"And now, looking back with pride over a century of growth, exhibiting to you, as we are doing by a rather tiresome journey, what we have done, and appreciating fully the rapid progress and enormous resources of our sister American states, recognizing your equality and absolute independence, whatever may be your population or extent of territory, we say to you, in all frankness, that we are ready and willing to join you in an American congress devoted exclusively to the maintenance of peace, the increase of commerce, and the protection and welfare of each and all the states of the American continents."
On the 19th of October I addressed a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati, at which Butterworth and Grosvenor also made speeches. In this speech I especially urged the election of Governor Foraker and answered the cry against him for running for a third term. I said:
"Now, you have a good ticket, as I said, from top to bottom. I need not add anything more with respect to Governor Foraker, who, I believe, ought to be elected, not only because he has been a good soldier, but because he has been a good governor. Nor do I fear that cry about a third term. How should I fear it, when I am an example of a man serving on the fifth term of six years each? If Foraker has done his duty well for two terms, it is a good reason why he would do better the next time. If he made any mistakes in the past, he will have a chance to correct them in the future, and I believe he will do so if he has made any; and I don't believe he has."
On the 24th of October I was to address a meeting in Columbus, and hearing that Governor Foraker was sick, at his residence, I called upon him, and we had a free and friendly conversation. I did not introduce the subject of the ballot box forgery, but assured him that I was doing, and intended to do, all I could to promote his election. He thanked me heartily, expressed his regret that he was unable to take part in the canvass, but hoped to do so before its close. At one of the largest indoor meetings ever held in Columbus, that evening, I especially urged the importance of Governor Foraker's election, and ridiculed, to the best of my ability, the cry that was made for a third term. I called attention to the fact that all that could be said against Governor Foraker was that he was running for a third term. Continuing, I said:
"Why for a third term? Because he did so well in both his previous terms that the Republican party of Ohio was willing to sanction him as its candidate for a third term—and intend to elect him. Why should not a man be nominated by the Republicans for a third term as Governor of Ohio? What is there in the office that prevents his full and free and complete performance of all the duties imposed upon him as Governor of Ohio? Why, they say the President, by a prescriptive rule that has been established since the time of Washington, cannot be nominated for a third term. What of that? The powers of the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States are as different as a and z, and are as wide apart as heaven and earth. The President of the United States is armed with more power during his four years than any prince or potentate of Europe; he exercises a power greater than any man in any country of the world, whether a monarchy or empire. But is there any similitude between the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States? What power has he? The Governor of Ohio has less power than almost any other governor of the United States."
I spoke on the 2nd of November in the Music Hall at Cleveland, and there again urged the election of Foraker. I give a short extract of the description of the speech as it appeared in the papers of that city:
"He ridiculed the third term scare of the Democracy and then paid a glowing tribute to the worth and integrity of Governor Foraker. 'Has any man said,' he asked, 'that Governor Foraker is a bad man; that he is not a good man? My countrymen, no one has said that. He was a brave soldier. He is a self-made man; the son of good, plain people. He is self-educated. By integrity and toil he mounted, step by step, on the ladder of fame. Nearly every man who has arisen to prominence in our country has arisen from the ranks by toil. Such a man is Governor Foraker.'"
I spoke daily during the last two weeks of the canvass and everywhere made the same appeal in behalf of Governor Foraker and the state ticket. The result of the election was that Campbell received a plurality of 10,872 votes and was elected. A majority of the legislature was Democratic, and subsequently elected Calvin S. Brice United States Senator.
Elbert L. Lampson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, was elected by a plurality of 22. The other candidates on the Republican state ticket were elected by an average plurality of about 3,000.
The first session of the 51st Congress convened on the 2nd of December, 1889, both branches being Republican. President Harrison, in his message, reported a very favorable condition of the national finances. The aggregate receipts from all sources, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, were $387,050,058. The total expenditures, including the sinking fund for that year, were $329,579,929. The excess of receipts over expenditures was $57,470,129. The estimated surplus for the current year was $43,678,883. This would justify, and the President recommended, a reduction of taxation to that amount. He called attention to the reduction of the circulation of national banks amounting to $114,109,729, and the large increase of gold and silver coin in circulation and of the issues of gold and silver certificates. The law then in force required the purchase of two million dollars worth of silver bullion each month, to be coined into silver dollars of 412½ grains of standard silver nine- tenths fine. When this law was enacted, on the 28th of February, 1878, the price of silver in the market was $1.20 per ounce. Since that time to the date of his message the price had fallen to 70.6 cents an ounce. He expressed a fear of a further reduction of the value of silver, and that it would cause a difference in the value of the gold and silver dollars in commercial transactions. He called the attention of Congress to these three subjects of national importance—the reduction of taxation, the circulation of the national banks, and the further issue of silver coin and silver certificates, and invoked for them the considerate action of Congress.
He recommended the revision of the tariff law in such a way as not to impair the just and reasonable protection of our home industries, the free list to be extended to such domestic productions as our home industries did not supply. He referred approvingly to a plan for the increased use of silver, which would be presented by Secretary Windom.
The plan, submitted by Secretary Windom in his report, for increasing the use of silver in the circulation, provided that the treasury department should purchase silver bullion every month to a limited extent, paying therefor treasury notes receivable for government dues and payable on demand in gold, or in silver bullion at the current market rate at the time of payment, and that the purchase of silver bullion and the compulsory coinage of silver dollars under the act of 1878 should cease.
On the 28th of January, 1890, Senator Morrill introduced, by request, a bill which had been prepared by, and embodied the views of the Secretary of the Treasury. This bill was referred to the committee on finance, and was reported back by Senator Jones, of Nevada, February 25, with amendments. The first section of the amended bill authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase $4,500,000 worth of silver bullion each month, and to issue in payment therefor treasury notes receivable for customs and all public dues, and when so received they might be reissued. They were also redeemable on demand in lawful money of the United States, and when so redeemed should be canceled. Such portion of the silver was to be coined as might be necessary to meet the redemptions authorized. Other sections provided for details by which the plan was to be effected.
To this bill I proposed an additional section authorizing the deposits of legal tender notes by national banks with the United States treasurer, to meet the redemption of the notes of such banks which had failed, gone into liquidation, or were reducing their circulation, to be covered into the treasury to the credit of an appropriation from which the money could be withdrawn as necessary to meet the payments of the notes for which the deposits had been made. The deposits of this character often exceeded $50,000,000, but under the plan proposed the money became immediately available in current disbursements, thus avoiding a hoarding of the notes in the treasury or the creating of a stringency in the circulation, and, at the same time, giving the government the use of the deposits until needed, by which the issue of bonds to a considerable extent would be avoided. This arrangement was accepted and eventually became section 6 of the law which is now in satisfactory operation.
In the progress of the debate on this bill every question connected with the financial operations of the government for twenty years was introduced and made the subject of debate, and especially the coinage act of 1873, and the dropping of the old silver dollar from coinage. Although this coin has been restored by the act of 1878, and hundreds of millions of such dollars had been coined, yet the Senators from the silver producing states, and especially Stewart, were continually harping on "the crime of 1873," as they called the coinage act of that year, a careful statement of which has already been made in these volumes.
The only new allegation made was that the amendment recommended by the Senate committee on finance, to strike out the franc dollar of 384 grains, provided for in the bill as it came from the House, and insert the trade dollar, was not agreed to in the Senate, but that the change was made in committee of conference, and passed without the knowledge of the Senate. A conclusive answer was made to this statement by the production, from the files of the secretary's office, of the original bill as it stood after its passage in the Senate and before it was sent to conference. As similar statements have been frequently made, I reproduce the portion of this original bill showing the section in question, with the printer's note accompanying the bill explaining the different type used in printing it. The word "AGREED" on the bill is in the handwriting of the journal clerk of the Senate, Mr. McDonald, who held that position many years until his death. It shows that the Senate adopted the recommendation of the committee on finance before the bill was sent to conference. This amendment was agreed to by the House conferees.
[Note in explanation of the bill (H. R. 2934).] 1. The body of the bill, printed in brevier, is as it came from the House. 2. Amendments to insert, reported by the Committee on Finance, are initalics. 3. Amendments to strike out, reported by the Committee on Finance, are in [brackets]. 4. Amendments made by the Senate striking out words are in brevier, with brackets, and the words inserted in lieu thereof in the handwriting of the Clerk, are in SMALL CAPS.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.May 29, 1872.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.December 16, 1872.Reported by Mr. Sherman with amendments, viz.: Strike out theparts in [brackets] and insert the parts printed initalics.January 7, 1873.Mr. Sherman, from the Committee on Finance, reported additionalamendments, which were ordered to be printed with the bill.
AN ACT Revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay-offices, and coinage of the United States. 1Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 2 United States of America in Congress assembled, 1 Sec. [16] 15. [That the silver coins of the United States shall be 2 a dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty- 3 five-cent piece, and a dime or ten-cent piece; and the weight of the 4 dollar shall be three hundred and eighty-four grains; the half- dol 5 lar, quarter-dollar, and the dime shall be, respectively, one- half, 6 one-quarter, and one-tenth the weight of said dollar; which coins 7 shall be a legal tender, at their nominal value, for any amount not 8 exceeding five dollars in any one payment.]That the silver coins 9 of the United States shall be a trade-dollar, a half-dollar or fifty- AGREED A DIME OR TEN-CENT PIECE 10 cent piece, a quarter-dollar or twenty-five-cent piece ^; and the 11 weight of the trade-dollar shall be four hundred and twenty grains 12 troy; the weight of the half-dollar shall be twelve grams and one- 13 half of a gram; the quarter-dollar and the dime shall be, respec- 14 tively, one-half and one-fifth of the weight of said half-dollar; 15 and said coins shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for 16 any amount not exceeding five dollars in any one payment. AGREED
On the 5th of June I made a speech covering not only the pending bill, and the cognate questions involved, but all the irrelative topics introduced by other Senators. I said:
"I approach the discussion of this bill, and the kindred bills and amendments pending in the two Houses, with unaffected diffidence. No problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. Our action will affect the value of all property of the people of the United States, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our trade and commerce with all the world. In the consideration of such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound by local interests, but, with the lights of experience and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, we should give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature allows. With the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public credit or the general interests of our people. This is no time for visionary theories of political economy. We must deal with facts as we find them and not as we wish them. We must aim at results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably will be. The best prophet of the future is the past.
"To know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear conception of what we wish to accomplish. I believe a majority of the Senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population, and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring of national bank notes; second, to increase the market value of silver, not only in the United States, but in the world, in the belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed, and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and, third, to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish both gold and silver as standards of value, not only in the United States, but among all the civilized nations of the world.
"Believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all, and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, I will discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my opinion, to promote or defeat these objects."
Those of us who were in favor of good money, whether of gold or silver, or whether issued by the government in the form of notes or currency by the national banks, all to be maintained at par with each other and of equal purchasing power, were constantly charged with reducing the volume of money. I showed that since the resumption of specie payments, January 1, 1879, there had been a constant annual increase in the total circulating medium of the country. I furnished a table showing the steady increase of circulation during the period named, which I here insert:
Year. Date. Total circula- Gold coin. Standard sil- Subsidiary tion. ver dollars. silver. 1878. March 1. $805,793,807 $82,530,163 ……….. $53,573,833 1879. October 1. 862,579,754 123,698,157 $11,074,230 54,088,747 1880. October 1. 1,022,033,685 261,320,920 22,914,075 48,368,543 1881. October 1. 1,147,892,435 328,118,146 32,230,038 47,859,327 1882. October 1. 1,188,752,363 358,351,956 33,801,231 47,153,750 1883. October 1. 1,236,650,032 346,077,784 39,783,527 48,170,263 1884. October 1. 1,261,569,924 341,485,840 40,322,042 45,344,717 1885. October 1. 1,286,630,871 348,268,740 45,275,710 51,328,206 1886. October 1. 1,264,889,561 364,894,599 60,170,793 48,176,838 1887. October 1. 1,353,485,690 391,090,890 60,614,524 50,414,706 1887. October 1. 1,384,340,280 377,329,865 57,959,356 52,020,975 1888. October 1. 1,405,018,000 375,947,715 57,554,100 52,931,352
Year. Date. Gold certifi- Silver cer- United States National cates. tificates. Notes.* bank notes. 1878. March 1. $44,364,100 ……….. $311,436,971 $313,888,740 1879. October 1. 14,843,200 $ 1,176,720 327,747,762 362,950,938 1880. October 1. 7,480,100 12,203,191 329,417,403 340,329,453 1881. October 1. 5,239,320 52,590,180 327,655,884 354,199,540 1882. October 1. 4,907,440 63,204,780 325,272,858 356,060,348 1883. October 1. 55,014,940 78,921,961 321,356,596 347,324,961 1884. October 1. 87,389,660 96,491,251 325,786,143 324,750,271 1885. October 1. 118,137,790 93,656,716 318,736,684 311,227,025 1886. October 1. 84,691,807 95,387,112 310,161,935 301,406,477 1887. October 1. 97,984,683 154,354,826 329,070,804 269,955,257 1887. October 1. 134,838,190 218,561,601 306,052,053 237,578,240 1888. October 1. 116,675,349 276,619,715 325,510,758 199,779,011
*Includes outstanding clearing house certificates of the act ofJune 8, 1872.
Meanwhile, the House passed a bill of like import to the one under consideration in the Senate, differing therefrom mainly in that it made the notes to be issued a full legal tender, and authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem them in gold coin or silver bullion at current market rate. When this bill reached the Senate it was, by unanimous consent, accepted as a substitute for the Senate bill, and the discussion of the measure continued, occupying much of the time and attention of the Senate until June 17, 1890, when a vote was taken on an amendment proposed by Senator Plumb to strike out the first section authorizing the issue of notes and inserting the following:
"That from and after the date of the passage of this act, the unit of value in the United States shall be the dollar, and the same may be coined of 412½ grains of standard silver, or of 25.8 grains of standard gold, and the said coins shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.
"That hereafter any owner of silver or gold bullion may deposit the same in any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard dollars, or bars, for his benefit, and without charge, but it shall be lawful to refuse any deposit of less value than $100, or any bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the mint."
This amendment was adopted by a vote of 43 to 24, the yeas being made up of Democrats and the Republicans from the silver producing states.
The adoption of this free silver amendment clearly indicated that a large majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one.
The other sections of the bill were then made to harmonize with this new provision, and the bill was passed and returned to the House, where the amendments were nonconcurred in, and a conference asked for.
The Senate granted this request, and Senators Sherman, Jones, of Nevada, and Harris were appointed to meet Representatives Conger, Walker, and Bland, of the House, in conference, to adjust the wide disagreements. On July 7 a bill agreed upon in conference was reported to the Senate, Messrs. Harris and Bland not joining in the report. The bill agreed to became a law July 12, 1890, and was as follows:
"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or as much thereof as may be offered in each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue, in payment for such purchases of silver bullion, treasury notes of the United States to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and of such denominations, not less than one dollar nor more than $1,000, as he may prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry into effect the provisions of this act is hereby appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
"Sec. 2. That the treasury notes issued in accordance with the provisions of this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at the treasury of the United States or at the office of any assistant treasurer of the United States, and when so redeemed may be reissued; but no greater or less amount of such notes shall be outstanding at any time than the cost of the silver bullion, and the standard silver dollars coined therefrom, then held in the treasury, purchased by such notes; and such treasury notes shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued; and such notes, when held by any national banking association, may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve. That, upon demand of the holder of any of the treasury notes herein provided for, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such regulations as he may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his discretion, it being the established policy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law.
"Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall each month coin 2,000,000 ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act into standard silver dollars until the 1st day of July, 1891, and after that time he shall coin of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act as much as may be necessary to provide for the redemption of the treasury notes herein provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage shall be accounted for and paid into the treasury.
"Sec. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act shall be subject to the requirements of existing law and the regulations of the mint service governing the methods of determining the amount of pure silver contained, and the amount of charges or deductions, if any, to be made.
"Sec. 5. That so much of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled 'An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal tender character,' as requires the monthly purchase and coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less than $2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion, is hereby repealed.
"Sec. 6. That upon the passage of this act the balances standing with the treasurer of the United States to the respective credits of national banks, for deposits made to redeem the circulating notes of such banks, and all deposits thereafter received for like purpose, shall be converted into the treasury as a miscellaneous receipt, and the treasurer of the United States shall redeem, from the general cash in the treasury, the circulating notes of said banks which may come into his possession subject to redemption; and upon the certificate of the comptroller of the currency that such notes have been received by him, and that they have been destroyed and that no new notes will be issued in their place, reimbursement of their amount shall be made to the treasurer, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, from an appropriation hereby created, to be known as 'National bank notes: Redemption account,' but the provisions of this act shall not apply to the deposits received under section 3 of the act of June 20, 1874, requiring every national bank to keep in lawful money, with the treasurer of the United States, a sum equal to five per cent. of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of its circulating notes; and the balance remaining of the deposit so covered shall, at the close of each month, be reported on the monthly public debt statement as debt of the United States bearing no interest.
"Sec. 7. That this act shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage."
The authorship of this law has been generally credited to me, and it was commonly called the "Sherman silver law," though I took but little part in framing the legislation until the bill got into conference. The situation at that time was critical. A large majority of the Senate favored free silver, and it was feared that the small majority against it in the other House might yield and agree to it. The silence of the President on the matter gave rise to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pass both Houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. Some action had to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted for it, but the day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage.
It will be noticed that the act varied greatly from the House bill before the free coinage amendment was attached. The amount of silver bullion to be purchased was changed from $4,500,000 worth per month to 4,500,000 ounces per month. This change, owing to the fall in price of silver, not then anticipated, greatly reduced the quantity to be purchased. The House conferees yielded reluctantly to the striking out of the section in the bill providing for the redemption of the notes in bullion, a plan that had been urged by Secretary Windom. In lieu thereof, however, a clause declaring that it was the purpose of the government to maintain the parity of the metals was inserted. This was a most important amendment and one that has been generally accepted as indicating the purpose of the country to maintain all dollars at par with each other.
The chief merit of this law was that it suspended the peremptory coinage of the silver purchased under it into silver dollars which could not be circulated, but were hoarded in the treasury at great cost and inconvenience. It required the monthly purchase of a greater amount of silver than before, but that could be held in the form of bullion, and could be paid for by treasury notes equal in amount to the cost of the bullion, the whole of which was held in the treasury as security for the payment of the notes. If silver bullion did not decline in market value it could, if necessary, be coined without loss, and thus the parity of the notes with gold could be readily maintained according to the declared policy of the law. The friends of free coinage stoutly asserted that this purchase of silver bullion would not only prevent its depreciation, but would advance its market value, and thus be a gain to the government. I did not believe this but hoped that it would not decline in value, and, in any event, it was better to stop the compulsory coinage of the bullion into dollars, as to force them into circulation would reduce the purchasing power of the dollar and bring the United States to the single standard of silver. Being compelled to choose between the measure proposed and the free coinage of silver I preferred the former, and voted for the bill and, thus, with others, became responsible for it.
Contrary to the expectation of the friends of silver it steadily declined in market value. The compulsory purchase of the enormous aggregate of fifty-four million ounces, or 2,250 tons Troy, each year, did not maintain the market value of silver, but it steadily declined so that the silver purchased each year entailed an annual loss of more than $10,000,000.
When the result became apparent I was anxious to arrest the purchase of silver, and I never could comprehend why anyone not directly interested in the mining of silver could favor a policy involving so heavy a loss to the people of the United States. Long before the second election of Mr. Cleveland I advocated the repeal of what became known as the "Sherman act," and heartily supported and voted for the repeal he recommended.
In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill "to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production," but no action was taken upon it. On the 4th of December I again introduced this bill, it being the first Senate bill introduced in that Congress. It was referred to the committee on finance, and, having been reported back with amendments, I called it up on the 27th of February, and said that I did not intend to make any extended remarks upon it unless it should become necessary to do so. Senator George made a long and carefully prepared speech, from which it appeared that while he favored the general purpose of the bill he objected to it on the ground that it was not constitutional. This objection was shared by several Senators. I subsequently reported from the committee on finance a substitute for the bill, and on the 21st of March made a long speech in support of it in which I said:
"I did not originally intend to make any extended argument on the trust bill, because I supposed that the public facts upon which it is founded and the general necessity of some legislation were so manifest that no debate was necessary to bring those facts to the attention of the Senate.
"But the different views taken by Senators in regard to the legal questions involved in this bill, and the very able speech made by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] relative to the details of the bill, led me to the conclusion that it was my duty, having reported the bill from the committee on finance, to present, in as clear and logical a way as I can, the legal and practical questions involved in the bill.
"The object of the bill, as shown by the title, is 'to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production.' It declares that certain contracts are against public policy, null and void. It does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well-recognized principles of the common law to the complicated jurisdiction of our state and federal government. Similar contracts in any state in the Union are now, by common or statute law, null and void. Each state can and does prevent and control combinations within the limit of the state. This we do not propose to interfere with. The power of the state courts has been repeatedly exercised to set aside such combinations as I shall hereafter show, but these courts are limited in their jurisdiction to the state, and, in our complex system of government, are admitted to be unable to deal with the great evil that now threatens us.
"Unlawful combinations, unlawful at common law, now extend to all the states and interfere with our foreign and domestic commerce and with the importation and sale of goods subject to duty under the laws of the United States, against which only the general government can secure relief. They not only affect our commerce with foreign nations, but trade and transportation among the several states. The purpose of this bill is to enable the courts of the United States to apply the same remedies against combinations which injuriously affect the interests of the United States that have been applied in the several states to protect local interests.
* * * * *
"This bill, as I would have it, has for its single object to invoke the aid of the courts of the United States to deal with the combinations described in the first section, when they affect injuriously our foreign and interstate commerce and our revenue laws, and in this way to supplement the enforcement of the established rules of the common and statute law by the courts of the several states in dealing with combinations that affect injuriously the industrial liberty of the citizens of these states. It is to arm the federal courts within the limits of their constitutional power, that they may co-operate with the state courts in checking, curbing, and controlling the most dangerous combinations that now threaten the business, property, and trade of the people of the United States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course by finespun constitutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts of associated or corporate wealth and power.
"It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid of production where there is free and fair competition. It is the right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty, and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and privileges."
I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from the period of Coke and Littleton to the present times. I also quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many states.
Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until, on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it, corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however, the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a substitute for the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views, he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke, members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect. When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that after having fairly and fully considered the substitute proposed by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all the circumstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that direction. The bill passed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay, Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting in the negative. It was passed by the House and after being twice referred to committees of conference was finally agreed to, its title having been changed to "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," and was approved by the President June 26, 1890.
The law as finally agreed to is as follows:
"Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
"Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person, or persons, to monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
"Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or between any such territory or territories and any state or states or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
"Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the attorney general, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
"Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
"Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract of any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
"Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
"Sec. 8. That the word 'person,' or 'persons,' wherever used in this text, shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country."
Since the passage of this act I have carefully studied and observed the effect, upon legitimate trade and production, of the combination of firms and corporations to monopolize a particular industry. If this association is made merely to promote production or to create guilds for friendly intercourse between persons engaged in a common pursuit, it is beneficial, but such is not the object of the great combinations in the United States. They are organized to prevent competition and to advance prices and profits. Usually the capital of several corporations, often of different states, is combined into a single corporation, and sometimes this is placed under the control of one man. The power of this combination is used to prevent and destroy all competition, and in many cases this has been successful, which has resulted in enormous fortunes and sometimes a large advance in prices to the consumer. This law may not be sufficient to control and prevent such combinations, but, if not, the evil produced by them will lead to effective legislation. I know of no object of greater importance to the people. I hope the courts of the United States and of the several states, will deal with these combinations so as to prevent and destroy them.
On the 13th of May, 1890, I was drawn into a casual debate with Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana, which extended to others, on the relations of the north and south, or, rather, between Union and Confederate soldiers. The subject before the Senate was a bill to aid the illiterate in obtaining a common school education. The chief benefit of the measure would have inured to the south, especially to the negroes of the south. Mr. Eustis complained of the 15th amendment to the constitution. I explained to him that this amendment would never have been adopted but for the action of the south in depriving the enfranchised voter, not only of his rights of citizenship, but of the ordinary rights of humanity. I gave the history of the reconstruction acts, the first of which was framed by a committee of which I was chairman. It was based upon the restoration of the southern states to all the rights and privileges they enjoyed before the war, subject to such changes as were made necessary by the abolition of slavery as the result of the war. There was then no feeling of hostility to the people of the south. I had heard at that time no expression of opinion except of kindness to them. There was a universal appreciation of the fact that while they were wrong—radically wrong, as we thought, in waging a useless and bloody war against the Union of this country —yet they were honest in their convictions, they believed the doctrines they fought for were the doctrines of the constitution, and there was, therefore, a spirit of generosity, of forbearance, of kindness, to these people, and everything they could ask for in reason would have been granted to them.
It was not then contemplated to arm the negroes with suffrage. A few, and but a few, Senators made such a proposition, but it was scouted and laid aside. It was at this time that the Ku-Klux crimes and violence broke out, and the laws of the southern states were so cruel, so unjust, so wrong in our view of the rights of the colored people, and of white Republicans as well, that the people of the north resented this injustice. These laws burned like coals of fire in the northern breast. This led to the reconstruction acts, and the adoption of the 15th amendment. The 14th amendment was the act of the conservative Senators and Members, such as Fessenden, Trumbull and Doolittle. The 15th amendment was the natural result of cruelty and outrage in the south. This amendment has been practically nullified by the conservatives of the north, and now the people of the south have increased political power by reason of the abolition of slavery, while, backed by public opinion in the south, they deprive the colored people, by whom they gained this power, of their political rights, and that by processes that are denounced as criminal by every free state. Time, no doubt, will correct this evil. If justice is done to the negroes they will advance in intelligence with the improvement of their condition, and with the benefit of their labor the south will become more prosperous by the diversity of employments. There is reason to believe that in a brief period the south will engage in manufactures and become more prosperous than in the days of slavery.
On the 20th of May, the death of William D. Kelley was announced in the Senate. He entered the House of Representatives as I left it to take my seat in the Senate, but our frequent meetings in the consideration of bills of a financial character led to a friendship which was unbroken, and which imposed on me the duty of responding to the usual resolutions presented on the death of a Member. When Mr. Kelley entered the House as a Member from the city of Philadelphia, he had arrived at the mature age of forty-six, and had an established reputation for ability, industry, and fidelity to duty. He had been trained in the school of poverty, making his own way in the world, gathering knowledge by the wayside. He labored for several years at his trade as a mechanic, but, prompted by a restless thirst for knowledge, studied law, and for several years practiced the legal profession. In due time he became a judge and served as such for ten years, so that when he entered public life as a Member of the House he was a trained lawyer, with strong convictions upon economic questions, and bold and earnest on all the stern issues of the Civil War.
The creed to which he devoted himself consisted of but three articles: That the Union must be preserved at all hazards, that the national government should exercise its exclusive power to provide money for the people of the United States, and that the laborer of our country should be protected in his industry from undue competition. To the establishment of each of these theories as the public policy of the country he contributed his full measure of effort and success. By instinct he was opposed to slavery. All his early struggles and his innate perceptions of the rights of man made him an enemy to all forms of oppression. Still, he would have respected the right of each state to deal with this question, but when it became manifest that slavery was the real cause of the attempt at secession, he was among the first and foremost to demand that it should be abolished. But especially as the recognized leader in the support of protection to American industry he exercised commanding influence and authority.
Whatever opinions might be honestly entertained by others as to the nature and extent of this protection, Judge Kelley had no doubt, but impartially and freely extended it to every industry, without regard to its nature, or the section in which it was pursued. On all economic questions he had accurate knowledge of details. His patient industry enabled him to master every shade and side of such a question, and especially so as to the policy of protection by discriminating duties. On other matters he was a follower, but in this always a leader. His writings and speeches upon this and kindred questions constitute a storehouse of information, and furnish the best evidence of his industry and ability.
From the time he entered public life until the hour of his death he commanded the full confidence of his people. No fluctuation of opinion, no personal rivalries, no contests for patronage or office, could weaken their confidence in his integrity and justice. These obstructions in the paths of public men, often fatal, did not affect him. For thirty years he was the chosen Representative of one constituency, in our country an unexampled event. In the House of Representatives, famous for its sudden changes, he was for many years "the father of the House," and no doubt, if his life had been prolonged to the extreme period allotted to man, his seat in the House would have been safe for him.
On the 8th of July a similar announcement was made of the death of Samuel S. Cox, late a Representative of the city of New York. He had been a Member of Congress from Ohio before the Civil War, and shared in the exciting and dangerous scenes in Congress at that time, and I felt it became my duty, as one of the few surviving actors in those events, to pay a just tribute to the qualities of head and heart that made him and kept him a leader among the public men of our country for a period of more than thirty-three years, longer than the average life of a generation. This duty was the more imperative upon me as he was a native of Ohio, for forty years a resident, and for eight years a Representative in Congress from that state, honored and respected by all of whatever party or creed, and beloved by his associates as but few in political life can hope to be.
I could also speak of him from a longer personal acquaintance than anyone in either House, for I had known him or his kindred from almost the days of my boyhood. We were born in neighboring counties, he one year later than I. My father and his were associated as judge and clerk of the supreme court of Ohio. I knew of him as early as 1853, as the editor of the "Ohio Statesman," a Democratic paper published at Columbus, the organ of that party in Ohio, but my personal acquaintance and association with him commenced with his election, in 1856, as a Member of the House of Representatives.
While Mr. Cox was a successful leader in political life, and rendered his party due fealty on purely political questions, he was not always in harmony with the majority of his party. In his first speech in Congress, which was the first one made in the new hall of the House of Representatives, an opportunity carefully chosen by him with the skill of an actor, he took ground against the Lecompton constitution, strongly recommended by Mr. Buchanan's administration. He supported several measures during the war not approved by his political associates. He spoke in favor of the amendment abolishing slavery, though he did not vote for it. By instinct, education and association, especially by family ties, he was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat, and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider this a fault, but a virtue.
We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all such matters Mr. Cox was always on the humanitarian side. He has linked his name in honorable association with many humane, kindly, and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life- saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war. He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy, charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness bestowed is never lost, then Mr. Cox has left an inheritance to thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.
Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner. Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation. In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection and constant help to each other.
He was fond of travel, and wrote several books descriptive of scenes and incidents of his journeys. He also wrote historical works. He entered, as an author, a lecturer, and a speaker, many fields of research, and in all sustained his reputation as a brilliant writer and speaker, always interesting and often eloquent, a close student who fully mastered his subject, and withal a man of generous impulses, kind and cheerful nature, a true friend, and a faithful public servant. This all can be said truly and without exaggeration of Mr. Cox. He did not contemplate death when I saw him last. His untimely death was the first news I received on my arrival in New York from a journey abroad. I am told that he met the common fate of all with patient confidence and an assured hope and belief in the doctrines of the Christian faith and the promise of future life.
It is fortunate that man cannot know the future, and especially that future beyond human life. Socrates, when condemned to death, consoled himself with the inconceivable happiness in a future state when he would converse and associate with and question the mighty array of heroes, patriots, and sages who had preceded him. He said to his judges, "It is now time to depart—for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to everyone but God." We cannot lift the veil, but may we not share the hope of the wisest of men that our farewell to associates who go before us is but a brief parting for a better life?
I have been frequently assailed for my part in the passage, in the spring of 1864, of a law to encourage immigration. In reporting this bill from the committee on finance, on the 18th of February of that year, I said:
"The special wants for labor in this country at the present time are very great. The war has depleted our workshops, and materially lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and mechanism. In their noble response to the call of their country, our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies which must be filled, or the material interest of the country must suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and promising.
"The south, having torn down the fabric of its labor system by its own hands, will, when the war shall have ceased, present a wide field for voluntary white labor, and it must look to immigration for its supply.
"The following may be mentioned as the special inducements to immigration:
"First. High price of labor and low price of food compared with other countries.
"Second. Our land policy, giving to every immigrant, after he shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen, a home and a farm substantially as a free gift, charging him less for 160 acres in fee-simple than is paid as the annual rent of a single acre in England.
"Third. The political rights conferred upon persons of foreign birth.
"Fourth. Our system of free schools, melting in a common crucible all differences of religion, language, and race, and giving to the child of the day laborer and the son of the millionaire equal opportunities to excel in the pursuit and acquirement of knowledge. This is an advantage and a blessing which the poor man enjoys in no other country."
The committee rejected several plans to aid immigration, and closed its report as follows:
"Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished without great expenditure, and without changing the relation heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.
"With this view your committee report the following bill and recommend its passage."
When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it, and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.
The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888, the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as "the Senate bill" to distinguish it from the "Mills bill," for which it was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.
It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference, of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying, as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.
My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session. The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is not subject to the tariff tax.
The real struggle in tariff legislation is one ofsections, or, as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only; but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his "deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population, according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri, commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation. The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000 inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided. It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from the date of its passage.
I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I said:
"A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since 1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the subject of political debate before the people of the United States in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff, until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to bring before the people of the United States their rival theories as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production. It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House, and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.
"Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say, with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government. On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government, but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered into the presidential contest.
"Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the Democratic ideas.
"What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us, and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United States or to any Member of Congress.
"There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first, that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country. It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea, to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign productions. As this tax does not apply to home production, therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule, and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a larger market."
I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.
The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress adjourned.
Many other measures of importance were considered during this long session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to them.
When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H. Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and, though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved the kindly manners that gave him the name of "Gentleman George." He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery. I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect and affection for him:
"U. S. Senate, }"Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.}"My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral ofMr. Pendleton, has been received.
"Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly, and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides, while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome journey.
"Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.
"Very truly yours,"John Sherman."
On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.
Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October. It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law, the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently, speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for the number and enthusiasm of those present.
During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:
"While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of Pittsburg wanted to hear me for—why they should invite a Buckeye from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that grand party commenced its series of achievements which have distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in 1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance for your children and your children's children. In 1876 the object of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy the taxes to support the national government? That is the question that is to be discussed mainly to-night."