Chapter 117

BEGINNING OF ARTHUR'S ADMINISTRATION. Special Session of the Senate Convened by the President--Abuse of Me by Newspapers and Discharged Employees--Charges Concerning Disbursement of the Contingent Fund--My Resolution in the Senate-- Secretary Windom's Letter Accompanying the Meline Report--Investigation and Complete Exoneration--Arthur's Message to Congress in December --Joint Resolutions on the Death of Garfield--Blaine's Tribute to His Former Chief--Credit of the United States at "High Water Mark" --Bill Introduced Providing for the Issuing of Three per Cent. Bonds--Corporate Existence of National Banks Extended--Bill to Reduce Internal Revenue Taxes--Tax on Playing Cards--Democratic Victory in Ohio.

On the 23rd of September, 1881, President Arthur convened the Senate to meet in special session on the 10th of October. Mr. Bayard was elected its president _pro tempore_. On the 13th of October, when the Senate was full, David Davis, of Illinois, was elected president _pro tempore_, and the usual thanks were given to Mr. Bayard, as the retiring president _pro tempore_, for the dignity and impartiality with which he had discharged the duties of his office.

At this period of my life I was the object of more abuse and vituperation than ever before or since. The fact that the new administration of Arthur was not friendly to me was no doubt the partial cause of this abuse. The intense bitterness manifested by certain papers, and by discharged employees, indicated the origin of most of the petty charges against me. One of these employees stated that he had been detailed for work on a house built by me in 1880. This was easily answered by the fact that the house was built under contract with a leading builder and the cost was paid to him. I neither knew the man nor ever heard of him since.

I was blamed for certain irregularities in the disbursement of the contingent fund of the treasury, although the accounts of that fund were by law approved by the chief clerk of the department and were settled by the accounting officers without ever coming under my supervision, and the disbursement had been made by a custodian who was in the department before I entered it. My wife was more annoyed than I with the petty charges which she knew were false, but which I did not dignify by denying.

Mr. Windom, soon after his appointment as secretary, directed an inquiry to be made by officers of the treasury department into these abuses and it was charged that he, at my request, had suppressed this inquiry. The "Commercial Advertiser," on the 11th of October, alleged that I was as much shocked by the disclosures as my successor, Mr. Windom; that I did not want any further publicity given to them, and was desirous that Mr. Windom should not allow the report to get into the public prints. I, therefore, on the 14th of October, offered in the Senate this resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such report."

In offering the resolution, after reading the article in the "Commercial Advertiser," I said:

"The writer of this paragraph is very much mistaken in supposing that I have in any way sought or wished to withhold from the public the report referred to. I neither have nor will I oppose or delay any investigation of the treasury department while I was its chief officer. The only wish I have is to see that every officer accused of improper conduct shall have a fair chance to defend himself, and then he must stand or fall according to the rectitude or wrong of his conduct.

"The only doubt I have in calling for this report now is the fact that Mr. Windom did not order its publication lest injustice might be done to worthy and faithful officers who had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or answer charges made against them. I have no doubt that he either has given or will give them this opportunity. At all events the Senate can do so. I, therefore, offer this resolution and hope the Senate will promptly pass it."

Mr. Edmunds objected to the resolution as being unnecessary, and under the rules of the Senate it went over. I called it up on the 18th of October, when Mr. Farley, of California, asked that it be postponed a few days. On the 22nd I again called it up, when Mr. Farley stated that he could not see what Congress had to do with the report of such a commission appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and asked me for an explanation. In reply I said:

"I stated, on introducing this resolution, that the investigation was one of a character not usually communicated to Congress, but that certain public prints had contained unfounded imputations against several officers of the government, and that there was something in the report which reflected on a Member of this body formerly a cabinet officer. Under the circumstances, as I was plainly the person referred to, having been Secretary of the Treasury at the time stated, I deemed it my right, as well as my duty to my fellow-Senators, to call out this information. If the statements contained in the papers be true, they are proper matters for the Senate to examine in every sense.

"Mr. president, I have been accustomed to newspaper abuse all my life and very rarely notice it. This is probably the first time in my political life that I have ever read to this body a newspaper attack upon me or upon anyone else; but when any paper or any man impugns in the slightest degree my official integrity I intend to have it investigated, and I wish it tested not only by the law but by the strictest rules of personal honor.

"For this reason, when this imputation is made by a leading and prominent paper, that there is on the files of the treasury department a document which reflects upon me, I think it right that it should be published to the world, and then the Senate can investigate it with the power to send for persons and papers. That is the only reason why I offered the resolution, and not so much in my own defense as in defense of those accused in this document. If the accusation is true it is the duty of the Senate to examine into the matter."

After some further discussion the resolution was adopted, and on the same day Mr. Windom transmitted the report of James F. Meline, and other officers of the treasury department, made to the department during the recess of the Senate. His letter is as follows:

"Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary,} "Washington, D. C., October 22, 1881. } "Sir:--I am in receipt of the resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, as follows:

'_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to transmit to the Senate a copy of the report of James F. Meline and others, made to the treasury department during the recess of the Senate, and of any papers received by him based upon such report.'

"In reply thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the report called for, with the accompanying statements of Mr. J. K. Upton and J. T. Power, who occupied the position of chief clerk and _ex officio_ superintendent of the treasury building for the period covered by the report.

"Soon after assuming the duties of Secretary of the Treasury my attention was called to alleged abuses in the disbursement of the contingent fund of the department, which was under the immediate charge of a custodian, and the general supervision of the chief clerk of the department, and I appointed a committee to look into the matter, as has been the custom of the department in such cases. The law, somewhat conflicting in its terms in relation to the relative duties of these two officers, will be found fully set forth in the report. On considering this report I am convinced that certain irregularities and abuses existed in this branch of the service, and as I had some doubts as to the legality of the appointment of a custodian I abolished that office June 18, 1881, and by general order of July 1, 1881, reorganized the office.

"A copy of this order is herewith transmitted, from which it will appear that all the changes necessary to a complete and thorough correction of the irregularities and abuses referred to have been adopted.

"It was my intention, as my more pressing public duties would permit, to have pursued this general policy in other branches of the treasury, by the appointment of competent committees to collect the necessary data on which to base proper action to secure economy and promote the best interests of the public service, but the assassination of the President suspended further action in this direction.

"Very respectfully, "William Windom, Secretary. "Hon. David Davis, President of the Senate."

On the 26th I offered a resolution as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on appropriations of the Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate the accounts for the expenditure of the appropriations for contingent or other expenses of the several executive departments, including the methods of making such disbursements, the character and disposition of the purchases made, and the employment of labor paid from such appropriations, and to report on the subject at as early a day as practicable, and whether any further legislation is necessary to secure the proper disbursement of such appropriations; and that the committee have leave to send for persons and papers, and have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate."

This led to a thorough investigation into the disbursement of the contingent fund of the treasury department, the report of which, accompanied by the testimony, covering over 1,200 printed pages, was submitted to the Senate on the 15th of March, 1882. This examination was chiefly conducted by Francis M. Cockrell, of Missouri, a Senator distinguished for his fairness and thoroughness. The report was concurred in unanimously by the committee on appropriations. It showed that certain irregularities had entered into the management of the fund and that certain improper entries had been made in the account, but that only a trifling loss had resulted to the government therefrom.

I was before the committee and stated that I never had any knowledge of any wrongdoing in the matter until it had been brought out by the investigation. The report fairly and fully relieved me from the false accusations made against me. It said: "Touching the statements of Senator Sherman, that he had no knowledge of its irregularities, etc., established by the evidence, no witness states that Mr. Sherman knew that any funds of the treasury department were ever used for his individual benefit or otherwise misapplied."

I could not have asked for a more favorable ending of the matter.

At the close of the examination the committee addressed to the head of each department of Arthur's administration an inquiry whether the laws then in force provided ample safeguards for the faithful expenditure of its contingent appropriation, and each of them replied that no change in existing law was necessary. The committee concurred in the views of the heads of the departments, and suggested that they keep a constant supervision over the acts of their subordinates; that the storekeeper of the treasury department should be required to give a bond, and that careful inventories of the property of each department should be made, and that annual reports of the expenditures from the contingent fund should be made by each department at the commencement of each regular session. While this investigation imposed a severe labor upon the committee on appropriations, it had a beneficial effect in securing a more careful control over the contingent expenses of the departments, and it silenced the imputations and innuendoes aimed at me.

In regard to these accusations, I no doubt exhibited more resentment and gave them more importance than they deserved. I felt that, as Secretary of the Treasury, I had rendered the country valuable service, that I had dealt with vast sums without receiving the slightest benefit, and at the close was humiliated by charges of petty larceny. If I had recalled the experience of Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson and Blaine, and many others, under like accusations, I would have been content with answering as Washington and Jackson did, or by silent indifference, but my temperament led me to defy and combat with my accusers, however formidable or insignificant they might be.

The annual message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 6th of December, was a creditable, businesslike statement of the condition of the government. It commenced with a very proper announcement of the appalling calamity which had fallen upon the American people by the untimely death of President Garfield. He said:

"The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements, and of his patriotic life, will be treasured forever as a sacred possession of the whole people.

"The announcement of his death drew from foreign governments and peoples tributes of sympathy and sorrow which history will record as signal tokens of the kinship of nations and the federation of mankind."

Our friendly relations with foreign nations were fully described, and the operations of the different departments of the government during the past year were clearly and emphatically stated. In closing he called attention to the second article of the constitution, in the fifth clause of its first section, that "in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President," and asked that Congress should define "what is the intendment of the constitution in its specification of 'inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office,' as one of the contingencies which calls for the Vice President to the exercise of presidential functions? Is the inability limited in its nature to long continued intellectual incapacity, or has it a broader import? What must be its extent and duration? How must its existence be established?"

These and other questions connected with the subject were not acted upon by Congress, as it could not foresee the conditions of the inabilities in advance of their occurrence. He closed with the following sentence:

"Deeply impressed with the gravity of the responsibilities which have so unexpectedly devolved upon me, it will be my constant purpose to co-operate with you in such measures as will promote the glory of the country and the prosperity of its people."

At the regular meeting of the House of Representatives, on the 5th of December, 1881, J. Warren Keifer was elected speaker by a small majority. Both Houses were almost equally divided on partisan lines.

Early in the session, on the motion of William McKinley, the House passed the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That a committee of one Member from each state represented in this House be appointed on the part of the House to join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to consider and report by what token of respect and affection it may be proper for the Congress of the United States to express the deep sensibility of the nation to the event of the decease of their late President, James Abram Garfield; and that so much of the message of the President as refers to that melancholy event be referred to said committee."

On the same day, on my motion, a similar resolution, limiting the committee to eight, passed the Senate. The committees were duly appointed. On the 21st of December the two Houses, upon the report of the two committees, adopted the following concurrent preamble and resolutions:

"Whereas, The melancholy event of the violent and tragic death of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, having occurred during the recess of Congress, and the two Houses sharing in the general grief and desiring to manifest their sensibility upon the occasion of the public bereavement: Therefore,

"_Be it resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring)_, That the two Houses of Congress will assemble in the hall of the House of Representatives on a day and hour to be fixed and announced by the joint committee, and that in the presence of the two Houses there assembled an address upon the life and character of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, be pronounced by Hon. James G. Blaine; and that the president of the Senate _pro tempore_ and the speaker of the House of Representatives be requested to invite the President and ex-Presidents, of the United States, the heads of the several departments, the judges of the Supreme Court, the representatives of the foreign governments near this government, the governors of the several states, the general of the army and the admiral of the navy, and such officers of the army and have as have received the thanks of Congress who may then be at the seat of government, to be present on this occasion.

"_And be it further resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to Mrs. Lucretia R. Garfield, and to assure her of the profound sympathy of the two Houses of Congress for her deep personal affliction and of their sincere condolence for the late national bereavement."

On the 27th of February, 1882, Mr. Blaine, in response to the resolution of the two Houses, delivered an address, in the hall of House of Representatives, on the life and character of President Garfield, worthy of the occasion, of the distinguished audience before him, and of his reputation as an orator. From the beginning to the end it was elevated in tone, eloquent in the highest sense of that word, and warm in expression of his affection for the friend he eulogized. His delineation of Garfield as a soldier, an orator, and a man, in all the relations of life, was without exaggeration, but was tinged with his personal friendship and love. He described him on the 2nd of July, the morning of his wounding, as a contented and happy man, not in an ordinary degree, but joyfully, almost boyishly, happy. "Great in life, he was surpassingly great in death." He pictured the long lingering illness that followed that fatal wound, the patience of the sufferer, the unfaltering front with which he faced death, and his simple resignation to the divine decree. His peroration rose to the full measure of highest oratory. It was as follows:

"As the end drew near, his early craving for the sea returned. The stately mansion of power had been to him the wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from its prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from its homelessness and its hopelessness. Gently, silently, the love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the longer-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within sound of its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze, he looked out wistfully upon the ocean's changing wonders; on its far sails, whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves, rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun; on the red clouds of evening, arching low to the horizon; on the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us think that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the rapt and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the silence of the receding world he heard the great waves breaking on a further shore, and felt already upon his wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning."

Blaine died January 27, 1893. Who now living could pronounce such a eulogy?

The following resolutions were adopted by both Houses of Congress:

"_Resolved (the Senate concurring)_, That the thanks of Congress be presented to the Hon. James G. Blaine, for the appropriate memorial address delivered by him on the life and services of James Abram Garfield, late President of the United States, in the Representatives' Hall, before both Houses of Congress and their invited guests, on the 27th day of February, 1882; and that he be requested to furnish a copy for publication.

"_Resolved_, That the chairman of the joint committee appointed to make the necessary arrangements to carry into effect the resolutions of this Congress, in relation to the memorial exercises in honor of James Abram Garfield, be requested to communicate to Mr. Blaine the foregoing resolution, receive his answer thereto, and present the same to both Houses of Congress."

At the time of the commencement of this session the credit of the United States had reached high-water mark. It was apparent that, with judicious management, a three per cent. bond of the United States could be sold at par. On the first day of the session, December 5, 1881, I introduced a bill to provide for the issue of three per cent. bonds. It was referred to the committee on finance, and on the 15th of December, by direction of that committee, I reported the bill with certain amendments, and gave notice that I was directed to seek the action of the Senate upon it immediately after the holidays. It was taken up for consideration on the 11th of January, and, much to my surprise, met with opposition from those who a year before had favored a similar bill. They said it was a mere expedient on my part, that President Hayes had, at my request, vetoed a similar bill; but I was able to truly answer that the veto of President Hayes was not against the three per cent. bond, but against the compulsory provision that no other than three per cent. bonds should be deposited in the treasury as security for the circulating notes of, and deposits with, national banks; that President Hayes, in fact, approved of the three per cent. bond.

I made a speech in support of this measure on the 26th of January, reviewing our financial condition, with many details in respect to our different loans, and closed as follows:

"I say now, as I said at the commencement, that the passage of this bill seems to me a matter of public duty. I care nothing for it personally. I have been taunted with my inconsistency. I feel like the Senator from Kentucky about an argument of that kind. If I did not sometimes change my mind I should consider myself a blockhead or a fool. But in this matter, fortunately, I have not changed my mind. In 1866 I anticipated the time when we could sell three per cent. bonds and said that was a part of the funding scheme, and so continued, year in and year out, as I could show Senators, that that was the _ultima thule_, the highest point of credit to which I looked in these refunding operations. I believed last year it could not be done, because I did not believe the state of the money market would justify the attempt, and, besides that, the great mass of the indebtedness was so large that it might prevent the sale of three per cent. bonds at par. Therefore, I wanted a three and a half per cent. bill then. But then we secured the three and a half in spite of Congress, by the operations of the treasury department and the consent of the bondholders, now we ought to do a little better.

"Let Congress do now what it proposed to do last year, offer to the people a three per cent. bond. If they do not take it no harm is done, no expense is incurred, no commissions are paid, no advantage is taken. If they do take it, they enable you to pay off more rapidly still your three and a half per cent. bonds. There was no express and no implied obligation made by the Senator from Minnesota, as he will himself say, that the people of the United States have the right to pay every dollar of these three and a half per cent. bonds. He had no power to make such an intimation even, nor has he made it, as he states himself. We are not restrained by any sense of duty, we have the right to take advantage of our improved credit, of our advanced credit, and make the best bargain we can for the people of the United States, and the doctrine is not 'let well enough alone,' but always to advance.

"We are advancing in credit, in population, in strength, in power, in reason. The work of to-day is not the work of to-morrow; it is but the preparation for the future. And, sir, if I had my way in regard to these matters I certainly would repeal taxes; I would fortify ourselves in Congress by reducing this large surplus revenue; I would regulate, by wise and separate laws, fully and fairly considered, all the subjects embraced in these amendments as separate and distinct measures, pass this bill which, to the extent it goes and to the extent it is successful, will be beneficial to the people."

The debate upon the bill and upon amendments to it continued until the 3rd of February, when it passed the Senate by the decided vote of 38 yeas, 18 nays.

The bill was referred to the committee of ways and means, but the House, instead of passing a separate bill, accomplished the same object by section 11 of the national bank act of July 12, 1882, by which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to receive at the treasury any bonds of the United States bearing three and a half per cent. interest, and to issue in exchange therefor an equal amount of registered bonds of the United States bearing interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum.

Mr. Folger, Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of December 4, 1882, stated that on July 1, 1882, the amount of three and a half per cent. bonds outstanding was $449,324,000, and that under the section referred to he had exchanged to the date of his report $280,394,750 of three per cent. bonds for a like amount of three and a half per cent. bonds, thus reducing the annual interest charge by reason of these exchanges $1,401,973.75.

By his report of 1883, it was shown that the total amount of such exchanges was $305,581,250, making an annual saving of interest, effected by these exchanges, of $1,527,906.25. These bonds were subsequently paid from time to time by surplus revenue.

The whole process of refunding was perhaps as favorable a financial transaction as has ever been executed in any country in the world.

A revision of the tariff was greatly needed, but the only measure adopted at that session was an act to provide for the appointment of a commission to investigate the question of the tariff. I made a speech on this bill in which I advocated the appointment of a commission. I said:

"Mr. president, I have called attention to these defects in the present tariff, nearly all of which have grown out of amendments that have been ingrafted on the Morrill tariff, by the confusion caused by the difference between _ad valorem_ and specific duties, by the great fall in prices, by important changes in the mode of manufacturing, by, you may say, the revolution in trade and prices that has occurred in the last twenty years, during which these laws have existed. Therefore, coming back to the first question stated by me, how best to get at a revision of the tariff, I say the quickest way is the best way.

* * * * *

"Now, it does seem to me, with due deference to the opinion of the Senator from Kentucky, that the quickest mode of revision is by a commission. At the beginning of this session I believed it was better to do it through the committees of the two Houses; but the committee on ways and means of the House of Representatives alone has the power to report a bill, and until then we in the Senate are as helpless as children in this matter. The committee on ways and means have declared in favor of a commission, and have reported a bill to that effect; and they are the only power in this government that can report a tariff bill under the rules of the House. The House is the only body that can originate it under the constitution. As they have decided in favor of a commission, why should we insist upon it that they shall do the work themselves?

"Besides, half the session has passed away, and the committee on ways and means is burdened with other duties. We know that as the session approaches an end, they probably cannot devote time to the general tariff question.

* * * * *

"If they will give us a bill about sugar and these other items, it is all we can reasonably ask them to do. When Congress adjourns, you cannot expect the committee on ways and means, or any other committee of Congress, to devote all their recess to public business. Elections are coming off for Members of Congress, and they will look after the elections. They must have a little rest. Therefore, the idea of waiting for the committees of Congress to act, is preposterous in my judgment. It is too late. If the committee had commenced on the first Monday of December, they might by this time probably had prepared a bill. They have made no such preparation, and, therefore, it is utterly idle to wait.

"I think, then, and I submit it to the good, cool sense and judgment of my friend from Kentucky, that the better way is as early as possible to organize a commission; let it be constituted, as I have no doubt the President will take care to constitute it, of fair and impartial men. They will be fresh at least. Let them frame a bill with the aid of officers of the treasury department, so that by the next session we may have a general revision of the tariff.

"Upon the main question there appears to be no substantial difference of opinion. We agree that the tariff should be revised and the taxes be reduced. The only pertinent question involved in this bill is whether it is best to organize a commission of experts, not Members of Congress, to examine the whole subject and to report such facts and information to Congress as the commission can gather, or whether the proposed revision should be made directly, without the delay of a commission, by the aid of committees of Congress and the officers of the government familiar with the workings of the customs laws. It does seem to me that to decide this question we need no long arguments about protection or free trade, watchwords of opposing schools of political economy, nor does it seem to me that the political bearings of the tariff question are involved when we all agree that the tariff ought to be revised, and are now only finding out the best way to get at it.

"Whenever a tariff bill is reported to us we will have full time to discuss the theoretical and political aspects of the subject, and no doubt the arguments already made will be repeated and amplified. I prophesy that then we will have a strange mingling of political elements, and a striking evidence of the changes of interest and principle on this subject in different parts of the country, caused by the revolution of the industry of our people by the abolition of slavery during the Civil War. The only mitigation of my desire for a prompt revision of the tariff is the confidence I have that delay and discussion will make the sectional revolution more thorough and universal, and leave the tariff question a purely business and not a political or sectional issue."

The nine commissioners appointed by President Arthur were well selected, and they were, under the law, required to report on that subject to the following session of Congress.

It became necessary at this session to extend the corporate existence of national banks. By the terms of the original national banking act, banks organized under it continued for but twenty years, which would expire within two years. A bill for the extension of the time was introduced and a long discussion followed about silver, certificates of deposit, clearing house certificates and other financial matters. There was but little if any opposition to the extension of national banks and the bill passed. It was approved July 12, 1882.

The most important financial measure passed by this Congress was the bill to reduce internal revenue taxes, reported March 29, 1882, by William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, from the committee of ways and means. After a debate extending to June 27, a motion to recommit was rejected and the bill passed the House. It was sent to the Senate and reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill, from the committee on finance, July 6. On July 11 it was recommitted to the committee on finance and immediately reported back with amendments, which consisted of a change in the tariff duties on sugar and an increase of the duties on cotton, ties and a few other things. It was not a general revision of the tariff. Mr. Beck antagonized the amendments proposed by the committee and sought to delay the passage of the bill. I replied to him as follows:

"If this Congress shall adjourn, whether the weather be hot or cold, without a reduction of the taxes now imposed upon the people, it will have been derelict in its highest duty. There is no sentiment in this country stronger now than that Congress has neglected its duty thus far in not repealing taxes that are obnoxious to the people and unnecessary for the public uses; and if we should still neglect that duty we should be properly held responsible by our constituents."

In the course of the long debate Mr. Vance, of North Carolina, who was the acknowledged wit of the Senate, moved to except playing cards from the general repeal of stamp taxes. I objected to keeping up the system of stamp taxes and said:

"If Senators want to insist on a piece of what I call demagogism, by keeping a small stamp tax on playing cards, I am perfectly willing that they should do so. If it is desired now to show our virtuous indignation against card-playing, to single out this tax, which probably yields but three or four thousand dollars a year-- to show our virtuous indignation against people who play cards and against card-playing, let it be done in the name of Heaven. Let us keep this as a monument of our virtue and intelligence and the horror of the Senate of the United States against playing whist and euchre. I hope that no such vote will be given."

Mr. Vance replied in his peculiarly humorous way, and concluded by saying: "I have no doubt that not a men in the United States, but who, when he 'stands pat' with three jacks, or draws to two aces, will glorify the name of the Senator from Ohio; and if there is gratitude in human nature, I expect the see the next edition of playing cards bearing a fullsized portrait of the Senator from Ohio as the distinguishing mark of the 'yerker.'"

The Senate was equally divided on this question of retaining the tax on playing cards, the vote being 28 for and 28 against. As there was not a majority in favor of the amendment of Mr. Vance it was rejected and the tax was repealed.

Mr. Beck undertook to amend the bill by a general revision and reduction of the tariff duties in long schedules introduced by him. I took an active part in the discussion of this bill in the hope that by it we might secure a logical and desirable revenue law. No final action was taken on it before the adjournment of Congress on the 8th of August, after an eight months' session, and it went over to the next session.

After the long and wearisome session I returned to Mansfield. The congressional canvass in Ohio was then in full operation. The failure of Congress to pass the bill relieving the people from the burden of internal taxes no longer required, the shadow of the murder of Garfield, the dislike and prejudice against Arthur's administration, the temporary stringency in money matters, the liquor or license question, the Sunday observance, and the discontent of German Republicans, greatly weakened the Republican party in the state and foreboded defeat. R. A. Horr was the Republican candidate for Congress in the district in which I reside, and on the 17th of August he spoke at Mansfield. I also made a brief speech covering the chief subjects under discussion. I explained the causes of the failure to pass the revenue reduction bill, blaming it, as a matter of course, on the Democratic party, but assured my hearers that it would pass at the next session, and that the surplus revenue would not be wasted, but would be applied to the reduction of the public debt, and to increase pensions to Union soldiers, their widows and orphans. The opposition to the immigration of Chinese into this country was then strong. I could only promise that Congress would do all it could to exclude them consistently with treaty stipulations. I favored the proper observance of the Sabbath day, claiming that it was a day of rest and should not be desecrated, but each congregation and each citizen should be at liberty to observe it in any way, consistent with good order and noninterference with others. Touching on the liquor question, I said that many of our young men were brought to disgrace and crime by indulgence in intoxicating liquors, and I therefore believed in regulating the evil. Why should all other business be suspended, and saloons only be open? I was in favor of a law imposing a large tax on all dealers in liquor, which would tend to prevent its use. I believed in a policy that would protect our own laborers from undue competition with foreign labor, and would increase and develop our home industries. This position was chiefly a defensive one, and experience has proven that it is not a safe one. The Republican party is stronger when it is aggressive.

On the 31st of August I attended the state fair as usual, and on the morning of that day made a full and formal political address covering both state and national interests. I quote a few passages on the liquor question, then the leading subject of state policy. I said:

"All laws are a restraint upon liberty. We surrender some of our natural rights for the security of the rest. The only question is, where is the boundary between rights reserved and those given up? And the only answer is, wherever the general good will be promoted by the surrender. In a republic the personal liberty of the citizen to do what he wishes should not be restricted, except when it is clear that it is for the interest of the public at large. There are three forms of legislative restriction: Prohibition, regulation and taxation, of which taxation is the mildest. We prohibit crime, we regulate and restrain houses of bad fame. We tax whisky and beer. I see no hardship in such restraints upon liberty. They are all not only for the public good, but for the good of those affected. If certain social enjoyments are prolific of vice and crime they must give way, or submit to restraints or taxation.

"I know it is extremely difficult to define the line between social habits and enjoyments perfectly innocent and proper and those that are injurious to all concerned. It is in this that the danger lies, for the law ought never to interfere with social happiness and innocent enjoyments. The fault of Americans is that they are not social enough. I have seen on the banks of the Rhine, and in Berlin, old and young men, women, children of all conditions of social life, listening to music, playing their games and drinking their beer, doing no wrong and meaning none. I have seen in the villages of France the young people dancing gayly, with all the animation of youth and innocence, while the old people, looking on, were chatting and joking and drinking their native wines, and I could see no wrong in all this.

"But there were other scenes in these and other countries: Ginshops and haunts of vice where the hand of authority was seen and felt. What I contend for is that the lawmaking power shall be authorized to make the distinction between innocent and harmful amusements and the places and habits of life which eventually lead to intemperance, vice and crime. Surely we can leave to our general assembly, chosen by the people and constantly responsible to them, the framing of such wise regulations, distinction and taxes as will discriminate between enjoyment and vicious places of resort.

"It is a reproach to our legislative capacity to allow free whisky to be sold, untaxed and without regulation, at tens of thousands of groggeries and saloons, lest some law should be passed to restrain the liberty of the citizen. What we want is a wise, discriminating tax law on the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and judicious legislation to restrain, as far as practicable, the acknowledged evils that flow from this unlimited traffic."

This speech expressed my convictions in respect to temperance, and how far this and kindred subjects should be regulated by legislative authority. This was a delicate subject, but I believe the opinions expressed by me were generally entertained by the people of Ohio and would have been fully acted upon by the legislature but for revenue restrictions in the constitution of Ohio.

After I closed Governor Foster and Speaker Keifer spoke briefly. The general canvass then continued over the state until the election. As the only state officers to be elected were the secretary of state, a supreme judge and a member of the board of public works, the chief interest centered in the liquor question and in the election of Members of Congress in doubtful districts. I spoke in several districts, especially in Elyria, Warren, Wauseon, Tiffin and Zanesville. I spent several days in Cincinnati, socially, and in speaking in different parts of the city. The result of the election was that James W. Newman, the Democratic candidate for secretary of state, received a majority of 19,000 over Charles Townsend, the Republican candidate. This was heralded as a Democratic victory. In one sense this was true, but it was properly attributed by the Republicans to the opposition to prohibition. It grew out of the demand of a portion of our people for free whisky and no Sunday. THey were opposed to the liquor law, and believed it went too far, and voted the Democratic ticket.

A few days after the election I went with two friends to Lawrence, Kansas, arriving about the 15th of October. I have always retained a kindly feeling for the people of that state since I shared in the events of its early history. With each visit I have marked the rapid growth of the state and the intense politics that divided its people into several parties. This was the natural outgrowth of conditions and events before the Civil War. As usual I was called upon to make a speech in Lawrence, which, in view of our recent defeat in Ohio, was not a pleasant task. However, I accepted, and spoke at the opera house, chiefly on the early history of Kansas and the struggle in that territory and state, which resulted in transforming the United States from a confederacy of hostile states into a powerful republic founded upon the principles of universal liberty and perpetual union.

From Lawrence we went into Texas, and for the first time traversed that magnificent state, going from Denison to Laredo on the Rio Grande, stopping on the way at Austin and San Antonio. On the route I met Senator Richard Coke and his former colleague, Samuel B. Maxey. I have studied the history of Texas and its vast undeveloped resources, and anticipated its growth in wealth and population. It is destined to be, if not the first, among the first, of the great states of the Union. We returned via Texarkana to St. Louis and thence home.