The committee rejected several plans to aid immigration, and closed its report as follows:

"Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished without great expenditure, and without changing the relation heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.

"With this view your committee report the following bill and recommend its passage."

When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it, and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.

The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888, the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as "the Senate bill" to distinguish it from the "Mills bill," for which it was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.

It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference, of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying, as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.

My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session. The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is not subject to the tariff tax.

The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of sections, or, as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only; but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his "deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population, according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri, commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation. The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000 inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided. It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from the date of its passage.

I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I said:

"A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since 1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the subject of political debate before the people of the United States in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff, until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to bring before the people of the United States their rival theories as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production. It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House, and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.

"Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say, with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government. On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government, but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered into the presidential contest.

"Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the Democratic ideas.

"What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us, and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United States or to any Member of Congress.

"There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first, that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country. It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea, to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign productions. As this tax does not apply to home production, therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule, and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a larger market."

I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.

The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress adjourned.

Many other measures of importance were considered during this long session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to them.

When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H. Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and, though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved the kindly manners that gave him the name of "Gentleman George." He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery. I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect and affection for him:

"U. S. Senate, } "Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.} "My Dear Sir:—Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral of Mr. Pendleton, has been received.

"Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly, and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides, while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome journey.

"Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.

"Very truly yours, "John Sherman."

On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October. It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law, the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently, speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for the number and enthusiasm of those present.

During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:

"While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of Pittsburg wanted to hear me for—why they should invite a Buckeye from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that grand party commenced its series of achievements which have distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in 1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance for your children and your children's children. In 1876 the object of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy the taxes to support the national government? That is the question that is to be discussed mainly to-night."

The mention of the McKinley tariff law was received with immense applause and cheers. Continuing, I said:

"That bill is very well named. It is named after Wm. McKinley, a kind of Pennsylvania-Ohio Dutchman, with a little Scotch-Irish mixed in him, too—a brilliant neighbor of mine, whom, I am told, you have had the pleasure of hearing. It is true that this bill was made up largely of what was called the Senate bill of the year before, and new lines had contributed toward the formation of that bill; but it was properly named after Mr. McKinley because of his indomitable pluck, his ability, his energy.

"It was pushed through the House after great opposition, because the Democrats, as usual, opposed that, as they opposed everything else."

The election in Ohio resulted in Republican success, Daniel J. Ryan, the head of the ticket, being elected secretary of state by about 11,000 majority.

Shortly after the election I was in the city of New York, and was there interviewed. I was reported to have said:

"The Republican defeats do not bother me at all, I have seen many such revulsions before and we get around all right again. It does us good, we become more active and careful. It will be all right.

"I will cite an instance in my own state, Ohio. Last year we lost our governor, this year we carry the state by a splendid majority. The Democrats fixed up the congressional districts so we would get six Congressmen only, but we got eight."

"What of Major McKinley's election to Congress?"

"Major McKinley is, I fear, defeated, though when I left Ohio it was thought that he had succeeded by a small majority. If he should have run in his old district his majority would have been 3,500 or 4,000 against 2,000 received by him two years ago. But they placed him in a district of three Democratic counties and only one Republican county, in which the Democratic majority is upward of 2,000. It looks now as if he is defeated by about 130 votes. It simply means that the major will be the next Governor of Ohio. He made a splendid canvass and a magnificent run, and defeat is not the proper name for the result. Mr. McKinley told me before the election that he did not expect to succeed with such odds against him.

"As to the general result of the congressional elections, I have seen such convulsions a dozen times or more, but they have had no permanent effect. In 1878, when I was Secretary of the Treasury, we lost the House and Senate both, but two years later, in 1880, we rallied and recovered all that we had lost and elected a Republican President besides. I do not regard the present situation with apprehension. The country will be wiser by next year and better able to pass upon the issues."

The second session of the 51st Congress met on the 1st of December, 1890. The annual message of the President dealt with the usual topics. The surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, including the amount applied to the sinking fund, was $105,344,496. In referring to the act "directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of treasury notes thereon," approved July 14, 1890, the President said:

"It has been administered by the Secretary of the Treasury with an earnest purpose to get into circulation, at the earliest possible dates, the full monthly amount of treasury notes contemplated by its provisions, and at the same time to give to the market for silver bullion such support as the law contemplates. The recent depression in the price of silver has been observed with regret. The rapid rise in price which anticipated and followed the passage of this act was influenced in some degree by speculation, and the recent reaction is in part the result of the same cause and in part of the recent monetary disturbances. Some months of further trial will be necessary to determine the permanent effect of the recent legislation upon silver values, but it is gratifying to know that the increased circulation secured by the act has exerted, and will continue to exert, a most beneficial influence upon business and upon general values."

On the 18th of December I reported, from the committee on finance, a bill to provide against the contraction of the currency, and for other purposes. This bill embodied several financial bills on the calendar which had been reported by the committee, and it was deemed best to include them in a single measure. The bill was recommitted and again reported by me on the 23rd of December, when Mr. Stewart gave notice of and had read an amendment he intended to offer providing for the free coinage of silver.

On January 5, 1891, at the expiration of the morning hour, Mr. Stewart moved to proceed to the consideration of this bill. By a combination of seven Republican with the Democratic Senators the motion was carried, thus displacing the regular order of business, which was a bill relating to the election of Members of Congress, and which had been under discussion for several days.

Mr. Stewart than offered, as an amendment to the amendment of the committee, then pending, the following provision:

"That any owner of silver bullion, not too base for the operations of the mint, may deposit the same in amount of the value of not less than $100, at any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard dollars or bars, for his benefit and without charge, and that, at the said owner's option, he may receive therefor an equivalent of such standard dollars in treasury notes of the same form and description, and having the same legal qualities, as the notes provided for by the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled, 'An act directing the purchase of silver bullion, and the issue of treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.' And all such treasury notes issued under the provisions of this act shall be a legal tender for their nominal amount in payment of all debts, public and private, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued in the same manner, and to the same extent, as other treasury notes."

This being an amendment to an amendment, no further modification or change could be made to the bill until it was disposed of. Mr. Stewart made some remarks, and in conclusion said:

"I do not intend further to comment, at this time, on the amendment to the bill which I have offered. If it shall be adopted, then there are other portions of the bill which can be stricken out. The amendment I have offered presents the question naked and simple. Will you remonetize silver and place it back where it was before it was excluded from the mints of the United States and Europe?"

I was taken by surprise at the sudden presentation of the question, but promptly took the floor and said:

"The sudden and unexpected change of the scene, the introduction of an entirely new topic into our debate, must not pass by without the serious and sober attention of every Senator on the floor to the revolutionary measure now proposed. I do not wish to, nor will I, nor can I, regard this as a political question, because we know that the local interests of a certain portion of our number—and I do not object to Senators representing the interest of their constituents—lead them to opinions different from the opinions of Senators from the larger states containing the great mass of the population of this country, not only in the north, but in the south; and therefore, while the Republican party may be weakened by the unexpected defection of a certain portion of our number who agree with us in political opinions generally, yet that will not relieve the minority in this body, our Democratic associates, from the sober responsibility which they will assume in aiding in the adoption of this measure. At the very outset of this discussion I appealed to the sober judgment of Senators to consider the responsibility which they take in adopting what I regard as a revolution more full of injury, more dangerous in its character, and more destructive in its results, than any measure which has been proposed for years.

"Now, what is this question? The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart], representing a state whose chief production is silver, offers an amendment to change entirely the standard of valuation of all the property of the United States. At present all contracts are founded upon what is called the gold standard. Every particle of property we enjoy, every obligation of contract, whether by the national government or by each individual, is now based in actual fact upon the gold standard of 25.8 grains. That is the standard of all the commercial nations of the world. It is the standard of France, which, like ourselves, has used silver to a large extent. It is the standard of value of France and every country of Europe."

I then, at considerable length, stated the objections to the free coinage of silver and the revolution it would create in the financial condition of the country. This led to a long debate, participated in by many Senators. On the 13th of January I made a long and carefully considered speech, extending through fourteen pages of the "Record," in which I entered into detail in reply to the speeches that had been made, and stated the objections to the free coinage of silver. It is too long to insert even an abstract of it here. I have carefully read this speech and refer to it as the first of three speeches, the second being delivered on the 30th of June, 1892, and the third on August 30, 1893, as the best presentation I have ever made of the question involved, and as containing all the material facts bearing upon the question of free coinage and the folly of its adoption.

It was manifest that the combination that had been made intended to force the adoption of the amendment. The vote on it was taken on the 14th of January and the result was yeas 42 and nays 30. Nearly all the Senators from the western group of states, though Republicans, voted for the amendment in favor of free coinage. Only four voted against it. So the amendment of Mr. Stewart was agreed to. The bill was further discussed and changed to conform to the amendment and finally passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 39, nays 27, but failed to pass the House.

Thus the debate and the adoption by the Senate of free coinage defeated all financial legislation during that session.

CHAPTER LVIII. EFFORTS TO CONSTRUCT THE NICARAGUAN CANAL. Early Recognition of the Need of a Canal Across the Isthmus Connecting North and South America—M. de Lesseps Attempts to Build a Water Way at Panama—Feasability of a Route by Lake Nicaragua— First Attempts in 1825 to Secure Aid from Congress—The Clayton- Bulwer Convention of 1850—Hindrance to the Work Caused by This Treaty—Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1891— Failure to Secure a Treaty Between the United States and Nicaragua in 1884—Cleveland's Reasons for Withdrawing This Treaty—Incorporation of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua—Inevitable Failure of Their Attempts Unless Aided by the Government—Why We Should Purchase Outright the Concessions of the Maritime Company—Brief Description of the Proposed Canal—My Last Letter from General Sherman—His Death from Pneumonia After a Few Days' Illness—Messages of President Harrison—Resolution—My Commemorative Address Delivered Before the Loyal Legion.

One of the most important subjects considered by the Senate within the last ten years, to which I have given special attention, is the construction of a ship canal across Central America. The American continents, stretching from the polar regions of the north to the Straits of Magellan, south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, present a barrier to navigation from the east to the west, to overcome which has been the anxious desire of mankind ever since the discovery of America by Columbus. It was the object of his memorable voyage to find a water way from Spain to China and India. While his discovery was an event of the greatest importance, yet it was a disappointment to him, and in all his subsequent voyages he sought to find a way through the newly-found land to the Indian Ocean. The spirit of enterprise that was aroused by his reports led many adventurers to explore the new world, and before many years the peculiar formation of the long strip of land connecting North and South America was clearly defined. The Spaniards conquered Mexico and Peru, and at this early period conceived the idea of a canal across the isthmus, but the obstruction could not be overcome by the engineering of that day. The region of Central America was soon occupied by Spain, and was divided into many colonies, which, in process of time, became independent of Spain, and of each other.

During the four centuries that have elapsed since the discovery, the construction of a canal across the isthmus has been kept in view, and by common consent the routes at Panama and through Lake Nicaragua have been regarded as the best. That at Panama is the shortest, but is impracticable, as was shown by the abortive attempt of M. de Lesseps. The route by Lake Nicaragua was early regarded by the American people as the only adequate, efficient and practicable passage. Though burdened with the delays of lockage, it is more practical, less costly, and more useful than the one at Panama would have been, and will accomplish the same object. When, in 1825, the independence of the republic of Nicaragua was secured, that government appealed to the United States for assistance in executing the work of a canal by that route. Mr. Clay, then Secretary of State, took an active interest in the subject, and said, in a letter to the commissioners of the United States to the congress of Panama:

"A canal for navigation between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans should form a proper subject of consideration at the congress. The vast object, if it should ever be accomplished, will be interesting in a greater or less degree to all parts of the world; but especially to this continent will accrue its greatest benefits; and to Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru, and the United States, more than any other of the American nations."

No action was taken, as the discordant interests of the several Central American states prevented. When California was acquired as the result of the Mexican War, and gold was discovered in its soil, the necessity for some means of speedy transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast became imperative. The route by Panama, being the shortest line across the isthmus, was naturally taken by the eager gold seekers and a railroad was soon after constructed over this route. The movement of travel and transportation across the isthmus tempted M. de Lesseps and his associates to undertake the task of constructing a canal, with the result already stated.

Prior to 1850 the movements of the British government to seize the country at the mouth of the San Juan River in Nicaragua, with the evident view of controlling the construction of a canal by way of Lake Nicaragua, excited in this country the deepest interest and apprehension. This led to the Clayton-Bulwer convention of 1850, by which the United States and Great Britain stipulated that neither of the governments "will ever obtain for itself any exclusive control over the canal or colonize or assume or exercise any domain over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America."

It provided for the exertion of the influence of the two governments in facilitating the construction of the work by every means in their power, and that after completion they would defend its neutrality, with the privilege of withdrawing such guaranty on notice. It also provided for inviting other governments to come into the same arrangement, and that each party should enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central American states as might be deemed advisable for carrying out the great design of the convention. It declared that no time should be unnecessarily lost in commencing and constructing the canal, and, therefore, that the two governments would give their support and encouragement to such persons as might first offer to commence the same with the necessary capital, and that, if any persons then already had obtained the right to build it from the Central American government and should fail, each of the two governments should be free to afford its protection to any other company that should be prepared to proceed with the work.

This treaty has given rise to much discussion, and has ever since been a hindrance to the great work it proposed to advance. The British government has repeatedly violated the treaty by extending its possessions and strengthening its influence in that part of the world. The report made by me, as chairman of the committee on foreign relations, on the 10th of January, 1891, in response to a resolution of the Senate, contains a full statement of the results of that treaty. As this report has been widely circulated and was considered an important document, it is but just for me to say that, while I presented it, two other members of the committee participated in its preparation. The first part, relating to negotiations, was written by Senator Edmunds; the second part, relating to the then condition of the work on the Nicaragua Canal and its value, tonnage and business, by Senator Morgan; and the residue, in respect to the financial aspect of the subject, the cost of the work proposed and the aid that should be given by the United States in its construction, by me. The framing of a bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee was the work of the full committee. I do not think it necessary to restate here the position of the committee, as no definite action has been taken by Congress on the bill reported. The report was signed by each member of the committee, as follows: John Sherman, Chairman, Geo. F. Edmunds, Wm. P. Frye, Wm. M. Evarts, J. N. Dolph, John T. Morgan, Joseph E. Brown, H. B. Payne, J. B. Eustis.

There are, however, questions connected with this subject which are of vital interest to the United States, and not presented in that report. By the treaty negotiated in 1884, between the United States and Nicaragua, the canal was to be built by the United States. This treaty was sent to the Senate on December 10, 1884, by President Arthur, who, in strong and earnest language, recommended its ratification. It had been frequently debated, but was still pending in the Senate when Mr. Cleveland became President. I do not feel at liberty to state the causes of delay, nor the ground taken, nor the votes given either for or against it, as the injunction of secrecy in respect to it has not been removed, but I have regarded as a misfortune its practical defeat by the want of a two-thirds vote, required by the constitution to ratify a treaty. The terms granted in it by Nicaragua were liberal in the broadest sense. The complete control of the canal and its appurtenances, and the manner of its construction, were invested in the United States. The conditions proposed would have made it an international work of great importance to all commercial nations, while ample authority was reserved on the part of the United States to protect its investment with tolls sufficient to pay the interest and refund the principal.

At the called session of March, 1885, Mr. Cleveland withdrew the treaty, not from opposition to its general purposes, but because, as he stated in his annual message in December, 1885, it was "coupled with absolute and unlimited engagements to defend the territorial integrity of the states where such interests lie." He held that this clause was an "entangling alliance inconsistent with the declared policy of the United States." This objection to the treaty could have been easily removed by negotiation, as Mr. Bayard, a Member of the Senate when the treaty was pending, and Secretary of State under President Cleveland, very well knew. Thus, by an unfortunate division in the Senate and the action of the President, the construction of the canal by the United States was prevented. Subsequently, in 1887, concessions were made by Nicaragua and Costa Rica to a private association of citizens of the United States, which led to the incorporation, by Congress, of the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua.

The interposition of a private corporation between the United States and Nicaragua has created all the delays and embarrassments that have followed. Such a corporation can obtain money only be selling its bonds bearing a high rate of interest, secured by a mortgage of all its property and concessions, and its stock must accompany the bonds. Experience has shown that such a work cannot be executed, especially on foreign soil, without the support and aid of a powerful government. If such aid is rendered it must be to the full cost of the work, and all the benefits should inure to the people and not to the corporation or its stockholders. The experience of the United States in the construction of the Pacific railroads is an example of the inevitable result of copartnership. The attempt of the Maritime Company to construct such a work as the Nicaraguan canal without the aid of the government will end either in failure or at a cost, in bonds and stock, the interest of which would be so great that the cost of the transit of vessels through the canal would deter their owners from using it, and goods would be, as now, transferred by rail to and from Panama.

The method of aiding the Maritime Canal Company proposed in the bill reported by me, and again recently by Senator Morgan, is as good as any that can be devised, but I greatly prefer the direct and absolute purchase of the concessions of that company, and the negotiation of new treaties with Nicaragua and Costa Rica upon the basis of the former treaty, and the execution of the work under the supervision of the engineer corps of the United States in the same manner that internal improvements are made in this country. The credit of the United States will secure a loan at the lowest possible rate of interest, and with money thus obtained, and with the confidence of contractors that they will receive their pay for work done, the cost will be reduced to the actual sum needed. It is the interest of the commercial world as well as of the United States that the tolls charged on the passage of vessels should be as low as possible, and this will be secured by the construction of the work by the government.

If the present owners of the concessions from Nicaragua and Costa Rica will not accept a reasonable price for their privileges and for the work done, to be fixed by an impartial tribunal, it is better for the United States to withdraw any offer of aid; but if they will accept such an award the United States should take up the work and realize the dream and hopes of Columbus. At present the delay of action by Congress grows out of the fact that no detailed scientific survey of the route has been made by the engineer corps of the United States. The only approach to such a survey was the one made by A. G. Menocal, an accomplished civil engineer of the navy, but it was felt that this was not sufficient to justify the United States in undertaking so great and expensive a work. In accordance with this feeling the 53rd Congress directed the Secretary of War to cause a thorough survey to be made and to submit a full report to the next Congress, to convene December 2, 1895. This survey is now in progress and will no doubt largely influence the future action of Congress.

A brief description of the canal proposed may be of interest to those who have not studied the geography and topography of its site, though it is difficult to convey by writing and without maps an adequate conception of the work. It is apparent, according to Menocal's surveys, that the physical difficulties to be overcome are not greater than those of works of improvement undertaken within our own country, for the highest part of the water way is to be only 110 feet above the two oceans—a less altitude than that of the base of the hills which surround the city of Washington. The works proposed include a system of locks, similar in character to the one built by the United States at the falls of Sault Ste. Marie and to those constructed by Canada around the falls of Niagara. A single dam across the San Juan River, 1,250 feet long and averaging 61 feet high, between two steep hills, will insure navigable water, of sufficient depth and width for the commerce of the world, to a length of 120 miles. The approaches to this level, though expensive, are not different from similar works, and will be singularly sheltered from floods and storms. Of the distance of 169.4 miles from ocean to ocean, 142.6 miles are to be accomplished by slack- water navigation in lake, river, and basins, and only 26.8 miles by excavated canal. The greatest altitude of the ridge which divides Lake Nicaragua from the Pacific Ocean does not exceed, at any point, 42 feet above the lake.

Perhaps the chief engineering difficulty is in the construction of harbors at the Pacific and Atlantic termini of the canal, but that at Greytown, on the Atlantic coast, which is considered the most formidable, has already been partially built. The obstacles are not to be compared with those encountered in the attempted construction of the Panama canal, or with those which were easily overcome in the construction of the Suez Canal; and the whole work, from ocean to ocean, is free from the dangers of moving sand and destroying freshets. Lake Nicaragua itself is one of the most remarkable physical features of the world. It fills a cavity in the midst of a broken chain of mountains, whose height is reduced, at this point, nearly to the level of the sea, and it furnishes not only the means of navigation at a low altitude, but enormous advantages as a safe harbor.

If the survey ordered and now (1895) being made should confirm the reports of Menocal there is no reason why the United States should not assume and execute this great work without ultimate loss, and with enormous benefit to the commerce of the world. It will be a monument to our republic and will tend to widen its influence with all the nations of Central and South America.

The last letter I received from General Sherman was as follows:

"No. 75 West 71st Street, New York,} "Tuesday, February 3, 1891. } "Dear Brother:—I am drifting along in the old rut—in good strength, attending about four dinners out per week at public or private houses, and generally wind up for gossip at the Union League club. Last night, discussing the effect of Mr. Windom's death and funeral, several prominent gentlemen remarked that Windom's fine speech just preceding his death was in line with yours on the silver question in the Senate, and also with a carefully prepared interview of you by George Alfred Townsend which I had not seen. I have ordered of my book man the New York 'Sun' of Sunday, February 1st, which contains the interview.

"You sent me a copy of your speech in pamphlet form which was begged of me, and as others naturally apply for copies, I wish you would have your secretary send me a dozen, that I may distribute them.

"All well here and send love.

"Your brother, "W. T. Sherman."

Soon after the receipt of this letter I was notified of the dangerous illness of my brother at his residence in the city of New York. I at once went to his bedside, and remained with him until his death, at two o'clock of Saturday, the 14th of February. In his later years, after his removal to New York, he entered into the social life of that city. He was in demand at weddings, dinners, parties, reunions of soldiers, and public meetings, where his genial nature and ready tact, his fund of information and happy facility of expression, made him a universal favorite. He was temperate in his eating and drinking, but fond of companionship, and always happy when he had his old friends and comrades about him. He enjoyed the society of ladies, and did not like to refuse their invitations to social gatherings. In conversation with men or women, old or young, he was always interesting. He was often warned that at three score and ten he could not endure the excitement of such a life, and he repeatedly promised to limit his engagements. Early in February he exposed himself to the inclement weather of that season, and contracted a cold which led to pneumonia, and in a few days to death. He was perfectly conscious of his condition and probable fate, but had lost the power of speech and could only communicate his wishes by signs. His children were with him, and hundreds daily inquired about him at his door; among them were soldiers and widows whom he had aided.

During the last hours of General Sherman, his family, who had been bred in the Catholic faith, called in a Catholic priest to administer extreme unction according to the ritual of that church. The New York "Times," of the date of February 13, made a very uncharitable allusion to this and intimated that it was done surreptitiously, without my knowledge. This was not true but the statement deeply wounded the feelings of his children. I promptly sent to the "Times" the following letter, which was published and received with general satisfaction:

"A paragraph in your paper this morning gives a very erroneous view of an incident in General Sherman's sick chamber, which wounds the sensitive feelings of his children, now in deep distress, which, under the circumstances, I deem it proper to correct. Your reporter intimates that advantage was taken of my temporary absence to introduce a Catholic priest into General Sherman's chamber to administer the rite of extreme unction to the sick man, in the nature of a claim that he was a Catholic. It is well known that his children have been reared by their mother, a devoted Catholic, in her faith, and now cling to it. It is equally well known that General Sherman and myself, as well as all my mother's children, are, by inheritance, education, and connection, Christians, but not Catholics, and this has been openly avowed, on all proper occasions, by General Sherman; but he is too good a Christian, and too humane a man, to deny to his children the consolation of their religion. He was insensible at the time and apparently at the verge of death, but if he had been well and in the full exercise of his faculties, he would not have denied to them the consolation of the prayers and religious observances for their father of any class or denomination of Christian priests or preachers. Certainly, if I had been present, I would, at the request of the family, have assented to and reverently shared in an appeal to the Almighty for the life here and hereafter of my brother, whether called a prayer or extreme unction, and whether uttered by a priest or a preacher, or any other good man who believed what he spoke and had an honest faith in his creed.

"I hear that your reporter uttered a threat to obtain information which I cannot believe you would for a moment tolerate. We all need charity for our frailties, but I can feel none for anyone who would wound those already in distress."

President Harrison announced General Sherman's death to both Houses of Congress in the following words:

"To the Senate and House of Representatives: The death of William Tecumseh Sherman, which took place to-day at his residence in the city of New York, at 1 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m., is an event that will bring sorrow to the heart of every patriotic citizen. No living American was so loved and venerated as he. To look upon his face, to hear his name, was to have one's love of country intensified. He served his country, not for fame, not out of a sense of professional duty, but for love of the flag and of the beneficent civil institutions of which it was the emblem. He was an ideal soldier, and shared to the fullest the esprit de corps of the army; but he cherished the civil institutions organized under the constitution, and was a soldier only that these might be perpetuated in undiminished usefulness and honor. He was in nothing an imitator.

"A profound student of military science and precedent, he drew from them principles and suggestions, and so adapted them to novel conditions that his campaigns will continue to be the profitable study of the military profession throughout the world. His genial nature made him comrade to every soldier of the great Union army. No presence was so welcome and inspiring at the camp-fire or commandery as his. His career was complete; his honors were full. He had received from the government the highest rank known to our military establishment, and from the people unstinted gratitude and love. No word of mine can add to his fame. His death has followed in startling quickness that of the Admiral of the Navy; and it is a sad and notable incident that, when the department under which he served shall have put on the usual emblems of mourning, four of the eight executive departments will be simultaneously draped in black, and one other has but to-day removed the crape from its walls

"Benj. Harrison. "Executive Mansion, February 14, 1891."

The following resolutions were offered in the Senate and unanimously agreed to:

"Resolved, That the Senate received with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of William T. Sherman, late general of the armies of the United States.

"Resolved, That the Senate renews its acknowledgments of the inestimable services he rendered its country in the day of its extreme trial, laments the great loss the country has sustained, and deeply sympathizes with his family in their bereavement.

"Resolved, That the presiding officer is requested to appoint a committee of five Senators to attend the funeral of the late General Sherman.

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the family of the deceased."

Eloquent and appropriate speeches were made by Senators Hawley, Manderson, Morgan and Pierce.

In the House of Representatives the message of the President was referred to the committee on military affairs, for appropriate action thereon and the following resolutions were reported by Mr. McCutcheon and adopted:

"Resolved, That the House of Representatives has heard with profound sorrow of the death, at his home in New York City, on the 14th instant, of William Tecumseh Sherman, the last of the generals of the armies of the United States.

"Resolved, That we mourn him as the greatest soldier remaining to the republic and the last of that illustrious trio of generals who commanded the armies of the United States—Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan—who shed imperishable glory upon American arms, and were the idolized leaders of the Union army.

"Resolved, That we hereby record the high appreciation in which the American people hold the character and services of General Sherman, as one of the greatest soldiers of his generation, as one of the grandest patriots that our country has produced, and as a noble man in the broadest and fullest meaning of the word.

"We mingle our grief with that of the nation, mourning the departure of her great son, and of the survivors of the battle-scarred veterans whom he led to victory and peace. We especially tender our sympathy and condolence to those who are bound to him by the ties of blood and strong personal affection.

"Resolved, That the speaker appoint a committee of nine Members of the House to attend the funeral of the late general as representatives of this body.

"Resolved, That a copy of these resolution be forwarded by the clerk of the House to the family of General Sherman."

Eloquent tributes were paid to his memory by Messrs. Cutcheon, Grosvenor, Outhwaite, Henderson, Cogswell, Vandever, Wheeler and Williams.

General Sherman had expressed the desire that his body be buried by the side of his wife in a cemetery in St. Louis. In February, 1890, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, the members of Ransom Post, Grand Army of the Republic, of which he was the first commander, sent him many congratulatory letters and telegrams. In replying to these, among other things he wrote:

"I have again and again been urged to allow my name to be transferred to the roster of some one of the many reputable posts of the Grand Army of the Republic in New York, but my invariable answer has been 'no;' that Ransom Post has stood by me since its beginning and I will stand by it to my end, and then that, in its organized capacity, it will deposit my poor body in Calvary Cemetery alongside my faithful wife and idolized 'soldier boy.' My health continues good, so my comrades of Ransom Post must guard theirs, that they may be able to fulfill this sacred duty imposed by their first commander. God bless you all."

I vividly recall the impressive scene in the city of New York when his body was started on its long journey. The people of the city, in silence and sadness, filled the sidewalks from 71st to Courtland street, and watched the funeral train, and a countless multitude in every city, town and hamlet on the long road to St. Louis expressed their sorrow and sympathy. His mortal remains were received with profound respect by the people of that city, among whom he had lived for many years, and there he was buried by the side of his wife and the children who had gone before him.

In February, 1892, I was requested, by the New York Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, to deliver an address commemorative of General Sherman. I did so, on the 6th of April of that year but, as many of the incidents therein mentioned have been already stated, I only add a few paragraphs from its close:

"And here I might end, but there are certain traits and characteristics of General Sherman upon which I can and ought to speak with greater knowledge and confidence than of his military career. He was distinguished, first of all, from his early boyhood, for his love and veneration for, and obedience to, his mother. There never was a time—since his appointment as a cadet, to her death—that he did not insist upon sharing with her his modest pay, and gave to her most respectful homage and duty. It is hardly necessary in this presence to refer to his devotion to his wife, Ellen Ewing Sherman. They were born in neighboring households, reared from childhood in the same family, early attached and pledged to each other, married when he reached the grade of captain, shared in affection and respect the joys and sorrows of life, and paid the last debt to nature within a few months of each other.

"The same affection and care were bestowed upon his children. Many of his comrades will recall the visit of his wife and his son Willie, a lad of thirteen, at his camp on the Big Black, after the surrender of Vicksburg. Poor Willie believed he was a sergeant in the 13th United States Infantry. He sickened and died at Memphis on his way home. No one who reads it but will remember the touching tribute of sorrow his father wrote, a sorrow that was never dimmed, but was often recalled while life lasted.

"General Sherman always paid the most respectful attention to women in every rank and condition of life—the widow and the orphan, the young and the old. While he was often stern and abrupt to men, he was always kind and gentle to women, and he received from them the homage they would pay to a brother. His friendship for Grant I have already alluded to, but it extended in a lesser degree to all his comrades, especially those of West Point. No good soldier in his command feared to approach him to demand justice, and everyone received it if in his power to grant it. He shared with them the hardships of the march and the camp, and he was content with the same ration given to them. Simple in his habits, easy of approach, considerate of their comfort, he was popular with his soldiers, even while exacting in his discipline. The name of 'Uncle Billy,' given to him by them, was the highest evidence of their affection.

"He was the most unselfish man I ever knew. He did not seek for high rank, and often expressed doubts of his fitness for high command. He became a warm admirer of Abraham Lincoln as the war progressed, and more than once expressed to him a desire for subordinate duty. He never asked for promotion, but accepted it when given. His letters to me are full of urgent requests for the promotion of officers who rendered distinguished service, but never for his own. When the bill for the retirement of officers at the age of sixty-three was pending, he was excepted from its operation. He telegraphed me, insisting that no exception should be made in his favor, that General Sheridan should have the promotion and rank of general, which he had fairly earned. This was granted, but Congress with great kindness continued to General Sherman the full pay of a general when he was placed on the retired list.

"In his business relations he was bound by a scrupulous sense of honor and duty. I never knew of him doing anything which the most exacting could say was dishonorable, a violation of duty or right. I could name many instances of this trait, which I will not, but one or two cases will suffice. When a banker in California, several of his old army friends, especially from the south, trusted him with their savings for investment. He invested their money in good faith in what were considered the very best securities in California, but when Page, Bacon & Co., and nearly every banker in San Francisco, failed in 1855, all securities were dishonored, and many of them became worthless. General Sherman, though not responsible in law or equity for a loss that common prudence could not foresee, yet felt that he was 'in honor' bound to secure from loss those who had confided in him, and used for that purpose all, or nearly all, of his own savings.

"So, in the settlements of his accounts in Louisiana, when he had the entire control of expenditures, he took the utmost care to see that every dollar was accounted for. He resigned on the 18th of January, and waited until the 23rd of February for that purpose. The same exact accountability was practiced by him in all accounts with the United States. In my personal business relations with him, I found him to be exact and particular to the last degree, insisting always upon paying fully every debt, and his share of every expense. I doubt if any man living can truly say that General Sherman owes him a dollar, while thousands know he was generous in giving in proportion to his means. He had an extreme horror of debt and taxes. He looked upon the heavy taxes now in vogue as in the nature of confiscation, and in some cases sold his land, rapidly rising in value, because the taxes assessed seemed to him unreasonable.

"While the war lasted, General Sherman was a soldier intent upon putting down what he conceived to be a causeless rebellion. He said that war was barbarism that could not be refined, and the speediest way to end it was to prosecute it with vigor to complete success. When this was done, and the Union was saved, he was for the most liberal terms of conciliation and kindness to the southern people. All enmities were forgotten; his old friendships were revived. Never since the close of the war have I heard him utter words of bitterness against the enemies he fought, nor of the men in the north who had reviled him.

"To him it was a territorial war; one that could not have been avoided. Its seeds had been planted in the history of the colonies, in the constitution itself, and in the irrepressible conflict between free and slave institutions. It was a war by which the south gained, by defeat, enormous benefits, and the north, by success, secured the strength and development of the republic. No patriotic man of either section would willingly restore the old conditions. Its benefits are not confined to the United States, but extend to all the countries of America. Its good influence will be felt by all the nations of the world, by opening to them the hope of free institutions. It is one of the great epochs in the march of time, which, as the years go by, will be, by succeeding generations of freemen, classed in importance with the discovery of America and our Revolutionary War. It was the good fortune of General Sherman to have been a chief actor in this great drama, and to have lived long enough after its close to have realized and enjoyed the high estimate of his services by his comrades, by his countrymen, and by mankind. To me, his brother, it is a higher pride to know and to say that in all the walks of private life—as a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a soldier, a comrade, or a friend—he was an honorable gentleman, without fear and without reproach."

CHAPTER LIX. THE CAMPAIGN OF 1890-91 IN OHIO. Public Discussion of My Probable Re-election to the Senate—My Visit to the Ohio Legislature in April, 1891—Reception at the Lincoln League Club—Address to the Members—Appointed by the Republicans as a Delegate to the State Convention at Columbus—Why My Prepared Speech Was Not Delivered—Attack on Me by the Cincinnati "Enquirer"—Text of the Address Printed in the "State Journal"— Beginning of a Canvass with Governor Foraker as a Competitor for the Senatorship—Attitude of George Cox, a Cincinnati Politician, Towards Me—Attempt to Form a "Farmers' Alliance" or People's Party in Ohio—"Seven Financial Conspiracies"—Mrs. Emery's Pamphlet and My Reply to It.

During the winter of 1890-91 the question of my re-election to the Senate was the subject of newspaper discussion not only in Ohio, but in other states. As a rule the leading newspapers in the eastern states strongly favored my return to the Senate, and much the larger number of Republican papers in Ohio expressed the same desire. In the west, wherever the free coinage of silver was favored, a strong opposition to me was developed. I had not expressed any wish or intention to be a candidate and turned aside any attempt to commit me on the subject. I could quote by the score articles in the public prints of both political parties highly complimentary to me, but most of these turned upon free coinage of silver, which I did not regard as a political issue.

After the adjournment of Congress on the 4th of March the Cincinnati "Enquirer" formally announced, as "upon the assurance of the Senator himself," that I would not again be a candidate for re-election. The next day that paper repeated that a well-known Sherman man, whose name was not given, said: "Your article is correct. Mr. Sherman is not, nor will he be again, a candidate for the Senate." Both declarations were without foundation, and I supposed the intention of the "Enquirer" was to force a contest among Republicans for the nomination. I paid no attention to these publications, but they were the basis of comment in the newspapers in Ohio. The discussion of this question extended to other states, and indicated the desire of a large majority of the papers, east of the Mississippi River, that I be re-elected. I insert an extract from a long article in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean" of the 22nd of March, 1891:

"The most important event looked for in 1892 is that of a successor to John Sherman in Ohio, and already the matter is being discussed, as well it might be, and the interest is by no means confined to that state. John Sherman belongs to the whole country, and it is no reflection upon the usefulness of any other public man to say that his retirement to private life would be the greatest strictly personal loss the nation could now maintain."

I do not care to quote the many kindly opinions expressed of me at that period.

I returned to Ohio early in April on a brief visit to Mansfield, and to pay my respects to the general assembly, then in session at Columbus. At Mansfield I was met by a correspondent of the "Enquirer" and answered a multitude of questions. Among others I was asked if I would respond to the call of the members of the Ohio legislature to meet them at Columbus. I answered: "Yes, I will go to Columbus on Tuesday next, and from there to Washington, to return here with my family in May for the summer." He said: "Is there any significance in this Columbus visit?" I answered: "None whatever so far as I know." In leaving he said: "Tell me, did your trip here at this time have any reference to your fences, their building or repair?" "No," I said, "I came here to build a barn. I am just about to commence it." He bade me good-bye without saying a word about my declining or being elected as Senator.

I went to Columbus on the 7th, arriving late in the evening, but not too late to meet many gentlemen and to give to a correspondent of the "Commercial Gazette" an interview. On the next day, in pursuance of a custom that has existed in Ohio for many years, I, as a Senator elected by the legislature, was expected to make a formal call upon that body when in session, and during my visit to eschew politics. Accompanied by a committee of the senate I called upon Governor Campbell. We were then and had always been personal friends. He accompanied me to the senate, which took a recess, when brief and complimentary addresses were made, and I thanked the senate for the reception. After handshaking and pleasant talk I was escorted to the house of representatives, where the same simple ceremony was observed. I visited the state board of equalization, then engaged in the important duty of equalizing the taxes imposed in the several counties and cities of the state. At their request I expressed my opinion of the system of taxation in existence in Ohio, which I regarded as exceedingly defective by reason of restrictive clauses in the constitution of the state adopted in 1851.

In the evening of this day I was invited to a reception at the Lincoln League club. I insert the report published the next morning in the "State Journal."

"The reception to Senator John Sherman at the Lincoln League club rooms last night was a rousing enthusiastic affair. The rooms were crowded with members of the league and their friends, while most of the state officials, members of the general assembly and the state board of equalization were present. Several Democrats were conspicuous in the crowd, and all parties, old men and young, vied with each other in doing honor to Ohio's great statesman. During the evening Governor Campbell, accompanied by his daughter, came in to pay his respects to the distinguished guest and was cordially received. He was called upon for a speech and responded briefly in his usual happy vein. He expected to meet with the Republicans this fall again and would assist at some one's obsequies, but just whose it would be he did not know.

"During the short visit the governor's daughter was the recipient of marked attention, and divided honors with her father in handshaking.

"The feature of the evening was the welcome accorded Senator Sherman and his speech. Everybody was eager to shake hands with him, and for over an hour he was so engaged.

"He was introduced by President Huling in his usual happy manner, and responded feelingly in a short speech, which was received with enthusiasm. Senator Sherman said:

'Gentlemen:—I appear before you to-night, not as a partisan, not as a Republican, although I do not deny my fraternity, nor as a Democrat, but simply as a native son of Ohio. My friend has made a very eloquent speech to you, but I have come to greet you all, to thank you for the support that has been extended to me by the people of Ohio, not only by those of my political faith, but also those who have differed from me. I have often been brought in contact with Democrats whom I cherish as my friends. You all know your honored and venerable statesman, Allen G. Thurman. We differed on political issues, but we never quarreled with each other. When any question affecting the interests or prosperity of Ohio was concerned we were like two brothers aiding each other. When we came to discuss political questions, upon which parties divided, we put on our armor. I knew that if I made the slightest error, he would pick me up and handle me as roughly as anyone else, and he expected the same of me. And so with Mr. Pendleton, who is now dead. I regarded him as one of the most accomplished men I ever met; always kind, always genial, possessing all the attributes of a gentleman. When discussing any question affecting the interest or honor of Ohio there was no difference of opinion between us. When I met him a short time before his death, at Homburg, I felt that I would not see him again. In politics there ought to be kindness and fairness. Men of adverse opinions may be true friends while they honestly differ on great public questions.

'Now, gentlemen, I think I have said all I ought to say. This is a social meeting and, as I understand it, you came here to greet me as one of your public servants. I wish to express my obligations to the people of Ohio for their generosity and for their long- continued support. I am glad indeed to greet you and give you a good Buckeye greeting. All I can do is to thank you.'"

On the 6th of June I was appointed by the Republicans of Richland county as a delegate to the state convention. In a brief speech to the county convention, I said:

"The next state convention will be a very important one in many respects. In one or two matters the business has already been done. It has been settled that Major McKinley will be nominated Governor of Ohio, and that he will be elected. Of the balance of the ticket I say nothing. There are so many good men for candidates that we can make no mistake in any of them."

Resolutions were adopted indorsing the platforms of the last state and national conventions, declaring a belief in the doctrine of protection to labor and American industries, and indorsing the wisdom of the Republican party in continuing the advocacy of the protective tariff. I was remembered by resolutions thanking me for services rendered to the country, and Senators W. S. Kerr and W. Hildebrand were complimented for their efficiency in the state senate.

A resolution indorsing William McKinley for unanimous nomination for governor passed amidst enthusiastic applause.

Upon attending the state convention at Columbus, on the 17th of June, I was advised that objection would be made to my designation as chairman, and that Mr. Bushnell would be pressed for that honor. I promptly said I did not wish the position, and urged the selection of Bushnell, who was fairly entitled to it for his active agency as chairman of the state committee. The central committee had invited me to address the convention, and I was prepared to do so, but, feeling that after McKinley was unanimously nominated for governor my speech would delay the convention in completing the ticket, I declined to speak, but the convention insisted upon it, and I did respond very briefly, saying I would hand my speech to the "State Journal." Out of this incident the "Enquirer" made the story that I had been "snubbed" by the convention, through the influence of Governor Foraker and other gentlemen named by it. The correct account of my action was stated in the "State Journal" as follows:

"After Major McKinley had finished speaking there were enthusiastic calls for Senator Sherman. The demand became so vigorous that General Bushnell was unable to secure quiet. Senator Sherman marched down the middle aisle from his seat in his delegation just under the balcony. Perhaps no one received such generous recognition as did the senior Senator from Ohio. Although Senator Sherman had prepared a speech he did not attempt to deliver it. He said he had intended to insist on his right as a delegate not to hear any more oratory, but, to proceed with the business of the convention. He gave the 'State Journal' an appreciated compliment by advising all the delegates who desired to know what his speech contained to buy this morning's 'State Journal.' His remarks were felicitous and he was frequently interrupted by applause."

The prepared speech as published in the "Journal" gave satisfaction, not only to the Republicans in Ohio, but was printed in many of the leading journals of the United States. My refusal to deliver it in the sweltering heat of the convention enabled that body to rapidly clear the business it met to transact, and the unfounded imputations about leading Republicans fell harmless. I insert this speech:

"My Fellow Republicans:—When I was invited with others to address this convention, I felt that the best speech that could be made was the convention itself. You are here to speak the voice of Ohio in the choice of the chief officers of the state and to announce the creed of a great party. Such bodies as this are the convenient agencies of a free people to mark out the line of march and to select their leaders.

"When I look upon this great body of representative Republicans, animated by a common purpose and inspired by a common faith in the party to which we belong, my mind instinctively reverts to the first Republican convention of Ohio, held in this city thirty-six years ago. Then, under the impulse of a great wrong—the repeal of the restriction of slavery north and west of Missouri—that convention, remarkable in numbers and ability, composed of representatives of all parties then in existence, pledged themselves, that come what may, they would resist the extension of slavery over every foot of territory where it was not then established by law. There was no doubt or hesitation or timidity in their resolution, though they knew they were entering into a contest with an enemy that had never been defeated, that had dominated all parties, and would resist to the uttermost, even to war, any attempt to curb the political power of the most infamous institution that ever existed among men. This was the beginning of the Republican party.

"It was also the beginning of the most remarkable events of American history. Since that day the Republican party has abolished slavery, not only in the United States, but, by its reflected influence, in nearly all the countries of the world. It has conducted a war of gigantic proportions with marked success, demonstrating in the strongest way the ability of a free people to maintain and preserve its government against all enemies, at home and abroad. It has established the true theory of national authority over every citizen of the republic, without regard to state lines, and has forever put at rest the pretense of the right of secession by a state or any portion of our people. It has placed our country, in its relations to foreign nations, in so commanding a position that none will seek a controversy with us, while empires and kingdoms profit by our example. It has, for the necessities of the time and the warnings and follies of the past, marked out a financial system which secures us a currency safe beyond all possibility of loss, a coinage of silver and gold received at par in every commercial mart of the world, and a public credit equal, if not superior, to that of the oldest, richest and most powerful nations. It has, by a policy of fostering and protecting our home industries, so diversified our productions that every article of necessity, luxury, art or refinement can be made by American labor, and the food and fruits of a temperate climate, and cotton, wool and all the textile fibres, can be raised on the American farm.

"Under Republican policy, sometimes embarrassed but never changed, our country has become free, without a slave; strong, without standing armies or great navies; rich, with wealth better distributed, labor better paid, and equality of rights better secured, than in any country in the world. All the opportunities of life, without distinction of birth or rank or wealth, are open to all alike. Education is free, without money or price. Railroads, telegraphs and all the wonderful devices of modern civilization are at our command. Many of these blessings are the natural results of our free institutions, the work of our fathers, but they have been in every case promoted and fostered by the policy of the Republican party. We, therefore, can honestly claim that our party has been a faithful servant of the people and is fairly entitled to their confidence and support.

"But we do not rest our claims upon this fact alone. We do not need to muster the great names that have marched at the head of our columns to their final rest to invoke your approval. We invite the strictest scrutiny into the conduct of the present Republican administration of Benjamin Harrison. He was not as well known to the people at large, at the time of his election, as many former Presidents, for the politics of Indiana do not give a Republican of that state a fair chance to demonstrate his capacity and ability, but my intimate acquaintance and companionship with him, sitting side by side for six years in the Senate Chamber, impressed me with the high intellectual and moral traits which he has exhibited in his great office.

"The issues now involved are not so great and pressing as in the days of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, but they do directly affect the life, comfort and happiness of every citizen of the United States. The recent Republican Congress, in connection with President Harrison, has dealt with all leading domestic questions of the time and with the most important questions with foreign nations. Every one of these has either been settled or is in the way of settlement.

"The administration of Mr. Cleveland settled nothing but the sublime egotism of Mr. Cleveland, his opposition to the protection policy, his want of sympathy for the Union soldiers and his narrow notions of finance and the public credit. He devised nothing and accomplished nothing. A Democratic House passed the Mills tariff bill, but it was rejected by the Senate and by the people in the election of 1888. It was neither a protective tariff nor a revenue tariff, but a mongrel affair made up of shreds and patches furnished here and there by Democratic Members to suit their local constituencies. This abortive measure was the only one of any mark or importance proposed by Mr. Cleveland, or passed by a Democratic House of Representatives.

"In marked contrast with this is the Republican administration of Harrison and the recent Republican Congress. Mr. Harrison, with the slow, thoughtful, conservative tendencies of his mind, gave careful consideration to every proposition that came before him, and announced his opinion in his messages to Congress. The House of Representatives, having cleared the way by the decision and courage of Speaker Tom Reed that the majority should rule, proceeded to transact the public business, and the Senate, in hearty concurrence and co-operation, acted upon every important measure pending before Congress. The first in importance, though not in point of time, was an entire revision of our revenue laws. This bill was subjected to the most careful scrutiny in both Houses, and was passed as a Republican measure, and approved by the President. It is the law of the land, though some of its provisions have not yet taken effect. It is, in my judgment, a wise law, and will bear the most careful scrutiny. It may be that in its details, in the rates of duty, the precise line between enough to protect and more than is necessary, is not observed, but this error in detail does not weaken the essential merits of this great measure. I do not intend to discuss it in the presence of a gentleman now before me, who had charge of the bill in the House, who is, in a great measure, the author of it, and whose effective advocacy carried it over the shoals and rocks in the House of Representatives. You will greatly and justly honor him this day, but not more than he deserves, and you will have a chance to hear from him as to its merits. It is sufficient now for me to state, very briefly, why I heartily supported it in the Senate.

"In the first place it is a clear-cut, effective measure that will make explicit the rates of duties proposed; will prevent, as far as the law can, any evasion or undervaluation. It is in every line and word a protective tariff. It favors, to the extent of the duty, the domestic manufacturer, and will induce the production here of every article suited to our condition and climate. It is a fair law, for it extends its benefits not only to the artisan, but, to the farmer and producer in every field of employment. I know, by my long experience in passing upon tariff bills, that the McKinley bill more carefully and beneficially protects the farmer in his productions than any previous measures of the kind. And its inevitable effect in encouraging manufactures will give to the farmer the best possible market for his crops. The bill has received, and will bear, discussion, and will improve on acquaintance. The new features of the bill relating to sugar and tin plate will soon demonstrate the most satisfactory results. Sugar will be greatly lowered in cost to the consumer, while the bounty given to the domestic producer will soon establish the cultivation of beet and sorghum sugar in the United States, as the same policy has done in Germany and France. The increased duty soon to be put upon tin plate will develop, and has already developed, tin mines in several states and territories, so that we may confidently hope that in a short period we will be sweetened by untaxed home sugar, and protected by untaxed tin plate. The arts of the demagogue, which were at the last election played upon the credulous to deceive them as to the effects of the McKinley bill, will return to plague the inventors, and this Republican measure, with its kindred measures, reciprocity and fair play to American ships, will be among the boasted triumphs of our party, in which our Democratic friends will, as usual, heartily acquiesce.

"There is another question in which the people are vitally interested, and that is the currency question. They want good money and plenty of it. They want all their money of equal value, so that a dollar will be the same whether it is made of gold or silver or paper. We have had this kind of money since the resumption of specie payments in January, 1879. Nobody wants to go back to the old condition of things when it was gold to the bondholders and paper to the pensioners. When the outstanding government bonds were fifteen hundred millions, and banks could issue paper money upon the deposit of bonds, the volume of currency could expand upon the increase of business. But that condition is passing away. The bonds are being paid, and the time is coming, and has come, when the amount of bonds is so reduced and their value is so increased that banks cannot afford to buy bonds upon which to issue circulating notes.

"We must contemplate the time when the national banks will not issue their notes, but become banks of discount and deposit. The banks are evidently acting upon this theory, for they have voluntarily largely reduced their circulation. How shall this currency be replaced? Certainly not by the notes of state banks. No notes should circulate as money except such as have the sanction, authority and guarantee of the United States. The best for of these is certificates based upon gold and silver of value equal to the notes outstanding. Nor should any distinction be made between gold and silver. Both should be received at their market value in the markets of the world. Their relative value varies from day to day and there is no power strong enough to establish a fixed ratio of value except the concurrence of the chief commercial nations of the world. We coin both metals at a fixed ratio, but we maintain them at par with each other by limiting the amount of the cheaper metal to the sum needed for subsidiary coin and receiving and redeeming it.

"The demand for the free coinage of silver without limit, is a demand that the people of the United States shall pay for silver bullion more than its market price; a demand that is not and ought not to be made by the producer of any commodity. There is no justice or equity in it. If granted by the United States alone it will demonetize gold and derange all the business transactions of our people. What we ought to do, and what we now do under the silver law of the last Congress, a conservative Republican measure, is to buy the entire product of silver mined in the United States at its market value, and, upon the security of that silver deposited in the treasury, issue treasury notes to the full amount of the cost of the bullion. In this way we add annually to our national currency circulating notes of undoubted value, equal to gold to an amount equal to or greater than the increase of our population and the increasing business for our growing country.

"There is another measure to which the Republican party is bound by every obligation of honor and duty, and that is to grant to the Union soldiers of the late war, their widows and orphans, liberal pensions for their sacrifices and services in the preservation of the Union. In the language of Lincoln, 'To bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.' Impressed with this obligation, the Republican party has gone as far as prudence will allow. We appropriate $135,000,000 a year for this purpose. Though the sum is large, it is not the measure of our obligation. The rising generation who will bear this burden must remember the immeasurable blessings they enjoy by the sacrifices and services of Union soldiers in the preservation of the Union and in a strong republican government and free institutions.