Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 123

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

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

An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this subject, and had acc.u.mulated a ma.s.s of testimony in regard to it.

Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following resolution, which gave rise to the debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary, showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit to the people of the United States, especially when they are the productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities.

If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration.

The platform upon which he was elected was "That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interest of the nation."

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

My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise.

Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the articles that can be profitably produced in the United States.

The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained in the following paragraphs of this speech:

"Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they are fairly ent.i.tled to receive, then I am against the tariff act.

I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite, to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection.

It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that is desired."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Very sincerely yours, "John Sherman."

A committee was appointed by the general a.s.sembly, who examined witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:

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

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

The "State Journal" said:

"After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr.

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

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

In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the Citizens' Republican a.s.sociation of Cincinnati, of which Lewis Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply.

I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the Ohio house of representatives--one refusing to obey instructions-- and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had committed themselves to their "boss" to vote for Senator as he should direct, in order to secure his "influence" in the primaries.

I knew that if I answered the letter of the a.s.sociation truly I would be reproached by the timid with the cry "Hush," "Hush," but I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:

"Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892.

"Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:

"Gentlemen:--Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln club, that had 'for its object' the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton county who have seized and degraded the 'Republican organization.'

You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the 'Citizens' Republican a.s.sociation,' with a view of rebuking corruption and purifying our party 'affairs from offenses and scandalous methods,' and request me to give my opinion of your movement.

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

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

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

"Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices.

It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority.

Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes of their const.i.tuents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise, as the unbiased choice and action of a popular a.s.semblage. Since I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to a.s.sert their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices, employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case, by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear in munic.i.p.al governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.

"Very respectfully yours, "John Sherman."

I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication.

Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.

CHAPTER LXII.

SECOND ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND.

Opposition to General Harrison for the Presidential Nomination--My Belief That He Could Not Be Elected--Preference for McKinley-- Meeting of the National Republican Convention at Minneapolis-- Meeting of Republicans at Washington to Ratify the Ticket--Newspaper Comment on My Two Days' Speech in the Senate on the Silver Question --A Claim That I Was Not in Harmony with My Party on the Tariff-- My Reply--Opening Speeches for Harrison and Reid--Publication of My "History of the Republican Party"--First Encounter with a "Kodak"

--Political Addresses in Philadelphia, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago and Milwaukee--Return to Ohio--Defeat of Harrison.

During the spring and summer of 1892, prior to the renomination of General Harrison for President and Whitelaw Reid for Vice President, the choice of candidates was the general subject of comment. A good deal of opposition to General Harrison was developed, mainly, I think, from his cold and abrupt manners in his intercourse with those who had business with him. His ability and integrity were conceded, but he was not in any sense popular. This was apparent especially in New York, that state that nominated him in 1888.

During all the period mentioned many names were canva.s.sed, mine among others, but I uniformly declined to be a candidate, and said if I had a vote in the convention it would be cast for Harrison.

Some of his friends, especially Charles Foster, complained in published interviews that I had not taken a more active part in securing his nomination. From later developments I became satisfied that Harrison could not be elected, that Platt and a powerful New York influence would defeat him if nominated. I therefore preferred the nomination of a new man, such as William McKinley, but he had committed himself to Harrison, and, according to my code of honor, could not accept a nomination if tendered him.