Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 121

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

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

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

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

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

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

"But they say with free coinage the price of silver will rise to the old ratio with gold. The experience of all the world belies this statement. In no country in the world where free coinage exists is sixteen ounces of silver equal to one ounce of gold.

France and the United States maintain the parity between the two by carefully limiting the coinage and receiving and redeeming silver coins as the equivalent of gold. But wherever free coinage exists that is impossible. With free coinage the market value of the bullion fixes the value of the dollar. The Mexican dollar contains more silver than the American dollar, and yet the Mexican dollar is worth about 78 cents, because in Mexico coinage is free. And the American dollar is worth 100 cents because in the United States coinage is limited. So in all free coinage countries where silver alone is coined it is worth its market value as bullion. In all countries where gold circulates the coinage of silver is limited, but is used as money in even greater amounts than in countries where coinage is free. This is the case in France and the United States. The free coinage of silver in either would stop the coinage of gold.

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

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

In closing this speech I said:

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

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

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

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

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

"When I was invited to speak to you here I was informed that I was expected to present my views on the leading issues of the day, and that a like invitation had been given to Governor Campbell and other gentlemen holding public trusts from the people of Ohio.

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

I briefly stated the history of tariff legislation in the United States, what was meant by a tariff and the objects sought by it, and that for the first fifty years of our history the lines were not drawn between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. It was in those days the common desire of all sections to obtain revenue and to encourage domestic industries. This unity of purpose existed until 1831, when the south had become almost exclusively an agricultural region, in which cotton was the chief product of the plantation with negro slaves as the laborers, and when the north, under the protective policy, had largely introduced manufactures, and naturally wished to protect and enlarge their industries. The tariff question grew out of a contest between free and slave labor. I referred to the various measures adopted, the compromise measure of 1833, the Whig tariff of 1842, the Walker tariff of 1846, and the Morrill tariff of 1861. During and after the war, for many years, any tariff that would produce enough revenue to meet current expenditures and pay the interest of the public debt, would necessarily give ample protection to domestic industries. To meet these demands we had to levy not only high duties on nearly all imported goods, but to add internal taxes, yielding $300,000,000 annually, on articles produced in this country.

When this large revenue was no longer necessary, many of these taxes were repealed, and then the tariff again became a political question between the Republican and Democratic parties. I then stated the five principles or rules of action adopted by the Republican party in the reduction of taxes, all of which were applied in the framing of the McKinley tariff law, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"And now, gentlemen, it is for you to say whether it is better for you, as farmers, or producers, or consumers, to give this law a fair trial, with the right at all times to make amendments, or to open it up and keep it in a contest between two political parties.

If we could all divest ourselves of the influence of party feeling we would have no difficulty in agreeing that either bill is better than a constant agitation and change of our tariff system. I say to you that if the Mills bill had become a law in 1888, I should have been disinclined to agitate its repeal until it had a fair trial, though my study, both in the Senate and committee on finance, led me to oppose it. It seemed to me a retrograde measure, born of the ideas of the south, narrow in its scope, and not suited to a great country of unbounded but undeveloped resources. Still, as I say, if it was the law, I would not repeal it without trial.

Now, this McKinley bill does meet, substantially, my views of public policy. Some items I would like to change, but, on the whole, it is a wise measure of finance. It will give enough revenue to support the government. It is an American law, looking only to American interests. It is a fair law, dealing justly by all industries. It is an honest law, preventing, as far as law can, fraud and evasion. It is a comprehensive law covering the whole ground. It will undoubtedly establish new branches of industry in our country not now pursued. It will strengthen others now in operation. It will give to thousands of our people now idle, employment at fair wages. It will give to our farmers a greatly enlarged market for their productions, and encourage them in producing articles not now produced, and to increase their flocks, herds and horses to meet the new demands."

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

I visited Cleveland a few days later and met many of the active Republicans of that city, and was glad to learn that they were practically unanimous for my re-election. Among other callers was a correspondent of the "Plain Dealer" of that city, who treated me fairly in stating correctly what I said in answer to his questions.

The "Commercial Gazette" and the "Enquirer," of Cincinnati, also published long interviews with me, and incidents of my life given by my neighbors. I began to believe that these interviews, fairly reported, were better modes of expressing my opinions than formal speeches, and were more generally read.

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

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

"Sherman renewed his youth and even exceeded the best efforts of his earlier days. Neither man nor woman left their place while Sherman was speaking. At 2 o'clock, when McKinley, our gallant leader, took the platform, the crowd seemed so great that no man's voice could reach them, but they listened for every syllable and made the hills echo with their appreciative applause. Then came Foraker. It seemed as if the great meeting had been magnetized with an electric power of ten thousand volts. There were continuous shouts of approbation and applause from his beginning to the close.

His mingling of wit and wisdom, a burgoo combination of powerful and telling arguments, with sandwiches of solid facts, completed a political barbecue which will be a historical memory that will be almost as famous as the gathering of the people of this splendid valley in 1842, when Henry Clay spoke to our fathers on the same sod and under the shade of the same trees on the same subjects.

The memory of the magnificent Republican demonstration at the Montgomery fair grounds on the 15th day of October, 1891, will remain with all who partic.i.p.ated in it as long as they shall live."

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

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

"The meeting was an immense one. That was a magnificent a.s.semblage.

It was an ovation. It was a recognition of brains and integrity.

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

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

I closed my part in this canva.s.s at Toledo and Cleveland in the week before the election, and these speeches were fairly and fully reported. During the whole contest between Foraker and myself there was nothing said to disturb our friendly relations. The election resulted in the success of the Republican ticket and a Republican legislature, McKinley receiving over 21,000 plurality.

Immediately after the election it was announced that the members of the legislature from Hamilton county were unanimously in favor of Foraker for Senator. This announcement, and especially the manner of it, created a good deal of bad feeling in the state, especially as it was alleged and believed that George c.o.x had full control of the delegation and had required the pledges of each senator and member to vote for United States Senator as he dictated.

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

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

"The marriage of Miss Rachel Sherman, daughter of the late General William T. Sherman, and Dr. Paul Thorndike, of Boston, was solemnized at high noon to-day at the residence of Senator Sherman, in the presence of a distinguished audience of relatives and officials.

It was a gathering composed chiefly of intimate friends of the late General Sherman, many of whom came from afar to witness the nuptials of the favorite daughter of the deceased chieftain.

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