"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 betweenad valoremand 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 thead valoremduty 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 menolens 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.