundred-times-told tale which every student may find recorded,
not only in schoolbooks, but in the writings of Humboldt, Chevalier,
Adam Smith, and others of the most advanced scientific authorities.
They all recognize the precious metals as the universal standard
of value. Neither governments, nor parliaments, nor congresses
can change this law. It defies every form of authority, but silently
and surely asserts itself as a law of necessity, beyond the
jurisdiction of municipal law.

* * * * *

"Of late years much difficulty has grown out of the slightly varying
value of silver and gold, as compared with each other, and the
tendency of opinion has been to adopt gold alone as the standard
of value. The United States has twice changed the relative value
of these metals, and other modern nations have been driven to
similar expedients. At the Paris monetary conference, held in
1867, which I had the honor to attend, the delegates of twenty
nations represented agreed to recommend gold alone as the standard
of value. The United States, and nearly all the commercial nations,
have adopted this standard, and reduced the use of silver to a mere
token coinage of less intrinsic value than gold, but maintained at
par with gold by the right to be converted into gold at the will
of the holder. So that for all practical purposes we may regard
gold as the only true standard, the true money of the world, by
which the value of all property, of all productions, of all credits,
and of every medium of exchange, and especially of all paper money,
is tested.

"Specie, in former times, was not only the universal standard of
value, but it was the general medium of all exchanges. In modern
times this is greatly changed. Specie is still the universal
standard of value, but it has ceased to be even the usual medium
of exchange. The failure to distinguish between the standard of
value and the medium of exchanges occasions many of the errors into
which so many fall, and nearly every Senator who has spoken on one
side of the question has fallen into this error. Specie has lost
a portion of its sovereign power, for with the enormous increase
of exchanges it was found that, valuable as it is, it is too heavy
to transport from place to place as a medium of exchange. The
perils of the sea, the dangers of theft and robbery, led to devices
to substitute promises to pay gold in place of the actual gold.

* * * * *

"Mr. president, thus far my remarks are founded upon the experience
of ages, applicable to all countries and to all commercial nations
of our time. I present them now as axioms of universal recognition.
And yet I have heard these axioms denounced in this debate as
'platitudes,' useless for this discussion in the Senate of the
United States. The wisdom of ages, the experience of three thousand
years, the writings of political economists, are whistled down the
wind as if we in the Senate were wiser than all who have reasoned
and thought and legislated upon financial problems--that all this
accumulated wisdom consists of 'platitudes' unworthy to influence
an American Senate in the consideration of the affairs of our day
and generation.

"Sir, I do not think so. If we disregard these 'platitudes,' we
only demonstrate our own ignorance and punish our constituents with
evils that we ought to avoid. I purpose now to pursue the argument
further, and to prove that we are bound, both by public faith and
good policy, to bring our currency to the gold standard; that such
a result was provided for by the financial policy adopted when the
currency was authorized; that a departure from this policy was
adopted after the war was over, and after the necessity for a
depreciated currency ceased; and that we have only to restore the
old policy to bring us safely, surely, and easily to a specie
standard.

"First, I present to you the pledge of the United States to pay
these notes in coin 'at the earliest practicable period.' In the
'act to strengthen the public credit,' passed on the 18th day of
March, 1869, I find this obligation:

'And the United States also solemnly pledges its public faith to
make provision, at the earliest practicable period, for the redemption
of the United States notes in coin.'

* * * * *

"The Congress of the United States, in order to put into form its
sense of this obligation, passed the act 'to strengthen the public
credit,' and the last and most important clause of this act is the
promise which I have just read, that these notes should be paid,
'at the earliest practicable period,' in coin.

* * * * *

"On the day we made that promise, the 18th of March, 1869, the
greenbacks, the notes of the United States, were worth 75¾ cents
in gold; or in other words, gold was at a premium of thirty-two
per cent. . . . What was the result? After you enacted that law--
the faith of the people of the United States that you would redeem
this pledge--the value of your greenbacks advanced, not rapidly,
but gradually, and in one year, to within twelve per cent. of par
in gold.

* * * * *

"Mr. president, we see, then, the effect of this promise. And I
here come to what I regard as a painful feature to discuss--how
have we redeemed our promise? It was Congress that made it, in
obedience to the public voice; and no act of Congress ever met with
a more hearty and generous approbation. But I say to you, with
sorrow, that Congress has done no single act the tendency of which
has been to advance the value of these notes to a gold standard;
and I shall make that clearer before I get through. Congress made
this promise five years ago. The people believed it and business
men believed it. Four years have passed away since then, and your
dollar in greenbacks is worth no more to-day than it was on the
18th of March, 1870; and no act of yours has even tended to advance
the value of that greenback to par in gold, while every affirmative
act of yours since that time has tended to depreciate its value
and to violate your promise.

* * * * *

"Every bond that was issued was issued only upon the sacred pledge
contained in this act, that the interest of that bond should be
paid in coin; and the principal should be paid, when due, in coin.
The fifth section of the act provides that all duties on imported
goods shall be paid in coin; and that this money shall be set aside
as a special fund to pay the interest on the bonded debt in coin.
Then, in order to secure the greenbacks, it authorized any holder
of greenbacks to pay any government debt with them; it authorized
the holder of greenbacks to pay any debt, public or private, with
them; and every citizen of the United States was bound to take
them. Then it authorized them to be converted into six per cent.
bonds of the United States--those bonds payable, principal and
interest, in gold. If the policy provided for by this act had been
maintained, we would long since have been at specie payments,
without any serious disturbance of our monetary affairs.

* * * * *

"Now, Mr. president, I come to show the Senate how this provision,
the convertible clause of the act of February 25, 1862, was repealed.
On the 3rd of March, 1863, Congress passed 'An act to provide ways
and means for the support of the government.' This act was passed
during the dark hours of the war. The currency of the country did
not flow into the treasury rapidly enough to pay our army. I
remember that at about the time this act was passed there were very
large unpaid requisitions. The Secretary of the Treasury, instead
of issuing any more six per cent. bonds, desired to float a 10-40
five per cent. bond; in other words, to reduce the burden of interest
upon the public debt. At this time there were three hundred millions
of circulation outstanding, and with all the rights, and all the
privileges, conferred upon the greenbacks, they did not flow into
the treasury fast enough to furnish means to carry on the operations
of the war.

* * * * *

"In other words, the suspension of this convertibility clause was
passed with a view to promote conversion; to encourage conversion;
to induce conversion; and, if possible, to induce a conversion into
a five per cent. gold bond instead of into a six per cent. bond.
When the Secretary of the Treasury presented this view to Congress
he was at once met with the pledge of the public faith; with the
promise printed upon the back of the greenbacks that they could be
converted into six per cent. bonds at the pleasure of the holder;
and that we could not take away that right. This difficulty was
met by the ingenuity of the then Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer).
He said that no man ever exercised a right which could not properly
be barred by a statute of limitations; and if this right was
injurious to the people of the United States, and prevented the
conversion of these notes into bonds, we might require the holder
of these notes to convert them within a given time; that we could
give them a reasonable time within which they could convert them
into six per cent. bonds, and after that take away the right.

"The act of March 3, 1863, was amended by inserting this clause:

'And the holders of United States notes, issued under or by virtue
of said acts, shall present the same for the purpose of exchanging
the same for bonds, as therein provided, on or before the 1st day
of July, 1863; and thereafter the right so to exchange the same
shall cease and determine.'

* * * * *

"Now, Mr. president, I have shown you that the greenbacks were
based upon coin bonds; that they had the right to be converted into
coin bonds; that that right was taken away as to the 5-20 bonds;
but that, in practice and in effect, the greenback was convertible
into an interest-bearing bond of the United States up to 1866, and
until the passage of the law to which I will now refer.

* * * * *

"If this act had contained a simple provision restoring to the
holder of the greenback the right to convert his note into bonds
there would have been no trouble. Why should it not have been
done? Simply because the then Secretary of the Treasury believed
that the only way to advance the greenbacks was by reducing the
amount of them; that the only way to get back to specie payments
was by the system of contraction. If the legal tender notes could
have been wedded to any form of gold bond by being made convertible
into it, they would have been lifted, by the gradual advance of
our public credit, to par in gold, leaving the question of contraction
to depend upon the amount of notes needed for currency. Sir, it
was the separation of our greenbacks from the funding system that
created the difficulty we have upon our hands to-day; and I say
now that, in my judgment, the only true way to approach specie
payments is to restore this principle, and give to the holder of
the greenback, who is your creditor, the same right that you give
to any other creditor. If he has a note which you promised to pay
and cannot, and he desires interest on that note by surrendering
it, why should you not give it to him? No man can answer that.
It is just as much a debt as any other portion of the debt of the
United States."

Finally, after more than three months study and debate, a majority
of the committee agreed upon a measure and directed me to report
it to the Senate. It fixed the maximum limit of the United States
notes at $382,000,000. It provided for a gradual payment of these
notes in coin or in five per cent. bonds, at the option of the
Secretary of the Treasury, from the 1st of January, 1876. It was
entitled "An act to provide for the redemption and reissue of United
States notes and for free banking."

In obedience to the instructions of the committee, on the 23rd of
March, 1874, I reported the bill as an original measure, and said:

"It is due to the members of the committee on finance that I should
say that the bill which I have just reported, as it appears on its
face, is in the nature of a compromise measure, which is more or
less acceptable all around, but at the same time there are certain
features of the bill which members of the committee on finance will
feel at liberty to express their opposition to, and also to propose
amendments to. It is due to them that I should make this statement.
The bill itself, as appears on its face, is the result of great
labor, long consideration, and the consequence of compromise. In
many cases we were not able, however, to reconcile conflicting
opinions; and on those points, of course, members of the committee
will feel themselves at liberty to oppose certain features of the
bill."

Mr. Thurman said:

"I should like to inquire of my colleague whether he proposes to-
day or to-morrow, when he makes the motion that he indicated, to
state what, in the opinion of the committee reporting this bill,
will be its practical effect, so that we may have the views of the
committee as to the workings of the bill should it become a law.
I am sure I, for one, should like very much to know what the
committee, who have devoted so much time to this subject, think
will be the practical working of the measure, at any time that it
suits the convenience of the chairman of the committee to make such
statement."

I replied:

"When the subject is introduced, if it be convenient, to-morrow,
I propose to make a very brief statement of the effect of each
section, as we understand it; but I do not intend, by any long
speeches or any remarks, to prolong this matter unnecessarily. I
have expressed my own individual views, and each member of the
committee, I suppose, stands to the opinion expressed by him in
the speeches he has made in the Senate--speeches that were carefully
considered, and by which the position of each Senator was stated;
but undoubtedly I shall feel it my duty, when the bill is called
up, to state what I regard as the actual practical effect of these
different propositions; and some of them, I will now say, I assented
to with great reluctance."

On the next day the bill was taken up in the Senate, and I then
stated the general provisions of the bill. I insert extracts from
my speech, which indicate the difficulties we encountered:

"Mr. president, some complaint has been made in the Senate and in
the country at the delay in the presentation, by the committee on
finance, of some bill covering the financial question; but a moment's
reflection will, I am sure, convince every Senator that there has
been no fault on the part of that committee. From the beginning
of the session to this hour that committee, under the direction of
the Senate, has been studying and discussing the various plans and
propositions which were referred to the committee; and I may say
that over sixty different propositions, either coming in the form
of petitions or in the form of bills, have been sent to the committee,
all of these suggesting different plans and ideas. It was impossible
to consider all these and to agree upon any comprehensive measures
until within a day or two.

"There was another consideration. The committee found itself
divided in opinion, precisely as the country is, and precisely as
the Senate is, into as many as three different classes of opinion.
There were, first, those who desired to take a definite and positive
step toward the resumption of specie payments. There were, second,
those who desired an enlargement of the currency, or what we commonly
call an inflation of the currency. There were, third, those who,
while willing to see the amount of bank notes increased and the
question of the legal tender settled in some form, were also desirous
that some definite step should be taken toward a specie standard.
There were these differences of opinion.

"For the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Senate, and not
involving ourselves in reporting a bill that would be defeated as
the bill of the last session was, we presented, early in the session,
resolutions of a general character which stated these three ideas:
First, the resolution of the majority of the committee that some
definite step should be taken toward specie payments. Then there
was the amendment offered by the gentleman who now occupies the
chair [Mr. Ferry, of Michigan], that there ought to be an increase
of the currency without reference to any plan of redemption. Third,
there was the proposition made by the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
Bayard], that measures should be taken at once looking to the
resumption of specie payments.

"These propositions were discussed, and the committee were enlightened
by that discussion; at least they obtained the opinions of Members
of the Senate. Subsequently, in the course of our investigation,
a question about the $25,000,000 section (section 6 of the act of
July 12, 1870) came up, and the committee deemed it right, by a
unanimous vote, to ascertain the sense of the Senate as to whether
they wished this section carried into execution. As it stood upon
the statute book it was a law without force. It was a law so
expressed that the comptroller said he could not execute it.
Therefore the committee reported a bill which would have provided
the necessary details to carry into execution that section of the
existing law. But in the present temper of the public mind, in
the Senate and in the country, that bill was discussed, and has
been discussed day after day, without approaching the question at
all. During all this time the committee have been pursuing their
inquiries, and finally they have reported the bill which is now
before us.

"The measure that is reported is not a satisfactory one to any of
us in all its details. Probably it is not such as the mind of any
single Member of the Senate would propose. It is in the nature of
a compromise bill, and therefore, while it has the strength of a
compromise bill, it has also the weakness of a compromise bill.
There are ideas in it which, while meeting the views of a majority,
taken separately will be opposed by others. I am quite sure I say
nothing new to the Senate when I say it does not in all respects
meet my own views. But there is a necessity for us to yield some
of our opinions. We cannot reconcile or pass any measure that will
be satisfactory to the country unless we do so. Any positive
victory by either extreme of this controversy will be an absolute
injury to the business of the country. Therefore, any measure that
is adopted ought to be so moderate, pursuing such a middle course,
such a middle ground, that it will give satisfaction to the country.
It must be taken as a whole; and therefore the effect of amending
this proposition will be simply to destroy it. If an amendment in
the direction of expansion is inserted, it will drive away some
who would be willing to support it as is. If an amendment in the
way of contraction is proposed and carried by a majority of the
Senate, it will drive away those who might be willing to take this
measure as a compromise. The only question before the Senate now
is, whether this is a fair compromise between the ideas that have
divided the people of this country and the Members of the Senate;
whether it will surely improve our currency while giving the relief
that is hoped for by a moderate increase of the currency. Now I
ask the secretary to read the first section of the bill."

The chief clerk read section 1, as follows:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the maximum
limit of United States notes is hereby fixed at $382,000,000, at
which amount it shall remain until reduced as hereinafter provided."

I then continued:

"It is manifest to every Senator that the initial step in this
controversy is to fix the aggregate limit of United States notes.
The United States notes, although they are very popular, and justly
so, in this country, are at this moment inconvertible; they are
irredeemable, and they are depreciated. These are facts admitted
on all hands. In making that statement I do not intend at all to
deny that the United States notes have served a great and useful
purpose; and though I was here at the birth of them and advocated
them in all stages of their history, yet I am compelled to say at
this moment, twelve years after their issue, that they are
inconvertible; they are irredeemable; and they are depreciated this
day at the rate of twelve per cent. They have been legally
inconvertible since July 1, 1863, and practically inconvertible
since the close of the war; that is, the government refuses to
receive them, either in payment of customs or in payment at par of
any bond of the United States offered by it. They are irredeemable
on their very face. They have depreciated almost from the date of
their issue, at one time being worth only forty cents in gold, and
to-day only worth ninety cents. That is the condition of the United
States notes.

"Now, there is another thing admitted by all Senators. I do not
trespass on any disputed ground when I say that every addition to
the volume of these notes, while they thus stand depreciated,
irredeemable, and inconvertible, is as certain to further depreciate
them, as it is that to pour water into an overflowing bucket will
cause it still more to overflow; as certain as the law of gravitation;
as certain as anything human or divine. It is equally true that
any contraction of this currency, any withdrawal of the amount of
it, is undoubtedly an appreciation of its value, making it nearer
and nearer to the standard of gold.

"This is so plain a proposition that it is not necessary to discuss
it; and the whole people of the country understand it; the plainest
and simplest people understand it as well as the wisest. Those
who desire to increase prices, to start and put in operation new
enterprises, desire an increase of the currency without any plan
of redemption. Those, on the other hand, who want to get back to
the specie standard, to appreciate the value of these notes, desire
to withdraw them, get them out of the way, or give new uses and
new values to them so as to advance them nearer and nearer the
standard of gold. Therefore it is that I say the very first step
at the outset of this controversy is to settle what is the legal
limit of these notes; how many are there now authorized by law;
how many are there outstanding. And here it is a strange thing
that on this very point, a purely legal question, the most important
one in our financial discussion, there is a great difference of
opinion. There ought not to be uncertainty or room for a difference
of opinion upon a question of this kind. It ought to be settled.
On the one hand it is insisted by Senators who compose the majority
of the committee on finance that the legal limit of United States
notes is $356,000,000; that the amount which has been already
issued, of what is known as the $44,000,000 reserve, was unlawfully
issued, although under great press of circumstances and without
any intention on the part of the secretary to do more than he
thought he had a lawful right to do. On the other hand it is
insisted by other Senators that the legal limit of United States
notes is $400,000,000; and here is a margin of $44,000,000 upon
which there is a dispute of law as to the power of the secretary
to issue it. That dispute ought to be settled at once. It is a
question that ought not to be in doubt a moment, because the power
to issue that $44,000,000 places it in the discretion of the
Secretary of the Treasury either to advance or to lower the value
of all property in the United States, of all debts in the United
States, of everything that is measured by United States notes.

"Should we undertake to say that the secretary did wrong in exceeding
the limit at $356,000,000? A majority of the committee believe
that that is now the legal limit, and believe it conscientiously.
But should be undertake to fix that as the legal limit? Twenty-
six million dollars of the $44,000,000 are outstanding. They are
now issued; they are now a part of the currency of the country.
They are just as much the currency as that which was issued before.
You cannot distinguish between them. You cannot say which of the
$382,000,000 now outstanding is legal and which is illegal. So
far as the United States are concerned, they are all debts of the
United States which we are bound to pay, whether they have been
issued legally or illegally. I do not understand even my friend
from Delaware to dispute the duty and obligation of the United
States to pay these notes, even if they have been illegally issued.
There can be no question about it. It is impossible to distinguish
between them. The only question is whether our agent exceeded his
authority or not. Therefore, without raising the question as to
the legality of this issue, reserving to each Senator his own
opinion on the subject, we have adopted as the _status quo_
$382,000,000, the amount now outstanding; and we recognize that
amount as the maximum legal obligation of the United States in the
form of notes, and we propose upon that basis to erect our
superstructure. We therefore say that we will raise no question
as to the mode of retiring the $26,000,000; we will simply say that
the amount now outstanding shall never be exceeded. That is a
recognition, at least, that they are outstanding lawfully and
properly; at any rate, so far as the obligation of the United States
to pay them is concerned.

"Mr. president, a limit ought to be fixed. But there is a difference
of opinion as to what should be the limit. If I had the power to
fix this limit I should say that the limit which was fixed by the
old law should remain at $356,000,000; and I would provide a mode
and manner of issuing United States bonds to retire the $26,000,000
slowly and gradually, without disturbing the ordinary business of
the country. I would thereby seek to recover the ground we have
lost by what has occurred since the panic, and go back to the
standard prior to that time. But I know that would be very difficult;
that would involve an increase of the bonded debt. Our revenues
are not sufficient to call in this $26,000,000. We have no surplus
revenue now as we had a year or two ago. We could only do it by
the issue of bonds, and the process itself would be a very hard
one. Besides, it is probable that public opinion and the judgment
of Congress would not sustain such a proposition; and therefore it
is hardly worth while to recommend it. We assume, therefore, that
the $382,000,000 is the present limit, and we say that shall be
the maximum limit.

* * * * *

"I said it was a compromise by the committee. I speak of a majority
of the committee. As a matter of course my friend is at liberty
to dissent from any of its propositions. On question of this kind
committees are very rarely unanimous; but I will say that on this
point a very decided majority of the committee concurred in the
section.

"To the second section I wish to invite the careful and earnest
attention of the Senate. This section is an honest effort to deal
with the great problem of redemption. Every Senator who has spoken
contemplates that a time must come when all the United States notes
must be redeemed in coin. The public faith of the United States
is so pledged. The notes were issued with the understanding that
they should be paid in coin. No man could survive politically in
this country who would declare that it was his purpose never to
pay these notes in coin. My friend who now presides [Mr. Ferry,
of Michigan], speaks always of his measure of inflation as a means
of bringing about at some time specie payments; and I will say that
in the Senate I have not heard any Senator deny that it is the duty
of the United States at some time to pay these notes in coin. In
all this discussion there is at least that one point agreed upon.
If I state this too strongly I hope I will be here corrected.

"Now, Mr. president, how shall it be done, and when shall it be
done? I say that now, nine years after the close of our Civil War,
twelve years after these notes have been authorized and issued,
five years after the dominant party has declared its purpose to
pay them at the earliest day practicable, there should be no longer
delay. The United States ought to do something toward the fulfillment
of that pledge and the performance of that duty. There must be
something very peculiar in the condition of our country that will
justify a longer delay; a longer procrastination in the performance
of this solemn pledge, this public policy--our own political
obligation.

"Mr. president, this section is the result of the patient consideration
of the committee on finance as to how this result is to be brought
about; and upon this very section there is most likely to be a
contrariety and difference of opinion among Senators, because the
mode and manner of redemption is the thing which has excited the
public mind and upon which men all over the country differ. I
wish, therefore, to deal with this question. We have got to pay
these notes in coin. The time when is not defined by the law.
Are we prepared now to fix a day when we will pay these notes in
coin? If the condition of our country was such as to justify it,
I would greatly prefer fixing the time when these notes should be
paid in coin; but I am disposed to agree with what has been stated
by the Senator from Indiana, and by other Senators, that in the
present condition of our coinage, the present condition of our
foreign trade, we are not prepared to fix a definite day when we
will pay in coin. Why? I find, by reference to official documents,
that we now have in gold and silver coin in this country about
$140,000,000. This statement of Dr. Linderman does not include
the bullion on hand. How much that is I am not prepared to state.
The whole amount of gold and silver coin in the country, however,
is about $140,000,000. Some of that is in circulation in the
Pacific states, but the bulk of it is in the treasury of the United
States, the property of individuals and the property of the United
States. The total annual production of gold and silver in this
country cannot be estimated at over $70,000,000; and heretofore,
at least $50,000,000 of this has been exported over and above the
amount that has been imported. The balance of trade has been
against us; and although I do not regard that as entering much into
the calculation, yet it is a fact that until recently, perhaps,
the balance of trade has been against us. The annual coinage of
the United States for the last year or two has been largely
increasing, and last year the coinage of the United States was
$38,689,183, besides stamping into fine bars, which operate as a
kind of coinage, of $27,517,000. So that there has been in fact
converted, of gold and silver, into coin, or bars stamped by the
United States, $66,000,000 during the last year, showing a use and
employment of gold in this country that is now rapidly increasing.

"But still this state of affairs would not justify us in saying
that we are prepared to declare a resumption of specie payments
absolutely upon the basis of $800,000,000 of paper money, including
our fractional currency. I am, therefore, not prepared to say that
the United States can, on a fixed day, within a reasonable time--
within such a time as would give confidence in our ability to
perform it--say that we will absolutely redeem our notes in coin.

"I know that Senators here, for whose opinion I have the highest
respect, who are probably more sanguine of our ability and capacity
to do this than I am--many of those who have agreed with me and co-
operated with me--think we are able and strong enough to fix the
time for the absolute resumption of specie payments; but I have
always doubted it. Indeed I have thought there was a better way
to reach the great result. But if we cannot fix the time when we
will redeem in coin, can we not give additional value to our United
States noes, so as to gradually appreciate them to the coin standard,
and thus advance toward specie payments if we cannot reach the
goal? Because we cannot accomplish all that we have agreed to do
in a given time, does that relieve us from the necessity of
progressing in that direction? When we have before us a long
journey that will take months to pass, perhaps years, shall we
delay starting on that journey because we cannot reach the end of
it in a year or two? Not at all. I therefore say that the time
has arrived this moment when the United States ought to do something
to advance its notes to the specie standard.

"Now what is that something? There are two propositions, and only
two propositions, that have been made, aside from absolute coin
redemption, that have had any strength whatever. One is to allow
the United States notes to be received in payment of customs duties,
the other is to allow United States notes to be converted into
bonds. In regard to the first, I agree entirely that if the matter
was open now to our choice and selection, one of the best methods
we could adopt to advance our notes to par in gold would be by
repealing that restriction which prevents the receiving of them
for customs duties; but we are met there by the sacred pledge of
the United States; we are met there by the fact that customs duties
are, by the law of 1862, agreed to be collected in coin."

Mr. Bayard inquired:

"Does not the law provide that the customs duties shall be paid in
coin or in notes of the United States? Is not the alternative
given by the law?"

I replied:

"O, no. If the Senator will look at section 5 of the act of February
25, 1862--my friend from Vermont can turn to it in a moment--he
will find that there is an express stipulation that the customs
duties shall be collected in coin, and that this coin shall be set
aside as a pledge--legal language is used--and shall only be applied,
first, to the payment of the interest on the public debt, and,
secondly, to the establishment of a sinking fund of one per cent.
That was the basis of the obligation of the United States to pay
in coin, and but for the fact that we collected our customs duties
in coin during the war we could not have paid the interest on our
public debt in coin, and therefore our bonds would have sunk out
of sight. That pledge we cannot now violate; and I never have yet
been able to bring my mind to the consideration of any proposition
whatever which would ever shock or excite the fear of the public
creditors in that respect. The safety of the public creditors
consists in having a specific fund for the payment of their interest;
the principal will take care of itself; and that fund has always
been maintained in the darkest hours of the war. Except the
propositions that have been made here and there to impair that fund
by allowing a portion of the customs duties to be paid in currency,
it has never been either invaded or threatened; but all such
propositions have been voted down. I, therefore, while I see the
policy and the expedience of allowing these notes to be used in
payment of customs duties, simply say we are precluded from that
remedy because we have mortgaged that fund, and we have no power
to take them for any purpose except that which the mortgage
stipulates.

* * * * *

"We then come to the redemption in bonds. There is the moral
obligation, on the part of the United States, which has issued its
notes payable in coin, but for reasons of public policy does not
pay in coin, to give to its creditors its notes bearing interest
in place of coin. The United States cannot plead inability to pay
interest on its notes if it will not or cannot pay the principal.
Why should not the United States give its obligation bearing interest
just as any individual would have to do? There is a moral obligation
which rests upon the United States every day of the year to every
holder of these notes, because, although the United States has not
said when it will redeem these notes in coin, yet it is bound to
do what it can to give them additional value. Although it may not
receive these notes for customs duties, why can it not receive
these notes in payment of bonds? Why discriminate against these
notes in the sale of bonds? The answer is, that during the war we
were compelled to do it; and so we were. I very reluctantly yielded
to that necessity. We were compelled to do it; but, sir, it was
only expected that that would continue to the close of the war;
and, practically, during the whole of the war these notes were
received at par for bonds at par.

"If, therefore, we are to take any step toward specie payments,
why not give to the holder of United States notes who demands it,
a bond of the United States bearing a reasonable rate of interest
in exchange for his notes? This should only be done after a
reasonable time, so as to prevent any injury to the private contracts
between debtor and creditor. When we cannot pay the coin, we are
honorably and sacredly bound to pay in a bond of the United States,
which in ordinary times would approximate to par in gold. In other
words, this is a qualified redemption. The Senator from Indiana
calls it a 'half-way measure.' It is a half-way measure in the
right direction, and indeed it is practical specie payment."

The bill led to a long continuous debate which extended to the 6th
of April, 1874. Several amendments were offered and adopted which
enlarged the maximum of notes to $400,000,000, and greatly weakened
the bill as a measure of resumption of specie payments. By reason
of these amendments many of those who would have supported the bill
as introduced voted against it on its passage, I among the number.
The bill, however, passed the Senate by a vote of yeas 29 and nays
24. The title of the bill was changed to "A bill to fix the amount
of United States notes and the circulation of national banks, and
for other purposes." This change of title indicates the radical
change in the provisions of the bill. Instead of a return to specie
payments, it provided for an expansion of an irredeemable currency.

The bill, as it passed the Senate, was as follows:

"_Be it enacted, etc.,_, That the maximum amount of United States
notes is hereby fixed at $400,000,000.

"Sec. 2. That forty-six millions in notes for circulation, in
addition to such circulation now allowed by law, shall be issued
to national banking associations now organized and which may be
organized hereafter, and such increased circulation shall be
distributed among the several states as provided in section 1 of
the act entitled 'An act to provide for the redemption of the three
per cent. temporary loan certificates and for an increase of national
bank notes,' approved July 12, 1870. And each national banking
association, now organized or hereafter to be organized, shall keep
and maintain, as a part of its reserve required by law, one-fourth
part of the coin received by it as interest on bonds of the United
States deposited as security for circulating notes or government
deposits; and that hereafter only one-fourth of the reserve now
prescribed by law for national banking associations shall consist
of balances due to an association available for the redemption of
the circulating notes from associations in cities of redemption,
and upon which balances no interest shall be paid."

The bill was taken up in the House of Representatives on the 14th
of April, 1874, and, without any debate on its merits, was passed
by the vote of 140 yeas and 102 nays.

On the 22nd of April, President Grant returned the bill to the
Senate with his veto, and the Senate, upon the question, "Shall
the bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the President of
the United States," voted 34 yeas and 30 nays. I voted nay. The
president of the Senate declared "that two-thirds of the Senators
present not having voted in the affirmative the Senate refuses to
pass the bill."

Thus, for that session, the struggle for resumption ended; but the
debate in both Houses attracted popular discussion, and tended in
the right direction. The evil effects of the stringency in monetary
affairs, the want of confidence, the reduction of the national
revenue, the decline of domestic productions, all these contributed
to impress Congress with the imperative necessity of providing some
measure of relief. Instead of inflation, of large issues of paper
money by the United States and the national banks, there grew up
a conviction that the better policy was to limit and reduce the
volume of such money to an amount that could be maintained at par
with coin.

During the canvass that followed I spoke in many parts of Ohio,
confining myself chiefly to financial questions. The stringency
of the money market which occurred the preceding year still continued,
and great interest was manifested in the measures proposed during
the preceding session, especially in the defeat of the bill to
prevent the contraction of the currency. At the request of General
Garfield I spoke in Warren in his Congressional district, where he
met, for the first time, a decided opposition. I insert his
autograph letter, the original being in his familiar hand writing:

"Hiram, Ohio, September 25, 1874.
"Dear Senator:--In accordance with the arrangement which I made
with you and with the central committee, we have posted you for a
mass meeting at Warren, on Saturday afternoon, October 10. I hope
I shall not embarrass you by suggesting that in your speech you
take occasion to say a few words in reference to my standing and
public service as a representative. It will do much to counteract
the prejudice that a small knob of persistent assailants have
created against me. I write also to inquire if you will be willing
to speak at another place the same evening. If so, we are very
anxious to have you do so. Please telegraph me to Garrettsville,
Ohio, and oblige,

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield."

When Congress met in December, 1874, the amount of United States
notes outstanding was $382,000,000. The fractional notes outstanding
convertible into legal tenders amounted to $44,000,000, and the
amount of national bank notes redeemable in lawful money was
$354,000,000, in all $780,000,000. Each dollar was worth a fraction
less than 89 cents in coin. While these notes were at a discount
coin did not and could not circulate as money. The government
exacted coin for customs duties and paid coin for interest on its
bonds. If there was an excess of coin received from customs to
pay interest then the excess was sold at a premium. If the receipts
from customs were insufficient to pay the interest on bonds, the
government had to buy the coin and pay the premium. The people
who were demanding more money to relieve the stringency did not
see that the best way to get more money into circulation was to
adopt measures that would make United States notes and bank notes
equal to coin, when all three forms of money would enter into
circulation and thus give them more money and all kinds of equal
value.

While our paper money was depreciated the gold and silver bullion
from our mines went abroad and was converted into foreign coin,
while a large portion and perhaps a majority of our people demanded
more paper money, which declined in value in exact proportion to
its increase. During the war vast expenditures compelled us to
use paper money; the return of peace and the excess of revenue over
expenditures should have been promptly followed by coin payments
or notes payable in coin. We delayed this process so long that
the popular mind rested content with depreciated money, but the
panic of 1873, and the feverish speculation which preceded it,
convinced the great body of our business men that there was no
remedy for existing evils but a return to specie payments.

Another bill concerning currency and free banking was reported by
Horace Maynard, of Tennessee, on the 29th of January, 1874, from
the committee on banking and currency of the House of Representatives,
which provided for free banking and a gradual reduction and
cancellation of United States notes by the issue of notes payable
in gold in two years from the passage of the bill. This was fully
debated in the House of Representatives and amended and passed.
In the Senate it was reported by me from the committee on finance,
with a substitute which provided for free banking and that on and
after the 1st of January, 1877, and holder of United States notes
might present them for payment either in coin or five per cent.
bonds of the United States, at the suggestion of the Secretary of
the Treasury. This substitute was amended in the Senate by striking
out all provisions for the redemption of United States notes,
leaving the measure one for free banking alone. The House disagreed
to the amendments and a committee of conference was appointed,
which resulted in a measure fixing the amount of United States
notes outstanding at $382,000,000, and making no provision for
their redemption. It was a crude and imperfect measure. I voted
for it because it provided for a redistribution of national banks
among the states. I said: "Because I cannot get a majority of
both Houses of Congress to agree to specie resumption I ought not
therefore to refuse to vote for a bill on the subject of banking
and currency." The bill was approved by the President on the 20th
of June, 1874. This long struggle prepared the way for the result
accomplished at the next session.

When Congress met in December, 1874, the feeling that the remedy
for existing evils was the return to specie payments, was general
among Republican Senators and Members. The abortive efforts of
the previous session and the veto of President Grant of one of the
bills referred to contributed to it. At the first Republican
conference I called attention to the necessity of our uniting, if
possible, on some measure that would advance United States notes
to par in coin and moved that a committee of eleven Senators be
created to formulate a bill for that purpose. It was agreed to,
and, as the names of the Senators composing the committee have
already been published, I feel justified in repeating them: The
committee consisted of Senators John Sherman (chairman), William
B. Allison, George S. Boutwell, Roscoe Conkling, George F. Edmunds,
Thomas W. Ferry, F. T. Freylinghuysen, Timothy O. Howe, John A.
Logan, Oliver P. Morton, and Aaron A. Sargent.

When the committee met it was agreed that each member should state
how far he would go in the direction of specie resumption. When
these statements were made it was manifest that the divergence of
opinion was so great that an agreement was almost impossible. Yet,
the necessity of an agreement was so absolute that a failure to
agree was a disruption of the Republican party.

The first section of the act to provide for the resumption of specie
payments, which related to the coinage and issue of fractional
silver under the act of February 21, 1853, and the redemption of
an equal amount of fractional currency outstanding should be
redeemed, and was readily agreed to. This fractional currency was
so worn and filthy, and it cost so much to reissue, that by general
consent its destruction was agreed to, and its replacement by bright
new silver coin, which followed, was heartily welcomed.

The second section was an unjust concession to the miners of gold.
It repealed the coinage charge for converting standard gold bullion
into coin. This charge had been maintained, not only to cover the
cost of coining, but to prevent the exportation of American coins.
If the coins were of less value than the bullion of which they were
made, however small the difference, they would not be exported
while bullion could be had for exportation. The concession was
made and the charge for coinage of gold was prohibited.

The free banking provisions in the third section were not seriously
contested. The contraction of the volume of United States notes
as national bank notes increased, was one of the chief subjects of
disagreement. It was finally agreed that this contraction should
extend only to the retirement of United States notes in excess of
$300,000,000.

The most serious dispute was upon the question whether United States
notes presented for redemption and redeemed could be reissued. On
the one side it was urged that, being redeemed, they could not be
reissued without an express provision of law. The inflationists,
as all those who favored United States notes as part of our permanent
currency were called, refused to vote for the bill if any such
provision was inserted, while those who favored coin payments were
equally positive that they would vote for no bill that permitted
notes once redeemed to be reissued. This appeared to be the rock
upon which the party in power was to split. I had no doubt under
existing law, without any further provision, but that United States
notes could be reissued. It was finally agreed that no mention
should be made by me for or against the reissue of notes, and that
I must not commit either side in presenting the bill.

The date for general resumption of specie payments on all United
States notes was fixed on the first of January, 1879, four years
from the framing of this bill. The important and closing clause
of the bill was referred to Mr. Edmunds and myself. It provided
the means to prepare for and to maintain resumption. It placed
under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury all the surplus
revenue in the treasury, and gave him full power to issue, sell
and dispose of, at not less than par in coin, any of the bonds
described in the refunding act. We were careful to select phraseology
so comprehensive that all the resources and credit of the government
were pledged to redeem the notes of the United States, as fully
and completely as our Revolutionary fathers pledged to each other
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, in support of
the declaration of American independence.

After every sentence and word of this bill had been carefully
scrutinized, I was authorized by every member of the committee to
submit it to the committee on finance, and to report it from that
committee as the unanimous act of the Republican Senators. We
naturally expected some support from Mr. Bayard and other Democratic
Senators, who, no doubt, were in favor of specie payments, but they
perhaps thought it best not to share the risk of the measure.

I reported the bill from the committee on finance on the 21st of
December, 1874, and gave notice that on the next day I would call
it up with a view to immediate action. On the 22nd, after the
morning business, I moved to proceed to the consideration of the
bill, and gave notice that I intended to press it to its passage,
from that hour forward, at the earliest moment practicable. It
was well understood that the bill was the result of a Republican
conference. It was taken up by the decisive vote of 39 yeas to 18
nays.

It was not my purpose to do more than to present the provisions of
the bill. My brief statement led to a desultory debate, participated
in almost exclusively by Democratic Senators, the Republican Senators
remaining silent. Several votes were taken, each showing a majority
of more than two-thirds in favor of the bill and against all
amendments. It passed the Senate without change by the vote of 32
yeas to 14 nays.

I here insert the bill as introduced and passed, with my statement
in support of its provisions:

"AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS.
"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the Secretary
of the Treasury is hereby authorized and required, as rapidly as
practicable, to cause to be coined, at the mints of the United
States, silver coins of the denominations of ten, twenty-five, and
fifty cents, of standard value, and to issue them in redemption of
an equal number and amount of fractional currency of similar
denominations, or, at his discretion, he may issue such silver
coins through the mints, the sub-treasuries, public depositaries,
and post offices of the United States; and, upon such issue, he is
hereby authorized and required to redeem an equal amount of such
fractional currency, until the whole amount of such fractional
currency outstanding shall be redeemed.

"Sec. 2. That so much of section three thousand five hundred and
twenty-four of the Revised Statutes of the United States as provides
for a charge of one-fifth of one per centum for converting standard
gold bullion into coin is hereby repealed; and hereafter no charge
shall be made for that service.

"Sec. 3. That section five thousand one hundred and seventy-seven
of the Revised Statutes, limiting the aggregate amount of circulating
notes of national banking associations, be, and hereby is, repealed;
and each existing banking association may increase its circulating
notes in accordance with existing law, without respect to said
aggregate limit; and new banking associations may be organized in
accordance with existing law, without respect to said aggregate
limit; and the provisions of law for the withdrawal and redistribution
of national bank currency among the several states and territories
are hereby repealed. And whenever, and so often, as circulating
notes shall be issued to any such banking association, so increasing
its capital or circulating notes, or so newly organized as aforesaid,
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem
the legal tender United States notes in excess only of three hundred
millions of dollars, to the amount of eighty per centum of the sum
of national bank notes so issued to any banking association as
aforesaid, and to continue such redemption as such circulating
notes are issued until there shall be outstanding the sum of three
hundred million dollars of such legal tender United States notes,
and no more. And on and after the first day of January, anno Domini
eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall redeem in coin the United States legal tender notes then
outstanding, on their presentation for redemption at the office of
the assistant treasurer of the United States in the city of New
York, in sums of not less than fifty dollars. And to enable the
Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide for the redemption
in this act authorized or required, he is authorized to use any
surplus revenues from time to time in the treasury not otherwise
appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than
par in coin, either of the descriptions of bonds of the United
States described in the act of Congress approved July fourteenth,
eighteen hundred and seventy, entitled 'An act to authorize the
refunding of the national debt,' with like qualities, privileges,
and exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full
effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid.
And all provisions of law inconsistent with the provisions of this
act are hereby repealed."

I said:

"Mr. president, I do not intend to reopen the debate on financial
topics of last session. That debate was carried to such great
length that it was not only exhaustive, but it was exhausting, not
only mentally but physically. The Senate is composed of the same
persons who shared in that debate, and it is utterly idle for us,
in this short session, to reopen it and to invite the discussion
of the various topics presented in that debate. The Senate is now
within less than three months, a little more than two months, of
its adjournment, and there is a general feeling throughout the
country, shared by all classes of people, that this Congress ought
to give some definite notice to the people of this country as to
their purpose in the important topics embraced in this bill; and
I say to Senators on all sides of the House that this bill contains
enough to accomplish the important object declared by the title of
the bill, and this without reviving all the troublesome and difficult
questions which were discussed at the last session. It contains
a few simple propositions which may be separated from the mass of
financial topics discussed at the last session. Its purpose is
declared upon the title of the bill, 'An act to provide for the
resumption of specie payments.' Every word, every line, and every
provision, of this bill is in harmony with that title. It will
tend to promote the resumption of specie payments. It may fall
short in many particulars of the desire of some Senators; and it
does go further in that direction than some Senators were willing
to support at the last session. It is a bill which demands reasonable
concession from every Member of the Senate. If we undertake now
to seek to carry out the individual views of any Senator, we cannot
accomplish the passage of any bill to promote this object, and
therefore this bill has demanded of everyone who has consented to
it thus far a surrender of some portions of his opinions as to
measures and means to accomplish the great purpose. I will consider
my duty done, so far as this bill is concerned, by simply stating
its provisions and calling attention to the character of those
provisions, without entering into a single topic that gave rise to
the long discussion at the last session.

"The bill is intended to provide for the resumption of specie
payments. The first section of the bill provides for the resumption
of specie payments on the fractional currency. It is confined to
that subject alone. It so happens that at this particular period
of time the state of the money market, the state of the demand for
silver bullion, and more especially the recent action of the German
Empire, which has demonetized silver and thus cheapened that product,
enables us now, without any loss of revenue, without any sacrifice,
to enter the market for the purchase of bullion and resume specie
payments on our fractional currency. The market price of bullion
to-day will justify the government of the United States, without
any sacrifice, at a price about equivalent to, or perhaps a trifle
above, our fractional currency--scarcely a shadow above our fractional
currency--to purchase silver bullion in the money markets of the
world, mostly of our own production, perhaps entirely of our own
production. This bill simply directs that the Secretary of the
Treasury shall purchase this bullion and shall coin silver coin
and substitute that in the place of fractional currency. This
section is recommended not only by the Secretary of the Treasury
and the President of the United States, but I believe will meet
the general concurrence of every Member of the Senate, and we
fortunately are enabled to embrace the present time to commence
this operations without any loss to the government, except perhaps
the cost of the coinage of this silver may have to be paid out of
the treasury of the United States. That coinage may be done in
the ordinary course of business without any increase of expenditures.
The mints of the United States are now prepared, immediately upon
the passage of this bill, to resume the coinage of silver coins
of all the legal denominations. Therefore the committee has provided
that the Secretary of the Treasury shall proceed to coin the silver
coins, and in one of several ways to issue them in place of fractional
currency.

"I need not dwell further upon this section, because I believe it
will meet with the general assent of the Senate. It provides for
the immediate resumption of specie payments upon the fractional
currency, or at least as immediate as possible; that is, as soon
as the government of the United States can, in the mints of the
United States, coin the silver coin. That process may continue
one, two, or three years, how long we cannot tell, depending entirely
upon the force that may be employed in that direction. It takes
a much longer time to coin these small coins than gold coins, and
the operation will probably take more time than it would to coin
any considerable amount of gold coin."

Mr. Hamilton, of Maryland, inquired:

"I would ask the Senator if there is authority to reissue that
fractional currency?"

I said:

"I will come to that in a moment. The second section of this bill
simply removes an inducement that now exists to export our gold
bullion from the United States to Great Britain, where, by the long
established laws of that country, they coin money free of charge.
This section involves the surrender of about $85,000 a year of
revenue; that is, the government of the United States received last
year for coining gold coins, $85,000, or one-fifth of one per cent.
on forty-five millions of gold coined. The only sacrifice of
revenue, therefore, by the second section of the bill, is the
sacrifice or surrender of $85,000, which heretofore has been levied
upon those who produce gold bullion in order to convert it into
coin. In the opinion of many men, among them the Secretary of the
Treasury, the director of the mint, and perhaps a large number of
Senators heretofore, this will tend, in a slight degree at any
rate, to prevent the exportation of the gold of our own country
into foreign parts, because when the government of the United States
undertakes to put gold bullion in the form of gold coin without
additional charge the tendency will inevitably be for the gold
bullion to flow into the mints for coinage, and being put into the
form of American coin, it is thought by a great many people that
this will tend to prevent its exportation. To the extent it does
so it prepares us for specie payments. That is the whole of the
second section.

"The third section of the bill contains only two or three affirmative
propositions. The first is that after the passage of this act
banking shall be free. Perhaps there is no idea stronger in the
minds of the American people than a feeling of hostility against
a monopoly--a privilege that one man or set of men can enjoy which
is denied to another man or set of men. Under the law as it now
stands banking is substantially free in the southern and some of
the western states; but banking is not free in the great commercial
states, in the older states, where wealth has accumulated for ages.
This may be a mere sentimental point, but it is well enough to meet
it; and by the operation of this bill banking is made free, so that
there will be no difficulty hereafter for any corporation organized
as a national bank either to increase its circulation or for banks,
to be organized under the provisions of existing law, to issue
circulating notes to any extent within the limits and upon the
terms and provisions of the banking law. This section, therefore,
by making banking free, provides for an enlargement of the currency
in case the business of the community demands it, and in case any
bank in the United States may think it advisable or profitable to
issue circulating medium in the form of bank notes, under the
conditions and limitations of the banking law. Coupled with that
is a provision, an undertaking, on the part of the United States,
that as banks are organized or as circulating notes are issued,
either by old or new banks, the government of the United States
undertakes to retire eighty per cent. of that amount of United
States notes. In other words, it proposes to redeem the United
States notes to the extent of eighty per cent. of the amount of bank
notes that may be issued; and here is the first controversial
question that arises on this bill and the first that is settled.

"It may be asked if we provide for the issue of circulating notes
to banks, why not provide for the retirement of an equal amount of
United States notes. The answer is that under the provisions of
the banking act, by the law as it now stands, a bank cannot be
organized and maintained in existence unless the reserve which is
in that bank, or required for that bank in the ordinary course of
business, either on its deposits or circulation, is at least equal
to twenty per cent. of the amount of its circulating notes, so that
it was believed, according to the judgment of the best business
men of the country, and I may say with the comptroller of the
currency, that the retirement of eighty per cent. of the amount of
bank notes is fully equivalent to keeping the amount of circulating
medium in actual circulation on the same footing, so that this
provision of the bill neither provides for a contraction nor
expansion of the currency, but leaves the amount to be regulated
by the business wants of the community, so that when notes are
issued to a bank eighty per cent. of the amount in United States
notes is redeemed, and this process continued until United States
notes are reduced to three hundred millions."

Mr. Schurz asked:

"Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question in reference to
this section? When the eighty per cent. of greenbacks are retired
will they be destroyed and never used again?"

I replied:

"I will speak of that in a moment in connection with other sections.
Now, Mr. president, that is all there is in regard to banking in
this bill and also in regard to the retirement of the United States
notes until the time for the resumption of specie payments comes,
when this bill provides for actual redemption in coin of all notes
presented. It has always been a question in the minds of many
people as to whether it is wise to fix a day for specie payments.
That matter was discussed at the last session of Congress by many
Senators, and the general opinion seemed to be that if we would
provide the means by which specie payments would be resumed it
might not be necessary to fix the day; but, on the other hand, it
is important to have our laws in regard to the currency fix a
probable time, or a certain time, when everybody may know that his
contracts will be measured by the coin standard. We also know, by
the example of other nations which have found themselves in the
condition in which we are now placed, and by some of the states
when specie payments were suspended, that they have adopted a
specific day for the resumption of specie payments. In England,
by the bank act of 1819, they provided for the resumption of specie
payments in 1823, making four years. In our own states--in New
York, in Ohio, in nearly all the states--when there has been a
temporary suspension of specie payments a time has been fixed when
the banks were compelled to resume, and this bill simply follows
the example that has been set by the states, by England, and by
other nations, when they have been involved in a like condition.

"This bill also provides ample means to prepare for and to maintain
resumption. I may say the whole credit and money of the United
States is placed by this bill under the direction of the proper
executive officers, not only to prepare for but to maintain
resumption, and no man can doubt that if this bill stands the law
of the land from this time until the 1st day of January, 1879,
specie payments will be resumed, and that our United States notes
will be converted at the will of the holder into gold and silver
coin.

"These are all the provisions contained in this bill. They are
simple and easily understood, and every Senator can pass his judgment
upon them readily.

"Now I desire to approach a class of questions that are not embraced
in this bill. Many such, and I could name fifty, are not included
in this bill, and I may say this: That if there should be a
successful effort, by the Senate of the United States, to ingraft
any of this multitude of doubtful or contested questions upon the
face of this bill it would inevitably tend to its defeat. I am
free to say that if I were called upon to frame a bill to accomplish
the purpose declared in the title of this bill, I would have provided
some means of gradual redemption between this and the time fixed
for final specie payments. All these means are open to objection.

"There have been three different plans proposed to prepare for
specie payments, and only three. They are all grouped in three
classes. One is what is called the contraction plan. The simplest
and most direct way to specie payments is, undoubtedly, the gradual
withdrawal of United States notes or the contraction of the currency.
Now, we know very well the feeling with which that idea is regarded,
not only in this Senate, but all through the country. It is believed
to operate as a disturbing element in all the business relations
of life; to add to the burden of the debtor by making scare that
article in which he is bound to pay his debts; and there has been
an honest, sincere opposition to this theory of contraction.
Therefore, although it may be the simplest and the best way to
reach specie payments, it is entirely omitted from this bill.

"The second plan, that I have favored myself often, and would favor
now, if I had my own way, and had no opinion to consult but my own,
is the plan of converting United States notes into a bond that would
gradually appreciate our notes to par in gold. That has always
been a favorite idea of mine. There is nothing of that kind in
this bill, except those provisions which authorize the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue bonds to retire the greenbacks as bank
notes are issued; and it also authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue bonds to provide for and to maintain resumption.
I therefore have been compelled to surrender my ideas on this bill
in order to accomplish a good object without using these means that
have been held objectionable by many Senators.

"The third plan of resumption has been favored very extensively in
this country, which is the plan of a graduated scale for resumption
in coin or bullion; what I call the English plan. That is, that
we provide now for the redemption, at a fixed rate or scale or
rates, of so much gold for a specific sum of United States notes.
At present rates we would give about $90 of gold for $100 of
greenbacks, and then provide for a graduated scale by which we would
approach specie payments constantly, and reach it at a fixed day.
This may be called a gradual redemption. This, also, is objectionable
to many persons, from the idea that it compels us to enter the
money markets of the world to discount our own paper. It is an
ideal objection, but a very strong objection; an objection that
has force with a great many people. We have undertaken to redeem
these notes in coin, and it is at least a question of doubtful
ethics whether we ought to enter into the markets of the world and
buy our own notes at a discount. Although that plan has been
adopted in England and successfully carried into execution, yet
there is a strong objection to it in this country, and therefore
that mode is abandoned.

"Either of these plans I could readily support; but they have met
and will meet with such opposition that we cannot hope to carry
them or ingraft them in this bill without defeating it. We have
then fallen back on these gradual steps: First, to retire the
fractional currency; second, to reduce United States notes as bank
notes are increased; and then to rest our plan of redemption upon
the declaration, made on the faith of the United States, that at
the time fixed by the bill we will resume the payment of the United
States notes in coin at par. That is the whole of this bill."

On the 7th of January, 1875, the bill was considered in the House
of Representatives and, after a very brief conversational debate,
passed by the vote of yeas 136, nays 98.

On the 14th day of January, 1875, the President sent a message to
the Senate approving the bill but also containing recommendations
of further legislation upon matters that had been carefully excluded
from the bill. He added at the close of the message this paragraph:

"I have ventured upon this subject with great diffidence, because
it is so unusual to approve a measure--as I most heartily do this,
even if no further legislation is attainable at this time--and to
announce the fact by message. But I do so, because I feel that it
is a subject of such vital importance to the whole country, that
it should receive the attention of, and be discussed by, Congress
and the people, through the press and in every way, to the end that
the best and most satisfactory course may be reached of executing
what I deem most beneficial legislation on a most vital question
to the interests and the prosperity of the nation."

Thus, after a memorable debate, extending through two sessions of
Congress, a measure of vital importance became a law, and when
executed completely accomplished the great object proposed by its
authors. The narrative of the steps leading to resumption under
this act will be more appropriate hereafter.

The resumption act was generally received with disfavor by those
who wished the immediate resumption of specie payments. It was
the subject of much criticism in the financial journals, among
others "The Financier," which described it as a political trick,
an evasion of a public duty, and as totally inadequate for the
purpose sought to be accomplished. I took occasion to reply to
this article in the following letter:

"United States Senate Chamber,}
"Washington, January 10, 1875.}
"Dear Sir:--As I am a subscriber to 'The Financier,' you will
probably allow me to express my surprise at the course you have
pursued in respect to the finance bill recently passed by Congress.
Claiming as you do to be a 'monetary and business' journal, you
might be expected to treat fairly a measure affecting so greatly
the interests you represent; but you have not done so. You have
treated it as a political trick, an evasion, a disgrace to Congress.
You complained that it was passed without debate and that its
inception and passage were shameful. But as you say in your last
number 'that it is well to examine it hopefully, to find _what good
may have been done, if any_, although from a _bad motive_,' I take
the liberty to correct errors even in your 'hopeful' view of the
law, so that you may be more hopeful still. You assume that the
Secretary of the Treasury is not authorized to issue five per cent.
gold bonds to prepare for and to maintain resumption, because the
amount of five per cent. bonds authorized in the act of 1870 is
nearly exhausted. This is an error. The secretary can issue either
four and a half or five per cent. gold bonds to an amount sufficient
to execute the law. The act of 1870 is only referred to for the
'description' of the bonds to be issued, and the only limit to
their amount is the sum necessary, and the only limit to their sale
is that they must not be sold at less than par in coin.

"You say that _one trick_ of the bill is 'that there is no provision
for carrying on the withdrawal of legal tenders after their maximum
reaches $300,000,000.' Now this 'trick' was advocated by you one
year ago; it was voted for by every specie paying Member of Congress
at the last session, and nearly every writer on the subject has
contended that if the legal tenders were reduced to $300,000,000,
and the treasury was supported by a reasonable reserve, specie
payments could be resumed and maintained. Besides, no one believes
that $100,000,000 of bank notes will be issued under this act, and
this provision only relieves some people from an idle fear of an
improbable event. You must have noticed that when banks retire
their notes, as they have done and will do rapidly, this is a
reduction of the currency, while every issue of notes to new or
old banks involves a retirement of a ratable amount of United States
notes. What you say about playing with a movable 'reserve' is
equally wrong. Neither the fractional currency nor the 'eighty-
two million' redeemed can be reissued, and I stated so when the
bill was pending under debate, and no lawyer could put a different
construction upon the bill. As to United States notes, a part of
the $300,000,000 redeemed after resumption of specie payments, we
did refuse to provide whether they could be reissued or not, and
we acted wisely. When the question is hereafter determined by
Congress, the controversy will be whether the notes _when reissued_
shall have the _legal tender_ quality, or be simple treasury notes
receivable for public dues.

"Last session the public press scolded at our long and fruitless
debate on finances, and I agreed with the press. This session the
same Senators, enlightened by the long debate and heeding the call
of the press, gave to the subject the most careful and deliberate
consideration, and agreed upon this bill without much debate, and
yet the press is not happy. The act does not go as far as I wished,
but everything in it is right in itself, and is in the right
direction. Its chief merit is that it establishes a public policy
which no political party or faction will be strong enough to
overthrow, and which if it had not been adopted now, the Democratic
party in the next Congress would have defeated. The pretense that
the Democratic party, as represented in the next House, would have
favored any bill for specie payments is utterly false. Therefore
the measure grants to the Secretary of the Treasury powers enough
to execute it, but if we can secure the aid of a Democratic House
we can make it certain and effective.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Editor of 'Financier.'"

In the Ohio canvass of 1875 the resumption act became the chief
subject of controversy. R. B. Hayes, after having previously served
for four years as governor of the state, was against nominated for
that office. William Allen, then governor, was renominated upon
the Democratic ticket, in opposition to the resumption act and in
favor of fiat money, upon which issue the election mainly turned.

The eighth resolution of the Democratic platform was as follows;

"That the contraction of the currency heretofore made by the
Republican party, and the further contraction proposed by it, with
a view to the forced resumption of specie payment, have already
brought disaster to the business of the country, and threaten it
with general bankruptcy and ruin. We demand that this policy be
abandoned, and that the volume of currency be made and kept equal
to the wants of trade, leaving the restoration of legal tenders to
par with gold, to be brought about by promoting the industries of
the people and not by destroying them."

The Republican convention in their second resolution declared:

"That a policy of finance be steadily pursued, which, without
unnecessary shock to business or trade, will ultimately equalize
the purchasing capacity of the coin and paper dollar."

Ex-Governor Hayes and I opened the state canvass in the county of
Lawrence on July 31, 1875, and took strong ground in favor of the
resumption act. At the beginning it appeared that the people were
not quite prepared for any measure looking to resumption, but as
the contest progressed and the subject was fully and boldly presented
by Mr. Hayes and myself, the tide of opinion ran in our favor and
Hayes was elected by a small majority. The ex-governor did not
evade the issue, but in every speech supported and urged the policy
of resumption as a matter of the highest interest.

In the approaching nomination for President, Governor Hayes was
frequently spoken of as a candidate to succeed General Grant, and
I also was mentioned in the same connection, but, feeling confident
that Mr. Hayes would be a stronger candidate than myself, and fully
determined not to stand in his way, on the 21st of January, 1876,
I wrote a letter to a personal friends, and the Member of the Senate
from the district in which I live, in which I urged the nomination
of Governor Hayes as the most available candidate in the approaching
presidential canvass. This letter no doubt contributed to his
strength and prevented any possibility of the division of the vote
of Ohio in the convention. The letter I give in full:

"Washington, D. C., January 21, 1876.
"Dear Sir:--Your letters of the 2nd and 10th inst. were duly
received, and I delayed answering the first sooner partly from
personal reasons, but mainly that I might fully consider the
questions raised by you as to the approaching presidential contest,
the importance of which cannot be overstated. The election of a
Democratic President means a restoration to full power in the
government of the worst elements of the rebel Confederacy.

"The southern states are to be organized, by violence and intimidation,
into a compact political power only needing a small fragment of
the northern states to give it absolute control where, by a majority
rule of the party, it will govern the country as it did in the time
of Pierce and Buchanan.

"If it should elect a President and both Houses of Congress, the
constitutional amendments would be disregarded, the freedmen would
be nominally citizens but really slaves; innumerable claims, swollen
by perjury, would be saddled upon the treasury, the power of the
general government would be crippled, and the honors won by our
people in subduing rebellion would be a subject of reproach rather
than of pride. The only safeguard from these evils is the election
of a Republican President, and the adoption of a liberal Republican
policy which should be fair and even generous in the south, but
firm in the maintenance of all the rights won by the war. Our
election in Ohio last fall shows that even under the most adverse
circumstances we can win on this basis.

"Every movement made by this Democratic House of Representatives
is an appeal to every man who ever voted with the Republican party
to rally to its support again, and to every man who fought in the
Union army to vote with us to preserve the results of his victory.

"All we need is such a presidential ticket as will give assurance
that we mean to stand by our principles, and that will administer
the government honestly and economically.

"As to candidates, the drift of public opinion is rapidly reducing
the list and has already settled adversely the chances of many of
them. Above all, it has positively closed the question of a third
term. The conviction that it is not safe to continue in one man
for too long a period the vast powers of a President, is based upon
the strongest reasons, and this conviction is supported by so many
precedents set by the voluntary retirement at the end of a second
term of so many Presidents that it would be criminal folly to
disregard it. I do not believe General Grant ever seriously
entertained the thought of a third term, but even if he did, the
established usage against it would make his nomination an act of
suicide.

"It would disrupt our party in every Republican state.

"Happily for us we do not need to look for the contingency of his
nomination.

"Among the candidates now generally named, I have no such preference
that I could not heartily support either of them. They are men of
marked ability, who have rendered important public services, but,
considering all things, I believe the nomination of Governor Hayes
would give us the more strength, taking the whole country at large,
than any other man. He is better known in Ohio than elsewhere,
and is stronger there than elsewhere, but the qualities that have
made him strong in Ohio will, as the canvass progresses, make him
stronger in every state. He was a good soldier, and, though not
greatly distinguished as such, he performed his full duty, and I
noticed, when traveling with him in Ohio, that the soldiers who
served under him loved and respected him. As a Member of Congress
he was not a leading debater, or manager in party tactics, but he
was always sensible, industrious, and true to his convictions and
the principles and tendencies of his party, and commanded the
sincere respect of his colleagues. As a governor, thrice elected,
he has shown good executive abilities and gained great popularity,
not only with Republicans but with our adversaries. On the currency
question, which is likely to enter largely into the canvass, he is
thoroughly sound, but is not committed to any particular measure,
so as to be disabled from co-operating with any plan that may
promise success. On the main questions, protection for all in
equal rights, and the observance of the public faith, he is as
trustworthy as any one named. He is fortunately free from the
personal enmities and antagonisms that would weaken some of his
competitors, and he is unblemished in name, character or conduct,
and a native citizen of our state.

"I have thus, as you requested, given you my view of the presidential
question, taken as dispassionately as if I were examining a
proposition in geometry, and the result drawn from these facts,
not too strongly stated, is that the Republican party in Ohio ought,
in their state convention, to give Governor Hayes a united delegation
instructed to support him in the national convention, not that we
have any special claim to have the candidate taken from Ohio, but
that in General Hayes we honestly believe the Republican party of
the United States will have a candidate for President who can
combine greater popular strength and a greater assurance of success
than other candidates, and with equal ability to discharge the
duties of President of the United States in case of election. Let
this nomination be thus presented, without any wire pulling or
depreciation of others and as a conviction upon established facts,
and I believe Governor Hayes can be and ought to be nominated.
But if our state is divided or is not in earnest in this matter it
is far better for Governor Hayes and the state that his name be
not presented at all. We have never sufficiently cultivated our
state pride, with every reason for indulging it, and thus our proper
influence has been wasted and lost. Now we have a good opportunity
to gratify it, and at the same time contribute to the common good.
Remember me kindly to personal friends in the Senate.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. A. M. Burns."

The election of Members of Congress in 1874 resulted in the choice
of a large majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives
of the 44th Congress, the term of which commenced on the 4th of
March, 1875. A majority of the Senate being still largely Republican,
it became difficult to pass any measure of a political character
during that Congress. President Grant, on the 17th of February,
1875, issued his proclamation convening the Senate at 12 o'clock
on the 5th of March following, to receive and act upon such
communications as might be made to it on the part of the Executive.
The session continued until the 24th of March. It was largely
engaged in questions affecting the State of Louisiana, which had
been the scene of violent tumult and almost civil war. As these
events are a part of the public history of the country I do not
deem it necessary to refer to them at length. These disturbances
continued during the whole of that Congress, and, in 1876, approached
the condition of civil war.

The regular meeting occurred on the 6th of December, 1875, when
Thomas W. Ferry, of Michigan, was elected president _pro tempore_
of the Senate, and Michael C. Kerr, a Democratic Representative
from the State of Indiana, was elected by a large majority as
speaker of the House.

This political revolution was no doubt caused largely by the
financial panic of 1873, and by the severe stringency in monetary
affairs that followed and continued for several years. Many
financial measures of the highest importance in respect to the
public credit were acted upon, but were generally lost by a
disagreement between the two Houses. I do not deem it necessary
to refer to the political questions that greatly excited the public
mind during that session. Congress was largely occupied in political
debate on questions in respect to the reconstruction of the states
lately in rebellion, upon which the two Houses disagreed. Among
other measures which failed was the act amendatory of the acts
authorizing the refunding of the national debt, which passed the
Senate but was not considered by the House.

During this session of Congress all sorts of financial plans were
presented in each House, but all were aimed, directly or indirectly,
at the resumption act, although that act itself was adopted as a
remedy for existing financial evils, and especially to deal with
and prevent the recurrence of such a panic as that of 1873. I took
occasion, on the presentation of the resolution of the New York
Chamber of Commerce in favor of the resumption of specie payments,
at the time provided by the resumption act, to discuss the policy
of that measure more fully than I thought it expedient to do so
when, as a bill, it was pending in the previous Congress. This
speech was made in the Senate on the 6th of March, 1876. It was
the result of great labor and care, and was intended by me to be,
and I believe it is now, the best presentation I have ever been
able to offer in support of the financial policy of the government,
and especially in support of the resumption of specie payments.
I said:

"Mr. president, I have taken the unusual course of arresting the
reference to the committee of finance of the memorial of the Chamber
of Commerce of New York, in order to discuss, in an impersonal and
nonpartisan way, one of the questions presented by that memorial,
and one which now fills the public mind and must necessarily soon
occupy our attention. That question is, 'Ought the resumption act
of 1875 be repealed?' The memorial strongly opposes such repeal,
while other memorials, and notably those from the boards of trade
of New York and Toledo, advocate it. These opposing views are
supported in each House of Congress, and will, when our time is
more occupied than now, demand our vote.

"And, sir, we are forced to consider this question when the law it
is proposed to repeal is only commencing to operate, now, three
years before it can have full effect--during all which time its
operation will be under your eye and within your power--and while
the passions of men are heated by a presidential combat, when a
grave questions, affecting the interests of every citizen of the
United States, will be influenced by motives entirely foreign to
the merits of the proposition. And the question presented is not
as to the best means of securing the resumption of a specie standard,
but solely whether the only measure that promises that result shall
be repealed. We know there is a wide and honest diversity of
opinion as to the agency and means to secure a specie standard.

"When any practicable scheme to that end is proposed I am ready to
examine it on its merits; but we are not considering the best mode
of doing the thing, but whether we will recede from the promise
made by the law as it stands, as well as refuse all means to execute
that promise. If the law is deficient in any respect it is open
to amendment. If the powers vested in the secretary are not
sufficient, or you wish to limit or enlarge them, he is your servant,
and you have but to speak and he obeys. It is not whether we will
accumulate gold or greenbacks or convert our notes into bonds, nor
whether the time to resume is too early or too late. All these
are subjects of legislation. But the question now is whether we
will repudiate the legislative declaration, made in the act of
1875, to redeem the promise made and printed on the face of every
United States note, a promise made in the midst of war, when our
nation was struggling for existence, a promise renewed in March,
1869, in the most unequivocal language, and finally made specific
as to time by the act of 1875.

"And let us not deceive ourselves by supposing that those who oppose
this repeal are in favor of a purely metallic currency, to the
exclusion of paper currency, for all intelligent men agree that
every commercial nation must have both; the one as the standard of
value by which all things are measured, which daily measures your
bonds and notes as it measures wheat, cotton, and land; and also
a paper or credit currency, which, from its convenience of handling
or transfer, must be the medium of exchanges in the great body of
the business of life. Statistics show that in commercial countries
a very large proportion of all transfers is by book accounts and
notes, and more than nine-tenths of all the residue of payments is
by checks, drafts, and such paper tools of exchange.

"Of the vast business done in New York and London not five per
cent. is done with either paper money or gold or silver, but by
the mere balancing of accounts or the exchange of credits. And
this will be so whether your paper money is worth forty per cent.
or one hundred per cent. in gold. The only question is whether,
in using paper money, we will have that which is as good as it
promises, as good as that of Great Britain, France, or Germany; as
good as the coin issued from your mints; or whether we will content
ourselves with depreciated paper money, worth ten per cent. less
than it promises, every dollar of which daily tells your constituents
that the United States in not rich enough to pay more than ninety
per cent. on the dollar for its three hundred and seventy millions
of promises to pay, or that you have not courage enough to stand
by your promise to do it.

"Nor are we to decide whether our paper money shall be issued
directly by the government or by banks created by the government;
nor whether at a future time the legal tender quality of United
States notes shall continue. I am one of those who believe that
a United States note issued directly by the government, and
convertible on demand into gold coin, or a government bond equal
in value to gold, is the best currency we can adopt; that it is to
be the currency of the future, not only in the United States, but
in Great Britain as well; and that such a currency might properly
continue to be a legal tender, except when coin is specifically
stipulated for it.

"But these are not the questions we are to deal with. It is whether
the promise of the law shall be fulfilled, that the United States
shall pay such of its notes as are presented on and after the 1st
day of January, 1879, in coin; and whether the national banks will,
at the same time, redeem their notes either in coin or United States
notes made equal to coin; or whether the United States shall revoke
its promise and continue, for an indefinite period, to still longer
force upon the people a depreciated currency, always below the
legal standard of gold, and fluctuating daily in its depreciation
as Congress may threaten or promise, or speculators may hoard, or
corner, or throw out your broken promises. It is the turning point
in our financial history, which will greatly affect the life of
individuals and the fate of parties, but, more than all, the honor
and good faith of our country.

"At the beginning of our national existence, our ancestors boldly
and hopefully assumed the burden of a great national debt, formed
of the debts of the old confederation and of the states that composed
it; and, with a scattered population and feeble resources, honestly
met and paid, in good solid coin, every obligation. After the War
of 1812, which exhausted our resources, destroyed our commerce,
and greatly increased our debt, a Republican administration boldly
funded our debt, placed its currency upon the coin basis, promptly
paid its interest, and reduced the principal; and within twenty
years after that war was over, under the first Democratic President,
paid in coin the last dollar, both principal and interest, of the
debt. And now, eleven years after a greater war, of grander
proportions, in which, not merely foreign domination threatened
us, but the very existence of our nation was at stake, and after
our cause has been blessed with unexampled success, with a country
teeming with wealth, with our credit equal to that of any nation,
we are debating whether we will redeem our promises, according to
their legal tenor and effect, or whether we will refuse to do so
and repeal and cancel them.

"I would invoke, in the consideration of this question, the example
of those who won our independence and preserved it to us, to inspire
us so to decide this question that those who come after us may
point to our example of standing by the public faith now solemnly
pledged, even though to do so may not run current with the temporary
pressure of the hour, or may entail some sacrifice and hardship.

"What then is the law it is proposed to repeal? I will state its
provisions fully in detail, but the main proposition--the essential
core of the whole--is the promise, to which the public faith is
pledged, that the United States will redeem in gold coin any of
its notes that may be presented to the treasury on and after the
1st day of January, 1879. This is the vital object of the law.
It does not undertake to settle the nature of our paper money after
than, whether it shall be reissued again, whether it shall thereafter
be a legal tender, nor whether it shall or shall not supersede bank
notes. All this is purposely left to the future. But it does say
that on and after that day the United States note promising to pay
one dollar shall be equal to the gold dollar of the mint.

"The questions then arise--

"First. Ought this promise be performed?
"Second. Can we perform it?
"Third. Are the agencies and measures prescribed in the law
sufficient for the purpose?
"Fourth. If not, what additional measures should be executed?

"Let us consider these questions in their order, with all the
serious deliberation that their conceded importance demands.

"And first, ought this promise be fulfilled?

"To answer this we must fully understand the legal and moral
obligations contained in the notes of the United States. The
purport of the note is as follows:

'THE UNITED STATES PROMISES TO PAY THE BEARER ONE DOLLAR.'

"This note is a promise to pay one dollar. The legal effect of
this note has been announced by the unanimous opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States, the highest and final judicial authority
in our government.

"The legal tender attribute given to the note has been the subject
of conflicting decisions in that court, but the nature and purport
of it is not only plain on its face, but is concurred in by every
judge of that court and by every judicial tribunal before which
that question has been presented.

"In the case of Bank vs. Supervisors, 7 Wallace, 31, Chief Justice
Chase says:

'But, on the other hand, it is equally clear that these notes are
obligations of the United States. Their name imports obligation.
Every one of them expresses upon its face an engagement of the
nation to pay to the bearer a certain sum. The dollar note is an
engagement to pay a dollar, and the dollar intended is the _coined_
dollar of the United States, a certain quantity in weight and
fineness of gold or silver, authenticated as such by the stamp of
the government. No other dollars had before been recognized by
the legislation of the national government as lawful money.'

"Again, in the case of Bronson vs. Rhodes, 7 Wallace, 251, Chief
Justice Chase says:

'The note dollar was the promise to pay a coined dollar.'

"In the Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, 560, Justice Bradley says:

'It is not an attempt to _coin_ money out of a valueless material,
like the coinage of leather, or ivory, or cowrie shells. _It is
a pledge of the national credit_. It is a _promise_ by the government
to _pay dollars;_ it is not an attempt to _make_ dollars. The
standard of value is not changed. The government simply demands
that its credit shall be accepted and received by public and private
creditors during the pending exigency. . . .

'No one supposes that these government certificates are never to
be paid, that the day of specie payments is never to return. And
it matters not in what form they are issued. . . . Through whatever
changes they pass, their ultimate destiny is _to be_ paid.'

"In all these legal tender cases there is not a word in conflict
with these opinions.

"Thus, then, it is settled that this note is not a dollar, but a
debt due; a promise to pay a dollar in gold coin. Congress may
define the weight and fineness of a dollar, and it has been done
so by providing a gold coin weighing twenty-five and eight-tenths
grains of standard gold nine-tenths fine. The promise is specific
and exact, and its nature is fixed by the law and announced by the
court. Here I might rest as to the nature of the United States
note; but it is proper that I state the law under which it was
issued and the subsequent laws relating to it.

"The act of February 25, 1862, gave birth to this note as well as
the whole financial policy of the war. The first section of that
act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue, upon the
credit of the United States, United States notes to the amount of
$150,000,000, payable to bearer at the treasury of the United
States. The amount of these notes was subsequently increased during
the war to the maximum sum of $450,000,000, but the nature and
character of the notes was the same as the first ones. The
enlargement of the issue did not in the least affect the obligation
of the United States to pay them in coin. This obligation was
recognized in every loan law passed during the war; and to secure
the note from depreciation the amount was carefully limited, and
every quality was given to it to maintain its value that was possible
during the exigencies of the war. I might show you, from the
contemporaneous debates in Congress, that at every step of the war
the notes were regarded as a temporary loan, in the nature of a
forced loan, but a loan cheerfully borne, and to be redeemed soon
after the war was over.

"It was not until two years after the war, when the advancing value
of the note created an interest to depreciate it in order to advance
prices for the purpose of speculation, that there was any talk
about putting off the payment of the note. The policy of a gradual
contraction of the currency with a view to specie payments was, in
December, 1865, concurred in by the almost unanimous vote of the
House of Representatives, and the act of April 12, 1866, authorized
$4,000,000 of notes a month to be retired and canceled. No one
then questioned either the policy, the duty, or the obligation of
the United States to redeem these notes in coin.

"Why has not this obligation been performed? How comes it that
fourteen years after these notes were issued, and eleven years
after the exigency was over, we are debating whether they shall be
paid, and when they shall be paid? We may well pause to examine
how this plain and positive obligation has so long been deferred
by a nation always sensitive to the public honor.

"The fatal commencement of this long delay was in this provision
of the act, approved March 3, 1863, as follows:

'And the holders of United States notes issued under, and by virtue
of, said acts, shall present the same, for the purpose of exchanging
the same for bonds as therein provided, on or before the 1st day
of July, 1863, and thereafter the right so to exchange the same
shall cease and determine.'

"Thus, under the pressure of war, and the plausible pretext of a
statute of limitations, the most essential legal attribute of the
note was taken away. This act, though convenient in its temporary
results, was a most fatal step, and for my part in acquiescing in,
and voting for it, I have felt more regret than for any act of my
official life. But it must be remembered that the object of this
provision was not to prevent the conversion of notes into bonds,
but to induce their conversion. It was the policy and need of the
government to induce its citizens to exchange the notes freely for
the bonds, so that the notes might again be paid out to meet the
pressing demands of the war. It was believed that if this right
to convert them was limited, in time this would cause them to be
more freely funded; and Mr. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury,
anxious to prevent a too large increase of the interest of the
public debt, desired to place in the market a five per cent. bond
instead of a six per cent. bond. The fatal error was in not changing
the right to convert the note into a five per cent. bond instead
of a six per cent. bond. This was, in fact, proposed in the
committee on finance, but it was said that a right to convert a
note into a bond at any time, was not so likely to be exercised as
if it could only be exercised at the pleasure of the government.
And this plausible theory to induce the conversion of notes into
bonds was made the basis, after the war was over, for the refusal
of the United States to allow the conversion of its notes into
bonds, and has been the fruitful cause of the continued depreciation
and dishonor of United States notes for the last five years, during
which, our five per cent. bonds have been at par with gold, while
our notes rise and fall in the gamut of depreciation from six to
twenty per cent. below gold.

"Notwithstanding that the right to convert notes into bonds was
taken away, yet, in fact, they were, during the war, received par
for par for bonds; and after the war was over all the interest-
bearing securities were converted into bonds; but the notes--the
money of the people--the artificial measure of value, the most
sacred obligation, because it was past due, was refused either
payment or conversion, thus cutting it off from the full benefit
of the advancing credit of the government, and leaving to it only
the forced quality of legal tender in payment of debts.

"Shortly after the war was over, and notably during the presidential
campaign of 1868, the question arose whether the bonds of the United
States were payable in coin or United States notes. Both notes
and bonds were then below par in coin, the notes ranging from sixty-
seven to seventy-five cents in coin; and five per cent. bonds from
seventy-two to eighty cents in coin. Here again the opportunity
was lost to secure the easy and natural appreciation of our notes
to the gold standard. Had Congress then authorized the conversion
of notes into bonds, when both were depreciated, both would have
advanced to par in gold; but, on the one hand, it was urged that
this would cause a rapid contraction, and, on the other, that the
right to convert the note into a bond was not specie payment; it
was only the exchange of one promise for another. It was specie
payment they very much favored, but did not have the wisdom then
to secure. If the advocates for specie payment had then supported
a restoration of the right to convert notes into bonds, they would
have secured their object with but little opposition. But all
measures to fund the notes at the pleasure of the holder were
defeated, and, instead, there was ingrafted into the act to strengthen
the public credit--

"First, a declaration 'that the faith of the United States is
already pledged to the payment in coin, or its equivalent, of all
the obligations of the United States not bearing interest, known
as United States notes, and of all the interest-bearing obligations
of the United States,' except such as by the law could be paid in
other currency than gold and silver.

"Second, 'and the United States also solemnly pledges its faith to
make provision, at the earliest practicable period, for the redemption
of the United States notes in coin.'

"Here again, the obligation of the government to pay these notes
in coin was recognized, its purpose declared, and the time fixed
'as early as practicable.' What was the effect of this important
act of Congress? Without adding one dollar to the public debt, or
the burden of the debt, both bonds and notes rose in value. Within
one year, the bonds rose to par in gold, making it practicable to
commence the refunding of six per cent. bonds into five per cent.
bonds. The notes rose under the stimulus of this new promise, in
one year, from seventy-six cents to eighty-nine cents in gold, but
no steps whatever were made to redeem them.

"The amount of bank notes authorized was increased fifty-four
millions. The executive department pursued the policy of redeeming
debts not due, and did, from an overflowing treasury, reduce very
largely the public debt, but no steps whatever were taken to advance
the value of our notes. The effect of the act of 1869 was exhausted
on the adjournment of Congress in March, 1870, when the United
States notes were worth eighty-nine cents in gold; and thereabouts,
up and down, with many fluctuations, they have remained to this
day. The bondholder, secure in the promise to him, is happy in
receiving his interest in gold, with his bond above par in gold.
The note holder, the farmer, the artisan, the laborer, whose labor
and production is measured in greenbacks, still receives your
depreciated notes, worth ten per cent. less than gold you promised
him 'at the earliest day practicable.' The one has a promise
performed and the other a promise postponed.

"Thus we stood when the panic of 1873 came upon us; with more paper
money afloat than ever circulated before in any country of the
world. Even then, had we stood firmly, the hoarding tendency of
the panic would have advanced our notes toward the gold standard,
and, in fact, did so during the months of September and October,
until the premium on gold had fallen to eight per cent. But, sir,
at this critical moment, the Secretary of the Treasury, acting, no
doubt, in good faith, but I think without authority of law, issued
twenty-six millions more United States notes--part of the notes
retired and canceled under previous acts. And now, notwithstanding
all the talk about the contraction of the currency, we have not
withdrawn one-half of this illegal issue. On the 1st of September,
1873, we had three hundred and fifty-six million notes outstanding.
Three months afterward, we had three hundred and eighty-two million;
and now we have three hundred and seventy-one million.

"Sir, it was under the light of these events, after the fullest
discussion ever given in Congress, of any question--after debate
before the people during the recess of Congress, and full deliberation
last winter--this act was passed. There was and is now great
difference of opinion as to the details, but the vital promise made
to the note holder to make his note as good as gold in January,
1879, was concurred in by a large majority of both Houses, and by
many who opposed the bill as too slow in its operation. This act
of honor and public faith was applauded by the civilized world and
concurred in by our constituents, the doubts only being as to the
machinery to carry it into effect. The time was fixed by those
who most feared resumption, and no one proposed a longer time. My
honorable friend from Indiana [Mr. Morton] truly said (in the recent
campaign in Ohio) that he participated in framing it; and he and
those who agreed with him fixed the time so remote as to excite
the unfounded charge that the bill was a sham, a mere contrivance
to bridge an election.

"And now, sir, to recapitulate this branch of the question, it is
shown that the holder of these notes has a promise of the United
States, made in February, 1862, to pay him one dollar in gold coin;
that the legal purport of this promise has been declared by the
Supreme Court; that we have taken away from this note one of the
legal attributes given it, which would long since have secured its
payment in coin--that when the note was authorized and issued, it
was understood as redeemable in coin when the war was over; that
our promise to pay it was renewed in 1869--'at as early a day as
practicable;' that by reason of our failure to provide for its
payment, it is still depreciated below par more than one-tenth of
its nominal value; that we renewed this promise, and made it definite
as to time, by act of 1875; that it is a debt due from the United
States, and in law and honor due now in coin. Yet it is proposed
to recall our promise to redeem this note in coin three years hence.
I say, sir, this would be national dishonor. It would destroy the
confidence with which the public creditor rests upon the promises
contained in your bonds. It would greatly tend to arrest the
process by which the interest on your bonds is reduced. It would
accustom our people to the substitution of a temporary wave of
popular opinion for its written contract or promise. It would
weaken in the public mind that keen sense of honor and pride which
has always distinguished the English-speaking nations in dealing
with public obligations.

"An old writer thus describes 'public credit:'

'Credit is a consequence, not a cause; the effect of a substance,
not a substance; it is the sunshine, not the sun; the quickening
_something_, call it what you will, that gives life to trade, gives
being to the branches and moisture to the root; it is the oil of
the wheel, the marrow in the bones, the blood in the veins, and
the spirits in the heart of all the negoce, trade, cash, and commerce
in the world.'

'It is produced, and grows insensibly from fair and upright dealing,
punctual compliance, honorable performance of contracts and covenants;
in short, it is the offspring of universal probity.

'It is apparent even by its nature; it is no way dependent upon
persons, parliament, or any particular men or set of men, as such,
in the world, but upon their conduct and just behavior. Credit
never was chained to men's names, but to their actions; not to
families, clans, or collections of men; no, not to nations. It is
the honor, the justice, the fair dealing, and the equal conduct of
men, bodies of men, nations, and people, that raise the thing called
credit among them. Wheresoever this is found, credit will live
and thrive, grow and increase; where this is wanting, let all the
power and wit of man join together, they can neither give her being
nor preserve her life.

'Arts have been tried on various occasions in the world to raise
credit; art has been found able with more ease to destroy credit
than to raise it. The force of art, assisted by the punctual,
fair, and just dealing abovesaid, may have done much to form a
credit upon the face of things, but we find still the honor would
have done it without the art, but never the art without the honor.
Nor will money itself, which, Solomon says, answers all things,
purchase this thing called credit or restore it when lost. . . .

'Our credit in this case is a public thing. It is rightly called
by some of our writers _national credit_. The word denominates
its original. It is produced by the nation's probity, the honor
and exact performing national engagements.'

"And, sir, passing from considerations of public honor, there are
many reasons of _public policy_ which forbid the repeal of the act
of 1875. That act was generally regarded as the settlement of a
financial policy by which at least the party in power is bound,
and upon the faith of which business men have conducted their
affairs and made their contracts. Debts have been contracted and
paid with the expectation that at the time fixed the gold standard
would measure all obligations, and a repeal of the act would now
reopen all the wild and dangerous speculation schemes that feed
and fatter upon depreciated paper money. The influence that secures
this repeal will not stop here. If we can recall our promise to
pay our notes outstanding why should we not issue more? If we can
disregard our promise to pay them, why shall we regard our promise
not to issue more than $400,000,000, as stipulated for by the act
of 1864? If we can reopen the question of the payment of our notes,
why may we not reopen the question as to the payment of our bonds?
Is the act of 1869 any more sacred than the act of 1875? And if
we can reopen these questions, why not reopen the laws requiring
the payment of either interest or principal of the public debt?
They rest upon acts of Congress which we have the power to repeal.
If the public honor cannot protect our promise to the note holder,
how shall it protect our promise to the bondholder? Already do we
see advocated in high places, by numerous and formidable organizations,
all forms of repudiation, which, if adopted, would reduce our nation
to the credit of a robber chief--worse than the credit of an Algerine
pirate, who at least would not plunder his own countrymen. And if
the public creditor had no safety, what chance would the national
banks--creations of our own and subject to our will--have in
Congress? It has already been proposed to confiscate their bonds,
premium and all, as a mode of paying their notes with greenbacks.
What expedient so easy if we would make money cheap and abundant?
Or, if so extreme a measure could be arrested, what is to prevent
the permanent dethronement of gold as a measure of value, and the
substitution of an interconvertible currency bond, bearing three
and sixty-five hundredths per cent. interest, as a standard of
value; and when it become too expensive to print the notes to pay
the interest, reduce the rate. Why not? Why pay three and sixty-
five hundredths per cent., when it is easier to print three? It is
but an act of Congress. And when the process of repudiation goes
so far that your notes will not buy bread, why then declare against
all interest, and then, after passing through the valley of
humiliation, return again to barter, and honor, and gold again.

"Sir, if you once commence this downward course of repudiation then
there is but one ending. You may, like Mirabeau and the Girondists,
seek to stem the torrent, but you will be swept away by the spirit
you have evoked and the instrument you have created. You complain
now of a want of confidence which makes men hoard their money.
Will you, then, destroy all confidence? No, sir, no; the way to
_restore_ confidence is to _inspire_ it by fulfilling your obligations.
You cannot make men lend you; you cannot make men sell you anything
--either bread, or meat, or wool, or iron, or anything that is or
that can be created--except for that which they choose to take.
You may depreciate the money which you offer, but it will only take
more of it to buy what you want. It is true that the creditor may,
by your laws, be compelled to take your money however much you
depreciate it, but he cannot buy back that which he sold, or its
equivalent in other necessaries of life, and thus he is cheated of
part of what he sold. During the war, when money was depreciating,
many a simple man gladly counted his gains as he sold his goods or
crops at advancing prices, but he found out his mistake when, with
his swollen pile, he tried to replace his stock in trade or laid
in his supplies. Sir, this policy exhausts itself in cheating the
man who buys or sells or loans on credit, who produces something
to sell on credit; whether that something be food or clothing;
whether it be a necessity or a luxury of life. Productive labor,
honest toil, whether of the farmer or the artisan, is deeply
interested in credit. It is credit that gives life and competition
to trade; and credit is destroyed by every scheme that impairs,
delays, or even clouds an obligation.

"Again, sir, an irredeemable and fluctuating currency always raises
the rate of interest on money, while a stable currency or an
improving currency always reduces the rate of interest. This is
easily shown by statistics, but the reason is so obvious that proof
is not needed. If a man lends his money he wants it back again
with its increase; but if the money, when it is to be paid back,
is like to be worth less than when he thinks of loaning it, he will
not loan it except at such rates as will cover the risk of
depreciation. He will prefer to buy land or something of stable
value. If money is at the gold standard, or is advancing toward
that standard, he will loan it readily at a moderate interest, for
he knows he will receive back money of at least equal value to that
he loaned. Again, sir, with a depreciated currency great domestic
productions are cut off from the foreign market; for it is impossible
that with such a currency we can compete on equal terms with rival
nations, whose industry rests upon a specie standard. As we approach
such a standard, we are now able, as to a few articles, to compete
with foreign industry; but it is only as to articles in the
manufacture of which we have peculiar advantages. Let us rest our
industries on that standard, and soon we could compete in the
markets of the world in all the articles produced from iron, wood,
leather, and cotton, the raw basis of which are our national
productions. And it must be remembered that all the countries with
which we compete are specie-paying countries.

"A country that does not rest her industry upon specie is necessarily
excluded from the great manufacturing industries of modern
civilization, and is self-condemned to produce only the raw basis
for advanced industry. Cheap food, climate, soil, or natural
advantages, such as cheap land, vast plains for pasture, or rich
mines, may give to a country wealth and prosperity in spite of the
evils of depreciated paper money; but when we come in competition
with the world in the advanced grades of production which give
employment to the skilled mechanic, we must rest such industry upon
the gold basis, or we enter the lists like a knight with his armor
unbound.

"Again, sir, a depreciated and fluctuating currency is a premium
and bounty to the broker and money changer. Under his manipulation
our paper standard of value goes up and down, and he gambles and
speculates, with all the advantages in his favor. Good people look
on and think that it is gold that is going up and down; that their
money is a dollar still, and trade and traffic in that belief.
But the shrewd speculator calculates daily the depreciation of our
note, the shortening of the yard stick, the shrinkage of the acre,
the lessening of the ton, and thus it is that he daily adds to his
gains from the indifference or delusion of our people.

"Sir, it is an old story, often repeated in our day, and most
eloquently epitomized by Daniel Webster in the often-quoted passage
of his speech, in which he said:

'A disordered currency is one of the greatest of political evils.
It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social
system and encourages propensities destructive of its happiness.
It wars against industry, frugality, and economy; and it fosters
the evil spirit of extravagance and speculation. Of all contrivances
for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more
effectual than that which deluded them with paper money. Ordinary
tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation, these bear lightly upon
the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with the
fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated
paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough,
and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice,
and the intolerable oppression of the virtuous and well-disposed,
of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way
countenanced by government.'

"Sir, we must meet this question of specie payments, not only
because the public honor is pledged to do so, but also for the
lesser reason that it is our interest to do so. The only questions
we should permit ourselves to discuss are the means and measures
of doing so.

"And now, sir, let us examine the reasons that have been given for
the repeal of the resumption act by those who, though favoring
resumption, yet think the act should be repealed for one or other
of the following reasons:

"First. That it is not advisable to fix a day for resumption.
"Second. Or at least until the balance of trade is in our favor.
"Third. That it produces a contraction of the currency.
"Fourth. That it injuriously adds to the burden of existing
debts.

"Let us glance at these objections.

"First. As to fixing a day for resumption.

"If it was possible to agree upon measures that would secure
resumption without fixing a time, I agree it would not be indispensable,
though not unadvisable, to fix a time; but such agreement is utterly
impossible. Of the multitude of schemes that have been presented
to me by intelligent men trying to solve this problem, many could
have been selected that in my opinion would be practicable; but of
all of them not one ever has or is likely to secure the assent of
a majority of a body so numerous as Congress. One difficulty we
have encountered is that the Democratic party, though in the
minority, has never presented in any form, through any leading
member, a plan for resumption, but with widely differing opinions
has joined in opposing any and every measure from the other side.
I understand from the papers that our Democratic friends, through
a caucus, and through a caucus committee of which my colleague is
chairman, have been laboring to agree upon a plan for specie
payments. After his frequent speeches to us about secret conclaves,
about shams and deceptions, and such like polite and friendly
comments upon the work of the Republican party, I might greet my
colleague with such happy phrases about _his_ caucus; but I will
not, but, on the contrary, I commend his labors, and sincerely hope
that he and his political friends may agree upon some plan to reach
a specie standard, and not one to avoid to, to prevent it, to defer
it. Under color of intending to prepare for it, I hope they will
not make their measure the pretext for repealing the law as it
stands, which fixes a day for resumption and will secure the end
we both aim at.

"I frankly state for the Republican party that, while we could
agree to fixing the time for specie payments and upon conferring
the ample and sufficient powers upon the Secretary of the Treasury
contained in the law, we could not agree in prescribing the precise
mode in which the process should be executed. Nor, in my opinion,
was it at all essential that we should. Much must be left to the
discretion of the officer charged with the execution of such a law.
The powers conferred, as I shall show hereafter, are ample; and
the discretion given will be executed under the eye of Congress.

"And, sir, there is a strong force in the fact that in every example
we have of the successful resumption of specie payments, in this
and other countries, a fixed day has been named by legislative
authority, and the details and power of execution have been left
to executive authority. Thus, in Great Britain, the act of parliament
of July 2, 1819, fixed the time for full resumption at the 1st day
of May, 1823, and for a graduated resumption in gold at intermediate
dates; and for fractional sums under forty shillings to be paid in
silver coin; and the governor and directors of the Bank of England
were charged with its execution, and authorized at their discretion
to resume payment in full on the 1st day of May, 1822. France is
now successfully passing through the same process of resumption,
the time being fixed (two years ago) for January 1, 1878, and now
practically attained.

"In our own country many of the states have presented similar laws
in case of suspended bank payments, and in some cases the suspended
banks have, by associated action, fixed a time for general resumption,
and each bank adopted its own expedient for it. Sir, the light of
experience is the lamp of wisdom. I can recall no case of successful
resumption where a fixed future time has not been presented
beforehand, either by law or agreement; while the historical examples
of repudiation of currency have come by the drifting process, by
a gradual decline of value, by increased issues, and a refusal to
provide measures of redemption, until the whole mass disappeared,
dishonored and repudiated.

"This concurrence in the mode of resumption by so many governments
was the strongest possible instruction to Congress when fixing a
plan of resumption for the United States, and should satisfy
reasonable men of its wisdom.

"Besides, it would seem to be but fair that everyone should have
plain notice of so important a fact. If the measures only were
presented and no time fixed it would be a matter of speculation,
and the discretionary powers of the Secretary of the Treasury could
be exercised with a view to hasten or postpone the time to the
injury of individuals.

"As to the date selected, I can only repeat it was placed as remote
as any one suggested; far more so than is necessary to secure the
object, and so that the fluctuations of value will scarcely exceed
in four years what they have frequently been in a single year. It
allows ample time to arrange all the relations of debtor and
creditor, and to enable Congress to provide any additional measure
in aid of redemption, or, if events make it expedient, to postpone
the time."

It seemed to be the policy of a majority of the Democratic Members
of both the Senate and the House to exaggerate the evils and
discouragements of the times, while in fact the people were rapidly
recovering from the results of the panic of 1873, and all branches
of industry were, to a greater or less extent, starting into life
anew, and to prevent the resumption of specie payments, and, if
possible, to repeal the act providing for such resumption. This
policy undoubtedly checked the process of refunding the public
debt, which progressed slowly, and was confined to an exchange of
bonds bearing five per cent. interest for those bearing six per
cent.

I took a much more hopeful view of the situation, and in the many
speeches I made in that Congress, I stated my confidence, not only
in the process of resumption and refunding, but in the rapid
improvement of all branches of industry as we progressed towards
specie payments. In a speech I made in the Senate on the 6th of
January, 1876, on a bill "to further provide for the redemption of
legal tender United States notes in accordance with existing law,"
I said:

"Sir, we ought to take a hopeful view of things in this centennial
year of our country. Look at the aggregate results. A century
ago we were three million people; now forty million; then we had
a little border on the Atlantic; we are now extended to the Pacific.
See what has been accomplished in a hundred years. During that
time there have been periods of darkness and doubt. Every seven
or ten or twelve years, periodically, there have been times of
financial distress. We have lived through them all. I believe,
and I trust in God, that this very year is the beginning of another
period of prosperity, and that all these dark clouds, which gentlemen
are trying to raise up from the memory of the past two or three
years and from their own clouded imaginations, will entirely
disappear. I believe that even now we are in the sunshine of
increasing prosperity, and that every day and every hour will add
to our wealth and relieve us from our distress.

"Sir, things are not so unhopeful as Senators seem to think. We
have made a promise to be executed three years hence, and every
step of our legislation, if any is had, should look in that direction.
We may not adopt any measure or may not deem that any is necessary;
but, if any be adopted, it ought to look to the execution of that
promise, and we ought to enter on the performance of this duty with
hopeful trust in the continued prosperity of our country. All this
gloom and doubt, all this arraignment of official statements, this
doubt of our sufficient revenues, this doubt of our ability to meet
and advance our destiny, always falls upon my ear with painful
surprise. Senators, the task we have before us may be a difficult
one, as it has always proved to be difficult to resume the specie
standard whenever, for any reason, a nation has fallen from it,
but it is a duty that must be executed, and it ought to be executed
without the spirit of party warfare, without these appeals, directly
or indirectly, to party tactics. The pledges made one year ago,
although not voted for by the Democratic party, are pledges binding
upon their honor and their faith as they are upon mine, and I trust
in God that we shall join together in all the proper steps to carry
out those pledges."

This bill was referred to the committee on finance, but no action
was taken upon it, as the committee preferred to await the action
of the House.

The resumption act provided for the payment and destruction of the
fractional currency then in circulation, to the amount of $40,000,000,
and the substitution of silver coins in all respects, such as were
defined by the coinage act of 1853. This was to be the first step
in preparation for the general resumption of coin payments in
January, 1879. It became necessary to provide for the coinage of
fractional silver coins, and a bill for this purpose, entitled "A
bill to provide for a deficiency in the Printing and Engraving
Bureau, and for the issue of the silver coin of the United States,
in place of the fractional currency," was reported by Mr. Randall,
on the 2nd of March, 1876, from the committee on appropriations of
the House. It was subsequently considered, amended and passed by
the House, after a long debate, participated in by many of the
leading Members. Much to my surprise, Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Ward,
prominent Members from New York, opposed the measure, denounced
the resumption act, and prophesied its failure. Mr. Hewitt, in
support of his position, quoted passages from the reports of Mr.
Bristow, then Secretary of the Treasury, and predicted the utter
failure of resumption, unless the United States notes were entirely
withdrawn. He insisted that if silver coin was issued to replace
fractional currency, the coin would disappear from circulation,
leaving the people without any currency for the smaller necessities
of life. In the progress of the debate, it became manifest that
the larger portion of the Democratic Members would vote against
every measure proposed to aid in the execution of the resumption
act.

The bill passed the House on the 31st of March by the vote of 123
yeas and 100 nays. In the Senate it was referred to the committee
on finance, and reported back with amendments. The third section
of the bill, as it came from the House, provided for the coinage
of the silver dollar, of the weight of 412.8 grains troy, standard
silver, and made that dollar a legal tender at its nominal value,
to an amount not exceeding twenty dollars in any one payment, except
for customs duties and interest on the public debt, and that the
"trade dollar" should not, thereafter, be a legal coin. This
section was stricken out.

In the remarks made by me, upon this bill, on the 10th day of April,
1876 , I gave, in detail, the history of each of the coinage laws
of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Italy.
I had taken great pains to collect this information and to procure
translations of the laws of the several countries named. The then
recent changes, made by Germany, and their effect upon the coinage
of other nations, were carefully stated. The general conclusion
which I drew from a reference to these statutes of various countries,
were:

"First. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to fix the
precise value of silver and gold. We have tried it three times
and failed.

"Second. Whenever either coin is worth more in the market than
the rate fixed by the law, it flees from the country. That we have
twice proved. That is the admitted economic law. It is the Gresham
law; a law of currency named from the name of its discoverer. He
wrote a book to show that always the poorer currency would drive
out of circulation a superior currency; and his book gave name to
the theory that is called the law of Gresham. It is the universal
law of political economy that, whenever two metals or two moneys
are in circulation, the least valuable will drive out the most
valuable; the latter will be exported.

"The third proposition is that the example of several great European
nations, as well as of the United States, proves that to prevent
the depreciation of silver the tendency of modern nations is to
issue it as a token coinage somewhat less in intrinsic value than
gold, and maintain its value by issuing it only as needed, at par
with the prevailing currency, and to make it a limited legal tender.
I may say that has been acted upon by every great Christian nation.
Russia and Austria have not yet gold coinage at all, but still they
have their values based upon gold.

"Fourth. That the demonetization of silver tends to add to the
value of gold, and that though the relative value ebbs and flows
it is more stable compared to gold than any other metal, grain, or
production. Its limit of variation for a century is between fifteen
to seventeen for one in gold.

"Fifth. That both coins are indispensable, one for small and the
other for large transactions.

"Sixth. That the causes of the decline of silver are temporary.
It is still used by a great majority of mankind as the standard of
value. Its use in France and the United States will, on resumption,
more than counteract its decline in Germany.

"Seventh. The general monetizing of silver now, when it is
unnaturally depreciated, would be to invite to our country, in
exchange for gold or bonds, all the silver of Europe, and at last
it would leave us with a depreciated currency.

"Eighth. The decline of silver enables us now to exchange silver
coin of the old standard for fractional currency, leaving the
exchange optional with the holder, until we have the courage, as
we now have the ability, to redeem it in gold.

"Ninth. More silver can be maintained at par than we have now of
fractional currency.

"Tenth. The redemption of a part of our currency would advance
its purchasing power, while the silver in circulation will counteract
the contraction of the currency."

This bill became a law on the 17th of April, 1876. The second
section provided:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to issue
silver coins of the United States of the denomination of ten,
twenty, twenty-five and fifty cents of standard value, in redemption
of an equal amount of fractional currency, whether the same be now
in the treasury awaiting redemption, or whenever it may be presented
for redemption; and the Secretary of the Treasury may, under
regulations of the treasury department, provide for such redemption
and issue by substitution, at the regular sub-treasuries and public
depositaries of the United States, until the whole amount of
fractional currency outstanding shall be redeemed. And the fractional
currency redeemed under this act shall be held to be a part of the
sinking fund provided for by existing law, the interest to be
computed thereon as in the case of bonds redeemed under the act
relating to the sinking fund."

A joint resolution for the issue of silver coin was introduced in
the House by Mr. Frost, of Massachusetts, on the 1st of May, 1876.
The object of this resolution was to expedite the issue of minor
coin and the retirement of fractional currency. It was referred
to the committee on finance, reported favorably and passed with
amendments June 21. The House disagreed to the amendments of the
Senate, and a committee of conference was appointed composed of
John Sherman, George S. Boutwell, and Louis V. Bogy, managers on
the part of the Senate, and H. B. Payne, and Samuel J. Randall,
managers on the part of the House. The report of the conferees
was agreed to, and the bill having passed both Houses it was approved
by the President on the 22nd of July. It provided:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury, under such limits and regulations
as will best secure a just and fair distribution of the same through
the country, may issue the silver coin at any time in the treasury
to an amount not exceeding ten million dollars, in exchange for an
equal amount of legal tender notes; and the notes so received in
exchange shall be kept as a special fund, separate and apart from
all other money in the treasury, and be reissued only upon the
retirement and destruction of a like sum of fractional currency
received at the treasury in payment of dues to the United States;
and said fractional currency, when so substituted, shall be destroyed
and held as part of the sinking fund, as provided in the act approved
April seventeen, eighteen hundred and seventy-six."

It also provided: "That the trade dollar shall not hereafter be
a legal tender, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized
to limit, from time to time, the coinage thereof to such an amount
as he may deem sufficient to meet the export demand for the same."

It also provided that the amount of subsidiary silver coin authorized
should not exceed $50,000,000. The silver bullion was to be
purchased from time to time at market price by the Secretary of
the Treasury from any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated,
and any gain or seigniorage arising from the coinage was to be paid
into the treasury.

These provisions in respect to subsidiary coin were in a large
measure executed prior to the 4th of March, 1877, and tended, in
my opinion, to facilitate the progress of the resumption of specie
payments on the 1st of January, 1879. The debate on these measures
occupied a large portion of the time of both Houses of Congress,
and presented in every possible aspect all the financial questions
involved in coinage, resumption and refunding. Anyone desiring a
full knowledge of the view then taken of the act revising the laws
in respect to coins and coinage, approved February 12, 1873, will
find in the debate a full history of that act, given at a time when
it was fresh in the memory of the great body of Senators and
Members.

I supported the coinage of the old silver dollar in a speech in
the Senate made on the 8th of June, 1876, two years before the
appearance of the "Bland bill," or the "Allison bill." Silver
bullion was then declining in market value. The resumption act
provided for the gradual replacement of fractional currency by
silver coins of the character and form provided for by the coinage
act of 1853. When that act passed the old silver dollar was not
coined or in circulation. It was more valuable in the market than
a dollar in gold, and, if coined, would have been exported as
bullion. In the revision of the coinage laws of 1873, it was
dropped from the list of coins, and its further coinage was prohibited
by a clause providing that no coins should be made at the mint
except those provided for in that act. The history of this act
and the reasons for prohibiting the coinage of the old dollar have
been fully stated in a previous chapter of this work. In place of
the old dollar the trade dollar, containing 420 grains of silver,
was provided for. This trade dollar, coined for, and at the expense
of, the owner of the bullion deposited at the mint, was, in the
revision of the laws of the United States, unintentionally made a
legal tender for five dollars, the same as the minor coins issued
by the mint on government account. As silver declined in value,
the trade dollar became less valuable than a dollar in gold, and
the owners of bullion deposited it in the mint, and received in
exchange trade dollars costing less than a dollar in gold, but,
being a legal tender for five dollars, it could be forced upon the
people of California, then upon the gold standard, at a profit to
the owner of the bullion. Mr. Sargent, a Senator from California,
early in the session introduced a bill enlarging the limit of legal
tender of minor coins, and repealing the legal tender quality of
the trade dollar. This bill was referred to the committee on
finance, and was reported with an amendment to strike out all after
the enacting clause, and insert:

"That section 3586 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

"The silver coins of the United States, except the trade dollar,
shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not
exceeding five dollars in any one payment."

This simple bill was made the text of a long debate in the Senate
that continued during the greater part of that session. The
provision that "the trade dollar shall not hereafter be a legal
tender" was transferred to the joint resolution already mentioned
which became a law on the 22nd of July.

In my speech on Mr. Sargent's bill I said:

"This bill proposes to restore the old silver dollar, and with it
and the subsidiary coins of the United States to redeem the United
States notes and fractional currency. The dollar to be restored
is the same dollar that had existed from 1792 to 1873; and the
subsidiary coins to be issued are the same in form and value as
have been issued since 1853. I have already stated in my remarks,
made on the 11th of April last, the history of these silver coins
and the relation of silver and gold to each other, not only in the
United States, but in the countries with which we have the most
extensive commercial relations.

"The two main questions are:

* * * * *

"First. Shall silver coin be exchanged for United States notes as
well as for fractional currency? And,

"Second. Is it wise to recoin the old silver dollar with a view
to exchange it for United States notes?"

In this speech I favored the restoration of the silver dollar of
the precise character and description of the dollar that existed
from 1792 to 1873, but, as the market value of the silver in this
dollar had greatly fallen, I insisted that the dollar should be
coined from bullion purchased by the government at market price,
so that the people of the United States would receive the difference
between the cost of the bullion and the face value of the coin,
the same principle that was adopted in what is known as the Bland-
Allison act of 1878. I did not, however, propose the full legal
tender quality that was given to the dollar by the act when adopted,
but that it should be placed among the other silver coins, and be
a legal tender only for twenty dollars.

The plan proposed by me was to set aside a portion of the surplus
revenue or sinking fund of each year applicable to the payment of
the public debt, for the purchase of silver bullion to be coined
into silver dollars of the old standard. I said:

"The bill reported by the committee on finance thus provides for
an immediate resumption of specie payments in silver coin, and thus
completes the first and most difficult step of the problem. It
neither disturbs nor deranges business, nor stirs up the phantom
of contraction. It is in exact accordance with existing law, and
leaves the silver coin, as now, a subsidiary coin, a legal tender
only for limited amounts.

"The next question presented by this bill is, shall we return to
our silver coinage the old silver dollar. And here I am met by
the objections of the Senator from Vermont, but his objections are
rather to the amendments proposed by the Senator from Missouri,
than to the report of the committee. The committee propose the
silver dollar, not as a legal tender for gold contracts, but only
as a tender for currency contracts not exceeding twenty dollars in
any one payment. I would prefer to leave the silver dollar and
stand upon its intrinsic value as a legal tender the same as the
smaller coin; but there is no injustice in enlarging the limit to
twenty dollars, and but for the reasons I will state hereafter
there is no injustice in making it a legal tender for all currency
contracts. The silver dollar has that intrinsic value which in
all periods of our history has made it a favorite coin, not only
for domestic uses but for exportation. It furnishes silver bullion
in a shape and form more convenient for handling than any other
form of coin.

* * * * *

"When the old silver dollars are issued at par with the United
States notes, a large amount of them will be taken as a reserve by
the people to meet future needs, with or without a legal tender
quality. As their issue is not peremptory, and the aggregate cannot
exceed the surplus revenue or sinking fund, there is no danger of
an overissue, while their existence among the people will be the
best reserve when gold alone becomes the full standard of value.

"Every argument already mentioned in favor of subsidiary silver
coins is equally potent in favor of the silver dollar. It will be
eagerly taken in payment of United States notes. It is purely a
voluntary exchange. It is the cheapest mode in which we can redeem
United States notes. It is specie resumption in the old time-
honored standard of silver dollars of full weight and fineness.
It will accustom our people to distinguish between the real dollar
that pays where it goes and a paper dollar which only promises to
pay. It will prepare the way for full resumption in gold. To the
extent proposed by the committee, and to be used as a purely
voluntary approach to a full specie standard, it is open to no
objection or criticism, and should be assented to by gentlemen who
have differed with each other on the present resumption law or on
the merits and dangers of contraction and expansion."

The vital difference between the free coinage of silver, and the
limited coinage of that metal on government account, is that with
free coinage the standard of value would be the cheaper money.
With silver at its present price in the market the dollar would be
worth but a little over fifty cents. The coinage being free to
the holders of silver bullion no other coins would be made except
the cheaper coins of least purchasing power. On the other hand,
the coinage of silver on government account enables us to maintain
the silver coins at par with gold, without respect to the market
value of the silver bullion. Any nominal profit from this coinage
inures to the benefit of the whole people of the United States and
not merely to the producers of silver bullion. This distinction
has always appeared to me so marked and clear, and the argument so
strong in favor of limiting the coinage of silver to the amount
demanded as a convenience of the people for the smaller transactions
of life, that I cannot sympathize with a policy that aims merely
to secure the cheapest money for the discharge of obligations
contracted upon more valuable money.

Among the measures that became a law at this session was a concurrent
resolution, introduced by me in the Senate on the 5th of July,
1876, to provide for the completion of the Washington monument.

On the morning of the 4th of July, 1876, the 100th anniversary of
American independence, I was making some preparation for the
celebration of that day in the vicinity of Washington. Animated
by the patriotic feeling inspired by the day, and sitting in view
of the unfinished monument of George Washington, I felt that the
time had come when this monument should no longer continue a standing
reproach to a patriotic people. Shortly after the death of
Washington, a resolution providing for the erection of a monument
to his memory, was agreed to by both Houses of Congress. Subsequently,
on January 1, 1801, a bill was passed by the House of Representatives
appropriating $200,000 for this purpose, but, in the political
excitements of that day, the Senate failed to concur. In the
absorbing public questions that ensued, resulting in the War of
1812, the subject was dropped in Congress for the time.

In 1833 the "Washington Monument Society" was formed, with Chief
Justice Marshall as its president. This society proposed to raise
the necessary sum to erect such a monument by voluntary subscriptions
of individuals, and in 1854 it had, by such means, constructed
about one-third of the height of the monument and then suspended
work. Thus it had remained for years for want of means to complete
it, a glaring evidence of failure. The portion of the monument
already reared to the height of 156 feet stood in rude outline, an
abandoned failure in the midst of a reservation partly covered with
water and broken stone. The society was incorporated by Congress
in 1859, but no further progress was made. It was manifest that
the work could not be completed by the existing organization, and
doubts were expressed whether the foundation was sufficient to bear
the superstructure. Under these conditions, on the 100th anniversary
of the declaration of American independence, it occurred to me the
time had arrived when a great country like ours should complete
this unfinished monument to George Washington. Under the inspiration
of this thought I wrote this resolution on the morning of the 4th
of July, and on the next morning offered it for adoption in the
Senate:

"Whereas, It has pleased Almighty God to guide the United States
of America safely through one hundred years of national life, and
to crown our nation with the highest blessing of civil and religious
liberty, Therefore,

"The Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, in
the name of the people of the United States, in reverent thankfulness
acknowledge the fountain and source, the author and giver of all
these blessings, and our dependence upon His providence and will;
and,

"Whereas, We recognize, as our fathers did, that George Washington,
'first in peace, first in war, and first in the hearts of his
countrymen,' was one of the chief instruments of Divine Providence
in securing American independence and in laying broad and deep the
foundations of our liberties in the constitution of the United
States:

"Therefore, as a mark of our sense of the honor due to his name
and to his compatriots and associates, our revolutionary fathers,

"We, the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled,
in the name of the people of the United States at this, the beginning
of the second century of national existence, do assume and direct
the completion of the Washington monument in the city of Washington,
and instruct the committees on appropriations of the respective
Houses to propose suitable provisions of law to carry this resolution
into effect."

In submitting this resolution I said:

"I desire to offer at this time a concurrent resolution I wish to
say before it is read that I believe if it were passed to-day it
would be a matter of profound satisfaction to the great body of
the people of the United States. I ask that it be read."

After the resolution was read, there was a pause, when Mr. Edmunds
said: "Let us consider this resolution. It will be agreed to
unanimously, I am sure."

The resolution was therefore considered and agreed to unanimously.
It was sent to the House of Representatives the next morning, when
Mr. Hopkins, of Pennsylvania, pending a motion to adjourn, asked
unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the concurrent
resolution in reference to the Washington monument. Upon the
resolution being read, the House seemed to be impressed, as was
the Senate, with the fitness of the time, and the propriety of the
measure proposed, and it was unanimously adopted without debate.

Thus Congress undertook to execute the unfinished work of the
Washington Monument Society. The requisite appropriations were
subsequently made, and the monument, as completed, is now the most
impressive token of the appreciation, by the American people, of
the name and fame of George Washington. It is visited daily by
nearly every American or stranger who enters the city of Washington.
Its dedication will be hereafter mentioned.

The Republican national convention of 1876 met at Cincinnati on
the 14th of June of that year. After the usual organization the
following eight nominations for President were made: Blaine,
Morton, Conkling, Bristow, Hayes, Hartranft, Wheeler and Jewell.
The total number of delegates was 754. Blaine was greatly in the
lead, receiving on the first ballot 285 votes, some from nearly
every state. Morton received 124, Bristow 113, Conkling 99, Hayes
61, Hartranft 58, Jewell 11, and Wheeler 3. There were 7 ballots,
in which Blaine steadily held his vote and slightly gained, receiving
on the final ballot 351 votes. The vote for Hayes increased at
each ballot until on the seventh ballot he received 384 votes, a
majority over all.

Undoubtedly Blaine was the favorite of the convention, but the
antagonisms that existed between him and Conkling probably defeated
his nomination. I still believe that the nomination of Hayes was
not only the safest, but the strongest, that could be made. The
long possession of power by the Republicans naturally produced
rivalries that greatly affected the election of anyone who had been
constantly prominent in public life, like Blaine, Conkling and
Morton. Hayes had growing qualities, and in every respect was
worthy of the high position of President. He had been a soldier,
a Member of Congress, thrice elected as Governor of Ohio, an
admirable executive officer, and his public and private record was
beyond question. He was not an aggressive man, although firm in
his opinions and faithful in his friendships. Among all the public
men with whom I have been brought in contact, I have known none
who was freer from personal objection, whose character was more
stainless, who was better adapted for a high executive office, than
Rutherford B. Hayes.

Governor Hayes wrote me the following letter in recognition of my
aid in his nomination.

"Columbus, O., June 19, 1876.
"My Dear Sir:--I trust you will never regret the important action
you took in the inauguration and carrying out of the movement which
resulted in my nomination. I write these few words to assure you
that I appreciate, and am gratified for, what you did.

"My kindest regards to Mrs. Sherman.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman."

His opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, was a man of singular political
sagacity, of great shrewdness, a money-making man, who professed
to represent, and perhaps did represent, as fairly as anyone, the
ideas of the New York politicians of the school of Van Buren and
Marcy. I knew Mr. Tilden personally and very favorably, as we were
members of a board of railroad directors which frequently met. He
seemed to take pleasure in talking with me about political events,
and especially of the famous New York politicians, of whom Silas
Wright and Mr. Van Buren were his favorites. He had acquired great
wealth as the attorney of corporations, and was undoubtedly a man
of marked ability and sagacity. He had taken an active part in
defeating the corruption of Tweed in New York politics. He had
been elected governor of the State of New York, as the candidate
of reform and honesty in politics.

The long and important session of Congress adjourned on the 15th
of August. It had been the arena for long debates, mostly on
political topics growing out of reconstruction, and financial
measures heretofore referred to. The pending presidential contest
also excited much debate in both Houses. The administration of
General Grant had not been entirely satisfactory, and the long
continuance of the Republican party in power was an element of
weakness. The complaints, unavoidable in the most honest
administration, and the disappointments of office-seekers, placed
that party on the defensive. The south had, by reconstruction,
been practically restored to political power, and the body of the
negroes had been substantially disfranchised, though legally entitled
to the suffrage. Riots and crimes of every degree were committed
in the south, notably in Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.
Organized mobs and violence had deterred many from voting, and in
some cases had prevented even the semblance of a free election.

I entered actively into this canvass, more so than in any previous
one. Three days before the adjournment, I made my opening speech
at Marietta, Ohio, in which I discussed fully the dangers of the
restoration of the Democratic party to power, the probability of
their failure to enforce the constitutional amendments, and the
protection of the rights of the freedmen. I claimed that the
election of Mr. Tilden would result in the virtual nullification
of the constitutional amendments, and amount to a practical
restoration to power of the old Democratic party. The revival of
the rebel claims, the refunding of the cotton tax, and the damages
done to rebels, were fully commented upon, as were the outrages
committed upon freedmen during the second administration of General
Grant, the organization of Ku-Klux Klans, and the White League,
and the boldness with which the laws were disregarded in the south.
It is difficult now to realize the condition of public affairs in
all the states then lately in rebellion. The people of the south
are certainly entitled to the highest credit for the great change
that has recently been made in the government of their states, but
it cannot be denied that during the ten years after the war their
condition bordered on the despotism of mob rule and violence.
Financial questions, no doubt, entered into the canvass, but in
this respect Governor Tilden and Governor Hayes did not materially
differ, while public opinion in the southern states was almost a
unit in favor of the larger use of paper money. Their bankrupt
condition made this policy almost universal there.

I continued until the day of election to make speeches, not only
in Ohio, but in several of the states. I engaged in a joint debate
with Senator Voorhees, of Indiana, at Columbia City, in that state,
in September, which probably had more fun and humor in it than
argument. It so happened that appointments were made for each of
us at Columbia City, on the same day, and the managers of the two
parties concluded that they would have a joint debate, and arranged
for it, to which we both assented. There was a great crowd, and
besides Mr. Voorhees and myself, "Blue Jeans" Williams, the candidate
for governor, was to open the meeting in his peculiar way, to which,
as it would not at all interfere with our debate, I did not object.
The debate was fully reported in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean," and is
a very graphic specimen of popular debates in which each side claims
to be the victor. I think it would be safe to say that from the
close of Congress until the day of election I spoke on nearly every
week day in some one of the five or six states which I visited.

The result of the presidential election in November, 1876, was
extremely doubtful. It was soon asserted that the majority either
way would be very small, and that the probabilities were that Mr.
Tilden was elected. Zachariah Chandler, chairman of the national
Republican committee, however, confidently telegraphed, on the
morning after the election, that Hayes was elected by a majority
of one in the electoral college. Further reports developed that
on account of intimidation, frauds and violence, committed in the
election in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, the vote of
each of those states was doubtful, and could only be ascertained
by the reports of the returning boards. All of their electoral
votes were needed to give Hayes the majority of one. Both parties
claimed in each of the states a majority of the popular vote. In
the heated state of political feeling in those states, it was a
matter of grave doubt whether the count of the vote might not result
in violence, tumult or war. On the evening of November 11, I
received from President Grant the following telegram:

"Philadelphia, Pa., November 11, 1876.
"Received at Mansfield, O., 8:35 p. m.
"Senator John Sherman.

"I would be much pleased if you would join other parties, who have
already accepted same invitation, to go to New Orleans to witness
the canvassing of the vote of Louisiana.

"U. S. Grant."

I replied that I would go as soon as practicable, and received the
following answer:

"Washington, D. C., November 12, 1876.
"Received at Mansfield, O., 4 p. m.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Unless you can reach there by Friday morning it will be too late.

"U. S. Grant."

I at once started for New Orleans, stopping on the way at Columbus
to confer with Governor Hayes, who said he wished I would go to
New Orleans, and witness the count, but expressed, in the strongest
possible language, his opposition to any movement on the part of
anyone to influence the action of the returning board in his favor.
He said that if Mr. Tilden was elected he desired him by all means
to have the office. I proceeded to Cincinnati, where I met some
of the gentlemen whom General Grant had requested to witness the
count. When we arrived in New Orleans I found far less excitement
in respect to the count than in Ohio. I there met the other
gentlemen who had been, like myself, invited by General Grant.
They were Messrs. Stanley Matthews, Ohio; J. A. Garfield, Ohio; E.
W. Stoughton, New York; J. H. Van Alen, New York; Wm. D. Kelley,
Pennsylvania; Job E. Stevenson, Ohio; Eugene Hale, Maine; J. M.
Tuttle, Iowa; J. W. Chapman, Iowa; W. R. Smith, Iowa; W. A. McGrew,
Iowa; Sidney Clarke, Kansas; C. B. Farwell, Illinois; Abner Taylor,
Illinois; S. R. Haven, Illinois; J. M. Beardsley, Illinois; John
Coburn, Indiana; Will Cumback, Indiana; C. Irving Ditty, Maryland.

At New Orleans I was for the first time introduced to the members
of the returning board, who, under the laws of Louisiana, were
required to verify the count and whose return was final. We met
also a large number of gentlemen who were there at the request of
the national Democratic committee to perform the same duty that
had been imposed upon us by General Grant. These gentlemen were
John M. Palmer, Illinois; Lyman Trumbull, Illinois; William R.
Morrison, Illinois; Samuel J. Randall, Pennsylvania; A. G. Curtin,
Pennsylvania; William Bigler, Pennsylvania; J. R. Doolittle,
Wisconsin; George R. Smith, Wisconsin; J. E. McDonald, Indiana;
George W. Julian, Indiana; M. D. Manson, Indiana; John Love, Indiana;
Henry Watterson, Kentucky; J. W. Stevenson, Kentucky; Henry D.
McHenry, Kentucky; Oswald Ottendorfer, New York; J. B. Stallo,
Ohio; Lewis V. Bogy, Missouri; James O. Brodhead, Missouri; C.
Gibson, Missouri; John Lee Carroll, Maryland; William T. Hamilton,
Maryland; W. G. Sumner, Connecticut; P. H. Watson, Ohio; F. R.
Coudert, New York.

Before my arrival a correspondence had occurred between what was
called the Democratic visitors and the Republican visitors in regard
to our respective duties. This correspondence, all of which was
reported to President Grant, resulted in the attendance of a certain
number of each of the bodies of visitors at each session of the
returning board, and thus a constant surveillance of the proceedings
of the board was had. At the same time we received from the
returning board the following letter:

"State of Louisiana, Office Board of Returning-Officers,}
"New Orleans, November 18, 1876. }
"Sir:--At a meeting of the board of returning-officers, held this
day, the following preamble and resolution, introduced by General
Thomas C. Anderson, was unanimously adopted, viz:

"Whereas, This board has learned with satisfaction that distinguished
gentlemen of national reputation from other States, some at the
request of the President of the United States, and some at the
request of the national executive committee of the Democratic party
are present in this city with a view to witness the proceedings of
this board in canvassing and compiling the returns of the recent
election in this state for presidential electors, in order that
the public opinion of the country may be satisfied as to the truth
of the result and the fairness of the means by which it may have
been attained; and whereas, this board recognizes the importance
which may attach to the result of their proceedings, and that the
public mind should be convinced of its justice by a knowledge of
the facts on which it may be based, therefore, be it

_Resolved_, That this board does hereby cordially invite and request
five gentlemen from each of the two bodies named, to be selected
by themselves respectively, to attend and be present at the meetings
of the board while engaged in the discharge of its duties, under
the law, in canvassing and compiling the returns, and ascertaining
and declaring the result of said election for presidential electors,
in their capacity as private citizens of eminent reputation and
high character, and as spectators and witnesses of the proceedings
in that behalf of this board.

"J. Madison Wells,
"Chairman Board of Returning-Officers.
"Hon. John Sherman, St. Charles Hotel, New Orleans."

On the same day I answered in behalf of my associates as follows:

"St. Charles Hotel, }
"New Orleans, November 18, 1876.}
"Sir:--I have received your note of to-day, with a copy of the
resolution of the board of returning-officers of the State of
Louisiana, and have communicated the invitation contained in it to
the gentlemen who are here at the request of the President of the
United States to witness the canvassing of the vote at the recent
election in this state for presidential electors, and am instructed
by them to inform you of their acceptance of the invitation, and
that they will designate a committee of five of their number to
attend the meetings of the board. And I take this occasion to
express my thanks for the courteous terms of this invitation, my
deep sense of the importance of your proceedings, and my confident
hope that they will be so conducted as to convince the public mind
of the justice of your finding.

"John Sherman.
"Hon. J. Madison Wells."

A similar invitation was extended to the Democratic visitors, and
substantially the same reply made. The returning board then
proceeded to perform its duty under the law. At each session the
Republican and Democratic visitors were present, and I neither know
of nor have ever heard of any act being done or testimony taken by
the board except in the presence of committees of the two bodies
of visitors. The proceedings of the returning board were reported
for each body of visitors and for the returning board, and all the
evidence taken was not only delivered in the presence of the two
visiting bodies, but was reported to the President and was published
by Congress. Whatever opinions may be expressed as to the correctness
of the findings of the returning board, there can be no doubt that
its proceedings were open, fair and impartial. The board arrived
at the conclusion that the Republican electors received a majority
of the votes cast in Louisiana at that election, and were entitled
to cast the vote of the state for President of the United States.

During the great excitement over this controversy, and also over
that in South Carolina and Florida, exaggerated statements, without
the slightest foundation, of frauds and improper conduct on the
part of the returning officers were made and published. As to the
action of the returning board of Louisiana, I feel bound now, after
a long lapse of time, to repeat what was reported to General Grant
by the Republican visitors, that it made a fair, honest and impartial
return of the result of the election. In concluding our report we
said:

"The proof of violence and intimidation and armed disturbance in
many other parishes, is of the same general character, although
more general and decisive, as to the five parishes particularly
referred to. In the others, these causes prevailed at particular
polling places, at many of which the Republican vote was, to a
considerable extent, prevented.

"We hope to be able to furnish full copies of all testimony taken
by the board, that the justice of its conclusions may be appreciated.
It is a tribunal, from which there can be no appeal, and, in view
of the possible consequences of its adjudication, we have closely
observed its proceedings and have carefully weighed the force of
a large mass of the testimony upon which that adjudication has been
reached.

"The members of the board, acting under oath, were bound by law,
if convinced by the testimony that riot, tumult, acts of violence,
or armed disturbance did materially interfere with the purity and
freedom of election at any poll or voting place, or did materially
change the result of the election thereat, to reject the votes thus
cast, and exclude them from their final return. Of the effect of
such testimony, the board was sole and final judge, and if, in
reaching a conclusion, it exercised good faith and was guided by
an honest desire to do justice, its determination should be respected,
even if, upon like proof, a different conclusion might have been
reached by other tribunals or persons.

"To guard the purity of the ballot; to protect the citizen in the
free and peaceful exercise of his right to vote; to secure him
against violence, intimidation, outrage, and especially murder,
when he attempts to perform his duty, should be the desire of all
men, and the aim of every representative government. If political
success shall be attained by such violent and terrible means as
were resorted to in many parishes in Louisiana, complaint should
not be made if the votes thus obtained are denounced by judicial
tribunals and all honest men as illegal and void."

Pending the action of the board I wrote to Governor Hayes the
following letter, giving a general view of the testimony:

"State of Louisiana, Executive Department,}
"New Orleans, November 23, 1876. }
"My Dear Sir:--I have not written you sooner, for the progress of
our visitation will be known to you through the papers sooner than
from my letters, and the telegraph office here is more public than
a sheriff's sale. We sometimes hear of private telegrams before
they are delivered. The action of the returning board has thus
far been open and fair and only confirms the general result known
before. We are now approaching the contested parishes. To five
of them, viz: Baton Rouge, East and West Feliciana, Morehouse and
Ouachita, the evidence of intimidation is so well made out on paper
that no man can doubt as to the just exclusion of their vote. In
these parishes alone we ought to have a majority of 7,000, but
under the law the entire return must be excluded of all election
districts where intimidation has affected or changed the result.
If this is done the result will give the Hayes electors majorities
aggregating 24,111, and the Tilden electors 22,633, but in almost
every parish the official return varies somewhat from the stated
majorities, and thus far slightly reduces the Republican majority.

"The vote of each disputed parish has thus far been laid aside,
and among them two parishes where a most foolish blunder, or
something worse, was made in omitting from the Republican tickets
the names of all the electors but the two Senatorial and one district
elector. The Democrats claim this will lose over 2,000 votes, but
our friends, whose information we have generally found confirmed,
say it will lose us at most 1,193 votes. The law seems conclusive
that the defective ballots cannot be counted for any electors but
those named on the ticket; though it is conclusively shown that
the remaining electors were omitted by reason of the mistaken idea
that the district could only vote for one elector. The whole
trouble has grown out of the fact that in these two parishes a
candidate for district judge was not named on the ticket printed
by the state committee. We undertook to correct this by printing
new tickets, which were voted in those parishes. The result of
this blunder will leave the poll so close as to render it probable
that one or more of the Tilden electors would have a majority.

"There are other parishes where the organized intimidation was not
so general as in the parishes named, though in single election
precincts it was effective. These parishes, where formal protests
have been filed, are Bienville, Bossier, Caldwell, Franklin, Grant,
Iberia, Lincoln, Richland and Sabine. How far the proof in these
parishes will sustain the protests we cannot judge till the evidence
is heard before the returning board.

"We are now collecting the testimony as to the bulldozed parishes.
It seems more like the history of hell than of civilized and
Christian communities. The means adopted are almost incredible,
but were fearfully effective upon an ignorant and superstitious
people. That you would have received at a fair election a large
majority in Louisiana, no honest man can question; that you did
not receive a majority is equally clear. But that intimidation of
the very kind and nature provided against by the Louisiana law did
enter into and control the election, in more election polls than
would change the result and give you the vote, I believe as firmly
as that I write this. The difficulty of gathering this testimony
and putting it in the legal form has been very great, but I believe
has been fully met.

"The whole case rests upon the action of the returning board. I
have carefully observed them, and have formed a high opinion of
Governor Wells and Colonel Anderson. They are firm, judicious,
and, as far as I can judge, thoroughly honest and conscientious.
They are personally familiar with the nature and degree of intimidation
in Louisiana. They can see that the intimidation, as organized,
was with a view of throwing out Republican parishes rather than
endangering Democratic parishes. Our little party is now dividing
out the disputed parishes, with the view of a careful examination
of every paper and detail. Many are impatient of the delay, and
some have gone home. We will probably be able to keep about ten
here. We have incurred some liabilities for reporting, printing,
etc., but hope the Republican national committee will make this
good. If not, we must provide for it ourselves. We are in good
hope and spirit. Not wishing the return in your favor, unless it
is clear that it ought to be so, and not willing to be cheated out
of it, or to be 'bulldozed' or intimidated, the truth is palpable
that you ought to have the vote of Louisiana, and we believe that
you will have ti, by an honest and fair return, according to the
letter and spirit of the law of Louisiana.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

To this General Hayes responded as follows:

"Columbus, O., November 27, 1876.
"My Dear Sir:--I am greatly obliged to you for your letter of the
23rd. You feel, I am sure, as I do about this whole business. A
fair election would have given us about forty electoral votes at
the south--at least that many. But we are not to allow our friends
to defeat one outrage and fraud by another. There must be nothing
crooked on our part. Let Mr. Tilden have the place by violence,
intimidation and fraud, rather than undertake to prevent it by
means that will not bear the severest scrutiny.

"I appreciate the work doing by the Republicans who have gone south,
and am especially proud of the acknowledged honorable conduct of
those from Ohio. The Democrats make a mistake in sending so many
ex-Republicans. New converts are proverbially bitter and unfair
towards those they have recently left.

"I trust you will soon reach the end of the work, and be able to
return in health and safety.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes."

I met Governor Hayes on my return and his conversation was to the
same effect, that he wished no doubtful votes and would greatly
prefer to have Mr. Tilden serve as President if there was any doubt
about his (Hayes') election. The Republican visitors did not return
until after the meeting of Congress at its regular session on the
4th of December, 1876.

President Grant, in the beginning of his annual message of that
date, said:

"In submitting my eighth and last message to Congress, it seems
proper that I should refer to, and in some degree recapitulate,
the events and official acts of the past eight years.

"It was my fortune, or misfortune, to be called to the office of
Chief Executive without any previous political training. From the
age of seventeen I had never even witnessed the excitement attending
a presidential campaign but twice antecedent to my own candidacy,
and at but one of them was I eligible as a voter. Under such
circumstances it is but reasonable to suppose that errors of judgment
must have occurred. Even had they not, differences of opinion
between the Executive, bound by an oath to the strict performance
of his duties, and writers and debaters must have arisen. It is
not necessarily evidence of blunder on the part of the Executive
because there are these differences of views. Mistakes have been
made, as all can see and I admit, but, it seems to me, oftener in
the selections made of the assistants appointed to aid in carrying
out the various duties of administering the government, in nearly
every case selected without a personal acquaintance with the
appointee, but upon recommendations of the representatives chosen
directly by the people. It is impossible, where so many trusts
are to be allotted, that the right parties should be chosen in
every instance. History shows that no administration, from the
time of Washington to the present, has been free from these mistakes.
But I leave comparison to history, claiming only that I have acted
in every instance from a conscientious desire to do what was right,
constitutional within the law, and for the very best interests of
the whole people. Failures have been errors of judgment, not of
intent."

This modest statement by General Grant was appreciated by Congress
and by the country. No one doubted the sincerity and patriotism
of the President. His modest confession of errors did not in the
slightest degree impair the universal confidence in him.

On the 18th of January, 1877, Mr. Edmunds, of the select committee
of the Senate on the counting of electoral votes, submitted a report
in writing with an accompanying bill. It was, with one exception,
signed by the members of the committees of the two Houses without
distinction of party. The bill provided in full detail a prescribed
manner for counting the electoral vote. It was adopted by both
Houses and voted for by a great majority, but, believing that it
was extra constitutional, I, with other Republicans, did not vote
for it. The history of the electoral commission provided for in
this bill is part of the history of the country, and it is not
necessary to here enter into it in detail. It is sufficient to
say that it resulted in the counting of the votes of Louisiana,
South Carolina and Florida for Mr. Hayes, electing him President
by a majority of one vote. I took an active part in the debates
on the questions involved and gave in detail my view of the action
of the returning board of Louisiana.

During this period I received a number of personal letters from
Governor Hayes, some of which may be of interest:

"Columbus, O., December 25, 1876.
"My Dear Sir:--I have your esteemed favor, and have also met Judge
Taft and Governor Dennison. There will not be the slightest
difficulty growing out of the matter you refer to. You know my
general course of conduct. It has always seemed to me wisest, in
case of decided antagonisms among friends, not to take sides--to
heal by compromise, not to aggravate, etc., etc. I wish _you_ to
feel authorized to speak in pretty decided terms for me whenever
it seems advisable--to do this not by reason of specific authority
to do it, but from your knowledge of my general methods of action.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman, etc., etc."

"Columbus, O., January 5, 1877.
"My Dear Sir:--I have your note of the 3rd. I do not wish to
influence the action of our friends, and do not volunteer opinions.
But _you_ have a right to my opinion. I believe the Vice President
alone has the constitutional power to count the votes and declare
the result. Everything in the nature of a contest as to electoral
votes is an affair of the states. The rest is a mere ministerial
duty. Therefore it is not right, in my judgment, for Congress to
interfere.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman, U. S. S."

"Columbus, O., February 15, 1877.
"My Dear Sir:--I have two letters from you since I last wrote. It
if becomes my duty to make a cabinet I want your views fully and
specifically. If possible a personal interview would be extremely
desirable. Boynton writes to Smith that an assurance of my views
on the southern question, which are truly set forth in my letter,
with such additions as I could properly make, would be useful. I
prefer to make no new declarations. But you may say if you deem
it advisable that you _know_ that I will stand by the friendly and
encouraging words of that letter and by all that they imply. You
cannot express that too strongly.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman."

"Columbus, O., February 16, 1877.
"My Dear Sir:--If the issue of the contest is in our favor I shall
want to see you at once if it is at all practicable. Don't you
want to visit Mansfield? I can meet you there or here--or possibly
at a point east of there.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman."

"Columbus, O., February 19, 1877.
"My Dear Sir:--The more I think of it the more difficult it seems
for me to get ready to come to Washington before Wednesday or
Thursday of next week. I must fix affairs at Fremont, and cannot
begin it until I know the result. Why can't friends be sent or
come here?

"It seems to me proper now to say that I am extremely desirous that
you should take the treasury department. Aside from my own personal
preference, there are many and controlling reasons why I should
ask you to do this. It will satisfy friends here in Ohio. I
understand Governor Morton and our friends in Washington like it.
The country will approve it. You are by all odds the best fitted
for it of any man in the nation. Your resignation from the Senate
will be a great loss to that body, but it will cause no serious
dissensions or difficulty in Ohio. Do not say no until I have had
a full conference with you. There is no reason why you should not
visit Ohio as soon as you can be spared from Washington. Of course
the public will know of our meeting. But they will be gratified
to know it. No possible harm can come of it. I should have said
all this before, but I did not want to embarrass you in your action
on the presidential question.

"Sincerely,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman."

(Telegram.)
"Columbus, O., February 20, 1877.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"I will be greatly obliged if you can come to Columbus, but will
meet you at Zanesville if you think it important.

"R. B. Hayes."

"Columbus, O., February 28, 1877.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"Dear Sir:--Governor Hayes will be obliged to you if you will be
kind enough to speak to Mr. Evarts with respect to his acceptance
of the place in the cabinet referred to in the interview with you
last week. It was the governor's intention to make this request
at that time, and he may have done so, but not being quite sure of
the fact, desires me to write you with reference to it.

"Yours very respectfully,
"W. K. Rogers, Secretary."

President Hayes frequently, in personal conversation and in writing,
had expressed a strong desire that I should become the Secretary
of the Treasury. I was disinclined to accept this position, as I
was content to serve my constituents in the Senate. It was not
until after his urgent request in his letter of February 19, 1877,
that I seriously considered his desire that I should accept that
office. I went to Columbus to ascertain the views of the legislature,
and whether there would be any difficulty in selecting a Republican
to my place in the Senate. Having found that there would not be,
I, with reluctance, accepted his offer. Stanley Matthews was
elected on the 21st of March to serve out my unexpired term, which
ended on the 3rd of March, 1879.

President Hayes arrived at Washington a few days before the 4th of
March and was my guest until he was inaugurated as President. The
4th day of March was on Sunday, and to avoid any questions about
an interregnum, he was sworn into office on that day, but took the
formal oath on the next day, the 5th of March, and made his inaugural
address. He nominated the members of his cabinet to the Senate
and they were promptly confirmed.

I received many letters of congratulation and encouragement in
assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury, two of which I
insert:

"New York, March 6, 1877.
"My Dear Mr. Secretary:--Allow me to congratulate you on having
been selected by President Hayes to administer the financial affairs
of the nation.

"I deem it a happy augury that the President's choice of members
of his cabinet has fallen upon men who have made their mark as
statesmen, and whose advent to power will, I feel convinced,
inaugurate an era of prosperity for our country.

"With yourself at the head of the treasury department, there is no
fear of public credit being shaken and commercial interests imperiled
by crude and experimental legislation.

"With great respect, I remain, my dear Mr. Sherman,

"Very truly your friend,
"Cyrus W. Field.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington."

"Consulate General of the United States for Great Britain and
Ireland,}
"London, E. C., March 12, 1877.}
"The Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"My Dear Sir:--When I begin to write to you, I am reminded of what
General Sherman said, in my hearing, to General Grant, after the
latter was made General in Chief: 'I cannot congratulate you; the
responsibility is too great.' You have certainly succeeded to the
most difficult post in the government, one in whose successful
administration Americans abroad feel an especial interest, for no
department is more important to foreigners or more discussed by
them.

"It may not be unsatisfactory to you to know that Americans--both
those long domiciled here and those in transit--applaud the
appointment of the new Chief of the Treasury.

"I beg to offer my best wishes and belief that the reputation he
has already achieved in the Senate will be increased in the cabinet;
and to say how glad I was that the unanimity of his late compeers
showed that they were of the same mind.

"With great respect, I am, my dear sir,

"Very faithfully yours,
"Adam Badeau."

When I assumed the office of Secretary of the Treasury I had the
advantage of some of my predecessors in that I was acquainted with
the organization and duties of the treasury department. Ever since
1859 my connection with the committee of ways and means in the
House and with the committee on Finance in the Senate had brought
me into official relations with the head of that department. This
legislative training gave me a full knowledge of the several laws
that were to be executed in relation to public revenue, to all
forms of taxation, to coinage and currency, and to the public debt.
The entire system of national finance then existing grew out of
the Civil War, and I had participated in the passage of all the
laws relating to this subject. My intimate association with
Secretaries Chase, Fessenden and McCulloch, and my friendly relations
with Secretaries Boutwell and Richardson, led me, as chairman of
the Senate committee on finance, to have free and confidential
intercourse with them as to legislation affecting the treasury.
Secretary Bristow had not had the benefit of experience either in
Congress or the department. He was a good lawyer and an able man.
He doubted whether resumption would be effective without a gradual
retirement of United States notes, a measure that Congress would
not agree to. Congress repealed even the limited retirement of
such notes provided for by the resumption act. Secretary Morrill,
of Maine, my immediate predecessor, was in hearty sympathy with
the policy of Congress, of which he had been a useful Senator, and
but for his failing health would have been an efficient secretary.
Upon my assuming the duties of secretary, and for some time before,
he had been confined by illness to his lodgings in Washington.
The treasury department was then well organized. Most of the
principal officers had been long in the service. But few changes
were made by President Hayes or by myself, and only as vacancies
occurred or as incompetency was demonstrated. The following loan
contract was in force at the beginning of my administration of the
treasury department:

"This agreement, entered into this 24th day of August, in the year
of our Lord, 1876, between the Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States of America, of the first part, and Messrs. August
Belmont & Co., of New York, in behalf of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild
& Sons, of London, England, and associates, and Messrs. J. & W.
Seligman & Co., of New York, for themselves and associates, and
Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Co., on behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan &
Co., of London, England, and Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co., of New
York, representing the First National Bank of the city of New York,
the American Exchange National Bank of New York, the Merchants'
National Bank of New York, the Third National Bank of New York,
Messrs. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of New York, the Bank of New York National
Banking Association, and Messrs. Morton, Rose & Co., of London,
and themselves, of the second part:

"Witnesseth, That the said Messrs. August Belmont & Co. of New
York, on behalf of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons and associates,
hereby agrees to purchase from the Secretary of the Treasury sixteen
million five hundred thousand dollars ($16,500,000) of the United
States bonds known as the four and a half per cent. funded loan of
1891, issued under the acts of July 14, 1870, and January 20, 1871;
and that Messrs. J. & W. Seligman & Co., for themselves and their
associates, hereby agree to purchase from the Secretary of the
Treasury six million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($6,750,000) of the bonds hereinbefore described; and that Messrs.
Drexel, Morgan & Co., on behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., of
London, England, hereby agree to purchase from the Secretary of
the Treasury six million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($6,750,000) of the bonds hereinbefore described; and that Messrs.
Morton, Bliss & Co., of New York, representing the First National
Bank of the city of New York, to the extent of four million dollars
($4,000,000); the American Exchange National Bank of New York, to
the extent of one million and fifty thousand dollars ($1,050,000);
the Merchants' National Bank of New York, to the extent of six
hundred thousand dollars ($600,000); the Third National Bank of
the city of New York, to the extent of seven hundred and fifty
thousand dollars ($750,000); Messrs. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of New York,
to the extent of one million and fifty thousand dollars ($1,050,000);
the Bank of New York National Banking Association, to the extent
of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000); Messrs. Morton, Rose
& Co., of London, to the extent of one million one hundred and
twenty-five thousand dollars ($1,125,000), and Messrs. Morton,
Bliss & Co., of New York, to the extent of one million one hundred
and twenty-five thousand dollars ($1,125,000), hereby agree, to
the extent severally for each as above stated, to purchase from
the Secretary of the Treasury ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in
the aggregate of the bonds hereinbefore described, making a total
aggregate of forty million dollars ($40,000,000), upon the terms
and conditions following, to-wit:

"First. Of the said aggregate amount, not less than ten million
dollars ($10,000,000) are hereby subscribed for, the subscription
to take effect on the 1st day of September, 1876, and the remaining
amount, namely, thirty million dollars ($30,000,000), may be divided
at the pleasure of the parties of the second part into several
successive subscriptions of not less than five million dollars
($5,000,000) each, to be made prior to the 4th day of March, 1877.

"Second. The parties of the second part shall have the exclusive
right to subscribe, in the same proportion to each of the subscribers,
for the remainder, namely, two hundred and sixty million dollars
($260,000,000), or any portion of said loan authorized to be issued
by the acts of Congress aforesaid, by giving notice thereof to the
Secretary of the Treasury on or before the 30th day of June, 1877;
but the party of the first part reserves the right to terminate
this contract at any time after March 4, 1877, by giving ten days'
notice thereof to the parties of the second part.

"Third. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall, when subscriptions
are made by the said parties of the second part, issue calls with
even date with said subscriptions for the redemption of an equivalent
amount of six per cent. 5-20 bonds of the United States, as provided
by said act of July 14, 1870.

"Fourth. The parties of the second part agree to pay for said four
and a half per cent. bonds par and interest accrued to the date of
application for delivery of said bonds, in gold coin, matured United
States gold coin coupons, or any of the six per cent. 5-20 bonds
called for redemption, or in United States gold certificates of
deposit issued under the act of March 3, 1863, with the understanding
that payment to the extent of the amount of any call shall be made
within the time during which such call shall mature: _Provided_,
That, if the parties of the second part shall elect so to do, they
may have the privilege of making any of said subscriptions payable
specifically in uncalled six per cent 5-20 bonds of the United
States, in which case the Secretary of the Treasury may, to the
extent of such payments, omit the calls mentioned in condition No. 3.

"Fifth. The parties of the second part shall receive in coin a
commission of one-half of one per cent. on all bonds taken by them,
as allowed by the act of July 14, 1870, and shall assume and defray
all expenses which may be incurred in sending bonds to London upon
their request, or by transmitting bonds, coupons, or coin from
there to the treasury department at Washington, including all cost
of making exchange of bonds, and shall also be charged with the
preparation and issuing of the bonds.

"Sixth. No bonds shall be delivered to the parties of the second
part, or either of them, until payment shall have been made in full
therefor in accordance with the terms of this contract.

"Seventh. During the continuance of this contract any sales of
bonds ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, by authority of
law, except those that it may become necessary to sell to pay
judgments of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, shall
be made through the parties of the second part, who shall be allowed
thereon a commission of one per cent. in gold coin. And it is
provided that the amount of bonds so ordered shall not exceed in
the aggregate $25,000,000, unless by mutual agreement of the
parties.

"Lot M. Morrill, Secretary of the Treasury.
"Aug. Belmont & Co., On behalf of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, London.
"J. & W. Seligman & Co., On behalf of Seligman Brothers.
"Drexel, Morgan & Co., On behalf of J. S. Morgan & Co., of London.
"Morton, Bliss & Co., For themselves and associates, as named
above."

By its terms the contract provided for the sale of $40,000,000,
four and a half per cent. bonds of the United States at par in gold
coin. The contractors had the exclusive right to subscribe for
all or any portion of the remainder of the four and a half per
cent. bonds, amounting to $260,000,000. The right to terminate
this contract at any time after March 4, 1877, after ten days'
notice, was reserved by the United States. The proceeds of the
bonds sold were to be applied solely to the payment of the six per
cent. 5-20 bonds of the United States. No provision was made in
this contract for the accumulation of coin for the redemption of
United States notes. The process of refunding under it progressed
slowly.

I felt it to be important that I should have some personal
representative in London, to protect the interests of the United
States in the execution of this contract, and, therefore, on the
31st of March, 1877, I appointed Charles F. Conant, as the funding
agent of the treasury department, and directed him to assume the
general management and supervision of all business in London,
arising from the funding of bonds. A letter of instructions
prescribing his duties was given him. He was directed to pursue
the same general plan under which former negotiations had been
conducted, except as modified by these instructions, which were
based upon the contract before mentioned. All bonds, money, or
coupons received by him were to be securely kept in safes, furnished
by the department for that purpose, to be deposited in the vaults
of the Messrs. Rothschild. Combination locks were provided for
each safe, and no safe could be unlocked except by three persons
on distinct combinations, each person using a combination unknown
to the others. He was to keep me fully advised as to the course
of the market, of the price not only of American securities, but
of foreign securities, and was to receive the new bonds and deliver
them to the Rothschilds in exchange for the bonds redeemed. He
proved to be a very competent and faithful agent, and furnished me
important financial information, which aided me greatly in refunding
operations. His compensation and allowances, as well as those of
all persons sent to London in connection with the refunding of the
public debt, were paid by the syndicate, so that no expense whatever
was incurred by the treasury on this account.

I gave the following notice to the parties to this contract that
I would, on the part of the United States, terminate it.

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., April 6, 1877.}
"Gentlemen:--I received your friendly cable message of the 10th
ultimo, and return my thanks and hearty good wishes.

"I am very solicitous to promote the funding of our six per cent.
bonds as rapidly as practicable, and feel indebted to you for the
aid you have given in placing the four and a half per cent. bonds.

"I propose no change at present; but it is my desire, if practicable,
to withdraw the four and a half per cent. bonds from the market
and substitute in their place the four per cent. bonds authorized
by the funding act.

"These bonds, as you know, are a very desirable investment, running
thirty years from the date of issue, with every guard and security
that has been given to any bond of the United States, and we think
as safe and desirable as the securities of any other nation. It
is probably the bond into which all the debt of the United States
will in time be converted. I hope you and your associates will be
able to engage with me to place this bond on the market when
$200,000,000 of the four and a half per cent. bonds have been sold.

"The public policy of the United States to resume specie payments
on or before the 1st of January, 1879, is fully established by the
law and by public opinion. It may be that the surplus revenue will
be sufficient to enable me to carry out this policy without the
sale of bonds. I am authorized by the resumption act to sell five,
four and a half, or four per cent. bonds to prepare for resumption,
and it may be desirable to sell through the syndicate, under that
act, a limited amount of bonds, not exceeding, I hope, $30,000,000
a year. I do not wish in the execution of this duty to disturb
the exchanges between Europe and this country. For this purpose
I desire to sell only the four per cent. bonds and must sell at
par in coin, but could receive in payment coin coupons maturing
within a limited time. I invite from you and your associates such
suggestions and offers as you may think proper to make for the
purchase of such bonds.

"The operations of the syndicate have become so important that I
have deemed it proper to ask Mr. Charles F. Conant, late Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury, to take charge of the business in London
in connection with the gentlemen already there. He is well informed
as to our laws, and I trust his services may be of advantage to
the government and agreeable to you.

"I will give my personal attention to this business, and will
receive with pleasure any suggestions from you that will promote
our common object.

"Very truly,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons, London, England."

I received the following letter:

"New York, April 12, 1877.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington.

"My Dear Sir:--I had an interview with Messrs. Drexel, Morgan &
Co., and conveyed to them your wishes respecting limiting the sale
of the four and a half and taking the four per cent. bond in hand
with the co-operation of the Messrs. Rothschild.

"I told Mr. Drexel that you would be happy to see him and Mr. L.
P. Morton in Washington, whenever convenient for them to go, and
that on receipt by you of favorable advices from Mr. Conant after
his arrival in London, you desired that Drexel, Morton and I should
repair to Washington, in company with other leading members of the
syndicate, with a view of entering into a contract with the
government, in conformity with your views as expressed to me, or
perhaps with some slight modifications, which, if suggested by the
London people, through Mr. Conant, you may deem proper to adopt.

"I shall see Mr. Morton in the course of this day, and have no
doubt but that he, as well as Drexel and myself, will be happy to
aid you in raising the credit of our common country, and assist
the President and you in this patriotic work. I remain, dear Mr.
secretary, yours, very faithfully.

"Jos. Seligman."

A month later I wrote to Mr. Conant as follows:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, May 14, 1877.}
"Dear Mr. Conant:-- . . . On Friday last I concluded a modification
of the present syndicate contract, which provides for the sale of
five million four and a half per cent. bonds at par in coin for
resumption purposes. A further negotiation is pending as to the
renewal and modification of the contract, of which I will give you
due notice when completed. In the meantime I wish to keep steadily
in view the sale of the balance of two hundred million four and a
half per cent. bonds, and, if possible, I wish to make the necessary
calls during this month and next.

"You can assure Messrs. Rothschild of every disposition on the part
of the government to meet their views, and to extend the contract
with the necessary modifications. Their efforts in maintaining
the credit of the bonds and securing this result will be highly
appreciated.

"I would like to have you write me at least twice a week as fully
as practicable.

"Very truly,
"John Sherman.
"Mr. C. F. Conant, London."

As the process of redeeming called bonds required a notice of ninety
days, I postponed the termination of the existing contract until
after that period. My purpose in terminating the contract was to
substitute for sale the four per cent. bonds of the United States
instead of the four and a half per cent. bonds. I believed that
the advancing credit of the United States would justify this
reduction of the rate of interest. Another reason for this step
was that, in addition to refunding at a lower rate of interest, I
wished to commence preparation for the resumption of specie payments
on January 1, 1879, according to law. This could only be done by
the sale of bonds for gold coin. I reserved the remainder of the
four and a half bonds, amounting to $100,000,000, authorized by
the refunding act, for resumption purposes in case the four per
cent. bonds could not be sold at par in coin.

Another reason for a change in the existing contract was that it
gave to the syndicate a monopoly in the sale of bonds while I wished
to sell the bonds directly to the people. The new contract was as
follows:

"This agreement, entered into this 9th day of June, 1877, between
the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the first
part, and Messrs. August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of
Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons, of London, England, and associates
and themselves; Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Co., of New York, on behalf
of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., of London, and themselves; Messrs.
J. & W. Seligman & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. Seligman
Brothers, of London, and themselves; Messrs. Morton, Bliss & Co.,
of New York, on behalf of Messrs. Morton, Rose & Co., of London,
and themselves; and the First National Bank of the city of New York--

"Witnesseth: That the said Messrs. August Belmont & Co., on behalf
of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons, and associates and themselves,
hereby agree to purchase from the Secretary of the Treasury
$10,312,500 of the bonds known as the four per cent. consols of
the United States, issued under the acts of July 14, 1870, January
20, 1871, and January 14, 1875, and that Messrs. Drexel, Morgan &
Co., on behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., and themselves, agree
to purchase $4,062,500 of said bonds, and that Messrs. J. & W.
Seligman & Co., on behalf of Messrs. Seligman Brothers, and
themselves, agree to purchase $4,062,500 of said bonds, and that
the First National Bank of the city of New York agree to purchase
$2,500,000 of said bonds, making a total aggregate of $25,000,000
of said bonds, on the terms and conditions following:

"First. Of the said aggregate amount not more than $5,000,000
shall be sold for resumption purposes, the remaining $20,000,000
to be sold for funding purposes, and subscribed for by the parties
of the second part during the months of July and August, 1877.

"Second. The parties of the second part shall have the exclusive
right to subscribe in the same proportion to each of the subscribers,
for the remainder of the four per cent. consols of the United
States, or any portion of said consols authorized to be issued by
the acts of Congress aforesaid, by giving notice thereof to the
Secretary of the Treasury on or before the 30th day of June, 1878;
but the party of the first part reserves the right to terminate
this contract at any time after the 31st day of December, 1877, by
giving ten days' notice thereof to the parties of the second part.

"Third. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall not sell for
resumption purposes exceeding five millions per month during the
continuance of this contract, except by mutual agreement of the
parties hereto. When subscriptions are made for other than resumption
purposes by the parties of the second part, the party of the first
part shall issue calls of even date with said subscriptions for
the redemption of an equal amount of six per cent. 5-20 bonds of
the United States, as provided for in said act of July 13, 1870.

"Fourth. The parties of the second part agree to pay for said four
per cent. bonds par and interest accrued to the date of application
for delivery of said bonds in gold coin, matured United States gold
coin coupons, or any of the six per cent. 5-20 bonds called for
redemption, or in United States gold certificates of deposit issued
under the act of March 3, 1863, with the understanding that payment
to the extent of the amount of any call shall be made within the
time during which call shall mature: _Provided_, That if the
parties of the second part shall elect so to do, they may have the
privilege of making any of said subscriptions payable specifically
in uncalled six per cent. 5-20 bonds of the United States, in which
case the Secretary of the Treasury may, to the extent of such
payments, omit the calls mentioned in condition No. 3.

"Fifth. The parties of the second part shall receive in coin a
commission of one-half of one per cent. on all bonds taken by them,
as allowed by the act of July 14, 1870, and shall assume and defray
all expenses which may be incurred in sending bonds to London or
elsewhere upon their request, or by transmitting bonds, coupons,
or coin to the treasury department at Washington, including all
cost of making the exchange of bonds, and shall also be charged
with the cost of the preparation and issuing of the bonds.

"Sixth. No bonds shall be delivered to the parties of the second
part, or either of them, until payment shall have been made in full
therefor in accordance with the terms of this contract.

"Seventh. During the continuance of this contract any sales of
bonds ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, by authority of
law, shall be made through the parties of the second part, who
shall be allowed thereon a commission similar in amount and subject
to the same deductions as prescribed in the fifth clause of this
contract.

"Eighth. It is also agreed that the parties of the second part
shall offer to the people of the United States, at par and accrued
interest in coin, the four per cent. registered consols and four
per cent. coupon consols of the denominations of fifty dollars and
one hundred dollars, embraced in this contract, for a period of
thirty days from the public notice of such subscriptions, and in
such cities and upon such notice as the Secretary of the Treasury
may prescribe prior to the opening of the lists, and further, to
offer to the subscribers the option of paying in installments,
extending through three months.

"John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.
"August Belmont & Co., On behalf of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, of
London, And associates and themselves.
"Drexel, Morgan & Co., On behalf of J. S. Morgan & Co., of London,
And themselves.
"J. & W. Seligman & Co., On behalf of Seligman Brothers and
themselves.
"Morton, Bliss & Co., On behalf of Morton, Rose & Co., of London,
And themselves.
"The First National Bank of the city of New York, by H. C.
Fahnestock.
"Witnesses as to all:

"R. C. McCormick.
"E. J. Babcock."

By this contract the syndicate was to take $25,000,000 of the four
per cent. bonds at par, or in exchange of six per cent 5-20 bonds.
Of this sum $5,000,000 in gold coin was to be paid to the treasury
for resumption purposes. The eighth section was a new provision,
and required the syndicate to offer to the people of the United
States, at par and accrued interest in coin, the four per cent.
bonds, for a period of thirty days, in such cities and upon such
notice as the Secretary of the Treasury might prescribe.

The result of this contract was not only to save one-half of one
per cent. on the annual interest of the bonds redeemed, but to so
popularize the loan that within a brief period I was able to
terminate the contract according to its terms, and to sell the four
per cent. bonds directly to the people at par, without a commission,
or the aid of a syndicate.

I wrote to Mr. Conant as follows:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, May 31, 1877.}
"Dear Mr. Conant:--Your letter of the 19th is received. Since its
date matters here have changed greatly for the better, and I have
made two calls for ten millions each.

"There is a strong, steady demand for our bonds, and I have now no
fear but the two hundred millions four and a halfs will be exhausted
before the 1st of July, when they will be withdrawn. The prospect
of placing the four per cent. bonds, commencing July 1, is very
good. I have submitted to the syndicate a proposition in substance
requiring them to take twenty-five millions four per cents., during
July and August, of which five millions will be for resumption
purposes, with a stipulation that if they take fifty millions
additional in September and October the contract will be extended
to January 1, 1878, five millions a month to be applied for resumption
purposes. I do not propose to vary essentially from the proposition.
I have another offer almost as good from other parties, but I hope
to combine these two offers into a modified syndicate, and, if
possible, reserve the right to sell bonds at par, in coin or 5-20
bonds, to persons who apply directly to me for exchange, giving,
however, the syndicate the half per cent. commission. We will
considerably reduce the cost of the bonds, I think, to one-tenth
of one per cent., so that the contracting parties will have a
reasonably fair commission. I am already assured of many sales of
the bonds whenever offered, without the aid of the syndicate, so
that I consider myself strong enough to undertake the placing the
bonds even without their aid, if they will not agree to reasonable
terms. If I can secure the active, hearty co-operation of all the
parties who wish to engage in selling the bonds, and they will be
content with a reasonable profit, the operation of funding can go
on so rapidly that they ought to be satisfied with the profit they
will make.

"I have not overlooked the possibility that some movement of coin
will be made to meet called bonds in Europe in excess of bonds sold
there, but hope to perfect arrangements by which I will secure
American bullion to meet this demand, without stopping accumulations
of coin in the treasury.

"The prospects here are favorable for a good crop in all the states
of the Mississippi valley, but there will probably be a bad crop
in California.

"What we must do is push the loan so that it will be an established
success before the meeting of Congress. If you can succeed in
inspiring the Rothschilds to aid this purpose I am sure of success.
My proposition has been sent to them, and I was advised would be
answered by telegram about this time; but by the 15th I hope to
have the arrangements completed.

"If upon receipt of this letter there is anything of striking
interest affecting the loan you may cable me.

"All well in the department. Matters are going along quietly and
steadily.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. Chas. F. Conant, London."

This letter he received about the time the new contract was executed.
I subsequently sent him the following cable telegram:

"Washington, June 9, 1877.
"Conant, London:

"Contract of August 24, 1876, closed new four and a half per cent.
bonds of $200,000,000. New contract twenty-five millions four per
cent. bonds taken firm. Particulars by mail.

"Sherman."

Two days later I received a reply, as follows:

"London, June 11, 1877.
"Sherman, Washington:

"Congratulations. Rothschilds request me to say that it is important
for this market that the public subscriptions in America for four
per cents. should be a success, and this will make the market for
London. N. M. Rothschild & Sons hope Secretary of the Treasury
will advise that banks subscribe immediately. J. S. Morgan & Co.,
N. M. Rothschild & Sons, think subscription should be opened soon,
in view of preparing London market.

"Conant."

This new agreement gave at once a great impetus to the new loan in
all parts of the United States, as well as in London. The following
letters received indicate this:

"Merchants' National Bank, }
"Cleveland, O., June 11, 1877.}
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary Treasury United States.

"Dear Sir:--We learn that you propose to offer the public a certain
portion of the new four per cent. loan for a limited time, the
amount subscribed to be paid in gold at the par value of the bonds.

"This bank, being a public depositary of the government of the
United States, shall be glad to further your plans, and act as
agent for the sale of such portion of the loan as you may suggest,
and endeavor to give it such publicity as would secure the sale of
a portion of these bonds in this part of Ohio.

"Wishing you success in the effort, I remain, very respectfully
and truly,

"T. P. Handy, President.

"Treasury Department, June 12, 1877.
"John P. Hunt, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.

"Sir:--Your note is received. The department will be happy to
receive your subscription in a short time. The bonds are not
prepared, and the treasury regulations for the popular subscription
cannot be issued for a few days, when a copy will be sent you.

"It is the purpose to give you, and all other citizens of the United
States, an opportunity to subscribe at some convenient place in
the city of your residence, to be designated in due time, requiring
only a small deposit at the time of subscription, and allowing the
privilege of paying at any time within ninety days thereafter.

"The bonds will bear date the 1st of July, and will be sold at par
in coin and accruing interest to date of payment.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

Contemporaneous with this contract for selling the four per cent.
bonds for gold coin, there appeared in the New York "Times" a
suggestion that these bonds could be paid in silver. Henry F.
French, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in a published letter
of the date of June 11, asserted his opinion that the bonds issued
under the act of July 14, 1870, for refunding, were redeemable in
coin of the standard value at that date, and that "as it cannot be
known what bonds have been transferred since the act of 1873, all
bonds under the act of 1870 must be paid in gold coin of the standard
value named in the act of 1873."

I received a letter from Messrs. Seligman & Co., inclosing an
extract from the New York "Times," as follows:

"New York, June 12, 1877.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington.

"Dear Mr. Secretary:--We beg to inclose a short editorial article
which appeared in to-day's New York 'Times,' which, coming from a
Republican paper, may frighten investors in our country and abroad.
Intelligent people know that you, sir, as well as President Hayes,
are sound on the silver question, and yet it may appear to you
proper, and highly advantageous to the prompt marketing of the four
per cent. bonds, to disabuse those who have been led to believe
that the President and you favor the remonetizing of silver, with
a view of paying our national debt in a metal so fluctuating as
silver has become since the principal nations of Europe have
demonetized it. We remain, dear Mr. secretary, your obedient
servants,

"J. & W. Seligman & Co."

The article in the New York "Times," of June 12, 1877, said:

"In a dispatch received by the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday
from Mr. Conant, the syndicate agent in London, it was stated that
the contract touching the four per cent. bonds is well received in
London, and the new bond bids fair to be the most popular of American
securities. There is no doubt that the bond has many advantages
both for home and foreign investors. It has only one point of
weakness, and that is, if the silver ring should succeed in getting
an unlimited issue of legal tender silver dollars, this bond would
be payable, principal and interest, in that coin. Shrewd men, who
know what silver has done and is liable to do in the way of ups
and downs, will take this fact into consideration, and the government
will ultimately be compelled to do the same. At present the strength
of the silver movement is estimated to be small, but if this estimate
should prove to be mistaken, the new four per cents. would suffer."

Mr. August Belmont wrote me a letter upon this subject of the date
of June 14th, in which he said:

"Permit me to add a few words to the letter of my house of this
day, in order to urge upon you the _vital_ importance of an official
expression of yours _over you own signature_, in the sense of the
letter of Assistant Secretary French, published in this morning's
papers.

* * * * *

"You are placed at this moment, by a large portion of your political
friends, in a somewhat similar position as the late Mr. Chase was
by the attempt of Thad. Stevens to have Congress pass a law to
declare the principal of the 5-20 bonds payable in currency.

"Mr. Chase took the bull by the horns by declaring, over his own
signature, that the principal as well as the interest of the 5-20
bonds were payable in gold, the faith of the United States being
pledged to this by the tacit understanding of the government and
its creditors.

"Nothing has reflected more credit and renown upon that great
statesman--then as prominent and favored a son of the noble State
of Ohio as you are to-day--and nothing more effectually paved the
way to the great work of reducing the burden of our people by
lowering our interest one-third than that expression, sanctioned
and confirmed by subsequent enactment of Congress in 1869.

* * * * *

"You will, in my opinion, insure the success of your financial
measures, and add greatly to your high and prominent political
position, if you will unequivocally declare that the funded debt
of the government can only be redeemed, principal and interest, in
gold coin, and that until otherwise agreed upon by the mutual
consent of the great commercial nations of the United States,
England, France, and Germany, the silver dollar can only be accepted
as an auxiliary standard for the payment of fractional indebtedness."

To this I replied as follows:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, June 16, 1877.}
"Dear Sir:--Your private note, the letter of your firm, and one
from Messrs. Seligman & Co., asking me to make a public statement
over my own signature, similar to that of Mr. French, are received.
I have given to this important suggestion the most serious
consideration, and have come to the firm conclusion that such an
act on my part would be inexpedient, and defeat the very object
you have in view. As a purely executive officer, I have no power
to pass upon the question mooted. My attempt to do so would at
once unite all those who are seized with this mania, and those who
oppose executive encroachment upon legislative power. It would
create excitement, personal and political animosities would mingle
with it, and it would tend more than anything else to defeat the
success of the law. I am quite sure this would be the result.

"As to whether Congress or the people would ever undertake to pay
either principal or interest of the bonded debt, and especially
the bonds sold since 1873, in silver, I have a firm conviction that
the question will never seriously be raised. These bonds will be
paid, principal and interest, in gold coin. The people of the
United States have always been extremely sensitive as to the public
credit. They never have, for the sake of an apparent profit,
yielded any question involving the public honor.

"The great satisfaction that will arise from the funding of the
loan at a low rate of interest, together with their strong sense
of public honor and public faith, will always secure the payment
of these bonds, principal and interest, in coin.

"Parties or factions may, for a time, raise and contest questions,
but they are but bubbles, and will pass away, and, like all other
questions involving the public credit, will be rightfully settled,
in due time, by Congress and the people.

"Nothing would so tend to disturb this result as unauthorized
'theses,' or dogmas, by an executive officer, upon a question purely
legislative or judicial. Indeed, it may be that too much has
already been said about this matter by both the President and
myself, and I assure you that you will have no occasion to be
disturbed by anything truthfully reported of either of us hereafter.
The better way is to move right along, making your own statements,
and if, at any time, I see a proper occasion for a strong expression
of my opinion, I will give it.

"Please show this to Mr. Seligman, and such of your associates as
you deem proper, as an answer to all.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. August Belmont, New York."

The new loan was promptly placed on the market on the 14th of June
by the following circular letter signed by the members of the
syndicate:

"Under the authority of a contract with the Secretary of the
Treasury, the undersigned hereby give notice that from this date
until July 16, at 3 p. m., they will receive subscriptions for the
four per cent. funded loan of the United States in denominations
as stated below, at par and accrued interest in gold coin.

"The bonds are redeemable after thirty years from July 1, 1877,
and carry interest from that date, payable quarterly, and are exempt
from the payment of taxes or duties to the United States, as well
as from taxation in any form, by or under state, municipal, or
local authority.

"The interest on the registered stock will be paid by check, issued
by the treasurer of the United States to the order of the holder,
and mailed to his address. The check is payable on presentation,
properly indorsed, at the offices of the treasurer and assistant
treasurers of the United States.

"The subscriptions will be for coupon bonds of $50 and $100, and
registered stock in denominations of $50, $100, $500, $1,000,
$5,000, and $10,000.

"The bonds, both coupon and registered, will be ready for delivery
July 2, 1877.

"Forms of application will be furnished by the treasurer at
Washington, the assistant treasurers at Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,
Cincinnati, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and
San Francisco, and by the national banks and bankers generally.
The applications must specify the amount and denominations required,
and for registered stock the full name and post office address of
the person to whom the bonds shall be made payable.

"Two per cent. of the purchase money must accompany the subscription.
The remainder may be paid, at the pleasure of the purchaser, either
at the time of the subscription or at any time prior to October
16, 1877, with interest added at four per cent. to date of payment.

"The payments may be made in gold coin to the treasurer of the
United States at Washington, or assistant treasurers at Baltimore,
Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and St. Louis, and to
the assistant treasurer at San Francisco, with exchange on New
York, or to either of the undersigned.

"To promote the convenience of subscribers, the undersigned will
also receive, in lieu of coin, United States notes or drafts on
New York, at their coin value on the day of receipt in the city of
New York.

"August Belmont & Co., New York.
"Drexel, Morgan & Co., New York.
"J. & W. Seligman & Co., New York.
"Morton, Bliss & Co., New York.
"First National Bank, New York.
"Drexel & Co., Philadelphia.
"June 16, 1877."

A few days later I wrote the following letter:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., June 19, 1877.}
"Sir:--Your letter of the 18th instant, in which you inquire whether
the four per cent. bonds now being sold by the government are
payable, principal and interest, in gold coin, is received. The
subject, from its great importance, has demanded and received
careful consideration.

"Under laws now in force, there is no coin issued or issuable in
which the principal of the four per cent. bonds is redeemable, or
the interest payable, except the gold coins of the United States
of the standard value fixed by laws in force on the 14th of July,
1870, when the bonds were authorized.

"The government exacts, in exchange for these bonds, payment at
par in such gold coin, and it is not to be anticipated that any
future legislation of Congress, or any action of any department of
the government, would sanction or tolerate the redemption of the
principal of these bonds, or the payment of the interest thereon,
in coin, of less value than the coin authorized by law at the time
of the issue of the bonds, being the coin exacted by the government
in exchange for the same.

"The essential element of _good faith_, in preserving the equality
in value between the coinage in which the government receives and
that in which it pays these bonds, will be sacredly observed by
the government and the people of the United States, whatever may
be the system of coinage which the general policy of the nation
may at any time adopt.

"This principle is impressed upon the text of the law of July 14,
1870, under which the four per cent. bonds are issued, and requires,
in the opinion of the executive department of the government, the
redemption of these bonds and the payment of their interest in coin
of equal value with that which the government receives from its
issue.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"Francis O. French, Esq., 94 Broadway, New York."

The subscriptions were taken in every part of the United States,
and within thirty days $67,600,000 were taken in this country and
$10,200,000 in Europe, making $77,800,000 sold. This sum, when
applied to the payment of the six per cent. bonds, made an annual
saving to the people of the United States of $1,556,000. Since
the 1st of March, 1877, there had been sold under the refunding
act $135,000,000 four and a half per cent. bonds and that amount
of six per cent. bonds was paid off and canceled, thus saving to
the people of the United States $2,025,000 in coin each year. The
aggregate reduction of interest by both classes of bonds from the
1st of March to the close of the popular loan, was $3,581,000 a
year in coin. This was regarded as a great success.

Early in July I set out on the revenue cutter "U. S. Grant" on a
visit of inspection along the north Atlantic coast, accompanied by
the chief of the coast survey, the secretary of the lighthouse
board, the superintendent of the life-saving service, and the chief
of the revenue marine service, and also by Webb Hayes, the son of
the President. We visited the life-saving stations along the New
Jersey coast. I was deeply interested in this service, which I
regard as the most deserving humanitarian branch of the public
service. We also visited some of the leading lighthouses along
the coast and the principal customhouses between the Chesapeake
Bay and Eastport, Maine. We were everywhere received with great
kindness and many social courtesies were extended to us, especially
in New York, Boston and Portland. This outing was a great relief
from the close confinement I had undergone since the 4th of March.
The information I gathered as to these branches of the service,
with which I had not previously had much acquaintance, was of great
value to me. Such trips are sometimes treated by the press as
"junketing" at the public expense. This is a great error. Each
of us paid his share of the expenses and the vessel only pursued
its usual course of duty. I was brought into close association
with these subordinate officers of the department and became informed
of their duties, and their fitness for them, and was enabled to
act with intelligence on their recommendations.

The only unpleasant incident that occurred on the trip was the
running of the cutter upon a rock upon the coast of Maine. This
happened in the afternoon of a beautiful day. All the gentlemen
with me and the officers of the vessel were on deck. The various
buoys were being pointed out and a map of the channel was lying
before us. Some mention was made of a buoy that ought to be near
the place where we were to mark the location of a rock, but none
was found, and suddenly we heard the scraping of the vessel upon
the rock. The cutter trembled and careened over. The captain was
somewhat alarmed and turned the vessel toward the beach, where it
was speedily examined and found to be somewhat injured. We
ascertained afterwards that the buoy had been displaced by a storm
and that a vessel was then on its way to replace it. The sinking
of the revenue cutter "U. S. Grant" was reported in the morning
dispatches and created some excitement; but the vessel did not
sustain any substantial injury. We thought it best to leave it
for a time to be thoroughly examined and repaired and took another
vessel to complete our journey to Eastport, the northeastern port
of the United States. From thence Webb Hayes and myself returned
to Portland and crossed over the Burlington, Vermont, on Lake
Champlain, and from thence went to Saratoga, where we remained a
few days, and then returned to Washington on the 22nd of July. We
passed through Baltimore on the day the riots occurred in that
city, and soon after heard of the much more dangerous outbreak in
Pittsburg.

On the 6th of August I wrote to Mr. Conant as follows:

"Your letter of the 26th ultimo is received. You can safely say
to the Messrs. Rothschild that the strikes have been totally
disconnected with the government, but grow purely out of a contract
between the managers of the leading lines of railway and their
employees as to rates of pay.

"The railroad companies have, for several years, competed with each
other in a very improvident and reckless way, and are now, and have
been for some time, carrying freight for less than cost. This has
caused a large reduction of the net income of roads, has led to
the loss of dividends, and now to the reduction of wages of employees
to rates scarcely sufficient to support life. Hence the strikes.

"The government has been appealed to by both railroads and strikers,
by states and by cities, for relief, and has promptly extended it
in every proper case, and, without shedding blood, has, in every
case, suppressed the riot, and maintained the peace, so that the
government is really stronger by reason of these unfortunate events
than before. I do not observe that any change has been made by
them, either in the price of bonds or in the price of gold, nor in
the payment of subscriptions to four per cent. bonds.

"No effort is made to sell the bonds now, nor do I care to press
the home market, until enough bonds are sold abroad to provide for
called bonds abroad.

"The month of August must necessarily be a languid one, and I do
not advise any unusual efforts to force sales.

"Your supplemental cipher was received after your telegram, but
was soon found and dispatch made out."

I no doubt was mistaken in the effect of the strikes upon our public
credit. From that time forward for many months there was scarcely
any sale of government bonds at any price. The contracting parties
informed me that no bonds were then selling in the market and that
in New York they were a trifle below par. Practically, for the
remainder of the year, government securities were greatly affected
in price and value.

CHAPTER XXX.
POLICY OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION.
Reception at my Home in Mansfield--Given by Friends Irrespective
of Party--Introduced by My Old Friend and Partner, Henry C. Hedges
--I Reply by Giving a Résumé of the Contests in South Carolina and
Louisiana to Decide Who Was Governor--Positions Taken by Presidents
Grant and Hayes in These Contests--My Plans to Secure the Resumption
of Specie Payments--Effects of a Depreciated Currency--Duties of
the Secretary of the Treasury--Two Modes of Resuming--My Mansfield
Speech Printed Throughout the Country and in England--Letters to
Stanley Matthews and General Robinson--Our Defeat in Ohio--An Extra
Session of Congress--Bills Introduced to Repeal the Act Providing
for the Resumption of Specie Payments--They All Fail of Passage--
Popular Subscription of Bonds All Paid For.

About the 10th of August I made my usual visit to my home at
Mansfield. Soon after my arrival I received the following invitation,
signed by a great number of my neighbors and friends, without
respect to party, expressing a desire to tender me a reception:

"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--The undersigned, your townsmen, and fellow-citizens of
Richland county, desire to give you some manifestation of the very
high regard in which we hold your public services. We are glad to
know that you are permitted to again be at your own home, and for
a week or two mingle with us in all the unrestrained freedom of
friends and townsmen.

"Financial and other public questions are, however, of importance
to us always, and especially now. We recognize your great ability
and long experience, and cannot but think that an expression of
your views on these questions will be very highly prized by the
people of Ohio, irrespective of party. We therefore desire, with
your sanction, on some day during the next week, to give you a
hearty welcome to your old home, and shall be glad to have you, on
the occasion, give your views on the public questions, now of such
vast importance to all. With our kindest regards, we are,

"Your friends, etc., etc."

I replied as follows:

"Mansfield, O., August 13, 1877.
"Gentlemen:--I received with much pleasure your kindly letter of
the 10th inst., signed by so many of my old friends and neighbors
of Mansfield, and assure you of my high appreciation of your generous
words of courtesy and regard.

"I always return with satisfaction to my home on the western slope
of our little city, and always enjoy the fresh air and picturesque
country around us, but, more than all, the cordial greetings of
old friends, with whom I have been acquainted since boyhood. It
will give me much pleasure, at any time or place, to meet you, and
to speak to you on current public questions, and I venture to name
next Friday evening.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

The gathering was one of the largest that had come together in
Mansfield for years. The evening was delightful, cool and balmy,
a bright moonlight adding attraction to the scene. A stand decorated
with flags had been erected near the center of the park, with seats
in front, and lights gleamed on either hand. I was introduced to
the audience by my old friend and partner, Henry C. Hedges, whose
remarks were too flattering for me to insert. In closing he said:

"Regarding you as our friend, our neighbor, our townsman, we are
glad and rejoice. We welcome you home, though your stay may be
only a few days, and we sincerely trust that, rested by your stay,
you may go back to your work reinvigorated, and that frequently we
may have the pleasure of your temporary visits, and in the future,
when your labors are finished, among us you may spend your old age,
honored and happy."

As my speech expressed my views upon important questions of that
time, I think it well to embody extracts from it as part of the
history of the then recent events, and my anticipations for the
future:

"The kindly words of welcome uttered by my friend and associate of
many years move me beyond expression. They recall to me the scene
of the early time when I came to Mansfield, then a scattered hamlet
of about 1,100 inhabitants, without pavements and without any of
the modern conveniences of cities and towns. As Mr. Hedges has
told you, very many of those I then met here are dead and gone.
I was a boy then. A generation has passed away, and the sons of
those I met then as citizens of Richland county now fill places of
trust and responsibility. I have every reason in the world for
being strongly attached to this town of Mansfield. You have always
been kind to me. Here I studied law, here I practiced my profession
for several years, here I married my wife, a native of your town,
here I have lived ever since, and when this mortal coil shall be
shuffled off, here, probably, will my body rest with your fathers.
But pardon me, fellow-citizens, if, under the kinds words of welcome
of your spokesman, my old and honored friends, Mr. Hedges, I had
forgotten that we are not here merely to exchange courtesies, but
to discuss grave matters of far more importance than the life or
memories of an individual.

"In doing so I wish it distinctly understood that I speak for myself
alone, as a citizen of Ohio, to you my fellow-citizens and my
neighbors, to whom I am under the highest obligations of gratitude
and duty.

"The President authorized me to say one thing, and one thing only,
for him, and in his name, and that is that all reports that impute
to him any participation whatever in the nomination of candidates
on your state ticket, or any desire or purpose to influence in any
way the senatorial contest in Ohio, are utterly groundless.

"These are your matters, and I can assure you for him, that he does
not and will not, interpose in any such contest between political
friends.

"You all know that I am now, and have been, warmly attached to the
Republican party. I believe in its principles and honor its work.
With my strong convictions I could not conceal my partisan bias,
or my earnest hope for the success of the Republican party, but
the subjects of which I intend to speak to you to-night will not
lead me to say much of former political struggles, or to fight our
old battles over again, but chiefly to discuss the actual administrative
questions of the day as they have arisen since the 4th of March
last, and in all of which you are alike interested, whether you
may call yourselves Republicans or Democrats. As to those questions
I wish fairly to appeal to the candor and good judgment of honest
men of both parties, only asking for the administration of President
Hayes that considerate charity of judgment which must be extended
to all human agents.

"When Mr. Hayes was inaugurated as President he found thirty-six
states in the full and uncontested exercise of all the powers of
states in the Union. In two states only there were contests as to
who was governor. Both contests had existed from January to March,
1877, while General Grant was President.

"In South Carolina Governor Chamberlain claimed to have been elected
on the Republican ticket, and General Hampton on the Democratic
ticket. The President is not made the judge of who is elected
governor of a state, and an attempt to exercise such a power would
be a plain act of usurpation. The constitution of South Carolina
is much like that of Ohio. The count of the vote was to be made
by the general assembly of the state. Unfortunately for Chamberlain
a controlling question in the contest had been decided against him
by a Republican court, and he was only kept in possession of the
state house by the actual presence of United States troops in the
building. He had appealed again and again to President Grant to
recognize him as governor and give him the aid of Federal troops
in the enforcement of his claim, which General Grant had refused,
seeking only to preserve the public peace.

"When President Hayes was inaugurated both contestants were called
to Washington and both were patiently heard and the questions
presented were patiently and carefully examined. The President
held that a case was not presented in which, under the constitution
and the laws, he was justified in using the army of the United
States in deciding a purely local election contest. The soldiers
and bayonets of the United States were then withdrawn from the
state house--not from the state, nor the capital of the state--but
from the building in which the legislature, that alone could lawfully
decide this contest, must meet. This was all that was done by the
President, and Governor Chamberlain, without further contesting
his claim, abandoned it and left the state.

"I say to you now that, strongly as I desired the success of Governor
Chamberlain and the Republican party in South Carolina, the President
had not a shadow of right to interpose the power of the army in
this contest, and his attempt to do so would have been rash and
abortive as well as without legal right.

"The case of Louisiana was far more difficult. The local returning
officers of that state had, after a full examination, certified to
the election of the legislature, showing a Republican majority in
both houses. This had been done by excluding from their return
the votes of certain parishes and counties wherein intimidation,
violence and fraud had prevailed to an extent sufficient to change
the result of the election. I was present, at the request of
General Grant, to witness the count, and I assure you, as I have
said officially, that the proof of this intimidation, violence and
fraud, extending to murder, cruelty, and outrage in every form,
was absolutely conclusive, showing a degree of violence in some of
those parishes that was more revolting and barbarous than anything
I could conceive of. It was plain that the returning officers had
the legal right to pass upon and certify, in the first instance,
who were elected members of the legislature, and that they were
justified by the evidence in excluding bulldozed parishes, but it
was equally clear that their return was not conclusive upon the
members elected, and that each house had the constitutional right
to pass upon the returns and elections of its members, and to set
aside the action of the returning board. The two houses, when
organized, had also the power to pass upon the returns of the
election of governor, and they alone and no one else. Neither the
President of the United States nor the returning board has any
power or right to pass upon the election of governor. And here
the difficulty in the Louisiana case commences.

"Governor Packard contends that a majority of the two houses, as
duly returned, did pass upon the election of the governor, and did
return that he was duly elected, but this was stoutly denied by
Governor Nichols. This vital point was strongly asserted and denied
by the adverse parties, and the legislature of Louisiana divided
into two hostile bodies, holding separate session, each asserting
its legal power, and denouncing the other as rebels and traitors.
Governor Packard and his legislature called upon President Grant
for the aid of the army to put down insurrection and domestic
violence; and here I confess that if I had been President, instead
of General Grant, I would have recognized Packard and sustained
him with the full power of the general government. My intense
feeling, caused by the atrocities in Louisiana, may have unduly
influenced me. But General Grant did not think this was his duty.
I do not criticise his action, but only state the facts, He would
only maintain the peace. He would not recognize Packard as governor,
but I know, what is now an open secret, the strong bent of his
mind, and at one time his decision was to withdraw the troops, to
recognize Nichols and thus end this dangerous contest. He did not
do this, but kept the peace.

"But during these two months the whole condition of affairs had
slowly changed in Louisiana. The government of Packard had dwindled
away until it had scarcely a shadow of strength or authority, except
at the state house, where it was upheld by federal bayonets. The
government of Nichols had extended its authority over the state
and was in full existence as the _de facto_ government of Louisiana,
supported by the great body of the white men and nearly all the
wealth and intelligence of the state, and by the tired acquiescence
of a large portion of the colored people, some of whom deserted
Packard's legislature and entered that of Governor Nichols. The
delay and hesitation of General Grant had been fatal to Packard,
and when Hayes became President the practical question was greatly
changed. One thing was clear, that a legislature had been duly
elected in November previous, and was then in existence, though
separated into two parts. If the members lawfully elected could
be convened, they alone could decide the question of who was
governor, without the intervention of troops, and their decision
could be supported, if necessary, by the general government.

"The most anxious consideration was given to this question. Days
and weeks of anxious deliberation were given to it by the President
and his cabinet. But one way seemed open for a peaceful solution,
and that was to gather, if possible, a single legislature that
could be recognized as the depositary of the representative will
of the people of Louisiana. If this could be done it had the
unquestioned right to decide who had been elected governor, and
all other questions would settle themselves. To aid in this object,
a commission of the most eminent men, high in position, from
different states, and distinguished for judicial impartiality, was
selected and the result is known to all. They went to Louisiana,
and, with great difficulty, brought together these hostile legislatures
which met, organized, promptly settled the question in dispute in
favor of the government of Nichols, and thus ended this most
dangerous controversy. No other change was made, no other act done
except, when the solution was almost accomplished, the few troops
which had then occupied that state house were withdrawn a few
squares away, to their barracks. Thus, in this peaceful appeal to
the legislature of Louisiana, this controversy, which not only
endangered the peace and safety of this state, but the peace and
safety of the whole people of the United States, was settled. This
is the sum and substance of all that was done in the southern
policy, as it is called, of the President.

"Perhaps I ought to state that his policy has a broader motive than
a mere settlement of a local election contest. It seeks to bring
the north and south again into conditions of harmony and fraternity,
and, by a frank appeal to the generous impulses and patriotic
feeling of all classes of people in the south, to secure, not only
peace among themselves, but the equal protection of the laws to
all, and security in the enjoyment of political and civil rights.

"No doubt the result in Louisiana caused some disappointment to
many Republicans throughout the United States, who deeply sympathized
with their Republican brethren in that state. In that feeling I
did, and do, share, and yet I feel and know that every step taken
by President Hayes was right, in strict accordance with his
constitutional duty, and from the highest motives of patriotism.
Some are foolish enough to talk of his abandoning the colored people
and their constitutional rights. President Hayes, from his early
manhood, has been an anti-slavery man; his life was imperiled on
many battlefields in the great cause of liberty, he sympathizes
more and will do more for the equal rights of the colored people
than those who falsely accuse him, and I believe this day, that
the policy he has adopted will do more to secure the full practical
enforcement of those rights than the employment of an army tenfold
greater than the army of the United States."

In this speech I stated the action I proposed to take to secure
the resumption of specie payments. The plan was executed in all
its parts by me, and my remarks may, in one sense, be said to be
a history of resumption. Continuing I said:

"And now, fellow-citizens, this brings me to the question upon
which there is so much diversity of opinion, so many strange
delusions, and that is the question of specie payments. What do
we mean by this phrase? Is it, that we are to have no paper money
in circulation? If so, I am as much opposed to it as any of you.
Is it that we are to retire our greenback circulation? If so, I
am opposed to it and have often so said. What I mean by specie
payments is simply that paper money ought to be made equal to coin,
so that when you receive it, it will buy as much beef, corn or
clothing as coin.

"Now the importance of this cannot be overestimated. A depreciated
paper money cheats and robs every man who receives it, of a portion
of the reward of his labor or production, and, in all times, it
has been treated by statesmen as one of the greatest evils that
can befall a people. There are times when such money is unavoidable,
as during war or great public calamity, but it has always been the
anxious care of statesmen to return again to the solid standard of
coin. Therefore it is that specie payments, or a specie standard,
is pressed by the great body of intelligent men who study these
questions, as an indispensable prerequisite for steady business
and good times.

"Now, most of you will agree to all this, and will only differ as
to the mode, or time, and manner; but there is a large class of
people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into
money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should
be printed: 'This is a dollar,' and be made a legal tender.

"I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition
to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have
prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries,
but whose life has been brief, and which have ever shared the fate
of other popular delusions. Congress will never entertain such a
proposition, and, if it should, we know that the scheme would not
stand a moment before the Supreme Court. That court only maintained
the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar
by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued during
the war, as in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon
the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or
gold.

"I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those
who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver, or
coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the
best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply
a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept
equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand.

"Now, the question is as to the time and mode by which this may be
brought about, and on this subject no man should be dogmatic, or
stand, without yielding, upon a plan of his own, but should be
willing to give and take, securing the best expedient that public
opinion will allow to be adopted. The purpose and obligation to
bring our paper money to the standard of coin have been over and
over again announced by acts of Congress, and by the platforms of
the great political parties of the country. If resolutions and
promises would bring about specie payments, we would have been
there long ago; but the diversity of opinion as to the mode now--
twelve years after the close of the war--still leaves our paper
money at a discount of five per cent. Until this is removed, there
will be no new enterprises involving great sums, no active industries,
but money will lie idle, and watch and wait the changes that may
be made before we reach the specie standard.

"In 1869, Congress pledged the public faith that the United States
would pay coin for United States notes. Again, in January, 1875,
after more than a year's debate, Congress declared that on and
after the 1st of January, 1879, the United States would pay its
notes in coin.

"The Secretary of the Treasury is expressly required to prepare
for, and maintain, the redemption of all United States notes
presented at the treasury on and after that date, and for that
purpose he is authorized to use all the surplus revenues, and to
sell bonds of the United States bearing four, four and a half, and
five per cent. interest, at par in coin. It is this law, called
the resumption act, now so much discussed in the papers, that
imposes upon the office I hold most difficult and important duties,
and without replying to any attacks made upon me, I am anxious to
convey to you personally, what I have done, and what I must do, in
obedience to the provisions of this act. It is said that the law
is defective, but, if the great object and policy of the law is
right, the machinery of the law could easily be changed by Congress.
That resumption can be secured, and ought to be secured, under this
law, it will be my purpose to show you, and I shall not hesitate
to point out such defects in the law as have occurred to me in its
execution.

"There are two modes of resumption; one is to diminish the amount
of notes to be redeemed, which mode is commonly called a contraction
of the currency; the other is to accumulate coin in the treasury,
to enable the secretary to maintain the notes at par."

Objection had been made that under the first mode resumption would
be a process of converting a non-interest bearing note into an
interest bearing note, and that was true, but what right had we,
as a nation, or had any bank, or individual, to force in to
circulation, as money, its note upon which it paid no interest?
Why ought not anyone who issued a promise to pay on demand be made
to pay it when demanded, or pay interest thereafter? What right
had he, in law or justice, to insist upon maintaining in circulation
his note, which he refused to pay according to his promise, and
which he refused to receive in payment of a note bearing interest?
A certain amount of United States notes could be, and ought to be,
maintained at par in coin, with the aid of a moderate coin reserve
held in the treasury, and to the extent that this could be done
they formed the best possible paper money, a debt of the people
without interest, of equal value with coin, and more convenient to
carry and handle. Beyond this the issue of paper money, either by
the government or by banks, was a dangerous exercise of power,
injurious to all citizens, and should not continue a single day
beyond the necessities that gave it birth. I added:

"The one practical defect in the law is, that the secretary is not
a liberty to sell bonds of the United States for United States
notes, but must sell them for coin. As coin is not in circulation
among the people, he is practically prohibited from selling bonds
to the people, except by an evasion of the law, or through private
parties. Bonds are in demand and can readily be sold at par in
coin, and still easier at par, or at a premium, in United States
notes. The process of selling for United States notes need not go
far before the mere fact that they are receivable for bonds would
bring them up to par in coin, and that is specie payments.

"But the reason of the refusal of Congress to grant this authority,
often asked of it, was that it would contract the currency, and
this fear of contraction has thus far prevented Congress from
granting the easiest, plainest, and surest mode of resumption. To
avoid contraction, it provided that national bank notes may be
issued without limit as to amount and that, when issued, United
States notes might be retired to the extent of four-fifths of the
bank notes issued. This was the only provision for redeeming United
States notes that Congress made or would make, and this, it was
supposed, would reduce the United States notes to $300,000,000
before January 1, 1879. The actual experiment only proves the
folly of the cry we had for more money, more money."

The second mode of resuming was by accumulating coin gradually, so
that when the time fixed for resumption should arrive, the treasury
might be able to redeem such notes as should be presented. In this
respect the resumption act was as full and liberal as human language
could frame it. The secretary was authorized to prepare for
resumption, and for that purpose to use the surplus revenue and
sell either of the three classes of bonds, all of which in 1877
were at or above par in coin. I said: "The power can be, ought
to be, and will be, executed if not repealed."

This speech was printed in the leading papers in the United States
and in England, and was regarded by the public at large as a
declaration of the policy of the administration, to enforce the
resumption law, whatever might be the current of opinion developed
at the approaching elections, which, as they occurred, were generally
against the Republican party. The Democratic party had taken
position against the resumption act, in favor of the enlarged issue
of United States notes and the free coinage of silver. The strikes
led to the organization of labor unions, which, though independent
of political parties, chiefly affected the Republican party then
in power.

Among many letters received by me, after this speech, I insert one
from Mr. Evarts:

"Windsor, Vt., Aug. 30, 1877.
"The Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Dear Mr. Sherman:--I congratulate you upon the excellence and
success of your speech in Ohio. The difficulty of the undertaking
justly enhances the credit of its prosperous treatment.

"I inclose a remonstrance from an 'Injustice' on the subject of a
new arrangement in the _weighing_ at the customhouse. It was sent
to me at Washington and forwarded from there here. I know nothing
of its source and have no opinion on the subject of the supposed
project.

"The President's visit has pleased the people in New England
amazingly. I hope to see you all in Washington early next week.

"I am very truly yours,
"Wm. M. Evarts."

On the 14th of September, 1877, I sent to Hon. Stanley Matthews
the following letter, giving my view of the position taken by
General Ewing and Mr. Pendleton:

"At the request of General Robinson I have directed to you, in the
care of Bickham, a number of documents for reference in your debate
with Ewing, and as Robinson says you wish me to make suggestions,
I venture to do so, but without any confidence that they can be of
assistance, though they can do no harm.

"The most beneficial financial act of the administration is the
reduction of the interest on the public debt. The amount already
accomplished is stated in my printed speech. The rapidity of this
process depends entirely upon the credit of the government. Ewing's
policy would destroy our credit and stop the process. The very
doubts created by him and Pendleton have already damaged the
government very largely. Confidence is so sensitive that when
prominent men like Ewing and Pendleton talk as they do, the injury
is immediate.

"The whole difference between the amount of silver and gold at this
moment is eight per cent., so that the payment of the debt in silver
would lessen the burden of the debt eight per cent., but under the
funding operations, which would be entirely destroyed by anything
that alarmed the market, we are enabled to save thirty-three per
cent. Whatever may be our right to pay our bonds, either in
greenbacks or in silver, this question of expediency, as you very
properly said in one of your speeches, is to be considered apart
from the question of legal power.

"Refunding would go on with greatly accelerated speed if we could
sell bonds for greenbacks. We make discrimination against the
greenbacks by refusing to take them in payment of bonds. If I had
the power to sell bonds for greenbacks I could make greenbacks
equal to coin with scarcely a perceptible change. That is the
advice of the most sagacious men in the country. I know it. There
is talk about the bondholder being a privileged person. He ought
to be so no longer, and the moment that a bond could be bought with
currency at par in gold, all discrimination in favor of the bondholder
would disappear.

"The differences among Republicans about silver will be settled by
the use of the silver dollar to the extent that it can be kept in
circulation at par with greenbacks, and is a pure question of
detail. The difference in the Democratic party about interconvertible
currency is vital, and Ewing's doctrine overthrows the whole
Democratic theory of finance before the war.

"The existence of the national banks is a question simply of policy
and not a question of principle. The right conferred upon banks
to issue circulation is not conferred for their profit, but for
the public convenience, and all Republicans can agree that that
right should never be permitted to exist except when it is for the
public convenience. The office of bank notes is simply to supply
the ebb and flow of currency made necessary by the wants of business.
The United States cannot lend United States notes, and therefore
cannot meet this want. Ewing proposes to destroy the whole national
bank system, interwoven with all the business of the country. I
send you the last statement of the national banks. You can very
easily show the effect upon the reviving industry of the country
of the withdrawal of these loans and disturbing all this business.
As at present organized the circulation is the vital thing, and if
the bonds held by the banks to secure circulation were thrown upon
the market, it would stop funding and compel also the withdrawal
of loans, and create distress compared with which our present
troubles are mere moonshine.

"I am afraid you will think I am going on to make a speech for you,
so I will stop abruptly, with the promise that if I can furnish
you any documents or information that may be of service to you I
will do so with pleasure.

* * * * *

"I inclose the last statement of the national banks containing many
points that may be of use.

"Upon the question of resumption I believe we are all agreed that
it must come, and that the only standard of value is gold or silver
coin. The time and manner are the points of disagreement. Ewing
is opposed to all resumption, but believes in printing a dollar
and saying it is a dollar, while all the world would know that the
declaration is a lie. The fact that we have advanced the greenbacks
six per cent. in one year, by the movements made under the resumption
act, shows that it is working pretty well. I send you a statement
showing the changed condition in a year of our finances.

"While the people differ about the resumption act there is time to
change it if it needs change, but Ewing would go back and commence
the process over again. I am disposed to be tolerant about
differences on the resumption act, for I think it will demonstrate
its success or failure before Congress is likely to tamper with it."

On the 21st of September I wrote to General J. S. Robinson the
following letter, evincing my anxiety as to the result of the
canvass in Ohio, as it was then conducted:

"I am so deeply impressed with the importance of the campaign in
Ohio that it makes me uneasy and restless that I cannot participate
in it.

"What a magnificent chance the Republican party in Ohio now has,
not only to place itself in the vanguard in the United States, but
to do this country a service as great as any victory won by the
Union army during the war. Here it is demonstrated by the cordial
reception of the President in the south, by his hearty indorsement
in Massachusetts, and by a public sentiment now growing and spreading
with amazing rapidity, that in his southern policy he has opened
the means of order, safety, peace and security in all the southern
states.

"Now, when it is demonstrated that the difficulties in the way of
resumption were myths conjured up by the fantasies of demagogues,
when our notes are worth within three per cent. of gold, when
Providence has favored us with boundless crops, and prosperity is
again coming upon us after a dreary time of distress and trial
caused by inflated paper money, why is it that we cannot see all
these things and avail ourselves of the advantage they give us in
our political contest? It seems to me that we ought to carry the
state by an overwhelming majority, and if we do so we will establish
the beneficial principles of our party beyond danger of overthrow
by reaction, and we will secure the peaceful and orderly development
of industry without a parallel in our previous history.

"I wish it were in my power to impress every Republican in Ohio
with my earnest conviction about this matter, but here, constantly
occupied by official duties, I can only remain watching and waiting
in anxious suspense lest the great advantages we possess shall be
frittered away or lost by inaction or mistakes.

"I know you will do your utmost for success, and only write you
this to show you how earnestly I sympathize with you in your
efforts."

The election in Ohio, in October, resulted in the defeat of William
H. West, Republican, for governor, mainly on account of his position
as to labor unions, but no doubt also because of a feeling of
opposition against the resumption of specie payments. Richard M.
Bishop, Democrat, was elected governor, with a Democratic legislature
in both branches, which subsequently elected George H. Pendleton
as United States Senator.

The following letter expresses my view of the election, and the
causes which led to our defeat:

"Washington, October 17, 1877.
"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 13th inst. is received.

"Your statement of the causes of our defeat in Ohio seems to me
reasonable, though probably I would not agree with you in many
points stated.

"It is not worth while now to bother ourselves about what we cannot
help. All we can do is to inquire how far we have been right, and
to that extent pursue the right, whether victory or defeat is the
result. No party can administer a government, that will not take
the risk of temporary defeat when it is pursuing what, in the
opinion of the great masses of it, is a beneficial policy for the
country.

"So far as the southern question is concerned, I feel that the
President did right. The wisdom of his executive order as to office
holders depends upon the construction given to it, and he is not
responsible for a perverted construction not authorized by its
words or terms. As to the resumption policy, the law is plain and
mandatory, and, more than all, the law is right, and the Republican
party might as well understand first as last, that the question of
resumption is one higher than any party obligations and will be
pursued by our adversaries if we do not. We can gain the credit
of success, but we can gain no credit by retreating on this vital
question. While the law stands nothing is left but to execute it,
and for one I never would aid to alter the law, except to make it
more effective, and would be very willing to retire on this question
rather than to surrender.

"The only way is for us to go steadily forward, with a certainty
that public opinion in the end will sustain us if we do what is
substantially right. The Republican party has been in this position
many times and has never won success by retreat and cannot do so
now.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"A. P. Miller, Esq., Toledo, Ohio."

It became necessary for the President to call an extra session of
Congress, on account of the failure of the passage of the army bill
at the previous session. Though the proclamation was issued on
the 5th of May, 1877, Congress was not convened until the 15th of
October following. Both Houses met on the day appointed. The
Senate was organized by the election of Thomas W. Ferry, of Michigan,
as president _pro tempore_, and Samuel J. Randall, a Democratic
Member from Pennsylvania, was elected speaker of the House by a
majority of seventeen over James A. Garfield, the Republican
candidate.

The message of the President was confined mainly to the circumstances
connected with the failure of the previous Congress to provide for
the support of the army, and to certain deficiencies in appropriations
required for the government, the President stating that as certain
acts of Congress, providing for reports of the government officials,
required their submission at the regular annual session, he deferred
until that time any further reference to subjects of popular
interest.

Congress, however, not being confined in its powers, and having
full jurisdiction of all legislative questions, proceeded at once
to discuss financial questions and especially the measures taken
for the resumption of specie payments. No less than four bills
were introduced in the Senate and fourteen in the House, providing
for the repeal, in whole or in part, of the act for the resumption
of specie payments. One of these bills was reported from the
committee on banking and currency, by Mr. Ewing, on the 31st of
October. It was the subject of debate during the remaining period
of the session, and finally passed the House on the 23rd of November,
by the vote of 133 yeas and 120 nays. It repealed all that part
of the resumption act which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury
to dispose of United States bonds, and to redeem and cancel the
greenback currency, or practically all the resumption act except
the clauses for the substitution of silver coin for fractional
currency. It was sent to the Senate on the 26th of November, and
referred to the committee on finance. No action was taken upon it
during that session, which adjourned on the 3rd of December. The
regular session convened on the same day, with this bill still
pending in the committee on finance. On the 17th of April, 1878,
Mr. Ferry, from that committee, reported back the bill with an
amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert
new matter. After a long debate ending on the 13th of June, the
following amendment was adopted as a substitute for Mr. Ferry's
amendment, by a vote of yeas 30, nays 29:

"That from and after the passage of this act United States notes
shall be receivable the same as coin in payment for the four per
cent. bonds now authorized by law to be issued; and on and after
October 1, 1878, said notes shall be receivable for duties on
imports."

The bill, as amended, passed the Senate by a large majority. In
this form it had no proper relevancy to the bill as it passed the
House, and the action of the Senate was regarded as a practical
defeat of the bill. It was taken up in the House on the 14th of
June, and the question being taken on concurring in the amendment
of the Senate, the vote was yeas 112, nays 122, so the motion was
disagreed to. On the 17th of June, a motion was made to suspend
the rules and proceed to the consideration of the bill, but as two-
thirds did not vote in favor of the motion it was not adopted, and
the bill was not called up for action until the next session of
Congress, when Mr. Ewing, on February 22, 1879, reported it from
the committee on banking and currency, and moved to concur in the
Senate amendments, with amendments changing the date on which the
act should take effect, and also adding, "that the money hereafter
received from any sale of bonds of the United States shall be
applied only to the redemption of other bonds bearing a higher rate
of interest, and subject to call."

This motion came too late, as the whole subject-matter had been
disposed of by the resumption of specie payments on the 1st of
January previous. It led, however, to a considerable debate in
which Mr. Garfield participated. He made a humorous allusion to
the revival of controversies that were past and gone since the 1st
of January, and moved to lay the bill and the amendments upon the
table. That was adopted by a vote of yeas 141, nays 118.

I have given the official history of the efforts to repeal the
resumption act, but it would be beyond the limits of this book to
quote, or even state, the copious speeches for and against resumption.
I felt secure, for if such a bill should pass, the executive veto
would prevent any action by Congress that would interfere with the
execution of the law. My principal effort was to convince Congress
that it ought not to interfere with what the House called a
destructive experiment, but what I regarded as an easy and beneficial
execution of existing law. A large part of the opposition was
purely political. The resumption act was a Republican measure,
voted for only by Republicans. The Democratic party had, by the
elections just previous to its taking effect, secured a majority
in the House, and, with the aid of a few Republican Senators, with
strong "greenback" proclivities, had the control of the Senate on
the financial question.

This political condition in the fall of 1877 tended to prevent the
sale of four per cent. bonds after the close of the popular loan.
My official correspondence with members of the syndicate, and with
Mr. Conant, published by order of the House of Representatives in
the volume "Specie Resumption and Refunding of the National Debt,"
shows fully the earnest effort made by me to sell the four per
cent. bonds. This was successful to a slight degree in August and
September, but sales were substantially suspended after that date,
until it became manifest that the two Houses could not agree upon
the repeal of the resumption act, or the remonetization of silver.
The threatened measure for the free coinage of silver, and the fear
that the bonds would be paid in silver coin less valuable than the
gold coin paid for them, tended, more than the efforts to repeal
the resumption, to prevent the sale of bonds.

"Mansfield, Ohio, August 18, 1877.
"Dear Mr. Conant:--Your letter of the 4th was forwarded to me here.
I notice what you say about the calls, but you must remember that
out of the sales of four per cent. bonds we must provide five
millions gold for each of the months of September and October, so
that for ten millions of bonds there must be no calls. I should
have informed you of this sooner, but neglected to do so before
leaving. The parties in New York, and no doubt the Rothschilds,
have been advised of it and agree to it. Until the popular
subscription is paid for it will be difficult to press the sale of
the four per cents., but I hope in September the sales will commence
and be pushed rapidly. The movement of the crop has already
commenced. The strike seems to be ended, with a better feeling
among laborers, and some advance in freight. The necessity of the
trunk lines combining on freight is so clear that it is likely to
result in some agreement that will stand.

"I made a speech here yesterday, which no doubt will be received
by you in the New York papers in due time, and which contains some
matters affecting your operations. It is substantially in conformity
with the general wish of the administration as to financial affairs,
and it might be well for you to call the attention of the Rothschilds
to that part of it relating to our loans and the basis of our
credit.

"I return next week to Washington, where I will again be happy to
hear from you.

"Very truly,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

Mr. Conant answered as follows:

"New Court, St. Swithin's Lane, }
"London, E. C., England, August 23, 1877.}
"Dear Mr. Secretary:--I was very glad indeed to receive your letter
of the 6th instant. I at once informed the contracting parties of
what you had written in reference to the strikes and riots at home.
The sale of our bonds has not been directly interfered with on
account of the riots. In fact, the occurrence of the riots has
almost been forgotten. The London 'Times,' of this morning, has,
however, revived the subject by printing a letter from its Philadelphia
correspondent, in which he says that the strikers, it is evident,
are to get into politics through the organization of a party, to
be called the 'Workingmen's party;' and he predicts that mischief
will come out of it through the control of state governments which
the mob element may gain; and the consequent enactment of bad laws,
etc., especially against capital. Another letter is also printed
(written by a Mr. Connolly), by which it is made to appear that
American is in a terrible financial condition. These two letters
are made the subject of an editorial which, on the whole, is not
very complimentary to us, nor calculated to improve our credit.
The 'Times' of last Monday's date had an editorial on the speech
which you made in Ohio on Friday last. I send you a copy, and
think, if you can find time, you will rather enjoy reading the
article. Nearly all of the English people, as you are aware,
believe in the principle of 'free trade,' and it is but natural
that they should, for the reason that England depends upon her
great commerce and her markets in every part of the globe for the
employment and maintenance of her people. People here think that
our protectionist tariffs are not only detrimental to the commercial
interest of our own country, but that they are of a suicidal
character so far as our fiscal policy is concerned. They think,
in other words, that it would be vastly better for the real interest
of the people of the United States if they would trade more
extensively with the people of England. What the 'Times' editor
has to say about the balance of trade will amuse you, and yet people
talk about the advantages of a balance of trade as being an exploded
idea. English interests are laboring to effect a new treaty with
France, under which large reductions in duties are proposed.

"I note what you are pleased to say in regard to sales of bonds
during the present month. With the price of bonds at the present
moment they cannot of course be sold. The parties will find it
necessary to use great caution as well as care in managing the
market, so as to get control of it. Any attempt to force the sale
of the bonds during this, and, I think, next month will only operate
to keep the price so low that they cannot be sold at all. I am
firm in the belief that the premium on gold will go gradually lower,
and that the balance of trade in our favor will keep forcing it
down.

"I remain your obedient servant,
"Chas. F. Conant.
"Hon. John Sherman."

He again wrote on the 30th of August:

"On Tuesday last a further amount of gold (£130,000) was withdrawn
from the Bank of England for shipment to the United States, and
for the purpose of protecting its stock of bullion the bank
immediately advanced its rate to three per cent., and also increased
the price of American eagles.

"Great Britain must obtain from us this season a large supply of
breadstuffs and grain, larger than has been required in any one
year during several years past, and at higher prices than those
heretofore paid, and, in the present condition of trade between
the two countries, gold, to quite an extent, will have to be sent
over in payment for these articles. Therefore, advancing the rate
of interest may check for a time, but will not stop altogether,
the shipment of bullion, but it may attract here some of the gold
held by the Bank of France. The bank rate does not govern the
street rate, and a further advance by the bank, which it is very
likely may be made, is not to be considered as indicating that we
are to have a dearer money market. I inquired to-day of Mr. Morgan
and the Messrs. Rothschild what they thought of the prospects of
making any sales during next month, and their answer was: 'Wait
patiently for the market to recuperate.' I am satisfied that good
investment securities are scarce here; that they have been cleared
from the market, and that as soon as the question of cheap or dear
money is settled, sales of the four per cent. consols will be
resumed. The amount of the sales will of course depend upon which
way the question is settled. There were times during the placing
of the five per cent. and four and a half per cent. bonds when, as
you are aware, operations were suspended for quite a time, the
condition of the market being such as to prevent anything being
done. From semi-official accounts it appears that the famine in
India is a very serious affair, and it is quite possible that large
sums of money will be required from here with which to purchase
supplies."

My experience thus far convinced me that it was bad public policy
to continue the sale of bonds for refunding purposes through a
syndicate of bankers, the chief of whom resided in London. I could
see no reason why this function could not be performed by national
banks, better than by bankers at home or abroad. A question arose
whether the Secretary of the Treasury had the power to designate
national banks as public depositaries of the proceeds of bonds sold
under the resumption and refunding acts. The object to be gained
by this designation was to prevent the withdrawal of coin from
circulation, and the undue accumulation of coin in the treasury of
the United States. If the exchange of one bond by another could
be directly effected through the banks without the payment of coin,
it would facilitate the process of refunding. I submitted this
inquiry to Attorney General Devens, and on the 30th of August he
stated his opinion and closed as follows:

"In answer to your inquiry, I have, therefore, the honor to say
that the Secretary of the Treasury, if he deems it expedient as a
matter of administrative policy, may sell bonds under the act known
as the 'refunding' and 'resumption' acts, depositing the amounts
received therefrom with such public depositaries as he may select
under the national bank act, taking such security as is required
by the statutes."

The last of the popular subscriptions for the four per cent. bonds
became due on the 16th of October, and all were paid for but three
subscriptions aggregating $1,600, and these were assumed by the
syndicate. The bonds had been paid for by the syndicate either by
called six per cent. bonds, which were canceled, or in gold coin
deposited in the treasury, without the loss of a dollar. The called
session of Congress, which met on the 15th of October, and the
agitation of the repeal of the resumption act and the remonetization
of silver, prevented for the time any further sales of the four
per cent. bonds by the government.

JOHN SHERMAN'S
RECOLLECTIONS
OF
FORTY YEARS
IN
THE HOUSE, SENATE AND CABINET
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

VOLUME II.

ILLUSTRATED
WITH PORTRAITS, FAC-SIMILE LETTERS, SCENES, ETC.

GREENWOOD PRESS, PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK 1968

First Greenwood reprinting, 1968

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS catalogue card number: 68-28647

Printed in the United States of America

ILLUSTRATIONS
VOLUME II.

Mr. Sherman in His Library at Washington, D. C., 1895. _Frontispiece_
Rutherford B. Hayes
President Hayes and Cabinet
John Sherman (Chamber of Commerce Portrait.)
Inauguration of President Garfield
Thurman, Sumner, Wade, Chase (Group.)
James A. Garfield
Chester A. Arthur
Invitation to Blaine's Eulogy of Garfield
United States Senate Chamber
Invitation to Washington Monument Dedication
Meeting of the Surviving Members of the Sherman Family
John A. Logan
James G. Blaine
Surviving Members of the 34th Congress (Taken in 1888.)
Representative Ohio Men--Schenck, Cox, Pendleton
Court House at Mansfield, Ohio. 1895
Mr. Sherman's Washington Residence, "K" Street
Hallway in Mr. Sherman's Washington Residence
Dining Room in Mr. Sherman's Washington Residence

AUTOGRAPH LETTERS
VOLUME II.

J. M. Rusk, April 14, 1878
Jay Gould, October 17, 1878
Whitelaw Reid, March 29, 1878
John Jay, February 3, 1879
John W. Foster, December 15, 1878
James G. Blaine, July 3, 1879
George Bancroft, February 22, 1881
John G. Whittier, February 8, 1885
U. S. Grant, January 27, 1885
S. S. Cox, January 23, 1886
W. T. Sherman, February 3, 1891

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOLUME II.

CHAPTER XXXI.
EFFECT OF THE BLAND BILL ON THE COUNTRY.
An Act Passed by the House Providing for the Free Coinage of the
Silver Dollar--Mr. Ewing Makes an Attack on Resumption--Fear of
Capitalists Regarding Our National Credit--Four Per Cents. Sell
Below Par--Suspense and Anxiety Continued Throughout the Year--My
First Report as Secretary of the Treasury--Recommendations of a
Policy to be Pursued "To Strengthen the Public Credit"--Substitution
of $50,000,000 in Silver Coin for Fractional Currency--Silver as
a Medium of Circulation--Its Fluctuation in Value--Importance of
Gold as a Standard of Value--Changes in the Market Value of Silver
Since 1873.

CHAPTER XXXII.
ENACTMENT OF THE BLAND-ALLISON SILVER LAW.
Amendments to the Act Reported by the Committee on Finance--Revival
of a Letter Written by Me in 1868--Explained in Letter to Justin
S. Morrill Ten Years Later--Text of the Bland Silver Bill as Amended
by the Senate and Agreed to by the House--Vetoed by President Hayes
--Becomes a Law Notwithstanding His Objections--I Decide to Terminate
the Existing Contract with the Syndicate--Subscriptions Invited
for Four per Cent. Bonds--Preparations for Resumption--Interviews
with Committees of Both Houses--Condition of the Bank of England
as Compared with the United States Treasury--Mr. Buckner Changes
His Views Somewhat.

CHAPTER XXXIII.
SALE OF BONDS FOR RESUMPTION PURPOSES.
Arrangements Begun for the Disposal of $50,000,000 for Gold or
Bullion--Interviews with Prominent Bankers in New York--Proposition
in Behalf of the National Banks--Terms of the Contract Made with
the Syndicate--Public Comment at the Close of the Negotiations--
"Gath's" Interview with Me at the Completion of the Sale--Eastern
Press Approves the Contract, While the West Was Either Indifferent
or Opposed to it--Senate Still Discussing the Expediency of Repealing
the Resumption Act--Letter to Senator Ferry--Violent and Bitter
Animosity Aroused Against Me--I Am Charged with Corruption--Interview
with and Reply to Letter of Peter Cooper--Clarkson N. Potter's
Charges.

CHAPTER XXXIV.
A SHORT RESPITE FROM OFFICIAL DUTIES.
Visit to Mansfield and Other Points in Ohio--Difficulty of Making
a Speech at Toledo--An Attempt to Break up a Meeting that Did Not
Succeed--Various Reports of the Gathering--Good Work of the Cincinnati
"Enquirer"--Toledo People Wanted "More Money"--Remarks Addressed
to the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce--Visit to Lancaster, the
Place of My Birth--My Return to Washington--I Begin to Exchange
Silver Dollars for United States Notes--My Authority to Do So Before
January 1 Questioned--The Order is Withdrawn and Some Criticism
Follows--Instructions to the United States Treasurer and Others--
Arrangements with New York Clearing House.

CHAPTER XXXV.
INVESTIGATION OF THE NEW YORK CUSTOMHOUSE.
A General Examination of Several Ports Ordered--No Difficulty Except
at New York--First Report of the Commission--President Hayes'
Recommendations--Letter of Instructions to Collector C. A. Arthur
--Second Report of the Commission--Losses to the Government by
Reason of Inefficiency of Employees--Various Measures of Reform
Recommended--Four Other Reports Made--The President Decides on the
Removal of Arthur, Cornell and Sharpe--Two Letters to R. C. McCormick
on the Subject--Arthur et al. Refuse to Resign--The Senate Twice
Refuses to Confirm the Men Appointed by the President to Succeed
Them--Conkling's Contest Against Civil Service Reform--My Letter
to Senator Allison--Final Victory of the President.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
PREPARATIONS FOR RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS.
Annual Report to Congress on Dec. 2, 1878--Preparations for Resumption
Accompanied with Increased Business and Confidence--Full Explanation
of the Powers of the Treasurer Under the Act--How Resumption Was
to Be Accomplished--Laws Effecting the Coinage of Gold and Silver
--Recommendation to Congress That the Coinage of the Silver Dollar
Be Discontinued When the Amount Outstanding Should Exceed $50,000,000
--Funding the Public Debt--United States Notes at Par with Gold--
Instructions to the Assistant Treasurer at New York--Political
Situation in Ohio.

CHAPTER XXXVII.
REFUNDING THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Over $140,000,000 of Gold Coin and Bullion in the Treasury January
1, 1879--Diversity of Opinion as to the Meaning of Resumption--
Effect of the Act to Advance Public Credit--Funding Redeemable
Bonds Into Four per Cents.--Letters to Levi P. Morton and Others--
Six per Cent. Bonds Aggregating $120,000,000 Called During January,
1879--The Sale in London--Charges of Favoritism--Further Enactments
to Facilitate the Funding--Difficulty of Making Sales of Four per
Cent. Bonds to English Bankers--Large Amounts Taken in the United
States--One Subscription of $190,000,000--Rothschild's Odd Claim--
Complimentary Resolution of the New York Chamber of Commerce.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.
GENERAL DESIRE TO NOMINATE ME FOR GOVERNOR OF OHIO.
Death of My Brother Charles--The 46th Congress Convened in Special
Session--"Mending Fences" at My Home in Mansfield--Efforts to Put
Me Forward as a Candidate for the Governorship of Ohio--Letter to
Murat Halstead on the Question of the Presidency, etc.--Result of
My Letter to John B. Haskin--Reasons of My Refusal of the Nomination
for Governor--Invitation from James G. Blaine to Speak in Maine--
My Speech at Portland--Victory of the Republican Party--My Speech
at Steubenville, Ohio--Evidences of Prosperity on Every Hand--Visit
to Cincinnati and Return to Washington--Results in Ohio.

CHAPTER XXXIX.
LAST DAYS OF THE HAYES ADMINISTRATION.
Invitation From General Arthur to Speak in New York--Letter to Hon.
John Jay on the Subject--Mr. Evarts' Refined Specimen of Egotism--
An Anecdote of the Hayes Cabinet--Duty of the Government to Protect
the Election of All Federal Officers--My Speech in Cooper Institute
--Offers of Support to Elect Me as a Successor of Senator Thurman
--My Replies--Republican Victory in New York--President Hayes'
Message to Congress--My Report as Secretary of the Treasury--
Modification of My Financial Views Since that Time--Bank Notes as
Currency--Necessity for Paper Money--Mr. Bayard's Resolution
Concerning the Legal Tender Quality of United States Notes--Questions
Asked Me by the Finance Committee of the Senate.

CHAPTER XL.
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN 1880.
Talk of Grant for President for a Third Term--His Triumphal Return
from a Trip Around the World--The Candidacy of Mr. Blaine and Myself
--Many of My Opponents Those Who Disagreed with Me on Financial
Questions--Accused of Being a Catholic and of Using Patronage to
Aid in My Nomination--My Replies--Delay in Holding the Ohio State
Convention--My Interview with Garfield--Resolution of the State
Convention in My Favor--National Convention at Chicago, on June 2,
1880--Fatal Move of Nine Ohio Delegates for Blaine--Final Nomination
of Garfield--Congratulations--Letter to Governor Foster and to
Garfield--Wade Hampton and the "Ku-Klux Klan."

CHAPTER XLI.
MY LAST YEAR IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
Opening of the 1880 Campaign in Cincinnati--My First Speech Arraigned
as "Bitterly Partisan"--Letter from Garfield Regarding the Maine
Election--Ohio Thought to Be in Doubt--Many Requests for Speeches
--Republican Ticket Elected in Ohio and Indiana--A Strange Warning
from Detroit Threatening Garfield with Assassination--The Latter's
Reply--My Doubts About Remaining in the Treasury Department or
Making an Effort for the Senate--Letter to Dalzell--Last Annual
Report to Congress in December, 1880--Recommendations Regarding
Surplus Revenue, Compulsory Coinage of the Silver Dollar, the
Tariff, etc.--Bills Acted Upon by Congress.

CHAPTER XLII.
ELECTED TO THE SENATE FOR THE FOURTH TIME.
Blaine Appointed Secretary of State--Withdrawal of Governor Foster
as a Senatorial Candidate--I Am Again Elected to My Old Position
to Succeed Allen G. Thurman--My Visit to Columbus to Return Thanks
to the Legislature--Address to Boston Merchants on Finances--Windom
Recommended to Succeed Me as Secretary of the Treasury--Personal
Characteristics of Garfield--How He Differed from President Hayes
--The Latter's Successful Administration--My One Day out of Office
in Over Forty Years--Long Animosity of Don Piatt and His Change of
Opinion in 1881--Mahone's Power in the Senate--Windom's Success in
the Treasury--The Conkling-Platt Controversy with the President
Over New York Appointments.

CHAPTER XLIII.
ASSASSINATION OF GARFIELD AND EVENTS FOLLOWING.
I Return to Mansfield for a Brief Period of Rest--Selected as
Presiding Officer of the Ohio State Convention--My Address to the
Delegates Indorsing Garfield and Governor Foster--Kenyon College
Confers on Me the Degree of Doctor of Laws--News of the Assassination
of the President--How He Differed from Blaine--Visit of General
Sherman--Reception by Old Soldiers--My Trip to Yellowstone Park--
Speechmaking at Salt Lake City--Visit to Virginia City--Placer
Mining in Montana--The Western Hunter Who Was Lost in a "St. Louis
Cañon"--Sunday in Yellowstone Park--Geysers in the Upper Basin--
Rolling Stones Down the Valley--Return Home--Opening of the Ohio
Campaign--Death of Garfield.

CHAPTER XLIV.
BEGINNING OF ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION.
Special Session of the Senate Convened by the President--Abuse of
Me by Newspapers and Discharged Employees--Charges Concerning
Disbursement of the Contingent Fund--My Resolution in the Senate--
Secretary Windom's Letter Accompanying the Meline Report--Investigation
and Complete Exoneration--Arthur's Message to Congress in December
--Joint Resolutions on the Death of Garfield--Blaine's Tribute to
His Former Chief--Credit of the United States at "High Water Mark"
--Bill Introduced Providing for the Issuing of Three per Cent.
Bonds--Corporate Existence of National Banks Extended--Bill to
Reduce Internal Revenue Taxes--Tax on Playing Cards--Democratic
Victory in Ohio.

CHAPTER XLV.
STEPS TOWARDS MUCH NEEDED TARIFF LEGISLATION.
Necessity of Relief from Unnecessary Taxation--Views of the President
as Presented to Congress in December, 1882--Views of the Tariff
Commission Appointed by the President--Great Changes Made by the
Senate--Regret That I Did Not Defeat the Bill--Wherein Many Sections
Were Defective or Unjust--Bill to Regulate and Improve the Civil
Service--A Mandatory Provision That Should be Added to the Existing
Law--Further Talk of Nominating Me for Governor of Ohio--Reasons
Why I Could Not Accept--Selected as Chairman of the State Convention
--Refusal to Be Nominated--J. B. Foraker Nominated by Acclamation
--His Career--Issues of the Campaign--My Trip to Montana--Resuming
the Canvass--Hoadley Elected Governor--Retirement of Gen. Sherman.

CHAPTER XLVI.
EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES.
Continued Prosperity of the Nation--Arthur's Report to Congress--
Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and
Mississippi--Reports of the Investigating Committee--Financial
Questions Discussed During the Session--Duties and Privileges of
Senators--Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward
in New York--Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are
Wrecked--Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House--Debate
in the Senate on the National Bank System--Dedication of the John
Marshall Statue at Washington--Defeat of Ingalls' Arrears of Pensions
Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the
Mexican War--The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration
of Independence on July 4.

CHAPTER XLVII.
MY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884.
Again Talked of as a Republican Candidate for the Presidency--I
Have No Desire for the Nomination--Blaine the Natural Candidate of
the Party--My Belief that Arthur Would be Defeated if Nominated--
Speech at Washington, D. C., for Blaine and Logan--Opening of the
Ohio Campaign at Ashland--Success of the Republican State Ticket
in October--Speeches in Boston, Springfield, Mass., New York and
Brooklyn--Address to Business Men in Faneuil Hall--Success of the
National Democratic Ticket--Arthur's Annual Message to Congress--
Secretary McCulloch's Recommendations Concerning the Further Coinage
of Silver Dollars--Statement of My Views at This Time--Statue to
the Memory of General Lafayette--Controversy Between General Sherman
and Jefferson Davis.

CHAPTER XLVIII.
DEDICATION OF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT.
Resolution of Senator Morrill Providing for Appropriate Dedicatory
Ceremonies--I Am Made Chairman of the Commission--Robert C. Winthrop's
Letter Stating His Inability to Attend the Exercises--Letters of
Regret from General Grant and John G. Whittier--Unfavorable Weather
for the Dedication--My Address as Presiding Officer--The President's
Acceptance of the Monument for the Nation--Mr. Winthrop's Address
Read in the House by John D. Long--Inauguration of the First
Democratic President Since Buchanan's Time--Visit to Cincinnati
and Address on the Election Frauds--Respects to the Ohio Legislature
--A Trip to the West and Southwest--Address on American Independence.

CHAPTER XLIX.
REUNION OF THE "SHERMAN BRIGADE."
Patriotic Address Delivered at Woodstock, Conn., On My Return from
the Pacific Coast--Meeting of the Surviving Members of the Sherman
Family at Mansfield--We Attend the Reunion of the "Sherman Brigade"
at Odell's Lake--Addresses of General Sherman and Myself to the
Old Soldiers and Others Present--Apathy of the Republican Party
During the Summer of 1885--Contest Between Foraker and Hoadley for
the Governorship--My Speech at Mt. Gilead Denounced as "Bitterly
Partisan"--Governor Hoadley Accuses Me of "Waving the Bloody Shirt"
--My Reply at Lebanon--Election of Foraker--Frauds in Cincinnati
and Columbus--Speeches Made in Virginia.

CHAPTER L.
ELECTED PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE.
Death of Vice President Hendricks--I Am Chosen to Preside Over the
United States Senate--Letter of Congratulation from S. S. Cox--
Cleveland's First Annual Message to Congress--His Views on the
Tariff and Condition of Our Currency--Secretary Manning's Report--
Garfield's Statue Presented to the Nation by the State of Ohio--I
Am Elected a Senator from Ohio for the Fifth Time--I Go to Columbus
to Return Thanks to the Legislature for the Honor--Business of this
Session of Congress--Attempt to Inquire Into the Methods of Electing
Mr. Payne to the Senate from Ohio--My Address on "Grant and the
New South"--Address Before the Ohio Society of New York.

CHAPTER LI.
A PERIOD OF POLITICAL SPEECH MAKING.
Organization of the "Sherman Club" at Mansfield, Ohio--My Experiences
with Newspaper Reporters--Address at the State Fair in Columbus on
Agricultural Implements--Other Speeches Made in the Campaign of
that Year--Address at Louisville, Ky.--Courteous Treatment by Henry
Watterson, of the "Courier Journal"--Hon. John Q. Smith's Change
of Heart--Answering Questions Propounded by Him at a Gathering in
Wilmington, Ohio--Success of the Republican Party--Second Session
of the 49th Congress--But Little Legislation Accomplished--Death
of Senator John A. Logan--Tributes to His Memory--His Strong
Characteristics--My Reason for Resigning the Presidency of the
Senate--Succeeded by John J. Ingalls.

CHAPTER LII.
VISIT TO CUBA AND THE SOUTHERN STATES.
Departure for Florida and Havana--A Walk Through Jacksonville--
Impressions of the Country--Visit to Cigar Factories and Other
Places of Interest--Impressions of Cuba--Experience with Colored
Men at a Birmingham Hotel--The Proprietor Refuses to Allow a
Delegation to Visit Me in My Rooms--Sudden Change of Quarters--
Journey to Nashville and the Hearty Reception Which Followed--Visit
to the Widow of President Polk--My Address to Nashville Citizens--
Comment from the Press That Followed It--An Audience of Workingmen
at Cincinnati--Return Home--Trip to Woodbury, Conn., the Home of
My Ancestors--Invitation to Speak in the Hall of the House of
Representatives at Springfield, Ill.--Again Charged with "Waving
the Bloody Shirt."

CHAPTER LIII.
INDORSED FOR PRESIDENT BY THE OHIO STATE CONVENTION.
I Am Talked of as a Presidential Possibility--Public Statement of
My Position--Unanimous Resolution Adopted by the State Convention
at Toledo on July 28, 1887--Text of the Indorsement--Trip Across
the Country with a Party of Friends--Visit to the Copper and Nickel
Mining Regions--Stop at Winnipeg--A Day at Banff--Vast Snowsheds
Along the Canadian Pacific Railroad--Meeting with Carter H. Harrison
on Puget Sound--Rivalry Between Seattle and Tacoma--Trying to Locate
"Mount Tacoma"--Return Home After a Month's Absence--Letter to
General Sherman--Visit to the State Fair--I Attend a Soldiers'
Meeting at Bellville--Opening Campaign Speech at Wilmington--Talk
to Farmers in New York State--Success of the Republican Ticket in
Ohio--Blaine Declines to Be a Candidate.

CHAPTER LIV.
CLEVELAND'S EXTRAORDINARY MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
First Session of the 50th Congress--The President's "Cry of Alarm"
--Troubled by the Excess of Revenues over Expenditures--My Answer
to His Doctrines--His Refusal to Apply the Surplus to the Reduction
of the Public Debt--The Object in Doing So--My Views Concerning
Protection and the Tariff--In Favor of a Tariff Commission--"Mills
Bill" the Outcome of the President's Message--Failure of the Bill
During the Second Session--My Debates with Senator Beck on the
Coinage Act of 1873, etc.--Omission of the Old Silver Dollar--Death
of Chief Justice Waite--Immigration of Chinese Laborers--Controversy
with Senator Vest--Speech on the Fisheries Question--Difficulties
of Annexation with Canada.

CHAPTER LV.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888.
Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President--
Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats--I Am Indorsed by
the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19--My Response to
a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant--Meeting with
Prominent Men in New York--Foraker's Reply to Judge West's Declaration
Concerning Blaine--Blaine's Florence Letter to Chairman Jones--His
Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position--Meeting
of the Convention in Chicago in June--I Am Nominated by General D.
H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker--Jealousy Between the
Ohio Delegates--Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June 25--
Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain--General Harrison is Nominated
--Letters from the President Elect--My Replies--First Speeches of
the Campaign--Harrison's Victory--Second Session of the 50th Congress
--The President's Cabinet.

CHAPTER LVI.
FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS IN EUROPE.
Our Party Takes Its Departure on the "City of New York" on May 1--
Personnel of the Party--Short Stop in London--Various Cities in
Italy Visited--Sight-Seeing in Rome--Journey to Pompeii and Naples
--Impressions of the Inhabitants of Southern Italy--An Amusing
Incident Growing Out of the Ignorance of Our Courier--Meeting with
Mr. Porter, Minister to Rome--Four Days in Florence--Venice Wholly
Unlike Any Other City in the World--Favorable Impression of Vienna
--Arrival at Paris--Reception by the President of the Republic of
France--Return Home--My Opinion Concerning England and Englishmen
--Reception at Washington--Campaigning Again for Foraker--Ohio Ballot
Box Forgery and Its Outcome--Address at Cleveland on "The Congress
of American States"--Defeat of Foraker for Governor.

CHAPTER LVII.
HISTORY OF THE "SHERMAN SILVER LAW."
President Harrison's First Annual Message--His Recommendations
Regarding the Coinage of Silver and Tariff Revisions--Bill Authorizing
the Purchase of $4,500,000 Worth of Silver Bullion Each Month--
Senator Plumb's "Free Silver" Amendment to the House Bill--Substitute
Finally Agreed Upon in Conference--Since Known as the "Sherman
Silver Law"--How It Came to Be so Called--Chief Merit of the Law--
Steady Decline of Silver After the Passage of the Act--Bill Against
Trusts and Combinations--Amendments in Committee--The Bill as Passed
--Evils of Unlawful Combinations--Death of Representative Wm. D.
Kelley and Ex-Member S. S. Cox--Sketch of the Latter--My Views
Regarding Immigration and Alien Contract Labor--McKinley Tariff
Law--What a Tariff Is--Death of George H. Pendleton--Republican
Success in Ohio--Second Session of the 51st Congress--Failure of
Senator Stewart's "Free Coinage Bill."

CHAPTER LVIII.
EFFORTS TO CONSTRUCT THE NICARAGUAN CANAL.
Early Recognition of the Need of a Canal Across the Isthmus
Connecting North and South America--M. de Lesseps Attempts to Build
a Water Way at Panama--Feasability of a Route by Lake Nicaragua--
First Attempts in 1825 to Secure Aid from Congress--The Clayton-
Bulwer Convention of 1850--Hindrance to the Work Caused by This
Treaty--Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1891--
Failure to Secure a Treaty Between the United States and Nicaragua
in 1884--Cleveland's Reasons for Withdrawing This Treaty--Incorporation
of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua--Inevitable Failure of
Their Attempts Unless Aided by the Government--Why We Should Purchase
Outright the Concessions of the Maritime Company--Brief Description
of the Proposed Canal--My Last Letter from General Sherman--His
Death from Pneumonia After a Few Days' Illness--Messages of President
Harrison--Resolution--My Commemorative Address Delivered Before
the Loyal Legion.

CHAPTER LIX.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1890-91 IN OHIO.
Public Discussion of My Probable Re-election to the Senate--My
Visit to the Ohio Legislature in April, 1891--Reception at the
Lincoln League Club--Address to the Members--Appointed by the
Republicans as a Delegate to the State Convention at Columbus--Why
My Prepared Speech Was Not Delivered--Attack on Me by the Cincinnati
"Enquirer"--Text of the Address Printed in the "State Journal"--
Beginning of a Canvass with Governor Foraker as a Competitor for
the Senatorship--Attitude of George Cox, a Cincinnati Politician,
Towards Me--Attempt to Form a "Farmers' Alliance" or People's Party
in Ohio--"Seven Financial Conspiracies"--Mrs. Emery's Pamphlet and
My Reply to It.

CHAPTER LX.
FREE SILVER AND PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRIES.
My Views in 1891 on the Free Coinage of Silver--Letter to an Ohio
Newspaper on the Subject--A Problem for the Next Congress to Solve
--Views Regarding Protection to American Industries by Tariff Laws
--My Deep Interest in This Campaign--Its Importance to the Country
at Large--Ohio the Battle Ground of These Financial Questions--
Opening the Campaign in Paulding Late in August--Extracts from My
Speech There--Appeal to the Conservative Men of Ohio of Both Parties
--Address at the State Fair at Columbus--Review of the History of
Tariff Legislation in the United States--Five Republican Principles
Pertaining to the Reduction of Taxes--Speeches at Cleveland, Toledo,
Cincinnati and Elsewhere--McKinley's Election by Over 21,000
Plurality.

CHAPTER LXI.
ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE SIXTH TIME.
I Secure the Caucus Nomination for Senator on the First Ballot--
Foraker and Myself Introduced to the Legislature--My Address of
Thanks to the Members--Speech of Governor Foraker--My Colleague
Given His Seat in the Senate Without Opposition--Message of President
Harrison to the 52nd Congress--Morgan's Resolutions and Speech for
the Free Coinage of Silver--Opening of the Silver Debate by Mr.
Teller--My Speech on the Question--Defeat of the Bill in the House
--Discussion of the Chinese Question--My Opposition to the Conference
Report on Mr. Geary's Amended Bill--Adopted by the Senate After a
Lengthy Debate--Effect of the Tariff Laws Upon Wages and Prices--
Senator Hale's Resolution--Carlisle's Speech in Opposition to High
Prices--My Reply--Résumé of My Opinions on the Policy of Protection
--Reception by the Ohio Republican Association--Refutation of a
Newspaper Slander Upon H. M. Daugherty--Newspaper Writers and
Correspondents--"Bossism" in Hamilton County.

CHAPTER LXII.
SECOND ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND.
Opposition to General Harrison for the Presidential Nomination--My
Belief That He Could Not Be Elected--Preference for McKinley--
Meeting of the National Republican Convention at Minneapolis--
Meeting of Republicans at Washington to Ratify the Ticket--Newspaper
Comment on My Two Days' Speech in the Senate on the Silver Question
--A Claim That I Was Not in Harmony with My Party on the Tariff--
My Reply--Opening Speeches for Harrison and Reid--Publication of
My "History of the Republican Party"--First Encounter with a "Kodak"
--Political Addresses in Philadelphia, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago
and Milwaukee--Return to Ohio--Defeat of Harrison.

CHAPTER LXIII.
ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION.
My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause
of the "Sherman Act"--Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia
"Ledger"--Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes--Tribute
to His Memory--Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the
Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States
Notes--The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to
Save the Appropriation Bill--Loss of Millions of Dollars to the
Government--Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office--His Inaugural
Address--Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the "World's Fair"
--Chicago Raises $1,000,000--Congress Finally Decides to Pay the
Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin--I Attend the Dedication of
the Ohio Building at the Fair--Address to the Officers and Crew of
the Spanish Caravels.

CHAPTER LXIV.
REPEAL OF PART OF THE "SHERMAN ACT" OF 1890.
Congress Convened in Extraordinary Session on August 7, 1893--The
President's Apprehension Concerning the Financial Situation--Message
from the Executive Shows an Alarming Condition of the National
Finances--Attributed to the Purchase and Coinage of Silver--Letter
to Joseph H. Walker, a Member of the Conference Committee on the
"Sherman Act"--A Bill I Have Never Regretted--Brief History of the
Passage of the Law of 1893--My Speech in the Senate Well Received
--Attacked by the "Silver Senators"--General Debate on the Financial
Legislation of the United States--Views of the "Washington Post"
on My Speech of October 17--Repeal Accomplished by the Republicans
Supporting a Democratic Administration--The Law as Enacted--Those
Who Uphold the Free Coinage of Silver--Awkward Position of the
Democratic Members--My Efforts in Behalf of McKinley in Ohio--His
Election by 81,000 Plurality--Causes of Republican Victories
Throughout the Country.

CHAPTER LXV.
PASSAGE OF THE WILSON TARIFF BILL.
Second Session of the 53rd Congress--Recommendations of the President
Concerning a Revision of the Tariff Laws--Bill Reported to the
House by the Committee of Ways and Means--Supported by Chairman
Wilson and Passed--Received in the Senate--Report of the Senate
Committee on Finance--Passes the Senate with Radical Amendments--
These are Finally Agreed to by the House--The President Refuses to
Approve the Bill--Becomes a Law After Ten Days--Defects in the Bill
--Not Satisfactory to Either House, the President or the People--
Mistakes of the Secretary of the Treasury--No Power to Sell Bonds
or to Borrow Money to Meet Current Deficiencies--Insufficient
Revenue to Support the Government--A Remedy That Was Not Adopted--
Gross Injustice of Putting Wool on the Free List--McKinley Law
Compared with the Wilson Bill--Sufficient Revenue Furnished by the
Former--I Am Criticized for Supporting the President and Secretary.

CHAPTER LXVI.
SENIORITY OF SERVICE IN THE SENATE.
Notified That My Years of Service Exceed Those of Thomas Benton--
Celebration of the Sons of the American Revolution at the Washington
Monument--My Address to Those Present--Departure for the West with
General Miles--Our Arrival at Woodlake, Nebraska--Neither "Wood"
nor "Lake"--Enjoying the Pleasures of Camp Life--Bound for Big
Spring, South Dakota--Return via Sioux City, St. Paul and Minneapolis
--Marvelous Growth of the "Twin Cities"--Publication of the "Sherman
Letters" by General Sherman's Daughter Rachel--First Political
Speech of the Campaign at Akron--Republican Victory in the State
of Ohio--Return to Washington for the Winter of 1894-95--Marriage
of Our Adopted Daughter Mary with James Iver McCallum--A Short
Session of Congress Devoted Mainly to Appropriations--Conclusion.

The silver question was suddenly thrust upon the House of
Representatives on the 5th of November, 1877, by a motion, submitted
by Mr. Bland, of Missouri, that the rules be suspended so as to
enable him to introduce, and the House to pass, a bill to authorize
the free coinage of the standard silver dollar of 412½ grains, and
to restore its legal tender character. The motion to suspend the
rules cut off all amendments and all debate. Several members
demanded a hearing. Efforts were made to adjourn, but this was
refused. The previous question being ordered and the rules suspended,
a single vote would introduce the bill without a reference to a
committee, and would pass it without any power of amendment, without
the usual reading at three separate times. The motion was agreed
to by a vote of yeas 163, nays 34. So, two-thirds voting in favor
thereof, the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

The first section of this bill provided that there shall be coined,
at the several mints of the United States, the silver dollar of
the weight of 412½ grains, troy, of standard silver, as provided
in the act of January 18, 1837, on which shall be the devices and
superscriptions provided by said act; which coins, together with
all silver dollars heretofore coined by the United States, of like
weight and fineness, shall be a legal tender at their nominal value
for all debts and dues, public and private, except where otherwise
provided by contract; and any owner of silver bullion may deposit
the same in any United States coinage mint or assay office, to be
coined into such dollars for his benefit, upon the same terms and
conditions as gold bullion is deposited for coinage under existing
law. Section 2 provided for repealing all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with provisions of the act.

Thus this bill, of wide-reaching importance, was introduced and
passed by the House under the previous question, and a suspension
of the rules without debate on the same day of its introduction by
a vote of yeas 163, nays 34. It was sent to the Senate and referred
to the committee on finance.

On the same day Mr. Ewing moved in the House of Representatives to
suspend the rules and adopt the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the bill to repeal the third section of the
resumption law be made the special order, not to interfere with
any appropriation bills, for to-morrow at the expiration of the
morning hour, and from day to day thereafter until the following
Tuesday at three o'clock, when the previous question shall be
ordered on it and on any amendments then pending, all amendments
meanwhile to be in order, provided the time shall be extended, if
necessary, so as to allow five days after the morning hour for the
consideration of said bill and amendments."

This resolution passed by a vote of yeas 143, nays 47.

In consequence of this action of the House, the syndicate declined
to offer the bonds, and no further calls for six per cent. bonds
were therefore made.

On the 7th of November August Belmont wrote me from New York as
follows;

"I fear that the threatening position of the silver question will
check completely any demand for the four per cent. bonds here and
in Europe. The damage which the passage of this measure will do
to our public credit abroad _cannot be over estimated_. To remonetize
silver upon the old standard, and make it a legal tender for all
private and public debts, will be considered by the whole civilized
world as an act of repudiation on the part of the federal government,
and cast a stain upon our national credit, which has hitherto stood
as high and bright as that of any government in the world.

"It is just as much repudiation for the federal government to compel
its bondholders to accept the payment of their interest in silver,
which is at a discount of ten per cent., against the gold which
the government received for the bonds, as it would be if Congress
decreed that all the bonds of the United States should not bear a
higher interest than two per cent. per annum. To do such a thing
now as is contemplated by the Bland silver bill, when the federal
finances are in a flourishing condition, when the premium of gold
has been reduced two and a half to three per cent., and when our
funded debt sells equal to that of any other public security in
the world, is actually as if a man of wealth and position, who had
by a life-long course of strict honesty acquired the well-earned
confidence and respect of his fellow-citizens and of the outer
world, should in the midst of his affluence, and without the
palliating excuse of any temptation of want or necessity, commit
open theft.

"I am sure I do not over estimate the damaging effect which the
passage of the bill must have upon American credit. All my letters
from abroad, and conversations with people familiar with the English
and continental money markets, confirm my convictions on that point.
When you look back and find in the archives of your department the
proud records of a nation's faith kept inviolate with a most
punctilious and chivalrous spirit during a century, amidst all the
trials of foreign and civil war which strained the resources of
our country to the very verge of ruin, the task before you is
certainly a difficult and harassing one; but while the path of duty
is often narrow and difficult, it is always straight and so well
defined that it can never be mistaken.

"Sound financial policy and love of our country's fair name alike
demand from those to whom the administration of its affairs have
been intrusted the most uncompromising hostility to the _blind_
and _dishonest_ frenzy which has taken hold of Congress, and I
sincerely hope that you will be seconded in the task before you by
the hearty support of the President and your colleagues."

On the 9th of November I was advised that the four per cent. bonds
were selling at 99 and interest, in a small way only. The syndicate
had bought in the market about $750,000 of these bonds at less than
par in order to prevent a further depreciation. On the same day
I was informed by August Belmont & Co., as follows:

"After conference and careful consideration of the whole subject,
it is the conclusion of all the associates, in Europe and here,
that it is injudicious to undertake further negotiations of the
fours, during the pendency of the legislation proposing to make
silver a full legal tender, as the discussion has checked dealings
in the bonds by the public. To make a call in the face of a market
quotation (to-day 98¾ and interest) below the price fixed by law
would not convince the public that new business had been undertaken
at a loss, but that the call was connected with business previously
done.

* * * * *

"Further than this, we are satisfied that, holding the views
expressed in your letters mentioned, the President and all his
cabinet will agree with us that it would be wrong for us to ask
for another call at this juncture, as such action would be held by
those advocating the legislation in favor of silver as proving that
such legislation in our opinion was not prejudicial to the national
credit and the refunding of our national debt."

On the 10th of November Mr. Conant wrote me that our bonds had been
depressed by the rumors which had been circulated respecting probable
legislation which would depreciate their value, and that four and
a half per cent. bonds had fallen off three-fourths per cent. He
said: "If, in any legislation which may be enacted regarding
silver, provision could be made not only exempting the debt and
interest thereon from payment in silver, but declaring that payment
of the same shall be made in gold coin, it would aid us immeasurably
in placing our bonds."

Two days later I received a letter from F. O. French, of New York,
as follows:

"Our business people are very much alarmed at the rumored strength
of the silver people, and, as they apprehend the gravest disasters
from the success of the Bland bill, a committee of gentlemen
connected with insurance and trust companies, as well as with the
banks, go to Washington to-morrow to present their views to the
finance committee.

"Once dispatch this silver business--and I have faith that it cannot
live in the light of full discussion by the Senate--and we shall
renew funding, and by attaining resumption put an end to financial
discussions as we did to slavery."

And on the following day I wrote to August Belmont & Co.:

"Your letter of the 9th instant was received, and also a personal
letter from Mr. Belmont.

"I am watchful of the course of legislation in Congress and of the
current of public sentiment, both in our own and foreign countries,
on the silver question. I am not prepared at present to give any
assurance as to what will be done in Congress, nor of the action
of the executive department. It is better to let the matter stand
as it is, awaiting events without any committals whatever. I have
faith to believe that all will come our right so far as the public
credit is affected, and will write you again when anything definite
can be said."

On the 29th of November Belmont wrote me a long letter containing
the following statements:

"I need hardly assure you, at this late day, of my earnest solicitude
for the success of the funding and resumption operations, and of
my personal deep regret, apart from all pecuniary considerations,
as a member of the syndicate, to see this unfortunate situation of
the silver question put a complete stop to all further sales of
the four per cent. bonds at present, here and in England. The
capitalists and banks on both sides of the Atlantic will not buy
a bond at par _in gold_, when it is almost certain, from the
overwhelming vote in the House, and the known attitude of the
Senate, that a silver bill, making the old silver dollar a legal
tender for all private and public obligations, will pass both Houses
this winter. . . .

"The bonds are selling at ninety-nine and one-fourth in gold in open
market, and it seems to me very doubtful policy to offer bonds, by
us, to the public at this moment, and thus assist the advocates of
the old silver dollar by our apparent indifference to the injustice
and dishonesty of the Bland bill."

This condition of suspense and anxiety continued during the remainder
of the year.

My first annual report, as Secretary of the Treasury, was made to
Congress on the 3rd of December, 1877. The statement made of our
financial condition was a very favorable one, showing a surplus
revenue of $30,340,577.69. The receipts from different sources of
revenue were largely diminished, but the expenditures for the year
were reduced by an equal amount. The surplus revenue was applied
to the redemption of United States notes and of fractional currency,
and to the payment of six per cent. bonds for the sinking fund.
The report dealt with the usual topics of such reports, embracing
a great variety of subjects. What attracted the most attention
was, naturally, what was said about refunding the public debt and
the resumption of specie payments. The results of refunding during
the previous year have already been sufficiently stated. The plans
for the resumption of specie payments were fully explained. The
mode and manner of bringing this about was not specified in the
law, but the time for resumption was fixed and the means provided
for accumulating coin for that purpose were ample.

By the resumption act the Secretary of the Treasury was required
to redeem legal tender notes to the amount of eighty per centum of
the sum of national bank notes issued, and to continue such
redemption, as circulating notes were issued, until there was
outstanding the sum of $300,000,000 of such legal tender United
States notes, and no more.

By the same act it was provided that, on and after the 1st day of
January, 1879, the Secretary of the Treasury should redeem, in
coin, the United States legal tender notes then outstanding, on
their presentation for redemption at the office of the assistant
treasurer of the United States, in the city of New York, in sums
of not less than fifty dollars. "And," it continued, "to enable
the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide for the
redemption in this act authorized or required, he is authorized to
use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the treasury, not
otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not
less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions of bonds, of
the United States, described in the act of Congress approved July
14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding of the national
debt,' with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions, to the
extent necessary to carry this act into full effect, and to use
the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."

In obedience to this provision I had sold at par, for coin,
$15,000,000 four and a half per cent. bonds, or $5,000,000 during
each of the months of May, June and July, and $25,000,000 at par,
in coin, of four per cent. bonds, or $5,000,000 for each of the
months of August, September, October, November and December. Of
the coin thus received $4,000,000 had been sold for the redemption
of United States notes, and the residue was in the treasury. The
surplus revenue had also, under the same authority, been applied
to the redemption of the residue of United States notes, not redeemed
by the sale of coin, and the balance was held in the treasury in
preparation for resumption.

These operations, aided greatly, no doubt, by the favorable condition
of our foreign commerce, had advanced the market value of United
States notes to ninety-seven and three-eighths per cent., or within
nearly two and a half per cent. of coin. They had also conclusively
demonstrated the practicability of restoring United States notes
to par, in coin, by the time fixed by law, and that without disturbing
either domestic or foreign trade or commerce. Every step had been
accompanied with growing business, with the advance of public
credit, and the steady appreciation of United States notes. The
export of bullion had been arrested, and our domestic supply had
accumulated in the treasury. The exportation of other domestic
products had been largely increased, with great advantage to all
industries. I said the course adopted under the resumption act,
if pursued, would probably be followed with like favorable results,
and a sufficient fund for the maintenance of resumption would
doubtless accumulate in the treasury at or before the date fixed
by law.

I strongly urged the firm maintenance of a policy that would make
good the promise contained in the United States note when issued--
a promise repeated in the act "To strengthen the public credit,"
approved March 18, 1869, and made definite and effective by the
resumption act, and asserted that dishonored notes, less valuable
than the coin they promise, though justified by the necessity which
led to their issue, should be made good as soon as practicable;
that the public credit was injured by failure to redeem them; that
every holder who was compelled by law to receive them was deprived
of a part of his just due; that our national resources being ample,
the process of appreciation being almost complete, and the wisdom
of the law having been demonstrated, it was the dictate of good
policy and good faith to continue the process of preparation, so
that, at or before the time fixed by law, every United States note
would have equal purchasing power with coin; that to reverse this
policy in the face of assured success would greatly impair the
public credit, arrest the process of reducing the interest on the
public debt, and cause anew the financial distress our country had
recently suffered.

The first section of the resumption act plainly provided for the
permanent substitution of silver coin for the whole amount of
fractional currency outstanding. Section 3 directed the permanent
reduction of United States notes to an amount not exceeding
$300,000,000. No distinct legislative declaration was made in the
resumption act that notes redeemed after that limit was reached
should not be reissued; but section 3579 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States provided that "when any United States notes
are returned to the treasury they may be reissued, from time to
time, as the exigencies of the public interest may require."

I expressed in my report the opinion that, under this section,
notes, when redeemed after the 1st of January, 1879, if the amount
outstanding was not in excess of $300,000,000, might be reissued
as the exigencies of the public service required. A note redeemed
with coin was in the treasury and subject to the same law as if
received for taxes, or as a bank note, when redeemed by the
corporation issuing it. The authority to reissue it did not depend
upon the mode in which it was returned to the treasury. But this
construction was controverted, and I thought should be settled by
distinct provisions of law. It should not be open to doubt or
dispute. The decision of this question by Congress would involve
not merely the construction of existing law, but the public policy
of maintaining in circulation United States notes, either with or
without the legal tender clause. These notes were of great public
convenience--they circulated readily; were of universal credit;
were a debt of the people without interest; were protected by every
possible safeguard against counterfeiting; and, when redeemable in
coin at the demand of the holder, formed a paper currency as good
as had yet been devised.

It was conceded, I said, that a certain amount could, with the aid
of an ample reserve in coin, be always maintained in circulation.
Should not the benefit of this circulation inure to the people,
rather than to corporations, either state or national? The government
had ample facility for the collection, custody, and care of the
coin reserves of the country. It was a safer custodian of such
reserves than a multitude of scattered banks would be. The authority
to issue circulating notes by banks was not given to the banks for
their benefit, but for the public convenience, and to enable them
to meet the ebb and flow of currency caused by varying crops,
productions, and seasons. It was indispensable that a power should
exist somewhere to issue and loan credit money at certain times,
and to redeem it at others. This function could be performed better
by corporations than by the government. The government could not
loan money, deal in bills of exchange, or make advances on property.

I expressed the opinion, that the best currency for the people of
the United States would be a carefully-limited amount of United
States notes, promptly redeemable on presentation in coin, supported
by ample reserves of coin, and supplemented by a system of national
banks, organized under general laws, free and open to all, with
power to issue circulating notes secured by United States bonds,
deposited with the government and redeemable on demand in United
States notes or coin. Such a system would secure to the people a
safe currency of equal value in all parts of the country, receivable
for all dues, and easily convertible into coin. Interest could
thus be saved on so much of the public debt as could be conveniently
maintained in permanent circulation, leaving to national banks the
proper business of such corporations, of providing currency for
the varying changes, the ebb and flow of trade.

I said that the legal tender quality given to United States notes
was intended to maintain them in forced circulation at a time when
their depreciation was inevitable. When they were redeemable in
coin this quality might either be withdrawn or retained, without
affecting their use as currency in ordinary times. But all experience
had shown that there were periods when, under any system of paper
money, however carefully guarded, it was impracticable to maintain
actual coin redemption. Usually contracts would be based upon
current paper money, and it was just that, during a sudden panic,
or an unreasonable demand for coin, the creditor should not be
allowed to demand payment in other than the currency upon which
the debt was contracted. To meet this contingency, it would seem
to be right to maintain the legal tender quality of the United
States notes. If they were not at par with coin it was the fault
of the government and not of the debtor, or, rather, it was the
result of unforseen stringency not contemplated by the contracting
parties.

In establishing a system of paper money, designed to be permanent,
I said it should be remembered that theretofore no expedient had
been devised, either in this or other countries, that in times of
panic or adverse trade had prevented the drain and exhaustion of
coin reserves, however large or carefully guarded. Every such
system must provide for a suspension of specie payment. Laws might
forbid or ignore such a contingency, but it would come; and when
it came it could not be resisted, but had to be acknowledged and
declared, to prevent unnecessary sacrifice and ruin. In our free
government the power to make this declaration would not be willingly
intrusted to individuals, but should be determined by events and
conditions known to all. It would be far better to fix the maximum
of legal tender notes at $300,000,000, supported by a minimum
reserve of $100,000,000, of coin, only to be used for the redemption
of notes, not to be reissued until the reserve was restored. A
demand of coin to exhaust such a reserve might not occur, but, if
events should force it, the fact would be known and could be
declared, and would justify a temporary suspension of specie
payments. Some such expedient could, no doubt, be provided by
Congress for an exceptional emergency. In other times the general
confidence in these notes would maintain them at par in coin, and
justify their use as reserves of banks and for the redemption of
bank notes.

As to the fractional currency I said the resumption act provided
for the exchange and substitution of silver coins for such currency.
To facilitate this exchange, the joint resolution, approved July
22, 1876, provided that such coin should be issued to an amount
not exceeding $10,000,000, for an equal amount of legal tender
notes. It also provided that the aggregate amount of such coin
and fractional currency outstanding should not exceed, at any time,
$50,000,000. That limit would have been reached if the whole amount
of fractional currency issued and not redeemed, had been held to
be "outstanding." It was well known, however, that a very large
amount of fractional currency issued had been destroyed, and could
not be presented for redemption, and could hardly be held to be
"outstanding." The Treasurer of the United States, the Comptroller
of the Currency, and the Director of the Mint concurred in estimating
the amount, so lost and destroyed, to be not less than $8,083,513.

As it was evident that Congress intended to provide an aggregate
issue of $50,000,000 of such coin and currency in circulation, I
directed the further issue of silver coin, equal in amount to the
currency estimated to have been lost and destroyed.

I recommended that the limitation upon the amount of such fractional
coin, to be issued in exchange for United States notes, be repealed.
The coin was readily taken, was in great favor with the people,
its issue was profitable to the government, and experience had
shown that there was no difficulty in maintaining it at par with
United States notes. The estimated amount of such coin in circulation
in the United States in 1860, at par with gold, was $43,000,000.
Great Britain, with a population of 32,000,000, maintained an
inferior fractional coin to the amount of $92,463,500, at par with
gold, and other nations maintained a much larger _per capita_
amount. The true limit of such coin was the demand that might be
made for its issue, and if only issued in exchange for United
States notes there was no danger of an excess being issued.

By the coinage act of 1873, any person might deposit silver bullion
at the mint to be coined into trade dollars of the weight of 420
grains, troy, upon the payment of the cost of coinage. This
provision had been made at a time when such a dollar, worth in the
market $1.02-13/100 in gold, was designed for the use of trade in
China, where silver was the only standard. By the joint resolution
of July 22, 1876, passed when the trade dollar in market value,
had fallen greatly below one dollar in gold, it was provided that
it should not be thereafter a legal tender, and the Secretary of
the Treasury was authorized "to limit the coinage thereof to such
an amount as he may deem sufficient to meet the export demand for
the same." Under these laws the amount of trade dollars issued,
mainly for exportation, was $30,710,400.

In October, 1877, it became apparent that there was no further
export demand for trade dollars, but deposits of silver bullion
were made, and such dollars were demanded of the mint for circulation
in the United States, that the owner might secure the difference
between the value of such bullion in the market and United States
notes. At the time the mints were fully occupied by the issue of
fractional, and other coins, on account of the government. Therefore,
under the authority of the law of 1876 referred to, I directed that
no further issues of trade dollars be made until necessary again
to meet an export demand. In case another silver dollar was
authorized, I recommended that the trade dollar be discontinued.

The question of the issue of a silver dollar for circulation as
money had, previous to my report, been discussed and carefully
examined by a commission organized by Congress, which had recommended
the coinage of the old silver dollar. With such legislative
provisions as would maintain its current value at par with gold,
its issue was recommended by me. I thought a gold coin of the
denomination of one dollar was too small for convenient circulation,
while such a coin in silver would be convenient for a multitude of
daily transactions, and in a form to satisfy the natural instinct
of hoarding.

I discussed the silver question to some length and said that of
the metals, silver was of the most general use for coinage. It
was a part of every system of coinage, even in countries where gold
was the sole legal standard. It best measured the common wants of
life, but, from its weight and bulk, was not a convenient medium
in the larger exchanges of commerce. Its production was reasonably
steady in amount. The relative market value of silver and gold
was far more stable than that of any other two commodities--still,
it did vary. It was not in the power of human law to prevent the
variation. This inherent difficulty had compelled all nations to
adopt one or the other as the sole standard of value, or to authorize
an alternative standard of the cheaper coin, or to coin both metals
at an arbitrary standard, and to maintain one a par with the other
by limiting the amount and legal tender quality of the cheaper
coin, and receiving or redeeming it at par with the other.

It had been the careful study of statesmen for many years to secure
a bimetallic currency not subject to the changes of market value,
and so adjusted that both kinds could be kept in circulation
together, not alternating with each other. The growing tendency
had been to adopt, for coins, the principle of "redeemability"
applied to different forms of paper money. By limiting tokens,
silver, and paper money, to the amount needed for business, and
promptly receiving or redeeming all that might at any time be in
excess, all these forms of money could be kept in circulation, in
large amounts, at par with gold. In this way, tokens of inferior
intrinsic value were readily circulated, and did not depreciate
below the paper money into which they were convertible. The
fractional coin then in circulation, though the silver of which it
was composed was of less market value than the paper money, passed
readily among all classes of people and answered all the purposes
for which it was designed. And so the silver dollar, if restored
to our coinage, would greatly add to the convenience of the people.
But this coin should be subject to the same rule, as to issue and
convertibility, as other forms of money. If the market value of
the silver in it was less than that of gold coin of the same
denomination, and it was issued in unlimited qualities, and made
a legal tender for all debts, it would demonetize gold and depreciate
our paper money.

The importance of gold as the standard of value was conceded by
all. Since 1834, it had been practically the sole coin standard
of the United States, and, since 1815, been the sole standard of
Great Britain. Germany had recently adopted the same standard.
France, and other Latin nations, had suspended the coinage of
silver, and, it was supposed, would gradually either adopt the sole
standard of gold, or provide for the convertibility of silver coin,
on the demand of the holder, into gold coin.

In the United States, several experiments had been made with the
view of retaining both gold and silver in circulation. The 2nd
Congress undertook to establish the ratio of fifteen of silver to
one of gold, with free coinage of both metals. By this ratio gold
was under-valued, as one ounce of gold was worth more in the markets
of the world than fifteen ounces of silver, and gold, therefore,
was exported. To correct this, in 1837, the ratio was fixed at
sixteen to one, but sixteen ounces of silver were worth, in the
market, more than one ounce of gold, so that silver was demonetized.

These difficulties in the adjustment of gold and silver coinage
had been fully considered by Congress, prior to the passage of the
act approved February 21, 1853. By that act a new, and it was
believed a permanent, policy was adopted to secure the simultaneous
circulation of both silver and gold coins in the United States.
Silver fractional coins were provided for at a ratio of 14.88 in
silver to one in gold, and were only issued in exchange for gold
coin. The right of private parties to deposit silver bullion for
such coinage was repealed, and these coins were issued from bullion
purchased by the Treasurer of the Mint, and only upon the account,
and for the profit, of the United States. The coin was a legal
tender only in payment of debts for all sums not exceeding five
dollars. Though the silver in this coin was then worth in the
market 3.13 cents on the dollar less than gold coin, yet its
convenience for use in change, its issue by the government only in
exchange for, and its practical convertibility into, gold coin,
maintained it in circulation at par with gold coin. If the slight
error in the ratio of 1792 prevented gold from entering into
circulation for forty-five years, and the slight error in 1837
brought gold into circulation and banished silver until 1853, how
much more certainly would an error then of nine per cent. cause
gold to be exported and silver to become the sole standard of value?
Was it worth while to travel again the round of errors, when
experience had demonstrated that both metals could only be maintained
in circulation together by adhering to the policy of 1853?

The silver dollar was not mentioned in the act of 1853, but from
1792 until 1874 it was worth more in the market than the gold dollar
provided for in the act of 1837. It was not a current coin
contemplated as being in circulation at the passage of the act of
February 12, 1873. The whole amount of such dollars, issued prior
to 1853, was $2,553,000. Subsequent to 1853, and until it was
dropped from our coinage in 1873, the total amount issued was
$5,492,838, and this was almost exclusively for exportation.

By the coinage act approved February 12, 1873, fractional silver
coins were authorized, similar in general character to the coins
of 1853, but with a slight increase in silver in them, to make them
conform exactly to the French coinage, and the old dollar was
replaced by the trade dollar of 420 grains of standard silver.

Much complaint had been made that this was done with the design of
depriving the people of the privilege of paying their debts in a
cheaper money than gold, but it was manifest that this was an error.
No one then did or could foresee the subsequent fall in the market
value of silver. The silver dollar was an unknown coin to the
people, and was not in circulation even on the Pacific slope, where
coin was in common use. The trade dollar of 420 grains was
substituted for the silver dollar of 412½ grains because it was
believed that it was better adapted to supersede the Mexican dollar
in the Chinese trade, and experiment proved this to be true. Since
the trade dollar was authorized $30,710,400 had been issued, or
nearly four times the entire issue of old silver dollars since the
foundation of the government. Had not the coinage act of 1873
passed, the United States would have been compelled to suspend the
free coinage of silver dollars, as the Latin nations were, or to
accept silver as the sole coin standard of value.

Since February, 1873, great changes had occurred in the market
value of silver. Prior to that time the silver in the old dollar
was worth more than a gold dollar, while it was worth then, in
1877, about 92 cents. If by law any holder of silver bullion might
deposit in the mint and demand a full legal tender dollar for every
412½ grains of standard silver deposited, the result would be
inevitable that as soon as the mints could supply the demand the
silver dollar would, by a financial law as fixed and invariable as
the law of gravitation, become the only standard of value. All
forms of paper money would fall to that standard or below it, and
gold would be demonetized and quoted at a premium equal to its
value in the markets of the world. For a time the run to deposit
bullion at the mint would give to silver an artificial value, of
which the holders and producers of silver bullion would have the
sole benefit. The utmost capacity of the mints would be employed
for years to supply this demand at the cost of, and without profit
to, the people. The silver dollar would take the place of gold as
rapidly as coined, and be used in the payment of customs duties,
causing an accumulation of such coins in the treasury. If used in
paying the interest on the public debt, the grave questions then
presented would arise with public creditors, seriously affecting
the public credit.

It had been urged that the free coinage of silver in the United
States would restore its market value to that of gold. Market
value was fixed by the world, and not by the United States alone,
and was affected by the whole mass of silver in the world. As the
enormous and continuous demand for silver in Asia had not prevented
the fall of silver, it was not likely that the limited demand for
silver coin in this country, where paper money then was, and would
be, the chief medium of exchange, would cause any considerable
advance in its value. This advance, if any, would be secured by
the demand for silver bullion for coin, to be issued by and for
the United States, as well as if it were issued for the benefit of
the holder of the bullion. If the financial condition of our
country was so grievous that we must at every hazard have a cheaper
dollar, in order to lessen the burden of debts already contracted,
it would be far better, rather than to adopt the single standard
of silver, to boldly reduce the number of grains in the gold dollar,
or to abandon and retrace all efforts to make United States notes
equal to coin. Either expedient would do greater harm to the public
at large than any possible benefit to debtors.

The free coinage of silver would also impair the pledge made of
the customs duties, by the act of February, 1862, for payment of
the interest of the public debt. The policy adhered to of collecting
these duties in gold coin, had been the chief cause of upholding
and advancing the public credit, and making it possible to lessen
the burden of interest by the process of refunding.

In view of these considerations, I felt it to be my duty to earnestly
urge upon Congress the serious objections to the free coinage of
silver on such conditions as would demonetize gold, greatly disturb
all the financial operations of the government, suddenly revolutionize
the basis of our currency, throw upon the government the increased
cost of coinage, arrest the refunding of the public debt, and impair
the public credit, with no apparent advantage to the people at
large.

I believed that all the beneficial results hoped for from a liberal
issue of silver coin could be secured by issuing this coin, in
pursuance of the general policy of the act of 1853, in exchange
for United States notes, coined from bullion purchased in the open
market, by the United States, and by maintaining it by redemption,
or otherwise, at par with gold coin. It could be made a legal
tender for such sums and on such contracts as would secure to it
the most general circulation. It could be easily redeemed in United
States notes and gold coin, and only reissued when demanded for
public convenience. If the essential quality of redeemability
given to the United States notes, bank bills, tokens, fractional
coins and currency, maintained them at par, how much easier it
would be to maintain the silver dollar, of intrinsic market value
nearly equal to gold, at par with gold coin, by giving to it the
like quality of redeemability. To still further secure a fixed
relative value of silver and gold, the United States might invite
an international convention of commercial nations. Even such a
convention, while it might check the fall of silver, could not
prevent the operation of that higher law which places the market
value of silver above human control. Issued upon the conditions
stated, I was of opinion that the silver dollar would be a great
public advantage, but that if issued without limit, upon the demand
of the owners of silver bullion, it would be a great public injury.

The President's message supported and strengthened the position
taken by me both in favor of the policy of resumption and against
the free coinage of silver provided for in the Bland bill. The
comments in the public press, both in the United States and in
Europe, generally sustained the position taken by the President
and myself. I soon had assurances that the Bland bill would not
pass the Senate without radical changes. Even the House of
Representatives, so recently eager to repeal the resumption act,
and so hasty and united for the free coinage of silver, had become
more conservative and would not have favored either measure without
material changes. I conversed with Mr. Allison and wrote him the
following letter:

"Washington, D. C., December 10, 1877.
"Hon. W. B. Allison, U. S. Senate.

"Dear Sir:--Permit me to make an earnest appeal to you to so amend
the silver bill that it will not arrest the refunding of our debt
or prevent the sale of our four per cent. bonds. I know that upon
you must mainly rest the responsibility of this measure, and I
believe that you would not do anything that you did not think would
advance the public service, whatever pressure might be brought to
bear upon you.

"It is now perfectly certain that unless the customs duties and
the public debt--as least so much of it as was issued since February,
1873--are excepted, we cannot sell the bonds. The shock to our
credit will bring back from abroad United States bonds, and our
people will then have a chance to buy the existing bonds and we
cannot sell the four per cent. bonds. This will be a grievous loss
and damage to the administration and to our party, for which we
must be held responsible. You know I have been as much in favor
of the silver dollar as anyone, but if it is to be used to raise
these difficult questions with public creditors, it will be an
unmixed evil.

"I wish I could impress you as I feel about this matter, and I know
you would then share in the responsibility, if there is any, in so
amending this bill that we can have all that is good out of it
without the sure evil that may come from it if it arrests our
funding and resumption operations.

"With much respect, yours, etc.
"John Sherman.

The amendments to the Bland bill proposed by Mr. Allison from the
committee on finance, completely revolutionized the measure. The
Senate committee proposed to strike out these words in the House
bill:

"And any owner of silver bullion may deposit the same at any coinage
mint or assay office, to be coined into such dollars, for his
benefit, upon the same terms and conditions as gold bullion is
deposited for coinage under existing laws."

And to insert the following:

"And the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed, out
of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to purchase,
from time to time, at the market price thereof, not less than
$2,000,000 per month, nor more than $4,000,000 per month, and cause
the same to be coined into such dollars. And any gain or seigniorage
arising from this coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the
treasury, as provided under existing laws relative to the subsidiary
coinage: _Provided_, that the amount of money at any one time
invested in such silver bullion, exclusive of such resulting coin,
shall not exceed $5,000,000."

These amendments were agreed to.

Sections two and three of the bill were added by the Senate. The
bill, as amended, was sent to the House of Representatives, and
the Senate amendments were agreed to. The bill as amended was as
follows;

"AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE COINAGE OF THE STANDARD SILVER DOLLAR,
AND TO RESTORE ITS LEGAL TENDER CHARACTER.

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That there shall
be coined, at the several mints of the United States, silver dollars
of the weight of four hundred and twelve and a half grains troy of
standard silver, as provided in the act of January eighteenth,
eighteen hundred thirty-seven, on which shall be the devices and
superscriptions provided by said act; which coins, together with
all silver dollars heretofore coined by the United States, of like
weight and fineness, shall be a legal tender, at their nominal
value, for all debts and dues, public and private, except where
otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. And the Secretary
of the Treasury is authorized and directed to purchase, from time
to time, silver bullion, at the market price thereof, not less than
two million dollars worth per month, nor more than four million
dollars worth per month, and cause the same to be coined monthly,
as fast as so purchased, into such dollars; and a sum sufficient
to carry out the foregoing provision of this act is hereby appropriated
out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. And
any gain or seigniorage arising from this coinage shall be accounted
for and paid into the treasury, as provided under existing laws
relative to the subsidiary coinage: _Provided_, That the amount
of money at any one time invested in such silver bullion, exclusive
of such resulting coin, shall not exceed five million dollars:
_And provided further_, That nothing in this act shall be construed
to authorize the payment in silver of certificates of deposit issued
under the provisions of section two hundred and fifty-four of the
Revised Statutes.

"Sec. 2. That immediately after the passage of this act, the
President shall invite the governments of the countries composing
the Latin union, so-called, and of such other European nations as
he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference
to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver, for the purpose
of establishing, internationally, the use of bimetallic money, and
securing fixity of relative value between those metals; such
conference to be held at such place, in Europe or in the United
States, at such time within six months, as may be mutually agreed
upon by the executives of the governments joining in the same,
whenever the governments so invited, or any three of them, shall
have signified their willingness to unite in the same.

"The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, appoint three commissioners, who shall attend such conference
on behalf of the United States, and shall report the doings thereof
to the President, who shall transmit the same to Congress.

"Said commissioners shall each receive the sum of two thousand five
hundred dollars and their reasonable expenses, to be approved by
the Secretary of State; and the amount necessary to pay such
compensation and expenses is hereby appropriated out of any money
in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

"Sec. 3. That any holder of the coin authorized by this act may
deposit the same with the treasurer or any assistant treasurer of
the United States in sums not less than ten dollars, and receive
therefor certificates of not less than ten dollars each, corresponding
with the denominations of the United States notes. The coin
deposited for or representing the certificates shall be retained
in the treasury for the payment of same upon demand. Said certificates
shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and,
when so received, may be reissued.

"Sec. 4. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions
of this act are hereby repealed."

It was sent to the President, and was disapproved by him. His veto
message was read in the House on the 28th of February, and upon
the question whether the bill should pass, the objections of the
President notwithstanding, it was adopted by a vote of yeas 196,
nays 73. It passed the Senate on the same day, by a vote of yeas
46, nays 19, and thus became a law.

I did not agree with the President in his veto of the bill, for
the radical changes made in its terms in the Senate had greatly
changed its effect and tenor. The provisions authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to purchase not less than $2,000,000
worth of silver bullion per month, at market price, and to coin it
into dollars, placed the silver dollars upon the same basis as the
subsidiary coins, except that the dollar contained a greater number
of grains of silver than a dollar of subsidiary coins, and was a
legal tender for all debts without limit as to amount. The provision
that the gain or seigniorage arising from the coinage should be
accounted for and paid into the treasury, as under the existing
laws relative to subsidiary coinage, seemed to remove all serious
objections to the measure. In view of the strong public sentiment
in favor of the free coinage of the silver dollar, I thought it
better to make no objections to the passage of the bill, but I did
not care to antagonize the wishes of the President. He honestly
believed that it would greatly disturb the public credit to make
a legal tender for all amounts, of a dollar, the bullion of which
was not of equal commercial value to the gold dollar.

The provision made directing the President to invite the governments
of the countries composing the Latin Union, and of such other
European countries as he deemed advisable, to unite with the United
States in adopting a common ratio between gold and silver, has been
made the basis of several conferences which have ended without any
practical result, and the question of a single or double standard
still stands open as the great disturbing question of public policy,
affecting alike all commercial countries.

While this measure was pending in the Senate, a casual letter
written by me ten years previously was frequently quoted, as evidence
that I was then in favor of paying the bonds of the United States
with United States notes, at that date at a large discount in coin.
The letter is as follows:

"United States Senate Chamber,}
"Washington, March 20, 1868. }
"Dear Sir:--I was pleased to receive your letter. My personal
interests are the same as yours, but, like you, I do not intend to
be influenced by them. My construction of the law is the result
of a careful examination, and I feel quite sure an impartial court
would confirm it, if the case could be tried before a court. I
send you my views, as fully stated in a speech. Your idea is that
we propose to repudiate or violate a promise when we offer to redeem
the 'principal' in 'legal tender.' I think the bondholder violates
his promise when he refuses to take the same kind of money he paid
for the bonds. If the coin is to be tested by the law, I am right;
if it is to be tested by Jay Cooke's advertisements, I am wrong.
I hate repudiation, or anything like it, but we ought not to be
deterred from doing what is right by fear of undeserved epithets.
If, under the law as it now stands, the holder of the 5-20's can
only be paid in gold, then we are repudiators if we propose to pay
otherwise. If, on the other hand, the bondholder can legally demand
only the kind of money he paid, he is a repudiator and an extortioner
to demand money more valuable than he gave.

"Your truly,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. A. Mann, Jr., Brooklyn Heights."

On the 26th of March, 1878, I wrote the following letter to Senator
Justin S. Morrill, which was read by him in the debate, and, I
think, was a conclusive answer to the erroneous construction put
upon my letter to Mann:

"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 24th inst. is received. I have
noticed that my casual letter to Dr. Mann, of the date of March
20, 1868, inclosing a speech made by me, has been frequently used
to prove that I have changed my opinion since that time as to the
right of the United States to pay the principal of the 5-20 bonds
in legal tenders. This would not be very important, if true, but
it is not true, as I never have changed my opinion as to the
technical legal right to redeem the principal of the 5-20 bonds in
legal tenders, but, as you know and correctly state, have always
insisted that we could not avail ourselves of this legal right
until we complied, in all respects, with the legal and moral
obligations imposed by the legal tender note, to redeem it in coin
on demand or to restore the right to convert it into an interest-
bearing government bond. The grounds of this opinion are very
fully stated in the speech made February 27, 1868, referred to in
the letter to Dr. Mann, and in a report on the funding bill made
by me from the committee on finance, December 7, 1867.

"If my letter is taken in connection with the speech which it
inclosed and to which it expressly referred, it will be perceived
that my position there is entirely consistent with what it is now,
and time has proven that, if the report of the committee on finance
had been adopted, we would long since have reached the coin standard,
with an enormous saving of interest, and without impairing the
public credit. My position was, that while the legal tender act
made United States notes a legal tender for all debts, private and
public, except for customs duties and interest of the public debt,
yet we could not honestly compel the public creditors to receive
United States notes in the payment of bonds until we made good the
pledge of the public faith to pay the notes in coin. That promise
was printed on the face of the notes when issued, was repeated in
several acts of Congress, and was declared valid and obligatory by
the Supreme Court.

"From the first issue of the legal tender note, which I heartily
supported and voted for, I have sought to make it good, to support,
maintain and advance its value. It was in the earnest effort to
restore to the greenback the right to be converted, on the demand
of the holder, into a five per cent. bond and, as soon as practicable,
into coin, that I made the speech referred to, resisting alike the
demand of those who wished to exclude United States notes from the
operation of funding and the large class of persons who wished to
cheapen, degrade and ultimately repudiate them. In all my official
connection with legislation as to legal tender notes, I have but
one act to regret and to apologize for, and that is my acquiescence
in the act of March 3, 1863, which, under the pressure of war and
to promote the sale of bonds, took away from the holders of these
notes the right to convert them into interest-bearing securities.
This right might properly have been suspended during the war, but
its repeal was a fatal act, the source and cause of all the financial
evils we have suffered and from which we cannot recover until we
restore that right or redeem on demand our notes in coin.

"The speech referred to, and which I have recently read by reasons
of the reference to it in the letter to Dr. Mann, will clearly show
that I have not been guilty of inconsistency or a change of opinion
--the most pardonable of all offenses--but then insisted, as I now
insist, that no discrimination should be made against the note
holder, but that until we are ready to pay him in coin he should
be allowed, at his option, to convert his money into a bond at par.
Until then our notes are depreciated by our wrongful act, and we
have no right to take advantage of our own wrong by forcing upon
the bondholders the notes we refuse to receive. This is the precise
principle involved in the act to strengthen the public credit,
approved March 18, 1869. That act did not in any respect change
the legal and moral obligations of the United States, but expressly
provides that none of the interest-bearing obligations not already
due shall be redeemed or paid before maturity, unless at such time
as the United States notes shall be convertible into coin, at the
option of the holder. And the act further 'solemnly pledges the
public faith to make provisions, at the earliest practicable period,
for the redemption of United States notes in coin.'

"This is in exact harmony with the position I held when I wrote
the letter to Dr. Mann and that I now maintain, the primary principle
being that the United States notes shall first be brought to par
in coin before they shall be forced upon the public creditor in
payment of his bonds. This act is the settled law, and whatever
any man's opinions were before it passed, he would assume a grave
responsibility who would seek to evade its terms, weaken its
authority or change its provisions. It has entered into every
contract made since that time. It has passed the ordeal of four
Congresses and two elections for Presidents. It cannot be revoked
without public dishonor. So far as the bondholder is concerned,
it is an executed law. Over $700,000,000 of bonds have been redeemed
in coin under it, and the civilized world regards all the remainder
as covered by its sanction, and in their faith in it our securities
have become the second only in the markets of the world. This law
is not yet quite executed so far as the note holder is concerned.
His note is not yet quite as good as coin. Congress has debated
ever since its passage the best mode to make it good. The Senate
in 1870 provided, in the third section of the refunding act, as it
passed that body, that these notes might be converted into four
per cent. bonds, but the House would not concur. Everybody can
now see that if this had been done these notes would now be at par
in coin. Other expedients were proposed, and finally the resumption
act was passed, and, if undisturbed, is now on the eve of execution.

"The promise made in 1862, and so often repeated, is about to be
fulfilled. Agitation on collateral questions may delay it, but
the obligation of public faith, written on the face of every United
States note and sacredly pledged by the act to strengthen the public
credit, will give us neither peace nor assured prosperity until it
is fulfilled. Public opinion may vibrate, and men and parties may
array themselves against the fulfillment of these public promises,
but in time they will be fulfilled, and I think the sooner the
better. Pardon me for this long answer to your note, but I have
no time to condense it.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman."

Relief from the fear of the enactment of the Bland bill, and the
limitation of the amount of silver dollars to be coined, removed
the great impediment to the sale of four per cent. bonds, for
refunding purposes, and the progress toward specie payments.

As already indicated, I had concluded to terminate the existing
contract with the syndicate, and to make the sales directly through
national bank depositaries, and the treasury and sub-treasuries of
the United States. I therefore gave August Belmont & Co. the
following notice:

"Treasury Department, January 14, 1878.
"Messrs. August Belmont & Co., New York.

"Gentlemen:--In compliance with the second clause of the contract
between the Secretary of the Treasury and yourselves and associates,
of the date of June 9, 1877, for the sale of four per cent. bonds,
I give you notice that from and after the 26th day of January
instant that contract is terminated. It is the desire of the
President, in which I concur, to open subscriptions in the United
States to the four per cent. bonds in a different way from that
provided in our contract, and therefore this notice is given. I
sincerely hope to have your active co-operation in the new plan,
and am disposed, if you are willing, to continue in substance, by
a new contract with you, the sale of these bonds in European markets,
and invite your suggestions to that end.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

I received from them the following answer:

"New York, January 15, 1878.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington.

"Dear Sir:--We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 14th
instant, notifying us of the termination of the contract of June
9, 1877, for the sale of four per cent. bonds, on the 29th of this
month, which we have communicated to the associates here and in
London.

"We have also communicated to our friends in London your willingness
to continue the contract for the sale of the four per cent. bonds
in Europe, with such modifications as may become necessary, and as
soon as we have received their views we shall take pleasure in
writing to you again for the purpose of appointing a conference on
the subject.

"In the meantime, we remain, very respectfully,

"Aug. Belmont & Co."

Notice was given to Mr. Conant of the termination of the contract,
but he was advised by me that we would probably agree to the
continuance of the syndicate in the European markets. He had
expressed to me a fear that a panic would occur about our bonds in
Europe, on account of the anticipated passage of the Bland bill,
but I was able to assure him that it would not become a law in the
form originally proposed.

Being thus free from all existing contracts, I published the
following notice inviting subscriptions to the four per cent. bonds:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., January 16, 1878.}
"The Secretary of the Treasury hereby gives notice that, from the
26th instant, and until further notice, he will receive subscriptions
for the four per cent. funded loan of the United States, in
denominations as stated below, at par and accrued interest, in coin.

"The bonds are redeemable July, 1907, and bear interest, payable
quarterly, on the first day of January, April, July, and October,
of each year, and are exempt from the payment of taxes or duties
to the United States, as well as from taxation in any form by or
under state, municipal, or local authority.

"The subscriptions may be made for coupon bonds of $50, $100, $500,
and $1,000, and for registered bonds of $50, $100, $500, $1,000,
$5,000, and $10,000.

"Two per cent. of the purchase money must accompany the subscription;
the remainder may be paid at the pleasure of the purchaser, either
at the time of subscription or within thirty days thereafter, with
interest on the amount of the subscription, at the rate of four
per cent. per annum, to date of payment.

"Upon the receipt of full payment, the bonds will be transmitted,
free of charge, to the subscribers, and a commission of one-fourth
of one per cent. will be allowed upon the amount of subscriptions,
but no commission will be paid upon any single subscription less
than $1,000.

"Forms of application will be furnished by the treasurer at
Washington, the assistant treasurers at Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,
Cincinnati, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and
San Francisco, and by the national banks and bankers generally.
The applications must specify the amount and denominations required,
and, for registered bonds, the full name and post office address
of the person to whom the bonds shall be made payable.

"The interest on the registered bonds will be paid by check, issued
by the treasurer of the United States, to the order of the holder,
and mailed to his address. The check is payable on presentation,
properly indorsed, at the offices of the treasurer and assistant
treasurers of the United States.

"Payments for the bonds may be made in coin to the treasurer of
the United States at Washington, or the assistant treasurers at
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, New York,
Philadelphia, St. Louis, and San Francisco.

"To promote the convenience of subscribers, the department will
also receive, in lieu of coin, called bonds of the United States,
coupons past due or maturing within thirty days, or gold certificates
issued under the act of March 3, 1863, and national banks will be
designated as depositaries under the provisions of section 5153,
Revised Statutes of the United States, to receive deposits on
account of this loan, under regulations to be hereafter prescribed.

"John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury."

After the publication of this notice inviting subscriptions to the
four per cent. bonds, I found that the chief impediment in my way
was the apparent disposition of both Houses of Congress to require
the called bonds to be paid in United States notes. This was not
confined to any party, for, while the majority of the Democrats of
each House were in favor of such payment, many of the prominent
Republicans were fully committed to the same policy. I was requested
by committees of the two Houses, from time to time, to appear before
them, which, in compliance with the law, I cheerfully did, and
found that a free and unrestricted statement of what I proposed to
do was not only beneficial to the public service, but soon induced
Congress not to interfere with my plans for resumption. My first
interview was on the 11th of March, 1878, with the committee on
coinage of the House, of which Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia,
was chairman. I was accompanied by H. R. Linderman, Director of
the Mint. The notes of the conference were ordered by the House
of Representatives to be printed, and the committee was convinced
of the correctness of the statements in regard to the amount of
actual coin and bullion on hand, and where it was situated, which
had been previously doubted.

On the 19th of March, I had an interview with the Senate committee
on finance, of which Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, was chairman. I was
examined at great length and detail as to the preparations for
resumption, and the actual state of the treasury at that time.
The principal topic discussed was whether the four per cent. bonds
could be sold, Mr. Bayard being evidently in favor of the substitution
of the four and a half per cents. for the four per cent. bonds I
had placed on the market. The question of how to obtain gold coin
and bullion was fully considered in this interview, and here I was
able to convince the committee that a purchase of domestic gold
coin and bullion would meet all the requirements of the treasury,
and that no necessity existed for the purchase of gold abroad.
This interview, which covers over twenty printed pages, I believe
entirely satisfied the committee of the expediency of the steps
taken by me and their probable success. After this interview I
had the assistance of the committee of finance, without regard to
party, in the measures adopted by me. Mr. Bayard and Mr. Kernan
gave me their hearty support, and Mr. Voorhees made no unfriendly
opposition. The report of this interview was subsequently published,
and had a good effect upon the popular mind.

By far the most important interview was one with the committee on
banking and currency, of the House of Representatives, of which A.
H. Buckner, of Missouri, was chairman. A large majority of this
committee had reported a bill to repeal the resumption act, and
the members of the committee of each party were among the most
pronounced greenbackers in the House of Representatives. Perhaps
the most aggressive was Thomas Ewing, a friend, and by marriage a
relative of mine, a Member of ability and influence, and thoroughly
sincere in his convictions against the policy of resumption. I
was summoned before this committee to answer a series of interrogatories
furnished me a few days previously, calling for statements as to
the actual amount of gold and silver belonging to, and in the
custody of, the treasury department on the 28th of March, where
located and what deductions were to be made from it, on account of
actual existing demands against it. This interview, extending
through several days, and covering seventy-three printed pages,
embraced every phase of the financial condition of the United
States, and the policy of the treasury department in the past and
in the future. At the end of the first day the principal question
seemed to be whether it was possible that the United States could
resume specie payments and maintain them. This led to a careful
scrutiny of the amount of gold in the treasury, Mr. Ewing assuming
that a portion of the amount stated was "phantom" gold, and was
really not available for the purposes of resumption. I said that
the United States would be, on the 1st of January, in a better
condition to resume specie payments than the Bank of England was
to maintain them, and gave my reasons for that opinion. I saw that
Mr. Ewing regarded this statement as an exaggeration.

After the adjournment I understood that Mr. Ewing said that I was
grossly in error, and that he would be able to show it by authentic
documents as to the condition of the Bank of England. He said that
I was laboring under delusions, which he would be able to expose
at the next meeting. When we again met with the full committee
present, Mr. Ewing said:

"I ask your attention to a comparison of the condition of the
treasury for resumption with the condition of the Bank of England
in 1819 and now, with the Bank of France this year, and with the
banks of the United States in 1857 and 1861."

To this I replied:

"When I said the other day that I thought the condition of the
treasury, on the 1st of January next, would be as good as the Bank
of England, I had not then before the actual figures or tables,
but only spoke from a general knowledge of the facts. Since then
I have given the matter a good deal of attention, and now have some
carefully prepared tables, founded upon late information, giving
the exact comparison of the condition of the Bank of England, the
Bank of France, the Bank of Germany, the Bank of Belgium, the
national banks, and the treasury. These tables will show that
pretty accurately."

I handed the tables to the committee, and they are printed with
the report. I then proceeded to show in detail that while the Bank
of England had notes outstanding to the amount of £38,698,020, it
had on hand as assets: Government debt, £11,015,100; other
securities, £3,984,900; gold coin and bullion, £23,698,020; that
upon this it was apparent that in the issue department the Bank of
England was stronger than the United States; but in the banking
department, the bank was liable for deposits, the most dangerous
form of liability, and various other forms of liability, to the
amount of £46,277,277. To pay these it had government securities,
notes and other securities and £1,032,773 gold and silver coin, in
all amounting to £46,277,277. Combining these accounts it was
shown that the demand liabilities on the bank were £54,639,171,
while the gold and bullion on hand was only £24,730,793. Then I
said:

"Now, in regard to the United States, I have a statement here
showing the apparent and probable condition of the United States
treasury on April 1, 1878, and on the 1st of January next. The
only difference in these statements is that I add to the present
condition of the treasury the proposed accumulation of fifty millions
of coin and a substantial payment before that of the fractional
currency. I think it will be practically redeemed before that
time. The actual results show the amount of demand liabilities on
April 1, 1878, against the United States, as $460,527,374, and they
show the demand resources, including coin and currency, at
$174,324,459, making the percentage of resources to liabilities
thirty-seven. To show the probable condition of the treasury on
the 1st of January, 1879, I add the fifty millions of coin and I
take off the fractional currency, and deducted estimated United
States notes lost and destroyed, leaving the other items about the
same. That would show an aggregate of probable liabilities of
$35,098,400 and probable cash resources of $224,324,459, making
fifty-one per cent. of the demand liabilities. The ratio of the
Bank of England, at this time, is forty-five per cent.; the ratio
of the Bank of France, is sixty-five per cent.; the ratio of the
Bank of Germany, is fifty-eight per cent.; and the ratio of the
Bank of Belgium, is twenty-five per cent., all based upon the same
figures."

I gave the statistics as to the condition of the national banks,
showing their assets and liabilities, that they were not bound to
redeem their notes in gold or silver, but could redeem them in
United States notes, of which they had on hand $97,083,248, and
besides they had deposited in the treasury, as security for their
notes, an amount of United States bonds ten per cent. greater than
the entire amount of their circulating notes, and that these bonds
were worth in the market a large premium in currency. In addition
to the legal tenders on hand, they had five per cent. of their
circulation in legal tender notes deposited in the treasury as a
redemption fund, amounting to $15,028,340. They had also on hand
gold and silver coin and gold certificates amounting to $32,907,750,
making a total cash reserve of $145,019,338. The ratio of their
legal tender funds to circulation was 48.4; ratio of legal tenders
to circulation and deposits, 15.1.

In this interview I explicitly stated to the committee my purpose
to sell bonds, under the resumption act, at the rate of $5,000,000
a month, to the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; that I was satisfied
I could make this sale upon favorable terms, and could add to the
coin then in the treasury the sum of $50,000,000 gold coin, which
I thought sufficient to secure and maintain the parity of our notes
with coin. Mr. Ewing inquired:

"Where do you expect to get the additional fifty millions of gold
by January 1, 1879?"

My answer was as follows:

"You must see that for me to state too closely what I propose to
do might prevent me from doing what I expect to do, and therefore
I will answer your question just as far as I think you will say I
ought to go. I answer, mainly from the sale of bonds. Indeed, in
the present condition of the revenue, we cannot expect much help
from surplus revenue, except so far as that surplus revenue may be
applied to the payment of greenbacks and to the redemption of
fractional currency in aid of the sinking fund. To that extent I
think we can rely upon revenue enough to retire the United States
notes redeemed under the resumption act; so that I would say that
we can get the $50,000,000 of gold additional by the sale of bonds.
As to the kind of bonds that I would sell, and as to how I would
sell them, etc., I ought not to say anything on that subject at
present, because you ought to allow me, as an executive officer,
in the exercise of a very delicate discretion, free power to act
as I think right at the moment, holding me responsible for my action
afterward. As to what bonds I will sell, or where I will sell
them, or how I will sell them, as that is a discretionary power
left with the secretary, I ought not to decide that now, but to
decide it as the case arises."

Some question was made by Mr. Ewing as to the ability to sell bonds,
and he asked:

"I understood you to say in your interview with the Senate committee
that you would have to rely upon the natural currents of trade to
bring gold from aborad; that is, that there cannot be a large sale
of bonds for coin abroad. Is it on a foreign sale that you are
relying?"

I replied:

"Not at all, but on a sale at home. Perhaps I might as well say
that if I can get two-thirds of this year's supply of gold and
silver from our own mines, it will amount to a good deal more that
$50,000,000, so that I do not have to go abroad for gold. If we
can keep our own gold and silver from going abroad, it is more than
I want."

Mr. Buckner inquired:

"For this $50,000,000 additional I suppose you rely, to some extent,
on the coinage of silver?"

I said:

"To some extent; silver and gold we consider the same under the
law."

Mr. Ewing asked:

"Do you expect to pay out the silver dollar coined by you for
current expenses, or only for coin liabilities, or to hoard it for
resumption?"

I said:

"I expect to pay it out now only in exchange for gold coin or for
silver bullion. I am perfectly free and answer the question fully,
because on that point, after consulting with many Members of both
Houses, I have made up my mind what the law requires me to do. I
propose to issue all the silver dollars that are demanded in exchange
for gold coin. That has been going on to some extent; how far I
cannot tell. Then I propose to use the silver in payment for silver
bullion, which I can do at par in gold. I then propose to buy all
the rest of the silver bullion which I need, under the law, with
silver coin. As a matter of course, in the current course of
business, some of that silver coin will go into circulation; how
much, I do not know. The more, the better for us. But most of
it, I take it, will be transferred to the treasury for silver
certificates (that seems to be the idea of the bill), and those
silver certificates will come into the treasury in payment of
duties, and in that way, practically, the silver will belong to
the government again."

Some question arose as to the reissue of treasury notes under the
resumption act. I expressed my opinion that all notes not in excess
of $300,000,000 could be reissued under existing laws, but as to
whether notes in excess of $300,000,000 could be reissued was a
question which I hoped Congress would settle, that I considered
the law as doubtful. Congress did subsequently suspend the retirement
of United States notes at $346,000,000.

The sinking fund and many other subjects were embraced in this
interview, the importance of which would justify a fuller statement
than I have given, but, as the interview has been published as a
public document, I do not give further details. I stated frankly
and explicitly what I intended to do if not interrupted by Congress.
I felt assured, not only from the Senate, but from what I could
learn from Members of the House, that no material change of existing
law would be made to prevent the proposed operations of the treasury
department. From that time forward I had not the least doubt of
success in preparing for and maintaining resumption, and refunding,
at a lower rate of interest, all the public debt then subject to
redemption.

I think I entirely satisfied the committee that the government was
not dealing with shadows, but had undertaken a task which it could
easily accomplish, if not prevented by our common masters, the
Congress of the United States. It was said of Mr. Buckner that
before I appeared before the committee, he regarded me as a visionary
enthusiast, who had undertaken to do what was impossible to be
done, that after the first day of the examination he came to the
conclusion that I was honest in my belief that resumption was
possible, but he did not believe in my ability to do what was
proposed; at the end of the second day he expressed some doubts of
the ability to resume, but said that the object aimed at was a good
one, and he was not disposed to interfere with the experiment; and
on the third day he said he believed I had faith in the success of
resumption, and would not interfere with it, but if I failed I
would be the "deadest man politically" that ever lived.

The general results of these interviews, which had a wide circulation
at the time, I believe were beneficial, and at least assured the
public that a hopeful and determined effort was being made to
advance United States notes and national bank notes to par with
coin.

Before I had these interviews I had determined to sell $50,000,000
bonds at the rate of $5,000,000 a month for gold coin or bullion
for resumption purposes, and also to press the refunding operations
as rapidly as possible. I had at my disposal an unlimited amount
of five, four and a half and four per cent. bonds, with authority
to sell either kind to accumulate coin for the maintenance of
resumption, or for the payment of bonds that were at the time
redeemable, bearing a higher rate of interest. My printed
correspondence with banks and bankers shows the advancing value of
the four and four and a half per cent. bonds. The most active
agent for the sale of these bonds was the First National Bank of
New York, which had been the agent of the syndicate, and, though
having no privilege or facility that was not extended to all banks
and bankers alike, it evinced the utmost activity, intelligence
and success, and took the lead in the sale of bonds. The advancing
quotations furnished by it and other banks and bankers satisfied
me that the policy of an open loan, such as was provided for by
the notice of January 18, 1878, would be successful, if only we
could have the certainty of coin payments by the 1st of January,
1879. I knew of the sensitive jealousy between the banks and
bankers and between the old syndicate and prominent and wealthy
firms who wished to participate in any new syndicate, and were
jealous and suspicious of each other.

Offers were made to me by banks and bankers for special arrangements
for the purchase of bonds, but I put them all aside until after I
had written to all the parties a notice substantially similar to
the following, sent to Belmont & Co.:

"Treasury Department, April 5, 1878.
"Gentlemen:--It is my purpose to be in New York at four o'clock on
Monday afternoon, and I would like, if practicable, to meet the
members of the old syndicate at the Fifth Avenue Hotel that evening
at any hour convenient to them, to confer as to the best mode of
obtaining $50,000,000 gold coin or bullion prior to January 1,
1879, for resumption purposes, and to receive from the associates,
or any of them, or from new parties, offers for any of the description
of bonds I am authorized to sell for that purpose.

"I propose to accumulate this coin in either the treasury, the
assay offices, or the public depositaries throughout the United
States that will comply with the conditions of section 5153 Revised
Statutes.

"I will send a similar letter to this to the First National Bank,
and have to request that you will give notice to the other members
of the old syndicate, and, with their consent, to any others you
desire to participate in the interview.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"Messrs. August Belmont & Co., New York."

I sent General Hillhouse the following notice:

"Treasury Department, April 5, 1878.
"Sir:--You will please inform Messrs. H. F. Vail, president National
Bank of Commerce; J. D. Vermilye, president Merchants' National
Bank; George S. Coe, president American Exchange National Bank; B.
B. Sherman, Mechanics' National Bank, and James Buell, president
Importers and Traders' National Bank, that I desire an interview
with them at any hour on Tuesday next, at your office, or at such
other places as they may prefer, in respect to the purchase for
the Treasury for resumption of, say, $50,000,000 gold coin or
bullion, to be delivered monthly and before the 1st of January
next, either at your office or at the designated depositaries of
the United States, under section 5153 Revised Statutes, and also,
if practicable, to secure from them a bid for either of three
classes of bonds described in the refunding act to an amount
sufficient to purchase the coin stated. These gentlemen are
respectfully requested to select such others connected with national
banks as they may agree upon to join in the interview.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"General Thomas Hillhouse,
"Assistant Treasurer United States, New York."

Regarding the negotiation as one of great importance, I was
accompanied to New York by Hon. Charles Devens, Attorney General;
John Jay Knox, Comptroller of the Currency; Charles F. Conant,
Assistant Secretary; Daniel Baker, Chief of the Loan Division, and
E. J. Babcock, my Secretary.

On the 8th of April I, with the gentlemen named, had an interview
with the members of the old syndicate, Messrs. Belmont, Seligman,
Bliss, Fabri and Fahnestock.

I stated that the object of my visit to New York, and of my request
for an interview with the associates, was to obtain $50,000,000
coin for resumption purposes, and I would like to sell four per
cent. bonds to that amount.

Mr. Belmont did not think the four per cent. bonds could be sold
then, and the associates all concurred in the opinion that they
would prefer making a proposition for the four and a halfs, although
they were not prepared to make any definite offer. I said I would
like to get 103 for the four and a halfs, but the associates said
they would not consider that at all; they would communicate with
the Rothschilds and others, and might possibly be able to offer
101; they would come to some conclusion by next day.

On the following day, at the National Bank of Commerce, I met the
presidents of the national banks: Mr. Vail, Commerce; Mr. Vermilye,
Merchants'; Mr. Coe, Merchants' Exchange; Mr. Sherman, Mechanics';
Mr. Buell, Importers and Traders'; Mr. Moses Taylor, City; Mr. F.
D. Tappan, Gallatin; Mr. G. G. Williams, Chemical; Mr. F. A. Palmer,
Broadway; Mr. George I. Seney, Metropolitan; Mr. P. C. Calhoun,
Fourth National.

Mr. Vail said that this meeting was called at my request, that the
gentlemen present had no information as to the object of the meeting,
and had had no opportunity for consultation; that I would explain
more fully what I desired.

I said that I proposed to resume specie payments on the 1st of
January, in accordance with law, and that for this purpose I wished
to get $50,000,000 of gold, and, to accumulate this amount, would
if possible, sell four per cent. bonds.

Mr. Vermilye and Mr. Coe spoke at some length to the effect that
they were in full accord with me on the subject of resuming specie
payments, and they were willing to co-operate in any way to bring
it about. They said that although they had not consulted with the
other gentlemen present, they had no doubt they were all agreed
upon this subject. They thought, however, it would be utterly
useless to attempt to sell four per cent. bonds, and that as far
as such bonds were concerned there need be no more said.

I said this being so, I would like to have some propositions for
four and a halfs.

Mr. Coe said that no definite proposition could be made without
further consultation among themselves; that they were willing to
assist to the extent of their power to obtain resumption; that they
would place themselves at my service in any way I might wish without
compensation. He said that he thought an arrangement could be made
by which the national banks could be made my agents in the sale of
bonds. He thought the banks might take the $50,000,000 of four
and a half per cent. bonds, to be paid for by the 1st of January,
the government to receive whatever the banks could get for the
bonds.

I invited the gentlemen to confer among themselves, and, if
practicable, make me some definite proposition in the morning.

In the afternoon of the same day we met the members of the old
syndicate. Mr. Belmont read a cable from the Rothschilds offering
101 for $100,000,000 four and a half per cent. bonds, $50,000,000
for resumption and $50,000,000 for refunding purposes.

I said I was not prepared to accept, but would give a definite
answer next day.

On the following morning I met Mr. Vail, of the National Bank of
Commerce, and Mr. Vermilye, of the Merchants' National Bank, at
the sub-treasury.

Mr. Vail and Mr. Vermilye submitted a memorandum that if I would
indicate my willingness to receive a proposition for the negotiation
of $50,000,000 four and a half per cent. bonds at par in gold they
would recommend the national banks to unite in making it.

I then asked Mr. Vail and Mr. Vermilye whether, if a proposition
was made to me by bankers of acknowledged credit and responsibility
of 101 for four and a half per cent. bonds, payable in installments
and with the usual option, in their opinion, it was my duty to
accept it.

They both said decidedly, yes; that such an arrangement would be
far more advantageous than the acceptance of their proposition,
and besides, if they took the bonds, it might impair to some extent
their power to render the usual facilities to their commercial
customers.

The proposition submitted by Messrs. Vail and Vermilye, in behalf
of the national banks, was as follows:

"If the secretary will intimate his willingness to receive a
proposition from the national banks in New York, Boston, Philadelphia
and Baltimore for the negotiation of fifty millions four and a half
per cent. bonds at par in gold, for resumption purposes, we will
recommend our associates to unite in making it, with the belief on
our part that it can be accomplished as suggested. This special
loan to be the only bonds of this character offered, unless the
same parties have the option on any further sums required."

Afterwards, on the same day, I again met the members of the syndicate
at the sub-treasury, and said that I would sell only $50,000,000
four and a half per cent. bonds; that these must be paid for in
gold coin, for resumption purposes; that I would sell them for
101½, allowing one-half of one per cent. commission, the syndicate
to pay all expenses; but before signing the contract wished to
communicate with the President.

These terms were accepted by the syndicate upon condition that
their associates in London would consent, they reserving the right
to cable to London for such consent; and the meeting adjourned
until 1:30 o'clock, when, I having received a telegram from the
President, the details of the contract were then discussed, and
signature was delayed for an answer to the cable of the syndicate.

On the following day we again met at the sub-treasury, and Mr.
Lucke, of Belmont & Co., informed me that the English parties had
authorized them to close the contract, and it was therefore signed.
It was as follows:

"This agreement, entered into the 11th day of April, 1878, between
the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the first
part, and August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of N. M.
Rothschild & Sons, of London, England, and their associates and
themselves; Drexel, Morgan & Co., of New York, on behalf of J. S.
Morgan & Co., of London, and themselves; J. & W. Seligman & Co.,
of New York, on behalf of Seligman Bros. of London, and themselves;
Morton, Bliss & Co., of New York, on behalf of Morton, Rose & Co.
of London, and themselves; and the First National Bank of the city
of New York, witnesseth: That said August Belmont & Co., on behalf
of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, and their associates and themselves,
hereby agree to purchase from the Secretary of the Treasury $4,125,000
of the four and one half per cent. bonds of the United States,
issued under the acts of July 14, 1870, January 20, 1871, and
January 14, 1875, and that Drexel, Morgan & Co., on behalf of J.
S. Morgan & Co., and themselves, agree to purchase $1,625,000 of
said bonds, and that J. & W. Seligman & Co., on behalf of Seligman
Bros., and themselves, agree to purchase $1,625,000 of said bonds,
and that Morton, Bliss & Co., on behalf of Morton, Rose & Co., and
themselves, agree to purchase $1,625,000 of said bonds, and that
the First National Bank of the city of New York agrees to purchase
$1,000,000 of said bonds; making a total aggregate of $10,000,000
of said bonds on the terms and conditions following:

"First. The bonds covered by this contract shall be sold for
resumption purposes.

"Second. The parties of the second part shall have the exclusive
right to subscribe in the same proportion of each of the subscribers
for the remainder of the $50,000,000 of the four and a half per
cent. bonds of the United States authorized to be issued by the
acts of Congress aforesaid; but the amount to be so subscribed
shall not be less than $5,000,000 for each and every month after
the present month of April.

"Third. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall not sell, during
the continuance of this contract, any bonds other than such as by
act of Congress may be provided to be sold for the payment of the
Halifax or Geneva award, and the four per cent. consols of the
United States, and those only for refunding purposes, except by
mutual agreement of the parties hereto.

"Fourth. The parties of the second part agree to pay for the said
four and a half per cent. bonds par and one and a half per cent.
premium and interest accrued to the date of the application for
the delivery of said bonds, in gold coin or matured United States
gold coin coupons, or any of the six per centum 5-20 bonds heretofore
called for redemption, or in United States gold certificates of
deposit issued under the act of March 3, 1873, or in gold coin
certificates of deposit of authorized designated deposit, and that
have complied with the law.

"Fifth. The parties of the second part shall receive in gold coin
a commission of half of one per centum on all bonds taken by them
under this contract, as allowed by the act of July 14, 1870, and
shall assume and defray all expenses which may be incurred in
sending the bonds to London or elsewhere, upon their request, or
by transmitting the bonds, coupons, or coin to the treasury department
at Washington, including all cost of making the exchange. The
bonds shall also be charged with the cost of preparation and issuing
of the bonds.

"Sixth. No bonds shall be delivered to the parties of the second
part, or either of them, until payment shall have been made in full
therefor, in accordance with the terms of this contract.

"Signed by John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, J. & W. Seligman
& Co., Morton, Bliss & Co., August Belmont & Co., the First National
Bank of New York, Drexel, Morgan & Co.; and by Assistant United
States Treasurer Thomas Hillhouse and E. J. Babcock, as witnesses."

The importance of this contract and the open publicity of the
negotiation, created quite a sensation in the newspaper press,
which presented a medley of praise and censure. All varieties of
opinion from extravagant flattery to extreme denunciation were
visited upon me by the editors of papers according to their
preconceived opinions. I made no effort at secrecy, and no answer
to either praise or blame, but freely contributed any information
in respect to the matter to anyone, whether friendly or otherwise,
who applied to me. Perhaps as accurate a statement as any, of my
opinions, was made by George Alfred Townsend, over his _nom de
plume_ of "Gath," in the New York "Graphic" of April 12, 1878. He
said:

"At four o'clock yesterday afternoon John Sherman, the Secretary
of the Treasury, was sitting in Parlor No. 1, the ante-room of the
late Republican national committee, when I followed my card into
his presence. 'Ah!' he said, rising from an easy chair where he
was resting, like one recently wearied but now relieved. 'Come
in; it's all over now, and I don't mind telling you about it.'

'Yes, it's all over Wall street, and I think opinion was more
favorable to the syndicate getting the bonds than the bank
presidents.'

'The representatives of the banks were very polite and well-meaning,'
said the secretary. 'I sent word that I was coming to the city
and asked the national banks, as intimately related to the treasury
department, to select persons to meet me. I also notified the
members of the old syndicate that I had some propositions to suggest
to them.'

'This is your third visit on the general object of resumption? A
very eventful visit, isn't it, in the story of our finances?'

'Well, both my previous visits were important--in May, 1877, when
$200,000,000 of four and a half per cent. bonds were disposed of,
and again last June, when $75,000,000 of the four per cent. bonds
were subscribed for. The present visit is probably the last with
such an object. I feel glad and relieved.'

'You failed to get the bank philosophers to get you the $50,000,000
of gold?'

'I thought I could see that they did not mean to enter into the
subscription. They all said they wanted to see resumption achieved,
and would like to aid it, but spoke of their obligations to their
commercial customers. They said too, that they would have to rely
on brokers to get the gold and pay commissions for it, and were
afraid it might be run up on them. One or two, perhaps, expected
a more advantageous offer as to rates--indeed, wanted me to pay
them a commission for selling our bonds at par. I can excuse them,
because they will have to be looking after the redemption of their
own circulation.'

"I suggested to the secretary that some of the bank presidents had
discouraged resumption or treated it as a figment.

'When the congressional committee was over here,' he answered,
'there was something said about the advantage of getting priority
in the line on resumption day; but that is nothing. They were very
civil, but didn't see the proposition favorably.'

'Is there any disadvantage in negotiating through the syndicate?'

'No, there is an advantage in this respect; they sold the higher
bonds abroad, and taking these will also place a part of them there,
facilitating exchange in commercial settlements and interestedly
maintaining prices. A portion of these low bonds ought to locate
in Europe.'

'Speaking of exchange, Mr. secretary, the idea has been put forward
here, in the fiscal form, I believe, that a large, round balance
of trade in our favor indicates poverty and collapse. Is that good
political economy?'

'There are nations,' said the secretary, 'like England, which have
steady apparent balances of trade against them, yet show a great
prosperity. But that is only the product of English money invested
in foreign places and colonies; it is an apparent purchase, but
really their own harvest. No nation that is greatly in debt, as
we are, can observe real balances of trade overwhelmingly against
us and not feel alarmed.'

'Do you expect any opposition from Congress as the reply to this
negotiation and the near probability of specie payments?'

'No, I do not think Congress will interfere. The conservative
element of the inflation party was appeased by the reissue of
$300,000,000, and the candid way in which their silver legislation
was carried out. I do not anticipate that Congress can affect this
action.'

'May not the surprise of the news that you so readily negotiated
these bonds and secured your gold, enrage those who have cast their
political hopes upon preventing resumption?'

'I do not see why. General Ewing and the finance committee were
clearly apprised by me two weeks ago of the exact plan I have
followed out. They questioned me directly, and I told them. As
no attack has been made upon that programme, I look for no successful
resistance to its performance.'

'Do you consider the price paid by the syndicate for these bonds
as good?'

'It was the best that could at present be had. I wanted them,
first, to take $50,000,00 to $100,000,000 of the four per cent.
bonds at 103--bonds that I think preferable in some respects,
particularly for durable investment. These gentlemen, however,
thought those bonds not convenient for them for ready sale, and
they urged that I ought to let them have the four and a half per
cents. at par, as some had been put to the people at that. I
desired a premium of three per cent. They finally met me half way,
and gave one and a half premium. In short, we get a very little
scant of 103 currency for those bonds, for the syndicate pays over
to us the accrued interest.'

'You do not anticipate that they will take the $10,000,000 and
decline the other $40,000,000?'

'No; I think our economy, industry, exports, production, ready
resources and general physical and political superiority will expand
right onward, and protect everybody who puts faith in our national
securities.'

'How much gold have you absolutely got for resumption to-day?'

'Seventy-two millions clear net of our own. I have nearly $140,000,000
present due, or coming, not counting any liabilities on it. The
$50,000,000 I have secured to-day will give me, clear of everything,
$120,000,000 of gold, and that is plenty.'

'Have you read the views of Mr. Musgrave and other bankers, in "The
Graphic," on the theory that you have enough gold now and would
not have to redeem much with your gold? I heard a merchant say
this afternoon that you might not have $5,000,000 put at you!'

'That is more likely to be the case now,' said Mr. Sherman 'when
I am so well protected. There might be a dash made at my $72,000,000
--not at my $120,000,000.'"

As a flattering background to his interview Mr. Townsend gave the
following description of myself, which I hope it will not be egotism
to publish. There were so many descriptions of me of a different
character that I feel at liberty to quote one that was quite
friendly:

"John Sherman, as he sat before me, young looking, his air and
beard in perfect color, his manners gracious and indicating an easy
spirit not above enjoyment, and manners not abraded by application,
seemed to be a very excellent example to young public men. His
nature had not been worn out in personal contests, nor his courage
abated by the exercise of discretion and civility. He was the
earliest and best champion of the Republican party--its first
candidate for speaker of Congress, its last Secretary of the
Treasury. For twenty years he has been in the national center of
observation. He owes to temperance and study, exercise and natural
sense, his present proud position as the principal exponent of the
Republican party. Not in the Senate is that party seen at its
best, but in the executive, where the President's original
discrimination is approved by time and events; he chose John Sherman
first of the cabinet, and within thirteen months he has concluded
the last great treaty of the war--peace with the public creditor.
In our arising commerce and huge balances of trade, we observe
again 'Sherman's march to the sea.'"

The following statement in regard to the new loan and the national
banks appeared in the "Financial Chronicle" of April 13:

"Mr. Sherman has shown, in his interviews with the committees of
the House and Senate, not only his faith in the possibility of
executing the resumption act, but also his determination to do it;
and the disclosures of the past few days are the signs of the
progress he is making. In fact, the events of the week, culminating
in the successful negotiation with the syndicate bankers of a sale
of four and a half per cent. bonds, practically put at rest all
doubts with regard to the fact that on or before the 1st day of
January, 1879, anyone can, on application to the office of the
assistant treasurer in New York, obtain gold or silver for greenbacks,
in sums of not less than fifty dollars. The terms of the loan are
substantially set out in the following, which was posted, shortly
after one o'clock on Thursday, on the bulletin boards of the sub-
treasury, the parties composing the syndicate being Drexel, Morgan
& Co., and J. S. Morgan & Co., of London; August Belmont & Co.,
and through them the Rothschilds, of London; Morton, Bliss & Co.;
J. & W. Seligman, and Seligman Brothers, of London; and the First
National Bank:

'The Secretary of the Treasury and the members of the last syndicate
have entered into an agreement for the sale, for resumption purposes,
of $50,000,000 United States four and a half per centum 15-year
bonds at par and accrued interest, and one and a half per centum
premium in gold coin, $10,000,000 to be subscribed immediately,
and $5,000,000 per month during the balance of the year. The sale
of four per centum bonds will be continued by the treasury department
as heretofore, upon the terms and conditions of the last circular,
and the proceeds will be applied to the redemption of six per centum
5-20 bonds.'

"This certainly will be considered a very favorable negotiation
for the government."

Among the numerous letters received at this time, I insert the
following:

"Viroqua, Wis.,, April 14, 1878.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Dear Sir:--We have a Honest Money League started in Chicago, of
which you are probably aware. The secretary is the Hon. Thos. M.
Nichol, who aided us so materially in carrying the state last fall.
He is one of the ablest defenders of honest money that we have in
the northwest. Any information you can furnish him will reach the
people of the northwest. I see by the dispatches you have completed
arrangements whereby you will be able to resume by January 1, 1879.
I hope Congress will have the good sense not to throw any obstacles
in your way. I used to, when in the army, tell the boys to trust
in General Sherman and keep their powder dry, and now I feel like
trusting in Secretary Sherman to keep our money honest. I have no
fears of the result if Congress will let you alone.

"Yours truly,
"J. M. Rush."

The eastern press, almost without exception, gave its hearty approval
of the contract made, and the mode and manner of the negotiation.
The leading papers in New York, including the "Herald," "Tribune,"
and "Times," gave full accounts. In the west, however, where the
greenback craze or "heresy," as it was commonly called, prevailed,
the press was either indifferent or opposed to the contract and to
the object sought. It is singular how strong the feeling in favor
of an irredeemable paper currency was in many of the western towns
and among the farming people. United States notes, universally
called greenbacks, were so much better as money than the bank notes
were before the war, that the people were entirely content with
them, even if they were quoted at a discount in coin. They were
good enough for them. Any movement tending to reduce their number
was eagerly denounced.

At the very time when the negotiation was being made, the Senate
finance committee was discussing the expediency of agreeing to the
bill repealing the resumption act which had passed the House. The
indications were that the committee had agreed upon a time when a
final vote should be taken upon this bill and that it would be
favorably reported by a majority of one. It depended upon the vote
of Mr. Ferry, who was strongly in sympathy with the sentiment in
the House. It appeared quite certain that with a favorable report
the bill would pass. If passed it would no doubt have been vetoed,
but the moral effect of its passage would have been to greatly
weaken all measures for redemption. I had frequent conversations
with Mr. Ferry and appealed to him as strongly as I could to stand
by his political friends, and for the success of the negotiation.
He voted against reporting the bill. I wrote him the following
letter while the matter was still pending:

"Washington, D. C., May 1, 1878.
"Dear Sir:--The deep interest I feel in the pending legislation in
Congress, endangering as it does my hope of success in the great
object of resumption, will be my excuse for appealing to you again,
in the strongest manner, against the mandatory provision that,
under all circumstances, United States notes shall be receivable
in payment of customs duties.

"This provision may defeat the whole of our policy for which we
have been struggling so long and to which our party is so firmly
committed. Resumption on United States notes can be easily maintained
with a reasonable reserve and with a certainty that any considerable
run will be stopped by increased demand for United States notes,
but there is one essential prerequisite to our ability to resume,
and that is that we must have coin income enough to pay the interest
of the public debt and other current coin demands. To throw upon
the treasury the possibility of the necessity of buying coin to
pay the interest of the public debt, in addition to buying that
which is necessary to maintain resumption on United States notes,
is simply to overload the wagon and break it down at the very start.
Ordinarily the secretary would receive greenbacks for duties (and,
therefore, I have no objection to the discretionary authority being
conferred upon him), if he can use them also in payment of interest,
but as we must pay the interest in coin, and the slightest difference
in favor of coin making it certain that demand would be made for
it for interest, we cannot undertake to buy sufficient coin to pay
the interest in addition to what we would naturally, under like
circumstances, be required to pay such notes as are presented.

"I have thought so much about this, and am so much troubled about
it, that I would feel almost like giving up the ship rather than
to undertake the additional task which the bill as now reported
would impose upon me. Surely we are so near the end of our long
struggle that we ought not to assume a fresh load, and I assure
you that a mandatory provision requiring the secretary to receive
United States notes in payment of customs duties, without regard
to the time and circumstances, is simply a repeal of the resumption
act, and it had better be done openly and directly. Because we
have been so fortunate this far in the progress towards resumption
is no reason why we should assume an additional burden.

"Please state this to any others who you think would have any
respect for my opinions, as I do not wish to thrust them upon those
who would like to thwart them; and, if overruled in this, I trust
you will make this letter public, for I will not be responsible
for so serious a change in the whole plan of resumption. I said
to the committee on finance that if the discretion was conferred
upon me to receive United States notes for duties, I had no doubt
that I could do so on the 1st of October, but it was not then
supposed by anyone that such a provision would be mandatory.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. T. W. Ferry, U. S. Senate."

While I was congratulating myself upon accomplishing an important
work for the people, I had aroused an animosity more bitter and
violent than any I ever encountered before or since. I was charged,
directly, by a correspondent of the "National Republican," published
in Washington, with corruption, and that I was interested in and
would make money through the syndicate. It was said that I "came
to the United States Senate several years ago a poor and perhaps
a honest man. To-day he pays taxes on a computed property of over
half a million, all made during his senatorial term, on a salary
of $6,000 a year and perquisites." My property at home and in
Washington was discussed by this letter, and the inference was
drawn that in some way, by corrupt methods, I had made what I
possessed. It is true that I found many ready defenders, but I
took no notice of these imputations, knowing that they were entirely
unfounded, for I never, directly or indirectly, derived any advantage
or profit from my public life, except the salary.

At one time it was alleged that a sub-committee, consisting of
Messrs. Ewing, Hartzell and Crittenden, had been in correspondence
with leading bankers, financiers and capitalists, and that information
had been obtained which led to the conclusion that I had derived
profit from the negotiation. It was said that the committee proposed
to interview me upon the subject of my recent syndicate operations,
that the syndicate would get about a $750,000 commission, which
could have been saved had outsiders been permitted to buy the bonds,
that the committee had summoned members of the syndicate and bankers
who were not admitted into the syndicate, but who wanted to be
allowed to buy bonds without any commission, that the allegation
was so well supported that a resolution was prepared authorizing
the committee to investigate, but that this was unnecessary, as
the resolution authorizing the banking and currency committee to
make inquiries concerning resumption conferred authority to inquire
into this matter. The only sign of the alleged investigation was
an inquiry from Mr. Ewing, which was answered by me as follows:

"Treasury Department, April 19, 1878.
"Hon. Thomas Ewing, Acting Chairman Committee on Banking and
Currency, House of Representatives.

"Sir:--In compliance with your request of the 18th instant, I
inclose herewith a copy of the contract recently made with a
syndicate of New York bankers for the sale of four and a half per
cent. bonds. The only previous correspondence on this subject was
a letter sent to said bankers and one to the presidents of certain
national banks, copies of which are inclosed.

"In response to your question as to the amount of accrued interest
that will be allowed to the syndicate at each payment on account
of such sales, I have to reply that no accrued interest is paid to
them, but, as you will see by the fourth paragraph of said contract,
they are to pay the United States the amount of interest accrued
on the bond up to the time of payment for it, in addition to the
premium of one and a half per cent. The interest on the four and
a half per cent. bonds accrued on the 1st of March, and therefore,
the interest is added from that date to the date of payment for
the bonds.

"The amount of commission to be paid is fixed by law at one-half
of one per cent., but out of this the associates are to pay all
expenses incurred by them in the sale, and reimburse the United
States all expenses incurred by it as stated by said contract in
paragraph 5.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

No further action was taken by the committee on banking and currency.
Subsequently I wrote Mr. Ewing the following letter:

"May 21, 1878.
"Dear Sir:--I notice the crazy barkings of Buell in the 'Post'
about the syndicate, and favors granted to it by me.

"I wish to say to you that nothing would please me better than to
have the banking and currency committee examine into this matter,
and I am quite sure you will be gratified that the result will be
to my credit.

"I have no desire to dignify this by asking an investigation, but
only to say to you privately, as a personal friend, that I court,
rather than fear, such an inquiry.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. Thomas Ewing, House of Representatives."

It was at this time that it was alleged that Mr. Tappan, a New York
bank president, said that he would pay $50,000 to stand at the head
of the line when the government began to pay out gold; that he
could put in $29,000,000 United States notes held by the New York
banks and break the government and take out all the gold. It was
said that Mr. Coe, a prominent banker in New York, was asked his
opinion whether I could resume, and that he said: "Well, yes, I
would let the government resume, but it must sell a certain number
of bonds to the banks at such a figure." Sensational reports were
sent out from Washington to discredit the contract lately made with
the syndicate. It was reported that the terms were concealed, that
only ten millions were contracted for, part of which it might be
necessary to take back, and that the banking and currency committee
had summoned me to explain the contract. So far from being true
the contract itself was printed in all the papers and the utmost
publicity was given to every step taken.

I had a very friendly acquaintance with Peter Cooper, for whom I
had the highest respect, but he had fallen into the general ideas
of the greenbackers. When in New York, early in April, I called
upon him and had a pleasant interview. Soon after I received from
him the following letter:

"New York, April 18, 1878.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Dear Sir:--In the brief interview which you did me the honor to
give me at my house a few days ago, I was impressed with your desire
to give all the information that would throw light upon the financial
policy of the government, and on the department of which you are
the executive head.

"But we had not the time to discuss fully some of those practical
questions that involve this financial policy, and I therefore now
take the liberty, in a more deliberate manner, to ask of you an
answer to questions, which might throw light upon the public mind
on these great interests, and allay the anxiety which pervades the
hearts of our people in reference to their future prospects of
business and employment, and show more clearly how the present
policy of the government in enforcing 'specie payments' by law and
carrying out the 'resumption act,' could be attended with any
_wholesome results to the financial interests_ of this country both
in the present and in the future.

"First. Can you resume in the presence of $645,000,000 of legal
tender and bank notes with what gold and silver you may have at
your command, without an actual shrinkage of this currency, either
on the part of the government or of the banks?

"Second. Can 'resumption' be maintained after the law has placed
a premium on coin, and virtually demonetized the paper, by rendering
its convertibility compulsory? In other words, can the present
'par value' of paper and coin be taken as an index that after the
law has thrown its whole weight in favor of coin, by making the
paper 'convertible,' the present equilibrium between the two can
still be maintained?

"Third. In connection with the fact that by purely commercial
laws, we have already arrived at specie payments, or the par between
coin and paper money, what good will it do to thrust the further
power of the law on the side of coin? How can we avoid placing
the paper at the mercy of those who will have control of the coin
--especially the paper of the national banks, whose chief credit
will consist in maintaining 'specie payments?'

"Fourth. After 'resumption,' how much money will the people have
with which to transact business, employ labor, enter into new
enterprises, and use 'cash payments' instead of 'inflating credit'
to a ruinous degree, as in times past, under the system of specie
payments, and convertibility by law?

"Fifth. It being the duty of Congress to make the necessary and
proper laws for carrying into execution a system of money, weights
and measures as the only means to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states, to provide as far as possible
an 'unfluctuating currency,' a steady measure of prices, how can
you prevent great and disastrous fluctuations in our 'convertible
money' and coin, arising out of the great demands for gold and
silver that may, at any time, be made upon us from the commercial
relations of this country with Europe over which the government
can have no direct control? With great respect I remain,

"Your obedient servant,
"Peter Cooper."

I made the following reply:

"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 18th inst. is received. The questions
you ask me have been, in the main, answered to the committees of
the two Houses, and I might, perhaps, best reply to your letter by
sending these documents, printed by the order of the respective
Houses; but my sincere respect for you, and desire to allay any
doubts you may entertain of the success of the present plan of
resumption, induce me to answer your letter as fully as my time
will allow.

"As to your first question:

'Can you resume in the presence of $645,000,000 of legal tender
and bank notes, with what gold and silver you may have at your
command, without an actual shrinkage of this currency, either on
the part of the government or of the banks?'

"You must bear in mind that the aggregate amount of legal tender
notes and bank notes stated by you, may be gradually diminished,
so far as the legal tenders are concerned, to $300,000,000, and by
the banks to such sum as they find can be maintained at par with
United States notes. But, assuming that the aggregate should be
about the present amount, and remembering always that the bank
notes can be redeemed in legal tender notes, and are not required
to be redeemed in coin, I do express the opinion that resumption
in a country like ours can be maintained in the presence of the
existing volume of circulation; but if this should prove to be too
great, the reduction will be gradually of the bank notes, or, if
Congress so direct, of the legal tender notes.

"As to your second question:

'Can resumption be maintained after the law has placed a premium
on coin and virtually demonetized the paper, by rendering its
_convertibility compulsory?_ In other words, can the par value of
paper and coin be taken as an index that after the law has thrown
its whole weight in favor of coin, by making paper convertible,
the present equilibrium between the two can still be maintained?'

"I respectfully deny that the law places a premium on coin. One-
half of this circulation is not redeemable in coin at all, but in
legal tenders; nor does the law fix a premium on coin as against
legal tenders, but simply requires an equality. Its convertibility
is not compulsory. It is upon the demand of the holder. The holder
is as likely to deposit the coin, if he has it, as to deposit the
notes for coin. The currency would rest upon the presumption that
all paper money rests upon, that its use and convenience and
convertibility will always keep it at par with coin.

"To your third question:

'In connection with the fact that, by purely commercial laws, we
have already arrived at specie payments, or the par between coin
and paper money, what good will it do the thrust the further power
of the law on the side of coin? How can we avoid placing the paper
at the mercy of those who will have control of the coin--especially
the paper of the national banks, whose chief credit will consist
in maintaining specie payments?'

"I have simply to say that we have only arrived at our present
position approaching specie payments by the accumulation of coin
in the treasury and by the gradual and slow reduction of the volume
of notes; and the very measures which have enabled us to reach so
near the specie standard, are necessary to be continued to enable
us to maintain resumption. If resumption is desirable, it cannot
be maintained by a repeal of the law, which requires resumption
and grants the necessary powers to prepare for it and to maintain
it.

"As to your fourth question:

'After resumption, how much money will the people have with which
to transact business, employ labor, enter into new enterprises,
and use cash payments instead of inflating credit to a ruinous
degree, as in times past under the system of specie payments, and
convertibility by law?'

"It is answered, I think, by what I have said in reply to your
first question. We will have the United States notes, the bank
notes, and coin certificates, both gold and silver, together with
the gold and silver itself, all in circulation. The actual amount
of currency in circulation, I think, will be as large in specie
times as now, and its equality and convertibility will rather
increase than prevent the circulation of either. The depreciation
of paper money is not necessarily caused solely by its excess, but
by the uncertainty of its value and confidence in its redemption.

"In reply to your fifth question:

'It being the duty of Congress to make the necessary and proper
laws for carrying into execution a system of money, weights and
measures, as the only means to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states, to provide as far as possible
an unfluctuating currency, a steady measure of prices, how can you
prevent great and disastrous fluctuations in our convertible money
and coin, arising out of the great demands for gold and silver that
may at any time be made upon us from the commercial relations of
the country with Europe, over which the government can have no
direct control?'

"I have only to say that it is undoubtedly the duty of Congress to
provide for the possible contingencies that would make it necessary
to suspend specie payments, though, as the circumstances which
would compel suspension are necessarily unforeseen, unknown,
difficult to be defined or to be provided for, I am not sure but
it is better to leave the question of suspension to the necessities
of the case rather than to legislation which must be founded upon
uncertainty. When the treasury is actually unable to redeem its
notes in coin, suspension comes necessarily, but resumption would
come again from the absolute necessity of currency for our daily
wants, and Congress could provide better in view of the actual
facts than anticipated facts.

"I think the real difficulty that has stood in the way of resumption
is the nightmare of things that have existence only in the brain,
and not in fact. We can only deal with the current course of events
based upon probabilities, and cannot provide for unforeseen
contingencies.

"It is my earnest hope that you and gentlemen like you, who I know
are sincere in your convictions, may see your way to trust to the
policy that is now entered upon, which seeks to provide as much
paper currency as can be maintained at par in coin, and to secure
its active circulation in aid of industry and enterprise.

"I am, with great respect,
"John Sherman."

On the 13th of May, 1878, the charges against me assumed a different
form, by the adoption, in the House of Representatives, of a preamble
and resolutions offered by Clarkson N. Potter, of New York. Among
the recitals of this resolution was a charge that James E. Anderson
and D. A. Weber, supervisors of registration of the parishes of
East and West Feliciana, falsely protested that the election in
such precincts had not been fair and free, and that the returning
board thereupon falsely and fraudulently excluded the vote of said
precincts, and the choice of the people was annulled and reversed,
and that such action of said Weber and Anderson was induced or
encouraged by assurances from me. The charge was based upon the
following letter, alleged to have been written by me:

"New Orleans, November 20, 1876.
"Messrs. D. A. Weber and James E. Anderson.

"Gentlemen:--Your note of even date has just been received. Neither
Mr. Hayes, myself, the gentlemen who accompany me, or the country
at large, can ever forget the obligations under which you will have
placed us should you stand firm in the position you have taken.
From a long and intimate acquaintance with Governor Hayes, I am
justified in assuming the responsibility for promises made, and
will guarantee that you will be provided for as soon after the 4th
of March as may be practicable, and in such manner as will enable
you both to leave Louisiana, should you deem it necessary.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

The charge was without any foundation whatever, and excited my
resentment. On the 20th of May I wrote Mr. Potter the following
letter:

"May 20, 1878.
"Hon. Clarkson N. Potter, House of Representatives.

"Sir:--I observe that the resolution of the House, under which your
committee is organized, singles me out personally by name from
among twenty or more gentlemen who were present, at the request of
President Grant, or the chairman of the Democratic national committee,
to attend and witness the action of the returning board upon the
presidential election returns in the State of Louisiana in 1876,
and, in substance, charges that at that election in East Feliciana
parish the Republican vote was withheld and not cast, in pursuance
and execution of a conspiracy by such voters, that in furtherance
of such conspiracy, James E. Anderson, supervisor of registration
in that parish, and D. A. Weber, supervisor of registration in West
Feliciana parish, falsely protested that such election in such
parishes had not been free and fair, and that, therefore, the
returning board of said state falsely and fraudulently excluded
votes of such precincts, and 'by means thereof, and of other false
and fraudulent action of said returning board, the choice of the
people of the state was annulled and reversed, and that such action
by the said Weber and Anderson was induced or encouraged by the
assurances of Hon. John Sherman, now Secretary of the Treasury.'

"This resolution requires you to investigate these allegations,
and upon the result of these depends the accusations against me.

"First. That there was a conspiracy among the voters to withhold
and not cast the votes, with a view to make a false charge on the
election.

"Second. That in point of fact there was a free and fair election
in East and West Feliciana, which was falsely protested and returned
by said Anderson and Weber, by which the votes of those parishes
were falsely and fraudulently excluded by the returning board.

"Third. That the offense of Anderson and Weber was encouraged by
assurances by me.

"With the view, therefore, to meet this accusation, which, so far
as it affects me, I declare and know to be absolutely destitute of
even the shadow of truth, I respectfully ask, and now make formal
application, for leave to be represented before your committee in
the investigations of all charges affecting me personally. I tender
and offer to prove that, in point of fact, the election in East
and West Feliciana parishes was governed and controlled by force,
violence and intimidation so revolting as to excite the common
indignation of all who became conversant with it, and proof was
submitted to that effect, not only before the returning board in
evidence contained in ex. doc. No. 2, second session 44th Congress,
but also in the testimony taken by the committee of the Senate on
privileges and elections, report No. 701, second session 44th
Congress.

"I will, if allowed, furnish the names of witnesses whom I desire
to examine before you to prove the truth of this statement as to
said parishes, and that the protests referred to were true, supported
by the testimony and properly acted upon and sustained by the
returning board. To my personal conduct during this examination
I invite your fair and candid scrutiny, with entire confidence that
not only myself, but my associates of both political parties, acted
honestly and properly, from a sense of public duty. I have requested
Hon. Samuel Shellabarger to deliver this to you, and I respectfully
designate him as the gentleman I would desire, on my part, to be
present to cross-examine witnesses testifying in relation to charges
against me, and who will, as my counsel, tender evidence in proof
of this statement. The favor of an early answer is requested.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman."

It is not necessary to detail the history of this investigation,
of which so much was said or printed at the time. It was a partisan
committee organized to stir up the controversy that had been settled
by the decision of the electoral commission. The committee conducted
a long and expensive investigation. The result was that the
pretended letter was proven to be a forgery, and that my conduct
during the sittings of the returning board was shown to have been
that of a spectator, precisely like that of a score of other so-
called visitors, of both political parties. The investigation
proved to be a radical failure. The report was not made until
March 3, 1879, the last day of the 45th Congress. No action was
taken upon it.

During the investigation I specifically denied, under oath, that
I had ever written or signed such a letter. There was not the
slightest proof, direct or indirect, that I did so. The majority,
with great unfairness, instead of frankly stating that they were
deceived by a forgery, treated it as a matter in doubt. In their
report they do not allege or pretend that I wrote or signed such
a letter. The evidence of their own witnesses was conclusive that
it was written by a Mrs. Jenks.

The report of the minority of the committee commented with severity
upon the unfairness of the majority, in the following language:

"The majority seem to us to have come short of what we had a right
to expect from their candor, when they fail to report explicitly
whether the testimony on this subject sustains the charge that such
a letter as Anderson and Weber testified to was ever written by
the Hon. John Sherman. For our part, we report distinctly and
emphatically that it does not, and that the palpable perjuries of
both the witnesses named justify a feeling of deep disgust that
they should be treated as capable of creating a serious attack upon
the character of a man who has borne a high character in the most
responsible service of the country for five-and-twenty years.

"The charge, if it meant anything, was that of corruptly bribing
Anderson and D. A. Weber to perpetrate a fraud in the election
returns of the Feliciana parishes.

"We find nothing in the testimony to show that Mr. Sherman either
knew or believed that any such fraud was committed. We find abundant
evidence that he believed that the protests against the fairness
of the election were honestly and rightly made.

"We cannot follow the majority in their yielding to what we must
believe to be a prejudice of party spirit, which has carried then
even to the extent of intimating that the Secretary of the Treasury
was party to the pranks of an eccentric woman who dropped a parcel
of letters to set the local politicians of New Orleans agog--a
woman who was called before the committee a long time as a witness,
but who was neither called, examined, nor cross-examined by the
minority, who, however they might share the public amusement at
the performance, entirely declined to take part in it.

"A considerable number of gentlemen who visited New Orleans, either
at the request of President Grant or of the national or local
campaign committee, were called, and testified as to the purpose
of their visit and their procedure during it.

"Adhering to our purpose of leaving the majority to frame issues
on which they were willing to proceed in investigating, we did not
seek to examine into the particulars of the conduct of the Democratic
visitors in Louisiana. To let the testimony show the original
resolutions of inquiry to be both useless and mischievous, serving
no purpose but the spread of unjust scandal, seemed to us, in view
of all former inquiries in the same direction, the proper course
to pursue.

"Messrs. Sherman, Garfield, Hale, Kelley, and others were examined,
and their testimony was compared with that by which it was attempted
to impeach their motives and their conduct. Their account of their
action is consistent and frank. They believed that their party
had rightfully a good claim to the fruits of the election in that
state. They also believed that the notorious violence and intimidation
which had in former years disgraced that state had been again
practiced in the campaign of 1876. They approved the action of
the returning board in deciding, under the powers given them by
law, to declare null the pretended elections at precincts and polls
where evidence of such interference with the freedom of election
had occurred. We do not find that they attempted to control the
board or to dictate their action. We do not find that they attempted
to dictate to witnesses or to procure false testimony to place
before the board. We do not find that they were in any way more
partisan or less scrupulous than the similar party of gentlemen
who then represented the Democratic party. The attempt to single
out Mr. Sherman for special attack seems to us to have had no
original foundation but the testimony of James E. Anderson, and
the terms in which the majority, in their report, have characterized
that person, warrant us in declaring our opinion that when the
character of that witness and his testimony were discovered, it
was the duty of the majority of the committee frankly to abandon
their effort to discriminate between Mr. Sherman and the other
gentlemen who were associated with him."

Shortly afterward I wrote the following letter to E. F. Noyes, then
United States minister at Paris, whose name was mentioned in the
resolution of investigation:

"Washington, D. C., April 1, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 18th ult. is received.

"The report of the Potter committee, which you correctly pronounce
to be infamous, was received in silence and was scarcely printed
or noticed in the newspapers of the United States two days after
its presentation to the House. It was then severely handled by
the Republican press and treated with silence by the Democratic
press, and now it is not mentioned. I think that neither of us
should complain of any injurious result from the Potter investigation;
although it was annoying, it was fair and creditable both to the
committee and many of the witnesses. But for the expense and
trouble of the investigation, I am rather gratified that it occurred,
for the feeling of the Democratic party, over what they supposed
was a fraudulent return, would have deepened into conviction, while
the investigation tended on the while to repel this suspicion.

* * * * *

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. E. F. Noyes."

Another investigation into the conduct of the department was
inaugurated by J. M. Glover, of Missouri, who, on November 6, 1877,
introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution directing
the several committees of the House to inquire into the conduct of
the different branches of the public service coming under their
charge, and the committees on expenditures in the several departments
to examine into the state of the accounts and expenditures of the
respective departments submitted to them. This resolution in
substance was adopted January 11, 1878, and Mr. Glover was chairman
of the sub-committee to examine into the conduct of the treasury
department. He came to the department and every facility was given
him for examination. He was allowed experts to aid him in the
work, and continued the investigation for two years until the close
of the Congress. His committee incurred much expense, but was
unable to find that any of the public money had been wasted or
lost. His report, submitted in the closing days of Congress, was
not ordered to be printed. Subsequently, on the 15th of April,
1879, after Mr. Glover had ceased to be a Member of the House, a
petition from him was presented asking that his report be printed,
which was referred to a committee, but they did not seem to think
the report of much consequence, as they did not recommend it be
printed.

The only financial bill that became a law during that session was
the following, approved May 31, 1878:

"AN ACT TO FORBID THE FURTHER RETIREMENT OF UNITED STATES LEGAL
TENDER NOTES.

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That from and
after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful for the
Secretary of the Treasury, or other officer under him, to cancel
or retire any more of the United States legal tender notes. And
when any of said notes may be redeemed or be received into the
treasury under any law, from any source whatever, and shall belong
to the United States, they shall not be retired, canceled, or
destroyed, but they shall be reissued and paid out again and kept
in circulation: _Provided_, That nothing herein shall prohibit
the cancellation and destruction of mutilated notes and the issue
of other notes of like denomination in their stead, as now provided
by law.

"All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed."

I recommended the passage of this law, as I believed that the
retirement of the greenbacks pending the preparation for resumption,
by reducing the volume of the currency, really increased the
difficulties of resumption.

The session of Congress closed on the 26th of June, 1878. During
the recess the business of the department proceeded in the ordinary
way, without any event to attract attention, but all that happened
tended in the right direction. The crops were good, confidence
became assurance, and all business was substantially based upon
coin.

In consequence of the sale of four and a half per cent. bonds for
resumption purposes the return of Mr. Conant to London became
necessary. His numerous letters advised the department of the
current of financial operations in Europe. There was some fluctuation
in the relative price of United States notes and coin, chiefly
caused by our demand for gold and the appearance in the market of
bonds of other countries. At one period the sale of four and a
half per cent. bonds became more rapid than the contract provided
for, and this rapid accumulation of coin tended to advance its
price, which I desired to avoid, and, therefore, strictly limited
the sale of the four and a half per cent. bonds to $5,000,000 a
month, thus preventing an unusual demand for coin. During this
period there was a constant effort of banks and bankers, chiefly
in New York, to have some exceptional privilege in the purchase of
four per cent. bonds. This was in every case denied. The published
offer of the sale of these bonds was repeated during every month,
and the terms prescribed were enforced in every instance without
favor or partiality.

On the 12th of July W. S. Groesbeck, one of the members of the
monetary commission about to assemble in Europe, applied to the
department for information that would enable the American conferees
to assure the conference that the United States would resume by
the time fixed, and should therefore be regarded by the conference
as not in a state of suspicion. I responded to his letter as
follows:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., July 15, 1878.}
"William S. Groesbeck, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio.

"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 12th instant was received during my
temporary absence, and I comply with your request with pleasure.

"Accompanying this I send you sundry documents, duly scheduled,
which contain in detail the law and my views on the resumption
question.

"Among these papers is a letter from the treasurer of the United
States, of date July 6, showing the exact coin on hand for all
purposes, a careful examination of which will prove to you our
ability to resume at the time fixed by law.

"It will be perceived that we have on hand in the treasury coin
enough to cover all our coin liabilities of every name and nature,
and also thirty five per cent. of the aggregate amount of United
States notes outstanding, with an excess of $2,474,822. We have
also $7,139,529 of fractional silver coin, which will be used for
current expenses.

"Of the United States notes outstanding, at least sixty millions
are held in the treasury, either as the property of the United
States or as special funds for purposes prescribed by law, which
cannot readily be diminished.

"In addition, the secretary is authorized to sell bonds for the
purchase of coin or bullion, and he may use United States notes
for the same purpose. Our revenue, both in coin and currency, is
more than sufficient to pay all current expenses covered by the
appropriations of Congress.

"Considering that the United States notes are scattered over a vast
country, are in great favor and demand, and extremely popular, I
feel entire confidence in the ability of the treasury to resume on
the 1st of January next, and the leading bankers and brokers of
New York are of the same opinion.

"I know of nothing that can prevent the United States from taking
its place among the specie-paying nations at this time, except the
possible repeal by Congress of the resumption act, and this I do
not anticipate.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

In the latter part of August, 1878, I made a visit to Ohio, first
going to Mansfield where I was cordially received. In the evening
I was serenaded, and after the band had played several times I went
to the steps of the hotel and made a few impromptu remarks, reported
as follows by the local paper:

"Fellow Citizens:--I thank you heartily for the courtesy of this
serenade, and especially the members of the band who have favored
us with their excellent music. I will be here with you but for a
few days, and welcome with joy the sight of home, and the familiar
faces and scenes around me. I do not desire to say anything of
politics, or of matters upon which we do not agree, but prefer to
meet you all as old acquaintances and townsmen, having common
interests and sympathies as to many things as to which we do agree.
And I especially congratulate you upon the bountiful harvests,
fruitful orchards and reviving prosperity with which you are blessed.
I will be glad to shake hands with any of you, and to talk with
you free from all artificial restraints."

I went from Mansfield to Toledo, where I had agreed with the state
central committee to make a speech, and where the opposition to
resumption was stronger than in any other city in the state. Here
the so-called National party had its origin. I knew a great many
of the citizens of Toledo and the prevailing feeling on financial
topics. I, therefore, carefully prepared a speech, covering all
the leading questions involved in the campaign, especially all that
related to our currency. The meeting was held August 26, in a
large opera house, which would seat 2,500 people. I found it full
to overflowing. Every particle of space in the aisles was occupied
and it was estimated that 3,000 people were gathered within its
walls. I will give the narrative of a correspondent of the St.
Paul "Pioneer Press," who was an eyewitness of the scenes that
followed:

"Secretary Sherman was not received with that hearty greeting common
to a man of such prominence at first, while the organization that
had been picketed in different parts of the hall at once commenced
hissing at the first sight of the tall, slender form of the speaker.
Until his introduction the emotion was the same, and as soon as he
commenced to speak he was interrupted with jeers and insults from
what Nasby, in his paper, called the 'hoodlums of the city,' who
came organized and determined to break up the meeting without giving
the speaker a chance to be heard, by shouting at the top of their
voices such insults as 'You are responsible for all the failures
in the country;' 'You work to the interest of the capitalist;'
'Capitalists own you, John Sherman, and you rob the poor widows
and orphans to make them rich;' 'How about stealing a President;'
'Why don't you redeem the trade dollar?'

"These, with many other like flaunting sneers, were constantly
indulged in by the disorderly element, which had been distributed
with care throughout the hall. So boisterous and moblike was their
behavior that it was apparent several times that it would be
impossible to maintain order, and notwithstanding the speaker stated
that if any gentlemen wished to ask any question, upon any point
that he might discuss, in their order, he would be glad to answer
them, and invited criticisms, but one such question was asked by
Mr. F. J. Scott, one of the leading lights of the Nationals, who
wished to know the difference between 'fiat' money and greenbacks;
the speaker replied: 'Fiat money is redeemable nowhere, payable
nowhere, for no amount without security, at no time, and without
a fixed value; while greenbacks are redeemable in specie at par,
at a fixed time, and secured by the pledge of the government.'

"By this ready, pointed and satisfactory answer the speaker turned
the tide, and the applause was hearty in his favor. When answering
Judge Thurman the speaker alluded to the charge made by him that
the 'Republican party was the enemy of the country.' Then, after
calling attention to the war record of the Democratic party, the
speaker said: 'Who is the enemy of the country?' [A voice from
a 'hoodlum,' 'John Sherman.'] 'Why,' says the speaker; 'because
he has brought greenbacks up to par value, and is in favor of honest
money?' This was another cause for an outburst of applause and
approval to the speaker, although it was very doubtful, in the
beginning of the speech, whether he could carry enough of the vast
audience, with the large disturbing element opposing intermingled
among them, with him. But long before the closing of his discourse
it became apparent that John Sherman is able to defend his position,
even in the camp of the enemy, while the ungentlemanly acts of the
disorganizing element were disgusting to the better element of
their party. It also effectively revived the lukewarm Republicans
in this community, and it may be well said that John Sherman did
what no other man could have done, that is, to go to a place like
Toledo, stand before an organized party which was determined to
prevent his speaking, while his own party was lukewarm toward him
--it was frequently asserted here 'John Sherman had not a single
friend in the city'--and during his speech of two hours turn the
popular tide in his favor, as was evident he did from the hearty
applause he received as he proceeded in his remarks; and it is safe
to say that no man in these United States could have done the
Republican cause, in this place, the good that Secretary Sherman
did by his speech, and the 'Toledo National hoodlums,' in their
efforts to break up the meeting, 'gave the old man a reception,'
as was remarked on the streets; but throughout his speech he kept
his temper, kept cool and considerate, made remarks of cheer by
saying, 'This is only a love feast,' and 'We will feel better
natured after a while, as we become better acquainted,' etc., etc."

The narrative given by the correspondent is perhaps a little
exaggerated, but the general outlines are correct, as I very
distinctly remember. The result was that my carefully prepared
speech was knocked into "pi," and I had to depend upon the resources
of the moment to make a speech suitable to the occasion and the
crowd. The Cincinnati "Enquirer," to which, as to other papers,
a copy of the prepared address had been sent, had two stenographers
in Toledo to report the speech as made and telegraph it to the
paper. They did so and the speech as reported and published in
the "Enquirer" was so much more sensational and better than the
prepared speech that it was selected by the Republican state
committee for publication as a campaign document. This enterprise
of an unfriendly newspaper resulted to my advantage rather than my
detriment, for on account of the interruptions the speech reported
was much more readable than the other.

No doubt the feeling in Toledo grew out of the long depression that
followed the panic of 1873, that for a time arrested the growth
and progress of that thriving and prosperous city. The people
wanted more money, and I was doing all I could, not only to increase
the volume of money by adding coin to our circulation, but to give
it value and stability. I have spoken in Toledo nearly every year
since, and have always been treated with courtesy and kindness,
and many of my best friends now in Toledo are among those who joined
in interrupting me, and especially their leader, Mr. Scott.

From Toledo I went to Cincinnati. I have been for many years an
honorary member of the Chamber of Commerce of Cincinnati, a body
of business men as intelligent and enterprising as can be found
anywhere. It has been my habit to meet them once a year and to
make a short speech. This I did on August 28. The "Gazette"
reported my visit as follows:

"Secretary Sherman was on 'change yesterday, and, at the close of
the business hour, he was introduced by President Hartwell, and
was greeted with applause, after which he spoke as follows:

'Gentlemen:--It gives me pleasure to meet so many of the active
business men of Cincinnati, even for a brief period. In the office
which I hold I have a great deal to do with merchants, like these
engaged in the exchange of the products of our industries, and I
congratulate you, first of all, that this fall, by the bounty of
Divine Providence, you will have to market the largest crop we have
ever gathered in this country since the world was born.

'In every part of our country, with but few exceptions, and only
as to certain crops, are crops greater than ever before, and you
will have to buy and sell them.

'The only point of an unpleasant nature, that occurs to me, affecting
the industrial interests which you so largely represent, is the
misfortune which has befallen large portions of the south, where
yellow fever, one of the worst enemies of human life, now has spread
a pall of distress among our southern brethren. I am glad, fellow-
citizens, that you are doing something to contribute to the relief
of their sufferings, because business men, above all others, are
to be humane and generous to those who are in distress.

'That this will, to some extent, affect the business of gathering
cotton, I have no doubt will occur to you all, but you can only
hope that it will be but a brief season until the frost will
dissipate the distress of the south and the cotton crop may be
safely gathered.

'There is another thing I can congratulate you upon as business
men, that is--our currency is soon to be based upon the solid money
of the world. I do not want to talk politics to you, and I do not
intend to do so, but I suppose it is the common desire of all men
engaged in business to have a stable, certain standard of value,
and although you and I may differ as to the best means of obtaining
it, and as to whether the means that have been adopted have been
the proper means, yet I believe the merchants of Cincinnati desire
that their money shall be as good as the money of any country with
which we trade. And that, I think, will soon be accomplished.

'Now, gentlemen, I do not know that there is any other topic on
which you desire to hear from me. I take a hopeful view of our
business affairs. I think all the signs of the times are hopeful.
I think it a hopeful fact that, after this week, there will be an
end of bankruptcies, that all men who believe that they are not in
a condition to pay their debts will have taken the benefit of the
law provided for their relief, and, after Saturday next, we will
all stand upon a better basis--on the basis of our property and
our deserved credit.

'It has been the habit, you know, of one of your able and influential
journals to charge me with all the bankruptcies of the country.
If a grocer could not sell goods enough to pay expenses, and a
saloon keeper could not sell beer enough to get rich, and took the
short way of paying his debts, this paper would announce the fact
that he had "Shermanized." [Laughter.] And if a bank was robbed,
or the cashier gobbled the money in the safe and left for parts
unknown, this able editor announced that the bank had "Shermanized."
And thus this paper contributed largely to the very result it
denounced. You understand how this thing works.

'But we have passed through this severe crisis. It has been common
in all countries and all states that carry on extensive commercial
transactions with each other. I believe that we are through with
this one; a ray of hope has dawned on us, and we are certainly
entering upon a career of prosperity. Every sign of business is
hopeful. We have paid off immense amount of our debts. We do not
owe Europe anything of consequence. We have gone through the debt
paying process. A few years ago we were running in debt at the
rate of $100,000,000 a year, but lately we have been paying off
our debt at the rate of $100,000,000 a year. From this time on we
will be more prosperous. Take heart, you men of Cincinnati; you
men who represent the great interests in this great city; you who
live in the heart of the great west, take heart in the transaction
of your business, because I believe you have reached a solid basis
upon which to conduct your business profitably, the basis of solid
coin.'"

From Cincinnati I went to Lancaster, the place of my birth, and
where my eldest sister, Mrs. Reese, resides. I need not say that
the visit was a pleasant one, for it was necessarily so. A great
many among those whom I saw had been my associates in boyhood, and,
as a matter of course, the topics of conversation were mainly of
the past. A dispatch to the Cincinnati "Gazette" of the date of
August 30, briefly describes my visit and gives the substance of
a few remarks I was called upon to make by an impromptu gathering
in the evening at the residence of my sister:

"The Lancaster band serenaded Secretary John Sherman this evening,
at the residence of his sister, Mrs. General Reese. A very large
crowd assembled on the occasion, and, in response, Senator Sherman
made one of the neatest, pleasantest, and most satisfactory little
talks heard here for many a day. Of course he began by touching
upon his early boyhood, and some of the incidents of the same spent
here in old Lancaster, the place of his nativity; told of his
incipient struggles in life with the rod and chain on an engineer
corps in the Muskingum valley; how he was ushered into the sterner
vicissitudes of life, and how he drifted into politics; and then,
without using the occasion for party purposes, without making a
political speech, he explained in well selected language his position
as an officer of the government; what was the course prescribed
for him to do, how he was doing it, and concluding with a most
clear and intelligible exegesis of the resumption act; what it was,
its intent, purpose and meaning; and with convincing nicety and
clearness, and evident satisfactoriness, was his explanation given,
that he was frequently interrupted by spontaneous applause from
the crowd. He told how the credit of the country was advancing as
we near the solid foundation of hard money; how the American people
were the most favored, the greatest blest, the freest and most
prosperous people on the earth; how the signs of the times in busy
shops and abounding field told of the disappearing hard times, and
the dawning of an era of greater peace and prosperity."

I returned to Washington, and at once proceeded to arrange with
the treasurer and assistant treasurers of the United States to make
the change from currency to coin easy. I conferred with General
Hillhouse, assistant treasurer at New York, upon the subject and
had his opinions verbally and in writing. I conferred freely with
James Gilfillan, treasurer of the United States, and, as a result
of these conferences, on the 3rd of September, I directed the
treasurer of the United States, upon the receipt by him, from any
person, of a certificate, issued by any assistant treasurer, designed
depositary, or national bank designated as a public depositary of
the United States, stating that a deposit of currency had been made
to his credit in general account of the sum of one thousand dollars,
and any multiple thereof, not exceeding ten thousand dollars, to
cause a shipment to be made, from some mint of the United States
to the person in whose name the certificate was issued, of a like
amount of standard silver dollars, the expense of transportation
to be paid by the mint.

The sole purpose of this order was to facilitate the circulation
of standard silver dollars for all purposes as currency, but not
to issue them so as to be used directly in making those payments
to the government which were required to be made in coin. I wished
to avoid their deposit for silver certificates. Officers receiving
deposits of currency were expected, as far as practicable, to see
that the silver dollars were put in circulation. Shipments, however,
were to be made only to points in the United States reached through
the established express lines by continuous railway or steamboat
communication.

I regarded this as practically the resumption of specie payments
in silver dollars, but the chief object aimed at was to secure a
general distribution of these dollars throughout the United States,
to the extent of the demand for them, without forcing them into
circulation.

General Hillhouse recommended the payment of silver for all purposes,
not only for circulation, but for the payment of bonds and customs
duties. This I fully considered, but thought it best for the
present to get into ordinary circulation among the people, in points
remote from the ports of entry, as much silver coin as practicable,
before offering it freely in cities where it would be immediately
used for customs duties. I said: "If, within a month or so, we
are able to reduce our stock of silver to five or six millions, I
should not hesitate a moment to offer it then freely in New York
and elsewhere, and run the risk of doing without gold revenue for
awhile."

On September 7 I issued the following order:

"Treasury Department, September 7, 1878.
"Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer of the United States.

"Sir:--On and after the 16th day of this month you are authorized,
at the treasury in Washington, and at the several sub-treasuries
in the United States, to exchange standard silver dollars for United
States notes.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

The question was raised in the public prints, and in the department,
whether I had legal authority, under the existing laws, to pay
silver dollars in exchange for United States notes before the 1st
of January. It was plausibly urged that the payment of this coin
in advance of the time fixed for resumption was the exercise of
authority not authorized by law. I, therefore, on the 13th day of
September, three days before the previous order would take effect,
directed the treasurer of the United States as follows:

"Treasury Department, September 13, 1878.
"Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.

"Sir:--Some question has been made whether the issue of silver
dollars in exchange for United States notes, before January 1,
next, is in entire accordance with the legislation of Congress
bearing on the subject, and, therefore, you will please postpone
the execution of department order of the 3rd instant until further
instructions, and withhold from transmission to assistant treasurers
the order of the 7th.

"Silver dollars will be issued as heretofore, in the purchase of
silver bullion, in payment of coin liabilities, and in the mode
pointed out in your order of July 19, as modified.

"With a view to their payment on current liabilities, you will
request that each disbursing officer estimate the amount he can
conveniently disburse.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

This change of my opinion was the subject of much criticism in the
public prints. Some complained that I was unfriendly to the silver
dollar and sought to prevent its use, and others complained that
its use before the 1st of January as a substitute for gold coin
was a violation of the law. My only purpose was to accustom the
people to the use of the silver dollar in the interior of the
country at places where it could not be used in the payment of
customs duties. These could only be paid in coin, and, in view of
resumption, I desired to strengthen the treasury as much as possible
by the receipt of gold coin. The charge that I was guilty of
changing my mind did not disturb me when I was convinced that I
had exceeded my authority in the issue of the first order.

At that time there was an evident reluctance to pay coin into the
treasury for four per cent. bonds sold, when, within a brief period,
United States notes could be paid for such bonds. I therefore
directed the treasurer of the United States: "Where deposits with
national banks on account of subscriptions to the four per cent.
loan have not been paid into the treasury within ninety days after
the deposit was made, you will at once draw for the amount of such
deposits, to be forthwith paid into the treasury, and as such
deposits accrue under this rule, you will make such withdrawals
until the whole is paid."

I also directed the chief of the loan division as follows:

"No doubt most of the depositaries will place coin to their credit
within the period of the call outstanding after subscriptions are
made, according to the circular of the 1st ultimo, but if this is
not done, the deposit must be withdrawn at the expiration of ninety
days from the date of subscription."

I also advised August Belmont & Co., that the department expected
that by the 1st of October the remainder of the coin then due upon
the four and a half per cent. bonds, both from the American sales
and those made in London, would be paid into the treasury; that it
was deemed best that this should be done, so that the account of
this loan might be closed as soon thereafter as the books could be
made up. This request was promptly complied with.

Early in October there were many rumors in circulation charging
that prominent capitalists and speculators were combining to defeat
resumption. Among them Jay Gould was mentioned as being actively
engaged in "bearing" the market. About this period I received from
him the following letter:

"578 Fifth Avenue, Oct. 17, 1878.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--Referring to recent newspaper statements that I have
been interested in movements either to tighten money or create a
scarcity of gold and thus interfere with natural and early resumption,
I beg to say that they are without the slightest foundation. On
the contrary I feel a very deep interest in your efforts, so far
eminently successful in carrying the country to a successful
resumption.

"_If resumption is made a real success it will be accompanied with
substantial business prosperity and do more to strengthen and retain
the ascendency of the Republican party than any and all other
reasons_.

"The real causes of the recent disturbances in the money market
are the following:

"First. Government bonds have come back from Europe faster than
investment orders would absorb them--the surplus are carried on
call loans and have absorbed several millions of dollars.

"Second. The financial troubles in England are retarding the rapid
movement of western produce. The elevators at Chicago and Milwaukee
are full of grain; at Chicago alone about 7,000,000 bushels. The
currency sent west to pay for this grain will not be released until
the grain is marketed.

"Third. A large amount of foreign capital usually lent on call in
Wall street has been transferred to London and Liverpool as money
commands (or has until recently) better rates there than in New
York.

"I remain, yours very truly,
"Jay Gould."

The purchase of four per cent. bonds sensibly increased in October.
As the six per cent. bonds could not be paid within ninety days
after the call, the purchasers of the four per cent. bonds claimed
the right to pay for such bonds in United States notes, which on
the 1st of January would be redeemable in coin. To this I replied
that as the sale of four per cent. bonds was solely for the purpose
of refunding the six per cent. bonds, the proceeds of the sale must
be such as could be lawfully paid for called bonds. "Under existing
law the treasury is required to and will redeem in coin, on and
after January 1, 1879, United States legal tender notes, on
presentation at the sub-treasury in New York, and will then receive
such notes in payment for four per cent. bonds. The department
does not anticipate any change in the law that would operate to
prevent this, but cannot stipulate against any act which Congress
in its judgment may pass."

Every facility which the law allowed to promote the easy change in
the basis of our currency was carefully considered and adopted.
The chief measure adopted was to promote exchanges in the clearing
house in New York, so that only the balance of debits or credits
would actually be paid. I requested Assistant Secretary French to
examine whether, under existing law, such an arrangement was in
the power of the department, and called his attention to previous
correspondence in 1875 in the department on this subject. He came
to the conclusion that the existing law would not justify such an
arrangement. John Jay Knox, comptroller of the currency, however,
favored the admission of the assistant treasurer of the United
States at New York as a member of the clearing house. He said:

"The proposition is favored by the banks generally, and it is
believed that the representation of the treasury department in the
clearing house will facilitate the transaction of business between
the department and the banks, and I therefore respectfully suggest
that application be made for the admission of the assistant treasurer
in New York to the Clearing House Association, provided it shall
be found that there is no legal objection thereto."

General Hillhouse also was strongly in favor of the plan proposed.
He said:

"The plan of going into the clearing house was proposed in
correspondence with the department several years ago, as a remedy
for the risk incurred in the collection of checks, and if there
are no legal impediments in the way, it would very much simplify
the business of the office if it could be adopted. The effect in
connection with resumption would also, I think, be good, as it
would place the banks and the treasury on the same footing with
respect to the use of United States notes in settlements, and thus
aid in maintaining them at par with gold in all the vast transactions
connected with our internal trade and commerce. I have not given
the question sufficient thought to speak with confidence, but it
seems to me a very important one, and well worthy of careful
consideration."

A committee of the clearing house called upon me and the subject
was thoroughly considered. Mr. Gilfillan wrote to General Hillhouse
as follows:

"Treasury of the United States.}
"Washington, November 9, 1878. }
"Sir:--By direction of the secretary, I have the honor to request
that you will submit to the Clearing House Association of the banks
of your city the following propositions, and, upon obtaining the
assent of the association to them and communicating that fact to
the department, you are expected to act in conformity with them.

"First. Hereafter, drafts drawn upon any bank represented in the
Clearing House Association in the city of New York, received by
the assistant treasurer in that city, may be presented to such bank
at the clearing house for payment.

"Second. Hereafter, drafts drawn on the assistant treasurer at
New York may be adjusted by him at the clearing house, and the
balances due from the United States may be paid at his office in
United States notes or clearing house certificates.

"Third. After the 1st of January next, payment of checks presented
to the assistant treasurer by any bank connected with the clearing
house may be made by him in United States notes.

"Very respectfully,
"James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.
"Hon. Thomas Hillhouse, Assistant Treasurer United States, New
York."

General Hillhouse, on the 12th of November, advised me of the
receipt of this letter, and that the propositions of the treasurer
were referred to the Clearing House Association, that a meeting
would be held and there was little doubt but that they would be
accepted.

On the same day the Clearing House Association, fifty out of fifty-
eight banks, members of the associations, being present, unanimously
adopted the following resolutions:

"_Resolved_, That in order to facilitate the payment of drafts and
checks, between the treasurer of the United States and the associated
banks, the manager of the New York clearing house is authorized to
make such an arrangement with the assistant treasurer as will
accomplish that purpose through the medium of the clearing house.

"_Resolved_, That the reported interview between the members of
the clearing house committee and the Secretary of the Treasury,
with the views expressed by them to him in the paper presented to
this meeting upon the subject of the restoration of specie payments,
meets the cordial approbation of this association, and that the
practical measures recommended for the adoption of the banks in
respect to their treatment of coin in their business in the public,
and with each other, be accepted and carried into practical operation;
and, in pursuance thereof, it is hereby further

"_Resolved_, That the associated banks of this city, after the 1st
of January, 1879, will, first, decline receiving gold coins as
'special deposits,' but accept and treat them as lawful money;
second, abolish special exchanges of gold checks at the clearing
house; third, pay and receive balances between banks at the clearing
house, either in gold or United States legal tender notes; fourth,
receive silver dollars upon deposit only, under special contract
to withdraw the same in kind; fifth, prohibit payments of balances
at the clearing house in silver certificates, or in silver dollars,
excepting as subsidiary coin, in small sums (say under $10); sixth,
discontinue gold special accounts, by notice to dealers, on 1st of
January next, to terminate them.

"_Resolved_, That the manager of the clearing house be requested
to send copies of the proceedings of this meeting to clearing houses
in other cities, with an expression of the hope that they will
unite in similar measures for promoting the resumption of coin
payments."

I accepted in the following note:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., November 13, 1878.}
"George S. Cox, President American Exchange National Bank, New York.

"Sir:--Your letter of yesterday, advising me of the adoption by
the Clearing House Association of the result of our recent interview,
is received with much pleasure.

"The end we all aim at, a specie standard and a redeemable currency,
is greatly promoted by the judicious action of the banks, and I
will, with greater confidence, do my part officially in securing
the maintenance of resumption.

"John Sherman, Secretary."

This arrangement, entered into with care, proved to be a measure
of very great advantage to the government as well as to all business
men engaged in the great commercial operations of New York. The
necessary details to carry this agreement into effect were arranged
between General Hillhouse, for the United States, and W. A. Camp,
manager of the New York clearing house.

CHAPTER XXV.
INVESTIGATION OF THE NEW YORK CUSTOMHOUSE.
A General Examination of Several Ports Ordered--No Difficulty Except
at New York--First Report of the Commission--President Hayes'
Recommendations--Letter of Instructions to Collector C. A. Arthur
--Second Report of the Commission--Losses to the Government by
Reason of Inefficiency of Employees--Various Measures of Reform
Recommended--Four Other Reports Made--The President Decides on the
Removal of Arthur, Cornell and Sharpe--Two Letters to R. C. McCormick
on the Subject--Arthur et al. Refuse to Resign--The Senate Twice
Refuses to Confirm the Men Appointed by the President to Succeed
Them--Conkling's Contest Against Civil Service Reform--My Letter
to Senator Allison--Final Victory of the President.

At the beginning of the administration of President Hayes, and for
months previous, there had been complaints as to the conduct of
business in the principal customhouses of the United States. This
was especially called to my attention, and at my suggestion the
President directed an examination into the conduct of the customhouses
at New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Francisco and perhaps
other ports. Examinations were made by intelligent business men
selected in the various ports, and full reports were made by them,
and printed as public documents. Many changes were made, and
reforms adopted, founded upon these reports, and there was no
difficulty except only at the port of New York, where more than
two-thirds of all the customs revenue was collected. Chester A.
Arthur was then collector of the port, A. B. Cornell was naval
officer, and George H. Sharpe was appraiser.

On the 23rd of April, 1877, I designated John Jay, Lawrence Turnure,
of New York, and J. H. Robinson, Assistant Solicitor of the Treasury,
as a commission on the New York customhouse. They were requested
to make a thorough examination into the conduct of business in that
customhouse. Full instructions were given and many specifications
were made in detail of all the points embraced in their examination.

On the 24th of May they made their first report, preferring to
treat the general subject-matter separately. This report related
chiefly to appointments upon political influence without due regard
to efficiency. I promptly referred it to the President, and received
the following letter:

"Executive Mansion, }
"Washington, May 26, 1877.}
"My Dear Sir:--I have read the partial report of the commission
appointed to examine the New York customhouse. I concur with the
commission in their recommendations. It is my wish that the
collection of the revenues should be free from partisan control,
and organized on a strictly business basis, with the same guarantees
for efficiency and fidelity in the selection of the chief and
subordinate officers that would be required by a prudent merchant.
Party leaders should have no more influence in appointments than
any other equally respectable citizens. No assessments for political
purposes, on officers or subordinates, should be allowed. No
useless officer or employee should be retained. No officer should
be required or permitted to take part in the management of political
organizations, caucuses, conventions, or election campaigns. Their
right to vote, and to express their views on public questions,
either orally or through the press, is not denied, provided it does
not interfere with the discharge of their official duties.

"Respectfully,
"R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman, etc."

My answer to the commission was as follows:

"Treasury Department, May 26, 1877.
"Gentlemen:--Your first report on the customhouse in New York, of
date the 24th instant, has been received, and the reduction proposed
by you of twenty per cent. of the number of persons employed therein
is approved.

"So far as these offices are created by law, vacancies will be made
and left for the action of Congress. The reduction of the other
employees, the number of whom and whose compensation are not fixed
by law, will be made as soon as practicable.

"I am much gratified that the collector, the naval officer, and
the surveyor of the port, concur with you in the proposed reduction.

"The hours of employment, after the 31st of this month, will be
from 9 o'clock a. m. till 4 o'clock p. m., excepting where a longer
time is prescribed by law. This corresponds to the hours of clerical
service in this department. This rule will be strictly enforced,
and absence will be the cause of reduction of pay or removal.
Strict attention to duty will be required, and other business will
not be allowed to interfere with the full discharge of the duty
attached to the office.

"I notice that you do not suggest a mode of carrying into effect
the reduction of the force recommended, and I cannot, with due
regard to the remaining subjects of your inquiry, ask you to extend
your investigation into the _personnel_ of each employee, his
character, efficiency, and merits. This must be mainly left to
the collector, who, by law, is authorized to employ, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, proper persons as deputy
collectors, weighers, gaugers, and measurers, in the several ports
within his district. Thus, nearly all the officers of the customhouse
are appointed by the collector, and, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, may be removed at pleasure. He will be
promptly called upon, under special orders, to perform this delicate
and onerous duty. It is very important that it should be executed
with due regard to the efficiency and merit of the employees, and
so as best to promote the public service.

"In order that a rule might be furnished him, I called upon the
President for instructions to govern alike the collector and myself
in the execution of this duty. A copy of his answer is hereto
annexed. You will see from it that he approves your recommendations,
and that he wishes the customhouse conducted free from partisan
control, on a strictly business basis, with the same guarantees
for efficiency and fidelity in the selection of the chief and
subordinate officers that would be required by a prudent merchant;
that the public business should not be affected injuriously by the
interests or influence of party leaders or party struggles; and
that, while an officer should freely exercise his political rights
as a citizen, he should not use his power as an officer to influence
the conduct of others.

"I believe the opinions expressed by the President will meet with
your hearty approval, and they are in harmony with your report.

"Permit me to add the thanks of this department for your care,
ability and industry in conducting this inquiry.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"Messrs. John Jay, L. Turnure, and J. H. Robinson,
"Commission on Custom House, New York."

I inclosed a copy of the report of the commission to Collector
Arthur, with the following letter of instruction:

"Treasury Department, May 28, 1877.
"Sir:--Inclosed I send you a copy of the first report of the
commission on the New York customhouse, recommending a large
reduction of the employees in the various offices in your collection
district, and the approval and adoption of that report.

"It only remains now to execute this order, upon the principles
and in the spirit stated by the President. This task, always an
unpleasant one, when it requires the removal of employees, falls
mainly upon you, subject to my approval. It may not be amiss now
for me to state, in advance, somewhat in more detail, my views as
to the mode of reduction. The extent of the reduction is fully
stated in the report, and we are thus relieved from that portion
of the task.

"I notice by the report that you have an exceptionally large
proportion of experienced officers still in the service. You will
have no difficulty in selecting, from these, the more efficient
and trustworthy to fill the more important positions, and when
these are carefully selected, you will have secured for the duties
of greatest trust, active, efficient, and experienced officers.
It must happen that among those longest in service some are disabled
by age and infirmity. It is often the most painful, but necessary,
duty, to dismiss there, or reduce them to positions which they are
still able to fill. The government is fairly entitled to the
services of those who are fully able to discharge personally the
duties of their office, and who are willing to give their entire
attention to their official duty. If they cannot, or do not, do
this, it is no injustice to remove them.

"In the selection of inferior officers, the only rule should be
the one daily acted upon by merchants--to employ only those who
are competent for the special work assigned them, whose industry,
integrity, and good habits give guarantees for faithful services,
honestly rendered. This reduction will enable you to transfer
those now employed on work for which they are not fitted, to other
work for which they are competent, and to reward exceptional merit
and ability by promotion.

"It is impossible, in a force so large as yours, that you should
know the peculiar qualities and merits of each employee, and it is
important, in making selections, that you secure this information
through committees of trusted officers, and in proper cases to test
the intelligence, ability, and qualifications of an officer or
applicant for office by written questions or an oral examination.
In many cases the partiality and influence of relations secure
several persons of the same family in office, thus causing complaints
and favoritism. As a rule, it is best in all cases to have but
one of the same family under your jurisdiction, and no just complaint
can be made if this rule is impartially enforced.

"The President properly lays great stress on excluding from a purely
business office active participation in party politics. Naturally,
in a government like ours, other things being equal, those will be
preferred who sympathize with the party in power; but persons in
office ought not to be expected to serve their party to the neglect
of official duty, or to promote the interests of particular
candidates, or to interfere with the free course of popular opinion,
or to run caucuses or conventions. Such activity of office-holders
is offensive to the great mass of the people who hold no office,
and gives rise to complaints and irritation. If any have been
appointed for purely political reasons, without regard to their
efficiency, now is a good time to get rid of them.

"Where actual misconduct is proven, such as receiving gratuities
or bribes, or oppression or insolence in office, or even the want
of common courtesy, or drunkenness or other bad habits tending to
degrade the officer, or absence from or neglect of duty--in all
such cases I know it will be your pleasure to dismiss the employee.

"The payment of taxes is not pleasant at best, but if rudely enforced
by oppression or discreditable officers, it renders the tax as well
as the tax-collector odious.

"I do not fix any time within which this reduction must be made,
but shall expect it to be completed by the 30th day of June proximo.
So far as the reduction is specifically made by the adoption of
the report, it should be made by the 1st day of June, and it should
be made as to each particular division or department of the
customhouse as early as practicable.

"After all, the success of this movement for reform of old abuses,
which existed for many years before you became collector, will
depend mainly upon your good sense and discretion. I assure you
I will heartily sustain and approve any recommendation you may make
that appears to me to tend to make the New York customhouse--not
only what it now is, the most important, but what it ought to be--
the best managed business agency of the government.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary.
"C. A. Arthur, Esq., Collector of Customs, New York."

When the inquiry commenced there was no purpose or desire on the
part of the President or anyone to make a change in the officers
of the New York customhouse. This is apparent from my letter to
Collector Arthur. The commission proceeded with their examination,
and on the 2nd of July made their second report. This contained
specific charges, but of a general character, against persons
employed in the customhouse. They found that for many years past,
the view had obtained with some political leaders that the friends
of the administration in power had a right to control the customs
appointments; and this view, which seemed to have been acquiesced
in by successive administrations, had of late been recognized to
what the commission deemed an undue extent by the chief officers
of the service. These gentlemen, on the ground that they were
compelled to surrender to personal and partisan dictation, appeared
to have assumed that they were relieved, in part, at least, from
the responsibilities that belonged to the appointing power.

The collector of the port, in speaking of the "ten thousand
applications," and remarking that the urgency for appointments came
from men all over the country, added, "the persons for whom it is
made bear their proportion of the responsibility for the character
of the whole force."

The surveyor had said:

"I had, within the last two weeks, a letter, from a gentleman
holding a high official position, in regard to the appointment of
an officer whom he knows had been dropped three times from the
service for cause. He has also been to see me about him, and the
last time he came he admitted to me that he had been engaged in
defrauding the revenue; and yet he writes me calling my attention
to the case, and requesting his appointment."

The collector, in his testimony before the commission, said that
"the larger number of complaints probably come from the surveyor
of the port," and, on being asked their character, said:

"Some are for inefficiency, some are for neglect of duty, some for
inebriety, and some for improper conduct in various ways; some for
want of integrity, and some for accepting bribes."

The commission further stated:

"The investigation showed that ignorance and incapacity on the part
of the employees were not confined to the surveyor's department,
but were found in other branches of the service--creating delays
and mistakes, imperiling the safety of the revenues and the interests
of importers, and bringing the service into reproach. It was
intimated by chiefs of departments that men were sent to them
without brains enough to do the work, and that some of those
appointed to perform the delicate duties of the appraiser's office,
requiring the special qualities of an expert, were better fitted
to hoe and to plow. Some employees were incapacitated by age, some
by ignorance, some by carelessness and indifference; and parties
thus unfitted have been appointed, not to perform routine duties
distinctly marked, but to exercise a discretion in questions
demanding intelligence and integrity, and involving a large amount
of revenue.

"The evidence shows a degree and extent of carelessness which we
think should not be permitted to continue. This point was illustrated
to some degree by the testimony of the chiefs of the appraiser's
department, the important duties of which would certainly justify
a reasonable exactness. The invoices, which are recorded in that
office, and which are sent out to the different divisions to be
passed upon and then returned to the chief clerk, are found to
exhibit, on their return, errors on the part of the several divisions
--according to one witness, nearly eight hundred errors a month--
although the number by the appraiser was estimated at a lesser
figure. A part of these errors may be assigned to a difference of
opinion as to the classification of the goods; but fully one-half
are attributed to carelessness. At the naval office it was stated
that the balance in favor of the government, of the many and large
errors which they discover in the customhouse accounts of the
liquidation of vessels and statements of refund, amounts to about
a million and a half of dollars per annum."

The commission entered into a full statement and details as to
irregularities, inefficiency and neglect of duties in different
departments of the customhouse, and recommended various measures
of reform, both in the laws regulating the customs service and its
actual administration. A copy of this report was immediately sent
to Collector Arthur and Naval Officer Cornell, with instructions
to recommend to me the number of each grade for each branch of his
office, with various details designated by me, and to carry into
execution the general recommendations of the commission. I added:

"You will please take your own way, by committee of your officers
or otherwise, to fix the number of each grade requisite to conduct
the business of your office, and make report as early as
practicable."

The third report was made on the 21st of July, and related to the
management of the department of weighers and gaugers.

The fourth report, made on the 31st of August, related to the
appraiser's office. In acknowledging the receipt of this report
on the 12th of September, I stated:

"The recommendations made by you will be fully examined in detail,
and be acted upon cotemporaneously with the proposed change in the
leading officers of that customhouse."

Two other reports were made, dated October 31 and November 1, 1877,
the latter containing suggestions as to the recommendations of
legislative amendments to various existing laws and usages.

After the receipt of the report of August 31 the President, who
had carefully read the several reports, announced his desire to
make a change in the three leading officers of the New York
customhouse. He wished to place it upon the ground that he thought
the public service would be best promoted by a general change, that
new officers would be more likely to make the radical reforms
required that those then in the customhouse. The matter was
submitted to the cabinet, and I was requested to communicate with
these officers, in the hope that they would resign and relive the
President from the unpleasant embarrassment of removing them. On
the 6th of September I wrote to Richard C. McCormick, Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury, who was then at his home near New York
on account of illness, the following letter. I knew that Mr.
McCormick was on friendly terms with Collector Arthur, and that he
might better than I inform him of the wish of the President to
receive the resignations of himself, and Messrs. Cornell and Sharpe:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., September 6, 1877.}
"Dear Governor:--After a very full consideration, and a very kindly
one, the President, with the cordial assent of his cabinet, came
to the conclusion that the public interests demanded a change in
the three leading offices in New York, and a public announcement
of that character was authorized. I am quite sure that this will,
on the whole, be considered to be a wise result. The manner of
making the changes and the persons to be appointed will be a subject
of careful and full consideration, but it is better to know that
it is determined upon and ended. This made it unnecessary to
consider the telegrams in regard to Mr. Cornell. It is probable
that no special point would have been made upon his holding his
position as chairman of the state committee for a limited time,
but even that was not the thing, the real question being that,
whether he resigned or not, it was better that he and Arthur and
Sharpe should all give way to new men, to try definitely a new
policy in the conduct of the New York customhouse.

"I have no doubt, unless these gentlemen should make it impossible
by their conduct hereafter, that they will be treated with the
utmost consideration, and, for one, I have no hesitation in saying
that I hope General Arthur will be recognized in a most complimentary
way.

"Things are going on quietly here, but we miss you very much. Hope
you will have a pleasant time and return to us in fresh health and
vigor.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. R. C. McCormick."

On the next day I wrote him a supplementary letter:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., September 7, 1877.}
"Dear Governor:--Your note of yesterday is received.

"The action of the President on the New York customhouse cases
turned upon the general question of change there, and not upon
Cornell's case. It happened in this way: General Sharpe, in a
very manly letter, withdrew his application for reappointment as
surveyor of the port. In considering the question of successor
the main point, as to whether the changes in the New York customhouse
rendered necessary a general change of the heads of the departments,
was very fully and very kindly considered, and, without any reference
to Cornell's matter, until it was thought, as a matter of public
policy, it was best to make change in these heads, with some details
about it which I will communicate to you when you return. When
that was seen to be the unanimous opinion, it was thought hardly
worth while to single out Mr. Cornell's case, and act upon it on
the question that affected him alone. If he was allowed to resign
from the committee, it would undoubtedly be upon an implied
supposition that he would be continued as naval officer. I think
even yet he ought to do as he proposed to Orton, but we could not
afford to have him do it with any such implied assent, and, therefore,
it was deemed better to make the formal announcement agreed upon.
You know how carefully such things are considered, and, after a
night's reflection, I am satisfied of the wisdom of the conclusion.

"I want to see Arthur, and have requested him to come here. You
can say to him that, with the kindest feelings, and, as he will
understand when he sees me, with a proper appreciation of his
conduct during the examination by the commission, there should be
no feeling about this in New York. At all events, what has been
done is beyond recall.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. R. C. McCormick."

Mr. McCormick complied with my request, and orally reported his
interview on his return to Washington. We were given to understand
that these officers did not wish to be removed pending the
investigation, as it would seem that they were charged with the
acknowledged defects and irregularities which they themselves had
pointed out. The President was quite willing to base his request
for their resignation, not upon the ground that they were guilty
of the offenses charged, but that new officers could probably deal
with the reorganization of the customhouse with more freedom and
success than the incumbents. I also saw General Arthur, and
explained to him the view taken by the President and his desire
not in any way to reflect upon the collector and his associates,
Cornell and Sharpe. I believed that at the close of the investigation
by the commission these gentlemen would resign, and that their
character and merits would be recognized possibly by appointments
to other offices.

Acting on this idea, on the 15th of October, I wrote the following
letter to Arthur:

"Washington, D. C., October 15, 1877.
"Dear Sir:--I regret to hear from Mr. Evarts that you decline the
consulship at Paris which I supposed would be very agreeable to you.

"As the time has arrived when your successor must be appointed, I
submit to you whether, though your resignation might be inferred
from your letters on file, it would not be better for you to tender
it formally before your successor is appointed.

"The President desires to make this change in a way most agreeable
to you, and it would be most convenient to have it announced to-
morrow.

"An early answer is requested.

"Very truly, etc.,
"John Sherman.
"General C. A. Arthur, Collector Customs, New York."

It soon became manifest that these gentlemen had no purpose to
resign, and that Senator Conkling intended to make a political
contest against the policy of civil service reform inaugurated by
President Hayes. On the 24th of October, 1877, the President sent
to the Senate the nominations of Theodore Roosevelt to succeed
Arthur as collector, Edwin A. Merritt to succeed George H. Sharpe
as surveyor, and L. B. Prince to succeed A. B. Cornell as naval
officer. All of them were rejected by the Senate on the 29th of
October. On the 6th day of December, during the following session,
Roosevelt, Prince and Merritt were again nominated, and the two
former were again rejected. Merritt was confirmed as surveyor on
the 16th of December.

This action of the Senate was indefensible. There was not the
slightest objection to Roosevelt or Prince, and none was made.
The reasons for a change were given in the report of the Jay
commission. Even without this report the right of the President
to appoint these officers was given by the constitution. To compel
the President to retain anyone in such an office, charged with the
collection of the great body of the revenue from customs, in the
face of such reasons as were given for removal, was a gross breach
of public duty. No doubt the Democratic majority in the Senate
might defend themselves with political reasons, but the motive of
Mr. Conkling was hostility to President Hayes and his inborn desire
to domineer. The chief embarrassment fell upon me. I wished to
execute the reforms needed in the collector's office, but could
only do it with his consent. The co-operation required was not
given, and the office was held in profound contempt of the President.
If the rejection of these nominations had been placed upon the
ground of unfitness, other names could have been sent to the Senate,
but there was no charge of that kind, while specific and definite
charges were made against the incumbents. Other names were mentioned
to the President, and suggestions were made, among others by Whitelaw
Reid, whose letter I insert:

"New York, March 29, 1878.
"My Dear Mr. Sherman:--Leaving Washington unexpectedly this morning,
I was unable to call again at the treasury department in accordance
with your polite invitation of last night. I have, however, been
thinking over the customhouse problem of which you asked my opinion.
It seems to me, more and more clear, that, if a new appointment is
to be made, it should be controlled by two considerations: First,
the appointee should be a man who can be confirmed; and, second,
he should be a man equal to all the practical duties of the place,
which are necessarily and essentially political as well as
mercantile.

"To nominate another man only to have him rejected would do great
harm, and the confirmation cannot, by any means, be taken for
granted. I believe it is possible to select some well-known man,
who has carefully studied the subject of revenue collection, and
could bring to the task executive skill, experience, and sound
business and political sagacity, and that such a nomination could
be confirmed. I assume, of course, that any movement of this sort
would be based upon the previous removal of the present incumbent,
for good cause--of which I have been hearing rumors for some time.

"Pray let me renew more formally the invitation to dine with me,
on the evening of the 10th of April, at seven o'clock, at the Union
League Club, to meet Mr. Bayard Taylor just before his departure
for Berlin. I sincerely hope you can arrange your movements after
the Chester visit so as to make it possible.

"Very truly yours,
"Whitelaw Reid.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C."

The President would not make other appointments during the session
of the Senate, as the implication would arise that the rejections
were based upon opposition to the persons named, and he, therefore,
postponed any action until the close of the session.

After the close of the session, on the 11th of July, 1878, the
President gave temporary commissions to Edwin A. Merritt as collector
to succeed C. A. Arthur, and Silas W. Burt to succeed Cornell as
naval officer, and these gentlemen entered upon the duties of their
respective offices.

On the following December it became necessary to send their
nominations to the Senate. I had definitely made up my mind that
if the Senate again rejected them I would resign. I would not hold
an office when my political friends forced me to act through
unfriendly subordinates. I wrote a letter to Senator Allison as
follows:

"Washington, D. C., January 31, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--I would not bother you with this personal matter,
but that I feel the deepest interest in the confirmation of General
Merritt, which I know will be beneficial to us as a party, and
still more so to the public service. Personally I have the deepest
interest in it because I have been unjustly assailed in regard to
it in the most offensive manner. I feel free to appeal to you and
Windom, representing as you do western states, and being old friends
and acquaintances, to take into consideration this personal aspect
of the case. If the restoration of Arthur is insisted upon, the
whole liberal element will be against us and it will lose us tens
of thousands of votes without doing a particle of good. No man
could be a more earnest Republican than I, and I feel this political
loss as much as anyone can. It will be a personal reproach to me,
and merely to gratify the insane hate of Conkling, who in this
respect disregards the express wishes of the Republican Members
from New York, of the great body of Republicans, and, as I personally
know, runs in antagonism to his nearest and best friends in the
Senate.

"Surely men like you and Windom, who have the courage of your
convictions, should put a stop to this foolish and unnecessary
warfare. Three or four men who will tell Conkling squarely that,
while you are his friends, you will not injure our party and our
cause, would put a stop to this business. Arthur will not go back
into the office. This contest will be continued, and the only
result of all this foolish madness will be to compel a Republican
administration to appeal to a Democratic Senate for confirmation
of a collector at New York. It is a most fatal mistake.

"I intended to call upon some of the Senators this morning, but I
am very much pressed, and will ask you to show this in confidence
to Senator Windom, as I have not time to write him.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. W. B. Allison, U. S. Senate."

I wrote to Senator Justin S. Morrill a much longer letter, giving
reasons in detail in favor of confirmation and containing specific
charges of neglect of duty on the part of Arthur and Cornell, but
I do not care to revive them.

Conkling was confident of defeating the confirmations, and thus
restoring Arthur and Cornell. The matter was decided, after a
struggle of seven hours in the Senate, by the decisive vote in
favor of confirmation of Merritt 33, and against him 24, in favor
of Burt 31, against 19. From this time forward there was but slight
opposition to the confirmation of Hayes' appointments. The reforms
proposed in the customhouse at New York were carried out.

This termination of the controversy with Arthur and Cornell was
supported by public opinion generally throughout the United States.
I insert a letter from John Jay upon the subject.

"N. Y. C. H., 24 Washington Square,}
"New York, February 3, 1879. }
"The Honorable John Sherman.

"My Dear Sir:--Allow me to thank you for the two papers you have
kindly sent me, in reference to the customhouse, the last of which,
the firm message of the President with your second conclusive
letter, reached me to-day.

"Whatever may be the result in the Senate, and I can scarcely
believe that, after so full an exposure, the nomination will be
rejected, the plain-thinking people of this country will appreciate
the attitude taken by the government as the only one consistent
with the duty of the executive and the general welfare.

"It will give new hope and confidence to the great body of Republicans,
and to many who can hardly be called Republicans, who look to the
administration for an unflinching adherence--no matter what the
opposition--to the pledge of reform on which the party was successful
in the last election, and on fidelity to which depends its safety
in the next.

"The country is infinitely indebted to you for redeeming its faith
by a return to honest money. A new debt will be incurred of yet
wider scope if you succeed in liberating the custom service from
the vicious grip of the immoral factions of office holders and
their retainers, who have made it a scandal to the nation with such
gigantic loss to the treasury and immeasurable damage to our
commerce, industry and morals.

"I hope that the President will feel that all good citizens who
are not blinded by prejudice or interest are thoroughly with him
in the policy and resolve of his message that the customhouse shall
no longer be 'a center of partisan political management.'

"With great regard I have the honor to be, dear Mr. Sherman,

"Faithfully yours,
"John Jay."

The annual report made by me to Congress on the 2nd of December,
1878, contained the usual formal information as to the condition
of the treasury, and the various bureaus and divisions of that
department. It was regarded as a fair statement of public affairs
at a time of unusual prosperity. The revenue in excess of expenditures
during the year amounted to $20,799,551.90.

The statement made by me in this report, in respect to the resumption
of specie payments on the 1st day of January, 1879, is so closely
a narrative of what did happen before and after that date that I
deem it best to quote the language of the report. I then said:

"The important duty imposed on this department by the resumption
act, approved January 14, 1875, has been steadily pursued during
the past year. The plain purpose of the act is to secure to all
interests and all classes the benefits of a sound currency, redeemable
in coin, with the least possible disturbance of existing rights
and contracts. Three of its provisions have been substantially
carried into execution by the gradual substitution of fractional
coin for fractional currency, by the free coinage of gold, and by
free banking. There remains only the completion of preparations
for resumption in coin on the 1st day of January, 1879, and its
maintenance thereafter upon the basis of existing law.

"At the date of my annual report to Congress in December, 1877, it
was deemed necessary, as a preparation for resumption, to accumulate
in the treasury a coin reserve of at least forty per cent. of the
amount of United States notes then outstanding. At that time it
was anticipated that under the provisions of the resumption act
the volume of United States notes would be reduced to $300,000,000
by the 1st day of January, 1879, or soon thereafter, and that a
reserve in coin of $120,000,000 would then be sufficient. Congress,
however, in view of the strong popular feeling against a contraction
of the currency, by the act approved May 31, 1878, forbade the
retirement of any United States notes after that date, leaving the
amount in circulation $346,681,016. Upon the principle of safety
upon which the department was acting, that forty per cent. of coin
was the smallest reserve upon which resumption could prudently be
commenced, it became necessary to increase the coin reserve to
$138,000,000.

"At the close of the year 1877 this coin reserve, in excess of coin
liability, amounted to $63,016,050.96, of which $15,000,000 were
obtained by the sale of four and a half per cent., and $25,000,000
by the sale of four per cent. bonds, the residue being surplus
revenue. Subsequently, on the 11th day of April, 1878, the secretary
entered into a contract with certain bankers in New York and London
--the parties to the previous contract of June 9, 1877, already
communicated to Congress--for the sale of $50,000,000 four and a
half per cent. bonds for resumption purposes. The bonds were sold
at a premium of one and a half per cent. and accrued interest, less
a commission of one-half of one per cent. The contract has been
fulfilled, and the net proceeds, $50,500,000, have been paid into
the treasury in gold coin. The $5,500,000 coin paid on the Halifax
award have been replaced by the sale of that amount of four per
cent. bonds sold for resumption purposes, making the aggregate
amount of bonds sold for these purposes, $95,500,000, of which
$65,000,000 were four and a half per cent. bonds, and $30,500,000
four per cent. bonds. To this has been added the surplus revenue
from time to time. The amount of coin held in the treasury on the
23rd day of November last, in excess of coin sufficient to pay all
accrued coin liabilities, was $141,888,100, and constitutes the
coin reserve prepared for resumption purposes. This sum will be
diminished somewhat on the 1st of January next, by reason of the
large amount of interest accruing on that day in excess of the coin
revenue received meanwhile.

"In anticipation of resumption, and in view of the fact that the
redemption of United States notes is mandatory only at the office
of the assistant treasurer in the city of New York, it was deemed
important to secure the co-operation of the associated banks of
that city in the ready collection of drafts on those banks and in
the payment of treasury drafts held by them. A satisfactory
arrangement has been made by which all drafts on the banks held by
the treasury are to be paid at the clearing house, and all drafts
on the treasury held by them are to be paid to the clearing house
at the office of the assistant treasurer, in United States notes;
and, after the 1st of January, United States notes are to be received
by them as coin. This will greatly lessen the risk and labor of
collections both to the treasury and the banks.

"Every step in these preparations for resumption has been accompanied
with increased business and confidence. The accumulation of coin,
instead of increasing its price, as was feared by many, has steadily
reduced its premium on the market. The depressing and ruinous
losses that followed the panic of 1873 had not diminished in 1875,
when the resumption act passed; but every measure taken in the
execution or enforcement of this act has tended to lighten these
losses and to reduce the premium on coin, so that now it is merely
nominal. The present condition of our trade, industry, and commerce,
hereafter more fully stated, our ample reserves, and the general
confidence inspired in our financial condition, seem to justify
the opinion that we are prepared to commence and maintain resumption
from and after the 1st day of January, A. D. 1879.

"The means and manner of doing this are left largely to the discretion
of the secretary, but, from the nature of the duty imposed, he must
restore coin and bullion, when withdrawn in the process of redemption,
either by the sale of bonds, or the use of the surplus revenue, or
of the notes redeemed from time to time.

"The power to sell any of the bonds described in the refunding act
continues after as well as before resumption. Thought it may not
be often used, it is essential to enable this department to meet
emergencies. By its exercise it is anticipated that the treasury
at any time can readily obtain coin to reinforce the reserve already
accumulated. United States notes must, however, be the chief means
under existing law with which the department must restore coin and
bullion when withdrawn in process of redemption. The notes, when
redeemed, must necessarily accumulate in the treasury until their
superior use and convenience for circulation enables the department
to exchange them at par for coin or bullion.

"The act of May 31, 1878, already referred to, provides that when
United States notes are redeemed or received in the treasury under
any law, from any source whatever, and shall belong to the United
States, they shall not be retired, canceled, or destroyed, but
shall be reissued and paid out again and kept in circulation.

"The power to reissue United States notes was conferred by section
3579, Revised Statutes, and was not limited by the resumption act.
As this, however, was questioned, Congress wisely removed the doubt.

"Notes redeemed are like other notes received into the treasury.
Payments of them can be made only in consequence of appropriations
made by law, or for the purchase of bullion, or for the refunding
of the public debt.

"The current receipts from revenue are sufficient to meet the
current expenditures as well as the accruing interest on the public
debt. Authority is conferred by the refunding act to redeem six
per cent. bonds as they become redeemable, by the proceeds of the
sale of bonds bearing a lower rate of interest. The United States
notes redeemed under the resumption act are, therefore, the principal
means provided for the purchase of bullion or coin with which to
maintain resumption, but should only be paid out when they can be
used to replace an equal amount of coin withdrawn from the resumption
fund. They may, it is true, be used for current purposes like
other money, but when so used their place is filled by money received
from taxes or other sources of income.

"In daily business no distinction need be made between moneys, from
whatever source received, but they may properly be applied to any
of the purposes authorized by law. No doubt coin liabilities, such
as interest or principal of the public debt, will be ordinarily
paid and willingly received in United States notes, but, when
demanded, such payments will be made in coin; and United States
notes and coin will be used in the purchase of bullion. This method
has already been adopted in Colorado and North Carolina, and
arrangements are being perfected to purchase bullion in this way
in all the mining regions of the United States.

"By the act approved June 8, 1878, the Secretary of the Treasury
is authorized to constitute any superintendent of a mint, or assayer
of any assay office, an assistant treasurer of the United States,
to receive gold coin or bullion on deposit. By the legislative
appropriation bill, approved June 19, 1878, the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to issue coin certificates in payment to
depositors of bullion at the several mints and assay offices of
the United States. These provisions, intended to secure to the
producers of bullion more speedy payment, will necessarily bring
into the mints and treasury the great body of the precious metals
mined in the United States, and will tend greatly to the easy and
steady supply of bullion for coinage. United States notes, at par
with coin, will be readily received for bullion instead of coin
certificates, and with great advantage and convenience to the
producers.

"Deposits of coin in the treasury will, no doubt, continue to be
made after the 1st of January, as heretofore. Both gold and silver
coin, from its weight and bulk, will naturally seek a safe deposit,
while notes redeemable in coin, from their superior convenience,
will be circulated instead. After resumption the distinction
between coin and United States notes should be, as far as practicable,
abandoned in the current affairs of the government; and therefore
no coin certificates should be issued except where expressly required
by the provisions of law, as in the case of silver certificates.
The gold certificates hitherto issued by virtue of the discretion
conferred upon the secretary will not be issued after the 1st of
January next. The necessity for them during a suspension of specie
payments is obvious, but no longer exists when by law every United
States note is, in effect, a coin certificate. The only purpose
that could be subserved by their issue hereafter would be to enable
persons to convert their notes into coin certificates, and thus
contract the currency and hoard gold in the vaults of the treasury
without the inconvenience or risk of its custody. For convenience,
United States notes of the same denomination as the larger coin
certificates will be issued.

"By existing law, customs duties and the interest of the public
debt are payable in coin, and a portion of the duties was specifically
pledged as a special fund for the payment of the interest, thus
making one provision dependent upon the other. As we cannot, with
due regard to the public honor, repeal the obligation to pay in
coin, we ought not to impair or repeal the means provided to procure
coin. When, happily, our notes are equal to coin, they will be
accepted as coin, both by the public creditor and by the government;
but this acceptance should be left to the option of the respective
parties, and the legal right on both sides to demand coin should
be preserved inviolate.

"The secretary is of the opinion that a change of the law is not
necessary to authorize this department to receive United States
notes for customs duties on and after the 1st day of January, 1879,
while they are redeemable and are redeemed on demand in coin.
After resumption it would seem a useless inconvenience to require
payment of such duties in coin rather than in United States notes.
The resumption act, by clear implication, so far modifies previous
laws as to permit payments in United States notes as well as in
coin. The provision for coin payments was made in the midst of
war, when the notes were depreciated and the public necessities
required an assured revenue in coin to support the public credit.
This alone justified the refusal by the government to take its own
notes for the taxes levied by it. It has now definitely assumed
to pay these notes in coin, and this necessarily implies the receipt
of these notes as coin. To refuse them is only to invite their
presentation for coin. Any other construction would require the
notes to be presented to the assistant treasurer in New York for
coin, and, if used in the purchase of bonds, to be returned to the
same officer, or, if used for the payment of customs duties, to be
carried to the collector of customs, who must daily deposit in the
treasury all money received by him. It is not to be assumed that
the law requires this indirect and inconvenient process after the
notes are redeemable in coin on demand of the holder. They are
then at a parity with coin, and both should be received indiscriminately.

"If United States notes are received for duties at the port of New
York, they should be received for the same purpose in all other
ports of the United States, or an unconstitutional preference would
be given to that port over other ports. If this privilege is denied
to the citizens of other ports, they could make such use of these
notes only by transporting them to New York and transporting the
coin to their homes for payment; and all this not only without
benefit to the government, but with a loss in returning the coin
again to New York, where it is required for redemption purposes.

"The provision in the law for redemption in New York was believed
to be practical redemption in all parts of the United States.
Actual redemption was confined to a single place from the necessity
of maintaining only one coin reserve and where the coin could be
easily accumulated and kept.

"With this view of the resumption act, the secretary will feel it
to be his duty, unless Congress otherwise provides, to direct that
after the 1st day of January next, and while United States notes
are redeemed at the treasury, they be received the same as coin by
the officers of this department, in all payments in all parts of
the United States.

"If any further provision of law is deemed necessary by Congress
to authorize the receipt of United States notes for customs dues
or for bonds, the secretary respectfully submits that this authority
should continue only while the notes are redeemed in coin. However
desirable continuous resumption may be, and however confident we
may feel in its maintenance, yet the experience of many nations
has proven that it may be impossible in periods of great emergency.
In such events the public faith demands that the customs duties
shall be collected in coin and paid to the public creditors, and
this pledge should never be violated or our ability to perform it
endangered.

"Heretofore, the treasury, in the disbursement of currency, has
paid out bills of any denomination desired. In this way the number
of bills of a less denomination than five dollars is determined by
the demand for them. Such would appear to be the true policy after
the 1st of January. It has been urged that, with a view to place
in circulation silver coins, no bills of less than five dollars
should be issued. It would seem to be more just and expedient not
to force any form of money upon a public creditor, but to give him
the option of the kind and denomination. The convenience of the
public, in this respect, should be consulted. The only way by
which moneys of different kinds and intrinsic values can be maintained
in circulation at par with each other is by the ability, when one
kind is in excess, to readily exchange it for the other. This
principle is applicable to coin as well as to paper money. In this
way the largest amount of money of different kinds can be maintained
at par, the different purposes for which each is issued making a
demand for it. The refusal or neglect to maintain this species of
redemption inevitably effects the exclusion from circulation of
the most valuable, which, thereafter, becomes a commodity, bought
and sold at a premium. . . .

"When the resumption act passed, gold was the only coin which by
law was a legal tender in payment of all debts. That act contemplated
resumption in gold coin only. No silver coin of full legal tender
could then be lawfully issued. The only silver coin provided was
fractional coin, which was a legal tender for five dollars only.
The act approved February 28, 1878, made a very important change
in our coinage system. The silver dollar provided for was made a
legal tender for all debts, public and private, except where
otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract.

"The law itself clearly shows that the silver dollar was not to
supersede the gold dollar; nor did Congress propose to adopt the
single standard of silver, but only to create a bimetallic standard
of silver and gold, of equal value and equal purchasing power.
Congress, therefore, limited the amount of silver dollars to be
coined to not less than two millions nor more than four millions
per month, but did not limit the aggregate amount nor the period
of time during which this coinage should continue. The market
value of the silver in the dollar, at the date of the passage of
the act, was 93¼ cents in gold coin. Now it is about 86 cents in
gold coin. If it was intended by Congress to adopt the silver
instead of the gold standard, the amount provided for is totally
inadequate for the purpose. Experience not only in this country,
but in European countries, has established that a certain amount
of silver coin may be maintained in circulation at par with gold,
though of less intrinsic bullion value. It was, no doubt, the
intention of Congress to provide a coin in silver which would answer
a multitude of the purposes of business life, without banishing
from circulation the established gold coin of the country. To
accomplish this it is indispensable either that the silver coin be
limited in amount, or that its bullion value be equal to that of
the gold dollar. If not, it use will be limited to domestic
purposes. It cannot be exported except at its commercial value as
bullion. If issued in excess of demands for domestic purposes, it
will necessarily fall in market value, and, by a well-known principle
of finance, will become the sole coin standard of value. Gold will
be either hoarded or exported. When two currencies, both legal,
are authorized without limit, the cheaper alone will circulate.
If, however, the issue of the silver dollars is limited to an amount
demanded for circulation, there will be no depreciation, and their
convenient use will keep them at par with gold, as fractional silver
coin, issued under the act approved February 21, 1853, was kept at
par with gold.

"The amount of such coin that can thus be maintained at par with
gold cannot be fairly tested until resumption is accomplished. As
yet paper money has been depreciated, and silver dollars, being
receivable for customs dues, have naturally not entered into general
circulation, but have returned to the treasury in payment of such
dues, and thus the only effect of the attempt of the department to
circulate them has been to diminish the gold revenue. After
resumption these coins will circulate in considerable sums for
small payments. To the extent that such demand will give employment
to silver dollars their use will be an aid to resumption rather
than a hindrance, but, if issued in excess of such demand, they
will at once tend to displace gold and become the sole standard,
and gradually, as they increase in number, will fall to their value
as bullion. Even the fear or suspicion of such an excess tends to
banish gold, and, if well established, will cause a continuous
drain of gold until imperative necessity will compel resumption in
silver alone. The serious effect of such a radical change in our
standards of value cannot be exaggerated; and its possibility will
greatly disturb confidence in resumption, and may make necessary
large reserves and further sales of bonds.

"The secretary, therefore, earnestly invokes the attention of
Congress to this subject, with a view that either during the present
or the next session the amount of silver dollars to be issued be
limited, or their ratio to gold for coining purposes be changed.

"Gold and silver have varied in value from time to time in the
history of nations, and laws have been passed to meet this changing
value. In our country, by the act of April 2, 1792, the ratio
between them was fixed at one of gold to fifteen of silver. By
the act of June 28, 1834, the ratio was changed to one of gold to
sixteen of silver. For more than a century the market value of
the two metals had varied between these two ratios, mainly resting
at that fixed by the Latin nations of one to fifteen and a half.

"But we cannot overlook the fact that within a few years, from
causes frequently discussed in Congress, a great change has occurred
in the relative value of the two metals. It would seem to be
expedient to recognize this controlling fact--one that no nation
alone can change--by a careful readjustment of the legal ratio for
coinage of one to sixteen, so as to conform to the relative market
values of the two metals. The ratios heretofore fixed were always
made with that view, and, when made, did conform as near as might
be. Now, that the production and use of the two metals have greatly
changed in relative value, a corresponding change must be made in
the coinage ratio. There is no peculiar force or sanction in the
present ratio that should make us hesitate to adopt another, when,
in the markets of the world, it is proven that such ratio is not
now the true one. The addition of one-tenth or one-eighth to the
thickness of the silver dollar would scarcely be perceived as an
inconvenience by the holder, but would inspire confidence, and add
greatly to its circulation. As prices are now based on United
States notes at par with gold, no disturbance of values would result
from the change.

"It appears, from the recent conference at Paris, invited by us,
that other nations will not join with us in fixing an international
ratio, and that each county must adapt its laws to its own policy.
The tendency of late among commercial nations is to the adoption
of a single standard of gold and the issue of silver for fractional
coin. We may, by ignoring this tendency, give temporarily increased
value to the stores of silver held in Germany and France, until
our market absorbs them, but, by adopting a silver standard as
nearly equal to gold as practicable, we make a market for our large
production of silver, and furnish a full, honest dollar that will
be hoarded, transported, or circulated, without disparagement or
reproach.

"It is respectfully submitted that the United States, already so
largely interested in trade with all parts of the world, and
becoming, by its population, wealth, commerce, and productions, a
leading member of the family of nations, should not adopt a standard
of less intrinsic value than other commercial nations. Alike
interested in silver and gold, as the great producing country of
both, it should coin them at such a ratio and on such conditions
as will secure the largest use and circulation of both metals
without displacing either. Gold must necessarily be the standard
of value in great transactions, from its greater relative value,
but it is not capable of the division required for small transactions;
while silver is indispensable for a multitude of daily wants, and
is too bulky for use in the larger transactions of business, and
the cost of its transportation for long distances would greatly
increase the present rates of exchange. It would, therefore, seem
to be the best policy for the present to limit the aggregate issue
of our silver dollars, based on the ratio of sixteen to one, to
such sums as can clearly be maintained at par with gold, until the
price of silver in the market shall assume a definite ratio to
gold, when that ratio should be adopted, and our coins made to
conform to it; and the secretary respectfully recommends that he
be authorized to discontinue the coinage of the silver dollar when
the amount outstanding shall exceed fifty million dollars.

"The secretary deems it proper to state that in the meantime, in
the execution of the law as it now stands, he will feel it to be
his duty to redeem all United States notes presented on and after
January 1, next, at the office of the assistant treasurer of the
United States, in the city of New York, in sums of not less than
fifty dollars, with either gold or silver coin, as desired by the
holder, but reserving the legal option of the government; and to
pay out United States notes for all other demands on the treasury,
except when coin is demanded on coin liabilities.

"It is his duty, as an executive officer, to frankly state his
opinions, so that if he is in error Congress may prescribe such a
policy as is best for the public interests.

"The amount of four per cent. bonds sold during the present year,
prior to November 23, is $100,270,900, of which $94,770,900 were
sold under the refunding act approved July 14, 1870. Six per cent.
bonds, commonly known as 5-20's, to an equal amount, have been
redeemed, or will be redeemed as calls mature. This beneficial
process was greatly retarded by the requirement of the law that
subscriptions must be paid in coin, the inconvenience of obtaining
which, to the great body of people outside of the large cities,
deterred many sales. This will not affect sales after resumption,
when bonds can be paid for with United States notes. The large
absorption of United States securities in the American market, by
reason of their return from Europe, together with the sale of four
and a half per cent. bonds for resumption purposes, tended to retard
the sale of four per cent. bonds. As, from the best advices, not
more than $200,000,000 of United States bonds are now held out of
the country, it may be fairly anticipated that the sale of four
per cent. bonds, hereafter, will largely increase.

"Prior to May, 1877, United States bonds were mainly sold through
an association of bankers. Experience proves that under the present
plan of selling to all subscribers on terms fixed by public
advertisement, though the aggregate of sales may be less, their
distribution is more satisfactory. Under a popular loan the interest
is paid at home, and the investment is available at all times,
without loss, to meet the needs of the holder. This policy has
been carefully fostered by other nations, and should be specially
so in ours, where every citizen equally participates in the government
of his country. The holding of these bonds at home, in small sums
well distributed, is of great importance in enlisting popular
interest in our national credit and in encouraging habits of thrift,
and such holding in the country is far more stable and less likely
to disturb the market than it would be in cities or by corporations,
where the bonds can be promptly sold in quantities.

"The three months' public notes required by the fourth section of
the refunding act, to be given to holders of the 5-20 bonds to be
redeemed, necessarily involve a loss to the government by the
payment of double interest during that time. The notice should
not be given until subscriptions are made or are reasonably certain
to be made. When they are made and the money is paid into the
treasury, whether it is kept there idle during the three months or
deposited with national banks under existing law, the government
not only pays interest on both classes of bonds during the ninety
days, but, if the sales are large, the hoarding of large sums may
disturb the market. Under existing law this is unavoidable; and,
to mitigate it, the secretary deemed it expedient during the last
summer to make calls in anticipation of subscriptions, but this,
though legal, might, in case of failure of subscriptions, embarrass
the government in paying called bonds. The long notice required
by law is not necessary in the interest of the holder of the bonds,
for, as the calls are made by public notice and the bonds are
indicated and specified by class, date, and number, in the order
of their numbers and issue, he, by ordinary diligence, can know
beforehand when his bonds in due course will probably be called,
and will not be taken by surprise.

"The secretary therefore recommends that the notice to be given
for called bonds be, at his discretion, not less than ten days nor
more than three months. In this way he will be able largely to
avoid the payment of double interest, as well as the temporary
contraction of the currency, and may fix the maturity of the call
at a time when the interest of the called bonds becomes due and
payable."

Soon after the passage of the act authorizing the coinage of the
standard silver dollar, and an attempt being made to procure the
requisite bullion for its coinage to some extent at the mints on
the Pacific coast, it was found that the producers and dealers
there would not sell silver to the government at the equivalent of
the London rate, but demanded in addition thereto an amount equal
to the cost of bringing it from London and laying it down in San
Francisco. These terms, being deemed exorbitant, were rejected,
and arrangements were immediately made to bring the capacity of
the mint at Philadelphia to its maximum, with a view to meet the
provisions of law, which required two millions of silver dollars
to be coined in each month, and the available supplies of silver
from domestic sources being entirely insufficient for the coinage
of this amount, the foreign market was indirectly resorted to and
an amount sufficient to meet the requirements of law secured.

In July, 1878, the principal holders of bullion on the Pacific
coast receded from their position and accepted the equivalent of
the London rate, at which price sufficient bullion was purchased
to employ the mints of San Francisco and Carson on the coinage of
the dollar.

At the date of my report, United States notes were practically at
par with gold. The public mind had settled into a conviction that
the parity of coin and currency was assured, and our people,
accustomed to the convenience of paper money, would not willingly
have received coin to any considerable amount in any business
transactions. The minor coins of silver, were received and paid
out without question at parity with gold coin, because the amount
was limited and they were coined by the government only as demanded
for the public convenience. The silver dollar was too weighty and
cumbersome and when offered in considerable sums was objected to,
though a legal tender for any sum, and coined only in limited
amounts for government account. Every effort was made by the
treasury department to give it the largest circulation, but the
highest amount that could be circulated was from fifty to sixty
millions, and much of this was in the southern states. All sums
in excess of that were returned to the treasury for silver
certificates. These were circulated as money, like United States
notes and bank bills. This was only possible by the guarantee of
the government that all forms of money would be maintained at parity
with each other. If this guarantee had been doubted, or if the
holder of silver bullion could have had it coined at his pleasure
and for his benefit at the ratio of sixteen to one, the silver
dollar would, as the cheaper coin, have excluded all other forms
of money, and the purchasing power of silver coin would have been
reduced to the market value of silver bullion.

On the 3rd of December, 1878, I wrote the following letter:

"Hon. Thomas Hillhouse,

"United States Assistant Treasurer, New York.
"Sir:--I have this day telegraphed you as follows:

'After receipt of this you will please issue no more gold
certificates.'

"In compliance with the above instructions you will not, until
further advised, issue gold certificates either in payment of
interest on the public debt or for gold coin deposited.

"It is desired that you issue currency in payment of coin obligations
to such an amount as will be accepted by public creditors.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

After resumption, United States notes were in fact gold certificates,
being redeemable in coin. On the 4th, I again wrote to General
Hillhouse as follows:

"Your letter of yesterday is received. The necessity of the recent
order about coin certificates became apparent to the department,
and the only doubt was as to the date of issuing it. After full
consideration, it was deemed best to make it immediate, so that no
more certificates could be asked for. By the 21st of this month
the large denominations of greenbacks will be ready for issue to
you, and after the 1st of January they will be received for customs
duties and paid out for gold coin deposited with you. I am led to
suppose that considerable sums of gold coin will be deposited with
you soon after that date. It is important that the business men
of New York should see the propriety of such a course, with a view
to aid in popular opinion the process of resumption.

"I would be pleased to hear from you as to whether any additional
force in your office will be necessary in view of resumption.
Every reasonable facility should be given to persons who apply for
coin, and we should be prepared for a considerable demand during
the first month.

"I will be in New York some time this month, and will confer with
you as to any matters of detail."

I received the following reply:

"Office of United States Assistant Treasurer,}
"New York, December 5, 1878. }
"Sir:--I have received your letter of the 4th instant. The issue
of gold certificates, however convenient to the public, had long
ceased to be of any advantage to the government, and in view of
resumption it had become a positive injury, by enabling speculators
to carry on their operations without the risk and expense of handling
the actual coin. So far as I have discovered, the banks and the
business community generally regard the withdrawal of the certificates
as a wise measure. They may be put to some temporary inconvenience
thereby, but they cannot fail to see that, in the use of this and
all other legitimate means of making the great scheme of resumption
a success, the secretary is really promoting their interests, and
that in the end they will be greatly benefitted by the establishing
of a sound and stable currency, which is the object in view.

* * * * *

"Very respectfully,
"Thomas Hillhouse,
"Assistant Treasurer United States."

On the 5th I wrote him as follows:

"In reply to your letter of the 4th instant, inquiring whether you
are at liberty to pay out the standard silver dollars in exchange
for gold coin, you are authorized to pay out the standard silver
dollars to any amount which may be desired in exchange for gold
coin.

* * * * *

"In reply to your letter of yesterday, I have to advise you that
it was the purpose of the order referred to to prohibit the issue
of gold coin certificates for any purpose, including the redemption
of called bonds. It is believed that the reasons for issuing such
certificates have ceased to exist, and that those outstanding should
be redeemed and not reissued.

"No public end is subserved by receiving coin deposits for private
parties to be held for their benefit, but gold will be received in
exchange for United States notes of any denomination desired, and
such exchange is invited."

On the 18th I wrote him:

"I have concluded to direct the prepayment of the coupons maturing
January 1, in coin or United States notes, _as desired by the
holder_, and interest on registered stock, as soon as you can
receive the schedules, which will be about the 28th. While I wish
no hesitation about paying gold to anyone desiring it, it is better
to get people in the habit of receiving currency rather than coin."

On the 18th General Hillhouse wrote me:

"Since my letter of yesterday gold has sold at par, the prevailing
rate being one sixty-fourth to three sixty-fourth premium. The
indications now are that the combinations which were presumed to
be operating to keep up the premium have failed so far in their
object, and that, unless unlooked for circumstances should intervene,
the premium will be more likely to fall below the present rate than
to advance."

On the 27th I sent the following instructions to the treasurer:

"Treasury Department, December 27, 1878.
"Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.

"Sir:--In connection with the department's circular of the 14th
instant concerning the resumption of specie payments, you are
directed, on and after the 1st proximo, to keep no special account
of coin with any public disbursing officer, and to close any account
of that description at that time standing on your books, keeping
thereafter but one money of account in your office.

"Similar instructions have this day been sent to the several
independent treasury officers.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

On the 28th I wrote the First National Bank of New York:

"Your letter of yesterday is received. I do not see my way clear
to issue another call until the one now outstanding is covered by
subscription. There is still a deficit of about $4,000,000 on the
71st call. There is not, however, the slightest objection to your
stating authoritatively, or, if desired, I will do so in response
to a direct inquiry, that every dollar of the proceeds of four per
cent. bonds sold during the present year had been applied on calls
for refunding, and it is my purpose to continue this unless I give
public notice to the contrary.

"I feel the more inclined to refuse to make a call by reason of
the probable requisition that may be made for the Halifax award,
and I do not wish by any chance to impair the resumption fund."

During the latter part of December the air was full of rumors of
a combination in New York for a run upon the sub-treasury on the
opening of the new year. The alarm was so great that the president
of the National Bank of Commerce in that city, who was also chairman
of the clearing house committee, at three o'clock p. m. on the
30th, with the advice of other bankers, sent me, by special messenger,
an urgent request for the transfer to his bank, on the following
day, from the sub-treasury, of $5,000,000 in gold, in exchange for
a like amount in United States notes, to enable the banks, he said,
to meet a "corner" in gold. To this there could be but one reply.
The treasury had no power to make the transfer, even if it desired
to do so. I therefore declined the proposition, and did not believe
in a "corner."

During the exciting events connected with resumption and refunding
I did not overlook the political condition in Ohio, and wrote a
letter in regard to it, which I think proper here to insert, as it
presents my view at its date:

"December 26, 1878.
"My Dear Sir:--Much obliged for your kind letter of the 21st.

"My official duties engross my time so much that I scarcely catch
a glimpse of home affairs by reading the newspapers, and your
intelligent view is therefore the more interesting. It seems to
me that the nomination of General Garfield for governor and Foster
for lieutenant governor would be a very excellent arrangement, but
I understand that it is not agreeable to them. Garfield has no
desire for the position, while Foster feels that he ought to head
the ticket. An understanding that Garfield is to be Senator might
embarrass us in certain doubtful districts, where the chief contest
would be upon that office. Still such a ticket would be universally
conceded to be very strong and would inspire confidence, and would
be entirely satisfactory to me. Indeed, I wish to be in a condition
to support our political friends in anything they may do in the
convention, without taking an active part in it.

"The contingency that you refer to with which my name is connected
is still to remote to talk about. I never supposed that a person
occupying my office, open to attack and compelled to say no to so
many persons, could be sufficiently popular to justify any party
in running him for the presidency, and, therefore, I have always
dismissed such suggestions as the kindly compliments of the hour.
Certainly it has not gained my mental consent, nor is it considered
by me as one of the probabilities of the future. If I should get
the maggot in my brain it would no doubt be more likely to hurt
than help.

"The tendency of public opinion is evidently towards General Grant,
whose absence and good conduct are in his favor, while the involuntary
feeling of Republicans would be in favor of nominating him as a
remonstrance against the violence in the south, and notice that it
must end.

"However, a year hence will be time enough to settle this matter.

"I send my hearty greetings for the holiday season, and remain,

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. Richard Smith, Cincinnati, O."

About this time I received the following letter:

"United States Legation, }
"Mexico, December 15, 1878.}
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Sir:--Allow me to send you, as a New Years' greeting, my
hearty congratulations on your successful management of our national
finances and on the resumption of specie payments, which I have no
doubt will be an accomplished fact when this letter reaches you.

"The nation owes you a great debt for your courage, persistence
and wisdom in adhering to your policy for re-establishing and
maintaining our government credit. To your conduct I attribute
the present honorable position of the Republican party, more than
to any other one influence. I believe that neither the country
nor the party will forget your services.

"Very truly,
"John W. Foster."

On the 1st of January, 1879, when the resumption act went into
effect, the aggregate amount of gold coin and bullion in the treasury
exceeded $140,000,000. United States notes, when presented, were
redeemed with gold coin, but instead of the notes being presented
for redemption, gold coin in exchange for them was deposited, thus
increasing the gold in the treasury.

The resumption of specie payments was generally accepted as a
fortunate event by the great body of people of the United States,
but there was a great diversity of opinion as to what was meant by
resumption. The commercial and banking classes generally treated
resumption as if it involved the payment and cancellation of United
States notes and all forms of government money except coin and bank
notes. Another class was opposed to resumption, and favored a
large issue of paper money without any promise or expectation of
redemption in coin. The body of the people, I believe, agreed with
me in opinion that resumption meant, not the cancellation and
withdrawal of greenbacks, but the bringing them up to par and
maintaining them as the equivalent of coin by the payment of them
in coin on demand by the holder. This was my definition of
resumption. I do not believe that any commercial nation can conduct
modern operations of business upon the basis of coin alone. Prior
to our Civil War the United States undertook to collect its taxes
in specie and to pay specie for its obligations; this was the
bullion theory. This narrow view of money compelled the states to
supply paper currency, and this led to a great diversity of money,
depending upon the credit, the habits and the wants of the people
of the different states. The United States notes, commonly called
greenbacks, were the creature of necessity, but proved a great
blessing, and only needed one attribute to make them the best
substitute for coin money that has ever been devised. That quality
was supplied by their redemption in coin, when demanded by the
holder.

The feeling in the treasury department on the day of resumption is
thus described by J. K. Upton, assistant secretary, in an article
written at the close of 1892:

"The year, however, closed with no unpleasant excitement, but with
unpleasant forebodings. The 1st day of January was Sunday and no
business was transacted. On Monday anxiety reigned in the office
of the secretary. Hour after hour passed; no news came from New
York. Inquiry by wire showed all was quiet. At the close of
business came this message: '$135,000 of notes presented for coin
--$400,000 of gold for notes.' That was all. Resumption was
accomplished with no disturbance. By five o'clock the news was
all over the land, and the New York bankers were sipping their tea
in absolute safety.

"Thirteen years have since passed, and the redemption fund still
remains intact in the sub-treasury vaults. The prediction of the
secretary has become history. When gold could with certainty be
obtained for notes, nobody wanted it. The experiment of maintaining
a limited amount of United States notes in circulation, based upon
a reasonable reserve in the treasury pledged for that purpose, and
supported also by the credit of the government, has proved generally
satisfactory, and the exclusive use of these notes for circulation
may become, in time, the fixed financial policy of the government."

The immediate effect of resumption of specie payments was to advance
the public credit, which made it possible to rapidly fund all the
bonds of the United States then redeemable into bonds bearing four
per cent. interest. Early in January, 1879, I issued a circular
offering the four per cent. funded loan of the United States at
par and accrued interest to date of subscription in coin. It was
substantially similar to the one issued on the 16th of January,
1878, but graded the commission, allowing from one-eighth of one
per cent. to one-fourth of one per cent., according to the amount
subscribed.

Several letters written about this date will show my view better
than anything I can say now:

"Washington, D. C., January 6, 1879.
"Dear Sir:--Your note of the 2nd was received upon my return from
the west.

"Much obliged for subscription, and hope that you will soon get
above the ten millions and thus be entitled to the additional one-
tenth. I cannot, however, allow it on the first ten millions
without adopting it as a rule, which would be impossible, by reason
of the limitation of the entire cost to one-half of one per cent.
I may be compelled to allow the one-eighth commission down to
$1,000, but perhaps not, as I have to carefully husband the limited
fund out of which all expenses must be paid. With the energy and
hopefulness now exhibited, we can easily refund the 5-20's within
this year and, perhaps, within six months. The more rapid the
process the less disturbance it will create. I am hopeful and
sanguine of improving business, not that greenbacks will be so
abundant, but that employment will be ready for everyone willing
to work.

"Thanks for your congratulations, which I heartily reciprocate,
for the syndicate are entitled to a large portion of the merit now
given to me. As I got more than my share of the abuse, it is
probably thought that I should get more than my share of the credit.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. L. P. Morton, New York."

"Washington, D. C., January 8, 1879.
"R. C. Stone, Esq., Secretary Bullion Club, New York.

"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 5th inst., inclosing a card of
invitation from the Bullion Club, to attend a dinner at their club
house on Thursday evening, the 16th inst., is received.

"I regret that my official duties will not permit me, in person,
to respond to the toast you send me, and I cannot do so, by letter,
in words more expressive than the toast itself, 'To Resumption--
may it be forever.'

"Irredeemable money is always the result of war, pestilence, or
some great misfortune. A nation would not, except in dire necessity,
issue its promises to pay money when it is unable to redeem those
promises. I know that when the legal tenders were first issued,
in February, 1862, we were under a dire necessity. The doubt that
prevented several influential Senators, like Fessenden and Collamer,
from voting for the legal tender clause, was that they were not
convinced that our necessities were so extreme as to demand the
issue of irredeemable paper money. Most of those who voted for it
justified their vote upon the ground that the very existence of
the country depended upon its ability to coin into money its promises
to pay. THat was the position taken by me. We were assured by
Secretary Chase that nearly one hundred millions of unpaid requisitions
were lying upon his table, for money due to soldiers in the presence
of the enemy, and for food and clothing to maintain them at the
front. We then provided for the issue of legal tender United States
notes, as an extreme remedy in the nation's peril. It has always
seemed strange that so large and respectable a body of our fellow-
citizens should regard the continuance of irredeemable money as
the permanent policy of a nation so strong and rich as ours, able
to pay every dollar of its debts on demand, after the causes of
its issue had disappeared. To resume is to recover from illness,
to escape danger, to stand sound and healthy in the financial world,
with our currency based upon the intrinsic value of solid coin.

"Therefore I say, may resumption be perpetual. To wish otherwise
is to hope for war, danger, and national peril, calamities to which
our nation, like others, may be subject, but against which the
earnest aspiration of every patriot will be uttered.

"Very respectfully yours,
"John Sherman."

"January 10, 1879.
"H. C. Fahnestock, Esq.,
"Vice President First National Bank, New York.
"Sir:--Your unofficial letter of the 9th inst., suggesting the
danger that may arise from the very large and rapid subscriptions
to the four per cent. bonds, is received.

"The danger is apparent enough to all, and certainly to those who
purchase without ability to pay at the time stipulated, but it is
not one that the government can guard against, except only by taking
care to have ample security for each subscription.

"In the face of the advertisement now outstanding, I could not
withdraw the money from deposit with subscribing banks, until at
or near the time of the maturity of the call, when they must be
prepared to pay. It is not the interest of the government to force
subscriptions beyond the ability of investors, but we cannot check
subscriptions by any violation of the public advertisement or any
public caution against the danger that is open to everyone.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

"Washington, D. C., January 13, 1879.
"George Kerr, Esq., Janesville, Bremer Co., Iowa.

"Sir:--I have received your letter of the 6th instant inclosing a
slip cut from the Bremer County 'Independent,' a weekly paper
published in Waverly, containing a statement to the effect that
the First National of New York is enjoying, from the department,
special privileges in the matter of holding public money on account
of subscriptions to the four per cent. consols of 1907, and receiving
from the government unusual commissions on subscription.

"It is needless to say to you that the statement is entirely
erroneous from beginning to end.

"In the department's circular of the first instant, a copy of which
is hereby inclosed for your information, _all_ national banks are
invited to become financial agents, and depositaries of public
moneys received on account of the sale of these bonds, and the
commissions allowed on subscriptions are plainly stated therein.
Over one hundred (100) national banks have been thus designated as
depositaries for the purpose mentioned, and all are treated precisely
alike, both as to commissions allowed and balances held.

"The First National Bank of New York enjoys, as a United States
depositary, no special privileges whatever from the department.
It has, however, thus far, subscribed for a larger amount of four
per cent. bonds than any other bank, and has, consequently, received
a larger amount for commissions. But any other bank subscribing
for the same amount of bonds would, of course, receive the same
amount for commissions.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., January 14, 1879.}
"H. C. Fahnestock, Esq., New York.

"Dear Sir:--Your note of the 13th instant is received.

"In buying the fours thrown upon the market, you are rendering as
much service to the government as if you bought directly. Indeed,
I am glad you are buying from the market rather than from the
department. I do not wish to force this refunding operation too
much, lest it may embarrass resumption. I only fear that some
eager parties may subscribe for more than they can sell and pay
for by called bonds or coin within the running of the call. This
is the only contingency that disturbs me.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman."

My published correspondence shows that with all the efforts and
strength of the department it was impossible to keep up with the
subscriptions for bonds pouring in from all parts of the United
States and from Europe. Over sixty millions were subscribed for
in the first two weeks of January. Offers made by me in December,
though not accepted at the time, were made the grounds of demands
in January, when conditions had greatly changed. As the money
received for four per cent. bonds could not be applied to the
payment of six per cent. called bonds until interest on such bonds
ceased, ninety days after the call, I feared that the enormous
deposits would create a serious stringency in the money market,
and perhaps cause a panic after the first of April. The banks and
bankers in New York, as well as in other large cities of the United
States, were actively competing to swell these subscriptions, so
as to get the larger commission offered for the greater amount of
bonds sold. Such a contest occurred between the First National
Bank of New York, and Seligman & Co., and their associates. In
ended in a contract made on the 21st of January, between the
Secretary of the Treasury and the former syndicate, by which the
latter subscribed for $10,000,000 of four per cent. bonds, on the
terms stated in my circular of January 1, and $5,000,000 a month
thereafter, the secretary reserving the power to terminate the
contract.

On the same day a call was made for $20,000,000 of six per cent.
bonds. Another call for a like amount was made on the 28th. The
aggregate call for six per cent. bonds in January was $120,000,000.

Charles F. Conant was again appointed as the funding agent of the
treasury department, and directed to assume the general management
and supervision of all business in London arising from the funding
of bonds. He was instructed to advise me frequently as to the
condition of the business intrusted to him.

The object of this sale of bonds in London was stated in the public
prints, and also in the following letter:

"Treasury Department, January 22, 1879.
"Charles M. Fry, Esq.,
"President Bank of New York, National Banking Association, New
York.
"Sir:--Your telegram was received yesterday.

"The syndicate arrangement was confined to the sale of bonds in
Europe, where it is deemed important to sell bonds partly to cover
called bonds held abroad; and a contract has been made with bankers
having houses in London, on precisely the same terms as were extended
to all in this country. It was thought that this would be best
for the domestic loan. No contract of arrangement will be made to
interfere in any way with the free, open, popular subscriptions in
the United States.

"I am glad to notice your success and will give you every facility
that is extended to anyone else.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

The sale in London was fully justified when the called bonds matured,
and those held abroad were paid for without the exportation of
coin. It was my desire to secure the exchange of four per cent.
bonds directly with the holders of the six per cents. For this
purpose I invited, by a department order widely circulated, such
an exchange, allowing to the holder of any six per cent. bond,
whether called or uncalled, the same commission and allowance for
interest granted to banks and bankers. By these expedients I hoped
for, and succeeded in conducting, the change of bonds without
disturbing the ordinary current of business.

The process of refunding the 5-20 six per cent. bonds, by the sale
of four per cent. bonds, went on with some fluctuations until the
4th of April, 1879, when all the six per cent. bonds then redeemable
were called for payment. This period in the magnitude of business
done was far the most active and important while I was Secretary
of the Treasury. The struggle between banks and bankers, not only
in the United States but in London also, gave rise to many questions
which had to be promptly acted upon, chiefly by cable or telegram.
The amount involved were so large as to induce caution and care.
The principal difficulty in refunding arose out of the provision
in the act of Congress that ninety days' notice should be given,
to the holder of bonds, by the government, when it exercised its
option to pay, after five years, any portion of the bonds known as
the 5-20 bonds, payable in twenty years but redeemable after five
years. Prudence required the actual sale of four per cent. bonds
before a call could be made or notice given to the holders of the
5-20 bonds, designated by description and numbers, of the intention
of the government to pay them. When sales were made the money
received was deposited in the treasury of the United States, or
with national banks acting as public depositaries, which were
required to give security for such deposits.

The necessary effort of the deposit of large amount involved in
refunding operations was to create a stringency in the money market.
I early called the attention of Congress to this difficulty, but
had doubts whether the government would be justified in repealing
the law requiring ninety days' notice. This provision was a part
of the contract between the government and the bondholder, and
could only be changed by the consent of both parties. Congress
failed to act upon my suggestion. The interest accruing for ninety
days at six per cent., or one and a half per cent. on the great
sums involved, was a loss to the government but a gain to the banks
or bankers that sold the bonds. The syndicate of bankers engaged
in the sale of bonds chose the First National Bank of New York as
their depositary. The department was indifferent where the deposits
were made so that they were amply secured. Other banks and bankers
engaged in the sale of bonds chose their own depositaries, and thus
an active competition was created in which the department took no
part or interest.

This struggle led to charges of favoritism on the part of the
department, but they were without the slightest foundation. Every
order, ruling and letter was fully discussed and considered by the
Secretary and other chief officers of the treasury, and also by
General Hillhouse, assistant treasurer at New York, and is in the
printed report of the letters, contracts, circulars and accounts
relating to resumption and refunding made to Congress on the 2nd
of December, 1879.

The charge was especially made that favor was shown the First
National Bank of New York, of which George F. Baker was president
and H. C. Fahnestock was vice president. It was said that I was
a stockholder in that bank, and that I was interested in the
syndicate. It is scarcely necessary for me to say, as I do, that
these charges and imputations were absolutely false. This bank
and the associated bankers sold larger amounts of four per cent.
bonds than any others and received a corresponding commission, but,
instead of being favored, they were constantly complaining of the
severity of the treasury restrictions. Rothschild, the head of
the great banking house in London and the chief of the syndicate,
especially complained of what he called the "stinginess" of the
treasury department. I can say for all the officers of the treasury
that not one of them was interested in transactions growing out of
resumption or refunding, or did or could derive any benefit
therefrom.

The rapid payment of the 5-20 bonds had a more serious effect upon
the English market than upon our own. Here the four per cent.
bonds were received in place of the six per cent. bonds, no doubt
with regret by the holders of the latter for the loss of one-third
of their interest, but accompanied by a sense of national pride
that our credit was so good. In London the process of refunding
was regarded with disfavor and in some cases by denunciation. On
the 4th of March Secretary Evarts wrote me the following letter:

"Department of State, }
"Washington, March 4, 1870.}
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Sir:--I have the honor to transmit herewith, for your information,
a copy of a dispatch No. 928, dated February 12, from the consul
general at London, in which the department is advised that there
exists dissatisfaction, among certain holders of the 5-20 bonds of
the issue of 1867, with the rapidity with which the government is
refunding its debt at a lower rate of interest, and that it is the
purpose of such holders to demand payment of their called bonds in
coin. I have to honor to be, sir, your obedient servant.

"Wm. M. Evarts."

This demand was easily met by the sale of four per cent. bonds in
London, and the balance of trade in our favor was increasing. The
anticipated movement of gold did not occur.

Congress, by the act approved January 25, 1879, extended the process
of refunding to the 10-40 bonds bearing interest at the rate of
five per cent., amounting to $195,000,000 as follows:

"AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE REFUNDING THE NATIONAL DEBT.

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the Secretary
of the Treasury is hereby authorized, in the process of refunding
the national debt under existing laws, to exchange directly at par
the bonds of the United States bearing interest at four per centum
per annum, authorized by law, for the bonds of the United States
commonly known as 5-20's, outstanding and uncalled, and, whenever
all such 5-20 bonds shall have been redeemed, the provisions of
this section, and all existing provisions of law authorizing the
refunding of the national debt, shall apply to any bonds of the
United States bearing interest at five per centum per annum or a
higher rate, which may be redeemable. In any exchange made under
the provisions of this section interest may be allowed, on the
bonds redeemed, for a period of three months."

On the 26th of February the following act was passed:

"AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT IN AID
OF THE REFUNDING OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the Secretary
of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to issue, in
exchange for lawful money of the United States that may be presented
for such exchange, certificates of deposit, of the denominations
of ten dollars, bearing interest at the rate of four per centum
per annum, and convertible at any time, with accrued interest, into
the four per centum bonds described in the refunding act; and the
money so received shall be applied only to the payment of the bonds
bearing interest at a rate of not less than five per centum in the
mode prescribed by said act, and he is authorized to prescribe
suitable rules and regulations in conformity with this act."

On the 4th of March, 1879, the amount of uncalled 5-20 six per
cent. bonds outstanding was $88,079,800. Anticipating that sales
of four per cent. bonds would continue, I gave the following notice:

"Notice is given that when the 5-20 six per cent. bonds of the
United States are covered by subscriptions to the four per cent.
consols, the latter will be withdrawn from sale upon the terms
proposed by department circular of January 1, 1879, and upon the
terms stated in the contract with the Messrs. Rothschild and others,
of the date of January 21, 1879. The amount of 5-20 six per cent.
bonds outstanding and embraced in calls to this date is $88,079,800.
When this sum is covered by subscriptions under the existing circular
and contract, all further sales of four per cent. consols, to
provide for the refunding of the 10-40 five per cent. bonds, will
be made upon terms which will probably be less favorable to the
purchaser, and in accordance with new proposals and contracts.
This notice is given so that all parties wishing to subscribe for
consols upon the terms stated in the circular and contract may have
an opportunity to do so until the 5-20 bonds are called."

In giving this notice I had in view a change in the mode of refunding
which would save to the government the whole or large part of the
three months' interest pending the call. This notice gave an
additional spur to the market for four per cent. bonds. Copies of
it were sent to Mr. Conant and to all parties interested in pending
operations, and due notice was given to all persons and corporations
engaged in the sale of bonds that all existing contracts would
terminate when the 5-20 bonds were covered by subscriptions.

At this time there was a good deal of anxiety as to the effect of
the large sale of four per cent. bonds. If these could be exchanged,
par for par for six per cent. bonds, the operation would be easy,
but many holders of called bonds would not accept the lower rate
of interest and invested the principal of their bonds in other
securities. General Hillhouse, on the 8th of March, expressed the
common feeling as follows:

"There is a good deal of speculation in the papers, as well as in
business circles, as to the probable effect on the money market of
the settlements to be made in April, during which month, if I am
not mistaken, about $150,000,000 of calls will mature. It is now
seen, however, that investment demand for the fours is much larger
than was anticipated by many; and the subscribing banks will be,
therefore, likely to find themselves loaded with large amounts which
they cannot dispose of. It would not be strange, in the closing
of such vast transactions, if there should be some stringency, but
with the favorable indications, that the public are taking the
bonds freely, and with the power of the secretary in various ways
to facilitate the settlements, it can hardly be more than
temporary."

Mr. Conant wrote me, on March 8, from London:

"I have called on all the members of the syndicate several times
within the past few days, and have urged them very strongly to push
the sales of the bonds here. I have persistently tried to persuade
them that they ought to conduct the business with far more energy,
and I have said to them that, at the time the contract was entered
into, representations were made to you that $50,000,000 of the four
per cent. consols could be disposed of on this side of the Atlantic,
and that as they had undertaken the business they should not
disappoint you. I have represented to them the importance of
preventing the shipments of gold from New York, and that you supposed
that the sales of bonds which you expected they would make would
prevent such shipments. . . .

"The feeling which I alluded to in my last letter, that when the
time arrives for the settlement of the large subscriptions made in
New York and elsewhere at home the market will be found overloaded,
and that a fall in price will take place, still exists here, and
has the effect of causing certain classes of investors to delay
making purchases, which they will ultimately make. I have not
hesitated to say to the associates here that when refunding operations
shall have been completed the four per cent. consols will soon
thereafter go to a premium, and good reasons can be given why such
should be the case."

Soon after I commenced receiving prophecies of stringency and
disaster. A long letter from Fisk & Hatch, of New York, said that
general apprehension had been growing up in financial circles, and
was rapidly gaining ground, that the settlements by the national
banks with the treasury department, in April and May, for the large
subscriptions of four per cent. bonds made in January and February,
would occasion serious disturbance and embarrassment in the money
market. They advised me to pursue a course that, whether proper
or not, was not in accordance with law. Mr. L. P. Morton., on the
same date, took a milder view of it, but still suggested a remedy
not within my power.

On the 13th, General Hillhouse, in referring to the apprehensions
of my correspondents in regard to the settlements in connection
with refunding, said that they might be caused in some instances
by the suspicion, if not by the conviction, that their subscriptions
had been carried beyond the point of absolute safety, "and now that
settlement day is approaching they are naturally desirous of
ascertaining how far they can count on the forbearance of the
government."

This was the same view I had taken of the matter. I did not feel
myself officially bound to do anything but to require prompt payment
for the bonds subscribed. The treasury, however, was well prepared
for any probable stringency, and I was convinced that the settlements
would not cause any serious disturbance. The advices from London
continued to be unfavorable. The bonds were offered in the market
in some cases at a less price than the syndicate were to pay for
them.

In the process of selling the four per cent. bonds I had frequently
been written to by persons of limited means, who wished to invest
their savings in government bonds of small denominations bearing
four per cent. interest. I called the attention of the proper
committee of each House to the expediency of issuing notes or
certificates of that description, and the act of February 26, 1879,
already quoted, was passed.

On the 26th of March I issued a circular relative to these
certificates, prescribing the manner in which they should be sold,
and stated the purpose and probable effect of their issue, as
follows:

"The primary purpose of these certificates is to enable persons of
limited means to husband small savings as they accrue, and place
them where they will draw interest and become the nest egg for
future accumulation. The form of certificate seems better adapted
for the purpose than the French _ventes_ or the English savings
bank system. The objection to a national savings bank is that, in
a country so extensive as ours, the agencies would necessarily be
scattered, and the cost and delay of correspondence and transferring
money to Washington would be considerable; but, more than all, the
United States cannot undertake the risk of repaying deposits at
any time when called for. The necessary reserve for that purpose
would make the system burdensome. The certificate, as issued, may,
at the expense of the subscriber, be either to bearer, or, by being
registered, only transferable by assignment on the books of the
treasury. It combines, in the cheapest form, all the benefits of
any system of savings banks that has been devised. No doubt these
certificates, when first issued, will, by voluntary consent of
parties, be used as currency; but, after they shall have run a
short time, the accruing interest on them will induce their sorting
and holding, and thus, like the compound-interest notes, they will
cease to be a currency and become an investment. Their possible
use as currency is certainly no objection to them; for, though I
adhere as strictly as anyone to a specie standard of value, I think
that, it being constantly maintained by ample reserves and prompt
redemption, current money in different forms should be provided
for daily use. Diversity of the currency, if it is always redeemable,
is no objection. These certificates will always be redeemable in
the bonds stipulated for, and can, with profit, be issued, while
the money received for them can be used in redeeming bonds bearing
a higher rate of interest. They are of as low a denomination as
can be conveniently issued and bear interest. The issue of this
certificate is a safe experiment. I have confidence that it will
be beneficial to the holder, in begetting habits of saving, and to
the treasury, in aiding refunding; but its great benefit will be
that the people themselves will in this way have a direct interest
in preserving and maintaining the public faith."

On the same date I wrote a note for publication to the treasurer
of the United States, to facilitate the payment of called bonds,
as follows:

"As it is desirable to make payment of called bonds in the mode
that will least disturb the market, you will draw from the depositary
banks the proceeds of four per cent. bonds only when required to
make payment of called bonds, and in proportion from the several
depositaries to the amounts held by them, as near as may be, in
sums of $1,000. Money in the treasury received from four per cent.
bonds should be applied to the payment of called bonds before such
drafts are made.

"When practicable, drafts upon depositary banks, for transfers of
deposits on account of proceeds of four per cent. bonds, may be so
drawn as to be payable at the option of the bank, through the New
York clearing house.

"Drafts on depositary banks in cities other than New York should
be drawn a sufficient time in advance to meet payments there.

"Payment by called bonds should be treated as payment in money as
of the date when it would, under this order, be required."

On the 27th I received from Conant the following cablegram:

"Would be pleased to know if subscriptions to be settled during
April can be expected without disturbing market in New York."

I answered on the same day as follows:

"Entirely confident subscriptions during next month will be settled
without disturbing market. Order of the treasury department
yesterday will facilitate greatly."

The following correspondence with Conant, the syndicate and myself
then took place:

"London, March 28, 1879.
"Sherman, Washington.

"Rothschild & Sons request me to say they do not consider contract
of January 21, 1879, requires subscription two million to be made
April 1. On account of market price below par at present time they
desire delay subscription few days. Hope you will consent.

"Conant."

"Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
"Conant, London.

"I think contract of January 21, 1879, very plain, subscription
should be made April 1, but, if they desire, time will be extended
to April 8.

"Sherman."

"Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
"August Belmont & Co., New York.

"Gentlemen:--In confirmation of my two telegrams of to-day to you,
copies of which are inclosed, I have to inform you that the proper
legal officers of the department, as well as myself, consider it
very clear that, under the contract of January 21, your option to
make the second subscription expires on the 1st of April, but I am
not at all desirous of raising the question, and therefore am
willing to extend the time a week, within which I am quite confident
the anxiety about the April payments will begin to subside. Thus
far this week, over $17,000,000 called bonds have been redeemed by
credit on subscriptions, and $450,000 only paid by draft. Called
bonds are rapidly coming in for credit. The subscriptions in excess
of bonds called now amount to $6,600,000. With an assurance of a
subscription of $2,000,000 from you, by the 1st, or even the 8th,
of April, I would immediately issue a call for $10,000,000, and
may do so without waiting for your subscription.

"I would prefer that the parties to the contract should not avail
themselves of the extension offered, but leave that entirely to
your good judgment.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

(Telegram.)
"Treasury Department, March 28, 1879.
"August Belmont & Co., New York.

"The contract is very plain that the first subscription should be
made by April 1. The stipulation for five million each month would
have made the second subscription in February or March, but, by
the agreement, it need not be made before April 1.

"John Sherman, Secretary."

"New York, March 28, 1879.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

"Dear Sir:--We received this morning a telegram from Messrs.
Rothschild about the next subscription under the contract of the
21st of January, and telegraphed its contents to you, as follows:

'London associates telegraph consider according contract have all
month April to make next subscription. Please telegraph whether
you agree they are right'

"In reply we received your telegrams reading:

'The contract is very plain that the next subscription should be
made by April 1. The stipulation for five million each month would
have made the second subscription in February or March, but by
agreement it need not be made before April 1.'

"and--

'Have cabled Conant to extend option, if desired, to April 8.'

"contents of which we have communicated to our London friends.

"Yours, very respectfully,
"_Pro_ August Belmont & Co.
"W. Suttgen.
"W. Beuter."

The explanation of these cablegrams is given in the following
letter:

"New Court, St. Swithin's Lane, }
"London, E. C., England, March 29, 1879.}
"Dear Mr. Secretary:--On the 27th instant I had the honor to make
an inquiry of you by cable dispatch, as follows: 'Would be pleased
to know if subscriptions to be settled during April can be effected
without disturbing market in New York.' The constant decline in
the price of all descriptions of our bonds in New York, the strenuous
efforts being made by certain parties to sell American bonds here
at low rates on home account, particularly the four and four and
a half per cent. stock, the advancing rates of interest, and the
condition of the exchanges, together with the rumors concerning
scarcity of money in New Orleans and elsewhere, gave rise to
apprehension, in the minds of many, that refunding operations had
been carried to too great an extent; that too many bonds had been
subscribed for on speculative account, and that any forced settlement
of the subscriptions falling due in April would produce a panic.
Private telegrams sent here conveyed information to the effect that
arrangements would be made between yourself and the banks, by which
the deposits in them would not be drawn upon until absolutely
necessary. The answer, however, which I received from you a few
hours later was highly gratifying and reassuring, and I gave it as
much publicity as possible without, of course, publishing it. It
reads as follows: 'Entirely confident subscriptions during the
next month will be settled without disturbing the market. Order
treasury department yesterday will facilitate greatly.'

"The question of obligation to make a subscription on the 1st day
of April to continue the contract has been under consideration by
the syndicate during the past week, and in fact ever since the
beginning of the decline in the price of the four per cent. stock.
The associates claim that they are only required to take five
millions of the bonds during the month of April, and that having
already taken three-fifths of the amount in advance, they should,
in view of the impossibility of disposing of the stock at present
prices, be allowed the balance of the month in which to subscribe
for the remaining two millions. They argue that it cannot be
expected that they can afford to take the bonds and pay the government
one and a half per cent. above the market prices, and they add that
they do not think you would wish to have them do so. They also
say that if they wanted the bonds for _speculative purposes only_
they should give up the contract and purchase in the open market;
but their policy is to keep the price at par and not to buy or sell
when it is below par. Bonds will sell more rapidly when they are
at par than when below it. It is the speculators and not the
investors, as a rule, who deal in stocks when they are cheap. If
the price of the bonds had remained at par, I have no doubt but
that all the bonds I have here would already have been disposed
of, and that the parties would have been ready and willing to make
the subscription for five millions on April 1.

"The Messrs. Rothschild say that, owing to the high price which
they were compelled to pay for called bonds, and the reduced price
at which they were compelled to part with a portion of the four
per cent. bonds, they have made a slight loss on their transactions
so far. They like to have business relations and connections with
governments, and I think that that disposition on their part is
paramount to the question of profits. The matter of the subscription
was discussed again yesterday, and deferred until Monday for further
consideration, and I was asked to send the following cable message
to you:

'Rothschild & Sons request me to say they do not consider contract
of January 21, 1879, requires subscription $2,000,000 to be made
April 1. On account of market price below par at the present time,
they desire delay subscription a few days. Hope you will consent.'

"I hoped you would consent, because I think it quite important,
for many reasons, that we should dispose of bonds on this side of
the water. They take the place of actual gold in settling exchanges,
and thereby prevent the disturbances in the money market which
always result from the moving of bullion. I have no doubt but that
the use of these bonds in this manner has stimulated purchases of
grain and produce from us which would never have left our shores
if payment for the same could only have been made in bullion. I
received this morning your cable message in answer to the one I
sent yesterday, as follows:

'I think contract of January 21, 1879, very plain. Subscriptions
should be made April 1; but, if they desire, time will be extended
to April 8.'

* * * * *

"With great respect, I remain, yours truly,
"Chas. F. Conant.
"Hon. John Sherman."

I have set out in full this correspondence with Rothschild and his
associates and with Conant, to show that on the eve of complete
success they were discouraged and asked for a postponement of, to
them, the small subscription of $1,000,000, and did not even think
of taking the option of $10,000,000 of bonds subsequently claimed.

With the 1st of April all stringency disappeared. Accounts were
settled without difficulty. The amount of four per cent. consols
sold to March 31, inclusive, was $473,443,400.

On the 4th of April, while attending a meeting of the cabinet, I
was handed the following telegram:

"New York, April 4, 1879.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

"National Bank of Commerce in New York subscribes for forty million
dollars four per cent. bonds. Particulars and certificates by mail.

"Henry F. Vail, President."

I thought the amount was a mistake, that four instead of forty was
meant. I replied as follows:

"Henry F. Vail, President National Bank of Commerce, New York.
"Before making call I prefer you repeat your subscription."

A few moments after sending this telegram I received the following
from Mr. Vail:

"I sent you telegram to-day, which from its importance I beg you
will telegraph me acknowledgment of its receipt."

I replied:

"Your telegram is received, and I have asked repetition of it before
making call."

The following telegraphic correspondence then occurred:

"Hon. John Sherman.

"Please enter to-day for us a subscription for ten million dollars
four per cents. making, however, no announcement until we see you
to-morrow.

"G. F. Baker, President First National Bank, New York.

"Hon. John Sherman.

"We have taken two million subscriptions to-day thus far, and more
to follow.

"E. D. Randolph,
"President Continental National Bank, New York."

"New York, April 4, 1879.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Your two telegrams received. I hereby confirm my telegram of to-
day, subscribing, in name of National Bank of Commerce in New York,
for forty million dollars four per cent. bonds.

"Henry F. Vail, President."

"Henry F. Vail, President National Bank of Commerce, New York.

"Your subscription for forty million four per cent. bonds, having
been repeated by telegram, is accepted. A call will issue to-day
for the balance of the sixty-sevens and to-morrow a call will issue
for the whole of the sixty-eights.

"John Sherman, Secretary."

"E. D. Randolph, President, etc., New York.

"Your two million subscription received and accepted, but can accept
no more. All 5-20's are covered.

"John Sherman, Secretary."

"New York, April 4, 18979.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"We subscribe for three millions more, making five in all.

"F. Taylor, Cashier Continental National Bank."

"Treasury Department, April 4, 1879.
"F. Taylor, Cashier Continental National Bank, New York.

"Your subscription for three millions arrived too late; all the 5-
20's have been covered by previous subscriptions.

"John Sherman, Secretary."

A similar telegram was sent to the Continental National Bank of
New York, which subscribed $25,000,000 additional, the Hanover
National Bank of New York, $25,000,000, and the New York National
Banking Association, $2,000,000.

I then telegraphed to Mr. Conant as follows:

"Subscriptions have been made covering all 5-20 bonds (consols of
1867 and consols of 1868) outstanding, reserving for contracting
parties the one million not subscribed for.

"Inform the contracting parties and accept no new subscriptions."

On the 4th of April, 1879, I had the satisfaction of issuing the
95th and 96th calls for 5-20 bonds, covering all the bonds outstanding
issued under the act of March 3, 1865, and the last of the United
States 5-20 bonds. The early twenty year bonds, issued during the
first two years of the Civil War, were not yet due or redeemable,
and, therefore, could not be called for payment. This was a
practical illustration of the importance, in issuing government
securities, of reserving the right to redeem them before maturity.

The rapid and irregular subscriptions made on the 4th of April
involved the department in serious difficulty in determining who
of the many subscribers were entitled to the bonds. The aggregate
of subscriptions was more than double the amount of 5-20 bonds
outstanding. By adopting a rule of accepting bids made before a
fixed hour of that day, and by voluntary arrangements among the
bidders, a distribution was made.

The only serious controversy in respect to this distribution was
upon the claim of the Rothschilds that they had option extending
to the 30th of June for ten millions of bonds, and for one million
extended from April 1 to April 8. The latter was allowed, but the
department held that the option for ten millions June 30 was
dependent upon whether the bonds were previously sold, and this
occurred on the 4th of April. This gave rise to a controversy
which was settled by the voluntary transfer, by the National Bank
of Commerce, of ten millions of the forty millions bonds subscribed
for by it. Rothschild, the head of the house, would not accept
this offer, but, with some show of resentment, declined to receive
his share of the bonds, but they were eagerly taken by his
associates.

The 5-20 bonds having been paid off or called, the department
proceeded, as soon as practicable, to execute the laws of January
25 "to facilitate the refunding of the national debt," and February
26 "to authorize the issue of certificates of deposit in aid of
the refunding of the public debt."

On the 16th of April I published the offer of $150,000,000 four
per cent. bonds at one-half of one per cent. above par and accrued
interest, and reserved $44,566,300 of these bonds for the conversion
of ten dollar refunding certificates.

The following telegrams, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury
on the 17th of April, tell the result:

From the Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:

"Send two millions four per cent. bonds under terms of to-day's
dispatch."

From Chase National Bank, New York:

"We have subscribed for half million dollars four per cent. bonds
on terms just issued. Can we deposit our securities at the treasury
here, as heretofore?"

From First National Bank, New York:

"Please enter subscription this date for ten million dollars, and
reserve further amount of fifteen millions, awaiting our letter.
Please make no announcement of either to-day, for reasons will
explain."

From Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:

"Send seventy-five certificates ten thousand each, fifty of five
thousand each, four per cents., in name of I. & S. Wormser. Also
four hundred bonds five hundred each, three hundred of one thousand
each; in all, one million five hundred thousand. Certificate
deposit by mail."

From Baltzer and Lichtenstein, New York:

"We subscribe to-day through the National Bank of the state for
one million fours."

From National Bank of the State of New York:

"We confirm dispatch of Baltzer and Lichtenstein order one million
four per cent. consols, and order, in addition to that and our
previous dispatch, one million more, half each coupon and
registered."

Bank of New York National Banking Association, New York:

"We take two million more fours; particulars later."

From National Bank of the State of New York:

"Please forward immediately four million United States four per
cent. consols."

* * * * *

"Please forward three hundred thousand registered and two hundred
thousand coupons four per cent. consols. Particulars by mail."

* * * * *

"Please forward one million four per cent. consols coupons."

* * * * *

"Please forward immediately fifteen hundred thousand United States
four per cent. consols additional to all former subscriptions."

From Bank of New York National Banking Association:

"Send one hundred and twenty certificates, ten thousand each, in
name of I. & S. Wormser; also eight hundred coupon bonds, one
thousand each, in all, two million fours. Certificate by mail."

* * * * *

"We subscribe for four millions fours; this is in addition to all
other telegrams. Certificates by mail."

From Continental National Bank, New York:

"We subscribe to-day two million four per cents., name Hatch &
Foote. Particulars by mail."

From First National Bank, New York:

"Please enter our subscription under this date for one hundred and
fifty million dollars four per cent. bonds and forty million dollars
refunding certificates, in all, one hundred and ninety million
dollars, under terms of your circulars of April 16 and March 7.
These subscriptions are for this bank and its associates. Will
see you to-morrow morning. This is repetition of dispatch sent to
the department."

From National Bank, State of New York:

"Confirming previous dispatches covering subscriptions of seven
million five hundred thousand dollars to four per cent. loan, please
forward additional two millions coupon bonds."

From Bank of New York National Banking Association:

"We subscribe for one million four per cents. Certificates of
deposit by mail to-morrow."

From National Bank, State of New York:

"Please forward immediately one million more United States four
per cent. consols, making a total, together with former subscriptions,
of ten million five hundred thousand."

I sent the following telegram to the First National Bank of New
York:

"Your telegram covering one hundred and ninety million consols
staggers me. Your telegram for twenty-five million received, and
entered at two o'clock. About thirty million from other parties
were received and entered before your last telegram. Will wait
till letters received. What is the matter? Are you all crazy?"

On the 18th the bids were carefully analyzed and accepted in the
order in which they were received. The bid of the First National
Bank was made on the behalf of an association of banks and bankers.
I declined their offer for refunding certificates and accepted
their offer for $111,000,000.

I wrote to Conant, April 18, as follows:

"Since I wrote you the letters yesterday respecting the recent
circular of April 16, I have sold the whole of the $150,000,000 of
bonds offered therein; $39,000,000 were sold to sundry banks in
the city of New York, and the residue, $111,000,000, were sold to
an association of banks and bankers through First National Bank.
This unexpected and agreeable _denouement_ of our refunding operations
will supersede much that I have written you. I received and answered
your telegram of to-day. Arrangements will be made with the new
associates for delivery of four per cent. consols and the receipt
of called bonds in London.

"Although I have given notice that I will feel at liberty to do so
after the 4th of May, I prefer that you will postpone any new
arrangement for delivery to other parties until the 10th; hoping
that before that time Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co. will be able to
close out the balance of their last subscription."

On the same day I made a call for $160,000,000 10-40 bonds, being
all of such bonds outstanding, except an amount that would be
covered by the proceeds of ten dollar refunding certificates. The
sale of these certificates gave the department a great deal of
trouble. The object and purpose of the law was to secure to persons
of limited means an opportunity to purchase, at par, certificates
of indebtedness bearing four per cent. interest. As they could be
converted at pleasure into 10-40 bonds of small denominations, it
was thought they would be promptly taken by the persons for whom
they were designed. They were sold in limited amounts to individuals
at post offices, but as they were, when converted into bonds, worth
a premium, bankers and others hired men to stand in line and purchase
certificates. This was a practical fraud on the law, and was mainly
conducted in the cities, and where done the sale was discontinued.
The great body of the certificates were taken by the class of
persons for whom they were designed. In a brief period they were
sold, and the proceeds were in the treasury.

On the 21st of April I made the final call for all outstanding 10-
40 bonds. With this call the refunding operations were practically
at an end for the time. A good deal of correspondence was had as
to priority of bids and sales of refunding certificates, but this
was closed, at the end of ninety days, by the full payment of the
called bonds, and the substitution of bonds bearing a lower rate
of interest. This was accomplished without the loss of a dollar,
or, so far as I can recall, without a lawsuit.

The aggregate amount of bonds refunded from March 4, 1877, to July
21, 1879, was $845,345,950.

The annual interest saved by this operation was $14,290,416.50.

The general approval and appreciation of these results was manifested
by the public press, and especially in Europe. Mr. Conant, in a
letter dated April 19, said:

"On yesterday morning, at the stock exchange, just after the opening
hour, a McLean's cable dispatch was posted up, stating that you
had entered into a contract with a syndicate for the sale of
$150,000,000 of four per cent. bonds, against the outstanding 10-
40 five per cent. bonds. People were astounded at the information,
and they were all the more astonished because the operation followed
so closely upon the transaction of the 4th instant. The effect of
this has been to send the price of the bonds up by three-fourths
per cent., and to create a demand for them."

From the date of these transactions the bonds of the United States
rapidly advanced in value. Many similar transactions of my successors
in office have been made at a still lower rate of interest.

Among the agreeable incidents connected with the resumption of
specie payments was the adoption of resolutions by the Chamber of
Commerce of New York, on the 2nd of July, 1879. The second resolution
was as follows:

"_Resolved_, That this Chamber tenders its congratulations to the
Honorable the Secretary of the Treasury, at once the framer and
executor of the law of 1875, upon the success which has attended
his administration of the national finances; as well in the funding
of the public debt, as in the measures he has pursued to restore
a sound currency."

I subsequently received, by the hands of William E. Dodge, late
president of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, a letter from
that body asking me to sit for my portrait to be placed on the
walls of their Chamber. On the 24th of February I sent the following
reply:

"Gentlemen:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by the
hands of Wm. E. Dodge, late president of the Chamber of Commerce
of New York, of your letter of the 17th instant, covering a resolution
of your body, asking me to sit for my portrait to be placed upon
the walls of your Chamber.

"The kinds words of Mr. Dodge in delivering the resolution add
greatly to the compliment contained therein. I assure you that I
deeply appreciate the honor of being designated in this manner, by
a body so distinguished as the one you represent, composed of
members having so large an influence in the commercial transactions,
not only of our country, but of other nations, whose familiarity
with financial and commercial subjects gives to its opinions great
respect and authority.

"The resumption of specie payments has been brought about by the
co-operation, not only of many Senators and Members of Congress,
but of the leading merchants, bankers and other business men of
the country. It was my good fortune to be selected, by my colleagues
in the Senate, to present the resumption act, which was framed with
their aid and in their councils, and to hold my present office at
the time when, by its terms, the law was to be enforced. The only
merit I can claim is the honest and earnest effort, with others,
to secure the adoption of the policy of resumption, and to have
executed the law according to its letter and spirit. I feel that
I cannot accept this high compliment, without acknowledging that
I am but one of the many who have contributed to the accomplishment
of this beneficent object.

"I will, with great pleasure, give every facility to any artist
whom you may select to carry your resolution into effect.

"Expressing to you, and the gentlemen you represent, my appreciation
of a compliment so highly prized, I have the honor to be,

"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"John Sherman.
"Messrs. A. A. Lone, James M. Brown, Sam'l D. Babcock, Wm. E. Dodge,
Henry F. Spaulding, _Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, New
York_."

Subsequently, in compliance with this request, I gave to Mr.
Huntington, an eminent artist selected by that body, a number of
sittings, and the result was a portrait of great merit, which was
placed in the Chamber of Commerce with that of Alexander Hamilton.
I regarded this as a high compliment from so distinguished a body
of merchants, but I do not indulge in the vanity of a comparison
with Hamilton.

On the morning of January 1, 1879, I received intelligence of the
sudden death of my eldest brother, Charles T. Sherman, at his
residence in Cleveland. In company with General Miles and Senator
Cameron, his sons-in-law, and General Sherman, I went to Cleveland
to attend the funeral. My respect and affection for him has already
been stated. As the eldest member of our family he contributed
more than any other to the happiness of his mother and the success
of his brothers and sisters. He aided and assisted me in every
period of my life, and with uniform kindness did all he could to
advance my interests and add to my comfort and happiness. As
district judge of the United States, for the northern district of
Ohio, he was faithful and just. When, after twelve years service,
he was reproached for aiding in securing the reversal of an order
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in collecting an unlawful
and unjust tax in the city of New York, as he had a perfect right
to do, he resigned his position rather than engage in a controversy.
He was unduly sensitive of all accusations or innuendoes touching
his honor. He was honest and faithful to every engagement, and
had a larger personal following of intimate friends and associates
than either of his brothers.

On the 4th of March, 1879, President Hayes convened the 46th Congress
in special session to meet on the 18th of that month, to provide
necessary appropriations for the legislative, executive and judicial
expenses of the government, and also for the support of the army,
the 45th Congress having failed to pass bills for these objects on
account of a disagreement of the two Houses as to certain provisions
relating to the election laws. This session continued until July
1, and was chiefly occupied in political topics, such as reconstruction
and elections. The Democratic party, for the first time in twenty
years, had control of both Houses, but it neither adopted nor
proposed any important financial legislation at that session, the
only law passed in respect to coin, currency or bonds which I recall
being one to provide for the exchange of subsidiary coins for lawful
money, and making such coins a legal tender in all sums not exceeding
ten dollars. Congress seemed to be content with the operations of
the treasury department at that time, and certainly made no obstacle
to their success.

About the 1st of May, Mrs. Sherman, accompanied by our adopted
daughter, Mary Sherman, then a young schoolgirl twelve years old,
and Miss Florence Hoyt, of New York, Miss Jennie Dennison, of
Columbus, and Miss Julia Parsons, of Cleveland, three bright and
accomplished young ladies, embarked on the steamer Adriatic for a
visit to Europe. Mrs. Sherman placed Mary in a very good school
at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and then with her companions visited
the leading cities of Europe.

After accompanying the party to New York I went to Mansfield, and
as my family was absent and the homestead occupied by comparative
strangers, I stopped at the St. James hotel where, as was natural,
I met a great many of my old neighbors and friends, both Democrats
and Republicans, who welcomed me home.

Among my visitors were several reporters from different parts of
the country who wanted to interview me and especially to learn if
I was a candidate for governor, and why I came home. In the
afternoon I visited my farm near by and my homestead of about twenty
acres adjoining the city. I found them in the usual neglected
condition of the property of a non-resident proprietor, with many
of the fences down. In the evening I was serenaded at the hotel
and made a brief speech to a large audience, commencing as follows:

"I am very happy to be again in your midst, to see your faces and
to greet you as friends. The shaking of your hands is more grateful
to me than the music of bands or any parade. I never felt like
making an explanation in coming before you until now. I found when
I arrived in my old home that the papers said I came west seeking
the nomination for governor. I came purely on private business--
to repair my fences and look after neglected property."

The reporters seized upon the reference to my fences, and construed
it as having a political significance. The phrase "mending fences"
became a byword, and every politician engaged in strengthening his
position is still said to be "mending his fences."

Previous to that time mention had been made of me in different
parts of the country, not only for the nomination of Governor of
Ohio, but for President of the United States. Charles Foster and
Alphonso Taft were then spoken of as the leading candidates for
nomination as governor. Both were my personal friends and eminently
qualified to perform the duties of the office. Although I regarded
the position of governor as dignified and important, well worthy
the ambition of any citizen, still there were reasons which would
prevent my accepting the nomination if it should be tendered me.
I felt that to abandon my duties in the treasury department might
be fairly construed as an evasion of a grave responsibility and an
important public duty. I knew that President Hayes was very anxious
that I should remain in the office of secretary until the close of
his term. I did not desire to compete with the gentlemen already
named, and did all I could to discourage the movement short of
absolute refusal to accept the nomination. The newspapers of the
day, not only in Ohio but in other states, were full of favorable
comments upon my probable nomination for governor, and my correspondence
upon the subject was very large. I have no doubt that had I
consented to be a candidate both Foster and Taft would have acquiesced
in my nomination and I, in all human probability, would have been
duly elected as Foster was.

As for the nomination for the presidency I made no movement or
effort to bring it about, but then believed that General Grant
would, upon his return from his tour around the world, be nominated
and elected. The following letter will explain fully my position
in regard to the office of both governor and president:

"Washington, D. C., May 15, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--I notice, with heartfelt thanks for your personal
kindness in the matter, the course of the 'Commercial' in regard
to my proposed candidacy for Governor of Ohio, and this induces me
to state to you frankly and fully, in confidence, the reasons why
I could not accept the nomination if tendered, and why I hope you
will give such a turn to the matter as will save me the embarrassment
of declining.

"In ordinary circumstance an election as Governor of Ohio, after
my life in the Senate, would be extremely flattering and agreeable;
but at present, for several reasons, the least of which are personal,
I could not accept it.

"My wife has gone to Europe on a visit of recreation greatly needed
by her, my house in Mansfield is rented, and all my arrangements
are made to be here during the summer. The nomination would require
me to recall her, to resume my house, and to break up my plans for
the summer. If this alone stood in the way, I could easily overcome
it, but I know from letters received that my resignation as secretary
would be regarded as a desertion of a public trust important to
the whole country, with the selfish view of promoting my personal
ambition, not for the governorship merely but for the presidency,
which would impair rather than improve any chance I may have in
that direction.

"The President would regard this change as a great inconvenience
and as defeating a desire he has frequently expressed to maintain
his cabinet intact during his term, so that my obligations to him
forbid this.

* * * * *

"All these objections might be met except the one which I think is
unanswerable, that my presence here in the completion of a public
duty is far more important to the whole country and the cause we
advocate than if I were to run as a candidate for Governor of Ohio
and even succeed with a large majority.

"All things now tend to our success in Ohio and that is likely to
be as complete with any other candidate for governor as myself,
while if left here I will be able to so finish my business that no
one can say it is incomplete.

"As for the mention of my name for the presidency, I am not so
blind as not to perceive some favorable signs for me, but I have
thus far observed and intend strictly to adhere to the policy of
taking no step in that direction, doing no act to promote that
object, and using none of the influence of my office towards it,
except so far as a strict and close attention to duty here may
help. I am not now, and do not intend to get, infected with the
presidential fever.

"With high regard, I am, very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"M. Halstead, Esq., Cincinnati, Ohio."

During 1879 and the following year I received a multitude of letters
and newspaper paragraphs advocating my nomination for President.
Among the first of such letters was one from an old friend, John
B. Haskin, formerly a Member of Congress from New York. On the
10th of May, 1879, I wrote him in answer a letter, not intended
for publication, but expressing what I would do in the contingency
mentioned by him, as follows:

"What I would aspire to, in case public opinion should decide to
make me a candidate for President, would be to unite in co-operation
with the Republican party all the national elements of the country
that contributed to or aided in any way in the successful vindication
of national authority during the war. I would do this, not for
the purpose of irritating the south or oppressing them in any way,
but to assert and maintain the supremacy of national authority to
the full extent of all the powers conferred by the constitution.
This, as I understand it, is the Jacksonian as well as the Republican
view of national powers.

* * * * *

"You see my general ideas would lead me to lean greatly upon the
war Democrats and soldiers in the service, who have been influenced
by political events since the war to withhold support from the
Republican party.

"The true issue for 1880 is national supremacy in national matters,
honest money and an honest dollar."

Mr. Haskin gave, or showed, this letter to a New York paper, and
it was published. I expressed my opinion, but it was not one that
should have been made public without authority. The letter was
the subject of comment and criticism, and was treated as an open
declaration of my candidacy for the office of President. It was
not written with this purpose, as the context clearly shows. This
incident was a caution to me not to answer such letters, unless I
was assured that my replies would be treated as confidential. Yet
I do not see how a man in public life can refuse to answer a friendly
letter, even if his meaning can be perverted.

During the months of May and June I had a correspondence with John
B. Henderson, of St. Louis, in which he expressed his great interest
in my nomination. This resulted in a conference, which he advised,
with President Hayes. My reply was as follows:

"Treasury Department, June 23, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--In compliance with your suggestion, I yesterday
mentioned to the President my embarrassment from the general
discussion of my name as a possible candidate for the Republican
nomination. The points I mentioned were how far I should commit
myself to a candidacy and what I should do to promote it, and second
whether, under certain circumstances, he would not, in spite of
his declination, become a candidate for re-election. He was very
explicit on both points--first that I ought at once to let it be
understood that I was a candidate in the sense stated in the Haskin
letter, and no more--that great care should be taken that while a
candidate, I ought not to take part in any movement of opposition
to others named--especially General Grant. The feeling is growing
daily that General Grant will not allow his name to be used and
that, while his eminent services should be fully recognized and
rewarded, it is neither right nor politic to elect him to the
presidency for the third term. The President very truly said that
any appearance of a personal hostility or opposition to General
Grant, would be inconsistent with my constant support of his
administration during eight years, and would induce a concentration
that would surely defeat me. Upon the second point he was very
explicit--that he would not be a candidate under any circumstances,
and as far as he could properly, without any unseemly interference,
he would favor my election. This was the general tenor of his
conversation, which he said he would repeat to General Schurz.
This relieves me from some embarrassment, but I still think it is
better for us to remain absolutely quiet, awaiting the development
of public opinion or the voluntary action of personal and political
friends. Unless there is a clear preponderance of opinion in
preference for my nomination against all others, I do not want to
enter upon the scramble. As yet I do not see any concentration.
Hoping to see you soon, I remain,

"Very sincerely yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. John B. Henderson."

After a brief visit to Mansfield I went to Columbus, where I met
with a hearty reception from men of both political parties. The
legislature was in session, and the senators and members, judges
of the courts, and executive officers of the state, called upon me
and gave me cordial greetings. I attended a reception at the house
of Governor Dennison, where I met the leading citizens of Columbus.
On my return to the hotel I was serenaded by a band, and being
introduced by Governor Dennison made a brief speech of a non-partisan
character, and in closing said:

"I want to make one personal remark about myself. Some of my
newspaper friends here have tried to make me a candidate for Governor
of Ohio, but I hope none of you will vote for me in convention or
before the people. I propose to stick to my present place until
the question of resumption is settled beyond a doubt. I want to
convince everybody that the experiment of resumption is a success;
that we can resume; that the United States is not bound to have
its notes hawked about at a discount, but that a note of the United
States may travel about the world, everywhere received as equal to
gold coin, and as good as any note ever issued by any nation, either
in ancient or modern times. I want to see that our debt shall be
reduced, which will be done through four per cent. bonds. If the
present policy prevails, we shall be able to borrow all the money
needed for national uses for less than four per cent., perhaps as
low as three."

I returned directly to Washington. Finding that a determined effort
would be made to force my nomination as governor, I wrote the
following letter to prevent it:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, May 15, 1879.}
"My Dear Sir:--In view of the kindly interest manifested by political
friends during my recent visit home, that I should be nominated as
the Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio, I have given the
subject the most careful consideration, and have come to the
conclusion that I cannot, in my present situation, accept such a
nomination if tendered.

"I am now engaged in a public duty which demands my constant
attention and which can clearly better be completed by me than by
anyone coming freshly into the office. To now accept the nomination
for governor, though it is an honor I would otherwise highly prize
and feel deeply grateful for, would be justly regarded as a
abandonment of a trust important to the whole country, to promote
my personal advancement. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the
convention will not embarrass me by a tender of a nomination which
I would be obliged to decline.

"It may be that no such purpose will be manifested, but I write
you so that if the convention should so incline, you may at once
state why I cannot accept.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"General J. S. Robinson, Chairman Republican State Committee,
Columbus, Ohio."

Charles Foster was nominated by the Republican convention in the
latter part of May, and Thomas Ewing by the Democratic convention.
These nominations necessarily made prominent the financial questions
of the time. After the close of the funding operations, I received
from Mr. Blaine, as chairman of the Republican committee of Maine,
the following invitation, which I accepted:

"Augusta, Me., July 3, 1879.
"Hon. John Sherman, Secy. of Treas.

"My Dear Sir:--Could you speak at Portland, Tuesday, July 23, and
then during the same week at Augusta and Bangor--say 25th-27th?
Your Portland speech we should expect to have printed the next day,
accurately from your own slips.

"Your two other speeches, hardly less important to us, might be
made with less care and accuracy, that is, more on the order of
the general stump speech.

"In your Portland speech I hope, however, you will talk on something
more than the finance, making it, however, the leading and prominent
topic--but giving a heavy hit at the conduct of the Democrats during
the extra session.

"Sincerely,
"James G. Blaine."

The election in the State of Maine preceding those of other states,
great interest was taken in it, as the result there would have much
influence in other parts of the country. That state in the previous
year had faltered in support of the Republican party. In that year
there were three candidates in the field for governor, the Republican,
whose name I do not recall, the Democratic, Garcelon, for hard
money, and the Greenback, Smith, under the lead of Solon Chase, an
alleged lunatic in favor of fiat money, the repeal of the resumption
law, and the enactment of an eight-hour law. Smith received about
40,000 votes, Garcelon about 28,000, and the Republican candidate
about 54,000. Many Republicans either did not vote or voted the
Democratic or Greenback ticket. By the constitution of that state
a majority of all the votes cast is required to elect a governor,
and in case of failure the house of representatives of the state
proceeds to ballot for choice. The names are then sent to the
senate for the action of that body. The result was the election
of Garcelon, the Democratic candidate.

This was due to a strong feeling then prevailing in favor of
irredeemable or fiat money, and to some discontent among Republicans
with the liberal measures adopted by President Hayes to secure
peace and quiet in the south, especially the recognition of Hampton
as Governor of South Carolina and of Nichols as Governor of
Louisiana.

I thought it important to turn the issues of the campaign to the
financial measures accomplished by the Republican party, and
therefore prepared with some care a speech to be delivered at
Portland, and confined mainly to this subject. This speech was
made on the 23rd of July, 1879. I regard it as the best statement
of the financial question made by me in that canvass. In it I
stated fully the action of the administration in respect to the
resumption of specie payments, and the refunding of the public
debt. The people of Maine had been greatly divided upon these
measures. The Greenback party was opposed to the effort to advance
the United States note to the value of coin which it represented,
but wished to make it depend upon some imaginary value given to it
by law. I said the people of Maine would have to choose between
those who strictly sought to preserve the national faith, and to
maintain the greenback at par with coin, and those who, with utter
disregard of the public faith, wished to restore the old state of
affairs, when the greenback could only be passed at a discount,
and could neither be received for customs duties, nor be paid upon
the public debt.

The Greenback party had embodied in their platform the following
dogmas:

"The general government should issue an ample volume of full legal
tender currency to meet the business needs of the country, and to
promptly pay all of its debts."

"The national banking system should be immediately abolished."

"We demand the immediate calling-in and payment of all United States
bonds in full legal tender money."

One of the Members of Congress from the State of Maine, Hon. G. W.
Ladd, was reported to have paid his attention to me, in a speech
in Portland, in the following language:

"Mr. Sherman has sold one hundred and ninety millions of four per
cent. bonds in one day to bloodsuckers who were choking the country,
and he should be impeached."

In closing my speech I said:

"It is to support such dogmas, my Republican friends, that we are
invited to desert the great party to which we belong. It may be
that the Republican party has made in the last twenty years some
mistakes. It may not always have come up to your aspirations.
Sometimes power may have been abused. To err is human; but where
it has erred it has always been on the side of liberty and justice.
It led our country in the great struggle for union and nationality,
which more than all else tended to make it great and powerful. It
has always taken side with the poor and the feeble. It emancipated
a whole race, and has invested them with liberty and all the rights
of citizenship. It never robbed the ballot box. It has never
deprived any class of people, for any cause, of the elective
franchise. It maintains the supremacy of the national government
on all national affairs, while observing and protecting the rights
of the states. It has tried to secure the equality of all citizens
before the law. It opposes all distinctions among men, whether
white or black, native or naturalized. It invites them all to
partake of equal privileges, and secures them an equal chance in
life. It has secured, for the first time in our history, the rights
of a naturalized citizen to protection against claims of military
duty in his native country. It prescribes no religious test.
While it respects religion for its beneficial influence upon civil
society, it recognizes the right of each individual to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience, without prejudice
or interference. It supports free common schools as the basis of
republican institutions. It has done more than any party that ever
existed to provide lands for the landless. It devised and enacted
the homestead law, and has constantly extended this policy, so that
all citizens, native and naturalized, may enjoy, without cost,
limited portions of this public land. It protects American labor.
It is in favor of American industry. It seeks to diversity
productions. It has steadily pursued, as an object of national
importance, the development of our commerce on inland waters and
on the high seas. It has protected our flag on every sea; not the
stars and bars, not the flag of a state, but the stars and stripes
of the Union. It seeks to establish in this republic of ours a
great, strong, free government of free men. It would, with frankness
and sincerity, without malice or hate, extend the right hand of
fellowship and fraternity to those who lately were at war with us,
aid them in making fruitful their waste places and in developing
their immense resources, if only they would allow the poor and
ignorant men among them the benefits conferred by the constitution
and the laws. No hand of oppression rests upon them. No bayonet
points to them except in their political imaginings.

"We would gladly fraternize with them if they would allow us, and
have but one creed--the constitution and laws of our country, to
be executed and enforced by our country, and for the equal benefit
of all our countrymen. If they will not accept this, but will keep
up sectionalism, maintain the solid south upon the basis of the
principles of the Confederate states, we must prepare to stand
together as the loyal north, true to the Union, true to liberty,
and faithful to every national obligation. I appeal to every man
who ever, at any time, belonged to the Republican party, to every
man who supported his country in its time of danger, to every lover
of liberty regulated by law, and every intelligent Democrat who
can see with us the evil tendencies of the dogmas I have commented
upon, to join us in reforming all that is evil, all the abuses of
the past, and in developing the principles and policies which in
twenty years have done so much to strengthen our government, to
consolidate our institutions, and to excite the respect and admiration
of mankind."

I made similar speeches at Lewiston, Augusta, Waterville and Bangor.
General Sherman's estimate of my speech at Portland, in reply to
an inquiry, is characteristic of him, viz:

"General, your brother, Secretary Sherman, seems to be doing some
telling work just now in the State of Maine; in fact, it is conceded
that his recent financial triumphs have made him a power."

"Well, yes, I think John's doing right well. He made a good speech
at Portland, one that seemed to me carefully prepared. I think he
answered his critics quite conclusively, but if I were in John's
place I would now save my breath and make no more speeches, but
simply say in reply to other invitations, 'Read my Portland speech,'
because whatever other efforts he may make during the campaign must
be more or less a rehash of that."

In the canvass that followed in Maine but little attention was paid
to the sectional question, and the Republican party gained a complete
victory.

About the middle of August the business of the treasury department,
being confined to routine duties, was left under the management of
Assistant Secretary John B. Hawley. I determined to spend the
remainder of the month in the campaign in Ohio, then actively
progressing, but confined mainly to the issue between the inflation
of paper money and the solid rock of specie payments. I made my
first speech in that canvass at Steubenville on the 21st of August.
The meeting was a very large one. Every available seat was occupied
by an intelligent audience, and the aisles and corridors were filled
with people sitting or standing. I opened my speech as follows:

"I am happy to be again among the people of Ohio, to whom I am
under the highest obligations of duty and gratitude, and especially
to be here in this good county of Jefferson, whose representatives
have thrice honored me by their vote when a candidate for the Senate
of the United States. I cheerfully come to speak on matters in
which you, as well as the whole people of the United States, have
a common interest; and I will best meet your wishes by stating, in
a plain, frank way, such facts and reasons as appear to me to
justify the support you have uniformly given to the Republican
party since its organization in 1854, and to present adequate
grounds for supporting it now.

"Three parties present candidates to the people of Ohio for the
highest offices of the state. It will not be necessary or just
for me to arraign the personal character, standing, or services of
either of the candidates on either of these tickets. They are all
respected citizens, and each would, no doubt, if elected, satisfactorily
perform the duties of the office for which he is nominated.

"But the issues involved are far more important than the candidates.
I assure you that upon the election in Ohio depend questions of
public policy which touch upon the framework of our government and
affect the interests of every citizen of the United States. The
same old questions about which we disputed before the war, and
during the war, and since the war, are as clearly involved in this
campaign as they were when Lincoln was elected, or when Grant was
fighting the battles of his country in the Wilderness.

"There are also financial questions involved in this contest. The
Republican party proposed, maintained, and executed the resumption
act as the best remedy for the evils that followed the panic of
1873. Under that act it has brought about the resumption of specie
payments. By its policy all forms of money are equal to and
redeemable in coin. It has reduced the interest on all the public
debt that is now redeemable. It has maintained and advanced the
public credit. It now declares its purpose to hold fast to what
it has done, to keep and maintain every dollar of paper money in
circulation as of equal value to the best coin issued from the
mint, and as soon as possible to complete the work of reducing
interest on all the public debt to four per cent. or less.

"The Greenback party not only denounces all we have done, but
proposes to reverse it by the issue of an almost unlimited amount
of irredeemable paper money, to destroy the system of free national
banks, and to call in and pay off all the United States bonds with
irredeemable money.

"The Democratic party of Ohio, both in its platform and by its
candidates, supports more or less all of these dogmas; but it does
so not as a matter of principle, but for political power. Its main
object is, by any sort of alliance on any real or pretended popular
issue, to gain strength enough to unite with the solid south, so
that it may restore to power, in all departments of the national
government, the very same doctrines that led to the Civil War, and
the very men who waged it against the Union. To obtain political
power, the democracy seek, by party discipline, to compel their
members to abandon the old and cherished principles of their party
of having a sound currency redeemable in coin. For this, they
overthrew Governor Bishop; for this, they propose to reopen all
the wild and visionary schemes of inflation which have been twice
rejected by the people of Ohio. Our contest with them is not only
on financial questions, but upon the old and broad question of the
power and duty of the national government to enforce the constitution
and laws of the United States in every state and territory, whether
in favor of or against any citizen of the United States.

"Let us first take up these financial questions, and in charity
and kindness, and with due deference to opposing opinions, endeavor
to get at the right, if we can.

"The great body of all parties are interested in and desirous of
promoting the public good. If they could only hear both sides
fairly stated, there would be less heat and bitterness in political
contests, and more independent voting."

I then proceeded with a full discussion of the financial questions,
referring especially to the speeches made by General Ewing, with
whose opinions I was conversant. I closed with a brief discussion
of the southern question, and especially the nullification of the
election laws in the southern states. This speech was the best of
many made by me in different parts of the state. I was engaged in
the canvass in Ohio for two weeks afterward, during which I visited
my home at Mansfield.

In traversing the state I was surprised at the remarkable change
in the condition of business and the feelings of the people, and
at the evidences of prosperity not only in the workshops but on
the farms. It was jokingly said that the revival of industries
and peace and happiness was a shrewd political trick of the
Republicans to carry the state. As I rode through the country I
saw for miles and miles luxuriant crops of thousands of acres of
wheat, corn, oats and barley. It was said that this was merely a
part of the campaign strategy of the Republicans, that really the
people were very poor and miserable and on the verge of starvation.
This was the burden of the speeches of General Ewing, who attributed
the miseries of the people to my "wicked financial policy," and
said that I was given over to the clutches of the money power and
stripped and robbed the people of Ohio for the benefit of the
"bloated bondholders."

While General Ewing was fighting in the shadows of the past, caused
by the panic of 1873, a revolution had taken place, and he who
entered into the canvass with the hope that the cry of distress
would aid him in his ambition to be governor, must have been greatly
discouraged by the evidences of prosperity all around him. I found
in my home at Mansfield that business was prosperous, the workshops
were in full blast, and smoke was issuing from the chimney of every
establishment in the place.

My coming to Ohio naturally excited a good deal of comment and of
opposition from Democratic speakers and papers. I was charged with
nepotism in appointing my relatives to office, but upon examination
it was found that I had appointed none, though several, mostly
remote, were holding office under appointments of General Grant.
On the 25th of August I left Mansfield for Columbus and Cincinnati,
and on the train met Charles Foster and others on their way to
Mount Vernon. On their arrival they were met by flags and music,
and in response to the calls I made a brief speech.

On the 27th of August I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati
and the Chamber of Commerce of that city. That body is composed
in almost equal numbers of members of the two great parties, and
therefore, in addressing it, I carefully refrain from discussing
political topics. At that time there was a good deal of discussion
of the order made by me on the 13th of August, addressed to the
treasurer of the United States, directing him not to withdraw from
bank depositaries the money deposited for the payment of called
bonds, until it was required for that purpose. At the date of that
order over $70,000,000 of called bonds were still outstanding, but
only $52,000,000 remained on deposit with national bank depositaries
to pay them, thus showing that $18,000,000 United States notes had
been withdrawn from the depositaries into the treasury in advance
of their need for such payment. These sums were fully secured by
the deposit with the government of bonds to the amount of such
deposits and a further sum of bonds to the amount of five per cent.
of the deposit.

I felt that the withdrawal of this great sum in advance of the
presentation of the called bonds would necessarily create an
injurious contraction of the currency. To meet this condition of
affairs, upon the advice of the treasurer at Washington and the
assistant treasurer at New York, and the pressing complaints of
business men not interested in depositary banks, I issued this
order:

"Treasury Department, August 13, 1879.
"Hon. James Gilfillan, Treasurer United States.

"Sir:--With a view to closing as soon as practicable the accounts
of the department with depositary banks on loan account, without
unnecessary disturbance of the money market or the withdrawal of
legal tenders from current business, you will please receive from
such depositaries in payment called bonds to be credited when passed
through the loan division. You will require from such depositaries
sufficient money in addition to the called bonds, to insure the
withdrawal of all deposits on loan account on or before the 1st of
October next. The letter of the department of March 26 is modified
accordingly.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman, Secretary."

It was said that this was done to relieve the banks, and especially
the First National and the National Bank of Commerce, of New York,
which in closing out the refunding operations had, as already
stated, made large subscriptions for themselves and others, and it
was intimated that I was interested in these banks. This innuendo
was without foundation or excuse, and was made merely to create a
political sensation. This order was made, not at the request of
the banks, for they were entirely prepared to pay the money, but
at the urgent demand of business men, that the currency should not
be withdrawn from the banks where it was employed in active business,
and be deposited in the treasury where it would lay idle.

I thus explained the matter to the Chamber of Commerce, and to the
public at large. I felt that it would not be advisable for me to
drain the money market of legal tenders, and to hoard them in the
treasury to await the presentation of called bonds. If such a
course had been adopted, the clamor would have been louder and more
just. The order, no doubt, had a happy effect, as the running
accounts were rapidly and quietly closed, by the payment of the
called bonds, without any disturbance in the money market. The
clamor made was beneficial because it induced the holders of the
called bonds to send them in for payment, in which I greatly
rejoiced.

In the evening of that day a reception was given to me at the
Lincoln club. While it was going on a large crowd, headed by a
band, approached the clubhouse, and loudly insisted that I should
speak to them. As this was a political club, I felt at liberty,
on being introduced by Warner M. Bateman, to make a political
speech, mainly devoted to my early friend, General Ewing, and his
peculiar notions of finance. This was reported in the papers at
the time. If there was too much political feeling manifested in
my speeches at this period, it may be partly excused by the extreme
violence of denunciation of me by Democratic speakers and
newspapers.

Later in the evening I visited Wielert's pavilion, on Vine Street,
where the usual evening concert was being given. The visitors were
mainly German citizens, and, as such, were known to be in favor of
a sound currency based upon gold and silver. The orchestra at once
stopped the piece they were playing, and played the "Star Spangled
Banner," amid the cheering of the assemblage. They insisted upon
a speech, and I said:

"When I came here to-night I did not expect to make a speech, as
I have made one already. I only came to see the people enjoy
themselves, to drink a glass of that good old German beverage,
beer, and to listen to the music. I am very happy to meet you,
and shall carry away with me a kindly remembrance of your greeting.
All I want, and that is what we all want, is honest money. A dollar
in paper is now worth a dollar in gold or silver anywhere in this
country, and we want affairs so shaped that the paper money issued
may be exchanged anywhere or under any circumstances for gold or
silver. That is my idea of honest money. [Cries, 'That is so.'
'That is ours, too,' etc.] We may be assured that such shall be
the character of the money in our country if the people will sustain
the party which has equalized the values of the paper and metal
moneys. Again I thank you for your kind reception."

I returned to Washington and remained there during the month of
September, actively employed in the duties of the department.
During this month nearly all the outstanding called bonds were
presented and paid, and all sums deposited with national banks
during the operation of refunding were paid into the treasury and
these accounts closed.

Fruitful crops in the United States, and a large demand for them
in Europe, caused an accumulation of coin in this country. Much
of it came through the customhouse in New York, but most of it was
in payment for cotton and provisions. It was readily exchanged
for United States notes and silver certificates. As all forms of
money were of equal purchasing power and paper money was much more
convenient to handle than coin, the exchange of coin, by the holders
of it, for notes or certificates, was a substantial benefit to them
and strengthened the treasury. I promoted these exchanges as far
as the law allowed. I deemed it wise to distribute this coin among
the several sub-treasuries of the United States, maintaining always
the reserve for the redemption of United States notes in the sub-
treasury in New York as the law required. For this purpose I issued
the following order:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, September 19, 1879.}
"Gold coin beyond the needs of the government having accumulated
in the treasury of the United States, by the deposit in the several
public assay offices of fine bars and foreign coin, for which the
depositors have been paid, at their option, in United States notes,
the treasurer of the United States, and the several assistant
treasurers at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cincinnati,
Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and San Francisco, are hereby
authorized to pay out gold coin as well as silver coin and notes
upon the current obligations of the government, and upon advances
to disbursing officers, as may be convenient and practicable.
Transfers of coin for this purpose will be made to any assistant
treasurer, when necessary, by the treasurer of the United States,
upon application to him. The treasurer of the United States in
this city, upon the receipt by him of a certificate of deposit
issued by the United States assistant treasurer at New York, stating
that there has been deposited with him legal tender notes in the
sum of $100 or multiples thereof, will also cause to be shipped
from the mint to the depositor, at his risk and expense, a like
amount of gold coin. Standard silver dollars may also be obtained
as heretofore.

* * * * *

"John Sherman, Secretary."

The result of this policy was beneficial, though the demand for
coin rarely existed except for foreign exchange, and this was
generally in New York, and largely depended upon the balance of
trade. Our people had been so accustomed to the use of paper money
that they received and paid United States notes in preference to
coin, and this more readily since these notes were equal in purchasing
power to coin.

Senator Thurman, my colleague and personal friend, was active in
the canvass in Ohio. His term expired on the 4th of March, 1881,
and he was a candidate for re-election by the legislature about to
be chosen. I heard of his speeches, especially those in respect
to resumption. He commented upon the fact that United States notes
were only redeemed in the city of New York, and claimed that we
had not actually resumed, for gold was not in circulation. He
appealed to his audiences to say whether they had any gold and
whether they were not compelled to receive the same greenbacks then
as they had since the period of the war, and said if they wanted
gold they had to go to New York for it. I regarded this as a piece
of demagogism, for he knew the difference between the greenbacks
then and the greenbacks before resumption. Hearing that he was to
speak in Bellaire shortly I arranged to have certain disbursements
for wages in that neighborhood made in gold coin. When he made
his speech in Bellaire, soon afterwards, he repeated the same
statements that he had previously made, and appealed to the audience
to know whether they had seen any of the gold coin they had heard
so much about. Much to his surprise and embarrassment quite a
number of persons held up and shook gold coin. This put a stop to
his inquiries. The people appreciated the advance in the purchasing
power of their money, and neither demanded coin nor cared for it.

Early in October I yielded to the urgent request of Mr. Foster to
help in the closing days of the canvass, and, on the evening of
the 8th, addressed a meeting at the west front of the capitol in
Columbus, far exceeding in numbers any political gathering during
the campaign. My opening will indicate the general trend of my
remarks:

"It is not within my power to reach with my voice all who have
assembled on this occasion, and besides, for some time I have not
been much in the habit of speaking in the open air, and don't know
how long my voice will hold out, but I think I will be able to say
all that you will desire to hear from me, as I will be followed by
a gentleman distinguished in war and able to supply any imperfections
in my address.

"When I was here in August last it appeared that the great point
in the political contest in which we were about to engage was
whether the people of Ohio would stand fast to the resumption of
specie payments, which the Republicans, by a steady and patient
courage and unswerving conviction, had finally brought to a successful
consummation on the 1st day of January last, or whether the people
of Ohio would yield to the wild and fanciful ideas of inflation,
and desert the great good that had been accomplished after so long
a trial.

"The Democratic party, which had been holding the honored principles
of that party, seemed to be willing to go after strange gods, and
to form new alliances, to do anything to gain success, and that
old party sought to form at least temporary alliances, so that the
people would forget the great issue, and follow after these strange
and delusive ideas of which I will speak. Therefore it was that
my friend General Ewing was nominated for Governor of Ohio, with
the expectation that as he had advanced some such ideas in times
past, a coalition would be made between the parties naturally
hostile, and that the State of Ohio would be thus gained for the
Democratic ticket."

In the course of my remarks I read an extract from General Ewing's
speech of the year before, in which he stated that if we were out
of debt to foreign countries, and if our foreign commerce floated
under our own flag, resumption in gold and silver would be impossible
on the then volume of paper money; that if it were attempted the
desperadoes of Wall street and the money kings of England would
present greenbacks, and take the gold as fast as it could be paid
over the counter of the treasury. I said in reply:

"Not a year rolled around until this resumption came, and these
Wall street desperadoes and these money kings of Europe, instead
of coming and demanding our gold in exchange for greenbacks, now
bring their gold to us and want greenbacks for it.

"The money kings of Europe have brought us gold--$36,900,000 in
gold coin from France--and the English have brought their gold and
exchanged it for United States notes. And these Wall street
desperadoes are as eager to get our greenbacks as you are. They
don't want the gold at all and we cannot put it on them. Why, my
countrymen, United States notes may now travel the circuit of the
world with undiminished honor, and be everywhere redeemed at par
in coin. They are made redeemable everywhere, and at this moment
the greenback is worth a premium on the Pacific coast and in the
Hawaiian Islands, and in China and Japan it is worth par; and in
every capital of Europe, in Berlin, in Paris, in London, an American
traveling may go anywhere in the circuit of the civilized world,
and take no money with him except United States notes.

"Well, now, General Ewing was mistaken. Well, why don't General
Ewing come down and say 'I was mistaken?' [A voice, 'He will come
down.'] Yes, after next Tuesday he will."

On the next day I spoke at Springfield to an audience nearly as
large, following the general lines of my Columbus speech. On the
following day I spoke at Lancaster from a stand in front of the
town hall, in plain sight of the house in which General Ewing and
I were born. I spoke of General Ewing in very complimentary terms,
said we had been intimate friends from boyhood, that our fathers
had been friends and neighbors, but that he and I then found
ourselves on opposite sides of a very important question. I
expressed my respect for the sincerity of General Ewing's motives,
but believed that he was thoroughly and radically wrong. I said
I wished to state frankly how he was wrong, and to what dangerous
consequences the fruit of his errors would lead, and I wanted the
people of Lancaster to judge between us.

On the Saturday before the election I spoke in Massillon. By some
misunderstanding I was advertised to speak on that afternoon at
both Massillon and Mansfield, but, by an arrangement subsequently
made, I spoke at Massillon to one of the largest meetings of the
campaign, and then was taken by special train to Mansfield in time
to make my closing speech in the canvass. It was late in the
afternoon, but the crowd that met to hear me remained until my
arrival, of which the following account was given by the local
paper:

"But the grand ovation was reserved for our distinguished townsman,
Secretary Sherman. There were acres of men, women, and children
and vehicles at the depot to meet him, and as he stepped from the
cars he was greeted with the booming of cannon, the music of half
a dozen bands, and the loud and long acclaim that came from the
throats of the immense concourse of friends. A thousand hands of
old neighbors were stretched out to grasp his as he moved along
with great difficulty, piloted by the reception committee, through
the vast and surging crowd. Cheer after cheer went up on every
imaginable pretext, and many times calls for 'Three cheers for John
Sherman, our next President,' were honored with a power and enthusiasm
that left no room for doubt as to the intensity of the devotion
felt for him at his old home."

In this connection I wish to say once for all that I have been
under the highest obligations to the people of Mansfield during my
entire life, from boyhood to old age. I have, with rare exceptions,
and without distinction of party, received every kindness and favor
which anyone could receive from his fellow-citizens, and if I have
not been demonstrative in exhibiting my appreciation and gratitude,
it has nevertheless been entertained, and I wish in this way to
acknowledge it.

In opening my address in the evening I said:

"My fellow-townsmen, I regret your disappointment of to-day, that,
by some misunderstanding as to the hour of your meeting, I felt it
my duty, in obedience to the request of the state committee, to
attend the great mass meeting as Massillon this afternoon, and now
come before you wearied and hoarse, to speak of the political
questions of the day.

"When I was in Ohio in August last, the chief question in the
pending political canvass was, whether the resumption of specie
payments, so long and steadily struggled for, and happily accomplished
by the Republican party, should be maintained, or whether it should
give way to certain wild and erratic notions in favor of irredeemable
paper money. Upon this issue General Ewing was nominated by the
Democratic party, in the hope that he would gain support from a
third party committed to inflation. Since then it would appear
that the Democratic leaders seek to change the issue. The same
old questions about the rights of states to nullify the laws of
the United States--the same old policy to belittle and degrade our
national government into a mere confederacy of states--are now
thrust forward into prominence."

On the following Tuesday I voted, and immediately started for
Washington. The news of the triumphant election of Foster and
Hickenlooper, by over 30,000 majority, and a Republican majority
of twenty-five in the legislature, reached me while on the train.

The management by Governor Foster of his canvass, and his work in
it, was as laborious and effective as any ever conducted in Ohio.
He visited every county in the state, often made four or five
speeches in a day, and kept special railroad trains in motion all
the while, carrying him from place to place. He is not, in the
usual sense, an orator, but in his numerous campaigns he has always
made clear and effective statements which the people could understand.
His manner is pleasing, without pretension or gush. He had been
elected to Congress several times in a district strongly Democratic.
In the campaign of 1879 he adopted the same plan that had been so
successful when he was a candidate for Congress. He was an
experienced and efficient hand-shaker.

In the latter part of September I was invited by General Arthur,
as chairman of the Republican state committee of New York, to speak
to the Republicans of that state during the pending canvass, in
aid of election of Mr. Cornell as governor. The circumstances of
the removal of Arthur and Cornell caused some doubt whether I should
accept the invitation, as it seemed that the nomination of Cornell
and the management of the canvass by Arthur was an expression of
triumph, and my acceptance would be regarded as a humiliation of
the President. I did not think so and in this opinion the President
concurred. I, therefore, accepted the invitation by the following
letter:

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, September 29, 1879.}
"Dear Sir:--I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 25th inst., inviting me to speak to the Republicans in New York
some time during the pending campaign. It will give me great
pleasure to do my utmost in aid of the election of Mr. Cornell and
the Republican ticket at the coming election, and I wish I could
accept your invitation without reserve; but in view of engagements
made in Ohio, and the official duties incumbent upon me, I cannot
make any more definite reply than to say that by the middle of
October I hope to be able to set aside two or three days to be
spent in your canvass at such places as you may think I can render
the most satisfactory service. I have also received an invitation
from Mr. Johnson, secretary of your committee. Please consider
this an answer.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman.
"To General C. A. Arthur,
"Chairman Republican State Committee, New York."

Shortly afterward I received a letter from Hon. John Jay, expressing
regret at my acceptance, for the reasons I have stated. To this
I replied as follows:

"October 4, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 2nd is received.

"I feel as you do that the nomination of Mr. Cornell, and the
appointment of Mr. Arthur to conduct the canvass, has the look of
a reproach to the President for their removal. If only their
personal interests were involved, I should feel great indifference
to their success, but it so happens that Republican success in New
York is of such vital importance to the people of the United States,
that their personal interest in the matter, and even the motive of
the nomination and appointment, should be overlooked, with a view to
secure the country against the return to power of the Democratic
party.

"We must carry New York next year, or see all the results of the
war overthrown and the constitutional amendments absolutely nullified.
We cannot do this if our friends defeat a Republican candidate for
governor fairly nominated, and against whom, there are no substantial
charges affecting his integrity. Besides, the nomination of Mr.
Cornell could easily have been prevented if the friends of the
President and the administration had aided to defeat it. He was
nominated by our acquiescence, and we should not now complain of
it. The expediency of holding the meeting you propose, depends
entirely upon the question whether or not it would aid the Republican
cause this fall. I am inclined to think it would not, that such
a meeting would deter Republicans from supporting the regular ticket
and, therefore, is ill advised. I thus frankly state my opinion
as you ask it, but without any desire in any way to influence that
of others.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. John Jay, Katonah, N. Y."

After the election in Ohio I received from General Arthur a list
of appointments for me in New York, which if I had attempted to
fill would have overtaxed my strength. Mr. Evarts had also been
invited, but limited his acceptance to one speech to be made in
Cooper Institute. I complained to him that it was not fair to
request of me so many speeches where he, a citizen of that state,
agreed to make but one. His answer was characteristic. He said:
"Well, Mr. Sherman, when the people of New York wish my views upon
public questions they arrange for a meeting in Cooper Institute,
or some such place. I make the speech and it is printed and is
read." I thought this, under the circumstances, a refined specimen
of egotism, meaning that he had only to pronounce his opinion to
attract universal attention and he need not therefore repeat his
speech at any other place.

This incident recalls to my mind a specimen of his keen wit. Among
the early meetings of the cabinet President Hayes announced three
or four personal appointments that he intended to make, mainly in
the foreign service, in the department of which Mr. Evarts was the
head. Evarts seemed to be surprised at these appointments, and
after some pause he said: "Mr. President, I have never had the
good fortune to see the 'great western reserve' of Ohio, of which
we have heard so much." For a moment Hayes did not perceive the
quiet sarcasm of Mr. Evarts, which was a polite expression of his
feeling that he should have been consulted about these nominations
before they were announced. We all caught the idea and the President
joined heartily in the laughter. Mr. Evarts is not only a man of
keen wit, but is a great lawyer and able advocate. I learned, from
my intimate association with him in the cabinet, and subsequently
in the Senate as a member of the committee on foreign relations,
to respect and love him.

On the 25th of October, when on my way to New York, at the request
of General Kilpatrick I made a speech at Paterson, New Jersey, on
the occasion of the ratification of the Republican nominations.
In this speech I expressed my opinions upon the subject of fraudulent
elections, especially in the south, and, while the government has
not been able at any time to completely protect the ballot box in
several states, the opinions I then expressed are still entertained.
I believe the right of each lawful voter to vote in national
elections should be enforced by the power of the national government
in every state and territory of the Union. I said at this time:

"Now I want to serve notice on the Democratic party, that the
Republican party has resolved upon two things, and it never makes
up its mind upon anything until it is determined to put it through.
_We are going to see that every lawful voter in this country has
a right to vote one honest ballot at every national election, and
no more_. If the Democratic party stands in the way, so much the
worse for the Democratic party. If the south, rebellious as it
is, stands in the way again, we will protect every voter in his
right to vote wherever the constitution gives the right to vote.
Local elections must be regulated by state laws. Southern voters
may cheat each other as they please in local elections. The
Republican party never trenched on the rights of states, and does
not intend to.

"Whenever national officers or Congressmen are elected, those are
national elections, and, under the plain provisions of the
constitution, the nation has the right to protect them. The
Republican party intends, if the present law is not strong enough,
_to make it stronger_. In the south 1,000,000 Republicans are
disfranchised. With the help of Almighty God, we intend to right
that wrong. Congress has a right to regulate congressional elections.
The Tweed frauds, reversing the vote of New York state in 1868,
led to the passage of the first federal election law, breaking up
false counts. Then the Mississippi plan was introduced in the
south.

"If Congress was purged to-day of men elected by fraud and bloodshed
in the south, the Democrats would be in a pitiful minority in the
capital. At the last session the Democrats tried to repeal the
election laws, and were met by veto after veto from the stanch
Republican President. Then they tried to nullify existing laws.
We must as firmly resist nullification now as when Jackson threatened
'by the eternal God' to hang the original nullifier, Calhoun. _We
must have free elections_. We are determined to assert the _supremacy
of the United States in all matters pertaining to the United States_,
and to _enforce the laws of the United States, come what will_."

This declaration of mine at the time created a good deal of criticism,
especially in the New York papers, but, in spite of this, my
convictions have grown stronger with time that it is the imperative
duty of the national government to protect the election of all
federal officers, including Members of Congress, by wise conservative
laws.

On the 27th of October I spoke in Cooper Institute, confining myself
mainly to an exposition and defense of the financial policy of the
administration. This was hardly needed in the city of New York
though, as Evarts said of his speech, I knew what I said would be
printed, and people who were not familiar with financial topics
could read it. The commercial papers, while approving the general
tenor of the speech, complained that I did not advocate the retirement
of the legal tender notes of the government. They seemed then, as
they do now, to favor a policy that would withdraw the government
from all participation in furnishing a currency. I have always
honestly entertained the opinion that the United States should
furnish the body of circulating notes required for the convenience
of the people, and I do yet entertain it, but the notes should
always be maintained at parity with coin. In the cities generally,
where banks have great influence and where circulating notes are
superseded in a great measure by checks, drafts and clearing house
certificates, the wants of the people for paper money secured by
the highest sanction of law and by the promise and credit of the
government are not appreciated. In this speech I referred to the
banks as follows:

"They [the banks] are interwoven with all the commercial business
of the country, and their loans and discounts form our most active
and useful capital. . . . The abolition of the national banks would
inevitably lead to the incorporation of state banks, especially in
bankrupt states, where any expedient to make paper money cheap will
be quickly resorted to. . . . It will open the question of the
repeal of the provisions of the loan laws fixing a limit to the
amount of United States notes, and thus will shock the public credit
and raise new questions of authority which the Supreme Court would
probably declare to be unconstitutional. Free banking open to all,
with prompt and easy redemption, supplies a currency to meet the
varying wants of different periods and seasons. Who would risk
such a question to the changing votes of Congress?"

I must add, however, that I do not believe the banking system would
be sustained by popular opinion unless the great body of our currency
was in the form of United States notes or certificates based upon
coin. If there is any profit in the circulation of such notes, it
ought to inure to the government. The circulation of banks should
only be equal to the local demands for currency and should always
be amply secured, as now, by the deposit of United States bonds,
or some substitute for these bonds equally valuable, when the
national bonds shall be redeemed. This security ought not to extend
beyond the amount of bank notes actually outstanding, leaving the
security of deposits by individuals to depend upon the assets of
each bank. The duty of the government is performed when it guards
with undoubted security the payment of the circulating notes issued
by the banks. In this speech I spoke of the resumption act and
the history of resumption as follows:

"The resumption act was a Republican measure, supported, advocated
and voted for by Republican Senators and Members, and without the
aid of a single Democrat in either House of Congress. It has been
adhered to and successfully executed by that party. The Republican
party has won no victory more complete than the passage, execution
and success of the resumption act. This measure was adopted in
January, 1875, in the midst of the panic, when our paper money was
worth only 85 cents on the dollar. It was a period of wild
speculation and inflation. The rate of interest was higher than
before or since--the government paying six per cent. in gold,
corporations in fair credit from eight to ten per cent., and
individuals from ten to twelve per cent. Recklessness in contracting
debts was universal. Railroads were built where they were not
needed; furnaces were put up in excess of all possible demands;
and over-production and over-trading occurred in all branches of
business. The balance of trade for ten years had been steadily
against us, with an aggregate excess of imports over exports of
over $1,000,000,000.

"The panic of 1873 put an end to all these wild, visionary schemes,
and left the country prostrate and in ruin. All business enterprises
were paralyzed. Congress, in a hopeless quandary, looked in vain
for some way of escape from the bankruptcy which threatened every
interest and every individual. Then it was the Republican party
devised and placed upon the statute book the resumption act, and,
against noisy opposition and continual speaking, steadily persevered
in its execution.

* * * * * *

"Now that resumption is a success, Democrats say the Republican
party did not bring it about, but that Providence has done it; that
bountiful crops here and bad crops in Europe have been the cause
of all the prosperity that has come since resumption. We gratefully
acknowledge that Providence has been on the side of the Republican
party, or rather, that, having sought to do right, we find ourselves
supported by Divine Providence, and we are grateful to the Almighty
for the plentiful showers and favorable seasons that brought us
good crops; but we also remember that it was the passage of the
resumption act, the steady steps toward resumption, the accumulation
of the coin reserve, the economy of the people, and their adjustment
of business affairs to the time fixed for resumption, that, with
the blessings of Divine Providence, brought us resumption.

"We should be, and are, thankful to the Almighty, but we are under
no thanks whatever to the Democratic party. It has not, for twenty-
five years, had Providence on its side, but we may fairly infer
that, as it has steadily resisted Providence and patriotic duty
for more than twenty years, it must have had the devil on its side.
Democrats can claim no credit, but stand convicted of a blundering
mistake in abandoning the old and tried principles of their party,
and following after strange gods with the hope of a brief and
partial success. They have failed, and that dogma for hard money,
which they abandoned, has been adopted by the Republican party, as
the corner stone of its greatest success."

I spoke at Albany, Rochester, and Syracuse, and, on my way to
Washington, at New Brunswick, New Jersey.

After the election in Ohio, I received several letters from members
of the legislature, offering their support to me as a candidate
for United States Senator, to be elected in January to succeed Mr.
Thurman, for the term commencing on the 4th of March, 1881. Among
them was a letter from L. M. Dayton, a member of the general assembly
from Hamilton county, to which I replied as follows:

"Washington, D. C., November 2, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 30th ult., in which you inquire
whether I will be a candidate for election as Senator of the United
States in place of Senator Thurman, is received.

"Early last summer, when this subject was first mentioned to me by
personal friends, I freely expressed my conviction that as the
general assembly of Ohio had three times conferred upon me this
high and much coveted honor, I ought not to stand in the way of
others who might fairly aspire to that position. I am of the same
opinion now. During the recent canvass I stated to several gentlemen
who had been named in the public press as probable candidates, that
I would not be a candidate, and I could not now recede from that
position without just reproach.

"Please say so to your fellow members, and accept my hearty thanks
for your partiality.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. L. M. Dayton, Cincinnati, Ohio."

I also wrote the following letter to Senator A. B. Cole, of
Portsmouth, in reply to a similar offer:

"Washington, D. C., November 11, 1879.
"My Dear Sir:--Your very kind letter of the 10th inst. is received.
I thank you again for your offer to support me for the Senate, but
you will have seen from the letter I wrote to Colonel Dayton, that
I have determined, under the circumstances stated therein, not to
be a candidate, so that members may feel entirely free to follow
their judgment in the selection of the Senator. I must be impartial
between the several candidates.

"I thank you also for what you say about the nomination for the
presidency. Such a nomination would be a very exalted honor, so
much so that I ought not to do anything to promote or to defeat
it. I would be very glad to get the hearty cordial support of the
Ohio delegation, and that being granted I am perfectly willing to
abide the decision of the national convention, and will be ready
to support anyone who is nominated.

"I should be glad to see your son, and hope you will give him a
letter of introduction to me.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. A. B. Cole, Portsmouth, Ohio."

Cornell was elected Governor of New York, and with him a Republican
legislature. The elections generally that fall were in favor of
the Republican party, but, as both Houses of the 46th Congress were
Democratic, President Hayes had to conduct executive business with
a Congress not in political harmony with him until the 4th of March,
1881, when the term of Congress and of the President expired. I
feel bound to say that no merely obstructive financial measures
were adopted during that Congress.

The message of the President, communicated to Congress on the 1st
of December, 1879, dealt with the usual topics of such a document;
but, instead of commencing with our foreign relations as usual, he
began by congratulating Congress on the successful execution of
the resumption act and the funding of all the public debt redeemable,
into bonds bearing a lower rate of interest. He recommended the
suspension of the coinage of the silver dollar, and the retirement
from circulation of United States notes with the capacity of legal
tender. He held that the issue of such notes during the Civil War
was not authorized except as a means of rescuing the country from
imminent peril, and the protracted use of them as money was not
contemplated by the framers of the law. While I did not concur in
all the views stated by the President, especially as to the policy
of retiring United States notes then in circulation, yet his general
conclusions in favor of the coin standard were, in my view, sound
and just. I was very willing to hold on to the progress made in
making United States notes equivalent to coin rather than to attempt
to secure their retirement from circulation.

In the report made by me as Secretary of the Treasury I stated my
opinion that the existing law was ample to enable the department
to maintain resumption upon the volume of United States notes then
outstanding; but added, that in view of the large inflow of gold
into the country, and the high price of public securities, it would
seem to be a favorable time to invest a portion of the sinking fund
in United States notes to be retired and canceled, and in this way
gradually to reduce the maximum of such notes to the sum of
$300,000,000, the amount named in the resumption act.

I would not make such a recommendation now, as I am convinced that
United States notes based on coin in the treasury are the best form
of currency yet devised, and that the volume might be gradually
increased as the volume of business increases. Since resumption
such notes have been maintained at par with coin by holding in the
treasury coin to the amount of thirty per cent. of the notes
outstanding. This coin, lying idle and yielding no interest, costs
the government the interest on an equal amount of bonds, or a
fraction over one per cent. on the sum of United States notes in
circulation. These notes are a part of the debt of the United
States, and if redeemed, must be paid by the issue of $346,000,000
of bonds. I see no reason why the people of the United States
should not have the benefit of this cheap loan rather than the
national banks, and there are many reasons why the issue of a like
amount of notes by national banks cannot fill the place or perform
the functions of United States notes. The issue of bank notes
would be governed by the opinions and interest of the banks, and
the amount could be increased or diminished according to their
interests and without regard to the public good. As an auxiliary
and supplement to United States notes, bank notes may be issued as
now when amply secured by United States bonds, but it would be a
dangerous experiment to confine our paper money to bank notes alone,
the amount of which would depend upon the interest, hopes and fears
of corporations which would be guided alone by the supposed interests
of their stockholders.

There is another objection to a sole dependence on bank notes as
currency: They cannot be made a legal tender either by the states
or the United States, while it is settled by the Supreme Court that
notes of the United States may be made a legal tender, a function
that ought to belong to money.

I know that my views on this subject are not entertained by the
influential class of our citizens who manage our banks, but in this
I prefer the opinion and interest of the great body of our people,
who instinctively prefer the notes of the United States, supported
by coin reserves, to any form of bank paper that has yet been
devised. The only danger in our present currency is that the amount
may be increased to a sum that cannot be maintained at par with
coin, but the same or a greater danger would exist if the volume
of paper money should be left to the interested opinion of bankers
alone.

It is sometimes claimed that neither the government nor banks should
issue paper money, that coin only is money. It is sufficient to
say that all commercial nations have been constrained by necessity
to provide some form of paper money as a substitute for coin. The
experience of the United States has proven this necessity and for
many years our people were compelled to rely upon state bank notes
as a medium of exchange, with resulting loss and bankruptcy. For
the want of paper money at the commencement of the Civil War, the
United States was compelled to issue its notes and to make them a
legal tender. Without this the effort to preserve the Union would
have utterly failed. With such a lesson before us it is futile to
attempt to conduct the business of a great country like ours with
coin alone. Gold can only be a measure or standard of value, but
cannot be the current money of the country. Silver also can only
be used as money for the small transactions of life, its weight
and bulk forbidding its use in commerce or trade. The fluctuations
in market value of these metals make it impossible to permit the
free coinage of both at any ratio with each other without demonetizing
one of them. The cheaper money will always be the money in
circulation. Wherever free coinage now exists silver is the only
money, while where gold is the standard, silver is employed as a
subsidiary coin, maintained at par in gold by the mandate of the
government and its receipt for or redemption in gold. The only
proposed remedy for this fluctuation is an agreement by commercial
nations upon a common ratio, but thus far all efforts for such an
agreement have failed. If successful the result might not be as
satisfactory as anticipated.

I urged, in my report, the importance of adjusting the coinage
ratio of the two metals by treaties with commercial nations, and,
until this could be done, of limiting the coinage of the silver
dollar to such sum as, in the opinion of Congress, would enable
the department to readily maintain the standard dollars of gold
and silver at par with each other.

In this report I stated the refunding transactions already described,
and recommended the refunding of all bonds of the United States in
the same manner as they became redeemable. This was successfully
executed by my successors in office. I was able to say truly of
the treasury department, in conclusion:

"The organization of the several bureaus is such, and the system
of accounting so perfect, that the financial transactions of the
government during the past two years, aggregating $3,354,345,040.53,
have been adjusted without question, with the exception of a few
small balances now in the process of collection, of which it is
believed the government will eventually lose less than $13,000, or
less than four mills on each $1,000 of the amount involved."

The question of the legal tender quality of United States notes,
discussed in my report, was followed, on the 3rd of December, by
the introduction in the Senate of a resolution by Mr. Bayard as
follows:

"_Resolved, etc._, That from and after the passage of this resolution
the treasury notes of the United States shall be receivable for
all dues to the United States excepting duties on imports, and
shall not otherwise be a legal tender; and any of said notes
hereafter reissued shall bear this inscription."

This resolution, while pending in the committee, was debated at
some length, and reported back adversely on the 15th of January,
1880, by Mr. Allison, from a majority of the committee. Mr. Bayard
presented the views of the minority in favor of the resolution.
It was subsequently discussed at considerable length by Mr. Coke,
of Texas, and Mr. Bayard, on opposite sides. No definite action
was taken and the matter rested, and I do not recall that it was
ever again brought before the Senate. I felt satisfied with the
majority report, as I doubted the expediency or power of Congress
to deny to these notes any of the qualities conferred upon them by
the law authorizing their issue, as was the legal tender clause.
The beneficial result of resumption was appreciated by both parties
and there was no disposition of Congress to pass any legislation
on the subject. The speech of Mr. Bayard, made on the 27th of
January, 1880, was a careful and able review of the whole subject
of legal tender, but it was evident that neither House of Congress
agreed with him in opinion.

A bill in regard to refunding the debt maturing after the 1st of
March, 1881, was introduced in Congress on the 27th of December,
1879, by Fernando Wood, chairman of the committee of ways and means
of the House. It provided for a change of existing laws so as to
limit the rate of interest upon the bonds to be issued in such
refunding to not to exceed three and a half per cent. per annum.
This bill, if it had been passed, would have prohibited the sale
of all bonds for resumption, as well as for refunding, at a greater
rate of interest than three and a half per cent. I opposed this
proposition, as it would impair the power of maintaining resumption
in case such bonds could not be sold at par, and the existing law
did not prevent the secretary from selling those already authorized
at a premium. No action was taken upon the bill by that Congress,
and Mr. Windom, my successor, found no difficulty in refunding
these bonds on more favorable terms without any change of existing
law.

On the 30th of January, 1880, I appeared before the finance committee
of the Senate in response to their invitation. The committee was
composed of Senators Bayard (chairman), Kernan, Wallace, Beck,
Morrill, Allison and Ferry, all of whom were present. Mr. Bayard
stated that a number of propositions, upon which it was desired to
obtain my views, had been submitted by Senator Beck, and then read
them as follows:

"1. What reason, if any, there is for refusing to pass a bill
authorizing the receipt of legal tenders for customs dues.

"2. Why the trade dollar should not be converted into a standard
dollar.

"3. What has been the cost of converting the interest-bearing
debt, as it stood July 14, 1870, to what it is now, including double
interest, commissions, traveling expenses of agents, etc., and the
use of public money by banks, and the value of its use, so as to
determine whether the system should be continued or changed.

"4. The effect of the abolition of the legal tender quality of
greenbacks upon the paper currency.

"5. The necessity for a sinking fund and how it is managed.

"6. Whether silver coin received in payment of customs duties has
been paid out for interest on the public debt; and if not, why not."

Senator Allison desired to know if this interview was to be
stenographically reported, and the committee decided that it should
be.

My answers to these questions and the colloquy with the committee
in respect to details cover fifty-four printed pages, and give by
far the most comprehensive statement of treasury operations during
the two or three years before that meeting, and suggestions for
future legislation, that has been written or published. The length
of the interview prevents its introduction in full, but a statement
of some portions of it may be interesting. In answer to the first
question I said:

"The act of February 25, 1862 (section 3694, R. S.), provides that
all the duties on imported goods shall be paid in coin; and the
coin so paid shall be set apart as a special fund to be applied to
two purposes, one of which is the payment in coin of interest on
the bonds of the United States, and the balance to the sinking fund.

"This is an obligation of the government that its coin revenue
should be applied to the payment of interest on the public debt.
So long as legal tender notes are maintained at par and parties
are willing to receive them in payment of coin interest, there is
no objection to receiving legal tender notes for customs dues.

"Since resumption it has been the practice of the department to
thus receive them, but this practice can be kept up only as long
as parties holding interest obligations are willing to accept the
same notes in payment thereof. If, by any unforseen and untoward
event, the notes should again depreciate in value below coin, the
obligations of the government would still require that interest on
the public debt be paid in coin; and if customs dues were payable
in legal tender notes, the department would have no source from
which to obtain the coin necessary to the payment of interest, for
of course holders of interest obligations would not accept a
depreciated currency when they were entitled by law to coin."

I reminded the committee that in my report of December, 1878, I
stated that on the 1st of January following I would receive United
States notes for customs duties. As these notes were redeemable
in coin, it was unreasonable to require the holder of notes to go
to one government officer to get coin for his notes to pay customs
duties to another government officer. I held that the United States
notes had become coin certificates by resumption, and should be
treated as such. I informed them that I issued the order with some
reluctance, and only after full examination and upon the statement
of the Attorney General, who thought technically I could treat the
note as a coin certificate. I called their attention to the fact
that I had informed Congress of my purpose to receive United States
notes for customs duties and had asked specific authority to do
so, but no action was taken, and I was assured that none was needed.
The conversation that followed showed that they all agreed that
what I did was right. It was evidently better not to provide by
specific law that the United States notes should be receivable for
customs dues, for in case of an emergency the law would be imperative,
while, if the matter was left to the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury, he could refuse to receive notes for customs dues
and compel their payment in coin.

This led to a long colloquy as to whether the time might come when
the United States notes could not be redeemed in coin. I entered
into a full explanation of the strength of the government, the
amount of reserve on hand, the nature of our ability, and said:
"Still we know that wars may come, pestilence may come, an adverse
balance of trade, or some contingency of a kind which we cannot
know of in advance may arise. I therefore think it is wise to save
the right of the United States to demand coin for customs duties
if it should be driven to that exigency."

The question then arose as to the propriety of confining redemption
of notes to one place. Mr. Wallace inquired whether the government
notes should not be receivable and interchangeable at every government
depositary. I answered that the notes should be received everywhere
at par with coin, but I doubted the propriety of paying coin for
United States notes except at one place and that in New York, the
natural center for financial operations, where most of the customs
dues were paid and where coin could be most safely hoarded.

Mr. Beck examined me at considerable length, and, with his usual
Scotch tenacity, insisted, in spite of the attorney general, that
I was not authorized to receive legal tender notes for customs
dues. He asked me by what authority I claimed this power. I quoted
the third section of the resumption act, and gave him a copy of my
circular letter to officers of customs, dated on the 21st of
December, 1878, in which, after calling attention to that section,
I said:

"By reason of this act, you are authorized to receive United State
notes, as well as gold coin and standard silver dollars, in payment
of duties on imports, on and after the first day of January, 1879.

"Notes thus received will in every instance be deposited with the
treasurer, or some assistant treasurer of the United States, as
are other collections of such duties, to be redeemed, from time to
time, in coin, on government account, as the convenience of the
service may demand."

Mr. Beck then said:

"I desire to know, Mr. Secretary, whether it is not better, in your
opinion, that the Congress of the United States should prescribe
the duties of executive officers, so that they can act in pursuance
of law, rather than the executive officer should be acting on his
own notions of what is best?"

I replied:

"I say yes, decidedly."

Mr. Beck inquired:

"Is not that what we are proposing to do now, by the passage of
this law which I seek to have enacted, and are you not opposing
that condition of things?"

I replied:

"An executive officer, when there is a doubt about the law, must
give his own construction of it, but should, of course, readily
conform to the action of Congress as soon as it is declared. The
objection I make is not to the passage of a law, but that the bill
as proposed applies it to a possible future state of affairs such
as did not exist when this order was made and does not now."

The subject then turned to the exchange of trade dollars for standard
dollars. Mr. Beck said: "I have introduced several bills to
facilitate the exchange of trade for standard dollars." I said:

"The bill which I have here is a House bill. There is no objection
in my mind to the object of this bill; that is, to provide for the
exchange of the trade dollar for the standard silver dollar; the
only point is whether the trade dollar shall be treated as bullion,
or as a coined dollar of the United States. Now, I am clearly of
the opinion that it ought to be treated as so much bullion, issued
at the expense of merchants, for their convenience and benefit,
and without profit to the United States, and therefore not entitled
to any preference over other bullion, and we might say not to so
much, because it was issued to private parties for their benefit
and at their cost, but stamped by us merely to enable the coins to
be used to better advantage in a foreign market. I have not,
therefore, any objection to the bill if you allow us to pay the
same for these trade dollars as for other bullion."

This reply led to a long examination about silver at home and in
foreign markets, and the objections made to having two silver
dollars, one coined for private persons, from bullion furnished by
them, and the other coined for the United States from bullion
purchased by it.

Mr. Beck next inquired what effect the abolition of the legal tender
quality of the greenbacks would have on our paper currency. This
led to a long colloquy between him and myself, in which all the
laws relating to the subject and the practice of the government,
from its organization to that time, were discussed.

On the question whether United States notes ought still to be a
legal tender, I referred him to my report, in which I said: "The
power of Congress to make them such was asserted by Congress during
the war, and was upheld by the Supreme Court. The power to reissue
them in time of peace, after they are once redeemed, is still
contested in that court."

I soon found that Mr. Bayard and Mr. Beck were quite opposed to
each other on this topic, and I suggested that I thought that the
argument upon it should be between them. My own opinions were
sufficiently stated in the report in which I submitted to Congress
whether the legal tender should not be repealed as to all future
contracts, and parties be left to stipulate the mode of payment.
I said that United States notes should still be receivable for all
dues to the government, and ample provision should be made to secure
their redemption on demand.

The examination, or, rather, conference, took a wide range between
the members of the committee and myself. Mr. Beck pressed me to
express my opinion of the legal tender which was contained in the
bill introduced by him, providing for a mandatory legal tender of
all forms of money. I answered:

"I do not think, Mr. Senator, you ought to ask me that question,
because that is a matter you are called upon to decide and pass
upon in your sphere as a Senator. I would say, on the other hand,
that I do not think it ought to have any such effect. I suppose,
however, Mr. Bayard would very frankly tell you what the intention
of the resolution is."

Mr. Bayard then said:

"I know one thing: That banks cannot compel me to receive their
notes for debts due me, nor can any man compel me to receive them.
If the government owes me my salary, I think they could, perhaps,
pay me in the national bank notes, under the existing law, but you
cannot compel the payment of a debt between private parties with
it."

I said:

"If you will allow me, I should like to amplify a little on one
point: I think if Congress would take up this question of the
modification of the legal tender note and make certain rules of
evidence (which would be clearly constitutional), which good lawyers
undoubtedly approve, declaring that where a contract is made between
parties upon the basis of United States notes, it shall be presumed
by courts, in the affirmance of contracts, that the payment in
United States notes shall be a sufficient compliance therewith,
and that, in the absence of any absolute provision to the contrary,
paper money, or promises to pay money, shall be a legal tender in
discharge of any obligation."

In respect to the cost of refunding, the next subject of inquiry,
I was able to give them full details, with all the orders of the
treasury department from the 16th of January, 1878, until the close
of these operations in the summer of 1879. Many of these details
had not then been published, but I furnished the fullest information
available. In response to an inquiry as to the amount of commissions
paid to the national banks on account of the sale of the four per
cent. bonds, a full table was exhibited of the subscriptions of,
and commissions paid to, the twenty-six national banks chiefly
engaged in this business, in which the total amount of sales made
by them was shown to be $552,929,100, and the amount of commissions
paid was $1,363,070.34. In exhibiting these tables I said:

"Here is a table showing the sales and commissions of certain banks.
I have taken all banks who sold over $1,000,000. There were twenty-
six of them. The First National Bank, having been always connected
with the national securities and having been the agent of the
syndicate, continued to be the agent of the foreign syndicate, and
continued to have altogether the largest business. They sold of
the four per cent. bonds $262,625,000. The sales of the other
banks are kept here in the same way. The Bank of New York (National
Banking Association), I think, was the next. It sold $57,259,500.
The National Bank of Commerce sold $51,684,000; the National Bank
of the State of New York sold $46,915,000, and so on down."

I called attention to the fact that in the last sale of about
$200,000,000 four per cent. bonds, we received one-half of one per
cent. premium, or a million dollars, which nearly covered the entire
commissions paid to the twenty-six banks named. Full details were
given of the various loans, and it was shown that the cost of
selling the last loan was less expensive to the government, in
proportion to the amount sold, than any previous loan.

In reference to the sinking fund, about which I was asked my opinion,
I said it was the same old question that had been so often debated.
I explained that a sinking fund is nothing but an obligation or
promise, on the part of the government or an individual, to pay a
certain amount annually of the principal of the debt in addition
to the interest. In this way the debt is gradually liquidated and
the annual interest lessened. A sinking fund promised by a government
is nothing more or less than a name for the surplus revenue of the
government. A government without a surplus revenue cannot possibly
have a sinking fund. There is no way to pay a debt except by having
an income above your expenditures, and you can call your surplus
revenue a sinking fund if you choose. I said that under existing
law the department was required to purchase one per cent. of the
entire debt of the United States each fiscal year, and to set the
amount apart as a sinking fund, and to compute interest thereon to
be added with the amount to be subsequently purchased each year.
This act can only be construed as an authority to purchase the debt
in case of surplus revenue for the purpose.

In practice, while keeping a book account with the sinking fund,
we have reduced the debt by the application of surplus revenue more
rapidly than if the requirements of the sinking fund had been
literally complied with. At several periods we, in fact, did not
reduce the debt, but actually increased it, and especially within
the last two years, but in other years of prosperity, when the
revenues exceeded our expenditures, we were able to pay a much
larger amount of the debt than the sinking fund required by law.

Mr. Beck said: "I propose to inquire pretty carefully, before we
get through with this interview, concerning the immense reduction
of the public debt which has been made, of over $700,000,000, from
the highest point down to the present, so that we may be governed
in the future taxation by actual requirements of the public service."
He expressed his wish, after he had carefully examined the interview
thus far, to continue it at a future day, but I was not again called
upon.

During the entire period of this session of Congress the nomination
for President by the Republican national convention was naturally
the chief subject of interest in political circles. General Grant
returned from his voyage around the world arriving in San Francisco
in December, 1879, and from that time until he reached Washington
his progress was a grand popular ovation. He had been received in
every country through which he passed, especially in China and
Japan, with all the honors that could be conferred upon a monarch.
He made no open declaration of his candidacy, but it was understood
that he was very willing to again accept the office of President.
His friends openly avowed their intention to support him, and
answered the popular objection against a third term by the fact
that a term had intervened since he last held the office. Mr.
Blaine was also an avowed candidate and had strong supporters in
every part of the Union. My name was mentioned as a candidate,
and it was generally supposed that one of the three would be the
nominee of the Republican convention. I soon found that the fact
that I held an office which compelled me to express my opinions
was a drawback rather than a benefit, and, while I had the natural
ambition to attain such a distinction, I was handicapped by my
official position.

The friends of General Grant succeeded in getting control of the
national committee and could dictate the time and place for holding
the convention. Senator Cameron was chosen chairman of that
committee. He openly avowed his preference for the nomination of
General Grant, and exercised all his influence and power to promote
it. It was decided to hold the convention on the 2nd of June,
1880, at Chicago.

The chief topic of all the newspapers and politicians was the merits
and demerits of the three candidates then recognized as the persons
from whom the choice was to be made. Every charge against either
the personal character or conduct of each was canvassed with the
broadest license, and often with great injustice. The life and
conduct of General Grant were analyzed, and praised or blamed
according to the bias of the speaker or writer. Mr. Blaine always
had a warm and ardent support by the younger Republicans in every
part of the United States. His brilliant and dashing manner and
oratory made him a favorite with all the young and active politicians,
but, as he was a bold and active fighter, he had enemies as well
as friends. My strength and weakness grew out of my long service
in the House, Senate and cabinet, but, as my chief active work was
connected with the financial questions, upon which men of all
parties differed widely, I had to encounter the objections of all
who were opposed to my views on these questions. The idea was that
in the certain contest between Grant and Blaine I might be nominated,
in case either of them should fail to receive a majority of the
votes cast in the convention.

It is scarcely worth while to point out the changes of opinion
during the popular discussion that preceded the meeting of the
convention of which every newspaper was full, the discussion being
universal. Votes were taken and expression of opinion sought in
every community in the United States.

My letter book at this time became a curious mixture of business
and politics, so that I was early compelled to ask two of my personal
friends to take an office, which I furnished them in the Corcoran
building in Washington, to answer such letters as grew out of the
contest, and as a place where conferences could be held by persons
interested in my nomination. In this way I severed all connection
between my duties in the treasury and the necessary correspondence
caused by my being named as a candidate for President. I was at
once charged in the newspaper and even by personal letters, with
all sorts of misdemeanors, of which I was not guilty, but which I
felt it a humiliation to reply to or even to notice. Among the
first was a statement that in some way or other I was under the
influence of the Catholic church, and was giving Catholics an undue
share of appointments. My answer is here inserted, not as important,
but as a specimen of many such communications upon various subjects:

"March 1, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 20th is received.

"I appreciate your kindness and frankness and will be equally frank
with you.

"There is not one shadow of ground for the suspicion stated by you.
I was born, bred, educated and ingrained as a Protestant and never
had any affinity, directly or indirectly, with the Catholic church,
but share the common feelings and prejudices of Protestants against
the special dogmas and rites of that church. Still I believe the
Catholics have as good a right to their opinions, their mode of
worship, and religious belief as we have, and I would not weaken
or impair the full freedom of religious belief, or make any contest
against them on account of it for all the offices in Christendom.
I have no sympathy whatever with the narrow dogmatic hate and
prejudice of Mr. Cowles on this subject, though no doubt much of
this is caused by the unfortunate fact that his daughter has become
a Catholic, and I am charitable enough to take this into consideration
when thinking of him. Mrs. General Sherman, it is true, is a
Catholic. She was born so and will remain so. She is a good
Catholic, however, in good wishes and good works, but has also too
much of the dogmatism and intolerance of a sectarian for my ideas.
She neither claims to have nor has any sort of influence over me.

"It is a mean business to get up such a prejudice against me when
men are so ashamed of it that they are afraid to avow it.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. Geo. H. Foster, Cleveland, Ohio."

Another allegation made was that I was using the patronage of my
office to aid in my nomination. In regard to this I wrote as
follows to a friend:

"I think the impression has been made upon the public mind that
the patronage of this department has been used in my favor. This
ought to be met. Of the two men who parcel out the patronage of
this department, one, General Raum, commissioner of internal revenue,
is a known personal friend of General Grant, appointed by him, and
the great majority of the officers under that bureau are believed
to be for General Grant. I have not sought to control any of them.
McCormick, my first assistant secretary, was a known Blaine man.
The second, Hawley, was a known personal friend of General Grant,
and recently resigned to run for nomination as Governor of Illinois.
McPherson, a known Blaine man, was chief of the bureau of engraving
and printing, which employs some seven hundred people. The officers
named have practically made all the appointments in the treasury
other than the presidential ones. Probably no one who ever held
my position has ever been so utterly indifferent to the distribution
of patronage, except that I always insisted that good Republicans
should be appointed to every position, small or great. I never
inquired who they were for for President. In official letters, a
copy of one of which I could furnish you if desired, I gave distinct
instructions that I would not permit anyone to remain in the service
who was making himself obnoxious to citizens generally, by pressing
my claims or advocating my nomination for President by the next
national convention, or by opposing me."

I also soon learned that nearly every applicant whose appointment
I could not give or secure harbored this as a reason why I should
not be nominated for President, and in three or four cases where
the applicants were men of influence they opposed the selection of
delegates friendly to me. I do not mention any names, for most of
these gentlemen, years afterwards, became my warm friends.

I early announced that unless the State of Ohio would give me a
substantial indorsement, my name would not be presented to the
convention. James S. Robinson was the chairman of the state
committee and A. L. Conger was a prominent member. They disagreed
as to the time of holding the state convention for the appointment
of delegates to the national convention, which my friends were
anxious to have at as early a period as possible, so that the
position of Ohio might be known to, and possibly influence the
action of, other states. The disagreement between these two
gentlemen resulted in a postponement of the convention until a
period so late that before it met most of the delegations were
selected by the other states. That was thought to be inimical to
my success, and led to ill-will and contention. Governor Dennison
and Governor Foster had frankly and openly avowed their purpose to
support my nomination, and actively did so. They advised me of
the condition of opinion from time to time, and early represented
that I might reasonably expect the support of all the districts,
except perhaps those represented by Garfield and McKinley, and the
Toledo district.

I went to Mansfield on private business about the latter part of
March, and as usual was called upon to make a speech, which I did,
at Miller's Hall, on the 31st of March, and which was reported in
full at the time. I stated my position in regard to the nomination,
as follows:

"By the course of recent events, and not by my own seeking, my name
is mentioned among those from whom the Republican party will select
one to carry its banner in the approaching presidential contest.
It is not egotistic to state this fact, and it would not be manly
to shrink from the criticism and scrutiny which such a choice
necessarily invites and provokes.

"I accepted the position without a pretense of mock modesty, because
I do not think it right to allow friends to put themselves to
trouble on my account without a frank avowal that I was willing to
accept, and without delaying until certain of success; but with a
firm determination not to detract from the merits or services of
others, nor to seek this lofty elevation by dishonorable means or
lying evasions or pretense. In this way, and in this way only, am
I a candidate; but with great doubt whether, if nominated, I would
meet the expectation of friends, and resolved in case of failure
that I will abide, cheerfully and kindly, by the choice of the
convention.

"There is one condition, scarcely necessary to state, upon which
my candidacy depends, and that is, if the Republicans of Ohio do
not fairly and fully, in their convention, express a preference
for me, and support me with substantial unanimity in the national
convention, my name will not be presented to that convention with
my consent.

"This, fellow-citizens, is about all, and is perhaps more than I
ought to say about personal matters, for in the great contest in
which we are about to engage, the hopes, ambitions, and even the
lives, of men, are of but little account compared with the issues
involved."

I proceeded, then, to discuss the political questions of the day.

During the month of April delegates were selected from the different
congressional districts of the state to attend the state convention,
to meet on the 28th of that month. Prior to the convention the
question of the nomination was the subject of discussion in every
district. The sentiment in my favor was clearly expressed in nearly
every county or district of the state. On the 8th of April I wrote
the following letter to a friend:

"McKinley is still in Ohio, and I presume will be there for some
days. I have to-day written to him at Canton covering the points
you name. You had better write to him yourself giving the list of
appointments desired.

"There is a strong feeling that Garfield, in order to save his
district, should go to the Chicago convention as a delegate. He
is placed in a very awkward attitude now. If this district should
be against my nomination it would be attributed to either want of
influence on his part, or, what is worse, a want of sincerity in
my support. In view of the past this would be a very unfortunate
thing for him. This is a delicate matter for me to take any part
in, and I leave it entirely to your good judgment and kind
friendship."

While in Ohio I had a consultation, at Columbus, with Governor
Foster, ex-Governor Dennison, and a number of other personal friends,
all of whom expressed great confidence that by the time the state
convention met, the friendly feeling in favor of Blaine, in some
of the districts of Ohio, would be waived in deference to the
apparent wishes of the great majority. In that event, in case my
nomination should prove impracticable, the whole delegation could
be very easily changed to Mr. Blaine. As to General Grant, though
he had many warm personal friends in Ohio, yet, on account of
objections to a third term, very few desired his nomination.

Prior to the state convention I had an interview with General
Garfield which he sought at my office in the department, and he
there expressed his earnest desire to secure my nomination and his
wish to be a delegate at large, so that he might aid me effectively.
He had been chosen, with little or no opposition, United States
Senator, to fill the place of Thurman, whose term expired March 4,
1881. I had not a doubt of the support of Governor Foster, with
whom I had been in close correspondence, and who expressed a strong
desire for my nomination. I was permitted practically to name the
four delegates at large, and had implicit confidence that these
delegates would take the lead in my behalf.

The state convention, which met on the 28th of April, was exceptionally
large, and was composed of the leading Republicans of Ohio, who
proceeded at once to the business before them. The persons named
by the convention as delegates at large to the national convention,
to assemble in Chicago on June 2, were William Dennison, James A.
Garfield, Charles Foster and Warner M. Bateman, who were instructed
for me. The following resolution of the convention expressed the
preference of the Republicans of Ohio in favor of my nomination,
and recommended that the vote of the state be cast for me:

"_Resolved_, That the great ability, invaluable services, long
experience, full and exalted character, and unwavering fidelity to
Republican principles of our distinguished fellow-citizen, John
Sherman, entitle him to the honors and confidence of the Republican
party of Ohio, and of the country. His matchless skill and courage
as a financier have mainly contributed to accomplish the invaluable
and difficult work of resumption and refunding the public debt,
and made him the trusted representative, in public life, of the
business interests of all classes of the American people. He has
been trained from the beginning of his public life in advocacy of
the rights of man, and no man has been more unfaltering in his
demand that the whole power of the government should be used to
protect the colored people of the south from unlawful violence and
unfriendly local legislation. And in view of his services to his
country, and his eminent ability as a statesman, we, the Republican
party of Ohio, present him to the Republican party of the country,
as a fit candidate for president, and respectfully urge upon the
Republican convention at Chicago, his nomination, and the district
delegates are respectfully requested to vote for his nomination."

The trend of public sentiment, as shown by the newspaper, indicated
that Grant and Blaine would each have a very strong following in
the national convention, but that the contest between them might
lead to my nomination. After the state convention, it was generally
assumed that I would receive the united vote of the delegation in
conformity with the expression of opinion by the convention. During
this period a few leading men, whose names I do not care to mention,
made a combination of those unfriendly to me, and agreed to disregard
the preference declared by the state convention.

During the month of May the feeling in my favor increased, and many
of the leading papers in New York and in the eastern states advocated
my nomination as a compromise candidate.

At this time I was in constant communication with General Garfield,
by letters and also by interviews, as we were both in Washington.
On the 10th of May he wrote me:

"I think it will be a mistake for us to assume a division in the
Ohio delegation. We should meet and act as though we were of one
mind, until those delegates who are hostile to you refuse to act
with us, and if we fail to win them over, the separation will be
their act, not ours."

The national convention met June 2, 1880. It was called to order
in the Exposition Hall, Chicago, by Senator J. Donald Cameron, and
a temporary organization, with Senator George F. Hoar as president,
was soon perfected. An effort was made by the friends of General
Grant to adopt the unit rule, which would allow a majority of each
state to determine the vote of the entire delegation. This was
rejected.

Four days were occupied in perfecting the permanent organization,
and the nomination of candidates for President. During this time
a minority of nine of the delegation of Ohio announced their
determination to vote for Blaine. This was a fatal move for Blaine,
and undoubtedly led to his defeat. Nearly four-fifths of the
delegation were in favor of my nomination, in pursuance of the
express wishes of the Ohio convention, but they were all friendly
to Blaine, and whenever it should have become apparent that my
nomination was impracticable, the whole delegation could easily
have been carried for him without a division, and thus have secured
his nomination. The action of those nine delegates, who refused
to carry out the wishes of the state convention, prevented the
possibility of the vote of Ohio being cast for Mr. Blaine.

Long before the convention I had declared, in a published interview,
that "Blaine is a splendid man, able and eminently fit for President.
If nominated he will find no one giving him a heartier support than
myself." We were connected by early ties of association and kinship,
and had been and were then warm friends. Blaine, when confident
of the nomination, said of me: "To no living man does the American
people owe a deeper debt of gratitude than to John Sherman, for
giving them resumption with all its blessings. As Secretary of
the Treasury he has been the success of the age. He is as eminently
fit for President as any man in America, and should he be nominated
all I am capable of doing will be done to aid in his election.
Should it be my fortune to become President, or should it fall to
the lot of any Republican, no one elected could afford to do less
than invite Secretary Sherman to remain where he is." The folly
of a few men made co-operation impracticable. I received opposition
in Ohio from his pretended friends, and he therefore lost the Ohio
delegation, which, but for this defection, would have made his
nomination sure had I failed to receive it.

The speech of General Garfield nominating me has always been regarded
as a specimen of brilliant eloquence rarely surpassed, the close
of which I insert:

"You ask for his monuments. I point you to twenty-five years of
national statutes. Not one great beneficent law has been placed
on our statute books without his intelligent and powerful aid. He
aided to formulate the laws that raised our great armies, and
carried us through the war. His hand was seen in the workmanship
of those statutes that restored the unity of the states. His hand
was in all that great legislation that created the war currency,
and in a still greater work that redeemed the promise of the
government, and made our currency the equal of gold. And when at
last called from the halls of legislation into a high executive
office, he displayed that experience, intelligence, firmness, and
poise of character which has carried us through a stormy period.
The great fiscal affairs of the nation, and the great business
interests of our country, he has preserved, while executing the
law of resumption and effecting its object, without a jar, and
against the false prophecies of one-half the press and all the
Democracy of this continent. He has shown himself able to meet
with calmness the great emergencies of the government for twenty-
five years. He has trodden the perilous heights of public duty,
and against all the shafts of malice has borne his breast unharmed.
He has stood in the blaze of 'that fierce light that beats upon a
throne,' but its fiercest ray has found no flaw in his armor, no
stain on his shield."

On the first ballot 9 of the Ohio delegation voted for Mr. Blaine,
34 for me, and 1 for Edmunds. The general result was 304 for Grant,
284 for Blaine, 93 for Sherman, 34 for Edmunds, 30 for Washburne,
10 for Windom. The vote of my friends would have nominated Blaine
at any period of the convention, but under the conditions then
existing it was impossible to secure this vote to either Blaine or
Grant.

The final result was the selection of a new candidate and the
nomination of Garfield.

It is probable that if I had received the united vote of the Ohio
delegation I would have been nominated, as my relations with both
General Grant and Mr. Blaine were of a friendly character, but it
is hardly worth while to comment on what might have been. The
course of the Ohio delegation was the object of severe comment,
and perhaps of unfounded suspicions of perfidy on the part of some
of the delegates.

As soon as I heard of the movement to nominate Garfield I sent the
following telegram to Mr. Dennison:

"Washington, June 8, 1880.
"Hon. William Dennison, Convention, Chicago, Ill.

"Whenever the vote of Ohio will be likely to assure the nomination
of Garfield, I appeal to every delegate to vote for him. Let Ohio
be solid. Make the same appeal in my name to North Carolina and
every delegate who has voted for me.

"John Sherman."

The moment the nomination was made I sent the following dispatch
to Garfield at Chicago:

"Washington, June 8, 1880.
"Hon. James A. Garfield, Chicago, Ill.

"I congratulate you with all my heart upon your nomination as
President of the United States. You have saved the Republican
party and the country from a great peril, and assured the continued
success of Republican principles.

"John Sherman."

I understood that the health of Governor Dennison, who had faithfully
represented me in the national convention, was somewhat impaired
by his confinement there, and invited him to join me in a sail on
the Chesapeake Bay, spending a few days at different points. He
accepted and we had a very enjoyable trip for about ten days.

During this trip I wrote, for the 4th of July issue of the New York
"Independent," an article on Virginia and state rights. I had
promised to do this some time before but could not find an opportunity,
and availed myself of the quiet of the cruise to fulfill my promise.
The history of Virginia has always had for me a peculiar interest,
mainly because of the leading part taken by that state in the
American Revolution. The great natural resources of the state had
been neglected, the fertility of the soil on the eastern shore had
been exhausted, and no efforts had been made to develop the vast
mineral wealth in the mountains along its western border. The
destruction of slavery and the breaking up of the large farms and
plantations had discouraged its people, and I thought, by an
impartial statement of its undeveloped resources, I might excite
their attention and that of citizens of other states to the wealth
under its soil. This article, written in a friendly spirit, excited
the attention and approval of many citizens of the state, and
brought me many letters of thanks.

In time I became thoroughly advised of what occurred at the Chicago
convention and had become entirely reconciled to the result, though
frequently afterwards I heard incidents and details which occasioned
me great pain and which seemed to establish the want of sincerity
on the part of some of the delegates, and tended to show that for
some time before the meeting of the convention the nomination of
General Garfield had been agreed upon. After its close I had
numerous letters from delegates of other states, complaining bitterly
of the conduct of the Ohio delegation and giving this as a reason
why they had not voted for me. I was assured that large portions
of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other delegations,
had notified General Foster that they were ready to vote for me
whenever their vote was required, but no such request came from
him. The matter had been made the subject of public discussion in
the newspapers. I was content with the result, but was deeply
wounded by what I could not but regard as a breach of faith on the
part of some of the Ohio delegation, and especially of Governor
Foster, who had been fully advised of my feelings in regard to his
course. I received a letter from him, on the 23rd of June, answering
the allegations that had been publicly made in regard to him, and
explaining his action. In reply I wrote him the following letter:

"Washington, D. C., June 30, 1880.
"Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 23rd came while I was still absent
on the Chesapeake Bay. I regret that I did not see you, for a free
conversation would be far more satisfactory than letter writing.

"I wish to be perfectly frank with you, as since I first became
acquainted with you I have felt for you warm friendship, and have
always had entire confidence in you. I confess, however, that the
information I received in regard to your operations at Chicago had
greatly weakened this feeling and left a painful impression upon
my mind that you had not done by me as I would have done by you
under like circumstances. Your letter chased away much of this
impression, and, perhaps, the better way would be for me to write
no more, but to treat your letter as entirely satisfactory and
conclusive. Still I think it right for me to give you the general
basis of the impressions I had formed.

"My first impulse was to send you at once a mass of letters from
delegates and others attending the convention, but this would only
create a controversy, and, perhaps, betray confidence, which I
could not do. The general purport of these letters is that, while
you spoke freely and kindly of me, yet there was always a kind of
reserve in favor of Blaine and a hesitation in pressing me that
indicated a divided opinion, that partly by the divisions in the
Ohio delegation and partly by the halfway support of yourself, and,
perhaps others, the Ohio delegation lost its moral strength and,
practically, defeated me before any ballot was had.

"This general impression I could have passed by, but it was distinctly
stated to me, by delegates and friends of delegates present at the
convention, that they proffered the votes of large portions of
their respective delegations to you with the understanding that
they were to be cast for me whenever you indicated the proper
moment. This was specifically said as to Indiana, Massachusetts,
Connecticut and the Blaine portion of the Pennsylvania delegation.
It was said that you prevented Massachusetts from voting for me
from about the tenth to the fifteenth ballot on Monday, that nine
of the Connecticut delegates held themselves ready to vote for me
on your call, but that you put it off, and Harrison is quoted as
saying that twenty-six votes from Indiana were ready to be cast
for me on Monday, at any time after a few ballots, but they were
withheld on account of representations from the Ohio delegation.
Mr. Billings, of Vermont, is quoted as saying that the Vermont
delegation, with two or three exceptions, were ready to vote for
me, but were discontented with the position taken by you, and
doubted whether you desired their vote for me.

"These and many other allegations of similar import, coming one
after the other, led me to believe that you had changed the position
you took in the early part of the canvass, and had come to the
conclusion that it was not wise to nominate me, and that other
arrangements for your future influenced you in changing your opinion.
This impression caused me more pain than anything that has transpired
since the beginning of the contest.

"I assure you I have no regrets over the results of the convention.
Indeed, the moment it was over, I felt a sense of relief that I
had not had for six months.

"The nomination of Garfield is entirely satisfactory to me. The
only shade that rests on this feeling is the fact that Garfield
went there by my selection to represent me and comes from the
convention with the honor that I sought. I will do him the justice
to say that I have seen no evidence that he has contributed to this
result except by his good conduct in the presence of the convention.
I had always looked with great favor upon the contingency that if
I was not nominated after a fair and full trial and Blaine was,
you would be the candidate for the Vice Presidency, and had frequently
said to mutual friends that this was my desire. The contingency
of Garfield's nomination I did not consider, for I supposed that
as he was secure in the Senate for six years, he would not desire
the presidential nomination, but as it has come to him without his
self-seeking it is honorable and right and I have no cause of
complaint. If I believed that he had used the position I gave him
to supplant me, I would consider it dishonorable and would not
support him; but, while such statements have been made to me, I
feel bound to say that I have never seen nor heard from credible
sources any ground for such an imputation, and, therefore, he shall
have my earnest and hearty support.

"There are one or two features of this canvass that leave a painful
impression upon me. The first is that the opposition to me in Ohio
was unreasonable, without cause, either springing from corrupt or
bad motives, or from such trivial causes as would scarcely justify
the pouting of a schoolboy.

"I receive your frank statement with confidence and act upon it,
will treat you, as of old, with hearty good will and respect, and
will give no further credence to the stories I hear. You can have
no knowledge of the extent of the accusations that have been made
against you.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. Charles Foster, Columbus, Ohio."

With this letter I sought to divest myself of all feeling or
prejudice growing out of the recent canvass.

At the close of the fiscal year and the preparation of the usual
statements made at that time, there was a period of rest, of which
I availed myself by taking an excursion along our northeastern
coast. The quiet of the voyage, the salt air, and the agreeable
companions, were a great relief from the confinement and anxiety
of the previous months. Upon my return to New York from this
outing, on the 19th of July, I found two letters from General
Garfield, both relating to the progress of the canvass, and asking
my opinion of his letter of acceptance. In reply I wrote him:

"New York, July 19, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 16th was received by me this
morning. When I left Washington, about the 1st of July, I felt
very much debilitated by the heat and by the long mental struggle
through which I had passed. I have had the benefit now of three
weeks quiet and rest, mostly on the ocean, avoiding, whenever
possible, all political talk, and feel, in consequence, greatly
refreshed and invigorated. I take the outward voyage _via_ Fortress
Monroe to Washington, arriving there on Thursday.

"I received the telegraphic invitation to speak at Chicago but
could not accept, as I must give some relief to French and Upton
upon my return.

"I have received letters and telegrams from Nash about his proposed
canvass, and highly approve it. I do not see, however, how it is
possible for me to prepare a speech during the present month. I
now propose to write a political letter in response to one from
Chicago, which I believe will have a wider circulation than a
campaign speech. During the latter part of August or the first of
September, which is as early as the active campaign ought really
to commence, I will be prepared to make several speeches in Ohio,
and, perhaps, in other states. This is my present plan. I regard
Indiana and New York as the pivotal states, and there the struggle
should be.

"Your letter of acceptance I approve heartily, although I thought
you yielded a little too much in one or two sentences on the civil
service question. Although politicians have undertaken to ridicule
and belittle the efforts of President Hayes to bring about some
sort of civil service reform, yet the necessity of such a reform
is so ingrafted in the minds of the leading sensible people of the
northern states that anything like an abandonment of that idea will
not meet favor. I agree with you that it can only be done by the
co-operation of Congress, and it would be a great stroke of public
policy if Congress could be prevailed upon to pass a law prescribing
a reasonable tenure for civil office, with such guards against
arbitrary removals as would make the incumbents somewhat independent
in their opinions and actions. I had a conversation with Fletcher
Harper, at Long Beach, on Saturday, which leads me to think that
he is anxious upon this subject and also upon the financial
question.

"The silver law threatens to produce within a year or so a single
silver standard, and already there is a feeling of uneasiness in
New York as to whether we can maintain resumption upon the gold
standard while the silver law remains. I could at any moment, by
issuing silver freely, bring a crisis upon this question, but while
I hold my present office I certainly will not do so, until the gold
reserve is practically converted into silver, a process that is
going on now at the rate of nearly two millions a month. I have
no fear, however, of being forced to this issue during my term,
and I hope Congress will come together next winter in such temper
that it may arrest the coinage of the silver dollar, if it will
not change the ratio. This question, however, is a very delicate
one to discuss in popular assemblages, and I propose, therefore,
in my speeches, to make only the faintest allusions to it, not
surrendering, however, our views upon the subject, for upon this,
I take it, we are entirely agreed.

"I feel very hopeful of success. In this state business men are
generally satisfied, and your support is so strong that, even if
inclined, the Conkling Republicans will not dare oppose or shirk
the contest. I hear different stories about Conkling, but believe
that in due time he will do what he can, though his influence is
greatly overrated. A too active support by him would excite the
prejudices of hosts of people here who are determined not to follow
where he leads.

"Very sincerely yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. James A. Garfield, Mentor, O."

After the 19th of July I was at my desk, busily engaged in the
routine duties of my office, until, in accordance with the following
request of General Garfield, I visited New York to attend a conference
of Republicans, as to the conduct of the pending canvass:

"Mentor, O., July 31, 1880.
"Dear Mr. Sherman:--I understand that the national Republican
committee have asked you to meet with them for consultation, in
New York, on the 5th prox.

"At their unanimous and urgent request, I have reluctantly consented
to attend, but I shall esteem it a great favor if you will also go.

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C."

More than two hundred prominent Republicans from all parts of the
country met on the 5th of August, among whom were Senators Blaine
and Logan, Marshall Jewell, Thurlow Weed, and Edwards Pierrepont.
I was called upon to make an address. The only passage I wish to
quote is this:

"The Republican party comes before the business men of this country
--with all its evidences of reviving prosperity everywhere--and
asks whether they will resign all these great affairs to the solid
south, headed by Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux Klan, and a little
segment of these northern states, calling themselves the Democratic
party."

More than a month afterwards, Governor Hampton wrote me a letter
complaining of my connecting him with the "Ku-Klux Klan," and the
following correspondence ensued:

"Doggers' Springs, September 17, 1880.
"To Hon. John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Sir:--Some days ago I saw a report of your speech at a conference
held by the national Republican committee, at the Fifth Avenue
Hotel, New York, and you were quoted as having used the following
language: 'And now you are asked to surrender all you have done
into the hands of Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux, and the little
segment in the north that is called the Democratic party.' May I
ask if you used these words, and, if you did so, did you mean to
connect me, directly or indirectly, with what was known as the Ku-
Klux Klan?

"Requesting an early reply, addressed to me, care of Augustus
Schell, Esq., New York, I am, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,

"Wade Hampton."

"Washington, D. C., September 21, 1880.
"Hon. Wade Hampton, care of Augustus Schell, Esq., New York.

"Sir:--Your note of the 17th inst. is received, in which you inquire
whether, at the conference held by the national Republican committee,
at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, I used the language attributed
to me as follows: 'And now you are asked to surrender all you have
done into the hands of Wade Hampton and the Ku-Klux, and the little
segment in the north that is called the Democratic party.' In
reply, I have to advise you, that while I do not remember the
precise language, I presume the reporter correctly stated, in a
condensed way, his idea of what I said. I no doubt spoke of you
as the leading representative of the Democratic party in the south,
and referred to the Ku-Klux Klan as the representative of the
barbarous agencies by which the Democrats have subverted the civil
and political rights of the Republicans of the south.

"I did not connect you personally with the Ku-Klux Klan. Indeed,
I knew that you had, in one or two important instances, resisted
and defeated its worst impulses. I appreciate the sense of honor
which makes you shrink from being named in connection with it.
Still, you and your associates, leading men in the south, now enjoy
benefits of political power derived from the atrocities of the Ku-
Klux Klan, in which phrase I include all the numerous _aliases_ by
which it has, from time to time, been known in the south. Your
power in the southern states rests upon the actual crimes of every
grade in the code of crimes--from murder to the meanest form of
ballot-box stuffing committed by the Ku-Klux Klan and its kindred
associates, and, as you know, some of the worst of them were
committed since 1877, when you and your associates gave the most
solemn assurance of protection to the freedmen of the south.

"These crimes are all aimed at the civil political rights of
Republicans in the south, and, as I believe, but for these agencies,
the very state that you represent, as well as many other states in
the south, would be represented, both in the Senate and House, by
Republicans. But for these crimes the boast attributed to you,
that one hundred and thirty-eight solid southern votes would be
cast for the Democratic ticket, would be but idle vaporing; but
now we feel that it is a sober truth.

"While I have no reason to believe that you or your northern
associates personally participated in the offenses I have named,
yet, while you and they enjoy the fruits of these crimes, you may,
in logic and morals be classed as I classed you, as joint copartners
with the Ku-Klux Klan in the policy which thus far has been successful
in seizing political power in the south, and which it is hoped, by
the aid of the small segment of the Democratic party in the north,
may be extended to all the departments of the government. It is
in this sense that I spoke of you, the Ku-Klux Klan and the northern
Democratic party.

"Permit me, in conclusion, while frankly answering your question,
to say the most fatal policy for the south would be by such agencies
as I have mentioned to secure again political ascendency in this
country, for I assure you that the manhood and independence of the
north will certainly continue the struggle until every Republican
in the south shall have free and unrestricted enjoyment of equal
civil and political privileges, including a fair vote, a fair count,
free speech and free press, and agitation made necessary to secure
such results may greatly affect injuriously the interests of the
people of the south.

"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"John Sherman."

"Charlottesville, Va., October 1, 1880.
"To Hon. John Sherman.

"Sir:--Your letter has been received. As you do not disclaim the
language to which I called your attention, I have only to say that
in using it you uttered what was absolutely false, and what you
knew to be false. My address will be Columbia, S. C.

"I am your obedient servant,
"Wade Hampton."

"Treasury Department, }
"Washington, D. C., October 18, 1880.}
"To Hon. Wade Hampton, Columbia, S. C.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 1st inst.,
handed me unopened by Mr. C. McKinley, a few moments ago, after my
return from the west. I had this morning read what purported to
be an extract of a speech made by you, published in the Charleston
'News and Courier,' and upon your general reputation as a gentleman
had denied that you had made such a speech or written such a letter
as is attributed to you in that paper. What I stated to you in my
letter of September 21, I believe to be true, notwithstanding your
denial, and it can be shown to be true by public records and as a
matter of history. As you had, long before your letter was delivered
to me, seen proper to make a public statement of your views of the
correspondence, I will give it to the press without note or comment,
and let the public decide between us.

"Very respectfully,
"John Sherman."

This correspondence excited a good deal of attention, and broke
off all social relations between us. We afterwards served for many
years in the Senate together, but had no intercourse with each
other except formal recognition while I was president of the Senate.
I always regretted this, for I did not feel the slightest enmity
to General Hampton, and recognized the fact that while enjoying
the office he held as the result of the crimes of the Klan, yet he
and his colleague, M. C. Butler, were among the most conservative
and agreeable gentlemen in the Senate, and the offenses with which
I connected his name were committed by his constituents and not by
himself.

During July and August I received many invitations to speak on
political topics, but declined all until about the 1st of September.
In anticipation of the election of Garfield, and his resignation
as Senator, I was, as early as July, tendered the support of several
members of the legislature who had voted for him for Senator, and
who wished to vote for me in case he resigned. I replied that I
would prefer the position of Senator to any other, that I resigned
my seat in the Senate to accept the office of Secretary of the
Treasury, and would be gratified by a return to my old position,
but only in case it came to me as the hearty choice of the general
assembly. During the month of August the two assistant secretaries,
who had been for a year confined to the department and upon whom
the duties of secretary had devolved during my recent absence, went
on their usual vacation, so that I was fully occupied during office
hours with the routine business of the department.

My first speech of the campaign was made on Monday, the 30th of
August, in Cincinnati. It was carefully prepared, and delivered
in substance as printed. My habit has been for many years, at the
beginning of a political canvass, to write or dictate a speech and
hand it to the press associations, to be printed in the newspapers
only after the speech is made. This is done for the convenience
of the press and to secure an accurate report. The speech at
Cincinnati, thus prepared, was not read by me, but I spoke from
briefs which enabled me to substantially follow it. Subsequent
speeches had to vary according to the nature and mood of the
audience, or the political subject exciting local interest and
attention. At Cincinnati I gave a comparison of the principles,
tendency, and achievements of the two great parties, and the reasons
why the Democratic party wanted a change in the executive branch
of the government. I contrasted the aims and policy of that party,
at each presidential election from 1860 to 1880, with those of the
Republican party, and expressed my opinion of the effects that
would have followed their success at each of those elections. I
stated in detail the results secured during the last four years by
the election of a Republican President. These included the resumption
of specie payments, the refunding and the steady reduction of the
public debt, the faithful collection of the revenue, economy of
public expenditures, and business prosperity for which I gave the
causes, all of which were opposed or denied by the Democratic party.
I entered into detail on the measures proposed by the then Democratic
Congress, the motive of them, and the ruinous effects they would
produce, and alleged that the changes proposed were dictated by
the same policy that was adopted by Buchanan and the active leaders
of the War of the Rebellion and by the corrupt power that controlled
the city of New York. I replied to the charges of fraud made as
to the election of President Hayes, that the alleged fraud consisted
in the judgment of the electoral commission created by the Democrats
that Hayes was duly elected. I narrated the gross crimes of the
Ku-Klux Klan and kindred associations to control the elections in
the south, and the attempted bribery of an elector in Oregon.

This speech was arraigned as bitterly partisan, but it was justified
by facts proven by the strongest evidence. I have recently carefully
read it, and, while I confess that its tone was bitter and partisan,
yet the allegations were clearly justified. At this time such
fraud and violence could not be practiced in the south, for the
tendency of events has quieted public sentiment. The lapse of time
has had a healing effect upon both sections, and it is to be hoped
that hereafter parties will not be divided on sectional lines.

The Cincinnati speech had one merit, in that it furnished speakers
and the public the exact statistics of our financial condition in
advance of my annual report to Congress in December. I made speeches
each week day in Ohio and Indiana until the 11th of September, when
I returned to Washington.

The election in Maine, which occurred early in September, was
unfavorable to the Republican party, and caused General Garfield
some uneasiness. He wrote me the following letter:

"Mentor, Ohio, September 17, 1880.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 15th inst. is received. I hear in many
ways the same account which you give of the cause of our falling
off in Maine. The latest news indicates that we have carried the
election after all, but our people claimed too much, and the moral
effect of it may be bad in some of the doubtful states. Still, so
far as I can see, every Republican is more aroused and determined
than ever.

"I think we should now throw all our force into Indiana and Ohio
until the October election. Indiana is now more thoroughly organized
by our people than it has been for many years, and I believe that
nothing can defeat us, except importations and purchases by the
Democracy. I have not known the Republicans of that state so
confident in six years as they now are, and every available help
should be given them to win the fight. I have learned certainly
that the Democrats intend to make a powerful raid upon Ohio, for
the double purpose of beating us if they can, and specially in
hopes that they may draw off our forces in Indiana.

"I know you can accomplish a great deal, even while you are in
Washington, but I hope you will give as much time as possible to
the canvass here and in Indiana--especially give us the last ten
days.

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield."

I replied on the 22nd of September that the assured election of
Plaisted, the fusion electoral ticket in Maine, and many things in
my correspondence, made me feel exceedingly anxious about the result
of the election, that my advices from Ohio were not satisfactory,
and I felt that we must exert ourselves to the utmost to insure
victory at our October election. "I think from my standpoint here,"
I said, "I can get more certain indications of public opinion than
anyone can while canvassing. I therefore have determined to go to
Ohio the latter part of this week, and to devote the balance of
the time, until the election, to the campaign." I also advised
him that I had arranged to have several other speakers go to Ohio.

To this he replied:

"Mentor, Ohio, September 25, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 22nd inst. is received. I am glad that
you are coming back to take part in the canvass. Within the last
ten days it has become evident that money is being used in large
amounts in various parts of this state. Reports of this come to
me in so many independent ways that I cannot doubt it. I was in
Toledo on the 22nd to attend the reunion of the 'Army of the
Cumberland,' and my friends there were thoroughly alarmed. They
said the Democrats had an abundance of money, and that those in
Toledo were contributing more than they had done for many years.

"I think our friends should push the business aspect of the campaign
with greater vigor than they are doing, especially the tariff
question which so deeply affects the interests of manufacturers
and laborers. The argument of the 'solid south' is well enough in
its way, and ought not to be overlooked, but we should also press
those questions which lie close to the homes and interests of our
own people.

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C."

About this period I received an invitation to speak in New York,
but doubted the policy of accepting, and answered as follows:

"Washington, D. C., September 20, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 17th, inviting me to address the
citizens of New York, under the auspices of your club, during the
campaign, is received. Please accept my thanks for the courteous
manner in which your invitation is expressed.

"I will be compelled to remain here until the 4th of October and
then go to Ohio and Indiana to engage in the canvass, which will
carry me to the 15th or 16th of October. I have been urged also
to go to Chicago and Milwaukee, and have made promises in several
cities in the eastern states, especially in Brooklyn; so that I do
not see how it is possible for me to accept your kind invitation.
I have also some doubt whether it would be politic to do so. It
seems to be the determination of a certain class of Republicans in
New York to ignore or treat with dislike President Hayes and his
administration, and to keep alive the division of opinion as to
the removal of Arthur. From my view of the canvass the strength
of our position now is in the honesty and success of the administration.
While I have no desire to contrast it with General Grant's, yet
the contrast would be greatly in favor of President Hayes. The
true policy is to rise above these narrow family divisions, and,
without disparagement of any Republican, unite in the most active
and zealous efforts against the common enemy. Senator Conkling
does not seem to have the capacity to do this, and the body of his
following seems to sympathize with him. I doubt, therefore, whether
my appearance in New York would not tend to make divisions rather
than to heal them, to do harm rather than good. I am so earnestly
desirous to succeed in the election that I would even forgo a self-
defense to advance the cause.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. B. F. Manierre, Ch. Rep. Central Campaign Club, New York."

On the first of October I left Washington for Mansfield and spoke
at a mass meeting there on Saturday evening, the 2nd. The canvass
on both sides was very active and meetings were being held in all
parts of the state. The meeting at Mansfield held in the open
square both in the afternoon and evening, was very large. I spoke
each day except Sunday during the following week, at different
places in Ohio and Indiana. Confidence in Republican success grew
stronger as the October election approached. After the vote was
cast it was found that the Republican state ticket was elected by
a large majority in both these states. In pursuance of previous
engagements, I spoke at Chicago, Racine, and Milwaukee, after the
October election. The speeches at Chicago and Milwaukee were
reported in full and were circulated as campaign documents. During
the latter part of the month of October I spoke at the city of
Washington and in Bridgeport, Norwalk and New Haven, Connecticut,
and at Cooper Institute in the city of New York, and then returned
home to vote at the November election.

The result was the election of a large majority of Republican
electors and the certainty of their voting for Garfield and Arthur
as President and Vice President of the United States. I had done
all that it was possible for me to do to bring about that result
and rejoiced as heartily as anyone, for I thoroughly believed in
the necessity of maintaining Republican ascendency in the United
States, at least until a time when the success of the opposite
party would not endanger any of the national results of the war or
the financial policy of President Hayes' administration.

On the day after the election General Garfield wrote me the following
letter:

"Mentor, Ohio, November 4, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 1st inst. came duly to hand, and was
read with much interest. The success of the election is very
gratifying. The distrust of the solid south, and of adverse
financial legislation, have been the chief factors in the contest.
I think also that the country wanted to rebuke the attempt of the
Democrats to narrow the issue to the low level of personal abuse.
I am sure that all our friends agree with me that you have done
very important and efficient work in the campaign.

"I may go to Washington before long to look after my personal
affairs. If I do not, I hope to have some other opportunity of
seeing you.

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C."

I received a letter from a Mr. Hudson, of Detroit, which expressed
a fear that General Garfield was in serious danger of assassination,
giving particulars. I sent it at once to Garfield, and received
from him the following answer, very significant in view of the
tragedy that occurred the following summer:

"Mentor, O., November 16, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--The letter of Mr. Hudson, of Detroit, with your
indorsement, came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious
danger in the direction to which he refers, though I am receiving
what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on
that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than
death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either. I
expect to go to Washington before long to close up some household
affairs, and I shall hope to see you.

"With kind regard, I am, very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C."

Immediately after the election of General Garfield, and until the
18th of December, there was a continuous discussion as to who should
be the successor to Senator Thurman. This was the senatorship to
which Garfield had been elected and now declined to fill. I received
many letters from members of the legislature expressing their wish
that I should be restored to the Senate, and offering to vote for
me. They generally assumed that I would have the choice between
remaining in the treasury department under President Garfield and
becoming a candidate for the Senate. Among the letters received
by me was one from Mr. Thorpe, a member from Ashtabula county,
Ohio, and a personal friend. I thought it right to tell him frankly
the dilemma in which I was placed by the discussion in the papers.
This letter expressed my feelings in regard to the matter and I
therefore insert it:

"Washington, D. C., November 15, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Your letter of the 11th relieves me from some
embarrassment. I am very thankful to you for the tender of your
services and continued hearty friendship. I will avail myself of
it to tell you confidentially the difficulty under which I labor.

"The letter to Dalzell was not intended for publication, but was
simply a hurried reply to one of two or three long letters received
from him. Still the letter stated in substance my feeling, and he
probably intended no wrong but rather thought he would benefit me.
Both before and since, I have been overwhelmed with letters
remonstrating against my leaving my present position, as if I had
any choice.

"As a matter of course, General Garfield must decide this without
haste and free from all embarrassment, but in the meantime I am at
a loss what to do. I cannot properly say to my correspondents that
I would stay in the treasury if invited to do so, nor can I ask
gentlemen to commit themselves until they know definitely what I
wish. I cannot afford to be a candidate unless I expect to succeed.
I believe, from information already received, that I can succeed,
but only after a struggle that is distasteful to me, and which I
cannot well afford. I can only act upon the assumption that General
Garfield will desire to make an entire change in his cabinet, and
upon that basis I would gladly return to the Senate as the only
position I could hold, or, if there was any doubt about election,
I would cheerfully and without discontent retire from public life.
I have now at least a dozen unanswered letters on my table from
members of the legislature, tendering their services, and stating
that I ought to explicitly inform them my wishes, most of them
assuming that I have a choice. I intend to answer them generally
that, if elected, I would consider it the highest honor and I would
then accept and serve. So I say to you: If I enter the canvass
I must depend upon my friends without being able to aid them
actively, and with every advantage in the possession of Foster.
Such a contest, I see, will open up trouble enough in the politics
of Ohio, whatever may be the result. With this explicit statement
you will understand best how to proceed. I would regard the support
of Senator Perkins as of the utmost importance. After awhile I
can give you the names of a score at least of others who avow their
preference for me.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman.
"Hon. F. Thorpe, Geneva, O."

The letter to Dalzell referred to was hastily and carelessly written,
without any expectation of its publication. It was as follows:

"To Hon. J. M. Dalzell, Caldwell, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--Your kind note of the 4th is received, for which
please accept my thanks. I prefer to do precisely what you recommend,
await the judgment of the general assembly of Ohio, unbiased by
any expression of my wish in the matter referred to. I do not know
what is the desire of General Garfield, but I can see that my
election might relieve him from embarrassment and free to do as he
thinks best in the formation of his cabinet. Again thanking you
for your kind offer, I am very truly yours,

"John Sherman."

The papers, while taking sides between Foster and myself, exaggerated
the danger and importance of the contest and thus unduly excited
the public mind, for either of us would have cheerfully acquiesced
in the decision of the general assembly. Strong appeals were made
to Foster to withdraw, especially after it was known that I would
not be Secretary of the Treasury in the incoming administration.
No such appeals came to me, nor did I take any part in the controversy,
but maintained throughout the position taken in my letter to Mr.
Thorpe.

In November, 1880, I was engaged in the preparation of my annual
report sent to Congress December 6. The ordinary receipts for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, were $333,526,610.98. The total
ordinary expenditures were $267,642,957.78, leaving a surplus
revenue of $65,883,653.20, which, with an amount drawn from cash
balance in treasury, of $8,084,434.21, made a surplus of $73,968,087.41,
which sum was applied to the reduction of the public debt. The
sinking fund for this year was $37,931,643.55, which, deducted from
the amount applied to the redemption of bonds, left an excess of
$35,972,973.86 over the amount actually required for the year.
Compared with the previous fiscal year, the receipts for 1880
increased $62,629,438.23. The increase of expenditures over the
previous year was $25,190,360.48. I estimated that the receipts
over expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, would
be $50,198,115.52.

During the period from 1874 to 1879 the United States had failed
to pay on the public debt $87,317,569.21, that being the deficiency
of the sum fixed by law to be paid during those years for sinking
fund. Deducting from this sum the amount paid in excess for the
fiscal year 1880, there was a balance still due on account of the
sinking fund of about $50,000,000. This would be met by the
estimated surplus of receipts over expenditures during the fiscal
year, 1881, thus making good the whole amount of the sinking fund
as required by law.

The estimated revenue over expenditures for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1862, including the sinking fund, was $48,000,000.

Upon this favorable statement I recommended to Congress that instead
of applying this surplus revenue, accruing after the current fiscal
year, to the extinction of the debt, taxes be repealed or modified
to the extent of such surplus. A large portion of the surplus of
revenue over expenditures was caused by the reduction of the rate
of interest and the payment on the principal of the public debt.
The reduction of annual interest caused by the refunding since
March 1, 1877, was $14,290,453.50, and the saving of annual interest
resulting from the payment of the principal of the public debt
since that date was $6,144,737.50. The interest was likely to be
still further reduced during the following year, to an amount
estimated at $12,000,000, by the funding of the bonds. To the
extent of this annual saving, amounting to $32,000,000, the public
expenditures would be permanently diminished.

In view of this statement, I recommended that all taxes imposed by
the internal revenue laws, other than those on bank circulation
and on spirits, tobacco and beer, be repealed. I urged that the
tax on state banks should be maintained, not for purposes of revenue,
but as a check upon the renewal of a system of local state paper
money, which, as it would be issued under varying state laws, would
necessarily differ as to conditions, terms and security, and could
not, from its diversity, be guarded against counterfeiting, and
would, at best, have but a limited circulation.

The public debt which became redeemable on and after the 1st of
July, 1881, amounted to $687,350,000. I recommended that to redeem
these bonds there should be issued treasury notes running from one
to ten years, which could be paid off by the application of the
sinking fund as they matured. Such treasury notes would have formed
a popular security always available to the holder as they could
have been readily converted into money when needed for other
investment or business. They would have been in such form and
denominations as to furnish a convenient investment for the small
savings of the people, and fill the place designed by the ten dollar
refunding certificates authorized by the act of February 26, 1879.
I stated my belief that with the then state of the money market a
sufficient amount of treasury notes, bearing an annual interest of
three per cent., could be sold to meet a considerable portion of
the maturing bonds.

Congress did not pass such a law as I recommended, but the plan
adopted and executed by my successor, Mr. Windom, was the best that
could have been devised under existing law, resulting in a very
large reduction of the amount paid for interest yearly. He allowed
the holders of the maturing bonds to retain them at the pleasure
of the government, with interest at the rate of three and a half
per cent.

I recited the action of the department under the resumption act,
but this has already been fully described by me. In respect to
the United States notes I said:

"United States notes are now, in form, security, and convenience,
the best circulating medium known. The objection is made that they
are issued by the government, and that it is not the business of
the government to furnish paper money, but only to coin money.
The answer is, that the government had to borrow money, and is
still in debt. The United States note, to the extent that it is
willingly taken by the people, and can, beyond question, be maintained
at par in coin, is the least burdensome form of debt. The loss of
interest in maintaining the resumption fund, and the cost of printing
and engraving the present amount of United States notes, is less
than one-half the interest on an equal sum of four per cent. bonds.
The public thus saves over seven million dollars of annual interest,
and secures a safe and convenient medium of exchange, and has the
assurance that a sufficient reserve in coin will be retained in
the treasury beyond the temptation of diminution, such as always
attends reserves held by banks."

I expressed the opinion that the existing system of currency, the
substantial features of which were a limited amount of United States
notes (with or without the legal tender quality), promptly redeemable
in coin, with ample reserves in coin and power if necessary to
purchase coin with bonds, supplemented by the circulating notes of
national banks issued upon conditions that would guarantee their
absolute security and prompt redemption, all based on coin of equal
value, and generally distributed throughout the country, was the
best system ever devised, and more free from objection than any
other, combining the only safe standard with convenience for
circulation and security and equality of value.

After a statement of the amount of standard silver dollars issued
under existing law, I described the measures adopted to facilitate
the general distribution and circulation of those coins, and the
great expense incurred by the United States in transporting them.
With all these efforts it was found difficult to maintain in
circulation more than thirty-five per cent. of the amount then
coined. While, at special seasons of the year and for special
purposes, this coin was in demand, mainly in the south, it returned
to the treasury, and its reissue involved an expense for transportation
at an average rate of one-third of one per cent. each time. Unlike
gold coin or United States notes, it did not, to the same extent,
form a part of the permanent circulation, everywhere acceptable,
and, when flowing into the treasury, easily paid out with little
or no cost of transportation. At a later period, when the amount
of silver dollars had largely increased, the department was never
able to maintain in circulation more then $60,000,000.

For the reasons stated I earnestly recommended that the further
compulsory coinage of the silver dollar be suspended, or, as an
alternative, that the number of grains of silver in the dollar be
increased so as to make it equal in market value to the gold dollar,
and that its coinage be left as other coinage to the Secretary of
the Treasury, or the Director of the Mint, to depend upon the demand
for it by the public for convenient circulation. After a statement
of the great cost of the coinage of these dollars, I recommended
that Congress confine its action to the suspension of the coinage
of the silver dollar, and await negotiations with foreign powers
for the adoption of an international ratio. I expressed the
conviction that it was for the interest of the United States, as
the chief producer of silver, to recognize the great change that
had occurred in the relative market value of silver and gold in
the chief marts of the world, to adopt a ratio for coinage based
upon market value, and to conform all existing coinage to that
ratio, while maintaining the gold eagle of our coinage at its
present weight and fineness.

I called attention, also, to the tariff as it then existed. It
was a compilation of laws passed during many succeeding years, and
to meet the necessities of the government from time to time. These
laws furnished the greater part of our revenue, and incidentally
protected and diversified home manufactures. The general principle
upon which they were founded was believed to be salutary. No marked
or sudden change, which would tend to destroy or injure domestic
industries built up upon faith in the stability of existing laws,
should be made in them. I recommended that _ad valorem_ duties
should be converted into specific duties as far as practicable,
and that articles which did not compete with domestic industries,
and yielded but a small amount of revenue, should be added to the
free list. I urged the importance of stability in the rates imposed
on spirits, tobacco and fermented liquors. These articles were
regarded by all governments as proper subjects of taxation. Any
reduction in the rates imposed a heavy loss to the owner of the
stock on hand, while an increase operated as a bounty to such owner.

During that year, the excess of exports over imports amounted to
$167,683,912. The aggregate exports amounted to $835,638,658, an
increase over the previous year of $125,199,217.

The usual statement of the operations of the different bureaus of
the department was made, and, in closing my last annual report as
Secretary of the Treasury, I said:

"The secretary takes pleasure in bearing testimony to the general
fidelity and ability of the officers and employees of this department.
As a rule they have, by experience and attention to duty, become
almost indispensable to the public service. The larger portion of
them have been in the department more than ten years, and several
have risen by their efficiency from the lowest-grade clerks to high
positions. In some cases their duties are technical and difficult,
requiring the utmost accuracy; in others, they must be trusted with
great sums, where the slightest ground for suspicion would involve
their ruin; in others, they must act judicially upon legal questions
affecting large private and public interests, as to which their
decisions are practically final. It is a just subject of congratulation
that, during the last year, there has been among these officers no
instance of fraud, defalcation, or gross neglect of duty. The
department is a well organized and well conducted business office,
depending mainly for its success upon the integrity and fidelity
of the heads of bureaus and chiefs of division. The secretary has,
therefore, deemed it both wise and just to retain and reward the
services of tried and faithful officers and clerks.

"During the last twenty years the business of this department has
been greatly increased, and its efficiency and stability greatly
improved. This improvement is due to the continuance during that
period of the same general policy and the consequent absence of
sweeping changes in the public service; to the fostering of merit
by the retention and promotion of trained and capable men; and to
the growth of the wholesome conviction in all quarters that training,
no less than intelligence, is indispensable to good service. Great
harm would come to the public interests should the fruits of this
experience be lost, by whatever means the loss occurred. To protect
not only the public service, but the people, from such a disaster,
the secretary renews the recommendation made in a former report,
that provision be made for a tenure of office for a fixed period,
for removal only for cause, and for some increase of pay for long
and faithful service."

The chief measure of importance, aside from the current appropriation
bills, acted upon during that session of Congress was a bill to
facilitate the refunding of the national debt. It was pending
without action during the two preceding sessions, but was taken up
in the early part of the third session. As the bill was originally
reported, by Mr. Fernando Wood, from the committee of ways and
means of the House of Representatives, it provided that in lieu of
the bonds authorized by the refunding act of July 14, 1870, bearing
five, four and a half, and four per cent. interest, bonds bearing
interest at the rate of three and a half per cent. to the amount
of $500,000,000, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States,
and also notes to the amount of $200,000,000, bearing interest at
the rate of three and a half per cent., redeemable at the pleasure
of the United States after two years and payable in ten years, be
issued.

The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to issue any of these
bonds or notes for any of the bonds of the United States, as they
became redeemable, par for par. The bill further provided that
the three and a half per cents. should be the only bonds receivable
as security for national bank circulation.

Had this bill passed, as introduced, any time before the 4th of
March, 1881, it would have saved the United States enormous sums of
money and would have greatly strengthened the public credit. It
was in harmony with the recommendations made by the President and
myself in our annual reports. It was called up in the House of
Representatives for definite action on the 14th of December, 1880,
when those reports were before them. Instead of this action
amendments of the wildest character were offered, and the committee
which reported the bill acquiesced in radical changes, which made
the execution of the law, if passed, practically impossible. The
rate of interest was reduced to three per cent., and a provision
made that no bonds should be taken as security for bank circulation
except the three per cent. bonds provided for by that bill.
Discussion was continued in the House and radical amendments were
made until the 19th of January, 1881, when the bill, greatly changed,
passed the House of Representatives. It was taken up in the Senate
on the 15th of February. Mr. Bayard made a very fair statement of
the terms and objects of the bill in an elaborate speech, from
which I quote the following paragraphs:

"In little more than sixty days from this date a loan of the United
States, bearing five per cent. interest, and amounting to $469,651,050,
will, at the option of the government, become payable. On the 30th
day of June next, two other loans, each bearing six per cent.,
the first for $145,786,500, and the other $57,787,250, will also
mature at the option of the government. These facts are stated in
the last report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and will be found
on page ten of his report of last December. He has informed us
that the surplus revenue accruing prior to the 1st of July, 1881,
will amount to about fifty million dollars, and can and will be
applied in part to the extinguishment of that debt. Bonds maturing
on the 31st of December last were paid out of the accruing revenues.
So that there will remain the sum of $637,350,000, to be provided
for and funded at the option of the government, at such rate of
interest as may be deemed advisable by Congress and can practicably
be obtained.

"The sums that we are dealing with are enormous, affecting the
welfare of every branch of our country's industry and of our entire
people. The opportunity for reducing the rate of interest upon
this enormous sum, and, not only that, but of placing the national
debt more under the control of the government in regard to future
payments, is now before us. The opportunity for doing this upon
favorable terms should not be lost, and the only question before
us, as legislators, is how we can best and most practically take
advantage of the hour."

The bill as modified by the committee of the Senate would have
enabled the treasury department to enter at once on the refunding
of the public debt, and, in the then state of the money market,
there would have been no doubt of the ready sale of the bonds and
notes provided for and the redemption of the five and six per cent.
bonds outstanding. The Senate, however, after long debates,
disagreed to the amendments of the committee, and in substance
passed the bill as it came from the House. The few amendments made
were agreed to by the House, and the bill passed and was sent to
the President on the 1st of March. On the 3rd of March it was
returned by the President with a statement of his objections to
its passage. These were based chiefly on the provision which
required the banks to deposit in the treasury, as security for
their circulating notes, bonds bearing three per cent. interest,
which, in his judgment, was an insufficient security. His message
was as follows:

"To the House of Representatives:--Having considered the bill
entitled 'An act to facilitate the refunding of the national debt,'
I am constrained to return it to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with the following statement of my objections
to its passage.

"The imperative necessity for prompt action, and the pressure of
public duties in this closing week of my term of office, compel me
to refrain from any attempt to make a full and satisfactory
presentation of the objections to the bill.

"The importance of the passage, at the present session of Congress,
of a suitable measure for the refunding of the national debt, which
is about to mature, is generally recognized. It has been urged
upon the attention of Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury
and in my last annual message. If successfully accomplished, it
will secure a large decrease in the annual interest payment of the
nation; and I earnestly recommend, if the bill before me shall
fail, that another measure for this purpose be adopted before the
present Congress adjourns.

"While in my opinion it would be wise to authorize the Secretary
of the Treasury, in his discretion, to offer, to the public, bonds
bearing three and a half per cent. interest in aid of refunding,
I should not deem it my duty to interpose my constitutional objection
to the passage of the present bill if it did not contain, in its
fifth section, provisions which, in my judgment, seriously impair
the value and tend to the destruction of the present national
banking system of the country. This system has now been in operation
almost twenty years. No safer or more beneficial banking system
was ever established. Its advantages as a business are free to
all who have the necessary capital. It furnishes a currency to
the public which, for convenience and the security of the bill-
holder, has probably never been equaled by that of any other banking
system. Its notes are secured by the deposit with the government
of the interest-bearing bonds of the United States.

"The section of the bill before me which relates to the national
banking system, and to which objection is made, is not an essential
part of a refunding measure. It is as follows:

'Sec. 5. From and after the 1st day of July, 1881, the three per
cent. bonds authorized by the first section of this act shall be
the only bonds receivable as security for national bank circulation,
or as security for the safekeeping and prompt payment of the public
money deposited with such banks; but when any such bonds deposited
for the purposes aforesaid shall be designated for purchase or
redemption by the Secretary of the Treasury, the banking association
depositing the same shall have the right to substitute other issues
of the bonds of the United States in lieu thereof: _Provided_,
That no bond upon which interest has ceased shall be accepted or
shall be continued on deposit as security for circulation or for
the safe-keeping of the public money; and in case bonds so deposited
should not be withdrawn, as provided by law, within thirty days
after interest has ceased thereon, the banking association depositing
the same shall be subject to the liabilities and proceedings on
the part of the comptroller provided for in section 5234 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States: _And provided further_,
That section 4 of the act of June 20, 1874, entitled: "An act
fixing the amount of United States notes, providing for a redistribution
of the national bank currency, and for other purposes," be, and
the same is hereby, repealed; and sections 5159 and 5160 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same are hereby,
re-enacted.'

"Under this section it is obvious that no additional banks will
hereafter be organized, except possibly in a few cities or localities
where the prevailing rates of interest in ordinary business are
extremely low. No new banks can be organized, and no increase of
the capital of existing banks can be obtained, except by the purchase
and deposit of three per cent. bonds. No other bonds of the United
States can be used for the purpose. The one thousand millions of
other bonds recently issued by the United States, and bearing a
higher rate of interest than three per cent., and therefore a better
security for the bill-holder, cannot, after the 1st of July next,
be received as security for bank circulation. This is a radical
change in the banking law. It takes from the banks the right they
have heretofore had under the law to purchase and deposit, as
security for their circulation, any of the bonds issued by the
United States, and deprives the bill-holder of the best security
which the banks are able to give, by requiring them to deposit
bonds having the least value of any bonds issued by the government.

"The average rate of taxation of capital employed in banking is
more than double the rate of taxation upon capital employed in
other legitimate business. Under these circumstances, to amend
the banking law so as to deprive the banks of the privilege of
securing their notes by the most valuable bonds issued by the
government will, it is believed, in a large part of the country,
be a practical prohibition of the organization of new banks, and
prevent the existing banks from enlarging their capital. The
national banking system, if continued at all, will be a monopoly
in the hands of those already engaged in it, who may purchase
government bonds bearing a more favorable rate of interest than
the three per cent. bonds prior to next July.

"To prevent the further organization of banks is to put in jeopardy
the whole system, by taking from it that feature which makes it,
as it now is, a banking system free upon the same terms to all who
wish to engage in it. Even the existing banks will be in danger
of being driven from business by the additional disadvantages to
which they will be subjected by this bill. In short, I cannot but
regard the fifth section of the bill as a step in the direction of
the destruction of the national banking system.

"Our country, after a long period of business depression, has just
entered upon a career of unexampled prosperity.

"The withdrawal of the currency from circulation of the national
banks, and then enforced winding up of the banks in consequence,
would inevitably bring a serious embarrassment and disaster to the
business of the country. Banks of issue are essential instruments
of modern commerce. If the present efficient and admirable system
of banking is broken down, it will inevitably be followed by a
recurrence to other and inferior methods of banking. Any measure
looking to such a result will be a disturbing element in our
financial system. It will destroy confidence and surely check the
growing prosperity of the country.

"Believing that a measure for refunding the national debt is not
necessarily connected with the national banking law, and that any
refunding act would defeat its own object, if it imperiled the
national banking system, or seriously impaired its usefulness; and
convinced that section 5 of the bill before me would, if it should
become a law, work great harm, I herewith return the bill to the
House of Representatives for that further consideration which is
provided for in the constitution.

"Rutherford B. Hayes.
"Executive mansion, March 3, 1881."

Preceding this message, during the last week in February, there
was a serious disturbance in the money market, especially in
connection with the national banks, caused by a fear that the bill
would become a law. Appeals were made to me to furnish relief.
All I could do was to purchase $10,000,000 of bonds to be paid from
an overflowing treasury, but the veto of the President settled the
fate of the bill.

In the latter part of November, 1880, General Garfield came to
Washington and called upon Mr. Blaine, who, it was understood, was
to be Secretary of State. Garfield came to my house directly from
Blaine's and informed me that he had tendered that office to Blaine
and that it was accepted. He said that Blaine thought it would
not be politic to continue me as Secretary of the Treasury, as it
would be regarded as an unfriendly discrimination by other members
of Hayes' cabinet. I promptly replied that I agreed with the
opinion of Blaine, and was a candidate for the Senate. It was then
understood that Garfield was committed to Foster for the vacancy
in the Senate, but this he denied, and, whatever might have been
his preference, I am convinced he took no part in the subsequent
contest.

On the 16th of December, Thomas A. Cowgill, speaker of the House
of Representatives, of Ohio, wrote a note to Governor Foster advising
his withdrawal "for harmony in our counsels and unity in our action."
On the next day, after advising with leading Republicans, Foster,
in a manly letter, declined further to be a candidate for Senator.

Prior to the withdrawal of Foster I received a note from General
Garfield from Mentor, Ohio, under date of December 15, 1880, in
which he said: "I am glad to see that the unpleasant matters
between yourself and Governor Foster have been so happily adjusted,
and I am quite sure that a little further understanding will remove
all dangers of a personal contest, which might disturb the harmony
of the party in Ohio."

I subsequently received the following note from Garfield:

"Mentor, O., December 22, 1880.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 20th inst. came duly to hand. I
appreciate what you say in reference to personal and Ohio appointments.
The case of Swaim is so exceptional that I hope it will not be
taken as a precedent for what is to come. I am greatly gratified
at the happy turn which the relations between Foster and yourself
have taken.

"I will forward my declination of the senatorship in time to reach
the general assembly on the first day of its session.

"I hope you will not fail to visit me on your trip to Ohio. Mrs.
Garfield joins me in the hope that Mrs. Sherman will accompany you.

"Very truly yours,
"J. A. Garfield.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C."

In response to this and former requests I visited General Garfield
at his residence at Mentor, and discussed with him a multitude of
subjects that he suggested, among them the selection of his cabinet,
and the public questions pending in Congress.

The proceedings in the Republican caucus, on the 11th of January,
1881, soon after the Ohio legislature met, as narrated in the public
press at the time, were exceedingly flattering. General Jones, of
Delaware, made the nominating speech, reciting at considerable
length, and with high praise, my previous public service. Peter
Hitchcock, a distinguished member, seconded the nomination with
another complimentary speech. It was supposed that Judge W. H.
West, a leading lawyer and citizen, would be placed in nomination,
but his spokesman, Judge Walker, no doubt with the approval of
Judge West, moved that my nomination be made unanimous, which was
done. Upon being notified of this I sent the following telegram:

"Washington, D. C., January 11, 1881.
"Hon. J. Scott, Chairman.

"Please convey to the Republican members of the two houses of the
general assembly my heartfelt thanks for their unanimous nomination
for the position of United States Senator. No words can express
my sense of grateful obligation to the people of Ohio for their
long continued partiality. I can assure you that, if elected, I
will, with diligence and fidelity, do my utmost to discharge the
duties assigned me.

"John Sherman."

On the 18th of January I was duly elected Senator as successor of
Allen G. Thurman, who received the Democratic vote.

In accordance with an old custom in Ohio I went to Columbus on the
20th of January to return my thanks to the legislature, and was
received in the senate chamber by the two houses. I was escorted
to a chair with Governor Foster on my right and Governor Dennison
on my left, Governor Foster presiding. I was introduced by Governor
Foster in a generous and eloquent speech, closing as follows:

"Now, gentlemen, a year ago at this time we were here present to
meet General Garfield, to greet him as United States Senator, and
to listen to his words of thanks for the great honor conferred upon
him. We are met to-night for the purpose of greeting the Senator
elected to-day, and to listen to his words of thanks for the great
honor conferred upon him. This gentleman has been in public life
twenty-six years. For six years he served as a Member of Congress
from the Mansfield district, with credit and with distinction.
Thrice elected a United States Senator before, for sixteen years
he occupied the position of United States Senator, ever in the
front rank of the intellectual giants composing that body. Called
hence to be Secretary of the Treasury, this distinguished gentleman
has filled that place with honor. He has been at all times the
friend of resumption and of the prosperity of the people. To him,
perhaps, more than to any other one man, is due the resumption of
specie payments and the prosperity of this people to-day. As a
great financier he stands as a peer with Hamilton, with Chase.
Gentlemen, you have selected wisely and well. I now have the
pleasure of presenting John Sherman, Senator-elect from the State
of Ohio."

To this I responded, in part, as follows:

"Gentlemen, Senators, Members of the General Assembly:--My first
duty is to return to you my grateful thanks for the high honor you
have conferred upon me in selecting me for the fourth time a Member
of the Senate of the United States. Four years ago I assumed a
somewhat different office. And now, having been honored by you by
being transferred to the position formerly occupied by me, I feel
very much like a traveler who has made a long journey into a far
distant country and who is returning home in safety and honor.
The place I now occupy has been one of great embarrassment and
difficulty. I have been away from the people of my native state,
with but scarce a few fleeting, short visits, and have lost the
acquaintances I have had with so many of you, and have not been
able to form new acquaintances among you. I find among the members
of the general assembly but comparatively few of those whom I knew
in the olden times.

"I assumed the duties of the office of which I speak under
circumstances of great embarrassment. I was held up before the
public for a long time as one who was pursuing a policy that brought
woes unnumbered--greater than befell the Greeks between Achilles
and Agamemnon. All the evils that fell upon society in the United
States during the period, all the grave distress, was simply
attributed to me as a fault. I was compelled to say 'No' a thousand
times where I would gladly have said 'Yes.' I was compelled to
decline the advice of men honestly given for a good purpose, because
in my judgment that advice would not promote the public good. And
now, having been elected by you under those adverse circumstances,
I feel my heart overflowing with gratitude, and have no words with
which to utter my thanks. I am glad, however, of the assurance
you have given me by the unanimous nomination of my Republican
friends, and by the courtesy, kindness and forbearance of my
adversaries.

"I am glad to know and feel the assurance that you now believe
that, under the trying circumstances, I did the best I could to
advance the common interest of our common country.

"And I am glad to approve the votes that were given by my Democratic
fellow-citizens here in the contest yesterday and to-day. If any
man could be chosen from the State of Ohio to advocate in the
American Senate the principles of the Democratic party, there is
no man in Ohio, or in the United States, more deserving of that
honor than Allen G. Thurman. For many years he and I served together
as representatives of opposing parties. We, each with the vigor
and power we could, endeavored to impress our views upon the public,
to carry out the line of policy to which our political friends were
devoted. And in all that time no words of unkindness, no words of
asperity, have passed between us. We never brought Ohio quarrels
before the Senate of the United States, and always found that
honesty and ability were entirely consistent with gentlemanly
courtesy between political opponents.

"And I wish also to return my grateful acknowledgments to Governor
Foster for the kindly language with which he has introduced me to
you, and to many distinguished citizens of Ohio who, by their kind
and generous forbearance, have enabled you, without division, to
send a Senator to the Congress of the United States without a
quarrel, a contest or a struggle, and I feel under obligations to
the gentleman who has introduced me largely for this distinguished
honor and courtesy.

"I can only say then, in conclusion, fellow-citizens, that I am
glad that the opportunity of the office you have given me will
enable me to come back here home to Ohio to cultivate again the
relations I had of old. It is one of the happiest thoughts that
comes to me in consequence of your election that I will be able to
live again among you and to be one of you, and I trust in time to
overcome the notion that has sprung up within two or three years
that I am a human iceberg, dead to all human sympathies. I hope
you will enable me to overcome that difficulty. That you will
receive me kindly, and I think I will show you, if you doubt it,
that I have a heart to acknowledge gratitude--a heart that feels
for others, and willing to alleviate where I can all the evils to
which men and women are subject. I again thank you from the bottom
of my heart."

Among the many incidents in my life I recall this as one of the
happiest, when the bitterness and strife of political contests were
laid aside and kindness and charity took their place. I am glad
to say that the same friendly relations that existed between Senator
Thurman and myself have always been maintained with each of my
colleagues, without distinction of party.

Early in January I had accepted an invitation of the merchants of
Boston to attend the annual dinner of their association on the 31st
of that month. While the dinner was the stated object, yet I knew
that the speeches to be made were the real cause of the meeting.
These were to be made by Governor Long, Stewart L. Woodford and
others, real orators, while I was expected to talk to them about
money, debt and taxes. I met their wishes by a careful statement
of the mode of refunding, or, to define the word, the process of
reducing the burden of the public debt by reducing the rate of
interest. I stated at length the measures executed by Hamilton,
Gallatin and others, in paying in full the Revolutionary debt and
that created by the War of 1812, and those adopted in recent times.
The mode at each period was similar, but the amount of recent
refundings was twenty times greater than the national debt at the
beginning of the government, and our surplus revenue for that one
year just past would have paid the debt of the United States at
the close of the Revolutionary War. In all stages of our history
we have preserved the public faith by the honest discharge of every
obligation. Long, Woodford and others made eloquent speeches, and,
on the whole, the "dinner" was a pronounced success.

After my return to Washington, Garfield continued to write me
freely, especially about the selection of the Secretary of the
Treasury. In a note dated February 14 he gave me the names of a
number of prominent men and his impressions about them, but I do
not feel at liberty to insert it. In my answer of the date of
February 16, after expressing my opinion of those named, I said:

"Since our last conversation in Mentor I have turned this important
matter over and over again in my mind, and I drift back pretty
nearly to the opinion I then expressed, that, assuming that a
western man is to be appointed, my judgment would lead me to select,
first, Windom. . . . He is certainly a man of high character, of
pleasant manners, free from any political affiliations that would
be offensive to you, on good terms with all, yet a man of decision."

I knew Garfield well. From his early advent in 1861 in the
legislature of Ohio, when I was a candidate for the Senate, to the
date of his death, I had every opportunity to study his character.
He was a large, well developed, handsome man, with a pleasing
address and a natural gift for oratory. Many of his speeches were
models of eloquence. These qualities naturally made him popular.
But his will power was not equal to his personal magnetism. He
easily changed his mind, and honestly veered from one impulse to
another. This, I think, will be admitted by his warmest friends.
During the trying period between his election and inauguration his
opinions wavered, but Blaine, having similar personal qualities,
but a stronger will, gained a powerful influence with him. When
I proposed to him to be a delegate at large to the Chicago convention,
he no doubt meant in good faith to support my nomination. When
his own nomination seemed probable he acquiesced in, and perhaps
contributed to it, but after his election he was chiefly guided by
his brilliant Secretary of State.

There was a striking contrast between the personal qualities of
Garfield and Hayes. Hayes was a modest man, but a very able one.
He had none of the brilliant qualities of his successor, but his
judgment was always sound, and his opinion, when once formed, was
stable and consistent. He was a graduate of Kenyon college and
the law school at Cambridge. He had held several local offices in
Cincinnati, had served with high credit in the Union army, and had
attained the rank of major general by conspicuous heroism in battle.
He had been twice elected a Member of Congress from Cincinnati and
three times as Governor of Ohio, and in 1876 was elected President
of the United States. The contest which was ended by his inauguration
has already been referred to. During his entire term, our official
and personal relations were not only cordial, but as close and
intimate as that of brothers could be. I never took an important
step in the process of resumption and refunding, though the law
vested the execution of these measures in my office, without
consulting him. Yet, while expressing his opinion, he said this
business must be conducted by me, and that I was responsible.

Early in his administration we formed the habit of taking long
drives on each Sunday afternoon, in the environs of Washington.
He was a regular attendant with Mrs. Hayes, every Sunday morning,
at the Methodist Episcopal church, of which she was a member. This
duty being done we felt justified in seeking the seclusion of the
country for long talks about current measures and policy. Each of
us was prepared with a memorandum of queries. My coachman, who
has been with me for twenty years, could neither heed nor hear.
We did not invade any of the departments of the government outside
of the treasury and his official functions as President. This
exchange of opinion was of service to the public, and gave to each
of us the benefit of an impartial opinion from the other.

Among the multitude of public men I have met I have known no one
who held a higher sense of his duty to his country, and more
faithfully discharged that duty, than President Hayes. He came
into his great office with the prejudice of a powerful party against
him, caused by a close and disputed election. This was unjust to
him, for the decision was made by a tribunal created mainly by its
representatives. He went out of office at the close of his term
with the hearty respect of the American people, and his administration
may be placed as among the most beneficial and satisfactory in the
history of the republic.

When near the close of his term, he gave the usual dinner to the
members of the outgoing and the incoming cabinets. It was purely
an official dinner, but Hayes said that there were two gentlemen
present who were not in office. We looked around to see who the
unhappy two were, and found they were Garfield and myself. Garfield
had not yet become President and I had resigned as secretary the
day before. This happened to be the only day that I was not in
public office since March 4, 1855.

On the 3rd of March I delivered to the President my resignation,
as follows:

'Washington, March 3.
"Hon. R. B. Hayes, President United States.

"My Dear Sir:--Having been elected a Member of the Senate of the
United States, I have the honor to resign the office of Secretary
of the Treasury, to take effect this day. In thus severing our
official relations, I avail myself of the opportunity to express
my grateful appreciation and heartfelt thanks for the support and
assistance you have uniformly given me in the discharge of the
duties of that office. I shall ever cherish with pleasant memories
my friendly association with you as a member of your cabinet, and
shall follow you in your retirement from your great office with my
best wishes and highest regards.

"Very truly your friend,
"John Sherman."

During my service as Secretary of the Treasury I had been arraigned
in every issue of the Sunday "Capital," a newspaper published in
Washington, in the severest terms of denunciation, by Don Piatt,
the owner of the paper. He was a brilliant but erratic writer,
formerly a member of the Ohio legislature and a native of that
state. I believed that his animosity to me grew out of my re-
election to the Senate in 1865, when General Schenck, who was warmly
supported by Piatt, was my competitor. Schenck and I always
maintained friendly relations. He served his district long and
faithfully in the House of Representatives, was a brilliant debater,
had the power of condensing a statement or argument in the fewest
possible words, and uttering them with effective force. Next to
Mr. Corwin, and in some respects superior to him, Schenck was ranked
as the ablest Member of the House of Representatives from Ohio
during his period of active life, from 1840 to his death, at
Washington, D. C., March 23, 1890. Schenck freely forgave me for
his defeat, but Piatt never did.

At the close of my term as secretary, much to my surprise, Piatt
wrote and published in his paper an article, a portion of which I
trust I will be pardoned for inserting here:

"When John Sherman took the treasury, in March, 1877, it was plain
that the _piece de resistance_ of his administration would be the
experiment of the resumption act, which John, as chairman of the
Senate finance committee, had elaborated two years before, and
which was then just coming upon the threshold of practical test.
The question at issue was whether resumption of specie payments,
after eighteen years of suspension, could be accomplished through
the operation of laws of Congress, which, if not absolutely in
conflict with the laws of political economy, were, to every visible
appearance, several years in advance of them. Of course, the
primary effect of the appreciation of our paper towards par with
the standard of coin was the enhancement of the purchasing power
of the circulating medium. That made it hard to pay debts which
had been contracted on low scales of purchasing power. That which
had been bought for a dollar worth sixty cents, must be paid for
with a dollar worth eighty, ninety, or a hundred cents, according
to the date on which the contract matured. Of course, such a
proceedings created an awful squeeze. Many men, struggling under
loads of debt, found the weight of their obligations growing upon
them faster than their power to meet, and they succumbed.

"For all this John Sherman was blamed. He was named 'The Wrecker,'
and the maledictions poured upon his head during the years 1877
and 1878 could not be measured. Every day the columns of the press
recorded new failures, and every failure added to the directory of
John Sherman's maledictors. But the man persevered. And now,
looking back over the record of those two years, with all their
stifled ambitions and ruined hopes, the grim resolution with which
John, deafening his ears to the cry of distress from every quarter,
kept his eye fixed upon the single object of his endeavor, seems
hardly human--certainly not humane. And yet there are few reasoning
men to be found now ready to deny that it was for the best, and,
taken all in all, a benefaction to the country; one of those sad
cases, in fact, where it is necessary to be cruel in order to be
kind.

"We were not a supporter of John Sherman's policy at any period of
its crucial test. We did not believe that his gigantic experiment
could be brought to a successful conclusion. The absurd currency
theories which were from time to time set up in antagonism to his
policy never impressed us; our disbelief was based upon our fear
that the commercial and industrial wreckage, consequent upon an
increase of forty per cent. in the purchasing power of money within
three years, would be infinitely greater than it turned out to be,
and, so being, would overwhelm the country in one common ruin.
But we were mistaken. John Sherman was right. And it is but common
frankness to say of him, even as one would give the devil his due,
that he builded wiser than we knew--possibly wiser than he knew
himself. At all events, John builded wisely.

"He took the treasury at a period when it was little more than a
great national bank of discount, with rates varying from day to
day; the coin standard a commodity of speculation on Wall street;
the credit of the government a football in the markets of the world;
and our bonds begging favor of European capitalists. He leaves it
what it ought to be--a treasury pure and simple, making no discounts,
offering no concessions, asking no favors; the board that once
speculated in coin as a commodity abolished, doors closed by reason
of occupation gone; the credit of our government at the head of
the list of Christendom; since we are launching at par a three per
cent. consol, which even England, banking house of the universe,
has never yet been able to maintain steadily above 97.

"This is no small achievement to stand as the record of four years.
It is an achievement that entitles the man who accomplished it to
rank as one of the four great American financiers who really deserve
the title--Robert Morris, Albert Gallatin, Salmon P. Chase, and
John Sherman.

"We take off our hat to John; not because we like him personally,
but because we admire the force of character, the power of intellect
and the courage of conviction that enabled him to face his
difficulties, surmount his obstacles and overcome the resistance
he met.

"The treasury he took up in 1877 was a battle ground. The treasury
he resigns to his successor in 1881 is a well-ordered machine of
red tape and routine, requiring for its future successful administration
little else than mediocrity, method and _laissez faire_. As we
said before, we take off our hat to John. He is not a magnetic
man like Blaine, not a lovable man like our poor, dear friend Matt.
Carpenter, not a brilliant man like our Lamar; not like any of
these--warm of temperament, captivating of presence or dazzling of
intellectual luminosity; but he is a great man, strong in the cold,
steadfast nerve that he inherits from his ancestor, and respectable
in the symmetry of an intellect which, like a marble masterpiece,
leaves nothing to regret except the thought that its perfection
excludes the blemish of a soul. John Sherman will figure creditably
in history. Mankind soon forgets the sentimental acrimony of the
moment, provoked by the suffering of harsh processes, and remembers
only the grand results. Thus John Sherman will figure in history
as the man who resumed specie payments; and in that the visiting
statesman of 1876 and the wrecker of 1877-78 will be forgotten.
We congratulate John upon his translation into the history of
success as heartily as if we had been his supporter in the midst
of all his tribulations. Bully for John."

George Bancroft, the eminent historian, lived in Washington for
many years during the latter part of his life. His house was always
an attractive and hospitable one. I had many interesting conversations
with him, mainly on historical subjects. Both of us carefully
eschewed politics, for to the end of his life, I think, he always
regarded himself as a Democrat. I insert an autograph letter from
him, written at the age of eighty-one.

"1623 H Street, }
"Washington, D. C., February 22, 1881.}
"My Dear Mr. Sherman:--I thank you very much for the complete
statement, you were very good to send me, of the time and amounts
of payments made to Washington as President. Congratulating you
on the high state of the credit of the United States, I remain,
ever, dear Mr. Secretary,

"Very truly yours,
"Geo. Bancroft."

Before closing my recollections of the administration of President
Hayes I ought to express my high appreciation of my colleagues in
his cabinet. It was throughout his term a happy family. I do not
recall a single incident that disturbed the sincere friendship of
its members, nor any clashing of opinions that produced discord or
contention. Neither interfered with the duties of the other. The
true rule was acted upon that the head of each department should
submit to the President his view of any important question that
arose in his department. If the President wished the opinion of
his cabinet on any question, he submitted it to the cabinet but
took the responsibility of deciding it after hearing their opinions.
It was the habit of each head of a department to present any
questions of general interest in his department, but as a rule he
decided it with the approbation of the President. Evarts was always
genial and witty, McCrary was an excellent Secretary of War. He
was sensible, industrious and prudent. Thompson was a charming
old gentleman of pleasing manners and address, a good advocate and
an eloquent orator, who had filled many positions of honor and
trust. The President regretted his resignation, to engage in the
abortive scheme of De Lesseps to construct the Panama Canal.
Attorney General Devens was a good lawyer and judge and an accomplished
gentleman. He frequently assisted me in my resumption and refunding
operations, and, fortunately for me, he agreed with me in my opinions
as to the legality and expedience of the measures adopted. General
Carl Schurz was a brilliant and able man and discharged the duties
of Secretary of the Interior with ability. I had known him in the
Senate as an admirable and eloquent debater, but in the cabinet he
was industrious and practical and heartily supported the policy of
the President and was highly esteemed by him. Key, of Tennessee,
was selected as a moderate Democrat to represent the south. This
was an experiment in cabinet making, cabinets being usually composed
of members of the same party as the President, but Key proved to
be a good and popular officer. The two vacancies that occurred by
the resignations of McCrary and Thompson were acceptably filled by
Governor Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Goff, of West Virginia. Each
of these gentlemen contributed to the success of Hayes' administration,
and each of the heartily sympathized with, and supported the measures
of, the treasury department.

On the 4th day of March, 1881, I attended the special session of
the Senate, called by President Hayes, and took the oath prescribed
by law. In conformity with the usages of the Senate, I lost my
priority on the committee on finance by the interregnum in my
service, but was made chairman of the committee on the library,
and a member of the committees on finance, rules, and privileges
and elections. Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, became chairman of the
committee on finance, and, by the courtesy of the other members,
I was placed next to him on that committee. Our relations since
our entrance together, in 1854, into the House of Representatives
had been so intimate and cordial that it made no practical difference
which of us sat at the head of the table. When I recalled the
facts that in both the Senate and House of Representatives I had
been chairman of the financial committee, and Mr. Morrill a member,
that my service in the treasury department did not impair my fitness
as chairman, but rather improved it, and that under precisely the
same conditions I had restored to Mr. Fessenden his former position,
I felt piqued, but my feelings did not extend to Mr. Morrill, for
whom I had the highest respect and confidence, and with whom I
rarely differed on any public question. He is now the Nestor of
the Senate, wonderfully vigorous in mind and body.

The chief subject of political interest in this session was the
attitude of William Mahone, a Senator from Virginia. He had been
a distinguished officer in the Confederate army, was a small man
physically, but of wonderful vitality, of undoubted courage and
tenacity. He had broken from the Democratic party, of which he
had been a member, and had been elected a Senator on local issues
in Virginia, arising chiefly out of the debt of that state. When
he entered the Senate, that body was so equally divided that his
vote would determine which party should have the control of its
organization. He quickly made his choice. He was viciously assailed
by Senator Hill, of Georgia, who, not by name but by plain inference,
charged Mahone with disgracing the commission he held. The reply
of Mahone was dramatic and magnetic. His long hair, his peculiar
dress and person, and his bold and aggressive language, attracted
the attention and sympathy of the Senate and the galleries. He
opened his brief speech as follows:

"Mr. president, the Senator has assumed not only to be the custodian
here of the Democratic party of this nation; but he has dared to
assert his right to speak for a constituency that I have the
privilege, the proud and honorable privilege on this floor, of
representing without his assent, without the assent of such Democracy
as he speaks for. I owe them, sir, I owe you [addressing Mr. Hill],
and those for whom you undertake to speak, nothing in this chamber.
I came here, sir, as a Virginian, to represent my people, not to
represent the Democracy for which you stand. I come with as proud
a claim to represent that people as you to represent the people of
Georgia, won on field where I have vied with Georgians whom I
commanded and others in the cause of my people and of their section
in the late unhappy contest, but, thank God, for the peace and good
of the country that contest is over, and as one of those who engaged
in it, and who has neither here nor elsewhere any apology to make
for the part taken, I am here by my humble efforts to bring peace
to this whole country, peace and good will between the sections,
not here as a partisan, not here to represent the Bourbonism which
has done so much injury to my section of the country."

The debate that followed soon settled the position of General
Mahone. He acted with the Republican party. During the whole of
this session, which extended to May 20, little was done except to
debate Virginia politics, of which Mahone was the center. His vote
was decisive of nearly every question presented. I took part in
the long debate on the election of officers of the Senate, mainly
with Senator Bayard. My sympathy was with Mahone, as I felt that,
whatever his view of the debt question in Virginia was, he was
right on the reconstruction of the south and in opposition to the
bitter sectionalism of the Democratic party in that state. In
replying to Mr. Bayard I said I agreed with him in the principle
that the majority must rule. I claimed, however, that when the
action of a minority went beyond a reasonable delay it became
revolution and, in a word, was worse than revolution, it was treason;
that under the senate rules, and in conformity with them, this
government might be as absolutely destroyed as the southern
Confederates would have destroyed it if they had succeeded; that
the rules were intended to be construed with reason and judgment;
that the minority had certain rights to interpose dilatory motions
in order to delay and weary out the will of the majority, but when
it went beyond that limit it entered upon dangerous ground; that
the simple question was whether the Senate should elect its officers
by a majority vote or whether the minority should force the retention
of those then in office. The session closed without electing
officers of the Senate, and was in substance a debating society
doing nothing but talk and acting upon presidential appointments.

The cabinet of President Garfield, as finally selected, was a good
one and was promptly confirmed. Mr. Blaine, for the head of it,
was determined upon early after the election, but the other members
were not decided upon until near the inauguration. Mr. Windom
certainly proved himself a very able and accomplished Secretary of
the Treasury during the short period of his tenure. As I held
myself in a large measure responsible for his appointment, I took
a great interest in his success. He conferred with me freely about
the best mode of refunding the large amount of bonds that became
due on or before the 1st of July. Congress having failed to pass
any law to provide for the refunding of this debt, he resorted to
an ingenious expedient, which answered the purpose of refunding.
Under a plan which was his own device there were called in, for
absolute payment on July 1, 1881, about $200,000,000 of bonds,
mainly the six per cent. bonds of 1861, but permission was given
to the holders of the bonds to have them continued at the pleasure
of the government, with interest at the rate of three and a half
per cent. per annum, provided the holder should so request, and
the bonds should be received at the treasury for that purpose on
or before the 10th of May, 1881. The plan proved entirely
satisfactory. There were presented in due time, for continuance
at three and a half per cent., the amount of $178,055,150 of bonds,
leaving to be paid off from surplus revenue $24,211,400, for which
the treasury had ample resources. Having succeeded in disposing
of the six per cent. bonds, he gave notice that the coupon five
per cent. bonds of the loans of July 14, 1870, and January 20,
1871, would be paid on August 12, 1881, with a like privilege of
continuing the bonds at three and a half per cent. to such of the
holders who might present them for that purpose on or before July
1, 1881. At the same time the treasurer offered to receive for
continuance any of the uncalled registered bonds of that loan to
an amount not exceeding $250,000,000, the remainder of the loan
being reserved with a view to its payment from the surplus revenues.

The annual saving in interest by the continuance of these bonds
amounted to $10,473,952.25. I heartily approved this plan. In a
reported interview of the 14th of April I said:

"I see no difficulty in fully carrying out Secretary Windom's
policy, as far as developed. He has ample means for reducing the
interest on the five and six per cent. bonds. He can pay off all
those who wish to be paid in money, in strict accordance with the
terms of these bonds, leaving the mass of them at three and a half
per cent. interest, payable at the pleasure of Congress. This is
not only for the public interest, but is on the clear line of his
power and duty. Indeed, I think it is better for the country than
any refunding plan that would be carried out under a new law. The
old securities remain as redeemable bonds, bearing as low a rate
of interest as any new bonds would bear, which could be now sold
at par, and they are more readily payable with surplus revenue than
any new bonds could be. If it should appear next session that a
three per cent. bond would sell at par, that can be authorized.
Secretary Windom is cautious and careful, and has done the very
best for the public that is possible."

"Do you think the public will be likely to respond largely to his
efforts?"

"Yes, I have no doubt about it, unless an unforseen or sudden
revulsion occurs."

Mr. Windom demonstrated his ability, not only in the plan of
refunding the debt, but in the general conduct and management of
his department.

The administration of Garfield encountered the same difficulty as
that of Hayes in the selection of officers in the State of New
York. The question was whether appointments in New York should be
made by the President or by a Senator from that state. E. A.
Merritt, collector of the port of New York, having been nominated
for consul general at London, William H. Robertson was nominated
to the Senate in his place. When the Senate considered this
nomination Senator Conkling and his colleague, Senator Platt,
opposed it, not for unfitness, but for the reason that they had
not been consulted in this matter, and that the selection was an
insult and in violation of pledges given Conkling by the President.
When this opposition was known, the President withdrew previous
appointments from that state, in order that the Senate might act
upon the nomination of collector and definitely determine whether
he or the Senators should appoint United States officers in New
York. Finding the nomination of Robertson would be confirmed, both
Senators resigned on the 16th of May, and made their appeal to the
legislature of New York for re-election. If they had been returned
to the Senate, the President would have been powerless to appoint
anyone in New York without consulting the Senators, practically
transferring to them his constitutional power. Fortunately for
the country the legislature of New York elected E. C. Lapham and
Warner Miller in the places of Conkling and Platt.

How far, if at all, the excitement of this contest led to the
assassination of Garfield by Guiteau cannot be known; yet, this
tragedy occurring soon after the contest, the popular mind connected
the two events, and the horror and detestation of the murder
emphasized the rejection of Conkling and Platt.

The action of the President and of the New York legislature
contributed to check the interference of Senators in appointments
to office, which had grown up, under what is called "the courtesy
of the Senate," to be a serious abuse. The nomination of Stanley
Matthews, eminently fitted for the office of justice of the Supreme
Court, was confirmed by a majority of only one vote, the objections
to him being chiefly as did not relate to his fitness or qualifications
for that great office, but grew out of his intimate relations with
Hayes.

After the adjournment of the Senate I went to Mansfield, and enjoyed
the comfort and quiet of home life after the turbulence and anxiety
of four years of severe labor as Secretary of the Treasury. The
state convention was to be held at Cleveland on the 18th of June.
There were signs of disaffection growing out of the events of the
past year, which threatened to disturb the harmony of the Republican
party. I determined to do all I could to allay this, and for that
purpose to attend the convention as a delegate and promote, as far
as I could, the renomination of Governor Foster. When the convention
met I was selected as its president, and in my speech I took care
to express my support of Governor Foster and the administration of
Garfield.

I said that Governor Foster was entitled to renomination, and I
believed would receive it at the hands of the convention, that his
able and earnest canvass two years before had laid the foundation
for a great victory, culminating in the election of Garfield as
President. I called attention to the achievements of the Republican
party during the past twenty-five years in war and in peace. I
warned the convention that there was no room in Ohio, or in this
country, for a "boss," or a leader who commands and dictates, and
said: "The man who aspires to it had better make his will beforehand."
I congratulated the convention upon the auspicious opening of the
administration of President Garfield and said:

"We know office-seeking is undoubtedly the proper pursuit of mankind.
There may be some disappointments, because there are fewer places
to fill than men willing to fill them. But, in the main, the
general principles and policy of this administration are in harmony
with the aspirations of the Republican party. The financial policy
of the last administration has been supplemented by the reduction
of the rate of interest on $500,000,000 of the public securities
from five and six per cent. to three and a half per cent. This
wise measure has been carefully and most skillfully managed by
Secretary Windom, an Ohio boy. . . . They are saving $15,000,000
a year, and now the debt which frightened brave men fifteen years
ago has melted away like snow before a summer sun, no longer
frightening the timid. And now the tax on whisky will pay the
interest on the public debt.

"The people of Ohio are satisfied with the administration, I believe,
as it now stands. I believe I can say, in advance of the resolution
that has been, or that will be, offered, that President Garfield
has the emphatic approval of the Republicans of Ohio in the course
he has pursued thus far. Let him further advance the public credit;
let him punish all who do wrong; let him give us an administration
pure, simple and republican, worthy of a nation like ours, and we
will send him our approval twice over again. But, we have something
to do in this task. We have got to emphasize our approval by
indorsing this administration in the election of the Republican
ticket this fall. This is no child's play. We know of the good
work of the Republican party, that it has a powerful constituency
behind it, we dare not do anything wrong, or they will push us from
our positions, if we do not behave ourselves. Let us, then, do
our part; work as Republicans of Ohio know how to work, and victory
will perch upon our banners."

The proceedings of the convention, from beginning to end, were
conducted without any serious division or excitement. The threatened
outbreak against Foster did not occur. Upon the close of my speech
I announced that the first business in order was the nomination of
a candidate for governor. Foster was nominated by acclamation,
without a dissenting voice. The rest of the ticket was composed
of popular candidates, and an exceptionally good platform was
adopted.

In the latter part of June, I attended alumni day of Kenyon college,
in company with ex-President Hayes and many leading men of Ohio.
Delano Hall, the gift of Columbus Delano, and Hubbard Hall were
dedicated with appropriate services, conducted by Bishop Bedell
and President Bodine. On this occasion the degree of Doctor of
Laws was conferred upon me, and I told the faculty how earnestly
I had wished to graduate in their college, and why I could not do
so. Frank Hurd and Mr. Hayes, both graduates, made interesting
addresses. This college was founded mainly upon liberal contributions
to Bishop Chase, by Lord Kenyon and other Englishmen. Its governing
power was the Episcopal church. It has had many vicissitudes of
prosperity and depression, but has never realized the hopes of its
founders. It is one of the colleges of Ohio, excellent in their
way, but if their limited resources had been combined in one great
university, free from sectarian influence, the result would, in my
opinion, have been much better for the youth of Ohio.

During this period I was busy putting my country house in order.
I was literally "repairing the fences." The absence, during four
years, of Mrs. Sherman and myself made a great change in the
condition of my house, grounds and farm. The work of restoration
was a pleasant one, and I was relieved from appeals for appointments,
from the infinite details of an exacting office, and still more
from the grave responsibility of dealing with vast sums, in which,
however careful I might be, and free from fault, I was subject to
imputations and innuendoes by every writer who disapproved of my
policy.

I was arranging for a trip to Yellowstone Park, was receiving
visitors from abroad daily, and mixing with my neighbors and fellow-
townsmen, congratulating myself upon a period of rest and recreation,
when, on the 2nd of July, I received from General Sherman the
announcement, by telegram, that Garfield had been shot by Guiteau,
and that the wound was dangerous, and perhaps fatal. The full
details of this crime were soon given. I started to go to Washington,
but returned when advised that I could be of no service, but
continued to receive from General Sherman frequent bulletins. The
position of the fatal bullet could not be ascertained, and Garfield
lingered in suffering until the 19th of September, when he died.

The death of Garfield, by the hand of a half crazy crank, created
a profound impression throughout the civilized world. To rise to
such a height as he had attained, and then to become the victim of
such a wretch, was a calamity that excited profound sympathy for
the President, and unusual detestation for the murderer. The
personal qualities of Garfield have been already mentioned. After
his untimely death his enemies became silent. At this distance of
time we can properly fix his place in the calendar of those who
have gone before. In many respects, Garfield was like Blaine, but
in his personal intercourse with men, and in the power of will, he
was not the equal of Blaine, while, in style of oratory, in imagery
and expression, he was superior to him. Both were eminent in their
day and generation. They were my juniors about eight years, yet
they lived long enough to permanently stamp their names upon the
history of the country.

On the 20th of July General Sherman arrived at Mansfield as my
visitor. There was much curiosity to see him, especially by soldiers
who had served under his command. I invited them to call at my
house. On the evening of the 21st a large procession of soldiers
and citizens, headed by the American band, marched to my grounds.
The general and I met them at the portico, when Colonel Fink stepped
forward and made a brief speech, saying:

"General Sherman:--We, the old soldiers of the war for the Union,
of Richland county and its surroundings, together with our citizens,
have come to-day to pay our respects to you.

"We come, with feelings of profound regard, to see and welcome you,
our great strategic war chief, and the hero fo the glorious 'March
to the sea.'

"We greet you as the general and leader of all the armies of our
country; we greet you as the gallant defender of the flag; we greet
you as the brother of our beloved Senator; we greet you as an Ohio
man, but, above all, we have come to greet and honor you for your
worth; the man that you are."

General Sherman replied briefly, and as this is the first speech
I ever heard him make I insert it here. He said:

"Fellow-Soldiers of the late war and Fellow-Citizens:--It gives me
pleasure to meet you here to-night, in this beautiful grove; in
this inclosure, at my own brother's home. I am glad to meet you,
his neighbors and his friends. The situation is a novel one to
me, and I am deeply moved by it. As I look over you I do not
recognize the faces that I used to know, and when riding about your
city to-day, I only found some of the names I then knew--your
Hedges, your Parkers, and your Purdys; for the rest I had to go to
your cemetery, over yonder, and read their names on the tombstones.
But you have them still among you in their children and their
grandchildren.

"I cannot distinguish to-night who are and who are not soldiers,
but let me say to you, soldiers, I am very glad to meet you again,
after so many years, in this time of peace, when yet the recollection
of the hardships of war is a bond of comradeship among us. We
fought, not for ourselves alone, but for those who are to come
after us. The dear old flag we carried through the storms of many
battles, ready to die, if need be, that it might still wave over
the government of our fathers.

"But this is not the time nor place to recount the events of the
past. I could not now do the subject justice if I should try. I
am not accustomed to addressing mixed audiences. My brother here
knows how to do that better than I, and he understands you better.
But I want to say to you: Teach your children to honor the flag,
to respect the laws, and love and understand our institutions, and
our glorious country will be safe with them.

"My friends, I heartily appreciate this splendid tribute of your
friendship and respect. I thank you. Good night."

At the conclusion of General Sherman's speech he was cheered
vociferously, after which calls were made for me. I made a few
remarks and announced that the general would be glad to take them
all by the hand, and as he did so they passed into the dining-room,
where refreshments awaited them. The greetings and hand-shaking
lasted over an hour. In the meantime the "soldier boys" and others
were enjoying the good cheer within.

On the 22nd of July General Sherman, with Colonel Bacon, left for
Clyde, Ohio, and I at the same time started for Chicago, there to
be joined by Justice Strong, late of the Supreme Court, who had
recently retired at the age of 70, the artist Bierstadt, and Alfred
M. Hoyt, of New York, for a trip to Yellowstone Park. We had
arranged for this trip months before. Our plan was a simple one,
to go at our convenience by the Union Pacific, the only railroad
route then open, to Salt Lake City, and thence to Virginia City,
thence through the Yellowstone Park, and by another route to return
to Virginia City, and thence home. We were to take the usual route
and means of conveyance until we arrived at Virginia City. From
there we were to have an escort, to and through the park, of ten
United States soldiers from Fort Ellis.

The party met at Chicago and proceeded to Ogden and Salt Lake City.
At the latter place we casually met several gentlemen of our
acquaintance, especially General Harrison, Eli Murray, Governor of
the Territory of Utah, and General McCook, who commanded the post
in Salt Lake City. We spent a day or two in visiting the post and
city, and found a great improvement since my former visit. In the
evening we were serenaded by a band from the post, and several
gentlemen were called out for speeches by the gathering crowd. I
had been met during my stay there by many people who claimed to
hail from Ohio, so that I began to think it was quite an Ohio
settlement. In the few remarks I made at the serenade I eulogized
Ohio and spoke of the number of Ohio people I had met in that city.
General McCook was called out, and as he was from Ohio he had
something to say for that state. General Harrison was called upon,
and he said that while he lived in Indiana he was born in Ohio and
was proud of it. General Murray was next called for and he said
that while he was born in Kentucky he lived so close to Ohio that
he could throw a stone into the state. So much had been said about
Ohio that Judge Strong took offense. They called upon him to
address the crowd from the balcony, but he would not. Finally,
upon my urging him to speak, he rushed forward and said: "I want
you to understand distinctly that I am not from Ohio, I was not
born in Ohio, I never lived in Ohio, and don't want to hear anything
more about Ohio!" This was vociferously cheered, and the old
gentleman closed with very proper remarks about love for the Union
instead of for the state.

Since that time I have visited Salt Lake City and have always been
impressed with the great value of that region, not only for its
mineral wealth, but for the possibility of great agricultural
development with proper irrigation.

During our stay we bathed in Salt Lake. The water was so impregnated
with salt that our bodies floated upon the surface and there was
no danger of drowning. The history of Salt Lake City, which owes
its existence and wonderful development and prosperity to Brigham
young, is like an improbable romance. I have already mentioned
Young, having met him on my former visit with Thomas A. Scott. In
the nine years that had elapsed the city had nearly doubled its
population. Pure water was flowing in all the streets and the city
looked fresh and clean. The air, at an elevation of 4,000 feet
above the sea, was exhilarating. From Salt Lake City we returned
to Ogden, and on, or about, the 1st of August took passage on the
Utah Northern railroad. Our route lay along the Beaver River,
passing Eagle Rock, thence through Beaver Cañon into Idaho, thence
through a mountainous range, at about an elevation of 6,800 feet,
into Montana as far as the frontier town of Dillon. There we left
the cars and took wagons to Virginia City, Montana, where we were
to meet our military escort and arrange for horses and mules to
carry us and our camp outfit into the park.

Our drive from Dillon to Virginia City was very picturesque, skirting
the Ruby mountains and crossing the Stinking Water River. Virginia
City was at one time the center and thriving business place of the
large population that was drawn to that valley by the very rich
placer gold mines there, discovered between 1865 and 1870. It is
estimated that $90,000,000 of gold was taken from that stream that
runs through a valley about eighteen miles long. The city had many
substantial buildings, a large brick courthouse, five churches,
many large business stores, dwellings and hotels. At the time we
were there the placer mining had been abandoned, except by some
Chinamen who were washing over the tailings and making good wages
at it; and the population had been reduced from 20,000 people to
1,400. Here we spent Sunday. It was a gala day for the saloons,
ranchmen and cowboys, typical of how Sunday is observed in all
these mining and ranch towns. We met here, as everywhere in Montana,
wandering gold-seekers who explored from mountain to valley in
search of the precious metal, often making exaggerated statements
in regard to the undeveloped wealth not yet discovered, with stories
about gold which were never realized. It was the common belief
that the gold found in the placer mines must have been washed from
the mountains near by, and seekers for gold were looking for the
source of the gold field in such mountains, but it was never
discovered. Mines were discovered in other parts of Montana, but
none about Virginia City.

On Monday we met Lieutenant Swigert with a dozen troopers from Fort
Ellis, who, by orders from the war department, were to escort us
through Yellowstone Park. Here we obtained horses and mules for
our own use and for carrying our packs, camp traps, etc. When all
was ready we started for our camping in the wilderness. Our first
day's march was about twenty miles, when we went into camp. We
proceeded each day about this same rate, following along the valley
of the Madison River until we reached the park. When we were there
the park was truly a wilderness, with no evidences of civilization.
Game was very abundant. Elk, deer, antelope and bear were plentiful,
and we had no difficulty in getting all the fresh meat we wanted.

Among our employees was a man by the name of Beam, a typical hunter.
He had spent most of his life in the mountains. He started out
every morning in advance of us and was always sure to be at the
agreed camping ground when he arrived. I asked him at one time if
he was not afraid of being lost. He said no, he could not be lost
for he could go to the top of any hill or mountain and determine
his course. He said he had never been lost but once, and that was
in St. Louis; when he went out from the hotel he was in a "cañon"
and he could not tell which way to go.

We arrived in the lower geyser basin on Saturday. The next day
(Sunday) was bright and beautiful. We knew that our revered
companion, Justice Strong, was a religious man and we felt that he
would have scruples about traveling on Sunday. Still, we wished
to move on that afternoon to the upper geyser basin, but were at
a loss how to approach him with the Sunday question. It was left
to me to confer with him. Before doing so I arranged to have
everything in order for a proper observance of the Sabbath day.
I found after inquiry that there was no Bible in the large party,
but that the officer in command of the troops had an Episcopal
prayer book. I went with that to Justice Strong and suggested that
we should have religious services, to which he readily assented.
I gave him the prayer book and he carefully marked out a selection
of scripture and prayers, saying that he was not familiar with the
book, but it contained ample material for a proper religious service.
We gathered all the soldiers, wagoners and cowboys, including the
hunter, belonging to our party. Justice Strong was furnished a
box to sit on in front of his tent, and the rest of us stood or
lay in scattered groups on the ground around him. He read from
the prayer book the passages he had selected, making together a
most impressive and interesting service. Many of those who gathered
around him had not shared in religious services for years, and were
duly impressed with them. After this was over and we had taken
dinner, I suggested to him that there were so many horses that the
teamsters complained that the grass was not sufficient for them to
remain there all day, and that I thought it would be well for us
to move to the upper geyser basin a few miles away, to which he at
once assented. I throughly sympathized with his feelings in this
matter, but thought that under the circumstances our action was
excusable and he doubtless saw through the scheme.

During our visit to the geysers in the upper basin, we encamped
near "Old Faithful." From this camp we could reach, by an easy
walk, nearly all the grand geysers of this wonderful basin. I have
sometimes undertaken to describe these geysers, but never could
convey my idea of their grandeur. Bierstadt made a sketch of "Old
Faithful," showing Mr. Hoyt and myself in the foreground, with the
geyser in full action. He subsequently expanded this picture into
a painting, which I now own and greatly prize.

We resumed our march, passing by Sulphur Mountain, the Devil's
Caldron, mud geysers, the "paint pots," and through this marvelous
land, to the shores of Yellowstone Lake. We were amazed at the
beautiful scenery that stretched before us. This large lake is in
the midst of snow-clad mountains; its only supply of water is from
the melting snows and ice that feed the upper Yellowstone River.
Its elevation is 7,741 feet above the sea. The ranges and peaks
of snow-clad mountains surrounding the lake, the silence and majesty
of the scene, were awe-inspiring--the only life apparent being the
flocks of pelicans. We fished successfully in this mountain lake,
but of the fishes caught many were spoiled by worms that had eaten
into and remained in them.

We visited the great falls of the Yellowstone, the immense and
wonderful cañon so often described and illustrated. We remained
encamped near this cañon a whole day, and amused ourselves chiefly
in exploring its wonderful depths and in rolling stones from
projecting points down into the valley. They generally bounded
from point to point until we could hear them dashing into the waters
far below.

Our march down the valley of the Yellowstone was very interesting.
The military escort and Justice Strong did not pass over Mount
Washburn, but went by a nearer and easier route along the valley
to the next camping ground. Bierstadt, Hoyt and I, with a guide,
rode on horseback to the top of Mount Washburn, a long, difficult
and somewhat dangerous feat, but we were amply repaid by the splendid
view before us. We crossed the mountain at an elevation of 12,000
feet, in the region of perpetual snow. From its summit one of the
grandest and most extensive views of mountain scenery lay before
and around us, range after range of snowpeaks stretching away for
one hundred miles. To the south was the valley of Wind River and
Stinking Water, and encircling these, the Shoshone and Wind River
ranges with their lines of perpetual snow, the Bear Tooth Mountain
and Pilot Knob and Index Peak, the great landmarks of the Rockies.
The ascent was fatiguing and almost exhausting. We remained on
the mountain two or three hours for needed rest. When we arrived
in the camp about sundown I was so fatigued that I was utterly
unable to dismount from my horse, and was lifted bodily from it by
the soldiers.

We continued our journey through grassy parks until we reached
Lower Falls. From there we continued until we arrived at Mammoth
Hot Springs, where there was a house, the first sign of civilization
we had seen since we began our journeyings in the park. From here
we took our way to Fort Ellis and Bozeman, where we left our escort
and horses and mules. We returned from here to Virginia City, and
at Dillon took cars for Ogden and thence for home, where I arrived
about the 25th of August.

During my absence in the Yellowstone Park we had frequent bulletins
in respect to President Garfield, sometimes hopeful but generally
despondent. When I returned it was generally supposed that he
could not recover, but might linger for weeks or months. The public
sympathy excited for him suspended by common consent all political
meetings. As the Ohio election was to occur on the second Tuesday
of October, George K. Nash, chairman of the Republican state
committee, having charge of the canvass, made a number of appointments
for several gentlemen during September. Among them was one for me
to speak in Mansfield, on the 17th of that month, in aid of the
election of Foster and the Republican ticket. Preparations were
made and the meeting was actually convened on the afternoon of that
day, but, as the bulletins from Elberton indicated that Garfield
might die at any moment, I declined to speak. More favorable
advices coming, however, I was urged by the committee to speak to
Wooster on Monday evening, September 19, and consented with some
hesitation. In opening my speech I referred to the condition of
the President and my reluctance to speak; I said:

"Fellow-Citizens:--I am requested by the Republican state committee
to make a political speech to you to-night, in opening here the
usual discussion that precedes the election of a governor and other
state officers. If I felt at liberty to be guided by my own
feelings, I would, in view of the present condition of the President
of the United States, forego all political discussion at this time.

"The President is the victim of a crime committed without excuse
or palliation, in a time of profound peace and prosperity, not
aimed at him as an individual, but at him as the President of the
United States. It was a political crime, made with the view of
changing, by assassination, the President chosen by you. It has
excited, throughout the civilized world, the most profound horror.
The President has suffered for more than two months, and is still
suffering, from wounds inflicted by an assassin. His life still
hangs by a thread. The anxious inquiry comes up morning, noon and
night, from a whole people, with fervid, earnest prayers for his
recovery.

"Under the shadow of this misfortune, I do not feel like speaking,
and I know you do not feel like hearing a political wrangle. It
is but just to say that the members of all parties, with scarce an
exception, Democrats as well as Republicans, share in sympathy with
the President and his family, and in detestation of the crime and
the criminal, and the evidence of this sympathy tends to make
political dispute irksome and out of place."

I then entered into a general discussion of the issues of the
campaign. Soon after the close of my speech I received intelligence
of the death of Garfield, and at once revoked all my appointments,
and by common consent both parties withdrew their meetings. Thus
mine was the only speech made in the campaign. I immediately went
to Washington with ex-President Hayes to attend the funeral, and
accompanied the committee to the burial at Cleveland. The sympathy
for Garfield in his sad fate was universal and sincere. The
inauguration of President Arthur immediately followed, and with it
an entire change of the cabinet.

On the 23rd of September, 1881, President Arthur convened the Senate
to meet in special session on the 10th of October. Mr. Bayard was
elected its president _pro tempore_. On the 13th of October, when
the Senate was full, David Davis, of Illinois, was elected president
_pro tempore_, and the usual thanks were given to Mr. Bayard, as
the retiring president _pro tempore_, for the dignity and impartiality
with which he had discharged the duties of his office.

At this period of my life I was the object of more abuse and
vituperation than ever before or since. The fact that the new
administration of Arthur was not friendly to me was no doubt the
partial cause of this abuse. The intense bitterness manifested by
certain papers, and by discharged employees, indicated the origin
of most of the petty charges against me. One of these employees
stated that he had been detailed for work on a house built by me
in 1880. This was easily answered by the fact that the house was
built under contract with a leading builder and the cost was paid
to him. I neither knew the man nor ever heard of him since.

I was blamed for certain irregularities in the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the treasury, although the accounts of that fund
were by law approved by the chief clerk of the department and were
settled by the accounting officers without ever coming under my
supervision, and the disbursement had been made by a custodian who
was in the department before I entered it. My wife was more annoyed
than I with the petty charges which she knew were false, but which
I did not dignify by denying.

Mr. Windom, soon after his appointment as secretary, directed an
inquiry to be made by officers of the treasury department into
these abuses and it was charged that he, at my request, had suppressed
this inquiry. The "Commercial Advertiser," on the 11th of October,
alleged that I was as much shocked by the disclosures as my successor,
Mr. Windom; that I did not want any further publicity given to
them, and was desirous that Mr. Windom should not allow the report
to get into the public prints. I, therefore, on the 14th of October,
offered in the Senate this resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed
to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline
and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of
the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such
report."

In offering the resolution, after reading the article in the
"Commercial Advertiser," I said:

"The writer of this paragraph is very much mistaken in supposing
that I have in any way sought or wished to withhold from the public
the report referred to. I neither have nor will I oppose or delay
any investigation of the treasury department while I was its chief
officer. The only wish I have is to see that every officer accused
of improper conduct shall have a fair chance to defend himself,
and then he must stand or fall according to the rectitude or wrong
of his conduct.

"The only doubt I have in calling for this report now is the fact
that Mr. Windom did not order its publication lest injustice might
be done to worthy and faithful officers who had no opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses or answer charges made against them. I
have no doubt that he either has given or will give them this
opportunity. At all events the Senate can do so. I, therefore,
offer this resolution and hope the Senate will promptly pass it."

Mr. Edmunds objected to the resolution as being unnecessary, and
under the rules of the Senate it went over. I called it up on the
18th of October, when Mr. Farley, of California, asked that it be
postponed a few days. On the 22nd I again called it up, when Mr.
Farley stated that he could not see what Congress had to do with
the report of such a commission appointed by the Secretary of the
Treasury, and asked me for an explanation. In reply I said:

"I stated, on introducing this resolution, that the investigation
was one of a character not usually communicated to Congress, but
that certain public prints had contained unfounded imputations
against several officers of the government, and that there was
something in the report which reflected on a Member of this body
formerly a cabinet officer. Under the circumstances, as I was
plainly the person referred to, having been Secretary of the Treasury
at the time stated, I deemed it my right, as well as my duty to my
fellow-Senators, to call out this information. If the statements
contained in the papers be true, they are proper matters for the
Senate to examine in every sense.

"Mr. president, I have been accustomed to newspaper abuse all my
life and very rarely notice it. This is probably the first time
in my political life that I have ever read to this body a newspaper
attack upon me or upon anyone else; but when any paper or any man
impugns in the slightest degree my official integrity I intend to
have it investigated, and I wish it tested not only by the law but
by the strictest rules of personal honor.

"For this reason, when this imputation is made by a leading and
prominent paper, that there is on the files of the treasury department
a document which reflects upon me, I think it right that it should
be published to the world, and then the Senate can investigate it
with the power to send for persons and papers. That is the only
reason why I offered the resolution, and not so much in my own
defense as in defense of those accused in this document. If the
accusation is true it is the duty of the Senate to examine into
the matter."

After some further discussion the resolution was adopted, and on
the same day Mr. Windom transmitted the report of James F. Meline,
and other officers of the treasury department, made to the department
during the recess of the Senate. His letter is as follows:

"Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary,}
"Washington, D. C., October 22, 1881. }
"Sir:--I am in receipt of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st
instant, as follows:

'_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed
to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline
and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of
the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such
report.'

"In reply thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of
the report called for, with the accompanying statements of Mr. J.
K. Upton and J. T. Power, who occupied the position of chief clerk
and _ex officio_ superintendent of the treasury building for the
period covered by the report.

"Soon after assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury my
attention was called to alleged abuses in the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the department, which was under the immediate
charge of a custodian, and the general supervision of the chief
clerk of the department, and I appointed a committee to look into
the matter, as has been the custom of the department in such cases.
The law, somewhat conflicting in its terms in relation to the
relative duties of these two officers, will be found fully set
forth in the report. On considering this report I am convinced
that certain irregularities and abuses existed in this branch of
the service, and as I had some doubts as to the legality of the
appointment of a custodian I abolished that office June 18, 1881,
and by general order of July 1, 1881, reorganized the office.

"A copy of this order is herewith transmitted, from which it will
appear that all the changes necessary to a complete and thorough
correction of the irregularities and abuses referred to have been
adopted.

"It was my intention, as my more pressing public duties would
permit, to have pursued this general policy in other branches of
the treasury, by the appointment of competent committees to collect
the necessary data on which to base proper action to secure economy
and promote the best interests of the public service, but the
assassination of the President suspended further action in this
direction.

"Very respectfully,
"William Windom, Secretary.
"Hon. David Davis, President of the Senate."

On the 26th I offered a resolution as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on appropriations of the Senate
be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate
the accounts for the expenditure of the appropriations for contingent
or other expenses of the several executive departments, including
the methods of making such disbursements, the character and
disposition of the purchases made, and the employment of labor paid
from such appropriations, and to report on the subject at as early
a day as practicable, and whether any further legislation is
necessary to secure the proper disbursement of such appropriations;
and that the committee have leave to send for persons and papers,
and have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate."

This led to a thorough investigation into the disbursement of the
contingent fund of the treasury department, the report of which,
accompanied by the testimony, covering over 1,200 printed pages,
was submitted to the Senate on the 15th of March, 1882. This
examination was chiefly conducted by Francis M. Cockrell, of
Missouri, a Senator distinguished for his fairness and thoroughness.
The report was concurred in unanimously by the committee on
appropriations. It showed that certain irregularities had entered
into the management of the fund and that certain improper entries
had been made in the account, but that only a trifling loss had
resulted to the government therefrom.

I was before the committee and stated that I never had any knowledge
of any wrongdoing in the matter until it had been brought out by
the investigation. The report fairly and fully relieved me from
the false accusations made against me. It said: "Touching the
statements of Senator Sherman, that he had no knowledge of its
irregularities, etc., established by the evidence, no witness states
that Mr. Sherman knew that any funds of the treasury department
were ever used for his individual benefit or otherwise misapplied."

I could not have asked for a more favorable ending of the matter.

At the close of the examination the committee addressed to the head
of each department of Arthur's administration an inquiry whether
the laws then in force provided ample safeguards for the faithful
expenditure of its contingent appropriation, and each of them
replied that no change in existing law was necessary. The committee
concurred in the views of the heads of the departments, and suggested
that they keep a constant supervision over the acts of their
subordinates; that the storekeeper of the treasury department should
be required to give a bond, and that careful inventories of the
property of each department should be made, and that annual reports
of the expenditures from the contingent fund should be made by each
department at the commencement of each regular session. While this
investigation imposed a severe labor upon the committee on
appropriations, it had a beneficial effect in securing a more
careful control over the contingent expenses of the departments,
and it silenced the imputations and innuendoes aimed at me.

In regard to these accusations, I no doubt exhibited more resentment
and gave them more importance than they deserved. I felt that, as
Secretary of the Treasury, I had rendered the country valuable
service, that I had dealt with vast sums without receiving the
slightest benefit, and at the close was humiliated by charges of
petty larceny. If I had recalled the experience of Washington,
Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson and Blaine, and many others, under
like accusations, I would have been content with answering as
Washington and Jackson did, or by silent indifference, but my
temperament led me to defy and combat with my accusers, however
formidable or insignificant they might be.

The annual message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on
the 6th of December, was a creditable, businesslike statement of
the condition of the government. It commenced with a very proper
announcement of the appalling calamity which had fallen upon the
American people by the untimely death of President Garfield. He
said:

"The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements,
and of his patriotic life, will be treasured forever as a sacred
possession of the whole people.

"The announcement of his death drew from foreign governments and
peoples tributes of sympathy and sorrow which history will record
as signal tokens of the kinship of nations and the federation of
mankind."

Our friendly relations with foreign nations were fully described,
and the operations of the different departments of the government
during the past year were clearly and emphatically stated. In
closing he called attention to the second article of the constitution,
in the fifth clause of its first section, that "in case of the
removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation,
or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office,
the same shall devolve on the Vice President," and asked that
Congress should define "what is the intendment of the constitution
in its specification of 'inability to discharge the powers and
duties of said office,' as one of the contingencies which calls
for the Vice President to the exercise of presidential functions?
Is the inability limited in its nature to long continued intellectual
incapacity, or has it a broader import? What must be its extent
and duration? How must its existence be established?"

These and other questions connected with the subject were not acted
upon by Congress, as it could not foresee the conditions of the
inabilities in advance of their occurrence. He closed with the
following sentence:

"Deeply impressed with the gravity of the responsibilities which
have so unexpectedly devolved upon me, it will be my constant
purpose to co-operate with you in such measures as will promote
the glory of the country and the prosperity of its people."

At the regular meeting of the House of Representatives, on the 5th
of December, 1881, J. Warren Keifer was elected speaker by a small
majority. Both Houses were almost equally divided on partisan
lines.

Early in the session, on the motion of William McKinley, the House
passed the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of one Member from each state
represented in this House be appointed on the part of the House to
join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate,
to consider and report by what token of respect and affection it
may be proper for the Congress of the United States to express the
deep sensibility of the nation to the event of the decease of their
late President, James Abram Garfield; and that so much of the
message of the President as refers to that melancholy event be
referred to said committee."

On the same day, on my motion, a similar resolution, limiting the
committee to eight, passed the Senate. The committees were duly
appointed. On the 21st of December the two Houses, upon the report
of the two committees, adopted the following concurrent preamble
and resolutions:

"Whereas, The melancholy event of the violent and tragic death of
James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, having
occurred during the recess of Congress, and the two Houses sharing
in the general grief and desiring to manifest their sensibility
upon the occasion of the public bereavement: Therefore,

"_Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring)_, That the two Houses of Congress will assemble in the
hall of the House of Representatives on a day and hour to be fixed
and announced by the joint committee, and that in the presence of
the two Houses there assembled an address upon the life and character
of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, be
pronounced by Hon. James G. Blaine; and that the president of the
Senate _pro tempore_ and the speaker of the House of Representatives
be requested to invite the President and ex-Presidents, of the
United States, the heads of the several departments, the judges of
the Supreme Court, the representatives of the foreign governments
near this government, the governors of the several states, the
general of the army and the admiral of the navy, and such officers
of the army and have as have received the thanks of Congress who
may then be at the seat of government, to be present on this
occasion.

"_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the United
States be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Mrs.
Lucretia R. Garfield, and to assure her of the profound sympathy
of the two Houses of Congress for her deep personal affliction and
of their sincere condolence for the late national bereavement."

On the 27th of February, 1882, Mr. Blaine, in response to the
resolution of the two Houses, delivered an address, in the hall of
House of Representatives, on the life and character of President
Garfield, worthy of the occasion, of the distinguished audience
before him, and of his reputation as an orator. From the beginning
to the end it was elevated in tone, eloquent in the highest sense
of that word, and warm in expression of his affection for the friend
he eulogized. His delineation of Garfield as a soldier, an orator,
and a man, in all the relations of life, was without exaggeration,
but was tinged with his personal friendship and love. He described
him on the 2nd of July, the morning of his wounding, as a contented
and happy man, not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost
boyishly, happy. "Great in life, he was surpassingly great in
death." He pictured the long lingering illness that followed that
fatal wound, the patience of the sufferer, the unfaltering front
with which he faced death, and his simple resignation to the divine
decree. His peroration rose to the full measure of highest oratory.
It was as follows:

"As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned.
The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital
of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its
oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness.
Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer
to the longer-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God
should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of
its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to
the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing
wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its
restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the
noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the
horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us
think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt
and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the silence of
the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further
shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the
eternal morning."

Blaine died January 27, 1893. Who now living could pronounce such
a eulogy?

The following resolutions were adopted by both Houses of Congress:

"_Resolved (the Senate concurring)_, That the thanks of Congress
be presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine, for the appropriate
memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James
Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, in the
Representatives' Hall, before both Houses of Congress and their
invited guests, on the 27th day of February, 1882; and that he be
requested to furnish a copy for publication.

"_Resolved_, That the chairman of the joint committee appointed to
make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolutions
of this Congress, in relation to the memorial exercises in honor
of James Abram Garfield, be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine
the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto, and present
the same to both Houses of Congress."

At the time of the commencement of this session the credit of the
United States had reached high-water mark. It was apparent that,
with judicious management, a three per cent. bond of the United
States could be sold at par. On the first day of the session,
December 5, 1881, I introduced a bill to provide for the issue of
three per cent. bonds. It was referred to the committee on finance,
and on the 15th of December, by direction of that committee, I
reported the bill with certain amendments, and gave notice that I
was directed to seek the action of the Senate upon it immediately
after the holidays. It was taken up for consideration on the 11th
of January, and, much to my surprise, met with opposition from
those who a year before had favored a similar bill. They said it
was a mere expedient on my part, that President Hayes had, at my
request, vetoed a similar bill; but I was able to truly answer that
the veto of President Hayes was not against the three per cent.
bond, but against the compulsory provision that no other than three
per cent. bonds should be deposited in the treasury as security
for the circulating notes of, and deposits with, national banks;
that President Hayes, in fact, approved of the three per cent. bond.

I made a speech in support of this measure on the 26th of January,
reviewing our financial condition, with many details in respect to
our different loans, and closed as follows:

"I say now, as I said at the commencement, that the passage of this
bill seems to me a matter of public duty. I care nothing for it
personally. I have been taunted with my inconsistency. I feel
like the Senator from Kentucky about an argument of that kind. If
I did not sometimes change my mind I should consider myself a
blockhead or a fool. But in this matter, fortunately, I have not
changed my mind. In 1866 I anticipated the time when we could sell
three per cent. bonds and said that was a part of the funding
scheme, and so continued, year in and year out, as I could show
Senators, that that was the _ultima thule_, the highest point of
credit to which I looked in these refunding operations. I believed
last year it could not be done, because I did not believe the state
of the money market would justify the attempt, and, besides that,
the great mass of the indebtedness was so large that it might
prevent the sale of three per cent. bonds at par. Therefore, I
wanted a three and a half per cent. bill then. But then we secured
the three and a half in spite of Congress, by the operations of
the treasury department and the consent of the bondholders, now we
ought to do a little better.

"Let Congress do now what it proposed to do last year, offer to
the people a three per cent. bond. If they do not take it no harm
is done, no expense is incurred, no commissions are paid, no
advantage is taken. If they do take it, they enable you to pay
off more rapidly still your three and a half per cent. bonds.
There was no express and no implied obligation made by the Senator
from Minnesota, as he will himself say, that the people of the United
States have the right to pay every dollar of these three and a half
per cent. bonds. He had no power to make such an intimation even,
nor has he made it, as he states himself. We are not restrained
by any sense of duty, we have the right to take advantage of our
improved credit, of our advanced credit, and make the best bargain
we can for the people of the United States, and the doctrine is
not 'let well enough alone,' but always to advance.

"We are advancing in credit, in population, in strength, in power,
in reason. The work of to-day is not the work of to-morrow; it is
but the preparation for the future. And, sir, if I had my way in
regard to these matters I certainly would repeal taxes; I would
fortify ourselves in Congress by reducing this large surplus revenue;
I would regulate, by wise and separate laws, fully and fairly
considered, all the subjects embraced in these amendments as separate
and distinct measures, pass this bill which, to the extent it goes
and to the extent it is successful, will be beneficial to the
people."

The debate upon the bill and upon amendments to it continued until
the 3rd of February, when it passed the Senate by the decided vote
of 38 yeas, 18 nays.

The bill was referred to the committee of ways and means, but the
House, instead of passing a separate bill, accomplished the same
object by section 11 of the national bank act of July 12, 1882, by
which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to receive at
the treasury any bonds of the United States bearing three and a
half per cent. interest, and to issue in exchange therefor an equal
amount of registered bonds of the United States bearing interest
at the rate of three per cent. per annum.

Mr. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of
December 4, 1882, stated that on July 1, 1882, the amount of three
and a half per cent. bonds outstanding was $449,324,000, and that
under the section referred to he had exchanged to the date of his
report $280,394,750 of three per cent. bonds for a like amount of
three and a half per cent. bonds, thus reducing the annual interest
charge by reason of these exchanges $1,401,973.75.

By his report of 1883, it was shown that the total amount of such
exchanges was $305,581,250, making an annual saving of interest,
effected by these exchanges, of $1,527,906.25. These bonds were
subsequently paid from time to time by surplus revenue.

The whole process of refunding was perhaps as favorable a financial
transaction as has ever been executed in any country in the world.

A revision of the tariff was greatly needed, but the only measure
adopted at that session was an act to provide for the appointment
of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff. I made
a speech on this bill in which I advocated the appointment of a
commission. I said:

"Mr. president, I have called attention to these defects in the
present tariff, nearly all of which have grown out of amendments
that have been ingrafted on the Morrill tariff, by the confusion
caused by the difference between _ad valorem_ and specific duties,
by the great fall in prices, by important changes in the mode of
manufacturing, by, you may say, the revolution in trade and prices
that has occurred in the last twenty years, during which these laws
have existed. Therefore, coming back to the first question stated
by me, how best to get at a revision of the tariff, I say the
quickest way is the best way.

* * * * *

"Now, it does seem to me, with due deference to the opinion of the
Senator from Kentucky, that the quickest mode of revision is by a
commission. At the beginning of this session I believed it was
better to do it through the committees of the two Houses; but the
committee on ways and means of the House of Representatives alone
has the power to report a bill, and until then we in the Senate
are as helpless as children in this matter. The committee on ways
and means have declared in favor of a commission, and have reported
a bill to that effect; and they are the only power in this government
that can report a tariff bill under the rules of the House. The
House is the only body that can originate it under the constitution.
As they have decided in favor of a commission, why should we insist
upon it that they shall do the work themselves?

"Besides, half the session has passed away, and the committee on
ways and means is burdened with other duties. We know that as the
session approaches an end, they probably cannot devote time to the
general tariff question.

* * * * *

"If they will give us a bill about sugar and these other items, it
is all we can reasonably ask them to do. When Congress adjourns,
you cannot expect the committee on ways and means, or any other
committee of Congress, to devote all their recess to public business.
Elections are coming off for Members of Congress, and they will
look after the elections. They must have a little rest. Therefore,
the idea of waiting for the committees of Congress to act, is
preposterous in my judgment. It is too late. If the committee
had commenced on the first Monday of December, they might by this
time probably had prepared a bill. They have made no such preparation,
and, therefore, it is utterly idle to wait.

"I think, then, and I submit it to the good, cool sense and judgment
of my friend from Kentucky, that the better way is as early as
possible to organize a commission; let it be constituted, as I have
no doubt the President will take care to constitute it, of fair
and impartial men. They will be fresh at least. Let them frame
a bill with the aid of officers of the treasury department, so that
by the next session we may have a general revision of the tariff.

"Upon the main question there appears to be no substantial difference
of opinion. We agree that the tariff should be revised and the
taxes be reduced. The only pertinent question involved in this
bill is whether it is best to organize a commission of experts, not
Members of Congress, to examine the whole subject and to report
such facts and information to Congress as the commission can gather,
or whether the proposed revision should be made directly, without
the delay of a commission, by the aid of committees of Congress
and the officers of the government familiar with the workings of
the customs laws. It does seem to me that to decide this question
we need no long arguments about protection or free trade, watchwords
of opposing schools of political economy, nor does it seem to me
that the political bearings of the tariff question are involved
when we all agree that the tariff ought to be revised, and are now
only finding out the best way to get at it.

"Whenever a tariff bill is reported to us we will have full time
to discuss the theoretical and political aspects of the subject,
and no doubt the arguments already made will be repeated and
amplified. I prophesy that then we will have a strange mingling
of political elements, and a striking evidence of the changes of
interest and principle on this subject in different parts of the
country, caused by the revolution of the industry of our people by
the abolition of slavery during the Civil War. The only mitigation
of my desire for a prompt revision of the tariff is the confidence
I have that delay and discussion will make the sectional revolution
more thorough and universal, and leave the tariff question a purely
business and not a political or sectional issue."

The nine commissioners appointed by President Arthur were well
selected, and they were, under the law, required to report on that
subject to the following session of Congress.

It became necessary at this session to extend the corporate existence
of national banks. By the terms of the original national banking
act, banks organized under it continued for but twenty years, which
would expire within two years. A bill for the extension of the
time was introduced and a long discussion followed about silver,
certificates of deposit, clearing house certificates and other
financial matters. There was but little if any opposition to the
extension of national banks and the bill passed. It was approved
July 12, 1882.

The most important financial measure passed by this Congress was
the bill to reduce internal revenue taxes, reported March 29, 1882,
by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, from the committee of ways
and means. After a debate extending to June 27, a motion to recommit
was rejected and the bill passed the House. It was sent to the
Senate and reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill, from the
committee on finance, July 6. On July 11 it was recommitted to
the committee on finance and immediately reported back with
amendments, which consisted of a change in the tariff duties on
sugar and an increase of the duties on cotton, ties and a few other
things. It was not a general revision of the tariff. Mr. Beck
antagonized the amendments proposed by the committee and sought to
delay the passage of the bill. I replied to him as follows:

"If this Congress shall adjourn, whether the weather be hot or
cold, without a reduction of the taxes now imposed upon the people,
it will have been derelict in its highest duty. There is no
sentiment in this country stronger now than that Congress has
neglected its duty thus far in not repealing taxes that are obnoxious
to the people and unnecessary for the public uses; and if we should
still neglect that duty we should be properly held responsible by
our constituents."

In the course of the long debate Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, who
was the acknowledged wit of the Senate, moved to except playing
cards from the general repeal of stamp taxes. I objected to keeping
up the system of stamp taxes and said:

"If Senators want to insist on a piece of what I call demagogism,
by keeping a small stamp tax on playing cards, I am perfectly
willing that they should do so. If it is desired now to show our
virtuous indignation against card-playing, to single out this tax,
which probably yields but three or four thousand dollars a year--
to show our virtuous indignation against people who play cards and
against card-playing, let it be done in the name of Heaven. Let
us keep this as a monument of our virtue and intelligence and the
horror of the Senate of the United States against playing whist
and euchre. I hope that no such vote will be given."

Mr. Vance replied in his peculiarly humorous way, and concluded by
saying: "I have no doubt that not a men in the United States, but
who, when he 'stands pat' with three jacks, or draws to two aces,
will glorify the name of the Senator from Ohio; and if there is
gratitude in human nature, I expect the see the next edition of
playing cards bearing a fullsized portrait of the Senator from Ohio
as the distinguishing mark of the 'yerker.'"

The Senate was equally divided on this question of retaining the
tax on playing cards, the vote being 28 for and 28 against. As
there was not a majority in favor of the amendment of Mr. Vance it
was rejected and the tax was repealed.

Mr. Beck undertook to amend the bill by a general revision and
reduction of the tariff duties in long schedules introduced by him.
I took an active part in the discussion of this bill in the hope
that by it we might secure a logical and desirable revenue law.
No final action was taken on it before the adjournment of Congress
on the 8th of August, after an eight months' session, and it went
over to the next session.

After the long and wearisome session I returned to Mansfield. The
congressional canvass in Ohio was then in full operation. The
failure of Congress to pass the bill relieving the people from the
burden of internal taxes no longer required, the shadow of the
murder of Garfield, the dislike and prejudice against Arthur's
administration, the temporary stringency in money matters, the liquor
or license question, the Sunday observance, and the discontent of
German Republicans, greatly weakened the Republican party in the
state and foreboded defeat. R. A. Horr was the Republican candidate
for Congress in the district in which I reside, and on the 17th of
August he spoke at Mansfield. I also made a brief speech covering
the chief subjects under discussion. I explained the causes of
the failure to pass the revenue reduction bill, blaming it, as a
matter of course, on the Democratic party, but assured my hearers
that it would pass at the next session, and that the surplus revenue
would not be wasted, but would be applied to the reduction of the
public debt, and to increase pensions to Union soldiers, their
widows and orphans. The opposition to the immigration of Chinese
into this country was then strong. I could only promise that
Congress would do all it could to exclude them consistently with
treaty stipulations. I favored the proper observance of the Sabbath
day, claiming that it was a day of rest and should not be desecrated,
but each congregation and each citizen should be at liberty to
observe it in any way, consistent with good order and noninterference
with others. Touching on the liquor question, I said that many
of our young men were brought to disgrace and crime by indulgence
in intoxicating liquors, and I therefore believed in regulating
the evil. Why should all other business be suspended, and saloons
only be open? I was in favor of a law imposing a large tax on all
dealers in liquor, which would tend to prevent its use. I believed
in a policy that would protect our own laborers from undue competition
with foreign labor, and would increase and develop our home
industries. This position was chiefly a defensive one, and experience
has proven that it is not a safe one. The Republican party is
stronger when it is aggressive.

On the 31st of August I attended the state fair as usual, and on
the morning of that day made a full and formal political address
covering both state and national interests. I quote a few passages
on the liquor question, then the leading subject of state policy.
I said:

"All laws are a restraint upon liberty. We surrender some of our
natural rights for the security of the rest. The only question
is, where is the boundary between rights reserved and those given
up? And the only answer is, wherever the general good will be
promoted by the surrender. In a republic the personal liberty of
the citizen to do what he wishes should not be restricted, except
when it is clear that it is for the interest of the public at large.
There are three forms of legislative restriction: Prohibition,
regulation and taxation, of which taxation is the mildest. We
prohibit crime, we regulate and restrain houses of bad fame. We
tax whisky and beer. I see no hardship in such restraints upon
liberty. They are all not only for the public good, but for the
good of those affected. If certain social enjoyments are prolific
of vice and crime they must give way, or submit to restraints or
taxation.

"I know it is extremely difficult to define the line between social
habits and enjoyments perfectly innocent and proper and those that
are injurious to all concerned. It is in this that the danger
lies, for the law ought never to interfere with social happiness
and innocent enjoyments. The fault of Americans is that they are
not social enough. I have seen on the banks of the Rhine, and in
Berlin, old and young men, women, children of all conditions of
social life, listening to music, playing their games and drinking
their beer, doing no wrong and meaning none. I have seen in the
villages of France the young people dancing gayly, with all the
animation of youth and innocence, while the old people, looking
on, were chatting and joking and drinking their native wines, and
I could see no wrong in all this.

"But there were other scenes in these and other countries: Ginshops
and haunts of vice where the hand of authority was seen and felt.
What I contend for is that the lawmaking power shall be authorized
to make the distinction between innocent and harmful amusements
and the places and habits of life which eventually lead to
intemperance, vice and crime. Surely we can leave to our general
assembly, chosen by the people and constantly responsible to them,
the framing of such wise regulations, distinction and taxes as will
discriminate between enjoyment and vicious places of resort.

"It is a reproach to our legislative capacity to allow free whisky
to be sold, untaxed and without regulation, at tens of thousands
of groggeries and saloons, lest some law should be passed to restrain
the liberty of the citizen. What we want is a wise, discriminating
tax law on the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and judicious
legislation to restrain, as far as practicable, the acknowledged
evils that flow from this unlimited traffic."

This speech expressed my convictions in respect to temperance, and
how far this and kindred subjects should be regulated by legislative
authority. This was a delicate subject, but I believe the opinions
expressed by me were generally entertained by the people of Ohio
and would have been fully acted upon by the legislature but for
revenue restrictions in the constitution of Ohio.

After I closed Governor Foster and Speaker Keifer spoke briefly.
The general canvass then continued over the state until the election.
As the only state officers to be elected were the secretary of
state, a supreme judge and a member of the board of public works,
the chief interest centered in the liquor question and in the
election of Members of Congress in doubtful districts. I spoke in
several districts, especially in Elyria, Warren, Wauseon, Tiffin
and Zanesville. I spent several days in Cincinnati, socially, and
in speaking in different parts of the city. The result of the
election was that James W. Newman, the Democratic candidate for
secretary of state, received a majority of 19,000 over Charles
Townsend, the Republican candidate. This was heralded as a Democratic
victory. In one sense this was true, but it was properly attributed
by the Republicans to the opposition to prohibition. It grew out
of the demand of a portion of our people for free whisky and no
Sunday. THey were opposed to the liquor law, and believed it went
too far, and voted the Democratic ticket.

A few days after the election I went with two friends to Lawrence,
Kansas, arriving about the 15th of October. I have always retained
a kindly feeling for the people of that state since I shared in
the events of its early history. With each visit I have marked
the rapid growth of the state and the intense politics that divided
its people into several parties. This was the natural outgrowth
of conditions and events before the Civil War. As usual I was
called upon to make a speech in Lawrence, which, in view of our
recent defeat in Ohio, was not a pleasant task. However, I accepted,
and spoke at the opera house, chiefly on the early history of Kansas
and the struggle in that territory and state, which resulted in
transforming the United States from a confederacy of hostile states
into a powerful republic founded upon the principles of universal
liberty and perpetual union.

From Lawrence we went into Texas, and for the first time traversed
that magnificent state, going from Denison to Laredo on the Rio
Grande, stopping on the way at Austin and San Antonio. On the
route I met Senator Richard Coke and his former colleague, Samuel
B. Maxey. I have studied the history of Texas and its vast
undeveloped resources, and anticipated its growth in wealth and
population. It is destined to be, if not the first, among the
first, of the great states of the Union. We returned via Texarkana
to St. Louis and thence home.

The President was able to present, in his annual message to Congress
on the 4th of December, 1882, a very favorable statement of the
condition of the United States during the preceding year. He
recalled the attention of Congress to the recommendation in his
previous message on the importance of relieving the industry and
enterprise of the country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation,
and to the fact that the public revenues had far exceeded the
expenditures, and, unless checked by appropriate legislation, such
excess would continue to increase from year to year. The surplus
revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881, amounted to
$100,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, it
amounted to more than $145,000,000. This was applied to the payment
of the public debt. He renewed the expression of his conviction
that such rapid extinguishment of the national indebtedness as was
taking place was by no means a cause for congratulation, but rather
for serious apprehension. He therefore urged upon Congress the
policy of diminishing the revenue by reducing taxation. He then
stated at length his opinion of the reductions that ought to be
made. He felt justified in recommending the abolition of all
internal taxes except those upon tobacco in its various forms, and
upon distilled spirits and fermented liquors. The message was a
clear and comprehensive statement of the existing tariff system,
and the unequal distribution of both its burdens and its benefits.
He called attention to the creation of the tariff commission, and
to the report of that commission as to the condition and prospects
of the various commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, mining and
other interests of the country, and recommended an enlargement of
the free list, so as to include within it numerous articles which
yielded inconsiderable revenue, a simplification of the complex
and inconsistent schedule of duties upon certain manufactures,
particularly those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial
reduction of the duties upon those and various other articles.
The subsequent action of Congress did not, in my opinion, conform
to this, in some respects, wise recommendation of the President.
In his closing paragraph he stated:

"The closing year has been replete with blessings for which we owe
to the Giver of all good our reverent acknowledgment. For the
uninterrupted harmony of our foreign relations, for the decay of
sectional animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests and the
triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the
prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence and the conservation
of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the
elements of national greatness--for these and countless other
blessings--we should rejoice and be glad. I trust that under the
inspiration of this great prosperity our counsels may be harmonious,
and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice and economy
may lead to the adoption of measures in which the Congress and the
Executive may heartily unite."

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated
the recommendations of the President.

The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session,
in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await
the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved
May 15, 1882. To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was
necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as
well as taxes on internal productions. The members of the tariff
commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report,
were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler,
Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and
Duncan F. Kenner. These gentlemen were of high standing, representing
different parts of the country, of both political parties, and
notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and
productions. In their report they said:

"In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of
the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to
divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or
considerations of personal interest. It is their desire that their
recommendations shall serve no particular party, class, section,
or school of political economy."

They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of
Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882. It was a clear and
business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules
of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested
amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them,
and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed
pages. It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our
customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been
published. It was quickly printed for the use of the finance
committee of the Senate, before whom the bill to reduce internal
revenue taxation was pending. If the committee had embodied, in
this bill, the recommendations of the tariff commission, including
the schedules without amendment or change, the tariff would have
been settled for many years. Unfortunately this was not done, but
the schedules prescribing the rates of duty and their classification
were so radically changed by the committee that the scheme of the
tariff commission was practically defeated. Many persons wishing
to advance their particular industries appeared before the committee
and succeeded in having their views adopted. The Democratic members
seemed to take little interest in the proceedings, as they were
opposed to the adoption of the tariff as a part of the bill. I
did all I could to prevent these changes, was very much discouraged
by the action of the committee, and doubted the propriety of voting
for the bill with the tariff provisions as proposed by the committee
and adopted by the Senate. I have always regretted that I did not
defeat the bill, which I could readily have done by voting with
the Democrats against the adoption of the conference report, which
passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 32, nays 30. However, the
propriety and necessity of a reduction of internal taxes proposed
by the bill were so urgent that I did not feel justified in denying
relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes on account of provisions
in the bill that I did not approve. With great reluctance I voted
for it.

One reduction made by the committee against my most strenuous
efforts was by a change in the classification and rates of the duty
on wool. When I returned to Ohio I was violently assailed by the
Democratic newspapers for voting for a bill that reduced the existing
duty on wool about twenty per cent., and I had much difficulty in
explaining to my constituents that I opposed the reduction, but,
when the Senate refused to adopt by view, did not feel justified,
on account of my opposition to this one item, in voting against
the bill as a whole. The conference report was agreed to by the
House of Representatives on the 2nd of March, and the bill was
approved by the President on the 3rd.

I did not conceal my opposition to the tariff sections of the
revenue bill. I expressed it in debate, in interviews and in
letters. When the bill was reported to the Senate it was met by
two kinds of opposition, one the blind party opposition of free
traders, led by Senators Beck and Vance, the other (much more
dangerous), the conflict of selfish and local interests, mainly on
the part of manufacturers, who regarded all articles which they
purchased as raw material, on which they wished the lowest possible
rate of duty, or none at all, and their work, as the finished
article, on which they wished the highest rate of duty. In other
words, what they had to buy they called raw material to be admitted
without protection, and what they had to sell they wanted protection.
It was a combination of the two kinds of opposition that made the
trouble.

The Democratic Senators, with a few exceptions, voted steadily and
blindly for any reduction of duty proposed; but they alone could
not carry their amendments, and only did so when re-enforced by
Republican Senators, who, influenced by local interest, could reduce
any duty at their pleasure. In this way, often by a majority of
one, amendments were adopted that destroyed the harmony of the
bill. In this way iron ore, pig iron, scrap iron and wool were
sacrificed in the Senate. They were classed as raw materials for
manufactures and not as manufactures. For selfish and local reasons
tin plates, cotton, ties and iron and steel rods for wire were put
at exceptionally low rates, and thus were stricken from the list
of articles that could be manufactured in this country. This local
and selfish appeal was the great defect of the tariff bill. I do
not hesitate to say that the iron and wool sections of the bill,
as it passed the Senate, were unjust, incongruous and absurd. They
would have reduced the iron and steel industries of the United
States to their condition before the war, and have closed up two-
thirds of the furnaces and rolling mills in this country. They
were somewhat changed in the committee of conference, but if they
had not been, the only alternative to the manufacturers would have
been to close up or largely reduce the wages of labor.

Another mistake made in the Senate was to strike out all the
carefully prepared legislative provisions simplifying the mode of
collecting customs duties, and the provisions for the trial of
customs cases. The tariff commission proposed to repeal the _ad
valorem_ duty on wool, and leave on it only the specific duty of
ten and twelve cents a pound. The chairman of the tariff commission
was himself the president or agent of the woolen manufacturers and
made the report. The manufacturers of woolens, however, were
dissatisfied, and demanded an entire change in the classification
of woolens, and, on some important grades, a large increase of
rates, but insisted upon a reduction of the duty on wool.

I hoped when the bill passed the Senate that a conference committee
would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew
from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators
Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman. My colleagues on the conference were
part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the
House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of
relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.

On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent
whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:

"No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the
merits and demerits of the law should not be stated. I worked at
it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion
of other business. Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a
great deal of good and some harm. The great body of it is wise
and just, but it contains some serious defects. The metallic and
wool schedules are unequal and unjust. The great merit of the bill
is that it reduces taxes. I would not have voted for it, if any
other way had been open to reduce taxes.

"Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?"

"Yes. The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in
respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative. The failure of
Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat
of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the
fault of our party. The bill was talked to death by Democratic
Senators. The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive,
but they are excessive. They tempt extravagance. We could not go
home without reducing the internal taxes. What I want you to
emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have passed in
their present shape but for their connection with the internal
revenue sections. We could not separate them; therefore, though
I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt
constrained to vote for the bill as a whole."

"Is not the bill, as it passed, substantially the bill of the tariff
commission?"

"No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal
taxes. The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of
last session, and were then amended by the Senate. That bill gave
the Senate jurisdiction of the subject. It was only under cover
of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pass a tariff. At
the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate
had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable
and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on
all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable
revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial
of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and
even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but
preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had
a better tariff law than has existed in this country. But, instead
of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel,
and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some
cases higher than the old tariff. The committee restored nearly
all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and
yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that
destroyed all symmetry or harmony. But still the bill reported to
the Senate was a passable tariff except as to iron and wool; but
it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission
report."

Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York "Tribune" of the
date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff
amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the
lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion. The tariff
act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications
since that time.

During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service
of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton,
and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate,
which continued most of the month of December, 1882. It was referred
to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of
Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate,
passed that body and was approved by the President. This important
measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed
of three persons, and defined their duties. It withdrew from party
politics the great body of the employees of the government. Though
not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the
civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency,
is now in successful operation.

The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules
all employments in the executive branch of the government, except
those that, by the constitution, are appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If to this should
be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of
Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an
executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected
and the separate departments of the government would be independent
of each other. My experience as an executive officer convinced me
that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the "spoils
system," but would relieve the President and heads of departments,
as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that
often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.

Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a
candidate for governor was being canvassed in the press and among
the people of Ohio. My name, among others, was mentioned, but I
did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination,
supposing it was a passing thought that, upon reflection, would be
abandoned. No one could then foresee how the legislature to be
elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would
hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation,
to compliment me with an election as governor.

I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects
to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. I was kindly
received and expressed my thanks as follows:

"Gentlemen of the general assembly, I thank you for this hearty
reception. In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for
not making an address. You are the representatives of the people,
and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will
of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to
party, creed or condition. In the closing hours of your session
you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so
I bid you good-bye. Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks."

I was received in the same manner in the senate. I found a much
stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I
expected. I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a
candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who
was entitled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at
the head of the state ticket, I said:

"I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the
gubernatorial nomination under any circumstances. It is out of
the question. There was a manifest disposition at one time to run
me _nolens volens_, but my friends now understand my position fully,
and will not press the point. It is as though the possibility had
never been suggested, and the less said about it the better."

This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one
as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by
another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither
of which was true. While I did not wish the nomination, I would
have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined
that my acceptance was necessary for success. Upon my return to
Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned
several able men in the state who were well qualified for that
office. I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable
candidate. I did not then know him personally, but from what I
had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named. He
was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canvass. At that
time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and
Sherman as competing candidates. The state convention was approaching
and I had been invited to attend. I went to Columbus on the 5th
of June. All sorts of rumors were being circulated. The general
trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:

"The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent
Republicans, and the movement promises to assume such proportions
before the day of the convention, that it will result in the
nomination of Senator Sherman for governor. It has been stated
that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent
of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis: 'Mr. John Sherman has
been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party,
and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would
not.' The great interest manifested throughout the country in
Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circumstances,
to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all
contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the
campaign. Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will
be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would
be a foregone conclusion."

As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general
desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to
my room to urge me to accept. Among others who came to me were
Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fassett, of the Mahoning county delegation.
After some general conversation they said that in order that they
might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference
to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I
was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor. I
answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would
not and could not become one. I said I was sorry that matters had
shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of
refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the
place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put
upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction,
that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible
danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.

The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was
selected as chairman. I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus
that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on
taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for
the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the
Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions
which would have to be met in the canvass, and appealed to all
present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.

Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the
nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation
from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his
seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor. I
declined in the following words:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:--I have not been insensible to the
desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in
nomination for governor. But let me say frankly but firmly that
I cannot be your candidate. In order that I may not be misunderstood,
I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for
declining the nomination. I have been under so many obligations
to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter
of personal interest or feeling, I would say 'yes!' But, I cannot
accept this nomination. First, because you have charged me with
the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I
could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only
to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States.
And I will say that that view is shared by many of my associates
in the Senate. They deprecate any movement of this kind on account
of the condition of affairs there. But, aside from that, there is
one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate
now. When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the
gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention,
that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate. I could
not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor,
and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me. Although all
of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that
declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I
had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that
kind. So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with
a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by
a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially
among Republicans, to decline."

The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by
acclamation. He was introduced to the convention and made a long
and pleasant address. His speech was well received and he was
often interrupted with cheers. He was then about thirty-seven
years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his
appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he
was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold
a prominent place in the political history of the state. He had
enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen,
and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission
Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into
the enemy's works, being the first man of his regiment over the
ridge. He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea.
My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise. After the
war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college
and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to
a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati.
He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will,
in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of
strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that
election.

From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result
was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent
legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and
also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to
the people. The constitution of Ohio declares that "no license to
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this
state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils
resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during
this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio
for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent
the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but
without effect. The constitution so limited the powers of the
general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive
laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors.
Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe
to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified
by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to
enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years,
free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that
probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any
other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the
Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in
favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the
general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from
the restraint of the old constitution. The legislature, instead
of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was
known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law
unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of
the constitution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican
party appeared before the people of the state when they were
discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of
Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly
beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man.
The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance
question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two
proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full
legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other
providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending
the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature
provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually
on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer.
This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of
Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the
Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion
in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans,
mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as
an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which
they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the
disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as
a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license,
they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for
prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with
hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The
Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every
proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as
their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer,
and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had
been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed
the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canvass. The farmers of
Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the
duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given
to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was
made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities
against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author
of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic
committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer
of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replied that it was true
that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on
wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and
did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united
vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican
Senators and Members from New England. I denounced the hypocrisy
of those who assailed me, whose representatives voted for even a
greater reduction, and some of them for free wool. To all this
they answered: "Did you not vote for the bill on its passage?"
I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated. No
doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some
adverse influence on the election.

This canvass was in many respects a peculiar one. Foraker was
active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave
general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been
until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the
course of the Democratic party during and since the war. Both the
candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there
was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor
question more than on general politics. When I was asked about
the German vote, I said:

"The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are
really a temperate people. They have always claimed to be willing
to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor. The
Scott bill is very moderate--more so than the bills that are being
passed in other states. If they mean what they say, I don't think
there will be any trouble about electing our ticket."

Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen,
George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on
a trip to Helena, Montana. The object was simply recreation and
sight-seeing. We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other
points. Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know
about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred
to talk about the great northwest. Interviews were sought by
reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers. Hedges
and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself,
in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the
local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota. With their assistance
I became conversant with the topography and productions of these
states. I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul
and Minneapolis. I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen,
some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul. Upon
my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more
thousands than the hundreds we paid for it. This was but a specimen
of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some
not far distant day, to be a single city. From St. Paul, we went
to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and
the newly made capital of Montana. This was the second time I had
visited this territory, now a state. I studied, as well as I could,
its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural. It is
properly named Montana. Its mountains are not only filled with
minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more
than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in
bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep
ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the
native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves
of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.

The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union
would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil
and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our
population. Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed
for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the
industry of our countrymen. The remaining tenth consists mainly
of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions,
the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war.
Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European
nations.

Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied
resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in
national matters, independence in local matters, are the central
ideas of our system of government.

On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a
scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective
capital. We passed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and
Detroit on our way to Mansfield. This trip, leisurely taken,
occupied about one month.

During the remainder of the summer, until the canvass commenced,
I had a period of rest and recuperation. It was interrupted only
by the necessity of making some preparation for the canvass, which
it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August. I carefully
dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that
day to a large audience. It was printed and circulated, but most
of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time.
Some of them it may be of interest to recall. I contrasted the
condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if
the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking. I
described the formation and history of parties as they then existed,
and assumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or
Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic
candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest
Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we
could assume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican
party were right. I said: "All these distinguished and able
gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge
Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of
the Democratic party than I have. To the extent, therefore, of
acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past,
_the Democratic party concedes that we were right_."

I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law. I defended
the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which
had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries
of Europe. Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly,
attacked the proposed amendments to the constitution prohibiting
the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican
party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed
policy. This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer
to evade the real issue of the "Scott" bill. He treated the
reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it
upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote
had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that
nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it. The entire
canvass of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues,
and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast
with the speeches of Foraker.

After the Findlay meeting I went to Cincinnati and attended the
harvest home festival in Green township, and read an address on
the life and work of A. J. Downing, a noted horticulturalist and
writer on rural architecture. I have always been interested in
such subjects and was conversant with Downing's writings and works,
especially with his improvement of the public parks in and about
Washington. He was employed by the President of the United States
in 1851, to lay out and superintend the improvement of the extensive
public grounds between the capitol and the executive mansion at
Washington, commonly known as the "Mall." This important work was
entered upon by him, with the utmost enthusiasm. Elaborate plans
of the Mall and other public squares were made by him, walks and
drives laid out; the place for each tree, with its kind and variety
determined, and the work of planning mainly executed. He, with an
artist's eye, saw the then unadorned beauties of the location of
the capital; the broad sweep of the Potomac, the valley and the
plain environed by its rim of varied hills, broken here and there
by glens and ravines. He spoke of it with enthusiasm, and no doubt,
above other hopes, wished, by his skill, to aid in making the city
of Washington as magnificent in its views and surroundings as any
city in Europe. But man proposes and God disposes. It was not to
be the good fortune of Mr. Downing to complete his magnificent
plans for converting the filthy, waste commons of the capital into
gardens of delight; but they have been executed by others, and have
contributed largely to making Washington what he wished it to be,
a beautiful city, parked and planted with specimens of every American
tree worthy of propagation, and becoming adorned with the best
models of architecture, not only of public edifices, fitted for
the great offices of the nation, but of many elegant private houses.

I had been invited by the Lincoln club, of Cincinnati, to attend
a reception at their clubhouse on the evening of the 1st of September.
It is a political as well as a social club, and I was expected to
make a political speech. I did so, and was followed by Foraker
and H. L. Morey. The usual "refreshments" were not forgotten. I
take this occasion to express my hearty approval of the organization
and maintenance of political clubs in every city containing 10,000
or more inhabitants. The Republicans of Cincinnati have for many
years maintained two notable organizations, the Lincoln and the
Blaine clubs, which have been places of social intercourse, as well
as centers for political discussion. Both have had a beneficial
influence, not only in instructing their members on political
topics, but in disseminating sound opinion throughout the state.

During this visit I was elected a member of the Chamber of Commerce
in Cincinnati. I regarded this as an honor, and returned to its
members my sincere thanks. Although I have not been engaged in
commercial pursuits, yet in my public duties I have often been
called upon to act upon commercial questions and interests. I have
habitually, in my annual visits to that city, visited the chamber
of commerce, and said a few words on the topic of the times in
which its members were interested, but never on politics. Every
diversity of opinion was there represented.

Cincinnati, situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, with
Kentucky on the other side, and Indiana near by, with a large part
of its population of German birth or descent, with every variety
of race, creed and color, is thoroughly a cosmopolitan city, subject
to sudden outbreaks and notable changes. At the time of my visit
it was especially disturbed by the agitation of the temperance
question. In discussing this, I took the same position as at
Findlay, and found but little objection to it, but the opinions
expressed by speakers in other parts of the state in favor of
prohibition had, as the election proved, a very bad effect upon
the Republican ticket.

On the 6th of September I attended the state fair at Columbus. It
was estimated that there were at least 40,000 people on the ground
that day. It has been the habit to gather around the headquarters
and press any public man who appeared to make a speech. Governor
Foster and I were together. Mr. Cowden, the president of the fair,
introduced Foster and he made a brief address. I was then introduced
and said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--It has been my good fortune to be able to
visit the state fair for many years in succession, but, from the
great multitude of people, and the vast concourse before me, I
should say that Ohio is rapidly pressing onward in the march of
progress. The gray beards I see before me, and I am among them now,
remind me of the time when we were boys together; when, after a
season's weary labor, we were compelled to utilize our surplus
crops to pay our taxes."

I contrasted the early days of Ohio with its condition then, and
closed as follows:

"But this is no time for speechmaking, nor the occasion for further
remarks. We have come out to show ourselves, and you do not desire
speeches, but you do most want to see the horses, cattle, sheep,
hogs, and the implements that make the life of a farmer easier.
This is a progress that I love to see. My countrymen, you are
crowned with blessings. Enjoy them freely and gratefully, returning
thanks to the Giver of all good gifts. This is a free land, and
the agricultural masses are the freest, the noblest, and the best
of all our race. Enjoy your privileges to the highest point, and
be worthy followers of the great race of pioneers who came before
you."

During the remainder of this canvass I spoke nearly every week day
until the election, and in most of the congressional districts of
the state. Some of these speeches were reported and circulated as
campaign documents. As the election day approached the interest
increased, and the meetings grew to be immense gatherings. This
was notably so at Toledo, Dayton, Portsmouth, Cleveland, Circleville
and Zanesville. I believed the Republican state ticket would be
elected, but feared that the prohibition amendment would prevent
the election of a Republican legislature. The result of the election
for governor was Hoadley 359,693, Foraker 347,164, and the general
assembly elected contained a majority of Democrats in each branch.
Henry B. Payne was, on the meeting of the legislature, elected
Senator in the place then held by Geo. H. Pendleton.

After the election I went to New York and was met everywhere with
inquiries as to the causes of Republican defeat in Ohio. I said
the Republicans were defeated because of the prohibition question
and the law reducing the tariff on wool; that many Germans feared
an invasion of their rights and an interference with their habits,
and the farmers objected to the discrimination made by our tariff
against their industries.

On the 1st of November, 1883, General Sherman relinquished command
of the army, with the same simplicity and lack of display which
had characterized his official life at army headquarters. He wrote
the following brief order:

"Headquarters of the Army, }
"Washington, November 1, 1883.}
"_General Orders No. 77_.

"By and with the consent of the President, as contained in General
Orders No. 71, of October 16, 1883, the undersigned relinquishes
command of the army of the United States.

"In thus severing relations which have hitherto existed between
us, he thanks all officers and men for their fidelity to the high
trust imposed on them during his official life, and will, in his
retirement, watch with parental solicitude their progress upward
in the noble profession to which they have devoted their lives.

"W. T. Sherman, General.
"Official: R. C. Drum, Adjutant General."

He then rose from his desk, gave his seat to Sheridan, who at once
issued his orders assuming his new duties, and the transfer was
completed. I know that when the bill for the retirement of officers
at a specified age was pending, there was a strong desire in the
Senate to except General Sherman from the operation of the law,
but the general, who was absent on the plains, telegraphed me not
to allow an exception to be made in his favor, insisting that it
would be a discrimination against other officers of high merit.
Thereupon the Senate reluctantly yielded, but with a provision that
he should retain his salary as general, notwithstanding his
retirement.

At this period mention was again made in the newspapers of my name
as the nominee of the Republican party for President in the next
year. I promptly declared that I was not a candidate and had no
purpose or desire to enter into the contest. This discussion of
my name continued until the decision of the national convention,
but I took no part or lot in it, made no requests of anyone to
support my nomination, and took no steps, directly or indirectly,
to promote it.

The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th
of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity
in the United States. We were at peace and harmony with all nations.
The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883,
amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the
reduction of the public debt. It was estimated that the surplus
revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the
next fiscal year $60,000,000. The President called the attention
of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced
the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars.
While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely
made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the
national revenues. The whole tenor of the message was conservative
and hopeful.

During this session, upon representations made to me and after full
reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute
an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the
States of Virginia and Mississippi. I did so with extreme reluctance,
for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation.
On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out
in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported
in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in
Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the
following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on privileges and elections be,
and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of,
and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition
of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the
people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or
otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send
for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the
Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers."

On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the
following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and
requested an investigation:

"Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the
recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of
such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of
the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of
the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and,
if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom
of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in
the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.

"Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the
excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this
investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand
how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment
of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer
relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man
for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the
boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.

"The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or
massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported
by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also
verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a
Senator from the State of Virginia.

"The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives
in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the
actions and failure to act of officers of the state government,
including governors, judges, courts, and juries.

"I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation,
if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although
I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various
statements published in the papers of different political parties
and from different persons.

"If these statements are true, then in both these states there have
been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections,
accompanied by murder and violence in many forms. The crimes
depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where
the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued
by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but
the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by
violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of
citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished
by ordinary tribunals. If they are true, then in those communities
the members of our party and one race have no rights which the
prevailing party is bound to respect.

"It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the
fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for,
if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have
been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War. I
have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes,
but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself
to questions of peace, development, and progress. Still, if these
allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the
gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents
which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and
convert our elections into organized crimes. I do not say these
allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming
of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood
by the most careful and impartial inquiry.

"If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak
or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they
may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities;
but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a
party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of
elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions,
then they constitute a crime against the national government, the
highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal
rights and privileges of citizens.

"If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and
populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and
evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions
of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as
other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice
cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without
remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right
of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where
his rights will be respected and observed. But if these individual
crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a
party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of
the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt
acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose,
then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by
the national government.

"The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who
had been slaves. This was a national act, and whether wisely or
imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the
states. If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of
any locality it is the duty of the national government to make
their act respected by all its citizens. It is not now a question
as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross
a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by
organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of
citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions,
or deny to them the equal protection of the law. No court has ever
denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens
in their essential rights as freemen. No man should be allowed to
hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured
by crimes such as are depicted here.

"Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were
not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the
election of a President or a Member of Congress. While the power
of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and
the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations
passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in
respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that 'The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated;' that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States;' that 'No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;'
and that 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state,
on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'
It was also declared that 'Congress shall have power to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution
in the government of the United States, or in any department or
office thereof.' Power is also given to Congress to enforce the
recent amendments by appropriate legislation.

"If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state
or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local
authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the
legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional
safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States
government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within
the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as
it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of
the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations
of the world. Surely a citizen of the United States has as much
right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land,
however remote or however powerful its government may be. Protection
at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property
is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms
are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a
matter of indifference. Protection goes with allegiance, and
allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.

"I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern
states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated
slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters,
with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them
as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even
of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with
great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional
rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or
creed, or party. If the time has come, as alleged in the papers
before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose
agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained
intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their
free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered
at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of
punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and
that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice,
and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions
where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national
government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full,
open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens
shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.

"If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party
in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect
again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and
disappointment. Written in the light of the events alleged to have
transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these
resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity,
and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are
the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi. I
should like to know--it is right that we should learn--the groundwork
of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.

"In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for
the conduct of the people complained of. I would give to their
motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation
the most charitable construction. I would give to them all political
power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or
penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right,
favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of
our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand
that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of
rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws
to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or
rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured
by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges
shall be asserted and maintained by the national government. Upon
this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every
lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights
by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those
who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment
of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their
associates."

General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to
the Danville election.

The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29. As
the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events,
they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee
on privileges and elections. Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee.
I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the
examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville. Mr. Lapham
prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the
minority. These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed
in a document containing 1,300 pages. The Copiah county matter
was referred to another sub-committee. As no affirmative action
was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length
either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that
the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were
substantially sustained by the testimony. There was a deliberate
effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts
of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the
November election this movement was organized by the formation of
clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the
Republican vote. A letter, called the Danville circular, was
prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing
the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the
negroes from voting.

The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the
election were very fully stated in the report, and established
clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at
the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled. A
scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson,
two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the
colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed.
A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were
fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols
and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being
variously estimated at from 75 to 250. The negroes fled. There
was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites
fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was
that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in
their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of
all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with
any view of violence or preparation for it. The whites, on the
contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and
obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence. Many of
the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that
Captain Graves reloaded his. There was conflicting evidence as to
the negroes having arms. Only one was shown to have exhibited any
before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites,
including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands
of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable
evidence that he fired. There was no evidence to be relied upon
that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated
that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their
shoulders. The evidence tended to show that the violence was
premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.

I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition
of affairs which led to it is now changed. The result was the
murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many
others. The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the
consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic
clubs had fully prepared.

I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important
measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout
the south. The problem of the two races living together in the
same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and
has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only
be settled by each state or community for itself. It is impossible
for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the
protection of life and property in any of the states except where
resistance is made to national authority. All the signs indicate
that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their
common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public
policy, without regard to race or color.

Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr.
Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in
the establishment and temporary support of common schools. It
provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed
among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the
current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years,
until the total sum was exhausted. The apportionment proposed
would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the
$15,000,000. The money was not to be disbursed by the United
States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities.
The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially
among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure
proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its
apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated,
but it passed the Senate by a large majority. The advocates of a
strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of
their theories. The bill, however, was defeated in the House of
Representatives.

An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during
this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed
to regard as a part of the public debt. It is, in fact, only a
treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount
actually paid. In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided
that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be
paid each year as a "sinking fund." While the United States was
borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay
outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the
treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed. In the
meantime, the treasury charged to the "sinking fund," annually,
the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities
of the United States. When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so
much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the
purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid
was placed to the credit of this fund. In the general prosperity
that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so
that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of,
the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against
it prior to 1868. When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the
revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current
expenditures. This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until
1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was
rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue,
and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I
was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable
sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more
rapidly than it had agreed to pay it. The term "sinking fund," as
applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase. It is
a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum
of the public debt each year. There is no actual fund of the kind
in existence for national purposes.

Another financial question was presented at this session and before
and since. The national banking act, when it passed in 1863,
provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be
issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States
bonds deposited in the treasury for their security. At that time
bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or
par in United States notes. Soon after the war, bonds advanced
far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium.
Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow
notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds
deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes
unreasonably. I introduced a bill early at this session to correct
this. It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House. The
same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when
the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when
they were greatly needed.

During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator
could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present
in the Senate. The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators
might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business
of the Senate when a quorum was present. Mr. Bayard and myself
agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which
the Senate might punish. Senators may retire from the Chamber,
but the Senate can compel their attendance. If a case should arise
where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without
good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured. The increase
in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance,
but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.

The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields
a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse. The committee
on appropriations is a very important one. It is always composed
of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations,
but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to
them. Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the
session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time
to enter into details. They are entirely familiar with the great
appropriations for the support of the government, and can best
judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which
ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for
specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia. No reason
can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by
such committees. It is true that the appropriation committee ought
to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution
existing laws. That is their function, according to the rules,
and that function they can perform very well in regard to such
expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the
District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain
other objects, are not defined or regulated by law. In the case
of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation
bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures
is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all
the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature,
new items not fixed by existing law.

On the 6th of May, 1884, the country was startled by the failure
of the Marine National Bank of New York, an institution that had
been in high credit and standing. The circumstances connected with
the failure excited a great deal of interest and profound surprise.
Immediately in connection with the failure of this bank the banking
firm of Grant & Ward, in the city of New York, failed for a large
amount. Their business was complicated with that of the Marine
National Bank, and disclosures were made which not only aroused
indignation but almost created a panic in the city of New York.

Almost contemporaneous with this the insolvency of the Second
National Bank of New York, for a very large sum, became public,
and the alleged gross misconduct of the president of that bank,
John C. Eno, became a matter of public notoriety. Steps were taken
by the officers and stockholders of the bank, including the father
of the president, to relieve it from bankruptcy.

Also, and in connection with the failure of the Marine National
Bank, there were disclosed financial operations of a strange and
extraordinary character of the president of that bank, James D.
Fish. All these events coming together caused much excitement and
disturbance in New York. They led to a great fall of securities,
to a want of confidence, and to a general run, as it is called,
upon banks and banking institutions, including the savings banks.
It appeared as if there were to be a general panic, a financial
revulsion, and wide-reaching distress.

At that time also, and in connection with the other events, came
the temporary suspension of the Metropolitan National Bank, one of
the oldest, largest, and in former times considered among the best,
of all the banks in the city of New York. This was partly caused
by rumors and stories of large railroad operations and indebtedness
of Mr. Seney, the president of the bank, which resulted in a gradual
drawing upon the bank.

At once the Secretary of the Treasury did what he could to relieve
the money market, by prepaying bonds which had been called in the
process of the payment of the public debt; but the principal relief
given to the market at that time was the action of the Clearing
House Association of New York, by the issue of over $24,000,000 of
clearing house certificates. This was purely a defensive operation
adopted by the associated banks of New York, fifteen of which are
state institutions and the balance national banks.

All that was done in New York to prevent a panic was done by the
banks themselves. The government of the United States had no lot
or parcel in it except so far as the Secretary of the Treasury
prepaid bonds that had already been called, a transaction which
has been done a hundred times. So far as the government was
concerned it had nothing to do with these banks; the measures of
relief were furnished by the banks themselves.

This condition of financial affairs led to a long debate in the
Senate, commencing on the 17th of June, on the merits and demerits
of the system of national banks, and especially of the clearing
house of the city of New York. The comptroller of the currency
had taken active and efficient measures to protect the interests
of the United States. He was called before the committee on finance
and gave a full statement of these measures. It was apparent that
the temporary panic grew out of the reckless and criminal conduct
of a few men and not from defects in the national bank system or
the clearing house. The debate that followed, in the Senate, was
mainly between Morgan, Beck and myself. I stated fully the methods
of conducting the business of the clearing house, a corporation of
the State of New York, and closed as follows:

"As the prosecution against John C. Eno is now pending in Canada,
a foreign country, as a matter of course no one can state what will
be the result of it. We only know that proper legal proceedings
are now being urged to have an extradition, and if he is brought
within the jurisdiction of the courts as a matter of course the
prosecution can then be pushed. So with James D. Fish. Indictments
have been had and are now pending against him for a violation, not
only of the national banking act, but I believe also for a violation
of the state law; and the same is to be said of Ferdinand Ward.
These three persons are the only ones who have been charged with
fraudulent and illegal transactions leading to these financial
disasters. The Metropolitan bank, thanks to the agency and the
aid that was given in a trying time, in now going on and doing
business as of old, no doubt having met with large losses.

"It is a matter of satisfaction that with the single exception of
the Marine Bank, of New York, no national bank has been overwhelmed
by this disaster. It is true that the Second National Bank was
bankrupted by the crimes and wrongs of John C. Eno, but his father,
with a sensitive pride not to allow innocent persons to suffer from
the misconduct of his son, with a spirit really worthy of commendation,
here or anywhere else, threw a large sum of money into the maelstrom
and saved not only the credit of the bank and advanced his own
credit, but to some extent, as far as he could at least, expiated
the fault, the folly, and the crime of his son. The Metropolitan
Bank is relieved from its embarrassments by its associate banks.
The losses caused by the speculations of its president did not
entirely fall upon the bank. That bank, now relived from the
pressure of unexpected demands, is pursuing its even tenor. It
seems to me that all these facts taken together show the strength
and confidence that may well be reposed in the national banking
system. The law cannot entirely prevent fraud and crime, but it
has guarded the public from the results of such offense far better
than any previous system."

On the 10th of May, 1884, which happened to be my birthday, the
statue of John Marshall, formerly Chief Justice of the United
States, was dedicated. This is a bronze statue in a sitting posture,
erected by the bar of Philadelphia and the Congress of the United
States. A fund had been collected shortly after the death of
Marshall, but it was insufficient to erect a suitable monument,
and it was placed in the hands of trustees and invested as "The
Marshall Memorial Fund." On the death of the last of the trustees,
Peter McCall, it was found that the fund had, by honest stewardship,
increased sevenfold its original amount. This sum, with an equal
amount appropriated by Congress, was applied to the erection of a
statue to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall, to be placed in a
suitable reservation in the city of Washington. The artist who
executed this work was W. W. Story, a son of the late Justice Story
of the Supreme Court. I was chairman of the joint committee on
the library and presided on the occasion. Chief Justice Waite
delivered an appropriate address. He was followed by William Henry
Rawle, of Philadelphia, in an eloquent oration, closing as follows:

"And for what in his life he did for us, let there be lasting
memory. He and the men of his time have passed away; other
generations have succeeded them; other phases of our country's
growth have come and gone; other trials, greater a hundredfold than
he or they could possibly have imagined, have jeoparded the nation's
life; but still that which they wrought remains to us, secured by
the same means, enforced by the same authority, dearer far for all
that is past, and holding together a great, a united and happy
people. And all largely because he whose figure is now before us
has, above and beyond all others, taught the people of the United
States, in words of absolute authority, what was the constitution
which they ordained, 'in order to form a perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to themselves and their posterity.'

"Wherefore, with all gratitude, with fitting ceremony and circumstance;
in the presence of the highest in the land; in the presence of those
who make, of those who execute, and of those who interpret, the
laws; in the presence of those descendants in whose veins flows
Marshall's blood, have the bar and the Congress of the United States
here set up this semblance of his living form, in perpetual memory
of the honor, the reverence and the love which the people of this
country bear to the great chief justice."

During this session Mr. Ingalls offered to a House bill granting
a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican War, the following
amendment:

"That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted
in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in
the service since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of
wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since that date
in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the
death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has
been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to
discharge, and if such disability occurred after the discharge,
then from the date of actual disability, or from the termination
of the right of the party having prior title to such pension."

I opposed this sweeping provision with much reluctance, as I have
always favored the granting of the most liberal pensions consistent
with the public interests. I said:

"I regret very much to oppose any proposition that is favored by
the Union soldiers of the American army; and I perhaps should feel
some hesitation in doing it, only that I know very well that the
soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided in opinion
as to this measure.

"This proposition repeals all restrictions as to time upon applications
to be made for arrears of pensions, and extends to all persons back
to the war or date of discharge or disability, not only of those
who have heretofore applied, but of those who may hereafter apply.
It removes absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for
arrears of pensions. And if this only involved ten or even twenty
million dollars, I might still hesitate, because I have always,
since the close of the war, voted for every measure that has been
offered in good faith for the benefit of the Union soldiers. My
heart, my feelings are all with them. I appreciate the value of
their services, the enormous benefits they have conferred upon the
people of the America for generations yet unborn, and I hesitate
therefore to oppose any wish that they may express through their
organs.

"This measure involves an immense sum of money. That alone would
not be conclusive. But here is a motion made by a Senator, without
the report or sanction of any committee of this body, to put upon
the people of the United States a great demand, ranging anywhere
up to $246,000,000, a proposition so indefinite in character that
the commissioner of pensions is utterly unable to give us any
approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can. He
says that this proposition will involve the expenditure of
$246,000,000."

Mr. Ingalls made a sturdy effort for his amendment, and quoted a
declaration of the Republican national convention in favor of
arrears of pensions, to which I replied that, when I remembered
that the platform of the last Republican convention had been made
up in a few hours, on a sweltering hot day, by forty-two men hastily
called together, most of whom never saw each other before, I did
not think it ought to be taken as a guide for Senators in the
performance of their public duties.

After full discussion the amendment was rejected.

My position was highly commended by the public press and by many
distinguished soldiers, including Governor Foraker, who wrote me,
saying: "It may be some gratification to you to know that your
course, in regard to the pension bill, meets with the earnest
approval of all right-minded men in this part of the state."

On the 3rd of July the following resolution was adopted by the
Senate on my motion:

"_Resolved_, That the Senate will meet at the usual hour on Friday,
the 4th day of July instant, and, after the reading of the journal
and before other business is done, the secretary of the Senate
shall read the Declaration of American Independence."

On introducing the resolution, I said:

"Never till during our Civil War, so far as the records show or as
is known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July.
During the Civil War we did meet habitually on the 4th of July,
but it was only on the ground that those who had control then
believed that the business then requiring attention was proper to
be done on the 4th of July. We have only met once since on the
4th of July, and that was in 1870, at a time of great political
excitement. An effort was made to adjourn when the Senate met that
day, but the session was continued--a long, exciting, and unpleasant
session--on the 4th of July, 1870.

"I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the
committees of conference are carrying on their business and I have
no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize, by
common consent, the importance of the day and the fact that it is
a national anniversary celebrated all over the United States, by
reading that immortal paper which is the foundation of American
independence."

Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.

CHAPTER XLVII.
MY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884.
Again Talked of as a Republican Candidate for the Presidency--I
Have no Desire for the Nomination--Blaine the Natural Candidate of
the Party--My Belief that Arthur Would be Defeated if Nominated--
Speech at Washington, D. C., for Blaine and Logan--Opening of the
Ohio Campaign at Ashland--Success of the Republican State Ticket
in October--Speeches in Boston, Springfield, Mass., New York and
Brooklyn--Address to Business Men in Faneuil Hall--Success of the
National Democratic Ticket--Arthur's Annual Message to Congress--
Secretary McCulloch's Recommendations Concerning the Further Coinage
of Silver Dollars--Statement of My Views at This Time--Statue to
the Memory of General Lafayette--Controversy Between General Sherman
and Jefferson Davis.

On the 3rd of June, 1884, during the session of Congress, the
national Republican convention to nominate Republican candidates
for President and Vice President, was held at Chicago. Prior to
that time the papers had been full of the merits and demerits of
candidates, and my name was mentioned among them. I had early
announced, in interviews and letters, that I was not a candidate.
The following statement was generally published in Ohio:

"I am in no sense a candidate, and would not make an effort for
the nomination. I would not even express my opinion as to who
should be delegates from my own district or what their action should
be. Four years ago I thought it best to be a candidate. I believed
that the logic of events at that time justified such action. The
reasons I need not state. Now there is no such condition and I
would not enter a contest even for the indorsement of my own
constituency. Many of my friends write me complaining letters
because I refuse to make such an issue. Believing that the
convention, when it meets, should be free, uninstructed, and in
shape to do the very best thing for the whole party, I have counseled
by friends to that end. A united and enthusiastic party is more
important than one man, and hence I am for bending every energy to
the first purpose, and am not a candidate."

I had not expressed the slightest desire to make such a contest.
When approached by personal friends I dissuaded them from using my
name as a candidate. I neither asked nor sought anyone to be a
delegate. When the convention met, the Ohio delegation was divided
between Blaine and myself, and this necessarily prevented any
considerable support of me outside of the state. I was not sorry
for it. I regarded the nomination of Blaine as the natural result
under the circumstances.

The strength of Arthur, his principal competitor, grew out of his
power and patronage as President. He was a gentleman of pleasing
manners, but I thought unequal to the great office he held. He
had never been distinguished in political life. The only office
he had held of any importance was that of collector of the port of
New York, from which he was removed for good causes already stated.
His nomination as Vice President was the whim of Roscoe Conkling
to strike at President Hayes. If nominated he would surely have
been defeated. In the then condition of political affairs it is
not certain that any Republican would have been elected.

The weakness of the nomination of Blaine was the strong opposition
to him in the State of New York. The selection by the Democratic
convention of Grover Cleveland as the candidate for President, and
of Thomas A. Hendricks for Vice President, was made in view of the
necessity of carrying the two doubtful States of New York and
Indiana, which it was well understood would determine the election.

I promptly took an active part in support of the Republican ticket.
A meeting to ratify the nomination of James G. Blaine and John A.
Logan was held at Washington, D. C., on the 19th of June, at which
I made a speech, which, as reported, was as follows:

"It is one of the curious customs of American politics that when
anybody is nominated for office, his competitors are the first to
be called upon to vouch for the wisdom of the choice. Perhaps that
is the reason I am called upon now. Though I did not consider
myself as much of a candidate, I am ready to accept, approve and
ratify the action of the Chicago convention. I will support the
nomination of Blaine and Logan as heartily as I have done those of
Fremont and Lincoln and Grant and Hayes and Garfield. And this I
would do, fellow-citizens, even if they were less worthy than I
know them to be of the distinguished honor proposed for them. I
would do it for my own honor. I have no patience with any man who,
for himself or any other person, would take his chances for success
in a political convention, and when disappointed would seek to
thwart the action of the convention. Political conventions are
indispensable in a republican government, for it is only by such
agencies, that opposing theories can be brought to the popular
judgment. These can only be presented by candidates chosen as
standard bearers of a flag, or a cause, or a party.

"That Blaine and Logan have been fairly nominated by the free choice
of our 800 delegates, representing the Republicans of every state,
county and district in the broad extent of our great country, is
admitted by every man whose voice has been heard. They are not
'dark horses.' Their names are known to fame; the evil and good
that men could say of them have been said with a license that is
a shame to free discussion. Traveling in peace and in war through
the memorable events of a quarter of a century, they have kept
their place in the busy jostling of political life well in the
foreground. And now they have been selected from among millions
of their countrymen to represent--not themselves, but the Republican
party of the United States.

"They represent the American Union, one and indivisible, snatched
by war from the perils of secession and disunion. They represent
a strong national government, able, I trust, in time, not only to
protect our citizens from foreign tyranny, but from local cruelty,
intolerance, and oppression.

"They represent that party in the country which would scorn to
obtain or hold power by depriving, by crime and fraud, more than
a million of men of their equal rights as citizens. They represent
a party that would give to the laboring men of our country the
protection of our revenue laws against undue competition with
foreign labor.

"They represent the power, the achievements, and the aspirations
of the Republican party that now for twenty-four years has been
greatly trusted by the people, and in return has greatly advanced
your country in strength and wealth, intelligence, courage and
hope, and in the respect and wonder of mankind.

"Fellow Republicans, we are about to enter into no holiday contest.
You have to meet the same forces and principles that opposed the
Union army in war; that opposed the abolition of slavery; that
sought to impair the public credit; that resisted the resumption
of specie payment. They are recruited here and there by a deserter
from our ranks, but meanwhile a generation of younger men are coming
to the front, in the south as well as in the north. They have been
educated amidst memorable events with patriotic ardor, love of
country, pride in its strength and power. They are now determined
to overthrow the narrow Bourbon sectionalism of the Democratic
party. They live in the mountains and plains of the west. They
breathe the fresh air of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
They are the hardy, liberty-loving laborers of every state.

"They come from the fatherland, they come from old Ireland. They
are the active spirits, native and naturalized, of a generation of
free men who never felt the incubus of slavery, and who wish only
as Americans to make stronger and plant deeper the principles of
the Republican party. It is to these men we who have grown old in
this conflict wish now to hand over the banner we have borne. Let
them take it and advance it to higher honors. Let them spread the
influence of our republican institutions north and south, until
the whole continent of America shall be a brotherhood of republics.

"Let them assert the rights of American citizenship, so that they
will be respected as were the rights of citizens of the Roman
republic. Let them deal with this most difficult and subtle problem
of social politics so as to secure to the man who labors his just
share of the fruits of his labor. Let them improve even upon the
protective policy we have pursued, so as to diversify our industries
and plant in all parts of our country the workshops of millions of
well-paid contented citizens. Let them do what we have not been
able to do since the war--restore our commerce to every port and
protect it under our flag in every sea.

"My countrymen, I regret to say it, you cannot accomplish any of
these great objects of national desire through the agency of the
Democratic party. It cannot be made an instrument of progress and
reform. Its traditions, its history for twenty-five years, and
its composition, forbid it. You may punish us for our shortcomings
by its success, but you will punish yourselves as well and stay
the progress of your country. A party that with seventy majority
in the House cannot pass a bill on any subject of party politics,
great or small, is not fit to govern the country.

"Every advance, every reform, every improvement, the protection of
your labor, the building of your navy, the assertion of your rights
as a free man, the maintenance of good money--a good dollar, good
in every land, worth a dollar in gold--all these objects of desire
must await the movements of the Republican party. It may be slow,
but if you turn to the Democratic party you will always find it
watching and waiting, good, steady citizens of the olden time,
grounded on the resolutions of '98 and the 'times before the wah.'

"It is said that Blaine is bold and aggressive; that he will obstruct
the business interests of the country. I would like to try such
a President. He might shake off some of the cobwebs of diplomacy
and invite the attention of mankind to the existence of this country.
There will always be conservatism enough in Congress, and inertness
enough in the Democratic party, to hold in check even as brilliant
a man as James G. Blaine. What we want now is an American policy
broad enough to embrace the continent, conservative enough to
protect the rights of every man, poor as well as rich, and brave
enough to do what is right, whatever stands in the way. We want
protection to American citizens and protection to American laborers,
a free vote and a fair count, an assertion of all the powers of
the government in doing what is right. It is because I believe
that the administration of Blaine and Logan will give us such a
policy, and that I know the Democratic party is not capable of it,
that I invoke your aid and promise you mine to secure the election
of the Republican ticket."

Upon the adjournment of Congress, I took an active part in the
campaign, commencing with a speech at Ashland, Ohio, on the 30th
of August, and from that time until the close of the canvass I
spoke daily. The meetings of both parties were largely attended,
notably those at Springfield, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.

After the October election in Ohio, which resulted in the success
of the Republican ticket, I engaged in the canvass in other states,
speaking in many places, among others in Faneuil Hall, Boston, in
Springfield, Massachusetts, in Chickering Hall, New York, and in
the Brooklyn Grand Opera House.

I felt greater timidity in speaking in Faneuil Hall than anywhere
else. The time, place, and manner of the meeting were so novel,
that a strong impression was made upon my mind. In the middle of
the day, when the streets were crowded, I was conducted up a narrow,
spiral passageway that led directly to a low platform on one side
of the hall, where were the officers of the meeting, and there I
faced an audience of men with their hats and overcoats on, all
standing closely packed, with no room for any more. It was a
meeting of business men of marked intelligence, who had no time to
waste, and whose countenances expressed the demand, "Say what you
have to say, and say it quickly." I was deeply impressed with the
historical associations of the place, recalling the Revolutionary
scenes that had occurred there, and Daniel Webster and the great
men whose voices had been heard within its walls. I condensed my
speech into less than an hour, and, I believe, gave the assemblage
satisfaction. I was followed by brief addresses from Theodore
Roosevelt and others, and then the meeting quietly dispersed.

While in Springfield, I heard of the unfortunate remark of Dr.
Burchard to Blaine about "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," and felt
that the effect would be to offend a considerable portion of the
Irish voters, who had been very friendly to Blaine. After that
incident, I met Mr. Blaine at the Chickering Hall meeting, and went
with him to Brooklyn, where we spoke together at the Academy of
Music.

The election, a few days afterward, resulted in the success of the
Democratic ticket. The electoral vote of New York was cast for
Cleveland and Hendricks. It was believed at the time that this
result was produced by fraudulent voting in New York city, but the
returns were formal, and there was no way in which the election
could be contested.

Congress met on the 1st of December, 1884. President Arthur promptly
sent his message to each House. He congratulated the country upon
the quiet acquiescence in the result of an election where it had
been determined with a slight preponderance. Our relations with
foreign nations had been friendly and cordial. The revenues of
the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, had been
$348,519,869.92. The expenditures for the same period, including
the sinking fund, were $290,916,473.83, leaving a surplus of
$57,603,396.09. He recommended the immediate suspension of the
coinage of silver dollars and of the issuance of silver certificates,
a further reduction of internal taxes and customs duties, and that
national banks be allowed to issue circulating notes to the par
amount of bonds deposited for their security. He closed with these
words:

"As the time draws nigh when I am to retire from the public service,
I cannot refrain from expressing to Members of the national
legislature, with whom I have been brought into personal and official
intercourse, my sincere appreciation of their unfailing courtesy,
and of their harmonious co-operation with the Executive in so many
measures calculated to promote the best interests of the nation.

"And to my fellow-citizens generally, I acknowledge a deep sense
of obligation for the support which they have accorded me in my
administration of the executive department of this government."

Hugh McCulloch, upon the death of Mr. Folger, had become Secretary
of the Treasury. His report contained the usual statements in
regard to government receipts and expenditures and the public debt,
but the chief subject discussed was the coinage of silver dollars.
He said:

"There are some financial dangers ahead which can only be avoided
by changes in our financial legislation. The most imminent of
these dangers, and the only one to which I now ask the attention
of Congress, arises from the continued coinage of silver and the
increasing representation of it by silver certificates. I believe
that the world is not in a condition, and never will be, for the
demonetization of one-third of its metallic money; that both gold
and silver are absolutely necessary for a circulating medium; and
that neither can be disused without materially increasing the burden
of debt, nor even temporarily degraded by artificial means without
injurious effect upon home and international trade. But I also
believe that gold and silver can only be made to maintain their
comparative value by the joint action of commercial nations. Not
only is there now no joint action taken by these nations to place
and keep silver on an equality with gold, according to existing
standards, but it has been by the treatment it has received from
European nations greatly lessened in commercial value.

* * * * *

"After giving the subject careful consideration, I have been forced
to the conclusion that unless both the coinage of silver dollars
and the issue of silver certificates are suspended, there is danger
that silver, and not gold, may become our metallic standard. This
danger may not be imminent, but it is of so serious a character
that there ought not to be delay in providing against it. Not only
would the national credit be seriously impaired if the government
should be under the necessity of using silver dollars or certificates
in payment of gold obligations, but business of all kinds would be
greatly disturbed; not only so, but gold would at once cease to be
a circulating medium, and severe contraction would be the result."

The first important subject considered by the Senate was the coinage
of silver dollars and the consequent issue of silver certificates.
The debate was founded upon a resolution offered by Senator Hill,
of Colorado, against the views expressed by the President in his
message and by Secretary McCulloch in his report.

On the 15th of December I made a speech covering, as I thought,
the silver question, not only of the past but of the probable
results in the future. The amount of silver dollars then in the
treasury was $184,730,829, and of silver certificates outstanding
$131,556,531. These certificates were maintained at par in gold
by being received for customs duties. They were redeemable in
silver dollars, but were in fact never presented for redemption.
The silver dollars could only be used in the redemption of certificates
or by issue in payment of current liabilities. With the utmost
exertions to put the silver dollars in circulation only fifty
million could be used in this way. To have forced more into
circulation would have excited a doubt whether any of our paper
money could be maintained at par with gold.

When urged to express a remedy for this condition I said that if
I had the power to dictate a law I would ascertain by the best
means the exact market value of the two metals, and then put into
each silver dollar as many grains of standard silver as would be
equal in market value to 25.8 grains of standard gold. I said that
if the price of silver fell the coin would still circulate upon
the fiat of the government. If silver advanced in relative value
the amount of silver in the coin could, at stated periods, be
decreased. Bimetallism could only exist where the market value of
the two metals approached the coinage value, or where a strong
government, with a good credit, received and paid out coins of each
metal at parity with each other. The only way to prevent a variation
in the value of the two metals, and the exportation of the dearer
metal, would be, by an international agreement between commercial
nations, to adopt a common ratio somewhat similar in substance to
that of the Latin Union, each nation to receive as current money
the coins of the other and each to redeem its own coins in gold.

Mr. Beck replied to my argument, and the debate between us continued
during two or three days. The weakness of the silver advocates
was that they were not content with the coinage of more silver coin
than ever before, but were determined that the holder of silver in
any form might deposit it in the mint and have it coined into
dollars for his benefit at the ratio of sixteen to one, when its
market value had then fallen so that twenty ounces of silver were
worth but one ounce in gold, and since has fallen in value so that
thirty ounces of silver are worth but one ounce in gold.

With free coinage in these conditions no gold coins would be minted
and all the money of the United States would be reduced in value
to the sole silver standard, and gold would be hoarded and exported.
This debate has been continued from that date to this, not only in
Congress, but in every schoolhouse in the United States, and in
all the commercial nations of the world. I shall have occasion
hereafter to recur to it.

On the 18th of December I reported, from the joint committee on
the library, an amendment to an appropriation bill providing for
the construction of a statue to the memory of General Lafayette,
in the following words:

"That the president _pro tempore_ of the Senate and the speaker of
the House of Representative do appoint a joint committee of three
Senators and three Representatives, with authority to contract for
and erect a statue to the memory of General Lafayette and his
compatriots; and said statue shall be placed in a suitable public
reservation in the city of Washington, to be designated by said
joint committee."

The amendment was agreed to by both Houses. The result was the
erection, on the southeast corner of Lafayette Square in Washington,
of the most beautiful and artistic bronze monument in that city.

A somewhat sharp and combative controversy had taken place in the
newspapers between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis, in regard
to the position of the latter on the rights of the Confederate
states in the spring of 1865. General Sherman, in a letter to me
dated December 4, 1884, published in the "Sherman Letters," narrated
his remarks at a meeting of the Frank Blair Post, G. A. R., No. 1,
in St. Louis, in which he said that he had noticed the tendency to
gloss over old names and facts by speaking of the Rebellion as a
war of secession, while in fact it was a conspiracy up to the firing
on Fort Sumter, and a rebellion afterwards. He described the
conspiracy between Slidell, Benjamin and Davis, and the seizure of
the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, and other acts of war,
and then said:

"I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere
in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the states of the
Confederacy, in 1865, talked of 'a separate state action,' another
name for 'secession,' he stated that he, as president of the
Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee's army
against it. I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured
letter book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing."

Davis called for the production of the identical letter. General
Sherman said he could not enter into a statement of the controversy,
but he believed the truth of his statement could be established,
and that he would collect evidence to make good his statement. I
replied to his letter as follows:

"United States Senate, }
"Washington, D. C., December 10, 1884.}
"Dear Brother:--. . . I can see how naturally you spoke of Jeff.
Davis as you did, and you did not say a word more than he deserved.
Still, he scarcely deserves to be brought into notice. He was not
only a conspirator, but a traitor. His reply was a specimen of
impotent rage. It is scarcely worth your notice, nor should you
dignify it by a direct rejoinder. A clear, strong statement of
the historical facts that justified the use of the word 'conspirator,'
which you know very well how to write, is all the notice required.
Do not attempt to fortify it by an affidavit, as some of the papers
say you intend to do, but your statement of the letters seen by
you, and the historical facts known by you, are enough. I have
had occasion, since your letter was received, to speak to several
Senators about the matter, and they all agree with me that you
ought to avoid placing the controversy on letters which cannot now
be produced. The records have been pretty well sifted by friendly
rebels, and under the new administration it is likely their further
publication will be edited by men who will gladly shield Davis at
the expense of a Union soldier. The letter of Stephens to Johnson
is an extraordinary one. Its publication will be a bombshell in
the Confederate camp. I will deliver the copy to Colonel Scott to-
morrow. One or two paragraphs from it go far to sustain your stated
opinion of Jeff. Davis. . . .

"Very affectionately yours,
"John Sherman."

This controversy came before the Senate by a resolution offered by
Senator Hawley, calling upon the President to communicate to the
Senate an historical statement concerning the public policy of the
executive department of the Confederate states during the late War
of the Rebellion, reported to have been lately filed in the war
department by General William T. Sherman. Upon this resolution a
somewhat acrimonious debate occurred, participated in by Senators
Harris, Hawley, Vest, George, Ingalls and others. During the debate
I felt constrained, on account of my relationship with General
Sherman, to give his version of the controversy between himself
and Jefferson Davis.

I disliked the introduction of such a controversy twenty years
after the war was over, but still, as the matter was before us, I
entered at considerable length into a history of the controversy,
and expressed my decided opinion that General Sherman was entirely
justified in denouncing Davis and his associates, before the Civil
War commenced, as conspirators and traitors. I closed my remarks
as follows:

"I am sorry this debate has sprung up. I was in hope, with the
Senator from Connecticut, who introduced the resolution, that these
papers would be published, and nothing more would be said about
them here, but let the people determine the issue and let this
matter go down in history. But, sir, whenever, in my presence, in
a public assemblage, Jefferson Davis shall be treated as a patriot,
I must enter my solemn protest. Whenever the motives and causes
of the war, the beginning and end of which I have seen, are brought
into question, I must stand, as I have always stood, upon the firm
conviction that it was a causeless rebellion, made with bad motives,
and that all men who led in that movement were traitors to their
country."

Senator Lamar answered my speech with some heat, and closed as
follows:

"One other thing. We, of the south, have surrendered upon all the
questions which divided the two sides in that controversy. We have
given up the right of the people to secede from the Union; we have
given up the right of each state to judge for itself of the
infractions of the constitution and the mode of redress; we have
given up the right to control our own domestic institutions. We
fought for all these, and we lost in that controversy; but no man
shall, in my presence, call Jefferson Davis a traitor, without my
responding with a stern and emphatic denial."

Senator Vest closed the debate in a few remarks, and the subject-
matter was displaced by the regular order. While I regretted this
debate, I believed that the speeches made by the Republican Senators
properly defined the Rebellion as, first, a conspiracy; second,
treason; third, a rebellion subdued by force, finally followed by
the most generous treatment of those engaged in the Rebellion that
is found in the history of mankind.

During this session there was a very full debate upon the subject
of regulating interstate commerce, in which I participated. The
contest was between what was known as the Reagan bill, which passed
the House of Representatives, and the Senate bill. I expressed
the opinion that the Senate bill was better than the Reagan bill,
and, although much popular favor had been enlisted from time to
time in favor of the Reagan bill, because it grappled with and
dealt with the railroad corporations, the Senate bill did more; it
not only grappled with them, but laid a broad and deep foundation
for an admirable system of railroad law, which should govern all
the railroads of the country.

On the 13th of May, 1884, the President approved the following
joint resolution, introduced by Mr. Morrill, from the committee on
public buildings and grounds:

"Whereas, The shaft of the Washington monument is approaching
completion, and it is proper that it should be dedicated with
appropriate ceremonies, calculated to perpetuate the fame of the
illustrious man who was 'first in war, first in peace, and first
in the hearts of his countrymen:' Therefore,

"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That a commission to
consist of five Senators appointed by the president of the Senate,
eight Representatives appointed by the speaker of the House of
Representatives, three members of the Washington Monument Society,
and the United States engineer in charge of the work be, and the
same is hereby, created, with full powers to make arrangements for,--

"First. The dedication of the monument to the name and memory of
George Washington, by the President of the United States, with
appropriate ceremonies.

"Second. A procession from the monument to the capitol, escorted
by regular and volunteer corps, the Washington Monument Society,
representatives of cities, states, and organizations which have
contributed blocks of stone, and such bodies of citizens as may
desire to appear.

"Third. An oration in the hall of the House of Representatives,
on the twenty-second day of February, _anno Domini_ eighteen hundred
and eighty-five, by the Honorable Robert C. Winthrop, who delivered
the oration at the laying of the corner stone of the monument in
eighteen hundred and forty-eight, with music by the Marine Band.

"Fourth. Salutes of one hundred guns from the navy yard, the
artillery headquarters, and such men-of-war as can be anchored in
the Potomac."

I was chairman of the commission appointed under this resolution,
and, in compliance with it, invited Mr. Winthrop to deliver the
oration. He expressed his deep sense of the honor conferred upon
him, but had a doubt whether he ought not to decline on account of
his failing health. Mr. Morrill and I strongly insisted upon his
acceptance and he eventually consented, though not without misgivings
which were unhappily justified.

A short time before the day appointed for the dedication I received
from him the following autograph letter, which is interesting, not
only on account of the eminence of its author, but of the important
event about to be celebrated:

"90 Marlborough Street, Boston, February 13, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman, Chairman, etc.

"Dear Senator Sherman:--It is with deep regret that I find myself
compelled to abandon all further hope of being at the dedication
of the Washington monument on the 21st instant. I have been looking
forward to the possibility of being able to run on at the last
moment, and to pronounce a few sentences of my oration before
handing it to Governor Long, who has so kindly consented to read
it. But my recovery from dangerous illness has been slower than
I anticipated, and my physician concurs with my family in forbidding
me from any attempt to leave home at present.

"I need not assure the commissioners how great a disappointment it
is to me to be deprived of the privilege of being present on this
most interesting occasion. I am sure of their sympathy without
asking for it.

"Please present my respectful apologies to your associates, and
believe me,

"With great regard, very faithfully yours,
"Robt. C. Winthrop.
"P. S.--This is the first letter I have attempted to write with my
own pen since my illness."

Among the numerous regrets received by the commission was the
following:

"Oak Knoll, Danvers, Mass., Second Month 8, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman, Chairman of Committee.

"Dear Friend:--The state of my health will scarcely permit me to
avail myself of the invitation of the commission to attend the
ceremonies of the dedication of the Washington monument.

"In common with my fellow-citizens I rejoice at the successful
completion of this majestic testimonial of the reverence and
affection which the people of the United States, irrespective of
party, section, or race, cherish for the 'Father of his Country.'
Grand, however, and imposing as that testimonial may seem, it is,
after all, but an inadequate outward representation of that mightier
monument, unseen and immeasurable, builded of the living stones of
a nation's love and gratitude, the hearts of forty millions of
people. But the world has not outlived its need of picture writing
and symbolism, and the great object lesson of the Washington monument
will doubtless prove a large factor in the moral and political
education of present and future generations. Let us hope that it
will be a warning as well as a benediction; and that while its
sunlit altitude may fitly symbolize the truth that 'righteousness
exalteth a nation,' its shadow falling on the dome of the capitol
may be a daily remainder that 'sin is a reproach to any people.'
Surely it will not have been reared in vain if, on the day of its
dedication, its mighty shaft shall serve to lift heavenward the
voice of a united people that the principles for which the fathers
toiled and suffered shall be maintained inviolate by their children.

"With sincere respect, I am thy friend,
"John G. Whittier."

Another letter, received about two weeks earlier from General Grant,
seems to me worthy of a reproduction. It is as follows:

"New York City, January 27, 1885.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--I regret very much that my physical condition prevents
me from accepting the invitation of the commissioners, appointed
by Congress to provide suitable ceremonies for the dedication of
the Washington monument, to be present to witness the same on the
21st of February next. My throat still requires the attention of
the physician daily, though I am encouraged to believe that it is
improving.

"Very respectfully yours,
"U. S. Grant."

An engraved card of invitation was sent to a great number of civil
and military organizations throughout the United States, the regents
of Mount Vernon, relatives of General Washington and other
distinguished persons.

The commission invited Lieutenant General Sheridan to act as marshal
of the day, with an aid-de-camp from each state and territory.
This invitation was accepted, and arrangements were made for a
procession from the monument to the capitol and proceedings there
after the dedication by the President.

The joint resolution prescribed that the monument be dedicated "to
the name and memory of George Washington, by the President of the
United States, with appropriate ceremonies" on the 22nd of February.
The day selected was among the coldest of the year. The ground
was covered with snow and a high keen wind was blowing. I was
directed to preside over the proceedings at the base of the monument,
and in the performance of this duty made the following address:

"The commission authorized by the two Houses of Congress to provide
suitable ceremonies for the dedication of the Washington monument,
direct me to preside and announce the order of ceremonies deemed
proper on this occasion.

"I need not say anything to impress upon you the dignity of the
event you have met to celebrate. The monument speaks for itself--
simple in form, admirable in proportions, composed of enduring
marble and granite, resting upon foundations broad and deep, it
rises into the skies higher than any work of human art. It is the
most imposing, costly and appropriate monument ever erected in the
honor of one man.

"It had its origin in the profound conviction of the people,
irrespective of party, creed or race, not only of this country,
but of all civilized countries, that the name and fame of Washington
should be perpetuated by the most imposing testimonial of a nation's
gratitude to its hero, statesman and father. This universal
sentiment took form in a movement of private citizens, associated
under the name of the Washington National Monument Association,
who, on the 31st day of January, 1848, secured, from Congress, an
act authorizing them to erect the proposed monument on this ground,
selected, as the most appropriate site, by the President of the
United States. Its corner stone was laid on the 4th day of July,
1848, by the Masonic fraternity, with imposing ceremonies, in the
presence of the chief officer of the government and a multitude of
citizens. It was partially erected by the National Monument
Association, with means furnished by the voluntary contributions
of the people of the United States.

"On the 5th day of July, 1876, one hundred years after the declaration
of American Independence, Congress, in the name of the people of
the United States, formally assumed and directed the completion of
the monument. Since then the foundation has been strengthened,
the shaft has been steadily advanced, and the now completed structure
stands before you.

"It is a fit memorial of the greatest character in human history.
It looks down upon scenes most loved by him on earth, the most
conspicuous object in a landscape full of objects deeply interesting
to the American people. All eyes turn to it, and all hearts feel
the inspiration of its beauty, symmetry and grandeur. Strong as
it is, it will not endure so long as the memory of him in whose
honor it was built, but while it stands it will be the evidence to
many succeeding generations of the love and reverence of this
generation for the name and fame of George Washington, 'first in
war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen'--
more even than this, the prototype of purity, manhood and patriotism
for all lands and for all time. Without further preface, I proceed
to discharge the duty assigned me."

After prayer by the Rev. Henderson Suter, Dr. James C. Welling read
an address which had been prepared by W. W. Corcoran, first vice
president of the Washington National Monument Society, giving a
detailed history of the structure in its various stages. Washington
having been a Freemason, appropriate Masonic ceremonies were
performed, the address being delivered by Grand Master Myron M.
Parker. Colonel Thomas L. Casey, of the engineer corps, United
States army, the chief engineer and architect of the monument, then
formally delivered the structure to the President of the United
States, in an address describing the work done by him on it.
President Arthur received the monument with the following well-
chosen words:

"Fellow-Countrymen:--Before the dawn of the century whose eventful
years will soon have faded into the past, when death had but lately
robbed this republic of its most beloved and illustrious citizen,
the Congress of the United States pledged the faith of the nation
that in this city, bearing his honored name, and then, as now, the
seat of the general government, a monument should be erected 'to
commemorate the great events of his military and political life.'

"The stately column that stretches heavenward from the plain whereon
we stand bears witness to all who behold it that the covenant which
our fathers made, their children have fulfilled.

"In the completion of this great work of patriotic endeavor there
is abundant cause for national rejoicing; for while this structure
shall endure it shall be to all mankind a steadfast token of the
affectionate and reverent regard in which this people continue to
hold the memory of Washington. Well may he ever keep the foremost
place in the hearts of his countrymen.

"The faith that never faltered, the wisdom that was broader and
deeper than any learning taught in schools, the courage that shrank
from no peril and was dismayed by no defeat, the loyalty that kept
all selfish purpose subordinate to the demands of patriotism and
honor, the sagacity that displayed itself in camp and cabinet alike,
and, above all, that harmonious union of moral and intellectual
qualities which has never found its parallel among men; these are
the attributes of character which the intelligent thought of this
century ascribes to the grandest figure of the last.

"But other and more eloquent lips than mine will to-day rehearse
to you the story of his noble life and its glorious achievements.

"To myself has been assigned a simpler and more formal duty, in
fulfillment of which I do now, as President of the United States,
and in behalf of the people, receive this monument from the hands
of its builder, and declare it dedicated from this time forth to
the immortal name and memory of George Washington."

The exercises at the monument concluded, General Sheridan and his
aids formed the procession, consisting of regular and state troops,
the Masonic fraternity, Grand Army posts, and other organizations,
with the invited guests, in carriages, and proceeded to the capitol,
while the cannon at the navy yard, at the artillery headquarters
and at Fort Meyer fired minute guns.

As previously arranged, the address of Mr. Winthrop, which has ever
since been regarded as equal to the occasion, was read by John D.
Long, in the hall of the House of Representatives, before a most
distinguished audience, embracing all the principal officers of
the government and the invited guests. John W. Daniel, of Virginia,
also delivered an eloquent oration.

Thus the Congress celebrated the completion of monuments in enduring
form to two of the greatest men in American history--Washington
and Marshall.

The Congress expired by limitation March 4, 1885.

On the same day, there was inaugurated the first Democratic President
of the United States since the time of James Buchanan. The election
of Cleveland, though not disputed, turned upon a very narrow majority
in New York, and the practical exclusion of the majority of the
legal voters in several of the southern states. This naturally
led to the inquiry, "What will you do about it?" My answer was
that we must quietly acquiesce in the result of the official returns
and give to Mr. Cleveland such fair treatment as we asked for Hayes.
I said that we should confirm his appointments made in pursuance
of the law and custom. I was a member of the committee that
conducted him to the stand where he was inaugurated. I heard his
inaugural address, carefully studied it, and felt sure that if he
faithfully observed the policy he defined, the bitterness of party
strife would be greatly diminished. He carefully avoided contested
questions of public policy, and especially omitted all reference
to the substantial overthrow of the political rights of a majority
of the legal voters in many of the southern states, by which alone
he was elected.

The usual call for an executive session at the close of a presidential
term was issued by President Arthur, and the Senate met on the 4th
of March, Vice President Hendricks presiding. But little business
of general interest was done during that session except action on
presidential appointments, few in number, which were confirmed
without objection. The Senate adjourned on the 2nd of April.

Soon after I went to Mansfield, and, on the 12th of April, to
Cincinnati, to witness the inauguration of my friend, Amor Smith,
Jr., as mayor of that city. He had fought and overcome the grossest
frauds that had been or could be committed by penitentiary convicts.
A crowd gathered around his residence, which, with those of his
neighbors, was brilliantly illuminated. The Blaine club, headed
by a band and followed by many citizens, filled his yard. His
house was full of his personal friends. After music by the band,
Miller Outcalt, president of the club, escorted Mr. Smith to the
piazza and introduced him to the citizens. His speech was modest
and appropriate, but he took care to denounce, in fitting language,
the open and reckless frauds practiced by his enemies to defeat
him, and promised that while he was mayor no such frauds should be
committed.

I was introduced to the crowd, and, after rendering my thanks and
congratulations and my appeal to the young men of the club, said:

"I think the foulest crime in the decalogue of crime, worse than
any named in the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic law, lower far than
stealing, worse than burglary, as bad as murder, is the crime that
has been perpetrated here in your city openly, in the face of day,
trying to break down the elective franchise and rob the people of
their right to govern themselves. I might forgive a man who would
steal because he was in need of bread; he might commit other crimes
because of some reason, but a man who seeks to rob his neighbors
of their right to govern themselves, and practices the tricks of
the wily electioneer to deprive the people of this right, commits
a meaner crime than any that can be named in the list of crime.

"I am told that dozens--aye, hundreds--of men have gone to the
polls and there voted over and over again; that they have given
false names, and sometimes, in the presence of the very guardians
of the public peace, they have openly violated the law. I say that
worse men cannot be found than those who do this, or those viler
creatures who protect them in doing it or justify them in their
acts. Every power of the nation should be utilized to punish them
with the penitentiary; they ought to be made to wear the stripes
of the convict."

Foraker followed with an eloquent speech, which greatly pleased
the audience, and after much hand-shaking the crowd gradually
dispersed.

My remarks about frauds at elections did not please the "Enquirer."
While strongly censuring me for violence in language it did not
try to controvert what I said. I have always entertained the
opinion that frauds in elections are more dangerous crimes than
cheating, theft and robbery, because they are committed against
the whole people and sap and undermine republican institutions.
I have always denounced them, or anything approaching them, when
committed by friend or foe.

From Cincinnati I went to Columbus to pay my respects to the Ohio
legislature, about to adjourn. A majority of both houses was
Democratic. They convened in the hall of the house of representatives,
where I addressed them. I thanked them for their courtesy, which
was the more gracious because it came from gentlemen who did not
agree with me in political opinion. I told them I was pleased to
see that in Ohio and elsewhere the interests of our country and
our state were regarded of vastly more importance than the factious
quarrels of bitter partisans, which feeling I was glad to say I
had always encouraged. I alluded to my having served in the Senate
of the United States with colleagues representing different political
opinions from myself, including Allen G. Thurman, George H. Pendleton
and, at that time, Henry B. Payne, and to the fact that whenever
the interests of the people of Ohio were concerned our political
differences disappeared and we were shoulder to shoulder as friends.
I said I thought this spirit ought to be observed by the representatives
of the people of Ohio and of the United States, that whenever the
interests of the people were under consideration party spirit should
sink into insignificance.

After hand-shaking all around I returned to my hotel. In the
evening I was invited to attend the board of trade, and, being
kindly introduced by President Miles, I, as usual, was called upon
for a speech. I first alluded to the remarkable growth of Columbus
to which the members of the board had contributed, and then discussed
briefly the silver question, about which they also felt an interest.
I then exploited into electricity, as follows:

"Gentlemen, you will be called upon hereafter to deal with forces
yet undiscovered. The developments of science have brought to your
aid things as mysterious as life, which no mind can penetrate.
You are now called upon to use electricity as a motive power and
as light. You must develop these secrets of nature, and you will
have no more fear of the exhaustion of gold, for these new powers
will contribute to the wealth and power of this country. The
business men must carry out these, and so I say, as I said in
Cincinnati, that if business men would carry their honest methods
into government, then the scale and grade of our politics would
rise higher and higher. We have had advancement under these
principles in everything except the government of the country.
What we want is honest government by honest men. The United States
will then be looked on no longer as an experiment, but it will
become the greatest of the great governments since Adam was created.

"If I can induce the young men, who have contributed so much to
the growth of this city, to see to this--if you will do this much
to promote honest government and honest methods, we won't care
whether you call yourself Democrat or Republican."

I closed with thanks for the honor done me. I was also invited to
visit the city council, and as soon as the reception in the board
of trade was over I accompanied a committee to the council chamber,
where I was again called upon for a speech.

Mr. Taylor, the president of the council, by a slip of the tongue,
introduced me as "Senator Thurman." I said:

"I see that our friend, your president, mixes me up with Judge
Thurman on account of the fact that our names sound very much alike.
I consider such a mistake the highest compliment that could be paid
me; for the great ability, intense sagacity and entire purity of
your distinguished fellow-citizen, in the highest offices of the
land, have placed him, in my estimation, in the first rank of able
and noble men. I like to have my name called Thurman. It is my
opinion that the duties of city officers are of the very highest
importance. The most serious embarrassments of this or any other
country lie with the municipal governments. National government
is clearly defined. The government of the State of Ohio ought to
present no difficulties when administered by fair men of business
habits. But the eyes of the people are upon the difficulties of
municipal government. The scenes that occurred in Paris, in London,
in New York, and, to come nearer home, the scenes that occurred in
Cincinnati, all show the importance of good city government. I
say to you, although a Member of the Senate of the United States,
that the real difficulties of our government are no more serious
than the problems of city management and government. When Rome
became the scene of wrongs, crimes, and usurpation, the republic
crumbled. If ever this government be in danger, it will be because
of the misgovernment of our cities."

In the early part of April, 1885, I arranged for a trip via Chicago,
Des Moines, St. Louis, Texas and California, thence along the
Pacific coast to Tacoma and Seattle, and thence by the Northern
Pacific railroad to St. Paul, and home again. The party was composed
of Henry C. Hedges, George F. Carpenter, both citizens of Mansfield,
my nephew Frank Sherman, of Des Moines, and myself. It was arranged
that we were to meet in St. Louis. In the meantime I proceeded to
Des Moines, where I met my brother, Hoyt, and his son, Frank. Here
I met a reporter of the "Register" published in that city. He said
in his report that I seemed to feel happy at the prospect that for
two months at least I was going to be free from public cares, and
that I acted like a man who had absolutely thrown worry aside for
the time being. I told him my business was purely of a private
character, and that I had dismissed all politics from my mind. I
declined to answer his questions about Mr. Cleveland. He made out
of small materials an interview which answered his purpose. He
asked my view of the silver question. I told him I hoped to see
the people abandon the idea, which prevailed a few years previous,
of having silver money of less value than gold. We had gone through
a struggle of some years to make our paper money equal to gold,
and the next struggle ought to be to do the same with silver money.
I said we should have all kinds of money of equal value whether
United States notes, bank bills, silver or gold; that if we had
this our silver would circulate in all parts of the world the same
as our gold, that we could use both silver and gold as the basis
of our certificates, which would then be regarded as money by every
commercial nation of the world. I said I was in favor of both
silver and gold, and of using both to be coined upon the basis of
market value, that in this way the volume of money would be increased
instead of being diminished, and our money would become the standard
money of the world. In his report he said that I spoke very
feelingly of General Grant, expressing a hope for his recovery,
but that I feared his apparent improvement was only characteristic
of that disease and not substantial.

I was surprised as well as gratified at the rapid growth of Des
Moines, which I first knew as an insignificant village. From Des
Moines Frank Sherman and I went to St. Louis, and there met Messrs.
Hedges and Carpenter. During the two or three days we remained in
St. Louis I stayed at the house of General Sherman, who then resided
in that city. He took great interest in my proposed trip, and one
evening wrote out, without a change or erasure of a single word,
on three pages of foolscap, and under the head of "Memorandum for
John Sherman," a complete and detailed statement of the route I
was to follow, and the names of the cities and places I was to
visit, including the persons whom I ought to see, to several of
whom he gave me letters of introduction. I have regarded this
"memorandum," which we found accurate in every particular, as a
striking evidence of his mastery of details. We followed the route
with scarcely a change. Among the letters given me by him was one
to his friend, F. F. Low, as follows:

"St. Louis, Mo., May 3, 1885.
"Hon. F. F. Low, Anglo California Bank.

"Dear Sir:--My brother John, the Senator, is on the point of starting
for San Francisco via the southern route and intends to come back
by the north. He will be in your city some days, and I am anxious
you should become acquainted, also that he should meet your wife
and daughter.

"If you are with the Pacific club please introduce him to some of
the old set--Hoffman, Tevis, Haggin, Rowie, etc., etc. Nearly all
my old banking friends have passed away, but I am sure he would be
pleased to meet Alvord and Brown, of the Bank of California, and
also Flood, of the Nevada Bank.

"Truly your friend,
"W. T. Sherman."

While in St. Louis, the "Evening Chronicle" of May 1, published
quite a long interview with me. General Sherman, during this
interview, sat somewhat aside, now and then putting in an emphatic
assent or suggestion. The general inquired of me if there was any
late news from Washington concerning General Sheridan. The reporter
then asked him what his opinion was as to the controversy between
General Sheridan and Secretary of War Endicott. The general
answered: "There is no controversy. It is simply an incident of
the conflict of authority which has existed between the Secretary
of War and the General of the Army since the days of Washington.
General Scott had to leave Washington on that account. I had to
leave there for the same reason, and Sheridan will have to go away."

Early Monday morning, May 4, we left on the St. Louis, Iron Mountain
& Southern railway. I had heard and read a great deal in St. Louis
about the mineral resources of the southeastern part of Missouri,
through which we passed, but from the cars we could gain no
information. We saw, on every side, herds of cattle, flocks of
sheep, and bands of horses and mules. For miles the forest woods
stretched away. We passed through the low lands of Arkansas,
covered with valuable timber. We passed through Texarkana, a city
located partly in Arkansas and partly in Texas, and not far from
Louisiana. We proceeded across the State of Texas, only catching
glimpses, here and there, of towns springing up, and broad fields
already planted with cotton.

In passing through Dallas, we met my old boyhood friend, A. Banning
Norton, who was there called Judge Norton. In 1844 he was so
earnest in his zeal and enthusiasm for Henry Clay that he vowed he
would not cut his hair until Clay was elected President of the
United States. Clay's defeat was a sad blow to Norton, but he
religiously kept his vow, and until the day of his death wore his
hair unshorn. He was thoroughly loyal during the war, and was
compelled to leave Texas and remain in Ohio until after the war
was over, when he returned and published a newspaper, and was kindly
treated by his Texas neighbors. In his paper, he said that receiving
a telegram from me at six o'clock, at his residence, just before
the arrival of the train, he hurried to the Union Depot, and there
had the satisfaction of meeting our party. He said that his chief
regret at the delay in receiving this telegram was that he did not
have time enough to give notice to his neighbors, who would have
been glad to give us an ovation. He went with us as far as Fort
Worth, and we had a chance to revive the memories of early times,
when we were schoolboys at Mount Vernon, Ohio.

We arrived at El Paso and Paso del Norte, the first a Texan and
the second a Mexican town, opposite each other on the Rio Grande
River, which, from its mouth to this point, is the boundary line
between Mexico and the United States. El Paso must, in all human
probability, become a place of great importance. From there we
proceeded to Deming and entered Arizona. Here we began again to
hear of rich mines, of thriving mining towns, and of the inexhaustible
ores of silver and gold, but how much was truth and how much
exaggeration we had no means of knowing. From the cars the whole
country appeared to be a wilderness. Arizona, as viewed from the
cars, does not present a pleasing prospect, though we heard that
back beyond the mountains on either side were plains and valleys
irrigated by mountain streams, where perennial grasses existed and
grain was raised. We passed through Tucson, the capital of the
territory. It is an old city, having been in existence, it is
said, 300 years. Here we saw fields of barley, wheat, rye and
timothy, and a large orchard, all enriched by irrigation. We soon
crossed the Colorado River and entered California.

From Yuma to San Bernardino is an absolute desert. For over one
hundred miles the track is one hundred feet, or more, below the
level of the sea, and the country is absolutely naked of bird or
grass. At San Bernardino we entered California proper, and there
found a beautiful country, with nothing to obstruct the view, the
California mountains being on the right all the way into Los Angeles.
Upon my arrival in this city I was pleasantly surprised. I had
been there thirteen years before, but everything was changed. I
could find none of the old landmarks I had formerly seen. They
had disappeared, but in their place were great improvements and
signs of progress and prosperity. I was asked the occasion of my
visit. I answered truly that I proposed to remain in the southern
part of the state for a week or more, for rest and recreation.
Here, again, I had inquiries about the silver question. I was
averse to giving any expression of opinion, but the topic was
irrepressible, and I finally said to the representative of one of
the leading papers: "I am in favor of a silver dollar, equal, in
market value, to the gold dollar--actually equal. In other words,
let the silver dollar have enough grains of silver in it to make
it intrinsically worth, in the market, the gold dollar. As it is,
the government buys the silver at a certain valuation and then
coins it at another valuation, to make a profit on the difference.
This is not protecting the silver producer at all. It really is
an injury to him and his industry."

Our stay in Los Angeles was a very pleasant one. We drove to many
interesting towns and settlements within fifteen or twenty miles
of the city. I do not remember, in my many travels, any part of
the earth's surface that is more attractive in the spring of the
year, the season when I was there, than the region about Los Angeles.
I met there many friends of General Sherman, who inquired for him,
and I informed them he was living very pleasantly in St. Louis,
that I had spent the last Sunday with him, that he traveled a great
deal, and attended reunions with old army comrades, which he enjoyed
very much, that he was fond of the Pacific coast and liked to go
there, and that I almost persuaded him to come with me on this
trip, had not other engagements existed which he could not annul.

We met several Ohio people while here, among them two or three
gentlemen whom we had known as boys in Mansfield. We drove to
Wolfskill's orange grove, and to many handsome places in, and
around, Los Angeles, to Sierra Madre Villa, to Baldwin's place, to
Rose's wine establishment, and to Passadena, where we found Senator
Cameron and his wife pleasantly situated, and where they spent the
summer.

From Los Angeles we departed by stage and passed through the Los
Angeles valley, the San Fernando valley, and after crossing the
coast range saw the sea. For the first time we were at the Pacific
coast proper. On the way we met a settlement of Ohio men, most of
them from Richland county, whom we knew. San Buenaventura is the
county seat of Ventura county, with about 2,000 inhabitants. It
is an interesting place, its chief ornament being an old mission
built in 1784. We there visited a loan exhibition and floral
display under the management of the ladies of the village and
surrounding country, and saw the evidences of a semi-tropical
climate, magnificent palm tress, and the orange, the lemon and the
lime. From this place to Santa Barbara the drive was mainly along
the beach. Passing from the beach we entered upon a beautiful
country, and so proceeded all the way into Santa Barbara, through
charming valleys and under pleasant skies.

At Santa Barbara we were welcomed by Colonel Hollister, a native
of Ohio and a ranchero of California, whom, as already related, I
had met under similar circumstance thirteen years previous. We
stopped at a hotel owned by him and for four days were his guests.
He had settled on a tract of country west of Santa Barbara, and
had become the owner of a ranch of 48,000 acres as well as extensive
property in Santa Barbara and other places. We visited him at Glen
Annie after a drive of a few miles in an open carriage, all the
way within view of the sea and the mountains, through valleys
cultivated like gardens, under a bright sky in pure air. On the
foot hills were grazing herds of cattle, flocks of sheep and droves
of horses. On either side of the carriage road were groves of the
English walnut, orange, lemon, lime, apricot, peach, apple, cherry,
the date palm and olive trees, with acres and acres of vineyards,
and now and then a park of live oak. The mansion of Glen Annie
was surrounded by a bower of flowers and vines. From the porch we
could see the sea. This was the second time I had been at Santa
Barbara and I always remember it as perhaps the most pleasing
combination of scenery I have ever witnessed. We spent a very
pleasant hour with Mr. Stoddard and family, who had removed from
Ohio some years before to that delightful part of our country.
From Santa Barbara we went by steamer to Wilmington and San Pedro
and then returned to Los Angeles through a beautiful country. From
thence we went to San Francisco by rail through a country that
seemed absolutely worthless except now and then there were small
valleys highly cultivated. In the early morning we were in the
valley of the San Joaquin, where wide fields extend all along both
sides. Here we saw thousands of acres of land covered by growing
wheat without a fence to protect it.

Arriving at Oakland we crossed the bay to San Francisco on the 18th
of May, stopping at the Palace hotel. There I was called upon by
reporters of the several papers and was asked to tell them where
I came from, where I was going, and my opinions upon various
subjects. All manner of questions were asked and answered about
matters of no present interest. Our party visited many places of
interest in and about San Francisco. I visited General Pope, at
his residence at Black Point, the fort at the entrance of the Golden
Gate, the seal rocks and park. While here I met a great number of
very agreeable gentlemen and ladies, some of whom were from Lancaster,
Ohio. The letters given me by General Sherman introduced me to
prominent men, who were very kind and courteous. On the 25th, a
public reception was tendered me at the rooms of the Chamber of
Commerce, by the members of that body, the Board of Trade and the
Manufacturers' Association. This was an act of courtesy that I
did not expect, but greatly appreciated. The usual speech making
occurred. I was introduced by Henry L. Dodge, president of the
chamber, in flattering terms, and responded in a brief speech. I
recalled to them my visit to California with Colonel Scott in
connection with the Texas Pacific railroad, and the early connection
of General Sherman with the history of California. I expressed my
appreciation of the importance of California, and its enormous
development and influence upon the country since it became part of
the United States. I stated my views in respect to the silver
question, and the importance of maintaining all forms of money at
parity with each other, so that coins of both silver and gold might
"travel all over the world equal to each other in every land and
in every part." I insert two passages from this speech, which,
though it did not conform to their opinions and interests, was
kindly received by the intelligent body of merchants present. I
said:

"It is due to frankness and manhood for me to say that in the
country there is a feeling now, that if the present system should
be continued unchanged, the result would be that gold would be
demonetized, being worth more than silver as coined by the government
of the United States. The opinion prevails that the only thing to
remedy this is to buy the silver and gold, or take them from the
miner and coin them at the same rate, of equal market value, in
coins, one for the other, so that they would travel, side by side,
without depreciation or discount. There is an inclination in the
eastern states, not of hostility to silver, but of hostility to
that system which would take from the miner the fruit of his labor
at its market rate and issue it at a depreciated rate; so that even
cautious people would doubt whether or not this silver money will
hereafter be as good as gold money.

"I wish you success in all your business enterprises. I know your
success will contribute to the happiness of our country. I am glad
to be able to congratulate the merchants of San Francisco upon the
enormous growth and prosperity of our country, not only of California,
not only of San Francisco, Los Angeles and the other beautiful
towns you have in your midst, but the whole country; for although
we have sometimes here and there waves of dejection, after all,
our country is moving forward in bounding prosperity. We have now
the best currency that exists on the globe. Our credit is unrivaled
in all the world, for no nation can borrow money at so low a rate
as our United States bonds now bear. Our general prosperity is
increasing and abounding, and although, as I have said, there may
be waves here and there, the progress is onward and upward and
hopeful. I trust you will be prosperous in your enterprises, that
you will share in the common prosperity of our whole country, for,
after all, the energy of your people of San Francisco and California
should not be expended entirely alone on the Pacific coast. This
whole boundless continent is ours, and only awaits the time when
we choose to assert our right to take it and hold it."

At the invitation of Senator John F. Miller I spent a day on his
ranch in Napa valley. It was a beautiful country, neither a prairie
nor a woodland, but more like a fine cultivated park, with here
and there groups of trees planted by nature. I made several
excursions around the bay, accompanied by General Pope and members
of his staff. I was delighted with my visit in and around San
Francisco, not only for the natural beauty of the country, but also
on account of the kindness of its inhabitants. I was no doubt
indebted for this to my connection with General Sherman, who seemed
to be known and greatly beloved by everyone.

I have a pleasant recollection of a reception given at the Dirigo
club. The gentlemen present were not all young men, though they
chose to regard themselves as such. Major Chamberlain delivered
a brief address of welcome, in which he referred to the "martial
services of General Sherman and the pacific achievements of the
Senator," and drew a comparison highly complimentary to both of
the brothers. William W. Morrow, Member of Congress, formally
welcomed me as a guest of the club and delivered a short but eloquent
speech. I made a brief reply and then the company was served with
refreshments, entertained with music and had a free and friendly
time. The reception was a decided success as was to be expected
from the high reputation of the club.

On the 27th of May we started northward towards Sacramento and
Portland, Oregon. Senator Leland Stanford was kind enough to
furnish us a car and accompanied us to his ranch at Vina. We
stopped at Chico long enough to visit the ranch of John Bidwell,
containing 20,000 acres. He met us at the station and we were soon
conveyed to his mansion such as is seldom built on a farm. We
drove through orchards of peach, apricot, cherry, apple, pear and
almond trees, while in his gardens were all kinds of berries and
vegetables. After this brief visit we proceeded along the line of
railroad to Vina, the extensive possession of Senator Stanford,
containing 56,000 acres. Here is said to be the largest vineyard
in the world, 3,600 acres. On leaving Mr. Stanford we proceeded
to the terminus of the railroad, from which point we crossed the
coast range of mountains in a stage, and were for three days in
sight of Mt. Shasta. This mountain rising from the plains stands
out by itself 14,400 feet above the level of the sea. Between
Shasta and the Sierras proper there is no continuity, nor is there
with the coast range. More properly it is a butte, a lone mountain.
Shortly after leaving Southern's the castle rocks came in view,
the highest and boldest mountains in close proximity, or within
our view. Shasta was crowned with snow, the snow line beginning
7,000 feet from its base. The scene all day had been rugged and
bold, and as we traveled by the Sacramento River, here a rapid
mountain stream, its waters rushed along the rocky bottom, now
confined within narrow banks, now widening out into a wide deep
bed as clear as crystal and cold and pure. For thirty miles of
our travel that day we had been in a good timbered country. Within
a circle of fifty feet in diameter we counted a dozen pines, every one
of which would have yielded ten to twelve thousand feet of sawed
timber. Flowers of the richest colors were found in the woods,
and the range afforded feed for thousands of cattle. At Southern's
we took a spring-top wagon in which to ride sixteen miles over the
mountains. We spent three days in the journey between Delta,
California, and Ashland, Oregon, the two ends of the railway
approaching towards each other. I recall it as the most charming
mountain ride I ever took. While crossing the mountain I occupied
a seat with the driver and much of the time I held the reins. The
ascent of the Siskiyou mountain was very tedious. Much of the way
the load was too heavy for our six horses to pull, and many dismounted
from the coach, among them the driver; the reins were placed in my
hands and we transferred most of the baggage from the boot to the
body of the coach. So we climbed the Siskiyou 5,000 feet to the
summit of the pass. Then on a gallop, with the coach full, we
turned downward. At one time, as the lead team turned a sharp
curve, it was nearly opposite the stage. Down, still down, and on
the full gallop, we arrived at Ashland on the evening of the 31st
of May, and remained there one day.

On the 1st of June we followed the line of the Willamette valley,
a productive region for the cultivation of wheat and other cereals.
At Albany we were met by Governor Moody and Secretary Earnhart,
who welcomed us to Oregon. With these officials we went to Salem,
the capital city of the state. My visit in Salem was a very pleasant
one and I was especially indebted to Governor Moody for his courtesy
and kindness. On the morning of the next day, the 2nd of June, we
left Salem and rode down the valley to Portland. This, the principal
city of Oregon, then contained a population of nearly 40,000, of
whom 6,000 or 7,000 were Chinese. It was the natural head of
navigation of the Columbia River, and was a flourishing handsome
city of the American type, in this respect unlike the cities of
California. General Miles was then in command of the military
district, with his residence at Fort Vancouver, Washington Territory.
The military post of Vancouver was then on the north bank of the
Columbia River, but a few miles from Portland. Mrs. Miles is the
daughter of my brother Charles, and I remained with their family
in Vancouver during my two or three days stay there, my traveling
companions making their headquarters at Portland.

When visiting Tacoma and Seattle our party had been increased to
the number of seventeen gentlemen, some of them connected with the
army, some with the railroads, and others who joined us in our
progress around the waters of Puget Sound and strait of Juan de
Fuca. These waters furnish perhaps the finest harbors in the world.
They are deep, with high banks rising in some places to mountains,
and capable of holding all the navies of the world. In a military
sense Puget Sound can be easily defended from an enemy coming from
the sea, and, though the country is mountainous, it is capable of
sustaining a large population in the extensive valleys both east
and west of the coast range. I have visited this portion of the
United States on three occasions, and am always more and more
impressed with its great importance and its probably rapid increase
of population and wealth. I will not dwell longer on this interesting
trip.

We left Portland on the 7th of June and proceeded on the Northern
Pacific railroad to Tacoma. On the train we met Charles Francis
Adams, Jr., with a party of railway managers, and in Tacoma we met
an old friend, a gallant and able officer, General John W. Sprague,
formerly from Erie county, Ohio, and more recently connected with
the Northern Pacific Railway Company. On Sunday, our party, including
Mr. Adams, dined with General Sprague. We had not as yet been able
to see Mount Tacoma in its glory, as it was constantly shrouded by
clouds. In the course of the dinner, Mr. Adams said humorously to
Mrs. Sprague that he had some doubts whether there was a Mount
Tacoma, that he had come there to see it and looked in the right
direction, but could not find it. I saw that this nettled Mrs.
Sprague, but she said nothing. In a few moments she left the table
and soon came back with a glowing face, saying, "You can see Tacoma
now!" We all left our places at the tables and went out on the
porch, and there was Mount Tacoma in all its glory. The clouds
were above the head of the mountain and it stood erect, covered
with snow, one of the most beautiful sights in nature. Mr. Adams
said: "Tacoma--yes Mount Tacoma is there and is very beautiful!"

On the 9th of June we visited Victoria in British Columbia. On
our return we stopped at Port Townsend and Seattle. I received
many courtesies from gentlemen at Seattle, many of whom had been
natives or residents of Ohio, and among them Governor Squire, who
had read law in Cleveland and was admitted to the bar in Mansfield,
where I resided. Among other events we were tendered a reception
and a banquet at Tacoma, at which seventy persons sat at the table.
I was introduced in complimentary terms and expressed my surprise
at the rapid growth of Tacoma and Seattle and that part of our
country. It was a wonder, I said, that such a scene could occur
in a place that had so recently been without an inhabitant except
Indians, and where, but a few years before, the Walla Wallas and
the Nez Percés were on the war path and General Miles was in pursuit
of them. I referred to the unrivaled body of water, Puget Sound,
and said that in the geography of the world it was not equaled.
I referred, also, to the coal fields and other elements of wealth
scattered through the then territory. I carefully avoided the
subject of the rivalry between Tacoma and Seattle, but after all
I found there was no ill-will between the two places. Speeches
were also made by Governor Squire, Mr. Adams, General Miles and
others.

We returned to Portland on the 12th of June, but before that we
visited Astoria, looked into the great industry of salmon packing,
and were greeted by quite a number of old Ohioans. On our return
we visited Walla Walla and there saw wheat growing that yielded
fifty bushels to the acre. We remained over, also, at Spokane
Falls, then a mere village with a few houses, since become quite
a city.

General Miles and I drove in a buggy from Spokane to Fort Coeur
d'Alène, a military post which he wished to visit and inspect. It
is situated on a lake which is famous for the abundance of its
fish. From there we took the cars to Helena, where we remained a
day, and then proceeded to St. Paul, where we arrived on the 21st
of June. Here again we found the interviewer, who wanted to know
my opinion about Cleveland, the silver question, the Chinese and
various other topics. I pleaded ignorance on all these matters,
but told the reporter that if he would call upon me in the course
of a month I would be able to answer his questions.

From St. Paul we went to Milwaukee and there crossed Lake Michigan
and thence by rail to Grand Rapids, where I had a number of
acquaintances and some business. We then proceeded by way of
Detroit and Sandusky to our home at Mansfield about the 24th of
June.

Upon my return from the Pacific coast I found a mass of letters to
be answered, and many interviewers in search of news, and I had
some engagements to speak for which I had made no preparations.
Among the latter was a promise to attend a celebration of the
approaching 4th of July at Woodstock, Connecticut, under the auspices
of Henry C. Bowen of the New York "Independent." He had for several
years conducted these celebrations at his country home at much
expense, and made them specially interesting by inviting prominent
men to deliver patriotic addresses suitable for Independence Day.
General Logan and I were to attend on this occasion. I selected
as my theme "America of to-day as contrasted with America of 1776."
I prepared an address with as much care as my limited time would
allow, giving an outline of the history of the Declaration of
Independence, and the prominent part taken by the sons of Connecticut
in this and other great works of the American Revolution. The
address was published in the "Independent." I have read it recently,
and do not see where it could be improved by me. The outline of
the growth of the United States presents the most remarkable
development in the history of mankind. I closed with the following
words:

"It has been my good fortune, within the last two months, to traverse
eleven states and territories, all of which were an unbroken
wilderness in the possession of savage tribes when the declaration
was adopted, now occupied by 15,000,000 people--active, intelligent,
enterprising citizens, enjoying all the advantages of modern
civilization. What a change! The hopeful dreams of Washington
and Jefferson and Franklin could not have pictured, as the probable
result of their patriotic efforts, such scenes as I saw; cities
rivaling in population and construction the capitals of Europe;
towns and villages without number full of active life and hope;
wheat fields, orchards, and gardens in place of broad deserts
covered by sage brush; miners in the mountains, cattle on the
plains, the fires of Vulcan in full blast in thousands of workshops;
all forms of industry, all means of locomotion.

"Who among us would not be impressed by such scenes? Who can look
over our broad country, rich in every resource, a climate and soil
suited to every production, a home government for every community,
a national government to protect all alike, and not feel a profound
sentiment of gratitude, first of all to the great Giver of all
gifts, and next to our Revolutionary fathers who secured, by their
blood and sacrifices, the liberty we enjoy, and by their wisdom
moulded the people of the United States into one great nation, with
a common hope and destiny?

"And this generation may fairly claim that it has strengthened the
work of the fathers, has made freedom universal, and disunion
impossible. Let the young men of to-day, heirs of a great heritage,
take up the burden of government, soon to fall upon their shoulders,
animated by the patriotic fire of the Revolution and the love of
liberty and union that inspired our soldiers in the Civil War,
turning their back upon all the animosities of that conflict, but
clinging with tenacious courage to all its results, and they will,
in their generation, double the population and quadruple the wealth
and resources of our country. Above all, they should keep the
United States of American in the forefront of progress, intelligence,
education, temperance, religion, and in all the virtues that tend
to elevate, refine, and ennoble mankind."

General Logan delivered an eloquent and patriotic speech that was
received by his audience with great applause. He was personally
a stranger to the Connecticut people, but his western style and
manner, unlike the more reserved and quiet tone of their home
orators, gave them great pleasure. Senators Hawley and Platt also
spoke. It is needless to say that our host provided us with
bountiful creature comforts. On the whole we regarded the celebration
as a great success.

During the last week of August, 1885, my surviving brothers and
sisters visited my wife and myself at our residence in Mansfield.
Colonel Moulton and the wives of General and Hoyt Sherman were also
present. Several of my numerous nephews and nieces visited us with
their parents. The then surviving brothers were W. T. Sherman,
Lampson P. Sherman, John Sherman, and Hoyt Sherman, and the surviving
sisters were Mrs. Elizabeth Reese and Mrs. Fanny B. Moulton. The
brothers and sisters who died before this meeting were Charles T.
Sherman, James Sherman, Mrs. McComb, Mrs. Willock and Mrs. Bartley.
All of the family attended with me the reunion of the "Sherman
Brigade," at its camp at Odell's Lake. On the arrival of the train
at the lake we found a great crowd of soldiers and citizens waiting
to meet General Sherman. The brigade had served under his command
from Chattanooga to Atlanta. They received him with great respect
and affection and he was deeply moved by their hearty greetings.
He shook hands with all who could reach him, but the crowd of
visitors was so great that many of them could not do so. The
encampment was located at the west end of the lake, justly celebrated
for the natural beauty of its scenery, and a favorite resort for
picnic excursions from far and near. We arrived at about twelve
o'clock and were at once conducted to a stand in the encampment
grounds, where again the hand-shaking commenced, and continued for
some time. General Sherman and I were called upon for speeches.
He was disinclined to speak, and said he preferred to wander around
the camp but insisted that I should speak. I was introduced by
General Finley, and said:

"Soldiers and Citizens, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I saw in one of your
published statements that I was to make an address on this occasion.
That is not exactly according to the fact. I did not agree to make
a speech. One year ago, when the Sherman Brigade met at Shelby,
I did, according to promise, make a prepared speech, giving the
history of the organization of the 'Sherman Brigade,' and a copy
of that, I understand, was sent to surviving members of that brigade.
But few will care for this, but it may interest the wives or children
of these soldiers.

"Now I do not intend to make a speech, but only a few remarks
preliminary to those that will be made to you by one more worthy
to speak to soldiers than I am.

"I have always understood that at soldiers' reunions the most
agreeable portion of the proceedings is to have the old soldiers
gather around the campfire to tell their stories of the war, to
exchange their recollections of the trying period through which
they passed from 1861 to 1865; to exchange greetings, to exhibit
their wives and children to each other, and to meet with their
neighbors in a social way and thus recall the events of a great
period in American history. And this is really the object of these
reunions.

"You do not meet here to hear speeches from those, who, like myself,
were engaged in civil pursuits during the war, and therefore, I
never am called before a soldiers' reunion but I feel compelled to
make an apology for speaking."

I referred to General Grant and his recent death, and then to
General Sherman as follows:

"There is another of those commanders, who is here before you to-
day. What is he? He is now a retired army officer. When the war
was over he became the General in Chief of the army, served until
the time fixed by the law for his retirement, and now he is a
private citizen, as plain and simple in his bearing and manners as
any other of the citizens who now surround him. These are the kind
of heroes a republic makes, and these are the kind of heroes we
worship as one free man may worship another."

General Sherman was then introduced to the vast audience, and said:

"Comrades and Friends:--A few days ago I was up on the banks of
Lake Minnetonka, and was summoned here to northern Ohio to participate
in a family reunion. I knew my brother's house in Mansfield was
large and commodious, sufficient to receive the survivors of the
first generation of the family, but I also knew that if he brought
in the second and third generations he would have to pitch a camp
somewhere, and I find he has chosen this at Odell's Lake. So, for
the time being, my friends, you must pass as part of the Sherman
family, not as 'the Sherman Brigade,' and you must represent the
second and third generations of a very numerous family.

"Of course, it is not my trade or vocation to make orations or
speeches. I see before me many faces that look to me as though
they were once soldiers, and to them I feel competent to speak; to
the others I may not be so fortunate.

"But, very old comrades of the war, you who claim to be in 'Sherman's
Brigade' or in any other brigade, who took a part in the glorious
Civil War, the fruits of which we are now enjoying, I hail and
thank you for the privilege of being with you this beautiful day
in this lovely forest and by the banks of yonder lake, not that I
can say anything that will please you or profit you, but there is
a great pleasure in breathing the same air, in thinking the same
thoughts, in feeling the same inspirations for the future, which
every member of the 'Sherman Brigade' and the children who have
succeeded them must, in contemplating the condition of our country
at this very moment of time. Peace universal, not only at home
but abroad, and America standing high up in the niche of nations,
envied of all mankind and envied because we possess all the powers
of a great nation vindicated by a war of your own making and your
own termination. Yes, my fellow-soldiers, you have a right to sit
beneath your own vine and fig tree and be glad, for you can be
afraid of no man. You have overcome all enemies, save death, which
we must all meet as our comrades who have gone before us have done,
and submit. But as long as we live let us come together whenever
we can, and if we can bring back the memories of those glorious
days it will do us good, and, still more, good to the children who
will look up to us as examples."

He continued to speak for fifteen minutes or more, and closed with
these words:

"My friends, of course I am an old man now, passing off the stage
of life. I realize that, and I assure you that I now think more
of the days of the Mexican War, the old California days, and of
the early days of the Civil War, than I do of what occurred last
week, and I assure you that, let it come when it may, I would be
glad to welcome the old 'Sherman Brigade' to my home and my fireside,
let it be either in St. Louis or on the banks of the Columbia River
in Oregon. May God smile upon you, and give you his choicest
blessings. You live in a land of plenty. I do not advise you to
emigrate, but I assure you, wherever you go, you will find comrades
and soldiers to take you by the hand and be glad to aid you as
comrades."

The gathering was a thoroughly enjoyable one, and was often recalled
by those present.

During the summer of 1885 there was much languor apparent in the
Republican party. President Cleveland was pursuing a conservative
policy, removals from office were made slowly, and incumbents were
allowed to serve out their time. Foraker and Hoadley were again
nominated in Ohio for governor by their respective parties, and
the contest between them was to be repeated.

There was a feeling among Republicans of humiliation and shame that
the people had placed in power the very men who waged war against
the country for years, created a vast public debt, and destroyed
the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. This feeling was
intensified by the fact that Republicans in the south were ostracised
and deprived of all political power or influence. In the Democratic
party there were signs of dissension. Charges of corruption in
Ohio, in the election of Payne as Senator in the place of Pendleton,
were openly made, and the usual discontent as to appointments to
office that follows a change of administration was manifest. Under
these conditions I felt it to be my duty to take a more active part
in the approaching canvass than ever before. On the 13th of August,
I met at Columbus with Foraker and the state Republican committee,
of which Asa S. Bushnell was chairman, and we prepared for a thorough
canvass in each county, the distribution of documents and the
holding of meetings. In addition to the state ticket there were
to be elected members of the legislature. There was no contest as
to the selection of a United States Senator, as, by general
acquiescence, it was understood that if the legislature should be
Democratic Thurman would be elected, and if it should be Republican
I would be elected. Governor Foster, when spoken to upon this
subject, very kindly said:

"As long as John Sherman desires to be Senator, or is willing to
take the office, there is no use for me or any other man with
senatorial aspirations to be a candidate against him. Sherman is
yet young. He is not much over sixty, and it would be idle to
dispute that he is the best equipped man in the Republican party
in Ohio for that position. He has the learning, the ability, the
experience, the popularity."

The organization of both parties was completed and a vigorous
canvass inaugurated. Foraker soon after commenced a series of
public meetings extending to nearly every county in the state, and
everywhere made friends by his vigorous and eloquent speeches.

On the 18th I attended a pioneer picnic at Monroe, near the division
line between the counties of Butler and Warren. This mode of
reunion, mainly confined to farmers, is quite common in Ohio, and
is by far the most pleasing and instructive popular assemblage held
in that state. The discussion of politics is forbidden. The people
of the country for miles around come in wagons, carriages, on
horseback and on foot, men, women and children, with their baskets
full of food and fruit, and gather in a well-shaded grove, in
families or groups, and discuss the crops and the news, and make
new or renew old acquaintance. When the scattered picnic is going
on everyone who approaches is invited to eat. When the appetite
is satisfied all gather around a temporary platform, and speeches,
long and short, upon every topic but politics, are made. I have
attended many such meetings and all with sincere pleasure. This
particular picnic was notable for its large attendance--estimated
to be over three thousand--and the beauty of the grove and the
surrounding farms. I made an address, or rather talked, about the
early times in Ohio, and especially in the Miami valley, a section
which may well be regarded as among the fairest and most fruitful
spots in the world. The substance of my speech was reported and
published. The sketch I was able to give of incidents of Indian
warfare, of the expeditions of St. Clair and Wayne, of the early
settlement in that neighborhood, and of the ancestors, mainly
Revolutionary soldiers, of hundreds of those who heard me, seemed
to give great satisfaction. At the close of my remarks I was
requested by the Pioneer Society to write them out for publication,
to be kept as a memorial, but I never was able to do so.

On the 26th of August I made, at Mt. Gilead, Morrow county, my
first political speech of the campaign. The people of that county
were among my first constituents. More than thirty years before,
in important and stirring times, I had appeared before them as a
candidate for Congress. I referred to the early history of the
Republican party and to the action of Lincoln and Grant in the
prosecution of the war, and contrasted the opinion expressed of
them by the Democratic party then and at the time of my speech.
During the war our party was the "black abolition party," Lincoln
was an "ape," Grant was a "butcher," and Union soldiers were "Lincoln
hirelings." I said:

"Our adversaries now concede the wisdom and success of all prominent
Republican measures, as well as the merits of the great leaders of
the Republican party. Only a few days since I heard my colleague,
Senator Payne, in addressing soldiers at Fremont, extol Lincoln
and Grant in the highest terms of praise and say the war was worth
all it cost and he thanked God that slavery had been abolished.
Only recently, when the great procession conveyed the mortal remains
of Grant to their resting place, I heard active Confederates extol
him in the highest terms of praise and some of them frankly gloried
in the success of Republican measures, and, especially, in the
abolition of slavery."

I said that the Republican party, within six years after its
organization, overthrew the powerful dominant Democratic party,
and for twenty-four years afterwards conducted the operations of
a great government in war and peace, with such success as to win
the support and acquiescence of its enemies, and could fairly claim
to be worthy of the confidence and support of the great body of
the people. The defection of a few men in three Republican states
had raised our old adversaries to power again in the national
government. I continued:

"Some of the very men who boastfully threatened to break up the
Union, and, with the oath of office in support of the constitution
fresh upon their lips, conspired and confederated to overthrow it,
waged war against it, and were the cause of the loss of half a
million of lives and thousands of millions of treasure, have been
placed in high office again, in the very seats of power which they
abandoned with scorn and defiance. Two members of the Confederate
congress, and one man who sympathized with them, are at the head
of great departments of the government. I saw the Union flag at
half-mast, floating over the interior department in sign of honor
and mourning for the death of Jacob Thompson, whom we regarded as
a defaulter and a conspirator. This country is now represented
abroad by men, who, within twenty-five years, were in arms to
overthrow it, and the governing power in the executive branch of
the government is in sympathy with the ideas of, and selects the
chief officers of the government from, the men who were in war
against it. This strange turn in events has but one example in
history, and that was the restoration of Charles II, after the
brilliant but brief Protectorate of Cromwell, and, like that
restoration, is a reproach to the civilization of the age."

I referred to the "solid south," and the means by which it was held
together in political fellowship by crimes, violence and fraud
which, if continued, would as surely renew all the strifes of the
Civil War as that the sun would roll around in its course.

In referring to the Republican party and its liberality I said:

"The Republican party was certainly liberal and just to the rebels
lately in arms against the country. We deprived them of no political
power, no blood was shed; no confiscation was had; and more generous
terms were conceded to them than ever before had been extended to
an unsuccessful party in a civil war. Their leaders emphasized
that at the burial of our great commander, General Grant. The
result of the settlement by the constitutional amendments at the
close of the war was to give them increased political power, upon
condition that the slaves should be free and should be allowed to
vote, and that all political distinction growing out of race, color
or previous condition of servitude shall be abolished; and yet to-
day, the Republican party is faced by a 'solid south,' in which
the negro is deprived, substantially, of all his political rights,
by open violence or by frauds as mean as any that have been committed
by penitentiary convicts, and as openly and boldly done as any
highway robbery. By this system, and by the acquiescence of a few
northern states, the men who led in the Civil War have been restored
to power, and hope, practically, to reverse all the results of the
war.

"This is the spectre that now haunts American politics, and may
make it just as vital and necessary to appeal to the northern states
to unite again against this evil, not so open and arrogant as
slavery, but more dangerous and equally unjust. The question then
was the slavery of the black man. Now the question is the equality
of the white man, whether a southern man in Mississippi may, by
depriving a majority of the legal voters in the state of their
right to vote, exercise twice the political power of a white man
in the north, where the franchise is free and open and equal to all.

"When we point out these offenses committed in the south, it is
said that we are raising the bloody shirt, that we are reviving
the issues of the war--that the war is over. I hope the war is
over, and that the animosities of the war will pass away, and be
dead and buried. Anger and hate and prejudice are not wise counselors
in peace or in war. Generosity, forgiveness and charity are great
qualities of the human heart, but, like everything else that is
good, they may be carried to excess, and may degenerate into faults.
They must not lead us to forget the obligations of duty and honor.
While we waive the animosities of the war, we must never fail to
hold on, with courage and fortitude, to all the results of the
war. Our soldiers fought in no holiday contest, not merely to test
the manly qualities of the men of the north and the south, not for
power or plunder, or wealth or title. They fought to secure to
themselves and their posterity the blessings of a strong national
government; the preservation of the Union--a Union not of states,
but of the people of the United States; not a confederate government,
but a national government. The preservation of the Union was the
central idea of the war. The Confederate soldier fought for what
he was led to think was the right of a state to secede from the
Union at its pleasure. The Union soldiers triumphed. The Confederate
soldiers were compelled to an unconditional surrender.

"Fellow-citizens, the line drawn between the two parties is now as
distinct as it was during the war, but we occupy a different field
of battle.

"Then we fought for the preservation of the Union, and, as a means
to that end, for the abolition of slavery. Now the Union is saved
and slavery is abolished, we fight for the equal political rights
of all men, and the faithful observance of the constitutional
amendments. We are for the exercise of national authority, for
the preservation of rights conferred by the constitution, and upon
this broad issue we invite co-operation from the south as well as
the north.

"Upon this issue we intend to make our appeal to the honest and
honorable people of the southern states. We think they are bound
in honor to faithfully observe the conditions of peace granted to
them by General Grant and prescribed by the constitutional amendments.
If they do this we will have peace, union and fraternity. Without
it we will have agitation, contests and complaints. Upon this
issue I will go before the people of the south, and, turning my
back upon all the animosities of the war, appeal only to their
sense of honor and justice."

I contrasted the policy and tendencies of the two parties on the
question of protection to American industry, on good money redeemable
in coin, on frauds in elections, on our pension laws, and on all
the political questions of the day. I stated and approved the
policy of the Republican party on the temperance question. I closed
with an exhortation to support Governor Foraker and the Republican
ticket and to elect a legislature that would place Ohio where she
had usually stood, in the fore front of Republican states, for the
Union, for liberty and justice to all, without respect of race,
nativity and creed.

This speech was denounced by the Democratic press as "bitterly
partisan;" and so it was and so intended. The Republican party
during its long possession of power had divided into factions, as
the Democratic party had in 1860. We had the Blaine, the Conkling
and other factions, and many so-called third parties, and the
distinctive principles upon which the Republican party was founded
were in danger of being forgotten. It was my purpose to arouse
the attention to the Republicans in Ohio to the necessity of union
and organization, and I believe this speech contributed to that
result. It was the text and foundation of nearly all I uttered in
the canvass that followed.

Early in September Governor Hoadley, in commencing his campaign in
Hamilton, assailed by speech at Mt. Gilead, charging me with waving
the bloody shirt, and reviving the animosities of the war. He
claimed to be a friend of the negro, but did not deny the facts
stated by me. He allowed himself to be turned from local questions,
such as temperance, schools, economy, and the government of cities,
in all of which the people of Ohio had a deep interest, and as to
which the Democratic party had a defined policy, to national
questions, and, especially, to reconstruction and the treatment of
freedmen in the south. He thanked God for the "solid south."
Though an Abolitionist of the Chase school in early life, and,
until recently an active Republican, he ignored or denied the
suppression of the negro vote, the organized terror and cruelty of
the Ku-Klux Klan, and the almost daily outrages published in the
papers. On the evening of the 8th of September I made a speech at
Lebanon, in which I reviewed his speech at Hamilton in the adjoining
county. I said I would wave the bloody shirt as long as it remained
bloody. I referred to the copious evidence of outrage and wrong,
including many murders of negroes and of white Republicans, published
in official reports, and challenged him to deny it. I said that
by these crimes the south was made solid, and the men who had waged
war against the United States, though they failed in breaking up
the Union, then held the political power of the Confederate states,
strengthened by counting all the negroes as free men, though
practically denying them the right of suffrage. I said this was
not only unjust to the colored man but unjust to the white men of
the north.

In conclusion I said:

"Thirty-eight Members of Congress, and of the electoral college,
are based upon the six million of colored people in the south.
The effect of the crimes I have mentioned is to confer upon the
white people of the south, not only the number of votes to which
they are entitled for the white population, but also the thirty-
eight votes based upon the colored population, and, in this way,
in some of the southern states, every white voter possesses the
political power of two white voters in the northern states. The
colored people have, practically, no voice in Congress and no voice
in the electoral college. Mr. Cleveland is now President of the
United States, instead of James G. Blaine, by reason of these
crimes. I claim that this should be corrected. An injustice so
gross and palpable will not be submitted to by the colored people
of the south, nor by fair-minded white men in the south who hate
wrong and injustice; nor by the great northern people, by whose
sacrifices in the Union cause the war was brought to a successful
termination. It will not be submitted to, and Governor Hoadley,
from his former position, ought to be one of the first to demand
and insist upon a remedy, and not seek to avoid or belittle it by
cant phrases."

After I had spoken in the opera house at Lebanon I was told that
the stage I occupied was within a few feet of the place where my
father died. The room in the old hotel in which he was taken sick,
and in which he died within twenty-four hours, covered the ground
now occupied by the east end of the opera house. As already stated,
he died while a member of the supreme court holding court at
Lebanon.

This debate at long range continued through the canvass. Governor
Hoadley is an able man with many excellent traits, but in his
political life he did not add to his reputation, and wisely chose
a better occupation, the practice of his profession in the city of
New York.

It is not worth while to enter into details as to the many speeches
made by me in this canvass. I spoke nearly every day until the
election on the 13th of October. While Foraker and Hoadley continued
their debate I filled such appointments as were made for me by Mr.
Bushnell. At Toledo, when conversing with a gentleman about the
condition of affairs in the south, I was asked "What are you going
to do about it?" In reply to this inquiry I said in my speech, at
that place: "I do not know exactly how we are going to do it, but
with the help of God we are going to arrange that the vote of the
man who followed Lee shall no longer have, in national affairs,
three times the power of the vote of the man who followed Grant.
The tendency of events guided by a growing popular opinion will,
I believe, secure this condition."

The meetings grew in number and enthusiasm. The largest meeting
I ever witnessed within four walls was at the Music Hall in
Cincinnati, on the 22nd of September. The auditorium, the balcony,
the gallery, even the windows were filled, and thousands outside
were unable to enter. This and similar scenes in Cleveland and
other cities indicated the success of the Republican ticket. Great
interest was taken in the canvass in Ohio by many other states, as
the vote in Ohio would indicate the current of popular opinion.
The result was the election of Foraker by a majority of 17,451,
and of Robert P. Kennedy as lieutenant governor. The legislature
elected was Republican by a decided majority, the size of which
depended upon the official returns from Hamilton county, where
frauds had been committed by the Democratic party.

Soon after the election I was urged by Senator Mahone to take part
in the canvass in Virginia in which he was interested. I doubted
the policy of accepting, but, assuming that he knew best, I agreed
to speak in Petersburg and Richmond. Governor Foraker accepted a
like invitation and spoke in the Shenandoah valley. On my way I
addressed a spontaneous crowd in Washington, the only place in the
United States where no elections are held, and there I could talk
about frauds at elections. I had denounced fraud and violence in
elections in the south, and at Washington I had to confess recent
frauds attempted or practiced in Cincinnati. The worst feature
that the frauds in Ohio were forgery and perjury, committed by
criminals of low degree for money, while in the south the crimes
were shared by the great body of the people and arose from the
embers of a war that had involved the whole country. I gave as a
sample of the frauds in the 4th ward of Cincinnati this instance:

"As soon as the recent election was over an organized gang stopped
the counting in fifteen precincts. Nobody but the gang knew what
the vote was. This could be for no motive but to commit fraud,
and frauds enough were committed in Hamilton county to change the
result on the legislative ticket of four senators and nine
representatives.

"There were probably 500 or 600 voters in the 4th ward, and according
to previous elections about one-fourth were Republicans and the
rest were Democrats. Well, they made up a registration of 700.
When the day of the election came they tore up the registration
papers and let every fellow vote as many times as he wanted until
they got 996 votes in the ballot box. Then that was not all. The
Republican judge got angry and went away, but he took the key.
Then they broke open the box, tied it up with a rope, and took it
to the police officer, and then changed it so that when it was
counted over 900 votes were Democratic and only 48 Republican!"

A similar fraud was attempted at Columbus in sight of the penitentiary.
The returns of elections had been filed with the county records.
Between Saturday night and Monday morning thieves stole one of the
returns and added three hundred tallies for every Democratic
candidate, thus changing the number of ballots from 208 to 508.
The judges were about to count this return, knowing it was a forgery,
when public indignation was aroused in the city of Columbus, shared
in by its most distinguished Democratic citizens, and fraud was
prevented. I felt, and so declared, that these mean crimes were
infinitely more despicable than the violence in the south, which
sprang from a fear of the southern people that their institutions
would be impaired by the votes of men debased by slavery and
ignorance.

I went from Washington to Petersburg, where I was hospitably
entertained by General Mahone. He had been greatly distinguished
for his courage, ability and success, as a Confederate general in
the Civil War, and had long been a popular favorite in Virginia.
He took the lead on questions affecting the debt of Virginia in
opposition to the Democratic party, and a legislature in favor of
his opinions having been elected, he became a Senator of the United
States. He voted as a rule with Republican Senators, but maintained
a marked independence of political parties. I admired him for his
courage and fidelity, and was quite willing to speak a good word
for him in the election of a legislature that would designate his
successor.

The meeting at Petersburg was held in a large opera house on the
evening of the 29th of October. When I faced my audience the
central part of the house and the galleries seemed to be densely
packed by negroes, while in the rear was a fringe of white men.
The line of demarkation was clearly indicated by color, most of
the white men standing and seeming ill at ease. The speech was
fairly well received. In opening I said my purpose was to demonstrate
that what the Republican party professed in Ohio as to national
questions was the same that it professed in Virginia, and that the
practical application of the principles of the Republican party
would be of vast benefit to the State of Virginia, while Democratic
success would tend more and more to harden the times and prevent
the industrial development of Virginia.

"Not only your newspaper," I said, "but the distinguished gentleman
who is the Democratic candidate for Governor of the State of
Virginia, has said to you that I was waving the bloody shirt while
he was contending under the Union flag. If he meant, by waving
the bloody shirt, that I sought, in any way, to renew the animosities
of the war, then he was greatly mistaken, for in the speech to
which he refers, and in every speech I made in Ohio, I constantly
said that the war was over and the animosities of the war should
be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate
soldier responsible for what he did during the war, and that all
I wished was to maintain and preserve the acknowledged results of
the war. Among these, I claim, is the right of every voter to cast
one honest vote and have it counted; that every citizen, rich or
poor, native or naturalized, white or black, should have equal
civil and political rights, and that every man of lawful age should
be allowed to exercise his right to vote, without distinction of
race or color or previous condition. I charge, among other things,
that these constitutional rights and privileges have been disregarded
by the Democratic party, especially in the southern states."

The speech was largely historical in its character and evidently
rather beyond the comprehension of the body of my audience. The
scene and the surroundings made a vivid impression on my mind.
Here, I felt, were two antagonistic races widely differing in every
respect, the old relations of master and slave broken, with new
conditions undeveloped, the master impoverished and the slave free
without the knowledge to direct him, and with a belief that liberty
meant license, and freedom idleness. William McKinley, then a
Member of the House of Representatives, and Green B. Raum then
spoke, Mr. McKinley confining his speech mainly to a simple exposition
of the tariff question, which his audience could easily understand.

The next day, at the invitation of John S. Wise, then the Republican
candidate for Governor of Virginia, I went to Richmond, and spent
a pleasant day with him. In the evening I attended a mass meeting
in the open air, at which there was a very large attendance. There
was no disorder in the large crowd before me, but off to the right,
at some distance, it was evident that a party of men were endeavoring
to create some disturbance, and to distract attention from the
speeches. While I was speaking Wise rose and, in terms very far
from polite, denounced the people making the noise. He succeeded
in preventing any interruption of the meeting. The speech was made
without preparation, but, I think, better for the occasion that
the one in Petersburg. I stated that I had been born and lived in
a region where a large portion of the population was from Virginia
and Kentucky; that I had always been taught to believe in the
doctrines of the great men illustrious in Virginia history. To
the charge made that I was engaged in waving the bloody shirt I
said:

"If it means that I said anything in Ohio with a view to stir up
the animosities of the Civil War, then, I say, it is greatly
mistaken. I never uttered an unkind word about the people of
Virginia that mortal man can quote. I have always respected and
loved the State of Virginia, its memories, its history, its record,
and its achievements.

"Again, although I was a Union man from my heart and every pulsation,
just as my friend Wise was a Confederate soldier, yet I never heard
in Ohio a man call in question either the courage or purity of
motive of any Confederate soldier who fought in the Confederate
ranks. I never uttered such a sentiment. I disclaim it. What I
did say was this--what I say here in Richmond, and what I said in
Petersburg is--that the war is over and all animosities of the war
should be buried out of sight; that I would not hold any Confederate
soldier responsible for what he did in the war, and all I ask of
you is to carry out the acknowledged results of the war; to do what
you agreed to, when Grant and Lee made their famous arrangement
under the apple tree at Appomattox; to stand by the constitution
and laws of the land, to see that every man in this country, rich
and poor, native and naturalized, white and black, shall have equal
civil and political rights, and the equal protection of the law.
I said also, that by constitutional amendment agreed to by Virginia,
every man of proper age in this country was armed for his protection
with the right to cast one honest vote, and no more, and have that
vote counted, and you, as well as I, are bound to protect every
man in the enjoyment of that right.

"There is the ground I stood on in Ohio, and the ground I stand on
now."

I closed my address as follows:

"And now a word to the best citizens of Richmond. If the criminal
classes can deprive a colored man or a white Republican of his
right to vote, as soon as they have accomplished it, then these
rascals--because every man who resorts to this policy is a rascal
--then these rascals will soon undermine their own party. They
will begin to cheat each other after they have cheated the Republicans
out of their political power. My countrymen, there is no duty so
sacred resting upon any man among you, I don't care what his politics
are. It is honesty that I like to appeal to. I say there is no
man who can be deprived of his right to vote without injuring you,
from the wealthiest in the city of Richmond down to the humblest
man among you, white or black.

"There is no crime that is meaner, there is no crime that is so
destructive to society, there is no crime so prejudicial to the
man who commits it as the crime of preventing a citizen from
participating in the government. Here I intend to leave the
question. I appeal to you, of whatever party, or color, or race,
or country, to give us in Virginia at this election an honest vote
and an honest count, and if Lee is elected, well and good; if Wise
is elected, better yet."

The Democrats carried the state and Wise was defeated.

Congress convened on the 7th of December, 1885. The death of Vice
President Thomas A. Hendricks, on the 25th of November, was announced
by Senator Voorhees, who offered appropriate resolutions, the
consideration of which was postponed until January 26, 1886, when
eloquent orations by Senators Voorhees, Hampton, Saulsbury, Evarts,
Ransom, Spooner and Harrison were delivered in commemoration of
his life and death. I added my sincere tribute to his marked
ability and personal worth.

On the first day of the session after the opening prayer, Mr.
Edmunds offered the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio,
be and he hereby is, chosen president _pro tempore_ of the Senate."

Following the usual form Mr. Voorhees moved to strike out the words
"John Sherman, a Senator from the State of Ohio," and insert "Isham
G. Harris, a Senator from the State of Tennessee."

This was decided in the negative by the vote of 29 yeas and 34
nays, and thereupon the resolution was adopted. I was escorted to
the chair by Senators Edmunds and Voorhees and, having taken the
oath prescribed by law, said:

"Senators, I return you my grateful thanks for the high honor you
have conferred upon me.

"In common with all the people of the United States I share in
profound sorrow for the death of the Vice President, especially
designated by the constitution to act as president of the Senate.
It is an impressive lesson of the uncertain tenure by which we all
hold office and life. The contingency had happened which compels
you now, at the beginning of the session, to choose a president
_pro tempore_.

"In assuming this position, without special aptitude or experience
as a presiding officer, I feel that for a time, at least, I shall
have often to appeal to the habitual courtesy and forbearance of
Senators. Fortunately the rules of the Senate are simple and clear.
My aim will be to secure the ready and kindly obedience and
enforcement of them, so that in an orderly way the sense of the
majority may be ascertained and the rights of the minority may be
protected.

"I can only say, Senators, that while I hold this position I will
endeavor, to the utmost of my ability, to be just and impartial,
and I invoke from each of you assistance and forbearance."

This honor was unsought by me. The public prints had, as usual,
discussed the choice of president of the Senate, but I made no
mention of it to any Senator. I was gratified with the choice,
chiefly because it would, in a measure, relieve me from burdensome
details, and was an evidence of the good will of my associates.

I received many letters of congratulation on this event, one of
which, from Mr. Cox, I insert:

"United States Legation, }
"Constantinople, January 23, 1886.}
"Dear Mr. Senator:--I am reminded by my wife of a courtesy I have
neglected. It is that of congratulation upon your accession to
the post lately held by my friend (from Muskingum county) Thomas
A. Hendricks. You have associations with that valley also, and
they are connected with the best friend I ever had in Congress,
General Samuel R. Curtis, with whom I used to associate in my callow
congressional days.

"Besides, I never forget the kindness with which my father used to
regard C. R. Sherman, your father, for making him clerk of the
supreme court of Muskingum, in early days.

"Here I am, aloof from all old Muskingum memories, or rather,
scenes. As I look out of my balcony, on this spring day in midwinter,
I see the Golden Horn brimming full of ships and other evidences
of interchange; and far beyond it, 'clear as a fountain in July,
when we see each grain of gravel,' Mt. Olympus lifts a double crown
of snow.

"But I only meant to testify to you, from these remote nations,
the pardonable pride of an Ohioan, and a veteran Congressman--in
your elevation.

"When you write to the general, remember me to him kindly.

"Mrs. Cox desired to be kindly regarded to your wife and yourself.
She joins me in felicitations.

"With esteem, etc.,
"S. S. Cox.
"Hon. John Sherman."

President Cleveland's first annual message was delivered to the
Senate on the 8th of December. He stated that:

"The fact that our revenues are in excess of the actual needs of
an economical administration of the government justifies a reduction
in the amount exacted from the people in its support.

* * * * *

"The proposition with which we have to deal is the reduction of
the revenue received from the government, and indirectly paid by
the people from customs duties. The question of free trade is not
involved, nor is there now any occasion for the general discussion
of the wisdom or expediency of a protective system.

"Justice and fairness dictate that, in any modification of our
present laws relating to revenue, the industries and interests
which have been encouraged by such laws, and in which our citizens
have large investments, should not be ruthlessly injured or destroyed.
We should also deal with the subject in such manner as to protect
the interests of American labor, which is the capital of our
workingmen; its stability and proper remuneration furnish the most
justifiable pretext for a protective policy."

This specific principle, if fairly and justly applied to all
industries alike, would be a basis for customs duties that all
would agree to, but, when made, a struggle arises in determining
the articles to be protected, and those to be free of duty. The
President said that the reduction should be made of duties upon
the imported necessaries of life. Such articles are not imported;
they are mainly produced by our own people. By common consent the
few articles that are imported, classed as necessaries of life,
and which cannot be produced in this country, are already free of
duty. When Congress undertook to reduce the revenue it was found
difficult to apply the rule suggested by the President. He said:

"Nothing more important than the present condition of our currency
and coinage can claim your attention.

"Since February, 1878, the government has, under the compulsory
provisions of law, purchased silver bullion and coined the same at
the rate of more than $2,000,000 every month. By this process, up
to the present date, 215,759,431 silver dollars have been coined."

He properly stated that the mere desire to utilize the silver
product of the country should not lead to a coinage not needed for
a circulating medium. Only 50,000,000 of the silver dollars so
coined had actually found their way into circulation, leaving more
than 165,000,000 in the possession of the government, the custody
of which had entailed a considerable expense for the construction
of vaults for its safe deposit. At that time the outstanding silver
certificates amounted to $93,000,000, and yet every month $2,000,000
of gold from the public treasury was paid out for two millions or
more silver dollars to be added to the idle mass already accumulated.
He stated his view of the effect of this policy, and in clear and
forcible words urged Congress to suspend the purchase of silver
bullion and the coinage of silver dollars until they should be
required by the business of the country. This is the same question
now pending, but under circumstances of greater urgency.

The President enlarged fully upon this vital subject and has adhered
to his opinions tenaciously. He was re-elected with full knowledge
of these opinions and now, no doubt, will soon again press them
upon Congress. The efforts made to carry into effect the policy
of the President will be more fully stated hereafter. He closed
his message by calling attention to the law relating to the succession
to the presidency in the event of the death, disability or removal
of both the President and Vice President, and his recommendation
has been carried into effect by law. In conclusion he said:

"I commend to the wise care and thoughtful attention of Congress
the needs, the welfare, and the aspirations of an intelligent and
generous nation. To subordinate these to the narrow advantages of
partisanship, or the accomplishment of selfish aims, is to violate
the people's trust and betray the people's interests. But an
individual sense of responsibility on the part of each of us, and
a stern determination to perform our duty well, must give us place
among those who have added, in their day and generation, to the
glory and prosperity of our beloved land."

The Secretary of the Treasury, David Manning, in his report to
Congress, amplified the statement made of the receipts and expenditures
of the government and gave estimates for the then current and the
next fiscal year. He was much more explicit than the President in
his statement of reform in taxation. He expressed more at length
than the President the objections to the further coinage of the
silver dollars. He stated the superior convenience of paper money
to coins of either gold or silver, but that it should be understood
that a sufficient quantity of actual coin should be honestly and
safely stored in the treasury to pay the paper when presented. He
entered into an extended and interesting history of the two metals
as coined in this country and the necessity of a monetary unit as
the standard of value. His history of the coinage of the United
States is as clear, explicit and accurate as any I have read.

On the 12th of December, 1885, I received from Governor Hoadley an
official letter notifying me, as president of the Senate, that a
marble statue of General Garfield had been placed in the hall of
the old House of Representatives, in pursuance of the law inviting
each state to contribute statues of two of its eminent citizens,
and saying:

"It is hoped that it may be found worthy of acceptance and approval
as a fit contribution from this state to the United States, in
whose service President Garfield passed so much of his life and
whose chief executive officer he was at the time of his death."

On the 5th of January, 1886, I submitted to the Senate, in connection
with Governor Hoadley's letter, concurrent resolutions returning
the thanks of Congress to the Governor, and through him to the
people of Ohio, for the statue, and accepting it in the name of
the nation. In presenting these resolutions I expressed at
considerable length the estimate of the people of Ohio of the
character and public services of Garfield, and closed as follows:

"The people of Ohio, among whom he was born and bred, placed his
image in enduring marble in the silent senate of the dead, among
the worthies of every period of American history, not claiming for
him to have been the greatest of all, but only as one of their
fellow-citizens, whom, when living, they greatly loved and trusted,
whose life was spent in the service of his whole country at the
period of its greatest peril, and who, in the highest places of
trust and power, did his full duty as a soldier, a patriot, and a
statesman."

The resolutions were then adopted.

The legislature of Ohio that convened on the 3rd of January, 1886,
was required to elect a Senator, as my successor, to serve for six
years following the expiration of my term on the 4th of March,
1887. The Republican members of the legislature held an open joint
caucus on the 7th of January, and nominated me for re-election, to
be voted for at the joint convention of the two houses on the
following Tuesday. The vote in the caucus was unanimous, there
being no other name suggested. The legislature was required to
meet an unexampled fraud at the recent election, practiced in
Hamilton county, where, four Republican senators and eleven Republican
members had been chosen. A lawless and desperate band of men got
possession of the ballot boxes in two or three wards of the city
of Cincinnati, broke open the boxes and changed the ballots and
returns so as to reverse the result of the election of members of
the legislature. These facts were ascertained by the finding and
judgment of the circuit and supreme courts, but the supreme court
held that the power to eliminate such frauds and forgeries did not
reside in the courts but only in the senate and house of representatives
of the state, respectively. Each house was the judge of the election
of its members. This palpable and conceded fraud had to be acted
upon promptly. The house of representatives, upon convening,
appointed a committee to examine the returns, and on the fifth day
of the session reported that the returns were permeated with fraud
and forgeries, and that the persons elected and named by the
committee were entitled to seats instead of those who held the
fraudulent certificates of election. Without these changes the
Republican majority was three on joint ballot. The report was
adopted after a full and ample hearing, and the Republican members
were seated.

In the senate a committee was also appointed and came to the same
conclusion. The senators holding the fraudulent certificates
claimed the right to vote on their own cases, which was denied by
Lieutenant Governor Kennedy, the presiding officer, and the Republican
senators were awarded their seats, but this did not occur until
some months after the election of United States Senator, which took
place on the 13th of January, when I was duly elected, receiving
in the senate 17 votes and Thurman 20, and in the house 67 votes
and Thurman 42, making a majority of 22 for me on joint ballot.

I was notified at Washington of my election and was invited to
visit the legislature, members of the senate and house of both
parties concurring. It so happened that at this time I had accepted
an invitation from President Cleveland to attend a diplomatic dinner
at the White House. I called upon him to withdraw my acceptance,
and, on explaining the cause, he congratulated me on my election.

The reception by the two houses was arranged to be at 4 o'clock p.
m. on the day after the election. I arrived in Columbus at 3:30,
and, accompanied by Governor Foraker and a committee of the two
houses, proceeded immediately to the hall of the House, where the
legislature and a great company had assembled. I was introduced
by Lieutenant Governor Kennedy. George G. Washburn delivered an
eloquent address of welcome in behalf of the legislature, closing
as follows:

"Your return to the Senate in 1881 was only additional evidence of
our continued confidence and esteem, and on this, the occasion of
your fifth election to that honored position, I tender to you the
hearty congratulations of the general assembly and of the citizens
of this great commonwealth. Conscious that you have rendered far
greater service to the people of your native state than it will be
possible for them to repay by any honors they can confer upon you,
I again bid you a most cordial welcome and invoke the continued
guidance and protection of the same Almighty Being who has led you
thus far to well merit the exalted title of 'good and faithful
servant.'"

After the applause which followed Mr. Washburn's address had
subsided, I responded in part as follows:

"My first duty on this occasion, after the magnificent reception
you have given me, it to express to you my profound sense of the
high honor you have conferred upon me. I have often, in a somewhat
busy life, felt how feeble are words to express the feelings of
the heart. When all has been said that one can say, there is still
something wanting to convey an adequate expression of gratitude
and obligation. This I feel now more than ever before, when you
have selected me for the fifth time to serve as a Member of the
Senate of the United States.

"Such trust and confidence reposed in me by the people of Ohio,
through their chosen representatives, imposes upon me an obligation
of duty and honor, more sacred than any words or promises can
create.

* * * * *

"And now, gentlemen, for the future term of service to which you
have elected me, I can only, with increased experience, do what I
have done in the past, and, with every motive that can influence
any man, seek to preserve the favor and confidence of a people as
intelligent as any on the face of the globe.

"As many of you know, I did not seek re-election to the Senate.
I sincerely felt that there were many citizens of the State of Ohio
of my political faith who might rightfully aspire to the dignity
of the office of Senator of the United States. I was very willing
to give way to any of them, but you have thought it best to continue
me in this position. It comes to me without solicitation or
intrigue, or any influence that is not honorable to you and to me.
I trust it will not prove injurious to any portion of the people
of the State of Ohio, whether they agree with me in political
opinions or not.

"I accept the office as a trust to be performed under the active
vigilance of political adversaries and the partial scrutiny of
friends, but with the sole object of promoting the honor and
prosperity of the United States. I can have no motive of selfishness
or ambition to turn me from a faithful performance of every duty
attached to the office.

* * * * *

"I assure you, gentlemen, that, without recalling that I am elected
by a party, I will go back to Washington with the earnest desire
to perform the duties that you have assigned me, with the hope to
contribute, to the best of my abilities, not merely to the success
of my party, but to the good of the whole country.

"To me the national government in our system is the _father_, the
protector of our national honor, our defender against enemies at
home and abroad, while the state is the _good mother_ who guards
sacredly the home, the family and the domestic interests of life,
to be beloved by every good citizen of the state, the fountain and
source of the greatest blessings of domestic life. Ohio can justly
claim to be the equal of any other in the sisterhood of states,
central in location, rich in resources, the common pathway of all
the states, containing over three millions of people as happy in
their surroundings as those of any community in the world. We must
do our part to advance and improve our condition by wise legislation
and by the moral influences of education and religion. In this
way only can Ohio sustain her high and honorable standing as a part
of a great country, eloquently and truly described by Canon Farrar
as 'in numbers the greatest, in strength the most overwhelming, in
wealth the most affluent, of all the great nations of the world.'"

My speech was well received by both Democrats and Republicans.

In the evening a general reception of ladies and gentlemen was held
in the senate chamber, when hand shaking and social congratulations
occurred, participated in by citizens of Columbus and other places.
The next day I returned to Washington.

I observed closely the course pursued by the press of the country
in respect to my election. As a rule it was received with favor
by papers of both parties. The election of a Senator of the United
States by such frauds as had been practiced by Democrats in Cincinnati
would be a bad example that might be followed by other crimes,
violence or civil war. The weakness in our system of government
is likely to be developed by a disputed election. We touched the
line of danger in the contest between Hayes and Tilden. Some guards
against fraud at elections have been adopted, notably the Australian
ballot, but the best security is to impress succeeding generations
with the vital importance of honest elections, and to punish with
relentless severity all violations of election laws.

During this Congress, by reason of my position as presiding officer,
I participated only occasionally in the current debate, introduced
only private bills, and had charge of no important measure.

Mr. Eustis, on the 8th of February, introduced a resolution
instructing the committee on finance to inquire whether it had been
the custom for the assistant treasurer at New Orleans to receive
deposits of silver dollars and at a future period issue silver
certificates therefor. This led to a long and rambling debate, in
which I took part. I stated my efforts, as Secretary of the
Treasury, and those of my successors in that office, to put the
silver dollars in circulation; that they were sent to the different
sub-treasuries to be used in payment of current liabilities, but
silver certificates were exchanged for them when demanded. Also,
when gold coin or bullion came into the United States in the course
of trade, and was inconvenient to transport or to use in large
payments for cotton or other products, the treasurer of the United
States, or his assistants in all parts of the country, issued silver
certificates in exchange for gold, that in this way the coin reserve
in the treasury was maintained and increased without cost, that
during one season $80,000,000 gold was in this way acquired by the
treasury. I could have said later on, that, until within three
years, when the receipts of the government were insufficient to
pay its current expenditures, there was no difficulty in securing
gold and silver coin in exchange for United States notes, treasury
notes and silver certificates. The greater convenience of paper
money in large commercial transactions created a demand for it,
and gold and silver were easily obtained at par for all forms of
paper money issued by the government. The exchange was temporarily
discontinued by Secretary McCulloch. It is a proper mode of
fortifying the gold reserve and ought to be continued, but cannot
be when expenditures exceed the revenue, or when there is the
slightest fear that the treasury will not be able to pay its notes
in coin.

On the 8th of March John F. Miller, a Senator from California,
died, and funeral services were conducted in the Senate on the
13th, when I announced that:

"By order of the Senate, the usual business will be suspended this
day, to enable the Senate to participate in the funeral ceremonies
deemed appropriate on the death of John F. Miller, late an honored
Member of this body from the State of California."

The services were conducted in the Senate Chamber by Rev. William
A. Leonard, rector of St. John's church, the chaplain of the Senate,
Dr. Huntley, pronouncing the benediction, after which the following
statement was made by me, as president of the Senate:

"The funeral ceremonies deemed appropriate to this occasion in the
Senate Chamber are now terminated. We consign all that is mortal
of our brother to the custody of an officer of the Senate and a
committee of its Members, to be conveyed to his home on the Pacific,
and there committed for burial to those who have honored him and
loved him so much when living. The Senate, as a body, will now
attend the remains to the station."

Mr. Miller was highly esteemed by his associates in the Senate.
He was born in Indiana a few miles from Cincinnati, Ohio. After
graduating as a lawyer he went to California, in 1853, but returned
to his native state, and at the outbreak of the war entered the
Union army with the rank of colonel. That he was a gallant soldier
is shown by the fact that on his return to Indiana, at the close
of the war, Governor Morton presented him a sword which he had
promised the soldier of the state who had distinguished himself
most and reflected the greatest credit on his state and country.
At the close of the war he returned to California, and, after a
few years, was elected, by a Republican legislature, to the United
States Senate. He was not a frequent or lengthy speaker, but was
a man of thought, of attention, of industry and practical sagacity,
and brought to every question patient and persistent energy and
intelligence. In his manner he was quiet, dignified and courteous.
For years he suffered greatly from wounds received in the war,
which no doubt shortened his life. He held the position of chairman
of the committee on foreign relations, to which I succeeded him.

During April and May interstate commerce was the subject of an
extended debate in which I participated. Amendments to the bill
passed two years previously, involving "the long haul and the short
haul" and whether Congress should attempt to legislate as to
transportation within a single state, were debated, and no problems
of legislation have been more difficult. The Interstate Commerce
Commission organized under these laws was invested with extraordinary
powers and its action has been beneficial to the public, but in
many cases has seriously crippled many railroad corporations, and
bankrupted some of them.

During the latter part of this session I was called upon to perform
a very disagreeable duty. The election of my colleague, Mr. Payne,
as a Member of the Senate, after an active contest with Mr. Pendleton,
gave rise to charges of corruption, not against him personally,
but against those who had charge of his canvass in the legislature.
The succeeding legislature of Ohio was Republican and undertook to
examine these charges by a committee of its house of representatives.
The charges made and the testimony taken were sent by the house to
the Senate of the United States, with a resolution requesting
further examination and that the election be vacated. The papers
were referred to the committee on privileges and elections, the
majority of whom reported that the charges were not proven, and
asked that the committee be discharged from further consideration
of the matter. The minority of the committee reported in favor of
the inquiry proposed. I felt it to be my duty to the people of
Ohio to insist upon an investigation, but in no spirit of unkindness
to my colleague. It was the first and only time I had occasion to
bring before the Senate the politics of Ohio. My relations with
Mr. Payne were friendly. I knew him, and respected him as a
prominent citizen of Cleveland and regarded well by his neighbors.
I believed that whatever corruption occurred at his election he
had no personal knowledge of it, and that his honor would not be
touched by the testimony to be produced.

On the 22nd of July I made a long speech upon the report of the
committee, reviewing the evidence presented by the Ohio legislature
and insisting that it was ample to justify and require a full and
thorough examination by the committee. I disclaimed any desire to
reflect upon the motives, or the honor, or the conduct, or the
opinions, of the Senators who differed with me, saying:

"I believe from my own knowledge of the history of events in Ohio,
as well as from the papers sent to us, that there is a profound
conviction in the minds of the body of the people of Ohio of all
political parties that in the election of my colleague there was
gross corruption, by the use of large sums of money to corrupt and
purchase the votes of members of the general assembly.

"Now, that is a fact. Whether sufficient evidence has been produced
before you to justify this belief is for you to say. Whether
sufficient has been said here to put you upon an inquiry, the fact
remains that the people of Ohio believe, that in the election of
my colleague, there was the corrupt use of money sufficient to
change the result."

I then entered upon the details of the charges and testimony
submitted to the committee, and concluded as follows:

"It is not sufficient for us to state that the case made by this
printed testimony is not strong enough to convict. It is a question
whether it is sufficient to excite a suspicion, because upon a
suspicion a Senator's seat and his right to hold a seat here may
be inquired into. Therefore, with due deference to the distinguished
and eminent gentlemen who treat this case as if we were now passing
upon the guilt or innocence of an accused with the view of a lawyer
and the strictness of a lawyer, it seems to me they have confounded
the stage of this inquiry. It is now an inquiry only in the hands
of a committee of our body to advise whether or not, in these papers
or in any that can be produced, there is cause for investigation,
or whether there is reasonable and probable cause that can be
produced. If so, then the inquiry goes on. The final judgement,
however, is only arrived at when we shall have completed testimony
of a legal character, when, with grave and deliberate justice, and
with the kindness that we always give to our colleagues here, we
proceed to render our judgment.

"I have said more than I intended to say when I rose. I will now
add, in conclusion, that I consider that I perform a duty to my
state, and especially to the party that I represent here, and all
we can say to you is that we have believed and do now believe,
mainly upon the statements made by Democratic editors and Democratic
citizens, for they know more about it than we do, that upon the
belief generally held in the State of Ohio that fraud and corruption
did supervene in this election we ask you to make such inquiries
as will satisfy your conscience whether that charge is true or
false. If it is true, you alone are the judges of it. If it is
false, then you should punish the men who started these charges
and you should vindicate the men who have been unjustly arraigned.

"In any view I can take of it, I believe it is the duty of the
Senate of the United States, as it regards its own honor and the
future of our country, never the leave this matter in its present
condition, to be believed by some and disbelieved by others, to be
made the subject of party contest and party chicanery, but let us
have a fair, judicial, full investigation into the merits of these
accusations. If they are false, stamp them with the brand of
ignominy; if they are true, deal with the facts proven as you think
is just and right."

The debate upon the report attracted much attention and was
participated in by many Senators. The motion of the majority of
the committee was adopted by the vote of 44 yeas and 17 nays. The
Senate thus denied that the case made by the legislature of Ohio
did justify an inquiry into the election of Senator Payne. He
filled out the measure of his term and still lives at his home in
Cleveland, honored and respected, at the age of eighty-five.

Congress adjourned August 5, 1886.

I had been invited to deliver an address, upon the celebration of
the sixty-fourth anniversary of the birth of General U. S. Grant,
at the Metropolitan church in Washington on the 27th of April,
1886. The text given me was "Grant and the New South." As this
brief speech expressed my appreciation of the character of General
Grant soon after his death, and my presage of the new south, I
insert it here:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--Our friends have given me a very great
theme and very little time in which to present it to you. The new
south is one of the mysteries which time only can unfold. It is
to us, and, I fear, will be for generations to come, one of those
problems which tax the highest abilities of statesmen. It is like
the Irish question to England and the Eastern question to Europe.
We can only judge of the future by the past. I can base my hope
for the new south only upon the probable results of the changed
conditions grafted upon the old south by the war; more a matter of
hope and expectation than as yet of realization. Still we may hope
very much even from the present signs of the times and upon what
the south ought to be if not upon what it is.

"We know what the old south was. It was an oligarchy called a
democracy. I do not speak this word in an offensive sense, but
simply as descriptive of the character of the government of the
south before the war. One-third of the people of the south were
slaves. More than another third were deprived, by the nature of
the institutions among which they lived, of many of the advantages
absolutely indispensable to the highest civilization. Less than
one-fourth of the population were admirably trained, disciplined
and qualified for the highest duties of mankind. The south was
very much such a democracy as Rome and Greece were at some periods
of their history; a democracy founded upon the privileges of the
few and the exclusion of the many. Very much like the democracy
of the barons of Runnymede, who, when they met together to dictate
Magna Charta to King John, guarded fully their own privileges as
against the king, but cared but little for the rights of the people.
And so with the south--the old south. But it was an able oligarchy.

"Among the brightest names in the American diadem were many men of
the south--at the head of whom, and at the head of all mankind,
was the name of Washington. And so, in all our history, the south,
misnamed a democracy, did furnish to the United States many of
their leading lights, and the highest saints in our calendar. They
were able men. All who came in contact with them felt their power
and their influence. Trained, selected for leading pursuits, they
exercised a controlling influence in our politics. They held their
slaves in subjection and the middle classes in ignorance, but
extended their power and influence, so as to control, in the main,
the policy of this country, at home and abroad. They disciplined
our forces, led our parties, and made our law.

"General Grant, in the popular mind, represents the impersonation
of the forces that broke the old south. Not that thousands of men
did not do as much as he within the limits of their opportunities.
Not that every soldier who followed his flag did not perform his
duty in the same sense as General Grant. But General Grant was
the head, the front, the selected leader; and therefore his name
is the impersonation of that power in the war which broke the old
south, and preserved our Union to your children, and I trust your
children's children, to the remotest posterity. But, while we
praise Grant and the Union soldiers, we must remember that Abraham
Lincoln was the genius of the times. He pointed out the way. He
foresaw the events that came. He did not like war. He hated war.
He loved the south as few men did. He was born of the south--in
his early life reared in the south. All his kin were in the south.
He belonged to that middle or humble class of men in the south who
were most seriously oppressed by all their surroundings--by the
slavery of the south. He hated slavery, if he hated anything, but
I do not believe he hated the owners of slaves. He loved all
mankind. No man better than he could have uttered those words:
'Malice towards none, charity for all.' That was Abraham Lincoln.
He was driven into the war reluctantly. At first, he tried to
prevent it, and would not see the necessity for it. He ridiculed
it, and believed that the time would speedily come when all the
excitement springing up in the south would pass away.

"But the inevitable and irrepressible conflict was upon him, and
he met the responsibility with courage and sagacity. A higher
power than Abraham Lincoln, a power that rules and governs the
universe of men, decreed the war as a necessary and unavoidable
event, to prepare the way for a new south and a new north, and a
more perfect Union. The war did come as a scourge and a resurrection.
Grant was the commander of the Union armies, and at the close of
the war more than what we had hoped for at the beginning was
accomplished. When the war commenced no man among those in public
life contemplated or expected the speedy abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and in the United States of America. I
can say that, the winter before the war commenced, no man in public
life in Washington expected the untold benefits and good that have
come to mankind as the result of the war, by the Act of Emancipation
--unforeseen then, but thankfully appreciated now, by the whole
American people; even by the masters of the slaves.

"Now fellow-citizens, the new south is founded upon the ruins of
the old. It inherits the prejudices, the institutions and some of
the habits of the old south. No wise man will overlook this, and
should not expect that the southern people will at once yield to
the logic of events; but every patriotic man ought to do his utmost
to bring about, as soon as possible, a cheerful acquiescence in
the results of the war. You cannot in a single generation, much
less a single decade, change the ideas of centuries. And, therefore,
we must not be impatient with the new south. And we who come from
the north must not expect them at once to lay aside all ideas with
which they were born and which they inherited from their ancestors
for generations. Therefore, it was to be expected that the south
would be somewhat disturbed, and would be somewhat slow in their
movements; that it must be born again and live an infancy and take
its ordinary course in human life. It must grow as Topsy grew.
Remember, at that time, before the war, this country was a confederacy,
not of states, but a confederacy of sections. There were but two
parties to that confederacy, one was the north and the other was
the south. On every question, great and small, that division in
American life and American politics arose. Before the war and
during the war party lines were drawn on the sectional line, north
and south. The parties in this country were sectional parties,
and even up to this time we have not broken down the asperity which
existed, growing out of this sectional condition of affairs.

"Now that slavery is gone, parties ought to be based on other
conditions than sectional lines. There is no question now existing
between the north and the south, and politicians will soon find
that they must base their divisions of party lines upon some other
question than between the north and the south. I see growing up
every day the evidence of that feeling that this sectional controversy
is at an end. Although the ghost is not buried--the dead body lies
mouldering in the grave.

"What then, is the first duty of both sections, now that slavery
is abolished. It is to base party divisions upon other than
sectional lines. It is to adopt a policy approved by the patriotic
men of both sections, that will develop the resources, improve the
conditions, and advance the interests of the whole people. The
north is ready for this consummation. There never was a time in
the history of this government, from the time the constitution was
framed to this hour, when there was less party spirit among the
mass of the people of the United States. Nearly all that is left
is among mere politicians. The people of the United States desire
to see these differences buried, and new questions, living questions
of the present and future, form the line of demarkation between
parties. The north has made enormous growth and development since
the war. Immense capital is seeking investment, and millions of
idle men are seeking employment. The south, from a state of chaos,
is showing marked evidence of growth and progress, and these two
sections, no longer divided by slavery, can be united again by the
same bonds that united our fathers of the revolution.

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, let me state briefly the conditions
upon which the new south can secure the greatest amount of good
for its people--conditions that can be accepted by men who served
in either army (who wore the blue or the gray), both Confederate
and Union soldiers. If these elemental conditions are accepted
fairly, as I hope they will be by the south, the union will be
complete without either north or south or sectional or party lines.

"First, there must be recognized in every part of this country,
without respect to race or color or condition, the equality of
rights and privileges between man and man. This fundamental
principle is now ingrafted upon our constitution. It can never be
erased. There it stands; and although, from time to time, parties
and men may refuse to observe the spirit of that great provision
in the constitution, there it will stand, and in time--and I trust
a not far distant time--it will be recognized by every man and
woman and child in this broad land, white or black, north or south.
It is not safe for it to be otherwise. A right plainly given by
the constitution and the laws, withheld or denied, is an uneasy
grievance which will never rest. And, therefore, the time is not
far distant, when those now strongly actuated by the prejudices
and feelings of race will recognize this important doctrine. They
will feel that it is for their own safety and for their own good.
Blacks and whites are spread all over the south. They cannot be
separated without the fiat of the Almighty, and such a fiat has
never been issued except once, when the Israelites marched out from
slavery in Egypt, and it took them about forty years to travel a
short way.

"One-third of the population of the south is of the negro race,
and two-thirds of the white race. Whatever may have been thought
of the wisdom of the policy of emancipation, it was the logical
result of the war, has been finally adopted, and will never be
changed. It is idle to discuss schemes to separate these races
except by voluntary and individual movement, but they will live
and increase, generation after generation, the common occupants of
the new south. What is needed above all else is to secure the
harmonious living and working of these two elements, to secure to
both the peaceful enjoyment of their rights and privileges. As long
as any portion or race or class of the people of the new south are
deprived of the rights which the constitution and law confer upon
them, there will be unrest and danger. All history teaches us that
those who suffer a wrong will sooner or later find means to correct
and avenge it.

"There is another condition that the new south must find out. The
honorable gentleman who preceded me (Senator Brown) has found it
out already. The system of production which was admirably adapted
to the old south will not answer for the new south. Under the old
institution of slavery they raised a few leading crops, cotton,
rice, sugar and tobacco--but not much else. Why? Because these
articles could be raised by the labor of slaves.

"Now, in the new south, it is manifest that the chief sources of
wealth and prosperity lie in the development of their natural
resources, in the production of coal and iron and other minerals
and phosphates, and in the manufacture of cotton and other textile
fabrics, and in the development of railroads and other means of
communication. In other words, they will find it to their interest
to adopt and compete with the north in all its industries and
employments. That this can be successfully done is shown in Alabama,
Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. All the states
touching on the Alleghany range have facilities for varied manufactures
fully equal to any of the northern states, and with some advantages
as to climate and labor. A diversity of production will be wealth
to the south, break down its exclusion, open its doors to immigration,
and assimilate its institutions with those of the north.

"The north is ready for this competition. Although the south will
probably deprive us of some of the markets we now have, yet no man
in the north will complain; but, on the contrary, we have in the
north millions of dollars in capital to invest, and millions of
hardy men to work north or south, wherever they can get fair wages
for a fair day's work. When this competition comes we will have
a diversity of industry, and a country rich in developed as well
as in undeveloped resources. This is the second great want of the
new south which I trust their able men may bring about; and Governor
Brown is one of their leaders, and has seen that this is the road
not only for the improvement of his section, but for the betterment
of his fortune.

"There is one other thing I wish to say in regard to the south.
That is, that it must mainly work out its own salvation. That is
one of the last things that we in the north have found out. We
have striven in various ways to assist the south in managing their
local affairs; and I must confess that although I participated in
that kind of business I am afraid it did not turn out very well.
The north cannot rule the south any more than England can rule
Ireland, or Europe can govern Greece and Turkey. According to the
principles of our government it is not possible for us to keep
soldiers enough down south to guard all their ballot boxes, and
indeed we need a good many up north to guard our own sometimes.
At all events it is not consistent with the principles of our
government that we should undertake to rule in local affairs, and,
therefore, while we should give to those who are oppressed, in our
own country as well as in others, every kindly aid which the
constitution and the law allow, yet, after all, the people of the
south must work out their own salvation.

"I am inclined to think that the blacks, having the labor and the
muscle and industry on their side, will not be far behind the white
race in the future in the south. It is now conceded on all hands
that, under our system of government, we cannot by external force
manage or interfere with the local affairs of a state or community,
unless the authorities of the state call for aid to resist domestic
violence. Wrongs inflicted upon citizens by mobs are beyond redress
by the general government. The only remedy is migration and public
opinion; but these, though slow and very discouraging, will in time
furnish a remedy and also a punishment. Neither capital nor labor,
prosperity nor hope, will go or linger long where human rights and
life are unsafe. The instinctive love of justice and fair play
will, in time, dissipate the prejudice of race or caste and point
the finger of scorn to the man who robs another of his rights, as
it now does to the man who cheats, or steals the property of his
neighbor. With the power of the colored people to migrate, whenever
they are unjustly treated, to a place where law and justice prevail,
with the capacity for labor and to acquire property, with reasonable
opportunity for education, they will in time make sure their rights
as citizens. I believe this is the growing feeling in the new
south. I am willing to trust it, and I will be glad to aid it
whenever and wherever I can see the way.

"What the new south wants now more than all else is education!
education!! education!!! The statistics with which we have been
made familiar recently in the debate in the Senate, of illiteracy
in the south, are appalling, but not much more so than was the
condition of the western states fifty years ago. The negroes being
slaves were, of necessity, without education. The great mass of
the white people were in the same condition, not because it was
desired in the south, but because, from the sparseness of the
population and the existence of plantations instead of farms, it
was difficult to establish a system of public schools. A change
in this respect cannot be brought about suddenly, but it is apparent
that every southern state appreciates the importance of education
of both white and black. It is the bounden duty of the national
government to extend the aid of its large resources. If the action
of the Senate is sanctioned by the House, and fairly and justly
executed by the people of the southern states, there need be no
danger from the ignorance of the next generation. I believe that
these conditions will be the solution of the troubles of the south
and make a great step on the road to prosperity and union in the
south.

"Now, but a few words in conclusion. It is not merely common school
education in the south that is needed, but it is higher education.
It is all the learning of the schools, all that science has taught,
all that religion teaches, all that medicine has found in its alchemy,
all the justice which the law points out and seeks to administer;
the south wants opportunity for that higher education which cannot
be obtained from common schools, but which exists in no country
except where common schools abound. It wants in its midst the
places where the active leading young men of the south can gather
in colleges and universities and there gain that higher education
which prepares them to be leaders among men.

"I congratulate you, my countrymen, here in Washington, that, under
the authority of the Methodist Episcopal church, a Christian
denomination, under the name of the illustrious hero General Grant,
there has been founded in the mountains of Tennessee, away up among
the clouds and in the pure air of Heaven, in the midst of a loyal
and patriotic population, an institution of learning which will be
a blessing to all the people of the south, and I trust to all the
people of the north. Every aid possible should be showered down
from the north and south alike. Let them light their fires at this
modern Athens upon the mountain top and they will shine forth all
over our land. Here the young men of the south will fit themselves
to lead in the march of progress and improvement. They will learn
to vary their production, to develop their resources, to advance
every race and generation in education, intelligence and patriotism,
and with charity broad enough to secure all the people, of every
race and tribe, the peaceful and unquestioned enjoyment of their
civil and political rights. There is now no disturbing question
of a sectional character which should prevent the north and south
from moving in harmonious union. The two streams have united, and
though for a time their waters may be divided by the color line,
like the Mississippi and the Missouri at and after their junction,
yet, in the end they will mingle in a great republic, not of sections,
but of friendly states and a united people."

I attended a meeting of the members of the Ohio Society of New
York, on the occasion of their first annual dinner at Delmonico's,
on the 7th of May. It was a remarkable assemblage, composed almost
exclusively of men born in Ohio, then living in New York, all of
whom had attained a good standing there, and many were prominent
in official or business life. There were over two hundred persons
present. Thomas Ewing was president of the society, and Mr. Payne
and myself sat on either side of him. I insert the remarks of
General Ewing and myself as reported in the papers the next morning.
Many speeches were made by others, including Senators Payne and
Harrison. General Ewing, after the dinner had received ample
attention, called the company to order and made a brief address,
which was repeatedly applauded. He said:

"I hail and congratulate you, guests and members of the Ohio Society
of New York, on our delightful and auspicious reunion. It is good
that we are here. This large assemblage of Ohio's sons, coming
from far and near, attests how strong and vital are the ties that
bind us to our mother state. We have every reason to love and be
proud of her. If American citizenship be a patent of nobility, it
adds to the honor to have been born of that state which, almost in
the forenoon of the first century of her existence, has shed such
luster on the republic; which has given to it so long a roll of
President, chief justices, judges of the Supreme Court and statesmen
in the cabinet and in Congress--among whom is found not one dishonored
name, but many that will shine illustrious in our country's annals
forever; a state which, in the supreme struggle by which the Union
was established as indissoluble and the plague of human slavery
destroyed, gave to the republic even more than her enormous quota
of noble troops, and with them those great captains of the war:
Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans, McPherson.

"Gentlemen, we have not formed our society from a desire to culture
state pride in any spirit of divided allegiance. No, no! There
has been far too much of that in the past, and can't be too little
in the future. We are first Americans--then Buckeyes. The blessings
and misfortunes of our sister states are ours as well as theirs.
The love of our own state and pride in her history spring largely
from the fact that she and her institutions, in birth and growth,
are purely American. She is the oldest and, so far, the best
developed of all the typically American states. Neither Roundhead
nor Cavalier stood sponsor at her cradle. She never wore the collar
of colonial subserviency. Her churches and colleges are not endowed
of King Charles or Queen Anne. Her lands are not held by grant or
prescription under the Duke of York, Lord Fairfax or Lord Baltimore,
but by patents under the seal of the young republic and the hand
of George Washington, whose name will continue to be loved and
honored throughout the world long after the memory of the last king
and peer of Great Britain shall have sunk in oblivion.

"The early generation of her sons were not reared amid distinctions
of wealth and rank and class, but in the primeval forest and prairie,
where all stood equal and had no aid to eminence but strenuous
efforts; where recollections of the sufferings and sacrifices of
Revolutionary sires became inspirations of patriotism in their
sons; and where nature threw around all her pure, loving and
benignant influences to make them strong and great.

"Gentlemen, I now have the pleasure to present to you a typical
Buckeye--the architect of his own fame and fortune--who stands
below only one man in the republic in official station, and below
none in the respect of his countrymen--John Sherman."

As General Ewing closed, there was a tumultuous scene. There were
repeated cheers, and Colonel W. L. Strong called for three cheers
in my honor, which were given. When I could be heard, I spoke as
follows:

"Mr. President, Brethren All:--I give you my grateful thanks for
this greeting. If you receive every Buckeye from Ohio in this
manner, you will have the hordes of Ararat here among you. Such
a reception as this, I think, would bring every boy from every farm
in the State of Ohio, and what would become of New York then? You
have gathered the sons of Ohio, and those who have been identified
with its history, into a society where you may meet together and
preserve and revive the recollections of Ohio boyhood and Ohio
manhood. Why should you not do that? Why should you not have an
Ohio society as well as a New England society, or any other kind
of society? Our friends and fellow-citizens from old England's
shore, from Ireland and Scotland and Germany, form their societies
of the city of New York; and why should not the State of Ohio, more
important than any of these countries by this represented?

"Now, gentlemen, there is one characteristic of Ohio people which
has marked them from the beginning of their history, and marks them
now. We are a migratory race. We are the Innocents Abroad. No
Arab in his tent, restless and uneasy, feels more uncertain and
movable than a man from Ohio, who can better his condition anywhere
else. We are a migratory race, and why should we not be? Do we
not deserve the best of every land? When we go to any other country,
we don't go to rob them of anything, but to add to their wealth.
If I want to prove that Ohio people are migratory, what better
evidence can I have than is afforded by the men who are here around
me? Here is my friend, General Ewing, born in one of the garden
spots of Ohio, under circumstances when it would be supposed that
he ought to be content with his lot; but he goes walking off to
Kansas, and then to the war, and then into Washington, and finally
settles down near New York here, under the shadow of the Sage of
Greystone! Among others here around me I see a grandson of old
William Henry Harrison. I see here innumerable representatives of
the Puritan fathers, with all the virtues of the old fathers and
some besides. I see here representatives not only of Virginia and
New England, but of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania--all from
Ohio.

"My countrymen, in the early days Ohio was the camping ground of
all the old states. Ohio is the first fruit of the Federal Union.
It is true that Vermont and Kentucky and Tennessee were admitted
into the union of these states before Ohio was, but they were
offshoots of New York and Virginia, while Ohio was the first fruit
of that great commonwealth. Every state of the old states had a
camping ground in the State of Ohio, either by reservation, by
purchase or by settlement. Nearly all of the early descendants of
Ohio were sons of Revolutionary fathers who came out to Ohio. They
went there to redeem that land from a wilderness, and they made of
Ohio the most prosperous, the richest and fairest commonwealth the
world has ever known. In Ohio was the beginning of that magnificent
march of progress which adds luster to the history of the northwest,
as an evidence of growth and progress unexampled in the previous
history of mankind. Think of it, my countrymen! Within one hundred
years, more than 30,000,000 people have grown up in a country once
people alone by Indian tribes, and that 30,000,000 of people are
among the most prosperous and powerful peoples of the whole world.

"I want to defend our Ohio people against another charge that is
very often made against them, especially in this city of New York.
They charge us with being fond of office. Why, my countrymen, I
can show by statistics--and statistics never lie--that Ohio never
had her fair share of the public offices. I have not brought any
of the statistics with me, for fear some know-nothing might cry at
our after-dinner speech 'Figures.' Still we never had our share
of the public offices, or if we had we always filled them well,
and performed our duties honorably.

"Now, gentlemen, only one or two other thoughts, and then I will
leave you. In the early times, migration was always to the westward.
Nobody thought of coming east. Therefore it is that out of the
eight sons of Ohio who are now Members of the United States Senate,
all moved westward; and out of some thirty or forty or fifty Members
of the House of Representatives who were born in Ohio, and who
didn't stay in Ohio--and they are only a small part of them--all
went westward. The reason was that 'Westward the star of empire
wends its way.' But latterly the star of empire seems to have
settled about this city of New York, until more than 200 Ohio men
can sit down to an Ohio feast in the city of New York. There is
another reason--there is more money in New York than anywhere else
in the country. Not that our people have a fondness for money,
but they have come here to better their condition--and I hope in
God they will. They not only better their own condition, but the
condition of all around them, and I can pick out from all over this
community, and from this little dinner party, men who came from
Ohio poor, but with an honest endeavor to do what was best for
themselves and their families, and here they are, rich and happy.

"One word more, worthy fellow-citizens. We love Ohio. We love
Ohio as our mother who nurtured us and fed us in our in our infancy;
and, under any circumstances, although we may hear ill of Ohio, we
never fail to remember all that is good that can be said of Ohio,
and to be true and honorable for the love of Ohio. But we love
our country more, and no man from Ohio would ever be true to his
mother unless he were more true to his country all around, from
one end of the land to the other. Our country forever from the
Atlantic to the Pacific; from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canada
line, and away around this continent in due time, when the pear
will ripen and fall in this Federal Union; in the whole round of
the country!

"I congratulate you upon this happy meeting, upon this successful
feast, and I trust you may go on prospering and to prosper, until
you will gather all the men of Ohio who are deserving of their
nativity into the fold of this social union, not only that you may
meet each other again as kinsmen born of the same soil, but that
you may aid and assist each other, as other kindred societies have
done, and I trust that the Ohio society, though the junior members
at the table of these societies of New York, may yet be the foremost
and leading members in charity and good works to the sons of Adam."

After the adjournment of Congress I returned home. I was not
fatigued by the labors of the session, as the duties of presiding
officer were lighter than those of an active Member on the floor.
The usual canvass had already commenced for state officers and
Members of Congress. A club called the "Sherman club" had been
organized at Mansfield, and soon after my return having been invited
to attend it, I did so, and made a brief political address. During
this month I was visited by many interviewers, and while sometimes
their calls were inopportune, yet I uniformly received them, answered
their questions, and furnished them any information in my power.
I knew that they were seeking information not for their own
convenience, but to gratify a public interest, and, therefore, I
was entirely willing to answer such questions as were put to me.
The case was very rare where I was misrepresented, and then it was
either unintentional or to brighten a story or to exaggerate a
fact. I recall one interview in respect to courts of arbitration
and the universal labor question. My opinions were expressed
offhand, and, although not taken down at the time by the interviewer,
my words uttered during a half hour's interview were quoted with
great exactness. I know this is not the common opinion in respect
to the interviewer, and in some cases gross misrepresentations are
made, but in the very few instances where this has occurred in my
experience I have always carefully remembered the reporters who
made them and declined any further interview with them.

The latter part of August, Judge Thurman and I were invited to make
brief addresses at the state fair in Columbus. After he had spoken
with his usual ability and directness, I made a speech mainly about
new devices in agricultural implements. I said:

"From the fact that Judge Thurman and I have been invited to address
you I infer that you did not expect us to tell you what we knew
about farming. He has been recognized as a standard authority as
to the law--not only as to what it is but as to what it ought to
be--but I never heard that he was eminent as a farmer, either of
the theoretical sort who know how things ought to grow, or of the
practical sort who know how to make them grow. I have had more
experience as a farmer than he has had, but somehow my crops always
cost me more than I could get for them. If the many millions of
farmers in the United States have had my experience in farming they
would have to get more than seventy-five cents a bushel for wheat
to make the two ends meet. Still, Judge Thurman and I have learned
enough to know that farming is the chosen employment of a large
proportion of the human race, and is, besides, the chosen recreation
of nearly all who have been successful in other pursuits. Every
lawyer especially, from Cicero to Webster, has delighted in the
healthful pleasure of rural pursuits--and if they have not made
their money by farming they have spent their money in farming--and
have enriched the language of every age and clime with eloquent
and beautiful tributes to this noblest occupation of man.

"Perhaps this is the reason you call upon lawyers to speak on
occasions like this, when the varied products of the farm, in their
rich profusion and excellence, are spread before us. Besides, it
is the common opinion that lawyers can talk as well about things
they don't know as things they do know--and on either side of the
question, without respect to the merits or morals of the topic.
Your worthy secretary, in inviting me to speak for a few minutes
on this occasion, said that I was quite at liberty to choose the
subject of my remarks. So I have chosen as a text a discovery I
have made very much like that of Benjamin Franklin, who advised
the people of Paris that he had made a great discovery--that being
wakeful one morning he discovered that the sun rose at Paris at
five o'clock, and that if they would rise with the sun and go to
bed with the sun they would save an enormous sum--millions of francs
--in the cost of candles and lamps, and greatly improve their health
and morals. So I have discovered that our farmers have become
machinists, and, instead of working themselves, they make the
horses, mules, and especially the machines, do nearly all the work
of the farm.

"I have observed in the numerous fairs I have attended since they
were first introduced in Ohio, and especially since the war, a
marked change in the articles exhibited. Formerly the chief
attraction was the varied exhibition of fruits, grain, cattle,
horses, sheep, hogs, poultry--all the productions of the farm--and
the chief benefit then derived from our state and county fairs was
to excite competition in the size, excellence and abundance of
these purely animal or agricultural productions. Formerly the
tools and implements of husbandry were few, simple and plain, the
chief of which were the plow, the scythe, the cradle, the sickle.

"Later by degrees there appeared new devices--new implements of
husbandry--the mower, the reaper, the thresher, the binder, the
sulky plow, an infinite variety of mechanical contrivances to make
the labor of the farmer easier, or rather to dispense with a
multitude of laborers, and substitute in their places the horse,
the mule and the steam engine. In other words, to convert the
business of farming from an agricultural pursuit, where the labor
of men and women was the chief factor of production, to a mechanical
pursuit, in which the chief element of cost and power were machines,
the invention of a single generation.

"This striking change in an employment, which in all ages has been
pursued by a greater number of human beings than any other, is
shown in every fair now held in the United States, and especially
in this."

I spoke of the changed condition of the farmer since Ohio was a
new state, covered by a great forest, when the home was a cabin,
and about the only implements were the plow and the axe, and then
said:

"After what has been said by others, and especially so eloquently
said by Judge Thurman, I need not express the high value I place
upon the magnificent work of the state board of agriculture in
preparing these grounds as a permanent place for the exhibition of
the industrial products of Ohio, not only of the farm but of the
workshop. It is this day dedicated by appropriate ceremonies for
the use of the present and future generations of Buckeyes, and, I
hope, as time rolls on, there may be here exhibited, not only stock
and grains and vegetables, not only ingenious machinery and
inventions, but men, high-minded men and noble women, and that with
the many advantages in education and culture secured to them by
their ancestors they will maintain and advance with manly vigor
and sturdy virtue the work of the generations before them, who have
planted and founded here in Ohio a model republic."

I attended the thirteenth Industrial exposition at Music Hall,
Cincinnati, on the 2nd of September, where fully six thousand people
were gathered, I entered the building with Governor Foraker, and
we were received with rounds of applause and made brief remarks,
the substance of which was reported, but I can only remember the
magnitude of the audience and the difficulty of being heard. The
city was crowded with men, women and children, all in holiday dress,
and everybody in good humor at the success of the exposition.
During September, and until the day of the election, I was engaged
in making speeches. The one at Portsmouth, on the 28th of September,
was carefully prepared and reported, and contained the substance
of what I said in that canvass. It was a review of the political
questions of the day. I always feel more at home in that part of
Ohio then in any other. The river counties are associated with my
early recollections and the people are uniformly generous and kind.
With rare exceptions they have heartily supported me during my
entire political life.

I attended a meeting conducted by the Blaine club in Cincinnati.
The procession that marched through the streets was an immense one,
and seemed to include all the men and boys in the city. The
clubhouse, brilliantly illuminated, was surrounded by a great crowd,
too large to hear the speeches, nor did it matter, for their
enthusiasm and cheers showed that they needed no exhortation.

I attended a reception of the Sherman club of the 24th ward, at
the head of which was my old friend, Governor Thomas L. Young. I
there made a strong appeal for the election of Benjamin Butterworth
and Charles Brown to Congress, the former being one of the ablest
and most promising men in congressional life, and the latter a
gallant soldier, who had lost a leg in the service of his country.
I said:

"Their election is more important than anything else. The election
of a Republican House of Representatives is of vital importance,
because if we can have not only a Republican Senate, but a Republican
House of Representatives, we will tie up Cleveland and his
administration so that he and it can do no harm to anybody. If we
can get a good Republican House of Representatives we will be able
to maintain the system of protection of American labor, which is
the pride and glory of the Republican party. We will maintain all
these great measures of Republican policy which tend to develop
our country, to increase its happiness, diversify its pursuits,
and build up its industries; to give you a good currency; to protect
your labor; and generally to promote the common good and welfare
of our common country."

At the invitation of the Republicans of Louisville, Ky., I went to
that city. In the afternoon I made a short address at the laying
of the corner stone of the new customhouse, and in the evening made
a long political speech. It was my first visit there, and I was
much gratified as well as surprised, at the great numbers which
attended a Republican meeting and the enthusiasm with which I was
greeted. I referred to the long and intimate association of Ohio
and Kentucky since the days of the Indian wars, when Kentucky sent
her best and bravest men to fight the battles of Ohio, under Harrison
and Taylor at Fort Meigs and Sandusky. In a later time, when Henry
Clay was their favorite, Ohio steadily and heartily supported him,
and now that the war was over, there was no reason why Kentucky
and Ohio might not stand side by side in maintaining the principles
of the Republican party. I said:

"You might naturally inquire why I came to the city of Louisville
to make a Republican speech, when I knew that the majority of your
population belong to a different school of politics, and that I
could scarcely hope to make any impression upon the Democratic vote
of the city of Louisville or the State of Kentucky. Still, I have
always thought it strange that your people, who through many long
years followed the fortunes and believed in the doctrines of Henry
Clay, should willingly belong to a party opposed to all his ideas,
and I was curious to learn why the same great events that led the
people of Ohio into the ranks of the Republican party should lead
the people of Kentucky into the ranks of the Democratic party. It
is to make this discovery that I come here to-night, and I will
speak to you, not for the purpose of reviving past controversies,
but to see whether, after all, the people of Ohio and Kentucky
ought not now to stand side by side in their political action, as
they did in the days of old.

"When approaching manhood I, in common with the people of Ohio,
was in ardent sympathy with the political opinions of the people
of Kentucky. I was reared in a school which regarded Henry Clay,
John J. Crittenden, Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin as the brightest
lights in the political firmament, chief of whom was Henry Clay.
I need not remind a Kentucky audience with what pride and love your
people followed him in his great career, and with rare intermissions
supported and sustained him to the close of his life. And so, too,
with John J. Crittenden, who represented the people of Kentucky in
both Houses of Congress, in the cabinet of two administrations,
and, to the close of his eventful life in the midst of the Civil
war, retained the confidence and support of the people of Kentucky.
It may be said, also, that Thomas Ewing and Thomas Corwin, the warm
and lifelong friends of Clay and Crittenden, represented the people
of Ohio in the highest official positions, and that these great
men, united in counsel, in political opinions and in ardent
friendship, were the common standards of political faith to the
people of these neighboring states.

"I had the honor to cast my first vote for Henry Clay for President
of the United States, and supported him with all the natural
enthusiasm of youth, and remember yet my sorrow when it was at last
known that he was defeated. I also knew Mr. Crittenden from 1846,
when, as a young lawyer, I visited Washington, and saw much of him
in the later years of his life. I also held close personal relations
with Mr. Ewing and Mr. Corwin since my early boyhood, and shared,
as much as youth can share, the benefits of their council and
confidence. I am justified in saying that during the memorable
period of thirty years of political conflict through which we have
passed, I have steadily adhered to the lessons they have taught,
by supporting the measures adopted from time to time by the Republican
party, while the majority of the people of Kentucky, with equal
sincerity, no doubt, pursuing their convictions, have landed in
the Democratic party. What I would like to find out is whether it
is you or I who have switched off from the councils of our political
fathers, and whether the causes of the difference of opinion still
exist."

I closed as follows:

"I freely confess that the great mass of the Democratic party are
patriotic, law-abiding citizens, yet I believe the elements that
control that party, especially in the northern states, are unworthy
of the confidence and trust of a brave and free people, and that
the Republican party, although it may not always have met the hopes
and expectations of its friends, does contain within it the elements
of order, safety, obedience to law and respect for the rights of
others, with well-grounded principles of public policy, and can
fairly be trusted again to manage our national affairs.

"My heartiest sympathies go with the gallant Republicans of Kentucky,
who, in an unequal fight, have shown the courage of their race and
the patriotism of their ancestors. Let them persevere in appealing
to their neighbors for co-operation, and they can fairly hope that,
as the passions of the war pass away, Kentucky will be, as of old,
on the side of the Union, the constitution and the impartial
enforcement of the laws.

"Is not this a good time to try the experiment of a Republican
representative from the Louisville district? Our Democratic friends
seem to be in a bad way about the choice of a candidate. If what
the opposing factions say of their candidates is half true, you
had better take shelter under a genuine and fearless Republican
like Mr. Wilson, who will be impartial to the factions and true to
the great interests of American labor and American production.
Such a light shining from Louisville will be a star of hope, a
beacon light of safety and prosperity to the extreme bounds of our
country. Why not try the experiment? I hope that my visit among
you will be a message of good will, and I thank you with all my
heart for your kindly reception."

The "Courier Journal" was much more fair to me on this occasion
than the Democratic papers in Ohio. In consequence of this I have
always entertained a kindly feeling for its editor, Henry Watterson,
who, notwithstanding his strong political opinions, is always bold,
frank and courteous in his criticisms.

On my return from Kentucky I spoke to a large meeting at Wilmington,
Ohio, on the 7th of October. I had frequently addressed meetings
at that place and always received a very cordial and hearty welcome.
It so happened that John Q. Smith, one of the leading citizens of
Clinton county, who had been a Member of Congress, had changed his
political relations and become a warm supporter of the administration
of Cleveland. He had prepared a large number of questions, to be
put to me, which were printed and scattered broadcast in handbill
form. I was glad of the opportunity to answer his questions, as
they gave me a text for a general review of a Democratic administration.
I said that the handbill was issued by a gentleman whom I esteemed
very highly, and for whom I had the greatest good will and friendship,
one of their own citizens, who had served in the legislature and
in Congress with credit, and had been a representative of our
government abroad. I then read the questions one by one and answered
them, and, as I think, clearly showed to the satisfaction of my
hearers, that, although Mr. Smith was generally sound on other
matters, he was a little cracked on the question of American
protection. My answers were received with great applause by the
audience, and I think my old friend made nothing by his questions.

After making a number of other speeches in Ohio, I spoke in Grand
Rapids on the 18th of October; in Indianapolis on the 21st; at Fort
Wayne on the 24th, and at the Academy of Music, Philadelphia, on
the 27th. I closed my speaking in this campaign at Toledo on the
30th. The time of the fall elections had been changed to the first
Tuesday after the first Monday of November. During the period from
my return home after the adjournment of Congress until the day of
election, I spoke almost daily. The election resulted in a victory
for the Republican party, the head of the ticket, James S. Robinson,
Secretary of State, receiving about 11,000 majority.

The second session of the 49th Congress passed but little important
legislation except the appropriation bills. The two Houses were
so widely divergent that they could not agree upon measures of
political importance.

On the 9th of December I made an impromptu speech on the revision
of the tariff, in reply to Senator Beck, but as no action was taken
upon the subject at that session, it is useless to quote what I
said. Mr. Beck was a man of great mental as well as physical power.
A Scotchman by birth, he came at an early age to the United States
and settled in Kentucky, where he practiced law, and in due time
became a Member of Congress, and afterwards a Senator of the United
States. He was aggressive, affirmative and dogmatic, and seemed
to take special delight in opposing me on all financial questions.
He and I were members of the committee on finance, and had many
verbal contests, but always with good humor. On the 9th of December,
as I entered the Senate Chamber after a temporary absence, I heard
the familiar voice of Beck begging, in the name of the Democratic
party, a chance to reduce taxation. I promptly replied to him,
and the colloquy between us extended to considerable length. He
was, in fact, a free trader, believed in the policy in force in
Great Britain, and opposed every form of protection to American
industries. Our debate brought out the salient arguments on both
sides, though no measure on the subject-matter was pending before
the Senate.

During the holiday recess Senator John A. Logan died at his residence,
Calumet Place, in Washington. This was announced, in the Senate,
by his colleague, Shelby M. Cullom, on January 4, 1887, as follows:

"'The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land.' His
visitation has been most unexpected during the recent brief recess
of the Senate, and has imposed upon me a duty which I have scarcely
the heart to perform--the duty of announcing the death of my late
distinguished colleague. At his home, which overlooks this capital
city, at three minutes before three o'clock on Sunday afternoon,
the 26th of December, the spirit of John A. Logan took its flight
into the unknown realms of eternity. On Friday last, the funeral
ceremonies were conducted, by the Senators and Representatives
present, in this Senate Chamber, and his mortal remains were conveyed
to the silent tomb.

"We are called upon to mourn the loss of one of the bravest and
noblest of men--a man loved by the patriotic people of his state
and of the nation, known to his country and to the civilized world
as great in war and in peace, and for nearly fourteen years a
distinguished Member of this Senate."

Logan is buried in the cemetery of the Soldiers' Home in Washington,
in a conspicuous and beautiful marble tomb erected to his memory
by his widow. On the 9th of February the business of the Senate
was suspended, and many Senators, the associates of the deceased,
paid fitting and eloquent tribute to his public and private virtues
in addresses of marked ability and interest.

He was a striking character, bold, fearless and aggressive, but
sensitive as a child. I knew him well when he was a Member of the
House before the war. He was a devoted friend and admirer of
Douglas, and, like him, when the war commenced, threw his whole
soul into the Union cause. He was a good soldier, and, of those
who entered the army from civil life, was among the most distinguished.
He was a model of the volunteer soldiery. After the war was over
he was returned to Congress and served in the House and Senate
until his death. He was a positive man; there were no negative
qualities about him. Thoroughly honest in his convictions he was
regarded as a strong debater, though somewhat too urgent in presenting
his opinions, and disposed to take a personal view of controverted
questions. I had great respect for Logan, and never had any
controversies with him except upon financial questions, upon which
I thought he took at one time erroneous views. For a long time he
adopted the ideas prevailing in the west in regard to paper money.
Upon further reflection he became satisfied that the policy of
resumption was the right one and adhered to it. He was a member
of the committee that framed the resumption act, and from the time
that measure was agreed upon, he, so far as I know, supported it
firmly and warmly. He was a good party man; he stood by the judgment
of his political friends. I never saw the slightest hesitation or
doubt on his part in supporting a measure which was agreed upon by
his political associates. One interesting feature of Logan's life
was the interest felt by his wife in his public career, and her
helpfulness to him. She was the model of a helpmate. She is in
every way a good woman. She has the very qualities that he lacked,
and I might illustrate by many instances her great aid to him in
his political purposes.

I had accepted an invitation of the merchants of Boston to attend
the annual banquet of the Mercantile Association on the 29th of
December, but was compelled to withdraw my acceptance, so that, as
president of the Senate, I could perform certain duties in respect
to Logan's funeral that I could not delegate to others, and which
were requested of me by the committee on arrangements, through a
notice sent me by Senator Cullom, the chairman, as follows, and
upon which I acted:

"The committee on arrangements at the funeral ceremonies of John
A. Logan, late a Senator of the United States from the State of
Illinois, respectfully request the Honorable John Sherman, a Senator
of the United States from the State of Ohio, to preside at the
funeral exercises on Friday, December 31, 1886."

In the Boston invitation it was intimated that some remarks on the
national banking system would be acceptable. In declining I wrote
a letter expressing my opinion of that system, which I said had
realized all the good that had ever been claimed for it by its
authors, that it had furnished the best paper money ever issued by
banking corporations, that the system was adopted only after the
fullest consideration and had won its way into public favor by slow
process, and that I regarded it as the best that had ever been
created by law. The remarkable success of this system, I said,
was not appreciated by those not familiar with the old state banks.
It had been adopted by many countries, especially in the far off
island of Japan.

The bill to regulate interstate commerce became a law on the 4th
of February, 1887. It had passed both Houses at the previous
session, but, the Senate having disagreed to amendments of the
House, the bill and amendments were sent to a committee of conference.
The report of this committee was fully debated. I had taken great
interest in this bill, but had not participated in the debate until
the 14th of January, when I supported the conference report, while
not agreeing to some of the amendments made. Senator Cullom is
entitled to the chief credit for its passage.

On the 22nd of February I laid before the Senate the following
communication, which was read:

"To the Senate of the United States.

"Senators:--My office as president _pro tempore_ of the Senate will
necessarily terminate on the 4th of March next, with my present
term as Senator. It will promote the convenience of the Senate
and the public service to elect a Senator as president _pro tempore_
whose term extends beyond that date, so that he may administer the
oath of office to Senators-elect and aid in the organization. I,
therefore, respectfully resign that position, to take effect at
one o'clock p. m., on Saturday next, February 26.

"Permit me, in doing so, to express my heartfelt thanks for the
uniform courtesy and forbearance shown me, while in discharge of
my duties as presiding officer, by every Member of the Senate.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

I said that if there was no objection the communication would be
entered in the journal and placed among the files of the Senate.
On the 25th John J. Ingalls was elected president _pro tempore_,
to take effect the next day. On that day I said:

"Before administering the oath of office to his successor the
occupant of the chair desires again to return to his fellow Senators
his grateful acknowledgments for their kind courtesy and forbearance
in the past.

"It is not a difficult duty to preside over the Senate of the United
States. From the establishment of our government to this time the
Senate has always been noted for its order, decorum, and dignity.
We have but few rules, and they are simple and plain; but we have,
above all and higher than all, that which pervades all our proceedings
--the courtesy of the Senate, which enables us to dispose of nearly
all of the business of the Senate without question or without
division. I trust that in the future, as in the past, this trait
of the Senate of the United States will be preserved intact, and
I invoke for my successor the same courtesy and forbearance you
have extended to me. I now invite him to come forward and take
the oath of office prescribed by law."

Mr. Ingalls advanced to the desk of the president _pro tempore_,
and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him,
he took the chair, and said:

"Senators, I must inevitably suffer disparagement in your estimation,
by contrast with the parliamentary learning and skill, the urbanity
and accomplishments of my illustrious predecessor, but I shall
strive to equal him in devotion to your service, and I shall
endeavor, if that be possible, to excel him in grateful appreciation
of the distinguished honor of your suffrages."

Mr. Harris offered the following resolution, which was unanimously
adopted;

"_Resolved_, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby tendered to
Hon. John Sherman, for the able and impartial manner in which he
has administered the duties of the office of president _pro tempore_
during the present Congress."

CHAPTER LII.
VISIT TO CUBA AND THE SOUTHERN STATES.
Departure for Florida and Havana--A Walk Through Jacksonville--
Impressions of the Country--Visit to Cigar Factories and Other
Places of Interest--Impressions of Cuba--Experience with Colored
Men at a Birmingham Hotel--The Proprietor Refuses to Allow a
Delegation to Visit Me in my Rooms--Sudden Change of Quarters--
Journey to Nashville and the Hearty Reception Which Followed--Visit
to the Widow of President Polk--My Address to Nashville Citizens--
Comment from the Press That Followed It--An Audience of Workingmen
at Cincinnati--Return Home--Trip to Woodbury, Conn., the Home of
My Ancestors--Invitation to Speak in the Hall of the House of
Representatives at Springfield, Ill.--Again Charged with "Waving
the Bloody Shirt."

At the close of the session of Congress, early in March, a congenial
party was formed to visit Florida and Havana. It was composed of
Senator Charles F. Manderson, wife and niece, Senator T. W. Palmer
and niece, General Anson G. McCook and wife, and myself and daughter.
We were accompanied by E. J. Babcock, my secretary, and A. J.
Galloway and son, in the employ of the Coast Line road, over which
we were to pass. We stopped at Charleston, where the ravages of
a recent earthquake were everywhere visible. Fort Sumter, which
we visited, was a picture of desolation. Such a large party
naturally attracted attention. At Jacksonville we encountered our
first reporter. He showed me an article in which it was stated
that we were on a political trip. This I disclaimed and said we
had not heard politics mentioned since we left Washington, that we
were tired out after Congress completed its work and made up a
party and started off merely for rest and recreation. I remarked
that I had been in every state in the Union but one, and wanted to
finish up the list by seeing Florida. A colloquy as given by the
reporter was as follows:

"Well, Senator, my errand was for the purpose of getting your
opinion on matters political."

"I am out of politics just now. I want to rest and I do not want
politics to enter my head for two weeks."

"Then you say positively that you are not down here to look after
your fences for a presidential boom in 1888?"

"Most decidedly not. I will not say a word about politics until
I reach Nashville on my return. There I take up the political
string again and will hold to it for some time."

Manderson proposed a walk through the city, the reporter being our
guide. Orange trees were to be seen on every side. We were
surprised to find so large and prosperous a city in Florida, with so
many substantial business houses and residences. The weather was
delightful, neither too hot nor too cold, and in striking contrast
with the cold and damp March air of Washington. From Jacksonville
we went in a steamboat up the St. John's River to Enterprise.
Florida was the part of the United States to be first touched by
the feet of white men, and yet it seemed to me to be the most
backward in the march of progress. It was interesting chiefly from
its weird and valueless swamps, its sandy reaches and its alligators.
It is a peninsula, dividing the Gulf of Mexico from the ocean, and
a large part of it is almost unexplored. The part we traversed
was low, swampy, with dense thickets, and apparently incapable of
reclamation by drainage. The soil was sandy and poor and the
impression left on my mind was that it could not be made very
productive. There were occasional spots where the earth was far
enough above the sea to insure the growth of orange trees, but even
then the soil was thin, and to an Ohio farmer would appear only to
be a worthless sand bank. This, however, does not apply to all
points in Florida, especially not to the Indian River region, where
fine oranges and other semitropical fruits are raised in great
abundance. The Indian River is a beautiful body of water, really
an arm of the sea, on the eastern coast of Florida, separated from
the Atlantic by a narrow strip of land. The water is salt and
abounds in game and fish.

At Sanford our party was joined by Senator Aldrich and his wife,
and we proceeded by way of Tampa and Key West to Havana, where we
arrived on the 17th of March. The short sail of ninety miles from
Key West transported us to a country of perpetual summers, as
different from the United States as is old Egypt. After being
comfortably installed in a hotel we were visited by Mr. Williams,
our consul general, who brought us an invitation from Captain
General Callejas to call upon him. We did so, Mr. Williams
accompanying us as interpreter. We were very courteously received
and hospitably entertained. The captain general introduced us to
his family and invited us to a reception in the evening, at which
dancing was indulged in by the younger members of the party. We
spent four very pleasant days in the old city, visiting several of
the large cigar factories, a sugar plantation in the neighborhood
and other scenes strange to our northern eyes. The ladies supplied
themselves with fans gaily decorated with pictures of bull fights,
and the men with Panama hats, these being products peculiar to the
island.

Among the gentlemen of the party, as already stated, was Frank G.
Carpenter, a bright young man born at Mansfield, Ohio, who has
since made an enviable reputation as a copious and interesting
letter writer for the press. His description of Havana is so true
that I insert a few paragraphs of it here:

"Havana has about 300,000 inhabitants. It was a city when New York
was still a village, and it is now 100 years behind any American
town of its size. It is Spanish and tropical. The houses are low
stucco buildings put together in block, and resting close up to
narrow sidewalks. Most of them are of one or two stories, and
their roofs are of red tile which look like red clay drain pipes
cut in two and so laid that they overlap each other. The residences
are usually built around a narrow court, and their floors are of
marble, tile or stone. This court often contains plants and flowers,
and it forms the loafing place of the family in the cool of the
evening.

"These streets of Havana are so narrow that in some of them the
carriages are compelled to go in one direction only. When they
return they must go back by another street. The sidewalks are not
over three feet wide, and it is not possible for two persons to
walk abreast upon them. The better class of Cubans seldom walk,
and the cabbys are freely called upon. The cab of Havana is a
low Victoria holding two or three persons. Their tops come down
so as to shade the eyes, and they have springs which keep every
molecule of your body in motion while you ride in them. The horses
use are hardy mongrel little ponylike animals, who look as though
they were seldom fed and never cleaned.

"The traffic of Havana is largely done by oxen, and the two-wheeled
cart is used exclusively. This cart is roughly made and it has a
tongue as thick as a railroad tie, nailed to the body of the cart,
and which extends to the heads of the oxen and is there fastened
by a great yoke directly to the horns. The Cuban ox pulls by his
head and not his shoulders. This yoke is strapped by ropes across
the foreheads of the oxen, and they move along with their heads
down, pushing great loads with their foreheads. They are guided
by rope reins fastened to a ring in the nose of the ox. Some of
the carts are for a single ox, and these have shafts of about the
same railroad tie thickness, which are fastened to a yoke which is
put over the horns in the same manner. Everything is of the rudest
construction and the Egyptians of to-day are as well off in this
regard.

"Prices of everything here seem to me to be very high, and the
money of the country is dirty, nasty paper, which is always below
par, and of which you get twelve dollars for five American ones.
A Cuban dollar is worth about forty American cents, and this Cuban
scrip is ground out as fast as the presses can print it. The lower
denominations are five, ten, twenty and fifty cent pieces, and you
get your boots blacked for ten Spanish cents. Even the gold of
Cuba is below par, about six per cent. below the American greenback,
and most of it and the silver in use has been punched or chipped
to make money off of the pieces thus cut out. The country is deeply
in debt, and the taxes are very heavy."

On the return voyage a strong northwest wind sprang up, and most
of the party, especially the ladies, experienced the disagreeable
effects of being on a small steamer in a rough sea. They had,
however, all recovered by the time we reached Tampa, and as soon
as we landed we started for Jacksonville.

In an interview shortly after my return from Cuba, I thus gave the
impression made upon my mind as to its condition:

"And how did you enjoy your visit to Cuba?"

"We spent four days in Havana. Nobody could be treated with greater
courtesy. You know Spanish courtesy is never surpassed anywhere.
But that cannot prevent me from saying that Cuba is in a deplorable
condition. I should judge from what I heard from intelligent Cuban
Americans living there, and even Spaniards themselves, that the
island is in a condition of ill-suppressed revolt. Natives are
nearly to a man in favor of annexation to us. I think they have
given over the idea of independence, for they begin to recognize
that they are incapable of self-government. Their condition is
indeed pitiable. No serfs in Russia were ever greater slaves than
the Cubans are to Spain. The revenue they must raise yearly for
Spain, and for which they get no benefit whatever, except the name
of a national protection and the aegis of a flag, is $16,000,000.
They have no self-government of any kind. From captain general
down to the tide-waiter at the docks, the official positions are
held by Spaniards. I venture to say that not a single native Cuban
holds an office or receives public emolument. In addition to the
$16,000,000 sent annually to Spain, Cuba has to pay the salaries
of all the Spanish horde fastened upon her."

"Do you think the native planters, the wealthier classes, that is,
favor annexation to the United States?"

"Yes, I am told all of them are anxious for it, but I don't think
we want Cuba as an appendage to the United States. I would not
favor annexation. In spite of the drains upon her, Cuba is enormously
rich in resources, and is a large consumer of our products, on
which at present the heavy Spanish duties rest. What I would favor
would be a reciprocity treaty with Spain, as to Cuba, so that we
might send our goods there instead of forcing the Cubans to buy of
England, France and Germany. We could do the island much more good
by trading with her on an equal basis than we ever can by annexing
her. Cuba, to some extent, is under our eye, we would probably
never let any other nation than Spain own the island, but so long
as Spain does own it she is welcome to it if she will only let us
sell our goods on equal or better terms than the Cubans can get
them for elsewhere."

I had some time previously accepted an invitation of the members
of the Tennessee legislature to address them, and, therefore, at
Jacksonville left the remainder of the party to pursue their way
to Washington at their leisure, while I started for Nashville,
accompanied by Mr. Babcock and Mr. Mussey. Having a few days to
spare before my appointment at that place, and having heard much
of the wonderful progress and development of the iron industry at
Birmingham, Alabama, I determined to stop at that place. On our
arrival we went to the Hotel Florence, and at once met the "ubiquitous
reporter." My arrival was announced in the papers, and I was soon
called upon by many citizens, who proposed that an informal reception
be held in the dining room of the hotel that evening, to which I
had no objection. Among those present were ex-Senator Willard
Warner, and a number of the leading men who had so quickly transformed
an open farm into the active and progressive city of Birmingham.
The reception was held and was a very pleasant affair. Being called
upon for a speech I made a few remarks, which were well received,
and as the gentlemen present expressed a desire to have a larger
meeting I consented to speak on the following evening at the opera
house.

That afternoon, when my room was thronged with callers, most of
whom were Democrats, I was handed the following note:

"Birmingham, Ala., March 20, 1887.
"Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senator.

"Dear Sir:--The undersigned, citizens of Birmingham, Alabama, take
this method of writing you to extend your visit from Nashville,
Tennessee, to our growing city, and bear witness to its development
and progress in the prospective mining, manufacturing and business
metropolis of the state. Feeling confident that you are naturally
interested in our welfare and happiness, American citizens in every
capacity and relation in life, we earnestly trust that you will
comply with our solicitation.

"Yours respectfully,
"Sam'l R. Lowery, Editor 'Southern Freemen.'
"A. L. Scott, Real Estate Agent.
"W. R. Pettiford, J. M. Goodloe, A. J. Headon, A. D. Jemison and
R. Donald, Pastors of Colored Churches in Birmingham, Ala."

The letter was written to be sent me at Nashville, when it was not
known that I was at Birmingham, and was indorsed as follows;

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

"Dear Sir:--A colored delegation, as given above, desires to call
upon you to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock or at 3. Please do us
the kindness to say if we may see you, and when.

"Yours faithfully,
"A. L. Scott."

I at once sent word to the delegation that I would see them in my
room the next morning at 10 o'clock, having already arranged to
accompany some gentlemen on an excursion among the mines and other
evidences of Birmingham's boom at 11 a. m. The next morning I
waited in my room with General Warner, Judge Craig and others until
11 o'clock, and, the delegation not appearing, was about to start
on my visit to the mines, when the following note was handed me by
one of the colored servants of the house:

"Birmingham, Ala.
"Hon. John Sherman.

"Dear Sir:--In accordance with arrangement, a committee of colored
citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama came to see
you at 10 o'clock this morning. The proprietor of the Florence
hotel declined to allow us to visit your room, and said if we
desired to see you we must see you outside of the Florence hotel.
We regret the occurrence, as the committee is composed of the best
colored citizens of the community.

"Yours respectfully,
"A. L. Scott,
"W. R. Pettiford,
"Samuel R. Lowery,
"R. C. D. Benjamin,
"Albert Boyd."

I requested General Warner and Judge Craig to go to the proprietor
of the hotel and ask him if it was true that he had forbidden
certain men going to my room. The proprietor informed them that
it was true; it was against his rules to allow any colored people
to go upstairs except the servants. I said I would not allow a
hotel proprietor to say whom I should or should not receive in my
room. That was a question I chose to decide for myself. I therefore
immediately paid my bill and went to the Metropolitan hotel, where
the delegation made their call. Their only object was to read to
me an address of welcome to the city in behalf of the colored
people. Their address was well expressed and they were evidently
intelligent and respectable men. They welcomed me cordially in
behalf of their race and countrymen, and said:

"While we respect your political and statesmanlike life, not an
event has equaled your manly and heroic conduct in Birmingham,
Alabama, in respect to the persecuted, proscribed and downtrodden
black citizens, on account of their race, color and proscription
in this city and state.

"When you stated to the tavern keeper, if the black citizens were
not permitted to visit you there, you would go to another tavern,
and if not permitted, you would stop with your baggage in the street
and receive them, shows a sympathy and sentiment that you, though
honored and able, feel bound with them and to them. And every
black man, woman and child thenceforward in our state will pray
Heaven's favor shall follow you and yours to a throne of grace for
Sherman, Ohio's noblest, heroic and patriotic statesman."

In reply I expressed pleasure at meeting the colored people, and,
touching the Florence hotel affair, advised forbearance. "Be true
to yourselves," I said, "be industrious, maintain your own manhood,
and they day will come when you can command recognition as men and
citizens of the United States, free and equal with all others."
I assured them that I entertained as high respect for colored people
as I did for any other citizens.

I mention this incident at some length because, at the time, it
excited much comment in the press throughout the United States.
It is but fair to say that the action of the hotel proprietor was
condemned by the leading Democrats of Birmingham, prominent among
whom was the editor of the "Iron Age."

In the evening I spoke at the opera house, which was well filled
with representative citizens. I was introduced by Rufus M. Rhodes,
president of the News Publishing Company. My speech was confined
mainly to nonpartisan subjects, to the industries in that section,
and the effect of national legislation upon them. I had read of
the vast deposits of coal and iron in that section, and had that
day seen them for myself. I said: "You have stored in the
surrounding hills elements of a wealth greater than all the banks
of New York." In speaking of the effect of national legislation
upon the development of their resources, I said I would not allude
to politics, because, though a strict party man, as they all knew,
I believed that men who differed with me were as honest as I was;
that whatever might have occurred in the past, we were a reunited
people; that we had had our differences, and men of both sides
sought to have their convictions prevail, but I would trust the
patriotism of an ex-Confederate in Alabama as readily as an ex-
Unionist in Ohio; that I was not there to speak of success in war,
but of the interests and prosperity of their people. My nonpartisan
speech was heartily approved. General Warner made a brief address
to his former constituents, and the meeting then adjourned.

I went the next day to Nashville, arriving early in the evening.
A committee of the legislature met me on my way. On my arrival I
met many of the members of both political parties, and was the
recipient of a serenade at which William C. Whitthorne, a Democratic
Member of Congress, made a neat speech welcoming me to the hospitality
of the state. None of the speeches contained any political
sentiments, referring mainly to the hopeful and prosperous outlook
of the interests of Tennessee. During the next day I visited with
the committee, at the head of which was Mr. Kerchival, the mayor
of the city, several manufacturing establishments, and the Fisk
and Vanderbilt universities, and also a school for colored boys.
Among the more agreeable visits that day was one made at the
residence of Mrs. Polk, the widow of President Polk. I remembered
her when she was the honored occupant and mistress of the White
House, at the time of my first visit to Washington in the winter
of 1846-47. She was still in vigorous health, and elegant and
dignified lady.

I wish here to express my grateful appreciation of the reception
given me by the people of Nashville on this occasion. There was
no appearance of mere form and courtesy due to a stranger among
them, but a hearty general welcome, such as would be extended to
one representing their opinions and identified with their interests.
I met there several gentlemen with whom I had served in Congress,
most of whom had been in the Confederate service. One of them paid
me a compliment after hearing my speech by saying: "Sherman, your
speech will trouble the boys some, but I could answer you."

This speech was made on the evening of the 24th of March, 1887, in
the hall of the house of representatives. It was carefully prepared
with the expectation that it would be delivered to an unsympathetic
audience of able men. I delivered it with scarcely a reference to
my notes, and substantially in the language written. Tennessee
and Kentucky had been Whig states, strongly in favor of protection,
and before the war were represented by John Bell and Henry Clay.
I claimed my fellowship with the people of Tennessee in the old
Whig times, and, aside from the questions that grew out of the war,
assumed that they were still in favor of the policy of protection
of American industries by tariff laws. I did not evade the slavery
question or the War of the Rebellion, but said of them what I would
have said in Ohio. I made an appeal on behalf of the negro, and
quoted what Senator Vest had eloquently said, that "the southern
man who would wrong them deserves to be blotted from the roll of
manhood." All we asked for the negro was that the people of
Tennessee would secure to him the rights and privileges of an
American citizen, according to the constitution of the United
States. I then presented the questions of the hour, taxation,
currency, public credit, foreign and domestic commerce, education
and internal improvements. On these questions I said the people
of Tennessee had like interests and opinions with the people of
Ohio, that the past was beyond recall, that for evil or good the
record was made up and laid away. I discussed each of these
subjects, dwelling mainly on taxation and currency; in the one was
the protection and promotion of home industries, and in the other
was the choice between bank notes of the olden time, and United
States notes and national bank notes secured by the bonds of the
United States. I closed with these words:

"But I do, in the presence of you all, claim for the Republican
party, and defy contradiction, that in the grandeur of its
achievements, in the benefits it has conferred upon the people, in
the patriotic motives that have animated it, and the principles
that have guided it, in the fidelity, honesty, and success of its
administration of great public trusts, it will compare favorably
with the record of any administration of any government in ancient
or modern times. We ask you to aid us, to help us. We make this
appeal in the same words to the Confederate gray as to the Union
blue--to whoever in our great country is willing in the future to
lend a helping hand or vote to advance the honor, grandeur and
prosperity of this great republic."

The speech, being made by a Republican at the capital of a southern
Democratic state, attracted great attention from the public press,
and, much to my surprise, several of the leading Democratic and
independent papers commended it highly. This was notably the case
with the Louisville "Courier Journal," the Washington "Evening
Star," and the New York "Herald." A brief extract from the latter
is given as an indication of public sentiment:

"Senator Sherman's Nashville speech is the first address on national
politics ever spoken by a Republican of national reputation to a
southern audience. He was welcomed by the prominent citizens of
the Tennessee capital, and spoke to a crowded and attentive audience
in the hall of representatives.

"Both the speech and the welcome the speaker received are notable
and important events. Mr. Sherman spoke as a Republican in favor
of Republican politics, and what he said was frankly and forcibly
put. If the Republican leaders are wise they will take care to
circulate Mr. Sherman's Nashville speech all over the south, and
through the north as well. He spoke for high protection, for
internal improvements, for liberal expenditures on public buildings,
for the Blair education bill, for the maintenance of the present
currency system, and for spending the surplus revenue for public
purposes.

"All that is the straightest and soundest Republican doctrine. He
told his hearers, also, that the war is over, and that the interests
of Tennessee and other southern states must naturally draw them to
the Republican party. He spoke to attentive ears."

The speech was reprinted and had considerable circulation, but,
like the shadows that pass, it is probably forgotten by all who
heard or read it. I consider it as one of the best, in temper,
composition and argument, that I ever made.

It had been arranged that I was to be driven to Saint Paul's chapel
after the meeting. The occasion was the assemblage of the educational
association of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and their
friends. The chapel was a large, handsome, well-furnished room,
and was crowded to the door with well-dressed men and women. Dr.
Bryant made an address of welcome, and Bishop Turner introduced me
to the audience. I made a brief response and excused myself from
speaking further on account of fatigue. General Grosvenor and ex-
Senator Warner made short speeches. Our party then returned to
the hotel. To me this meeting was a surprise and a gratification.
Here was a body of citizens but lately slaves, who, in attendance
on religious services and afterward remaining until a late hour
listening to us, behaved with order, attention and intelligence.
The report of my remarks, as given in their newspapers, was as
follows:

"Senator Sherman said that the praise of himself had been too high.
He had voted for the emancipation of the negro race in the District
of Columbia, an event which had preceded the emancipation proclamation
of Abraham Lincoln. He supported it as a great act of national
authority and of justice. Therefore, he could appear as a friend
of the race and of liberty. He had not voted for it because they
were negroes, but he had voted for it because they were men and
women. He would have voted for the whites as well. He spoke of
the society and said any measure that would tend to elevate the
race he was in favor of. What the race wanted was not more rights
but more education. Their rights were secured to them by the
constitution of the United States, and the time would come when
they would enjoy them as freely as anyone. They should not be
impatient to advance. Prejudice could not be overcome in a short
period. He said the best way to overcome all prejudice was by
elevating themselves; but not by gaudy extravagance, groans, abuse,
war, or tumult of war. They had the same right to become lawyers,
doctors, soldiers and heroes as the white man had.

"When they became as advanced as the whites around them there would
be no trouble about their franchises. Now they were free men and
they should become freeholders. After they had got education they
should accumulate property."

On the next morning I left Nashville for Cincinnati, where I arrived
on the evening of the 25th of March and took lodgings at the Gibson
House. I was to speak at Turner Hall on the next evening, under
the auspices of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs. It was a busy day
with me in receiving calls and in visiting the chamber of commerce
and the two clubs where speeches were made and hand shaking done.
Still, I knew what I was to say at the meeting, and the composition
of the audience I was to address. The hall is large, with good
acoustic qualities, and in it I had spoken frequently. It is situated
in the midst of a dense population of workingmen, and was so crowded
that night in every part that many of the audience were compelled
to stand in the aisles and around the walls. On entering I mentally
contrasted my hearers with those at Faneuil Hall and Nashville.
Here was a sober, attentive and friendly body of workingmen, who
came to hear and weigh what was said, not in the hurry of Boston
or with the criticism of political opponents as in Nashville, but
with an earnest desire to learn and to do what was best for the
great body of workingmen, of whom they were a part. I was introduced
in a kindly way by ex-Governor Noyes. After a brief reference to
my trip to Florida and Cuba, I described the country lying southwest
of the Alleghany mountains, about two hundred miles wide, extending
from Detroit to Mobile, destined to be the great workshop of the
United States, where coal and iron could be easily mined, where
food was abundant and cheap, and in a climate best fitted for the
development of the human race. In this region, workingmen, whether
farmers, mechanics or laborers, would always possess political
power as the controlling majority of the voters. I claimed that
the Republican party was the natural home of workingmen, that its
policy, as developed for thirty years, had advanced our industrial
interests and diversified the employments of the people. This led
to a review of our political policy, the homestead law, the abolition
of slavery, good money always redeemable in coin, the development
of manufactures and the diversity of employments. I discussed the
creation of new parties, such as the labor party and the temperance
party, and contended that their objects could better be attained
by the old parties. I referred to the organization of a national
bureau of labor, to a bill providing for arbitration, and other
measures in the interest of labor. I stated the difficulties in
the way of the government interposing between capital and labor.
They were like husband and wife; they must settle their quarrels
between them, but the law, if practicable, should provide a mode
of adjustment. I closed with the following appeal to them as
workingmen:

"Let us stand by the Republican party, and we will extend in due
time our dominion and power into other regions; not by annexation,
not by overriding peaceable and quiet people, but by our commercial
influence, by extending our steamboat lines into South America,
by making all the Caribbean Sea one vast American ocean; by planting
our influence among the sister republics, by aiding them from time
to time, and thus, by pursuing an American policy, become the ruler
of other dominions."

From Cincinnati, after a brief visit to Mansfield, I returned to
Washington to await the opening of spring weather, which rarely
comes in the highlands of Ohio until the middle of May.

General Sherman and I had been invited several times to visit
Woodbury, Connecticut, for nearly two centuries the home of our
ancestors. In April, both being in Washington, we concluded to do
so, and advised Mr. Cothron, the historian of Woodbury, of our
purpose. We arrived in the evening at Waterbury, and there found
that our coming was known. Several gentlemen met us at the depot
and conducted us to the hotel, some of them having served with
General Sherman in the Civil War. Among them was a reporter. We
explained to him that we were on our way to Woodbury, had no plans
to execute, intended to erect no monuments, as was stated, and only
wished to see where our ancestors had lived and died. General
Sherman was rather free in his talk about the steep hills and cliffs
near High Rock grove. These he admired as scenery, but he said:
"I cannot see how this rocky country can be converted into farming
lands that can be made profitable;" also "I am indeed pleased to
think that my ancestors moved from this region to Ohio in 1810."
Among the callers was S. M. Kellogg, who had served with me in
Congress.

The next morning we went to Woodbury, called on William Cothron,
and proceeded to the cemetery and other places of note in the
neighborhood. In this way the day was pleasantly spent. I thought
there were signs of decay in the old village since my former visit,
but this may have been caused by the different seasons of the year
at which these visits were made. Woodbury looks more like an
England shire town than any other in Connecticut. Its past history
was full of interest, but the birth and growth of manufacturing
towns all around eclipsed it and left only its memories. After
visiting the site of the old Sherman homestead, about a mile from
town, and the famous Stoddard house, in which my grandmother was
born, we returned to New York.

I had been invited by the officers and members of the Illinois
legislature, then in session at Springfield, to speak in the hall
of the house of representatives on the political issues of the day.
I accepted with some reluctance, as I doubted the expediency of a
partisan address at such a place. My address at Nashville, no
doubt, led to the invitation; but the conditions were different in
the two cities. At Nashville it was expected that I would make a
conciliatory speech, tending to harmony between the sections, while
at Springfield I could only make a partisan speech, on lines well
defined between the two great parties, and, as I learned afterwards,
by reason of local issues, to a segment of the Republican party.
Had I known this in advance I would have declined the invitation.

The 1st of June was the day appointed. I arrived in Chicago, at
a late hour, on the 29th of May, stopping at the Grand Pacific
hotel, and soon after received the calls of many citizens in the
rotunda. On the evening of the 30th I was tendered a reception by
the Union League club in its library, and soon became aware of the
fact that one segment of the Republican party, represented by the
Chicago "Tribune," was not in attendance. The reception, however,
was a very pleasant one, greatly aided by a number of ladies.

The next morning, accompanied by Senator Charles B. Farwell and a
committee of the club, I went to Springfield. I have often traversed
the magnificent State of Illinois, but never saw it clothed more
beautifully than on this early summer day. The broad prairies
covered with green, the wide reaches of cultivated land, rich with
growing corn, wheat and oats, presented pictures of fertility that
could not be excelled in any portion of the world. I met Governor
Oglesby and many leading citizens of Illinois on the way, and on
my arrival at Springfield was received by Senator Cullom and other
distinguished gentlemen, and conducted to the Leland hotel, but
soon afterward was taken to the residence of Senator Cullom, where
several hours were spent very pleasantly. Later in the evening I
attended a reception tendered by Governor and Mrs. Oglesby, and
there met the great body of the members of the legislature and many
citizens.

On the 1st of June an elaborate order of arrangements, including
a procession, was published, but about noon there came a heavy
shower of rain that changed the programme of the day. A platform
had been erected at the corner of the statehouse, from which the
speaking was to be made. This had to be abandoned and the meeting
was held in the hall of the house of representatives, to which no
one could enter without a ticket.

It was not until 2:40 p. m. that we entered the hall, when Governor
Oglesby, taking the speaker's chair, rapped for order and briefly
addressed the assembly. I was then introduced and delivered the
speech I had prepared, without reading or referring to it. It was
published and widely circulated. The following abstract, published
in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean," indicates the topics I introduced:

"The Senator began first to awaken applause at the mention of the
name of Lincoln, repeated soon after and followed by a popular
recognition of the name of Douglas. He quoted from Logan, and
cheers and applause greeted his words. There was Democratic applause
when he proclaimed his belief 'that had Douglas lived he would have
been as loyal as Lincoln himself,' and again it resounded louder
still when Logan received a hearty tribute. He touched upon the
successes of our protective policy, and again the applause accentuated
his point. He exonerated the Confederate soldier from sympathy
with the atrocities of reconstruction times, and his audience
appreciated it. He charged the Democratic party in the south with
these atrocities and the continual effort to deprive the negro of
his vote, and the audience appreciated that. His utterance that
he would use the power of Congress to get the vote of a southern
Republican counted at least once, excited general applause. They
laughed when he asked what Andrew Jackson would have thought of
Cleveland, and they laughed again when he declared the Democrats
wanted to reduce the revenue, but didn't know how. He read them
the tariff plank in the Confederate platform, and they laughed to
see how it agreed with the same plank in the Democratic platform.
From discussion of the incapacity of the Democrats to deal with
the tariff question, from their very construction of the constitution,
the Senator passed to the labor question, thence carrying the
interest of his hearers to the purpose of the Republicans to educate
the masses, and make internal improvements. His audience felt the
point well made when he declared the President allowed the internal
improvement bill to expire by a pocket veto because it contained
a $5,000 provision for the Hennepin Canal. In excellent humor the
audience heard him score the Democracy for its helplessness to meet
the currency question, and finally pass, in his peroration, to an
elaboration of George William Curtis' eulogy of the achievements
of the Republican party. He read the twelve Republican principles,
and each utterance received its applause like the readoption of a
popular creed. 'The Democrats put more jail birds in office in
their brief term than the Republicans did in the twenty-four years
of our magnificent service,' exclaimed Senator Sherman, and his
audience laughed, cheered, and applauded. Applause followed each
closing utterance as the Senator outlined the purposes of the party
for future victory, and predicted that result, the Democrats under
the Confederate flag, the Republicans under the flag of the Union."

I returned the next day to Chicago, and in the evening was tendered
a public reception in the parlors of the Grant Pacific hotel.
Although Chicago was familiar to me, yet I was unknown to the people
of Chicago. One or two thousand people shook hands with me and
with them several ladies. Among those I knew were Justice Harlan,
Robert T. Lincoln and Walker and Emmons Blaine.

Upon my return to Mansfield I soon observed, in the Democratic and
conservative papers, hostile criticism of my Springfield speech,
and especially of my arraignment of the crimes at elections in the
south, and of the marked preference by Cleveland in the appointments
to office of Confederate soldiers rather than Union soldiers. A
contrast was made between the Nashville and Springfield speeches,
and the latter was denounced as "waving the bloody shirt." Perhaps
the best answer to this is the following interview with me, about
the middle of June:

"So much fault is found with the Springfield speech by the opponents
of the Republican party, and so many accusations made of inconsistency
with the Nashville speech, that perhaps you may say--what you meant
--what the foremost purpose was in both cases?"

"I meant my Springfield speech to be an historical statement of
the position of the two parties and their tendencies and aims in
the past and for the future. In this respect it differed from the
Nashville speech, which was made to persuade the people of the
south, especially of Tennessee, that their material interests would
be promoted by the policy of the Republican party."

"Do you find anything in the Springfield speech to moderate or
modify?"

"I do not think I said a word in the Springfield speech but what
is literally true, except, perhaps, the statement that 'there is
not an intelligent man in this broad land, of either party, who
does not know that Mr. Cleveland is now President of the United
States by virtue of crimes against the elective franchise.' This
may be too broad, but upon a careful analysis I do not see how I
could modify it if fair force is given to the word 'intelligent.'"

"You stand by the speech, then?"

"Well, since the speech has been pretty severely handled by several
editors whom I am bound to respect, I have requested it to be
printed in convenient form, and intend to send it to these critics
with a respectful request that they will point out any error of
fact contained in it, or any inconsistency between it and my
Nashville speech."

"You do not admit that the two speeches are in two voices?"

"I can discover no inconsistency. And now, after seeing and
weighting these criticisms, I indorse and repeat every word of both
speeches. It may be that the speech was impolitic, but, as I have
not usually governed my speeches and conduct by the rule of policy,
as distinguished from the rule of right, I do not care to commence
now."

"What about the persistent charge of unfriendliness to southern
people and the accusation that you are shaking the bloody shirt?"

"I do not see how the arraignment of election methods that confessedly
destroy the purity or the sanctity of the ballot box, and deprive
a million of people of their political rights, can be ignored or
silenced in a republic by the shoo-fly cry of 'bloody shirt.'"

"Is there no hope of persuasion of the southern people at large to
see the justice of the demand for equal political rights?"

"I cannot see any reason why the Confederate cause, which was
'eternally wrong,' but bravely and honestly fought out, should be
loaded down with the infamy of crimes which required no courage,
committed long since the war, by politicians alone, for political
power and for the benefit of the Democratic party. I can find some
excuse for these atrocities in the strong prejudice of caste and
race in the south, growing out of centuries of slavery, but I can
find no excuse for any man of any party in the north, who is willing
to submit to have his political power controlled and overthrown by
such means."

During the months of June and July, 1887, the question of the
selection of the Republican candidate for President in the following
year was discussed in the newspapers, in the conventions, and among
the people. The names of Blaine and myself were constantly canvassed
in connection with that office, and others were named. I was
repeatedly written to and talked with about it, and uniformly said,
to warm personal friends, that in view of my experience at previous
national conventions I would not be a candidate without the support
of a united delegation from Ohio, and the unanimous indorsement of
a state convention. I referred to the fact that in every period
of my political career I had been supported by the people of Ohio,
and would not aspire to a higher position without their hearty
approval. This statement was openly and publicly made and published
in the newspapers. The "Commercial Gazette," of Cincinnati was
authorized to make this declaration:

"If the Republicans of Ohio want Mr. Sherman for their presidential
candidate they can say so at the Toledo convention. If not, Mr.
Sherman will be entirely content with the position he now occupies,
and will not be in the field as a presidential candidate."

I also wrote the following to a friend, and it was afterwards
published:

"I do not want to be held up to the people of the United States as
a presidential candidate if there is any doubt about Ohio. I do
not, as many think, seek for the high honor, nor do I ask anyone to
aid me in securing the nomination. I am as passive about it as
any man can be whose merits or demerits are discussed in that
connection. I do not desire the nomination, nor shall I encourage
anyone to secure it for me until Ohio Republicans, who have conferred
upon me the honors I have enjoyed, shall, with substantial unanimity,
express their wish for my nomination."

This led my friends to determine to present this question to the
approaching state convention at Toledo. It was said that, as this
would be held in a year in advance of the national convention, it
was too soon to open the subject, but the conclusive answer was
that no other state convention would be held prior to the national
convention, and that it was but fair that I should have the chance
to decline if there should be a substantial difference of opinion
in the convention, and should have the benefit of its approval if
it should be given.

It was understood that Governor Foraker would be unanimously
renominated for governor. He doubted the policy of introducing in
that contest a resolution in favor of my nomination for President,
but said it if should be passed he would support it. The press of
the state was somewhat divided as to the policy of the convention
making a declaration of a choice for President, but indicated an
almost universal opinion that there should be an undivided delegation
in favor of my nomination. As the convention approached, the
feeling in favor of such declaration grew stronger, and when it
met at Toledo, on the 28th of July, there was practically no
opposition. After the preliminary organization ex-Governor Foster
reported a series of resolutions, which strongly indorsed me for
President, and highly commended Foraker for renomination as governor.
The convention called for the rereading of these resolutions and
they were applauded and unanimously adopted. The committee on
permanent organization nominated me as chairman of the convention.
In assuming these duties I made a speech commending the nomination
of Governor Foraker and the action of the recent general assembly,
and closed with these words:

"I have but one other duty to perform, and that I do with an
overflowing heart. I thank you with all my heart for the resolution
that you have this day passed in respect to your choice for a
President of the United States. I know, my fellow-citizens, that
this is a matter of sentiment. I know that this resolution is of
no importance unless the voters of the States of Ohio and of the
several states should, in their free choice, elect delegates who
will agree with you in your opinion. I recognize the district
rule, and the right of every district to speak its own voice. I
stood by that rule in 1880, when I knew that its adoption would
cut off all hopes of my friends at that time. I also knew that
there was another rule, that no man ought to be held as a candidate
for that high office unless he has the substantial, unanimous voice
of his party friends behind him. I believe that is a true rule,
and it ought to be exercised to promote harmony and good will and
friendship among Republicans. Now, my countrymen, again thanking
you for this expression, I tell you with all frankness that I think
more of your unanimous praise this day uttered than I do of the
office of President of United States."

The resolution, as adopted, was as follows:

"Recognizing, as the Republicans of Ohio always have, the gifted
and tried statesmen of the Republican party of other states, loyal
and unfaltering in their devotion to the success of the organization
in 1888, under whatever standard bearer the Republican national
convention may select, they have just pride in the record and career
of John Sherman, as a member of the Republican party, and as a
statesman of fidelity, large experience and great ability. His
career as a statesman began with the birth of the Republican party;
he has grown and developed with the growth of that organization;
his genius and patriotism are stamped upon the records of the party
and the statutes and constitution of the country, and, believing
that his nomination for the office of President would be wise and
judicious, we respectfully present his name to the people of the
United States as a candidate, and announce our hearty and cordial
support of him for that office."

The convention then proceeded to form a state ticket.

During the summer vacation of 1887, I made a trip across the
continent from Montreal to Victoria, Vancouver Island, and from
the Sound to Tacoma, going over the Canadian Pacific railroad, and
returning by that line to Port Arthur, at the head of Lake Superior
then, by one of the iron steamers of the Canadian Pacific road,
through Lake Superior and Lake Huron to Owen Sound, and from there
by rail to Toronto and home.

I had for many years desired to visit that country and to view for
myself its natural resources and wonders, and to inspect the
achievement of the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company.

I was accompanied on this journey by James S. Robinson, formerly
secretary of state of Ohio, ex-Congressman Amos Townsend, for many
years Member from Cleveland, and Charles H. Grosvenor, Member of
Congress from Athens, Ohio. We met at Cleveland and spent the next
night at Toronto. Thence we proceeded to Montreal, and there
received many courtesies from gentlemen distinguished in private
and public life. We left Toronto on the night of the 1st of August,
in a special car attached to the great through train which then
made its journey to Vancouver in about six days. We halted at
Sudbury, the point on the Canadian Pacific from which the Sault
Ste. Marie line of railway diverges from the main track. We spent
twenty-four hours at Sudbury, visiting the copper and nickel mining
operations, then in their infancy. Proceeding, we passed the head
of Lake Superior, and thence to Winnipeg. At this place the officers
of the provincial government showed us many attentions, and I was
especially delighted by a visit I made to Archbishop Taché of the
Catholic church, a very aged man. He had been a missionary among
the Indians at the very earliest period of time when missionary
work was done in that section. He had been a devoted and faithful
man, and now, in the evening of his life, enjoyed the greatest
respect and received the highest honors from the people of his
neighborhood, regardless of race or religion.

Proceeding from Winnipeg, we entered the great valley of the
Saskatchewan, traversed the mighty wheat fields of that prolific
province, and witnessed the indications of the grain producing
capacity in that portion of Canada, alone quite sufficient, if
pushed to its utmost, the furnish grain for the whole continent of
America. We spent one night for rest and observation at a point
near the mouth of the Bow River, and then proceeded to Calgary.
This is the westernmost point where there is arable and grazing
lands before beginning the ascent of the Rocky mountains. Here we
inspected a sheep ranch owned by a gentleman from England. It is
located at Cochrane, a few miles west of Calgary. It was managed
by a young gentleman of most pleasing manners and great intelligence,
who was surrounded at the time of our visit by numerous Scotch
herdsmen, each of whom had one or more collie dogs. The collie,
as everybody knows, is a Scotch production, and it has been imported
into the country largely for the service of the great sheep and
cattle ranches of the west. One shepherd was about to depart from
Canada to reoccupy his home in Scotland, and among his other effects
was a collie, passing under the name of Nellie. She was a beautiful
animal, and so attracted my attention that at my suggestion General
Grosvenor bought her, and undertook to receive her at the train as
we should pass east a week or ten days later. The train, on our
return, passed Calgary station at about two o'clock in the morning
in the midst of a pouring rain storm, but the shepherd was on hand
with the dog, and her pedigree carefully written out, and the
compliments of Mr. Cochrane, and his assurance that the pedigree
was truthful. Nellie was brought to Ohio, and her progeny is very
numerous in the section of the state where she lived and flourished.

Leaving Calgary, we followed the valley of the Bow River. The
current of this river is very swift in the summer, fed as it is by
the melting of the snows of the Rocky mountains. We soon began to
realize that we were ascending amid the mighty peaks of the great
international chain. We spent one day at Banff, the National Park
of the Dominion. Here we found water, boiling hot, springing out
from the mountain side, and a magnificent hotel--apparently out of
all proportion to the present or prospective need--being erected,
with every indication of an effort, at least, to make the Canadian
National Park a popular place of resort.

All about this region of country it is claimed there are deposits
of gold and silver, and at one point we saw the incipient development
of coal mining, coal being produced which it was claimed, and it
seemed to me with good reason, to be equal in valuable qualities
to the Pennsylvania anthracite.

Passing from the National Park and skirting the foot of the Giant
mountains, we entered the mighty valley of the great Fraser River.
The scenery between Calgary and Kamloops is indescribably majestic.
We were furnished by the railroad company with a time-table in the
form of a pamphlet, and a description of the principal railway
stations and surrounding country written by Lady Smith, the wife
of Sir Donald Smith, of Montreal, one of the original projectors
of the Canadian Pacific railroad. This lady was an artist, a poet,
with high literary attainment, and her descriptions of the mountains,
of the glaciers, of the rivers and scenery were exceedingly well
done. We stopped at one of the company hotels, at the foot of one
of the mightiest mountains, whose peak ascends thousands of feet
into the air, and at whose base, within a few rods of the entrance
to the hotel, was the greatest of the mighty glaciers, almost equal
in beauty and grandeur, as seen by us, with the far-famed glacier
of the Rhone.

The construction of this railroad through the mountains is a marvel
of engineering skill and well illustrates what the persistence and
industry of man can accomplish. More than seventy miles of this
line, as I remember it, are covered by snowsheds, constructed of
stanch timbers along the base of the mountain in such a manner that
the avalanches, which occasionally rush down from the mountain top
and from the side of the mountain, strike upon the sheds and so
fall harmless into the valley below, while the powerful locomotives
go rushing through the snowsheds, heedless of the dangers overhead.

The Fraser River was full of camps of men engaged in the business
of catching, drying and canning the salmon of that stream. The
timber along this river is of great importance. The Canadian fir
and other indigenous trees line the banks and mountain sides in a
quantity sufficient to supply the demand of the people of that
great country for many years to come. But it was unpleasant to
witness the devastation that the fires had made by which great
sections of the forests had been killed. The Canadian government
has made a determined effort to suppress these fires in their
forests and upon their plains, and it is one of the duties of the
mounted police force, which we saw everywhere along the line of
the road, to enforce the regulations in regard to the use of fire,
but, naturally and necessarily, nearly all these efforts are abortive
and great destruction results.

Vancouver, at the mouth of the Fraser, is the terminus of the
Canadian Pacific railway. At this point steamers are loaded for
the China and Japan trade and a passenger steamer departs daily,
and perhaps oftener, for Victoria, an important city at the point
of Vancouver Island. We had a delightful trip on this steamer,
running in and out among the almost numberless islands. It was an
interesting and yet most intricate passage.

At Victoria we were entertained by gentlemen of public position
and were also shown many attentions by private citizens. We were
invited to attend a dinner on board of a great British war vessel,
then lying at Esquimault. A canvass of our party disclosed the
fact that our dress suits had been left at Vancouver, and being on
foreign soil and under the domination of her British majesty's
flag, we felt it was impossible to accept the invitation, and so,
with a manifestation of great reluctance on the part of my associates,
the invitation was declined.

We went by steamer to Seattle, Washington Territory, where we
remained over night and were very kindly received and entertained
by the people. Among the persons who joined in the reception were
Watson C. Squire and his wife, then residents of the territory.
Mr. Squire, after the admission of Washington as a state, became
one of her Senators.

We were joined on this part of our journey by Carter H. Harrison,
of Chicago, whose fourth term of office as mayor had just closed,
and who was escorting his son and a young friend on a journey around
the world. While waiting for the departure of the Canadian Pacific
steamer from Vancouver, he joined in this excursion through the
sound. He was a most entertaining conversationalist, and we enjoyed
his country greatly.

There was much rivalry at that time between the growing cities of
Seattle and Tacoma. At a reception in Seattle, one of the party,
in responding to a call for a speech, spoke of having inquired of
a resident of Seattle as to the whereabouts of Mount Tacoma. He
said he was informed by the person to whom he applied that there
was no Mount Tacoma. On stating that he had so understood from
citizens of Washington Territory, he was informed that there was
not then and never had been a Mount Tacoma. The gentleman was
informed, however, that in the distance, enshrouded in the gloom
of fog and smoke, there was a magnificent mountain, grand in
proportion and beautiful in outline, and the mountain's name was
Rainier. Later on he said he had inquired of a citizen of Tacoma
as to the whereabouts, from that city, of Mount Rainier, and the
gentleman, with considerable scorn on his countenance, declared
that there was no such mountain, but in a certain direction at a
certain distance was Mount Tacoma. The gentleman closed his speech
by saying, whether it was Mount Tacoma or Mount Rainier, our party
was unanimously in favor of the admission of Washington Territory
into the Union.

We visited some sawmills at Tacoma where lumber of monstrous
proportions and in great quantities was being produced by a system
of gang saws. This is a wonderful industry and as long as the
material holds out will be a leading one of that section. The deep
waters of Puget Sound will always offer to the industrious population
of Washington ample and cheap means of transportation to the outside
market, and I predict a great future for the state.

We returned east more hastily and with fewer stops than in the
western journey. We spend a night at Port Arthur, and the next
day, embarking upon one of the great steamers of the Canadian
Pacific line, found among our fellow-passengers Goldwin Smith, the
distinguished Canadian writer and statesman. We had a most pleasant
trip, arriving at Owen Sound without special incident; thence to
Toronto, and by steamer to Niagara, where we remained until the
next day, when our party separated for their several homes. The
trip occupied exactly a month and was full of enjoyment from the
beginning to the end.

After my return home I wrote a note to General Sherman, describing
my impressions of the country. In this I said:

"My trip to the Pacific over the Canadian railroad was a great
success. We traveled 7,000 miles without fatigue, accident or
detention. We stopped at the chief points of interest, such as
Toronto, Montreal, Sudbury, Port Arthur, Winnipeg, Calgary, Banff,
Donald, Glacier House, Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle and Tacoma,
and yet made the round trip within the four weeks allowed. We did
not go to Alaska, because of the fogs and for want of time. The
trip was very instructive, giving me an inside view of many questions
that may be important in the future. The country did not impress
me as a desirable acquisition, though it would not be a bad one.
The people are hardy and industrious. If they had free commercial
intercourse with the United States, their farms, forests, and mines
would become more valuable, but at the expense of the manufactures.
If the population of Mexico and Canada were homogenous with ours,
the union of the three countries would make the whole the most
powerful nation in the world."

I then entered into the canvass. I attended the state fair at
Columbus on the 2nd of September, first visiting the Wool Growers'
Association, and making a brief speech in respect to the change in
the duty on wool by the tariff of 1883. I reminded the members of
that association that they were largely responsible for the action
of Congress on the wool schedule, that while all the other interests
were largely represented before the committees of Congress, they
were only represented by two gentlemen, Columbus Delano and William
Lawrence, both from the State of Ohio, who did all they could to
prevent the reduction. Later in the day I attended a meeting of
the state grange, at which several speeches had been made. I
disclaimed the power to instruct the gentlemen before me, who knew
so much more about farming that I, but called their attention to
the active competition they would have in the future in the growth
of cereals in the great plains of the west. I described the wheat
fields I had seen far west of Winnipeg, ten degrees north of us in
Canada. I said the wheat was sown in the spring as soon as the
surface could be plowed, fed by the thawing frosts and harvested
in August, yielding 25 to 40 bushels to the acre, that our farms
had to compete in most of their crops with new and cheap lands in
fertile regions which but a few years before were occupied by
Indians and buffaloes. "We must diversify our crops," I said, "or
make machines to work for us more and more. New wants are created
by increased population in cities. This is one lesson of many
lessons we can learn from the oldest nations in Europe. With large
cities growing up around us the farmer becomes a gardener, a demand
is created for dairy products, for potatoes, and numerous articles
of food which yield a greater profit. In Germany, France and Italy
they are now producing more sugar from beets than is produced in
all the world from sugar cane. The people of the United States
now pay $130,000,000 for sugar which can easily be produced from
beets grown in any of the central states." I said much more to
the same purport.

I visited all parts of the state fair, and tried to avoid talking
politics, but wherever I went on the ground I found groups engaged
in talking about the Toledo convention, and the prospects of
Republican or Democratic success. I had been away so long that I
supposed the embers left by the convention were extinguished, but
nothing, I think, can prevent the Ohio man from expressing his
opinion about parties and politics. I met William Lawrence, one
of the ablest men of the state as a lawyer, a judge and a Member
of Congress. An interview with him had recently been published in
respect to the resolution indorsing my candidacy. This was frequently
called to my attention, and though I had not then read it, my
confidence in him was so great I was willing to indorse anything
he had said.

On the 7th of September I attended a soldiers' meeting at Bellville,
in Richland county, where it was said upwards of 4,000 people took
part. I made quite a long talk to them, but was far more interested
in the stories of men who had served in the war, many of whom gave
graphic accounts of scenes and incidents in which they had taken
part. I have attended many such meetings, but do not recall any
that was more interesting. The story of the private soldier is
often rich in experience. It tells of what he saw in battle, and
these stories of the soldiers, told to each other, form the web
and woof out of which history is written. It was useless to preach
to these men that Providence directly controls the history of
nations. A good Presbyterian would find in our history evidence
of the truth of his theory that all things are ordained beforehand.
Certain it is that the wonderful events in our national life might
be cited as an evidence of this theory. I do reverently recognize
in the history of our war, the hand of a superintending Providence
that has guided our great nation from the beginning to this hour.
The same power which guided our fathers' fathers through the
Revolutionary War, upheld the arms of the soldiers of the Union
Army in the Civil War, and I trust that the same good Providence
will guide our great nation in the years to come.

I made my opening political speech in this campaign at Wilmington,
on the 15th of September. Clinton county is peopled almost exclusively
by a farming community, whose rich upland is drained by the waters
of the Scioto and Miami Rivers. My speech, not only on this
occasion, but during the canvass in other parts of the state, was
chiefly confined to a defense of the Republican party and its policy
while in power, which I contrasted with what I regarded as the
feebleness of Mr. Cleveland's administration. I touched upon state
matters with brevity, but complimented our brilliant and able
governor, Foraker. I referred to the attacks that had been made
upon me about my speech in Springfield, Illinois, and said that no
one had answered by arraignment, except by the exploded cry of "the
bloody shirt," or claimed that a single thing stated by me as fact
was not true. I referred to the "tenderfoot" who would not hurt
anyone's feelings, who would banish the word "rebel" from our
vocabulary, who would not denounce crimes against our fellow-citizens
when they occurred, who thought that, like Cromwell's Roundheads,
we must surrender our captured flags to the rebels who bore them,
and our Grand Army boys, bent and gray, must march under the new
flag, under the flag of Grover Cleveland, or not hold their camp
fires in St. Louis. In conclusion, I said:

"But I will not proceed further. The immediate question is whether
you will renew and ratify the brilliant administration of Governor
Foraker, and support him with a Republican legislature. I feel
that it is hardly necessary to appeal to the good people of Clinton
county for an overwhelming vote in favor of a man so well known
and highly respected among you, and whose associates on the state
ticket are among the most worthy and deserving Republicans of Ohio.
I call your attention to the special importance of the election of
your candidates for senator and members of the house. It is of
vital importance to secure a Republican legislature to secure and
complete the good work of the last. Our success this fall by a
good majority will be a cheering preparation for the grand campaign
of the next year, when we shall have an opportunity again to test
the question of whether the Republican party, which conducted
several administrations in the most trying period of American
history with signal success, shall be restored to power to renew
the broad national policy by which it preserved the Union, abolished
slavery and advanced the republic, in strength, wealth, credit and
varied industries, to the foremost place among the nations of the
world."

In the latter part of September, I made an address to the farmers
of Wayne county, at Lyons, New York. The county borders on Lake
Ontario. Its surface is undulating, its soil generally fertile,
and beneath are iron ore, limestone, gypsum, salt and sulphur
springs. Its chief products are dairy and farm produce and live
stock. I said that my experience about a farm was not such as
would justify me in advising about practical farming, that I was
like many lawyers, preachers, editors and Members of Congress, who
instinctively seek to get possession of a farm, not to show farmers
how to cultivate land, but to spend a good portion of their income
in a healthy recreation, that Horace Greeley and Henry Ward Beecher
were, when living, good specimens of this kind of farmer, that they
all soon learned by sad experience that--

"He that by the plow would thrive,
Himself must either hold or drive."

I claimed to be one of the farmers whose potatoes and chickens cost
more than the market price. Still, those engaged in professional
pursuits, and especially Members of Congress, have to study the
statistics of agriculture because upon the increase and diversity
of its varied productions depend the wealth and progress of the
country for which we legislate. I will not undertake to repeat in
any detail what I said. I drew the distinction between the work
of a mechanic and the work of a farmer; the mechanic had but a
single employment and sometimes confined himself to the manufacture
of a single article, but the farmer must pursue the opposite course.
He must diversify his crops each year, and the nature of his labors
varies with the seasons. His success and profit depend upon the
diversity of his productions, and the full and constant occupation
of his time. I described what I had seen in the far-off region
near the new city of Tacoma on Puget Sound, where the chief employment
of the farmer is in raising hops, and also the mode of producing
wheat in the vast plains of Canada, which, now that the buffalo is
gone, are plowed in the spring, sown in wheat and left unguarded
and untended until ready for the great machines which cut and bind
the crop and thresh it ready for the market. I described the
production of the celery plant in the region of Kalamazoo, Michigan,
where a large portion of the soil is devoted to this vegetable.
As each region varied in climate, soil and market, the occupations
of farmers had to vary with the conditions that surrounded them.
The great cereals, such as wheat, corn, oats and barley, can be
produced in most parts of the United States. Our farmers ought
constantly to diversity their crops and add to the number of their
productions. Attention had been recently turned to the possibility
of producing beet sugar in the northern states, the great obstacle
being the cost of the factory and machinery which, to secure
profitable results, could not be erected for less than $200,000,
but I predicted that this industry would be established and sugar
sufficient for our wants would be produced in our own country. I
referred to the great advance made in the methods of farming, during
the past forty years, with the aid of new inventions of agricultural
implements and new modes of transportation, and the wonderful
progress that had been made in other fields of invention and
discovery, and in conclusion said:

"And so in mental culture, in the knowledge of chemistry, in granges
and fairs, in books, magazines and pamphlets devoted to agriculture,
the farmer of to-day has the means of information which lifts his
occupation to the dignity of a science. The good order of society
now rests upon the intelligence and conservatism of the farmers of
the United States, for to them all classes must look for safety
against the dogmas and doctrines that threaten the social fabric,
and sacred rights of persons and property, and I believe the trust
will not be in vain."

I spoke nearly every day during the month of October, in different
parts of the State of Ohio. I do not recall a town of importance
that I did not visit, nor a congressional district in which I did
not speak. Governor Foraker was even more active than I was. His
speeches were received with great applause, and his manners and
conduct made him popular. The only danger he encountered was in
the active movement of the Prohibition party. This party ran a
separate ticket, the votes of which, it was feared, would mainly
come from the Republican party. In a speech I made at Oberlin, on
the 4th of November, I made an appeal to our Prohibition friends
to support the Republican ticket. I said:

"There are but two great parties in this country, one or the other
of which is to be put in power. You have a perfect right to vote
for the smaller Prohibition party, and thus throw away your vote,
but you know very well that either a Republican or a Democratic
legislature will be elected, and that there will not be a single
Prohibition candidate elected. Will it not be better to choose
between these two parties and give your assistance to the one that
has done the most for the success of your principles? We think
the Republican party is still entitled, as in the past, to your
hearty support. Among other of its enactments there is the 'Dow
law,' looked upon you with suspicion, yet it has done more for
temperance than your 'prohibition laws' at present could have done.
That law enables you to exclude the sale of liquor in more than
400 Ohio towns. It was passed by a Republican legislature. By it
more than 3,000 saloons have been driven out of existence.

"Then you have the repeated declaration of the Republican party,
a party that never deceived the people with false promises, that
they will do anything else that is necessary, or all that is possible
by law, to check the evils that flow from intoxicating drinks.

"Is there not a choice between that party and the Democratic party,
which has always been the slave of the liquor party, and whose
opposition to the enforcement of the Dow law cost the state
$2,000,000? The Democratic party, if put in power, will repeal
that law and will do nothing for prohibition that you will accept.
They say they want license, but they know it can never be brought
about without a change in the constitution. They want the liquor
traffic to go unrestrained. It does seem to me that with all the
intelligence of this community it is the duty of all its candid
men, who are watching the tendencies of these two parties in this
country, not to throw their votes away.

"It is much better to do our work by degrees, working slowly in
the right direction, than to attempt to do it prematurely by
wholesale, and fail. More men have been broken up by attempting
too much than by 'going slow.'

"Your powerful moral influence, if kept within the Republican party,
will do more good, a thousandfold, than you can do losing your vote
by casting it for a ticket that cannot be elected. Next year will
present one of the most interesting spectacles in our history.
The Republican party will gather its hosts of progressive and
patriotic citizens into one grand party at its national convention,
and I trust that when that good time comes our Prohibition friends
and neighbors who stand aloof from us will come back and join the
old fold and rally around the old flag of our country, the stars
and stripes, and help us to march on to a grand and glorious
victory."

I closed my part of the canvass on the 5th of November, at Music
Hall, Cleveland, one of the finest meetings that I ever attended.
General E. S. Meyer and D. K. Watson shared in the speaking.

The result of the election, on the following Tuesday, gave Governor
Foraker a plurality of 23,329 over Thomas E. Powell, and the
legislature was Republican in both branches.

During the canvass I felt specially anxious for the election of
Governor Foraker and a Republican legislature. Some doubts had
been expressed by members of the Toledo convention whether the
resolution favoring my nomination for President would not endanger
the election of Governor Foraker, and his defeat would have been
attributed to that resolution. I did not believe it could have
that effect, yet the fear of it led to my unusual activity in the
canvass. I was very much gratified with the result. Before and
after the election the general discussion was continued in the
newspapers for and against my nomination, upon the presumption that
the contest would lie between Mr. Blaine and myself.

The election in New York was adverse to the Republican party, and
this and his feeble health no doubt largely influenced Mr. Blaine
in declining to be a candidate for the nomination. Upon the surface
it appeared that I would probably be the nominee, but I took no
step whatever to promote the nomination and resumed my duties in
the Senate with a firm resolve not to seek the nomination, but to
rest upon the resolution adopted at Toledo. When letters came to
me, as many did, favoring my nomination, I referred them to Green
B. Raum, at that time a resident in Washington, to make such answer
as he thought expedient.

The 50th Congress convened on the 5th of December, 1887, and was
promptly organized, the Senate being Republican, and the House
Democratic. During this long session of about eleven months, nearly
every question of political or financial importance in American
politics was under discussion, and I was compelled, by my position
on the committees on foreign relations and finance, to take an
active part in the debates.

On the 6th the President sent to Congress his annual message, in
which he departed from the established usage of his predecessors,
who had presented in order the subjects commented upon, commencing
with a summary of our relations with foreign nations, and extending
to the business of all the varied departments of the government.
Instead of this he abruptly opened with a cry of alarm, as follows:

"To the Congress of the United States.

"You are confronted, at the threshold of your legislative duties,
with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands
immediate and careful consideration."

This threatening announcement of a great national danger startled
the general public, who had settled down into the conviction that
all was going on very well with a Democratic administration. The
President said that the amount of money annually exacted largely
exceeded the expenses of the government. This did not seem so
great a calamity. It was rather an evidence of good times, especially
as he could apply the surplus to the reduction of the national
debt. Then we were told that:

"On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public
expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the
sinking fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June
30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the
year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54."

In other words, we had an excess of revenue over expenditures for
three years of about $122,000,000. The sinking fund during that
three years, as he informed us, amounted in the aggregate to
$138,058,320; that is, we had stipulated by law to pay of the public
debt that sum during three years, and had been able to pay all we
agreed to pay, and had $122,000,000 more. He did not state that
during and subsequent to the panic of 1873 the United States did
not pay the sinking fund, and this deficiency was made good during
the prosperous years that followed 1879. Upon the facts stated by
him he based his extraordinary message. The only recommendation
made by him was a reduction of taxation. No reference to the vast
interests intrusted to departments other than the treasury was made
by him except in a brief paragraph. He promised that as the law
makes no provision for any report from the department of state, a
brief history of the transactions of that important department
might furnish the occasion for future consideration.

I have a sincere respect for President Cleveland, but I thought
the message was so grave a departure from the customary annual
message of the President to Congress that it ought to be answered
seriatim. I did so in a carefully prepared speech. The answer
made can be condensed in a few propositions: An increase of revenue
(the law remaining unchanged) is an evidence of unusual trade and
prosperity. The surplus revenue, whatever it might be, could and
ought to be applied to the reduction of the public debt. The law
under which the debt was created provided for this, by requiring
a certain percentage of the debt to be paid annually, and appropriating
the surplus revenue for that purpose. Under this policy it was
estimated that the debt would be paid off prior to 1907.

But experience soon demonstrated that, whatever might be the law
in force, the revenues of the government would vary from year to
year, depending, not upon rates of taxation, but upon the financial
condition of the country. After the panic of 1873, the revenues
were so reduced that the sinking fund was practically suspended by
the fact that there was no surplus money in the treasury to meet
its requirements. At periods of prosperity the revenues were in
excess of the current expenses and the sinking fund, and in such
conditions the entire surplus revenue, was applied to the reduction
of the public debt and thus made good the deficiency in the sinking
fund in times of financial stringency. This was a wise public
policy, fully understood and acted upon by every Secretary of the
Treasury since the close of the war and prior to Mr. Manning.

Another rule of action, founded upon the clearest public policy,
had been observed prior to the incumbency of Mr. Cleveland, and
that was not to hold in the treasury any form of money in excess
of a reasonable balance, in addition to the fund held to secure
the redemption of United States notes. All sums in excess of these
were promptly applied to the payment of the public debt, and, if
none of it was redeemable, securities of the United States were
purchased in the open market. It was the desire of Congress and
every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, in order to comply with
the sinking fund law, to apply the surplus to the gradual reduction
of the debt. While I was secretary I heartily co-operated with
the committees of Congress in reducing appropriations, and in this
way was enabled to maintain the reserve, and to reduce the interest-
bearing public debt.

The policy of Mr. Cleveland and Secretary Manning was to hoard in
the treasury as much of the currency of the country as possible,
amounting sometimes to more than $200,000,000, and this created a
stringency which affected injuriously the business of the country.
It was the policy of all the early Presidents to apply any surplus
revenue either to the reduction of the public debt or to public
objects.

Mr. Jefferson, in his message of 1806, says: "To what object shall
the surplus be appropriated? Shall we suppress the impost, and
thus give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufacturers?"
He believed that the patriotism of the people would "prefer its
continuance and application for the purpose of the public education,
roads, rivers and canals." This was in exact opposition to the
policy proposed by Mr. Cleveland, who refused to apply the surplus
revenue to the reduction of the debt, and in his extraordinary
message demanded a reduction of duties on foreign goods. A larger
surplus revenue had frequently, from time to time, been wisely
dealt with by Republican administrations. It had either been
applied by the executive authorities to the payment of the public
debt, or its accumulation had been prevented by Congress, from time
to time, by the reduction or repeal of taxes. In the administration
of each of Mr. Cleveland's predecessors since the close of the war,
this simple remedy had been applied without neglecting other matters,
or raising a cry of alarm. It was apparent that the object of the
President was to force the reduction of duties on imported goods,
which came into competition with domestic products, and that the
accumulation of money in the treasury was resorted to as a means
to compel such a reduction.

On the 19th of July, 1886, I had called the attention of the Senate
to the difficulty and danger of hoarding in the treasury surplus
revenue, and the readiness of the Senate to provide for the reduction
of taxes and the application of the surplus. The revenues could
have been reduced without endangering domestic industries. At the
date of his extraordinary message both Houses of Congress were
quite ready to reduce taxes. Full authority had been given to the
Secretary of the Treasury to apply surplus revenue to the purchase
of United States bonds. But the President, set in his opinion,
was not satisfied with such measures, but demanded the reduction
of duties which protected American industries.

The greater part of my speech in reply to the President's message
was a discussion of the different forms of taxation imposed by the
United States and especially the duties imposed on imported goods.
I never was an extreme protectionist. I believed in the imposition
of such a duty on foreign goods which could be produced in the
United States as would fairly measure the difference in the cost
of labor and manufacture in this and foreign countries. This was
a question not to be decided by interested capitalists, but by the
careful estimate of business men. The intense selfishness exhibited
by many of those who demanded protection, and the error of those
who opposed all protection, were alike to be disregarded.

I believe that no judicious tariff can be framed by Congress alone,
without the help of a commission of business men not personally
interested in the subject-matter, and they should be aided by
experienced officers in the revenue service. I have participated
in a greater or less degree in the framing of every tariff law for
forty years. I have spoken many times on the subject in the Senate
and on the rostrum. My reply to the President's message is the
best exposition I have made as to the principles and details of a
protective tariff. If I had my way I would convene such a tariff
commission as I have discussed, give it ample time to hear and gain
all information that could aid it, and require it to report the
rates of duty proposed in separate schedules so that the rate of
each schedule or paragraph might be raised or lowered from time to
time to meet the wants of the treasury. If Congress would allow
such a bill to become a law we could dismiss the tariff free from
party politics and lay the foundation for a durable system of
national taxation, upon which domestic industries may be founded
without the hazard which they now encounter every year or two by
"tinkering with the tariff."

The real controversy raised by the President's message was not
whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced
or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate
with Mr. McKenna, as follows;

"There is a broad line of division between the two parties as they
exist now and as they will exist in the future. The President
says, 'retain all internal taxes and reduce the duties on imported
merchandise that comes in competition with home industries.' We
say we will not strike down any prospering industry in this country;
that where manufactures have sprung up in our midst by aid of a
duty, this protection, as you call it, we will not reduce; we will
not derange contracts, industries, or plans, or lower the prices
of labor, or compel laborers or manufacturers to meet any sudden
change or emergency. We say that we are willing to join with you
in reducing the taxes. We will select those taxes that bear most
heavily upon the people, especially internal taxes, and repeal
those. We will maintain the policy of protection by tariff duties
just as long as it is necessary to give our people the benefit of
a home market, and diversified productions a fair chance in the
trade and commerce of our country, but we will not invite into our
country foreign importations to compete with and break down our
home industries."

The bill entitled "A bill to reduce taxation and simplify the laws
in relation to the collection of the revenue," known as the Mills
bill, was the outcome of the President's message. It was reported
to the House of Representatives by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, and
thus obtained its name. Mr. Mills, on the 17th of April, called
it up for consideration, and it was debated and amended, and passed
the House on the 21st of July, more than seven months after the
President's cry of alarm, by the close vote of 162 yeas to 149
nays. Samuel J. Randall, then absent and sick, desired his colleague
to pair him against the bill, as, if present, he would record his
vote in opposition to the bill. It came to the Senate and was
referred to the committee on finance. On the 8th of October Mr.
Allison, from that committee, reported back the Mills bill with a
substitute for the entire bill. This substitute was a careful and
elaborate protective tariff bill, containing some provisions I did
not approve, but, in its general provisions, was, in my opinion,
a far better bill than the Mills bill. The debate on these rival
bills continued until the close of the session on the 19th of
October, when the Senate, by a resolution, authorized and directed
the committee on finance to continue during the recess of Congress
the investigation of such revenue measures, including the Senate
and House bills, as had been referred to the Senate.

The history of the bills during the second session of this Congress
is easily told. They were debated in the Senate nearly every day
until the 22nd of January, 1889, when the amendment of the Senate
was adopted as a substitute for the entire Mills bill, by the close
vote of 32 yeas to 30 nays. It was debated in the House of
Representatives and referred to its committee of ways and means.
It was reported by the committee to the House of Representatives,
with a resolution declaring that the action of the Senate in
substituting an entire bill for the House bill was in violation of
the constitution. No action was taken on this resolution, and then
all tariff legislation was defeated for that Congress.

On the 6th of March, 1888, Senator Beck made a rambling speech
commencing with a fierce denunciation of a bill then pending to
grant pensions to certain disabled soldiers of the Union army. He
then veered off on the tariff and the great trusts created by it.
I ventured, in a mild-mannered way, to suggest to him a doubt
whether trusts were caused by the tariff, whether they did not
exist as to domestic as well as to foreign productions. I named
to him the whisky trust, the cotton-seed trust and other trusts of
that kind, and wanted to know how these grew out of the tariff.
Thereupon he changed his ground and took up the silver question
and commenced assailing me for the coinage act of 1873, saying I
was responsible for it. He said it was secretly passed, surreptitiously
done, that I did it, that I knew it.

I promptly replied to that charge by showing from the records that
the act referred to, and especially the part of it relating to the
silver dollar, was recommended by Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of
the Treasury, and all the officers connected with coinage and the
mints, that it was debated at great length for three successive
sessions in both Houses, that it was printed thirteen times, and
that the clause omitting the old silver dollar was especially
considered and the policy of it fully debated, and a substitute
for the old dollar was provided for by each House. I can say with
confidence that every Member of the Senate but Beck felt that he
had been worsted in the debate, and that the charge aimed at me,
but which equally applied to Morrill and Bayard, and especially to
all the Senators from the silver states who earnestly and actively
supported the bill, was thoroughly refuted.

Senator Beck, chafed by his defeat, on the 13th of March made in
the Senate a three hours' speech in support of his position.
Instead of going to the public records and showing by them whether
or not the law was put through the Senate in a secret way, he quoted
what several Senators and Members said they did not know, what
Grant did not know, a mode of argument that if of effect would
invalidate the great body of the legislation of Congress.

I replied in a speech occupying less than half an hour, producing
the original bill as it came from the treasury department with the
dollar omitted from the silver coins, with the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury calling attention to its omission, and
the opinion of Knox, LInderman, Patterson, Elliott, all of whom
were prominent officers of the treasury department in charge of
currency and coinage, giving fully the reasons why the old silver
dollar was omitted. I also quoted from the records of each House
of Congress, showing that special attention was called to the
omission of the old silver dollar by Mr. Hooper, having charge of
the bill. The House of Representatives, in compliance with the
advice of Comptroller Knox, did authorize in its bill, which it
passed, a subsidiary dollar containing 384 grains of standard
silver, the same weight as two half dollars, but these dollars
were, like the subsidiary fractional coins, a legal tender for only
five dollars. When this bill came to the Senate it was thoroughly
debated. The legislature of California petitioned Congress for a
silver dollar weighing more than the Mexican dollar instead of the
subsidiary dollar provided for by the House. In compliance with
this petition, the Senate so amended the bill as to authorize the
owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at any mint, to be
formed into bars or into dollars of the weight of 420 grains,
designated as "trade dollars." These dollars were intended solely
for the foreign trade, and were worth in the market only the value
of 420 grains of standard silver. It was the dollar desired by
the silver producing states, and but for the rapid decline in the
price of silver, which made this dollar worth less than its face
in gold, the mint would probably be coining them to-day; but before
the mint was closed to their coinage more than 35,000,000 pieces
had been made. No unprejudiced persons could claim that the charges
of Mr. Beck were not completely answered.

On the 23rd of March Chief Justice Waite, of the Supreme Court of
the United States, died at his residence in Washington. Upon the
27th, upon my motion, the Senate adopted a resolution that a
committee of five Senators be appointed by the chair, whose duty
it should be to accompany the remains of the chief justice to
Toledo, in the State of Ohio, and attend the funeral there. The
committee appointed were Messrs. Sherman, Allison, Evarts, George
and Gray. They attended the funeral as directed. Chief Justice
Waite was born in Connecticut, but lived all his manhood life in
Toledo, Ohio, until appointed by President Grant as chief justice.
He was an able lawyer and a patient, conscientious and learned
judge.

On the 1st of March I was directed by the committee on foreign
relations to report the following resolution:

"_Resolved by the Senate of the United States_, That, in view of
the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation
of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under
the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the
United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor
of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer should
enter the United States."

After a brief debate, participated in by Senators Morgan, Stewart,
Mitchell and others, I made a few remarks, commencing as follows:

"Whatever differences there may have been in the Senate or in the
country, with regard to the restriction of Chinese immigration,
the time has come when I believe the general sentiment of the people
is, that the law on the subject should be fairly enforced; that
the Chinese laborer should be excluded from enjoying the benefits
of our country, because he will not adapt himself to the civilization
of our country. That feeling is most strongly expressed by Senators
and Representatives from the Pacific coast, among whom the 100,000
or more Chinese in the country live, and they have expressed that
opinion to the committee on foreign relations so decidedly and
unanimously, and supported by such potent reasons, that I believe
every member of that committee is of the opinion that the object
of the law to exclude the immigration of Chinese laborers should
be effectively carried out."

The resolution was adopted.

During this Congress the question of excluding Chinese immigration
by treaty and by law was pending and copiously debated. There
seemed to be a general concurrence that such immigration was not
desirable, and that Chinese coolies should be absolutely excluded.
A treaty was negotiated providing for such exclusion, but, as there
was a long dely by the Chinese government in ratifying it, and the
coolies still continued to come, bills were introduced in Congress
prohibiting, under severe penalties, the immigration of all Chinese
laborers. Before the bill became a law the treaty was ratified.
Now, both by treaty and by law, such immigrants are excluded, but
in spite of law and treaty they still come in lessening numbers,
and it does not appear how they can be entirely excluded. I have
been in favor of the exclusion of Chinese laborers when practically
they are slaves, but have sought to moderate the legislation
proposed, so as not to disturb our friendly relations with China,
or to exclude educated Chinamen engaged in commercial pursuits.

On the 18th of April I made a speech on a bill for the admission
of Dakota, as a state, into the Union. That territory had more
than the usual population of a new state, but its admission had
been postponed, year after year, by the action of the Democratic
party. This speech led to a long debate between Mr. Vest and myself
on the election in Louisiana in 1876. It is not an unusual occurrence
to change the subject of discussion in the Senate where debate is
unlimited. I made a long review of the events in Louisiana, mainly
in reply to a question put by Mr. Vest as follows:

"I have never understood, and the people of this country have never
been able to understand, why Packard was not elected governor with
a larger number of votes than Hayes received for President. But
Packard was thrown out and sent as consul to Liverpool, and Hayes
was sworn in as President of the United States."

To this I replied that the returning board was invested with the
power to pass upon the election of electors and they did perform
that duty, but the question of the election of a governor and a
legislature of Louisiana could only be passed upon by the legislature
itself, each house being the judge of its own elections, and the
two houses, when organized, had the sole and exclusive power to
pass upon the election of a governor. This condition of affairs
led to a controversy which endangered the public peace and involved
the use of United States troops to prevent civil war. President
Hayes thereupon had selected five gentlemen, Charles B. Lawrence,
Joseph R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown and Wayne MacVeagh,
each of whom was a man of marked distinction in the community in
which he lived. They were sent to Louisiana to inquire and report
upon the existing condition of affairs bordering on a state of
civil war between the opposing factions. They were instructed to
promote, as far as possible, the organization of a legislature, so
that it might pass upon the question of who was governor of the
state. The result of their inquiry led to the organization of the
legislature, and when so organized it recognized Nichols as Governor
of Louisiana, as it clearly had the right to do. The returning
board had the unquestioned right to pass upon the election of
electors for President, but it was equally clear that the legislature
was invested with the sole power of passing upon the election of
the governor. The returning board certified to the election of
the Hayes electors, and the legislature determined that Nichols
was elected governor. Although these decisions were inconsistent
with each other yet each was legal and binding. I took occasion
in this speech to defend the action of the returning board, and
especially the two leading members, J. Madison Wells and Thomas A.
Anderson, both of whom were men of high character and standing in
that state.

In the course of this debate Vest and Butler charged me with
inconsistency in my speeches at Nashville and Springfield. This
allegation had been frequently made in the newspapers of the time.
In reply I said:

"I am much obliged to my friend from Missouri for his kindness in
reading extracts from my speeches. They sound much better to me
read by him than when spoken by myself. The speeches speak for
themselves, particularly the one at Nashville. Every word I uttered
on that night I utter now. If I could repeat it over, I would add
emphasis to give force and effect to it, and so I feel about the
south. I have not the slightest feeling of hostility against the
south, and no desire in regard to it, except to preserve and protect
the rights of all the people of the south.

"Now, in regard to my speech at Springfield, every word of that is
true. Why does not the Senator dispute some fact stated in that
speech? That was a review made to a legislature--indeed, both
speeches were made to legislative assemblies, dignified and honorable
men. I was speaking in sight of the monument of Lincoln; I was
recalling the incidents of Lincoln's life, the period of the war,
and referred, of course, to the Democratic party north and south.
I could not truthfully draw a more flattering picture. The one
was a speech as to the future to men who, I believed, were hopefully
looking forward to the disappearance of the feelings of the war.
The other was a recapitulation and review of the past. Every word
of it was true. If the Senator can point out the inconsistency in
these speeches, he will oblige me. There is not a single word in
one inconsistent with the other. I did denounce the course of the
Democratic party north and south, during and since the war, especially
in regard to the reconstruction measures. I did, at Nashville,
speak hopefully, and I feel hopefully, of the future, but it is
only upon the basis of the recognized rights of every American
citizen."

On the 16th of July I made a speech in favor of the passage of a
bill for the erection of a monument to General George Rogers Clark,
of the American Revolution. His march through the wilderness and
attack upon the British posts in the northwestern territory was
one of the most brilliant events in the Revolutionary War. The
bill passed the Senate and was reported to the House, but was not
acted upon. It is one of the obligations of honor and duty which,
I trust, will be discharged by the United States before many years.

On the 24th of August a message from the President, in regard to
the fishing rights of the United States, was read in the Senate.
I moved that the message be referred to the committee on foreign
relations. Before this motion was put an extended debate took
place mainly between Senators Edmunds and Morgan, though several
other Senators took part. I made a speech expressing my opinion
of the President's position on the fishery question, and then took
occasion to refer to the surplus in the treasury in the following
words:

"It seems to me that the position taken by the President is a good
deal like that held by him as to the payment of the public debt.
My former old and honored colleague [Mr. Thurman] is going around
through the country talking about surplus money in the treasury,
there accumulated all because we Republicans will not let it out.
Of all the financial management that I have read or know of, the
worst is that by the present administration. Here there was an
accumulating surplus in the treasury, day by day and year by year,
since the first day Mr. Cleveland entered the presidential chair.
What did he do with that surplus revenue? He did not make proclamation
of it for two or three years, but let it accumulate and accumulate
until he did not know what to do with it. Finally the attention
of the administration was called to the fact that they ought to
buy bonds with it. Well, Mr. Cleveland, with his sharp construction,
thought he had not the power to buy bonds; he thought he could not
do it legally. The law confers the power upon the Secretary of
the Treasury.

"The President had no more power over it than the Senator from
Connecticut before me [Mr. Platt] has. The law confers it upon
the secretary; it was his duty to buy bonds. What untold sums have
been lost by his failure to comply with that law. Until recently,
during nearly all the administration of Mr. Cleveland, the four
per cent. bonds have been sold in the market about 123. I have
here the American almanac giving the value of the four per cent.
bonds during his administration, and they have usually sold at 123.
If the United States had quietly watched its opportunities in the
way the present secretary's predecessors had done, he could have
gone into the market and absorbed those bonds, to the amount of
half a million or a million at a time, and bought them at the market
price, 123, and then how much money would have been saved to the
government of the United States.

"My former colleague says they have over $100,000,000 of surplus.
If they had applied that one hundred million in the purchase of
bonds they would have saved four per cent. per annum for three
years--that is, twelve per cent. And besides, they would have
saved six or seven per cent. lost by the advance of bonds. At any
time during the administration of Mr. Cleveland, if his Secretary
of the Treasury had exercised the power conferred on him by the
law, he might have saved the government of the United States from
twelve to sixteen per cent. on the whole hundred million of dollars,
if he had invested it in bonds of the United States. But he would
not do it because he had not the power. So the President sent to
Congress and asked for power, just as he has done in this case,
when he had ample power, and both Houses declared unanimously that
he had the power, and then, after the bonds had gone up to 127 or
128, when he had lost three years' interest on a large portion of
this accumulation, he commenced to buy bonds and complains that
they are too high, and that he calls wise financial management.

"So now here is a law, on the statute book for over a year, to
enforce a demand on the Canadian authorities that our fishermen,
who are there carrying on their hazardous enterprise, should have
the right to enter the port of Halifax and ship their goods under
the plain provisions of the treaty or the law, and, if that right
was denied, then here was the law expressly prepared for the
particular case, to authorize the President not to do any violent
act of retaliation, not to involve us in any dangerous or delusive
measure which would excite the public mind and probably create
animosities between these two great countries. But suppose he had
simply said: 'Well, if you deny to the Yankee fishermen the right
to transship their fish, we deny you the right to bring fresh fish
into Maine, Boston, and New York, and scatter them all over, cured
by ice,' for that is the effect of it--ice takes the place of salt."

My allusion to the finances as usual excited the ire of Mr. Beck,
who said:

"The Senator from Ohio gets away from the treaty and talks about
this administration not buying bonds and how much we could have
saved because they have raised the price; but I want to say that
he himself was the man, both as Secretary of the Treasury and as
chairman of the committee on finance, who arranged our debts in
such a way that we could not pay them."

In my reply I again called attention to the fact that the House,
of which Mr. Beck was a Member at the time of the passage of the
four per cent. bond bill, and not the Senate, was responsible for
the long period of the bonds. I said:

"The Senator from Kentucky says I am responsible for the fact that
there is the prolonged period of thirty years to the four per cent.
bonds. He knows, because he was here the other day when I showed
from the public record, that the Senate of the United States proposed
to pass a bill to issue bonds running only twenty years, with the
right of redemption after ten years; and if the law had been passed
in that form in which it was sent from the Senate none of this
trouble would have existed; but it was changed by the House of
Representatives, of which the Senator from Kentucky was then a
Member. I believe he voted for the House proposition against the
Senate proposition, by which the time was extended to thirty years,
and they were not redeemable during that time. Yet I am charged
with the responsibility of lengthening these bonds.

"Whatever my sins, I can claim to have always favored the right to
redeem the bonds of the United States as the 5-20's and the 10-40's
were issued to be redeemed; and if I had had my way we would have
had the same kind of bonds issued instead of the thirty-year bonds."

The relation of Canada with the United States, especially in
connection with the fisheries, became at this period dangerously
strained. This led me, on the 18th of September, to offer in the
Senate the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on foreign relations be directed
to inquire into, and report at the next session of Congress, the
state of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and
the Dominion of Canada, with such measures as are expedient to
promote friendly commercial and political intercourse between these
countries and the United States, and for that purpose have leave
to sit during the recess of Congress."

In support of this resolution I said in opening:

"The recent message of the President recommending a line of
retaliation against the Dominion of Canada involves the consideration
of our relations with that country in a far more important and
comprehensive way than Congress has ever before been called upon
to give. The recent treaty rejected by the Senate related to a
single subject, affecting alone our treaty rights on her northeastern
coast. The act of retaliation of 1887 was confined to the same
subject-matter. This message, however, treats of matters extending
across the continent, affecting commercial relations with every
state and territory on our northern boundary. Under these
circumstances I feel it is my duty to present my views of all these
cognate subjects, and in doing so I feel bound to discard, as far
as possible, all political controversy, for in dealing with foreign
relations, and especially those with our nearest neighbor, we should
think only of our country and not of our party."

The real difficulty of dealing with Canada is its dependence on
Great Britain. Our negotiations must be with the English government,
while the matters complained of are purely Canadian, and the consent
of Canada is necessary to the ratification of any treaty. The
President complained that Canadian authorities and officers denied
to our fishermen the common privileges freely granted to friendly
nations to enter their ports and harbors, to purchase supplies and
transship commodities. He said that they subjected our citizens,
engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to their northeastern
shore, to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances, had
seized and sold their vessels upon slight pretexts, and had otherwise
treated them in a rude, harsh, and oppressive manner. He further
said:

"This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada, by
the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it, and upon the ground
that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests.
We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further
maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, of disputed
interpretation, the relative positions of the United States and
Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the
development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable
relations surely guaranty, and, above all, the liberality always
extended by the United States to the people of Canada, furnished
motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty
covenants."

I agreed with the President in his arraignment of the Canadian
authorities for denying to our fishing vessels the benefit of the
enlightened measures adopted in later years by commercial nations,
especially by the United States and Great Britain. We admitted
fish free of duty into our country, while Canada refused to our
fishermen the right to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian
ports, thus preventing our fishermen from competing with the
Canadians on the open sea. The President undertook, by treaty, to
correct this injustice, but the Senate thought that the provisions
of the treaty were not adequate for that purpose, and declined to
ratify it. He thereupon recommended that Congress provide certain
measures of retaliation, which, in the opinion of the Senate, would
have inflicted greater injury to the United States than to Canada.
This honest difference of opinion, not based upon party lines,
opened up the consideration of all our commercial relations with
Canada. The speech made by me dealt with the policy of the United
States with Canada in the past and for the future, and led me to
the expression of my opinion that Canada should be, and would be,
represented in the parliament of Great Britain or the Congress of
the United States, with the expression of my hope of its being
annexed to our country. I said:

"And now I submit if the time has not come when the people of the
United States and Canada should take a broader view of their
relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable.
Our whole history, since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain
in 1763, has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace
with each other except by a political as well as commercial union.
The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies
in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all,
for the mother country as well, if all this continent north of
Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the
blessings and prosperity of the American Union.

"So, evidently, our fathers thought, for among the earliest military
movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the
occupation of Canada, and the capture of the British forces in
Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition,
the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the
fearful suffering borne by the Continental forces in the march and
retreat, is familiar to every student of American history. The
native population of Canada were then friendly to our cause, and
hundreds of them, as refugees, followed our retiring forces and
shared in the subsequent dangers and triumphs of the war. It was
the earnest desire of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, at the treaty of
peace, to secure the consent of Great Britain to allow Canada to
form a part of the United States, and at one time it appeared
possible, but for the influence of France and Spain, then the
acknowledged sovereigns of large parts of the territory now included
within the United States. The present status of Canada grew out
of the activities and acquisitions of European powers after the
discovery of this continent. Spain, France, and England especially
desired to acquire political jurisdiction over this newly discovered
country.

"Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is
sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of
the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England
held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title,
only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The
statesmen of this government early discerned the fact that it was
impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory
then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and
prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was
always present of conflicts with the European powers maintaining
governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a
necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country.
They were acquired and are now held.

"Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater
force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-
four years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our
own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character,
and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect
freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to
the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of
the world; and as far as the interests of the two people are
concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live
next door neighbors to each other, and there should be a perfect
freedom of intercourse between them.

"A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them,
rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European power,
one hundred years ago, was able to hold that territory against us;
but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become
an independent government to all intents and purposes, as much so
as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all
the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida,
Louisiana, and the Pacific coast and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly
strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and
matters of transportation. These intensify not only the propriety,
but the absolute necessity, of both a commercial and a political
union between Canada and the United States."

This was my opinion then, but further reflection convinces me that
the annexation of Canada to the United States presents serious
difficulties, and that the best policy for the other English-speaking
countries is that Canada should constitute an independent republic,
founded upon the model of the United States, with one central
government, and provinces converted into states with limited powers
for local governments. The United States already embraces so vast
a country, divided into forty-four states and four territories,
exclusive of Alaska and the Indian Territory, that any addition to
the number of states would tend to weaken the system, and the
conversion of the provinces of Canada into states of our Union
would introduce new elements of discord, while with Canada as an
independent and friendly republic we could, by treaties or concurrent
legislation, secure to each the benefit of free trade and intercourse
with the other, and without the danger of weakening the United
States. Great Britain, the common mother of both republics, could
take pride in her progeny and be relieved from the cares and
controversies that have arisen and will arise in her guardianship
of Canada. Her policy in recent years has been to surrender, as
much as possible, her legislative power over Canada, but, as Canada
is not represented in parliament and cannot be represented by a
minister at Washington, the spectacle of a British minister of the
highest rank engaged in an effort to negotiate a treaty for the
benefit of Canada about bait and fish and fisheries, imposing
restrictions of trade in direct opposition to the policy of the
mother country. This condition of Canada constantly invites a
breach of the peace between the United States and Great Britain,
but with Canada governed by a parliament and by local assemblies in
the provinces on a plan similar to our own, the two republics would
be independent of each other, and could arrange their matters
without any other country to interfere.

There were many other measures of interest and importance in the
discussing and framing of which I participated at this session,
but as this is not a general history of Congress, I do not deem it
necessary to mention them in detail.

CHAPTER LV.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888.
Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President--
Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats--I Am Indorsed by
the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19--My Response to
a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant--Meeting with
Prominent Men in New York--Foraker's Reply to Judge West's Declaration
Concerning Blaine--Blaine's Florence Letter to Chairman Jones--His
Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position--Meeting
of the Convention in Chicago in June--I Am Nominated by General D.
H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker--Jealously Between
the Ohio Delegates--Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June
25--Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain--General Harrison is
Nominated--Letters from the President Elect--My Replies--First
Speeches of the Campaign--Harrison's Victory--Second Session of
the 50th Congress--The President's Cabinet.

While Congress was in session the people of the United States were
greatly interested in the choice of a candidate for President.
Conventions were held, votes were taken and preferences expressed
in every state. It was settled early in the year that a large
majority of the delegates from Ohio would support me for President,
and several weeks before the convention was held it was announced
that I would receive the unanimous support of the delegates from
Ohio. The Democratic party nominated Grover Cleveland and Allen
G. Thurman for President and Vice President.

The Republican state convention was held at Dayton, Ohio, on the
18th and 19th of April, and selected Foraker, Foster, McKinley and
Butterworth as delegates at large to the national convention.
Forty-two delegates were nominated by the twenty-one districts,
and all of them were known to favor my nomination. The convention
unanimously adopted this resolution:

"Seventh. The Republicans of Ohio recognize the merits, services
and abilities of the statesmen who have been mentioned for the
Republican nomination for the presidency, and, loyal to anyone who
may be selected, present John Sherman to the country as eminently
qualified and fitted for the duties of that exalted office, and
the delegates to the Republican national convention this day selected
are directed to use all honorable means to secure his nomination
as President of the United States."

The speeches made at the convention by the delegates at large, and
by other members, expressed without qualification the hearty and
unanimous support of my nomination. The condition upon which alone
I would become a candidate for so exalted a position as President
of the United States had been complied with, and I therefore felt
that I might fairly aspire to the nomination. Mr. Blaine had
declined it on account of his health, and no one was named who had
a longer record of public service than I had.

The movement for my nomination was heartily indorsed by the people
of Ohio and was kindly received in the different states. Many of
the leading newspapers assumed that it was assured. Sketches of
my life, full of errors, appeared. My old friend, Rev. S. A.
Bronson, issued a new edition of his "Life of John Sherman."
Comments favorable and unfavorable, some of them libelous, appeared
in print. Mrs. Sherman, much more sensitive than I of calumny,
begged me not to be a candidate, as the office of President had
killed Lincoln and Garfield, and the effort to attain it had broken
down Webster, Clay and Blaine, and would do the same with me.
However, I remained at my duties in Washington as calmly awaiting
the action of the Chicago convention as any one of my associates
in the Senate. I read the daily reports of what was to be--"that
I was to be nominated on the first ballot," and "that I had no
chance whatever," and became alike indifferent as to the one or
the other result.

Shortly after the Ohio convention, I was invited to attend a banquet
of the Americus club at the Monongahela House, in Pittsburg, on
the 28th of April, at which Senator Harrison and Colonel Fred.
Grant were guests. The lobby of the hotel looked as if a political
convention was in session, many prominent men from Pennsylvania
and other states being present.

At the banquet I was called upon to respond to the toast "Grant;
He Was Great to the End." I insert a portion of my remarks:

"I saw General Grant when he arrived in Washington. He soon took
command of the Army of the Potomac. His plan of campaign was soon
formed. His objective point was Lee's army. Where Lee went he
went, and if Lee moved too slowly Grant flanked him. After the
fearful and destructive battles of the Wilderness, Washburne wanted
to carry some consoling message to Lincoln, and Grant wrote 'I
propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.' And
so he did, and all winter. He never loosed his tenacious grip of
Lee's army until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. If you ask me the
secret of his success I say tenacity, tenacity. He never was
discouraged. He knew how to hold on. And when his object was
attained, and not till then, he knew how to be generous.

"He carried the same traits into civil life. He was always the
same plain, simple, confiding, brave, tenacious and generous man
in war and peace, as when the leader of vast armies, President of
the United States, the guest of kings and emperors, and in his
final struggle with grim-visaged death. Gentlemen, you do right
to commemorate his birthday. It was his good fortune to be the
chief instrument of Divine Power to secure to you and your posterity
the blessing of a free, strong and united country. He was heroic
to the end, and you should be equally heroic in maintaining and
preserving the rights and privileges and policy for which he
contended.

* * * * *

"I deem it an honor to be called upon by your club, on this sixty-
sixth anniversary of the birthday of General Grant, to present in
brief words this typical American citizen, this illustrious soldier,
this patriotic President. By his tenacious courage and skill the
armies of the Union were led from victory to victory, from Belmont
to Appomattox, until every enemy of the republic laid down his arms
in unconditional surrender. He won from foreign nations reparation
for injuries done to us during the war. He did more than anyone
else to preserve untarnished the public credit and honor. Heroic
to the end, in the hours of death he won his greatest victory by
the story of his life, told in words so plain, truthful, charitable
and eloquent that it will become as classic as the commentaries of
Caesar, but more glorious as the record of a patriot who saved his
country, instead of a conqueror who overthrew its liberties. When
speaking of General Grant I do not know where to begin and where
to end, whether with his personal traits of character, his achievements
as a commander of armies, or his services as an untried magistrate
in civil life; I can only make a mere reference to each of these
elements of his fame."

During the whole of the month of May I remained in Washington, and
attended constantly the sessions of the Senate. I was greatly
interrupted by visits of persons from different parts of the country,
who wished to converse with me in regard to the approaching
convention. I treated them kindly, but referred them to General
Raum for any information he could give them. I was called to New
York on the 8th of June, to attend a meeting of the directors of
the Fort Wayne Railway Company. I stopped at the Fifth Avenue
hotel, where great numbers of politicians called upon me, but I
was charged with having interviews with many persons whom I did
not see. I met the leading politicians of the state, including ex-
Senator Platt, Senators Hiscock and Quay, Charles Emory Smith, of
Philadelphia, and many others. The newspapers had a good many
alleged interviews which never occurred. I then became satisfied
that I would not probably receive more than five or six of the
votes of the New York delegation, as they had generally committed
themselves to Mr. Depew, who was understood to be a candidate.

It was already asserted in the papers that I would not be nominated,
but that Blaine would be, in spite of his declination in his Florence
and Paris letters. Among others, this was asserted by Judge West,
of Ohio. Governor Foraker, who was at the head of the Ohio delegation
to Chicago, was reported to have said in reply to West:

"I do not attach much importance to Judge West's recent speech.
He is not a delegate this year, and he only speaks for himself.
Mr. Sherman will have the united and hearty support of the delegates
from this state, and I think his nomination is reasonably assured.
I received a letter from him yesterday in which he expressed himself
as being very confident of getting the nomination. It certainly
looks that way to me."

"How do you account for the circulation of the reports that you
are not entirely loyal to Sherman?"

"I suppose they originated in the breasts of mischief-makers who
would like to make trouble. There never was the slightest foundation
for them. I have paid no heed to them, for if my character is not
sufficiently established in this state to make my attitude towards
Mr. Sherman perfectly clear, nothing I could say would alter the
situation. It has been practically settled that General Hastings,
the adjutant general of Pennsylvania, will present Mr. Sherman's
name to the convention. He is an excellent speaker, and will, no
doubt, acquit himself with credit. Yes, I shall probably make the
speech seconding his nomination from this state. It is customary,
I believe, to have a candidate presented by a delegate from some
other state than his own, and in Sherman's case it seems eminently
proper that he should be presented in this way, as he is in such
a broad sense a national candidate."

There was a common opinion prevailing that the relations of Blaine
and myself were not friendly. This was a grave mistake. We had
never had any controversy of a personal character. He had spoken
of me in terms of the highest eulogy in his book "Twenty Years of
Congress," in this manner:

"It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress has
an opportunity to carry it out in an executive department. But
Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the resumption bill in
the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day
for coin payment he was at the head of the treasury department.
He established a financial reputation not second to that of any
man in our history."

Prior to our state convention, while Mr. Blaine was abroad, I wrote
to a friend of his, who was with him, that if Blaine desired to be
a candidate I would withdraw and advocate his nomination. This
letter was handed to Murat Halstead, who was about to proceed to
Europe. He showed it to Blaine, who insisted that he could not
and would not be a candidate, and wrote a letter to B. F. Jones,
chairman of the Republican national committee, in which he stated,
in terms that could not be mistaken, his position in regard to the
presidency, and settled for good the question of his candidacy.
In neither of his previous epistles did he state positively he
would not accept the nomination if tendered him. In the letter to
Chairman Jones this declaration was most emphatically made. Under
no circumstances, Mr. Blaine said, would he permit the use of his
name in Chicago, nor would he accept a presidential nomination
unanimously tendered him. He further went on to say that Senator
John Sherman was his preference, and advised the convention to
place his name at the head of the Republican national ticket.

Mr. Halstead said to a correspondent of the New York "World," in
regard to Mr. Blaine's position, that he had achieved the greatest
place in our political history--above that of Henry Clay--that the
nomination would have come to him unsought, but he had smothered
any personal ambition he may have had for the good of his party.
Mr. Blaine's name, he declared, would not come before the Chicago
convention as a candidate in any contingency we have a right to
assume. "Mr. Blaine told me," he said, "when I met him in Europe
in August last, that he was not a Tichborne claimant for the
presidency, and he wanted his friends to understand it. Mr. Blaine
will have as distinguished a place in history as he could have
obtained had he been elected to the presidency."

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

He replied: "Mr. Sherman represents the principles of the Republican
party from its beginning. He has never wavered in his allegiance
to the party. If we cannot elect a man on the principles of the
Republican party we will not be able to pull anyone through on
personal popularity. I think Mr. Sherman is as strong as the
Republican party, and that if nominated he can be elected, and also
that he has great personal strength."

In reply to the question, "Will the Ohio delegates remain true to
Sherman?" Mr. Blaine said: "Of that there can be no doubt. They
are riveted and double-bolted to him. The talk of Foraker's scheming
for himself is nonsense and malice. Foraker is a young man and
has a great future before him. He may go to the Senate and be
President later on. No, the Garfield miracle cannot be repeated
this year. It is impossible."

The convention met at Chicago on the 19th of June. The delegation
from Ohio was promptly in attendance, and was to all appearances
united, and determined to carry out the instructions and requests
of the state convention to support my nomination. There appeared
to be some needless delay in the report of the committee on
resolutions. Mr. McKinley, as chairman of the committee, reported
the resolutions and they were unanimously adopted by the convention
by a standing vote amid great enthusiasm.

I was nominated by General D. H. Hastings, of Pennsylvania, in a
speech of remarkable power and eloquence. When he closed, enthusiastic
and prolonged cheering and waving of flags greeted him from the
galleries, which was joined in my many delegations.

Governor Foraker seconded the nomination. His opening words were:
"Ohio is sometimes like New York. She occasionally comes to a
national Republican convention divided as to her choice for the
presidency, and sometimes she comes united. She has so come on
this occasion. Her forty-six delegates are here to speak as one
man." His speech throughout was received with great applause, and
it and that of General Hastings were regarded as the most eloquent
nominating addresses of the convention. They were followed by
speeches made by John M. Langston, of Virginia, and Mr. Anson, of
North Carolina. There certainly could be no fault found with either
the manner or the matter of these addresses.

There was a constant effort made to produce jealousy between the
members of the Ohio delegation, and perhaps it may be admitted that
the natural divisions in a body of forty-six members would give rise
to suspicion and misunderstanding, but I have no right to complain
of anything done by the members of the delegation during the
convention. There was a natural rivalry between Foraker and
McKinley, as they were both young, able and eloquent men. Rumors
prevailed at times that the Ohio delegation could be held solid no
longer, but if there was any ground for these rumors it did not
develop into a breach, as the delegation, from beginning to end,
cast the entire vote of Ohio for me on every ballot except the last
two or three, when one of the delegates, J. B. Luckey, voted for
Harrison, placing his action on the ground that he had served with
him in the army and felt bound to vote for him.

On Saturday evening I was telegraphed by different persons that I
would certainly be nominated on Monday. That was the confident
belief in Washington. On Sunday the following dispatch was published,
which, though I do not recall any such conversation, expresses my
feeling on that day:

"Senator Sherman says he does not believe that Foraker, or any
other Ohio man, will desert him. He spent three hours Sunday at
the capitol, in his committee room, and received many telegrams
from Chicago, and also sent dispatches to that great central point
of interest. He has received some unauthorized dispatches advising
him to withdraw in favor of McKinley, but he refuses absolutely to
interfere with his managers. His invariable answer to all advising
him to pull out is that he is in the fight to stay."

On Monday, the 25th of June, I did not anticipate a change on the
first ballot from the last one on Saturday. I did expect, from my
dispatches, that the nomination would be made that day and in my
favor, but, as the result proved, an arrangement had been made on
Sunday that practically secured the nomination of General Harrison.
This became obvious in the course of the vote on Monday and, as
Harrison was practically assured of the nomination, Pennsylvania
voted solid for him and ended the contest.

From the best information I could gather from many persons with
whom I conversed, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion
that I was defeated for the nomination by New York. I was assured
before the meeting of the convention that I would have six votes
from the beginning from that state, and could reasonably hope for
a large addition to that vote in the progress of the balloting.
Instead of this I did not receive a single vote, although three or
more of the delegates had been distinctly selected in my favor and
had given pledges to their constituents that they would vote for
me, but they did not on a single ballot do so, except I was advised
that at one ballot one of them voted for me.

I believed then, as I believe now, that one of the delegates from
the State of New York practically controlled the whole delegation,
and that a corrupt bargain was made on Sunday which transferred
the great body of the vote of New York to General Harrison, and
thus led to his nomination. It is to the credit of General Harrison
to say that if the reputed bargain was made it was without his
consent at the time, nor did he carry it into execution.

I believe and had, as I thought, conclusive proof that the friends
of General Alger substantially purchased the votes of many of the
delegates from the southern states who had been instructed by their
conventions to vote for me.

There were eight ballots taken in the convention, in all of which
I had a large plurality of the votes until the last one.

When General Harrison was nominated I assured him of my hearty
support. I have no respect for a man who, because he is disappointed
in his aspirations, turns against the party to which he belongs.
I believe that both honor and duty require prompt and ready
acquiescence in the choice made, unless it is produced by corruption
and fraud.

I had no reason to believe, however, that General Harrison resorted
in the slightest degree to any improper or corrupt combination to
secure his nomination. In answer to a letter from me expressing
my congratulations and tendering my support, I received from him
a very cordial reply, as follows:

"Indianapolis, July 9, 1888.
"My Dear Senator:--Your very frank and kind letter of June 30th
has remained unanswered so long only because it was impossible for
me to get time to use the pen myself. Some friends were asking
'have you heard from Sherman,' and my answer always was, 'have no
concern about him. His congratulations and assurances of support
will not be withheld, and they will not be less sincere than the
earlier and more demonstrative expressions from other friends.'
You will recall our last conversation at Pittsburg, in which I very
sincerely assured you that except for the situation of our state
my name would not be presented at Chicago in competition with yours.
I have always said to all friends that your equipment for the
presidency was so ample and your services to the party so great
that I felt there was a sort of inappropriateness in passing you
by for any of us. I absolutely forbade my friends making any
attempt upon the Ohio delegation, and sent word to an old army
comrade in the delegation that I hoped he would stand by you to
the end.

"I shall very much need your service and assistance, for I am an
inexperienced politician as well as statesman. My desire is to
have a Republican campaign and not a personal one, and I hope a
good start will be made in that direction in the organization of
the committee. I have not and shall not attempt to dictate the
organization, but have made some very general suggestions. I will
confidently hold you to your promise to give me frankly any
suggestions that you may think valuable, and assure you that
criticism will always be kindly received.

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

"Very sincerely your friend,
"Benj. Harrison.
"Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senate.

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

I had many letters from him during the canvass and gave him a hearty
and I think effective support. After his election he wrote me the
following letter:

"Indianapolis, Ind., November 22, 1888.
"Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Senator:--You will understand, without any explanation
from me, that my little home bureau was entirely inadequate to deal
with the immense flood of telegrams and letters that poured in upon
me after the election. It has happened, that some of those that
should have had earliest attention have been postponed, by reason
of the fact that the associated press carried off the telegrams
and they were not returned for some times. But you did not need
to be assured that I appreciate very highly your friendly words,
and rely implicitly upon that friendly spirit that has not only
prompted them, but so much besides that was useful to me.

"I have, up to this time, given my whole attention to visiting
friends and to my correspondence with those who have addressed me
by wire or mail. We are just now torn up a little in our household
by reason of the work necessary to introduce the natural gas; but
will after a little while be settled again. I wish that you would
feel that I desire you to deal with me in the utmost frankness,
without any restraints at all, and in the assurance that all you
may say will be kindly received and will have the weight which your
long experience in public life and your friendship for me entitles
it to. I know the embarrassments that now attend any intercourse
with my friends, on their part, rather than on mine; but you will
find some method of communicating with me if you desire, and after
awhile I will have the pleasure of a personal conference. With
kind regards to Mrs. Sherman, I am,

"Very sincerely yours,
"Benj. Harrison."

I sent him the following answer:

"Washington, D. C., November 26, 1888.
"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 22nd is received. I appreciate the
embarrassments of your position and feel that the highest mark of
friendship is to let you alone, and have therefore refrained from
writing to or visiting you. Still I wish you to feel that I have
no hope or ambition higher than to see your administration a complete
success. The victory is a Republican victory and that I think is
a victory for the whole country. Any advice or aid I can give will
be freely rendered on call, but not tendered until needed. I notice
that every scribbler is making a cabinet for you, but your observation
must have led you to the conviction that this is a duty you only
can perform. Advice in this matter is an impertinence. Your
comfort and success will largely depend upon this, and if I were
to offer advice it would be to consult alone your own judgment,
taking care to choose those who above all will be faithful and
honorable to you and administer the patronage of the departments,
not in their own selfish interests, but for the good of the country.
The cabinet should be fairly distributed among the different
sections, but this is not the prime necessity, nor is it vital that
cliques or factions be represented, but only the general average
of Republican ideas and policy.

"As to the broader questions of public policy the rule of action
is very different than the one suggested as to cabinet officers.
The President should 'touch elbows' with Congress. He should have
no policy distinct from that of his party, and this is better
represented in Congress than in the Executive. Cleveland made his
cardinal mistake in dictating a tariff policy to Congress. Grant
also failed to cultivate friendly relations with Congress, and was
constantly thwarted by it. Lincoln had a happy faculty in dealing
with Members and Senators.

"As to visiting you, I will do so with pleasure if you think it
necessary, but I dread, on your account as well as my own, the
newspaper talk and gabble that will follow. It might embarrass
you with others. With the modern facility of dictating you can
converse with me without restraint, and all letters passing between
us can be returned to the writer. In conclusion permit me to say,
and perhaps I am justified in saying by what appears in the papers,
that you must not feel embarrassed or under the slightest restraint
by seeing my name in connection with office. I am not seeking or
expecting any position, nor have I ever determined in my own mind
whether I could, consistently with my duties to Ohio, accept any
executive office. You should fell like a gallant young gentleman
entering upon life with a world of girls about him, free to choose
--to propose, but not to dispose.

"Give my kind regards, in which Mrs. Sherman and Mamie join, to
Mrs. Harrison and your children, especially the little grandson.

"Very respectfully yours,
"John Sherman."

The result of the nomination at Chicago did not in the least disturb
my equanimity or my allegiance to the great party to which I
belonged, and for the success of which I had devoted my life since
1854. I listened with complaisance to the explanations made as to
the wavering of the Ohio delegation on the Saturday previous to
the nomination, and as to the unexpected action of the New York
delegation and the curious reasoning which held them together in
the hope that they could persuade their leader to vote for me.
The only feeling of resentment I entertained was in regard to the
action of the friends of General Alger in tempting with money poor
negroes to violate the instructions of their constituents. I have
since read many of the revelations made subsequently as to the
action of the Ohio delegation, and came to the conclusion that they
did what they thought best to promote my nomination, and had just
ground for discouragement when my vote fell below the number
anticipated.

On the 5th of July I attended the national exposition in progress
in Cincinnati at that time, and made a speech mainly confined to
the remarkable growth of the northwestern states. On the next day
I visited the chamber of commerce, and the Lincoln club. I then
went to Mansfield. On the evening of the day of my arrival I was
called upon by a great number of my townsmen, who seemed to feel
my recent defeat with more regret than I did.

During this visit to Ohio I heard a great deal about the Chicago
convention, but paid little attention to it, and said I was content
with the result, that my friends had done what they could, that
Harrison was nominated and ought to be elected. As quoted by a
newspaper reporter, I said: "Henceforth, I can say what I please,
and it is a great pleasure. This feeling of freedom is so strong
with me that I am glad I did not get the nomination." Whether I
uttered these words or not, they expressed my feeling of relief at
the time.

The 100th anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the
State of Ohio, at Marietta, was celebrated on the 7th of April,
1888. There was a difference of opinion among the people whether
the proper day was the 7th of April or the 15th of July, as the
landing of the settlers was on the 7th of April, but on the 15th
of July General Arthur St. Clair entered upon the discharge of his
duties as governor of the northwestern territory. The result was,
the people of Marietta concluded to celebrate on both days. Senator
Evarts made an eloquent address on the 7th of April, and I was
invited to deliver one on the last day of the second celebration,
commencing on the 15th of July. The ceremonies, visiting and
feasting continued during five days. The fifth day was called
"Ohio day," and was intended as the finale of a great celebration.
It was said that 20,000 persons thronged the streets and participated
in the memorial ceremonies on that day. This vast crowd, gathered
from many different states, were hospitably entertained by the
citizens of Marietta. The exercises commenced in the morning at
ten o'clock, with Governor Foraker presiding. Among the distinguished
guests were the governors or lieutenant-governors of the states
that were carved out of the northwestern territory. I had not
prepared a speech, but knew what I intended to talk about. I was
introduced by Governor Foraker in an eloquent address, which he
knew how to make. I said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:--The very flattering manner in which our
governor has introduced me to you rather disturbs the serenity of
my thoughts, for I know that the high panegyric that he gives to
me is scarcely justified to mortal man. We have faults, all have
failings, and no one can claim more than a fair and common average
of honest purpose and noble aim. I come to-day as a gleaner on a
well-reaped field, by skillful workmen who have garnered the crop
and placed it in stacks so high that I cannot steal a sheaf without
being detected. I cannot utter a thought without having it said
that I copied from some one else. I thank fortune I have no framed
speech made, for, if I had, the speech would have been read or
spoken to you in eloquent terms, but I only come with thoughts
inspired by the great history we are called upon to review--a
hundred years of this northwest territory. What a theme it is!
Why is it that this favored country of 260,000 square miles and
about 160,000,000 acres of land had been selected as the place
where the greatest immigration of the human race has occurred in
the history of the whole world? There is no spot in this world of
ours of the size of this western territory, where, within a hundred
years, 15,000,000 of free people are planted, where, at the beginning
of the century, there was scarcely a white man living. I am glad
it has been spoken of by such eminent men as Senators Hoar, Evarts,
Daniel, Tucker, General Ewing and many other distinguished men;
and remember, citizens of Marietta, when I speak of this centennial
celebration, I do not mean that on the 15th of July only, but on
the 7th of April and the 15th of July bound together in a noble
wedlock."

I referred to the claims made by several of the old states, based
upon their so-called titles to the whole or to portions of the
northwestern territory. Senator Daniel, who was on the stand with
me, had claimed that Virginia owned all the territory south of the
41st degree of north latitude and westward to the "South Sea."
Connecticut claimed all north of that line. New York made a similar
claim, all based upon grants by King James or King Charles, neither
of whom knew where the South Sea was, and had no conception of or
control over the vast territory covered by these grants. Neither
of these states had either title to or possession of any part of
the northwest territory. The only title based on European law was
that acquired by Great Britain from France in 1763, and that title
was transferred to the United States at the close of the Revolutionary
war. There was no just title to this region except that held by
the Indian tribes of America. They owned and possessed it. Before
the constitution of the United States was, or could have been,
adopted the imaginary claim of the several states was ceded to the
United States for the common use and benefit of them all. Virginia
and Connecticut reserved large portions of Ohio from their several
grants, and these reservations were conceded to them. There is
one title which has always been acknowledged by civilized nations,
and that is the title by conquest. The only valid title of the
United States was that based upon the conquest by George Rogers
Clark, who conquered this country from Great Britain. It was not
Virginia that did it. And, yet, among the illustrious names that
have been furnished by that magnificent state, in the history of
this country, that of George Rogers Clark will be gratefully
remembered. He, with his two or three hundred Kentuckians, marched
through that country, as Senator Daniel described, and subdued the
British. Virginia is entitled to the honor of having this son;
but it was George Rogers Clark who gave the United States its title
to the northwest. The Indians, however, had possession, and how
was their title to be disposed of? A treaty was made at Fort
Harmar, and plans were adopted to get possession of the Indian
land. The Indians always claimed they were cheated in the treaty,
defining the boundary line between them and the white men. Therefore,
Indian wars came on. St. Clair was defeated by the British and
Indians combined. The British were always at the back of every
hostile movement that has been made in the history of our country.
In Judge Burnett's "Notes of the Northwest Territory" there is a
full account of how white men, step by step, gained possession of
this territory.

The Indian tribes made bold and aggressive efforts to hold Ohio.
They defeated in succession the armies of St. Clair and Harmar,
but were compelled to yield to the invincible force of General
Wayne and his army. It is painful and pathetic to follow the futile
efforts of the Indians to hold the northwest, their favorite hunting
grounds. They were told that only a little land was wanted for
some poor white settlers to keep them from starving. They were
offered $50,000 in money, and $50,000 annually for twenty years,
for the southern part of Ohio. The council adjourned until the
next day. When it convened an old chief said that "Great Spirit"
had appeared to them and told them a way in which all their troubles
could be ended. "Let our Great Father give to the few poor white
settlers among us the money you offer to us and let them go back
from whence they came and be rich and happy." Colonel Wayne could
not answer this logic, and the Indians were compelled to submit to
their fate and ceded one-half of Ohio. In concluding I said:

"In the history of Ohio we have passed through three or four stages.
First was the struggle with the Indians. This generation has not
realized it, but I have lived long enough to know something about
it in the northern part of Ohio. I saw the last Indian tribe leave
the soil of Ohio in 1843, the Wyandotte Nation. There was but the
feeble remnant of the most powerful tribe in the world. The next
period was the clearing of log cabins. Every homestead was a log
cabin--no brick houses, no frame houses, except in town. The log
houses in the clearing, the toilsome and exciting time. You talk
about hard times now--I have seen the time when a man was glad to
get thirty-two cents for a bushel of wheat; when eggs could not be
sold, when the only way to get 'York money' was to drive horses
and cattle and sheep over the Alleghanies. The next step was the
canal system, which brought laborers into the country. Then came
the railroads and telegraphs, when the canals ceased to exist.

"Now, I am done. I shall think, however, that I am not through
unless I reverently and devoutly give thanks to the Ruler of the
universe for all this great good that has come upon this great
continent. Here we see the most wonderful republic in the world,
born within a hundred years, a great community peopling a continent,
having every facility in the world for homes--no land-locked
monopoly, closing the door to the poor acquiring homes, or if it
does, it should be broken down at every hazard by wise laws passed
from time to time. I reverently thank God for our homes, for our
great cities, for our state and, more than all else, for our
country."

On the 6th of October, while Congress was still in session, I went
to Cincinnati and joined in celebrating "Republican day" at the
exposition.

Immediately upon the adjournment of Congress I went to Cleveland
to attend a meeting in the Music Hall, where I made my first speech
in the political campaign. It was carefully prepared and was
confined mainly to a full discussion of the tariff question. From
that time until the day of the election I was constantly occupied
in making speeches in different parts of the state and in Indiana.
Among the many places in which I spoke in Ohio were Lancaster,
Defiance, Toledo and Mansfield. My first speech in Indiana was at
Portland. I referred to a statement made in the newspapers that
the Republicans had given up Indiana, and denied this emphatically.
I said that since I had come among them and felt the enthusiasm
exhibited by them I was entirely confident that they would give to
their own "most gallant citizen for President of the United States"
a hearty and enthusiastic support. I discussed at length the Mills
bill and the tariff bill of the Senate, and closed with an appeal
to the "Hoosier voter" in behalf of Ben. Harrison, "the hero of
Peach Tree Creek, and the man that honored Indiana in the Senate
of the United States for six years."

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

"When I was traveling over the State of Ohio, recently, I was
occasionally asked 'what about Indiana?' and now, since I have been
in Indiana, I will be able to answer more accurately than I could
have done, although I believed the people of Indiana were loyal,
and brave, and true, and would never turn their backs upon their
most eminent citizen when he had been designated by the Republican
party as a candidate for chief magistrate of the Union. But I have
no longer any doubt about Indiana. I saw yesterday 10,000 to 15,000
people, excited by the highest enthusiasm, marching in the bright
sun and warm atmosphere in a county supposed to be Democratic. To-
day, although the weather is inclement, I see your streets filled
with ardent and enthusiastic people, shouting for Harrison and
Morton and the Republican ticket. No rain disturbs you; no mud
stops you. I shall go back to Ohio and tell them that the Buckeyes
and Hoosiers will march together."

While in Indiana I received a request from Harrison to speak at
Indianapolis, but my engagement at Toledo prevented this, much to
my regret.

My part in the canvass closed at home on the evening of the 5th of
November. I concluded my speech as follows:

"Benjamin Harrison possesses many qualities of the highest character.
He is an able lawyer, an honest man and a good citizen. Benjamin
Harrison is a man for whom every American citizen should vote. He
would stand like a wall of fire on every question of honor with a
foreign country. If you want to do your country a valuable service
you will go to the polls and give a good square honest vote for
Harrison."

Harrison received in Ohio a majority over Cleveland of 19,000 votes,
and a majority of the electoral vote in the country.

During the period immediately following the election, the papers
were, as usual, full of conjectures as to cabinet appointments.
All sorts of cabinets were formed for General Harrison and in many
of them I was mentioned for the office of Secretary of State. It
was because of this that I wrote to Harrison the letter already
inserted of the date of November 26. I wished to relieve him from
all embarrassments, as I had made up my mind not to hold any office
except such as might be given to me by the people of Ohio. I
gratefully acknowledge that all the political favor I have received
has been from the people of my native state.

On the 28th of November Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of General
Sherman, died at her home in New York. She had been in feeble
health, but was taken seriously ill about three weeks before her
death. She was an accomplished woman of marked ability inherited
from her father, a devout Christian of the Catholic faith. Her
life had been devoted to the relief of suffering and want. This
sad calamity was a source of great grief to her own family and that
of her husband. She was married to General Sherman on the 1st of
May, 1850, at Washington, when her father was a member of the
cabinet of President Taylor. Throughout her entire life she was
an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. Her remains were removed
to St. Louis, and were there buried beside those of two sons and
three grandchildren.

The winter of 1888-89, after the political excitement of the year
before, seemed a tranquil period of rest. The coming change of
administration excited some interest, especially the selection of
a cabinet. Blaine and I were frequently mentioned in the public
prints for appointment as Secretary of State, but I gave no attention
to the rumors. I did not care to decline an office not tendered
to me, though I had definitely made up my mind not to accept any
executive office. The duties of a Senator were familiar and
agreeable to me. I doubted the wisdom of competing presidential
candidates accepting cabinet appointments under a successful rival.
The experiment of Lincoln, with Chase and Seward as his principal
advisers, was not a good example to follow.

The short session of the 50th Congress, commencing December 3,
1888, was mainly occupied with the tariff question, already referred
to, but without hope of passing any tariff bill. Many other
questions of public policy were also discussed, but as a rule were
postponed to the next Congress, which it was known would be Republican
in both branches. Perhaps the most interesting topic of debate
was the condition of affairs in Samoa. As chairman of the committee
on foreign relations, on the 29th of January, 1889, I presented
to the Senate a full statement of the complications in that far
distant group of islands. In opening I said:

"The time has arrived when Congress, and especially the Senate,
must give intelligent attention to the questions involved in the
occupation and settlement of the Samoan Islands. These questions
are now exciting profound attention, not only in this country, but
in Great Britain and Germany. While supporting the amendments
proposed by the committee on foreign relations, reported now from
the committee on appropriations, I think it is due to the Senate
and the people of the United States that I should state, in a
skeleton form, the chief facts in regard to this matter, and that,
too, without any feeling whatever, without any desire to interfere
with our diplomatic negotiations, or to disturb the harmony of our
relations with Germany or Great Britain. I hope that the action
of the Senate will be unanimous upon the adoption of these amendments,
and that a frank and open debate will tend to this result."

It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted
in making Great Britain, Germany, and the United States the guardians
of these far distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative
orientals. The only interest the United States had in these islands
was the possession and ownership of the Bay of Pago-Pago, acquired
by a treaty in 1878 between the United States and the King of Samoa.
The repeated wars on a small scale that have occurred since that
time, and the complications and expense caused by the tripartite
protectorate of the islands, furnish another example of the folly
of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in
a far distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us
from accepting outside possessions which in case of war would cost
the United States more to defend than their value.

On the 24th of February, 1889, my youngest sister, Fanny Sherman
Moulton, the widow of Colonel Charles W. Moulton, died at her
residence at Glendale, Ohio, after a brief illness. Her husband
died in January, 1888. She was buried by his side in Spring Grove
Cemetery, near Cincinnati. In the hurry of the close of the session
I could not attend her funeral. She was always kind and affectionate,
not only to her children, but to all her kindred. I felt her death
keenly, for as the youngest of our family she had lived with me
until her marriage, and was regarded by me more as a daughter than
a sister.

The called session of the Senate convened on the 4th of March,
1889. President Harrison's message was well delivered and well
received. It was longer than the usual inaugural. It was free
from any studied rhetoric, but was sensible, logical and satisfactory.
The nominations of the cabinet officers were made and immediately
confirmed. Those of Blaine and Windom were anticipated but the
remainder of the cabinet excited some surprise. They were
comparatively new men, without much, if any, experience in
congressional life, but were well known in their respective states
as gentlemen of ability and high character. A bare majority of
the Senate were classed as Republicans. They retained the organization
of the committees and no material changes were made. The Senate
acted upon its general custom to confine its business to that which
it could do alone without the action of the House. It adjourned
on the 2nd of April, 1889.

Soon after the close of the called session in April, 1889, Mrs.
Sherman and I concluded to make a trip to Europe. Both of us had
been confined more than usual for over a year, and needed recreation
and a change of scene. We went to New York on the 27th of April,
stopping with my niece, Mrs. Alfred M. Hoyt. On the next day we
witnessed from the battery the naval parade in honor of the centennial
of the inauguration of Washington. On the first of May my little
party, composed of Mrs. Sherman, Miss May Hoyt, my daughter Mary
and myself, were driven to the steamer "City of New York," and
there met Senator Cameron and his wife, with their infant child
and nurse, Mrs. Colgate Hoyt, a niece of mine, with four children
and nurse, and Mrs. Henry R. Hoyt, child and nurse. With this
large party we had a joyous and happy voyage. Among the passengers
we found many agreeable companions and had the usual diversions,
such as music, singing and card playing. We arrived at Queenstown
on the 8th of May without any special incident, proceeding thence
to Liverpool and London, where we stopped at the Hotel Metropole.
Here all our companions except our family party of four left us.
As it was our desire to visit Italy before the hot weather set in,
we determined to push on as rapidly as convenient to Naples. We
spent a day or two in London. We pushed on to Paris via Folkestone
and Boulogne. We remained three days at the Hotel Liverpool in
Paris and there met several friends, among them Mrs. William Mahone
and daughter, and Major and Mrs. Rathbone. On the 14th we went to
Lyons, the 15th to Marseilles, and the 16th to Nice. On the 17th
we visited Monte Carlo, and on the 18th went to Genoa. Here we
spent two days in visiting the most interesting places in that
ancient and interesting city. From thence, on the 20th, we went
to Rome. The city had already been abandoned by most of the usual
visitors, but we did not suffer from the heat, and leisurely drove
or walked to all the principal places of interest, such as the
ruins of the Roman forum, the Colosseum, the baths of Caracalla
and St. Peter's, and the many churches in that ancient city. In
the six days in Rome we had, with the aid of maps and a good guide,
visited every interesting locality in that city, and had extended
our drives over a large part of the Campagna. At Liverpool I had
employed a Swiss with the awkward name of Eichmann as my courier.
He had a smattering knowledge of many languages, but could not
speak any well; he proved to be faithful, and, so far as I could
discover, was honest. He relieved us from petty cares and could
generally find the places I wished to see. On the 27th we went to
Naples, and on the 28th by steamer to Sorrento and Capri. On the
29th we traveled by carriage to Pompeii and thence to Naples. On
the 30th we drove about Naples as well as we could, but here we
began to feel the heat, which was damp and depressing. It is the
misfortune of this city that, although surrounded on all sides by
the most beautiful and picturesque scenery of sea and mountain, in
a land rich in historical and poetical annals, yet a large portion
of the inhabitants impress a stranger with the conviction that they
are the poorest, and perhaps the most ignorant, population in
Europe. It is a sad reflection, that applies especially to all
parts of southern Italy, that the descendants of the Romans, once
the rulers of the world, are now classed among the lowest in
intelligence in the Christian and civilized world. I remember two
things about Naples, one that Mount Vesuvius was in partial action
during our stay, and that we had a full opportunity to explore the
ruins of Pompeii.

About this time there occurred an amusing incident growing out of
the ignorance of a common American phrase on the part of my courier.
Mr. Oates, of Alabama, a leading Member of the House of Representatives,
was traveling with his wife and friends on the same general route
that I was. We frequently met and had pleasant and friendly chats.
Eichmann noticed our intimacy and was very polite to Mr. Oates.
One day, as my party and I were about to enter a car, some one
said: "Is not that John Sherman?" Mr. Oates said, in the hearing
of Eichmann: "Yes, that is Sherman," and added as a compliment:
"He was a good watchdog in the treasury." Eichmann catching the
phrase "watchdog" applied to me regarded it as a gross insult. He
rushed into my car, his face aflame with passion and his English
more confused than usual, and said: "That man," pointing to Oates,
"was not your friend; he called you, sir, a watchdog; yes, sir, a
watchdog. He has but one arm, sir, one arm, or I would have
chastised him." I had great difficulty in persuading him what a
"watchdog" meant, that it was intended as a compliment, not as an
insult.

On the 31st we returned to Rome. During my stay there I had the
pleasure of meeting Mr. Porter, our minister to Rome. He was hardly
yet installed in his duties, as the king had been absent, but
returned from Germany the day I arrived. Porter and I had been in
Congress together, and boarded at the same house. He was not only
a man of ability, but of pleasing address and manners.

Everybody I saw in Rome was talking about the heat and moving out
of town. On June 1, I went to Florence. There we spent four days
very pleasantly. The hotel was good, the weather all we could
desire, and the people we met, looked contented and comfortable.
They were in striking contrast with their countrymen in Naples.
There was an air about the place that indicated prosperity. Florence
is an art gallery. Several of our countrymen, famous as artists,
of whom I can recall Powers, Meade and Turner, were not only
pursuing, but learning, their art. I was told that a considerable
part of the population were engaged in painting and sculpture. No
doubt their wages were small but food and clothing were also low.

We would gladly have remained longer in Florence if my plan of
travel would have allowed it. Not only was the city and all the
treasures of art interesting, but the country around was picturesque
and highly cultivated. We could ride in any direction over admirable
roads and almost every place had an historical interest. I witnessed
there a review of several thousand troops, but was especially
interested in a body of small men well drilled for rapid movements.
The parade was on Sunday and the ladies objected to a parade on
that day. I observed that in the Latin states I visited, Sunday
was generally selected for such displays. I purchased two works
of art from American artists. I commend the wisdom of their choice
of location, for in Florence the love of art, especially of sculpture,
is more highly appreciated than in any other city of Europe that
I have visited.

Our next stopping place was Venice. The chief attraction of this
city is that it is unlike any other city in the world in its
location, its architecture, its history and in the habits and
occupation of its people. It is literally located in the sea; its
streets are canals; its carriages are gondolas and they are peculiar
and unlike any other vessel afloat. Magnificent stone palaces rise
from the waters, and the traveler wonders how, upon such foundations,
these buildings could rest for centuries. Its strange history has
been the basis of novels, romances, dramas and poetry, by writers
in every country and clime. Its form of government was, in the
days of the Doges, a republic governed by an aristocracy, and its
wealth was the product of commerce conducted by great merchants
whose enterprise extended to every part of the known habitable
globe.

We visited St. Mark's cathedral, the palace of the Doges, and the
numerous places noted in history or tradition. We chartered a
gondola and rode by moonlight through the Grand Canal and followed
the traditional course of visitors. The glory of Venice is gone
forever. We saw nothing of the pomp and panoply of the ancient
city. The people were poor and the palaces were reduced to tenement
houses. Venice may entice strangers by its peculiar situation and
past history, but in the eye of an American traveler it is but a
great ruin. The wages paid for labor were not sufficient to supply
absolute necessities.

The construction of the railroad to Vienna is a remarkable feat of
engineering. The route over the Semmerling pass presents difficulties
far greater than any encountered in the United States. We spent
four days in and about Vienna. Its location on the River Danube
was a good one for a great city. The surrounding country was
interesting and well cultivated. The comparison between the people
of Vienna and Venice was very much in favor of Vienna. The city
was clean, well built, with many signs of growth and prosperity.
The people were comfortably clad, and the crowds that gathered in
the parks and gardens to hear the music of the military bands were
orderly and polite. Among the European cities I have visited, I
recall none that made a more favorable impression on my mind than
Vienna. I found no difficulty in making my English understood,
and it was said of the people of that city that they generally knew
enough of the English and French languages, in addition to their
native German, to sustain a conversation in either. We visited
Colonel Fred. Grant, then our minister to Austria, at Vosben, about
twenty miles by rail from Vienna. I did not seek to make acquaintances
in Vienna, as my time would not allow it, but, from a superficial
view, I believed that the people of that city were intelligent,
social and friendly, with more of the habits of Frenchmen than of
the Germans of Berlin, or of the English of London.

From Vienna we followed the line of railroad through Salzburg,
Innsbruck, to Zurich, stopping at each place for a day. This a
very interesting country, generally picturesque, and in some places
mountainous. Here we see the southern German in his native hills.
A vein of superstition colors their creed as good Catholics. They
are, as a rule, loyal to their emperor, and content with their
condition. The passage from the Tyrol into Switzerland is not
marked by national boundaries, such as rivers or mountains, nor
does the population vary much until one reaches Zurich. In our
progress thus far, from Nice through Italy and Austria, our party
had been traveling over, to us, a new and strange land. At Zurich
we entered within a region visited by Mrs. Sherman and myself in
1859. The cities and mountains of Switzerland seemed familiar to
us. Great changes, however, had occurred in modes of travel in
this short period in these old countries. Railroads traversed the
valleys and crossed the mountains, where we had traveled in the
stage coach. At Lucerne I went up a tramway to the top of Mt.
Pilatus, at a grade of from 25 to 35 degrees. I did not feel this
in ascending, but in descending I confess to experiencing real
fear. The jog-jog of the cogwheels, the possibility of their
breaking, and the sure destruction that would follow, made me very
nervous. I would have been less so but for a lady unknown to me,
sitting by my side, who became frightened and turned deathly pale.
I was glad indeed when we reached the lake.

From Lucerne Mrs. Sherman went to Neuchâtel to meet my niece, Mrs.
Huggins, then sick at that place. The remainder of the party went
to Interlaken and the valley in which it is situated. I have no
room for the description of mountain scenery, and no language can
properly convey a sense of its grandeur. I have mentally contrasted
Mt. St. Bernard and the Simplon with Pike's Peak and Mt. Washburn,
and feel quite sure that in grandeur and in extent of view the
American mountains are superior to those named in Europe, but the
larger population in easy reach of the mountains of Switzerland
will give them the preference for a generation or more. Then Mt.
Shasta will take its place as the most beautiful isolated mountain
in the world, and the Rocky Mountain range will furnish a series
of mountains surpassing the mountains of Switzerland; but both
South America and Asia contain mountains thousands of feet higher
than either or any of the mountains of Europe or North America.

Without going into details of travels over familiar ground all our
party arrived safely at Paris on the 2nd of July, 1889. Unfortunately,
Mrs. Sherman was called back to Neuchâtel on the 4th of July, on
account of the continued serious illness of Mrs. Huggins, the
balance of the party remaining in Paris. We were in that city two
weeks and attended the international exposition many times. The
French people know better than any other how to conduct such a
show. The great building in which it was held was so arranged that
similar articles were grouped together, and yet all productions of
a country were in convenient proximity. The French are artists in
almost every branch of human industry. They are cheerful, gay and
agreeable. They are polite and therefore sensitive of any slight,
neglect or rudeness and promptly resent it.

While in Paris we formed some agreeable acquaintances. Whitelaw
Reid, our minister to France, entertained elegantly his countrymen
and his associates in the diplomatic corps. From him our little
party, especially the two young ladies, received many courtesies,
and through him we had invitations from the President of the French
Republic and officers of the exposition. The reception at the
palace of the president was in striking and pleasing contrast with
that given by the emperor in 1867, already referred to. The later
reception was simple in form, something like a reception by the
President of the United States, but where it differed it was an
improvement upon our custom. The invitation was quite general and
extended to the diplomatic corps, to all persons representing any
article in the exposition, and to many citizens and visitors in
Paris, who were named by the diplomatic corps or by the officers
of the French government. I think that fully as many persons were
present as usually attend the receptions of our President. Each
invited guest, as he entered the reception room, gave his name,
and, if escorting others, gave their names to the officer in charge.
The name was announced to the president, who stood a few paces in
the rear, the guests and the president bowed but did not shake
hands and the guests passed on through a suite of rooms or into
the garden. Miss Hoyt, my daughter and I attended the reception
with Mr. and Mrs. Reid. As Mr. Reid entered the room his name and
office were announced, and the president and he advanced towards
each other, shook hands, and I and my party were introduced and we
shook hands. This occupied but a moment and the reception of others
went on, only occasionally interrupted by the president when he
chose to recognize some one by handshaking. When we were received,
as stated, we were introduced by Mr. Reid to several persons on
attendance on the president, and then retired with the passing
company. In this way the president and his wife escaped the extreme
fatigue of shaking hands with thousands of people in rapid succession,
often producing soreness and swelling of hands and arms. I hope
some President of the United States will be bold enough to adopt,
as he can, this simple measure of relief practiced by the President
of the French Republic. The French government also furnishes a
house ample enough for a large reception, which the United States
does not do, but I trust will.

We left Paris on the 15th of July and joined Mrs. Sherman at
Neuchâtel. After two days at this delightful place we went to
Basle and thence down the Rhine, stopping at places of interest on
the way, but this is a journey I had taken before.

We made a brief visit to Amsterdam and the Hague, and then went to
Brussels, with which city we had become acquainted on our previous
visit. We arrived in England about the 1st of August and remained
in London, or its environs, a week, most of the time in the country.
During my stay I did not seek to form new acquaintances and most
of the people I knew were absent in the country. From London we
went to Oxford and remained several days visiting the colleges and
the country around, especially the beautiful palace of the Duke of
Marlborough. From there we went to Leamington, and made short
excursions to Warwick Castle, Kenilworth, Stratford and Coventry.
We then visited the English lakes, including Windermere. I was
especially interested in the games, races and wrestling at Grasmere.
From there we went to Chester spending several days in that city
and surrounding country. We visited the magnificent estate of the
Duke of Westminster, a few miles from Chester, and drove through
Gladstone's place, but he was then absent. In Chester we met
Justice Gray and his wife, and Bancroft Davis and his wife. With
them we drove in the old-fashioned coach in and about the environs
of Chester. From thence we went to Liverpool, remaining about a
week in that city.

It is scarcely necessary to state that such a rapid, transient
visit could hardly convey a proper conception of England or
Englishmen. Our view was like that of the English traveler in
America when he undertakes to describe our vast country on a trip
of a month from New York to San Francisco. My idea of Great Britain
is based, not upon flying visits, but upon my study of English
history and literature. The political institutions of Great Britain
are rapidly approaching our own. While progressive, the people of
that country are also conservative, but with each successive decade
they extend the power of the House of Commons so that already in
some respects it represents better the public sentiment than the
Congress of the United States. It responds quickly to a change of
popular opinion. The functions of the crown are now more limited
than those of our President, while the House of Commons can at any
moment put an end to the ministry, and if necessary a new House of
Commons can be convened within a brief period, and a new ministry
be formed or the old one confirmed according to the popular will.
All the governments of Europe are following in the same path, so
that we may fairly hope that in a brief time Europe will become
republican in substance if not in form.

We returned in the steamer "City of New York," the vessel on which
we went over, and arrived in New York on the 12th of September.
My wife, daughter and myself returned to Washington, improved in
health and strength.

On the evening of the next day after my arrival a large company,
estimated at 1,500 people, led by the Marine band, marched to my
house. The report given by the "Republican" of Washington the next
morning is substantially correct and is here inserted:

"To General Grosvenor had been assigned the duty of formally
welcoming the Senator, and he did so in a very pleasant speech.
He spoke of the thirty-five years of faithful service which had
been rendered Ohio by John Sherman, as Representative, Senator,
cabinet officer and citizen; touched upon the eagerness with which
Ohio looked for the Senator's return; referred happily to the
Senator's wife and daughter, and then launched out upon the broad
ocean of Ohio politics. He closed by saying that one of the chief
causes of Ohio Republican exultation on this occasion lay in the
fact that the Senator had returned to do nobly his part toward the
re-election of Governor Foraker and the election of a Republican
Senator to succeed Mr. Payne.

"The welcome was punctuated with applause, and when the speech and
the uproar had ceased the band played 'Home Again.' The crowd
cheered once more as Senator Sherman stepped forward and commenced
his reply.

"Appreciation of the welcome which had been extended to him by
friends from Ohio and friends in Washington brightened his opening
remarks, and he said that, although his home was in Ohio, yet he
had been so long a resident of this city that he felt himself almost
entitled to the rights of citizenship here, without, of course,
losing his allegiance to the people of his native state. The joys
of home and the pleasures of foreign lands were dilated upon, and
the Senator said: 'No American can travel anywhere without having
a stronger love and affection for his native land. This is the
feeling of every American, and it is sometimes too strongly and
noisily expressed to be acceptable abroad. We do sometimes carry
the flag too high and flaunt it offensively.'

"Previous visits to Europe were referred to, and the Senator went
on: 'And now let me say to you that while we boast in America of
the rapid progress we have made in growth, population, wealth and
strength, yet it is equally true that some of the oldest nations
in the world are now keeping pace with us in industry, progress
and even in liberal institutions. Everywhere in these old countries
the spirit of nationalism is growing stronger and stronger.

'Thirty years ago Italy had at least five different forms of
government; now it is under one rule. Twenty-two years ago France
was an empire, under the almost absolute dominion of Napoleon III;
now it is a republic, with all the forms of republican institutions,
but without the stability of our government. The kingdom of Prussia
has been expanded into the great German empire, among the strongest,
if not the strongest, of the military powers in the world. The
institutions of Great Britain have become liberalized until it is
a monarchy only in name, the queen exercising far less power than
the President of the United States. The whole tendency of events
is to strengthen and at the same time popularize government.'

"The popularity of Americans in Europe was mentioned, and it was
said of them that while abroad they were not partisans, but patriots;
they believed that any party at home was better than all parties
in foreign lands. The signs of war abroad and of peace in the
United States were sketched, and the veterans who fought for the
Union were eulogized and said to be entitled to the most liberal
treatment. The Republican party, having saved the Union should be
the governing party, and it should be heartily supported by all
true patriots."

As I concluded, the audience came forward and shook hands with me.
Later addresses were delivered by Thomas B. Coulter, ex-Lieutenant
Governor Wm. C. Lyons, of Ohio, Rev. Wm. Warring, J. H. Smyth and
ex-Speaker Warren J. Keifer.

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

During the balance of the month of September I remained in Washington
engaged in writing letters, dictating interviews, and preparing
for the gubernatorial contest in Ohio, then in active progress.
Governor Foraker was the Republican candidate for re-election, and
James E. Campbell, formerly a Republican and recently a Democratic
Member of Congress, was the opposing candidate. Both of these
gentlemen were lawyers of ability, in the prime of life and living
in adjoining counties. The canvass had become interesting before
my return and I desired to do all I could in aid of Foraker. He
was nominated while I was still in Europe, for the third term, and
under conditions that weakened him somewhat. Still, his ability
as a debater, his popular manners, and his interesting history,
seemed to assure his success. I returned to Ohio with my family
about the 1st of October, and made my first speech in this canvass
at the Wayne county fair, at Orrville, on the 10th. I was introduced
to the audience by M. L. Smyser, the Member of Congress from that
district, in terms too complimentary to quote. He gave notice that
Campbell would speak to them on the next day on behalf of the
Democratic party. In explanation of my appearance there where
politics were generally excluded I said:

"It is rather unusual at a county fair, where men of all parties
are invited to exhibit and compare their productions, to discuss
party politics. Therefore, I hesitated to accept your invitation
to speak here in behalf of the Republican party; but upon being
advised by my friend, Mr. Smyser, your Representative in Congress,
that the same invitation was extended to Governor Foraker and Mr.
Campbell, the two candidates for governor, that Governor Foraker
could not attend, but Mr. Campbell had accepted, I concluded also
to accept, and am now here to give you the reasons for my political
faith."

This speech was prepared for the occasion, and was chiefly on the
choice between the Mills tariff bill and the Senate bill, both of
which failed to pass in the preceding Congress. I discussed state
issues briefly, including recent frauds at elections, the alleged
bribery and corruption in the election of Mr. Payne as Senator,
and the importance of nonpartisan boards of election. I closed by
saying:

"This is not a contest between Governor Foraker and Mr. Campbell.
I have the highest regard for both of these gentlemen. Governor
Foraker is one of the ablest, one of the most brilliant, men in
public life. He was one of the youngest soldiers in the Union
army, and, though young, rendered important services at critical
periods of the war. He has made his own way in the world, and has
filled with distinction every place assigned him. He has made an
efficient governor, and I can see no force in the objection that
he is running for a third term. If he has performed his duties
exceptionally well in the past, it is good reason why he should be
continued in office in the future. I have also the pleasure of a
very kindly acquaintance with Mr. Campbell, whom I regard as a
gentleman of merit and ability. Either of these gentlemen will
perform the personal duties of the office with credit to the state,
but the contest is not between them, but between the two parties
they represent. Governor Foraker represents the principles and
tendencies of the Republican party, its progressive national policy,
the purity of elections, state and national, and its willingness
to take the lead in Ohio in all proper measures to promote good
order, temperance and morality, so far as they can be promoted by
human laws and popular opinion.

"Mr. Campbell represents the aims and tendencies of the Democratic
party, its jealousy of national authority, its want of genuine
patriotism, its reactionary policy as to tariff laws, its lawless
disregard of fair elections, both north and south, the criminal
gangs that disgrace our cities, and its low tone on all questions
affecting good order and morals. In my view the choice is as plain
as the sunlight of heaven in favor of the Republican party. It
may falter for a time in meeting new questions, it may be disturbed
by passing clouds, and, like all human agents, may yield to expediency
or be tarnished with the corruption and faults of individuals, yet
it is the best organized guide in state and national affairs, and
should, and I confidently trust will, receive the hearty support
of the people of Ohio."

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

"Senator Sherman was in excellent form to-day; his voice was clear,
strong and its carrying power excellent. He spoke with uncommon
vigor and, of course, without notes or manuscript. There was
something in his manner that seemed to carry conviction with it.
The people knew they were listening to an honest man who was a
thorough master of every subject upon which he touched. He spoke
as one having authority, and the weight of forty years of sturdy
public life went into his utterances."

It was about this period that the Ohio ballot box forgery matter
became a subject of discussion. On the 11th of September, Richard
G. Wood appeared in Columbus, and delivered to Foraker the following
paper, and received the governor's recommendation for the smoke
inspectorship in Cincinnati:

"Washington, D. C., July 2, 1888.
"We, the undersigned, agree to pay the amounts set opposite, or
any part thereof, whenever requested so to do by John R. McLean,
upon 'Contract No. 1,000,' a copy of which is to be given to each
subscriber upon payment of any part of the money hereby subscribed.

"It is understood that each subscription of five thousand dollars
shall entitle the subscriber thereof to a one-twentieth interest
in said contract.

1. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
2. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
3. J. E. Campbell . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
4. Wm. McKinley . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
5. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
6. Justin R. Whiting . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
7. B. Butterworth . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
8. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
9. John Sherman . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
10. S. S. Cox . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
11. Wm. C. P. Breckinridge . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
12. Wm. McAdoo . . . . . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
13. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
14. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
15. John R. McPherson . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
16. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
17. F. B. Stockbridge . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
18. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
19. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.
20. ................. . . . . . . Five Thousand Dollars.

The paper referred to in this alleged agreement as "Contract No.
1,000" purported to be a contract for the manufacture and introduction
of the Hall and Wood ballot box, to be used by the United States
government whenever it had the authority to use ballot boxes. The
merit claimed for the box was that it was constructed in such a
manner as to prevent fraudulent voting. This alleged agreement
and contract, taken in connection with a bill introduced July 23,
1888, by Mr. Campbell, in the House of Representatives, "regulating
Federal elections and to promote the purity of the ballot," which
required the purchase by the government of the ballot box mentioned,
would of course, if true, present a clear case of corruption on
the part of the Members of Congress signing the agreement, so grave
as to justify their expulsion.

A copy of this paper was handed by Governor Foraker to Murat Halstead
on the 28th of September, and on the evening of that day the governor
made a speech at the Music Hall, Cincinnati, in which he referred
to Mr. Campbell having introduced the bill for the purchase of the
ballot box. On the 4th of October, Halstead published in the
"Commercial-Gazette" a fac-simile of the false paper, with the name
of Campbell alone, the names of the other apparent signers not
being given in the fac-simile and nothing being said about them.
On the 8th of October I was informed that it was whispered about
Cincinnati that my name, with many others, was attached to the
paper. I at once telegraphed that if this were so the signature
was a forgery.

When I spoke at Orrville two days later I did not allude to the
subject, regarding the whole thing as an election canard which
would correct itself. In a brief time this became true. The whole
paper was proven to be a forgery. The alleged signatures were made
on tracing paper, from franks on documents distributed by Congressmen.
All this was done by Wood, or by his procurement, in order to get
an office through Governor Foraker. Halstead, on the 11th of
October, published in his paper, over his own name, a statement
that Mr. Campbell's signature was fraudulent, no mention being made
of the other alleged signers of the paper. Subsequently, on the
10th of November, after the election, Foraker wrote a letter to
Halstead giving a narrative of the mode by which he was misled into
believing the paper to be genuine.

It has always seemed strange to me that Foraker, having in his
possession a paper which implicated Butterworth, McKinley and
myself, in what all men would regard as a dishonorable transaction,
did not inform us and give us an opportunity to deny, affirm or
explain our alleged signatures. An inquiry from him to either of
the persons named would have led to an explanation at once. No
doubt Foraker believed the signatures genuine, but that should not
have deterred him from making the inquiry.

On the 12th of November, I wrote the following letter to Halstead:

"Senate Chamber, }
"Washington, November 12, 1889.}
"My Dear Sir:--Now that the election is over, I wish to impress
upon you the importance of making public the whole history of the
'forged paper' about ballot boxes.

"While you believed in the genuineness of Campbell's signature you
were entirely right in exposing him and the signers of the paper,
for if it was genuine it was a corrupt and illegal transaction.
I only wonder that seeing the names upon it did not excite your
doubt and cause inquiry, but, assuming they were genuine, you had
no right to suppress the paper because it involved your friends in
a criminal charge. But now, since it is shown to be a forgery, a
crime of the greatest character, it seems to me you ought at once
to exercise your well-known energy and independence in exposing
and denouncing, with equal severity, the man or men who forged, or
circulated, or had anything to do with, the paper referred to. No
delicacy or pity ought to shield them from the consequences of a
crime infinitely greater than the signing of such a paper would
have been. I know in this I speak the general sentiment of many
prominent men, and you will appreciate the feeling of honor and
fairness which appeals to you to denounce the men who, directly or
indirectly, were connected with the fabrication of this paper. If
my name was forged to it I will consider it my duty to prosecute
all men who took that liberty. I will certainly do so whenever I
have tangible evidence that my name was forged.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

A fac-simile of the paper was then published with all the alleged
signatures. The subject-matter was fully investigated by a committee
of the House of Representatives, during which all the persons named
in connection with it were examined under oath. It resulted in
the unanimous finding of the committee as follows:

"In response to the first inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'By whom said alleged contract was prepared, and whether the several
signatures appended thereto are forged or genuine,'

"We find that said alleged contract was dictated (prepared) by
Richard G. Wood, and that all the signatures thereto are forged.

"In response to the second inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'If forged, what person or persons, if any, were directly or
indirectly aiding, abetting, assisting, or knowingly consenting to
the preparation and uttering of said forgery, and for what purpose,'

"We find that Richard G. Wood, Frank and L. Milward, and Frank S.
Davis were the only persons directly or indirectly aiding, abetting,
assisting, or knowingly consenting to the preparation of said
forgery with knowledge of its character.

"We further find that J. B. Foraker and Murat Halstead aided in
uttering said forgery, Mr. Foraker by exhibiting the paper to
several persons and thereafter delivering it to Mr. Halstead, and
Mr. Halstead aided in uttering said forgery by publishing the forged
paper on October 4, 1889, in the Cincinnati 'Commercial Gazette;'
but we find that neither of said parties, Foraker and Halstead, in
uttering said paper, knew the same was a forgery.

"In response to the third inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:

'Whether any of the Members whose names appeared on said alleged
contract had or have, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful,
corrupt or improper connection with, or interest in, the ballot
boxes which are the subject-matter of said alleged contract.'

"We find that no one of the persons whose names appear on said
alleged contract had or has, either directly or indirectly, any
unlawful, corrupt, or improper, or any other connection with, or
interest in, the ballot boxes which are said to be the subject of
said alleged contract, and that there never was any other contract
relating to said ballot boxes in which either of these persons,
alone or jointly with others, was in any way interested."

William E. Mason, chairman of the committee, added to the report
quoted the following just and true statement, which relieved Foraker
and Halstead from the implication stated in the report:

"If our unanimous finding is correct that Messrs. Halstead and
Foraker did not know the paper was forged when the uttered it, then
they were deceived by some one, for we have found it was a forgery.
Being deceived, then, is their only offense.

"They each have made reputation and character equal perhaps to any
of the gentlemen who were outraged by the forgery. Since they
found they were deceived, they have done all in their power, as
honorable men, to make amends. To ask more seems to me to be most
unjust, and, believing as I do that the evidence does not warrant
the censure indulged in by my associates on the committee in their
above additional findings, I most respectfully, but most earnestly,
protest."

This unfortunate incident, not fully explained before the election,
created sympathy for Campbell and naturally displeased friends of
McKinley, Butterworth and myself. I did not feel the least resentment
after Halstead denounced the forgery, but entered with increased
energy into the canvass. During this period I had promised to
attend, on the 15th of October, a banquet given by the citizens of
Cleveland to the delegates to the Pan-American Congress, then making
a progress through the United States, to be presided over by my
colleague, Senator Payne. As this speech is outside of the line
of my usual topics, the toast being "The Congress of American
States," and yet relates to a subject of vital importance, I
introduce it as reported in the Cleveland "Leader:"

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:--The toast you ask me to respond to
is the expression of a hope indulged in by many of the ablest
statesmen of the United States ever since our sister American states
dissolved their political connections with European powers. Henry
Clay, as early as 1818, when proposing to acknowledge the independence
of the South American states, eloquently depicted the mutual
advantage of closer commercial relations with those states. Mr.
Monroe proclaimed to the world the determination of the United
States not to suffer any European power to interfere with the
internal concerns of independent American states. Still no effective
measures were adopted to promote intercourse between them. The
hope of closer union has not been realized, mainly because of the
neglect of the government of the United States. We have been too
much engaged in political disputes and in the development of our
own resources. Then we have had a serious unpleasantness among
ourselves, which, if it had terminated differently, would have made
us very unacceptable partners. But, now, all this is past and
gone, and I can give assurance to our guests that not only the
government of the United States, but the people of the United
States, all parties and of every section, have united heartily in
inviting you here, that they will do their full share in carrying
out your recommendations, and sincerely hope that your conference
will lead to a congress of American nations.

"I look upon this conference as having the same relation to the
future of America as the conference of the thirteen British colonies,
in 1774, had to the declaration of American independence. That
conference led to the constitution of the United States and was
the beginning of the independence of all the American states. Your
conference is of infinitely greater importance, for your deliberations
affect the interests of more than one hundred million people, while
theirs only affected three million. But, more important still,
your conference contemplates only peaceful aids for mutual benefit;
theirs provided for war and a desperate struggle with superior
forces.

"I do not recall, in the annals of man, a meeting of the selected
representatives of any nations with nobler aims or with greater
opportunity for good than this conference of American states. You
seek to prevent war by peaceful negotiations and arbitration; you
seek to promote intercourse with each other by land and by sea;
you seek, as far as the wants and interests of each nation will
permit, to remove unnecessary restrictions to trade and commerce;
you seek to bring into closer union sixteen republics and one
empire, all of them governed by free institutions. You do not
unite to conquer, but to help each other in developing your resources
and in exchanging your productions.

"If your conference deals wisely with your opportunity you will
light a torch that will illuminate the world. You will disband
armies, you will convert ships of war into useful agencies of
commerce; you will secure the construction of a continuous line of
railways from New York to Buenos Ayres, with connections to the
capital city of every American country; you will contribute to the
construction of the Nicaraguan Canal and all other feasible methods
of transportation between the Atlantic and Pacific; you will unite
in a generous rivalry of growth and progress all the American
states. And, more important than all, you will pave the way for
a congress in which all these states will be represented in a
greater than an Amphictyonic council, with broader jurisdiction
and scope than the rulers of ancient Greece conceived of.

"Is this to be only a dream? I do not think so. The American
states are now more closely united in interest than any other part
of the world. Our institutions are similar. We nourish no old-
time feuds to separate us. Our productions do not compete with,
but supplement, each other. Their direct exchange in American
vessels is the natural course of trade. The diversity of language
is less marked than in any other continent. The sentiment is
universal in America that America belongs to Americans, that no
European power should vex us with its policy or its wars; that all
parts of America have been discovered and are not open to further
discovery; each country belongs to the people who occupy it, with
the clear and unquestioned right of home rule. Such, at least, is
the feeling in the United States.

"And now, looking back with pride over a century of growth, exhibiting
to you, as we are doing by a rather tiresome journey, what we have
done, and appreciating fully the rapid progress and enormous
resources of our sister American states, recognizing your equality
and absolute independence, whatever may be your population or extent
of territory, we say to you, in all frankness, that we are ready
and willing to join you in an American congress devoted exclusively
to the maintenance of peace, the increase of commerce, and the
protection and welfare of each and all the states of the American
continents."

On the 19th of October I addressed a great audience in Music Hall,
Cincinnati, at which Butterworth and Grosvenor also made speeches.
In this speech I especially urged the election of Governor Foraker
and answered the cry against him for running for a third term. I
said:

"Now, you have a good ticket, as I said, from top to bottom. I
need not add anything more with respect to Governor Foraker, who,
I believe, ought to be elected, not only because he has been a good
soldier, but because he has been a good governor. Nor do I fear
that cry about a third term. How should I fear it, when I am an
example of a man serving on the fifth term of six years each? If
Foraker has done his duty well for two terms, it is a good reason
why he would do better the next time. If he made any mistakes in
the past, he will have a chance to correct them in the future, and
I believe he will do so if he has made any; and I don't believe he
has."

On the 24th of October I was to address a meeting in Columbus, and
hearing that Governor Foraker was sick, at his residence, I called
upon him, and we had a free and friendly conversation. I did not
introduce the subject of the ballot box forgery, but assured him
that I was doing, and intended to do, all I could to promote his
election. He thanked me heartily, expressed his regret that he
was unable to take part in the canvass, but hoped to do so before
its close. At one of the largest indoor meetings ever held in
Columbus, that evening, I especially urged the importance of Governor
Foraker's election, and ridiculed, to the best of my ability, the
cry that was made for a third term. I called attention to the fact
that all that could be said against Governor Foraker was that he
was running for a third term. Continuing, I said:

"Why for a third term? Because he did so well in both his previous
terms that the Republican party of Ohio was willing to sanction
him as its candidate for a third term--and intend to elect him.
Why should not a man be nominated by the Republicans for a third
term as Governor of Ohio? What is there in the office that prevents
his full and free and complete performance of all the duties imposed
upon him as Governor of Ohio? Why, they say the President, by a
prescriptive rule that has been established since the time of
Washington, cannot be nominated for a third term. What of that?
The powers of the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United
States are as different as a and z, and are as wide apart as heaven
and earth. The President of the United States is armed with more
power during his four years than any prince or potentate of Europe;
he exercises a power greater than any man in any country of the
world, whether a monarchy or empire. But is there any similitude
between the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States?
What power has he? The Governor of Ohio has less power than almost
any other governor of the United States."

I spoke on the 2nd of November in the Music Hall at Cleveland, and
there again urged the election of Foraker. I give a short extract
of the description of the speech as it appeared in the papers of
that city:

"He ridiculed the third term scare of the Democracy and then paid
a glowing tribute to the worth and integrity of Governor Foraker.
'Has any man said,' he asked, 'that Governor Foraker is a bad man;
that he is not a good man? My countrymen, no one has said that.
He was a brave soldier. He is a self-made man; the son of good,
plain people. He is self-educated. By integrity and toil he
mounted, step by step, on the ladder of fame. Nearly every man
who has arisen to prominence in our country has arisen from the
ranks by toil. Such a man is Governor Foraker.'"

I spoke daily during the last two weeks of the canvass and everywhere
made the same appeal in behalf of Governor Foraker and the state
ticket. The result of the election was that Campbell received a
plurality of 10,872 votes and was elected. A majority of the
legislature was Democratic, and subsequently elected Calvin S.
Brice United States Senator.

Elbert L. Lampson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor,
was elected by a plurality of 22. The other candidates on the
Republican state ticket were elected by an average plurality of
about 3,000.

The first session of the 51st Congress convened on the 2nd of
December, 1889, both branches being Republican. President Harrison,
in his message, reported a very favorable condition of the national
finances. The aggregate receipts from all sources, for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1889, were $387,050,058. The total expenditures,
including the sinking fund for that year, were $329,579,929. The
excess of receipts over expenditures was $57,470,129. The estimated
surplus for the current year was $43,678,883. This would justify,
and the President recommended, a reduction of taxation to that
amount. He called attention to the reduction of the circulation
of national banks amounting to $114,109,729, and the large increase
of gold and silver coin in circulation and of the issues of gold
and silver certificates. The law then in force required the purchase
of two million dollars worth of silver bullion each month, to be
coined into silver dollars of 412½ grains of standard silver nine-
tenths fine. When this law was enacted, on the 28th of February,
1878, the price of silver in the market was $1.20 per ounce. Since
that time to the date of his message the price had fallen to 70.6
cents an ounce. He expressed a fear of a further reduction of the
value of silver, and that it would cause a difference in the value
of the gold and silver dollars in commercial transactions. He
called the attention of Congress to these three subjects of national
importance--the reduction of taxation, the circulation of the
national banks, and the further issue of silver coin and silver
certificates, and invoked for them the considerate action of
Congress.

He recommended the revision of the tariff law in such a way as not
to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries,
the free list to be extended to such domestic productions as our
home industries did not supply. He referred approvingly to a plan
for the increased use of silver, which would be presented by
Secretary Windom.

The plan, submitted by Secretary Windom in his report, for increasing
the use of silver in the circulation, provided that the treasury
department should purchase silver bullion every month to a limited
extent, paying therefor treasury notes receivable for government
dues and payable on demand in gold, or in silver bullion at the
current market rate at the time of payment, and that the purchase
of silver bullion and the compulsory coinage of silver dollars
under the act of 1878 should cease.

On the 28th of January, 1890, Senator Morrill introduced, by request,
a bill which had been prepared by, and embodied the views of the
Secretary of the Treasury. This bill was referred to the committee
on finance, and was reported back by Senator Jones, of Nevada,
February 25, with amendments. The first section of the amended
bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase $4,500,000
worth of silver bullion each month, and to issue in payment therefor
treasury notes receivable for customs and all public dues, and when
so received they might be reissued. They were also redeemable on
demand in lawful money of the United States, and when so redeemed
should be canceled. Such portion of the silver was to be coined
as might be necessary to meet the redemptions authorized. Other
sections provided for details by which the plan was to be effected.

To this bill I proposed an additional section authorizing the
deposits of legal tender notes by national banks with the United
States treasurer, to meet the redemption of the notes of such banks
which had failed, gone into liquidation, or were reducing their
circulation, to be covered into the treasury to the credit of an
appropriation from which the money could be withdrawn as necessary
to meet the payments of the notes for which the deposits had been
made. The deposits of this character often exceeded $50,000,000,
but under the plan proposed the money became immediately available
in current disbursements, thus avoiding a hoarding of the notes in
the treasury or the creating of a stringency in the circulation,
and, at the same time, giving the government the use of the deposits
until needed, by which the issue of bonds to a considerable extent
would be avoided. This arrangement was accepted and eventually
became section 6 of the law which is now in satisfactory operation.

In the progress of the debate on this bill every question connected
with the financial operations of the government for twenty years
was introduced and made the subject of debate, and especially the
coinage act of 1873, and the dropping of the old silver dollar from
coinage. Although this coin has been restored by the act of 1878,
and hundreds of millions of such dollars had been coined, yet the
Senators from the silver producing states, and especially Stewart,
were continually harping on "the crime of 1873," as they called
the coinage act of that year, a careful statement of which has
already been made in these volumes.

The only new allegation made was that the amendment recommended by
the Senate committee on finance, to strike out the franc dollar of
384 grains, provided for in the bill as it came from the House,
and insert the trade dollar, was not agreed to in the Senate, but
that the change was made in committee of conference, and passed
without the knowledge of the Senate. A conclusive answer was made
to this statement by the production, from the files of the secretary's
office, of the original bill as it stood after its passage in the
Senate and before it was sent to conference. As similar statements
have been frequently made, I reproduce the portion of this original
bill showing the section in question, with the printer's note
accompanying the bill explaining the different type used in printing
it. The word "AGREED" on the bill is in the handwriting of the
journal clerk of the Senate, Mr. McDonald, who held that position
many years until his death. It shows that the Senate adopted the
recommendation of the committee on finance before the bill was sent
to conference. This amendment was agreed to by the House conferees.

[Note in explanation of the bill (H. R. 2934).]
1. The body of the bill, printed in brevier, is as it came from
the House.
2. Amendments to insert, reported by the Committee on Finance,
are in _italics_.
3. Amendments to strike out, reported by the Committee on Finance,
are in [brackets].
4. Amendments made by the Senate striking out words are in brevier,
with brackets, and the words inserted in lieu thereof in the
handwriting of the Clerk, are in SMALL CAPS.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
May 29, 1872.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
December 16, 1872.
Reported by Mr. Sherman with amendments, viz.: Strike out the
parts in [brackets] and insert the parts printed in _italics_.
January 7, 1873.
Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Finance, reported additional
amendments, which were ordered to be printed with the bill.

AN ACT
Revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay-offices,
and coinage of the United States.
1 _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
2 United States of America in Congress assembled_,
1 Sec. [16] 15. [That the silver coins of the United States shall
be
2 a dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar
or twenty-
3 five-cent piece, and a dime or ten-cent piece; and the weight
of the
4 dollar shall be three hundred and eighty-four grains; the half-
dol
5 lar, quarter-dollar, and the dime shall be, respectively, one-
half,
6 one-quarter, and one-tenth the weight of said dollar; which coins
7 shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for any amount
not
8 exceeding five dollars in any one payment.] _That the silver
coins
9 of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half-dollar or
fifty-
AGREED A DIME OR TEN-CENT PIECE
10 cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-five-cent piece ^; and the
11 weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty
grains
12 troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams and
one-
13 half of a gram; the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respec-
14 tively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar;
15 and said coins shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for
16 any amount not exceeding five dollars in any one payment_.
AGREED

On the 5th of June I made a speech covering not only the pending
bill, and the cognate questions involved, but all the irrelative
topics introduced by other Senators. I said:

"I approach the discussion of this bill, and the kindred bills and
amendments pending in the two Houses, with unaffected diffidence.
No problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty.
Our action will affect the value of all property of the people of
the United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our
trade and commerce with all the world. In the consideration of
such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions
or bound by local interests, but, with the lights of experience
and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, we should
give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature
allows. With the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of
us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will
accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public
credit or the general interests of our people. This is no time
for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal with
facts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at
results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably
will be. The best prophet of the future is the past.

"To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear
conception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority of
the Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet
the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population,
and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring
of national bank notes; second, to increase the market value of
silver, not only in the United States, but in the world, in the
belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed,
and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal
ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join
with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in
agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and, third,
to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize
gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish
both gold and silver as standards of value, not only in the United
States, but among all the civilized nations of the world.

"Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all,
and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will
discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my
opinion, to promote or defeat these objects."

Those of us who were in favor of good money, whether of gold or
silver, or whether issued by the government in the form of notes
or currency by the national banks, all to be maintained at par with
each other and of equal purchasing power, were constantly charged
with reducing the volume of money. I showed that since the resumption
of specie payments, January 1, 1879, there had been a constant
annual increase in the total circulating medium of the country.
I furnished a table showing the steady increase of circulation
during the period named, which I here insert:

THE AMOUNT AND KINDS OF MONEY IN ACTUAL CIRCULATION ON CERTAIN
DATES FROM 1878 TO 1889.

Year. Date. Total circula- Gold coin. Standard sil- Subsidiary
tion. ver dollars. silver.
1878. March 1. $805,793,807 $82,530,163 ........... $53,573,833
1879. October 1. 862,579,754 123,698,157 $11,074,230 54,088,747
1880. October 1. 1,022,033,685 261,320,920 22,914,075 48,368,543
1881. October 1. 1,147,892,435 328,118,146 32,230,038 47,859,327
1882. October 1. 1,188,752,363 358,351,956 33,801,231 47,153,750
1883. October 1. 1,236,650,032 346,077,784 39,783,527 48,170,263
1884. October 1. 1,261,569,924 341,485,840 40,322,042 45,344,717
1885. October 1. 1,286,630,871 348,268,740 45,275,710 51,328,206
1886. October 1. 1,264,889,561 364,894,599 60,170,793 48,176,838
1887. October 1. 1,353,485,690 391,090,890 60,614,524 50,414,706
1887. October 1. 1,384,340,280 377,329,865 57,959,356 52,020,975
1888. October 1. 1,405,018,000 375,947,715 57,554,100 52,931,352

Year. Date. Gold certifi- Silver cer- United States National
cates. tificates. Notes.* bank notes.
1878. March 1. $44,364,100 ........... $311,436,971 $313,888,740
1879. October 1. 14,843,200 $ 1,176,720 327,747,762 362,950,938
1880. October 1. 7,480,100 12,203,191 329,417,403 340,329,453
1881. October 1. 5,239,320 52,590,180 327,655,884 354,199,540
1882. October 1. 4,907,440 63,204,780 325,272,858 356,060,348
1883. October 1. 55,014,940 78,921,961 321,356,596 347,324,961
1884. October 1. 87,389,660 96,491,251 325,786,143 324,750,271
1885. October 1. 118,137,790 93,656,716 318,736,684 311,227,025
1886. October 1. 84,691,807 95,387,112 310,161,935 301,406,477
1887. October 1. 97,984,683 154,354,826 329,070,804 269,955,257
1887. October 1. 134,838,190 218,561,601 306,052,053 237,578,240
1888. October 1. 116,675,349 276,619,715 325,510,758 199,779,011

*Includes outstanding clearing house certificates of the act of
June 8, 1872.

Meanwhile, the House passed a bill of like import to the one under
consideration in the Senate, differing therefrom mainly in that it
made the notes to be issued a full legal tender, and authorized
the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem them in gold coin or silver
bullion at current market rate. When this bill reached the Senate
it was, by unanimous consent, accepted as a substitute for the
Senate bill, and the discussion of the measure continued, occupying
much of the time and attention of the Senate until June 17, 1890,
when a vote was taken on an amendment proposed by Senator Plumb to
strike out the first section authorizing the issue of notes and
inserting the following:

"That from and after the date of the passage of this act, the unit
of value in the United States shall be the dollar, and the same may
be coined of 412½ grains of standard silver, or of 25.8 grains of
standard gold, and the said coins shall be legal tender for all
debts, public and private.

"That hereafter any owner of silver or gold bullion may deposit
the same in any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard
dollars, or bars, for his benefit, and without charge, but it shall
be lawful to refuse any deposit of less value than $100, or any
bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the mint."

This amendment was adopted by a vote of 43 to 24, the yeas being
made up of Democrats and the Republicans from the silver producing
states.

The adoption of this free silver amendment clearly indicated that
a large majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver
at the ratio of sixteen to one.

The other sections of the bill were then made to harmonize with
this new provision, and the bill was passed and returned to the
House, where the amendments were nonconcurred in, and a conference
asked for.

The Senate granted this request, and Senators Sherman, Jones, of
Nevada, and Harris were appointed to meet Representatives Conger,
Walker, and Bland, of the House, in conference, to adjust the wide
disagreements. On July 7 a bill agreed upon in conference was
reported to the Senate, Messrs. Harris and Bland not joining in
the report. The bill agreed to became a law July 12, 1890, and
was as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase,
from time to time, silver bullion to the aggregate amount of
4,500,000 ounces, or as much thereof as may be offered in each
month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for
371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue, in payment for such
purchases of silver bullion, treasury notes of the United States
to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and
of such denominations, not less than one dollar nor more than
$1,000, as he may prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry into
effect the provisions of this act is hereby appropriated out of
any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.

"Sec. 2. That the treasury notes issued in accordance with the
provisions of this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at
the treasury of the United States or at the office of any assistant
treasurer of the United States, and when so redeemed may be reissued;
but no greater or less amount of such notes shall be outstanding
at any time than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard
silver dollars coined therefrom, then held in the treasury, purchased
by such notes; and such treasury notes shall be a legal tender in
payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise
expressly stipulated in the contract, and shall be receivable for
customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be
reissued; and such notes, when held by any national banking
association, may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve. That,
upon demand of the holder of any of the treasury notes herein
provided for, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such
regulations as he may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver
coin, at his discretion, it being the established policy of the
United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each
other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided
by law.

"Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall each month coin
2,000,000 ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions
of this act into standard silver dollars until the 1st day of July,
1891, and after that time he shall coin of the silver bullion
purchased under the provisions of this act as much as may be
necessary to provide for the redemption of the treasury notes herein
provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage
shall be accounted for and paid into the treasury.

"Sec. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions
of this act shall be subject to the requirements of existing law
and the regulations of the mint service governing the methods of
determining the amount of pure silver contained, and the amount of
charges or deductions, if any, to be made.

"Sec. 5. That so much of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled
'An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and
to restore its legal tender character,' as requires the monthly
purchase and coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less
than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion,
is hereby repealed.

"Sec. 6. That upon the passage of this act the balances standing
with the treasurer of the United States to the respective credits
of national banks, for deposits made to redeem the circulating
notes of such banks, and all deposits thereafter received for like
purpose, shall be converted into the treasury as a miscellaneous
receipt, and the treasurer of the United States shall redeem, from
the general cash in the treasury, the circulating notes of said
banks which may come into his possession subject to redemption;
and upon the certificate of the comptroller of the currency that
such notes have been received by him, and that they have been
destroyed and that no new notes will be issued in their place,
reimbursement of their amount shall be made to the treasurer, under
such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe,
from an appropriation hereby created, to be known as 'National bank
notes: Redemption account,' but the provisions of this act shall
not apply to the deposits received under section 3 of the act of
June 20, 1874, requiring every national bank to keep in lawful
money, with the treasurer of the United States, a sum equal to five
per cent. of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption
of its circulating notes; and the balance remaining of the deposit
so covered shall, at the close of each month, be reported on the
monthly public debt statement as debt of the United States bearing
no interest.

"Sec. 7. That this act shall take effect thirty days from and
after its passage."

The authorship of this law has been generally credited to me, and
it was commonly called the "Sherman silver law," though I took but
little part in framing the legislation until the bill got into
conference. The situation at that time was critical. A large
majority of the Senate favored free silver, and it was feared that
the small majority against it in the other House might yield and
agree to it. The silence of the President on the matter gave rise
to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pass both
Houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. Some action had
to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the
measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted for it, but the
day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be
had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage.

It will be noticed that the act varied greatly from the House bill
before the free coinage amendment was attached. The amount of
silver bullion to be purchased was changed from $4,500,000 worth
per month to 4,500,000 ounces per month. This change, owing to
the fall in price of silver, not then anticipated, greatly reduced
the quantity to be purchased. The House conferees yielded reluctantly
to the striking out of the section in the bill providing for the
redemption of the notes in bullion, a plan that had been urged by
Secretary Windom. In lieu thereof, however, a clause declaring
that it was the purpose of the government to maintain the parity
of the metals was inserted. This was a most important amendment
and one that has been generally accepted as indicating the purpose
of the country to maintain all dollars at par with each other.

The chief merit of this law was that it suspended the peremptory
coinage of the silver purchased under it into silver dollars which
could not be circulated, but were hoarded in the treasury at great
cost and inconvenience. It required the monthly purchase of a
greater amount of silver than before, but that could be held in
the form of bullion, and could be paid for by treasury notes equal
in amount to the cost of the bullion, the whole of which was held
in the treasury as security for the payment of the notes. If silver
bullion did not decline in market value it could, if necessary, be
coined without loss, and thus the parity of the notes with gold
could be readily maintained according to the declared policy of
the law. The friends of free coinage stoutly asserted that this
purchase of silver bullion would not only prevent its depreciation,
but would advance its market value, and thus be a gain to the
government. I did not believe this but hoped that it would not
decline in value, and, in any event, it was better to stop the
compulsory coinage of the bullion into dollars, as to force them
into circulation would reduce the purchasing power of the dollar
and bring the United States to the single standard of silver.
Being compelled to choose between the measure proposed and the free
coinage of silver I preferred the former, and voted for the bill
and, thus, with others, became responsible for it.

Contrary to the expectation of the friends of silver it steadily
declined in market value. The compulsory purchase of the enormous
aggregate of fifty-four million ounces, or 2,250 tons Troy, each
year, did not maintain the market value of silver, but it steadily
declined so that the silver purchased each year entailed an annual
loss of more than $10,000,000.

When the result became apparent I was anxious to arrest the purchase
of silver, and I never could comprehend why anyone not directly
interested in the mining of silver could favor a policy involving
so heavy a loss to the people of the United States. Long before
the second election of Mr. Cleveland I advocated the repeal of what
became known as the "Sherman act," and heartily supported and voted
for the repeal he recommended.

In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill "to declare
unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and
production," but no action was taken upon it. On the 4th of December
I again introduced this bill, it being the first Senate bill
introduced in that Congress. It was referred to the committee on
finance, and, having been reported back with amendments, I called
it up on the 27th of February, and said that I did not intend to
make any extended remarks upon it unless it should become necessary
to do so. Senator George made a long and carefully prepared speech,
from which it appeared that while he favored the general purpose
of the bill he objected to it on the ground that it was not
constitutional. This objection was shared by several Senators.
I subsequently reported from the committee on finance a substitute
for the bill, and on the 21st of March made a long speech in support
of it in which I said:

"I did not originally intend to make any extended argument on the
trust bill, because I supposed that the public facts upon which it
is founded and the general necessity of some legislation were so
manifest that no debate was necessary to bring those facts to the
attention of the Senate.

"But the different views taken by Senators in regard to the legal
questions involved in this bill, and the very able speech made by
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] relative to the details
of the bill, led me to the conclusion that it was my duty, having
reported the bill from the committee on finance, to present, in as
clear and logical a way as I can, the legal and practical questions
involved in the bill.

"The object of the bill, as shown by the title, is 'to declare
unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and
production.' It declares that certain contracts are against public
policy, null and void. It does not announce a new principle of
law, but applies old and well-recognized principles of the common
law to the complicated jurisdiction of our state and federal
government. Similar contracts in any state in the Union are now,
by common or statute law, null and void. Each state can and does
prevent and control combinations within the limit of the state.
This we do not propose to interfere with. The power of the state
courts has been repeatedly exercised to set aside such combinations
as I shall hereafter show, but these courts are limited in their
jurisdiction to the state, and, in our complex system of government,
are admitted to be unable to deal with the great evil that now
threatens us.

"Unlawful combinations, unlawful at common law, now extend to all
the states and interfere with our foreign and domestic commerce
and with the importation and sale of goods subject to duty under
the laws of the United States, against which only the general
government can secure relief. They not only affect our commerce
with foreign nations, but trade and transportation among the several
states. The purpose of this bill is to enable the courts of the
United States to apply the same remedies against combinations which
injuriously affect the interests of the United States that have
been applied in the several states to protect local interests.

* * * * *

"This bill, as I would have it, has for its single object to invoke
the aid of the courts of the United States to deal with the
combinations described in the first section, when they affect
injuriously our foreign and interstate commerce and our revenue
laws, and in this way to supplement the enforcement of the established
rules of the common and statute law by the courts of the several
states in dealing with combinations that affect injuriously the
industrial liberty of the citizens of these states. It is to arm
the federal courts within the limits of their constitutional power,
that they may co-operate with the state courts in checking, curbing,
and controlling the most dangerous combinations that now threaten
the business, property, and trade of the people of the United
States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course
by finespun constitutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts
of associated or corporate wealth and power.

"It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with
the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful
combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid
of production where there is free and fair competition. It is the
right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful
vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and
conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty,
and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and
privileges."

I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from
the period of Coke and Littleton to the present times. I also
quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and
explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United
States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many
states.

Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until,
on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject
to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the
ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat
all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it,
corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was
defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however,
the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with
instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April
Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a substitute for
the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views,
he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke,
members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect.
When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not
intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that
after having fairly and fully considered the substitute proposed
by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as
being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all
the circumstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that
direction. The bill passed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay,
Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting in the negative. It
was passed by the House and after being twice referred to committees
of conference was finally agreed to, its title having been changed
to "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints
and monopolies," and was approved by the President June 26, 1890.

The law as finally agreed to is as follows:

"Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among
the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to
be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or
engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by
fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not
exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion
of the court.

"Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize,
or combine or conspire with any other person, or persons, to
monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several
states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine
not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding
one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the
court.

"Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise,
or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory
of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint
of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or
between any such territory or territories and any state or states
or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between
the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations,
is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such
contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof,
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars,
or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments,
in the discretion of the court.

"Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby
invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of
this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys
of the United States, in their respective districts, under the
direction of the attorney general, to institute proceedings in
equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings
may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that
such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When
the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such
petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing
and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before
final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary
restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the
premises.

"Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any
proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the
ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before
the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they
reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and
subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal
thereof.

"Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract of any combination,
or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof)
mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of
transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country,
shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and
condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the
forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into
the United States contrary to law.

"Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property
by any other or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or
declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit
court of the United States in the district in which the defendant
resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy,
and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the
costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

"Sec. 8. That the word 'person,' or 'persons,' wherever used in
this text, shall be deemed to include corporations and associations
existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United
States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state,
or the laws of any foreign country."

Since the passage of this act I have carefully studied and observed
the effect, upon legitimate trade and production, of the combination
of firms and corporations to monopolize a particular industry. If
this association is made merely to promote production or to create
guilds for friendly intercourse between persons engaged in a common
pursuit, it is beneficial, but such is not the object of the great
combinations in the United States. They are organized to prevent
competition and to advance prices and profits. Usually the capital
of several corporations, often of different states, is combined
into a single corporation, and sometimes this is placed under the
control of one man. The power of this combination is used to
prevent and destroy all competition, and in many cases this has
been successful, which has resulted in enormous fortunes and
sometimes a large advance in prices to the consumer. This law may
not be sufficient to control and prevent such combinations, but,
if not, the evil produced by them will lead to effective legislation.
I know of no object of greater importance to the people. I hope
the courts of the United States and of the several states, will
deal with these combinations so as to prevent and destroy them.

On the 13th of May, 1890, I was drawn into a casual debate with
Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana, which extended to others, on the relations
of the north and south, or, rather, between Union and Confederate
soldiers. The subject before the Senate was a bill to aid the
illiterate in obtaining a common school education. The chief
benefit of the measure would have inured to the south, especially
to the negroes of the south. Mr. Eustis complained of the 15th
amendment to the constitution. I explained to him that this
amendment would never have been adopted but for the action of the
south in depriving the enfranchised voter, not only of his rights
of citizenship, but of the ordinary rights of humanity. I gave
the history of the reconstruction acts, the first of which was
framed by a committee of which I was chairman. It was based upon
the restoration of the southern states to all the rights and
privileges they enjoyed before the war, subject to such changes as
were made necessary by the abolition of slavery as the result of
the war. There was then no feeling of hostility to the people of
the south. I had heard at that time no expression of opinion except
of kindness to them. There was a universal appreciation of the
fact that while they were wrong--radically wrong, as we thought,
in waging a useless and bloody war against the Union of this country
--yet they were honest in their convictions, they believed the
doctrines they fought for were the doctrines of the constitution,
and there was, therefore, a spirit of generosity, of forbearance,
of kindness, to these people, and everything they could ask for in
reason would have been granted to them.

It was not then contemplated to arm the negroes with suffrage. A
few, and but a few, Senators made such a proposition, but it was
scouted and laid aside. It was at this time that the Ku-Klux crimes
and violence broke out, and the laws of the southern states were
so cruel, so unjust, so wrong in our view of the rights of the
colored people, and of white Republicans as well, that the people
of the north resented this injustice. These laws burned like coals
of fire in the northern breast. This led to the reconstruction
acts, and the adoption of the 15th amendment. The 14th amendment
was the act of the conservative Senators and Members, such as
Fessenden, Trumbull and Doolittle. The 15th amendment was the
natural result of cruelty and outrage in the south. This amendment
has been practically nullified by the conservatives of the north,
and now the people of the south have increased political power by
reason of the abolition of slavery, while, backed by public opinion
in the south, they deprive the colored people, by whom they gained
this power, of their political rights, and that by processes that
are denounced as criminal by every free state. Time, no doubt,
will correct this evil. If justice is done to the negroes they
will advance in intelligence with the improvement of their condition,
and with the benefit of their labor the south will become more
prosperous by the diversity of employments. There is reason to
believe that in a brief period the south will engage in manufactures
and become more prosperous than in the days of slavery.

On the 20th of May, the death of William D. Kelley was announced
in the Senate. He entered the House of Representatives as I left
it to take my seat in the Senate, but our frequent meetings in the
consideration of bills of a financial character led to a friendship
which was unbroken, and which imposed on me the duty of responding
to the usual resolutions presented on the death of a Member. When
Mr. Kelley entered the House as a Member from the city of Philadelphia,
he had arrived at the mature age of forty-six, and had an established
reputation for ability, industry, and fidelity to duty. He had
been trained in the school of poverty, making his own way in the
world, gathering knowledge by the wayside. He labored for several
years at his trade as a mechanic, but, prompted by a restless thirst
for knowledge, studied law, and for several years practiced the
legal profession. In due time he became a judge and served as such
for ten years, so that when he entered public life as a Member of
the House he was a trained lawyer, with strong convictions upon
economic questions, and bold and earnest on all the stern issues
of the Civil War.

The creed to which he devoted himself consisted of but three
articles: That the Union must be preserved at all hazards, that
the national government should exercise its exclusive power to
provide money for the people of the United States, and that the
laborer of our country should be protected in his industry from
undue competition. To the establishment of each of these theories
as the public policy of the country he contributed his full measure
of effort and success. By instinct he was opposed to slavery.
All his early struggles and his innate perceptions of the rights
of man made him an enemy to all forms of oppression. Still, he
would have respected the right of each state to deal with this
question, but when it became manifest that slavery was the real
cause of the attempt at secession, he was among the first and
foremost to demand that it should be abolished. But especially as
the recognized leader in the support of protection to American
industry he exercised commanding influence and authority.

Whatever opinions might be honestly entertained by others as to
the nature and extent of this protection, Judge Kelley had no doubt,
but impartially and freely extended it to every industry, without
regard to its nature, or the section in which it was pursued. On
all economic questions he had accurate knowledge of details. His
patient industry enabled him to master every shade and side of such
a question, and especially so as to the policy of protection by
discriminating duties. On other matters he was a follower, but in
this always a leader. His writings and speeches upon this and
kindred questions constitute a storehouse of information, and
furnish the best evidence of his industry and ability.

From the time he entered public life until the hour of his death
he commanded the full confidence of his people. No fluctuation of
opinion, no personal rivalries, no contests for patronage or office,
could weaken their confidence in his integrity and justice. These
obstructions in the paths of public men, often fatal, did not affect
him. For thirty years he was the chosen Representative of one
constituency, in our country an unexampled event. In the House of
Representatives, famous for its sudden changes, he was for many
years "the father of the House," and no doubt, if his life had been
prolonged to the extreme period allotted to man, his seat in the
House would have been safe for him.

On the 8th of July a similar announcement was made of the death of
Samuel S. Cox, late a Representative of the city of New York. He
had been a Member of Congress from Ohio before the Civil War, and
shared in the exciting and dangerous scenes in Congress at that
time, and I felt it became my duty, as one of the few surviving
actors in those events, to pay a just tribute to the qualities of
head and heart that made him and kept him a leader among the public
men of our country for a period of more than thirty-three years,
longer than the average life of a generation. This duty was the
more imperative upon me as he was a native of Ohio, for forty years
a resident, and for eight years a Representative in Congress from
that state, honored and respected by all of whatever party or creed,
and beloved by his associates as but few in political life can hope
to be.

I could also speak of him from a longer personal acquaintance than
anyone in either House, for I had known him or his kindred from
almost the days of my boyhood. We were born in neighboring counties,
he one year later than I. My father and his were associated as
judge and clerk of the supreme court of Ohio. I knew of him as
early as 1853, as the editor of the "Ohio Statesman," a Democratic
paper published at Columbus, the organ of that party in Ohio, but
my personal acquaintance and association with him commenced with
his election, in 1856, as a Member of the House of Representatives.

While Mr. Cox was a successful leader in political life, and rendered
his party due fealty on purely political questions, he was not
always in harmony with the majority of his party. In his first
speech in Congress, which was the first one made in the new hall
of the House of Representatives, an opportunity carefully chosen
by him with the skill of an actor, he took ground against the
Lecompton constitution, strongly recommended by Mr. Buchanan's
administration. He supported several measures during the war not
approved by his political associates. He spoke in favor of the
amendment abolishing slavery, though he did not vote for it. By
instinct, education and association, especially by family ties, he
was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character
he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat,
and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider
this a fault, but a virtue.

We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body
of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these
we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all
such matters Mr. Cox was always on the humanitarian side. He has
linked his name in honorable association with many humane, kindly,
and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life-
saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took
an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war.
He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of
Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter
carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions
to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed
on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy,
charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the
unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness
bestowed is never lost, then Mr. Cox has left an inheritance to
thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.

Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner.
Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the
pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from
sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was
ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without
an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political
debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation.
In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old
times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and
he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He
had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie
of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities
of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection
and constant help to each other.

He was fond of travel, and wrote several books descriptive of scenes
and incidents of his journeys. He also wrote historical works.
He entered, as an author, a lecturer, and a speaker, many fields
of research, and in all sustained his reputation as a brilliant
writer and speaker, always interesting and often eloquent, a close
student who fully mastered his subject, and withal a man of generous
impulses, kind and cheerful nature, a true friend, and a faithful
public servant. This all can be said truly and without exaggeration
of Mr. Cox. He did not contemplate death when I saw him last.
His untimely death was the first news I received on my arrival in
New York from a journey abroad. I am told that he met the common
fate of all with patient confidence and an assured hope and belief
in the doctrines of the Christian faith and the promise of future
life.

It is fortunate that man cannot know the future, and especially
that future beyond human life. Socrates, when condemned to death,
consoled himself with the inconceivable happiness in a future state
when he would converse and associate with and question the mighty
array of heroes, patriots, and sages who had preceded him. He said
to his judges, "It is now time to depart--for me to die, for you
to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to
everyone but God." We cannot lift the veil, but may we not share
the hope of the wisest of men that our farewell to associates who
go before us is but a brief parting for a better life?

I have been frequently assailed for my part in the passage, in the
spring of 1864, of a law to encourage immigration. In reporting
this bill from the committee on finance, on the 18th of February
of that year, I said:

"The special wants for labor in this country at the present time
are very great. The war has depleted our workshops, and materially
lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and
mechanism. In their noble response to the call of their country,
our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies
which must be filled, or the material interest of the country must
suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war
calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the
deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than
at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and
promising.

"The south, having torn down the fabric of its labor system by its
own hands, will, when the war shall have ceased, present a wide
field for voluntary white labor, and it must look to immigration
for its supply.

"The following may be mentioned as the special inducements to
immigration:

"First. High price of labor and low price of food compared with
other countries.

"Second. Our land policy, giving to every immigrant, after he
shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen, a home and
a farm substantially as a free gift, charging him less for 160
acres in fee-simple than is paid as the annual rent of a single
acre in England.

"Third. The political rights conferred upon persons of foreign
birth.

"Fourth. Our system of free schools, melting in a common crucible
all differences of religion, language, and race, and giving to the
child of the day laborer and the son of the millionaire equal
opportunities to excel in the pursuit and acquirement of knowledge.
This is an advantage and a blessing which the poor man enjoys in
no other country."

The committee rejected several plans to aid immigration, and closed
its report as follows:

"Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration
the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate
in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration
to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions
now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the
like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York
to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor
and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished
without great expenditure, and without changing the relation
heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.

"With this view your committee report the following bill and
recommend its passage."

When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict
alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring
to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since
that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries
had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it,
and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that
would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way
whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into
our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who
were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the
correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the
extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share
our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did
so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all
conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and
regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and
toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood
should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into
American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense
of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection
of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American
citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.

The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what
is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as
much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the
committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation
as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888,
the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill
was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work
was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful
examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as "the
Senate bill" to distinguish it from the "Mills bill," for which it
was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate
on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on
finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had
considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the
committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.

It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate
on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the
Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and
the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference,
of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of
conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying,
as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff
taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to
the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member
of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated
in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this
bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace
with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as
far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment
upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.

My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions
of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and
Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the
conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the
bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language
of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken
from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session.
The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time
to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the
relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue
required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under
any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may
be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining
their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff
for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff
for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects
or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is
not subject to the tariff tax.

The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of _sections_, or,
as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The
Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The
Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only;
but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing
a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his
"deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional
organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment
of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States
have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population,
according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for
less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri,
commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen
Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less
than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives
these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation.
The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000
inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided.
It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New
England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from
the date of its passage.

I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff
legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I
said:

"A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since
1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the
people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I
always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as
the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of
that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was
wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave
satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and
from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has
been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the
subject of political debate before the people of the United States
in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least
two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff,
until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and
the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to
bring before the people of the United States their rival theories
as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was
very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production.
It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was
called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House,
and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at
once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms
of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the
choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was
submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed
their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.

"Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them
very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic
party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say,
with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended
solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government.
On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do
something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should
so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield
us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government,
but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and
diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered
into the presidential contest.

"Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party
carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the
popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the
government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the
Democratic ideas.

"What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the
Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as
to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us,
and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before
us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does
not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of
ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United
States or to any Member of Congress.

"There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first,
that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify
American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be
started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a
reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to
establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country.
It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as
our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson
and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times
were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated
it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It
has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea,
to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign
productions. As this tax does not apply to home production,
therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign
goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax
ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a
chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the
investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this
country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule,
and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think
liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a
larger market."

I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of
the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation
between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof
of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the
tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without
sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and
caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for
the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial
system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.

The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of
September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved
by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress
adjourned.

Many other measures of importance were considered during this long
session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to
them.

When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H.
Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister
in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and,
though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the
marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved
the kindly manners that gave him the name of "Gentleman George."
He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired
in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died
on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to
his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery.
I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which
I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect
and affection for him:

"U. S. Senate, }
"Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.}
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral of
Mr. Pendleton, has been received.

"Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral
ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express
my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no
one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly,
and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have
engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides,
while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still
hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome
journey.

"Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to
telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered
to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform
the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations
in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A
brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of
Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven
years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a
distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice
President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to
dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed
by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone
of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good
health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given
by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters
of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing
each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that
I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political
opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and
entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for
secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest
was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first
speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October.
It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of
Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great
parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law,
the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff
law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while
reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American
industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently,
speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest
meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music
Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke
together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for
the number and enthusiasm of those present.

During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting
at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief
interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to
which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:

"While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of
Pittsburg wanted to hear me for--why they should invite a Buckeye
from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city
of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that
grand party commenced its series of achievements which have
distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in
ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of
the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States
greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political
organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence
which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors
organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the
extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in
1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the
union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance
for your children and your children's children. In 1876 the object
of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in
our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver
coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as
in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy
the taxes to support the national government? That is the question
that is to be discussed mainly to-night."

The mention of the McKinley tariff law was received with immense
applause and cheers. Continuing, I said:

"That bill is very well named. It is named after Wm. McKinley, a
kind of Pennsylvania-Ohio Dutchman, with a little Scotch-Irish
mixed in him, too--a brilliant neighbor of mine, whom, I am told,
you have had the pleasure of hearing. It is true that this bill
was made up largely of what was called the Senate bill of the year
before, and new lines had contributed toward the formation of that
bill; but it was properly named after Mr. McKinley because of his
indomitable pluck, his ability, his energy.

"It was pushed through the House after great opposition, because
the Democrats, as usual, opposed that, as they opposed everything
else."

The election in Ohio resulted in Republican success, Daniel J.
Ryan, the head of the ticket, being elected secretary of state by
about 11,000 majority.

Shortly after the election I was in the city of New York, and was
there interviewed. I was reported to have said:

"The Republican defeats do not bother me at all, I have seen many
such revulsions before and we get around all right again. It does
us good, we become more active and careful. It will be all right.

"I will cite an instance in my own state, Ohio. Last year we lost
our governor, this year we carry the state by a splendid majority.
The Democrats fixed up the congressional districts so we would get
six Congressmen only, but we got eight."

"What of Major McKinley's election to Congress?"

"Major McKinley is, I fear, defeated, though when I left Ohio it
was thought that he had succeeded by a small majority. If he should
have run in his old district his majority would have been 3,500 or
4,000 against 2,000 received by him two years ago. But they placed
him in a district of three Democratic counties and only one Republican
county, in which the Democratic majority is upward of 2,000. It
looks now as if he is defeated by about 130 votes. It simply means
that the major will be the next Governor of Ohio. He made a splendid
canvass and a magnificent run, and defeat is not the proper name
for the result. Mr. McKinley told me before the election that he
did not expect to succeed with such odds against him.

"As to the general result of the congressional elections, I have
seen such convulsions a dozen times or more, but they have had no
permanent effect. In 1878, when I was Secretary of the Treasury,
we lost the House and Senate both, but two years later, in 1880,
we rallied and recovered all that we had lost and elected a Republican
President besides. I do not regard the present situation with
apprehension. The country will be wiser by next year and better
able to pass upon the issues."

The second session of the 51st Congress met on the 1st of December,
1890. The annual message of the President dealt with the usual
topics. The surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890,
including the amount applied to the sinking fund, was $105,344,496.
In referring to the act "directing the purchase of silver bullion
and the issue of treasury notes thereon," approved July 14, 1890,
the President said:

"It has been administered by the Secretary of the Treasury with an
earnest purpose to get into circulation, at the earliest possible
dates, the full monthly amount of treasury notes contemplated by
its provisions, and at the same time to give to the market for
silver bullion such support as the law contemplates. The recent
depression in the price of silver has been observed with regret.
The rapid rise in price which anticipated and followed the passage
of this act was influenced in some degree by speculation, and the
recent reaction is in part the result of the same cause and in part
of the recent monetary disturbances. Some months of further trial
will be necessary to determine the permanent effect of the recent
legislation upon silver values, but it is gratifying to know that
the increased circulation secured by the act has exerted, and will
continue to exert, a most beneficial influence upon business and
upon general values."

On the 18th of December I reported, from the committee on finance,
a bill to provide against the contraction of the currency, and for
other purposes. This bill embodied several financial bills on the
calendar which had been reported by the committee, and it was deemed
best to include them in a single measure. The bill was recommitted
and again reported by me on the 23rd of December, when Mr. Stewart
gave notice of and had read an amendment he intended to offer
providing for the free coinage of silver.

On January 5, 1891, at the expiration of the morning hour, Mr.
Stewart moved to proceed to the consideration of this bill. By a
combination of seven Republican with the Democratic Senators the
motion was carried, thus displacing the regular order of business,
which was a bill relating to the election of Members of Congress,
and which had been under discussion for several days.

Mr. Stewart than offered, as an amendment to the amendment of the
committee, then pending, the following provision:

"That any owner of silver bullion, not too base for the operations
of the mint, may deposit the same in amount of the value of not
less than $100, at any mint of the United States, to be formed into
standard dollars or bars, for his benefit and without charge, and
that, at the said owner's option, he may receive therefor an
equivalent of such standard dollars in treasury notes of the same
form and description, and having the same legal qualities, as the
notes provided for by the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled,
'An act directing the purchase of silver bullion, and the issue of
treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.' And all such
treasury notes issued under the provisions of this act shall be a
legal tender for their nominal amount in payment of all debts,
public and private, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes,
and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued in the
same manner, and to the same extent, as other treasury notes."

This being an amendment to an amendment, no further modification
or change could be made to the bill until it was disposed of. Mr.
Stewart made some remarks, and in conclusion said:

"I do not intend further to comment, at this time, on the amendment
to the bill which I have offered. If it shall be adopted, then
there are other portions of the bill which can be stricken out.
The amendment I have offered presents the question naked and simple.
Will you remonetize silver and place it back where it was before
it was excluded from the mints of the United States and Europe?"

I was taken by surprise at the sudden presentation of the question,
but promptly took the floor and said:

"The sudden and unexpected change of the scene, the introduction
of an entirely new topic into our debate, must not pass by without
the serious and sober attention of every Senator on the floor to
the revolutionary measure now proposed. I do not wish to, nor will
I, nor can I, regard this as a political question, because we know
that the local interests of a certain portion of our number--and
I do not object to Senators representing the interest of their
constituents--lead them to opinions different from the opinions of
Senators from the larger states containing the great mass of the
population of this country, not only in the north, but in the south;
and therefore, while the Republican party may be weakened by the
unexpected defection of a certain portion of our number who agree
with us in political opinions generally, yet that will not relieve
the minority in this body, our Democratic associates, from the
sober responsibility which they will assume in aiding in the adoption
of this measure. At the very outset of this discussion I appealed
to the sober judgment of Senators to consider the responsibility
which they take in adopting what I regard as a revolution more full
of injury, more dangerous in its character, and more destructive
in its results, than any measure which has been proposed for years.

"Now, what is this question? The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart],
representing a state whose chief production is silver, offers an
amendment to change entirely the standard of valuation of all the
property of the United States. At present all contracts are founded
upon what is called the gold standard. Every particle of property
we enjoy, every obligation of contract, whether by the national
government or by each individual, is now based in actual fact upon
the gold standard of 25.8 grains. That is the standard of all the
commercial nations of the world. It is the standard of France,
which, like ourselves, has used silver to a large extent. It is
the standard of value of France and every country of Europe."

I then, at considerable length, stated the objections to the free
coinage of silver and the revolution it would create in the financial
condition of the country. This led to a long debate, participated
in by many Senators. On the 13th of January I made a long and
carefully considered speech, extending through fourteen pages of
the "Record," in which I entered into detail in reply to the speeches
that had been made, and stated the objections to the free coinage
of silver. It is too long to insert even an abstract of it here.
I have carefully read this speech and refer to it as the first of
three speeches, the second being delivered on the 30th of June,
1892, and the third on August 30, 1893, as the best presentation
I have ever made of the question involved, and as containing all
the material facts bearing upon the question of free coinage and
the folly of its adoption.

It was manifest that the combination that had been made intended
to force the adoption of the amendment. The vote on it was taken
on the 14th of January and the result was yeas 42 and nays 30.
Nearly all the Senators from the western group of states, though
Republicans, voted for the amendment in favor of free coinage.
Only four voted against it. So the amendment of Mr. Stewart was
agreed to. The bill was further discussed and changed to conform
to the amendment and finally passed the Senate by the vote of yeas
39, nays 27, but failed to pass the House.

Thus the debate and the adoption by the Senate of free coinage
defeated all financial legislation during that session.

One of the most important subjects considered by the Senate within
the last ten years, to which I have given special attention, is
the construction of a ship canal across Central America. The
American continents, stretching from the polar regions of the north
to the Straits of Magellan, south of the 50th parallel of south
latitude, present a barrier to navigation from the east to the
west, to overcome which has been the anxious desire of mankind ever
since the discovery of America by Columbus. It was the object of
his memorable voyage to find a water way from Spain to China and
India. While his discovery was an event of the greatest importance,
yet it was a disappointment to him, and in all his subsequent
voyages he sought to find a way through the newly-found land to
the Indian Ocean. The spirit of enterprise that was aroused by
his reports led many adventurers to explore the new world, and
before many years the peculiar formation of the long strip of land
connecting North and South America was clearly defined. The
Spaniards conquered Mexico and Peru, and at this early period
conceived the idea of a canal across the isthmus, but the obstruction
could not be overcome by the engineering of that day. The region
of Central America was soon occupied by Spain, and was divided into
many colonies, which, in process of time, became independent of
Spain, and of each other.

During the four centuries that have elapsed since the discovery,
the construction of a canal across the isthmus has been kept in
view, and by common consent the routes at Panama and through Lake
Nicaragua have been regarded as the best. That at Panama is the
shortest, but is impracticable, as was shown by the abortive attempt
of M. de Lesseps. The route by Lake Nicaragua was early regarded
by the American people as the only adequate, efficient and practicable
passage. Though burdened with the delays of lockage, it is more
practical, less costly, and more useful than the one at Panama
would have been, and will accomplish the same object. When, in
1825, the independence of the republic of Nicaragua was secured,
that government appealed to the United States for assistance in
executing the work of a canal by that route. Mr. Clay, then
Secretary of State, took an active interest in the subject, and
said, in a letter to the commissioners of the United States to the
congress of Panama:

"A canal for navigation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
should form a proper subject of consideration at the congress.
The vast object, if it should ever be accomplished, will be
interesting in a greater or less degree to all parts of the world;
but especially to this continent will accrue its greatest benefits;
and to Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru, and the United
States, more than any other of the American nations."

No action was taken, as the discordant interests of the several
Central American states prevented. When California was acquired
as the result of the Mexican War, and gold was discovered in its
soil, the necessity for some means of speedy transit from the
Atlantic to the Pacific coast became imperative. The route by
Panama, being the shortest line across the isthmus, was naturally
taken by the eager gold seekers and a railroad was soon after
constructed over this route. The movement of travel and transportation
across the isthmus tempted M. de Lesseps and his associates to
undertake the task of constructing a canal, with the result already
stated.

Prior to 1850 the movements of the British government to seize the
country at the mouth of the San Juan River in Nicaragua, with the
evident view of controlling the construction of a canal by way of
Lake Nicaragua, excited in this country the deepest interest and
apprehension. This led to the Clayton-Bulwer convention of 1850,
by which the United States and Great Britain stipulated that neither
of the governments "will ever obtain for itself any exclusive
control over the canal or colonize or assume or exercise any domain
over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of
Central America."

It provided for the exertion of the influence of the two governments
in facilitating the construction of the work by every means in
their power, and that after completion they would defend its
neutrality, with the privilege of withdrawing such guaranty on
notice. It also provided for inviting other governments to come
into the same arrangement, and that each party should enter into
treaty stipulations with such of the Central American states as
might be deemed advisable for carrying out the great design of the
convention. It declared that no time should be unnecessarily lost
in commencing and constructing the canal, and, therefore, that the
two governments would give their support and encouragement to such
persons as might first offer to commence the same with the necessary
capital, and that, if any persons then already had obtained the
right to build it from the Central American government and should
fail, each of the two governments should be free to afford its
protection to any other company that should be prepared to proceed
with the work.

This treaty has given rise to much discussion, and has ever since
been a hindrance to the great work it proposed to advance. The
British government has repeatedly violated the treaty by extending
its possessions and strengthening its influence in that part of
the world. The report made by me, as chairman of the committee on
foreign relations, on the 10th of January, 1891, in response to a
resolution of the Senate, contains a full statement of the results
of that treaty. As this report has been widely circulated and was
considered an important document, it is but just for me to say
that, while I presented it, two other members of the committee
participated in its preparation. The first part, relating to
negotiations, was written by Senator Edmunds; the second part,
relating to the then condition of the work on the Nicaragua Canal
and its value, tonnage and business, by Senator Morgan; and the
residue, in respect to the financial aspect of the subject, the
cost of the work proposed and the aid that should be given by the
United States in its construction, by me. The framing of a bill
to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee was the
work of the full committee. I do not think it necessary to restate
here the position of the committee, as no definite action has been
taken by Congress on the bill reported. The report was signed by
each member of the committee, as follows: John Sherman, Chairman,
Geo. F. Edmunds, Wm. P. Frye, Wm. M. Evarts, J. N. Dolph, John T.
Morgan, Joseph E. Brown, H. B. Payne, J. B. Eustis.

There are, however, questions connected with this subject which
are of vital interest to the United States, and not presented in
that report. By the treaty negotiated in 1884, between the United
States and Nicaragua, the canal was to be built by the United
States. This treaty was sent to the Senate on December 10, 1884,
by President Arthur, who, in strong and earnest language, recommended
its ratification. It had been frequently debated, but was still
pending in the Senate when Mr. Cleveland became President. I do
not feel at liberty to state the causes of delay, nor the ground
taken, nor the votes given either for or against it, as the injunction
of secrecy in respect to it has not been removed, but I have regarded
as a misfortune its practical defeat by the want of a two-thirds
vote, required by the constitution to ratify a treaty. The terms
granted in it by Nicaragua were liberal in the broadest sense.
The complete control of the canal and its appurtenances, and the
manner of its construction, were invested in the United States.
The conditions proposed would have made it an international work
of great importance to all commercial nations, while ample authority
was reserved on the part of the United States to protect its
investment with tolls sufficient to pay the interest and refund
the principal.

At the called session of March, 1885, Mr. Cleveland withdrew the
treaty, not from opposition to its general purposes, but because,
as he stated in his annual message in December, 1885, it was "coupled
with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial
integrity of the states where such interests lie." He held that
this clause was an "entangling alliance inconsistent with the
declared policy of the United States." This objection to the treaty
could have been easily removed by negotiation, as Mr. Bayard, a
Member of the Senate when the treaty was pending, and Secretary of
State under President Cleveland, very well knew. Thus, by an
unfortunate division in the Senate and the action of the President,
the construction of the canal by the United States was prevented.
Subsequently, in 1887, concessions were made by Nicaragua and Costa
Rica to a private association of citizens of the United States,
which led to the incorporation, by Congress, of the Maritime Canal
Company of Nicaragua.

The interposition of a private corporation between the United States
and Nicaragua has created all the delays and embarrassments that
have followed. Such a corporation can obtain money only be selling
its bonds bearing a high rate of interest, secured by a mortgage
of all its property and concessions, and its stock must accompany
the bonds. Experience has shown that such a work cannot be executed,
especially on foreign soil, without the support and aid of a powerful
government. If such aid is rendered it must be to the full cost
of the work, and all the benefits should inure to the people and
not to the corporation or its stockholders. The experience of the
United States in the construction of the Pacific railroads is an
example of the inevitable result of copartnership. The attempt of
the Maritime Company to construct such a work as the Nicaraguan
canal without the aid of the government will end either in failure
or at a cost, in bonds and stock, the interest of which would be
so great that the cost of the transit of vessels through the canal
would deter their owners from using it, and goods would be, as now,
transferred by rail to and from Panama.

The method of aiding the Maritime Canal Company proposed in the
bill reported by me, and again recently by Senator Morgan, is as
good as any that can be devised, but I greatly prefer the direct
and absolute purchase of the concessions of that company, and the
negotiation of new treaties with Nicaragua and Costa Rica upon the
basis of the former treaty, and the execution of the work under
the supervision of the engineer corps of the United States in the
same manner that internal improvements are made in this country.
The credit of the United States will secure a loan at the lowest
possible rate of interest, and with money thus obtained, and with
the confidence of contractors that they will receive their pay for
work done, the cost will be reduced to the actual sum needed. It
is the interest of the commercial world as well as of the United
States that the tolls charged on the passage of vessels should be
as low as possible, and this will be secured by the construction
of the work by the government.

If the present owners of the concessions from Nicaragua and Costa
Rica will not accept a reasonable price for their privileges and
for the work done, to be fixed by an impartial tribunal, it is
better for the United States to withdraw any offer of aid; but if
they will accept such an award the United States should take up
the work and realize the dream and hopes of Columbus. At present
the delay of action by Congress grows out of the fact that no
detailed scientific survey of the route has been made by the engineer
corps of the United States. The only approach to such a survey
was the one made by A. G. Menocal, an accomplished civil engineer
of the navy, but it was felt that this was not sufficient to justify
the United States in undertaking so great and expensive a work.
In accordance with this feeling the 53rd Congress directed the
Secretary of War to cause a thorough survey to be made and to submit
a full report to the next Congress, to convene December 2, 1895.
This survey is now in progress and will no doubt largely influence
the future action of Congress.

A brief description of the canal proposed may be of interest to
those who have not studied the geography and topography of its
site, though it is difficult to convey by writing and without maps
an adequate conception of the work. It is apparent, according to
Menocal's surveys, that the physical difficulties to be overcome
are not greater than those of works of improvement undertaken within
our own country, for the highest part of the water way is to be
only 110 feet above the two oceans--a less altitude than that of
the base of the hills which surround the city of Washington. The
works proposed include a system of locks, similar in character to
the one built by the United States at the falls of Sault Ste. Marie
and to those constructed by Canada around the falls of Niagara.
A single dam across the San Juan River, 1,250 feet long and averaging
61 feet high, between two steep hills, will insure navigable water,
of sufficient depth and width for the commerce of the world, to a
length of 120 miles. The approaches to this level, though expensive,
are not different from similar works, and will be singularly
sheltered from floods and storms. Of the distance of 169.4 miles
from ocean to ocean, 142.6 miles are to be accomplished by slack-
water navigation in lake, river, and basins, and only 26.8 miles
by excavated canal. The greatest altitude of the ridge which
divides Lake Nicaragua from the Pacific Ocean does not exceed, at
any point, 42 feet above the lake.

Perhaps the chief engineering difficulty is in the construction of
harbors at the Pacific and Atlantic termini of the canal, but that
at Greytown, on the Atlantic coast, which is considered the most
formidable, has already been partially built. The obstacles are
not to be compared with those encountered in the attempted construction
of the Panama canal, or with those which were easily overcome in
the construction of the Suez Canal; and the whole work, from ocean
to ocean, is free from the dangers of moving sand and destroying
freshets. Lake Nicaragua itself is one of the most remarkable
physical features of the world. It fills a cavity in the midst of
a broken chain of mountains, whose height is reduced, at this point,
nearly to the level of the sea, and it furnishes not only the means
of navigation at a low altitude, but enormous advantages as a safe
harbor.

If the survey ordered and now (1895) being made should confirm the
reports of Menocal there is no reason why the United States should
not assume and execute this great work without ultimate loss, and
with enormous benefit to the commerce of the world. It will be a
monument to our republic and will tend to widen its influence with
all the nations of Central and South America.

The last letter I received from General Sherman was as follows:

"No. 75 West 71st Street, New York,}
"Tuesday, February 3, 1891. }
"Dear Brother:--I am drifting along in the old rut--in good strength,
attending about four dinners out per week at public or private
houses, and generally wind up for gossip at the Union League club.
Last night, discussing the effect of Mr. Windom's death and funeral,
several prominent gentlemen remarked that Windom's fine speech just
preceding his death was in line with yours on the silver question
in the Senate, and also with a carefully prepared interview of you
by George Alfred Townsend which I had not seen. I have ordered of
my book man the New York 'Sun' of Sunday, February 1st, which
contains the interview.

"You sent me a copy of your speech in pamphlet form which was begged
of me, and as others naturally apply for copies, I wish you would
have your secretary send me a dozen, that I may distribute them.

"All well here and send love.

"Your brother,
"W. T. Sherman."

Soon after the receipt of this letter I was notified of the dangerous
illness of my brother at his residence in the city of New York.
I at once went to his bedside, and remained with him until his
death, at two o'clock of Saturday, the 14th of February. In his
later years, after his removal to New York, he entered into the
social life of that city. He was in demand at weddings, dinners,
parties, reunions of soldiers, and public meetings, where his genial
nature and ready tact, his fund of information and happy facility
of expression, made him a universal favorite. He was temperate in
his eating and drinking, but fond of companionship, and always
happy when he had his old friends and comrades about him. He
enjoyed the society of ladies, and did not like to refuse their
invitations to social gatherings. In conversation with men or
women, old or young, he was always interesting. He was often warned
that at three score and ten he could not endure the excitement of
such a life, and he repeatedly promised to limit his engagements.
Early in February he exposed himself to the inclement weather of
that season, and contracted a cold which led to pneumonia, and in
a few days to death. He was perfectly conscious of his condition
and probable fate, but had lost the power of speech and could only
communicate his wishes by signs. His children were with him, and
hundreds daily inquired about him at his door; among them were
soldiers and widows whom he had aided.

During the last hours of General Sherman, his family, who had been
bred in the Catholic faith, called in a Catholic priest to administer
extreme unction according to the ritual of that church. The New
York "Times," of the date of February 13, made a very uncharitable
allusion to this and intimated that it was done surreptitiously,
without my knowledge. This was not true but the statement deeply
wounded the feelings of his children. I promptly sent to the
"Times" the following letter, which was published and received with
general satisfaction:

"A paragraph in your paper this morning gives a very erroneous view
of an incident in General Sherman's sick chamber, which wounds the
sensitive feelings of his children, now in deep distress, which,
under the circumstances, I deem it proper to correct. Your reporter
intimates that advantage was taken of my temporary absence to
introduce a Catholic priest into General Sherman's chamber to
administer the rite of extreme unction to the sick man, in the
nature of a claim that he was a Catholic. It is well known that
his children have been reared by their mother, a devoted Catholic,
in her faith, and now cling to it. It is equally well known that
General Sherman and myself, as well as all my mother's children,
are, by inheritance, education, and connection, Christians, but
not Catholics, and this has been openly avowed, on all proper
occasions, by General Sherman; but he is too good a Christian, and
too humane a man, to deny to his children the consolation of their
religion. He was insensible at the time and apparently at the
verge of death, but if he had been well and in the full exercise
of his faculties, he would not have denied to them the consolation
of the prayers and religious observances for their father of any
class or denomination of Christian priests or preachers. Certainly,
if I had been present, I would, at the request of the family, have
assented to and reverently shared in an appeal to the Almighty for
the life here and hereafter of my brother, whether called a prayer
or extreme unction, and whether uttered by a priest or a preacher,
or any other good man who believed what he spoke and had an honest
faith in his creed.

"I hear that your reporter uttered a threat to obtain information
which I cannot believe you would for a moment tolerate. We all
need charity for our frailties, but I can feel none for anyone who
would wound those already in distress."

President Harrison announced General Sherman's death to both Houses
of Congress in the following words:

"_To the Senate and House of Representatives:_ The death of William
Tecumseh Sherman, which took place to-day at his residence in the
city of New York, at 1 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m., is an event
that will bring sorrow to the heart of every patriotic citizen.
No living American was so loved and venerated as he. To look upon
his face, to hear his name, was to have one's love of country
intensified. He served his country, not for fame, not out of a
sense of professional duty, but for love of the flag and of the
beneficent civil institutions of which it was the emblem. He was
an ideal soldier, and shared to the fullest the _esprit de corps_
of the army; but he cherished the civil institutions organized
under the constitution, and was a soldier only that these might be
perpetuated in undiminished usefulness and honor. He was in nothing
an imitator.

"A profound student of military science and precedent, he drew from
them principles and suggestions, and so adapted them to novel
conditions that his campaigns will continue to be the profitable
study of the military profession throughout the world. His genial
nature made him comrade to every soldier of the great Union army.
No presence was so welcome and inspiring at the camp-fire or
commandery as his. His career was complete; his honors were full.
He had received from the government the highest rank known to our
military establishment, and from the people unstinted gratitude
and love. No word of mine can add to his fame. His death has
followed in startling quickness that of the Admiral of the Navy;
and it is a sad and notable incident that, when the department
under which he served shall have put on the usual emblems of
mourning, four of the eight executive departments will be simultaneously
draped in black, and one other has but to-day removed the crape
from its walls

"Benj. Harrison.
"Executive Mansion, February 14, 1891."

The following resolutions were offered in the Senate and unanimously
agreed to:

"_Resolved_, That the Senate received with profound sorrow the
announcement of the death of William T. Sherman, late general of
the armies of the United States.

"_Resolved_, That the Senate renews its acknowledgments of the
inestimable services he rendered its country in the day of its
extreme trial, laments the great loss the country has sustained,
and deeply sympathizes with his family in their bereavement.

"_Resolved_, That the presiding officer is requested to appoint a
committee of five Senators to attend the funeral of the late General
Sherman.

"_Resolved_, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the
family of the deceased."

Eloquent and appropriate speeches were made by Senators Hawley,
Manderson, Morgan and Pierce.

In the House of Representatives the message of the President was
referred to the committee on military affairs, for appropriate
action thereon and the following resolutions were reported by Mr.
McCutcheon and adopted:

"_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives has heard with
profound sorrow of the death, at his home in New York City, on the
14th instant, of William Tecumseh Sherman, the last of the generals
of the armies of the United States.

"_Resolved_, That we mourn him as the greatest soldier remaining
to the republic and the last of that illustrious trio of generals
who commanded the armies of the United States--Grant, Sherman, and
Sheridan--who shed imperishable glory upon American arms, and were
the idolized leaders of the Union army.

"_Resolved_, That we hereby record the high appreciation in which
the American people hold the character and services of General
Sherman, as one of the greatest soldiers of his generation, as one
of the grandest patriots that our country has produced, and as a
noble man in the broadest and fullest meaning of the word.

"We mingle our grief with that of the nation, mourning the departure
of her great son, and of the survivors of the battle-scarred veterans
whom he led to victory and peace. We especially tender our sympathy
and condolence to those who are bound to him by the ties of blood
and strong personal affection.

"_Resolved_, That the speaker appoint a committee of nine Members
of the House to attend the funeral of the late general as
representatives of this body.

"_Resolved_, That a copy of these resolution be forwarded by the
clerk of the House to the family of General Sherman."

Eloquent tributes were paid to his memory by Messrs. Cutcheon,
Grosvenor, Outhwaite, Henderson, Cogswell, Vandever, Wheeler and
Williams.

General Sherman had expressed the desire that his body be buried
by the side of his wife in a cemetery in St. Louis. In February,
1890, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, the members of
Ransom Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of which he was the first
commander, sent him many congratulatory letters and telegrams. In
replying to these, among other things he wrote:

"I have again and again been urged to allow my name to be transferred
to the roster of some one of the many reputable posts of the Grand
Army of the Republic in New York, but my invariable answer has been
'no;' that Ransom Post has stood by me since its beginning and I
will stand by it to my end, and then that, in its organized capacity,
it will deposit my poor body in Calvary Cemetery alongside my
faithful wife and idolized 'soldier boy.' My health continues
good, so my comrades of Ransom Post must guard theirs, that they
may be able to fulfill this sacred duty imposed by their first
commander. God bless you all."

I vividly recall the impressive scene in the city of New York when
his body was started on its long journey. The people of the city,
in silence and sadness, filled the sidewalks from 71st to Courtland
street, and watched the funeral train, and a countless multitude
in every city, town and hamlet on the long road to St. Louis
expressed their sorrow and sympathy. His mortal remains were
received with profound respect by the people of that city, among
whom he had lived for many years, and there he was buried by the
side of his wife and the children who had gone before him.

In February, 1892, I was requested, by the New York Commandery of
the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, to deliver an address
commemorative of General Sherman. I did so, on the 6th of April
of that year but, as many of the incidents therein mentioned have
been already stated, I only add a few paragraphs from its close:

"And here I might end, but there are certain traits and characteristics
of General Sherman upon which I can and ought to speak with greater
knowledge and confidence than of his military career. He was
distinguished, first of all, from his early boyhood, for his love
and veneration for, and obedience to, his mother. There never was
a time--since his appointment as a cadet, to her death--that he
did not insist upon sharing with her his modest pay, and gave to
her most respectful homage and duty. It is hardly necessary in
this presence to refer to his devotion to his wife, Ellen Ewing
Sherman. They were born in neighboring households, reared from
childhood in the same family, early attached and pledged to each
other, married when he reached the grade of captain, shared in
affection and respect the joys and sorrows of life, and paid the
last debt to nature within a few months of each other.

"The same affection and care were bestowed upon his children. Many
of his comrades will recall the visit of his wife and his son
Willie, a lad of thirteen, at his camp on the Big Black, after the
surrender of Vicksburg. Poor Willie believed he was a sergeant in
the 13th United States Infantry. He sickened and died at Memphis
on his way home. No one who reads it but will remember the touching
tribute of sorrow his father wrote, a sorrow that was never dimmed,
but was often recalled while life lasted.

"General Sherman always paid the most respectful attention to women
in every rank and condition of life--the widow and the orphan, the
young and the old. While he was often stern and abrupt to men, he
was always kind and gentle to women, and he received from them the
homage they would pay to a brother. His friendship for Grant I
have already alluded to, but it extended in a lesser degree to all
his comrades, especially those of West Point. No good soldier in
his command feared to approach him to demand justice, and everyone
received it if in his power to grant it. He shared with them the
hardships of the march and the camp, and he was content with the
same ration given to them. Simple in his habits, easy of approach,
considerate of their comfort, he was popular with his soldiers,
even while exacting in his discipline. The name of 'Uncle Billy,'
given to him by them, was the highest evidence of their affection.

"He was the most unselfish man I ever knew. He did not seek for
high rank, and often expressed doubts of his fitness for high
command. He became a warm admirer of Abraham Lincoln as the war
progressed, and more than once expressed to him a desire for
subordinate duty. He never asked for promotion, but accepted it
when given. His letters to me are full of urgent requests for the
promotion of officers who rendered distinguished service, but never
for his own. When the bill for the retirement of officers at the
age of sixty-three was pending, he was excepted from its operation.
He telegraphed me, insisting that no exception should be made in
his favor, that General Sheridan should have the promotion and rank
of general, which he had fairly earned. This was granted, but
Congress with great kindness continued to General Sherman the full
pay of a general when he was placed on the retired list.

"In his business relations he was bound by a scrupulous sense of
honor and duty. I never knew of him doing anything which the most
exacting could say was dishonorable, a violation of duty or right.
I could name many instances of this trait, which I will not, but
one or two cases will suffice. When a banker in California, several
of his old army friends, especially from the south, trusted him
with their savings for investment. He invested their money in good
faith in what were considered the very best securities in California,
but when Page, Bacon & Co., and nearly every banker in San Francisco,
failed in 1855, all securities were dishonored, and many of them
became worthless. General Sherman, though not responsible in law
or equity for a loss that common prudence could not foresee, yet
felt that he was 'in honor' bound to secure from loss those who had
confided in him, and used for that purpose all, or nearly all, of
his own savings.

"So, in the settlements of his accounts in Louisiana, when he had
the entire control of expenditures, he took the utmost care to see
that every dollar was accounted for. He resigned on the 18th of
January, and waited until the 23rd of February for that purpose.
The same exact accountability was practiced by him in all accounts
with the United States. In my personal business relations with
him, I found him to be exact and particular to the last degree,
insisting always upon paying fully every debt, and his share of
every expense. I doubt if any man living can truly say that General
Sherman owes him a dollar, while thousands know he was generous in
giving in proportion to his means. He had an extreme horror of
debt and taxes. He looked upon the heavy taxes now in vogue as in
the nature of confiscation, and in some cases sold his land, rapidly
rising in value, because the taxes assessed seemed to him
unreasonable.

"While the war lasted, General Sherman was a soldier intent upon
putting down what he conceived to be a causeless rebellion. He
said that war was barbarism that could not be refined, and the
speediest way to end it was to prosecute it with vigor to complete
success. When this was done, and the Union was saved, he was for
the most liberal terms of conciliation and kindness to the southern
people. All enmities were forgotten; his old friendships were
revived. Never since the close of the war have I heard him utter
words of bitterness against the enemies he fought, nor of the men
in the north who had reviled him.

"To him it was a territorial war; one that could not have been
avoided. Its seeds had been planted in the history of the colonies,
in the constitution itself, and in the irrepressible conflict
between free and slave institutions. It was a war by which the
south gained, by defeat, enormous benefits, and the north, by
success, secured the strength and development of the republic. No
patriotic man of either section would willingly restore the old
conditions. Its benefits are not confined to the United States,
but extend to all the countries of America. Its good influence
will be felt by all the nations of the world, by opening to them
the hope of free institutions. It is one of the great epochs in
the march of time, which, as the years go by, will be, by succeeding
generations of freemen, classed in importance with the discovery
of America and our Revolutionary War. It was the good fortune of
General Sherman to have been a chief actor in this great drama,
and to have lived long enough after its close to have realized and
enjoyed the high estimate of his services by his comrades, by his
countrymen, and by mankind. To me, his brother, it is a higher
pride to know and to say that in all the walks of private life--as
a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a soldier, a comrade, or a
friend--he was an honorable gentleman, without fear and without
reproach."

During the winter of 1890-91 the question of my re-election to the
Senate was the subject of newspaper discussion not only in Ohio,
but in other states. As a rule the leading newspapers in the
eastern states strongly favored my return to the Senate, and much
the larger number of Republican papers in Ohio expressed the same
desire. In the west, wherever the free coinage of silver was
favored, a strong opposition to me was developed. I had not
expressed any wish or intention to be a candidate and turned aside
any attempt to commit me on the subject. I could quote by the
score articles in the public prints of both political parties highly
complimentary to me, but most of these turned upon free coinage of
silver, which I did not regard as a political issue.

After the adjournment of Congress on the 4th of March the Cincinnati
"Enquirer" formally announced, as "upon the assurance of the Senator
himself," that I would not again be a candidate for re-election.
The next day that paper repeated that a well-known Sherman man,
whose name was not given, said: "Your article is correct. Mr.
Sherman is not, nor will he be again, a candidate for the Senate."
Both declarations were without foundation, and I supposed the
intention of the "Enquirer" was to force a contest among Republicans
for the nomination. I paid no attention to these publications,
but they were the basis of comment in the newspapers in Ohio. The
discussion of this question extended to other states, and indicated
the desire of a large majority of the papers, east of the Mississippi
River, that I be re-elected. I insert an extract from a long
article in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean" of the 22nd of March, 1891:

"The most important event looked for in 1892 is that of a successor
to John Sherman in Ohio, and already the matter is being discussed,
as well it might be, and the interest is by no means confined to
that state. John Sherman belongs to the whole country, and it is
no reflection upon the usefulness of any other public man to say
that his retirement to private life would be the greatest strictly
personal loss the nation could now maintain."

I do not care to quote the many kindly opinions expressed of me at
that period.

I returned to Ohio early in April on a brief visit to Mansfield,
and to pay my respects to the general assembly, then in session at
Columbus. At Mansfield I was met by a correspondent of the "Enquirer"
and answered a multitude of questions. Among others I was asked
if I would respond to the call of the members of the Ohio legislature
to meet them at Columbus. I answered: "Yes, I will go to Columbus
on Tuesday next, and from there to Washington, to return here with
my family in May for the summer." He said: "Is there any significance
in this Columbus visit?" I answered: "None whatever so far as I
know." In leaving he said: "Tell me, did your trip here at this
time have any reference to your fences, their building or repair?"
"No," I said, "I came here to build a barn. I am just about to
commence it." He bade me good-bye without saying a word about my
declining or being elected as Senator.

I went to Columbus on the 7th, arriving late in the evening, but
not too late to meet many gentlemen and to give to a correspondent
of the "Commercial Gazette" an interview. On the next day, in
pursuance of a custom that has existed in Ohio for many years, I,
as a Senator elected by the legislature, was expected to make a
formal call upon that body when in session, and during my visit to
eschew politics. Accompanied by a committee of the senate I called
upon Governor Campbell. We were then and had always been personal
friends. He accompanied me to the senate, which took a recess,
when brief and complimentary addresses were made, and I thanked
the senate for the reception. After handshaking and pleasant talk
I was escorted to the house of representatives, where the same
simple ceremony was observed. I visited the state board of
equalization, then engaged in the important duty of equalizing the
taxes imposed in the several counties and cities of the state. At
their request I expressed my opinion of the system of taxation in
existence in Ohio, which I regarded as exceedingly defective by
reason of restrictive clauses in the constitution of the state
adopted in 1851.

In the evening of this day I was invited to a reception at the
Lincoln League club. I insert the report published the next morning
in the "State Journal."

"The reception to Senator John Sherman at the Lincoln League club
rooms last night was a rousing enthusiastic affair. The rooms were
crowded with members of the league and their friends, while most
of the state officials, members of the general assembly and the
state board of equalization were present. Several Democrats were
conspicuous in the crowd, and all parties, old men and young, vied
with each other in doing honor to Ohio's great statesman. During
the evening Governor Campbell, accompanied by his daughter, came
in to pay his respects to the distinguished guest and was cordially
received. He was called upon for a speech and responded briefly
in his usual happy vein. He expected to meet with the Republicans
this fall again and would assist at some one's obsequies, but just
whose it would be he did not know.

"During the short visit the governor's daughter was the recipient
of marked attention, and divided honors with her father in
handshaking.

"The feature of the evening was the welcome accorded Senator Sherman
and his speech. Everybody was eager to shake hands with him, and
for over an hour he was so engaged.

"He was introduced by President Huling in his usual happy manner,
and responded feelingly in a short speech, which was received with
enthusiasm. Senator Sherman said:

'Gentlemen:--I appear before you to-night, not as a partisan, not
as a Republican, although I do not deny my fraternity, nor as a
Democrat, but simply as a native son of Ohio. My friend has made
a very eloquent speech to you, but I have come to greet you all,
to thank you for the support that has been extended to me by the
people of Ohio, not only by those of my political faith, but also
those who have differed from me. I have often been brought in
contact with Democrats whom I cherish as my friends. You all know
your honored and venerable statesman, Allen G. Thurman. We differed
on political issues, but we never quarreled with each other. When
any question affecting the interests or prosperity of Ohio was
concerned we were like two brothers aiding each other. When we
came to discuss political questions, upon which parties divided,
we put on our armor. I knew that if I made the slightest error,
he would pick me up and handle me as roughly as anyone else, and
he expected the same of me. And so with Mr. Pendleton, who is now
dead. I regarded him as one of the most accomplished men I ever
met; always kind, always genial, possessing all the attributes of
a gentleman. When discussing any question affecting the interest
or honor of Ohio there was no difference of opinion between us.
When I met him a short time before his death, at Homburg, I felt
that I would not see him again. In politics there ought to be
kindness and fairness. Men of adverse opinions may be true friends
while they honestly differ on great public questions.

'Now, gentlemen, I think I have said all I ought to say. This is
a social meeting and, as I understand it, you came here to greet
me as one of your public servants. I wish to express my obligations
to the people of Ohio for their generosity and for their long-
continued support. I am glad indeed to greet you and give you a
good Buckeye greeting. All I can do is to thank you.'"

On the 6th of June I was appointed by the Republicans of Richland
county as a delegate to the state convention. In a brief speech
to the county convention, I said:

"The next state convention will be a very important one in many
respects. In one or two matters the business has already been done.
It has been settled that Major McKinley will be nominated Governor
of Ohio, and that he will be elected. Of the balance of the ticket
I say nothing. There are so many good men for candidates that we
can make no mistake in any of them."

Resolutions were adopted indorsing the platforms of the last state
and national conventions, declaring a belief in the doctrine of
protection to labor and American industries, and indorsing the
wisdom of the Republican party in continuing the advocacy of the
protective tariff. I was remembered by resolutions thanking me
for services rendered to the country, and Senators W. S. Kerr and
W. Hildebrand were complimented for their efficiency in the state
senate.

A resolution indorsing William McKinley for unanimous nomination
for governor passed amidst enthusiastic applause.

Upon attending the state convention at Columbus, on the 17th of
June, I was advised that objection would be made to my designation
as chairman, and that Mr. Bushnell would be pressed for that honor.
I promptly said I did not wish the position, and urged the selection
of Bushnell, who was fairly entitled to it for his active agency
as chairman of the state committee. The central committee had
invited me to address the convention, and I was prepared to do so,
but, feeling that after McKinley was unanimously nominated for
governor my speech would delay the convention in completing the
ticket, I declined to speak, but the convention insisted upon it,
and I did respond very briefly, saying I would hand my speech to
the "State Journal." Out of this incident the "Enquirer" made the
story that I had been "snubbed" by the convention, through the
influence of Governor Foraker and other gentlemen named by it.
The correct account of my action was stated in the "State Journal"
as follows:

"After Major McKinley had finished speaking there were enthusiastic
calls for Senator Sherman. The demand became so vigorous that
General Bushnell was unable to secure quiet. Senator Sherman
marched down the middle aisle from his seat in his delegation just
under the balcony. Perhaps no one received such generous recognition
as did the senior Senator from Ohio. Although Senator Sherman had
prepared a speech he did not attempt to deliver it. He said he
had intended to insist on his right as a delegate not to hear any
more oratory, but, to proceed with the business of the convention.
He gave the 'State Journal' an appreciated compliment by advising
all the delegates who desired to know what his speech contained to
buy this morning's 'State Journal.' His remarks were felicitous
and he was frequently interrupted by applause."

The prepared speech as published in the "Journal" gave satisfaction,
not only to the Republicans in Ohio, but was printed in many of the
leading journals of the United States. My refusal to deliver it
in the sweltering heat of the convention enabled that body to
rapidly clear the business it met to transact, and the unfounded
imputations about leading Republicans fell harmless. I insert this
speech:

"My Fellow Republicans:--When I was invited with others to address
this convention, I felt that the best speech that could be made
was the convention itself. You are here to speak the voice of Ohio
in the choice of the chief officers of the state and to announce
the creed of a great party. Such bodies as this are the convenient
agencies of a free people to mark out the line of march and to
select their leaders.

"When I look upon this great body of representative Republicans,
animated by a common purpose and inspired by a common faith in the
party to which we belong, my mind instinctively reverts to the
first Republican convention of Ohio, held in this city thirty-six
years ago. Then, under the impulse of a great wrong--the repeal
of the restriction of slavery north and west of Missouri--that
convention, remarkable in numbers and ability, composed of
representatives of all parties then in existence, pledged themselves,
that come what may, they would resist the extension of slavery over
every foot of territory where it was not then established by law.
There was no doubt or hesitation or timidity in their resolution,
though they knew they were entering into a contest with an enemy
that had never been defeated, that had dominated all parties, and
would resist to the uttermost, even to war, any attempt to curb
the political power of the most infamous institution that ever
existed among men. This was the beginning of the Republican party.

"It was also the beginning of the most remarkable events of American
history. Since that day the Republican party has abolished slavery,
not only in the United States, but, by its reflected influence, in
nearly all the countries of the world. It has conducted a war of
gigantic proportions with marked success, demonstrating in the
strongest way the ability of a free people to maintain and preserve
its government against all enemies, at home and abroad. It has
established the true theory of national authority over every citizen
of the republic, without regard to state lines, and has forever
put at rest the pretense of the right of secession by a state or
any portion of our people. It has placed our country, in its
relations to foreign nations, in so commanding a position that none
will seek a controversy with us, while empires and kingdoms profit
by our example. It has, for the necessities of the time and the
warnings and follies of the past, marked out a financial system
which secures us a currency safe beyond all possibility of loss,
a coinage of silver and gold received at par in every commercial
mart of the world, and a public credit equal, if not superior, to
that of the oldest, richest and most powerful nations. It has, by
a policy of fostering and protecting our home industries, so
diversified our productions that every article of necessity, luxury,
art or refinement can be made by American labor, and the food and
fruits of a temperate climate, and cotton, wool and all the textile
fibres, can be raised on the American farm.

"Under Republican policy, sometimes embarrassed but never changed,
our country has become _free_, without a slave; strong, without
standing armies or great navies; rich, with wealth better distributed,
labor better paid, and equality of rights better secured, than in
any country in the world. All the opportunities of life, without
distinction of birth or rank or wealth, are open to all alike.
Education is free, without money or price. Railroads, telegraphs
and all the wonderful devices of modern civilization are at our
command. Many of these blessings are the natural results of our
free institutions, the work of our fathers, but they have been in
every case promoted and fostered by the policy of the Republican
party. We, therefore, can honestly claim that our party has been
a faithful servant of the people and is fairly entitled to their
confidence and support.

"But we do not rest our claims upon this fact alone. We do not
need to muster the great names that have marched at the head of
our columns to their final rest to invoke your approval. We invite
the strictest scrutiny into the conduct of the present Republican
administration of Benjamin Harrison. He was not as well known to
the people at large, at the time of his election, as many former
Presidents, for the politics of Indiana do not give a Republican
of that state a fair chance to demonstrate his capacity and ability,
but my intimate acquaintance and companionship with him, sitting
side by side for six years in the Senate Chamber, impressed me with
the high intellectual and moral traits which he has exhibited in
his great office.

"The issues now involved are not so great and pressing as in the
days of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but they do directly
affect the life, comfort and happiness of every citizen of the
United States. The recent Republican Congress, in connection with
President Harrison, has dealt with all leading domestic questions
of the time and with the most important questions with foreign
nations. Every one of these has either been settled or is in the
way of settlement.

"The administration of Mr. Cleveland settled nothing but the sublime
egotism of Mr. Cleveland, his opposition to the protection policy,
his want of sympathy for the Union soldiers and his narrow notions
of finance and the public credit. He devised nothing and accomplished
nothing. A Democratic House passed the Mills tariff bill, but it
was rejected by the Senate and by the people in the election of
1888. It was neither a protective tariff nor a revenue tariff,
but a mongrel affair made up of shreds and patches furnished here
and there by Democratic Members to suit their local constituencies.
This abortive measure was the only one of any mark or importance
proposed by Mr. Cleveland, or passed by a Democratic House of
Representatives.

"In marked contrast with this is the Republican administration of
Harrison and the recent Republican Congress. Mr. Harrison, with
the slow, thoughtful, conservative tendencies of his mind, gave
careful consideration to every proposition that came before him,
and announced his opinion in his messages to Congress. The House
of Representatives, having cleared the way by the decision and
courage of Speaker Tom Reed that the majority should rule, proceeded
to transact the public business, and the Senate, in hearty concurrence
and co-operation, acted upon every important measure pending before
Congress. The first in importance, though not in point of time,
was an entire revision of our revenue laws. This bill was subjected
to the most careful scrutiny in both Houses, and was passed as a
Republican measure, and approved by the President. It is the law
of the land, though some of its provisions have not yet taken
effect. It is, in my judgment, a wise law, and will bear the most
careful scrutiny. It may be that in its details, in the rates of
duty, the precise line between enough to protect and more than is
necessary, is not observed, but this error in detail does not weaken
the essential merits of this great measure. I do not intend to
discuss it in the presence of a gentleman now before me, who had
charge of the bill in the House, who is, in a great measure, the
author of it, and whose effective advocacy carried it over the
shoals and rocks in the House of Representatives. You will greatly
and justly honor him this day, but not more than he deserves, and
you will have a chance to hear from him as to its merits. It is
sufficient now for me to state, very briefly, why I heartily
supported it in the Senate.

"In the first place it is a clear-cut, effective measure that will
make explicit the rates of duties proposed; will prevent, as far
as the law can, any evasion or undervaluation. It is in every line
and word a protective tariff. It favors, to the extent of the
duty, the domestic manufacturer, and will induce the production
here of every article suited to our condition and climate. It is
a fair law, for it extends its benefits not only to the artisan,
but, to the farmer and producer in every field of employment. I
know, by my long experience in passing upon tariff bills, that the
McKinley bill more carefully and beneficially protects the farmer
in his productions than any previous measures of the kind. And
its inevitable effect in encouraging manufactures will give to the
farmer the best possible market for his crops. The bill has
received, and will bear, discussion, and will improve on acquaintance.
The new features of the bill relating to sugar and tin plate will
soon demonstrate the most satisfactory results. Sugar will be
greatly lowered in cost to the consumer, while the bounty given to
the domestic producer will soon establish the cultivation of beet
and sorghum sugar in the United States, as the same policy has done
in Germany and France. The increased duty soon to be put upon tin
plate will develop, and has already developed, tin mines in several
states and territories, so that we may confidently hope that in a
short period we will be sweetened by untaxed home sugar, and
protected by untaxed tin plate. The arts of the demagogue, which
were at the last election played upon the credulous to deceive them
as to the effects of the McKinley bill, will return to plague the
inventors, and this Republican measure, with its kindred measures,
reciprocity and fair play to American ships, will be among the
boasted triumphs of our party, in which our Democratic friends
will, as usual, heartily acquiesce.

"There is another question in which the people are vitally interested,
and that is the currency question. They want good money and plenty
of it. They want all their money of equal value, so that a dollar
will be the same whether it is made of gold or silver or paper.
We have had this kind of money since the resumption of specie
payments in January, 1879. Nobody wants to go back to the old
condition of things when it was gold to the bondholders and paper
to the pensioners. When the outstanding government bonds were
fifteen hundred millions, and banks could issue paper money upon
the deposit of bonds, the volume of currency could expand upon the
increase of business. But that condition is passing away. The
bonds are being paid, and the time is coming, and has come, when
the amount of bonds is so reduced and their value is so increased
that banks cannot afford to buy bonds upon which to issue circulating
notes.

"We must contemplate the time when the national banks will not
issue their notes, but become banks of discount and deposit. The
banks are evidently acting upon this theory, for they have voluntarily
largely reduced their circulation. How shall this currency be
replaced? Certainly not by the notes of state banks. No notes
should circulate as money except such as have the sanction, authority
and guarantee of the United States. The best for of these is
certificates based upon gold and silver of value equal to the notes
outstanding. Nor should any distinction be made between gold and
silver. Both should be received at their market value in the
markets of the world. Their relative value varies from day to day
and there is no power strong enough to establish a fixed ratio of
value except the concurrence of the chief commercial nations of
the world. We coin both metals at a fixed ratio, but we maintain
them at par with each other by limiting the amount of the cheaper
metal to the sum needed for subsidiary coin and receiving and
redeeming it.

"The demand for the free coinage of silver without limit, is a
demand that the people of the United States shall pay for silver
bullion more than its market price; a demand that is not and ought
not to be made by the producer of any commodity. There is no
justice or equity in it. If granted by the United States alone it
will demonetize gold and derange all the business transactions of
our people. What we ought to do, and what we now do under the
silver law of the last Congress, a conservative Republican measure,
is to buy the entire product of silver mined in the United States
at its market value, and, upon the security of that silver deposited
in the treasury, issue treasury notes to the full amount of the
cost of the bullion. In this way we add annually to our national
currency circulating notes of undoubted value, equal to gold to an
amount equal to or greater than the increase of our population and
the increasing business for our growing country.

"There is another measure to which the Republican party is bound
by every obligation of honor and duty, and that is to grant to the
Union soldiers of the late war, their widows and orphans, liberal
pensions for their sacrifices and services in the preservation of
the Union. In the language of Lincoln, 'To bind up the nation's
wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for
his widow and his orphan.' Impressed with this obligation, the
Republican party has gone as far as prudence will allow. We
appropriate $135,000,000 a year for this purpose. Though the sum
is large, it is not the measure of our obligation. The rising
generation who will bear this burden must remember the immeasurable
blessings they enjoy by the sacrifices and services of Union soldiers
in the preservation of the Union and in a strong republican government
and free institutions.

"There is another obligation which we, as Republicans, cannot ignore
without being false to our party pledges, and that is to use every
legal means to secure all citizens their constitutional rights and
privileges as such, without respect to race and color. Fortunately,
time is promoting this great duty, but it must never be forgotten
or neglected until every lawful voter shall freely exercise his
right to vote without discrimination or favor.

"This is not the time for a fuller discussion of the many political
questions which will enter into the canvass. The great tribunal
of the people must pass upon them in their assemblages. I hope we
will go back to the old-fashioned mass meetings in the beautiful
groves of our state, where old and young, women as well as men,
can gather together with their baskets well-filled, their minds
open to conviction, their hearts full of patriotism, to listen and
judge for themselves the path of duty, the lines of wisdom, the
proper choice between the parties claiming their suffrages.
Fortunately, there is now no bitterness between parties, nothing
that can justify abuse, or reproach, for we must all concede the
honesty and desire of members of all parties to do what is best
for the common good. We must not meet as farmers, mechanics, or
partisans, but as fellow-citizens and patriots, alike interested
in all measures of national or state legislation. If any public
measure bears unjustly upon any class of our population we are all
interested in providing a remedy. The farmers of our country
sometimes complain that they do not share in the common prosperity,
that the prices they receive for their products are too low, that
they pay more than their share of the taxes.

"So far as these complaints may be met by wise legislation it should
be done by Congress and our state legislature. The Republican
party is wise enough and liberal enough to meet the just demands
of all classes, and, especially, of the farmers, the great conservative
and controlling portion of our population, and they are patriotic
enough not to demand measures not sanctioned by reason and experience,
and not consistent with the common good or the credit and honor of
our country. The Republican party has shown its capacity to deal
wisely with many more difficult questions of the past, and may be
relied upon to solve wisely the questions of a peaceful and prosperous
future. Strong now at home our country may extend its moral
influence to neighboring republics, encourage trade and intercourse
with them, and invite a broader union founded upon common interests,
sympathies, and free institutions.

"The State of Ohio is an important factor in this great union of
states and people. Ohio is a Republican state, one that has taken
a conspicuous part in the great drama of the past. In an evil
hour, and under wild delusions, Ohio elected the recent Democratic
legislature. With this warning behind us let us not be backward
or laggard in the civic contest in November; but, with a ticket
worthy of our choice, let us appeal to our fellow-citizens to place
again our honored state at the head of the Republican column."

While the statement in the "Enquirer" and in other Democratic papers
was not, in my opinion, true, yet the charge of a purpose on the
part of the members of the convention to humiliate or "snub" me,
by inviting me to address the convention and then denying me the
opportunity, led to a very general popular discussion of the
selection of United States Senator by the legislature then to be
elected. The choice seemed, by general acquiescence, to rest
between Governor Foraker and myself in case the Republicans should
have a majority of the legislature. There could be no difference
as to the weight of public opinion outside of Ohio, as represented
by the leading journals of both political parties. Even such
independent papers as the Chicago "Evening Post," the "Boston
Herald," the Springfield (Massachusetts) "Republican" and the New
York "Evening Post," and I can say the great body of the Republican
journals in the State of Ohio, warmly urged my re-election. With
this general feeling prevailing I considered myself a candidate,
without any announcement, and entered into the canvass as such.
I also regarded Governor Foraker as my competitor fairly entitled
to aspire to the position of Senator, though he did not, at first,
publicly announce his candidacy. Young, active and able, with a
brilliant military record vouched for by General Sherman, twice
elected Governor of Ohio, he was justified in entering the contest.
In the latter part of June he was reported to have said that I
would be re-elected, but this was regarded in a Pickwickian sense.
Candidates for the legislature were chosen in many counties according
to senatorial preferences, but, so far as I recall, there was no
contest over such nominations bitter enough to cause the defeat of
any nominee.

No serious difficulty arose until the latter part of July, when I
was advised that George B. Cox, a well-known politician in Cincinnati,
who, it was understood, controlled the Republican primaries in that
city, would not allow any man to be nominated for either branch of
the legislature who did not specifically agree to vote for whoever
he (Cox) should designate as United States Senator. This I regarded,
if the statement were true, as a corrupt and dangerous power to be
conferred upon any man, which ought not to be submitted to. I went
to Cincinnati, partly to confer with Foraker, and chiefly in
pursuance of a habit of visiting that city at least once a year.
I met Foraker, and he promptly disclaimed any knowledge of such a
requirement in legislative nominations. Cox also called upon me,
and said the delegation would probably be divided between Foraker
and myself. I could say nothing more to him. Foraker gave a
written answer to an inquiry of the "Commercial Gazette," in which
he said he was a candidate, and no one knew it better than I. This
was quite true and proper. In a published interview I said:

"Governor Foraker and I have always been friends, and I am always
glad to see him. He has a right to the position he has taken in
regard to the senatorship, and it is a proper one. One man has
just as much right to try it as another."

"Are McKinley and Butterworth candidates for Senator?"

"I do not know, but they have a right to be."

The only question that remained was whether Cox had a delegation
pledged to obey his wish, and this was to be ascertained in the
future.

During the spring and summer of 1891 there was an attempt to organize
a new party in Ohio, under the name of the Farmers' Alliance, or
People's party, based mainly upon what were alleged to be "seven
financial conspiracies." These so-called "conspiracies" were the
great measures by which the Union cause was maintained during and
since the war. The Alliance was greatly encouraged by its success
in defeating Senator Ingalls and replacing him by Senator Peffer,
and proposed that I should follow Ingalls. Pamphlets were freely
distributed throughout the state, the chief of which was one written
by a Mrs. Emery, containing ninety-six pages. I was personally
arraigned in this pamphlet as the "head devil" of these conspiracies,
and the chief specifications of my crimes were the laws requiring
the duties on imported goods to be paid in coin, the payment in
coin of the principal and interest of the public debt, the act to
strengthen the public credit, the national banking system, and, in
her view, the worst of all, the resumption of specie payments.

At first I paid no attention to this pamphlet, but assumed that
intelligent readers could and would answer it. In October I received
a letter calling my attention to it and asking me to answer it.
This I did by the following letter which I was advised had a
beneficial effect in the western states, where the pamphlet was
being mainly circulated:

"Mansfield, O., October 12, 1891.
"Mr. Charles F. Stokey, Canton, O.

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 8th, accompanied by Mrs. S. E. V.
Emery's pamphlet called 'Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have
Enslaved the American People,' is received.

"Some time since, this wild and visionary book was sent to me, and
I read it with amusement and astonishment that anyone could approve
of it or be deceived by its falsehoods.

"The 'seven financial conspiracies' are the seven great pillars of
our financial credit, the seven great financial measures by which
the government was saved from the perils of war and by which the
United States has become the most flourishing and prosperous nation
in the world.

"The first chapter attributes the Civil War to an infamous plot of
capitalists to absorb the wealth of the country at the expense of
the people, when all the world knows that the Civil War was organized
by slaveholders to destroy the national government and to set up
a slaveholding confederacy in the south upon its ruins. The
'Shylock,' described by Mrs. Emery, is a phantom of her imagination.
The 'Shylocks of the war' were the men who furnished the means to
carry on the government, and included in their number the most
patriotic citizens of the northern states, who, uniting their means
with the services and sacrifices of our soldiers, put down the
rebellion, abolished slavery, and preserved and strengthened our
government.

"The first of her 'conspiracies' she calls the exception clause in
the act of February 25, 1862, by which the duties on imported goods
were required to be paid in coin in order to provide the means to
pay the interest on coin bonds in coin. This clause had not only
the cordial support of Secretary Chase, but of President Lincoln,
and proved to be the most important financial aid of the government
devised during the war. Goods being imported upon coin values, it
was but right that the duty to the government should be paid in
the same coin. Otherwise the duties would have been constantly
diminishing with the lessening purchasing power of our greenbacks.
If the interest of our debt had not been paid in coin, we could
have borrowed no money abroad, and the rate of interest, instead
of diminishing as it did, would have been largely increased, and
the volume of our paper money would necessarily have had to be
increased and its value would have gone down lower and lower, and
probably ended, as Confederate money did, in being as worthless as
rags. This exception clause saved our public credit by making a
market for our bonds, and the coin was paid by foreigners for the
privilege of entering our markets.

"As for the national banking system--the second of her 'conspiracies'
--it is now conceded to have produced the best form of paper money
issued by banks that has ever been devised. It was organized to
take the place of the state banks, which, at the beginning of the
war, had outstanding over $200,000,000 of notes, of value varying
from state to state, and most of them at a discount of from five
to twenty-five per cent. It was absolutely necessary to get rid
of these state bank notes and to substitute for them bank notes
secured beyond doubt by the deposit of United States bonds, a system
so perfect that from the beginning until now no one has lost a
dollar on the circulating notes of national banks. The system may
have to give way because we are paying off our bonds, but no sensible
man will ever propose in this country to go back to the old system
of state banks, and if some security to take the place of United
States bonds can be devised for national bank notes, the system
will be and ought to be perpetuated.

"The third 'conspiracy' referred to is contraction of the currency.
It has been demonstrated by official documents that from the
beginning of the war to this time the volume of our currency has
been increasing, year by year, more rapidly than our population.
In 1860 the total amount of all the money in circulation was
$435,000,000, when our population was 31,000,000, and half of this
was money of variable and changing value. Now we have in circulation
$1,500,000,000, with a population of 64,000,000, and every dollar
of this money is good as gold, all kinds equal to each other,
passing from hand to hand and paid out as good money, not only in
the United States but among all the commercial countries of the
world. Our money has increased nearly fourfold, while our population
has only doubled.

"The statements made by Mrs. Emery about the contraction of our
currency are not only misleading but they are absolutely false.
She states that in 1868 $473,000,000 of our money was destroyed,
and in 1869 $500,000,000 of our money passed into a cremation
furnace, and in 1870 $67,000,000 was destroyed. Now these statements
are absolutely false. What she calls money in these paragraphs
was the most burdensome form of interest-bearing securities, treasury
notes bearing seven and three-tenths per cent. interest, and compound
interest notes. These were the chief and most burdensome items of
the public debt. They were paid off in the years named and were
never at any time for more than a single day money in circulation.
When issued they were received as money, but, as interest accrued
they became investments and were not at all in circulation.

"These statements of Mrs. Emery are palpable falsehoods, which if
stated by a man would justify a stronger word. It is true that in
1866 Mr. McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury under the administration
of Andrew Johnson, wished to bring about resumption by contraction,
and a bill was passed providing for a gradual reduction of the
greenbacks to $300,000,000, but this was very soon after repealed
and the greenbacks retained in circulation. I was not in favor of
the contraction of the greenbacks, and the very speech that she
quotes, in which I described the effects of contraction and the
difficulty of resuming, was made against the bill providing for
the reduction of the greenbacks.

"The next 'conspiracy' to which she refers was the first act of
General Grant's administration 'to strengthen the public credit.'
A controversy had existed whether the 5-20 bonds could be paid in
greenbacks. I maintained and still believe that by a fair construction
of the loan laws we had a right to pay the principal of the bonds
as they matured in greenbacks of the kind and character in existence
when the bonds were issued, but I insisted that it was the duty of
the government to define a time when the greenbacks should be either
redeemed or maintained at par in coin, that this was a plain
obligation of honor and duty which rested upon the United States,
and that it was not honorable or right to avail ourselves of our
own negligence in restoring these notes to the specie standard in
order to pay the bonds in the depreciated money. This idea is
embodied in the credit-strengthening act.

"The fifth 'conspiracy' of what she calls 'this infernal scheme'
was the refunding of the national debt. This operation of refunding
is regarded by all intelligent statesmen as of the highest value,
and was conducted with remarkable success. At the date of the
passage of the refunding act, July 14, 1870, we had outstanding
bonds bearing five and six per cent. interest for about $1,500,000,000.
By the wise providence of Congress, we had reserved the right of
redeeming a portion of this debt within five years, and a portion
of it within ten years, so that the debt was, in the main, then
redeemable at our pleasure. It was not possible to pay it in coin
and it was not honorable to pay it in greenbacks, especially as
that could only have been done by issuing new greenbacks far beyond
the volume existing during the war, and which would at once depreciate
in value and destroy the public credit and dishonor the country.
We, therefore, authorized the exchange, par for par, of bonds
bearing four, four and a half, and five per cent. interest for the
bonds bearing a higher rate of interest. The only contest in
Congress upon the subject was whether the new bonds should run
five, ten and fifteen years, or ten, fifteen and thirty years. I
advocated the shorter period, but the House of Representatives,
believing that the new bonds would not sell at par unless running
for a longer period, insisted that the four per cent. bonds should
run for thirty years. Greenbackers, like Mrs. Emery, who now
complain that the bonds run so long and cannot be paid until due,
are the same people who insisted upon making the bonds run thirty
years. It required some ten years to complete these refunding
operations--of which the larger part was accomplished when I was
Secretary of the Treasury--and they resulted in a saving of one-
third of the interest on the debt. So far from it being in the
interest of the bondholders, it was to their detriment and only in
the interest of the people of the United States.

"The next 'conspiracy' complained of is the alleged demonetization
of silver. By the act revising the coinage in 1873, the silver
dollar, which had been suspended by Jefferson in 1805 and practically
demonetized in 1835 and suspended by minor coins in 1853, and which
was issued only in later years as a convenient form in which to
export silver bullion, and the whole amount of which, from the
beginning of the government to the passage of the act referred to,
was only eight million dollars, was, by the unanimous vote of both
Houses of Congress, without objection from anyone, dropped from
our coinage, and in its place, upon the petition of the legislature
of California, was substituted the trade dollar containing a few
more grains of silver. A few years afterwards, silver having fallen
rapidly in market prices, Congress restored the coinage of the
silver dollar, limiting the amount to not exceeding four million
nor less than two million a month, and under ths law in a period
of twelve years we issued over 400,000,000 silver dollars, fifty
times the amount that had been coined prior to 1873. And now under
existing law we are purchasing 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year;
so that what she calls the demonetization of silver has resulted
in its use in our country to an extent more than fiftyfold greater
than before its demonetization.

"In spite of this, in consequence of the increased supply of silver
and the cheapening processes of its production, it is going down
in the market and is only maintained at par with gold by the fiat
of the different governments coining it. Now the deluded people
belonging to the class of Mrs. Emery are seeking to cheapen the
purchasing power of the dollar, in the hands of the farmer and
laborer, by the free coinage of silver and the demonetization of
gold. Silver and gold should be used and maintained as current
money, but only on a par with each other, and this can only be done
by treating the cheaper metal as subsidiary and coining it only as
demanded for the use of the people.

"The seventh 'financial conspiracy' is the pride and boast of the
government of the United States, the restoration of our notes, long
after the war was over, to the standard of coin; in other words,
the resumption of specie payments. This measure, which met the
violent opposition of such wild theorists as Mrs. Emery, has
demonstrated its success, in the judgment of all intelligent people,
not only in the United States, but in all the countries of the
world. There is no standard for paper money, except coin. The
United States postponed too long the restoration of its notes to
coin standards. Since it had the courage to do this under the
resumption act, on the 1st day of January, 1879, we have had in
the United States a standard of gold with coins of silver, nickel
and copper, maintained at that standard by the fiat of the government,
and paper money in various forms, as United States notes, national
bank notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, and treasury
notes, all at par with gold.

"To call this a 'conspiracy' or an 'infamous plot' is a misnomer
of terms which will not deceive any intelligent man, but it is
rather the glory and pride of the people of the United States that
it not only has been able, in the past thirty years, to put down
a great rebellion and to abolish slavery, but to advance the credit
of the United States to the highest rank among nations, to largely
increase the currency of the country, to add enormously to our
productive interests, and to develop the resources of the mine,
the field, and the workshop, to a degree unexampled in the history
of nations. Intelligent people, who reason and observe, will not
be deceived or misled by the wild fanaticism and the gloomy prophecies
of Mrs. Emery. Temporary conditions growing out of the failure of
any portion of our crops will not discourage them; the exaggerations
of the morbid fancy will not mislead them.

"A candid examination of the great financial measures of the last
thirty years will lead people to name what Mrs. Emery calls 'the
seven financial conspiracies' as the seven great, wise and
statesmanlike steps which have led the people of the United States,
through perils and dangers rarely encountered by any nation, from
a feeble confederacy with four millions of slaves, and discordant
theories of constitutional power, to a great, free republic, made
stronger by the dangers it has passed, a model and guide for the
nations of the world.

"As for Mrs. Emery's criticisms upon me personally, I do not even
deem them worthy of answer. She repeats the old story that I was
interested in the First National Bank of New York and gave it the
free use of the people's money. This is a plain lie, contradicted
and disproved over and over again. I never had the slightest
interest in the bank, direct or indirect, and, as the public records
will show, gave it no favors, but treated it like all other
depositaries of public money and held it to the most rigid
accountability; nor have I in any case derived the slightest
pecuniary benefit from any measure either pending in or before
Congress since I have been in public life.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

I had faith in the good sense and conservative tendencies of the
people, and believed they would not be deluded by such fantasies
and fallacies as were contained in the platform of the People's
party. That party made a very active canvass, and expected, as a
prominent member of it said, "to hold the balance of power in the
legislature and dictate who the next United States Senator from
Ohio shall be, and you may depend upon it that that man will not
be John Sherman."

This Alliance subsequently changed its ground from irredeemable
paper money to the free coinage of silver. Professing to care
for the farmers and laborers it sought in every way to depreciate
the purchasing power of their money.

In the progress of the canvass of 1891 it was apparent that the
farmers of Ohio would not agree to free coinage of silver, and
divided as usual between the two great parties. In the heat of
this contest I wrote to the "Cyclone" the following letter:

"Mansfield, O., July 7, 1891.
"Editors 'Cyclone,' Washington C. H.

"My Dear Sirs:--In answer to your letter of the 6th, I can only
say that my views on the question of the free coinage of silver
are fully stated in the speech I made at the last session of the
Senate, a copy of which I send you, and I can add nothing new to it.

"I can appreciate the earnest demand of the producers of silver
bullion, that the United States should pay $1.29 an ounce for silver
bullion which in the markets of the world has been for a series of
years worth only about one dollar an ounce--sometimes a little
more, sometimes a little less, but I cannot appreciate why any
farmer or other producer should desire that the government should
pay for any article more than its market value. The government
should purchase the articles it needs, like all other purchasers,
at the market price. The distinction sought to be made in favor
of silver is without just foundation. The government now buys in
the open market more than the entire domestic production of silver
bullion, because it needs it for coinage and as the basis of treasury
notes. I gladly contributed my full share to this measure, and
would do anything in my power to advance the market value of silver
to its legal ratio to gold, but this can only be done in concert
with other commercial nations. The attempt to do it by the United
States alone would only demonstrate our weakness.

"To the extent that the enormous demand made by the existing law
advances the price of silver, the producer receives the benefit,
and to-day the production of silver is probably the most profitable
industry in the United States. To ask more seems to me unreasonable,
and, if yielded to, will bring all our money to the single silver
standard alone, demonetize gold and detach the United States from
the standards of the great commercial nations of the world. The
unreasonable demand for the free coinage of silver has nothing to
do with the reasonable demand for the increase of the volume of
money required by the increase of business and population of the
United States.

"We have provided by existing laws for the increase of money to an
amount greater than the increase of business and population; but,
even if more money is required, there are many ways of providing
it without cheapening its purchasing power, or making a wide
difference between the kinds of money in circulation based on silver
and gold. More than ninety-two per cent. of all payments is now
made in checks, drafts and other commercial devices. All kinds of
circulating notes are now equal to each other and are kept at the
gold standard by redemption and exchange. Our money and our credit
are now equal to or better than those of the most civilized nations
of the world, our productions of every kind are increasing, and it
seems to me almost a wild lunacy for us to disturb this happy
condition by changing the standard of all contracts, including
special contracts payable in gold, and again paying gold to the
capitalists, and silver (at an exaggerated price) to the farmer,
laborer and pensioner.

"I would not be true to my conviction of what is best for the good
of my constituents if I did not frankly and firmly stand by my
opinions, whatever may be the effect upon me personally. My greatest
obligations have been to the farmers of Ohio, and I would be unworthy
of their trust and confidence if I did not beseech them to stand
by the financial policy which will secure them the best results
for their labor and productions, and the comfort and prosperity of
all classes alike.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

When this letter was written the demand for the free coinage of
silver was at its height. I knew that my position was not a popular
one, yet felt confident that in the end the people would become
convinced that no change should be made in the standard of value
then existing, and that the use of silver as money should be
continued and it should be maintained at par with gold, but that
when the volume of it became so great as to threaten the demonetization
of gold, its coinage should be discontinued and silver bullion in
the treasury should be represented by treasury notes in circulation
equal in amount to the cost of the silver bullion. This was the
basis of the act of 1890, but, unfortunately, the amount of silver
bullion produced in the United States and in the world at large so
rapidly increased that it continually declined in market value.
Every purchase of it entailed great loss to the United States.
How to deal with this condition was the problem for the next Congress
to solve.

On the 31st of August, in response to an inquiry from the editor
of the "Citizen," a newspaper published in Urbana, Ohio, I wrote
the following letter in regard to the policy of protection to
American industries by tariff laws:

"A protective tariff was the first measure provided by the first
Congress of the United States. No nation can be independent without
a diversity of industries. A single occupation may answer for an
individual, but a nation must be composed of many men of many
employments. Every nation ought to be independent of other nations
in respect to all productions necessary for life and comfort that
can be made at home. These are axioms of political economy so
manifestly true that they need no demonstration. The measure of
protection is a proper subject of dispute, but there should be no
dispute as to the principle of protection in a country like ours,
possessing almost every raw material of nature and almost every
variety of productions. We have prospered most when our industries
have been best protected. The vast variety of our manufactures,
now rivaling in quantity those of countries much older than ours,
is the result of protection.

"Every President, from Washington down to Jackson, inclusive,
declared in favor of the principle of protection. Every eminent
statesman of the early period, including Calhoun, favored this
policy. The owners of slaves, engaged chiefly in the production
of cotton, became hostile to protection, and, with those engaged
in foreign commerce, were the representative free traders of the
United States. Now that slavery is abolished and the south has
entered upon the development of her vast natural resources, and it
has been proven that our foreign commerce is greater under protective
laws, there should be no opposition in any portion of our country
to the protection of American industry by wise discriminating
duties.

"The principle of protection should be applied impartially and
fairly to all productions, whether of the workshop or the farm.
The object is to diversify employment and to protect labor, and
this protection should be impartially applied without respect to
the nature of the production. All experience has established the
invariable fact that domestic production, by inducing competition,
in a brief period, lowers the price of all protected articles. In
the whole range of productions this result has been universal.
Whenever it is apparent that a new industry can be established, as
is the case now with the manufacture of tin plate, it is good policy
to give to the industry a liberal degree of protection, with the
assurance that if we have the raw material on equal conditions we
can after a time compete with the imported article.

"The policy of a nation upon economic questions should be fixed
and stable. The McKinley law, as now framed, though it may be open
to criticism as to details, is a strictly protective measure, fair
and just as applied to all industries, with ample provisions to
secure reciprocity in the exchange of domestic productions for
articles we cannot produce. It ought to be thoroughly tested by
the experience of several years. It is not good policy to disturb
it or keep the public mind in suspense about it. It will, as I
think, demonstrate its wisdom, but if not, with the light of
experience, it can be modified. The highest policy and the greatest
good to our people lie in the full trial of this effort, to establish,
upon a firm foundation, the domestic production of every article
essential to American life and independence."

These two letters, on the "free coinage of silver" and the "McKinley
tariff law," frankly expressed my opinions on the salient questions
of the day. With respect to the principles that underlie the policy
of protection, I have already stated my opinions in commenting upon
the Morrill tariff law. No general tariff bill has passed during
my service in Congress that met my entire approval. It is easy to
formulate general principles, but when we come to apply them to
the great number of articles named on the tariff list, we find that
the interests of their constituents control the action of Senator
and Members. The McKinley tariff bill was not improved in the
Senate. The compact and influential delegation from New England
made its influence felt in support of industries pursued in that
section, while the delegations from other sections were divided on
party lines. The tariff law was not, therefore, consistent with
any general principle, but it was nearer so than the one in force
before its passage, and the necessity of passing some law that
would reduce taxation was so imperative that the differences between
the two Houses were readily compromised. The execution of the
McKinley law under President Harrison demonstrated that it would
furnish ample revenue to support the government, and it should have
remained on the statute book with such slight changes as experience
might have shown to be necessary. The Democratic party, however,
was opposed to the protective features of this law, took advantage
of its defects, and, subsequently, when that party came into power,
it unwisely undertook to make a new tariff which has proven to be
insufficient to yield the needed revenue, and thus created the
necessity of using, for current expenses, the reserve of gold
specially accumulated in the treasury for the redemption of United
States notes.

I felt the deepest interest in this campaign, not from the selfish
desire to hold longer an office I had held for nearly thirty years,
but I thought that in Ohio we were to have a great financial battle,
upon the result of which might depend the monetary system of the
United States. On the 17th of August I said to a reporter:

"The people of the east do not seem to understand this campaign.
They do not appear to have any comprehension of what it means to
them as well as the country. No matter what their differences upon
the tariff question may be, every Republican who wishes the success
of his party should be made to understand that there is another
and perhaps a graver question to be settled in Ohio this year.
While our politics for the past few campaigns have hinged upon
minor questions, we are to-day brought back to the financial problem
which we all thought had been settled, in 1875, when Mr. Hayes won
the fight for an honest dollar against Governor Allen, who represented
the liberal currency idea. Then it came in the guise of greenbacks,
and now it comes in the garb of free silver. That conflict made
Mr. Hayes President of the United States. What the decision may
be this year no man can tell."

I further said the arguments that year were identically the same
as in the Hayes and Allen contest if the word "silver" were
substituted for "greenbacks." The Democrats had declared for
unlimited coinage, and we had declared against it. The Farmers'
Alliance came in as allies of the Democracy, but, while they were
an unknown quantity, they did not appear to be very dangerous. I
could not find that they made much impression on Republican farmers.
It had fallen to the lot of Ohio to be the battle ground on which
these financial question were fought, but we had never been saddled
with so grave a conflict as that year, not merely for the reason
that we had both the financial and economic questions depending
upon the result, but because of the lack of action and moral force
which did not seem to come to us from outside the state, as it
should and had years before. I had too much faith in the Republicans
of the country to believe that when they understood the situation
they would fail to arouse themselves to the necessities of the hour.

In answer to a question as to how the canvass would be conducted,
I said that Major McKinley and those close to him were perfectly
competent to deal with the management of the campaign and would do
so. I should in my opening speech devote myself entirely to a
presentation of the financial part of the contest, which was equal
in importance with the tariff. It was perhaps unfortunate for both
that two such questions should come up for discussion at the same
time, but they did and the issue had to be met. The only thing
that was necessary to insure a crowning success was that the
Republicans of the country should understand that, no matter what
their differences upon the tariff were, they had a vital interest
in settling the financial question for all time at the next election
in the State of Ohio. The prosperity in Ohio was a great aid to
the Republicans. The crops in that state and the west were larger
than for many years. Prices were good and the farmers as a rule
prosperous. This naturally made them regard with grim humor the
talk of the Alliance lecturers about poverty and distress. Another
thing which helped us was the fact that short crops were the rule
in Europe. In reply to a question as to the senatorial issue, I
said in one of my speeches:

"I have no regret that this character of battle is prominent. I
am rather complimented than otherwise to be again selected as the
target of this crusade against a sound currency. It is a question
that has been nearest my heart for a good many years, and I am
perfectly willing to abide the result upon my position thereon.
As I said before, I have no fears as to the decision for the right.
I have less opposition to encounter than I have ever had before,
and should we carry the legislature, which I believe we will, I am
content to stand by the judgment of the Republicans of that body,
no matter what it may be."

I made my opening speech in this campaign at Paulding, on the 27th
of August. It was mainly confined to the silver question. I quote
a few extracts from it:

"It has been said by many persons of both political parties that
this is to be a campaign of education. I believe it ought to be
so, for the leading questions involved are purely business questions,
affecting material interests common alike to men of all parties.

"Upon two great measures of public policy the Republican and
Democratic parties have made a formal and distinct issue, and these
are to be submitted to the people of Ohio in November, and your
decision will have a marked effect upon public opinion throughout
the United States. One is whether the holder of silver bullion
may deposit it in the treasury of the United States, and demand
and receive for it one dollar of coined money for every 371 grains
of fine silver deposited. The market value of so much silver
bullion is now about 77 cents, varying, however, from day to day,
like other commodities, sometimes more and sometimes less. The
other question is whether the policy of taxing imported goods by
the government of the United States, embodied in our existing tariff
law, known as the McKinley tariff, is a wise public policy, or
whether it should be superseded by what is called a tariff for
revenue only, as embodied in what is known as the Mills bill, which
passed the House of Representatives in 1888, and was rejected by
the Senate.

* * * * *

"I propose upon this occasion to confine myself mainly to a frank
and homely discussion of the money question, as the most pressing,
not that the tariff question is not equally important, but for the
reason that I can only do one thing at a time, and the money question
is a newer one, is now before us, upon which Republicans and
Democrats alike are somewhat divided. I wish to appeal to the
reason and common sense of the people who hear me, for that is said
to be the highest wisdom.

* * * * *

"Now, you all know that the money in circulation in the United
States--all of it--is good, good as gold. It will pass everywhere
and buy as much as the same amount of any other money in the world.
Our money is of many kinds--gold, silver, nickel and copper are
all coined into money. Then we have United States notes, or
greenbacks, gold certificates, silver certificates, treasury notes
and national bank notes. But the virtue of all these many kinds
of money is that they are all good. A dollar of each is as good
as a dollar of any other kind. All are as good as gold. But, and
here comes the first difficulty, the silver in the silver dollar
is not worth as much as the gold in the gold dollar. The nickel
in that coin is worth but a small part of five cents' worth of
silver. And the copper in the cent is not worth one-fifth of the
nickel in a five cent piece. How then, you may ask me, can these
coins be made equal to each other? The answer is that coinage is
a government monopoly, and though the copper in five cents is not
worth a nickel, and the nickel in twenty pieces is not worth a
silver dollar, and the silver in sixteen dollars is not worth
sixteen dollars in gold, yet, as the government coins them, and
receives them, and maintains them at par with gold coin, they are,
for all purposes, money equal to each other, and wherever they go,
even into foreign countries, they are received and paid out as
equivalents.

"The reason of all this is that the United States limits the amount
of all the coins to be issued except gold, which, being the most
valuable, is coined without limit. If coinage of all these metals
was free, and any holder of copper, nickel, silver or gold could
carry it to the mint to be coined, we would have no money but copper
and nickel, because they are the cheaper metals, worth less than
one-fourth of what, as coin, they purport to be. For the same
reason, if the coinage of silver was free at the ratio of sixteen
of silver to one of gold, no gold would be coined, because sixteen
ounces of silver are not worth one ounce of gold.

* * * * *

"The one distinctive, striking feature of the law of 1890 is, that
the United States will not pay for silver bullion more than its
market value. And why should we? What is there about silver
bullion that distinguishes it from any other product of industry
that the government needs? When the government needs food and
clothing for the army and navy it pays only the market price to
the farmer and manufacturer. The value of silver produced is
insignificant compared with the value of any of the articles produced
by the farmer, the miner and manufacturer. Nearly all the silver
produced in the United States is by rich corporations in a few new
states, and its production at market price is far more profitable
than any crop of the farmer, and yet it is the demand of the producer
of silver bullion that the United States should pay him twenty-five
per cent. more than its market value that lies at the foundation
of the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

* * * * *

"Our Democratic friends differ from us in this particular. They
are in favor of allowing any holder of silver bullion, foreign or
domestic, any old silverware or melted teapot, any part of the vast
accumulated hoard of silver in India, China, South America and
other countries of the world, estimated by statisticians to be
$3,810,571,346, to present it to the treasury of the United States
and demand one dollar of our money, or our promises to pay money,
for 371 grains of silver, or any multiple of that sum, though this
amount of silver is now worth only 77 cents, and has for a period
of years been as low as 70 cents. If with free silver we receive
only the quantity of silver we are required to purchase by existing
law, the United States would pay over $13,000,000 a year more than
if purchased at the market value, and this vast sum would be paid
annually as a bounty to the producers of silver bullion.

"But this is not the worst of it. Free coinage means that we shall
purchase not merely four and a half million ounces a month, but
all the silver that is offered, come from where it may, if presented
in quantities of one hundred ounces at a time. We are to give the
holder either coin or treasury notes, at his option, at the rate
of one dollar for every 371 grains, now worth in the market 77
cents. Who can estimate the untold hoards of silver that will come
into the treasury if this policy is adopted?

* * * * *

"But it is said that free coinage will not have the effect I have
stated; that the silver in sight is so occupied where it is that
it will not come to us. They said the same when the present law
was passed, that foreign silver would not come to us. Yet our
purchase of 4,500,000 ounces, troy weight, or 187 tons, of silver
a month, at market price, brought into the United States large
amounts of silver from all parts of the world. If that is the
effect of limited purchases at one dollar an ounce, the market
price, what will be the effect of unlimited purchases at 29 cents
an ounce more than market price? It would inundate us with the
vast hoards of silver in countries where silver alone is the current
money, and draw to us all the rapidly-increasing production of
silver mines in the world.

"But they say with free coinage the price of silver will rise to
the old ratio with gold. The experience of all the world belies
this statement. In no country in the world where free coinage
exists is sixteen ounces of silver equal to one ounce of gold.
France and the United States maintain the parity between the two
by carefully limiting the coinage and receiving and redeeming silver
coins as the equivalent of gold. But wherever free coinage exists
that is impossible. With free coinage the market value of the
bullion fixes the value of the dollar. The Mexican dollar contains
more silver than the American dollar, and yet the Mexican dollar
is worth about 78 cents, because in Mexico coinage is free. And
the American dollar is worth 100 cents because in the United States
coinage is limited. So in all free coinage countries where silver
alone is coined it is worth its market value as bullion. In all
countries where gold circulates the coinage of silver is limited,
but is used as money in even greater amounts than in countries
where coinage is free. This is the case in France and the United
States. The free coinage of silver in either would stop the coinage
of gold.

* * * * *

"It is claimed that if we adopt the silver standard we will get
more money for our labor and productions. This does not follow,
but, even if it be true, the purchasing power of our money will be
diminished. All experience proves that labor and the productions
of the farm are the last to advance in price.

* * * * *

"Some say that we want more money to transact the business of the
country. Do we get more money be demonetizing one-half of all we
have?--for the gold now in circulation is more than one-half of
the coin in circulation."

In closing this speech I said:

"I appeal to the conservative men of Ohio of both parties to repeat
now the service they rendered the people of the United States in
1875, by the election of Governor Hayes, in checking the wave of
inflation that then threatened the country. You can render even
a greater service now in the election of Governor McKinley, in
defeating the free coinage of silver, and strengthening the hands
of President Harrison and the Republican Senate in maintaining
American industries, a full dollar for all labor and productions,
the untarnished credit of the American people, and the advancing
growth and prosperity of our great republic. I have endeavored in
a feeble way to promote these objects of national policy, and now
that I am growing old, I have no other wish or ambition than to
inspire the young men of Ohio to take up the great work of the
generation that is passing away, and to do in their time as much
as, or more than, the soldiers and citizens of the last forty years
have been able to do to advance and elevate our government to the
highest standard and example of honor, courage and industry known
among men."

These extracts give an imperfect idea of the speech, which entered
into many details, and stated the effect of the cheapening of the
dollar on the wages of men employed as laborers, and on farmers
who would be cheated by the diminished power of money.

Being confined to one subject, and that one which at the time
excited the attention of the people, this speech was widely copied,
and received general approbation from the press of the north and
east, and was commented upon favorably in countries in Europe,
where the fall in the price of silver was the subject of anxious
interest. It also excited the denunciation of the free silver states
in the west. The Democratic platform of Ohio had unfortunately
committed that great party to the ideas of the new party calling
itself the People's party, represented mainly by the disciples of
the old greenback fiat money craze, some of whom, while claiming
to be farmers, do their planting in law offices, and whose crops,
if they have any, are thistles and ragweeds. That part of the
platform had been adopted by but a bare majority of the Democratic
convention, and Campbell, their candidate, tried to evade it.

McKinley promptly recognized the importance of the money question
in the pending canvass, and at once presented in all his speeches
the two vital measures of his party--good money and a protective
tariff. On these two issues the Republican party was united and
the Democratic party divided.

Early in September, I was invited by the managers of the state fair
to make a speech on the 17th of that month at their grounds in
Columbus, on the political issues of the day, and accepted the
invitation. As usual during the fair great crowds assembled, most
of whom no doubt felt more interested in the horse races and sight-
seeing than in coinage or tariff, but many thousands, mostly farmers
from all parts of the state, were gathered around the east front
of the main building. At the time appointed I was introduced by
E. W. Poe, the state auditor, with the usual flattering remarks,
and commenced my speech as follows:

"When I was invited to speak to you here I was informed that I was
expected to present my views on the leading issues of the day, and
that a like invitation had been given to Governor Campbell and
other gentlemen holding public trusts from the people of Ohio.
While this invitation relieves me from the charge of impropriety
in introducing a political question on the fair grounds, yet I am
admonished by the presence of gentlemen of all parties and all
shades of opinion that common courtesy demands that, while frankly
stating my convictions, I will respect the opinions of others who
differ from me. I propose, therefore, in a plain way to give you
my views on the tariff question, now on trial between the two great
political parties of the United States. It is somewhat unfortunate
that this purely business question of public policy is being
discussed on party lines, but it is made a party question by the
State conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties of Ohio,
and we must accept it as such, though I would greatly prefer, and
I intend to treat it here, as far as I can, as a purely economic
question."

I briefly stated the history of tariff legislation in the United
States, what was meant by a tariff and the objects sought by it,
and that for the first fifty years of our history the lines were
not drawn between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. It
was in those days the common desire of all sections to obtain
revenue and to encourage domestic industries. This unity of purpose
existed until 1831, when the south had become almost exclusively
an agricultural region, in which cotton was the chief product of
the plantation with negro slaves as the laborers, and when the
north, under the protective policy, had largely introduced
manufactures, and naturally wished to protect and enlarge their
industries. The tariff question grew out of a contest between free
and slave labor. I referred to the various measures adopted, the
compromise measure of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker
tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861. During and after
the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough
revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the
public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic
industries. To meet these demands we had to levy not only high
duties on nearly all imported goods, but to add internal taxes,
yielding $300,000,000 annually, on articles produced in this country.
When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these
taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political
question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then
stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the
Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were
applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:

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

"Second. To levy the highest rates of duties that will not encourage
smuggling, on articles of luxury which enter into the consumption
of the rich.

"Third. To place on imported articles which compete with articles
that can be manufactured or produced in the United States, such a
rate of duty as will secure to our farmers and laborers fair prices,
fair wages, and will induce our people to engage in such manufacture
and production.

"Fourth. To repeal all duties on articles of prime necessity which
enter into the consumption of the American people and which cannot
be produced in sufficient quantity in this country.

"Fifth. To grant to foreign nations the reciprocal right of free
importation into our ports of articles we cannot produce, in return
for the free introduction into their ports of articles of American
production."

I entered into full details of the tariff and contrasted the McKinley
act with the Mills bill proposed by the Democratic party, but which
never became a law, and in conclusion said:

"And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for
you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a
fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to
open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties.
If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling
we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better
than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say
to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should
have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair
trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance,
led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born
of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to
a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as
I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial.
Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views of public
policy. Some items I would like to change, but, on the whole, it
is a wise measure of finance. It will give enough revenue to
support the government. It is an American law, looking only to
American interests. It is a fair law, dealing justly by all
industries. It is an honest law, preventing, as far as law can,
fraud and evasion. It is a comprehensive law covering the whole
ground. It will undoubtedly establish new branches of industry in
our country not now pursued. It will strengthen others now in
operation. It will give to thousands of our people now idle,
employment at fair wages. It will give to our farmers a greatly
enlarged market for their productions, and encourage them in
producing articles not now produced, and to increase their flocks,
herds and horses to meet the new demands."

My speech was as free from partisanship as I could make it, and I
am quite willing to stand upon the policy I defined.

I visited Cleveland a few days later and met many of the active
Republicans of that city, and was glad to learn that they were
practically unanimous for my re-election. Among other callers was
a correspondent of the "Plain Dealer" of that city, who treated me
fairly in stating correctly what I said in answer to his questions.
The "Commercial Gazette" and the "Enquirer," of Cincinnati, also
published long interviews with me, and incidents of my life given
by my neighbors. I began to believe that these interviews, fairly
reported, were better modes of expressing my opinions than formal
speeches, and were more generally read.

During the month of October I made many speeches in different parts
of the state, several of which were reported in full, but the
general tenor of all may be gathered from those already referred to.

Among the largest meetings I attended in this canvass was one at
Toledo, on the evening of the 14th of October. Here again I
discoursed about currency and the tariff, but the salient points
had become so familiar to me that I could speak with ease to my
audience and to myself. As soon as this meeting was over, I took
the midnight train for Dayton, where a "burgoo" feast was to be
held the next day on the fair grounds. This was by far the largest
meeting of the campaign. There was an immense crowd on the grounds,
but it was a disagreeable day, with a cloudy sky, a chilly atmosphere
and a cold raw wind. McKinley, Foraker and I spoke from the same
stand, following each other. As I was the first to speak I had
the best of it, and as soon as I finished left the grounds, but
they held the great audience for several hours. I insert what the
Dayton "Journal" reported of the speakers as a specimen of friendly
journalism:

"Sherman renewed his youth and even exceeded the best efforts of
his earlier days. Neither man nor woman left their place while
Sherman was speaking. At 2 o'clock, when McKinley, our gallant
leader, took the platform, the crowd seemed so great that no man's
voice could reach them, but they listened for every syllable and
made the hills echo with their appreciative applause. Then came
Foraker. It seemed as if the great meeting had been magnetized
with an electric power of ten thousand volts. There were continuous
shouts of approbation and applause from his beginning to the close.
His mingling of wit and wisdom, a burgoo combination of powerful
and telling arguments, with sandwiches of solid facts, completed
a political barbecue which will be a historical memory that will
be almost as famous as the gathering of the people of this splendid
valley in 1842, when Henry Clay spoke to our fathers on the same
sod and under the shade of the same trees on the same subjects.
The memory of the magnificent Republican demonstration at the
Montgomery fair grounds on the 15th day of October, 1891, will
remain with all who participated in it as long as they shall live."

On the evening of October 17, Foraker and I appeared together before
a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati. I insert a few sentences
of a long description in the "Commercial Gazette" of the next day:

"Music Hall was the scene last night of the greatest Republican
gathering of the campaign. Senator Sherman and Governor Foraker
were the speakers.

"The meeting was an immense one. That was a magnificent assemblage.
It was an ovation. It was a recognition of brains and integrity.
It was an evidence that honesty and justice prevail. It showed
that the people believe in the Republican party. It proved that
they appreciate that the party still has a mission. It evinced an
appreciation of the past and a hope for, and a belief in, the
future. It was a great outpouring of Republicans. It was a
gathering of the supporters of right as against wrong. It was a
regular Republican crowd. Personal feeling and personal ambition
were laid aside.

* * * * *

"Sherman and Foraker were on the stage together. Their presence
on the same stage was a noteworthy fact. It was an evidence of
harmony and of strength. Then, again, the united marching of the
Lincoln and Blaine clubs was a further proof of harmony. In fact,
the entire meeting, and the pleasant feeling manifest, proved that
the party is united as one man against its old foe, the Democracy;
that, as many a time before, it is ready and anxious to do battle
with the ancient enemy. No deceits, no frauds, can defeat it--the
Republican party. This the meeting proved conclusively."

I closed my part in this canvass at Toledo and Cleveland in the
week before the election, and these speeches were fairly and fully
reported. During the whole contest between Foraker and myself
there was nothing said to disturb our friendly relations. The
election resulted in the success of the Republican ticket and a
Republican legislature, McKinley receiving over 21,000 plurality.
Immediately after the election it was announced that the members
of the legislature from Hamilton county were unanimously in favor
of Foraker for Senator. This announcement, and especially the
manner of it, created a good deal of bad feeling in the state,
especially as it was alleged and believed that George Cox had full
control of the delegation and had required the pledges of each
senator and member to vote for United States Senator as he dictated.

During the entire canvass there was a full and free discussion,
not only in Ohio but throughout the United States, as to the choice
between Foraker and myself. It was known that the vote in the
legislature would be close and the friends of each were claiming
a majority for their favorite. It is not necessary to follow the
progress of the contest, but I became satisfied that I would be re-
elected, although the most positive assurances were published that
Foraker, with the aid of his solid delegation from Hamilton county,
would be successful. Many things were said during the brief period
before the election that ought not to have been said, but this is
unavoidable in choosing between political friends as well as between
opposing parties. Every Republican paper in Ohio took sides in
the contest. Meetings were held in many of the counties and cities
of the state, and resolutions adopted expressing their preference.

I was urged by some friends to go to Columbus some time before the
meeting of the legislature on the first Monday in January, but
delayed my departure from Washington until after the wedding of my
niece, on the 30th of December, a narrative of which was given by
the "Ohio State Journal" as follows:

"The marriage of Miss Rachel Sherman, daughter of the late General
William T. Sherman, and Dr. Paul Thorndike, of Boston, was solemnized
at high noon to-day at the residence of Senator Sherman, in the
presence of a distinguished audience of relatives and officials.
It was a gathering composed chiefly of intimate friends of the late
General Sherman, many of whom came from afar to witness the nuptials
of the favorite daughter of the deceased chieftain.

"The house was gay with music and fragrant with flowers. The
ceremony took place in the front parlor of the residence. A canopy
of asparagus and smilax was twined over the recess where the ceremony
was performed. A background of foliage and palms massed together
made the couple standing in front all the more effective and
attractive. On the mantel were banked white blossoms in profusion,
and hanging from the chandeliers wreaths of smilax intertwined with
white chrysanthemums and carnations. The ushers were Mr. Allen
Johnston, of the British legation, Mr. Ward Thorou, Mr. William
Thorndike, Dr. Augustine Thorndike and Mr. Tecumseh Sherman, the
bride's brother. Preceding the bride came her little niece, Miss
Elizabeth Thackara, in a gown of white muslin, carrying a basket
of white lilies. Senator Sherman escorted the bride, who was met
by the groom and his best man, Mr. Albert Thorndike. The party
grouped about Father Sherman, brother of the bride, who, with much
impressiveness, performed the marriage rites of the Catholic church.

"After the ceremony the bride and groom held a reception. A wedding
breakfast was next served to the invited guests. Among those
present were the President and Mrs. Harrison, Mrs. McKee, the Vice
President and Mrs. Morton, Secretary Blaine, Mr. and Mrs. Damrosch,
Secretaries Rusk and Tracy, Senator and Mrs. Stanford, Sir Julian
Pauncefote and others."

Upon the meeting of the Ohio legislature, on the 4th of January,
1892, Foraker and I were in attendance, stopping at the same hotel
and meeting daily. There was much excitement and great diversity
of opinion as to the result of the senatorial election. Several
of the members, whose preference I knew, would not declare their
vote, with the mistaken idea that to remain silent would relieve
them from importunity, but before the decisive vote was taken in
caucus I was confident of success.

The caucus met on Wednesday evening, the 6th of January. It was
composed of the Republican members of both houses. L. C. Laylin,
a friend of mine, who had been elected speaker of the house of
representatives, was made chairman of the caucus. An attempt was
made by the friends of Foraker to secure a secret ballot, but this
was defeated. The decisive vote was then taken, in which I received
53 votes, Foraker 38, Foster 1 and McKinley 1. My nomination was
then made unanimous, and I was subsequently elected by the legislature
for the term ending March 4, 1899.

The caucus appointed a committee of its members to escort Foraker
and myself to the hall of the house of representatives, where we
were received with hearty applause. We were introduced by Speaker
Laylin, and our speeches will show that if we were combatants we
appreciated the merits of our respective adversaries. I said:

"Senators, Representatives and Fellow Citizens:--I return to you
my most grateful thanks for the very high honor you have conferred
upon me. Long trusted by the people of Ohio, I am under obligations
that I cannot express in any language at my command. I owe to them
--I owe to you--all that could be said from a heart overflowing.

"We have just passed through quite a contest, the most formidable
that I have ever encountered in Ohio, and I hope more formidable
than I will ever be called upon to encounter hereafter. I know,
gentlemen, that you have been called upon to make a choice which
was unpleasant to you because you would have liked to vote for both
of us, and would have been glad to have two Senators to elect
instead of one.

"I am glad to say that in this contest I have held, in my language
and in my heart, the highest feelings of respect and honor for the
gentleman who was my competitor, and who is now before you. He is
entitled to the love and affection of the people of Ohio, and if
you have given me this high honor because of my experience, you
have not underrated the high qualities, mental and moral, of Governor
Foraker. Although you have been engaged in this friendly contest,
we are all Republicans and I trust ever will be Republicans, true
to our cause, and true to the principles we advocate. I again
return to you, as the senators and representatives of our state,
my thanks for this almost unequaled honor."

Governor Foraker said:

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Caucus and Fellow Citizens:--I
am informed that, so far as you are concerned, the senatorial
contest is ended, and I have come here in response to your kind
invitation to say that so far as I am concerned it is ended also.

"You did not end it as I had hoped you might, but you are the duly
accredited and authorized representatives of the Republicans of
Ohio, and your will is law unto me and mine.

"As Senator Sherman has said, we have been having something of a
contest. For the last ten days we have been divided into Sherman
men and Foraker men, and we have been striving against each other.
There has been possibly some rasping and some friction, but at this
hour it is our highest duty to remember that from now on henceforth,
in the language again of the Senator, we must remember that we are
no longer Sherman men nor Foraker men, but Republicans all.

"Let us here and now put behind us, with the contest to which it
belongs, whatever unkindliness of feeling, if there be any at all,
that may have been engendered. So far as I am concerned, I am glad
to be able to say to you, gentlemen of the 70th general assembly,
that I have not an unkind thought toward any one of you, no matter
whether he has been friend or foe. I have no resentments, no
bitterness of feeling to carry with me. On the contrary, I shall
go back to the pursuit of my profession with my mind and my heart
filled with only grateful recollection and a pleasurable, and I
trust a pardonable, pride for the gallant, intrepid band who have
honored me with their support in this contest. Without any
disposition to criticise or find fault in the slightest degree,
but only as an excuse in so far as that may be necessary for
enlisting in a cause than has been crowned, not with success, but
with defeat, let me say to these friends that when we entered upon
it I did not foresee some of its features. I was not aware then,
as we have since come to know, that we have had to fight, not only
the Republicans of Ohio who were against us, but, because it was
grand old John Sherman on the other side, and with him the whole
United States of America. The Senator has said he don't want any
more contests like this. I thank him for the compliment, and vouch
to you that I don't want ever against to cross swords with a
Sherman."

The 52nd Congress met on the 7th of December, 1891. The credentials
of my colleague, Calvin S. Brice, in the usual form, were presented
and upon them he was entitled to be sworn into office. If his
right to a seat was to be contested the grounds of the contest
might be afterwards presented, when the case would be decided on
its merits, but, until it should be determined by the Senate that
he was not duly elected, he could perform the duties of a Senator.
I was urged to object to his taking the oath of office on the ground
that he was not a resident of the State of Ohio when elected. This
I declined to do, but simply gave notice of his alleged disability,
so that it would not be waived in the case the legislature or
citizens of Ohio should establish the fact that he was not an
inhabitant of that state when elected. This was not done and no
attempt was made to contest his seat, but I was reproached by
unreasonable partisans for the neglect to do so.

The annual message of President Harrison, sent to Congress on the
9th of December, strongly recommended the aid of the government in
the construction of he Nicaragua Canal. He highly commended the
McKinley tariff bill, and said that its results had disappointed
the evil prophecies of its opponents, and, in a large measure,
realized the predictions of its friends. He referred to the large
increase of our exports and imports, and, generally, gave a hopeful
view of our financial condition. He recommended that the experiment
of purchasing 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month, under
the act of July 14, 1890, be continued. Though silver had fallen
in value from $1.20 an ounce to 96 cents, yet he hoped a further
trial would more favorably affect it. He was still of opinion that
the free coinage of silver under existing conditions would disastrously
affect our business interests at home and aborad. He approved the
application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the public
debt, and stated that since the 1st of March, 1889, there had been
redeemed of interest-bearing securities $259,079,350, resulting in
a reduction of the annual interest charge of $11,684,675. On the
whole the message of the President and the report of Secretary
Foster presented a favorable state of our national finances.

The disposition of the 52nd Congress was not to engage in political
debate, especially on financial questions, as it was divided on
political lines, the Senate being Republican, and the House
Democratic. The current business did not present such questions
until Senator Morgan, on the 30th of March, 1892, introduced
resolutions directing the committee on finance to make examinations
and report upon six different propositions, embracing the whole
financial system of the United States, and to do it promptly. I
had no objection to the passage of the resolutions, though they
were imperative in tone, but naturally supposed they were brought
in merely as a text for a speech, and suggested to Morgan that he
prepare a bill that would carry out his views and have that referred
to the committee. He said: "I do not expect to refer them. I
expect to instruct your committee what to do. That is what I
propose." In introducing his resolutions he said: "There is an
evil in the land, a difficulty of most serious embarrassment. . . .
The people cannot afford to wait without encountering all the
hardships of bankruptcy and ruin. . . . Our differences will not
permit our people to wait further adjustment when they are in a
death struggle with poverty and wretchedness."

I replied: "If there is such distress as the Senator imagines it
ought to be met by specific measures and not by a debating school."
I knew that what he wanted was the free coinage of silver. Upon
this question both parties were divided. The states producing
silver were represented by Republicans who favored a measure that,
in my opinion, would lead to the single standard of silver, and if
the Senate was to consider that subject I wished it to be distinctly
presented and debated, rather than to enter upon the discussion of
a multitude of theories that would lead to no result. He expressed
the desire that he and others should have an opportunity to speak
on the resolutions, and, in conformity with the usages of the
Senate, they were left on the table for indefinite debate.

On the 14th of April, Morgan made an elaborate speech covering
twelve pages of the "Record," in which, as I expected, he elaborated
his views in favor of the free coinage of silver, and closed as
follows:

"We are very nearly out of the woods now, and if you will add the
free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold, and will cause
the treasury of the United States to coin the silver that is there
on the same terms that it does gold, I believe that we shall soon
master every difficulty in our way. Then the honorable Senator
from Ohio would have the right to rejoice, and, contrary to his
will, he would be led up into such high positions that he would be
able, at last, to bless the country when he did not expect to do
it."

Believing, as I did, that to continue this debate would be a
fruitless waste of time, and interfere with the current business
of Congress, I said:

"I do not intend to engage in this discussion, but still I wish to
ascertain the sense of the Senate. If we are to have a general
silver debate now, to the displacement of all other business, I
should like to have that point tested; and, in order to settle it
definitely, without engaging in the debate at all, I move to lay
the pending resolutions on the table."

Mr. Teller, the leader of the "silver Senators," as they are called,
with some excitement, said:

"The Senator from Ohio, flushed, perhaps, with the victory apparently
in the other House against silver, seems to think he can down the
debate in this body on the subject. I want to say to the Senator
that we spent some time during the last session to prevent him,
and others who thought with him, from securing a rule that would
cut off debate in this body, and the Senator might as well meet
the question now as at any time; that this question will be debated,
and if not upon this, upon some other resolution. . . . I give
notice that, under the rules of the Senate, we are able to be heard,
and that we will be heard, in despite of the honorable Senator from
Ohio, who appears to be so anxious to stifle debate."

To this I replied:

"I deny, in the most emphatic terms, that I have endeavored to
stifle debate. There is no ground for such an assertion. There
is not an iota of ground upon which such an assertion can be made.
I never objected in my life, and I have been here longer than any
of you, to any Senator speaking at any time when he chose upon any
subject; and every man here knows it. . . . I am willing to discuss,
and I never shrink from debate on, the silver question, or the gold
question, or the currency question. I have not been willing, at
all times, to talk at all hours, and reply to every gentleman who
might choose to make a speech; but whenever the Senate undertakes
to engage in this debate, I will take my share of it, and I will
take my responsibility for it."

I then proceeded at some length to reply to Morgan. The debate
was suspended by the order of business, but it continued from day
to day as opportunity offered, on a motion to refer the resolutions
to the committee on finance, until the 25th of May, when the Senate
rejected the motion by a vote of 17 yeas to 28 nays. This vote
was a clear indication that a majority of the Senate favored the
free coinage of silver. I then, while criticising the terms of
the resolutions, expressed my desire that they should be adopted.
This led to a desultory debate in which I took part, and on the
morning of the next day, having the floor, said:

"I regret as much as anyone can the unusual and remarkable
interposition of this question, by the Senator from Alabama, at
every stage of our business. Now, the whole of the morning hour
had been wasted except the ten minutes which I shall occupy, and
probably nothing could have been done in that time.

"An arraignment has been made of the committee on finance as if it
had neglected to perform its duty. I am not authorized to speak
for the committee except as one of its members. Its chairman, the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Morrill, is here to speak for it, but
the committee on finance has never for a moment evaded or avoided
the issue of the free coinage of silver. It has never delayed a
bill, so far as my knowledge extends, upon that subject. Very soon
after the bill of the Senator from Nevada was introduced it was
considered and reported adversely. I believe two-thirds of the
members of the committee were opposed to the bill as it stood.
There has not been a day nor an hour, in the ordinary course of
business of the Senate, when, upon the motion of anyone, that bill
could not have been taken up if a majority of Senators were in
favor of it, but, unfortunately for the Senator, a majority of the
Senators were not in favor of taking it up and interposing it in
place of all the other business. Therefore, this mode is adopted
to bring it here before the Senate."

At two o'clock I gave way to the regular order of business. Mr.
Stewart then moved to take up his bill, introduced early in the
session, to provide for the free coinage of gold and silver bullion.
It had been referred to the committee on finance, reported adversely,
and was on the calendar, subject to a motion to take it up at any
time. This again presented directly to the Senate the policy of
the free coinage of silver. The motion was agreed to by the vote
of yeas 28, nays 20. The resolutions of Morgan were practically
suspended and the vote on taking up the silver bill indicated its
passage. Mr. Teller opened the debate for free coinage. On the
31st of May I commenced a very long speech, opening as follows:

"I do not regard the bill for the free coinage of silver as a party
measure or a political measure upon which parties are likely to
divide. It is in many respects a local measure, not exactly in
the sense in which General Hancock said in regard to the tariff
that it was a local question, but it is largely a local question.
Yet, at the same time, it is a question of vast importance. No
question before the Senate of the United States at this session is
at all to be compared with it in the importance of its effects upon
the business interests of the country. It affects every man, woman
and child in our broad land, the rich with his investments, the
poor with his labor. Everybody is deeply interested in the standard
of value by which we measure all the productions of the labor and
all the wealth of mankind.

"Five states largely interested in the production of silver are
very ably and zealously represented on this floor. They are united
by their delegations, ten Senators, in favor of the free coinage
of silver. The south seems also to have caught something of the
spirit which actuates the mining states, because they desire, not
exactly the free coinage of silver, but an expansion of the currency,
cheaper money, and broader credit, and they also are largely
represented on this floor in support of the proposition in favor
of the free coinage of silver. So in other parts of the country,
those who have been taught to believe that great good can come to
our country by an unlimited expansion of paper credit, with money
more abundant than it is now, also believe in the free coinage of
silver.

"I, representing a state nearly central in population, have tested
the sense of the people of Ohio, and they, I believe, are by a
great majority, not only of the party to which I belong but of the
Democratic party, opposed to the free coinage of silver. They
believe that that will degrade the money of our country, reduce
its purchasing power fully one-third, destroy the bi-metallic system
which we have maintained for a long period of time, and reduce us
to a single monometallic standard of silver measured by the value
of 371¼ grains of pure silver to the dollar."

I will not attempt to give an epitome of this speech. It covered
seventeen pages of the "Record," and dealt with every phase of the
question of silver coinage, and, incidentally, of our currency.
No part of it was written except the tables and extracts quoted.
Its delivery occupied parts of two days, May 31 and June 1. After
a careful reading I do not see what I could add to the argument,
but I might have condensed it. The question involved is still
before the people of the United States, and will again be referred
to by me. I closed with the following paragraph:

"But, sir, closing as I began, let me express my earnest belief
that this attempt to bring this great and powerful nation of ours
to the standard of silver coin alone is a bad project, wrong in
principle, wrong in detail, injurious to our credit, a threat to
our financial integrity, a robbery of the men whose wages will be
diminished by its operation, a gross wrong to the pensioner who
depends upon the bounty of his government, a measure that can do
no good, and, in every aspect which it appears to me, a frightful
demon to be resisted and opposed."

The debate continued with increasing interest until the 1st of July,
when the bill passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 29, nays 25.
It was sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence, but
a resolution providing for its consideration was there debated,
and rejected by a vote of yeas 136, nays 154.

During this session of Congress the policy of restricting Chinese
immigration was strongly pressed by the Senators and Representatives
from California and Oregon. They were not content with an extension
of the restrictions imposed by the act of 1882, which, by its terms,
expired in ten years from its approval, but demanded a positive
exclusion of all Chinese except a few merchants and travelers
especially defined and excepted, to be enforced with severe penalties
almost savage in their harshness. The position of the two countries
in respect to migration from one to the other had been directly
reversed. In common with European nations the United States had,
several years before, compelled the opening of Chinese ports to
Americans, insured the protection of its citizens in that country,
and had invited and encouraged Chinese laborers to migrate to the
United States. This was especially so as to the Pacific states,
where Chinese were employed in large numbers in the grading and
construction of railways and as farmers in cultivating the soil.
These people were patient, economical and skillful. Very many of
them flocked to San Francisco, but they soon excited the bitter
opposition of laborers from other countries, and no doubt of some
American laborers. This led to the restriction act of 1882 and to
a treaty with China, by which that country consented to the exclusion
of Chinese laborers, a degraded class of population known as
"coolies." It was complained in 1892, and for several years
previously, that the provisions of the law of 1882 and of the treaty
were evaded by fraud and perjury. Senator Dolph, of Oregon, had
introduced a bill extending the restriction to all Chinese laborers,
with provisions to prevent evasion and fraud. A number of other
bills were introduced in each House of a like character. The
committee on foreign relations considered the subject-matter very
carefully and directed Mr. Dolph to report a bill extending for
five years the act of 1882, with several amendments providing
against frauds. This bill was passed and sent to the House, but
was not acted upon there.

On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California,
reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on
foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese
persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to
suspend the rules and pass the bill. After a debate of one hour,
and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. It came to the
Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On
the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute, which was the bill that had previously
passed the Senate.

On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the
committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no
sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing
to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the
committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after
full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this
form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment
and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph,
Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman
and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the
adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report
was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary
and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from
the conference report, as follows:

"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to
get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply
wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.

"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to
continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers
coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very
broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some
penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in
opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the
introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an
insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult
by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are
forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our
border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on
Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation
of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian
authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create
excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will
no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly
legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create
irritation.

"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has
been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to
be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under
virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the
collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within
one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of
residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal
to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new
departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was
suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in
the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition
of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule
in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon
very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are
confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those
treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are
simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get
a certificate or be punished.

"Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced
into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned,
is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real
doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of
Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits
are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get
rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do
so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of
the treaty of 1880, it is our right--not our power, but our right
according to the treaty--to make this exceptional legislation for
people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides
that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or
residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of
this country, 'regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence,
but may not absolutely prohibit it.' In violation of that article
of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only
have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and
conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate
they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they
are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law
a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these
people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but
they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have
agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate
against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these
laborers to remain in the position of persons 'of the most favored
nation.' . . . Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous
nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the
class of people of China that we do not want here, making a
discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But
it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to
those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples
are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them;
that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of
this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not
propose to vote for the conference report on that ground."

After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference
committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.

An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to
the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff
bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on
finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this
subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it.
Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following
resolution, which gave rise to the debate:

"Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American
people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities
and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and

"Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never
been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and

"Whereas, Those conditions exist and are largely due to the Republican
policy of 'protection:' Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That the committee on finance be, and is hereby,
directed to inquire into the effect of a policy of 'tariff for
revenue only' upon the labor and the industries of the United
States, and to report upon the same to the Senate."

The next day Mr. Hale made a brief speech upon the resolution, and
was followed by Senator Vest, who quoted many documents, which were
printed in the "Record," in support of his views. Several other
Senators participated in the debate which continued from day to day.

The full report of the committee referred to, embracing three
volumes of over six hundred pages each, was submitted to the Senate
on the 19th of July, and on the 29th Senator John G. Carlisle, who,
as a member of the committee, had taken much interest in the inquiry,
and had participated in the conversational debate during the
preceding month, made an elaborate speech upon the resolution and
mainly upon the proposition advanced by him, that the result of
the McKinley law was to increase the prices of commodities, while
it did not increase wages. His speech was certainly a good specimen
of logic by a well trained mind. His first proposition was that
it was the unanimous opinion of scientists and statisticians, in
all the great industrial and commercial countries of the world,
that the prices of commodities had been decreasing, and the rates
of wages, especially in those occupations requiring skill and
intelligence, had been increasing; that capital had been receiving,
year after year, a smaller percentage of the total proceeds of the
product, and labor a larger percentage. He insisted that the
tendency toward a decline in prices of commodities and an increase
in the rates of wages is the necessary result of our improved
methods of production, transportation and exchange. He said that
anyone who contends in this day that high prices of commodities
are beneficial to the community at large, is at war with the spirit
of the age in which he lives, and with the genius of discovery and
invention, which, during the last half century, has ameliorated
the condition of mankind by bringing all the necessaries of life,
and many of its luxuries, within the reach of every man who is
willing to work. He then entered into an elaborate argument to
show that the McKinley act interfered with this natural tendency
towards a decline in the prices of commodities and a rise in the
rates of wages, and made it harder and more expensive for the masses
of the people of the United States to live.

I do not follow his argument, as, to treat him fairly, it would be
necessary to state it in full. It was illustrated by carefully
prepared tables.

On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake
to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from
Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that
the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not
think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his
argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary,
showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its
enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or
by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those
benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit
to the people of the United States, especially when they are the
productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of
a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only
seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire
but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points
made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the
magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor
were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities.
If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual
advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product
of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American
citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no
difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I
quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters
of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of
protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the
first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American
industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of
manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration.
The platform upon which he was elected was "That an adequate
protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity
of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this
period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best
interest of the nation."

I insisted that the object of protection--the employment of American
labor--was of more importance than the price of food or clothing,
though I believed, with Mr. Carlisle, that the tendency of a constant
falling of the prices of the necessaries of life would go on without
regard to the duties on imported goods, as the natural result of
invention and skill.

My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it
contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in
respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek
to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of
industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise.
Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by
this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the
people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the
articles that can be profitably produced in the United States.
The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained
in the following paragraphs of this speech:

"Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient
to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they
are fairly entitled to receive, then I am against the tariff act.
I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not
furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to
American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our
country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not
need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing
industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is
concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest
on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite,
to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection.
It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it
ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can
be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which
will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American
wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which
are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that
is desired."

Having referred to the principal measures of Congress during the
long session of 1891-92, I recur to some of the personal events
that followed my re-election. It was received with general approval
by the press of the United States. On the evening of the 30th of
January, 1892, the Ohio Republican Association, at Washington,
extended to me a reception at the National Rifles' Armory. Several
hundred invitations had been issued, and very few declined. The
hall was beautifully decorated with flags, and in the gallery the
Marine Band was stationed and rendered patriotic airs. I was
introduced to the audience by Thomas B. Coulter, the president of
the association. He deplored the illness of Secretary Charles
Foster, who was to have delivered the address of welcome, and then
introduced S. A. Whitfield, who made a complimentary address,
closing as follows:

"You have gone through all these years of public life without a
stain upon your honored name. The recent election in Ohio demonstrated
the honor in which you are held by the people of your state. It
was that which has given us this opportunity to pay you this respect,
we, of the Ohio Association, who are here to welcome you."

To this I made a brief reply, expressing my hearty thanks. John
Wanamaker, Postmaster General, made an interesting address, full
of humor and kindness, and was followed by several Members of
Congress, among whom was my neighbor, Michael D. Harter.

The only incident of an unpleasant nature growing out of the
senatorial contest was an unfounded charge against H. M. Daugherty,
an active and able member of the house of representatives of Ohio,
who was accused by a newspaper with being corruptly influenced to
cast his vote for me. He promptly denounced the slander, and
demanded an investigation. Noticing the publication and his denial,
I wrote him as follows:

"Senate Chamber, }
"Washington, January 18, 1892.}
"Hon. H. M. Daugherty.

"My Dear Sir:--I notice in Saturday's 'Journal' that you intend to
push to a trial some of the men who most unjustly libeled you, and
indirectly libeled me. I think so clear and strong a case of gross
injustice ought to be punished if the law can furnish any relief,
and I sympathize with you, and will stand by you in the effort to
reach the guilty parties.

"No one can know better than I the frank, manly and disinterested
course you pursued in the contest for the organization of the house,
and the election of Senator, and no one can know better than I how
false the imputation made against you was.

"I am glad to say that in the whole contest I never used one dollar
of money to corrupt or influence the vote or judgment of any member
of the legislature, and that the charge that you received, or were
to receive, $3,500, or any other sum of money, is absolutely false
and malicious. Whenever you desire me to testify to this, I will
gladly do so.

"Very sincerely yours,
"John Sherman."

A committee was appointed by the general assembly, who examined
witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:

"We are unable to find one iota of evidence that would lead us to
believe that the said H. M. Daugherty either received, or asked,
or was offered, any consideration for his vote for John Sherman,
for United States Senator, or that anyone received, or asked, or
was offered, the same for him, or that he was in any way unduly or
corruptly influenced to cast his vote for the said John Sherman,
but that, in voting for the said John Sherman, Mr. Daugherty followed
the instructions received by him from his constituents. We herewith
submit all the evidence taken by us in this examination, and make
the same a part of this report.

"Respectfully submitted,
"A. H. Strock,
"J. C. Heinlein,
"W. A. Reiter,
"John D. Beaird."

The "State Journal" said:

"After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr.
Daugherty and congratulated him. These expressions of good will
were too much for Mr. Daugherty's composure, and tears came unbidden
to his eyes. He felt the stigma placed upon his good name by the
insinuations of the Democratic newspapers very keenly, although
not one member of the house believed the stories."

At this period many interviews with me were published. It is the
custom of newspaper letter writers, who are generally bright
intelligent men, to call upon a Senator or Member with some current
story of the hour and then interview him. A brief interview is
often expanded into a long article in a newspaper, founded sometimes
not upon the conversation but upon speeches, writings and known
opinions of the person interviewed. When this is fairly and truly
done it answers the purpose of the letter writer, and the person
interviewed has no cause of complaint. This was especially the
case with the letters of George Alfred Townsend. His letter of
February 26, 1892, was but one of many which entered into details
that I could not deny, embracing anecdotes and incidents hardly
worthy of preservation, but forming a part of the gossip of the
hour. The newspaper reporter, as distinguished from the letter
writer, does not seek as a rule to verify his views, but flashes
by telegraph the current report of the moment. In this way it was
stated in the New York "World," on the 29th of February, that I
was about to resign and that Foster was to take my place, that I
was to edit General Sherman's letters, and ample details were given
of arrangements for the future--not a word of which was true.

In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the
Citizens' Republican Association of Cincinnati, of which Lewis
Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply.
I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that
a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in
Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the
Ohio house of representatives--one refusing to obey instructions--
and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States
Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county
were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had
committed themselves to their "boss" to vote for Senator as he
should direct, in order to secure his "influence" in the primaries.
I knew that if I answered the letter of the association truly I
would be reproached by the timid with the cry "Hush," "Hush," but
I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:

"Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892.
"Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:

"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state
that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln
club, that had 'for its object' the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton
county who have seized and degraded the 'Republican organization.'
You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the
Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the
'Citizens' Republican Association,' with a view of rebuking corruption
and purifying our party 'affairs from offenses and scandalous
methods,' and request me to give my opinion of your movement.

"While I do not wish to interfere in any way with the methods
adopted by the people of Hamilton county to ascertain the popular
will, yet I cannot refuse to answer frankly the inquiry of so
respectable a body of Republicans who complain that the popular will
is defeated by a corrupt gang, using offensive and scandalous
methods. My opinion is founded upon information gathered from many
of your citizens and the public press of Cincinnati, as well as
from your own statement. If I am in error as to existing methods
for the control of nominations and the corrupt practices of political
managers, your people can correct me and I will be gladly convinced
of my error.

"I do not see how any self-respecting Republican can differ with
you in your effort to secure to the Republican voters of Hamilton
county the free and unimpeded selection of candidates for office,
without the intervention of a boss or the corrupt use of money to
purchase the nominations. As I understand, the substantial control
of all local Republican appointments, and nominations to public
offices or employments of every grade in Hamilton county, is
practically in one man, that it is rare that anyone can secure any
place on the Republican ticket, from judge of the highest court in
your county, to the least important office, without his consent,
that this consent is secured in most cases by the payment of a
specific sum of money, that the money so collected is apportioned
between the 'boss' and what is called the 'gang,' and used to
control the primaries for the election of delegates to your county,
state and congressional conventions, and that when any office
carries with it patronage it is made the express and implied
condition in the nomination of the candidate that this patronage
must be transferred to the 'boss.'

"I understand also that the appointments made by your local boards,
and even some federal offices, are in effect transferred to the
same person to whom applicants are sent and whose recommendation
decides the appointment, so that one man controls by corrupt methods
nearly all nominations and appointments in Hamilton county, and
this rule is only tempered by occasional respect to public opinion,
when the boss thinks it unsafe to disregard it. These methods were
strikingly exemplified in the last county convention, when a decided
majority of a delegation of ten representatives and three senators
were nominated for the Ohio legislature, pledged beforehand to vote
for the person to be designated by the boss when the time came for
the election of the Senator of the United States. His decision
was carefully withheld until the election was over and was then
announced. In this way the vote for United States Senator of the
most populous city and county in Ohio was, during the canvass,
held, as I believe, for sale, not by the persons nominated as
Senators and Representatives, who are highly reputable citizens,
but by a corrupt organization which was able to control the
nominations and practically to exercise the power to vote for United
States Senator intrusted to its nominees.

"Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not
only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of
the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices.
It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are
adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will
compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority.
Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but
the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general
attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election
of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes
of their constituents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a
slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last
county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to
break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise,
as the unbiased choice and action of a popular assemblage. Since
I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations
and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except
to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to assert
their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too
sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would
sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices,
employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public
improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund
which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case,
by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power
of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and
finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear
in municipal governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without
respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.

"Very respectfully yours,
"John Sherman."

I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication.
Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not
know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.

During the spring and summer of 1892, prior to the renomination of
General Harrison for President and Whitelaw Reid for Vice President,
the choice of candidates was the general subject of comment. A
good deal of opposition to General Harrison was developed, mainly,
I think, from his cold and abrupt manners in his intercourse with
those who had business with him. His ability and integrity were
conceded, but he was not in any sense popular. This was apparent
especially in New York, that state that nominated him in 1888.
During all the period mentioned many names were canvassed, mine
among others, but I uniformly declined to be a candidate, and said
if I had a vote in the convention it would be cast for Harrison.
Some of his friends, especially Charles Foster, complained in
published interviews that I had not taken a more active part in
securing his nomination. From later developments I became satisfied
that Harrison could not be elected, that Platt and a powerful New
York influence would defeat him if nominated. I therefore preferred
the nomination of a new man, such as William McKinley, but he had
committed himself to Harrison, and, according to my code of honor,
could not accept a nomination if tendered him.

The Republican national convention met at Minneapolis on the 7th
of June. On the first ballot, Harrison received 535 votes, Blaine
182, McKinley 182, Reed 4, Lincoln 1. The southern states gave
Harrison 229 votes and other candidates 69, thus securing to Harrison
the nomination. Both Blaine and McKinley promptly acquiesced in
the result. I did not think the nomination wise, but was reported,
no doubt correctly, as saying to an interviewer:

"The nomination is one I expected to be made in the natural order
of things. The attempt to bring out a dark horse against two
persons evenly matched, or supposed to be so, is an extremely
difficult feat, because any break from one of the leaders would
naturally carry a portion of his followers to the other leader.
Therefore, the nomination of Harrison seemed to be the natural
sequence as soon as it appeared that he had a majority over Blaine,
which, I think, was apparent from the very beginning. I think that
the nomination being made, all will acquiesce in it and try to
elect the ticket. There was far more discontent with the nomination
four years ago than there is now. Then there were rapid changes
made that were to be accounted for only by agreements and compacts
made among leading delegates, but that was impossible in this case
because the convention was divided between prominent candidates.
I think the Republicans in every state will cheerfully acquiesce
in the result, and hope and expect that we can elect the ticket."

Soon after the nominations were made, Ohio Republicans in Washington,
held a ratification meeting. Alphonso Hart acted as president of
the meeting. He said it was not a matter of surprise that there
had been a difference of opinion as to candidates at Minneapolis,
when the choice was to be made between Harrison, Blaine, McKinley,
Reed and Lincoln. To-day their followers were all Harrison men.
I entered the hall as he was closing and was loudly called upon
for a speech. I said I had come to hear the young Republicans,
McKinley and Foster. I congratulated my hearers upon the bright
prospect of Republican success, and declared that Harrison would
be elected because he ought to be. The following synopsis of what
I said was published in the papers:

"President Harrison was all right. Personally, perhaps, he (the
Senator) would have been in favor of McKinley, but there was time
enough ahead for him; the future would witness his exaltation. He
eulogized McKinley most eloquently and declared him to be one of
the greatest and best men in public life. It was the best thing
to nominate Benjamin Harrison and the next thing to do would be to
elect him. It made no difference whom the Democrats trotted out
against him, he could and would win.

"The Senator said he was getting old now and did not feel like
working as he once did. He wanted to take things easy and let the
young men exert themselves. 'Let me,' he said, 'play the part of
Nestor and talk to you in a garrulous sort of a way; give you good
advice, which you do not always heed. Let me wander around like
the old farmer and watch the young men toil, but if I can mend an
old spoke or repair a broken wheel call upon John Sherman--he will
do his best.'"

On the 1st of July I started from Baltimore, by boat, for Boston,
for the recreation and air of a short sea voyage. I arrived on
the 3rd, and met, as usual, a reporter who asked many questions,
among others as to the condition of the silver bill and whether
Harrison would approve it if it should pass. I answered, I believed
Harrison would veto it, and also believed that if Cleveland was in
the chair he would do the same.

Pending this presidential nomination, my mind was fully occupied
by my duties in the Senate. I made my two days' speech on the
silver question, already referred to, when the active politicians
were absorbed in what was to happen in the convention at Minneapolis.
I quote what was said in papers of different politics, not only as
their estimates of the speech, but also of the state of my mind
when it was made:

"The two days' speech of Senator Sherman on the Stewart silver bill
is undoubtedly the greatest speech he has ever made. More than
that, it is probably the greatest speech that ever was made in the
Senate on any financial question. It is interesting to note that
Mr. Sherman, after speaking two hours and a half on Tuesday, said
that he was not at all tired, and was ready to go on and finish
then. This was said in reply to a suggestion that the Senate should
adjourn. For one who has passed his sixty-ninth year, this is
surely a remarkable exhibition of mental and physical powers.

"Such a speech, covering not only the silver question, but the
whole range of national finance, cannot be reviewed in detail within
the limits of a newspaper article. All that can be said about
details is that Mr. Sherman has not merely a well furnished mind
on the whole range of topics embraced in his discourse, but so well
furnished that there is no point too small to have escaped his
attention or his memory.

"Give him a clear field, such as the statesmen and financiers of
Europe have, where there are no wrongheaded and befooled constituencies
to be reckoned with, and he would be _facile princeps_ among them."
--New York "Evening Post," June 2, 1892.

"In his latest great speech on free coinage, Senator Sherman, after
depicting the inevitable disaster which the silver standard would
bring upon the United States--drawing an impressive lesson from
the experience of countries having a depreciated silver currency--
deals with the subject of bimetallism in his usual lucid way. He
has been called a 'gold bug,' and is no doubt willing to accept
the epithet if it signifies a belief in the gold standard under
present conditions. But he declares himself to be a bimetallist
in the true sense of the term.

"What the Senator means by bimetallism is the use of gold and silver
and paper money maintained at par with each other; more definitely,
the different forms of money of different temporary values must be
combined together by the law in some way to make them circulate as
equal with each other. This is accomplished now by our laws and
the pledge of the government to keep all forms of money at a parity
with that form having the greatest intrinsic value. Whether, under
the law requiring the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver a
year, silver and gold could permanently be maintained at the same
value as money, at the existing ratio of sixteen to one, is a matter
concerning which the Senator expresses doubt. He would repeal or
materially amend the law of 1890. Furthermore, he would change
the ratio. The increased production of silver and the consequent
decline in price warrant this course, and it is a financial and
business necessity if silver is to enter more largely into circulation
or into use as the basis of paper."--Cincinnati "Times Star," June
4, 1892.

"In a conspicuous degree Senator Sherman, of Ohio, represents the
noblest principles and traditions of the Republican party. He is
an astute politician; but, much better than that, he is a wise,
public-spirited, broad-minded statesman.

"With regard to the financial and economic principles, which are
vital ones, and which must be made the dominating ones of the
Republican campaign, Mr. Sherman's opinions and convictions are
known to be in harmony with those of shrewdest judgment and wisest,
safest counsel. Mr. Sherman is the strongest, most effective
defender of the principle of honest money now in public life, and
a consistent supporter of the policy of protection.

"Within the last few days Mr. Sherman, in one of the most masterly
and cogent arguments ever made in the Senate, has indisputably
proved the length, depth and breadth of his perception of true,
just, safe financial principles and his unconquerable loyalty to
them. At a time when the enemies of an honest, stable currency
are seeking to destroy it and to set up in its place a debased,
unstable, dishonest currency, the country would accept this exponent
of sound, wise finance and a reliable, steadfast currency with
extraordinary satisfaction."--Philadelphia "Ledger and Transcript,"
June 8, 1892.

"While Senator John Sherman's mail is loaded down with letters from
all parts of the country in reference to the presidency, while a
thousand suggestions reach him from all quarters that after all
_he_ is not unlikely to be the man upon whom the Minneapolis
nomination will light, and while the mass of people are listening
with feverish interest for news from the convention, Sherman calmly
rises in his place in the Senate and delivers a five hours' speech
upon the coinage and the currency, which will not only rank as
perhaps the greatest effort of his own life, but will constitute
a text-book upon the subject for half a dozen generations to come.

"Men will not read the speech this week; but the unusual circumstances
under which it was delivered and the curious spectacle of a great
mind discussing so abstract a subject amid the fervid heat and
excitement attending a national convention of his own party, will
make everybody look up the speech after the convention is over and
give it more readers, perhaps, than any speech upon the coinage
and the currency ever had since the foundation of the government."
--"Ohio State Journal," June 9, 1892.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress, on the 5th of August, I
returned to Mansfield. At this time the Boston "Herald" alleged
that I was not in harmony with my party on the tariff. This was
founded upon an erroneous construction of my reply to Carlisle.
The article was called to my attention by W. C. Harding, of Boston,
to whom, in reply, I sent the following letter on August 29:

"Your note of the 27th is received. In answer I have to say that
the Boston 'Herald' in the article you inclose, has totally
misconstrued my position on the tariff. I am decidedly in favor
of a protective tariff; one framed with a view not only to secure
ample revenue for the support of the government, but with a distinct
purpose to encourage and protect all productions which can be
readily produced in our country. I do not believe that a tariff
framed under the doctrine now announced and proclaimed by the
Democratic party in its national platform can protect and foster
our home industries.

"Mr. Tilden, and the men of his school, believed that the old
doctrines of the Democratic party, proclaimed in former national
platforms and supported by the declarations of Jefferson, Madison
and Jackson, was a wise and constitutional exercise of national
power. This doctrine has been abandoned and denounced by the
Democratic platform recently adopted by the Chicago convention.
A tariff framed in accordance with this new doctrine would be
confined simply to levying revenue duties, excluding the idea of
protection, and that is the purpose and object of the men who made
the platform, and of the men in the Democratic convention that
adopted it by a large majority.

"Such a tariff might be levied exclusively on articles we cannot
produce in this country, such as sugar, coffee and tea. I have
believed that as to certain items in different tariffs we have gone
beyond the line of protection which is necessary to foster American
industries. A few rates have been adopted that I think will exclude
competition between foreign and American productions and secure a
monopoly to the American manufacturer. This I do not believe to
be a wise policy. There are some details of the McKinley tariff
bill that may be subject to this objection, but on the whole it is
the fairest and best tariff, not only for revenue, for the protection,
that has had a place on our statute book. The tariff plank of the
Republican convention at Minneapolis is the clearest statement of
the extent of protection favored by the great mass of the Republicans
of this country.

"The actual result of the McKinley bill has been not only to give
to all American industries reasonable protection, but has increased
our foreign trade, enlarged our exports and our imports, and greatly
encouraged and added to all kinds of American productions, whether
of the field or of the workshop. I fear the Boston 'Herald' has
overlooked the striking difference between the old position of the
Democratic party and the one now proclaimed by that party. The
tendency and drift of the Democratic party is now more and more in
favor of free trade, and in open opposition to any favor shown by
discriminating duties to foster, encourage and diversify American
industries."

I attended the state fair at Columbus early in September and met
the leading Republicans of the state. I noticed an apparent apathy
among them. The issue between the parties was for or against the
McKinley tariff. The parties did not differ materially on the
silver question, but did differ as between national and state banks.
The Democratic party had resolved in favor of the repeal of the
tax on state bank circulation, but it was believed that Cleveland
would repudiate or evade this dogma. There seemed to be no enthusiasm
on either side, but there was less dissatisfaction with the existing
administration than is usual during the incumbency of a President.
The country was prosperous. The people had confidence in Harrison
and the general drift seemed to be in his favor.

In September I wrote an article for the New York "Independent" on
"The History of the Republican Party." It was confined chiefly to
the contention that the Republican party was an affirmative party,
adopting, declaring and executing great public measures of vital
importance, while the Democratic party was simply a negative party,
opposing all the Republican party's measures but acquiescing in
its achievements. I insert the closing paragraph:

"Republicanism, on the other hand, holds fast to everything that
is ennobling and elevating in its history. It is the party of
national honor, which has removed the foul reproach of slavery,
and redeemed the plighted faith of the government in financial
legislation and administration. It is the party of equal rights,
an unsullied ballot and honest elections. It is the party of
national policies, of comprehensive scope and enlightened self-
interest, by which industry is diversified, labor systematically
protected, and the prosperity of all classes and sections promoted.
Between its present policies and the traditions of its glorious
past there is unbroken continuity of patriotic action."

On the 30th of September, I made my first speech in this canvass
at North Fairfield. The place, audience, and surroundings gave me
a special interest in the meeting. Thirty-eight years before, I,
then a young man, spoke at the same place, before a similar audience,
as a candidate for Congress, nominated by a party then without a
name. Now I was about to address an audience chiefly composed of
men and women, the children of my old constituents, who had been
born since my first appearance there. It is a farming region, well
cultivated, and but little changed in appearance by the lapse of
years. The great change was the absence, in the grave, of the
leading men I had met on my first visit, but they were represented
by descendants so numerous that they had to meet in the open grove
instead of the simple meeting-house of the olden time. The
comparatively few old settlers present who had attended the former
meeting, many of whom had been soldiers in the army, greeted me
warmly and reminded me of incidents that then occurred. It was
natural, under these circumstances, that my speech should be
reminiscent; but, in addition to the history of events, I stated--
I think fairly--the issues immediately involved--of tariff, currency
and coin. I closed my speech with the following reference to the
presidency:

"As to your vote for President I do not believe any Republican has
any doubt. It does not follow that because a man is President, or
nominated as such, he ought to be lauded to the skies. We have in
this republic no gods or demigods. I know General Harrison as well
as one man ever knew another after an intimate acquaintance for
ten years. He is a man of fine character, so far as I understand,
without blemish or reproach. His ability is marked and is now
recognized by all parties, I may say, in all parts of the world.
He has the lawyer's habit of taking the opposite side of a question,
but before he acts he is apt to be on the right side. When in the
Senate he did not show the versatility of talent he has exhibited
as President. All his utterances have been marked with dignity
suited to his high position, yet with delicate appropriateness and
precision that will admit no criticism. I have no controversy with
Mr. Cleveland. I think he is better than his party. On important
and critical questions he has been firmly right. But in the choice
between them for the high office to which they aspire no Republican
should hesitate to vote for Harrison, and an honest Democrat should,
in view of the tendencies of the Democratic party on the questions
I have discussed, decide to go and do likewise."

The next meeting of note that I attended was at the Academy of
Music in Philadelphia. I do not recall any meeting that I ever
addressed within four walls more striking and impressive than this,
not only in numbers and intelligence, but in apparent sympathy with
the speaker. Of the persons mentioned by me those who received
the loudest applause were in their order Blaine, McKinley and
Harrison. In opening I said:

"When I was invited to speak to you I was told that this was to be
a meeting of business men, to consider business questions involved
in a presidential election. I will, therefore, confine myself to
business issues distinctly made between the two great political
parties of our country. The people of this city of Philadelphia,
the greatest manufacturing city on the American continent, are as
well, or better, prepared to decide these issues wisely as any
other equal number of American citizens. I assume you are not much
troubled with third parties. The temperance question will be
settled by each individual to suit himself. The only Farmers'
Alliance I know of here is the Farmers' club, who dine sumptuously
with each other as often as they can and differ with each other on
every subject. I assume that you are either Republicans or Democrats,
that you are for Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland.

"The questions involved, in which you are deeply interested, are
whether duties on imported goods should be levied solely with a
view for revenue to support the government, or with a view, not
only to raise revenue, but to foster, encourage and protect American
industries; whether you are in favor of the use of both gold and
silver coins as money, always maintained at parity with each other
at a fixed ratio, or of the free coinage of silver, the cheaper
money, the direct effect of which is to demonetize gold and reduce
the standard of value of your labor, productions and property
fully one-third; whether you are in favor of the revival and
substitution of state bank paper money in the place of national
money now in use in the form of United States notes, treasury notes
and certificates, and the notes of national banks.

"These are business questions of vital interest to every wage
earner, to every producer and to every property owner, and they
are directly involved in the election of a President and a Congress
of the United States. Surely they demand the careful consideration
of every voter. They are not to be determined by courts or lawyers
or statesmen, but by you and men like you, twelve million in number,
each having an equal voice and vote."

The body of my speech was confined to the topics stated. I closed
with the following reference to Harrison and Cleveland:

"The Republican party has placed Benjamin Harrison in nomination
for re-election as President of the United States. He is in sympathy
with all the great measures of the Republican party. He fought as
a soldier in the ranks. His sympathies are all with his comrades
and the cause for which they fought.

"He has proven his fitness for his high office by remarkable ability
in the discharge of all its duties. He heartily supports the
principles, past and present, of his party. He has met and solved
every question, and performed every duty of his office. His
administration has been firm, without fear and without reproach.
I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the merits
of Mr. Cleveland. His highest merit is that he has checked, in
some respects, the evil tendencies of his party; but he was not in
active sympathy with the cause of the Union in the hour of its
peril, or with the men who fought its battles. He is opposed to
the protection of American industries. He supports, in the main,
the doctrines and tendencies of the Democratic party.

"We believe that the honor, safety, and prosperity of our country
can be best promoted by the election of a Republican President and
Vice President, and a Republican Congress, and, therefore, I appeal
to you to give to Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, his worthy
associate, and to your candidates for Congress, your hearty and
disinterested support."

It was at this meeting that for the first time I encountered the
kodak. The next morning the "Press," of Philadelphia, illustrated
its report of the speech with several "snap shots" presenting me
in various attitudes in different parts of the speech. I thought
this one of the most remarkable inventions of this inventive age,
and do not yet understand how the pictures were made. The comments
of the daily papers in Philadelphia were very flattering, and
perhaps I may be excused for inserting a single paragraph from a
long editorial in the "Press" of the next day, in respect to it:

"His speech is a calm, luminous and dispassionate discussion of
the business questions of the canvass. It is pre-eminently an
educational speech which any man can hear or read with pride.
Senator Sherman excels in the faculty of lucid and logical statement.
His personal participation in all our fiscal legislation gives him
an unequaled knowledge both of principles and details, and he is
remarkably successful in making them clear to the simplest
intelligence. The contrast between his candid, sober and weighty
treatment of questions, and the froth and fustian which supply the
lack of knowledge with epithets of 'fraud' and 'robbery' and 'cheat,'
is refreshing."

On Monday evening, the 11th of October, I spoke in Cooper Union in
the city of New York. It was an experiment to hold a political
meeting on the eve of a day devoted to Columbian celebrations and
a night to magnificent fireworks, but the great auditorium was
filled, and among the gathering was a large number of bankers and
business men interested in financial topics. I was introduced to
the audience in a very complimentary manner by Mr. Blanchard,
president of the Republican club, and was received with hearty
applause by the audience. I said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Republicans of the State
of New York that at last we have brought the Democratic party to
a fair and distinct issue on questions involved in the presidential
campaign. Now for more than thirty years that party has been merely
an opposition party, opposed to everything that we proposed, and
having no principles or propositions of their own to present. They
declared the war a failure; they were opposed to the homestead law,
they were opposed to the greenback; they were opposed to everything
that we did, but now, thank God, they have agreed to have one or
two or three issues to be determined by the people."

I then stated the issues involved in the canvass in very much the
same terms as in Philadelphia, but the speech in New York was made
without notes and was literally reported in the "Tribune," while
the Philadelphia speech was prepared and followed as closely as
possible, without reference to manuscript. I have now read the
two speeches carefully, and while the subject-matter is the same
in both, the language, form and connection are as different as if
delivered by two distinct persons who had not conferred with each
other. My long experience convinces me that while it is safe for
a person to write what he intends to say, yet it is better to
carefully study the subject and then to speak without reference to
notes or manuscript. This depends, however, upon the temperament
and poise of the speaker. Nothing is more discouraging to an
audience than to hear a speech read, except it be the attempt to
speak offhand by a person who has not acquired a full knowledge of
the subject-matter and does not possess the art of recalling and
arranging the method of his address.

I believe my speech in New York covered all the issues involved in
the canvass fairly and fully stated. I arraigned the Democratic
party, especially for its declaration in 1864 that the war was a
failure, when Grant was holding on with his deadly grip, and when
Sherman and Sheridan were riding to battle and to victory. This
declaration was more injurious to the Union cause than any victory
by the Confederates during the war. I closed with the following
reference to the respective candidates:

"The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison.
When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy's guns came
to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered
the army. He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier.
He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child,
living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis. He gradually became
recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate.
For six years he sat by my side. I know him as well as I know any
man. He is without stain or blemish. He is a man of marked ability,
an able debater. He has grown greatly since he has been President
of the United States. His speeches are models of propriety and
eloquence. In every act of his life while President he had come
up to the full standard and measure of that great office. If there
was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world
or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.

"His worthy associate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city. He has been
placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison. He is an honorable
man. I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living
as best he could, and helping his father and mother. He has shown
himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.

"Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland. I am not here
to belittle any man. I have sometimes thought he is better than
his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance
of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of
him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an
able-bodied man when the war was on. I have never known, nor has
it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with
the Union solider or the Union cause.

"I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his
feet, was in that cause. I do not see how any patriotic man, who
was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose
Harrison rather than Cleveland."

I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak
in Turner Hall on the 14th of October. This hall had long been a
place for public meetings. It is situated in the midst of a German
population and is their usual place for rendezvous. They had
recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak
in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall. It was well
filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German
birth or descent. They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were
restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits.
They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and
considered this as temperance. With their wives and children, when
the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened
to music, in which many of them were proficient. Such was my
audience in Turner Hall. I spoke to them on the same topics I did
to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better
comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value,
whether of gold, silver or paper.

From Cincinnati I went to Chicago. I had been invited by Jesse
Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address
at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October. As
I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building
in the grounds of the World's Columbian Exposition, I accepted the
invitation of Mr. Spaulding. I regarded it as a bold movement on
the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of
the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings
of the World's Fair. Still, that was their business and not mine.
I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like
a lawyer's brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and
engraved on my mind. I determined to use no word that would not
be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical
phrases.

When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place assigned
me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of
marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic
or fact. The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers,
and was kindly treated in their editorial columns. After a brief
reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had
witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago,
I said:

"You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of
the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority
of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the
delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the
United States.

"Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties,
but between great parties. I take it that in this intelligent
audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party
or the farmers' party. The best temperance party is the individual
conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States.
As for the farmers' party, the Republican party has been the farmers'
party as well as the people's party since the beginning of its
organization in 1856. The controversy is between the two, the
Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.

"The Democratic party has a very popular name. It means a government
through the people. But the Republican party has a still more
popular name. It is a government by the representatives of the
people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of
our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party
has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the
Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate
Democracy of America."

The "Tribune" and "Inter-Ocean" had friendly editorial articles
about the meeting, and the "Tribune" especially, which in times
past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion
of the meeting and speech:

"It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular
gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs,
that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal
than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a
maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded
from gallery to parquet, Saturday night, with thousands of business
men and others who are interested in the great issues of the
political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John
Sherman, of Ohio. It was something more than an exposition of
Chicago's vital interest in these issues. It was a personal
compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the
veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of
substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of
the week. It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination
of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.

"It is no derogation of Senator Sherman's abilities to say one does
not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry
away audiences on waves of enthusiasm. His strength lies in his
convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts,
and his powerful logic. No man in the United States, perhaps, is
better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than
Senator Sherman. He appeals to the thought and reason of his
hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a
stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech. The three issues
discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and
the protective tariff question. His discussion of the wildcat
currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow
from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms."

On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke
at Schlitz's amphitheater in Milwaukee. The notice had been brief,
but the attendance was large. The audience was composed chiefly
of German Republicans. Frye and I had divided the topics between
us. He spoke on the tariff and I on good money. On the latter
subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all
as good as gold and plenty of it. I made my speech first, but Frye
made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat
divided. Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker,
and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting
address. The speeches were well reported the next morning, an
evidence of enterprise I did not expect.

After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches
prior to the election. While the Republican meetings were large,
I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were
also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic
command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to
sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party
to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of
business men, and secured him the "silent vote" of thousands of
Republicans.

In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of
the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state,
receiving but 1,089 plurality. The national ticket did not fare
quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first
time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one
Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican.
Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison
and Reid 145.

Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the
southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination,
nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed
to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went
Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.

As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and
McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote. The Democrats elected
220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126
and the People's party 8.

The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the
election of Cleveland. The causes that contributed to it might
have defeated any Republican. It is not worth while to state them,
for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American
people is the conservative element of our form of government that
distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.

Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I
announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law
misnamed the "Sherman act," but of the clause of that act that
required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of
silver bullion each month. I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a
bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance.
I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the
agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption
of free coinage. During the short session of that Congress, which
met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this
bill though strongly pressed to do so. A majority of the Senate
were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House,
disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the
President either approve it or permit it to become a law without
his signature. When criticised for my delay by the "Ledger" of
Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:

"It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of
the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor
of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion.
They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for
such repeal. It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth
or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal,
and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it. They are
openly pronounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation
of the existing law. The pretense made that Republican Senators
would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme
is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it. If the
Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in
support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pass the
Senate within ten days. The Democratic party as now represented
in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver.
I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some
influence in changing their opinions."

Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.

On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the
bill referred to. On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal
of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the
attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was
not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that
session. I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I
had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not
satisfied there was a majority in favor of its passage. The question
why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the
newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion
when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time,
though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he
chose to do so. A motion to take it up was subsequently made by
Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.

No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of
subsequent events.

Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893,
I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the
following terms:

"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last
evening at eleven o'clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one
who has been President of the United States dies during the session
of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory,
recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for
the day.

"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life,
having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the
war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of
Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked
ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in
the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against
whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.

"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from
the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is
a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal
association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him
and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and
heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for
his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse.
He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who
approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy
with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his
judgment of his merits.

"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate,
out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."

In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I
followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation
of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have
done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in
the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state
and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend,
and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a
patriotic citizen.

On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil
appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at
his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five
years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the
redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of
the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to
carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this
provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds
necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure
of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent.
bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond
running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years,
which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.

After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30
yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question
presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment.
I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the
Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise
public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration.
In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:

"This conference report presents for our consideration again a
question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment
known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and
which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body
and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time
and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in
the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the
real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on
that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote
had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.

"I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a
member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated,
and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper."

I then quoted the amendment as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to
maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the
provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, entitled 'An act
to provide for the resumption of specie payments,' and, at the
discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description
of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States
bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually
and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five
years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions
provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent
necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to
use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and
none other."

Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the
amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the
resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie
payments, and which is as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide
for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is
authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the
treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and
dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions
of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress
approved July 14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding
of the national debt,' with like qualities, privileges, and
exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full
effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."

I then had read to the Senate the character and description of
bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding
act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue,
in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $200,000,000, coupon
or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may
prescribe, and of denominations of $50, or some multiple of that
sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value, at the
pleasure of the United States, after ten years from the date of
their issue, and bearing interest, payable semi-annually in such
coin, at the rate of five per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums
not exceeding in the aggregate $300,000,000 of like bonds, the same
in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States,
after fifteen years from the date of their issue, and bearing
interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. per annum; also,
a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000 of like
bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of
the United States, after thirty years from the date of their issue,
and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum."

Resuming my argument, I said:

"It is apparent from these laws, which are fundamental in their
character, that the secretary has imposed upon him not merely the
privilege but the duty of maintaining or providing for the resumption
of specie payments and the maintenance of the specie standard in
gold and silver coin. He is also authorized by a subsequent act,
which I do not care to have read because it is not necessary, to
maintain $100,000,000 in gold in the nature of a redemption fund,
or rather that was the minimum limit provided in the law. In order
to perform this grave duty the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, at his discretion, whenever necessary to obtain the
coin required, to issue a bond bearing four per cent. interest
running for thirty years, or a bond bearing four and a half per
cent. interest running fifteen years, or a bond bearing five per
cent. interest running ten years.

"It has been feared--I do not say that there has been occasion for
this fear--that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot maintain the
necessary resumption fund; that he may have to resort to the credit
of the government, upon which all the greenback issues of the United
States notes and bonds are founded; that he might have to resort
to the sale of bonds to obtain money, in order to maintain the
parity of the different forms of money in this country and the
redemption or payment in coin, when demanded, of the obligations
of the United States, especially the United States notes, commonly
called greenbacks.

"When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not
the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs
in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man,
however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that
the conditions of our country were such that we would not be
justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to
sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent.
interest.

"Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone
who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all,
that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running
for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our
right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save
a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth
of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right
to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us
to do so.

"I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to
perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption
act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next
Secretary of the Treasury. I knew this law could not take effect
until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the
new secretary would come in. Therefore, I drew this amendment as
it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of
the Treasury. He having been formerly a member of the committee
on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us
all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the
reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency,
important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.

"He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with
him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all,
but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a
stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there
should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the
government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be
prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with
which to redeem the notes. That statement was submitted to the
committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman
who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of
the Treasury."

I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the
treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury
notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion. The Senate fully
appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of
the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to
reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger
the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate
receded from the amendment. It is easy now to see that its defeat
greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of
many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of
interest than three per cent.

On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office
as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural
address. It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing
chiefly with axioms readily assented to. Its strongest passages
were in favor of a sound and stable currency. He said that the
danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid
to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and
conservative precaution. He declared that the people had decreed
that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the
control of their government, in its legislative and executive
branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms
to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature
or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that
either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him. He
said:

"The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution
of the United States, not only impressively defines the great
responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional
commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided.
I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty,
preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of
federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when
attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its
limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people."

This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the
Wilson bill. I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural
should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.

The chief interest at this period centered in the World's Fair at
Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of
America by Columbus. Such a celebration was first proposed as
early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific
exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to
take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge
of the national authorities. As the matter was discussed the
opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one,
and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St.
Louis. I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American
city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most
destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the
continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor
and industry of the American people. The contention about the site
delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was
not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following. This was the
first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was "behind
time," but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress,
which delayed too long the selection of the site. I was a member
of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January,
1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate. On the 21st of
April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000
from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of
representing the government of the United States in an exposition
in Chicago, in 1893. I made a speech in defense of the appropriation
and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one
in London and two in Paris that I had attended. While the receipts
at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense,
yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left
great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at
Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris. I referred
to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the
innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United
States, all of which were of great value to the places where held.
These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly
improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely
to increase in number in the future. The bill passed, but not
without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to
Chicago.

This course of opposition continued until August, 1892. The people
of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the
certainty of any return. All nations had been invited, and were
preparing to be represented at this exposition. The attention of
mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years
old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater
buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose. The
United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had
appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in
its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers. It became
necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan
the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts,
in the same proportion as to other stockholders. This was declined,
but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in
silver, and pay the exposition that coin. Whether this was done
because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000
sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against
the fair, I do not know. On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed
my opposition to this measure. Both Houses were remaining in
session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in
Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to
have been elsewhere. I said: "Under the circumstances, I do not
see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass. If
I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it."

On the 22nd of October, 1892, I attended the dedication of the
building erected by the State of Ohio, on the exposition grounds.
The structure, though not entirely completed, was formally dedicated,
and the keys were duly delivered to Governor McKinley. On receiving
the keys he made a very appropriate address. I was called for by
the crowd, and was introduced by Major Peabody, president of the
State Board of Managers. I do not recall the words of my speech,
nor was it, or the various speeches made on this occasion, reported;
but I no doubt said that the United States was the greatest power
on earth, and Ohio was its garden spot. I made a political speech
that evening at Central Music Hall, as previously stated.

Among the objects of the greatest interest at the exposition were
three Spanish caravels, the exact counterparts of the Santa Maria,
the Nina and the Pinta, the vessels with which Columbus made his
memorable voyage of discovery. These reproductions were made by
Spaniards at the place from which the original vessels sailed, and,
manned by Spanish sailors, followed the same course pursued by
Columbus to the islands he discovered and from thence sailed to
the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and following up that stream passed
through Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, Lakes Erie, Huron and
Michigan, to Chicago, more than 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.
I had been invited by the managers of the exposition to deliver an
address of welcome to the officers and sailors of these vessels,
on their arrival at Chicago on the 7th of July, 1893. They were
received by the managers and a great crowd, and conducted to a
stand in the park of the exposition, where I made my address, too
long to insert here, but I quote a few paragraphs:

"Mr. President, Captain Concas and the Officers and Mariners Under
His Command:--You have before you men and women of all races and
climes. They have met to share in this great exposition of the
industries of all nations. To-day they celebrate the discovery of
America by Christopher Columbus and the arrival here of the marine
fleet under your command, manned by the countrymen of those who
made the discovery of the new world.

* * * * *

"We have before us the reproduction of the Santa Maria, the Pinta
and the Nina, the three vessels that made this memorable voyage.
They are sent to us by the same chivalrous and gallant people who
built the original craft and manned and sailed them under the
command of Columbus. They are striking object lessons that speak
more eloquently than voice or words. We welcome them to this
exposition of the industries of the world. Here, on the waters of
this inland sea, 1,000 miles from the ocean traversed by Columbus,
in this city, the most marvelous result of the industry and energy
of mankind, we place this mimic fleet side by side with the monsters
that have come from the inventive genius of the American people,
not to extol our handiwork, but to extol the men who, four hundred
years ago, with such feeble means and resources, opened the way to
all the achievements of succeeding generations. You can look at
them where they quietly rest upon the waters of the great northwest.
In such as these one hundred and twenty men sailed on an unknown
ocean, they knew not where. They lived where for two thousand
years the pillars of Hercules had marked the end of the world.
They had been taught to believe in the four corners of the earth,
and that all beyond was a boundless waste of waters, into which no
one had ventured beyond the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa.

* * * * *

"We welcome all the peoples of the earth, with their varied
productions, to the full and free enjoyment of their habits at
home, and in return exhibit to them the results of our growth and
industry. In no boastful spirit this new and marvelous city, which
has sprung into existence within the life of men who hear me, has,
with the aid of the general government and the states that comprise
it, built these great palaces, adorned these lately waste places
and brought into them the wonderful facilities of transportation
invented in modern times. Welcome all, but on this day we doubly
welcome these mementoes of the voyage of Columbus to this western
world.

"In the name of the managers of this exposition I give thanks and
welcome to all who have brought them here, and especially to the
government and people of Spain, who have thus contributed to the
interest and success of this exposition."

On the 30th of June, 1893, the President issued a proclamation
convening Congress in extraordinary session on the 7th of August.
In reciting the reasons for this unusual call, only resorted to in
cases of extreme urgency, he said that "the distrust and apprehension
concerning the financial situation which pervades all business
circles have already caused great loss and damage to our people,
and threaten to cripple our merchants, stop the wheels of manufacture,
bring distress and privation to our farmers, and withhold from our
workingmen the wage of labor;" that "the policy which the executive
branch of government finds embodied in unwise laws which must be
executed until repealed by Congress;" and that Congress was convened
"to the end that the people may be relived, through legislation,
from present and impending danger and distress."

Congress met in pursuance of the proclamation, and on the 8th of
August the President sent a message to each House, in which he
depicted an alarming condition of the national finances, and
attributed it to congressional legislation touching the purchase
and coinage of silver by the general government. He said:

"This legislation is embodied in a statute passed on the 14th day
of July, 1890, which was the culmination of much agitation on the
subject involved, and which may be considered a truce, after a long
struggle, between the advocates of free silver coinage and those
intending to be more conservative."

He ascribed the evil of the times to the monthly purchase of
4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, and the payment therefor with
treasury notes redeemable in gold or silver coin at the discretion
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the reissue of said notes
after redemption. He stated that up to the 15th of July, 1893,
such notes had been issued for the purpose mentioned to the amount
of more than $147,000,000. In a single year over $40,000,000 of
these notes had been redeemed in gold. This threatened the reserve
of gold held for the redemption of United States notes, and the
whole financial system of the government. No other subject was
presented in the message of the President, and Congress had to face
the alternative of the single standard of silver, or the suspension
of the purchase of silver bullion.

I had foreseen this inevitable result and had sought, as far as
possible, to avoid it by the inserting of sundry provisions in the
act of July 14, 1890. No portion of that act was objected to by
the President except the clause requiring the purchase of silver
bullion and the issue of treasury notes in payment for it. In this
I heartily concurred with him. From the date of the passage of
that law, to its final repeal, I was opposed to this compulsory
clause, but yielded to its adoption in preference to the free
coinage of silver, and in the hope that a brief experience under
the act would dissipate the popular delusion in favor of free
coinage. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, a prominent Member
of the House of Representatives, who was one of the conferees with
me on the bill referred to, and agreed with me in assenting to it,
wrote me a letter, my reply to which was in substantial accordance
with the subsequent message of the President and with the action
taken by Congress. I insert it here:

"Mansfield, O., July 8, 1893.
"Hon. J. H. Walker.

"My Dear Sir:--Yours of 28th ult., inclosing a copy of your statement
of the causes that led Mr. Conger, yourself and me to agree with
reluctance to the silver act of 1890, is received. An answer had
been delayed by my absence at Chicago. You clearly and correctly
state the history of that act. The bill that passed the House
provided for the purchase of $4,500,000 worth of silver at gold
value. The Senate struck out this provision and provided for the
free coinage of silver or the purchase of all that was offered at
the rate of 129 cents an ounce. As conferees acting for the two
Houses, it was our duty to bring about an agreement, if practicable,
without respect to individual opinion. The result of the conference
was to reject free coinage and to provide for the purchase of four
million five hundred thousand ounces of silver at its gold price--
a less amount than was proposed by the House, the provisions
declaring the public policy of the United States to maintain the
parity of the two metals or the authority to stipulate on the
contracts for payments in gold, the limit of the issue of treasury
notes to the actual cost of silver bullion at gold value, and the
repeal of the act providing for the senseless coinage of silver
dollars when we already had 300,000,000 silver dollars in the
treasury we could not circulate, were all in the line of sound
money.

"Another object I had in view was to secure a much needed addition
to our currency, then being reduced by the compulsory retirement
of national bank notes in the payment of United States bonds. This
would have been more wisely provided by notes secured by both gold
and silver, but such a provision could not then be secured. These
reasons fully justified the compromise.

"But the great controlling reason why we agreed to it was that it
was the only expedient by which we could defeat the free coinage
of silver. Each of us regarded the measure proposed by the Senate
as a practical repudiation of one-third of the debts of the United
States, as a substantial reduction of the wages of labor, as a
debasement of our currency to a single silver standard, as the
demonetization of gold and a sharp disturbance of all our business
relations with the great commercial nations of the world. To defeat
such a policy, so pregnant with evil, I was willing to buy the
entire product of American silver mines at its gold value.

"And that was what we provided, guarded as far as we could. To
accomplish our object we had to get the consent of the Republican
Representatives from the silver-producing states. This we could
only do by buying the silver product of those states. It was a
costly purchase. The silver we purchased is not worth as much as
we paid for it, but this loss is insignificant compared to our gain
by the defeat of the free coinage of silver. It is said there was
no danger of free coinage, that the President would have vetoed
it. We had no right to throw the responsibility upon him. Besides,
his veto would leave the Bland act in force. We did not believe
that his veto would dispel the craze that then existed for free
coinage. Many people wanted the experiment tried. The result of
the experiment of buying four and a half million ounces of silver
a month at its market value will be the best antidote against the
purchase of the silver of the world at one-third more than its
market value.

"I never for a moment regretted the passage of the act of 1890,
commonly called the 'Sherman act,' though, as you know, I had no
more to do with it than the other conferees. There is but one
provision in it that I would change and that is to strike out the
compulsory purchase of a given quantity of silver and give authority
to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy silver bullion at its market
price when needed for subsidiary coinage. The only position we
can occupy in the interests of our constituents at large is one
fixed standard of value and the use of both metals at par with each
other, on a ratio as near as possible to their market value.

"Such a policy I believe is right. With reserves both of gold and
silver in the proper proportions we can maintain the entire body
of our paper money, including coin, at par with each other. For
one I will never agree to the revival of state bank paper money,
which cannot be made legal tender, and which, on the first sign of
alarm, will disappear or be lost in the hands of the holder.

"Very respectfully yours,
"John Sherman."

I had expressed similar views in speeches in Congress and before
the people and in numerous published interviews, and in the previous
Congress had introduced a bill to suspend the purchase of silver
bullion, substantially similar in terms to the bill that became a
law in November, 1893. During the month of August I took a more
active part in the proceedings than usual. On the 8th, the 16th
and the 18th I made speeches in the current debate.

A brief statement of the passage of this law of 1893 may be of
interest. It was introduced as a bill by William L. Wilson, of
West Virginia, in the House of Representatives, in the words of
the bill introduced by me in the Senate on the 14th of July, 1892,
as already stated, and passed the House on the 28th of August, by
the decisive vote of 239 yeas and 108 nays. It was referred in
the Senate to the committee on finance, of which Daniel W. Voorhees
was then chairman. It was on the next day reported by him from
that committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
but substantially similar in legal effect to the House bill.

On the next day, August 30, I took the floor and made one of the
longest speeches in my congressional life, covering more than forty
closely printed pamphlet pages. I quote a few of the opening
paragraphs:

"The immediate question before us is whether the United States
shall suspend the purchase of silver bullion directed by the act
of July 14, 1890. It is to decide this question the President has
called Congress together in special session at this inconvenient
season of the year. If this was the only reason for an extraordinary
session it would seem insufficient. The mere addition of eighteen
hundred million ounces of silver to the vast hoard in the treasury,
and the addition of fourteen millions of treasury notes to the one
thousand millions of notes outstanding, would hardly justify this
call, especially as Congress at the last session neglected or
refused to suspend the purchase of silver. The call is justified
by the existing financial stringency, growing out of the fear that
the United States will open its mints to the free coinage of silver.
This is the real issue. The purchase of silver is a mere incident.
The gravity of this issue cannot be measured by words. In every
way in which we turn we encounter difficulties.

"If we adopt the single standard of gold without aid from silver,
we will greatly increase the burden of national and individual
debts, disturb the relation between capital and labor, cripple the
industries of the country, still further reduce the value of silver,
of which we now have in the treasury and among our people over
$593,000,000, and of which we are the chief producers, and invite
a struggle with the great commercial nations for the possession of
the gold of the world.

"On the other hand, if we continue the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces
of silver a year, we will eventually bring the United States to
the single standard of silver--a constantly depreciating commodity,
now rejected by the great commercial nations as a standard of value;
a commodity confessedly inconvenient, by its weight, bulk, and
value, for the large transactions of foreign and domestic commerce,
and detach us from the money standard now adopted by all European
nations, with which we now have our chief commercial and social
relations. In dealing with such a question we surely ought to
dismiss from our minds all party affinities or prejudices; all
local or sectional interests, and all preconceived opinions not
justified by existing facts and conditions.

"Upon one thing I believe that Congress and our constituents agree:
That both these extreme positions shall be rejected; that both
silver and gold should be continued in use as money--a measure of
value; that neither can be dispensed with. Monometallism, pure
and simple, has never gained a foothold in the United States. We
are all bimetallists. But there are many kinds of bimetallism.
One kind favors the adoption of the cheaper metal for the time
being as the standard of value. Silver being now the cheaper metal,
they favor its free coinage at the present ratio, with the absolute
certainty that silver alone will be coined at our mints as money;
that gold will be demonetized, hoarded at a premium, or exported
where it is maintained as standard money. The result would be
monometallism of silver.

* * * * *

"The two metals, as metals, never have been, are not now, and never
can be, kept at par with each other for any considerable time at
any fixed ratio. This necessarily imposes upon the government the
duty of buying the cheaper metal and coining it into money. The
government should only pay for the bullion its market value, for
it has the burden of maintaining it at par with the dearer metal.
If the bullion falls in price the government must make it good; if
it rises in value the government gains.

"The government is thus always interested in advancing the value
of the cheaper metal. This is the kind of bimetallism I believe
in. It is the only way in which two commodities of unequal value
can be maintained at parity with each other. The free coinage of
silver and gold at any ratio you may fix means the use of the
cheaper metal only. This is founded on the universal law of
humanity, the law of selfishness. No man will carry to the mint
one ounce of gold to be coined into dollars when he can carry
sixteen ounces of silver, worth but little more in the market than
half an ounce of gold, and get the same number of dollars.

"The free coinage of silver means the single standard of silver.
It means a cheaper dollar, with less purchasing power. It means
a reduction in the wages of labor; not in the number of dollars,
but in the quantity of bread, meat, clothes, comforts he can purchase
with his daily wage. It means a repudiation of a portion of all
debts, public and private. It means a bounty to all banks, savings
institutions, trust companies that are in debt more than their
credits. It means a nominal advance in the prices of the produce
of the farmer, but a decrease in the purchasing power of his money.
Its chief attraction is that it enables a debtor to pay his debt
contracted upon the existing standard with money of less value.
If Senators want cheap money and to advance prices, free coinage
is the way to do it; but do not call it bimetallism. The problem
we have to solve is how to secure to our people the largest use of
both gold and silver without demonetizing either.

"Now, let us examine the situation in which we are placed. Our
country is under the pressure of a currency famine. Industries,
great and small, all suspended by the owners, not because they
cannot sell their products, but because they cannot get the money
to pay for raw material and the wages of their employees. Banks
conducted fairly are drained of their deposits and are compelled
not only to refuse all loans, but to collect their bills receivable.
This stringency extends to all trades and businesses; it affects
even your public revenues, all forms of public and private securities,
and, more than all, its stops the pay of a vast army of laboring
men, of skilled mechanics, and artisans, and affects the economy
and comfort of almost every home in the land.

"The strange feature of this stringency is unlike that of any of
the numerous panics in our past history. They came from either an
irredeemable currency, which became worthless in the hands of the
holder, or from expanded credit, based upon reckless enterprises
which, failing, destroyed confidence in all industries. Stringency
followed failure and reckless speculation. This panic occurs when
money is more abundant than ever before. Our circulating notes to-
day are sixty millions more than one year ago. It is all good--as
good as gold. No discrimination is made between the gold and silver
dollar, or between the United States note, the treasury note, the
silver certificate, or the gold certificate. All these are
indiscriminately hoarded, and not so much by the rich as by the
poor. The draft is upon the savings bank, as well as the national
or state bank. It is the movement of fear, the belief that their
money will be needed, and that they may not be able to get it when
they want it. In former panics, stringency followed failures. In
this, failures follow stringency.

"Now, as representatives of the people, we are called here in
Congress to furnish such measures of relief as the law can afford.
In the discharge of this duty I will sweep away all party bias,
all pride of opinion, all personal interest, and even the good will
of my constituents, if it were necessary; but, fortunately, I
believe their opinions concur with my own."

In conclusion I said:

"It is said that if we stop the coinage of silver it will be the
end of silver. I have heard that moan from some of my friends near
me. I do not think it will be the end of silver. We have proven
by our purchases that the mere purchase of silver by us in a
declining market, when all the nations of Europe are refusing to
buy silver and throwing upon us their surplus, is an improvident
use of the public money, and it ought to be abandoned, or at least
suspended until a time should come when we may, by an international
ratio or by some other provision of law, prevent the possible coming
to the single standard of silver. Now, that can be done.

"What do we propose to do now? We simply propose to stop the
purchase. We do not say when we will renew it again, but we simply
say we believe, in view of a panic or any possibilities of a panic,
that it would be idle for us to waste either our credit money or
our actual money to buy that which must be put down into the cellar
of our treasury and there lie unused, except as it is represented
by promises to pay gold. I say that such a policy as that would
be foolish and delusive.

"Senators say that this is a blow at silver. Why, silver is as
much a part of the industry of my country as it is a part of the
industry of the state of the Senator from Colorado, the able exponent
of this question. The production of silver is a great interest,
and the people of Ohio are as deeply interested in the success of
that interest as the people of Colorado. It is true we have not
the direct ownership of the property, but it enters into measures
of value of our property. There could be no desire on the part of
any portion of the people of the United States to strike down
silver. That idea ought to be abandoned at once. Therefore, in
order to at least give the assurance of honest men that we do not
intend to destroy an industry of America, we put upon this bill a
provision proposed now by the Senator from Indiana.

"I say that instead of desiring to strike down silver we will likely
build it up; and any measure that could be adopted for an international
ratio that will not demonetize gold will meet my approbation and
favor. But I would not dissever the financial business of this
great country of ours, with its 65,000,000 of people, from the
standards that are now recognized by all the Christian nations of
Europe. I would not have our measure less valuable than the measure
of the proudest and haughtiest country of the world.

"This is not a question of the mere interest of Nevada or Colorado.
It is not a question about what Wall street will do. They will
always be doing some deviltry or other, it makes no difference who
is up or who is down. We take that as a matter of course. The
question is what ought to be done for the people of the United
States in their length and breadth. If Congress should say that
in its opinion it is not now wise, after our experience, to continue
the purchase of silver bullion, is any injustice done to Colorado
or Nevada? Are we bound to build up the interest of one section
or one community at the expense of another or of the whole country?

"No. I heartily and truly believe that the best thing we can now
do is to suspend for time, at least, the purchase of silver bullion.
We should then turn our attention to measures that are demanded
immediately to meet the difficulties of the hour. Let this be done
promptly and completely. It involves a trust to your officers and
great powers over the public funds. I am willing to trust them.
If you are not, it is a strange attitude in political affairs. I
would give them power to protect the credit of the government
against all enemies at home and abroad.

"If the fight must be for the possession of gold, we will use our
cotton and our corn, our wheat and other productions, against all
the productions of mankind. We, with our resources, can then enter
into a financial competition. We do not want to do it now. We
prefer to wait awhile until the skies are clear and see what will
be the effect of the Indian policy, and what arrangements may be
made for conducting another international conference. In the
meantime let the United States stand upon its strength and credit,
maintaining its money, different kinds of money, at a parity with
each other. If we will do that I think soon all these clouds will
be dissipated and we may go home to our families and friends with
a conscientiousness that we have done good work for our country at
large."

I was frequently interrupted, and this led to the discussion of
collateral questions and especially the dropping of the silver
dollar by the act of 1873, the history of which I have heretofore
stated. This speech was a temperate and nonpartisan presentation
of a business question of great importance, and I can say without
egotism that it was well received and commended by the public press
and by my associates in the Senate. Though I sought to repeal a
single clause of a bill of which I was erroneously alleged to be
the author, I was charged with inconsistency, and my speech was
made the text of the long debate that followed. The "silver
Senators," so called, attacked it with violence, and appeals were
made to Democratic Senators to stand by those who had defeated the
election law, and by the position the Democratic Senators had
previously taken in favor of free coinage.

On the 28th of September, and on the 2nd, 13th, 17th and 28th of
October, I made speeches in the current debate, which extended to
every part of the financial legislation of the United States since
the formation of the government. I insert here the description
given by the Washington "Post" of the scene on the 17th:

"The climax of the remarkable day was now at hand. There is no
man in the Senate for whom a deeper feeling of esteem is felt than
John Sherman. He saw the Republican party born, he has been its
soldier as well as its sage, he has sat at the council table of
Presidents. His hair is white, and his muscles have no longer the
elasticity of youth, but age has not dimmed the clearness of his
intellectual vision, while it has added to the wisdom of his
councils. Upon Mr. Sherman, therefore, as he arose, every eye was
turned. Personalities were forgotten, the bitterness of strife
was laid aside. In a picture which must live in the memory of him
who saw it, the spare and bowed form of Mr. Sherman was the central
figure. There was not the slightest trace of feebleness in his
impassioned tones. Except once or twice, as he hesitated a moment
or two for a word to express his thought, there was not a reminder
that the brain at seventy may be inert or the fire be dampened in
the veins.

"Mr. Sherman spoke, as he himself said, neither in reproach nor
anger. It was the appealing tones that gave his speech its power
--its convincing earnestness, its lack of rancor, its sober truth
that gave it weight. Elsewhere it is printed in detail. Suffice
it to say here that he predicted that the rules would have to be
changed since they had been made the instrument of a revolutionary
minority. Never before had he seen such obstruction in the Senate,
never before the force bill had he known of a measure which failed,
after due deliberation, to come to a vote. The Republicans had
remained steadfast to the President, although under no obligation
to him, and now the time had come when the Democrats must take the
responsibility.

"In times past, when the Republicans were in the majority, they
never shrank from responsibility. They were Republicans because
they believed in Republican principles and Republican men and
Republican measures, and whenever a question was to be decided they
never pleaded the 'baby act' and said 'we could not agree.' They
met together and came to an agreement, and in that way they passed
all the great measures which have marked the history of the last
thirty years of our country, and it was not done by begging votes
on the other side.

"'They say they cannot agree, They must agree,' thundered Mr.
Sherman, drawing himself to his full height, and pointing his
quivering finger to the Democratic side, 'or else surrender their
political power!'

"Then Mr. Sherman pointed out the important legislation that was
so sadly needed, not the least being some provision for the deficit
of the government, which, he quoted Secretary Carlisle as saying,
would be $50,000,000 this year. 'These things cannot be evaded,'
he said, while the Senate lingered on his words. 'We must decide
the silver question one way or the other. If you,' he added,
looking the Democrats in the fact, 'cannot do it, then retire from
the Senate Chamber, and we will fix it on this side, and do the
best we can with our silver friends who belong to us, who are blood
of our blood, and bone of our bone. But yours is the proper duty,
and, therefore, I beg of you, not in reproach or anger, to perform
it. You have the supreme honor of being able to settle this question
now, and you ought to do it.'

"Mr. Sherman ceased, but the thrall of his words remained long
after his venerable form had disappeared. No Democrat answered
him. Mr. Voorhees, who had sat within arm's reach of him on the
Republican side, crossed the Chamber to his own seat, and sank down
as a man laden with deep care."

The debate continued in the Senate until the 30th of October, when
the Senate substitute was adopted by the vote of 43 yeas and 32
nays. Of the yeas 22 were Republicans, and of the nays 20 were
Democrats; so that the bill in the Senate was supported by a majority
of Republicans and opposed by a majority of Democrats. On this
important question the President was acting with a majority of
Republicans and a minority of Democrats, and it is to his credit
that he firmly held his ground in spite of the opposition in his
party.

On the 1st of November, when the amended bill came to the House,
Mr. Wilson moved to concur in the amendment of the Senate. A casual
debate followed, mostly by Bland and Bryan against the bill, and
Wilson and Reed for it. The Senate amendment was agreed to and
the bill as amended passed by the decisive vote of yeas 194 and
nays 94, and was approved by the President on the same day. The
law thus enacted is as follows:

"That so much of the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled 'An act
directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of treasury
notes thereon, and for other purposes,' as directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase from time to time silver bullion to
the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as
may be offered in each month at the market price thereof, not
exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue
in payment for such purchases treasury notes of the United States,
be, and the same is hereby, repealed. And it is hereby declared
to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both
gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver
into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality
to be secured through international agreement or by such safeguards
of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in
value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every
dollar at all times, in the markets and in the payment of debts.
And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the government
should be steadily directed to the establishment of such a safe
system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power
of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the
markets and in the payment of debts."

Thus the vital principles of the act of July 14, 1890, remained in
force, and the provisions for the purchase of silver bullion and
for the issue of treasury notes were repealed. The maintenance of
the gold standard, the parity of all money whether of gold, silver
or paper, and the payment of all bonds of the United States in
coin, were preserved.

The free coinage of silver is still upheld by a large body of those
who are interested in mining it, or who want to pay their debts
with a depreciated coin; but the danger of the adoption of this
policy is lessening daily. It received a severe blow by the action
of the Ohio Democratic convention in 1895 in rejecting it by a vote
of more than two to one. The bimetallic system of maintaining all
forms of money at par with gold will probably soon be fully
established. To complete this system and to extend it to our paper
money it would be wise to gradually withdraw treasury notes and
silver certificates and replace them with United States notes
supported and maintained by large reserves of gold. Thus all kinds
of paper money issued by the United States would be of the same
form and value. The great mass of standard silver dollars, amounting
on August 1, 1895, to $371,542,531, now held in the treasury
represented by $320,355,188 of silver certificates in circulation,
is the one great disturbing element in our finances. But 51,746,706
standard silver dollars are in circulation, and experience has
shown that a greater amount cannot be kept out among the people.
The certificates representing the silver dollars are in circulation
and a legal tender for customs dues as well as for all debts, public
and private. They must be treated as United States notes, and
maintained at par with gold coin, or the parity of our coin and
currency will be endangered. They now enter into the general
aggregate of our legal tender money and are largely used in the
payment of customs duties, and when received are paid out for the
current expenses of the government. While supported by the aggregate
silver dollars in the treasury, and the pledge of the public faith
to maintain them at par with gold coin and United States notes,
they are a safe and useful currency, but any measure to increase
these certificates, based upon the coining of more silver dollars
from bullion alleged to be gain or seigniorage, would seriously
impair the ability of the government to maintain their parity with
gold. The great depreciation of silver bullion has resulted in a
vast loss to the government and its disposition is the most serious
problem pending in Congress.

During the entire extra session of 1893 the body of the Democratic
Senators and Members were placed in an awkward position. They were
desirous of aiding the President, but their constituents behind
them were generally in favor of the free coinage of silver. In
some of the northern states, especially in Ohio, the Democratic
party had declared, in its convention, in favor of free coinage,
and now their President demanded, in the strongest language, the
repeal of the only provision of law for the purchase or coinage of
silver. The House promptly responded to the appeal, but the
Democratic Senators hesitated and delayed action until after three
months of weary debate. Their party had a majority in each House,
and should have disposed of the only question submitted by the
President in thirty days. Voorhees was the first Democratic Senator
to announce his purpose to vote for the repeal, although previously
an advocate of free coinage, and he, as chairman of the committee
on finance, reported the bill of the committee, while others lingered
in doubt. The Republican Senators, except those representing silver
states, as a rule, promptly avowed their purpose to vote for repeal,
although they had voted for the law.

After the call for the extra session was issued, I had expressed
my opinion of silver legislation, but I did not wish to embarrass
the President. When interviewed I refused to answer, saying the
people had called upon the present administration to handle these
questions, and neither I nor anyone should do aught to add
embarrassment, when so much already existed. When Congress met,
the Republicans remained quiet, and did not seek to embarrass the
administration, but it was soon ascertained that a decided majority
of them would vote for the repeal of the purchasing clause of the
act of 1890, but against any modification of any other provision
of that act. The position of the Republican Senators from the
states west of the Mississippi River was also known. They would
vote against any change of the law, unless they could secure the
free coinage of silver. During this period the position of the
Democratic Senators was unknown, but it was rapidly developed, with
the result already stated.

Congress adjourned on the 3rd of November. The closing days were
memorable for their excitement. For fourteen consecutive days the
Senate did not adjourn, but from time to time took recesses. On
the 31st of October the journal had not been read for fourteen days.

During this period I was requested by Governor McKinley to take
part in the pending canvass in Ohio, which involved his re-election
as governor. In the condition of the Senate I did not feel justified
in leaving, but immediately upon the passage of the repeal bill
started for Columbus to render such service as I could. It had
been falsely stated that I was indifferent about McKinley's election,
which I promptly denied. But a few days intervened before the
election. On the day of my arrival in Ohio, I spoke at Springfield.
On the evening of the next day, the 3rd of November, at Central
Turner Hall in Cincinnati, I spoke to a very large meeting. This
speech was fully reported. It was mostly devoted to the tariff,
a struggle over which was anticipated. After paying my usual visit
to the chamber of commerce and the Lincoln club, I proceeded to
Toledo, where I spoke at Memorial Hall on the evening before the
election, and then returned home to Mansfield, where I voted. The
result was even more decisive than expected. The 81,000 plurality
for McKinley was the best evidence of his popularity, and was
regarded as an indorsement of the McKinley tariff law.

On the 8th of November I returned to Washington. Many interviews
with me were reported, in which I expressed my satisfaction with
the overwhelming victory gained by the Republicans all over the
United States, and especially with their success in New York. In
response to a request by a leading journal, before the meeting of
Congress, I carefully prepared a statement of the causes that led
to these results. I undertook to review the political changes in
the past four years, but will insert only two paragraphs of this
paper.

"It is manifest that the causes of the defeat of the Democratic
party in the recent election were general and not local. They
extended to Colorado, Dakota, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
and Massachusetts. If the opposition to the Democratic party in
Virginia had been organized and conducted by the Republican party,
the results in that state would have been very different. The
ideas of the Populists are too visionary and impracticable to be
made the basis of a political organization. A canvass conducted
in Virginia upon the issues that prevailed in Ohio would, in my
judgment, have greatly changed the results in that state. Aside
from the memories of the war, the economic principles of the
Republican party have great strength in the southern states, and
whenever the images of the war fade away the people of those states
will be influenced by the same ideas that prevail in the northern
states. The leading cause of the enormous Republican majorities
in northern states I have mentioned was the united protest of the
unemployed against radical changes of our tariff laws. Whatever
theories may be proposed, it may be regarded as an axiom that the
protective principle is a well established principle in the United
States. It has been recommended by all the Presidents from Washington
to Harrison, and by none more emphatically than Jefferson, Madison,
Monroe, and Jackson. This is and has been the natural and instinctive
policy of a new nation with enormous undeveloped resources. While
the terms of our tariff laws provided for revenue, their foundation
and background were to encourage domestic manufactures and diversify
productions. The extent of protection was limited to the want of
revenue, but the duties were uniformly so adjusted as, while
producing revenue, to encourage manufactures.

* * * * *

"But, after all, we must place as the chief cause of Democratic
defeat the profound and settled distrust that the Democratic party
will now, having the President and a majority in both Houses,
disturb the enormous industries of our country developed by, and
dependent upon, our tariff laws, and will seek to substitute the
policy of Great Britain, of free trade, as against the example of
the leading nations of Europe as well as our own, of a wise and
careful protection, and encouragement by tariff laws of all forms
of domestic industry that can be conducted with a reasonable hope
of profit in this country. The future of parties will depend more
largely upon the manner in which this condition of things is met
by the present Congress than upon all other causes combined."

The second session of the 53rd Congress commenced on the 4th of
December, 1893. The President in his message was especially urgent
in his recommendation of a revision of the tariff laws. He said:

"After a hard struggle tariff reform is directly before us. Nothing
so important claims our attention, and nothing so clearly presents
itself as both an opportunity and a duty--an opportunity to deserve
the gratitude of our fellow-citizens, and a duty imposed upon us
by our oft-repeated professions, and by the emphatic mandate of
the people. After a full discussion our countrymen have spoken in
favor of this reform, and they have confided the work of its
accomplishment to the hands of those who are solemnly pledged to it.

"If there is anything in the theory of a representation in public
places of the people and their desires, if public officers are
really the servants of the people, and if political promises and
professions have any binding force, our failure to give the relief
so long awaited will be sheer recreancy. Nothing should intervene
to distract our attention or disturb our effort, until this reform
is accomplished by wise and careful legislation.

* * * * *

"Not less closely related to our people's prosperity and well-being
is the removal of restrictions upon the importation of the raw
materials necessary to our manufactures. The world should be open
to our national ingenuity and enterprise. This cannot be while
federal legislation, through the imposition of high tariffs, forbids
to American manufactures as cheap materials as those used by their
competitors."

In view of this message, it was manifest that the tariff would be
the chief subject of legislation during the session. It was
understood that a bill had been prepared by the committee of ways
and means, which had been submitted to the President and Secretary
of the Treasury and approved by them. It was reported to the House
of Representatives, December 19, 1893. On the 8th of January,
1894, Mr. Wilson, chairman of the committee, made an elaborate
speech in its support. The debate continued until the 1st of
February, when, with some amendments, it passed the House. In the
Senate, on the next day, it was referred to the committee on finance.
On the 20th of March it was reported to the Senate, with amendments,
by Mr. Voorhees. Mr. Morrill said:

"I desire to say that so far as the Republican members of the
committee on finance are concerned they did not object to the
reporting of the bill, while they are opposed not only to the
proposed income tax, but to the many changes of specifics to _ad
valorems_, and to the great bulk of the provisions of the bill."

On the 2nd of April Voorhees made a carefully prepared speech in
support of the bill. The debate continued, occupying much the
larger part of the time until the 3rd day of July, when the bill
passed with radical amendments, which changed it in principle and
details. Two conferences of the two Houses were held on amendments
disagreed to, but failed to agree, and it appeared, after the long
struggle, that he bill would be defeated, when, on the 13th of
August, upon motion of Mr. Catchings, the House agreed to the Senate
amendments in gross and thus the bill passed Congress. The President
refused to approve it and it became a law after ten days without
his approval.

This skeleton history of what is now known as the Wilson tariff
partly discloses its imperfections. Framed in the House as a tariff
for revenue only, and radically changed in the Senate to a tariff
with protection to special industries, it was not satisfactory to
either House, to the President or to the people. So far as it
copied the schedules and the legislative provisions of the McKinley
law, it met with approval. Its new features were incongruous, were
decidedly sectional, and many of its provisions were inconsistent
with each other.

The vital defect of this bill is that it does not provide sufficient
revenue to carry on the government. This is the primary and almost
the only cause of the financial difficulties of the present
administration. The election of Mr. Cleveland in 1892, upon the
platform framed by him, naturally created distrust as to the ability
of the government to maintain the parity of the different forms of
money in circulation. Added to this, the broad declaration of the
purpose to reduce taxation led to the reduction of importations
and the diminution of the revenue from the McKinley tariff. Importers
and dealers naturally reduced their imports in view of the expectation
that duties would be reduced. By the 1st of July, 1893, when the
Wilson bill was in embryo, the revenues had been so diminished as
to yield a surplus of only $2,341,074 during the previous year.
It was apparent, when Congress met in August, that the administration,
having a majority in each House of Congress, was determined to
reduce duties, and yet it made no effort to reduce expenditures.
Soon after there was a large deficiency in the revenue, and the
Secretary of the Treasury was compelled either to refuse to pay
appropriations made by law in excess of receipts or to borrow money
to meet the deficiencies.

In my judgment the better way for him would have been not to pay
appropriations not needed to meet specific contracts, for an
appropriation of money by Congress is not mandatory, but is
permissive, an authority but not a command to pay, nor does an
appropriation in itself authorize the borrowing of money. When
this authority is required Congress must grant it, and, upon its
failure to do so, all the Secretary of the Treasury should do is
to pay such appropriations as the revenues collected by the government
will justify. It is for Congress to provide such sums, by taxation
or loans, as are necessary to meet all appropriations made in excess
of revenue. If it refuses or neglects to do this, the responsibility
is on it, not on the secretary. All he can do is choose what
appropriations he will pay. This is a dangerous and delicate power,
but it has frequently been employed and has never been abused.
His failure to exercise this discretion was a grave mistake.

As revenues diminished deficiencies increased. A doubt arose
whether, under the then existing conditions, the government would
be able to pay gold coin for United States notes and treasury notes.
These were supported by a reserve of $100,000,000 in gold coin and
bullion, but this reserve fund was not segregated from the general
balance in the treasury, as it ought to have been, but was liable
to be drawn upon for all appropriations made by Congress. There
was not then, and there is not now, any specific authority invested
in the Secretary of the Treasury to sell bonds or to borrow money
to meet current deficiencies, and he felt called upon to pay these
out of the general fund, embracing that created for the redemption
of United States notes under the act of 1875. The result was to
create an alarm that the government could not or would not pay such
notes and thus maintain the gold standard. The timid, and those
whose patriotism is in their purse, were making inroads on the gold
reserve, which fell below $100,000,000.

By the resumption act of 1875 the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized, to enable him to pay United States notes on demand, to
sell either of three classes of bonds bearing respectively five,
four and a half and four per cent. interest, but the question arose,
in 1894, whether he could sell these bonds to meet current
expenditures. All of them were worth a premium in the market.
Bonds bearing three per cent. running a short period could then
have been sold at par. In common with many others I foresaw, in
February, 1893, that the tariff policy of the then incoming
administration would reduce our revenue below our expenditures,
and sought to have Congress authorize the sale of bonds bearing
three per cent. interest instead of those at a higher rate already
authorized. I saw plainly that the incoming administration would
enter on precisely the same course as that adopted by Buchanan, of
providing insufficient revenue for the support of the government,
resulting in the gradual increase of the public debt and the
disturbance of our financial system. During each year of Buchanan's
administration the public debt increased, as it has been steadily
increasing during Cleveland's administration, and great embarrassment
grows out of this fact. My friendly suggestion was defeated and
the result has been the sale of four per cent. bonds at a sacrifice.

The President recommended the removal of restrictions upon the
importation of the raw materials necessary to our manufactures.
The tariff bill, as it passed, imposed duties on nearly all raw
materials except wool. This important product of the farmer was
made duty free. I made every effort to prevent this injustice.
Free wool was the culminating atrocity of the tariff law. By it
a revenue of over eight millions a year was surrendered for the
benefit of woolen manufacturers. I appealed to the Senate to give
some protection to this great industry of our country. It was
generally classed as the fifth of the industries of the United
States, including the manufacture of woolens, and I have no doubt
it fully came up to that grade. Over a million farmers were engaged
in the growth of wool. It involved an annual product estimated at
$125,000,000 under the former prices, but probably under the prices
after the passage of the Wilson bill it was reduced to about eighty
or ninety million dollars. It was, therefore, a great industry.
And yet it was left solitary and alone without the slightest
protection given to it directly or indirectly. The manufacture of
woolen goods was amply protected. Amendments were proposed and
adopted without dissent, adding largely to the protection at first
proposed on manufactures of wool.

The value of the wool in woolen goods as a rule is equal to the
cost of manufacturing the cloth. The duty on cloth under this law
averages 40 per cent., so that the domestic manufacturer of cloth
gets the benefit not only of a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of
manufacture, but he gets a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of the
wool in the cloth, thus getting a protection of 80 per cent. on
the cost of manufacture, while the farmer gets no protection against
foreign competition for his labor and care. This gross injustice
is done under the name of free raw materials. When I appealed to
the Senate for a duty on wool I was answered by one Senator that
free wool was all that was left in the bill of the Democratic
doctrines of free raw materials, and, if only for this reason, must
be retained. I made two speeches in support of a duty, but was
met by a united party vote, every Democrat against it and every
Republican for it. In the next tariff bill I hope this decision
will be reversed.

On the 31st of May, 1894, I made a long speech in favor of the
McKinley law and against the Wilson bill. While the McKinley law
largely reduced the taxes and duties under pre-existing laws, yet
it furnished ample revenue to support the government. The object
of the act was declared to be to reduce the revenue. It was
impartial to all sections and to all industries. The south was
well cared for in it, and every reasonable degree of protection
was given to that section. In growing industries in the north,
which it is desirable to encourage, an increase of duty was given.
In nearly all the older industries the rates were reduced, and the
result was a reduction of revenue to the extent of $30,000,000.
There was no discrimination made in the McKinley act between
agriculture and mechanical industries. The Wilson bill sacrificed
the interests of every farmer in the United States, except probably
the growers of rice and of fruit in the south. The McKinley act,
I believe, was the most carefully framed, especially in its operative
clauses and its classification of duties, of any tariff bill ever
passed by the Congress of the United States.

It has been said that the McKinley act was the cause of the deficiency
of revenue that commenced about three years after its passage.
That is a mistake. Until Mr. Cleveland was sworn into office,
March 4, 1893, there was no want of revenue to carry on the operations
of the government. Until July, 1893, there was a surplus of revenue,
and not a deficiency. The receipts during the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1891, 1892, 1893, under the McKinley act, furnished ample
means for the support of the government, and it was not until after
Cleveland had been elected, and when there was a great fear and
dread all over the country that our industries would be disturbed
by tariff legislation, that the revenues fell off. The surplus in
1891 was $37,000,000; in 1892, in the midst of the election, it
was $9,914,000, and in 1893, up to June 30, the surplus revenue
was $2,341,000. Yet in a single year afterwards, after this attempt
to tinker with the tariff had commenced, after the announcement as
to the tariff had been made by Mr. Cleveland, after the general
fear that sprang up in the country in regard to tariff legislation,
the revenues under the McKinley act fell off over $66,000,000, and
the deficiency of that year was $66,542,000.

I believe that if Harrison had been elected President of the United
States the McKinley act would have furnished ample revenue for the
support of the government, because then there would have been no
fear of disturbance of the protected industries of our country.
Cleveland's election created the disturbances that followed it.
The fear of radical changes in the tariff law was the basis of
them. That law caused the falling of prices, the stagnation of
some industries, and the suspension of others. No doubt the fall
in the value of silver and the increased demand for gold largely
precipitated and added to the other evils that I have mentioned.

If when Congress met in December, 1893, there had been a disposition
on the part of both sides to take up the tariff question and discuss
it and consider it as a pure question of finance, there would have
been no difficulty with the Republicans. We were all ready to
revise the rates contained in the McKinley tariff act. The body
of that act had been embodied in the Wilson bill as part of the
proposed law. Nearly all of the working machinery of the collection
of customs, framed carefully under the experienced eye of Senator
Allison, is still retained. All the schedules, the formal parts
of the act, which are so material, and the designation into classes
--all those matters which are so complicated and difficult to an
ordinary lawyer or an ordinary statesman, have been retained.

If the bill had been taken up in the spirit in which it should have
been, and if an impartial committee of both parties in the Senate
and the House had gone over it, item by item, it would have passed
in thirty days without trouble. That was not the purpose; it was
not the object, and it was not the actual result.

During the long session of 1893-94 I was the subject of much
controversy, debate, censure and praise. While distinctly a
Republican, and strongly attached to that party, I supported, with
the exception of the tariff law, the financial policy of the
President and Secretary Carlisle. Mr. Cleveland was a positive
force in sustaining all measures in support of the public credit.
Mr. Carlisle, who as a Member and Senator had not been always
equally positive on these measures, yet was regarded as a conservative
advocate of a sound financial policy, readily and heartily supported
the President in his recommendations. As these were in harmony
with my convictions I found myself indorsing them as against a
majority of the Democratic Senators. My Republican colleagues,
with scarcely an exception, favored the same policy.

On the 16th of June, 1894, I was notified by William E. Spencer,
the experienced journal clerk of the Senate, that I that day had
reached a term of service in the Senate equal in length to that of
Thomas Benton, whose service had previously held first rank in
duration, covering the period from December 6, 1821, to March 3,
1851, making 29 years, 2 months and 27 days. I had entered the
Senate March 23, 1861, and served continuously until March 8, 1877,
making 15 years, 11 months and 15 days, when I entered the cabinet
of President Hayes. My second term of service in the Senate began
March 4, 1881, and has continued until the present time. My service
since June 16, 1894, is in excess of that of Benton.

On the 4th of July, 1894, the Sons of the American Revolution
celebrated the day by a ceremony held literally in the shadow of
the Washington monument. There, at the base of the great shaft,
the members and friends of this organization and several chapters
of the Daughters of the Revolution gathered at 10 o'clock to listen
to patriotic addresses. The societies had been escorted from the
Arlington hotel by the Marine Band, and gathered in seats around
a grand stand while a battery of artillery welcomed them with a
salute. The band played national hymns, and the audience sang
"America." General Breckinridge introduced me and I was heartily
greeted. After narrating the principal events of the American
Revolution, and especially incidents connected with the Declaration
of American Independence, I said:

"It is a marvel of the world that these humble colonies, composed
of plain men, for there were no nobles or rich men in those times,
furnished genius which brought to mankind greater wisdom in the
framing of a government than ever elsewhere existed. It was of
these men that Lord Chatham said that they had prepared papers
stronger than ever emanated from any court of Europe. Our country
was built up on intelligence, obedience to law, desire for freedom
and the equal enjoyment of rights. Those who are gathered here to-
day are classified as sons and daughters of the Revolution, and
therefore they are under deeper obligations to be true and patriotic
citizens."

I then spoke of the character of our people and our institutions,
and the Civil War, happily ended, and the increasing strength and
power of the republic. I narrated how the Washington monument came
to be completed. I said it was true it cost a million of dollars,
but what was that to 65,000,000 people! The occasion was enjoyable,
the speeches were suitable for the 4th of July, patriotism and love
of country being the watchwords.

On the 28th of August, 1894, the second session of the 53rd Congress
closed. It was a laborious session. Its principal act was a
measure that did not satisfy anyone. It laid the foundations for
insufficient revenue, an increase of the public debt and the general
defeat of the party in power.

I was much fatigued, and had already arranged to accompany General
Nelson A. Miles and his party on a military inspection in Nebraska
and South Dakota. I arrived in Chicago on the 2nd of September,
where General Miles was stationed. There I was met by the reporters
and told them all I knew about the intended trip. I got as much
information from them as they did from me. What they wanted was
prophecy of the future, and I wanted to get into the wilderness.
Here our little party was made up, consisting of General Miles,
his wife, daughter and son, a lad about thirteen years old, Dr.
Daly and brother, two staff officers, and myself. We had a car
and lived in it, and the cook supplied us bountifully with good
healthy food, largely of game. I cannot imagine a more delightful
change to a man weary with talk in the hot chambers of the capitol
at Washington in August than the free, fresh air of the broad plains
of Nebraska, with congenial company in a palace car, and with no
one to bother him. Our first stopping place was called Woodlake,
a small village on the railroad in the northwestern part of Nebraska.
We arrived there in the afternoon; our car was detached from the
train and became our home for a week. Around us in every direction
was a broad rolling plain as dry as a powder horn, with scarcely
any signs of habitation, but the air was pure and exhilarating and
imparted a sense of health and energy. My first inquiry to one of
the denizens was "Where is your wood and your lake which gave a
name to your town?" He said that when the railroad was located
there was a grove near by, and water in the low ground where we
stood, but the trees had been cut and utilized in constructing the
railroad, and the lake was dried up by a long drouth. Woodlake
had neither wood nor lake in sight! We took long walks without
fatigue, and our hunters, of whom General Miles was chief, supplied
us with prairie chickens, the only game of the country.

After a few days thus spent we left our car and followed after a
company of United States Infantry, from Fort Niobrara, then engaged
in their usual drill, to a lake about twenty-five miles away, where
we lived in tents and had a taste of real camp life. With the
consent of the owner of the land we pitched our tents near his
house on the banks of the lake about three miles long and perhaps
half a mile wide. This sight of water was pleasing, but we were
warned not to drink it. We had a bountiful supply of pure healthy
water, however, from an artesian well driven over a hundred feet
into the earth and pumped by almost continuous winds into a great
basin, which furnished water in abundance for man and beast. The
only house in sight besides the one near our camp was occupied by
the brother of our host, three miles away at the other end of the
lake. The two brothers were the lords of all they surveyed. They
owned large herds of cattle that ranged over the plains around,
drank of the waters of the lake and fed upon the sparse herbage.
A few hundred of them were kept in a corral near the homesteads
for sale, but the larger portion roamed under the care of herdsmen
wherever the herbage seemed the best.

Here our hunters, with a fine pack of dogs, pursued prairie chickens,
and not only supplied our table but contributed to the soldiers in
their shelter tents near by. Mrs. Miles and I, escorted by her
young son, Sherman Miles, on horseback, had the benefit of a horse
and buggy with which we could drive in any direction. There was
no fence or bog or obstruction in the way. We generally kept in
sight of our hunters, but if we lost the trail we could go to the
hills and soon locate our camp. This free and easy life soon cured
my languor and weariness and I was able to walk or ride long
distances as well as any of the party.

Returning to Woodlake we attached our car to the train for Big
Spring in South Dakota. Here we spent two or three days, mainly
in riding through the picturesque country around. We intended to
extend our journey to Deadwood but the duties of General Miles
required him to visit St. Paul and the military post at Fort
Snelling. We returned by way of Sioux City, and thence to St.
Paul. This city and its sister Minneapolis, were familiar ground.
I had seen them when they were small towns, and had by frequent
visits kept pace with their growth, but the change noticed on my
last visit was a surprise to me. The two cities, but a few miles
apart when rival rural villages, were approaching each other and
no doubt are destined to blend into one great city of the north.
Here I met many friends, chief of whom I am glad to place Senator
Cushman K. Davis, of Minnesota. After a brief stay our little
party returned to Chicago and dispersed, I going back to Mansfield
to engage in the political campaign.

At this period "The Sherman Letters" was published, and at once
attracted attention and general commendation. I though the experiment
was a risky one, but it was the desire of General Sherman's children
to publish them, and especially of his daughter, Rachel Thorndike,
who undertook to compile them. I have been in the habit of preserving
letters written to me on personal matters, or by members of my
family, and, as General Sherman was a copious writer, I placed his
letters in separate books. He did the same with mine, but many of
these had been lost by fire in California. Rachel arranged in
chronological order such letters as she thought worth preserving,
and they were published in a handsome volume. I have a multitude
of letters from almost every man with whom I have been associated
in political life, but will not publish them while the writers live
without their consent, nor even after their death if the letters
would tend to wound the feelings of surviving friends or relatives.
Letters are the best evidence of current thought or events, but
they ought to be guarded by the person to whom they are written as
confidential communications, not to be disclosed to the injury of
the writer. General Sherman's inmost thoughts could be disclosed
without fear of injury to him, and his letters, though rapidly
written, did not indicate a dishonorable thought or action. I have
seen nothing in the comments of the press on these letters but what
is kindly to the "two brothers."

On the 5th of October I made my usual annual visit to Cincinnati.
I called at the chamber of commerce, and had the same hearty welcome
its members have always given me. I made the usual short speech,
and it was all about "King Corn." General surprise was expressed
at my healthy appearance. The remark was frequently made that I
was looking better and healthier than for years. The impression
of my failing health was gathered from the newspaper descriptions
of "the old man" in the debates in the Senate. The effect of the
pure, open air of Nebraska was apparent. While on this visit I
was greatly pleased with a drive to Fort Thomas, and the high lands
on the Kentucky side of the river.

My first political speech of the campaign was made on the 12th of
October at Akron. It was confined almost exclusively to the tariff
and silver questions. The meeting was very large, composed chiefly
of men employed in the numerous factories and workshops of that
active and flourishing city. On the 18th I spoke at Sandusky upon
the same general topics as at Akron. Here I visited the Soldiers'
Home near that city. It is an interesting place, where I think
the old soldiers are better cared for than in the larger national
homes.

I continued in the canvass, speaking at several places, until the
election on the first Tuesday of November. The result was the re-
election of Samuel M. Taylor, the Republican candidate for Secretary
of State, by the abnormal plurality of 137,086, and nineteen
Republicans were elected to Congress out of the twenty-one. Though
this was a state election, it turned mainly upon national issues,
and especially evidenced strong opposition to the Wilson tariff
bill.

I was often asked by reporters, after my return to Washington, as
to the meaning of the election in Ohio. I uniformly expressed the
opinion that it meant the adoption of a nonpartisan tariff that
would, with a few internal taxes, yield revenue enough to pay
current expenses and the interest of the public debt and a portion
of the principal. I still hope that will be the result. The
framework of the McKinley law, with such changes as experience may
show to be essential, would remove the tariff from among the
political questions of the day and give reasonable encouragement
to American industries.

On the 10th of November my family and I returned to Washington for
the winter. The chief interest and occupation of my wife and
myself, for the time being, was the preparation for the approaching
marriage of our adopted daughter, Mary Stewart Sherman, to James
Iver McCallum, of Washington. This was fixed for noon, the 12th
of December. Full details of all the preparations made, of the
dresses worn, of the members of the family in attendance, and of
the distinguished guests present, were given in the city papers.
It is sufficient for me to say that Mary has been carefully educated
and trained by us, and never for a moment has given us anxiety as
to her prudence, deportment and affection. We gave her in marriage
to a young gentleman, a native of Washington, and a clerk in the
supreme court, and entertain for her all the affection and solicitude
that a father or mother can bestow.

Congress convened on the 3rd of December, 1894. The languor that
followed the excitement of the two previous sessions, and the defeat
suffered by the administration in the recent elections, no doubt
caused an indifference to political questions during the short
remaining session. But little was done except to consider and pass
the appropriations for the support of the government. I was often
annoyed by unfounded assertions that I had influence with the
administration, and especially with Carlisle, that I was in frequent
conference with the President and secretary. These stories were
entirely unfounded. Neither of these gentlemen ever consulted me
as to the business of their offices, nor did I ever seek to influence
them or even to converse with them on political questions. It was
a delicate matter for either of them or myself to deny such statements
when our personal relations were so friendly.

And now these memoirs must end. I know there are many events not
noted that should have been referred to, and many persons whose
names should not have been omitted. I would be glad to mention
with honor and credit hundreds of men who participated with me in
the political events of public life, but this seemed impracticable
within reasonable limits. I might have omitted many events and
speeches as of not sufficient consequence to be preserved, but if
I had I would not have written the recollections of my public life.
The life of a civilian is in what he says or writes, that of a
soldier in what he does. What I have written is no doubt clouded
with partisanship, but I would not be honest if I did not express
my attachment to my party. This, however, never impaired my
patriotism or swerved me from the path of duty.

To the people of Ohio I owe all the offices and honors that have
been conferred upon me. No constituency could have been more
forbearing and kind. During forty years of public life, though
many able men have aspired to the office I hold, the people of
Ohio, through their general assembly, have preferred me to represent
them. Though my grateful thanks are due to them and have been
often expressed, yet I have felt, as they do, that my duty was to
the whole country. Proud of Ohio, of its history and people,
willing at all times to sound its praise in the sisterhood of
states, yet, according to my convictions, the United States is
entitled to my allegiance, and all parts of it should receive equal
care and consideration. "Our country, our whole country, and
nothing but our country" has been the watchword and creed of my
public life. It was the opposite doctrine of "states' rights,"
allegiance to a state, that led to the Civil War. It was settled
by this war that we have a country limited in its powers by the
constitution of the United States fairly construed. Since that
time our progress and development have been more rapid than any
other country's.

The events of the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I
hope our people will be content with internal growth, and avoid
the complications of foreign acquisitions. Our family of states
is already large enough to create embarrassment in the Senate, and
a republic should not hold dependent provinces or possessions.
Every new acquisition will create embarrassments. Canada and Mexico
as independent republics will be more valuable to the United States
than if carved into additional states. The Union already embraces
discordant elements enough without adding others. If my life is
prolonged I will do all I can to add to the strength and prosperity
of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add
new dangers by acquisition of foreign territory.

INDEX
[omitted]

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet - An Autobiography." ***

Home