Twenty Years of Congress Volume Ii Part 37

In the two Houses jointly, 186 Democrats voted for the Electoral Bill and 18 against it, while 52 Republicans voted for the Bill and 75 against it.]

[(5) The following were the members composing the committee:--

_Clarkson N. Potter_ of New York, _William R. Morrison_ of Illinois, _Eppa Hunton_ of Virginia, _William S. Stenger_ of Pennsylvania, _John A. McMahon_ of Ohio, _J. C. S. Blackburn_ of Kentucky, _William M. Springer_ of Illinois, Benjamin F. Butler of Ma.s.sachusetts, Jacob D. c.o.x of Ohio, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Frank Hisc.o.c.k of New York.]

CHAPTER XXVI.

President Hayes was inaugurated on the 5th day of March (1877)--the 4th falling on a Sunday. As matter of precaution the oath of office was administered to him by Chief Justice Waite on Sunday--Mr. Hayes deeming it wise and prudent that he should be ready as President of the United States to do his official duty if any Executive act should that day be required for the public safety. Although his t.i.tle had been in doubt until within forty-eight hours of his accession, he had carefully prepared his Inaugural address. It was made evident by his words that he would adopt a new policy on the Southern question and upon the question of Civil Service Reform. It was plainly his determination to withdraw from the South all National protection to the colored people, and to put the white population of the reconstructed States upon their good faith and their honor, as to their course touching the political rights of all citizens.

The Inaugural address did not give satisfaction to the radical Republicans, but was received with every mark of approbation by the more conservative elements of the party. Many Democrats would have supported Mr. Hayes cordially but for the mode of his election. It was impossible for them to recover from the chagrin and disappointment of Mr. Tilden's defeat. The new President, therefore, began his administration with a bitter personal opposition from the Democracy, and with a distrust of his own policy on the part of a large number of those who had signally aided in his election.

The one special source of dissatisfaction was the intention of the President to disregard the State elections in the three States upon whose votes his own t.i.tle depended. The concentration of interest was upon the State of Louisiana, where Governor Packard was officially declared to have received a larger popular majority than President Hayes. By negotiation of certain Commissioners who went to Louisiana under appointment of the President, the Democratic candidate for Governor, Francis T. Nicholls, was installed in office and Governor Packard was left helpless.(1) No act of President Hayes did so much to create discontent within the ranks of the Republican party. No act of his did so much to give color to the thousand rumors that filled the political atmosphere, touching a bargain between the President's friends and some Southern leaders, pending the decision of the Electoral Commission. The election of the President and the election of Mr. Packard rested substantially upon the same foundation, and many Republicans felt that the President's refusal to recognize Mr. Packard as Governor of Louisiana furnished ground to his enemies for disputing his own election. Having been placed in the Presidency by a t.i.tle as strong as could be confirmed under the Const.i.tution and the laws of the country, it was, in the judgment of the majority of the Republican party, an unwise and unwarranted act on the part of the President to purchase peace in the South by surrendering Louisiana to the Democratic party.

The Cabinet selected by President Hayes was regarded as one of great ability. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, were well known.

--The Secretary of War, George W. McCrary of Iowa, had steadily grown in public esteem by his service in the House of Representatives, and possessed every quality desirable for the administration of a great public trust.

--Mr. Richard W. Thompson of Indiana, appointed Secretary of the Navy, was in his sixty-eighth year, and had been a representative in Congress thirty-five years before. He was known throughout the West as an ardent Whig and an equally ardent Republican.

--Charles Devens of Ma.s.sachusetts was appointed Attorney-General. His standing as a lawyer can be inferred from the fact that he had left the Supreme Bench of his State to accept the position. To eminence in his profession he added an honorable record as a soldier, having served with distinction in the civil war and attained the rank of Brigadier-General. As a private gentleman he was justly and widely esteemed.

--For Postmaster-General the President selected David M. Key of Tennessee, who during the previous session had served in the Senate, by appointment of the Governor of his State, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ex-President Johnson. The selection of Mr. Key was made to emphasize the change of Southern policy which President Hayes had foreshadowed in his Inaugural address. Mr. Key was a Democrat, and personally popular. A Southern Democrat in a Republican Cabinet presented a novel political combination, and it is evidence of the tact and good sense of Mr. Key that he administered his Department in such manner as to secure, not merely the respect of the Republican party, but the sincere friendship of many of its leading members. He was wise enough and fortunate enough to induce Hon. James N. Tyner, whom he succeeded as Postmaster-General, to remain in the Department as First a.s.sistant, in order that Republican senators and representatives might freely communicate upon party questions, which Mr. Key delicately refrained from even hearing. The suggestion was made, however, by men of sound judgment, that in projecting a new policy towards the South, which was intended to be characterized by greater leniency in certain directions, it would have been wiser in a party point of view, and more enduring in its intrinsic effect, to make the overture through a Republican statesman of rank and ability.

Among the new senators of the Forty-fifth Congress were some who were transferred from the House and were already well known to the country.

James B. Beck of Kentucky, George F. h.o.a.r of Ma.s.sachusetts, Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, had each made a brilliant record by his service in the House. Mr. Blaine of Maine now entered for a full term, but had come to the Senate several months before as the successor of Honorable Lot M. Morrill, when that gentleman was called by President Grant to administer the Treasury Department.--Among those who had not served in Congress were several distinguished men. David Davis of Illinois, who had been fifteen years on the Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, now entered the Senate as the successor of General Logan. With the exception of John Rutledge, who served in the House of Representatives after he had been on the Supreme Bench, Judge Davis is the only man who entered Congress after service on the Bench. John Jay was Minister to Great Britain and Governor of New York after he resigned the Chief-Justiceship; and Oliver Ellsworth was Minister to France after his retirement from the Bench. A large proportion of the justices had been in Congress before they entered upon their judicial service; but the transfer of Judge Davis to the Senate was a reversal of the natural order.

Samuel J. Kirkwood, already well known by his service in the Senate, now returned from Iowa.--Preston B. Plumb of Kansas, who had been printer, editor, soldier in the civil war with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, member of the Bar, reporter of the Supreme Court of his State, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Kansas, now succeeded James M. Harvey. Mr. Plumb was actively and largely engaged in business affairs, and had perhaps as accurate knowledge of the resources of the West as any man in the country.--A. H. Garland entered from Arkansas, being promoted from the Governorship of his State. He was popular among his own people, and had been a member of the Secession Convention and of both branches of the Confederate Congress.

His reputation as a lawyer had preceded his entrance into the Senate, where he was at once accorded high rank among his political friends.--John R. McPherson, a business man of good repute in New Jersey, succeeded Mr. Frelinghuysen.--Edward R. Rollins of New Hampshire, who had creditably served six years in the House, now came to the Senate as the successor of Aaron H. Cragin.--Alvin Sanders, who was appointed Governor of the Territory of Nebraska by Mr. Lincoln in 1861, and held the position until the State was admitted to the Union in 1867, now came as one of her senators.--Richard c.o.ke who had been Governor of Texas, and Lafayette Grover who had been Governor of Oregon, now entered the Senate.--Isham G. Harris, who had been in Congress twenty-five years before and had played a somewhat conspicuous part in the rebellion as Governor of Tennessee, now succeeded Henry Cooper as senator from that State.

--William Pinkney Whyte, who entered the Senate the previous Congress for a full term, had already served in that body for a brief period in 1868-69, succeeding Reverdy Johnson when he resigned to accept the mission to England. In the interval between the close of his first service and his second election he had served as Governor of Maryland.

He is a grandson of the eminent William Pinkney, who was a member of the Senate at the time of his death, and who as an orator was considered by Mr. Benton, Mr. Clay, and the younger men of that period, as the most eloquent in the country. Mr. Pinkney Whyte held a distinguished position at the bar of Maryland, was recognized as a senator of great ability, and as a private gentleman was highly esteemed without reference to party lines.

--Stanley Matthews took the seat made vacant by the transfer of Mr.

Sherman to the Treasury Department. His reputation as a lawyer was well established. He had ben United-States District Attorney for three years preceding the war. He commanded an Ohio regiment for two years in the field and resigned to accept a position on the bench of the Supreme Court. His legislative experience had been limited to a single term in the Ohio Senate, and as the Democrats had carried Ohio in the autumn of 1877 before he could take his seat, he saw before him a short service in Congress. Within the limit of two years, however, he made a profound impression upon his a.s.sociates in the Senate. He proved to be an admirable debater, and seemed intuitively to catch the style of Parliamentary discussion as distinguished from an argument in court.

He left the Senate with an enlarged reputation, and with a valuable addition to his list of personal friends.

--Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania resigned his seat in the spring of 1877. He had been four times elected to the body, and had twice resigned, leaving his total service some eighteen years. He was in his seventy-ninth year when he retired, but in exceptional vigor of body and mind. He had the graces of age without its infirmities, and shared the good will of his fellow senators on both sides of the chamber in an exceptional degree. He was succeeded by his son, James Donald Cameron, who up to that period had never been a member of any legislative body and who was in this forty-fourth year when he took his seat in the Senate. He was educated at Princeton and had indeed devoted his life to business. During the last year of President Grant's Administration he was a member of the Cabinet as Secretary of War, in which position he showed the same executive power that had characterized the prompt and orderly dispatch of his private business.

--A fortnight after the meeting of Congress the Senate sustained a deep loss in the death of Oliver P. Morton. He died at his home in Indiana on the 1st day of November (1877). He had for several years been in ill health, but struggled with great nerve against the advances of disease. Few men could have resisted so long and so bravely. An iron will sustained him and enabled him through years of suffering to a.s.sume a leading part in the legislation of the country and in directing the policy of the Republican party.

Governor Morton was succeeded by Daniel W. Voorhees, already widely known by his service of ten years in the House. Mr. Voorhees was a Democrat of the most p.r.o.nounced partisan type, but always secured the personal good will of his political opponents in Congress.

--M. C. Butler of South Carolina entered the Senate on the 2d of December, 1877. He had been engaged in all the partisan contests by which the Republican party was overthrown in South Carolina, and encountered much prejudice when he first took his seat; but his bearing in the Senate rapidly disarmed personal hostility, and even gave to him a certain degree of popularity upon the Republican side of the chamber.

The House was organized at an extra session called by the President on the 15th of October, 1877. The failure of the Army Appropriation Bill at the preceding session rendered this early meeting of Congress necessary. Samuel J. Randall was re-elected Speaker, receiving 149 votes; his Republican compet.i.tor, James A. Garfield, receiving 132.

Among the new members of the House were some men who were afterwards advanced to great prominence.--Thomas B. Reed of Maine came from the Portland district. He had been a member of the Bar some twelve years, had rapidly risen in rank, had served in the State Legislature two terms, and had been Attorney-General of his State for three years. He was a strong man in his profession, and had an admirable talent for parliamentary service. His promotion was not more rapid than his ability justified and his friends expected.--The Ma.s.sachusetts delegation received a strong reinforcement in several new members.

George D. Robinson was a conspicuous figure. He developed great readiness as a debater, and his career in the House plainly indicated the eminence he has since attained.--George B. Loring came from the Salem district. He had served several terms in both branches of the Ma.s.sachusetts Legislature and had been President of the Senate. He had for many years taken part in National contests, and of the _personnel_ and principles of the political parties he possessed a knowledge equaled by few men in the United States.--William W. Rice of the Worcester district had devoted himself a.s.siduously to his profession of the law and had generously shared in its rewards and its honors. From the midst of his full practice he was chosen to Congress.--William Claflin, well known as a merchant, had taken active part in the politics of Ma.s.sachusetts, had been in both branches of the Legislature, and served as Lieutenant-Governor, and Governor of the State.

Horace Davis (a son of the eminent Senator John Davis of Ma.s.sachusetts), long resident in California, came as the representative of the San Francisco district. He had been successful as a business man on the Pacific Coast, and brought to the service of the House large experience, strong sense, and high character.--The Indiana delegation was especially strong, with Thomas M. Browne, John H.

Baker, and William H. Calkins, among its members. Mr. Browne and Mr.

Calkins united a talent for parliamentary discussion with exceptional power as platform speakers. Mr. Baker was one of the most thorough men in the House on all questions of finance and taxation.--Hiram Price, who had already served six years, returned from Iowa.--William A. Phelps, Dudley C. Haskell and Thomas H. Ryan made a strong delegation from Kansas.--James F. Briggs, a lawyer of good standing, entered from the Manchester district of New Hampshire.--John T. Wait, a highly intelligent representative from Connecticut, had served a part of the Forty-fourth Congress, and was now returned for a full term.--Edwin Willets who proved to be a wise legislator came from Michigan.--Anson G. McCook, of the well-known Ohio family that furnished so large a number of good soldiers, came from New-York City, with the personal distinction of having carried a Democratic district.

--Frank Hisc.o.c.k came from the Syracuse district. He had been a member of the Convention of 1867 and stood high as a lawyer. He rose rapidly in the House, soon acquiring a position of the first rank.--John H.

Starin and George A. Bagley were among the conspicuous members of the New-York delegation.--Judge A. B. James, of long service on the Supreme Bench of his State, came from the Ogdensburg district, and George W.

Patterson, in his seventy-ninth year, from the Chautauqua district.

Mr. Patterson was Lieutenant-Governor of the State when Hamilton Fish was governor.

Among the prominent Ohio representatives were Jacob D. c.o.x, from the Toledo district; Joseph W. Keifer, from the Madison district, afterwards promoted to the Speakership of the House; Amos Townsend, from the Cleveland district, a successful merchant and a man of strong sense.--General Thomas Ewing came from the Fairfield district. He was one of the private secretaries of President Taylor before he had attained his majority, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kansas at thirty-one years of age and a member of the Ohio Const.i.tutional Convention in 1873-74. He was an able lawyer and strong debater.--William McKinley, jun., entered from the Canton district. He enlisted in an Ohio regiment when but seventeen years of age, and won the rank of Major by meritorious service. The interest of his const.i.tuency and his own bent of mind led him to the study of industrial questions, and he was soon recognized in the House as one of the most thorough statisticians and one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine of Protection. He was more widely known afterwards as a platform speaker, always welcomed by large audiences.

Russell Errett and Thomas M. Bayne entered from the Pittsburg districts, Pennsylvania. Mr. Errett was a veteran editor in the anti-slavery cause, and Mr. Bayne was recognized as a young man of superior ability, ready in debate and with special adaptation to parliamentary service.--John I. Mitch.e.l.l, afterwards chosen senator, entered from the Lycoming district, and Edward Overton from the Bradford district.--General Harry White entered from the Armstrong district. He had been confined in Libby Prison for sixteen months during the war and being a member of the Pennsylvania Senate his absence made a tie vote. He was not allowed to send his resignation and thus permit a Republican successor to be chosen, because the Confederates were not engaged at that time in promoting Republican success. His resignation was finally sent through the lines, concealed in a Testament carried by an exchanged surgeon.

The distinctive measure of the Forty-fifth Congress was the pa.s.sage of the Act for the coinage of silver dollars. The subject had been discussed in the Senate and House and before the people, with increased zeal, ever since the movement for resumption of specie payment took decided form. For those who had not given special attention to the question, arguments were at hand from an official source. It would be more difficult to find a more exhaustive examination into the silver question than is embodied in the report of the Monetary Commission (organized under the joint resolution of August 15, 1875), presented to Congress on the 2d of March, 1877. It has permanent value for the compact and lucid form in which the history of the precious metals is presented, and for the clear statement of conflicting theories in regard to monetary systems.

--Three members of the Commission, John P. Jones and Louis V. Bogy of the Senate, and George Willard, a representative from Michigan, believed that the United States should remonetize silver without regard to the future policy of Europe, and that a law should be pa.s.sed fixing 15 to 1 as the standard of relative value between silver and gold in this country.

--Mr. William S. Groesbeck favored the remonetization of silver at the old relation in the United States of 16 to 1, and was joined in this suggestion by Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri.

--Senator George S. Boutwell expressed the opinion that it was not expedient to coin silver dollars to be a legal-tender, and that the introduction of silver as currency should be postponed until the effort to secure the co-operation of other nations had been faithfully made.

--Professor Francis Bowen and Representative Randall L. Gibson thought that a double standard was an illusion and an impossibility, and declared the proper place for silver in the monetary system to be that of subsidiary or token currency, considerably overvalued by law and a legal-tender only within certain minor limits. They advocated the coinage of silver dollars of 345-6/10 grains, to be legal-tender for sums not over twenty dollars, and to take the place of all paper currency of less denomination than five dollars.

President Hayes presented the subject in his message, December 3, 1877.

He did not believe that "the interests of the Government or the people would be promoted by disparaging silver," but held that it should be used only at its commercial value. "If," said he, "the United States had the undoubted right to pay its bonds in silver coin, the little benefit from that process would be greatly over-balanced by the injurious effect of such payments if made or proposed against the honest convictions of the public creditors."

Secretary Sherman, in his annual report at the same time, said that in the work of refunding he had informed his a.s.sociates in an official letter that "as the Government exacts in payment for bonds their full face value in coin, it is not antic.i.p.ated that any future legislation of Congress or any action of any Department of the Government will sanction or tolerate the redemption of the princ.i.p.al of these bonds, or the payments of the interest thereon, in coin of less value than the coin authorized by law at the time of their issue,--being gold coin." He earnestly urged Congress to give its sanction to this a.s.surance.

These official utterances were put forward in the heat of the general discussion, and fell upon the ears of persons already engaged on one side of the other of the earnest controversy in regard to the coinage of silver. Congress was at once called upon from an unexpected source to make a declaration hostile in its aim and purpose to the policy advocated both by the Head of the Nation and its chief financial officer. In direct hostility to the recommendations of an Ohio President and an Ohio Secretary of the Treasury, an Ohio senator, Mr. Stanley Matthews, moved a concurrent resolution in the Senate, declaring that "all bonds of the United States are payable in silver dollars of 412 grains, and that to restore such dollars as a full legal-tender for that purpose, is not in violation of public faith or the rights of the creditor." A motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary was defeated--_ayes_ 19, _noes_ 31. It was kept before the Senate for immediate consideration and discussion.

The eagerness for debate on the subject is shown by the record.

Thirty-four senators delivered speeches, most of them elaborately prepared, going over the history of the precious metals, the field of American legislation, and international practice in money.

The Senate refused to adopt Mr. Conkling's suggestion to make the resolution _joint_ instead of _concurrent_ and thus require the signature of the President. Mr. Matthews had framed it so as simply to evoke an expression by both branches of Congress without sending it to the Executive, whose opinions had just been made known through his annual message. This was intended as an expression of dissent on the part of Congress from the views of the President. Mr. Edmunds moved an amendment declaring that "the bonds are payable in gold coin or its equivalent, and that any other payment without the consent of the creditor would be in violation of the public faith." It was defeated--_ayes_ 18, _noes_ 44. On an amendment offered by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, declaring that "the bonds will be payable in silver if the Silver Bill becomes the law of the land," the division was _ayes_ 14, _noes_ 41. On the pa.s.sage of the resolution in the Senate, the _ayes_ were 43, the _noes_ 22. In the House of Representatives, the resolution was pa.s.sed under a suspension of the rules,--_ayes_ 189, _noes_ 79. This proclamation of the financial creed of Congress was made complete on the 28th of January, 1878.

On the 5th of the previous November, during the extra session, the House pa.s.sed, under a suspension of the rules, a bill for the free coinage of silver dollars of 412 grains, full legal tender for all debts public and private. Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri was the author of the measure. The vote upon it stood 163 _ayes_ to 34 _noes_, 93 members not voting. It was reported in the Senate with amendments, in December, and its discussion was superseded for the time by the resolution of Mr. Matthews. As reported from the Finance Committee, it provided for a coinage of dollars of 412 grains to the extent of not less than $2,000,000 or more than $4,000,000 per month; all seigniorage to accrue to the Treasury. A second section, proposed by Mr. Allison of Iowa, authorized the President to invite other nations to take part in a conference, and to appoint three Commissioners to represent the United States, with a view to the adoption of a common ratio for gold and silver.

The bill gave rise to a longer and broader discussion than that which had occurred on Mr. Matthews' resolution. It was opened by Mr. Morrill of Vermont. He p.r.o.nounced the measure a "fearful a.s.sault upon the public credit. It resuscitates the obsolete dollar which Congress entombed in 1834, worth less than the greenback in gold, and yet to be a full legal-tender." He thought that the causes of the depreciation of silver were permanent. "The future price may waver one way or the other, but it must finally settle at a much lower point. Nothing less than National will and power can mitigate its fall."

--Mr. Wallace of Pennsylvania charged that the opponents of the bill, were "taking a course for the abas.e.m.e.nt, depreciation and disuse of silver. The supporters of the bill favor both gold and silver."

--Mr. Dawes dwelt on the uncertain commercial value of silver and on the harm to the public credit threatened by the impending measure, insisting that the cheapest money would be our only money.

--Mr. Beck of Kentucky submitted a proposition to direct the coinage of "not less than $3,000,000 per month, or as much more as can be coined at the mints of the United States."

--Mr. Morgan of Alabama said the law did not deal with commercial values. It promised coin to the bondholder--coin of silver or coin of gold.

--Mr. Thurman of Ohio thought that the contract provided for the payment of public debts in coin of the standard of 1870, when the dollar of 412 grains was full legal-tender, and that such dollar would approximate to gold in value.

--Mr. Kernan of New York said: "This bill does not proceed upon the basis that we are to make a silver dollar equivalent to a gold dollar,"

and thought that the cheaper coin would inevitably drive out the gold coin.