Chapter 119

EFFECT OF THE MARINE NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER FAILURES. Continued Prosperity of the Nation--Arthur's Report to Congress-- Resolution to Inquire into Election Outrages in Virginia and Mississippi--Reports of the Investigating Committee--Financial Questions Discussed During the Session--Duties and Privileges of Senators--Failure of the Marine National Bank and of Grant and Ward in New York--Followed By a Panic in Which Other Institutions Are Wrecked--Timely Assistance from the New York Clearing House--Debate in the Senate on the National Bank System--Dedication of the John Marshall Statue at Washington--Defeat of Ingalls' Arrears of Pensions Amendment to Bill to Grant Pensions to Soldiers and Sailors of the Mexican War--The Senate Listens to the Reading of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

The message of President Arthur, submitted to Congress on the 4th of December, 1883, presented a condition of remarkable prosperity in the United States. We were at peace and harmony with all nations. The surplus revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, amounted to $134,178,756.96, all of which was applied to the reduction of the public debt. It was estimated that the surplus revenue for the then fiscal year would be $85,000,000, and for the next fiscal year $60,000,000. The President called the attention of Congress to the revenue act of July, 1883, which had reduced the receipts of the government fifty or sixty million dollars. While he had no doubt that still further reductions might be wisely made, he did not advise at that session a large diminution of the national revenues. The whole tenor of the message was conservative and hopeful.

During this session, upon representations made to me and after full reflection, I felt compelled, by a sense of public duty, to institute an inquiry into events connected with recent elections held in the States of Virginia and Mississippi. I did so with extreme reluctance, for I did not care to assume the labor of such an investigation. On the 23rd of January, 1884, I introduced a preamble setting out in detail the general charges made as to events currently reported in the public press prior to the election in November, 1883, in Danville, Virginia, and Copiah county, Mississippi, with the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the committee on privileges and elections be, and is hereby, instructed to inquire into all the circumstances of, and connected with, the said alleged events, and into the condition of the constitutional rights and securities before named of the people of Virginia and Mississippi, and that it report, by bill or otherwise, as soon as may be; and that it have the power to send for persons and papers, and to sit during the sittings of the Senate, and that it may employ a stenographer or stenographers."

On the 29th of January I called up the resolution, and made the following remarks explaining why I introduced the resolution and requested an investigation:

"Since the beginning of the present session, I have felt that the recent events in the States of Virginia and Mississippi were of such importance as to demand a full and impartial investigation of the causes which led to them, of the real facts involved, and of the proper constitutional remedy to prevent their recurrence, and, if necessary, to further secure to all American citizens freedom of speech in the open assertion of their political opinions and in the peaceful exercise of their right to vote.

"Now that sufficient time has elapsed to allay to some extent the excitement caused by these events, I hope the Senate will make this investigation, so that our citizens in every state may understand how far the national government will protect them in the enjoyment of their rights, or, if it is helpless or listless, that, no longer relying upon the barren declarations of the constitution, each man for himself may appeal to the right of self-defense, or to the boasted American right of migration to more friendly regions.

"The allegations in this resolution as to the Danville riot, or massacre, are founded upon statements in the public prints, supported by the oaths of witnesses, and their substantial truth is also verified by the published statement of a Member of this body, a Senator from the State of Virginia.

"The allegations as to Mississippi are founded upon copious narratives in the public prints, the proceedings of public meetings, and the actions and failure to act of officers of the state government, including governors, judges, courts, and juries.

"I have not deemed it proper, at this stage of the investigation, if it is to be made, to enter into the details of the facts, although I have before me a voluminous collection of all these various statements published in the papers of different political parties and from different persons.

"If these statements are true, then in both these states there have been organized conspiracies to subvert the freedom of elections, accompanied by murder and violence in many forms. The crimes depicted are not ordinary crimes, common in all societies where the criminal falls under the ban of public justice, and is pursued by the officers of the law, tried, convicted, or acquitted; but the crimes here alleged are that a prevailing majority subverts by violence the highest constitutional rights and privileges of citizens, and cannot, from their nature, be inquired of or punished by ordinary tribunals. If they are true, then in those communities the members of our party and one race have no rights which the prevailing party is bound to respect.

"It is not well to assume these allegations to be true without the fullest investigation and inquiry by the legislative power, for, if true, the gravest questions of public policy arise that we have been called upon to consider since the close of the Civil War. I have no desire to open up sectional questions or renew old strifes, but would be glad to turn my back upon the past and devote myself to questions of peace, development, and progress. Still, if these allegations are true, it would be a cowardly shrinking from the gravest public duty to allow such events to deepen into precedents which would subvert the foundation of republican institutions and convert our elections into organized crimes. I do not say these allegations are true, but they come to us with such apparent seeming of truth that we are bound to ascertain their truth or falsehood by the most careful and impartial inquiry.

"If the events at Danville were the results of a chance outbreak or riot between opposing parties or different races of men, they may properly be left to be dealt with by the local authorities; but if the riot and massacre were part of machinery, devised by a party to deter another party, or a race, from the freedom of elections, or the free and open expression of political opinions, then they constitute a crime against the national government, the highest duty of which is to maintain, at every hazard, the equal rights and privileges of citizens.

"If the events in Copiah county, Mississippi (which is a large and populous county containing twenty-seven thousand inhabitants, and evidently a very productive county), were merely lawless invasions of individual rights, then, though they involved murder as well as other crimes, they should be left to local authority, and if justice cannot be administered by the courts, and the citizen is without remedy from lawless violence, then he must fall back upon his right of self-defense, or, failing in that, he must seek a home where his rights will be respected and observed. But if these individual crimes involve the greater one of an organized conspiracy of a party, or a race, to deprive another party or race of citizens of the enjoyment of their unquestioned rights, accompanied with overt acts, with physical power sufficient to accomplish their purpose, then it becomes a national question which must be dealt with by the national government.

"The war emancipated and made citizens of five million people who had been slaves. This was a national act, and whether wisely or imprudently done it must be respected by the people of all the states. If sought to be reversed in any degree by the people of any locality it is the duty of the national government to make their act respected by all its citizens. It is not now a question as to the right to stop at an inn, or to ride in a car, or to cross a bridge, but it is whether the people of any community can, by organized fraud, terror, or violence, prevent a party or a race of citizens from voting at an election, or the expression of opinions, or deny to them the equal protection of the law. No court has ever denied the power of the national government to protect its citizens in their essential rights as freemen. No man should be allowed to hold a seat in either House of Congress whose election was secured by crimes such as are depicted here.

"Nor is it sufficient to say that the elections referred to were not national elections in the sense that they did not involve the election of a President or a Member of Congress. While the power of Congress over the election of Senators, Representatives, and the President extends to making and altering laws and regulations passed by the respective states, and therefore is fuller than in respect to state elections, yet the constitution provides that 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;' that 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;' that 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;' and that 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' It was also declared that 'Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.' Power is also given to Congress to enforce the recent amendments by appropriate legislation.

"If the essential rights of citizenship are overthrown by a state or by the people of a state, with the sanction of the local authorities within the limits of a state, then Congress, as the legislative power of the United States, is bound to provide additional safeguards, and should exhaust all the powers of the United States government to maintain these essential rights of citizenship within the limits of all the states, in as full and complete a manner as it will guard and protect the unquestioned rights of citizens of the United States within the domains of the most powerful nations of the world. Surely a citizen of the United States has as much right in any one of the states as he would have in a foreign land, however remote or however powerful its government may be. Protection at home in the secure enjoyment of the rights of person and property is the foundation of all human government, without which its forms are a mockery and with which mere forms of government become a matter of indifference. Protection goes with allegiance, and allegiance ceases to be a duty when protection is denied.

"I can appreciate the great change that has occurred in the southern states, the natural antagonisms which would raise by the emancipated slaves mingling in the same community with their former masters, with equal civil and political rights with those who had held them as slaves; I can pardon the prejudices of race, of caste, and even of local ties; and the American people have, I think, waited with great forbearance, waited patiently for the time when constitutional rights would be respected without regard to race, or color, or creed, or party. If the time has come, as alleged in the papers before me, when members of the Republican party, through whose agency largely the existence of the government has been maintained intact over the broad extent of our country, cannot express their free opinions, cannot enjoy their constitutional rights, are murdered at the ballot box without fear on the part of their murderers of punishment, and driven from their homes by outrage and terror, and that white and black alike are subject to ostracism and injustice, and as a party are disfranchised in large portions of the regions where in war they asserted and maintained the powers of the national government, then indeed is patient inquiry demanded, and a full, open, and manly assertion that the rights and equalities of citizens shall be maintained and enforced at every hazard.

"If the Copiah resolutions are the creed of the Democratic party in the south, then indeed the war is a failure, and we must expect again the fierce sectional excitement, deepened by injury and disappointment. Written in the light of the events alleged to have transpired in the presence of the men who wrote and adopted these resolutions, they seem to me the very germ of despotism and barbarity, and yet I am assured by a gentleman friendly to them that they are the creed of nine-tenths of the party in power in Mississippi. I should like to know--it is right that we should learn--the groundwork of opinions so utterly repugnant to republican institutions.

"In this investigation I would seek every palliation or excuse for the conduct of the people complained of. I would give to their motives and to the natural feelings of mankind in their situation the most charitable construction. I would give to them all political power they ever enjoyed, and, without unkindness, or pains, or penalties, or even reproaches, I would extend to them every right, favor, or facility, that is enjoyed by any citizen in any part of our country; but when this concession is made to them I would demand that in the states under their control the freedom and equality of rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution and the laws to all citizens, white or black, native or naturalized, poor or rich, ignorant or learned, Republican or Democrat, shall be secured by the state government, or, if not, that their rights and privileges shall be asserted and maintained by the national government. Upon this issue I would appeal to every generous-minded man, to every lover of his country, to everyone who wishes to enjoy his own rights by his own fireside, free from embarrassment, to stand by those who, yielding to others the protection of the laws in the enjoyment of equal rights, will demand the same for themselves and for their associates."

General Mahone made a long and interesting speech in respect to the Danville election.

The resolution was adopted by a party vote, yeas 33, nays 29. As the investigation ordered embraced two distinct series of events, they were separately considered and reported upon by the committee on privileges and elections. Mr. Hoar was chairman of the committee. I was a member of the committee and assumed the chief work in the examination of witnesses as to the events in Danville. Mr. Lapham prepared the majority report, and Mr. Vance the report of the minority. These reports, with the testimony taken, were printed in a document containing 1,300 pages. The Copiah county matter was referred to another sub-committee. As no affirmative action was taken on these reports, I do not care to recite at any length either the report or the evidence, but it is sufficient to say that the allegations made in the preamble of the resolution were substantially sustained by the testimony. There was a deliberate effort on the part of the Democrats at Danville, and in other parts of Virginia, to prevent the negroes from voting, and preceding the November election this movement was organized by the formation of clubs, and every means were adopted to intimidate and suppress the Republican vote. A letter, called the Danville circular, was prepared and issued to the southwest valley of Virginia, containing the most inflammatory language, evidently intended to deter the negroes from voting.

The incidents connected with the Danville massacre preceding the election were very fully stated in the report, and established clearly that the massacre was planned at a Democratic meeting at the opera house, at which five hundred or more had assembled. A scuffle grew out of a pretended quarrel between Noel and Lawson, two white men, and revolvers were drawn and warning given to the colored men to stand back or they would every one of them be killed. A colored policeman endeavored to separate the two men who were fighting, and soon after there was a general firing from pistols and guns by white men at the negroes, the number of shots being variously estimated at from 75 to 250. The negroes fled. There was no evidence that the negroes fired a shot until after the whites fired a general volley at them, and the weight of the evidence was that very few had any weapons, that they had gathered there in their working clothes as they had come out of the factories, of all ages and both sexes, unquestionably from curiosity and not with any view of violence or preparation for it. The whites, on the contrary, were generally armed, were expecting an outbreak and obviously seeking a pretext for resorting to violence. Many of the whites emptied their revolvers and the evidence showed that Captain Graves reloaded his. There was conflicting evidence as to the negroes having arms. Only one was shown to have exhibited any before the firing, and the colored witnesses and many of the whites, including some of the policemen, said they saw no arms in the hands of the colored men except the one named, and there was no reliable evidence that he fired. There was no evidence to be relied upon that any of the colored men fired, except some witnesses stated that the colored men, as they were running, fired over their shoulders. The evidence tended to show that the violence was premeditated, with the avowed purpose of intimidation.

I do not follow this investigation further, as no doubt the condition of affairs which led to it is now changed. The result was the murder of four unoffending colored men and the wounding of many others. The evidence seemed entirely clear that it was the consummation of a deliberate purpose, for which the Democratic clubs had fully prepared.

I believe that the investigation, while it led to no important measure, had a good effect, not only in Danville, but throughout the south. The problem of the two races living together in the same community with equal political rights is a difficult one, and has come to be regarded by men of all parties as one that can only be settled by each state or community for itself. It is impossible for a government like ours, with limited powers, to undertake the protection of life and property in any of the states except where resistance is made to national authority. All the signs indicate that a better feeling now exists between the two races, and their common interests will lead both to divide on questions of public policy, without regard to race or color.

Among the bills passed on this Congress was one introduced by Mr. Blair, of New Hampshire, and chiefly advocated by him, to aid in the establishment and temporary support of common schools. It provided for the appropriation of $120,000,000 to be distributed among the states upon the basis of illiteracy, $15,000,000 for the current fiscal year, and a smaller sum each year for fifteen years, until the total sum was exhausted. The apportionment proposed would have given to the southern states $11,318,394 out of the $15,000,000. The money was not to be disbursed by the United States, but was to be placed in the hands of state authorities. The object designed of diminishing illiteracy in the south, especially among the freedmen, was no doubt a laudable one, but the measure proposed was so radical and burdensome, and so unequal in its apportionment among the states, that I assumed it would be defeated, but it passed the Senate by a large majority. The advocates of a strict construction of the constitution voted for it in spite of their theories. The bill, however, was defeated in the House of Representatives.

An interesting debate arose between Mr. Beck and myself, during this session, upon the question of the sinking fund, which he seemed to regard as a part of the public debt. It is, in fact, only a treasury statement of the debt to be paid each year, and the amount actually paid. In 1862, when the war was flagrant, Congress provided that one per cent. of the principal of the public debt should be paid each year as a "sinking fund." While the United States was borrowing large sums and issuing its bonds, it was folly to pay outstanding bonds, and this was not done until 1868, when the treasury was receiving more money than it disbursed. In the meantime, the treasury charged to the "sinking fund," annually, the sum of one per cent. of the amount of outstanding securities of the United States. When the receipts exceeded expenditures, so much of the balance on hand as was not needed was applied to the purchase of bonds, and such bonds were canceled and the amount paid was placed to the credit of this fund. In the general prosperity that followed, and until 1873, the sums thus credited increased so that the amount of bonds paid was equal to, if not in excess of, the annual charge against that fund, and the amount charged against it prior to 1868. When the financial panic of 1873 occurred, the revenues fell off so that they were insufficient to meet current expenditures. This prevented any credits to the sinking fund until 1878, when the pendulum swung the other way, and the fund was rapidly diminished by the bonds purchased from the surplus revenue, and credited to the fund, so that when Mr. Beck interrogated me I was able to say that the sinking fund had to its credit a considerable sum; in other words, the United States had paid its debt more rapidly than it had agreed to pay it. The term "sinking fund," as applied to the national accounts, is a misleading phrase. It is a mere statement whether we have or have not paid one per centum of the public debt each year. There is no actual fund of the kind in existence for national purposes.

Another financial question was presented at this session and before and since. The national banking act, when it passed in 1863, provided that the circulating notes of national banks should be issued for only ninety per cent. of the amount of United States bonds deposited in the treasury for their security. At that time bonds were worth in the market about fifty per cent. in coin, or par in United States notes. Soon after the war, bonds advanced far above par in coin and have been worth thirty per cent. premium. Yet, in spite of this, Congress has repeatedly refused to allow notes to be issued by national banks, to the par value of bonds deposited on security, thus limiting the amount of bank notes unreasonably. I introduced a bill early at this session to correct this. It passed the Senate, but was ignored in the House. The same result has happened at nearly every Congress since, even when the bonds were so high as to deter the issue of bank notes when they were greatly needed.

During this session a delicate question arose whether a Senator could refuse to vote when his name was called, and he was present in the Senate. The Senate being so closely divided a few Senators might, by refusing to answer to their names, suspend the business of the Senate when a quorum was present. Mr. Bayard and myself agreed that such a practice would be a breach of public duty, which the Senate might punish. Senators may retire from the Chamber, but the Senate can compel their attendance. If a case should arise where a Senator, being present, and not paired, should, without good reason, refuse to vote, he should be censured. The increase in the number of Senators makes this question one of importance, but I hope the time will never come when it practically shall arise.

The Senate is properly a very conservative body, and never yields a custom until it is demonstrated to be an abuse. The committee on appropriations is a very important one. It is always composed of experienced Senators, who are careful in making appropriations, but there are appropriations which ought not to be referred to them. Their chief duty is performed in the closing days of the session, when all business is hurried, and they have little time to enter into details. They are entirely familiar with the great appropriations for the support of the government, and can best judge in respect to them, but there are other appropriations which ought to be passed upon by committees specially appointed for specific duties, like that of the District of Columbia. No reason can be given why these appropriations should not be acted upon by such committees. It is true that the appropriation committee ought to simply report such sums as are necessary to carry into execution existing laws. That is their function, according to the rules, and that function they can perform very well in regard to such expenditures; but the expenditures of the government for the District, rivers and harbors, fortifications, pensions, and certain other objects, are not defined or regulated by law. In the case of the District of Columbia, a few officers named in the appropriation bill are provided for by law, but the great body of the expenditures is for streets, alleys and public improvement, nine-tenths of all the appropriations made for the District being, in their nature, new items not fixed by existing law.

On the 6th of May, 1884, the country was startled by the failure of the Marine National Bank of New York, an institution that had been in high credit and standing. The circumstances connected with the failure excited a great deal of interest and profound surprise. Immediately in connection with the failure of this bank the banking firm of Grant & Ward, in the city of New York, failed for a large amount. Their business was complicated with that of the Marine National Bank, and disclosures were made which not only aroused indignation but almost created a panic in the city of New York.

Almost contemporaneous with this the insolvency of the Second National Bank of New York, for a very large sum, became public, and the alleged gross misconduct of the president of that bank, John C. Eno, became a matter of public notoriety. Steps were taken by the officers and stockholders of the bank, including the father of the president, to relieve it from bankruptcy.

Also, and in connection with the failure of the Marine National Bank, there were disclosed financial operations of a strange and extraordinary character of the president of that bank, James D. Fish. All these events coming together caused much excitement and disturbance in New York. They led to a great fall of securities, to a want of confidence, and to a general run, as it is called, upon banks and banking institutions, including the savings banks. It appeared as if there were to be a general panic, a financial revulsion, and wide-reaching distress.

At that time also, and in connection with the other events, came the temporary suspension of the Metropolitan National Bank, one of the oldest, largest, and in former times considered among the best, of all the banks in the city of New York. This was partly caused by rumors and stories of large railroad operations and indebtedness of Mr. Seney, the president of the bank, which resulted in a gradual drawing upon the bank.

At once the Secretary of the Treasury did what he could to relieve the money market, by prepaying bonds which had been called in the process of the payment of the public debt; but the principal relief given to the market at that time was the action of the Clearing House Association of New York, by the issue of over $24,000,000 of clearing house certificates. This was purely a defensive operation adopted by the associated banks of New York, fifteen of which are state institutions and the balance national banks.

All that was done in New York to prevent a panic was done by the banks themselves. The government of the United States had no lot or parcel in it except so far as the Secretary of the Treasury prepaid bonds that had already been called, a transaction which has been done a hundred times. So far as the government was concerned it had nothing to do with these banks; the measures of relief were furnished by the banks themselves.

This condition of financial affairs led to a long debate in the Senate, commencing on the 17th of June, on the merits and demerits of the system of national banks, and especially of the clearing house of the city of New York. The comptroller of the currency had taken active and efficient measures to protect the interests of the United States. He was called before the committee on finance and gave a full statement of these measures. It was apparent that the temporary panic grew out of the reckless and criminal conduct of a few men and not from defects in the national bank system or the clearing house. The debate that followed, in the Senate, was mainly between Morgan, Beck and myself. I stated fully the methods of conducting the business of the clearing house, a corporation of the State of New York, and closed as follows:

"As the prosecution against John C. Eno is now pending in Canada, a foreign country, as a matter of course no one can state what will be the result of it. We only know that proper legal proceedings are now being urged to have an extradition, and if he is brought within the jurisdiction of the courts as a matter of course the prosecution can then be pushed. So with James D. Fish. Indictments have been had and are now pending against him for a violation, not only of the national banking act, but I believe also for a violation of the state law; and the same is to be said of Ferdinand Ward. These three persons are the only ones who have been charged with fraudulent and illegal transactions leading to these financial disasters. The Metropolitan bank, thanks to the agency and the aid that was given in a trying time, in now going on and doing business as of old, no doubt having met with large losses.

"It is a matter of satisfaction that with the single exception of the Marine Bank, of New York, no national bank has been overwhelmed by this disaster. It is true that the Second National Bank was bankrupted by the crimes and wrongs of John C. Eno, but his father, with a sensitive pride not to allow innocent persons to suffer from the misconduct of his son, with a spirit really worthy of commendation, here or anywhere else, threw a large sum of money into the maelstrom and saved not only the credit of the bank and advanced his own credit, but to some extent, as far as he could at least, expiated the fault, the folly, and the crime of his son. The Metropolitan Bank is relieved from its embarrassments by its associate banks. The losses caused by the speculations of its president did not entirely fall upon the bank. That bank, now relived from the pressure of unexpected demands, is pursuing its even tenor. It seems to me that all these facts taken together show the strength and confidence that may well be reposed in the national banking system. The law cannot entirely prevent fraud and crime, but it has guarded the public from the results of such offense far better than any previous system."

On the 10th of May, 1884, which happened to be my birthday, the statue of John Marshall, formerly Chief Justice of the United States, was dedicated. This is a bronze statue in a sitting posture, erected by the bar of Philadelphia and the Congress of the United States. A fund had been collected shortly after the death of Marshall, but it was insufficient to erect a suitable monument, and it was placed in the hands of trustees and invested as "The Marshall Memorial Fund." On the death of the last of the trustees, Peter McCall, it was found that the fund had, by honest stewardship, increased sevenfold its original amount. This sum, with an equal amount appropriated by Congress, was applied to the erection of a statue to the memory of Chief Justice Marshall, to be placed in a suitable reservation in the city of Washington. The artist who executed this work was W. W. Story, a son of the late Justice Story of the Supreme Court. I was chairman of the joint committee on the library and presided on the occasion. Chief Justice Waite delivered an appropriate address. He was followed by William Henry Rawle, of Philadelphia, in an eloquent oration, closing as follows:

"And for what in his life he did for us, let there be lasting memory. He and the men of his time have passed away; other generations have succeeded them; other phases of our country's growth have come and gone; other trials, greater a hundredfold than he or they could possibly have imagined, have jeoparded the nation's life; but still that which they wrought remains to us, secured by the same means, enforced by the same authority, dearer far for all that is past, and holding together a great, a united and happy people. And all largely because he whose figure is now before us has, above and beyond all others, taught the people of the United States, in words of absolute authority, what was the constitution which they ordained, 'in order to form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.'

"Wherefore, with all gratitude, with fitting ceremony and circumstance; in the presence of the highest in the land; in the presence of those who make, of those who execute, and of those who interpret, the laws; in the presence of those descendants in whose veins flows Marshall's blood, have the bar and the Congress of the United States here set up this semblance of his living form, in perpetual memory of the honor, the reverence and the love which the people of this country bear to the great chief justice."

During this session Mr. Ingalls offered to a House bill granting a pension to soldiers and sailors of the Mexican War, the following amendment:

"That all pensions which have been or which may hereafter be granted in consequence of death occurring from a cause which originated in the service since the 4th day of March, 1861, or in consequence of wounds or injuries received or disease contracted since that date in the service and in the line of duty, shall commence from the death or discharge of the person on whose account the claim has been or is hereafter granted, if the disability occurred prior to discharge, and if such disability occurred after the discharge, then from the date of actual disability, or from the termination of the right of the party having prior title to such pension."

I opposed this sweeping provision with much reluctance, as I have always favored the granting of the most liberal pensions consistent with the public interests. I said:

"I regret very much to oppose any proposition that is favored by the Union soldiers of the American army; and I perhaps should feel some hesitation in doing it, only that I know very well that the soldiers themselves, like all other citizens, are divided in opinion as to this measure.

"This proposition repeals all restrictions as to time upon applications to be made for arrears of pensions, and extends to all persons back to the war or date of discharge or disability, not only of those who have heretofore applied, but of those who may hereafter apply. It removes absolutely all restrictions upon the applications for arrears of pensions. And if this only involved ten or even twenty million dollars, I might still hesitate, because I have always, since the close of the war, voted for every measure that has been offered in good faith for the benefit of the Union soldiers. My heart, my feelings are all with them. I appreciate the value of their services, the enormous benefits they have conferred upon the people of the America for generations yet unborn, and I hesitate therefore to oppose any wish that they may express through their organs.

"This measure involves an immense sum of money. That alone would not be conclusive. But here is a motion made by a Senator, without the report or sanction of any committee of this body, to put upon the people of the United States a great demand, ranging anywhere up to $246,000,000, a proposition so indefinite in character that the commissioner of pensions is utterly unable to give us any approximate estimate, but gives his guess as near as he can. He says that this proposition will involve the expenditure of $246,000,000."

Mr. Ingalls made a sturdy effort for his amendment, and quoted a declaration of the Republican national convention in favor of arrears of pensions, to which I replied that, when I remembered that the platform of the last Republican convention had been made up in a few hours, on a sweltering hot day, by forty-two men hastily called together, most of whom never saw each other before, I did not think it ought to be taken as a guide for Senators in the performance of their public duties.

After full discussion the amendment was rejected.

My position was highly commended by the public press and by many distinguished soldiers, including Governor Foraker, who wrote me, saying: "It may be some gratification to you to know that your course, in regard to the pension bill, meets with the earnest approval of all right-minded men in this part of the state."

On the 3rd of July the following resolution was adopted by the Senate on my motion:

"_Resolved_, That the Senate will meet at the usual hour on Friday, the 4th day of July instant, and, after the reading of the journal and before other business is done, the secretary of the Senate shall read the Declaration of American Independence."

On introducing the resolution, I said:

"Never till during our Civil War, so far as the records show or as is known or is recollected, did Congress meet on the 4th of July. During the Civil War we did meet habitually on the 4th of July, but it was only on the ground that those who had control then believed that the business then requiring attention was proper to be done on the 4th of July. We have only met once since on the 4th of July, and that was in 1870, at a time of great political excitement. An effort was made to adjourn when the Senate met that day, but the session was continued--a long, exciting, and unpleasant session--on the 4th of July, 1870.

"I do not doubt that to-morrow it will be well to sit, because the committees of conference are carrying on their business and I have no objection to sitting; but I think we ought to recognize, by common consent, the importance of the day and the fact that it is a national anniversary celebrated all over the United States, by reading that immortal paper which is the foundation of American independence."

Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.