The real controversy raised by the President's message was not whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate with Mr. McKenna, as follows;

"There is a broad line of division between the two parties as they exist now and as they will exist in the future. The President says, 'retain all internal taxes and reduce the duties on imported merchandise that comes in competition with home industries.' We say we will not strike down any prospering industry in this country; that where manufactures have sprung up in our midst by aid of a duty, this protection, as you call it, we will not reduce; we will not derange contracts, industries, or plans, or lower the prices of labor, or compel laborers or manufacturers to meet any sudden change or emergency. We say that we are willing to join with you in reducing the taxes. We will select those taxes that bear most heavily upon the people, especially internal taxes, and repeal those. We will maintain the policy of protection by tariff duties just as long as it is necessary to give our people the benefit of a home market, and diversified productions a fair chance in the trade and commerce of our country, but we will not invite into our country foreign importations to compete with and break down our home industries."

The bill entitled "A bill to reduce taxation and simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenue," known as the Mills bill, was the outcome of the President's message. It was reported to the House of Representatives by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, and thus obtained its name. Mr. Mills, on the 17th of April, called it up for consideration, and it was debated and amended, and passed the House on the 21st of July, more than seven months after the President's cry of alarm, by the close vote of 162 yeas to 149 nays. Samuel J. Randall, then absent and sick, desired his colleague to pair him against the bill, as, if present, he would record his vote in opposition to the bill. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on finance. On the 8th of October Mr. Allison, from that committee, reported back the Mills bill with a substitute for the entire bill. This substitute was a careful and elaborate protective tariff bill, containing some provisions I did not approve, but, in its general provisions, was, in my opinion, a far better bill than the Mills bill. The debate on these rival bills continued until the close of the session on the 19th of October, when the Senate, by a resolution, authorized and directed the committee on finance to continue during the recess of Congress the investigation of such revenue measures, including the Senate and House bills, as had been referred to the Senate.

The history of the bills during the second session of this Congress is easily told. They were debated in the Senate nearly every day until the 22nd of January, 1889, when the amendment of the Senate was adopted as a substitute for the entire Mills bill, by the close vote of 32 yeas to 30 nays. It was debated in the House of Representatives and referred to its committee of ways and means. It was reported by the committee to the House of Representatives, with a resolution declaring that the action of the Senate in substituting an entire bill for the House bill was in violation of the constitution. No action was taken on this resolution, and then all tariff legislation was defeated for that Congress.

On the 6th of March, 1888, Senator Beck made a rambling speech commencing with a fierce denunciation of a bill then pending to grant pensions to certain disabled soldiers of the Union army. He then veered off on the tariff and the great trusts created by it. I ventured, in a mild-mannered way, to suggest to him a doubt whether trusts were caused by the tariff, whether they did not exist as to domestic as well as to foreign productions. I named to him the whisky trust, the cotton-seed trust and other trusts of that kind, and wanted to know how these grew out of the tariff. Thereupon he changed his ground and took up the silver question and commenced assailing me for the coinage act of 1873, saying I was responsible for it. He said it was secretly passed, surreptitiously done, that I did it, that I knew it.

I promptly replied to that charge by showing from the records that the act referred to, and especially the part of it relating to the silver dollar, was recommended by Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury, and all the officers connected with coinage and the mints, that it was debated at great length for three successive sessions in both Houses, that it was printed thirteen times, and that the clause omitting the old silver dollar was especially considered and the policy of it fully debated, and a substitute for the old dollar was provided for by each House. I can say with confidence that every Member of the Senate but Beck felt that he had been worsted in the debate, and that the charge aimed at me, but which equally applied to Morrill and Bayard, and especially to all the Senators from the silver states who earnestly and actively supported the bill, was thoroughly refuted.

Senator Beck, chafed by his defeat, on the 13th of March made in the Senate a three hours' speech in support of his position. Instead of going to the public records and showing by them whether or not the law was put through the Senate in a secret way, he quoted what several Senators and Members said they did not know, what Grant did not know, a mode of argument that if of effect would invalidate the great body of the legislation of Congress.

I replied in a speech occupying less than half an hour, producing the original bill as it came from the treasury department with the dollar omitted from the silver coins, with the report of the Secretary of the Treasury calling attention to its omission, and the opinion of Knox, LInderman, Patterson, Elliott, all of whom were prominent officers of the treasury department in charge of currency and coinage, giving fully the reasons why the old silver dollar was omitted. I also quoted from the records of each House of Congress, showing that special attention was called to the omission of the old silver dollar by Mr. Hooper, having charge of the bill. The House of Representatives, in compliance with the advice of Comptroller Knox, did authorize in its bill, which it passed, a subsidiary dollar containing 384 grains of standard silver, the same weight as two half dollars, but these dollars were, like the subsidiary fractional coins, a legal tender for only five dollars. When this bill came to the Senate it was thoroughly debated. The legislature of California petitioned Congress for a silver dollar weighing more than the Mexican dollar instead of the subsidiary dollar provided for by the House. In compliance with this petition, the Senate so amended the bill as to authorize the owner of silver bullion to deposit the same at any mint, to be formed into bars or into dollars of the weight of 420 grains, designated as "trade dollars." These dollars were intended solely for the foreign trade, and were worth in the market only the value of 420 grains of standard silver. It was the dollar desired by the silver producing states, and but for the rapid decline in the price of silver, which made this dollar worth less than its face in gold, the mint would probably be coining them to-day; but before the mint was closed to their coinage more than 35,000,000 pieces had been made. No unprejudiced persons could claim that the charges of Mr. Beck were not completely answered.

On the 23rd of March Chief Justice Waite, of the Supreme Court of the United States, died at his residence in Washington. Upon the 27th, upon my motion, the Senate adopted a resolution that a committee of five Senators be appointed by the chair, whose duty it should be to accompany the remains of the chief justice to Toledo, in the State of Ohio, and attend the funeral there. The committee appointed were Messrs. Sherman, Allison, Evarts, George and Gray. They attended the funeral as directed. Chief Justice Waite was born in Connecticut, but lived all his manhood life in Toledo, Ohio, until appointed by President Grant as chief justice. He was an able lawyer and a patient, conscientious and learned judge.

On the 1st of March I was directed by the committee on foreign relations to report the following resolution:

"Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That, in view of the difficulties and embarrassments that have attended the regulation of the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States, under the limitations of our treaties with China, the President of the United States be requested to negotiate a treaty with the Emperor of China, containing a provision that no Chinese laborer should enter the United States."

After a brief debate, participated in by Senators Morgan, Stewart, Mitchell and others, I made a few remarks, commencing as follows:

"Whatever differences there may have been in the Senate or in the country, with regard to the restriction of Chinese immigration, the time has come when I believe the general sentiment of the people is, that the law on the subject should be fairly enforced; that the Chinese laborer should be excluded from enjoying the benefits of our country, because he will not adapt himself to the civilization of our country. That feeling is most strongly expressed by Senators and Representatives from the Pacific coast, among whom the 100,000 or more Chinese in the country live, and they have expressed that opinion to the committee on foreign relations so decidedly and unanimously, and supported by such potent reasons, that I believe every member of that committee is of the opinion that the object of the law to exclude the immigration of Chinese laborers should be effectively carried out."

The resolution was adopted.

During this Congress the question of excluding Chinese immigration by treaty and by law was pending and copiously debated. There seemed to be a general concurrence that such immigration was not desirable, and that Chinese coolies should be absolutely excluded. A treaty was negotiated providing for such exclusion, but, as there was a long dely by the Chinese government in ratifying it, and the coolies still continued to come, bills were introduced in Congress prohibiting, under severe penalties, the immigration of all Chinese laborers. Before the bill became a law the treaty was ratified. Now, both by treaty and by law, such immigrants are excluded, but in spite of law and treaty they still come in lessening numbers, and it does not appear how they can be entirely excluded. I have been in favor of the exclusion of Chinese laborers when practically they are slaves, but have sought to moderate the legislation proposed, so as not to disturb our friendly relations with China, or to exclude educated Chinamen engaged in commercial pursuits.

On the 18th of April I made a speech on a bill for the admission of Dakota, as a state, into the Union. That territory had more than the usual population of a new state, but its admission had been postponed, year after year, by the action of the Democratic party. This speech led to a long debate between Mr. Vest and myself on the election in Louisiana in 1876. It is not an unusual occurrence to change the subject of discussion in the Senate where debate is unlimited. I made a long review of the events in Louisiana, mainly in reply to a question put by Mr. Vest as follows:

"I have never understood, and the people of this country have never been able to understand, why Packard was not elected governor with a larger number of votes than Hayes received for President. But Packard was thrown out and sent as consul to Liverpool, and Hayes was sworn in as President of the United States."

To this I replied that the returning board was invested with the power to pass upon the election of electors and they did perform that duty, but the question of the election of a governor and a legislature of Louisiana could only be passed upon by the legislature itself, each house being the judge of its own elections, and the two houses, when organized, had the sole and exclusive power to pass upon the election of a governor. This condition of affairs led to a controversy which endangered the public peace and involved the use of United States troops to prevent civil war. President Hayes thereupon had selected five gentlemen, Charles B. Lawrence, Joseph R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John C. Brown and Wayne MacVeagh, each of whom was a man of marked distinction in the community in which he lived. They were sent to Louisiana to inquire and report upon the existing condition of affairs bordering on a state of civil war between the opposing factions. They were instructed to promote, as far as possible, the organization of a legislature, so that it might pass upon the question of who was governor of the state. The result of their inquiry led to the organization of the legislature, and when so organized it recognized Nichols as Governor of Louisiana, as it clearly had the right to do. The returning board had the unquestioned right to pass upon the election of electors for President, but it was equally clear that the legislature was invested with the sole power of passing upon the election of the governor. The returning board certified to the election of the Hayes electors, and the legislature determined that Nichols was elected governor. Although these decisions were inconsistent with each other yet each was legal and binding. I took occasion in this speech to defend the action of the returning board, and especially the two leading members, J. Madison Wells and Thomas A. Anderson, both of whom were men of high character and standing in that state.

In the course of this debate Vest and Butler charged me with inconsistency in my speeches at Nashville and Springfield. This allegation had been frequently made in the newspapers of the time. In reply I said:

"I am much obliged to my friend from Missouri for his kindness in reading extracts from my speeches. They sound much better to me read by him than when spoken by myself. The speeches speak for themselves, particularly the one at Nashville. Every word I uttered on that night I utter now. If I could repeat it over, I would add emphasis to give force and effect to it, and so I feel about the south. I have not the slightest feeling of hostility against the south, and no desire in regard to it, except to preserve and protect the rights of all the people of the south.

"Now, in regard to my speech at Springfield, every word of that is true. Why does not the Senator dispute some fact stated in that speech? That was a review made to a legislature—indeed, both speeches were made to legislative assemblies, dignified and honorable men. I was speaking in sight of the monument of Lincoln; I was recalling the incidents of Lincoln's life, the period of the war, and referred, of course, to the Democratic party north and south. I could not truthfully draw a more flattering picture. The one was a speech as to the future to men who, I believed, were hopefully looking forward to the disappearance of the feelings of the war. The other was a recapitulation and review of the past. Every word of it was true. If the Senator can point out the inconsistency in these speeches, he will oblige me. There is not a single word in one inconsistent with the other. I did denounce the course of the Democratic party north and south, during and since the war, especially in regard to the reconstruction measures. I did, at Nashville, speak hopefully, and I feel hopefully, of the future, but it is only upon the basis of the recognized rights of every American citizen."

On the 16th of July I made a speech in favor of the passage of a bill for the erection of a monument to General George Rogers Clark, of the American Revolution. His march through the wilderness and attack upon the British posts in the northwestern territory was one of the most brilliant events in the Revolutionary War. The bill passed the Senate and was reported to the House, but was not acted upon. It is one of the obligations of honor and duty which, I trust, will be discharged by the United States before many years.

On the 24th of August a message from the President, in regard to the fishing rights of the United States, was read in the Senate. I moved that the message be referred to the committee on foreign relations. Before this motion was put an extended debate took place mainly between Senators Edmunds and Morgan, though several other Senators took part. I made a speech expressing my opinion of the President's position on the fishery question, and then took occasion to refer to the surplus in the treasury in the following words:

"It seems to me that the position taken by the President is a good deal like that held by him as to the payment of the public debt. My former old and honored colleague [Mr. Thurman] is going around through the country talking about surplus money in the treasury, there accumulated all because we Republicans will not let it out. Of all the financial management that I have read or know of, the worst is that by the present administration. Here there was an accumulating surplus in the treasury, day by day and year by year, since the first day Mr. Cleveland entered the presidential chair. What did he do with that surplus revenue? He did not make proclamation of it for two or three years, but let it accumulate and accumulate until he did not know what to do with it. Finally the attention of the administration was called to the fact that they ought to buy bonds with it. Well, Mr. Cleveland, with his sharp construction, thought he had not the power to buy bonds; he thought he could not do it legally. The law confers the power upon the Secretary of the Treasury.

"The President had no more power over it than the Senator from Connecticut before me [Mr. Platt] has. The law confers it upon the secretary; it was his duty to buy bonds. What untold sums have been lost by his failure to comply with that law. Until recently, during nearly all the administration of Mr. Cleveland, the four per cent. bonds have been sold in the market about 123. I have here the American almanac giving the value of the four per cent. bonds during his administration, and they have usually sold at 123. If the United States had quietly watched its opportunities in the way the present secretary's predecessors had done, he could have gone into the market and absorbed those bonds, to the amount of half a million or a million at a time, and bought them at the market price, 123, and then how much money would have been saved to the government of the United States.

"My former colleague says they have over $100,000,000 of surplus. If they had applied that one hundred million in the purchase of bonds they would have saved four per cent. per annum for three years—that is, twelve per cent. And besides, they would have saved six or seven per cent. lost by the advance of bonds. At any time during the administration of Mr. Cleveland, if his Secretary of the Treasury had exercised the power conferred on him by the law, he might have saved the government of the United States from twelve to sixteen per cent. on the whole hundred million of dollars, if he had invested it in bonds of the United States. But he would not do it because he had not the power. So the President sent to Congress and asked for power, just as he has done in this case, when he had ample power, and both Houses declared unanimously that he had the power, and then, after the bonds had gone up to 127 or 128, when he had lost three years' interest on a large portion of this accumulation, he commenced to buy bonds and complains that they are too high, and that he calls wise financial management.

"So now here is a law, on the statute book for over a year, to enforce a demand on the Canadian authorities that our fishermen, who are there carrying on their hazardous enterprise, should have the right to enter the port of Halifax and ship their goods under the plain provisions of the treaty or the law, and, if that right was denied, then here was the law expressly prepared for the particular case, to authorize the President not to do any violent act of retaliation, not to involve us in any dangerous or delusive measure which would excite the public mind and probably create animosities between these two great countries. But suppose he had simply said: 'Well, if you deny to the Yankee fishermen the right to transship their fish, we deny you the right to bring fresh fish into Maine, Boston, and New York, and scatter them all over, cured by ice,' for that is the effect of it—ice takes the place of salt."

My allusion to the finances as usual excited the ire of Mr. Beck, who said:

"The Senator from Ohio gets away from the treaty and talks about this administration not buying bonds and how much we could have saved because they have raised the price; but I want to say that he himself was the man, both as Secretary of the Treasury and as chairman of the committee on finance, who arranged our debts in such a way that we could not pay them."

In my reply I again called attention to the fact that the House, of which Mr. Beck was a Member at the time of the passage of the four per cent. bond bill, and not the Senate, was responsible for the long period of the bonds. I said:

"The Senator from Kentucky says I am responsible for the fact that there is the prolonged period of thirty years to the four per cent. bonds. He knows, because he was here the other day when I showed from the public record, that the Senate of the United States proposed to pass a bill to issue bonds running only twenty years, with the right of redemption after ten years; and if the law had been passed in that form in which it was sent from the Senate none of this trouble would have existed; but it was changed by the House of Representatives, of which the Senator from Kentucky was then a Member. I believe he voted for the House proposition against the Senate proposition, by which the time was extended to thirty years, and they were not redeemable during that time. Yet I am charged with the responsibility of lengthening these bonds.

"Whatever my sins, I can claim to have always favored the right to redeem the bonds of the United States as the 5-20's and the 10-40's were issued to be redeemed; and if I had had my way we would have had the same kind of bonds issued instead of the thirty-year bonds."

The relation of Canada with the United States, especially in connection with the fisheries, became at this period dangerously strained. This led me, on the 18th of September, to offer in the Senate the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the committee on foreign relations be directed to inquire into, and report at the next session of Congress, the state of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada, with such measures as are expedient to promote friendly commercial and political intercourse between these countries and the United States, and for that purpose have leave to sit during the recess of Congress."

In support of this resolution I said in opening:

"The recent message of the President recommending a line of retaliation against the Dominion of Canada involves the consideration of our relations with that country in a far more important and comprehensive way than Congress has ever before been called upon to give. The recent treaty rejected by the Senate related to a single subject, affecting alone our treaty rights on her northeastern coast. The act of retaliation of 1887 was confined to the same subject-matter. This message, however, treats of matters extending across the continent, affecting commercial relations with every state and territory on our northern boundary. Under these circumstances I feel it is my duty to present my views of all these cognate subjects, and in doing so I feel bound to discard, as far as possible, all political controversy, for in dealing with foreign relations, and especially those with our nearest neighbor, we should think only of our country and not of our party."

The real difficulty of dealing with Canada is its dependence on Great Britain. Our negotiations must be with the English government, while the matters complained of are purely Canadian, and the consent of Canada is necessary to the ratification of any treaty. The President complained that Canadian authorities and officers denied to our fishermen the common privileges freely granted to friendly nations to enter their ports and harbors, to purchase supplies and transship commodities. He said that they subjected our citizens, engaged in fishing enterprises in waters adjacent to their northeastern shore, to numerous vexatious interferences and annoyances, had seized and sold their vessels upon slight pretexts, and had otherwise treated them in a rude, harsh, and oppressive manner. He further said:

"This conduct has been justified by Great Britain and Canada, by the claim that the treaty of 1818 permitted it, and upon the ground that it was necessary to the proper protection of Canadian interests. We deny that treaty agreements justify these acts, and we further maintain that, aside from any treaty restraints, of disputed interpretation, the relative positions of the United States and Canada as near neighbors, the growth of our joint commerce, the development and prosperity of both countries, which amicable relations surely guaranty, and, above all, the liberality always extended by the United States to the people of Canada, furnished motives for kindness and consideration higher and better than treaty covenants."

I agreed with the President in his arraignment of the Canadian authorities for denying to our fishing vessels the benefit of the enlightened measures adopted in later years by commercial nations, especially by the United States and Great Britain. We admitted fish free of duty into our country, while Canada refused to our fishermen the right to purchase bait and other supplies in Canadian ports, thus preventing our fishermen from competing with the Canadians on the open sea. The President undertook, by treaty, to correct this injustice, but the Senate thought that the provisions of the treaty were not adequate for that purpose, and declined to ratify it. He thereupon recommended that Congress provide certain measures of retaliation, which, in the opinion of the Senate, would have inflicted greater injury to the United States than to Canada. This honest difference of opinion, not based upon party lines, opened up the consideration of all our commercial relations with Canada. The speech made by me dealt with the policy of the United States with Canada in the past and for the future, and led me to the expression of my opinion that Canada should be, and would be, represented in the parliament of Great Britain or the Congress of the United States, with the expression of my hope of its being annexed to our country. I said:

"And now I submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history, since the conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763, has been a continuous warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by a political as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed the fortunes of the colonies in the American Revolution. It would have been better for all, for the mother country as well, if all this continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and shared in common the blessings and prosperity of the American Union.

"So, evidently, our fathers thought, for among the earliest military movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the occupation of Canada, and the capture of the British forces in Montreal and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition, the heroism of Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful suffering borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat, is familiar to every student of American history. The native population of Canada were then friendly to our cause, and hundreds of them, as refugees, followed our retiring forces and shared in the subsequent dangers and triumphs of the war. It was the earnest desire of Franklin, Adams, and Jay, at the treaty of peace, to secure the consent of Great Britain to allow Canada to form a part of the United States, and at one time it appeared possible, but for the influence of France and Spain, then the acknowledged sovereigns of large parts of the territory now included within the United States. The present status of Canada grew out of the activities and acquisitions of European powers after the discovery of this continent. Spain, France, and England especially desired to acquire political jurisdiction over this newly discovered country.

"Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain, France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts with the European powers maintaining governments in contiguous territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now held.

"Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force. The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty- four years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world; and as far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided by a mere imaginary line. They live next door neighbors to each other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between them.

"A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them, rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European power, one hundred years ago, was able to hold that territory against us; but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become an independent government to all intents and purposes, as much so as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida, Louisiana, and the Pacific coast and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and matters of transportation. These intensify not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity, of both a commercial and a political union between Canada and the United States."

This was my opinion then, but further reflection convinces me that the annexation of Canada to the United States presents serious difficulties, and that the best policy for the other English-speaking countries is that Canada should constitute an independent republic, founded upon the model of the United States, with one central government, and provinces converted into states with limited powers for local governments. The United States already embraces so vast a country, divided into forty-four states and four territories, exclusive of Alaska and the Indian Territory, that any addition to the number of states would tend to weaken the system, and the conversion of the provinces of Canada into states of our Union would introduce new elements of discord, while with Canada as an independent and friendly republic we could, by treaties or concurrent legislation, secure to each the benefit of free trade and intercourse with the other, and without the danger of weakening the United States. Great Britain, the common mother of both republics, could take pride in her progeny and be relieved from the cares and controversies that have arisen and will arise in her guardianship of Canada. Her policy in recent years has been to surrender, as much as possible, her legislative power over Canada, but, as Canada is not represented in parliament and cannot be represented by a minister at Washington, the spectacle of a British minister of the highest rank engaged in an effort to negotiate a treaty for the benefit of Canada about bait and fish and fisheries, imposing restrictions of trade in direct opposition to the policy of the mother country. This condition of Canada constantly invites a breach of the peace between the United States and Great Britain, but with Canada governed by a parliament and by local assemblies in the provinces on a plan similar to our own, the two republics would be independent of each other, and could arrange their matters without any other country to interfere.

There were many other measures of interest and importance in the discussing and framing of which I participated at this session, but as this is not a general history of Congress, I do not deem it necessary to mention them in detail.

CHAPTER LV. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION OF 1888. Majority of the Ohio Delegates Agree to Support Me for President— Cleveland and Thurman Nominated by the Democrats—I Am Indorsed by the State Convention Held at Dayton, April 18-19—My Response to a Toast at the Americus Club, Pittsburg, on Grant—Meeting with Prominent Men in New York—Foraker's Reply to Judge West's Declaration Concerning Blaine—Blaine's Florence Letter to Chairman Jones—His Opinion of My Qualifications for the Honorable Position—Meeting of the Convention in Chicago in June—I Am Nominated by General D. H. Hastings and Seconded by Governor Foraker—Jealously Between the Ohio Delegates—Predictions of My Nomination on Monday, June 25—Defeated by a Corrupt New York Bargain—General Harrison is Nominated—Letters from the President Elect—My Replies—First Speeches of the Campaign—Harrison's Victory—Second Session of the 50th Congress—The President's Cabinet.

While Congress was in session the people of the United States were greatly interested in the choice of a candidate for President. Conventions were held, votes were taken and preferences expressed in every state. It was settled early in the year that a large majority of the delegates from Ohio would support me for President, and several weeks before the convention was held it was announced that I would receive the unanimous support of the delegates from Ohio. The Democratic party nominated Grover Cleveland and Allen G. Thurman for President and Vice President.

The Republican state convention was held at Dayton, Ohio, on the 18th and 19th of April, and selected Foraker, Foster, McKinley and Butterworth as delegates at large to the national convention. Forty-two delegates were nominated by the twenty-one districts, and all of them were known to favor my nomination. The convention unanimously adopted this resolution:

"Seventh. The Republicans of Ohio recognize the merits, services and abilities of the statesmen who have been mentioned for the Republican nomination for the presidency, and, loyal to anyone who may be selected, present John Sherman to the country as eminently qualified and fitted for the duties of that exalted office, and the delegates to the Republican national convention this day selected are directed to use all honorable means to secure his nomination as President of the United States."

The speeches made at the convention by the delegates at large, and by other members, expressed without qualification the hearty and unanimous support of my nomination. The condition upon which alone I would become a candidate for so exalted a position as President of the United States had been complied with, and I therefore felt that I might fairly aspire to the nomination. Mr. Blaine had declined it on account of his health, and no one was named who had a longer record of public service than I had.

The movement for my nomination was heartily indorsed by the people of Ohio and was kindly received in the different states. Many of the leading newspapers assumed that it was assured. Sketches of my life, full of errors, appeared. My old friend, Rev. S. A. Bronson, issued a new edition of his "Life of John Sherman." Comments favorable and unfavorable, some of them libelous, appeared in print. Mrs. Sherman, much more sensitive than I of calumny, begged me not to be a candidate, as the office of President had killed Lincoln and Garfield, and the effort to attain it had broken down Webster, Clay and Blaine, and would do the same with me. However, I remained at my duties in Washington as calmly awaiting the action of the Chicago convention as any one of my associates in the Senate. I read the daily reports of what was to be—"that I was to be nominated on the first ballot," and "that I had no chance whatever," and became alike indifferent as to the one or the other result.

Shortly after the Ohio convention, I was invited to attend a banquet of the Americus club at the Monongahela House, in Pittsburg, on the 28th of April, at which Senator Harrison and Colonel Fred. Grant were guests. The lobby of the hotel looked as if a political convention was in session, many prominent men from Pennsylvania and other states being present.

At the banquet I was called upon to respond to the toast "Grant; He Was Great to the End." I insert a portion of my remarks:

"I saw General Grant when he arrived in Washington. He soon took command of the Army of the Potomac. His plan of campaign was soon formed. His objective point was Lee's army. Where Lee went he went, and if Lee moved too slowly Grant flanked him. After the fearful and destructive battles of the Wilderness, Washburne wanted to carry some consoling message to Lincoln, and Grant wrote 'I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.' And so he did, and all winter. He never loosed his tenacious grip of Lee's army until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. If you ask me the secret of his success I say tenacity, tenacity. He never was discouraged. He knew how to hold on. And when his object was attained, and not till then, he knew how to be generous.

"He carried the same traits into civil life. He was always the same plain, simple, confiding, brave, tenacious and generous man in war and peace, as when the leader of vast armies, President of the United States, the guest of kings and emperors, and in his final struggle with grim-visaged death. Gentlemen, you do right to commemorate his birthday. It was his good fortune to be the chief instrument of Divine Power to secure to you and your posterity the blessing of a free, strong and united country. He was heroic to the end, and you should be equally heroic in maintaining and preserving the rights and privileges and policy for which he contended.

* * * * *

"I deem it an honor to be called upon by your club, on this sixty- sixth anniversary of the birthday of General Grant, to present in brief words this typical American citizen, this illustrious soldier, this patriotic President. By his tenacious courage and skill the armies of the Union were led from victory to victory, from Belmont to Appomattox, until every enemy of the republic laid down his arms in unconditional surrender. He won from foreign nations reparation for injuries done to us during the war. He did more than anyone else to preserve untarnished the public credit and honor. Heroic to the end, in the hours of death he won his greatest victory by the story of his life, told in words so plain, truthful, charitable and eloquent that it will become as classic as the commentaries of Caesar, but more glorious as the record of a patriot who saved his country, instead of a conqueror who overthrew its liberties. When speaking of General Grant I do not know where to begin and where to end, whether with his personal traits of character, his achievements as a commander of armies, or his services as an untried magistrate in civil life; I can only make a mere reference to each of these elements of his fame."

During the whole of the month of May I remained in Washington, and attended constantly the sessions of the Senate. I was greatly interrupted by visits of persons from different parts of the country, who wished to converse with me in regard to the approaching convention. I treated them kindly, but referred them to General Raum for any information he could give them. I was called to New York on the 8th of June, to attend a meeting of the directors of the Fort Wayne Railway Company. I stopped at the Fifth Avenue hotel, where great numbers of politicians called upon me, but I was charged with having interviews with many persons whom I did not see. I met the leading politicians of the state, including ex- Senator Platt, Senators Hiscock and Quay, Charles Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, and many others. The newspapers had a good many alleged interviews which never occurred. I then became satisfied that I would not probably receive more than five or six of the votes of the New York delegation, as they had generally committed themselves to Mr. Depew, who was understood to be a candidate.

It was already asserted in the papers that I would not be nominated, but that Blaine would be, in spite of his declination in his Florence and Paris letters. Among others, this was asserted by Judge West, of Ohio. Governor Foraker, who was at the head of the Ohio delegation to Chicago, was reported to have said in reply to West:

"I do not attach much importance to Judge West's recent speech. He is not a delegate this year, and he only speaks for himself. Mr. Sherman will have the united and hearty support of the delegates from this state, and I think his nomination is reasonably assured. I received a letter from him yesterday in which he expressed himself as being very confident of getting the nomination. It certainly looks that way to me."

"How do you account for the circulation of the reports that you are not entirely loyal to Sherman?"

"I suppose they originated in the breasts of mischief-makers who would like to make trouble. There never was the slightest foundation for them. I have paid no heed to them, for if my character is not sufficiently established in this state to make my attitude towards Mr. Sherman perfectly clear, nothing I could say would alter the situation. It has been practically settled that General Hastings, the adjutant general of Pennsylvania, will present Mr. Sherman's name to the convention. He is an excellent speaker, and will, no doubt, acquit himself with credit. Yes, I shall probably make the speech seconding his nomination from this state. It is customary, I believe, to have a candidate presented by a delegate from some other state than his own, and in Sherman's case it seems eminently proper that he should be presented in this way, as he is in such a broad sense a national candidate."

There was a common opinion prevailing that the relations of Blaine and myself were not friendly. This was a grave mistake. We had never had any controversy of a personal character. He had spoken of me in terms of the highest eulogy in his book "Twenty Years of Congress," in this manner:

"It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress has an opportunity to carry it out in an executive department. But Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the resumption bill in the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day for coin payment he was at the head of the treasury department. He established a financial reputation not second to that of any man in our history."

Prior to our state convention, while Mr. Blaine was abroad, I wrote to a friend of his, who was with him, that if Blaine desired to be a candidate I would withdraw and advocate his nomination. This letter was handed to Murat Halstead, who was about to proceed to Europe. He showed it to Blaine, who insisted that he could not and would not be a candidate, and wrote a letter to B. F. Jones, chairman of the Republican national committee, in which he stated, in terms that could not be mistaken, his position in regard to the presidency, and settled for good the question of his candidacy. In neither of his previous epistles did he state positively he would not accept the nomination if tendered him. In the letter to Chairman Jones this declaration was most emphatically made. Under no circumstances, Mr. Blaine said, would he permit the use of his name in Chicago, nor would he accept a presidential nomination unanimously tendered him. He further went on to say that Senator John Sherman was his preference, and advised the convention to place his name at the head of the Republican national ticket.

Mr. Halstead said to a correspondent of the New York "World," in regard to Mr. Blaine's position, that he had achieved the greatest place in our political history—above that of Henry Clay—that the nomination would have come to him unsought, but he had smothered any personal ambition he may have had for the good of his party. Mr. Blaine's name, he declared, would not come before the Chicago convention as a candidate in any contingency we have a right to assume. "Mr. Blaine told me," he said, "when I met him in Europe in August last, that he was not a Tichborne claimant for the presidency, and he wanted his friends to understand it. Mr. Blaine will have as distinguished a place in history as he could have obtained had he been elected to the presidency."

Mr. Blaine was asked: "Do you think Mr. Sherman could be elected?"

He replied: "Mr. Sherman represents the principles of the Republican party from its beginning. He has never wavered in his allegiance to the party. If we cannot elect a man on the principles of the Republican party we will not be able to pull anyone through on personal popularity. I think Mr. Sherman is as strong as the Republican party, and that if nominated he can be elected, and also that he has great personal strength."

In reply to the question, "Will the Ohio delegates remain true to Sherman?" Mr. Blaine said: "Of that there can be no doubt. They are riveted and double-bolted to him. The talk of Foraker's scheming for himself is nonsense and malice. Foraker is a young man and has a great future before him. He may go to the Senate and be President later on. No, the Garfield miracle cannot be repeated this year. It is impossible."

The convention met at Chicago on the 19th of June. The delegation from Ohio was promptly in attendance, and was to all appearances united, and determined to carry out the instructions and requests of the state convention to support my nomination. There appeared to be some needless delay in the report of the committee on resolutions. Mr. McKinley, as chairman of the committee, reported the resolutions and they were unanimously adopted by the convention by a standing vote amid great enthusiasm.

I was nominated by General D. H. Hastings, of Pennsylvania, in a speech of remarkable power and eloquence. When he closed, enthusiastic and prolonged cheering and waving of flags greeted him from the galleries, which was joined in my many delegations.

Governor Foraker seconded the nomination. His opening words were: "Ohio is sometimes like New York. She occasionally comes to a national Republican convention divided as to her choice for the presidency, and sometimes she comes united. She has so come on this occasion. Her forty-six delegates are here to speak as one man." His speech throughout was received with great applause, and it and that of General Hastings were regarded as the most eloquent nominating addresses of the convention. They were followed by speeches made by John M. Langston, of Virginia, and Mr. Anson, of North Carolina. There certainly could be no fault found with either the manner or the matter of these addresses.

There was a constant effort made to produce jealousy between the members of the Ohio delegation, and perhaps it may be admitted that the natural divisions in a body of forty-six members would give rise to suspicion and misunderstanding, but I have no right to complain of anything done by the members of the delegation during the convention. There was a natural rivalry between Foraker and McKinley, as they were both young, able and eloquent men. Rumors prevailed at times that the Ohio delegation could be held solid no longer, but if there was any ground for these rumors it did not develop into a breach, as the delegation, from beginning to end, cast the entire vote of Ohio for me on every ballot except the last two or three, when one of the delegates, J. B. Luckey, voted for Harrison, placing his action on the ground that he had served with him in the army and felt bound to vote for him.

On Saturday evening I was telegraphed by different persons that I would certainly be nominated on Monday. That was the confident belief in Washington. On Sunday the following dispatch was published, which, though I do not recall any such conversation, expresses my feeling on that day:

"Senator Sherman says he does not believe that Foraker, or any other Ohio man, will desert him. He spent three hours Sunday at the capitol, in his committee room, and received many telegrams from Chicago, and also sent dispatches to that great central point of interest. He has received some unauthorized dispatches advising him to withdraw in favor of McKinley, but he refuses absolutely to interfere with his managers. His invariable answer to all advising him to pull out is that he is in the fight to stay."

On Monday, the 25th of June, I did not anticipate a change on the first ballot from the last one on Saturday. I did expect, from my dispatches, that the nomination would be made that day and in my favor, but, as the result proved, an arrangement had been made on Sunday that practically secured the nomination of General Harrison. This became obvious in the course of the vote on Monday and, as Harrison was practically assured of the nomination, Pennsylvania voted solid for him and ended the contest.

From the best information I could gather from many persons with whom I conversed, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that I was defeated for the nomination by New York. I was assured before the meeting of the convention that I would have six votes from the beginning from that state, and could reasonably hope for a large addition to that vote in the progress of the balloting. Instead of this I did not receive a single vote, although three or more of the delegates had been distinctly selected in my favor and had given pledges to their constituents that they would vote for me, but they did not on a single ballot do so, except I was advised that at one ballot one of them voted for me.

I believed then, as I believe now, that one of the delegates from the State of New York practically controlled the whole delegation, and that a corrupt bargain was made on Sunday which transferred the great body of the vote of New York to General Harrison, and thus led to his nomination. It is to the credit of General Harrison to say that if the reputed bargain was made it was without his consent at the time, nor did he carry it into execution.

I believe and had, as I thought, conclusive proof that the friends of General Alger substantially purchased the votes of many of the delegates from the southern states who had been instructed by their conventions to vote for me.

There were eight ballots taken in the convention, in all of which I had a large plurality of the votes until the last one.

When General Harrison was nominated I assured him of my hearty support. I have no respect for a man who, because he is disappointed in his aspirations, turns against the party to which he belongs. I believe that both honor and duty require prompt and ready acquiescence in the choice made, unless it is produced by corruption and fraud.

I had no reason to believe, however, that General Harrison resorted in the slightest degree to any improper or corrupt combination to secure his nomination. In answer to a letter from me expressing my congratulations and tendering my support, I received from him a very cordial reply, as follows:

"Indianapolis, July 9, 1888. "My Dear Senator:—Your very frank and kind letter of June 30th has remained unanswered so long only because it was impossible for me to get time to use the pen myself. Some friends were asking 'have you heard from Sherman,' and my answer always was, 'have no concern about him. His congratulations and assurances of support will not be withheld, and they will not be less sincere than the earlier and more demonstrative expressions from other friends.' You will recall our last conversation at Pittsburg, in which I very sincerely assured you that except for the situation of our state my name would not be presented at Chicago in competition with yours. I have always said to all friends that your equipment for the presidency was so ample and your services to the party so great that I felt there was a sort of inappropriateness in passing you by for any of us. I absolutely forbade my friends making any attempt upon the Ohio delegation, and sent word to an old army comrade in the delegation that I hoped he would stand by you to the end.

"I shall very much need your service and assistance, for I am an inexperienced politician as well as statesman. My desire is to have a Republican campaign and not a personal one, and I hope a good start will be made in that direction in the organization of the committee. I have not and shall not attempt to dictate the organization, but have made some very general suggestions. I will confidently hold you to your promise to give me frankly any suggestions that you may think valuable, and assure you that criticism will always be kindly received.

"Mrs. Harrison joins me in kind regards to Mrs. Sherman.

"Very sincerely your friend, "Benj. Harrison. "Hon. John Sherman, U. S. Senate.

"I shall be very glad to see you when you come."

I had many letters from him during the canvass and gave him a hearty and I think effective support. After his election he wrote me the following letter:

"Indianapolis, Ind., November 22, 1888. "Hon. John Sherman, Washington, D. C.

"My Dear Senator:—You will understand, without any explanation from me, that my little home bureau was entirely inadequate to deal with the immense flood of telegrams and letters that poured in upon me after the election. It has happened, that some of those that should have had earliest attention have been postponed, by reason of the fact that the associated press carried off the telegrams and they were not returned for some times. But you did not need to be assured that I appreciate very highly your friendly words, and rely implicitly upon that friendly spirit that has not only prompted them, but so much besides that was useful to me.

"I have, up to this time, given my whole attention to visiting friends and to my correspondence with those who have addressed me by wire or mail. We are just now torn up a little in our household by reason of the work necessary to introduce the natural gas; but will after a little while be settled again. I wish that you would feel that I desire you to deal with me in the utmost frankness, without any restraints at all, and in the assurance that all you may say will be kindly received and will have the weight which your long experience in public life and your friendship for me entitles it to. I know the embarrassments that now attend any intercourse with my friends, on their part, rather than on mine; but you will find some method of communicating with me if you desire, and after awhile I will have the pleasure of a personal conference. With kind regards to Mrs. Sherman, I am,

"Very sincerely yours, "Benj. Harrison."

I sent him the following answer:

"Washington, D. C., November 26, 1888. "My Dear Sir:—Yours of the 22nd is received. I appreciate the embarrassments of your position and feel that the highest mark of friendship is to let you alone, and have therefore refrained from writing to or visiting you. Still I wish you to feel that I have no hope or ambition higher than to see your administration a complete success. The victory is a Republican victory and that I think is a victory for the whole country. Any advice or aid I can give will be freely rendered on call, but not tendered until needed. I notice that every scribbler is making a cabinet for you, but your observation must have led you to the conviction that this is a duty you only can perform. Advice in this matter is an impertinence. Your comfort and success will largely depend upon this, and if I were to offer advice it would be to consult alone your own judgment, taking care to choose those who above all will be faithful and honorable to you and administer the patronage of the departments, not in their own selfish interests, but for the good of the country. The cabinet should be fairly distributed among the different sections, but this is not the prime necessity, nor is it vital that cliques or factions be represented, but only the general average of Republican ideas and policy.

"As to the broader questions of public policy the rule of action is very different than the one suggested as to cabinet officers. The President should 'touch elbows' with Congress. He should have no policy distinct from that of his party, and this is better represented in Congress than in the Executive. Cleveland made his cardinal mistake in dictating a tariff policy to Congress. Grant also failed to cultivate friendly relations with Congress, and was constantly thwarted by it. Lincoln had a happy faculty in dealing with Members and Senators.

"As to visiting you, I will do so with pleasure if you think it necessary, but I dread, on your account as well as my own, the newspaper talk and gabble that will follow. It might embarrass you with others. With the modern facility of dictating you can converse with me without restraint, and all letters passing between us can be returned to the writer. In conclusion permit me to say, and perhaps I am justified in saying by what appears in the papers, that you must not feel embarrassed or under the slightest restraint by seeing my name in connection with office. I am not seeking or expecting any position, nor have I ever determined in my own mind whether I could, consistently with my duties to Ohio, accept any executive office. You should fell like a gallant young gentleman entering upon life with a world of girls about him, free to choose —to propose, but not to dispose.

"Give my kind regards, in which Mrs. Sherman and Mamie join, to Mrs. Harrison and your children, especially the little grandson.

"Very respectfully yours, "John Sherman."

The result of the nomination at Chicago did not in the least disturb my equanimity or my allegiance to the great party to which I belonged, and for the success of which I had devoted my life since 1854. I listened with complaisance to the explanations made as to the wavering of the Ohio delegation on the Saturday previous to the nomination, and as to the unexpected action of the New York delegation and the curious reasoning which held them together in the hope that they could persuade their leader to vote for me. The only feeling of resentment I entertained was in regard to the action of the friends of General Alger in tempting with money poor negroes to violate the instructions of their constituents. I have since read many of the revelations made subsequently as to the action of the Ohio delegation, and came to the conclusion that they did what they thought best to promote my nomination, and had just ground for discouragement when my vote fell below the number anticipated.

On the 5th of July I attended the national exposition in progress in Cincinnati at that time, and made a speech mainly confined to the remarkable growth of the northwestern states. On the next day I visited the chamber of commerce, and the Lincoln club. I then went to Mansfield. On the evening of the day of my arrival I was called upon by a great number of my townsmen, who seemed to feel my recent defeat with more regret than I did.

During this visit to Ohio I heard a great deal about the Chicago convention, but paid little attention to it, and said I was content with the result, that my friends had done what they could, that Harrison was nominated and ought to be elected. As quoted by a newspaper reporter, I said: "Henceforth, I can say what I please, and it is a great pleasure. This feeling of freedom is so strong with me that I am glad I did not get the nomination." Whether I uttered these words or not, they expressed my feeling of relief at the time.

The 100th anniversary of the first permanent settlement in the State of Ohio, at Marietta, was celebrated on the 7th of April, 1888. There was a difference of opinion among the people whether the proper day was the 7th of April or the 15th of July, as the landing of the settlers was on the 7th of April, but on the 15th of July General Arthur St. Clair entered upon the discharge of his duties as governor of the northwestern territory. The result was, the people of Marietta concluded to celebrate on both days. Senator Evarts made an eloquent address on the 7th of April, and I was invited to deliver one on the last day of the second celebration, commencing on the 15th of July. The ceremonies, visiting and feasting continued during five days. The fifth day was called "Ohio day," and was intended as the finale of a great celebration. It was said that 20,000 persons thronged the streets and participated in the memorial ceremonies on that day. This vast crowd, gathered from many different states, were hospitably entertained by the citizens of Marietta. The exercises commenced in the morning at ten o'clock, with Governor Foraker presiding. Among the distinguished guests were the governors or lieutenant-governors of the states that were carved out of the northwestern territory. I had not prepared a speech, but knew what I intended to talk about. I was introduced by Governor Foraker in an eloquent address, which he knew how to make. I said:

"Ladies and Gentlemen:—The very flattering manner in which our governor has introduced me to you rather disturbs the serenity of my thoughts, for I know that the high panegyric that he gives to me is scarcely justified to mortal man. We have faults, all have failings, and no one can claim more than a fair and common average of honest purpose and noble aim. I come to-day as a gleaner on a well-reaped field, by skillful workmen who have garnered the crop and placed it in stacks so high that I cannot steal a sheaf without being detected. I cannot utter a thought without having it said that I copied from some one else. I thank fortune I have no framed speech made, for, if I had, the speech would have been read or spoken to you in eloquent terms, but I only come with thoughts inspired by the great history we are called upon to review—a hundred years of this northwest territory. What a theme it is! Why is it that this favored country of 260,000 square miles and about 160,000,000 acres of land had been selected as the place where the greatest immigration of the human race has occurred in the history of the whole world? There is no spot in this world of ours of the size of this western territory, where, within a hundred years, 15,000,000 of free people are planted, where, at the beginning of the century, there was scarcely a white man living. I am glad it has been spoken of by such eminent men as Senators Hoar, Evarts, Daniel, Tucker, General Ewing and many other distinguished men; and remember, citizens of Marietta, when I speak of this centennial celebration, I do not mean that on the 15th of July only, but on the 7th of April and the 15th of July bound together in a noble wedlock."

I referred to the claims made by several of the old states, based upon their so-called titles to the whole or to portions of the northwestern territory. Senator Daniel, who was on the stand with me, had claimed that Virginia owned all the territory south of the 41st degree of north latitude and westward to the "South Sea." Connecticut claimed all north of that line. New York made a similar claim, all based upon grants by King James or King Charles, neither of whom knew where the South Sea was, and had no conception of or control over the vast territory covered by these grants. Neither of these states had either title to or possession of any part of the northwest territory. The only title based on European law was that acquired by Great Britain from France in 1763, and that title was transferred to the United States at the close of the Revolutionary war. There was no just title to this region except that held by the Indian tribes of America. They owned and possessed it. Before the constitution of the United States was, or could have been, adopted the imaginary claim of the several states was ceded to the United States for the common use and benefit of them all. Virginia and Connecticut reserved large portions of Ohio from their several grants, and these reservations were conceded to them. There is one title which has always been acknowledged by civilized nations, and that is the title by conquest. The only valid title of the United States was that based upon the conquest by George Rogers Clark, who conquered this country from Great Britain. It was not Virginia that did it. And, yet, among the illustrious names that have been furnished by that magnificent state, in the history of this country, that of George Rogers Clark will be gratefully remembered. He, with his two or three hundred Kentuckians, marched through that country, as Senator Daniel described, and subdued the British. Virginia is entitled to the honor of having this son; but it was George Rogers Clark who gave the United States its title to the northwest. The Indians, however, had possession, and how was their title to be disposed of? A treaty was made at Fort Harmar, and plans were adopted to get possession of the Indian land. The Indians always claimed they were cheated in the treaty, defining the boundary line between them and the white men. Therefore, Indian wars came on. St. Clair was defeated by the British and Indians combined. The British were always at the back of every hostile movement that has been made in the history of our country. In Judge Burnett's "Notes of the Northwest Territory" there is a full account of how white men, step by step, gained possession of this territory.

The Indian tribes made bold and aggressive efforts to hold Ohio. They defeated in succession the armies of St. Clair and Harmar, but were compelled to yield to the invincible force of General Wayne and his army. It is painful and pathetic to follow the futile efforts of the Indians to hold the northwest, their favorite hunting grounds. They were told that only a little land was wanted for some poor white settlers to keep them from starving. They were offered $50,000 in money, and $50,000 annually for twenty years, for the southern part of Ohio. The council adjourned until the next day. When it convened an old chief said that "Great Spirit" had appeared to them and told them a way in which all their troubles could be ended. "Let our Great Father give to the few poor white settlers among us the money you offer to us and let them go back from whence they came and be rich and happy." Colonel Wayne could not answer this logic, and the Indians were compelled to submit to their fate and ceded one-half of Ohio. In concluding I said:

"In the history of Ohio we have passed through three or four stages. First was the struggle with the Indians. This generation has not realized it, but I have lived long enough to know something about it in the northern part of Ohio. I saw the last Indian tribe leave the soil of Ohio in 1843, the Wyandotte Nation. There was but the feeble remnant of the most powerful tribe in the world. The next period was the clearing of log cabins. Every homestead was a log cabin—no brick houses, no frame houses, except in town. The log houses in the clearing, the toilsome and exciting time. You talk about hard times now—I have seen the time when a man was glad to get thirty-two cents for a bushel of wheat; when eggs could not be sold, when the only way to get 'York money' was to drive horses and cattle and sheep over the Alleghanies. The next step was the canal system, which brought laborers into the country. Then came the railroads and telegraphs, when the canals ceased to exist.

"Now, I am done. I shall think, however, that I am not through unless I reverently and devoutly give thanks to the Ruler of the universe for all this great good that has come upon this great continent. Here we see the most wonderful republic in the world, born within a hundred years, a great community peopling a continent, having every facility in the world for homes—no land-locked monopoly, closing the door to the poor acquiring homes, or if it does, it should be broken down at every hazard by wise laws passed from time to time. I reverently thank God for our homes, for our great cities, for our state and, more than all else, for our country."

On the 6th of October, while Congress was still in session, I went to Cincinnati and joined in celebrating "Republican day" at the exposition.

Immediately upon the adjournment of Congress I went to Cleveland to attend a meeting in the Music Hall, where I made my first speech in the political campaign. It was carefully prepared and was confined mainly to a full discussion of the tariff question. From that time until the day of the election I was constantly occupied in making speeches in different parts of the state and in Indiana. Among the many places in which I spoke in Ohio were Lancaster, Defiance, Toledo and Mansfield. My first speech in Indiana was at Portland. I referred to a statement made in the newspapers that the Republicans had given up Indiana, and denied this emphatically. I said that since I had come among them and felt the enthusiasm exhibited by them I was entirely confident that they would give to their own "most gallant citizen for President of the United States" a hearty and enthusiastic support. I discussed at length the Mills bill and the tariff bill of the Senate, and closed with an appeal to the "Hoosier voter" in behalf of Ben. Harrison, "the hero of Peach Tree Creek, and the man that honored Indiana in the Senate of the United States for six years."

On the next day I spoke at Huntington, opening my speech as follows;

"When I was traveling over the State of Ohio, recently, I was occasionally asked 'what about Indiana?' and now, since I have been in Indiana, I will be able to answer more accurately than I could have done, although I believed the people of Indiana were loyal, and brave, and true, and would never turn their backs upon their most eminent citizen when he had been designated by the Republican party as a candidate for chief magistrate of the Union. But I have no longer any doubt about Indiana. I saw yesterday 10,000 to 15,000 people, excited by the highest enthusiasm, marching in the bright sun and warm atmosphere in a county supposed to be Democratic. To- day, although the weather is inclement, I see your streets filled with ardent and enthusiastic people, shouting for Harrison and Morton and the Republican ticket. No rain disturbs you; no mud stops you. I shall go back to Ohio and tell them that the Buckeyes and Hoosiers will march together."

While in Indiana I received a request from Harrison to speak at Indianapolis, but my engagement at Toledo prevented this, much to my regret.

My part in the canvass closed at home on the evening of the 5th of November. I concluded my speech as follows:

"Benjamin Harrison possesses many qualities of the highest character. He is an able lawyer, an honest man and a good citizen. Benjamin Harrison is a man for whom every American citizen should vote. He would stand like a wall of fire on every question of honor with a foreign country. If you want to do your country a valuable service you will go to the polls and give a good square honest vote for Harrison."

Harrison received in Ohio a majority over Cleveland of 19,000 votes, and a majority of the electoral vote in the country.

During the period immediately following the election, the papers were, as usual, full of conjectures as to cabinet appointments. All sorts of cabinets were formed for General Harrison and in many of them I was mentioned for the office of Secretary of State. It was because of this that I wrote to Harrison the letter already inserted of the date of November 26. I wished to relieve him from all embarrassments, as I had made up my mind not to hold any office except such as might be given to me by the people of Ohio. I gratefully acknowledge that all the political favor I have received has been from the people of my native state.

On the 28th of November Mrs. Ellen Ewing Sherman, wife of General Sherman, died at her home in New York. She had been in feeble health, but was taken seriously ill about three weeks before her death. She was an accomplished woman of marked ability inherited from her father, a devout Christian of the Catholic faith. Her life had been devoted to the relief of suffering and want. This sad calamity was a source of great grief to her own family and that of her husband. She was married to General Sherman on the 1st of May, 1850, at Washington, when her father was a member of the cabinet of President Taylor. Throughout her entire life she was an affectionate wife and a devoted mother. Her remains were removed to St. Louis, and were there buried beside those of two sons and three grandchildren.

The winter of 1888-89, after the political excitement of the year before, seemed a tranquil period of rest. The coming change of administration excited some interest, especially the selection of a cabinet. Blaine and I were frequently mentioned in the public prints for appointment as Secretary of State, but I gave no attention to the rumors. I did not care to decline an office not tendered to me, though I had definitely made up my mind not to accept any executive office. The duties of a Senator were familiar and agreeable to me. I doubted the wisdom of competing presidential candidates accepting cabinet appointments under a successful rival. The experiment of Lincoln, with Chase and Seward as his principal advisers, was not a good example to follow.

The short session of the 50th Congress, commencing December 3, 1888, was mainly occupied with the tariff question, already referred to, but without hope of passing any tariff bill. Many other questions of public policy were also discussed, but as a rule were postponed to the next Congress, which it was known would be Republican in both branches. Perhaps the most interesting topic of debate was the condition of affairs in Samoa. As chairman of the committee on foreign relations, on the 29th of January, 1889, I presented to the Senate a full statement of the complications in that far distant group of islands. In opening I said:

"The time has arrived when Congress, and especially the Senate, must give intelligent attention to the questions involved in the occupation and settlement of the Samoan Islands. These questions are now exciting profound attention, not only in this country, but in Great Britain and Germany. While supporting the amendments proposed by the committee on foreign relations, reported now from the committee on appropriations, I think it is due to the Senate and the people of the United States that I should state, in a skeleton form, the chief facts in regard to this matter, and that, too, without any feeling whatever, without any desire to interfere with our diplomatic negotiations, or to disturb the harmony of our relations with Germany or Great Britain. I hope that the action of the Senate will be unanimous upon the adoption of these amendments, and that a frank and open debate will tend to this result."

It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted in making Great Britain, Germany, and the United States the guardians of these far distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative orientals. The only interest the United States had in these islands was the possession and ownership of the Bay of Pago-Pago, acquired by a treaty in 1878 between the United States and the King of Samoa. The repeated wars on a small scale that have occurred since that time, and the complications and expense caused by the tripartite protectorate of the islands, furnish another example of the folly of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in a far distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us from accepting outside possessions which in case of war would cost the United States more to defend than their value.

On the 24th of February, 1889, my youngest sister, Fanny Sherman Moulton, the widow of Colonel Charles W. Moulton, died at her residence at Glendale, Ohio, after a brief illness. Her husband died in January, 1888. She was buried by his side in Spring Grove Cemetery, near Cincinnati. In the hurry of the close of the session I could not attend her funeral. She was always kind and affectionate, not only to her children, but to all her kindred. I felt her death keenly, for as the youngest of our family she had lived with me until her marriage, and was regarded by me more as a daughter than a sister.

The called session of the Senate convened on the 4th of March, 1889. President Harrison's message was well delivered and well received. It was longer than the usual inaugural. It was free from any studied rhetoric, but was sensible, logical and satisfactory. The nominations of the cabinet officers were made and immediately confirmed. Those of Blaine and Windom were anticipated but the remainder of the cabinet excited some surprise. They were comparatively new men, without much, if any, experience in congressional life, but were well known in their respective states as gentlemen of ability and high character. A bare majority of the Senate were classed as Republicans. They retained the organization of the committees and no material changes were made. The Senate acted upon its general custom to confine its business to that which it could do alone without the action of the House. It adjourned on the 2nd of April, 1889.

CHAPTER LVI. FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS IN EUROPE. Our Party Takes Its Departure on the "City of New York" on May 1— Personnel of the Party—Short Stop in London—Various Cities in Italy Visited—Sight-Seeing in Rome—Journey to Pompeii and Naples —Impressions of the Inhabitants of Southern Italy—An Amusing Incident Growing Out of the Ignorance of Our Courier—Meeting with Mr. Porter, Minister to Rome—Four Days in Florence—Venice Wholly Unlike Any Other City in the World—Favorable Impression of Vienna —Arrival at Paris—Reception by the President of the Republic of France—Return Home—My Opinion Concerning England and Englishmen —Reception at Washington—Campaigning Again for Foraker—Ohio Ballot Box Forgery and Its Outcome—Address at Cleveland on "The Congress of American States"—Defeat of Foraker for Governor.

Soon after the close of the called session in April, 1889, Mrs. Sherman and I concluded to make a trip to Europe. Both of us had been confined more than usual for over a year, and needed recreation and a change of scene. We went to New York on the 27th of April, stopping with my niece, Mrs. Alfred M. Hoyt. On the next day we witnessed from the battery the naval parade in honor of the centennial of the inauguration of Washington. On the first of May my little party, composed of Mrs. Sherman, Miss May Hoyt, my daughter Mary and myself, were driven to the steamer "City of New York," and there met Senator Cameron and his wife, with their infant child and nurse, Mrs. Colgate Hoyt, a niece of mine, with four children and nurse, and Mrs. Henry R. Hoyt, child and nurse. With this large party we had a joyous and happy voyage. Among the passengers we found many agreeable companions and had the usual diversions, such as music, singing and card playing. We arrived at Queenstown on the 8th of May without any special incident, proceeding thence to Liverpool and London, where we stopped at the Hotel Metropole. Here all our companions except our family party of four left us. As it was our desire to visit Italy before the hot weather set in, we determined to push on as rapidly as convenient to Naples. We spent a day or two in London. We pushed on to Paris via Folkestone and Boulogne. We remained three days at the Hotel Liverpool in Paris and there met several friends, among them Mrs. William Mahone and daughter, and Major and Mrs. Rathbone. On the 14th we went to Lyons, the 15th to Marseilles, and the 16th to Nice. On the 17th we visited Monte Carlo, and on the 18th went to Genoa. Here we spent two days in visiting the most interesting places in that ancient and interesting city. From thence, on the 20th, we went to Rome. The city had already been abandoned by most of the usual visitors, but we did not suffer from the heat, and leisurely drove or walked to all the principal places of interest, such as the ruins of the Roman forum, the Colosseum, the baths of Caracalla and St. Peter's, and the many churches in that ancient city. In the six days in Rome we had, with the aid of maps and a good guide, visited every interesting locality in that city, and had extended our drives over a large part of the Campagna. At Liverpool I had employed a Swiss with the awkward name of Eichmann as my courier. He had a smattering knowledge of many languages, but could not speak any well; he proved to be faithful, and, so far as I could discover, was honest. He relieved us from petty cares and could generally find the places I wished to see. On the 27th we went to Naples, and on the 28th by steamer to Sorrento and Capri. On the 29th we traveled by carriage to Pompeii and thence to Naples. On the 30th we drove about Naples as well as we could, but here we began to feel the heat, which was damp and depressing. It is the misfortune of this city that, although surrounded on all sides by the most beautiful and picturesque scenery of sea and mountain, in a land rich in historical and poetical annals, yet a large portion of the inhabitants impress a stranger with the conviction that they are the poorest, and perhaps the most ignorant, population in Europe. It is a sad reflection, that applies especially to all parts of southern Italy, that the descendants of the Romans, once the rulers of the world, are now classed among the lowest in intelligence in the Christian and civilized world. I remember two things about Naples, one that Mount Vesuvius was in partial action during our stay, and that we had a full opportunity to explore the ruins of Pompeii.

About this time there occurred an amusing incident growing out of the ignorance of a common American phrase on the part of my courier. Mr. Oates, of Alabama, a leading Member of the House of Representatives, was traveling with his wife and friends on the same general route that I was. We frequently met and had pleasant and friendly chats. Eichmann noticed our intimacy and was very polite to Mr. Oates. One day, as my party and I were about to enter a car, some one said: "Is not that John Sherman?" Mr. Oates said, in the hearing of Eichmann: "Yes, that is Sherman," and added as a compliment: "He was a good watchdog in the treasury." Eichmann catching the phrase "watchdog" applied to me regarded it as a gross insult. He rushed into my car, his face aflame with passion and his English more confused than usual, and said: "That man," pointing to Oates, "was not your friend; he called you, sir, a watchdog; yes, sir, a watchdog. He has but one arm, sir, one arm, or I would have chastised him." I had great difficulty in persuading him what a "watchdog" meant, that it was intended as a compliment, not as an insult.

On the 31st we returned to Rome. During my stay there I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Porter, our minister to Rome. He was hardly yet installed in his duties, as the king had been absent, but returned from Germany the day I arrived. Porter and I had been in Congress together, and boarded at the same house. He was not only a man of ability, but of pleasing address and manners.

Everybody I saw in Rome was talking about the heat and moving out of town. On June 1, I went to Florence. There we spent four days very pleasantly. The hotel was good, the weather all we could desire, and the people we met, looked contented and comfortable. They were in striking contrast with their countrymen in Naples. There was an air about the place that indicated prosperity. Florence is an art gallery. Several of our countrymen, famous as artists, of whom I can recall Powers, Meade and Turner, were not only pursuing, but learning, their art. I was told that a considerable part of the population were engaged in painting and sculpture. No doubt their wages were small but food and clothing were also low.

We would gladly have remained longer in Florence if my plan of travel would have allowed it. Not only was the city and all the treasures of art interesting, but the country around was picturesque and highly cultivated. We could ride in any direction over admirable roads and almost every place had an historical interest. I witnessed there a review of several thousand troops, but was especially interested in a body of small men well drilled for rapid movements. The parade was on Sunday and the ladies objected to a parade on that day. I observed that in the Latin states I visited, Sunday was generally selected for such displays. I purchased two works of art from American artists. I commend the wisdom of their choice of location, for in Florence the love of art, especially of sculpture, is more highly appreciated than in any other city of Europe that I have visited.

Our next stopping place was Venice. The chief attraction of this city is that it is unlike any other city in the world in its location, its architecture, its history and in the habits and occupation of its people. It is literally located in the sea; its streets are canals; its carriages are gondolas and they are peculiar and unlike any other vessel afloat. Magnificent stone palaces rise from the waters, and the traveler wonders how, upon such foundations, these buildings could rest for centuries. Its strange history has been the basis of novels, romances, dramas and poetry, by writers in every country and clime. Its form of government was, in the days of the Doges, a republic governed by an aristocracy, and its wealth was the product of commerce conducted by great merchants whose enterprise extended to every part of the known habitable globe.

We visited St. Mark's cathedral, the palace of the Doges, and the numerous places noted in history or tradition. We chartered a gondola and rode by moonlight through the Grand Canal and followed the traditional course of visitors. The glory of Venice is gone forever. We saw nothing of the pomp and panoply of the ancient city. The people were poor and the palaces were reduced to tenement houses. Venice may entice strangers by its peculiar situation and past history, but in the eye of an American traveler it is but a great ruin. The wages paid for labor were not sufficient to supply absolute necessities.

The construction of the railroad to Vienna is a remarkable feat of engineering. The route over the Semmerling pass presents difficulties far greater than any encountered in the United States. We spent four days in and about Vienna. Its location on the River Danube was a good one for a great city. The surrounding country was interesting and well cultivated. The comparison between the people of Vienna and Venice was very much in favor of Vienna. The city was clean, well built, with many signs of growth and prosperity. The people were comfortably clad, and the crowds that gathered in the parks and gardens to hear the music of the military bands were orderly and polite. Among the European cities I have visited, I recall none that made a more favorable impression on my mind than Vienna. I found no difficulty in making my English understood, and it was said of the people of that city that they generally knew enough of the English and French languages, in addition to their native German, to sustain a conversation in either. We visited Colonel Fred. Grant, then our minister to Austria, at Vosben, about twenty miles by rail from Vienna. I did not seek to make acquaintances in Vienna, as my time would not allow it, but, from a superficial view, I believed that the people of that city were intelligent, social and friendly, with more of the habits of Frenchmen than of the Germans of Berlin, or of the English of London.