"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 MusicHall, 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.
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.