CHAPTER LX.

FREE SILVER AND PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRIES. My Views in 1891 on the Free Coinage of Silver--Letter to an Ohio Newspaper on the Subject--A Problem for the Next Congress to Solve --Views Regarding Protection to American Industries by Tariff Laws --My Deep Interest in This Campaign--Its Importance to the Country at Large--Ohio the Battle Ground of These Financial Questions-- Opening the Campaign in Paulding Late in August--Extracts from My Speech There--Appeal to the Conservative Men of Ohio of Both Parties --Address at the State Fair at Columbus--Review of the History of Tariff Legislation in the United States--Five Republican Principles Pertaining to the Reduction of Taxes--Speeches at Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati and Elsewhere--McKinley's Election by Over 21,000 Plurality.

In the progress of the canvass of 1891 it was apparent that the farmers of Ohio would not agree to free coinage of silver, and divided as usual between the two great parties. In the heat of this contest I wrote to the "Cyclone" the following letter:

"Mansfield, O., July 7, 1891. "Editors 'Cyclone,' Washington C. H.

"My Dear Sirs:--In answer to your letter of the 6th, I can only say that my views on the question of the free coinage of silver are fully stated in the speech I made at the last session of the Senate, a copy of which I send you, and I can add nothing new to it.

"I can appreciate the earnest demand of the producers of silver bullion, that the United States should pay $1.29 an ounce for silver bullion which in the markets of the world has been for a series of years worth only about one dollar an ounce--sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, but I cannot appreciate why any farmer or other producer should desire that the government should pay for any article more than its market value. The government should purchase the articles it needs, like all other purchasers, at the market price. The distinction sought to be made in favor of silver is without just foundation. The government now buys in the open market more than the entire domestic production of silver bullion, because it needs it for coinage and as the basis of treasury notes. I gladly contributed my full share to this measure, and would do anything in my power to advance the market value of silver to its legal ratio to gold, but this can only be done in concert with other commercial nations. The attempt to do it by the United States alone would only demonstrate our weakness.

"To the extent that the enormous demand made by the existing law advances the price of silver, the producer receives the benefit, and to-day the production of silver is probably the most profitable industry in the United States. To ask more seems to me unreasonable, and, if yielded to, will bring all our money to the single silver standard alone, demonetize gold and detach the United States from the standards of the great commercial nations of the world. The unreasonable demand for the free coinage of silver has nothing to do with the reasonable demand for the increase of the volume of money required by the increase of business and population of the United States.

"We have provided by existing laws for the increase of money to an amount greater than the increase of business and population; but, even if more money is required, there are many ways of providing it without cheapening its purchasing power, or making a wide difference between the kinds of money in circulation based on silver and gold. More than ninety-two per cent. of all payments is now made in checks, drafts and other commercial devices. All kinds of circulating notes are now equal to each other and are kept at the gold standard by redemption and exchange. Our money and our credit are now equal to or better than those of the most civilized nations of the world, our productions of every kind are increasing, and it seems to me almost a wild lunacy for us to disturb this happy condition by changing the standard of all contracts, including special contracts payable in gold, and again paying gold to the capitalists, and silver (at an exaggerated price) to the farmer, laborer and pensioner.

"I would not be true to my conviction of what is best for the good of my constituents if I did not frankly and firmly stand by my opinions, whatever may be the effect upon me personally. My greatest obligations have been to the farmers of Ohio, and I would be unworthy of their trust and confidence if I did not beseech them to stand by the financial policy which will secure them the best results for their labor and productions, and the comfort and prosperity of all classes alike.

"Very truly yours, "John Sherman."

When this letter was written the demand for the free coinage of silver was at its height. I knew that my position was not a popular one, yet felt confident that in the end the people would become convinced that no change should be made in the standard of value then existing, and that the use of silver as money should be continued and it should be maintained at par with gold, but that when the volume of it became so great as to threaten the demonetization of gold, its coinage should be discontinued and silver bullion in the treasury should be represented by treasury notes in circulation equal in amount to the cost of the silver bullion. This was the basis of the act of 1890, but, unfortunately, the amount of silver bullion produced in the United States and in the world at large so rapidly increased that it continually declined in market value. Every purchase of it entailed great loss to the United States. How to deal with this condition was the problem for the next Congress to solve.

On the 31st of August, in response to an inquiry from the editor of the "Citizen," a newspaper published in Urbana, Ohio, I wrote the following letter in regard to the policy of protection to American industries by tariff laws:

"A protective tariff was the first measure provided by the first Congress of the United States. No nation can be independent without a diversity of industries. A single occupation may answer for an individual, but a nation must be composed of many men of many employments. Every nation ought to be independent of other nations in respect to all productions necessary for life and comfort that can be made at home. These are axioms of political economy so manifestly true that they need no demonstration. The measure of protection is a proper subject of dispute, but there should be no dispute as to the principle of protection in a country like ours, possessing almost every raw material of nature and almost every variety of productions. We have prospered most when our industries have been best protected. The vast variety of our manufactures, now rivaling in quantity those of countries much older than ours, is the result of protection.

"Every President, from Washington down to Jackson, inclusive, declared in favor of the principle of protection. Every eminent statesman of the early period, including Calhoun, favored this policy. The owners of slaves, engaged chiefly in the production of cotton, became hostile to protection, and, with those engaged in foreign commerce, were the representative free traders of the United States. Now that slavery is abolished and the south has entered upon the development of her vast natural resources, and it has been proven that our foreign commerce is greater under protective laws, there should be no opposition in any portion of our country to the protection of American industry by wise discriminating duties.

"The principle of protection should be applied impartially and fairly to all productions, whether of the workshop or the farm. The object is to diversify employment and to protect labor, and this protection should be impartially applied without respect to the nature of the production. All experience has established the invariable fact that domestic production, by inducing competition, in a brief period, lowers the price of all protected articles. In the whole range of productions this result has been universal. Whenever it is apparent that a new industry can be established, as is the case now with the manufacture of tin plate, it is good policy to give to the industry a liberal degree of protection, with the assurance that if we have the raw material on equal conditions we can after a time compete with the imported article.

"The policy of a nation upon economic questions should be fixed and stable. The McKinley law, as now framed, though it may be open to criticism as to details, is a strictly protective measure, fair and just as applied to all industries, with ample provisions to secure reciprocity in the exchange of domestic productions for articles we cannot produce. It ought to be thoroughly tested by the experience of several years. It is not good policy to disturb it or keep the public mind in suspense about it. It will, as I think, demonstrate its wisdom, but if not, with the light of experience, it can be modified. The highest policy and the greatest good to our people lie in the full trial of this effort, to establish, upon a firm foundation, the domestic production of every article essential to American life and independence."

These two letters, on the "free coinage of silver" and the "McKinley tariff law," frankly expressed my opinions on the salient questions of the day. With respect to the principles that underlie the policy of protection, I have already stated my opinions in commenting upon the Morrill tariff law. No general tariff bill has passed during my service in Congress that met my entire approval. It is easy to formulate general principles, but when we come to apply them to the great number of articles named on the tariff list, we find that the interests of their constituents control the action of Senator and Members. The McKinley tariff bill was not improved in the Senate. The compact and influential delegation from New England made its influence felt in support of industries pursued in that section, while the delegations from other sections were divided on party lines. The tariff law was not, therefore, consistent with any general principle, but it was nearer so than the one in force before its passage, and the necessity of passing some law that would reduce taxation was so imperative that the differences between the two Houses were readily compromised. The execution of the McKinley law under President Harrison demonstrated that it would furnish ample revenue to support the government, and it should have remained on the statute book with such slight changes as experience might have shown to be necessary. The Democratic party, however, was opposed to the protective features of this law, took advantage of its defects, and, subsequently, when that party came into power, it unwisely undertook to make a new tariff which has proven to be insufficient to yield the needed revenue, and thus created the necessity of using, for current expenses, the reserve of gold specially accumulated in the treasury for the redemption of United States notes.

I felt the deepest interest in this campaign, not from the selfish desire to hold longer an office I had held for nearly thirty years, but I thought that in Ohio we were to have a great financial battle, upon the result of which might depend the monetary system of the United States. On the 17th of August I said to a reporter:

"The people of the east do not seem to understand this campaign. They do not appear to have any comprehension of what it means to them as well as the country. No matter what their differences upon the tariff question may be, every Republican who wishes the success of his party should be made to understand that there is another and perhaps a graver question to be settled in Ohio this year. While our politics for the past few campaigns have hinged upon minor questions, we are to-day brought back to the financial problem which we all thought had been settled, in 1875, when Mr. Hayes won the fight for an honest dollar against Governor Allen, who represented the liberal currency idea. Then it came in the guise of greenbacks, and now it comes in the garb of free silver. That conflict made Mr. Hayes President of the United States. What the decision may be this year no man can tell."

I further said the arguments that year were identically the same as in the Hayes and Allen contest if the word "silver" were substituted for "greenbacks." The Democrats had declared for unlimited coinage, and we had declared against it. The Farmers' Alliance came in as allies of the Democracy, but, while they were an unknown quantity, they did not appear to be very dangerous. I could not find that they made much impression on Republican farmers. It had fallen to the lot of Ohio to be the battle ground on which these financial question were fought, but we had never been saddled with so grave a conflict as that year, not merely for the reason that we had both the financial and economic questions depending upon the result, but because of the lack of action and moral force which did not seem to come to us from outside the state, as it should and had years before. I had too much faith in the Republicans of the country to believe that when they understood the situation they would fail to arouse themselves to the necessities of the hour.

In answer to a question as to how the canvass would be conducted, I said that Major McKinley and those close to him were perfectly competent to deal with the management of the campaign and would do so. I should in my opening speech devote myself entirely to a presentation of the financial part of the contest, which was equal in importance with the tariff. It was perhaps unfortunate for both that two such questions should come up for discussion at the same time, but they did and the issue had to be met. The only thing that was necessary to insure a crowning success was that the Republicans of the country should understand that, no matter what their differences upon the tariff were, they had a vital interest in settling the financial question for all time at the next election in the State of Ohio. The prosperity in Ohio was a great aid to the Republicans. The crops in that state and the west were larger than for many years. Prices were good and the farmers as a rule prosperous. This naturally made them regard with grim humor the talk of the Alliance lecturers about poverty and distress. Another thing which helped us was the fact that short crops were the rule in Europe. In reply to a question as to the senatorial issue, I said in one of my speeches:

"I have no regret that this character of battle is prominent. I am rather complimented than otherwise to be again selected as the target of this crusade against a sound currency. It is a question that has been nearest my heart for a good many years, and I am perfectly willing to abide the result upon my position thereon. As I said before, I have no fears as to the decision for the right. I have less opposition to encounter than I have ever had before, and should we carry the legislature, which I believe we will, I am content to stand by the judgment of the Republicans of that body, no matter what it may be."

I made my opening speech in this campaign at Paulding, on the 27th of August. It was mainly confined to the silver question. I quote a few extracts from it:

"It has been said by many persons of both political parties that this is to be a campaign of education. I believe it ought to be so, for the leading questions involved are purely business questions, affecting material interests common alike to men of all parties.

"Upon two great measures of public policy the Republican and Democratic parties have made a formal and distinct issue, and these are to be submitted to the people of Ohio in November, and your decision will have a marked effect upon public opinion throughout the United States. One is whether the holder of silver bullion may deposit it in the treasury of the United States, and demand and receive for it one dollar of coined money for every 371 grains of fine silver deposited. The market value of so much silver bullion is now about 77 cents, varying, however, from day to day, like other commodities, sometimes more and sometimes less. The other question is whether the policy of taxing imported goods by the government of the United States, embodied in our existing tariff law, known as the McKinley tariff, is a wise public policy, or whether it should be superseded by what is called a tariff for revenue only, as embodied in what is known as the Mills bill, which passed the House of Representatives in 1888, and was rejected by the Senate.

* * * * *

"I propose upon this occasion to confine myself mainly to a frank and homely discussion of the money question, as the most pressing, not that the tariff question is not equally important, but for the reason that I can only do one thing at a time, and the money question is a newer one, is now before us, upon which Republicans and Democrats alike are somewhat divided. I wish to appeal to the reason and common sense of the people who hear me, for that is said to be the highest wisdom.

* * * * *

"Now, you all know that the money in circulation in the United States--all of it--is good, good as gold. It will pass everywhere and buy as much as the same amount of any other money in the world. Our money is of many kinds--gold, silver, nickel and copper are all coined into money. Then we have United States notes, or greenbacks, gold certificates, silver certificates, treasury notes and national bank notes. But the virtue of all these many kinds of money is that they are all good. A dollar of each is as good as a dollar of any other kind. All are as good as gold. But, and here comes the first difficulty, the silver in the silver dollar is not worth as much as the gold in the gold dollar. The nickel in that coin is worth but a small part of five cents' worth of silver. And the copper in the cent is not worth one-fifth of the nickel in a five cent piece. How then, you may ask me, can these coins be made equal to each other? The answer is that coinage is a government monopoly, and though the copper in five cents is not worth a nickel, and the nickel in twenty pieces is not worth a silver dollar, and the silver in sixteen dollars is not worth sixteen dollars in gold, yet, as the government coins them, and receives them, and maintains them at par with gold coin, they are, for all purposes, money equal to each other, and wherever they go, even into foreign countries, they are received and paid out as equivalents.

"The reason of all this is that the United States limits the amount of all the coins to be issued except gold, which, being the most valuable, is coined without limit. If coinage of all these metals was free, and any holder of copper, nickel, silver or gold could carry it to the mint to be coined, we would have no money but copper and nickel, because they are the cheaper metals, worth less than one-fourth of what, as coin, they purport to be. For the same reason, if the coinage of silver was free at the ratio of sixteen of silver to one of gold, no gold would be coined, because sixteen ounces of silver are not worth one ounce of gold.

* * * * *

"The one distinctive, striking feature of the law of 1890 is, that the United States will not pay for silver bullion more than its market value. And why should we? What is there about silver bullion that distinguishes it from any other product of industry that the government needs? When the government needs food and clothing for the army and navy it pays only the market price to the farmer and manufacturer. The value of silver produced is insignificant compared with the value of any of the articles produced by the farmer, the miner and manufacturer. Nearly all the silver produced in the United States is by rich corporations in a few new states, and its production at market price is far more profitable than any crop of the farmer, and yet it is the demand of the producer of silver bullion that the United States should pay him twenty-five per cent. more than its market value that lies at the foundation of the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

* * * * *

"Our Democratic friends differ from us in this particular. They are in favor of allowing any holder of silver bullion, foreign or domestic, any old silverware or melted teapot, any part of the vast accumulated hoard of silver in India, China, South America and other countries of the world, estimated by statisticians to be $3,810,571,346, to present it to the treasury of the United States and demand one dollar of our money, or our promises to pay money, for 371 grains of silver, or any multiple of that sum, though this amount of silver is now worth only 77 cents, and has for a period of years been as low as 70 cents. If with free silver we receive only the quantity of silver we are required to purchase by existing law, the United States would pay over $13,000,000 a year more than if purchased at the market value, and this vast sum would be paid annually as a bounty to the producers of silver bullion.

"But this is not the worst of it. Free coinage means that we shall purchase not merely four and a half million ounces a month, but all the silver that is offered, come from where it may, if presented in quantities of one hundred ounces at a time. We are to give the holder either coin or treasury notes, at his option, at the rate of one dollar for every 371 grains, now worth in the market 77 cents. Who can estimate the untold hoards of silver that will come into the treasury if this policy is adopted?

* * * * *

"But it is said that free coinage will not have the effect I have stated; that the silver in sight is so occupied where it is that it will not come to us. They said the same when the present law was passed, that foreign silver would not come to us. Yet our purchase of 4,500,000 ounces, troy weight, or 187 tons, of silver a month, at market price, brought into the United States large amounts of silver from all parts of the world. If that is the effect of limited purchases at one dollar an ounce, the market price, what will be the effect of unlimited purchases at 29 cents an ounce more than market price? It would inundate us with the vast hoards of silver in countries where silver alone is the current money, and draw to us all the rapidly-increasing production of silver mines in the world.

"But they say with free coinage the price of silver will rise to the old ratio with gold. The experience of all the world belies this statement. In no country in the world where free coinage exists is sixteen ounces of silver equal to one ounce of gold. France and the United States maintain the parity between the two by carefully limiting the coinage and receiving and redeeming silver coins as the equivalent of gold. But wherever free coinage exists that is impossible. With free coinage the market value of the bullion fixes the value of the dollar. The Mexican dollar contains more silver than the American dollar, and yet the Mexican dollar is worth about 78 cents, because in Mexico coinage is free. And the American dollar is worth 100 cents because in the United States coinage is limited. So in all free coinage countries where silver alone is coined it is worth its market value as bullion. In all countries where gold circulates the coinage of silver is limited, but is used as money in even greater amounts than in countries where coinage is free. This is the case in France and the United States. The free coinage of silver in either would stop the coinage of gold.

* * * * *

"It is claimed that if we adopt the silver standard we will get more money for our labor and productions. This does not follow, but, even if it be true, the purchasing power of our money will be diminished. All experience proves that labor and the productions of the farm are the last to advance in price.

* * * * *

"Some say that we want more money to transact the business of the country. Do we get more money be demonetizing one-half of all we have?--for the gold now in circulation is more than one-half of the coin in circulation."

In closing this speech I said:

"I appeal to the conservative men of Ohio of both parties to repeat now the service they rendered the people of the United States in 1875, by the election of Governor Hayes, in checking the wave of inflation that then threatened the country. You can render even a greater service now in the election of Governor McKinley, in defeating the free coinage of silver, and strengthening the hands of President Harrison and the Republican Senate in maintaining American industries, a full dollar for all labor and productions, the untarnished credit of the American people, and the advancing growth and prosperity of our great republic. I have endeavored in a feeble way to promote these objects of national policy, and now that I am growing old, I have no other wish or ambition than to inspire the young men of Ohio to take up the great work of the generation that is passing away, and to do in their time as much as, or more than, the soldiers and citizens of the last forty years have been able to do to advance and elevate our government to the highest standard and example of honor, courage and industry known among men."

These extracts give an imperfect idea of the speech, which entered into many details, and stated the effect of the cheapening of the dollar on the wages of men employed as laborers, and on farmers who would be cheated by the diminished power of money.

Being confined to one subject, and that one which at the time excited the attention of the people, this speech was widely copied, and received general approbation from the press of the north and east, and was commented upon favorably in countries in Europe, where the fall in the price of silver was the subject of anxious interest. It also excited the denunciation of the free silver states in the west. The Democratic platform of Ohio had unfortunately committed that great party to the ideas of the new party calling itself the People's party, represented mainly by the disciples of the old greenback fiat money craze, some of whom, while claiming to be farmers, do their planting in law offices, and whose crops, if they have any, are thistles and ragweeds. That part of the platform had been adopted by but a bare majority of the Democratic convention, and Campbell, their candidate, tried to evade it.

McKinley promptly recognized the importance of the money question in the pending canvass, and at once presented in all his speeches the two vital measures of his party--good money and a protective tariff. On these two issues the Republican party was united and the Democratic party divided.

Early in September, I was invited by the managers of the state fair to make a speech on the 17th of that month at their grounds in Columbus, on the political issues of the day, and accepted the invitation. As usual during the fair great crowds assembled, most of whom no doubt felt more interested in the horse races and sight- seeing than in coinage or tariff, but many thousands, mostly farmers from all parts of the state, were gathered around the east front of the main building. At the time appointed I was introduced by E. W. Poe, the state auditor, with the usual flattering remarks, and commenced my speech as follows:

"When I was invited to speak to you here I was informed that I was expected to present my views on the leading issues of the day, and that a like invitation had been given to Governor Campbell and other gentlemen holding public trusts from the people of Ohio. While this invitation relieves me from the charge of impropriety in introducing a political question on the fair grounds, yet I am admonished by the presence of gentlemen of all parties and all shades of opinion that common courtesy demands that, while frankly stating my convictions, I will respect the opinions of others who differ from me. I propose, therefore, in a plain way to give you my views on the tariff question, now on trial between the two great political parties of the United States. It is somewhat unfortunate that this purely business question of public policy is being discussed on party lines, but it is made a party question by the State conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties of Ohio, and we must accept it as such, though I would greatly prefer, and I intend to treat it here, as far as I can, as a purely economic question."

I briefly stated the history of tariff legislation in the United States, what was meant by a tariff and the objects sought by it, and that for the first fifty years of our history the lines were not drawn between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. It was in those days the common desire of all sections to obtain revenue and to encourage domestic industries. This unity of purpose existed until 1831, when the south had become almost exclusively an agricultural region, in which cotton was the chief product of the plantation with negro slaves as the laborers, and when the north, under the protective policy, had largely introduced manufactures, and naturally wished to protect and enlarge their industries. The tariff question grew out of a contest between free and slave labor. I referred to the various measures adopted, the compromise measure of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861. During and after the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic industries. To meet these demands we had to levy not only high duties on nearly all imported goods, but to add internal taxes, yielding $300,000,000 annually, on articles produced in this country. When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:

"First. To repeal all taxes on home production, except on spirits, tobacco, and beer.

"Second. To levy the highest rates of duties that will not encourage smuggling, on articles of luxury which enter into the consumption of the rich.

"Third. To place on imported articles which compete with articles that can be manufactured or produced in the United States, such a rate of duty as will secure to our farmers and laborers fair prices, fair wages, and will induce our people to engage in such manufacture and production.

"Fourth. To repeal all duties on articles of prime necessity which enter into the consumption of the American people and which cannot be produced in sufficient quantity in this country.

"Fifth. To grant to foreign nations the reciprocal right of free importation into our ports of articles we cannot produce, in return for the free introduction into their ports of articles of American production."

I entered into full details of the tariff and contrasted the McKinley act with the Mills bill proposed by the Democratic party, but which never became a law, and in conclusion said:

"And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties. If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance, led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial. Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views of public policy. Some items I would like to change, but, on the whole, it is a wise measure of finance. It will give enough revenue to support the government. It is an American law, looking only to American interests. It is a fair law, dealing justly by all industries. It is an honest law, preventing, as far as law can, fraud and evasion. It is a comprehensive law covering the whole ground. It will undoubtedly establish new branches of industry in our country not now pursued. It will strengthen others now in operation. It will give to thousands of our people now idle, employment at fair wages. It will give to our farmers a greatly enlarged market for their productions, and encourage them in producing articles not now produced, and to increase their flocks, herds and horses to meet the new demands."

My speech was as free from partisanship as I could make it, and I am quite willing to stand upon the policy I defined.

I visited Cleveland a few days later and met many of the active Republicans of that city, and was glad to learn that they were practically unanimous for my re-election. Among other callers was a correspondent of the "Plain Dealer" of that city, who treated me fairly in stating correctly what I said in answer to his questions. The "Commercial Gazette" and the "Enquirer," of Cincinnati, also published long interviews with me, and incidents of my life given by my neighbors. I began to believe that these interviews, fairly reported, were better modes of expressing my opinions than formal speeches, and were more generally read.

During the month of October I made many speeches in different parts of the state, several of which were reported in full, but the general tenor of all may be gathered from those already referred to.

Among the largest meetings I attended in this canvass was one at Toledo, on the evening of the 14th of October. Here again I discoursed about currency and the tariff, but the salient points had become so familiar to me that I could speak with ease to my audience and to myself. As soon as this meeting was over, I took the midnight train for Dayton, where a "burgoo" feast was to be held the next day on the fair grounds. This was by far the largest meeting of the campaign. There was an immense crowd on the grounds, but it was a disagreeable day, with a cloudy sky, a chilly atmosphere and a cold raw wind. McKinley, Foraker and I spoke from the same stand, following each other. As I was the first to speak I had the best of it, and as soon as I finished left the grounds, but they held the great audience for several hours. I insert what the Dayton "Journal" reported of the speakers as a specimen of friendly journalism:

"Sherman renewed his youth and even exceeded the best efforts of his earlier days. Neither man nor woman left their place while Sherman was speaking. At 2 o'clock, when McKinley, our gallant leader, took the platform, the crowd seemed so great that no man's voice could reach them, but they listened for every syllable and made the hills echo with their appreciative applause. Then came Foraker. It seemed as if the great meeting had been magnetized with an electric power of ten thousand volts. There were continuous shouts of approbation and applause from his beginning to the close. His mingling of wit and wisdom, a burgoo combination of powerful and telling arguments, with sandwiches of solid facts, completed a political barbecue which will be a historical memory that will be almost as famous as the gathering of the people of this splendid valley in 1842, when Henry Clay spoke to our fathers on the same sod and under the shade of the same trees on the same subjects. The memory of the magnificent Republican demonstration at the Montgomery fair grounds on the 15th day of October, 1891, will remain with all who participated in it as long as they shall live."

On the evening of October 17, Foraker and I appeared together before a great audience in Music Hall, Cincinnati. I insert a few sentences of a long description in the "Commercial Gazette" of the next day:

"Music Hall was the scene last night of the greatest Republican gathering of the campaign. Senator Sherman and Governor Foraker were the speakers.

"The meeting was an immense one. That was a magnificent assemblage. It was an ovation. It was a recognition of brains and integrity. It was an evidence that honesty and justice prevail. It showed that the people believe in the Republican party. It proved that they appreciate that the party still has a mission. It evinced an appreciation of the past and a hope for, and a belief in, the future. It was a great outpouring of Republicans. It was a gathering of the supporters of right as against wrong. It was a regular Republican crowd. Personal feeling and personal ambition were laid aside.

* * * * *

"Sherman and Foraker were on the stage together. Their presence on the same stage was a noteworthy fact. It was an evidence of harmony and of strength. Then, again, the united marching of the Lincoln and Blaine clubs was a further proof of harmony. In fact, the entire meeting, and the pleasant feeling manifest, proved that the party is united as one man against its old foe, the Democracy; that, as many a time before, it is ready and anxious to do battle with the ancient enemy. No deceits, no frauds, can defeat it--the Republican party. This the meeting proved conclusively."

I closed my part in this canvass at Toledo and Cleveland in the week before the election, and these speeches were fairly and fully reported. During the whole contest between Foraker and myself there was nothing said to disturb our friendly relations. The election resulted in the success of the Republican ticket and a Republican legislature, McKinley receiving over 21,000 plurality. Immediately after the election it was announced that the members of the legislature from Hamilton county were unanimously in favor of Foraker for Senator. This announcement, and especially the manner of it, created a good deal of bad feeling in the state, especially as it was alleged and believed that George Cox had full control of the delegation and had required the pledges of each senator and member to vote for United States Senator as he dictated.

During the entire canvass there was a full and free discussion, not only in Ohio but throughout the United States, as to the choice between Foraker and myself. It was known that the vote in the legislature would be close and the friends of each were claiming a majority for their favorite. It is not necessary to follow the progress of the contest, but I became satisfied that I would be re- elected, although the most positive assurances were published that Foraker, with the aid of his solid delegation from Hamilton county, would be successful. Many things were said during the brief period before the election that ought not to have been said, but this is unavoidable in choosing between political friends as well as between opposing parties. Every Republican paper in Ohio took sides in the contest. Meetings were held in many of the counties and cities of the state, and resolutions adopted expressing their preference.

I was urged by some friends to go to Columbus some time before the meeting of the legislature on the first Monday in January, but delayed my departure from Washington until after the wedding of my niece, on the 30th of December, a narrative of which was given by the "Ohio State Journal" as follows:

"The marriage of Miss Rachel Sherman, daughter of the late General William T. Sherman, and Dr. Paul Thorndike, of Boston, was solemnized at high noon to-day at the residence of Senator Sherman, in the presence of a distinguished audience of relatives and officials. It was a gathering composed chiefly of intimate friends of the late General Sherman, many of whom came from afar to witness the nuptials of the favorite daughter of the deceased chieftain.

"The house was gay with music and fragrant with flowers. The ceremony took place in the front parlor of the residence. A canopy of asparagus and smilax was twined over the recess where the ceremony was performed. A background of foliage and palms massed together made the couple standing in front all the more effective and attractive. On the mantel were banked white blossoms in profusion, and hanging from the chandeliers wreaths of smilax intertwined with white chrysanthemums and carnations. The ushers were Mr. Allen Johnston, of the British legation, Mr. Ward Thorou, Mr. William Thorndike, Dr. Augustine Thorndike and Mr. Tecumseh Sherman, the bride's brother. Preceding the bride came her little niece, Miss Elizabeth Thackara, in a gown of white muslin, carrying a basket of white lilies. Senator Sherman escorted the bride, who was met by the groom and his best man, Mr. Albert Thorndike. The party grouped about Father Sherman, brother of the bride, who, with much impressiveness, performed the marriage rites of the Catholic church.

"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."