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--Résumé of My Opinions on the Policy of Protection --Reception by the Ohio Republican Association--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 passed 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 competitor, and who is now before you. He is entitled 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 assembly, 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 entitled 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 Canal. 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 passage 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 embarrassment. . . . The people cannot afford to wait without encountering all the hardships 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 multitude 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 assertion. There is not an iota of ground upon which such an assertion 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 passage. 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 Hancock 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 371¼ 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 passed 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 class 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 passed 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 pass the bill. After a debate of one hour, and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. 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 substitute, which was the bill that had previously passed 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 passed. 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 class 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 passage 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.

"Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned, is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of the treaty of 1880, it is our right--not our power, but our right according to the treaty--to make this exceptional legislation for people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of this country, 'regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it.' In violation of that article of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these laborers to remain in the position of persons 'of the most favored nation.' . . . Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the class of people of China that we do not want here, making a discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them; that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not propose to vote for the conference report on that ground."

After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.

An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it. Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following resolution, which gave rise to the debate:

"Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and

"Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and

"Whereas, Those conditions exist and are largely due to the Republican policy of 'protection:' Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That the committee on finance be, and is hereby, directed to inquire into the effect of a policy of 'tariff for revenue only' upon the labor and the industries of the United States, and to report upon the same to the Senate."

The next day Mr. Hale made a brief speech upon the resolution, and was followed by Senator Vest, who quoted many documents, which were printed in the "Record," in support of his views. Several other Senators participated in the debate which continued from day to day.

The full report of the committee referred to, embracing three volumes of over six hundred pages each, was submitted to the Senate on the 19th of July, and on the 29th Senator John G. Carlisle, who, as a member of the committee, had taken much interest in the inquiry, and had participated in the conversational debate during the preceding month, made an elaborate speech upon the resolution and mainly upon the proposition advanced by him, that the result of the McKinley law was to increase the prices of commodities, while it did not increase wages. His speech was certainly a good specimen of logic by a well trained mind. His first proposition was that it was the unanimous opinion of scientists and statisticians, in all the great industrial and commercial countries of the world, that the prices of commodities had been decreasing, and the rates of wages, especially in those occupations requiring skill and intelligence, had been increasing; that capital had been receiving, year after year, a smaller percentage of the total proceeds of the product, and labor a larger percentage. He insisted that the tendency toward a decline in prices of commodities and an increase in the rates of wages is the necessary result of our improved methods of production, transportation and exchange. He said that anyone who contends in this day that high prices of commodities are beneficial to the community at large, is at war with the spirit of the age in which he lives, and with the genius of discovery and invention, which, during the last half century, has ameliorated the condition of mankind by bringing all the necessaries of life, and many of its luxuries, within the reach of every man who is willing to work. He then entered into an elaborate argument to show that the McKinley act interfered with this natural tendency towards a decline in the prices of commodities and a rise in the rates of wages, and made it harder and more expensive for the masses of the people of the United States to live.

I do not follow his argument, as, to treat him fairly, it would be necessary to state it in full. It was illustrated by carefully prepared tables.

On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary, showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit to the people of the United States, especially when they are the productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities. If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration. The platform upon which he was elected was "That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interest of the nation."

I insisted that the object of protection--the employment of American labor--was of more importance than the price of food or clothing, though I believed, with Mr. Carlisle, that the tendency of a constant falling of the prices of the necessaries of life would go on without regard to the duties on imported goods, as the natural result of invention and skill.

My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise. Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the articles that can be profitably produced in the United States. The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained in the following paragraphs of this speech:

"Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they are fairly entitled to receive, then I am against the tariff act. I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite, to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection. It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that is desired."

Having referred to the principal measures of Congress during the long session of 1891-92, I recur to some of the personal events that followed my re-election. It was received with general approval by the press of the United States. On the evening of the 30th of January, 1892, the Ohio Republican Association, at Washington, extended to me a reception at the National Rifles' Armory. Several hundred invitations had been issued, and very few declined. The hall was beautifully decorated with flags, and in the gallery the Marine Band was stationed and rendered patriotic airs. I was introduced to the audience by Thomas B. Coulter, the president of the association. He deplored the illness of Secretary Charles Foster, who was to have delivered the address of welcome, and then introduced S. A. Whitfield, who made a complimentary address, closing as follows:

"You have gone through all these years of public life without a stain upon your honored name. The recent election in Ohio demonstrated the honor in which you are held by the people of your state. It was that which has given us this opportunity to pay you this respect, we, of the Ohio Association, who are here to welcome you."

To this I made a brief reply, expressing my hearty thanks. John Wanamaker, Postmaster General, made an interesting address, full of humor and kindness, and was followed by several Members of Congress, among whom was my neighbor, Michael D. Harter.

The only incident of an unpleasant nature growing out of the senatorial contest was an unfounded charge against H. M. Daugherty, an active and able member of the house of representatives of Ohio, who was accused by a newspaper with being corruptly influenced to cast his vote for me. He promptly denounced the slander, and demanded an investigation. Noticing the publication and his denial, I wrote him as follows:

"Senate Chamber, } "Washington, January 18, 1892.} "Hon. H. M. Daugherty.

"My Dear Sir:--I notice in Saturday's 'Journal' that you intend to push to a trial some of the men who most unjustly libeled you, and indirectly libeled me. I think so clear and strong a case of gross injustice ought to be punished if the law can furnish any relief, and I sympathize with you, and will stand by you in the effort to reach the guilty parties.

"No one can know better than I the frank, manly and disinterested course you pursued in the contest for the organization of the house, and the election of Senator, and no one can know better than I how false the imputation made against you was.

"I am glad to say that in the whole contest I never used one dollar of money to corrupt or influence the vote or judgment of any member of the legislature, and that the charge that you received, or were to receive, $3,500, or any other sum of money, is absolutely false and malicious. Whenever you desire me to testify to this, I will gladly do so.

"Very sincerely yours, "John Sherman."

A committee was appointed by the general assembly, who examined witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:

"We are unable to find one iota of evidence that would lead us to believe that the said H. M. Daugherty either received, or asked, or was offered, any consideration for his vote for John Sherman, for United States Senator, or that anyone received, or asked, or was offered, the same for him, or that he was in any way unduly or corruptly influenced to cast his vote for the said John Sherman, but that, in voting for the said John Sherman, Mr. Daugherty followed the instructions received by him from his constituents. We herewith submit all the evidence taken by us in this examination, and make the same a part of this report.

"Respectfully submitted, "A. H. Strock, "J. C. Heinlein, "W. A. Reiter, "John D. Beaird."

The "State Journal" said:

"After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr. Daugherty and congratulated him. These expressions of good will were too much for Mr. Daugherty's composure, and tears came unbidden to his eyes. He felt the stigma placed upon his good name by the insinuations of the Democratic newspapers very keenly, although not one member of the house believed the stories."

At this period many interviews with me were published. It is the custom of newspaper letter writers, who are generally bright intelligent men, to call upon a Senator or Member with some current story of the hour and then interview him. A brief interview is often expanded into a long article in a newspaper, founded sometimes not upon the conversation but upon speeches, writings and known opinions of the person interviewed. When this is fairly and truly done it answers the purpose of the letter writer, and the person interviewed has no cause of complaint. This was especially the case with the letters of George Alfred Townsend. His letter of February 26, 1892, was but one of many which entered into details that I could not deny, embracing anecdotes and incidents hardly worthy of preservation, but forming a part of the gossip of the hour. The newspaper reporter, as distinguished from the letter writer, does not seek as a rule to verify his views, but flashes by telegraph the current report of the moment. In this way it was stated in the New York "World," on the 29th of February, that I was about to resign and that Foster was to take my place, that I was to edit General Sherman's letters, and ample details were given of arrangements for the future--not a word of which was true.

In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the Citizens' Republican Association of Cincinnati, of which Lewis Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply. I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the Ohio house of representatives--one refusing to obey instructions-- and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had committed themselves to their "boss" to vote for Senator as he should direct, in order to secure his "influence" in the primaries. I knew that if I answered the letter of the association truly I would be reproached by the timid with the cry "Hush," "Hush," but I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:

"Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892. "Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:

"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln club, that had 'for its object' the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton county who have seized and degraded the 'Republican organization.' You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the 'Citizens' Republican Association,' with a view of rebuking corruption and purifying our party 'affairs from offenses and scandalous methods,' and request me to give my opinion of your movement.

"While I do not wish to interfere in any way with the methods adopted by the people of Hamilton county to ascertain the popular will, yet I cannot refuse to answer frankly the inquiry of so respectable a body of Republicans who complain that the popular will is defeated by a corrupt gang, using offensive and scandalous methods. My opinion is founded upon information gathered from many of your citizens and the public press of Cincinnati, as well as from your own statement. If I am in error as to existing methods for the control of nominations and the corrupt practices of political managers, your people can correct me and I will be gladly convinced of my error.

"I do not see how any self-respecting Republican can differ with you in your effort to secure to the Republican voters of Hamilton county the free and unimpeded selection of candidates for office, without the intervention of a boss or the corrupt use of money to purchase the nominations. As I understand, the substantial control of all local Republican appointments, and nominations to public offices or employments of every grade in Hamilton county, is practically in one man, that it is rare that anyone can secure any place on the Republican ticket, from judge of the highest court in your county, to the least important office, without his consent, that this consent is secured in most cases by the payment of a specific sum of money, that the money so collected is apportioned between the 'boss' and what is called the 'gang,' and used to control the primaries for the election of delegates to your county, state and congressional conventions, and that when any office carries with it patronage it is made the express and implied condition in the nomination of the candidate that this patronage must be transferred to the 'boss.'

"I understand also that the appointments made by your local boards, and even some federal offices, are in effect transferred to the same person to whom applicants are sent and whose recommendation decides the appointment, so that one man controls by corrupt methods nearly all nominations and appointments in Hamilton county, and this rule is only tempered by occasional respect to public opinion, when the boss thinks it unsafe to disregard it. These methods were strikingly exemplified in the last county convention, when a decided majority of a delegation of ten representatives and three senators were nominated for the Ohio legislature, pledged beforehand to vote for the person to be designated by the boss when the time came for the election of the Senator of the United States. His decision was carefully withheld until the election was over and was then announced. In this way the vote for United States Senator of the most populous city and county in Ohio was, during the canvass, held, as I believe, for sale, not by the persons nominated as Senators and Representatives, who are highly reputable citizens, but by a corrupt organization which was able to control the nominations and practically to exercise the power to vote for United States Senator intrusted to its nominees.

"Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices. It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority. Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes of their constituents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise, as the unbiased choice and action of a popular assemblage. Since I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to assert their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices, employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case, by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear in municipal governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.

"Very respectfully yours, "John Sherman."

I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication. Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.