He is a very independent character, and was just the man for chairman of the great Committee on Appropriations. Senator Hale was more than ordinarily independent, even to the extent of voting against his party at times, and was very little influenced by what a President or an Administration might desire. I regretted exceedingly to see him leave the Senate, where for many years he served his country so well.
Charles F. Manderson, of Nebraska, was twice elected to the United States Senate, and was an influential member. I have regarded him as one of the most amiable men with whom I have served. He was a splendid soldier, a splendid legislator, and a splendid man generally.
He was the presiding officer of the Senate, and a good one. I have always thought that he ought to have been the Republican nominee for Vice-President of the United States; but for some reason or other he never seemed to seek the place, and finally became one of the attorneys for the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, since when he seems to have lost interest in political affairs.
He visit old friends in Washington once each year, and it is always a great pleasure for me to greet Mr. and Mrs. Manderson.
Another Senator who first served many years in the House, was Philetus Sawyer, of Wisconsin. It was in the Senate that I served with him, and came to have for him a very great respect. He was not very well educated, not a lawyer nor an orator, and excepting in a conversational way, not regarded as a talker; yet he was an uncommonly effective man in business as well as in politics, and was once or twice invited to become chairman of the National Republican Committee.
I cannot resist the temptation to tell a little story in connection with Senator Sawyer. One day he was undertaking to pa.s.s an unimportant bill in the Senate concerning some railroad in his own State, and as was the custom when he had anything to say or do in the Senate, he took his place in the centre aisle close to the clerk"s desk, so that he could be heard. Senator Van Wyck offered an amendment to the bill, and was talking in favor of the amendment, when Sawyer became a little alarmed lest the bill was going to be beaten. He turned his back to the clerk, and said in a tone of voice that could be distinctly heard:
"If you will stop your d.a.m.ned yawp I will accept your amendment."
Van Wyck merely said, "All right." The amendment was adopted, and the bill pa.s.sed.
As is quite the custom in the disposal of new members, I was appointed a member of the Committee on Pensions--really the only important committee appointment I received during my first service in the Senate. I naturally felt very liberal toward the old soldiers, and it seemed that every case that was referred to me was a worthy one, and that a liberal pension should be allowed.
I became a little uneasy lest I might be too liberal, and I went to Sawyer, knowing that he was a man of large wealth, seeking his advice about it.
He said, and I have been guided by that advice largely ever since: "You need not worry; you cannot very well make a mistake in allowing liberal pensions to the soldier boys. The money will get into circulation and come back into the treasury very soon; so go ahead and do what you think is right in the premises; and there will be no trouble."
Senator Sawyer retired from the Senate voluntarily at a ripe old age. He was largely instrumental in selecting as his successor, one of the greatest lawyers and ablest statesmen who has ever served in that body, of whom I shall speak later, my distinguished friend, the Hon. John C. Spooner.
In the Forty-eighth Congress the Democrats had a majority in the House and the Republicans a majority in the Senate, and as is always the case when such a situation prevails, little or no important legislation was enacted.
I entered the Senate having three objects in view: First, the control of Interstate Commerce; second, the stamping out of polygamy; third, the construction of the Hennepin Ca.n.a.l.
I was not quite as modest as I have since advised younger Senators to be, because I see by the _Record_ that on January 11, 1884, a little more than a month after I had entered the Senate, I made an extended address on the subject of Territorial Government for Utah, particularly referring to polygamy. I was especially bitter in what I said against the Mormons and the Mormon Church. I used such expressions as these:
"There is scarcely a page of their history that is not marred by a recital of some foul deed. The whole history of the Mormon Church abounds in ill.u.s.trations of the selfishness, deceit, and lawlessness of its leaders and members. Founded in fraud, built up by the most audacious deception, this organization has been so notoriously corrupt and immoral in its practices, teachings, and tendencies as to justify the Government in a.s.suming absolute control of the Territory and in giving the Church or its followers no voice in the administration of public affairs. The progress of Mormonism to its present strength and power has been attended by a continual series of murders, robberies, and outrages of every description; but there is one dark spot in its disgraceful record that can never be effaced, one crime so heinous that the blood of the betrayed victims still calls aloud for vengeance."
I introduced a bill on the subject, in which I provided for the appointment of a legislative council by the President, this council to have the same legislative power as the legislative a.s.sembly of a Territory. I distrusted the local Legislature because it was dominated by men high up in the Mormon Church.
During this Congress I pushed the bill as best I could, but was never able to secure its pa.s.sage. Laws were pa.s.sed on the subject, and the Mormon question is practically now a thing of the past.
Since that time conditions in Utah and in the Mormon Church have changed greatly. The Prophets received a new revelation declaring polygamy unlawful, and I believe that the practice has ceased. As a matter of fact, Judge Zane, the Territorial Judge of Utah, did more to stamp it out than any other one man. He sentenced those guilty of the practice to terms in the penitentiary, and announced that he would continue to do so until they reformed. I do not think that the Church or the Mormon people deserve to-day the severe criticism they merited twenty-five years ago.
CHAPTER XVI CLEVELAND"S FIRST TERM 1884 to 1887
The Republican Convention of 1884 was held at Chicago. The names of Joseph R. Hawley, John A. Logan, Chester A. Arthur, John Sherman, George F. Edmunds, and James G. Blaine were presented as candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
Blaine and Logan finally were the nominees, neither of them having much of a contest to secure the nomination for President and Vice- President respectively.
The Democratic Convention met later, and nominated Grover Cleveland and Thomas A. Hendricks.
The Presidential campaign of 1884 was unique in the extreme. It was the most bitter personal contest in our history. The private lives of both candidates, Cleveland and Blaine, were searched, and the most scandalous stories circulated, most of which were false.
The tide was in favor of Blaine only a short time before the election. I do not intend to go into the cause of his defeat. It was accomplished by a margin so narrow that any one of a dozen reasons may be given as the particular one. The Burchard incident, the dinner given by the plutocrats at Delmonico"s, certainly changed several hundred votes--important when we remember that a change of less than six hundred votes in the State of New York would have elected him. Conkling, too, was accused of playing him false, and it was alleged that there were hundreds of fraudulent votes cast in the city of New York and on Long Island. Colonel A. K. McClure, in "Our Presidents and How We Make Them," says, with reference to this contest:
"Blaine would have been matchless in the skilful management of a Presidential campaign for another, but he was dwarfed by the overwhelming responsibilities of conducting a campaign for himself, and yet he a.s.sumed the supreme control of the struggle and directed it absolutely from start to finish. He was of the heroic mould, and he wisely planned his campaign tours to accomplish the best result. In point of fact, he had won his fight after stumping the country, and lost it by his stay in New York on his way home. He knew how to sway mult.i.tudes, and none could approach him in that important feature of a conflict; but he was not trained to consider the thousand intricacies that fell upon the management of every Presidential contest."
Grover Cleveland was inaugurated on the fourth of March, 1885, being the first Democratic President since James Buchanan, who was elected in 1856, and marking the first defeat of the Republican party since the election of Lincoln.
There was a wild scramble for offices on the part of the Democrats as soon as Cleveland was inaugurated. He proceeded to satisfy them as rapidly as he could, and out of 56,134 Presidential positions he appointed 42,992 Democrats.
I always admired Grover Cleveland. I first saw him at the time of his inaugural address, which he delivered without notes. He never faltered from the beginning to the end, never skipped a line or missed a word, or made a false start. He was the first, and so far as I know the only President who did not read his inaugural address. His speeches, his messages, and his public utterances generally all showed that he was a man of extraordinary ability.
He made a wonderful impression upon the country. As Chief Executive, he was strong-minded and forceful, and adhered to his views on public questions with a remarkable degree of tenacity, utterly regardless of his party.
He appointed a very fair cabinet. There was really no great man in it, but they were all men of some ability. The Secretary of State, Thos. F. Bayard, of Delaware, was one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when I entered it, and had represented his State in that body for many years. I believe he conducted the affairs of the State Department satisfactorily, and he was later made Minister to the Court of St. James.
Daniel Manning, of New York, was Secretary of the Treasury. And, referring to Manning, I am reminded of a little story.
Soon after he came into the office I had occasion to go to the Treasury Department on some business. I saw the office secretary, who had been there under the previous Administration, and whom I knew well. He informed me that the Secretary of the Treasury was not in, but that he would be in a few minutes. I expressed a desire to see him and said that I would like very much to be introduced to him. Mr. Manning came in presently, and I was introduced, after which I disposed of my business without delay. Looking around, I saw Senator Beck and a number of other Senators, accompanied by a horde of Democratic office-seekers from the South, sitting against the wall waiting for me to get through with my business. Beck came forward, and in a half serious sort of way said to me: "You do not seem to know that the Administration has changed. You march in here and take possession, and we Democrats are sitting here against the wall cooling our heels and waiting for an opportunity to see the Secretary. You have seen him already, and are ready to go." It did plague me a little, as I was not quite sure whether Beck was in earnest or not. He soon returned to the Senate from the Treasury, and coming into the Senate Chamber a little later I found that he had been telling my colleagues how he had "plagued Cullom" and how Cullom was much embarra.s.sed about it. He considered it quite a joke on me.
L. Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, was made Secretary of the Interior.
Lamar was also one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when I entered it. I had the very greatest respect for him as a Senator and as a man. Later, Mr. Cleveland nominated him for a.s.sociate Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination pended before the Judiciary Committee for a long time, as it was well known that Mr.
Lamar had not been an active, practising lawyer.
I happened to be at the White House one day, and Mr. Cleveland said to me: "I wish you would take up Lamar"s nomination and dispose of it. I am between hay and gra.s.s with reference to the Interior Department. Nothing is being done there; I ought to have some one on duty, and I can not do anything until you dispose of Lamar."
He had, I suppose, spoken to other Senators along the same line.
The nomination was taken up soon after, and he was confirmed. I voted against his confirmation in the Senate; not because I had anything against him personally, or because he was a Southern Democrat, but I understood that he had not practised law at all, and I did not believe that sort of man should be appointed to fill so high and responsible a position.
Generally speaking, I got along very well with President Cleveland, considering the fact that he was a Democrat and I a Republican.
I visited the White House frequently, and he generally granted anything that I asked for.
He was keenly interested in the pa.s.sage of the first Interstate Commerce Act. It became a law under his administration, and although the Democrats supported it, it succeeded mainly through the influence of Republican Senators and a Republican Senate. When the bill went to the President, and while he had it under consideration, he sent for me to explain one or two sections which he did not understand.
I called one night about nine o"clock and found him surrounded by a mult.i.tude of papers, hard at work reading the bill. I explained the sections concerning which he was in doubt as best I could, and he said: "I will approve the bill."
I immediately took advantage of the occasion to say: "Now, Mr.
President, I might just as well take this opportunity to talk with you with reference to the appointment of a Commission. A Republican Senate has pa.s.sed this bill, and as I had charge of it in the Senate, I think you ought to permit me to recommend the appointment of one commissioner." He agreed to this, asking me to present the name of some Republican whom I desired appointed.
Afterward there were complications with the members of his own party in Congress, and he sent for me to tell me that Colonel Morrison, of Illinois, had been recommended by the whole "Free Trade Party," as he called it, and that he did not see how he was going to avoid appointing him. I suggested that he give Morrison something else. He undertook to do so; but Morrison, true to his independent nature, declined to accept anything else, declaring that he would like to have the office of commissioner, and if he could not have that he would accept nothing.
The President sent for me again, and told me he could not satisfy Morrison, and he did not know how he was going to solve the complication. I said, in effect, that I had been a Governor of a State and I knew sometimes that an executive officer had to do things he did not expect to do, and did not desire to do, but that he had to yield to party pressure. I ceased insisting upon an appointment, and allowed Morrison to be named. At the same time I was a little provoked and out of patience and I added: "Colonel Morrison knows nothing about the subject whatever. If you are going to appoint broken-down politicians who have been defeated at home, as a sort of salve for the sores caused by their defeat, we might as well repeal the law."
I inquired of him: "Who else are you going to appoint on that Commission?" I had previously recommended Judge Cooley.
"I will appoint Cooley," promised the President.
"Will Cooley take it?" I asked; to which he replied, "I will offer any place on the Commission he desires, and will telegraph him at once."
I expressed my satisfaction with this arrangement. He did telegraph Judge Cooley, who accepted, and was the first and most distinguished chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Forty-ninth Congress a.s.sembled on December 7, 1885, with Thomas A. Hendricks, Vice-President, presiding in the Senate, John Sherman having been elected President _pro tempore_. The Senate was still in the control of the Republicans by a majority of five. The Democrats had a majority of something like forty in the House, and elected John G. Carlisle Speaker. This is practically the same situation that had prevailed during the previous Congress, except this time the Democrats, in addition to a majority, had the Chief Executive as well. But they were just as powerless to enact legislation as they had been before.
Senators Evarts, of New York; Spooner, of Wisconsin; Teller, of Colorado; Stanford, of California; Gray, of Delaware; Brown, of Georgia; Blackburn, of Kentucky; and Walthall, of Mississippi, were a few of the prominent men who entered the Senate at the beginning of the Cleveland Administration.
Senator Evarts was recognized for many years as the leader of the American Bar. He was not only a profound lawyer, but one of the greatest public speakers of the day. I remember him as a good natured, agreeable man, who was pre-eminently capable of filling the highest places in public life. He was Attorney-General under President Johnson, Secretary of State under President Hayes, and counsel representing the United States before many great international tribunals. He defended President Johnson in his impeachment proceedings, and I remember yet his lofty eloquence on that memorable occasion. He did not accomplish much as a Senator, but he did take an active part where a legal or const.i.tutional question came before the Senate.
Ill.u.s.trating how great lawyers are as apt to be wrong on a legal question as the lesser legal lights, Senator Evarts expressed the opinion that Congress did not possess the const.i.tutional power to pa.s.s the Act of 1887 to regulate commerce. He contended in the debate that the act was a restriction and not a regulation of commerce, and consequently was beyond the power of Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States very soon afterwards sustained the const.i.tutionality of the act.