Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet Part 94

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated the recommendations of the President.

The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session, in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved May 15, 1882. To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as well as taxes on internal productions. The members of the tariff commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report, were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler, Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and Duncan F. Kenner. These gentlemen were of high standing, representing different parts of the country, of both political parties, and notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and productions. In their report they said:

"In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or considerations of personal interest. It is their desire that their recommendations shall serve no particular party, cla.s.s, section, or school of political economy."

They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882. It was a clear and business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them, and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed pages. It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been published. It was quickly printed for the use of the finance committee of the Senate, before whom the bill to reduce internal revenue taxation was pending. If the committee had embodied, in this bill, the recommendations of the tariff commission, including the schedules without amendment or change, the tariff would have been settled for many years. Unfortunately this was not done, but the schedules prescribing the rates of duty and their cla.s.sification were so radically changed by the committee that the scheme of the tariff commission was practically defeated. Many persons wis.h.i.+ng to advance their particular industries appeared before the committee and succeeded in having their views adopted. The Democratic members seemed to take little interest in the proceedings, as they were opposed to the adoption of the tariff as a part of the bill. I did all I could to prevent these changes, was very much discouraged by the action of the committee, and doubted the propriety of voting for the bill with the tariff provisions as proposed by the committee and adopted by the Senate. I have always regretted that I did not defeat the bill, which I could readily have done by voting with the Democrats against the adoption of the conference report, which pa.s.sed the Senate by the vote of yeas 32, nays 30. However, the propriety and necessity of a reduction of internal taxes proposed by the bill were so urgent that I did not feel justified in denying relief from burdensome and unnecessary taxes on account of provisions in the bill that I did not approve. With great reluctance I voted for it.

One reduction made by the committee against my most strenuous efforts was by a change in the cla.s.sification and rates of the duty on wool. When I returned to Ohio I was violently a.s.sailed by the Democratic newspapers for voting for a bill that reduced the existing duty on wool about twenty per cent., and I had much difficulty in explaining to my const.i.tuents that I opposed the reduction, but, when the Senate refused to adopt by view, did not feel justified, on account of my opposition to this one item, in voting against the bill as a whole. The conference report was agreed to by the House of Representatives on the 2nd of March, and the bill was approved by the President on the 3rd.

I did not conceal my opposition to the tariff sections of the revenue bill. I expressed it in debate, in interviews and in letters. When the bill was reported to the Senate it was met by two kinds of opposition, one the blind party opposition of free traders, led by Senators Beck and Vance, the other (much more dangerous), the conflict of selfish and local interests, mainly on the part of manufacturers, who regarded all articles which they purchased as raw material, on which they wished the lowest possible rate of duty, or none at all, and their work, as the finished article, on which they wished the highest rate of duty. In other words, what they had to buy they called raw material to be admitted without protection, and what they had to sell they wanted protection.

It was a combination of the two kinds of opposition that made the trouble.

The Democratic Senators, with a few exceptions, voted steadily and blindly for any reduction of duty proposed; but they alone could not carry their amendments, and only did so when re-enforced by Republican Senators, who, influenced by local interest, could reduce any duty at their pleasure. In this way, often by a majority of one, amendments were adopted that destroyed the harmony of the bill. In this way iron ore, pig iron, sc.r.a.p iron and wool were sacrificed in the Senate. They were cla.s.sed as raw materials for manufactures and not as manufactures. For selfish and local reasons tin plates, cotton, ties and iron and steel rods for wire were put at exceptionally low rates, and thus were stricken from the list of articles that could be manufactured in this country. This local and selfish appeal was the great defect of the tariff bill. I do not hesitate to say that the iron and wool sections of the bill, as it pa.s.sed the Senate, were unjust, incongruous and absurd. They would have reduced the iron and steel industries of the United States to their condition before the war, and have closed up two- thirds of the furnaces and rolling mills in this country. They were somewhat changed in the committee of conference, but if they had not been, the only alternative to the manufacturers would have been to close up or largely reduce the wages of labor.

Another mistake made in the Senate was to strike out all the carefully prepared legislative provisions simplifying the mode of collecting customs duties, and the provisions for the trial of customs cases. The tariff commission proposed to repeal the _ad valorem_ duty on wool, and leave on it only the specific duty of ten and twelve cents a pound. The chairman of the tariff commission was himself the president or agent of the woolen manufacturers and made the report. The manufacturers of woolens, however, were dissatisfied, and demanded an entire change in the cla.s.sification of woolens, and, on some important grades, a large increase of rates, but insisted upon a reduction of the duty on wool.

I hoped when the bill pa.s.sed the Senate that a conference committee would amend it, but, unfortunately Senators Bayard and Beck withdrew from the conference and the Senate was represented by Senators Morrill, Aldrich and Sherman. My colleagues on the conference were part of the majority in the Senate, and favored the bill, and the House conferees seemed concerned chiefly in getting some bill of relief, some reduction of taxes, before the close of the session.

On the 13th of March, 1883, in reply to a question of a correspondent whether I had any objection to having my views reported, I said:

"No, sir; the contest is now over, and I see no reason why the merits and demerits of the law should not be stated. I worked at it with the finance committee for three months, to the exclusion of other business. Taken as a whole, I think the law will do a great deal of good and some harm. The great body of it is wise and just, but it contains some serious defects. The metallic and wool schedules are unequal and unjust. The great merit of the bill is that it reduces taxes. I would not have voted for it, if any other way had been open to reduce taxes.

"Was there any urgent necessity for reducing taxes?"

"Yes. The demand for a reduction of taxes was general, and, in respect to some taxes, pressing and imperative. The failure of Congress to reduce taxes was one of the chief causes of the defeat of the Republican party last fall, though it was not really the fault of our party. The bill was talked to death by Democratic Senators. The taxes levied by the United States are not oppressive, but they are excessive. They tempt extravagance. We could not go home without reducing the internal taxes. What I want you to emphasize is, that the tariff sections could not have pa.s.sed in their present shape but for their connection with the internal revenue sections. We could not separate them; therefore, though I voted against the tariff sections of the Senate bill, I felt constrained to vote for the bill as a whole."

"Is not the bill, as it pa.s.sed, substantially the bill of the tariff commission?"

"No, sir; the tariff commission had nothing to do with internal taxes. The internal revenue sections were in the House bill of last session, and were then amended by the Senate. That bill gave the Senate jurisdiction of the subject. It was only under cover of amendment to that bill that the Senate could pa.s.s a tariff. At the beginning of this session, the finance committee of the Senate had before it the tariff commission report, which was an admirable and harmonious plan for a complete law fixing the rates of duty on all kinds of imported merchandise, and, what was better, an admirable revision of the laws for the collection of duties and for the trial of customs cases. If the committee had adopted this report, and even had reduced the rates of duty proposed by the commission, but preserved the harmony and symmetry of the plan, we would have had a better tariff law than has existed in this country. But, instead of this, the committee unduly reduced the duties on iron and steel, and raised the duties on cotton and woolen manufactures, in some cases higher than the old tariff. The committee restored nearly all the inequalities and incongruities of the old tariff, and yielded to local demands and local interests to an extent that destroyed all symmetry or harmony. But still the bill reported to the Senate was a pa.s.sable tariff except as to iron and wool; but it was not in any respect an improvement on the tariff commission report."

Senator Morrill, in a long letter to the New York "Tribune" of the date of April 28, 1883, made a reply to my objections to the tariff amendment, but it did not change my opinion, and now, after the lapse of many years, I am still of the same opinion. The tariff act of 1883 laid the foundation for all the tariff complications since that time.

During this session a bill to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States was reported by my colleague, Mr. Pendleton, and was made the subject of an interesting debate in the Senate, which continued most of the month of December, 1882. It was referred to the committee on reform in the civil service in the House of Representatives, was promptly reported, and, after a brief debate, pa.s.sed that body and was approved by the President. This important measure provided for a nonpartisan civil service commission composed of three persons, and defined their duties. It withdrew from party politics the great body of the employees of the government. Though not always wisely executed it has been the basis of reforms in the civil service, and, with some amendments to promote its efficiency, is now in successful operation.

The tendency of all parties is to include under civil service rules all employments in the executive branch of the government, except those that, by the const.i.tution, are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If to this should be added an imperative provision of law forbidding any Member of Congress from applying for the appointment of any person to an executive office, the abuses of the old system would be corrected and the separate departments of the government would be independent of each other. My experience as an executive officer convinced me that such a mandatory provision would not only break up the "spoils system," but would relieve the President and heads of departments, as well as Members of Congress, from much of the friction that often disturbs them in the discharge of their separate duties.

Before I returned home in the spring of 1883, the nomination of a candidate for governor was being canva.s.sed in the press and among the people of Ohio. My name, among others, was mentioned, but I did not take any interest in the suggestion of my nomination, supposing it was a pa.s.sing thought that, upon reflection, would be abandoned. No one could then foresee how the legislature to be elected in the fall would stand politically, and my friends would hardly risk the loss of a Republican Senator, through my resignation, to compliment me with an election as governor.

I returned to Ohio early in April, and, as usual, paid my respects to the general a.s.sembly, then in session at Columbus. I was kindly received and expressed my thanks as follows:

"Gentlemen of the general a.s.sembly, I thank you for this hearty reception. In this house of speechmakers I will be pardoned for not making an address. You are the representatives of the people, and to you I owe my first allegiance, doing as best I can the will of the people of Ohio and of the United States, without respect to party, creed or condition. In the closing hours of your session you are too much engaged for me to indulge in any remarks, and so I bid you good-bye. Again, gentlemen, I return my warmest thanks."

I was received in the same manner in the senate. I found a much stronger feeling in favor of my nomination for governor than I expected. I therefore stated definitely that I could not be a candidate, and a few days afterwards, in reply to an editor who was ent.i.tled to a frank answer, as to whether my name was to be at the head of the state ticket, I said:

"I am not a candidate, never have been, and could not accept the gubernatorial nomination under any circ.u.mstances. It is out of the question. There was a manifest disposition at one time to run me _nolens volens_, but my friends now understand my position fully, and will not press the point. It is as though the possibility had never been suggested, and the less said about it the better."

This declaration was variously regarded by the newspapers; by one as a proclamation of a panic, by another as a doubt of success, by another as a selfish desire to hold on to a better office, neither of which was true. While I did not wish the nomination, I would have felt it my duty to accept it if the convention had determined that my acceptance was necessary for success. Upon my return to Mansfield in May, in an interview with a reporter, I mentioned several able men in the state who were well qualified for that office. I spoke of Judge Foraker as one who would make an acceptable candidate. I did not then know him personally, but from what I had heard of him I preferred him to any other person named. He was young, active, eloquent and would make a good canva.s.s. At that time there was a movement to push the nomination of Thurman and Sherman as competing candidates. The state convention was approaching and I had been invited to attend. I went to Columbus on the 5th of June. All sorts of rumors were being circulated. The general trend of them was thus stated by a leading Republican journal:

"The question is being quietly discussed by a number of prominent Republicans, and the movement promises to a.s.sume such proportions before the day of the convention, that it will result in the nomination of Senator Sherman for governor. It has been stated that Mr. Sherman would not accept, yet one of the most prominent of Ohio Republicans says, with emphasis: 'Mr. John Sherman has been honored for the last thirty years by the Republican party, and he could not afford to decline the nomination, and he would not.' The great interest manifested throughout the country in Ohio, is such that it is deemed wise, owing to existing circ.u.mstances, to insist on the nomination of Mr. Sherman, thereby avoiding all contest in the convention, and giving a national prominence to the campaign. Should this be done, as it is now believed that it will be, the nomination of ex-Senator Thurman, by the Democrats, would be a foregone conclusion."

As the delegates arrived it was apparent that there was a general desire that I should be nominated, and several delegations came to my room to urge me to accept. Among others who came to me were Messrs. Jones, Johnson and Fa.s.sett, of the Mahoning county delegation.

After some general conversation they said that in order that they might act with a full knowledge of the situation, and with reference to the best interests of the party, they desired to ask me if I was or would be a candidate for the nomination of governor. I answered directly, and plainly, that I was not a candidate; would not and could not become one. I said I was sorry that matters had shaped themselves as they had, as I was put in the position of refusing to obey the call of my party, that I believed it was the place of every man to take any responsibility that could be put upon him, but that, in my case, my duty was in another direction, that I thought my place then was in the Senate, and that the possible danger of a Democratic successor there ought to be avoided.

The convention met on the morning after my arrival, and I was selected as chairman. I was not aware until I arrived in Columbus that I was to preside over the convention, but, as customary on taking the chair, I made an address thanking the convention for the honor conferred upon me, briefly reviewed the history of the Republican party, spoke of the tariff, the liquor and other questions which would have to be met in the canva.s.s, and appealed to all present to unite and use their utmost endeavors for success.

Notwithstanding my repeated statements that I could not accept the nomination, J. M. Dalzell arose from the ranks of the delegation from his district, in the rear part of the hall, and, mounting his seat, made an enthusiastic speech nominating me for governor. I declined in the following words:

"Gentlemen of the Convention:--I have not been insensible to the desire of many gentlemen and personal friends to put my name in nomination for governor. But let me say frankly but firmly that I cannot be your candidate. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I desire your attention for a few moments, to state my reasons for declining the nomination. I have been under so many obligations to the Republican party of Ohio, that, if this was merely a matter of personal interest or feeling, I would say 'yes!' But, I cannot accept this nomination. First, because you have charged me with the duty of a Member of the Senate of the United States; and I could not surrender that, with my sense of what is just, not only to the people of Ohio, but to the people of the United States.

And I will say that that view is shared by many of my a.s.sociates in the Senate. They deprecate any movement of this kind on account of the condition of affairs there. But, aside from that, there is one consideration that would prevent me from becoming a candidate now. When early applied to on this subject, I stated to the gentlemen whose names were mentioned to come before this convention, that I was not a candidate and would not be a candidate. I could not accept your nomination without a feeling of personal dishonor, and that you certainly do not wish to bring upon me. Although all of you, my Republican friends, would know I was sincere in that declaration, yet the censorious world at large would say that I had not acted a manly part; I could not bear an imputation of that kind. So that, even if the nomination were presented to me with a unanimous feeling in this convention, yet I would feel bound, by a feeling of personal honor, which is the higher law, especially among Republicans, to decline."

The convention then nominated Joseph R. Foraker for governor by acclamation. He was introduced to the convention and made a long and pleasant address. His speech was well received and he was often interrupted with cheers. He was then about thirty-seven years old, and was but little known throughout the state, but his appearance, manner, and address satisfied the convention and he was at once recognized as a man of ability, who would take and hold a prominent place in the political history of the state. He had enlisted as a boy at Camp Dennison at the early age of sixteen, and rapidly rose through the military grades until, at Mission Ridge, he commanded two companies and led them over the ridge into the enemy's works, being the first man of his regiment over the ridge. He was with Sherman on his celebrated march to the sea.

My brother spoke of him in the highest terms of praise. After the war he entered college at Delaware, rapidly advanced through college and completed his study of law, and at an early age was elected to a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati.

He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will, in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that election.

From the beginning of this canva.s.s it was known that the result was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to the people. The const.i.tution of Ohio declares that "no license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this state, but the general a.s.sembly may, by law, provide against evils resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during this canva.s.s that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio for thirty years had, from time to time, pa.s.sed laws to prevent the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but without effect. The const.i.tution so limited the powers of the general a.s.sembly that it could only pa.s.s prohibitory and punitive laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors.

Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years, free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in favor of an amendment to the const.i.tution which would give the general a.s.sembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from the restraint of the old const.i.tution. The legislature, instead of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and pa.s.sed what was known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law unconst.i.tutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of the const.i.tution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican party appeared before the people of the state when they were discontented alike with the action of the general a.s.sembly and of Congress for its failure to reduce taxes, and so we were badly beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man.

The general a.s.sembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two proposed amendments to the const.i.tution, one providing for full legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer.

This law was held to be const.i.tutional by the supreme court of Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans, mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license, they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with h.e.l.l, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer, and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canva.s.s. The farmers of Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replied that it was true that in the recent tariff act there was a reduction of the duty on wool of about two cents a pound, but that I had opposed it, and did all I could to prevent it, but it was carried by the united vote of the Democratic party in both Houses, aided by a few Republican Senators and Members from New England. I denounced the hypocrisy of those who a.s.sailed me, whose representatives voted for even a greater reduction, and some of them for free wool. To all this they answered: "Did you not vote for the bill on its pa.s.sage?"

I had to say yes, but gave the reasons why, as already stated. No doubt, in spite of the unfairness of this accusation, it had some adverse influence on the election.

This canva.s.s was in many respects a peculiar one. Foraker was active and spoke in nearly every county in the state, and gave general satisfaction, but Hoadley was equally able and, having been until recently a Republican, could not be held responsible for the course of the Democratic party during and since the war. Both the candidates for governor being from Cincinnati, the struggle there was more intense than usual, and was made to turn on the liquor question more than on general politics. When I was asked about the German vote, I said:

"The Germans are, generally speaking, good Republicans, and are really a temperate people. They have always claimed to be willing to pay a tax on the sale of beer and other kinds of liquor. The Scott bill is very moderate--more so than the bills that are being pa.s.sed in other states. If they mean what they say, I don't think there will be any trouble about electing our ticket."

Immediately after the convention, in company with my townsmen, George F. Carpenter, Henry C. Hedges and M. Hammond, I started on a trip to Helena, Montana. The object was simply recreation and sight-seeing. We stopped on the way at Chicago, St. Paul and other points. Everywhere we went we met interviewers who wanted to know about the Ohio convention and politics in general, but I preferred to talk about the great northwest. Interviews were sought by reporters and were fully given and printed in local papers. Hedges and Carpenter were intelligent gentlemen interested, like myself, in Chicago and St. Paul, and more familiar than I was with the local geography of Wisconsin and Minnesota. With their a.s.sistance I became conversant with the topography and productions of these states. I was especially impressed with the growth of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I had purchased, in connection with Mr. Cullen, some years before, forty acres of land adjoining St. Paul. Upon my arrival on this trip he showed me the land, worth then more thousands than the hundreds we paid for it. This was but a specimen of the abnormal growth of these sister cities, destined, in some not far distant day, to be a single city. From St. Paul, we went to Helena, then the terminus of the Northern Pacific railroad, and the newly made capital of Montana. This was the second time I had visited this territory, now a state. I studied, as well as I could, its wonderful resources, both mineral and agricultural. It is properly named Montana. Its mountains are not only filled with minerals of every grade from gold to iron, but they contain, more than any other part of the country, the freaks of nature and in bolder form, such as geysers, sink pots, mountain lakes, deep ravines, and they are surrounded by vast valleys and plains, the native home of the buffalo, now the feeding ground of vast droves of horses, herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep.

The strangely varied surface of the different states of the Union would, in case of war with any power, enable us, from our own soil and from the riches buried under it, to support and maintain our population. Already more than nine-tenths of the articles needed for life and luxury in the United States are the product of the industry of our countrymen. The remaining tenth consists mainly of tea, coffee and other tropical or semi-tropical productions, the products of nations with whom we can have no occasion for war.

Articles of luxury and virtu are mainly the production of European nations.

Our partial state of isolation is our greatest strength, our varied resources and productions are our greatest wealth, and unity in national matters, independence in local matters, are the central ideas of our system of government.

On our return we stopped for a day at Bismarck, Dakota, then a scattered village, but already putting on airs as the prospective capital. We pa.s.sed through St. Paul, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids and Detroit on our way to Mansfield. This trip, leisurely taken, occupied about one month.

During the remainder of the summer, until the canva.s.s commenced, I had a period of rest and recuperation. It was interrupted only by the necessity of making some preparation for the canva.s.s, which it was understood was to commence on the 25th of August. I carefully dictated my opening speech, which was delivered at Findlay on that day to a large audience. It was printed and circulated, but most of the points discussed have been settled by the march of time.

Some of them it may be of interest to recall. I contrasted the condition of Findlay then to Findlay when I first saw it, but if the contrast was to be made now it would be more striking. I described the formation and history of parties as they then existed, and a.s.sumed that as Hoadley, who had been an Abolitionist or Republican and a supporter of the war, was then the Democratic candidate for governor, and that as Ewing and Bookwalter, the latest Democratic candidates for governor, had also been Republicans, we could a.s.sume this as a confession that the measures of the Republican party were right. I said: "All these distinguished and able gentlemen have been Republican partisans, as I have; and Judge Hoadley has, I think, been rather more free in his denunciation of the Democratic party than I have. To the extent, therefore, of acquiescence in the great issues that have divided us in the past, _the Democratic party concedes that we were right_."

I then presented the liquor question and the Scott law. I defended the tax imposed by this law as a wise tax, the principle of which had been adopted in most of the states and in the chief countries of Europe. Hoadley, instead of meeting this argument fairly, attacked the proposed amendments to the const.i.tution prohibiting the sale of spirits and beer as a part of the creed of the Republican party, instead of a mere reference to the people of a disputed policy. This was the display of the skill of the trained lawyer to evade the real issue of the "Scott" bill. He treated the reduction of the duty on wool with the same dexterity, charging it upon the Republican party, when he knew that every Democratic vote had been cast for it, and for even a greater reduction, and that nearly every Republican vote had been cast against it. The entire canva.s.s of Hoadley was an ingenious evasion of the real issues, and in its want of frankness and fairness was in marked contrast with the speeches of Foraker.