Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 122

"After the ceremony the bride and groom held a reception. A wedding breakfast was next served to the invited guests. Among those present were the President and Mrs. Harrison, Mrs. McKee, the Vice President and Mrs. Morton, Secretary Blaine, Mr. and Mrs. Damrosch, Secretaries Rusk and Tracy, Senator and Mrs. Stanford, Sir Julian Pauncefote and others."

CHAPTER LXI.

ELECTED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE SIXTH TIME.

I Secure the Caucus Nomination for Senator on the First Ballot-- Foraker and Myself Introduced to the Legislature--My Address of Thanks to the Members--Speech of Governor Foraker--My Colleague Given His Seat in the Senate Without Opposition--Message of President Harrison to the 52nd Congress--Morgan's Resolutions and Speech for the Free Coinage of Silver--Opening of the Silver Debate by Mr.

Teller--My Speech on the Question--Defeat of the Bill in the House --Discussion of the Chinese Question--My Opposition to the Conference Report on Mr. Geary's Amended Bill--Adopted by the Senate After a Lengthy Debate--Effect of the Tariff Laws Upon Wages and Prices-- Senator Hale's Resolution--Carlisle's Speech in Opposition to High Prices--My Reply--Resume of My Opinions on the Policy of Protection --Reception by the Ohio Republican a.s.sociation--Refutation of a Newspaper Slander Upon H. M. Daugherty--Newspaper Writers and Correspondents--"Bossism" in Hamilton County.

Upon the meeting of the Ohio legislature, on the 4th of January, 1892, Foraker and I were in attendance, stopping at the same hotel and meeting daily. There was much excitement and great diversity of opinion as to the result of the senatorial election. Several of the members, whose preference I knew, would not declare their vote, with the mistaken idea that to remain silent would relieve them from importunity, but before the decisive vote was taken in caucus I was confident of success.

The caucus met on Wednesday evening, the 6th of January. It was composed of the Republican members of both houses. L. C. Laylin, a friend of mine, who had been elected speaker of the house of representatives, was made chairman of the caucus. An attempt was made by the friends of Foraker to secure a secret ballot, but this was defeated. The decisive vote was then taken, in which I received 53 votes, Foraker 38, Foster 1 and McKinley 1. My nomination was then made unanimous, and I was subsequently elected by the legislature for the term ending March 4, 1899.

The caucus appointed a committee of its members to escort Foraker and myself to the hall of the house of representatives, where we were received with hearty applause. We were introduced by Speaker Laylin, and our speeches will show that if we were combatants we appreciated the merits of our respective adversaries. I said:

"Senators, Representatives and Fellow Citizens:--I return to you my most grateful thanks for the very high honor you have conferred upon me. Long trusted by the people of Ohio, I am under obligations that I cannot express in any language at my command. I owe to them --I owe to you--all that could be said from a heart overflowing.

"We have just pa.s.sed through quite a contest, the most formidable that I have ever encountered in Ohio, and I hope more formidable than I will ever be called upon to encounter hereafter. I know, gentlemen, that you have been called upon to make a choice which was unpleasant to you because you would have liked to vote for both of us, and would have been glad to have two Senators to elect instead of one.

"I am glad to say that in this contest I have held, in my language and in my heart, the highest feelings of respect and honor for the gentleman who was my compet.i.tor, and who is now before you. He is ent.i.tled to the love and affection of the people of Ohio, and if you have given me this high honor because of my experience, you have not underrated the high qualities, mental and moral, of Governor Foraker. Although you have been engaged in this friendly contest, we are all Republicans and I trust ever will be Republicans, true to our cause, and true to the principles we advocate. I again return to you, as the senators and representatives of our state, my thanks for this almost unequaled honor."

Governor Foraker said:

"Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Caucus and Fellow Citizens:--I am informed that, so far as you are concerned, the senatorial contest is ended, and I have come here in response to your kind invitation to say that so far as I am concerned it is ended also.

"You did not end it as I had hoped you might, but you are the duly accredited and authorized representatives of the Republicans of Ohio, and your will is law unto me and mine.

"As Senator Sherman has said, we have been having something of a contest. For the last ten days we have been divided into Sherman men and Foraker men, and we have been striving against each other.

There has been possibly some rasping and some friction, but at this hour it is our highest duty to remember that from now on henceforth, in the language again of the Senator, we must remember that we are no longer Sherman men nor Foraker men, but Republicans all.

"Let us here and now put behind us, with the contest to which it belongs, whatever unkindliness of feeling, if there be any at all, that may have been engendered. So far as I am concerned, I am glad to be able to say to you, gentlemen of the 70th general a.s.sembly, that I have not an unkind thought toward any one of you, no matter whether he has been friend or foe. I have no resentments, no bitterness of feeling to carry with me. On the contrary, I shall go back to the pursuit of my profession with my mind and my heart filled with only grateful recollection and a pleasurable, and I trust a pardonable, pride for the gallant, intrepid band who have honored me with their support in this contest. Without any disposition to criticise or find fault in the slightest degree, but only as an excuse in so far as that may be necessary for enlisting in a cause than has been crowned, not with success, but with defeat, let me say to these friends that when we entered upon it I did not foresee some of its features. I was not aware then, as we have since come to know, that we have had to fight, not only the Republicans of Ohio who were against us, but, because it was grand old John Sherman on the other side, and with him the whole United States of America. The Senator has said he don't want any more contests like this. I thank him for the compliment, and vouch to you that I don't want ever against to cross swords with a Sherman."

The 52nd Congress met on the 7th of December, 1891. The credentials of my colleague, Calvin S. Brice, in the usual form, were presented and upon them he was ent.i.tled to be sworn into office. If his right to a seat was to be contested the grounds of the contest might be afterwards presented, when the case would be decided on its merits, but, until it should be determined by the Senate that he was not duly elected, he could perform the duties of a Senator.

I was urged to object to his taking the oath of office on the ground that he was not a resident of the State of Ohio when elected. This I declined to do, but simply gave notice of his alleged disability, so that it would not be waived in the case the legislature or citizens of Ohio should establish the fact that he was not an inhabitant of that state when elected. This was not done and no attempt was made to contest his seat, but I was reproached by unreasonable partisans for the neglect to do so.

The annual message of President Harrison, sent to Congress on the 9th of December, strongly recommended the aid of the government in the construction of he Nicaragua Ca.n.a.l. He highly commended the McKinley tariff bill, and said that its results had disappointed the evil prophecies of its opponents, and, in a large measure, realized the predictions of its friends. He referred to the large increase of our exports and imports, and, generally, gave a hopeful view of our financial condition. He recommended that the experiment of purchasing 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month, under the act of July 14, 1890, be continued. Though silver had fallen in value from $1.20 an ounce to 96 cents, yet he hoped a further trial would more favorably affect it. He was still of opinion that the free coinage of silver under existing conditions would disastrously affect our business interests at home and aborad. He approved the application of the surplus revenue to the reduction of the public debt, and stated that since the 1st of March, 1889, there had been redeemed of interest-bearing securities $259,079,350, resulting in a reduction of the annual interest charge of $11,684,675. On the whole the message of the President and the report of Secretary Foster presented a favorable state of our national finances.

The disposition of the 52nd Congress was not to engage in political debate, especially on financial questions, as it was divided on political lines, the Senate being Republican, and the House Democratic. The current business did not present such questions until Senator Morgan, on the 30th of March, 1892, introduced resolutions directing the committee on finance to make examinations and report upon six different propositions, embracing the whole financial system of the United States, and to do it promptly. I had no objection to the pa.s.sage of the resolutions, though they were imperative in tone, but naturally supposed they were brought in merely as a text for a speech, and suggested to Morgan that he prepare a bill that would carry out his views and have that referred to the committee. He said: "I do not expect to refer them. I expect to instruct your committee what to do. That is what I propose." In introducing his resolutions he said: "There is an evil in the land, a difficulty of most serious embarra.s.sment. . . .

The people cannot afford to wait without encountering all the hards.h.i.+ps of bankruptcy and ruin. . . . Our differences will not permit our people to wait further adjustment when they are in a death struggle with poverty and wretchedness."

I replied: "If there is such distress as the Senator imagines it ought to be met by specific measures and not by a debating school."

I knew that what he wanted was the free coinage of silver. Upon this question both parties were divided. The states producing silver were represented by Republicans who favored a measure that, in my opinion, would lead to the single standard of silver, and if the Senate was to consider that subject I wished it to be distinctly presented and debated, rather than to enter upon the discussion of a mult.i.tude of theories that would lead to no result. He expressed the desire that he and others should have an opportunity to speak on the resolutions, and, in conformity with the usages of the Senate, they were left on the table for indefinite debate.

On the 14th of April, Morgan made an elaborate speech covering twelve pages of the "Record," in which, as I expected, he elaborated his views in favor of the free coinage of silver, and closed as follows:

"We are very nearly out of the woods now, and if you will add the free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold, and will cause the treasury of the United States to coin the silver that is there on the same terms that it does gold, I believe that we shall soon master every difficulty in our way. Then the honorable Senator from Ohio would have the right to rejoice, and, contrary to his will, he would be led up into such high positions that he would be able, at last, to bless the country when he did not expect to do it."

Believing, as I did, that to continue this debate would be a fruitless waste of time, and interfere with the current business of Congress, I said:

"I do not intend to engage in this discussion, but still I wish to ascertain the sense of the Senate. If we are to have a general silver debate now, to the displacement of all other business, I should like to have that point tested; and, in order to settle it definitely, without engaging in the debate at all, I move to lay the pending resolutions on the table."

Mr. Teller, the leader of the "silver Senators," as they are called, with some excitement, said:

"The Senator from Ohio, flushed, perhaps, with the victory apparently in the other House against silver, seems to think he can down the debate in this body on the subject. I want to say to the Senator that we spent some time during the last session to prevent him, and others who thought with him, from securing a rule that would cut off debate in this body, and the Senator might as well meet the question now as at any time; that this question will be debated, and if not upon this, upon some other resolution. . . . I give notice that, under the rules of the Senate, we are able to be heard, and that we will be heard, in despite of the honorable Senator from Ohio, who appears to be so anxious to stifle debate."

To this I replied:

"I deny, in the most emphatic terms, that I have endeavored to stifle debate. There is no ground for such an a.s.sertion. There is not an iota of ground upon which such an a.s.sertion can be made.

I never objected in my life, and I have been here longer than any of you, to any Senator speaking at any time when he chose upon any subject; and every man here knows it. . . . I am willing to discuss, and I never shrink from debate on, the silver question, or the gold question, or the currency question. I have not been willing, at all times, to talk at all hours, and reply to every gentleman who might choose to make a speech; but whenever the Senate undertakes to engage in this debate, I will take my share of it, and I will take my responsibility for it."

I then proceeded at some length to reply to Morgan. The debate was suspended by the order of business, but it continued from day to day as opportunity offered, on a motion to refer the resolutions to the committee on finance, until the 25th of May, when the Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 17 yeas to 28 nays. This vote was a clear indication that a majority of the Senate favored the free coinage of silver. I then, while criticising the terms of the resolutions, expressed my desire that they should be adopted.

This led to a desultory debate in which I took part, and on the morning of the next day, having the floor, said:

"I regret as much as anyone can the unusual and remarkable interposition of this question, by the Senator from Alabama, at every stage of our business. Now, the whole of the morning hour had been wasted except the ten minutes which I shall occupy, and probably nothing could have been done in that time.

"An arraignment has been made of the committee on finance as if it had neglected to perform its duty. I am not authorized to speak for the committee except as one of its members. Its chairman, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Morrill, is here to speak for it, but the committee on finance has never for a moment evaded or avoided the issue of the free coinage of silver. It has never delayed a bill, so far as my knowledge extends, upon that subject. Very soon after the bill of the Senator from Nevada was introduced it was considered and reported adversely. I believe two-thirds of the members of the committee were opposed to the bill as it stood.

There has not been a day nor an hour, in the ordinary course of business of the Senate, when, upon the motion of anyone, that bill could not have been taken up if a majority of Senators were in favor of it, but, unfortunately for the Senator, a majority of the Senators were not in favor of taking it up and interposing it in place of all the other business. Therefore, this mode is adopted to bring it here before the Senate."

At two o'clock I gave way to the regular order of business. Mr.

Stewart then moved to take up his bill, introduced early in the session, to provide for the free coinage of gold and silver bullion.

It had been referred to the committee on finance, reported adversely, and was on the calendar, subject to a motion to take it up at any time. This again presented directly to the Senate the policy of the free coinage of silver. The motion was agreed to by the vote of yeas 28, nays 20. The resolutions of Morgan were practically suspended and the vote on taking up the silver bill indicated its pa.s.sage. Mr. Teller opened the debate for free coinage. On the 31st of May I commenced a very long speech, opening as follows:

"I do not regard the bill for the free coinage of silver as a party measure or a political measure upon which parties are likely to divide. It is in many respects a local measure, not exactly in the sense in which General Hanc.o.c.k said in regard to the tariff that it was a local question, but it is largely a local question.

Yet, at the same time, it is a question of vast importance. No question before the Senate of the United States at this session is at all to be compared with it in the importance of its effects upon the business interests of the country. It affects every man, woman and child in our broad land, the rich with his investments, the poor with his labor. Everybody is deeply interested in the standard of value by which we measure all the productions of the labor and all the wealth of mankind.

"Five states largely interested in the production of silver are very ably and zealously represented on this floor. They are united by their delegations, ten Senators, in favor of the free coinage of silver. The south seems also to have caught something of the spirit which actuates the mining states, because they desire, not exactly the free coinage of silver, but an expansion of the currency, cheaper money, and broader credit, and they also are largely represented on this floor in support of the proposition in favor of the free coinage of silver. So in other parts of the country, those who have been taught to believe that great good can come to our country by an unlimited expansion of paper credit, with money more abundant than it is now, also believe in the free coinage of silver.

"I, representing a state nearly central in population, have tested the sense of the people of Ohio, and they, I believe, are by a great majority, not only of the party to which I belong but of the Democratic party, opposed to the free coinage of silver. They believe that that will degrade the money of our country, reduce its purchasing power fully one-third, destroy the bi-metallic system which we have maintained for a long period of time, and reduce us to a single monometallic standard of silver measured by the value of 371 grains of pure silver to the dollar."

I will not attempt to give an epitome of this speech. It covered seventeen pages of the "Record," and dealt with every phase of the question of silver coinage, and, incidentally, of our currency.

No part of it was written except the tables and extracts quoted.

Its delivery occupied parts of two days, May 31 and June 1. After a careful reading I do not see what I could add to the argument, but I might have condensed it. The question involved is still before the people of the United States, and will again be referred to by me. I closed with the following paragraph:

"But, sir, closing as I began, let me express my earnest belief that this attempt to bring this great and powerful nation of ours to the standard of silver coin alone is a bad project, wrong in principle, wrong in detail, injurious to our credit, a threat to our financial integrity, a robbery of the men whose wages will be diminished by its operation, a gross wrong to the pensioner who depends upon the bounty of his government, a measure that can do no good, and, in every aspect which it appears to me, a frightful demon to be resisted and opposed."

The debate continued with increasing interest until the 1st of July, when the bill pa.s.sed the Senate by the vote of yeas 29, nays 25.

It was sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence, but a resolution providing for its consideration was there debated, and rejected by a vote of yeas 136, nays 154.

During this session of Congress the policy of restricting Chinese immigration was strongly pressed by the Senators and Representatives from California and Oregon. They were not content with an extension of the restrictions imposed by the act of 1882, which, by its terms, expired in ten years from its approval, but demanded a positive exclusion of all Chinese except a few merchants and travelers especially defined and excepted, to be enforced with severe penalties almost savage in their harshness. The position of the two countries in respect to migration from one to the other had been directly reversed. In common with European nations the United States had, several years before, compelled the opening of Chinese ports to Americans, insured the protection of its citizens in that country, and had invited and encouraged Chinese laborers to migrate to the United States. This was especially so as to the Pacific states, where Chinese were employed in large numbers in the grading and construction of railways and as farmers in cultivating the soil.

These people were patient, economical and skillful. Very many of them flocked to San Francisco, but they soon excited the bitter opposition of laborers from other countries, and no doubt of some American laborers. This led to the restriction act of 1882 and to a treaty with China, by which that country consented to the exclusion of Chinese laborers, a degraded cla.s.s of population known as "coolies." It was complained in 1892, and for several years previously, that the provisions of the law of 1882 and of the treaty were evaded by fraud and perjury. Senator Dolph, of Oregon, had introduced a bill extending the restriction to all Chinese laborers, with provisions to prevent evasion and fraud. A number of other bills were introduced in each House of a like character. The committee on foreign relations considered the subject-matter very carefully and directed Mr. Dolph to report a bill extending for five years the act of 1882, with several amendments providing against frauds. This bill was pa.s.sed and sent to the House, but was not acted upon there.

On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California, reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to suspend the rules and pa.s.s the bill. After a debate of one hour, and without amendment, this drastic bill pa.s.sed. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a subst.i.tute, which was the bill that had previously pa.s.sed the Senate.

On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this form the bill pa.s.sed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph, Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from the conference report, as follows:

"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.

"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult by the Canadian authorities to allow a cla.s.s of people who are forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create irritation.

"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one year after the pa.s.sage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get a certificate or be punished.