"The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison.
When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy"s guns came to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered the army. He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier.
He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child, living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis. He gradually became recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate.
For six years he sat by my side. I know him as well as I know any man. He is without stain or blemish. He is a man of marked ability, an able debater. He has grown greatly since he has been President of the United States. His speeches are models of propriety and eloquence. In every act of his life while President he had come up to the full standard and measure of that great office. If there was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.
"His worthy a.s.sociate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city. He has been placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison. He is an honorable man. I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living as best he could, and helping his father and mother. He has shown himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.
"Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland. I am not here to belittle any man. I have sometimes thought he is better than his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an able-bodied man when the war was on. I have never known, nor has it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with the Union solider or the Union cause.
"I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet, was in that cause. I do not see how any patriotic man, who was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose Harrison rather than Cleveland."
I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak in Turner Hall on the 14th of October. This hall had long been a place for public meetings. It is situated in the midst of a German population and is their usual place for rendezvous. They had recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall. It was well filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German birth or descent. They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits.
They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and considered this as temperance. With their wives and children, when the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened to music, in which many of them were proficient. Such was my audience in Turner Hall. I spoke to them on the same topics I did to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value, whether of gold, silver or paper.
From Cincinnati I went to Chicago. I had been invited by Jesse Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October. As I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building in the grounds of the World"s Columbian Exposition, I accepted the invitation of Mr. Spaulding. I regarded it as a bold movement on the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings of the World"s Fair. Still, that was their business and not mine.
I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like a lawyer"s brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and engraved on my mind. I determined to use no word that would not be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical phrases.
When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place a.s.signed me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic or fact. The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers, and was kindly treated in their editorial columns. After a brief reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago, I said:
"You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the United States.
"Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties, but between great parties. I take it that in this intelligent audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party or the farmers" party. The best temperance party is the individual conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States.
As for the farmers" party, the Republican party has been the farmers"
party as well as the people"s party since the beginning of its organization in 1856. The controversy is between the two, the Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.
"The Democratic party has a very popular name. It means a government through the people. But the Republican party has a still more popular name. It is a government by the representatives of the people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate Democracy of America."
The "Tribune" and "Inter-Ocean" had friendly editorial articles about the meeting, and the "Tribune" especially, which in times past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion of the meeting and speech:
"It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs, that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded from gallery to parquet, Sat.u.r.day night, with thousands of business men and others who are interested in the great issues of the political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio. It was something more than an exposition of Chicago"s vital interest in these issues. It was a personal compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of the week. It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.
"It is no derogation of Senator Sherman"s abilities to say one does not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry away audiences on waves of enthusiasm. His strength lies in his convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts, and his powerful logic. No man in the United States, perhaps, is better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than Senator Sherman. He appeals to the thought and reason of his hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech. The three issues discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and the protective tariff question. His discussion of the wildcat currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms."
On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke at Schlitz"s amphitheater in Milwaukee. The notice had been brief, but the attendance was large. The audience was composed chiefly of German Republicans. Frye and I had divided the topics between us. He spoke on the tariff and I on good money. On the latter subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all as good as gold and plenty of it. I made my speech first, but Frye made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat divided. Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker, and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting address. The speeches were well reported the next morning, an evidence of enterprise I did not expect.
After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches prior to the election. While the Republican meetings were large, I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of business men, and secured him the "silent vote" of thousands of Republicans.
In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state, receiving but 1,089 plurality. The national ticket did not fare quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican.
Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison and Reid 145.
Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination, nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.
As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote. The Democrats elected 220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126 and the People"s party 8.
The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the election of Cleveland. The causes that contributed to it might have defeated any Republican. It is not worth while to state them, for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American people is the conservative element of our form of government that distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.
CHAPTER LXIII.
ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION.
My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause of the "Sherman Act"--Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia "Ledger"--Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes--Tribute to His Memory--Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States Notes--The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to Save the Appropriation Bill--Loss of Millions of Dollars to the Government--Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office--His Inaugural Address--Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the "World"s Fair"
--Chicago Raises $1,000,000--Congress Finally Decides to Pay the Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin--I Attend the Dedication of the Ohio Building at the Fair--Address to the Officers and Crew of the Spanish Caravels.
Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law misnamed the "Sherman act," but of the clause of that act that required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month. I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance.
I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption of free coinage. During the short session of that Congress, which met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this bill though strongly pressed to do so. A majority of the Senate were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House, disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the President either approve it or permit it to become a law without his signature. When criticised for my delay by the "Ledger" of Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:
"It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion.
They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for such repeal. It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal, and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it. They are openly p.r.o.nounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation of the existing law. The pretense made that Republican Senators would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it. If the Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pa.s.s the Senate within ten days. The Democratic party as now represented in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver.
I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some influence in changing their opinions."
Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.
On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the bill referred to. On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that session. I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not satisfied there was a majority in favor of its pa.s.sage. The question why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time, though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he chose to do so. A motion to take it up was subsequently made by Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.
No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of subsequent events.
Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893, I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the following terms:
"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last evening at eleven o"clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one who has been President of the United States dies during the session of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory, recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for the day.
"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life, having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.
"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal a.s.sociation with him were strengthened in their attachment to him and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse.
He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his judgment of his merits.
"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate, out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."
In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend, and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a patriotic citizen.
On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent.
bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years, which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.
After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30 yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment.
I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration.
In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:
"This conference report presents for our consideration again a question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time and the mult.i.tude of amendments pending there has been no vote in the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.
"I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated, and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper."
I then quoted the amendment as follows:
"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, ent.i.tled "An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments," and, at the discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and none other."
Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie payments, and which is as follows:
"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress approved July 14, 1870, ent.i.tled "An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt," with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."
I then had read to the Senate the character and description of bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows: