Chapter LVII (2)

"Your committee are of the opinion that the only aid to immigration the United States can now render would be, first, to disseminate in Europe authentic information of the inducements to immigration to this country; second, to protect the immigrant from the impositions now so generally practiced upon him by immigrant runners and the like, and, third, to facilitate his transportation from New York to the place of his destination, or to the place where his labor and skill will be most productive. These objects may be accomplished without great expenditure, and without changing the relation heretofore held by the United States to the immigrant.

"With this view your committee report the following bill and recommend its passage."

When, on the 27th of September, 1890, a bill was pending to restrict alien contract labor, I heartily supported it, and, after referring to the conditions which justified the act of 1864, said that since that time the class of immigration coming from some foreign countries had been such as would make it proper to exclude a portion of it, and therefore I was in favor of the bill or any other bill that would prevent the poisoning of the blood of our people in any way whatever by the introduction of either disease, crime, or vice into our midst, and would vote to exclude all paupers or persons who were unable to earn an honest livelihood by labor. That is the correct principle. I think we did, during the war, go to the extreme in one direction to induce people to come among us to share our benefits and advantages, and we gave the reasons why we did so; but now the period has arrived when men of all parties, all conditions of life, all creeds, ought to be willing to limit and regulate immigration, so that only those who are able to labor and toil in the ordinary occupations of life and to earn a livelihood should be allowed to come. It is a high privilege to enter into American citizenship. Neither a pauper, in the strict legal sense of the word, nor an imbecile, nor one who has a defect or imperfection of body or mind which lowers him below the standard of American citizenship should be allowed to immigrate to this country.

The most important measure adopted during this Congress was what is popularly known as the McKinley tariff law. I had not given as much care and attention to this bill as other Senators on the committee on finance had, nor did I participate in its preparation as fully as they. When the Mills bill came to the Senate in 1888, the work of preparing amendments to, or a substitute for, that bill was intrusted to Messrs. Allison, Aldrich and Hiscock. Their work was submitted to the full committee on finance, and, after careful examination, was reported to the Senate, and was known as "the Senate bill" to distinguish it from the "Mills bill," for which it was substituted. When the McKinley tariff bill came to the Senate on the 21st of May, 1890, it was referred to the committee on finance and was there submitted to the same sub-committee that had considered the Mills bill. The McKinley bill, as amended by the committee on finance, was in substance the Senate bill of 1888.

It is not necessary here to refer to the long debate in the Senate on the McKinley tariff bill and the amendments proposed in the Senate. The result was a disagreement between the two Houses and the reference of the disagreeing votes to a committee of conference, of which I was a member. When the report of the committee of conference came before the Senate I made a long speech justifying, as I thought, the public policy involved in the proposed tariff taxation. I stated that the sub-committee named was entitled to the credit of all the labor expended on the bill, that as a member of the committee of ways and means or on finance I had participated in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.

My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session. The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is not subject to the tariff tax.

The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of _sections_, or, as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only; but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his "deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population, according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri, commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in the Senate gives these groups of states a very decided advantage in tariff legislation. The average of Senators to the whole population is one for 712,000 inhabitants. This inequality of representation cannot be avoided. It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when New England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from the date of its passage.

I undertook, in my speech, to define the condition of tariff legislation, and the position of each party in regard to it. I said:

"A change and revision has been demanded by both parties since 1883. The tariff law of 1883 did not give satisfaction to the people of the United States. It had many imperfections in it. I always thought the great error was made in 1883 in not making, as the substantial basis, as the real substance of the tariff law of that year, the report of the tariff commission. Whether that was wise or unwise, it is certain that the tariff of 1883 never gave satisfaction. There were defects found in it in a short time, and from then till now the subject of the revision of the tariff has been a matter of constant debate in both Houses. It has been the subject of political debate before the people of the United States in two several presidential campaigns, and the election of at least two Congresses depended upon questions arising out of the tariff, until finally the Republican party, controlling in the Senate, and the Democratic party, controlling in the other House, undertook to bring before the people of the United States their rival theories as to the tariff. We had the Mills bill two years ago. It was very carefully examined and sent to us as a Democratic production. It came here and in place of it there was substituted what was called the Senate bill of 1888. That was sent back to the House, and the House disagreed to it, and thus this controversy was at once cast into the presidential election. Here were the platforms of the two great parties embodied in the form of bills, and the choice between them, not having been decided in Congress, was submitted to the people, and the people of the United States passed their judgment upon the general principles involved in these bills.

"Now, what are those general principles? I think I can state them very clearly and very briefly. On the one hand, the Democratic party believe in a tariff for revenue only, sometimes, as they say, with incidental protection, but what they mean is a tariff intended solely to raise money to carry on the operations of the government. On the other hand, the Republican party believes that we should do something more besides merely providing revenue, but that we should so levy the duties on imported goods that they would not only yield us an ample revenue to carry on the operations of the government, but that they would do more; that they would protect, foster and diversify American industry. This broad line of demarkation entered into the presidential contest.

"Mr. president, the result of it all is that the Republican party carried not only both Houses of Congress, but they carried the popular voice, elected the President, and now all branches of the government are governed by the Republican ideas and not by the Democratic ideas.

"What then was done? The House of Representatives took up the Senate bill of 1888, revised it, modified it, and changed it so as to suit the popular will of the present day, and sent it to us, and we made some changes in it, and that is the bill now before us. To say that anyone can be misled or may be deceived or does not know the contents of this bill is to confess a degree of ignorance that I would not impute to any Senator of the United States or to any Member of Congress.

"There are two or three principles involved in this bill; first, that it is the duty of Congress to foster, protect and diversify American industry. We believe that whenever a new industry can be started in our country with a successful hope of living, with a reasonable protection against foreign manufactures, we ought to establish it here, and that this is a good policy for the country. It is not necessary for me to show that this policy is as old as our constitution; that Washington proclaimed it; that even Jefferson and Madison and the old Republican Presidents of the former times were in favor of that doctrine, and that General Jackson advocated it in the most emphatic way in many different forms of speech. It has come down to us, and we are trying now to carry out that idea, to encourage home productions by putting a tax upon foreign productions. As this tax does not apply to home production, therefore it is a protection against the importation of foreign goods to the extent of the tax levied. We think that this tax ought to be put at such a rate as will give to our people here a chance to produce the articles and pay a fair return for the investment made and for the labor expended at prices higher in this country than in any country in the world. That is the first rule, and I believe that that rule has been carried out, and I think liberally, and so as to secure increased production at home and a larger market."

I am not entirely content with this statement of the position of the two great parties, nor do I believe that any line of demarkation between them can be made, nor ought it to be made. If any proof of this is required I need only refer to the unhappy result of the tariff law of the last Congress, which left the country without sufficient revenue to meet current expenses of the government, and caused the absorption for such expenses of the gold reserved for the maintenance of resumption, which now endangers our financial system. I will have occasion to refer to this subject hereafter.

The conference report was adopted by the Senate on the 30th of September by the vote of yeas 33 and nays 27. The bill was approved by the President on the 1st of October, and on the same day Congress adjourned.

Many other measures of importance were considered during this long session of ten months, but my space will not allow me to refer to them.

When in Frankfort, in the summer of 1889, I learned that George H. Pendleton, my former colleague in the Senate and then our minister in Berlin, was sick at Homburg. I called upon him there, and, though he was able to receive me at his lodgings, I noticed the marks of death on his face. He was cheerful, and still preserved the kindly manners that gave him the name of "Gentleman George." He still hoped that he would be able to return home, and inquired in regard to mutual friends, but his hope was delusive and he died on November 24, 1889. In February, 1890, his body was conveyed to his home in Cincinnati and was buried in Spring Grove Cemetery. I was invited to his funeral but was compelled to decline, which I did in the following note, which faintly expressed my high respect and affection for him:

"U. S. Senate, }
"Washington, D. C., February 26, 1890.}
"My Dear Sir:--Your note of the 24th, in respect to the funeral of
Mr. Pendleton, has been received.

"Yesterday, when Mayor Mosby invited me to attend the funeral ceremonies at Cincinnati, I felt both willing and eager to express my warm affection and appreciation of my old colleague. I know no one among the living or the dead of whom I could speak more kindly, and for whom I felt a more sincere respect; but find that I have engagements and public duties that I cannot avoid, and, besides, while reasonably well, the lingering effects of the grippe still hang on me, and my doctor advises against a long and wearisome journey.

"Under the circumstances I felt compelled, though reluctantly, to telegraph Mayor Mosby the withdrawal of my acceptance, and proffered to assist him in every way to find some acceptable person to perform the gracious duty assigned to me. This I will do. Lengthy orations in the presence of the dead are out of place and out of time. A brief, warm, hearty, kindly statement of the character and life of Mr. Pendleton is all that is needed.

"Very truly yours,
"John Sherman."

On the 10th day of May, 1890, I reached the age of sixty-seven years. My wife determined to celebrate the event and invited a distinguished party, among whom were President Harrison, Vice President Morton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and General Sherman, to dine with us on the evening of that day, the dinner to be followed by a general reception. I was accustomed to pass each milestone of my journey in life without notice, but as we were both in good health I readily yielded to her wish. Undue importance was given by the papers to the social gathering and I received many letters of congratulation and read many kindly notices in papers representing each of the two great parties. I looked upon this as evidence that I had arrived at that period of life when a difference in political opinions was no longer regarded as a ground of personal disfavor.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress I returned to Ohio and entered actively into the political canvass. The election was for secretary of state and a few state officers, but the chief contest was upon the election of Members of Congress. I made my first speech in the Ohio canvass at Wilmington on the 16th of October. It was a prepared speech and dealt mainly with the recent acts of Congress. I opened with a general comparison of the two great parties of the country. The subjects discussed were the trust law, the pension legislation, the silver law and the McKinley tariff law. I defended the latter as a protective measure that, while reducing taxation, maintained the protection of all American industries impartially. I continued in the canvass diligently, speaking almost every day until the election. Among the largest meetings was one at Findlay on the 28th of October and one at Music Hall, Cincinnati, on the 31st, where Governor Foraker and I spoke together. The meeting at Music Hall was especially notable for the number and enthusiasm of those present.

During this canvass, on the 25th of October, I attended a meeting at the city hall, Pittsburg, which was largely attended. The chief interest in this busy, thriving city was the tariff question, to which I mainly confined my speech. In opening I said:

"While on my way here I wondered what in the world the people of Pittsburg wanted to hear me for--why they should invite a Buckeye from Ohio to talk to them about Republican principles? This city of Pittsburg is the birthplace of the Republican party. Here that grand party commenced its series of achievements which have distinguished it more than any other party that ever existed in ancient or modern times; because it has been the good fortune of the Republican party to confer upon the people of the United States greater benefits than were ever conferred by any other political organization on mortal men. We have had periods in our existence which demonstrated this. When, in 1853, you or your ancestors organized the Republican party, our only object was to resist the extension of slavery over our western territory. Afterward, in 1861, the only object of the Republican party was to maintain the union of these states, to preserve our country as an inheritance for your children and your children's children. In 1876 the object of the Republican party was to make good the promises contained in our notes, and to make all our money as good as gold and silver coin. Now, the great issue between the parties, not so great as in the past, but still worthy of discussion, is how shall we levy the taxes to support the national government? That is the question that is to be discussed mainly to-night."

The mention of the McKinley tariff law was received with immense applause and cheers. Continuing, I said:

"That bill is very well named. It is named after Wm. McKinley, a kind of Pennsylvania-Ohio Dutchman, with a little Scotch-Irish mixed in him, too--a brilliant neighbor of mine, whom, I am told, you have had the pleasure of hearing. It is true that this bill was made up largely of what was called the Senate bill of the year before, and new lines had contributed toward the formation of that bill; but it was properly named after Mr. McKinley because of his indomitable pluck, his ability, his energy.

"It was pushed through the House after great opposition, because the Democrats, as usual, opposed that, as they opposed everything else."

The election in Ohio resulted in Republican success, Daniel J. Ryan, the head of the ticket, being elected secretary of state by about 11,000 majority.

Shortly after the election I was in the city of New York, and was there interviewed. I was reported to have said:

"The Republican defeats do not bother me at all, I have seen many such revulsions before and we get around all right again. It does us good, we become more active and careful. It will be all right.

"I will cite an instance in my own state, Ohio. Last year we lost our governor, this year we carry the state by a splendid majority. The Democrats fixed up the congressional districts so we would get six Congressmen only, but we got eight."

"What of Major McKinley's election to Congress?"

"Major McKinley is, I fear, defeated, though when I left Ohio it was thought that he had succeeded by a small majority. If he should have run in his old district his majority would have been 3,500 or 4,000 against 2,000 received by him two years ago. But they placed him in a district of three Democratic counties and only one Republican county, in which the Democratic majority is upward of 2,000. It looks now as if he is defeated by about 130 votes. It simply means that the major will be the next Governor of Ohio. He made a splendid canvass and a magnificent run, and defeat is not the proper name for the result. Mr. McKinley told me before the election that he did not expect to succeed with such odds against him.

"As to the general result of the congressional elections, I have seen such convulsions a dozen times or more, but they have had no permanent effect. In 1878, when I was Secretary of the Treasury, we lost the House and Senate both, but two years later, in 1880, we rallied and recovered all that we had lost and elected a Republican President besides. I do not regard the present situation with apprehension. The country will be wiser by next year and better able to pass upon the issues."

The second session of the 51st Congress met on the 1st of December, 1890. The annual message of the President dealt with the usual topics. The surplus for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, including the amount applied to the sinking fund, was $105,344,496. In referring to the act "directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of treasury notes thereon," approved July 14, 1890, the President said:

"It has been administered by the Secretary of the Treasury with an earnest purpose to get into circulation, at the earliest possible dates, the full monthly amount of treasury notes contemplated by its provisions, and at the same time to give to the market for silver bullion such support as the law contemplates. The recent depression in the price of silver has been observed with regret. The rapid rise in price which anticipated and followed the passage of this act was influenced in some degree by speculation, and the recent reaction is in part the result of the same cause and in part of the recent monetary disturbances. Some months of further trial will be necessary to determine the permanent effect of the recent legislation upon silver values, but it is gratifying to know that the increased circulation secured by the act has exerted, and will continue to exert, a most beneficial influence upon business and upon general values."

On the 18th of December I reported, from the committee on finance, a bill to provide against the contraction of the currency, and for other purposes. This bill embodied several financial bills on the calendar which had been reported by the committee, and it was deemed best to include them in a single measure. The bill was recommitted and again reported by me on the 23rd of December, when Mr. Stewart gave notice of and had read an amendment he intended to offer providing for the free coinage of silver.

On January 5, 1891, at the expiration of the morning hour, Mr. Stewart moved to proceed to the consideration of this bill. By a combination of seven Republican with the Democratic Senators the motion was carried, thus displacing the regular order of business, which was a bill relating to the election of Members of Congress, and which had been under discussion for several days.

Mr. Stewart than offered, as an amendment to the amendment of the committee, then pending, the following provision:

"That any owner of silver bullion, not too base for the operations of the mint, may deposit the same in amount of the value of not less than $100, at any mint of the United States, to be formed into standard dollars or bars, for his benefit and without charge, and that, at the said owner's option, he may receive therefor an equivalent of such standard dollars in treasury notes of the same form and description, and having the same legal qualities, as the notes provided for by the act approved July 14, 1890, entitled, 'An act directing the purchase of silver bullion, and the issue of treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes.' And all such treasury notes issued under the provisions of this act shall be a legal tender for their nominal amount in payment of all debts, public and private, and shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued in the same manner, and to the same extent, as other treasury notes."

This being an amendment to an amendment, no further modification or change could be made to the bill until it was disposed of. Mr. Stewart made some remarks, and in conclusion said:

"I do not intend further to comment, at this time, on the amendment to the bill which I have offered. If it shall be adopted, then there are other portions of the bill which can be stricken out. The amendment I have offered presents the question naked and simple. Will you remonetize silver and place it back where it was before it was excluded from the mints of the United States and Europe?"

I was taken by surprise at the sudden presentation of the question, but promptly took the floor and said:

"The sudden and unexpected change of the scene, the introduction of an entirely new topic into our debate, must not pass by without the serious and sober attention of every Senator on the floor to the revolutionary measure now proposed. I do not wish to, nor will I, nor can I, regard this as a political question, because we know that the local interests of a certain portion of our number--and I do not object to Senators representing the interest of their constituents--lead them to opinions different from the opinions of Senators from the larger states containing the great mass of the population of this country, not only in the north, but in the south; and therefore, while the Republican party may be weakened by the unexpected defection of a certain portion of our number who agree with us in political opinions generally, yet that will not relieve the minority in this body, our Democratic associates, from the sober responsibility which they will assume in aiding in the adoption of this measure. At the very outset of this discussion I appealed to the sober judgment of Senators to consider the responsibility which they take in adopting what I regard as a revolution more full of injury, more dangerous in its character, and more destructive in its results, than any measure which has been proposed for years.

"Now, what is this question? The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart], representing a state whose chief production is silver, offers an amendment to change entirely the standard of valuation of all the property of the United States. At present all contracts are founded upon what is called the gold standard. Every particle of property we enjoy, every obligation of contract, whether by the national government or by each individual, is now based in actual fact upon the gold standard of 25.8 grains. That is the standard of all the commercial nations of the world. It is the standard of France, which, like ourselves, has used silver to a large extent. It is the standard of value of France and every country of Europe."

I then, at considerable length, stated the objections to the free coinage of silver and the revolution it would create in the financial condition of the country. This led to a long debate, participated in by many Senators. On the 13th of January I made a long and carefully considered speech, extending through fourteen pages of the "Record," in which I entered into detail in reply to the speeches that had been made, and stated the objections to the free coinage of silver. It is too long to insert even an abstract of it here. I have carefully read this speech and refer to it as the first of three speeches, the second being delivered on the 30th of June, 1892, and the third on August 30, 1893, as the best presentation I have ever made of the question involved, and as containing all the material facts bearing upon the question of free coinage and the folly of its adoption.

It was manifest that the combination that had been made intended to force the adoption of the amendment. The vote on it was taken on the 14th of January and the result was yeas 42 and nays 30. Nearly all the Senators from the western group of states, though Republicans, voted for the amendment in favor of free coinage. Only four voted against it. So the amendment of Mr. Stewart was agreed to. The bill was further discussed and changed to conform to the amendment and finally passed the Senate by the vote of yeas 39, nays 27, but failed to pass the House.

Thus the debate and the adoption by the Senate of free coinage defeated all financial legislation during that session.