I hoped when the bill passed the Senate that a conference committee would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman. My colleagues on the conference were part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.

On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:

"No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the merits and demerits of the law should not be stated. I worked at it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion of other business. Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a great deal of good and some harm. The great body of it is wise and just, but it contains some serious defects. The metallic and wool schedules are unequal and unjust. The great merit of the bill is that it reduces taxes. I would not have voted for it, if any other way had been open to reduce taxes.

"Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?"

"Yes. The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative. The failure of Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the fault of our party. The bill was talked to death by Democratic Senators. The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive, but they are excessive. They tempt extravagance. We could not go home without reducing the internal taxes. What I want you to emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have passed in their present shape but for their connection with the internal revenue sections. We could not separate them; therefore, though I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt constrained to vote for the bill as a whole."

"Is not the bill, as it passed, substantially the bill of the tariff commission?"

"No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal taxes. The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of last session, and were then amended by the Senate. That bill gave the Senate jurisdiction of the subject. It was only under cover of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pass a tariff. At the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had a better tariff law than has existed in this country. But, instead of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel, and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some cases higher than the old tariff. The committee restored nearly all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that destroyed all symmetry or harmony. But still the bill reported to the Senate was a passable tariff except as to iron and wool; but it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission report."

Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York "Tribune" of the date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion. The tariff act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications since that time.

During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton, and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate, which continued most of the month of December, 1882. It was referred to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate, passed that body and was approved by the President. This important measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed of three persons, and defined their duties. It withdrew from party politics the great body of the employees of the government. Though not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency, is now in successful operation.

The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules all employments in the executive branch of the government, except those that, by the constitution, are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If to this should be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected and the separate departments of the government would be independent of each other. My experience as an executive officer convinced me that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the "spoils system," but would relieve the President and heads of departments, as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.

Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a candidate for governor was being canvassed in the press and among the people of Ohio. My name, among others, was mentioned, but I did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination, supposing it was a passing thought that, upon reflection, would be abandoned. No one could then foresee how the legislature to be elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation, to compliment me with an election as governor.

I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. I was kindly received and expressed my thanks as follows:

"Gentlemen of the general assembly, I thank you for this hearty reception. In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for not making an address. You are the representatives of the people, and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to party, creed or condition. In the closing hours of your session you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so I bid you good-bye. Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks."

I was received in the same manner in the senate. I found a much stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I expected. I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who was entitled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at the head of the state ticket, I said:

"I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the gubernatorial nomination under any circumstances. It is out of the question. There was a manifest disposition at one time to run me nolens volens, but my friends now understand my position fully, and will not press the point. It is as though the possibility had never been suggested, and the less said about it the better."

This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither of which was true. While I did not wish the nomination, I would have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined that my acceptance was necessary for success. Upon my return to Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned several able men in the state who were well qualified for that office. I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable candidate. I did not then know him personally, but from what I had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named. He was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canvass. At that time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and Sherman as competing candidates. The state convention was approaching and I had been invited to attend. I went to Columbus on the 5th of June. All sorts of rumors were being circulated. The general trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:

"The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent Republicans, and the movement promises to assume such proportions before the day of the convention, that it will result in the nomination of Senator Sherman for governor. It has been stated that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis: 'Mr. John Sherman has been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party, and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would not.' The great interest manifested throughout the country in Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circumstances, to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the campaign. Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would be a foregone conclusion."

As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to my room to urge me to accept. Among others who came to me were Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fassett, of the Mahoning county delegation. After some general conversation they said that in order that they might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor. I answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would not and could not become one. I said I was sorry that matters had shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction, that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.

The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was selected as chairman. I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions which would have to be met in the canvass, and appealed to all present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.

Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor. I declined in the following words:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:—I have not been insensible to the desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in nomination for governor. But let me say frankly but firmly that I cannot be your candidate. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for declining the nomination. I have been under so many obligations to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter of personal interest or feeling, I would say 'yes!' But, I cannot accept this nomination. First, because you have charged me with the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States. And I will say that that view is shared by many of my associates in the Senate. They deprecate any movement of this kind on account of the condition of affairs there. But, aside from that, there is one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate now. When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention, that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate. I could not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor, and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me. Although all of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that kind. So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially among Republicans, to decline."

The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by acclamation. He was introduced to the convention and made a long and pleasant address. His speech was well received and he was often interrupted with cheers. He was then about thirty-seven years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold a prominent place in the political history of the state. He had enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen, and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into the enemy's works, being the first man of his regiment over the ridge. He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea. My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise. After the war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati. He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will, in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that election.

From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to the people. The constitution of Ohio declares that "no license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but without effect. The constitution so limited the powers of the general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors. Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years, free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from the restraint of the old constitution. The legislature, instead of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of the constitution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican party appeared before the people of the state when they were discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man. The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer. This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans, mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license, they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer, and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canvass. The farmers of Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replied that it was true that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican Senators and Members from New England. I denounced the hypocrisy of those who assailed me, whose representatives voted for even a greater reduction, and some of them for free wool. To all this they answered: "Did you not vote for the bill on its passage?" I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated. No doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some adverse influence on the election.

This canvass was in many respects a peculiar one. Foraker was active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the course of the Democratic party during and since the war. Both the candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor question more than on general politics. When I was asked about the German vote, I said:

"The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are really a temperate people. They have always claimed to be willing to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor. The Scott bill is very moderate—more so than the bills that are being passed in other states. If they mean what they say, I don't think there will be any trouble about electing our ticket."

Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen, George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on a trip to Helena, Montana. The object was simply recreation and sight-seeing. We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other points. Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred to talk about the great northwest. Interviews were sought by reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers. Hedges and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself, in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota. With their assistance I became conversant with the topography and productions of these states. I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen, some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul. Upon my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more thousands than the hundreds we paid for it. This was but a specimen of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some not far distant day, to be a single city. From St. Paul, we went to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and the newly made capital of Montana. This was the second time I had visited this territory, now a state. I studied, as well as I could, its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural. It is properly named Montana. Its mountains are not only filled with minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.

The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our population. Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the industry of our countrymen. The remaining tenth consists mainly of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions, the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war. Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European nations.

Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in national matters, independence in local matters, are the central ideas of our system of government.

On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective capital. We passed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and Detroit on our way to Mansfield. This trip, leisurely taken, occupied about one month.

During the remainder of the summer, until the canvass commenced, I had a period of rest and recuperation. It was interrupted only by the necessity of making some preparation for the canvass, which it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August. I carefully dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that day to a large audience. It was printed and circulated, but most of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time. Some of them it may be of interest to recall. I contrasted the condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking. I described the formation and history of parties as they then existed, and assumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we could assume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican party were right. I said: "All these distinguished and able gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of the Democratic party than I have. To the extent, therefore, of acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past, the Democratic party concedes that we were right."

I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law. I defended the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries of Europe. Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly, attacked the proposed amendments to the constitution prohibiting the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed policy. This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer to evade the real issue of the "Scott" bill. He treated the reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it. The entire canvass of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues, and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast with the speeches of Foraker.

After the Findlay meeting I went to Cincinnati and attended the harvest home festival in Green township, and read an address on the life and work of A. J. Downing, a noted horticulturalist and writer on rural architecture. I have always been interested in such subjects and was conversant with Downing's writings and works, especially with his improvement of the public parks in and about Washington. He was employed by the President of the United States in 1851, to lay out and superintend the improvement of the extensive public grounds between the capitol and the executive mansion at Washington, commonly known as the "Mall." This important work was entered upon by him, with the utmost enthusiasm. Elaborate plans of the Mall and other public squares were made by him, walks and drives laid out; the place for each tree, with its kind and variety determined, and the work of planning mainly executed. He, with an artist's eye, saw the then unadorned beauties of the location of the capital; the broad sweep of the Potomac, the valley and the plain environed by its rim of varied hills, broken here and there by glens and ravines. He spoke of it with enthusiasm, and no doubt, above other hopes, wished, by his skill, to aid in making the city of Washington as magnificent in its views and surroundings as any city in Europe. But man proposes and God disposes. It was not to be the good fortune of Mr. Downing to complete his magnificent plans for converting the filthy, waste commons of the capital into gardens of delight; but they have been executed by others, and have contributed largely to making Washington what he wished it to be, a beautiful city, parked and planted with specimens of every American tree worthy of propagation, and becoming adorned with the best models of architecture, not only of public edifices, fitted for the great offices of the nation, but of many elegant private houses.

I had been invited by the Lincoln club, of Cincinnati, to attend a reception at their clubhouse on the evening of the 1st of September. It is a political as well as a social club, and I was expected to make a political speech. I did so, and was followed by Foraker and H. L. Morey. The usual "refreshments" were not forgotten. I take this occasion to express my hearty approval of the organization and maintenance of political clubs in every city containing 10,000 or more inhabitants. The Republicans of Cincinnati have for many years maintained two notable organizations, the Lincoln and the Blaine clubs, which have been places of social intercourse, as well as centers for political discussion. Both have had a beneficial influence, not only in instructing their members on political topics, but in disseminating sound opinion throughout the state.

During this visit I was elected a member of the Chamber of Commerce in Cincinnati. I regarded this as an honor, and returned to its members my sincere thanks. Although I have not been engaged in commercial pursuits, yet in my public duties I have often been called upon to act upon commercial questions and interests. I have habitually, in my annual visits to that city, visited the chamber of commerce, and said a few words on the topic of the times in which its members were interested, but never on politics. Every diversity of opinion was there represented.

Cincinnati, situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, with Kentucky on the other side, and Indiana near by, with a large part of its population of German birth or descent, with every variety of race, creed and color, is thoroughly a cosmopolitan city, subject to sudden outbreaks and notable changes. At the time of my visit it was especially disturbed by the agitation of the temperance question. In discussing this, I took the same position as at Findlay, and found but little objection to it, but the opinions expressed by speakers in other parts of the state in favor of prohibition had, as the election proved, a very bad effect upon the Republican ticket.

On the 6th of September I attended the state fair at Columbus. It was estimated that there were at least 40,000 people on the ground that day. It has been the habit to gather around the headquarters and press any public man who appeared to make a speech. Governor Foster and I were together. Mr. Cowden, the president of the fair, introduced Foster and he made a brief address. I was then introduced and said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:—It has been my good fortune to be able to visit the state fair for many years in succession, but, from the great multitude of people, and the vast concourse before me, I should say that Ohio is rapidly pressing onward in the march of progress. The gray beards I see before me, and I am among them now, remind me of the time when we were boys together; when, after a season's weary labor, we were compelled to utilize our surplus crops to pay our taxes."

I contrasted the early days of Ohio with its condition then, and closed as follows:

"But this is no time for speechmaking, nor the occasion for further remarks. We have come out to show ourselves, and you do not desire speeches, but you do most want to see the horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, and the implements that make the life of a farmer easier. This is a progress that I love to see. My countrymen, you are crowned with blessings. Enjoy them freely and gratefully, returning thanks to the Giver of all good gifts. This is a free land, and the agricultural masses are the freest, the noblest, and the best of all our race. Enjoy your privileges to the highest point, and be worthy followers of the great race of pioneers who came before you."

During the remainder of this canvass I spoke nearly every week day until the election, and in most of the congressional districts of the state. Some of these speeches were reported and circulated as campaign documents. As the election day approached the interest increased, and the meetings grew to be immense gatherings. This was notably so at Toledo, Dayton, Portsmouth, Cleveland, Circleville and Zanesville. I believed the Republican state ticket would be elected, but feared that the prohibition amendment would prevent the election of a Republican legislature. The result of the election for governor was Hoadley 359,693, Foraker 347,164, and the general assembly elected contained a majority of Democrats in each branch. Henry B. Payne was, on the meeting of the legislature, elected Senator in the place then held by Geo. H. Pendleton.

After the election I went to New York and was met everywhere with inquiries as to the causes of Republican defeat in Ohio. I said the Republicans were defeated because of the prohibition question and the law reducing the tariff on wool; that many Germans feared an invasion of their rights and an interference with their habits, and the farmers objected to the discrimination made by our tariff against their industries.

On the 1st of November, 1883, General Sherman relinquished command of the army, with the same simplicity and lack of display which had characterized his official life at army headquarters. He wrote the following brief order:

"Headquarters of the Army, } "Washington, November 1, 1883.} "General Orders No. 77.

"By and with the consent of the President, as contained in General Orders No. 71, of October 16, 1883, the undersigned relinquishes command of the army of the United States.

"In thus severing relations which have hitherto existed between us, he thanks all officers and men for their fidelity to the high trust imposed on them during his official life, and will, in his retirement, watch with parental solicitude their progress upward in the noble profession to which they have devoted their lives.

"W. T. Sherman, General. "Official: R. C. Drum, Adjutant General."

He then rose from his desk, gave his seat to Sheridan, who at once issued his orders assuming his new duties, and the transfer was completed. I know that when the bill for the retirement of officers at a specified age was pending, there was a strong desire in the Senate to except General Sherman from the operation of the law, but the general, who was absent on the plains, telegraphed me not to allow an exception to be made in his favor, insisting that it would be a discrimination against other officers of high merit. Thereupon the Senate reluctantly yielded, but with a provision that he should retain his salary as general, notwithstanding his retirement.

At this period mention was again made in the newspapers of my name as the nominee of the Republican party for President in the next year. I promptly declared that I was not a candidate and had no purpose or desire to enter into the contest. This discussion of my name continued until the decision of the national convention, but I took no part or lot in it, made no requests of anyone to support my nomination, and took no steps, directly or indirectly, to promote it.

CHAPTER XLVI. EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES. Continued Prosperity of the Nation—Arthur's Report to Congress— Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and Mississippi—Reports of the Investigating Committee—Financial Questions Discussed During the Session—Duties and Privileges of Senators—Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward in New York—Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are Wrecked—Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House—Debate in the Senate on the National Bank System—Dedication of the John Marshall Statue at Washington—Defeat of Ingalls' Arrears of Pensions Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the Mexican War—The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity in the United States. We were at peace and harmony with all nations. The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the reduction of the public debt. It was estimated that the surplus revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the next fiscal year $60,000,000. The President called the attention of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars. While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the national revenues. The whole tenor of the message was conservative and hopeful.

During this session, upon representations made to me and after full reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the States of Virginia and Mississippi. I did so with extreme reluctance, for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation. On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the committee on privileges and elections be, and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of, and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers."

On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and requested an investigation:

"Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and, if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.

"Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.

"The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a Senator from the State of Virginia.

"The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the actions and failure to act of officers of the state government, including governors, judges, courts, and juries.

"I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation, if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various statements published in the papers of different political parties and from different persons.

"If these statements are true, then in both these states there have been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections, accompanied by murder and violence in many forms. The crimes depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished by ordinary tribunals. If they are true, then in those communities the members of our party and one race have no rights which the prevailing party is bound to respect.

"It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for, if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War. I have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes, but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself to questions of peace, development, and progress. Still, if these allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and convert our elections into organized crimes. I do not say these allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood by the most careful and impartial inquiry.

"If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities; but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions, then they constitute a crime against the national government, the highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal rights and privileges of citizens.

"If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where his rights will be respected and observed. But if these individual crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose, then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by the national government.

"The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who had been slaves. This was a national act, and whether wisely or imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the states. If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of any locality it is the duty of the national government to make their act respected by all its citizens. It is not now a question as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions, or deny to them the equal protection of the law. No court has ever denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens in their essential rights as freemen. No man should be allowed to hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured by crimes such as are depicted here.

"Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the election of a President or a Member of Congress. While the power of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;' that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;' that 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;' and that 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' It was also declared that 'Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.' Power is also given to Congress to enforce the recent amendments by appropriate legislation.

"If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations of the world. Surely a citizen of the United States has as much right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land, however remote or however powerful its government may be. Protection at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a matter of indifference. Protection goes with allegiance, and allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.

"I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters, with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or creed, or party. If the time has come, as alleged in the papers before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice, and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full, open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.

"If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and disappointment. Written in the light of the events alleged to have transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity, and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi. I should like to know—it is right that we should learn—the groundwork of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.

"In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for the conduct of the people complained of. I would give to their motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation the most charitable construction. I would give to them all political power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right, favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges shall be asserted and maintained by the national government. Upon this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their associates."

General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to the Danville election.

The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29. As the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events, they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee on privileges and elections. Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee. I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville. Mr. Lapham prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the minority. These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed in a document containing 1,300 pages. The Copiah county matter was referred to another sub-committee. As no affirmative action was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were substantially sustained by the testimony. There was a deliberate effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the November election this movement was organized by the formation of clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the Republican vote. A letter, called the Danville circular, was prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the negroes from voting.

The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the election were very fully stated in the report, and established clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled. A scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson, two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed. A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being variously estimated at from 75 to 250. The negroes fled. There was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with any view of violence or preparation for it. The whites, on the contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence. Many of the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that Captain Graves reloaded his. There was conflicting evidence as to the negroes having arms. Only one was shown to have exhibited any before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites, including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable evidence that he fired. There was no evidence to be relied upon that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their shoulders. The evidence tended to show that the violence was premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.

I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition of affairs which led to it is now changed. The result was the murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many others. The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic clubs had fully prepared.

I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout the south. The problem of the two races living together in the same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only be settled by each state or community for itself. It is impossible for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the protection of life and property in any of the states except where resistance is made to national authority. All the signs indicate that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public policy, without regard to race or color.

Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr. Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. It provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years, until the total sum was exhausted. The apportionment proposed would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the $15,000,000. The money was not to be disbursed by the United States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities. The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated, but it passed the Senate by a large majority. The advocates of a strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of their theories. The bill, however, was defeated in the House of Representatives.

An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed to regard as a part of the public debt. It is, in fact, only a treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount actually paid. In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be paid each year as a "sinking fund." While the United States was borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed. In the meantime, the treasury charged to the "sinking fund," annually, the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities of the United States. When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid was placed to the credit of this fund. In the general prosperity that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of, the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against it prior to 1868. When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current expenditures. This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until 1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue, and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more rapidly than it had agreed to pay it. The term "sinking fund," as applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase. It is a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum of the public debt each year. There is no actual fund of the kind in existence for national purposes.

Another financial question was presented at this session and before and since. The national banking act, when it passed in 1863, provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States bonds deposited in the treasury for their security. At that time bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or par in United States notes. Soon after the war, bonds advanced far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium. Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes unreasonably. I introduced a bill early at this session to correct this. It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House. The same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when they were greatly needed.

During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present in the Senate. The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business of the Senate when a quorum was present. Mr. Bayard and myself agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which the Senate might punish. Senators may retire from the Chamber, but the Senate can compel their attendance. If a case should arise where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured. The increase in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance, but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.

The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse. The committee on appropriations is a very important one. It is always composed of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations, but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to them. Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time to enter into details. They are entirely familiar with the great appropriations for the support of the government, and can best judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia. No reason can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by such committees. It is true that the appropriation committee ought to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution existing laws. That is their function, according to the rules, and that function they can perform very well in regard to such expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain other objects, are not defined or regulated by law. In the case of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature, new items not fixed by existing law.

On the 6th of May, 1884, the country was startled by the failure of the Marine National Bank of New York, an institution that had been in high credit and standing. The circumstances connected with the failure excited a great deal of interest and profound surprise. Immediately in connection with the failure of this bank the banking firm of Grant & Ward, in the city of New York, failed for a large amount. Their business was complicated with that of the Marine National Bank, and disclosures were made which not only aroused indignation but almost created a panic in the city of New York.

Almost contemporaneous with this the insolvency of the Second National Bank of New York, for a very large sum, became public, and the alleged gross misconduct of the president of that bank, John C. Eno, became a matter of public notoriety. Steps were taken by the officers and stockholders of the bank, including the father of the president, to relieve it from bankruptcy.

Also, and in connection with the failure of the Marine National Bank, there were disclosed financial operations of a strange and extraordinary character of the president of that bank, James D. Fish. All these events coming together caused much excitement and disturbance in New York. They led to a great fall of securities, to a want of confidence, and to a general run, as it is called, upon banks and banking institutions, including the savings banks. It appeared as if there were to be a general panic, a financial revulsion, and wide-reaching distress.

At that time also, and in connection with the other events, came the temporary suspension of the Metropolitan National Bank, one of the oldest, largest, and in former times considered among the best, of all the banks in the city of New York. This was partly caused by rumors and stories of large railroad operations and indebtedness of Mr. Seney, the president of the bank, which resulted in a gradual drawing upon the bank.

At once the Secretary of the Treasury did what he could to relieve the money market, by prepaying bonds which had been called in the process of the payment of the public debt; but the principal relief given to the market at that time was the action of the Clearing House Association of New York, by the issue of over $24,000,000 of clearing house certificates. This was purely a defensive operation adopted by the associated banks of New York, fifteen of which are state institutions and the balance national banks.

All that was done in New York to prevent a panic was done by the banks themselves. The government of the United States had no lot or parcel in it except so far as the Secretary of the Treasury prepaid bonds that had already been called, a transaction which has been done a hundred times. So far as the government was concerned it had nothing to do with these banks; the measures of relief were furnished by the banks themselves.

This condition of financial affairs led to a long debate in the Senate, commencing on the 17th of June, on the merits and demerits of the system of national banks, and especially of the clearing house of the city of New York. The comptroller of the currency had taken active and efficient measures to protect the interests of the United States. He was called before the committee on finance and gave a full statement of these measures. It was apparent that the temporary panic grew out of the reckless and criminal conduct of a few men and not from defects in the national bank system or the clearing house. The debate that followed, in the Senate, was mainly between Morgan, Beck and myself. I stated fully the methods of conducting the business of the clearing house, a corporation of the State of New York, and closed as follows:

"As the prosecution against John C. Eno is now pending in Canada, a foreign country, as a matter of course no one can state what will be the result of it. We only know that proper legal proceedings are now being urged to have an extradition, and if he is brought within the jurisdiction of the courts as a matter of course the prosecution can then be pushed. So with James D. Fish. Indictments have been had and are now pending against him for a violation, not only of the national banking act, but I believe also for a violation of the state law; and the same is to be said of Ferdinand Ward. These three persons are the only ones who have been charged with fraudulent and illegal transactions leading to these financial disasters. The Metropolitan bank, thanks to the agency and the aid that was given in a trying time, in now going on and doing business as of old, no doubt having met with large losses.

"It is a matter of satisfaction that with the single exception of the Marine Bank, of New York, no national bank has been overwhelmed by this disaster. It is true that the Second National Bank was bankrupted by the crimes and wrongs of John C. Eno, but his father, with a sensitive pride not to allow innocent persons to suffer from the misconduct of his son, with a spirit really worthy of commendation, here or anywhere else, threw a large sum of money into the maelstrom and saved not only the credit of the bank and advanced his own credit, but to some extent, as far as he could at least, expiated the fault, the folly, and the crime of his son. The Metropolitan Bank is relieved from its embarrassments by its associate banks. The losses caused by the speculations of its president did not entirely fall upon the bank. That bank, now relived from the pressure of unexpected demands, is pursuing its even tenor. It seems to me that all these facts taken together show the strength and confidence that may well be reposed in the national banking system. The law cannot entirely prevent fraud and crime, but it has guarded the public from the results of such offense far better than any previous system."

On the 10th of May, 1884, which happened to be my birthday, the statue of John Marshall, formerly Chief Justice of the United States, was dedicated. This is a bronze statue in a sitting posture, erected by the bar of Philadelphia and the Congress of the United States. A fund had been collected shortly after the death of Marshall, but it was insufficient to erect a suitable monument, and it was placed in the hands of trustees and invested as "The Marshall Memorial Fund." On the death of the last of the trustees, Peter McCall, it was found that the fund had, by honest stewardship, increased sevenfold its original amount. This sum, with an equal amount appropriated by Congress, was applied to the erection of a statue to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall, to be placed in a suitable reservation in the city of Washington. The artist who executed this work was W. W. Story, a son of the late Justice Story of the Supreme Court. I was chairman of the joint committee on the library and presided on the occasion. Chief Justice Waite delivered an appropriate address. He was followed by William Henry Rawle, of Philadelphia, in an eloquent oration, closing as follows:

"And for what in his life he did for us, let there be lasting memory. He and the men of his time have passed away; other generations have succeeded them; other phases of our country's growth have come and gone; other trials, greater a hundredfold than he or they could possibly have imagined, have jeoparded the nation's life; but still that which they wrought remains to us, secured by the same means, enforced by the same authority, dearer far for all that is past, and holding together a great, a united and happy people. And all largely because he whose figure is now before us has, above and beyond all others, taught the people of the United States, in words of absolute authority, what was the constitution which they ordained, 'in order to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.'

"Wherefore, with all gratitude, with fitting ceremony and circumstance; in the presence of the highest in the land; in the presence of those who make, of those who execute, and of those who interpret, the laws; in the presence of those descendants in whose veins flows Marshall's blood, have the bar and the Congress of the United States here set up this semblance of his living form, in perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence and the love which the people of this country bear to the great chief justice."

During this session Mr. Ingalls offered to a House bill granting a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican War, the following amendment:

"That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in the service since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since that date in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to discharge, and if such disability occurred after the discharge, then from the date of actual disability, or from the termination of the right of the party having prior title to such pension."

I opposed this sweeping provision with much reluctance, as I have always favored the granting of the most liberal pensions consistent with the public interests. I said:

"I regret very much to oppose any proposition that is favored by the Union soldiers of the American army; and I perhaps should feel some hesitation in doing it, only that I know very well that the soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided in opinion as to this measure.

"This proposition repeals all restrictions as to time upon applications to be made for arrears of pensions, and extends to all persons back to the war or date of discharge or disability, not only of those who have heretofore applied, but of those who may hereafter apply. It removes absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for arrears of pensions. And if this only involved ten or even twenty million dollars, I might still hesitate, because I have always, since the close of the war, voted for every measure that has been offered in good faith for the benefit of the Union soldiers. My heart, my feelings are all with them. I appreciate the value of their services, the enormous benefits they have conferred upon the people of the America for generations yet unborn, and I hesitate therefore to oppose any wish that they may express through their organs.

"This measure involves an immense sum of money. That alone would not be conclusive. But here is a motion made by a Senator, without the report or sanction of any committee of this body, to put upon the people of the United States a great demand, ranging anywhere up to $246,000,000, a proposition so indefinite in character that the commissioner of pensions is utterly unable to give us any approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can. He says that this proposition will involve the expenditure of $246,000,000."

Mr. Ingalls made a sturdy effort for his amendment, and quoted a declaration of the Republican national convention in favor of arrears of pensions, to which I replied that, when I remembered that the platform of the last Republican convention had been made up in a few hours, on a sweltering hot day, by forty-two men hastily called together, most of whom never saw each other before, I did not think it ought to be taken as a guide for Senators in the performance of their public duties.

After full discussion the amendment was rejected.

My position was highly commended by the public press and by many distinguished soldiers, including Governor Foraker, who wrote me, saying: "It may be some gratification to you to know that your course, in regard to the pension bill, meets with the earnest approval of all right-minded men in this part of the state."

On the 3rd of July the following resolution was adopted by the Senate on my motion:

"Resolved, That the Senate will meet at the usual hour on Friday, the 4th day of July instant, and, after the reading of the journal and before other business is done, the secretary of the Senate shall read the Declaration of American Independence."

On introducing the resolution, I said:

"Never till during our Civil War, so far as the records show or as is known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July. During the Civil War we did meet habitually on the 4th of July, but it was only on the ground that those who had control then believed that the business then requiring attention was proper to be done on the 4th of July. We have only met once since on the 4th of July, and that was in 1870, at a time of great political excitement. An effort was made to adjourn when the Senate met that day, but the session was continued—a long, exciting, and unpleasant session—on the 4th of July, 1870.

"I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the committees of conference are carrying on their business and I have no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize, by common consent, the importance of the day and the fact that it is a national anniversary celebrated all over the United States, by reading that immortal paper which is the foundation of American independence."

Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.

CHAPTER XLVII. MY PARTICIPATION IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1884. Again Talked of as a Republican Candidate for the Presidency—I Have no Desire for the Nomination—Blaine the Natural Candidate of the Party—My Belief that Arthur Would be Defeated if Nominated— Speech at Washington, D. C., for Blaine and Logan—Opening of the Ohio Campaign at Ashland—Success of the Republican State Ticket in October—Speeches in Boston, Springfield, Mass., New York and Brooklyn—Address to Business Men in Faneuil Hall—Success of the National Democratic Ticket—Arthur's Annual Message to Congress— Secretary McCulloch's Recommendations Concerning the Further Coinage of Silver Dollars—Statement of My Views at This Time—Statue to the Memory of General Lafayette—Controversy Between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis.

On the 3rd of June, 1884, during the session of Congress, the national Republican convention to nominate Republican candidates for President and Vice President, was held at Chicago. Prior to that time the papers had been full of the merits and demerits of candidates, and my name was mentioned among them. I had early announced, in interviews and letters, that I was not a candidate. The following statement was generally published in Ohio:

"I am in no sense a candidate, and would not make an effort for the nomination. I would not even express my opinion as to who should be delegates from my own district or what their action should be. Four years ago I thought it best to be a candidate. I believed that the logic of events at that time justified such action. The reasons I need not state. Now there is no such condition and I would not enter a contest even for the indorsement of my own constituency. Many of my friends write me complaining letters because I refuse to make such an issue. Believing that the convention, when it meets, should be free, uninstructed, and in shape to do the very best thing for the whole party, I have counseled by friends to that end. A united and enthusiastic party is more important than one man, and hence I am for bending every energy to the first purpose, and am not a candidate."

I had not expressed the slightest desire to make such a contest. When approached by personal friends I dissuaded them from using my name as a candidate. I neither asked nor sought anyone to be a delegate. When the convention met, the Ohio delegation was divided between Blaine and myself, and this necessarily prevented any considerable support of me outside of the state. I was not sorry for it. I regarded the nomination of Blaine as the natural result under the circumstances.

The strength of Arthur, his principal competitor, grew out of his power and patronage as President. He was a gentleman of pleasing manners, but I thought unequal to the great office he held. He had never been distinguished in political life. The only office he had held of any importance was that of collector of the port of New York, from which he was removed for good causes already stated. His nomination as Vice President was the whim of Roscoe Conkling to strike at President Hayes. If nominated he would surely have been defeated. In the then condition of political affairs it is not certain that any Republican would have been elected.

The weakness of the nomination of Blaine was the strong opposition to him in the State of New York. The selection by the Democratic convention of Grover Cleveland as the candidate for President, and of Thomas A. Hendricks for Vice President, was made in view of the necessity of carrying the two doubtful States of New York and Indiana, which it was well understood would determine the election.

I promptly took an active part in support of the Republican ticket. A meeting to ratify the nomination of James G. Blaine and John A. Logan was held at Washington, D. C., on the 19th of June, at which I made a speech, which, as reported, was as follows:

"It is one of the curious customs of American politics that when anybody is nominated for office, his competitors are the first to be called upon to vouch for the wisdom of the choice. Perhaps that is the reason I am called upon now. Though I did not consider myself as much of a candidate, I am ready to accept, approve and ratify the action of the Chicago convention. I will support the nomination of Blaine and Logan as heartily as I have done those of Fremont and Lincoln and Grant and Hayes and Garfield. And this I would do, fellow-citizens, even if they were less worthy than I know them to be of the distinguished honor proposed for them. I would do it for my own honor. I have no patience with any man who, for himself or any other person, would take his chances for success in a political convention, and when disappointed would seek to thwart the action of the convention. Political conventions are indispensable in a republican government, for it is only by such agencies, that opposing theories can be brought to the popular judgment. These can only be presented by candidates chosen as standard bearers of a flag, or a cause, or a party.

"That Blaine and Logan have been fairly nominated by the free choice of our 800 delegates, representing the Republicans of every state, county and district in the broad extent of our great country, is admitted by every man whose voice has been heard. They are not 'dark horses.' Their names are known to fame; the evil and good that men could say of them have been said with a license that is a shame to free discussion. Traveling in peace and in war through the memorable events of a quarter of a century, they have kept their place in the busy jostling of political life well in the foreground. And now they have been selected from among millions of their countrymen to represent—not themselves, but the Republican party of the United States.

"They represent the American Union, one and indivisible, snatched by war from the perils of secession and disunion. They represent a strong national government, able, I trust, in time, not only to protect our citizens from foreign tyranny, but from local cruelty, intolerance, and oppression.

"They represent that party in the country which would scorn to obtain or hold power by depriving, by crime and fraud, more than a million of men of their equal rights as citizens. They represent a party that would give to the laboring men of our country the protection of our revenue laws against undue competition with foreign labor.

"They represent the power, the achievements, and the aspirations of the Republican party that now for twenty-four years has been greatly trusted by the people, and in return has greatly advanced your country in strength and wealth, intelligence, courage and hope, and in the respect and wonder of mankind.

"Fellow Republicans, we are about to enter into no holiday contest. You have to meet the same forces and principles that opposed the Union army in war; that opposed the abolition of slavery; that sought to impair the public credit; that resisted the resumption of specie payment. They are recruited here and there by a deserter from our ranks, but meanwhile a generation of younger men are coming to the front, in the south as well as in the north. They have been educated amidst memorable events with patriotic ardor, love of country, pride in its strength and power. They are now determined to overthrow the narrow Bourbon sectionalism of the Democratic party. They live in the mountains and plains of the west. They breathe the fresh air of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. They are the hardy, liberty-loving laborers of every state.

"They come from the fatherland, they come from old Ireland. They are the active spirits, native and naturalized, of a generation of free men who never felt the incubus of slavery, and who wish only as Americans to make stronger and plant deeper the principles of the Republican party. It is to these men we who have grown old in this conflict wish now to hand over the banner we have borne. Let them take it and advance it to higher honors. Let them spread the influence of our republican institutions north and south, until the whole continent of America shall be a brotherhood of republics.

"Let them assert the rights of American citizenship, so that they will be respected as were the rights of citizens of the Roman republic. Let them deal with this most difficult and subtle problem of social politics so as to secure to the man who labors his just share of the fruits of his labor. Let them improve even upon the protective policy we have pursued, so as to diversify our industries and plant in all parts of our country the workshops of millions of well-paid contented citizens. Let them do what we have not been able to do since the war—restore our commerce to every port and protect it under our flag in every sea.

"My countrymen, I regret to say it, you cannot accomplish any of these great objects of national desire through the agency of the Democratic party. It cannot be made an instrument of progress and reform. Its traditions, its history for twenty-five years, and its composition, forbid it. You may punish us for our shortcomings by its success, but you will punish yourselves as well and stay the progress of your country. A party that with seventy majority in the House cannot pass a bill on any subject of party politics, great or small, is not fit to govern the country.

"Every advance, every reform, every improvement, the protection of your labor, the building of your navy, the assertion of your rights as a free man, the maintenance of good money—a good dollar, good in every land, worth a dollar in gold—all these objects of desire must await the movements of the Republican party. It may be slow, but if you turn to the Democratic party you will always find it watching and waiting, good, steady citizens of the olden time, grounded on the resolutions of '98 and the 'times before the wah.'

"It is said that Blaine is bold and aggressive; that he will obstruct the business interests of the country. I would like to try such a President. He might shake off some of the cobwebs of diplomacy and invite the attention of mankind to the existence of this country. There will always be conservatism enough in Congress, and inertness enough in the Democratic party, to hold in check even as brilliant a man as James G. Blaine. What we want now is an American policy broad enough to embrace the continent, conservative enough to protect the rights of every man, poor as well as rich, and brave enough to do what is right, whatever stands in the way. We want protection to American citizens and protection to American laborers, a free vote and a fair count, an assertion of all the powers of the government in doing what is right. It is because I believe that the administration of Blaine and Logan will give us such a policy, and that I know the Democratic party is not capable of it, that I invoke your aid and promise you mine to secure the election of the Republican ticket."

Upon the adjournment of Congress, I took an active part in the campaign, commencing with a speech at Ashland, Ohio, on the 30th of August, and from that time until the close of the canvass I spoke daily. The meetings of both parties were largely attended, notably those at Springfield, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.

After the October election in Ohio, which resulted in the success of the Republican ticket, I engaged in the canvass in other states, speaking in many places, among others in Faneuil Hall, Boston, in Springfield, Massachusetts, in Chickering Hall, New York, and in the Brooklyn Grand Opera House.

I felt greater timidity in speaking in Faneuil Hall than anywhere else. The time, place, and manner of the meeting were so novel, that a strong impression was made upon my mind. In the middle of the day, when the streets were crowded, I was conducted up a narrow, spiral passageway that led directly to a low platform on one side of the hall, where were the officers of the meeting, and there I faced an audience of men with their hats and overcoats on, all standing closely packed, with no room for any more. It was a meeting of business men of marked intelligence, who had no time to waste, and whose countenances expressed the demand, "Say what you have to say, and say it quickly." I was deeply impressed with the historical associations of the place, recalling the Revolutionary scenes that had occurred there, and Daniel Webster and the great men whose voices had been heard within its walls. I condensed my speech into less than an hour, and, I believe, gave the assemblage satisfaction. I was followed by brief addresses from Theodore Roosevelt and others, and then the meeting quietly dispersed.

While in Springfield, I heard of the unfortunate remark of Dr. Burchard to Blaine about "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," and felt that the effect would be to offend a considerable portion of the Irish voters, who had been very friendly to Blaine. After that incident, I met Mr. Blaine at the Chickering Hall meeting, and went with him to Brooklyn, where we spoke together at the Academy of Music.

The election, a few days afterward, resulted in the success of the Democratic ticket. The electoral vote of New York was cast for Cleveland and Hendricks. It was believed at the time that this result was produced by fraudulent voting in New York city, but the returns were formal, and there was no way in which the election could be contested.

Congress met on the 1st of December, 1884. President Arthur promptly sent his message to each House. He congratulated the country upon the quiet acquiescence in the result of an election where it had been determined with a slight preponderance. Our relations with foreign nations had been friendly and cordial. The revenues of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, had been $348,519,869.92. The expenditures for the same period, including the sinking fund, were $290,916,473.83, leaving a surplus of $57,603,396.09. He recommended the immediate suspension of the coinage of silver dollars and of the issuance of silver certificates, a further reduction of internal taxes and customs duties, and that national banks be allowed to issue circulating notes to the par amount of bonds deposited for their security. He closed with these words:

"As the time draws nigh when I am to retire from the public service, I cannot refrain from expressing to Members of the national legislature, with whom I have been brought into personal and official intercourse, my sincere appreciation of their unfailing courtesy, and of their harmonious co-operation with the Executive in so many measures calculated to promote the best interests of the nation.

"And to my fellow-citizens generally, I acknowledge a deep sense of obligation for the support which they have accorded me in my administration of the executive department of this government."

Hugh McCulloch, upon the death of Mr. Folger, had become Secretary of the Treasury. His report contained the usual statements in regard to government receipts and expenditures and the public debt, but the chief subject discussed was the coinage of silver dollars. He said:

"There are some financial dangers ahead which can only be avoided by changes in our financial legislation. The most imminent of these dangers, and the only one to which I now ask the attention of Congress, arises from the continued coinage of silver and the increasing representation of it by silver certificates. I believe that the world is not in a condition, and never will be, for the demonetization of one-third of its metallic money; that both gold and silver are absolutely necessary for a circulating medium; and that neither can be disused without materially increasing the burden of debt, nor even temporarily degraded by artificial means without injurious effect upon home and international trade. But I also believe that gold and silver can only be made to maintain their comparative value by the joint action of commercial nations. Not only is there now no joint action taken by these nations to place and keep silver on an equality with gold, according to existing standards, but it has been by the treatment it has received from European nations greatly lessened in commercial value.

* * * * *

"After giving the subject careful consideration, I have been forced to the conclusion that unless both the coinage of silver dollars and the issue of silver certificates are suspended, there is danger that silver, and not gold, may become our metallic standard. This danger may not be imminent, but it is of so serious a character that there ought not to be delay in providing against it. Not only would the national credit be seriously impaired if the government should be under the necessity of using silver dollars or certificates in payment of gold obligations, but business of all kinds would be greatly disturbed; not only so, but gold would at once cease to be a circulating medium, and severe contraction would be the result."

The first important subject considered by the Senate was the coinage of silver dollars and the consequent issue of silver certificates. The debate was founded upon a resolution offered by Senator Hill, of Colorado, against the views expressed by the President in his message and by Secretary McCulloch in his report.

On the 15th of December I made a speech covering, as I thought, the silver question, not only of the past but of the probable results in the future. The amount of silver dollars then in the treasury was $184,730,829, and of silver certificates outstanding $131,556,531. These certificates were maintained at par in gold by being received for customs duties. They were redeemable in silver dollars, but were in fact never presented for redemption. The silver dollars could only be used in the redemption of certificates or by issue in payment of current liabilities. With the utmost exertions to put the silver dollars in circulation only fifty million could be used in this way. To have forced more into circulation would have excited a doubt whether any of our paper money could be maintained at par with gold.

When urged to express a remedy for this condition I said that if I had the power to dictate a law I would ascertain by the best means the exact market value of the two metals, and then put into each silver dollar as many grains of standard silver as would be equal in market value to 25.8 grains of standard gold. I said that if the price of silver fell the coin would still circulate upon the fiat of the government. If silver advanced in relative value the amount of silver in the coin could, at stated periods, be decreased. Bimetallism could only exist where the market value of the two metals approached the coinage value, or where a strong government, with a good credit, received and paid out coins of each metal at parity with each other. The only way to prevent a variation in the value of the two metals, and the exportation of the dearer metal, would be, by an international agreement between commercial nations, to adopt a common ratio somewhat similar in substance to that of the Latin Union, each nation to receive as current money the coins of the other and each to redeem its own coins in gold.

Mr. Beck replied to my argument, and the debate between us continued during two or three days. The weakness of the silver advocates was that they were not content with the coinage of more silver coin than ever before, but were determined that the holder of silver in any form might deposit it in the mint and have it coined into dollars for his benefit at the ratio of sixteen to one, when its market value had then fallen so that twenty ounces of silver were worth but one ounce in gold, and since has fallen in value so that thirty ounces of silver are worth but one ounce in gold.

With free coinage in these conditions no gold coins would be minted and all the money of the United States would be reduced in value to the sole silver standard, and gold would be hoarded and exported. This debate has been continued from that date to this, not only in Congress, but in every schoolhouse in the United States, and in all the commercial nations of the world. I shall have occasion hereafter to recur to it.

On the 18th of December I reported, from the joint committee on the library, an amendment to an appropriation bill providing for the construction of a statue to the memory of General Lafayette, in the following words:

"That the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representative do appoint a joint committee of three Senators and three Representatives, with authority to contract for and erect a statue to the memory of General Lafayette and his compatriots; and said statue shall be placed in a suitable public reservation in the city of Washington, to be designated by said joint committee."

The amendment was agreed to by both Houses. The result was the erection, on the southeast corner of Lafayette Square in Washington, of the most beautiful and artistic bronze monument in that city.

A somewhat sharp and combative controversy had taken place in the newspapers between General Sherman and Jefferson Davis, in regard to the position of the latter on the rights of the Confederate states in the spring of 1865. General Sherman, in a letter to me dated December 4, 1884, published in the "Sherman Letters," narrated his remarks at a meeting of the Frank Blair Post, G. A. R., No. 1, in St. Louis, in which he said that he had noticed the tendency to gloss over old names and facts by speaking of the Rebellion as a war of secession, while in fact it was a conspiracy up to the firing on Fort Sumter, and a rebellion afterwards. He described the conspiracy between Slidell, Benjamin and Davis, and the seizure of the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge, and other acts of war, and then said:

"I had seen a letter of Mr. Davis showing that he was not sincere in his doctrine of secession, for when some of the states of the Confederacy, in 1865, talked of 'a separate state action,' another name for 'secession,' he stated that he, as president of the Confederacy, would resist it, even if he had to turn Lee's army against it. I did see such a letter, or its copy, in a captured letter book at Raleigh, just about as the war was closing."

Davis called for the production of the identical letter. General Sherman said he could not enter into a statement of the controversy, but he believed the truth of his statement could be established, and that he would collect evidence to make good his statement. I replied to his letter as follows:

"United States Senate, } "Washington, D. C., December 10, 1884.} "Dear Brother:—. . . I can see how naturally you spoke of Jeff. Davis as you did, and you did not say a word more than he deserved. Still, he scarcely deserves to be brought into notice. He was not only a conspirator, but a traitor. His reply was a specimen of impotent rage. It is scarcely worth your notice, nor should you dignify it by a direct rejoinder. A clear, strong statement of the historical facts that justified the use of the word 'conspirator,' which you know very well how to write, is all the notice required. Do not attempt to fortify it by an affidavit, as some of the papers say you intend to do, but your statement of the letters seen by you, and the historical facts known by you, are enough. I have had occasion, since your letter was received, to speak to several Senators about the matter, and they all agree with me that you ought to avoid placing the controversy on letters which cannot now be produced. The records have been pretty well sifted by friendly rebels, and under the new administration it is likely their further publication will be edited by men who will gladly shield Davis at the expense of a Union soldier. The letter of Stephens to Johnson is an extraordinary one. Its publication will be a bombshell in the Confederate camp. I will deliver the copy to Colonel Scott to- morrow. One or two paragraphs from it go far to sustain your stated opinion of Jeff. Davis. . . .