Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 44

The same condition of coinage now exists in the United States.

While silver is reduced in market value nearly one-half, silver coins are maintained at par with gold at the old ratio, by fiat of the government. It is true that the purchase of silver, under recent laws, involved a heavy loss to the government, but the free coinage of silver, under the ratio of sixteen to one, would exclude gold from our currency, detach the United States from the monetary standard of all the chief commercial nations of the world, and change all existing contracts between individuals and with the government. In view of these results, certain to come from the free coinage of silver, I am convinced that until some international arrangement can be made, the present system of coinage should continue in force. This has now became a political, or, rather a monetary question, to be decided sooner or later, by popular opinion, at the polls. This subject will be further discussed at a later period, when efforts were made to adopt the free coinage of silver at the old ratio.

Prior to the meeting of Congress in December, 1870, a controversy had arisen between Senator Sumner and Secretary Fish, which created serious embarra.s.sment, and I think had a very injurious influence during that and succeeding sessions of Congress. Mr. Sumner had long been chairman of the committee on foreign relations, and no doubt exercised a domineering power in this branch of the public service. Mr. Fish and Mr. Sumner had differed widely in respect to the annexation of San Domingo and certain diplomatic appointments and former treaties, among them the highly important English negotiations for the settlement of claims growing out of the war.

On these topics the President and Mr. Sumner could not agree. Mr.

Sumner insisted that the hasty proclamation by Great Britain of neutrality between the United States and the Southern Confederacy was the gravamen of the Alabama claims. The President and Mr. Fish contended that this proclamation was an act of which we could not complain, except as an indication of an unfriendly spirit by Great Britain, and that the true basis of the Alabama claims was that Great Britain, after proclaiming neutrality, did not enforce it, but allowed her subjects to build cruisers, and man, arm and use them, under cover of the rebel flag, to the destruction of our commercial navy.

This difference of opinion between the President and Mr. Sumner led to the removal of John L. Motley, our minister to England, who sided with Sumner, and unquestionably intensified the feeling that had arisen from the San Domingo treaty.

As to that treaty it was a conceded fact that before the President had become publicly committed to it he had, waiving his official rank, sought the advice and counsel of Mr. Sumner, and was evidently misled as to Mr. Sumner's views on this subject. The subsequent debating, in both open and executive session, led to Mr. Sumner's taking the most extreme and active opposition to the treaty, in which he arraigned with great severity the conduct of the naval officers, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Fish and the President.

This was aggravated by alleged public conversations with Mr. Sumner by "interviewers," in which the motives of the President and others were impugned.

In the meantime, social relations between the Secretary of State and Mr. Sumner had become impossible; and--considering human pa.s.sion, prejudice and feeling--anything like frank and confidential communication between the President and Mr. Sumner was out of the question.

A majority of the Republican Senators sided with the President. We generally agreed that it was a false-pretended neutrality, and not a too hasty proclamation of neutrality, that gave us an unquestionable right to demand indemnity from Great Britain for the depredations of the Alabama and other English cruisers. And as for the San Domingo treaty, a large majority of Republican Senators had voted for it--though I did not; and nearly all of us had voted for the commission of inquiry of which Mr. Wade was the chief member.

When we met in March, it was known that both these important subjects would necessarily be referred to the committee on foreign relations, and that, aside from the hostile personal relations of Mr. Sumner and the Secretary of State, he did not, and could not, and would not, represent the views of a majority of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, and that a majority of his committee agreed with him. Committees are and ought to be organized to represent the body, giving a majority of the members to the prevailing opinion, but fairly representing the views of the minority. It has been the custom in the Senate to allow each party to choose its own representatives in each committee, and in proportion to its numbers.

In the Republican conference the first question that arose was as to Mr. Sumner. He was the oldest Senator in consecutive service.

He was eminent not only as a faithful representative of Republican principles, but as especially qualified to be chairman of our foreign relations. He had long held that position, and it was not usual in the Senate to change the committees, but to follow the rule of seniority, placing Senators of the majority party in the order of their coming into the Senate and those of the minority at the foot of the list.

In deciding Mr. Sumner's case, in view of the facts I have stated, two plans were urged;

First--To place him at the head of the new and important committee of privileges and elections, leaving the rest of the committee on foreign relations to stand in the precise order it had been, with one vacancy to be filled in harmony with the majority.

Second--To leave Mr. Sumner to stand in his old place as chairman, and to make a change in the body of the committee by transferring one of its members to another committee, and fill the vacancy by a Senator in harmony with the majority.

My own opinion was that the latter course was the most polite and just; but the majority decided, after full consideration and debate, upon the first alternative.

Simon Cameron was next to Mr. Sumner on the list of Republican members of the committee, and, by uniform usage, became its chairman.

This affair created feeling in the Senate which it is difficult now to realize, but it was decided in a Republican caucus, in which there was an honest difference of opinion. We foresaw, whichever way it should be decided, that it would create--and it did create --bad feeling among Senators, which existed as long as Mr. Sumner lived. I think it proper to make this statement of my own views at the time, though by the happening of great events this incident has almost pa.s.sed out of memory.

Mr. Sumner died in Was.h.i.+ngton, March 11, 1874. He was distinguished for his literary attainments, and his strong opposition to the inst.i.tution of slavery and his severe arraignment of it. The brutal attack made upon him by Preston S. Brooks created profound sympathy for him.

CHAPTER XXIII.

SOME EVENTS IN MY PRIVATE LIFE.

Feuds and Jealousies During Grant's Administration--Attack on Me by the Cincinnati "Enquirer"--Reply and Statement Regarding My Worldly Possessions--I Am Elected to the Senate for the Third Term --Trip to the Pacific with Colonel Scott and Party--Visit to the Yosemite Valley--San Diego in 1872--Return via Carson City and Salt Lake--We call on Brigham Young--Arrival Home to Enter Into the Greeley-Grant Canva.s.s--Election of General Grant for the Second Term.

I have purposely followed the legislation of Congress on financial questions until the pa.s.sage of the act of 1873, pa.s.sing over other events in my personal history and that of President Grant.

It can hardly be said that we had a strictly Republican administration, during his two terms. While Republicans were selected to fill the leading offices, the policy adopted and the controlling influence around him were purely personal. He consulted but few of the Senators or Members, and they were known as his personal friends.

Mr. Conkling, by his imperious will, soon gained a strong influence over the President, and from this came feuds, jealousies and enmities, that greatly weakened the Republican party and threatened its ascendency. This was a period of bitter accusations, extending from the President to almost everyone in public life. During the entire period of Grant's administration, I was chairman of the committee on finance of the Senate, and had to act upon all questions of taxation, debt, banking or finance, and had occasion to talk with the President upon such measures, but he rarely expressed any opinion or took any interest in them. His veto of the bill to increase the amount of United States notes, on the 22nd of April, 1874, was an exception, but on this he changed his mind, as he had expressed his approval of the bill when pending. He was charged with being in a whisky ring and with other offensive imputations, all of which were without the slightest foundation. General Grant was, in every sense of the word, an honest man. He was so honest that he did not suspect others, and no doubt confided in, and was friendly with, those who abused his confidence. It was a period of slander and scandal.

I did not escape the general crimination. I usually met accusations with silence, as my accusers were answered by others. In March, 1871, the Cincinnati "Enquirer" contained the following imputation:

"We are informed that a gentleman who lately filled a responsible office in this city, who has recently returned from Was.h.i.+ngton, says that the Southern Railroad bill would have pa.s.sed the United States Senate if it had not, unfortunately, happened that Senator Sherman had no direct pecuniary interest in it. In these days, and with such Congresses, it takes grease to oil the wheels of legislation."

On the 12th of March I wrote to the editors of the "Enquirer" the following note, after quoting the editorial:

"United States Senate Chamber,} "Was.h.i.+ngton, March 12, 1871. } "To the Editors of the 'Enquirer:'

"Gentlemen:--Some one, perhaps in your office, sends me the following editorial, cut from your paper:

"All I can say in reply is that it contains a falsehood and a calumny. I introduced the bill for the Southern Railroad; am strongly in favor of it, and pressed it at every stage as rapidly as the rules of the Senate and the strong opposition to it would allow. This is known by every Senator, and I am quite sure Judge Thurman and Mr. Davis would say so. I alone took an active interest in the bill, and at the very moment your editorial was received I was pressing a Republican caucus to make it an exception to a resolution not to take up general legislation at this session.

Everyone familiar with our rules knew that it was the sheerest folly to try to pa.s.s the bill on the last day of the session, especially as against our appropriation bills. When it does pa.s.s it will take days of debate, and will not receive support from any of your political a.s.sociates, who think Kentucky can block up all intercourse between the north and south. Still I yielded to the earnest desire of the trustees to try to get a vote, but failed to get the floor at 3 o'clock in the morning, the only moment it was possible to submit even the motion to take it up. The bill to abolish the duty of coal was taken up and was not acted on, nor would the railroad bill, or any other contested bill, have pa.s.sed at that stage of the session.

"As to the base imputation you attribute to 'a gentleman who lately filled a responsible office in this city,' I can only say that, whether it originates with you or anyone else, it is utterly false.

Neither in this nor in any measure that has pa.s.sed Congress, or is pending, have I had any direct pecuniary interest. I respectfully ask that you print this, and also the name of the 'gentleman' you refer to.

"I intend, in the interests of the city of Cincinnati and of the whole country, to press the Southern Railroad bill, and to secure its pa.s.sage as soon as possible, but it is rather poor encouragement to read such libels in a prominent paper in your city.

"Yours etc., "John Sherman."

This was followed by an article in the "Enquirer" embodied in my reply, as follows:

"Was.h.i.+ngton, March 20, 1871.

"Gentlemen:--In your editorial in the 'Enquirer' of March 17, in commenting on my card to you as to my action on the Cincinnati Southern Railroad bill, you repeat my statement that 'neither in this nor in any measure that has pa.s.sed Congress, or is pending, have I any pecuniary interest,' and you say:

'If this is true, he has certainly been a very badly slandered gentleman. Somehow or other there is a popular impression that Mr. Sherman has contrived to make his connection with politics a highly lucrative business, and that he has exhibited, since he has been in Congress, a worldly thrift that is remarkable. There is a further impression that he is now a very rich man, whereas, a few years ago, before he was in public affairs, his circ.u.mstances were decidedly moderate. Perhaps our senatorial friend may not be aware of the existence of these derogatory reports, and will thank us for giving him an opportunity, now that he knows of their existence, to disprove them.'

"I have not been ignorant that there has been a studied effort-- ascribed by me to the common tactics of political warfare--to create the impression, by vague innuendo, that I have used my official position to make money for myself. I know that this charge or imputation is without the slightest foundation, and I now repeat that I never was pecuniarily interested in any question, bill or matter before Congress; that I never received anything in money, or property, or promise, directly or indirectly, for my vote or influence in Congress or in the departments; that I have studiously avoided engaging in any business depending upon legislation in Congress. The only enterprise in which I ever engaged, which rests upon an act of Congress, is that in 1862, after the bill pa.s.sed authorizing the construction of a street railroad in this city, I, with others, openly subscribed stock, and undertook to build it in pursuance of the act of Congress.

"From the position a.s.signed me here, I have had to deal with great questions involving our financial system of currency, taxes and debt, and I can appeal to all my a.s.sociates in Congress, to each of the eminent men with whom, as Secretaries of the Treasury, I have been intimate, and to every man of the mult.i.tude with whom I have been brought into contact, to say whether I have ever been influenced in my course by pecuniary interest.

"But you say that the impression is that I am a very rich man, whereas, before I was in public affairs, my circ.u.mstances were decidedly moderate. This allegation contains two gross exaggerations.

When I entered public life, I was largely engaged in my profession and other lucrative business. If I had not engaged in politics, I might have been the rich man you suppose. I am not this day relatively richer, considering the changed value of property, than I was when I entered the Senate. Some time ago it was stated in your paper that I was worth millions. A very small fraction, indeed, of one million dollars will cover all I am worth. My property consists mainly of real estate, palpable to the eye, and the rest of it is chiefly in a railroad with which I was connected before I entered public life.

"I have managed my business affairs with reasonable care, prudence, economy and success. What I have is the result of this.

"You kindly offer me an opportunity to disprove to you these reports.

Well, how can I? What charge is made against me? How can I fight shadows? How can a man prove himself innocent against an innuendo?

"But as you offer me the opportunity, I now invite Mr. Faran to come to my home at Mansfield, and I will show him all I possess there, and render him a full account of all I have elsewhere, and if I can't fairly account for it without being suspected of receiving bribes, or gifts, or stealing, then he can repeat these baseless accusations with an easy conscience.

"You may ask why I have not met these derogatory reports before.

Perhaps I ought, but I feel the humiliation of such a controversy, and thought it time enough when a specific charge was made. And I am told by Mr. Hedges, my former law partner, that in my absence, last summer, he corrected some gross misstatements in your paper about me, and that you refused or neglected to publish it--even to notice it. As, however, you now, in a courteous way, invite this letter, I take great pleasure in accepting your offer.

"Very truly yours, "John Sherman.

"Messrs. Faran & McLean, editors of the 'Enquirer.'"

I doubted the policy of my publis.h.i.+ng such a letter, or of taking any notice of so indefinite a charge, but the response from the press was fair, especially from the "s.h.i.+eld and Banner," a Democratic paper printed in Mansfield, as follows:

"We publish a letter of Hon. John Sherman to the editors the Cincinnati 'Enquirer.' It is hardly necessary that we should say that we have no sympathy with the political creed of John Sherman.

Between him and us there is a vast and wide difference; but we are not, we trust, so much of the partisan that we cannot do justice to a neighbor, if that neighbor differs with us. We have known John Sherman, not only during all his public life, but from the time we became a resident of Mansfield, now covering a period of thirty years, and we have always known him as industrious, prudent and careful in his profession, and economical and thrifty in his business. We placed very little credence in the rumors that he was a man of immense wealth. His property is mostly in real estate.

He was fortunate in getting hold of very desirable property in and around our city, and the advance in that has doubtless given him a competence; but it is folly to charge him with being a millionaire.