Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 115

The authors.h.i.+p of this law has been generally credited to me, and it was commonly called the "Sherman silver law," though I took but little part in framing the legislation until the bill got into conference. The situation at that time was critical. A large majority of the Senate favored free silver, and it was feared that the small majority against it in the other House might yield and agree to it. The silence of the President on the matter gave rise to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pa.s.s both Houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. Some action had to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the measure evolved was the best obtainable. I voted for it, but the day it became a law I was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be had without subst.i.tuting in its place absolute free coinage.

It will be noticed that the act varied greatly from the House bill before the free coinage amendment was attached. The amount of silver bullion to be purchased was changed from $4,500,000 worth per month to 4,500,000 ounces per month. This change, owing to the fall in price of silver, not then antic.i.p.ated, greatly reduced the quant.i.ty to be purchased. The House conferees yielded reluctantly to the striking out of the section in the bill providing for the redemption of the notes in bullion, a plan that had been urged by Secretary Windom. In lieu thereof, however, a clause declaring that it was the purpose of the government to maintain the parity of the metals was inserted. This was a most important amendment and one that has been generally accepted as indicating the purpose of the country to maintain all dollars at par with each other.

The chief merit of this law was that it suspended the peremptory coinage of the silver purchased under it into silver dollars which could not be circulated, but were h.o.a.rded in the treasury at great cost and inconvenience. It required the monthly purchase of a greater amount of silver than before, but that could be held in the form of bullion, and could be paid for by treasury notes equal in amount to the cost of the bullion, the whole of which was held in the treasury as security for the payment of the notes. If silver bullion did not decline in market value it could, if necessary, be coined without loss, and thus the parity of the notes with gold could be readily maintained according to the declared policy of the law. The friends of free coinage stoutly a.s.serted that this purchase of silver bullion would not only prevent its depreciation, but would advance its market value, and thus be a gain to the government. I did not believe this but hoped that it would not decline in value, and, in any event, it was better to stop the compulsory coinage of the bullion into dollars, as to force them into circulation would reduce the purchasing power of the dollar and bring the United States to the single standard of silver.

Being compelled to choose between the measure proposed and the free coinage of silver I preferred the former, and voted for the bill and, thus, with others, became responsible for it.

Contrary to the expectation of the friends of silver it steadily declined in market value. The compulsory purchase of the enormous aggregate of fifty-four million ounces, or 2,250 tons Troy, each year, did not maintain the market value of silver, but it steadily declined so that the silver purchased each year entailed an annual loss of more than $10,000,000.

When the result became apparent I was anxious to arrest the purchase of silver, and I never could comprehend why anyone not directly interested in the mining of silver could favor a policy involving so heavy a loss to the people of the United States. Long before the second election of Mr. Cleveland I advocated the repeal of what became known as the "Sherman act," and heartily supported and voted for the repeal he recommended.

In the previous Congress I had introduced a bill "to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production," but no action was taken upon it. On the 4th of December I again introduced this bill, it being the first Senate bill introduced in that Congress. It was referred to the committee on finance, and, having been reported back with amendments, I called it up on the 27th of February, and said that I did not intend to make any extended remarks upon it unless it should become necessary to do so. Senator George made a long and carefully prepared speech, from which it appeared that while he favored the general purpose of the bill he objected to it on the ground that it was not const.i.tutional. This objection was shared by several Senators.

I subsequently reported from the committee on finance a subst.i.tute for the bill, and on the 21st of March made a long speech in support of it in which I said:

"I did not originally intend to make any extended argument on the trust bill, because I supposed that the public facts upon which it is founded and the general necessity of some legislation were so manifest that no debate was necessary to bring those facts to the attention of the Senate.

"But the different views taken by Senators in regard to the legal questions involved in this bill, and the very able speech made by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. George] relative to the details of the bill, led me to the conclusion that it was my duty, having reported the bill from the committee on finance, to present, in as clear and logical a way as I can, the legal and practical questions involved in the bill.

"The object of the bill, as shown by the t.i.tle, is 'to declare unlawful, trusts and combinations in restraint of trade and production.' It declares that certain contracts are against public policy, null and void. It does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well-recognized principles of the common law to the complicated jurisdiction of our state and federal government. Similar contracts in any state in the Union are now, by common or statute law, null and void. Each state can and does prevent and control combinations within the limit of the state.

This we do not propose to interfere with. The power of the state courts has been repeatedly exercised to set aside such combinations as I shall hereafter show, but these courts are limited in their jurisdiction to the state, and, in our complex system of government, are admitted to be unable to deal with the great evil that now threatens us.

"Unlawful combinations, unlawful at common law, now extend to all the states and interfere with our foreign and domestic commerce and with the importation and sale of goods subject to duty under the laws of the United States, against which only the general government can secure relief. They not only affect our commerce with foreign nations, but trade and transportation among the several states. The purpose of this bill is to enable the courts of the United States to apply the same remedies against combinations which injuriously affect the interests of the United States that have been applied in the several states to protect local interests.

"This bill, as I would have it, has for its single object to invoke the aid of the courts of the United States to deal with the combinations described in the first section, when they affect injuriously our foreign and interstate commerce and our revenue laws, and in this way to supplement the enforcement of the established rules of the common and statute law by the courts of the several states in dealing with combinations that affect injuriously the industrial liberty of the citizens of these states. It is to arm the federal courts within the limits of their const.i.tutional power, that they may co-operate with the state courts in checking, curbing, and controlling the most dangerous combinations that now threaten the business, property, and trade of the people of the United States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course by finespun const.i.tutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts of a.s.sociated or corporate wealth and power.

"It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid of production where there is free and fair compet.i.tion. It is the right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and conditions and under like circ.u.mstances. This is industrial liberty, and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and privileges."

I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from the period of c.o.ke and Littleton to the present times. I also quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many states.

Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until, on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it, corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however, the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a subst.i.tute for the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views, he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. c.o.ke, members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect.

When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that after having fairly and fully considered the subst.i.tute proposed by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all the circ.u.mstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that direction. The bill pa.s.sed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay, Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting in the negative. It was pa.s.sed by the House and after being twice referred to committees of conference was finally agreed to, its t.i.tle having been changed to "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," and was approved by the President June 26, 1890.

The law as finally agreed to is as follows:

"Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person, or persons, to monopolize, any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such territory and another, or between any such territory or territories and any state or states or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any state or states or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the attorney general, to inst.i.tute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of pet.i.tion setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such pet.i.tion the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such pet.i.tion, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

"Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

"Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract of any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.

"Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other or corporation, by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

"Sec. 8. That the word 'person,' or 'persons,' wherever used in this text, shall be deemed to include corporations and a.s.sociations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country."

Since the pa.s.sage of this act I have carefully studied and observed the effect, upon legitimate trade and production, of the combination of firms and corporations to monopolize a particular industry. If this a.s.sociation is made merely to promote production or to create guilds for friendly intercourse between persons engaged in a common pursuit, it is beneficial, but such is not the object of the great combinations in the United States. They are organized to prevent compet.i.tion and to advance prices and profits. Usually the capital of several corporations, often of different states, is combined into a single corporation, and sometimes this is placed under the control of one man. The power of this combination is used to prevent and destroy all compet.i.tion, and in many cases this has been successful, which has resulted in enormous fortunes and sometimes a large advance in prices to the consumer. This law may not be sufficient to control and prevent such combinations, but, if not, the evil produced by them will lead to effective legislation.

I know of no object of greater importance to the people. I hope the courts of the United States and of the several states, will deal with these combinations so as to prevent and destroy them.

On the 13th of May, 1890, I was drawn into a casual debate with Mr. Eustis, of Louisiana, which extended to others, on the relations of the north and south, or, rather, between Union and Confederate soldiers. The subject before the Senate was a bill to aid the illiterate in obtaining a common school education. The chief benefit of the measure would have inured to the south, especially to the negroes of the south. Mr. Eustis complained of the 15th amendment to the const.i.tution. I explained to him that this amendment would never have been adopted but for the action of the south in depriving the enfranchised voter, not only of his rights of citizens.h.i.+p, but of the ordinary rights of humanity. I gave the history of the reconstruction acts, the first of which was framed by a committee of which I was chairman. It was based upon the restoration of the southern states to all the rights and privileges they enjoyed before the war, subject to such changes as were made necessary by the abolition of slavery as the result of the war. There was then no feeling of hostility to the people of the south. I had heard at that time no expression of opinion except of kindness to them. There was a universal appreciation of the fact that while they were wrong--radically wrong, as we thought, in waging a useless and b.l.o.o.d.y war against the Union of this country --yet they were honest in their convictions, they believed the doctrines they fought for were the doctrines of the const.i.tution, and there was, therefore, a spirit of generosity, of forbearance, of kindness, to these people, and everything they could ask for in reason would have been granted to them.

It was not then contemplated to arm the negroes with suffrage. A few, and but a few, Senators made such a proposition, but it was scouted and laid aside. It was at this time that the Ku-Klux crimes and violence broke out, and the laws of the southern states were so cruel, so unjust, so wrong in our view of the rights of the colored people, and of white Republicans as well, that the people of the north resented this injustice. These laws burned like coals of fire in the northern breast. This led to the reconstruction acts, and the adoption of the 15th amendment. The 14th amendment was the act of the conservative Senators and Members, such as Fessenden, Trumbull and Doolittle. The 15th amendment was the natural result of cruelty and outrage in the south. This amendment has been practically nullified by the conservatives of the north, and now the people of the south have increased political power by reason of the abolition of slavery, while, backed by public opinion in the south, they deprive the colored people, by whom they gained this power, of their political rights, and that by processes that are denounced as criminal by every free state. Time, no doubt, will correct this evil. If justice is done to the negroes they will advance in intelligence with the improvement of their condition, and with the benefit of their labor the south will become more prosperous by the diversity of employments. There is reason to believe that in a brief period the south will engage in manufactures and become more prosperous than in the days of slavery.

On the 20th of May, the death of William D. Kelley was announced in the Senate. He entered the House of Representatives as I left it to take my seat in the Senate, but our frequent meetings in the consideration of bills of a financial character led to a friends.h.i.+p which was unbroken, and which imposed on me the duty of responding to the usual resolutions presented on the death of a Member. When Mr. Kelley entered the House as a Member from the city of Philadelphia, he had arrived at the mature age of forty-six, and had an established reputation for ability, industry, and fidelity to duty. He had been trained in the school of poverty, making his own way in the world, gathering knowledge by the wayside. He labored for several years at his trade as a mechanic, but, prompted by a restless thirst for knowledge, studied law, and for several years practiced the legal profession. In due time he became a judge and served as such for ten years, so that when he entered public life as a Member of the House he was a trained lawyer, with strong convictions upon economic questions, and bold and earnest on all the stern issues of the Civil War.

The creed to which he devoted himself consisted of but three articles: That the Union must be preserved at all hazards, that the national government should exercise its exclusive power to provide money for the people of the United States, and that the laborer of our country should be protected in his industry from undue compet.i.tion. To the establishment of each of these theories as the public policy of the country he contributed his full measure of effort and success. By instinct he was opposed to slavery.

All his early struggles and his innate perceptions of the rights of man made him an enemy to all forms of oppression. Still, he would have respected the right of each state to deal with this question, but when it became manifest that slavery was the real cause of the attempt at secession, he was among the first and foremost to demand that it should be abolished. But especially as the recognized leader in the support of protection to American industry he exercised commanding influence and authority.

Whatever opinions might be honestly entertained by others as to the nature and extent of this protection, Judge Kelley had no doubt, but impartially and freely extended it to every industry, without regard to its nature, or the section in which it was pursued. On all economic questions he had accurate knowledge of details. His patient industry enabled him to master every shade and side of such a question, and especially so as to the policy of protection by discriminating duties. On other matters he was a follower, but in this always a leader. His writings and speeches upon this and kindred questions const.i.tute a storehouse of information, and furnish the best evidence of his industry and ability.

From the time he entered public life until the hour of his death he commanded the full confidence of his people. No fluctuation of opinion, no personal rivalries, no contests for patronage or office, could weaken their confidence in his integrity and justice. These obstructions in the paths of public men, often fatal, did not affect him. For thirty years he was the chosen Representative of one const.i.tuency, in our country an unexampled event. In the House of Representatives, famous for its sudden changes, he was for many years "the father of the House," and no doubt, if his life had been prolonged to the extreme period allotted to man, his seat in the House would have been safe for him.

On the 8th of July a similar announcement was made of the death of Samuel S. c.o.x, late a Representative of the city of New York. He had been a Member of Congress from Ohio before the Civil War, and shared in the exciting and dangerous scenes in Congress at that time, and I felt it became my duty, as one of the few surviving actors in those events, to pay a just tribute to the qualities of head and heart that made him and kept him a leader among the public men of our country for a period of more than thirty-three years, longer than the average life of a generation. This duty was the more imperative upon me as he was a native of Ohio, for forty years a resident, and for eight years a Representative in Congress from that state, honored and respected by all of whatever party or creed, and beloved by his a.s.sociates as but few in political life can hope to be.

I could also speak of him from a longer personal acquaintance than anyone in either House, for I had known him or his kindred from almost the days of my boyhood. We were born in neighboring counties, he one year later than I. My father and his were a.s.sociated as judge and clerk of the supreme court of Ohio. I knew of him as early as 1853, as the editor of the "Ohio Statesman," a Democratic paper published at Columbus, the organ of that party in Ohio, but my personal acquaintance and a.s.sociation with him commenced with his election, in 1856, as a Member of the House of Representatives.

While Mr. c.o.x was a successful leader in political life, and rendered his party due fealty on purely political questions, he was not always in harmony with the majority of his party. In his first speech in Congress, which was the first one made in the new hall of the House of Representatives, an opportunity carefully chosen by him with the skill of an actor, he took ground against the Lecompton const.i.tution, strongly recommended by Mr. Buchanan's administration. He supported several measures during the war not approved by his political a.s.sociates. He spoke in favor of the amendment abolis.h.i.+ng slavery, though he did not vote for it. By instinct, education and a.s.sociation, especially by family ties, he was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat, and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider this a fault, but a virtue.

We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all such matters Mr. c.o.x was always on the humanitarian side. He has linked his name in honorable a.s.sociation with many humane, kindly, and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life- saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war.

He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy, charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness bestowed is never lost, then Mr. c.o.x has left an inheritance to thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.

Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner.

Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation.

In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection and constant help to each other.

He was fond of travel, and wrote several books descriptive of scenes and incidents of his journeys. He also wrote historical works.

He entered, as an author, a lecturer, and a speaker, many fields of research, and in all sustained his reputation as a brilliant writer and speaker, always interesting and often eloquent, a close student who fully mastered his subject, and withal a man of generous impulses, kind and cheerful nature, a true friend, and a faithful public servant. This all can be said truly and without exaggeration of Mr. c.o.x. He did not contemplate death when I saw him last.

His untimely death was the first news I received on my arrival in New York from a journey abroad. I am told that he met the common fate of all with patient confidence and an a.s.sured hope and belief in the doctrines of the Christian faith and the promise of future life.

It is fortunate that man cannot know the future, and especially that future beyond human life. Socrates, when condemned to death, consoled himself with the inconceivable happiness in a future state when he would converse and a.s.sociate with and question the mighty array of heroes, patriots, and sages who had preceded him. He said to his judges, "It is now time to depart--for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to everyone but G.o.d." We cannot lift the veil, but may we not share the hope of the wisest of men that our farewell to a.s.sociates who go before us is but a brief parting for a better life?

I have been frequently a.s.sailed for my part in the pa.s.sage, in the spring of 1864, of a law to encourage immigration. In reporting this bill from the committee on finance, on the 18th of February of that year, I said:

"The special wants for labor in this country at the present time are very great. The war has depleted our workshops, and materially lessened our supply of labor in every department of industry and mechanism. In their n.o.ble response to the call of their country, our workmen in every branch of the useful arts have left vacancies which must be filled, or the material interest of the country must suffer. The immense amount of native labor occupied by the war calls for a large increase of foreign immigration to make up the deficiency at home. The demand for labor never was greater than at present, and the fields of usefulness were never so varied and promising.

"The south, having torn down the fabric of its labor system by its own hands, will, when the war shall have ceased, present a wide field for voluntary white labor, and it must look to immigration for its supply.

"The following may be mentioned as the special inducements to immigration:

"First. High price of labor and low price of food compared with other countries.

"Second. Our land policy, giving to every immigrant, after he shall have declared his intentions to become a citizen, a home and a farm substantially as a free gift, charging him less for 160 acres in fee-simple than is paid as the annual rent of a single acre in England.

"Third. The political rights conferred upon persons of foreign birth.