Reminiscences of sixty years in public affairs

REMINISCENCES

OF

SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS
VOLUME II

Reminiscences of

in Public Affairs

by George S. Boutwell

Governor of Massachusetts, 1851—1852
Representative in Congress, 1863—1869
Secretary of the Treasury, 1869—1873
Senator from Massachusetts, 1873-1877
etc., etc.

Volume Two

New York

McGlure, Phillips & Co
Mcmii

Copyright, 1902, by
McClure, Phillips & Co.

Published May, ipO2. N.

CONTENTS

Page

I

36

55

96

125

XXVIII Service in Congress ....

XXIX Incidents in the Civil War

XXX The Amendments to the Constitution .

XXXI Investigations Following the Civil War

XXXII Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

XXXIII The Treasury Department in 1869 .

XXXIV The Mint Bill and the "Crime of 1873"
XXXV Black Friday— September 24, 1869

XXXVI An Historic Sale of United States Bonds in

England 183

XXXVII General Grant's Administration . . . 203

XXXVIII General Grant as a Statesman .

XXXIX Reminiscences of Public Men .

XL Blaine and Conkling and the Republican Con-
vention of 1880 .....

XLI From 1875 to 1895

XLII The Last of the Ocean Slave Traders

XLIII Mr. Lincoln as an Historical Personage

XLIV Speech on Columbus .....

XLV Imperialism as a Public Policy
INDEX

164

225
237

260
277
289
300
3H
323
347

REMINISCENCES

OF

SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS
VOLUME II

XXVIII

SERVICE IN CONGRESS

MY election to Congress in 1862 was contested by Judge
Benjamin F. Thomas, who was then a Republican
member from the Norfolk district. The re-district-
ing of the State brought Thomas and Train into the same
district. I was nominated by the Republican Convention,
and Thomas then became the candidate of the " People's
Party, '' and at the election he was supported by the Demo-
crats. His course in the Thirty-seventh Congress on the
various projects for compromise had alienated many Re-
publicans, and it had brought to him the support of many
Democrats. My active radicalism had alienated the con-
servative Republicans. As a consequence, my majority
reached only about 1,400 while in the subsequent elections,
1864-66-68 the majorities ranged from five to seven thou-
sand.

Among the new members who were elected to the Thirty-
eighth Congress and who attained distinction subsequently,
were Garfield, Elaine and Allison. Wilson, of Iowa, had
been in the Thirty-seventh Congress and Henry Winter
Davis had been a member at an earlier period. Mr. Conk-

2 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ling was a member of the Thirty-seventh Congress, but
he was defeated by his townsman Francis Kernan under
the influence of the reactionary wave which moved over
the North in 1862. At that time Mr. Lincoln had lost
ground with the people. The war had not been prose-
cuted successfully, the expenses were enormous, taxes were
heavy, multitudes of families were in grief, and the
prospects of peace through victory were very dim. The
Democrats in the House became confident and aggres-
sive.

Alexander Long, of Ohio, made a speech so tainted with
sympathy for the rebels that Speaker Col fax came down
from the chair and moved a resolution of censure. Har-
ris, of Maryland, in the debate upon the resolution, made
a speech much more offensive than that of Long. As a con-
sequence, the censure was applied to both gentlemen and
as a further consequence, the friends of the South be-
came more guarded in expressions of sympathy. It is true
also, that there were many Democrats who did not sym-
pathize with Harris, Long, and Pendleton. Voorhees of
Indiana was also an active sympathizer with the South. I
recollect that in the Thirty-eighth or Thirty-ninth Con-
gress he made a violent attack upon Mr. Lincoln, and
the Republican Party. The House was in committee, and
I was in the chair. Consequently I listened attentively
to the speech. It was carefully prepared and modeled ap-
parently upon Junius and Burke — a model which time has de-
stroyed.

Of the members of the House during the war period,
Henry Winter Davis was the most accomplished speaker.
Mr. Davis' head was a study. In front it was not only in-
tellectual, it was classical — a model for an artist. The back
of his head was that of a prize fighter, and he combined the
scholar and gentleman with the pugilist. His courage was

SERVICE IN CONGRESS

I constitutional and he was ready to make good his positions
whether by argument or blows. His speeches in the deliv-
ery were very attractive. His best speech, as I recall his
efforts, was a speech in defence of Admiral Dupont. That
speech involved an attack upon the Navy Department. Alex-
ander H. Rice, of Massachusetts, was the chairman of the
Naval Committee. He appeared for the Navy Department
in an able defence. Mr. Rice's abilities were not of the
highest order, but his style was polished, and he was
thoroughly equipped for the defence. He had the Navy
Department behind him, and a department usually has
a plausible reason or excuse for anything that it
does.

An estimate of Mr. Davis' style as a writer and his
quality as an orator may be gained from a speech en-
titled : — " Reasons for Refusing to Part Company with
the South," which he delivered in February, 1861, and
in which he set forth the condition of the country as
it then appeared to him. These extracts give some sup-
port to the opinion entertained by many that Mr. Da-
vis was the leading political orator of the Civil War
period :

"We are at the end of the insane revel of partisan li-
cense, which, for thirty years, has, in the United States,
worn the mask of government. We are about to close the
masquerade by the dance of death. The nations of the world
look anxiously to see if the people, ere they tread that meas-
ure, will come to themselves.

" Yet in the early youth of our national life we are already
exhausted by premature excesses. The corruption of our
political maxims has relaxed the tone of public morals and
degraded the public authorities from terror to the accom-
plices of evil-doers. Platforms for fools — plunder for thieves
— offices for service — power for ambition — unity in these

4 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

essentials — diversity in the immaterial matters of policy and
legislation — charity for every frailty — the voice of the people
is the voice of God — these maxims have sunk into the public
mind; have presided at the administration of public affairs,
have almost effaced the very idea of public duty. The Gov-
ernment under their disastrous influence has gradually
ceased to fertilize the fields of domestic and useful legis-
lation, and pours itself, like an impetuous torrent, along the
barren ravine of party and sectional strife. It has been
shorn of every prerogative that wore the austere aspect of
authority and power.

" The consequence of this demoralization is that States,
without regard to the Federal Government, assume to stand
face to face and wage their own quarrels, to adjust their
own difficulties, to impute to each other every wrong, to
insist that individual States shall remedy every grievance,
and they denounce failure to do so as cause of civil war
between the States: and as if the Constitution were silent
and dead and the power of the Union utterly inadequate to
keep the peace between them, unconstitutional commission-
ers flit from State to State, or assemble at the national capital
to counsel peace or instigate war. Sir, these are the causes
which lie at the bottom of the present dangers. These causes
which have rendered them possible and made them serious,
must be removed before they can ever be permanently cured.
They shake the fabric of our National Government. It is to
this fearful demoralization of the Government and the people
that we must ascribe the disastrous defections which now
perplex us with the fear of change in all that constituted our
greatness. The operation of the Government has been with-
drawn from the great public interests, in order that com-
peting parties might not be embarrassed in the struggle for
power by diversities of opinion upon questions of policy: and
the public mind, in that struggle, has been exclusively turned

SERVICE IN CONGRESS 5

on the slavery question, which no interest required to be
touched by any department of this Government. On that
subject there are widely marked diversities of opinion and
interest in the different portions of the Confederacy, with
few mediating influences to soften the collision. In the
struggle for party power, the two great regions of the coun-
try have been brought face to face upon the most dangerous
of all subjects of agitation. The authority of the Govern-
ment was relaxed just when its power was about to be as-
sailed; and the people, emancipated from every control and
their passions inflamed by the fierce struggle for the Presi-
dency, were the easy prey of revolutionary audacity.

" Within two months after a formal, peaceful, regular
election of the chief magistrate of the United States, in which
the whole body of the people of every State competed with
zeal for the prize, without any new event intervening, with-
out any new grievances alleged, without any new menaces
having been made, we have seen, in the short course of one
month, a small portion of the population of six States tran-
scend the bounds at a single leap at once of the State and the
national constitutions; usurp the extraordinary prerogative
of repealing the supreme law of the land; exclude the great
mass of their fellow-citizens from the protection of the Con-
stitution ; declare themselves emancipated from the obligations
which the Constitution pronounces to be supreme over them
and over their laws; arrogate to themselves all the preroga-
tives of independent power; rescind the acts of cession of
the public property ; occupy the public offices ; seize the fort-
resses of the United States confided to the faith of the
people among whom they were placed; embezzle the public
arms concentrated there for the defence of the United States ;
array thousands of men in arms against the United States;
and actually wage war on the Union by besieging two of
their fortresses and firing on a vessel bearing, under the

6 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

flag of the United States, reinforcements and provisions to
one of them. The very boundaries of right and wrong seem
obliterated when we see a Cabinet minister engaged for
months in deliberately changing the distribution of public
arms to places in the hands of those about to resist the
public authority, so as to place within their grasp means
of waging war against the United States greater than they
ever used against a foreign foe; and another Cabinet minis-
ter, still holding his commission under the authority of the
United States, still a confidential adviser of the President, still
bound by his oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, himself a commissioner from his own State to an-
other of the United States for the purpose of organizing and
extending another part of the same great scheme of rebellion;
and the doom of the Republic seems sealed when the Presi-
dent, surrounded by such ministers, permits, without rebuke,
the Government to be betrayed, neglects the solemn warn-
ing of the first soldier of the age, till almost every fort
is a prey to domestic treason, and accepts assurances of
peace in • his time at the expense of leaving the national
honor unguarded. His message gives aid and comfort to
the enemies of the Union, by avowing his inability to main-
tain its integrity; and, paralyzed and stupefied, he stands
amid the crash of the falling Republic, still muttering, ' Not
in my time, not in my time ; after me the deluge ! ' :

Soon after Mr. Colfax's election as speaker of the Thirty-
eighth Congress, I met him in a restaurant. He expressed
surprise that he had not heard from me in regard to a place
upon a committee. I said that the subject did not occupy my
thoughts — that I had work enough whether I was upon a
committee or not. He expressed himself as disturbed by
the fact that he could not give me as good a place as he
wished to give me. I tried to relieve his mind upon that
point. In all my legislative experience I never made any

SERVICE IN CONGRESS 7

suggestion as to committee work. Mr. Colfax placed me
upon the Judiciary Committee, which, in the end, was the
best place to which I could have been assigned.

Mr. Colfax was made of consequence in the country by
the newspapers, and he was ruined by his timidity. If he
lad admitted that he was an owner of stock in the Credit
[obilier Company, not much could have been made against
dm. His denials and explanations, which were either false
>r disingenuous, and his final admission of a fact which im-
plied that he had been in the receipt of a quarterly payment
from a post-office contractor, completed his ruin. There
was a time when the country over-estimated his ability. He
was a genial, kind man, with social qualities and an abund-
ance of information in reference to men in the United States
and to recent and passing politics. He had newspaper knowl-
edge and aptitude for gathering what may be called infor-
mation as distinguished from learning. He was a victim to
two passions or purposes in life, that are in a degree incon-
sistent— public life and money-making. Instances there have
been of success, but I have never known a case where a
public man has not suffered in reputation by the knowl-
edge that he had accumulated a fortune while he was en-
gaged in the public service. As a speaker of the House,
Colfax was agreeable and popular, but he lacked in discipline.
His rule was lax, and there can be no doubt that from the
commencement of his administration there had been a de-
cline in what may be termed the morale of the House. Some-
thing of its reputation for dignity and decorum had been
lost.

A young man from New York, Mr. Chanler, made a speech
in the Thirty-eighth or Thirty-ninth Congress, which seemed
to favor the Confederacy. This phase of his speech was due
to the fact that he was a transcendental State Rights advocate.
He did not believe in secession, as a wise and proper policy,

8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

but he did believe in the right of a State to consult itself as to
its continuance in the Union. Chanler was not a strong man
and he owed his election, probably, to his connection with
the Astor family. He failed to make the political distinction
clear to the mind of the House and he was followed by
General Schenck in a severe speech. Chanler explained and
asserted that he was no secessionist — that he was for the
Union — that he had served with the New York Seventh —
and that he had made a tender to General Dix of service on
his staff, but that he had not received a reply from General
Dix.

Thereupon S. S. Cox, who then represented a district in
Ohio, made a jocose reply to Schenck and a like defence of
Chanler and ended with the remark that he hoped his " col-
league regretted having been guilty of a groundless attack
upon a soldier of the Republic." I went over to Cox to
congratulate him upon his defence of Chanler, and in reply
Cox said : " The funniest part of it is that Chanler took it
all in earnest and came to my seat and thanked me for
my speech."

Cox had no malice in his nature and there was always a
doubt whether he had any sincerity in his politics. He had
no sympathy with the rebellion, and, generally, he voted ap-
propriations for the army and the navy. He was sincere in
his personal friendships, and his friendships were not upon
party lines. In his political action he seemed more anxious
to annoy his opponents than to extinguish them. His
speeches were short, pointed, and entertaining. He was a
favorite with the House, but his influence upon its action
was very slight. Those who acquire and retain power are
the earnest and persistent men. When Cox had made his
speech and expended his jokes he was content. The fate of
a measure did not much disturb or even concern him.

Cox was a party to an affair in the House which illustrated

SERVICE IN CONGRESS 9

the characteristics of Thaddeus Stevens, or " Old Thad," as
he was called. Late in the war, or soon after its close, Mr.
Stevens introduced a bill to appropriate $800,000 to reim-
burse the State of Pennsylvania for expenses incurred in
repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, of which
Stevens was chairman. Without much delay and before the
holidays, Stevens reported the bill. There was some debate,
in which my colleague, Mr. Dawes, took part against the
bill. Finally, the House postponed the bill till after the holi-
days. During the recess I examined the question by mak-
ing inquiries at the War and Treasury departments, where
I found that authority existed for reimbursing States for all
expenditures actually made and for the payment of all troops
that had been mustered into the service. Thus the real pur-
pose of the bill was apparent. During the Antietam and
Gettysburg campaigns bodies of troops had been organized
for defence and expenses had been incurred by towns and
counties, but no actual service had been performed. It was
intended by the appropriation to provide for the payment of
these expenses. I prepared a brief and gave it to Mr. Dawes,
who used it in the debate. When it became apparent that the
bill would be lost, Cox rose and moved to insert after the
word Pennsylvania, the words Maryland, West Virginia,
Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and the
Territory of New Mexico. Also to strike out $800,000 and
insert ten million dollars. These amendments brought to
the support of the measure the members from all those States,
and the bill was passed. The Senate never acted upon it.
1 was indignant at the action of the House, and I said to
Stevens, whose seat was near to mine : " This is the most
outrageous thing that I have seen on the floor of the House"
Stevens doubled his fist but not in anger, shook it in my face
and said : " You rascal, if you had allowed me to have my

io SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

rights I should not have been compelled to make a corrupt
bargain in order to get them." Thus he admitted his ar-
rangement with Cox and the character of it, and laid the
responsibility upon me.

Mr. Stevens was a tyrant in his rule as leader of the
House. He was at once able, bold and unscrupulous. He
was an anti-slavery man, a friend to temperance and an
earnest supporter of the public school system, and he would
not have hesitated to promote those objects by arrange-
ments with friends or enemies. He was unselfish in personal
matters, but his public policy regarded the State of Penn-
sylvania, and the Republican Party. The more experienced
members of the House avoided controversy with Stevens.
First and last many a new member was extinguished by his
sarcastic thrusts. As for himself no one could terrorize
him. I recall an occasion near the close of a session, when,
as it was important to get a bill out of the Committee of the
Whole, he remained upon his feet or upon his one foot and
assailed every member who proposed an amendment. Some-
times his remarks were personal and sometimes they were
aimed at the member's State. In a few minutes he cowed
the House, and secured the adoption of his motion for the
committee to rise and report the bill to the House.

He must have been a very good lawyer. The impeach-
ment article which received the best support was from his
pen. He possessed wit, sarcasm and irony in every form.
In public all these weapons were poisoned, but in private he
was usually genial. On one occasion Judge Olin of New
York was speaking and in his excitement he walked down
and up the aisle passing Stevens' seat. At length Stevens
said : " Olin; do you expect to get mileage for this speech ? "

During the controversy with Andrew Johnson, Thayer,
of Pennsylvania became excited upon a matter of no con-
sequence, denounced the report of a committee, and in the

SERVICE IN CONGRESS n

course of his remarks said : " They ask us to go it blind."
Judge Hale, of New York, with an innocent expression, said
he would like to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania
inform the House as to the meaning of the phrase " go it
blind." Stevens said at once : " It means following Ray-
mond." The pertinency of the hit was in the circumstance
that Raymond was supporting Johnson, and that Hale was
following Raymond, not from conviction but for the reason
that they had been classmates in college.

Robert S. Hale was a man of large ability and a success-
ful lawyer. During his term in Congress he was a prominent
candidate for a seat upon the bench of the Court of Appeals
for the State of New York. At a critical moment he ap-
peared in the House in the role of a reformer and pro-
ceeded to arraign members for their action in regard to the
measure known as the " salary grab." The debate showed
that Hale was involved in the business to such an extent
that he lost his standing in the House and imperiled his
chance of obtaining a seat upon the bench of the Court of
Appeals.

The bill for the increase of the salaries of public officers
was a proper bill, with the single exception that it should
have been prospective as to the members of Congress. It
added $2,500 to the annual salary of the Congressman or
$5,000 for a term. The temptation to give the benefit of the
increase to the members of the then existing House was
too strong for their judgment and virtue. When, however,
the indignation of the people was manifested, more than a
majority of the members of each House sought refuge in a
variety of subterfuges. Some neglected to collect the in-
crease, others who had received the added sum, returned it
to the Treasury upon a variety of pretexts. Some endowed
schools or libraries, and a minority received what the law
allowed them and upon an assertion of their right to receive

12 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

it. Outside of the criminal classes there has but seldom
been a more melancholy exhibition of the weakness of human
nature. The members seemed not to realize that the wrong
was in the votes for which those members were alone re-
sponsible who had sustained the bill, and that the acceptance
of the salary which the law allowed was not only a right
but a duty. At the end those members who took the salary
and defended their acts enjoyed the larger share of public
respect. Indeed, not one of the shufflers gained anything
by the course that he had pursued. The public reasoned,
and reasoned justly that they would have kept the money if
they had dared to do so.

Similar conduct ruined many of the members of Con-
gress who were beneficiaries of the Credit Mobilier scheme.
Mr. Samuel Hooper was a large holder of the stock, but
being a man of fortune the public accepted that fact as a
defence against the suggestion that the stock had been placed
in his hands for the purpose of influencing his action as a
member of Congress. With others the case was different.
Many were poor men. They had paid no money for the
stock. Mr. Ames made the subscriptions, carried the stocks,
and turned over the profits to those who had paid nothing
and had risked nothing. When the investigation was threat-
ened, many of those who were involved ran to shelter under
a variety of excuses and some of them hoped to escape
by the aid of falsehood which ripened into perjury when
the investigation was made. A few admitted ownership
and asserted their right to ownership. Those men escaped
with but little loss of prestige. Of the others, some retained
their hold upon public office and some were advanced to
higher places, but they carried always the smell of the smoke
of corruption upon their garments.

Judge Hale defended Mr. Colfax, but at the end his condi-
tion was worse than at the beginning.

SERVICE IN CONGRESS 13

There is something of error in our public policy. With a
few exceptions the salaries of public officers are too low —

many cases they are meager. This fact furnishes a pre-
text for efforts to make money while in the public service.
All these efforts are adverse to the public interests and often
the proceedings are tainted with corruption. A member of
Congress ought to receive $7,500 and a Cabinet officer cannot
live in a manner corresponding to his station upon less than
$15,000. Adequate salaries would not prevent speculation
on the part of public officers, but they could not offer as an
excuse for their acts the meager salaries allowed by the
government. From the " salary grab '* bill there were two
good results. The President's salary was increased to $50,-

000 and the justices of the Supreme Court received $10,000
instead of $6,000 per annum. It has not been any part of
my purpose in what I have said in favor of an increase of
salaries to furnish means for campaign expenses by candi-
dates either before or after nominations have been made.

If the statements are trustworthy that have been made
publicly in recent years the conclusion cannot be avoided
that money is used in elections for corrupt purposes — some-
times to secure nominations and sometimes to secure elec-
tions, when nominations have been made. There are proper
uses for money in political contests, but candidates should
not be required to make contributions in return for sup-
port. If the statements now made frequently and boldly,
are truthful statements, then we are moving towards a
condition of affairs when the offices of government will be
divided between rich men and men who will seek office for
the purpose of becoming rich. A general condition cannot
be proved by the experiences of individuals, but the ex-
periences of individuals may indicate a general condition.

1 cannot doubt that an unwholesome change in the use of
money in elections has taken place in the last fifty years. A

14 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

gentleman now living (1901), who was a member of the Na-
tional Committee of the Democratic Party in the year 1856 is
my authority for the statement that the total sum of money at
the command of the committee in the campaign for Mr.
Buchanan was less than twenty-five thousand dollars.

I mention my own experience and in the belief that it
was not exceptional. From 1840 to 1850 I was the candidate
of the Democratic Party of Groton for representative of the
town in the general court. The party in the town met its
moderate expenses by voluntary contributions. I contributed
with others, but never upon the ground that I was a candi-
date. We paid our local expenses. We paid nothing for
expenses elsewhere, and we did not receive anything from
outside sources. In 1844-46 and 1848 I was the candidate of
the Democratic Party for the National House of Representa-
tives. I canvassed the district at my own charge. I did
not make any contribution to any one for any purpose, and
I did not receive financial aid from any source. The subject
was never mentioned to me or by me in conversation or
correspondence with any one. Again, I may say the sub-
ject was not mentioned in my canvass for the office of Gover-
nor in the years 1849-1850 and 1851.

In 1862 I became the candidate of the Republican Party for
a seat in Congress. After my nomination the District Com-
mittee asked me for a contribution of one hundred dollars.
I met their request. The request was repeated and answered
in 1864, 1866 and 1868. On one occasion I received a re-
turn of forty-two dollars with a statement that the full
amount of my contribution had not been expended.

While General Butler was in the army, Mr. James Brooks,
a member from the city of New York, charged him, in an
elaborate speech, with having taken about fifty thousand dol-
lars from a bank in New Orleans, and appropriated the same
to his own use. General Butler was then at Willard's Hotel.

SERVICE IN CONGRESS 15

That evening I called upon Butler, and said to him that if
'he had any answer to the charge, I would reply the next
day. I had secured the floor through Mr. Stevens, who moved
the adjournment upon a private understanding that he would
yield to me in case I wished to reply. As Butler lived in my
district and as I was ignorant of the facts, I avoided taking
the floor lest an expectation should be created which I could
not meet. However, I found Butler entirely prepared for the
contest. From his letter books he read to me the correspond-
ence with the Treasury Department, from which it appeared
that the money had been turned over to the department, for
which Butler had the proper receipts. The money had been
seized upon the ground that it was the property of the Con-
federacy and was in the bank awaiting an opportunity to be
transferred. The morning following, I called upon Butler
and obtained copies of the correspondence that had been pre-
pared the preceding night. I rode to the Capitol with Butler
and on the way we prepared the letters in chronological order.
Having obtained the floor through Mr. Stevens I made the
answer which consisted chiefly of the letters. It was so con-
clusive that the subject was never again mentioned in the
House of Representatives. On that occasion Butler's habit
of making and keeping a full record of his doings served to
release him from very serious charges, and so speedily that
the charges did not obtain a lodgment in the public mind.

Upon another occasion Brooks made an attack upon Sec-
retary Chase and charged various offences upon S. M. Clark,
then the chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Some of the charges were personal, and some of them official.
I called upon the Secretary at his house, as I was on my way
home from the Capitol, and gave him a statement of the
charges made by Brooks. He seemed ignorant of the whole
matter, and upon my suggestion that he should ask Clark for
his explanation or defence he hesitated, and then asked me

1 6 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

to call upon Clark for his answer. This I declined and there
the matter ended. There never was any reply to Brooks. In
the end it may have been as well, for the charges are forgot-
ten, and they are not likely to be brought out of the musty
volumes of debates. Mr. Chase's lack of resolution gave me
an unfavorable impression of his ability for administrative
affairs.

Samuel S. Randall first entered Congress in 1862. Mr.
Randall's resources were limited. He was not bred to any
profession, and he was not a man of learning in any direc-
tion. I cannot imagine that he had a taste for study or for
any kind of investigation aside from politics. By long ex-
perience he became familiar with parliamentary proceedings,
and from the same source he acquired a knowledge of the
business of the Government. He had one essential quality
of leadership — a strong will. Moreover, he was destitute,
apparently, of moral perceptions in public affairs. Not that
he was corrupt, but as between the Government and its citi-
zens the demands of what is called justice seemed to have no
effect upon him. He did not hesitate to delay the payment
of a just claim in order that the appropriation might be kept
within the limits that he had fixed. This, not on the ground
that the claim ought not to be paid, but for the reason that
the payment at the time would disarrange the balance sheet.
A striking instance of his policy was exhibited in his treat-
ment of the land-owners whose lands were condemned and
taken for the reservoir at the end of Seventh Street, Wash-
ington, D. C. The values were fixed by a commission and by
juries under the law, and when the time for an appropriation
came, Mr. Randall provided for fifty per cent, and carried
the remainder over to the next year. The claimants were
entitled to full payment, but one half was withheld for twelve
months without interest and that while dead funds were lying
in the Treasury.

XXIX

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR

THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION

WHEN the Proclamation of Emancipation, of Jan-
uary i, 1863, was issued, the closing sentence
attracted universal attention, and in every part of
the world encomiums were pronounced upon it. The words
are these : " And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an
act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military
necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and
the gracious favor of Almighty God.-" Following the appear-
ance of the Proclamation, and stimulated, possibly, by the
reception given to the sentence quoted, there appeared claim-
ants for the verbal authorship of the passage, or for sugges-
tions which led to its writing by Mr. Lincoln.

A claim for exact authorship was set up for Mr. Chase,
and claims for suggestions in the nature of exact authorship
were made in behalf of Mr. Seward and in behalf of Mr.
Sumner.

The sentence quoted was furnished by Secretary Chase,
after a very material alteration by the President. He intro-
duced the words " warranted by the Constitution upon mili-
tary necessity," in place of the phrase, " and of duty de-
manded by the circumstances of the country," as written by
Mr. Chase.

The main credit for the introduction of the fortunate
phrase is due to Secretary Chase. President Lincoln placed

17

1 8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the act upon a legal basis, thus justifying it in law and in
history. The sentence is what we might have expected from
the head and heart of the man who wrote the final sentence of
the first inaugural address : " The mystic chords of memory,
stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every
living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will
yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as
surely they will be by the better angels of our nature." Mr.
Lincoln had genius for the work of composition, and in him
the poetic quality was strong and it was often exhibited in his
speeches and writings. The omission of the sentence in ques-
tion would so mar the Proclamation that it would cease to
represent Mr. Lincoln. Thus he became under great obliga-
tions to Mr. Chase.

It was not in the nature of Mr. Lincoln to close a state
paper, which he could not but have realized was to take a place
by the side of the Declaration of Independence, with a bald
statement that the freedmen would be received " into the
armed service of the United States to garrison forts, posi-
tions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all
sorts in said service."

In the month of October, 1863, the ladies of Chicago made
a request of Mr. Lincoln for " the original '* of his " procla-
mation of freedom," the same to be disposed of " for the
benefit of the soldiers." The letter in their behalf was writ-
ten by Mr. Arnold, who was then a member of Congress.
Improvidently, I think we may say, Mr. Lincoln yielded to
their request for the original draft of the Proclamation to be
sold for the benefit of the fair. Its transmission was accom-
panied by a letter, written by Mr. Lincoln.

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 19

" EXECUTIVE MANSION,

" WASHINGTON,
" October 26, 1863.

" Ladies having in charge The North Western Fair for the
Sanitary Commission, Chicago, III.

11 According to the request made in your behalf, the orig-
inal draft of the Emancipation Proclamation is herewith
enclosed. The formal words at the top and at the conclusion,
except the signature, you perceive, are not in my handwriting.
They were written at the State Department, by whom I know
not. The printed part was cut from a copy of the preliminary
Proclamation and pasted on merely to save writing.

" I have some desire to retain the paper, but if it shall con-
tribute to the relief of the soldiers, that will be better.

" Your obt. servt,

" A. LINCOLN."

In technical strictness the original Proclamation was of
the archives of the Department of State when the signature
of the President and Secretary of State had been affixed
thereto, and its transfer by Mr. Lincoln was an act not within
his competency as President, or as the author of the Procla-
mation.

This point, however, is wholly speculative, but the country
and posterity will be interested in the fate of the original of
a document which is as immortal as the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. The Proclamation was sold to the Honorable
Thomas B. Bryan of Chicago for the sum of three thousand
dollars and it was then presented by him to the Soldiers' Home
of Chicago, of which he was then the President. That position
he still retains. The document was deposited in the rooms
of the Chicago Historical Society, where it was destroyed in
the great fire of 1871.

20 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Fortunately the managers of the fair had secured the prep-
aration of fac simile copies of the Proclamation. These were
sold in large numbers, and thus many thousands of dollars
were added to the receipts of the fair.

The managers of the Soldiers' Home were offered twenty-
five thousand dollars for the original Proclamation.* The
offer came from a showman who expected to reimburse him-
self by the exhibition of the paper.

The original now on the files of the State Department is
not in the handwriting of Mr. Lincoln and it has therefore
no value derived from Mr. Lincoln's personality.

When I entered upon the inquiry, which has resulted in the
preparation of this paper, I was ignorant of the fact that the
original Proclamation had been destroyed, and it was my
purpose to secure its return to the archives of the Depart-
ment of State. That is now impossible. Its destruction has
given value to the fac simile copies. Many thousands of
them are in the possession of citizens of the United States,
and they will be preserved and transmitted as souvenirs of
the greatest act of the most illustrious American of this
century.

In the early autumn of 1864 a meeting was held in Faneuil
Hall in honor of the capture of Atlanta by the army under
General Sherman, and the battle in Mobile Bay under the lead
of Admiral Farragut. Strange as the fact may now appear,
those historical events were not accepted with satisfaction by
all the citizens of Boston. The leading Democratic paper
gave that kind of advice that may be found, usually, in the
columns of hostile journals, when passing events are un-
friendly, or when there is an adverse trend of public opinion.
Hard words should not be used and nothing should be said
of a partisan character. Such was the advice, and a large
body of men assembled who were opposed to partisan
* Letter of the Honorable Thomas B. Bryan.

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 21

speeches. They were known as the McClellan Club of the
North End of Boston and they were sufficient in numbers,
when standing, to fill the main floor in front of the ros-
trum, which at that time was not provided with seats. The
meeting was called by Republicans and it was conducted
under the auspices of Republicans. Governor Andrew was to
preside and Governor Everett, with others, had been invited
to speak. Governor Andrew was not blessed with a command-
ing voice and it was drowned or smothered by the hisses, cheers
and cat-call cries of the hostile audience in front of him.
The efforts of the sympathetic audience in the galleries were
of no avail. Mr. Everett's letter was then read, but not a
sentence of it was understood by any person in the assem-
bly. Next came Mr. Sennott, an Irishman, a lawyer, and a
man of large learning in knowledge and attainments not
adapted to general use. He had then but recently abandoned
the Democratic Party, but there was a stain upon his reputa-
tion, traceable to the fact that in the year 1859 ne nad volun-
teered to aid in the legal defence of John Brown at Harper's
Ferry. The city of Boston could not have offered a person
less acceptable to the crowd in front of the speaker. Mr.
Sennott's voice was weak and of the art of using what power
he possessed he had no knowledge. His speech was not
heard by anyone in the assembly. By the arrangement I was
to follow Mr. Sennott. I had had some experience with hos-
tile audiences, and in the year 1862 I had been interrupted in
a country town of Massachusetts by stones thrown through
the windows of a hall in which I was speaking upon the war
and the administration.

As I sat upon the platform I studied my audience and I
resolved upon my course. I had one fixed resolution — I
should get a hearing or I should spend the night in the hall.
Something of the character of my reception and the results
reached may be gained from the report in the Boston Journal,

22 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

and I copy the report without alteration, premising however,
that some minutes passed before I secured a quiet hearing :

SPEECH ON THE CHICAGO RESOLUTION

Fellow Citizens: It depends very much upon what we
believe as to the future of this country and the rights of the
people, whether we rejoice or mourn in consequence of the
events in Mobile Bay and before Atlanta. If it was true
on the 3Oth day of last month that the people of this country
ought to take immediate efforts for the cessation of hostil-
ities, then, gentlemen, we have cause to mourn rather than to
rejoice. I understand that there were some people in this
country who, before the 3Oth of August, since this war
opened, had not, as an aggregate body of men, expressed their
opinions in reference to this war, who then declared that it
ought to cease. (A voice — " They're few.") I observed in
a newspaper published in this city two observations within
the last two days. One was that they were afraid hard names
would be used; and the other was that there was some appre-
hension that this meeting to-night would have some political
aspect or influence. (Voices — "No! No!") I thought it
likely enough that it would (laughter and applause) because
I observed in the newspapers that it was called to express
congratulations over the events which have taken place in
Mobile Bay and before Atlanta, and I thought that I had
observed that those events had rather a political effect. (Re-
newed laughter.) Therefore I did not see exactly how it
was possible that men should assemble together to rejoice
over events having a political aspect without the meeting
and the rejoicing having a political aspect also. Well, now,
gentlemen, I haven't come here with any design that, so far
as I am concerned, it shall have anything but a political
aspect. ("Good" and applause.) These times are too
serious for the acceptance of any suggestion that hard names

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 23

are not to be called if hard names are deserved. (Voices —
"That is it!") The question is not whether the meeting
shall have a political influence, but whether it is necessary
to the salvation of the country that it shall have a political
influence. (Applause.) Well, gentlemen, I observed while
the person who last occupied the platform was speaking cer-
tain indications, which I thought were a slight deviation from
that much talked-of right of free speech. (Laughter, and a
voice — " Hit 'em again.") Now, then, I am going to read
a resolution adopted at Chicago. I am going to make two
propositions in reference to it. I am then going to ask
whether this assembly assents to or rejects those propositions.
If there is any man in this assembly who denies or doubts
those propositions, if I have the consent of the honored chair-
man of this meeting to ten minutes of time in which I can
engage the ear of the assembly, I surrender it to that man,
that he may have an opportunity upon this platform to refute,
if he can, the propositions which I lay down. (Applause.)
Now the second resolution of this platform is in these
words —

(At this point there was considerable disturbance in the
rear of the hall, created by one individual, and several voices
cried out— " Free speech ! " " Out with him ! ")

Mr. Boutwell continued: He will be more useful to the
country if he remain here. If he goes away there is no
chance for his conversion to the truth : if he remain here he
may be saved. (Laughter.) " The vilest sinner may return,
While the lamp holds out to burn.'' (Renewed laughter and
applause.) I hope gentlemen who favor free speech will lis-
ten attentively to this resolution :

"Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare
as the sense of the American people, that after four years of
failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during
which under pretence of military necessity, or war power

24 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

higher than the Constitution, the Constitution has been disre-
garded in every part and public liberty and private rights alike
trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country
essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty and the pub-
lic welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a ces-
sation of hostilities with a view to an ultimate convention
of all the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that at
the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the
basis of the Federal Union of the States."

(The resolution was greeted with a feeble clapping of
hands, a slight attempt at cheers in the rear of the hall, and
a storm of hisses. Mr. Boutwell continued :)

If there are any gentlemen here who approve this resolu-
tion, I hope they will have the opportunity to cheer. (About
half a dozen persons commenced to cheer, but abandoned it
on hearing their own voices, when a voice exclaiming " These
are the Copperheads," caused loud laughter. The speaker
proceeded:)

Now then, gentlemen, the two propositions I lay down are
these, and if any one of those gentlemen who indulged in the
luxury of a cheer just now chooses to come upon this plat-
form, I fulfill my pledge: The first is that this resolu-
tion, so far as known, meets the approval of the rebels in
arms against this government. (Voices — " That's so," and
cheers.) The second is that this resolution meets the ap-
proval of all the men in the North who sympathize with the
cause of this rebellion and desire its success. (Repeated
cheers and " That's it.") Now, then, if there is any one who
would deny the truth of these propositions, let him, with the
leave of the chair, take ten minutes upon this platform.
(Some confusion ensued, several voices shouting "Make
room for George Lunt," " Where's Lunt ? " etc., etc., etc. No
one appearing, Mr. Boutwell continued:) If there is nobody
to refute these propositions, I take it for granted that they

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 25

meet the general assent of this vast assembly (cries of
" Good " and cheers) ; and if so, isn't this the time, when
a great convention professing to represent a portion of the
American people in time of war, not having spoken since hos-
tilities commenced, frame a leading resolution so as to meet
the assent and approval of the enemies of the Republic — isn't
this the time, when such things are done, for men who have
a faith in the country and a belief in its right to exist,
to declare the reasons for that belief? (Voices — " Yes."}
Now I propose to discuss that resolution in some degree.
First, it proposes a cessation of hostilities. I have heard the
word armistice mentioned to-night. The declaration of that
resolution is not for an armistice. An armistice, according
to its general acceptation and use, implies a suspension of hos-
tilities upon the expectation and condition that they are to be
resumed. Neither in this resolution, nor in the whole series of
resolutions to which this one belongs, is there an intimation
that when cessation of hostilities has been effected hostilities
are to be resumed ; and if hostilities are not to be resumed then
a cessation of hostilities is an abandonment of the Govern-
ment. It is treason. (Voices — " That's so," and loud and
continued cheers.) I declare here that the proposition for a
cessation of hostilities is moral and political treason (voices
•"Good"); and, further, every man who knowingly and
after investigation, and upon his judgment favors a cessation
of hostilities, is a traitor. (Loud cheers.) The issue, gen-
tlemen, is no longer upon the tented field. No danger there
to the cause of the Union. The soldiers are true to the flag
and they will fight on and march on until the last rebel has
fallen to the dust or laid down his arms. The soldiers are
true, but the cause of the Union is in peril at home (voices —
"That's where it is"), where secret organizations are mus-
tering their forces and gathering in material of war for which
there can be no possible use except to revolutionize this coun-

26 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

try through the fearful experience of civil war. (A voice —
" Shame on them.") O how I long for some knowledge of
the English language so that I may select a word or a phrase
which shall fully express the enormity of this treason!
(Voices — " Hang them." " String them up.")

The rebels of the South have some cause. They believe
in the institution of slavery, — they have been educated under
its influence. They thought it in peril. They made war
with some pretence on their part for a reason for war, but
what excuse, what palliation is there for those men in the
North, who, regardless of liberty, of justice, and of human-
ity, ally themselves, openly some and secretly others, with the
enemies of the Republic ? Spare, spare, your anathemas, gen-
tlemen. Do not longer employ the harsh language which you
can command in denunciation of Southern traitors. They of
the North who give aid and comfort to the enemy deserve to
monopolize in the application all the harsh words and phrases
of the English language. (Applause.) Cessation of hos-
tilities— what follows? Dissolution of the Union inevitably.
Will not Jefferson Davis and his associates understand that
when we 'have ceased to make war, when our armies become
demoralized, public sentiment relaxed, when they have' had
opportunity to gather up the materials for prosecuting this
contest, that we cannot renew the contest with any reasonable
hope of success. Therefore, if you abandon this contest now,
it is separation — that is what is meant, and nothing else can
follow. But suppose that what some gentlemen desire could
be accomplished, — a reconstruction of the Union by diplo-
matic relations inaugurated between this Government and
Jefferson Davis' — suppose the South should return — what
follows? When you have permitted Jefferson Davis and his
associates to come back and take their places in the govern-
ment of this country, do you not see that with the help of a
small number of representatives from the North whose serv-

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 27

ices they are sure to command, they will assume the war
debt of the South. When you have assumed that debt, and
taken the obligation to pay it, these men of the South will
treat the obligation lightly, and upon the first pretext will
renew secession and will march straight out of the Union,
and you, with your embarrassed finances, will find yourselves
unable to institute military proceedings for their subjuga-
tion. Therefore I say that by the reconstruction some men
desire you render secession certain, bankruptcy throughout
the North certain. The repudiation of the Public Debt is not a
matter of expectation or fear, it is a matter of certainty, if you
assent to any reconstruction of this Union through the instru-
mentality of Jefferson Davis and his associates. You must
either drive them into exile or exterminate them. Break
down the military power of the people, and exterminate or
exile their leaders, and bring up men at the South in favor
of the Union, who are opposed to the assumption of the
war debt of the South — there is no other way of security to
yourselves. ( Cheers. ) Now, then, are you prepared to cease
hostilities with the expectation of negotiations with Jefferson
Davis for the dissolution of the Union or for its restoration?
(Voices — " No! ") Either course is alike fatal to you, for
the war must go on until peace is conquered. (Loud cheers
and voices — "That's so.") On the one side they offer you
as negotiators Franklin Pierce, perhaps, and A. H. Stevens;
on the other, possibly one of the Seymours, either of Con-
necticut or New York, Wise of Virginia, Vallandigham of
Ohio, and Soule of Louisiana. The only negotiators, gentle-
men, to be trusted so long as the war continues or there is a
rebel in arms — the only negotiators are Grant upon one line
and Sherman upon the other. (Tremendous cheers.)

A Voice — " You have left out Mr. Harris of Mary-
land."

Mr. Boutwell — " According to the reports, etc., we have

28 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

had from Chicago, he conducts negotiations upon his own
account."

Voice — " How are you, Mr. Harris ? "

Mr. Boutwell — What does the cessation of hostilities mean?
It means that the blockade is to be removed, and the South
to be allowed to furnish itself with materials and muni-
tions of war. What does that mean on the land? What
does it mean on the sea ? That you are to furl your flag at
Fortress Monroe on the Petersburg line; that you are to re-
move your gunboats from the Mississippi River ; that you are
to abandon Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip at its mouth,
that you are to undo the work which the gallant Farragut
has already done in Mobile Bay, and so along the coast and
upon the line from the Atlantic beyond the Mississippi River.
You, people of the North, who have been victorious upon the
whole through three years of war — you are to disgrace your
ancestry — you are to render yourselves infamous in all fu-
ture time, by furling your flag and submitting anew to rebel
authority upon this continent. Are you prepared for it?
(Voices — "No!" "never!") I ask these men here, who
cheered the resolution adopted at Chicago, whether they, men
of Massachusetts, and in Faneuil Hall, will say, one of them,
with his face to the patriots of the Revolution — will say that
he asks for peace through any craven spirit that is in him ? Is
there a man among them all, from whatsoever quarter of this
city, renowned in history — is there a man of them all who
will stand here and say he is for a cessation of hostilities ? If
so, let him speak, and let him, if he dare, come upon this plat-
form and face his patriotic fellow-citizens. (A call was made
for cheers for McClellan in the rear of the hall, but nobody
seemed disposed to respond. The speaker continued. ) I am
willing a cheer should be given for any man who has been in
the service of the country, however little he may have done.
Is there any man in Faneuil Hall for peace? (Voices —

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 29

" No! ") I intended, so far as was in my power, to give to
this meeting a political aspect (voices — "Good!") in favor
of the country and against traitors. (Cheers.) If there are
no peace men in this assembly, then that object, as far as we
are concerned, is accomplished. (Prolonged cheering.)

MR. CHASE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICESHIP

Upon the death of Chief Justice Taney the general public
favored the appointment of Mr. Chase as his successor. In
that view I concurred, but I had heard Mr. Chase make so
| many unjust criticisms upon Mr. Lincoln that I resolved to
'say nothing. I was willing to have Mr. Chase appointed, but
:I was not willing to ask the President to confer so great a
i place upon a man who had been so unjust to him. When the
1 nomination had been made, I said to Mr. Lincoln that I was
:very glad that he had decided to appoint Mr. Chase. He then
;said : " There are three reasons in favor of his appointment,
jand one very strong reason against it. First, he occupies the
'largest place in the public mind in connection with the office,
|then we wish for a Chief Justice who will sustain what has
[been done in regard to emancipation and the legal tenders.
!We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and
|he should answer us, we should despise him for it. There-
fore we must take a man whose opinions are known. But
(there is one very strong reason against his appointment. He
is a candidate for the Presidency, and if he does not give up
that idea it will be very bad for him and very bad for me."
At that time Mr. Lincoln had been re-elected to the Presi-
dency.

Mr. Chase continued to be a candidate for the Presidency.
[He abandoned the Republican Party in 1868 and as Chief
[Justice he abandoned his own policy or the policy that he had
adopted in regard to the legal tender currency.

It was said that Mr. Sumner, who was very earnest for

30 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Chase's appointment, gave strong pledges to Mr. Lincoln that
Mr. Chase would abandon his ambition for the Presidency.

RIGHTS OF STATES

In 1864 I introduced a series of resolutions in the House
of Representatives in the form of a Declaration of Opinion
in regard to the legal status of the States in rebellion. At
that time the country and Congress had no doubt of our abil-
ity to crush the rebellion, and the public mind was occupied
with various theories of reconstruction.

The resolutions had been already accepted by the National
Union League. I prepared them at the instance of Gov-
ernor Claflin and their adoption by the League had made the
policy known to a large body of active Republicans. I did
not seek to secure their adoption by the House of Representa-
tives. The resolutions were in this form :

" Resolved, That the Committee on the Rebellious States be
instructed to consider and report upon the expediency of rec-
ommending to this House the adoption of the following

Declaration of Opinions:

" In view of the present condition of the country, and espe-
cially in view of the recent signal successes of the national
arms promising a speedy overthrow of the rebellion, this
House makes the following declaration of opinions concern-
ing the institution of slavery in the States and parts of States
engaged in the rebellion, and embraced in the proclamation
of emancipation issued by the President on the first day of
January, A. D. 1863 : and also concerning the relations now
subsisting between the people of such States and parts of
States on the one side, and the American Union on the other.

" It is therefore declared (as the opinion of the House of
Representatives), that the institution of slavery was the cause
of the present rebellion, and that the destruction of slavery in

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 31

the rebellious States is an efficient means of weakening the
power of the rebels; that the President's proclamation
whereby all persons heretofore held as slaves in such States
and parts of States have been declared free, has had the effect
to increase the power of the Union, and to diminish the power
of its enemies; that the freedom of such persons was desirable
and just in itself, and an efficient means by which the Gov-
ernment was to be maintained, and its authority re-estab-
lished in all the territory and over all the people within the
legal jurisdiction of the United States; that it is the duty of
the Government and of loyal men everywhere to do what may
be practicable for the enforcement of the proclamation, in
order to secure in fact, as well as by the forms of law, the
extinction of slavery in such States and parts of States; and,
finally, that it is the paramount duty of the Government and
of all loyal men to labor for the restoration of the American
Union upon the basis of freedom.

"And this House does further declare, That a State can
exist or cease to exist only by the will of the people within
its limits, and that it cannot be created or destroyed by the
external force or opinion of other States, or even by the judg-
ment or action of the nation itself; that a State, when created
by the will of its people, can become a member of the Amer-
ican Union only by its own organized action and the concur-
rent action of the existing National Government, that, when
a State has been admitted to the Union, no vote, reso-
lution, ordinance, or proceeding on its part, however formal
in character or vigorously sustained, can deprive the National
Government of the legal jurisdiction and sovereignty over
the territory and people of such State which existed previous
to the act of admission, or which were acquired thereby; that
the effect of the so-called acts, resolutions and ordinances of
secession adopted by the eleven States engaged in the present
rebellion is, and can only be, to destroy those political organ-

32 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

izations as States, while the legal and constitutional jurisdic-
tion and authority of the National Government over the peo-
ple and territory remain unimpaired; that these several com-
munities can be organized into States only by the will of the
loyal people, expressed freely and in the absence of all coer-
cion ; that States so organized can become States of the Amer-
ican Union only when they shall have applied for admission,
and their admission shall have been authorized by the existing
National Government ; that, when a people have organized a
State upon the basis of allegiance to the Union and applied
for admission, the character of the institutions of such pro-
posed State may constitute a sufficient justification for grant-
ing or rejecting such application; and, inasmuch as expe-
rience has shown that the existence of human slavery is
incompatible with a republican form of government, in the
several States or in the United States, and inconsistent with
the peace, prosperity and unity of the nation, it is the duty
of the people and of all men in authority, to resist the admis-
sion of slave States wherever organized within the jurisdic-
tion of the National Government."

The logical consequence of these positions was that upon
the conquest of the States engaged in the rebellion the Na-
tional Government could govern the people as seemed expe-
dient and readmit them into the Union at such times and upon
such terms as the Government should dictate. They antag-
onized the doctrine then accepted by many Republicans
" Once a State always a State " — a doctrine that would have
transferred the government at once into the hands of the
men who had been engaged in an effort to destroy it.

Mr. Sumner was wiser in this respect. His theory that
the rebellious States should be reduced to a Territorial con-
dition was in harmony with the views that were embodied in
the resolutions. At the time, however, they did not receive
the support of all the members of the Republican Party.

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 33

Mr. Stevens maintained the doctrine that the rebel States
were conquered States and wholly subject to the power of
the conqueror. In his view their previous condition as States
in the Union had no value. But Mr. Stevens was never
troubled by the absence of logic or argument. In the case
of the rebel States he intended to assert power enough to
meet the exigency and he was free of all fear as to the judg-
ment of posterity. When he had formed a purpose he looked
only to the end. If he could command the adequate means
he left all questions of logic and ethics to other minds and to
future times.

Others maintained that the theory that the States were in
a Territorial condition or that they had ceased to exist as
States, 'was an admission of the doctrine of secession. Mr.
Lincoln in his last public address cut clear of all theories and
resolved the situation into a simple statement of a fact to
which all were compelled to assent : " We all agree, that
the seceded States co-called, are out of their proper practical
relations with the Union." On this basis Congress finally
acted, but during the process and progress of reconstruction
the military authority was absolute, and local and individual
powers were completely subordinated to the authority of the
General Government.

COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES

In 1865 and in 1869, questions were raised when the elec-
toral votes were counted, that gave rise to debates in
the House of Representatives and on one occasion sub-
sequently in the Senate. In the House, Francis Thomas of
Maryland and Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio took part. Both
were able men. Thomas had the qualities of an orator but
he spoke so infrequently that his power was not generally
appreciated. On that occasion he spoke exceedingly well,
but the attendance was small, an evening session having been

34 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

assigned for debate upon that subject. Mr. Shellabarger was
logical and effective but he was destitute of imagination
utterly. At the bar since his retirement from politics he has
enjoyed a large practice, but, unfortunately, as it appears to
me, he has preserved the style of speaking which he acquired
upon the stump and in Congress. A skillful speaker must
adapt himself to the circumstances and to his audience. A
stump speech, a speech in the House of Representatives, a
speech in the Senate, an argument to a court, an argument to a
jury, should each be framed on a model of its own. Neither
style will answer for any other. The degree of variance may
not be considerable and with a well disciplined person the
change may not be apparent. Mr. Webster adapted himself to
every audience, but the changes were slight. Yet there were
changes. He was not over solemn in the Supreme Court, and
he was never boisterous when he addressed the multitude.

As far as I recollect my positions and arguments in the
debates upon the counting of the electoral votes, I now dis-
card all that I then said. My present conclusion is that upon
a reasonable construction of the Constitution there is no
occasion for legislation or for an amendment to the funda-
mental law. The Vice-President or the President of the
Senate is the president of the convention. He carries into
the chair the ordinary powers of a presiding officer. He
rules upon all questions that arise. He may and should rule
upon the various certificates that are sent up by the several
States. If, in any case, his ruling is objected to, the two
Houses separate, and each House votes upon the question : —
" Shall the ruling of the Chair stand, etc." If the Houses
divide, the ruling is sustained. The president and one House
are a majority. The decision is in accordance with our sys-
tem of government. The suggestion that the president or
that the Houses may act under the influence of personal
or political prejudice, may, with equal force, be urged against

INCIDENTS IN THE CIVIL WAR 35

any scheme that can be devised. The counting of the elec-
toral votes must be left in the hands of men, and the Con-
stitution has given us all the security that can be had that the
decisions will be honestly made. The president of the con-
vention and the members of the Houses are bound by oath
as solemnly as are the judicial tribunals of the country. A
judge is only a man, and he is subject to like infirmities with
other men. It is a wise feature of our system that the courts
have no voice in the political department of the Government.
The presidential office should never be in the control of the
judicial branch of the Government.

XXX

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITU-
TION

I HAD no part in the preparation of the Thirteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution, nor any part in its passage
through the House other than to give my vote in its
favor. The Amendment resolution was passed by the Thirty-
eighth Congress at its last session and by the aid of Demo-
crats. The elections of 1864 had resulted in a two-thirds ma-
jority and it was therefore certain that the resolution would
be agreed to by the next House. Hence there was less in-
ducement for the Democrats to resist its passage by the
Thirty-eighth Congress. A small number of Democrats fa-
vored the measure. English of Connecticut and Ganson of
New York were of the number. There were others also
whose names I do not recall. At the time of the contest a
rumor was abroad that James M. Ashley, of Ohio, was en-
gaged in making arrangements with certain Democrats to
absent themselves from the House when the vote was taken.
Several were absent — some were reported ill in health. Mr.
Ashley was deeply interested in the passage of the resolution
and it was believed that he made pledges which no one but the
President could keep. Such was the exigency for the passage
of the resolution that the means were not subjected to any
rigid rule of ethics.

The Fourteenth Amendment had its origin in a joint com-
mittee of fifteen of which Mr. Fessenden of Maine was chair-
man. A record of its proceedings was kept which was printed

36

'HE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 37

recently by order of the Senate. From that report it appears
that I proposed an amendment for conferring the right to
vote upon the freedmen of the State of Tennessee. As far
as I know that was the first time the proposition was made
in connection with the proceedings of Congress. The com-
mittee did not concur in the proposition. Indeed the time
had not come for decisive action in that direction. The mo-
tion was made in the committee the I9th day of February,
1866, when the admission of the State of Tennessee into the
Union was under consideration. The motion was in these
words : " Said State shall make no distinction in the exer-
cise of the elective franchise on account of race or color."
The motion was lost by the following vote :

Yeas: Howard, Stevens, Washburne, Morrill, Boutwell.

Nays: Harris, Williams, Grider, Bingham, Conkling,
Rogers.

Absent: Fessenden, Grimes, Johnson, Blow.

The 1 6th day of April Senator Stuart, of Nevada, came
before the committee in support of a similar proposition that
he had introduced in the Senate April 7.

In January, 1866, a bill was under discussion in the House
of Representatives for the establishment of a government in
the District of Columbia. Mr. Hale of New York moved
amendments by which the right of suffrage by negroes would
be limited to those who could read and write, to those who
had performed service in the army or navy or who possessed
property qualifications. The amendment was defeated. My
views were thus stated in one of the very small number of
my speeches that have had immediate influence upon an audi-
ence or an assembly :

" I am opposed to the instructions moved by the gentle-
man from New York, because I see in them no advantage
to anybody, and I apprehend from their adoption much evil

38 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

to the country. It should be borne in mind, that, when we
emancipated the black people we not only relieved ourselves
from the institution of slavery, we not only conferred upon
them freedom, but we did more; we recognized their man-
hood, which, by the old Constitution and the general policy
and usage of the country, had been, from the organization of
the Government until the Emancipation Proclamation, denied
to all of the enslaved colored people. As a consequence of
the recognition of their manhood, certain results follow, in
accordance with the principles of the Government; and they
who believe in this Government are, by necessity, forced to
accept those results as a consequence of the policy of emanci-
pation which they have inaugurated, and for which they are
responsible.

• " But to say now, having given freedom to the blacks,
that they shall not enjoy the essential rights and privileges of
men, is to abandon the principle of the Proclamation of
Emancipation, and tacitly to admit that the whole emancipa-
tion policy is erroneous.

* * * " What are the qualifications suggested ? They
are three. First and most attractive, service in the army or
navy of the United States. I shall have occasion to say, if
I discuss, as I hope to discuss, the nature and origin of the
right of voting, that there is not the least possible connec-
tion between service in the army and navy and the exercise
of the elective franchise, — none whatever. These men have
performed service, and I am for dealing justly with them
because they have performed service. But I am more anx-
ious to deal justly by them because they are men. And
when it is remembered, that, for months and almost for
years after the opening of the rebellion, we refused to ac-
cept the services of colored persons in the armies of the
country, it is with ill grace that we now decline to allow the
vote of any man because he has not performed that service.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 39

" The second is the property qualification. I hope it is not
necessary in this day and this hour of the Republic to argue
anywhere that a property qualification is not only unjust
in itself, but that it is odious to the people of the country
to a degree which cannot be expressed. Everywhere, I be-
lieve, for half a century, it has been repudiated by the peo-
ple. Does anybody contemplate such a qualification to the
elective franchise, in the case of black people or white?

" And, next, reading and writing, or reading as a qualifi-
cation, is demanded; and an appeal is made to the example
of Massachusetts. I wish gentlemen who now appeal to
Massachusetts would often appeal to her in other matters
where I can more conscientiously approve her policy. But
it is a different proposition in Massachusetts as a practical
measure.

" When, ten years ago, this qualification was imposed upon
the citizens of Massachusetts, it excluded no person who
was then a voter. For two centuries, we have had in Massa-
chusetts a system of public instruction, open to the children
of the whole people without money and without price. There-
fore all the people there had had opportunities for education.
Why should the example of such a State be quoted to justify
refusing suffrage to men who have been denied the privilege
of education, and whom it has been a crime to teach?

* * * " The negro has everywhere the same right to
vote as the white man, and I maintain still further, that,
when you proceed one step from this line, you admit that
your government is a failure. What is the essential quality
of monarchical and aristocratic governments? Simply that
by conventionalities by arrangements of conventions, some
persons 'have been deprived of the right of voting. We
have attempted to set up and maintain a government upon
the doctrine of the equality of men, the universal right of
all men, to participate in the government. In accordance

40 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

with that theory, we must accept the ballot upon the prin-
ciple of equality. It is enjoyed by the learned and the un-
learned, the wise and the ignorant, the virtuous and the
vicious.

" The great experiment is going on. If, before the war,
any man in this country was disposed to undervalue a gov-
ernment thus conducted, he should have learned by this time
the wisdom and the strength of a government which em-
braces and embodies the judgment and the will of the whole
people. If the negroes of the South, four million strong,
had been endowed with the elective franchise, and had united
with the white people of that region in the work of rebellion,
your armies would have been powerless to subdue that rebel-
lion, and you would to-day have seen your territory limited
by the Potomac and the Ohio.

* * * " \ye are to answer for our treatment of the
colored people of this country; and it will prove in the
end impracticable to secure to men of color civil rights, unless
the persons who claim those rights are fortified by the politi-
cal right of voting. With the right of voting, everything
that a man ought to have or enjoy of civil rights comes to
him. Without the right to vote he is secure in nothing. I
cannot consent, after all the guards and safeguards which
may be prepared for the defence of the colored men in the
enjoyment of their rights, — I cannot consent that they shall
be deprived of the right to protect themselves. One hundred
and eighty-six thousand of them have been in the army of the
United States. They have stood in the places of our sons and
brothers and friends. Many of them have fallen in defence
of the country. They have earned the right to share in the
government ; and, if you deny them the elective franchise, I
know not how they are to be protected. Otherwise you fur-
nish the protection which is given to the lamb when he is
commended to the wolf."

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 41

!< There is an ancient history that a sparrow pursued by
a hawk took refuge in the chief Assembly of Athens, in the
bosom of a member of that illustrious body, and that the
senator in anger hurled it violently from him. It fell to the
ground dead; and such was the horror and indignation of
that ancient but not Christianized body, — men living in the
light of nature, of reason, — that they immediately expelled
the brutal Areopagite from his seat, and from the association
of humane legislators.

<k What will be said of us, not by Christian, but by heathen
nations even, if, after accepting the blood and sacrifices of
these men, we hurl them from us, and allow them to become
the victims of those who have tyrannized over them for cen-
turies? I know of no crime that exceeds this; I know of
none that is its parallel ; and, if this country is true to itself,
it will rise in the majesty of its strength, and maintain a
policy, here and everywhere, by which the right of the colored
people shall be secure through their own power, — in peace,
the ballot ; in war, the bayonet.

" It is a maxim of another language, which we may well
apply to ourselves, that, where the voting-register ends, the
military roster of rebellion begins; and, if you leave these
four million people to the care and cusody of the men who
have inaugurated and carried on this rebellion, then you
treasure up, for untold years, the elements of social and civil
war, which must not only desolate and paraylze the South,
but shake this government to its very foundation."

It was impossible in 1866 to go farther than the provisions
of the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment was pre-
pared in form by Senators Conkling and Williams and my-
self. We were a select committee on Tennessee. The prop-
ositions were not ours, but we gave form to the amendment.
The part relating to " privileges and immunities " came from

42 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Bingham of Ohio. Its euphony and indefiniteness of
meaning were a charm to him. When the measure came be-
fore the Senate Mr. Sumner opposed its passage and alleged
that we proposed to barter the right of the negroes to vote
for diminished representation on the part of the old slave
States in the House and in the electoral colleges; while in
truth the loss of representation was imposed as a penalty
upon any State that should deprive any class of its adult
male citizens of the right to vote. Upon this allegation of
Mr. Sumner the resolution was defeated in the Senate. There
were then in that body a number of Republicans from the
old slave States and over them Mr. Sumner had large in-
fluence. The defeat of the amendment was followed by
bitter criticisms by the Republican press and by Republicans.
These criticisms affected Mr. Sumner deeply and he then
devoted himself to the preparation of an amendment which
he could approve. While he was engaged in that work I
called upon him and he read seventeen drafts of a proposition
not one of which was entirely satisfactory to himself, and
not one of which would have been accepted by Congress or the
country. The difficulty was in the situation. Upon the return
of the seceded States their representation would 'be in-
creased nearly forty votes in the House and in the electoral
colleges while the voting force would remain in the white
population. The injustice of such a condition was apparent,
and there were only two possible remedies. One was to
extend the franchise to the blacks. The country — the loyal
States — were not then ready for the measure. The alterna-
tive was to cut off the representation from States that denied
the elective franchise to any class of adult male citizens.
Finally Mr. Sumner was compelled to accept the alternative.
Some change of phraseology was made, and Mr. Sumner
gave a reluctant vote for the resolution.

Aside from the debates on the constitutional amendments

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 43

there were serious differences among Republicans in regard to
the exercise of the right of suffrage by the negroes.

Previous to the year 1868 there was a majority of Repub-
licans who would have imposed a qualification, some of
service in the army or navy, some of property and some of
education. It was with great difficulty that the scheme of
limitation was resisted in regard to the District of Columbia.
As to the Democrats they could always be counted upon to
aid in any measure which tended to keep the negroes in a sub-
ordinate condition. This of the majority — there was always
a minority, usually a small one, who were ready to aid in the
elevation of the negro when his emancipation had been ac-
complished. I do not recall the name of one man who
favored emancipation as a policy and adhered to the Demo-
cratic Party. When a man reached the conclusion that the
negroes should be free, he could not do otherwise than join
the Republican Party. At the time of the admission of Ten-
nessee, July, 1866, there were only twelve men in the House
of Representatives who insisted upon securing to the negro
the right to vote. A larger number favored the scheme, but
they yielded to the claim of that State to be admitted without
conditions. At that time the power of the President was not
impaired seriously, and his wishes were heeded by many.
There was also an understanding that the State would con-
cede the right upon terms not unreasonable.

Next to the restoration of the Union and the abolition of
slavery the recognition of universal suffrage is the most im-
portant result of the war. It has its evils but they are inci-
dental, and their influence is limited to times and places,
while the advantages are universal and enduring. Universal
suffrage is security for universal education. It is security
against chronic hostility to the Government and security
against the manifestation of a revolutionary spirit among the
people. They realize that with frequent elections, the evils

44 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of administration may be corrected speedily. By a similar
though slower process the fundamental law may be changed.
Hence it is that in this country until recently there was no
difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the system of gov-
ernment under which we are living. The existing diversity
of opinion will soon disappear. If suffrage were limited there
would be a body of discontented people ready to seize upon
any pretext that promised a change. In the present condition
of our system the only danger is due to the forcible or fraudu-
lent withholding of the right from those who are entitled to
enjoy it. This condition of things must soon end. The
safety of a state is yet further secured by frequent elections.
The project to extend the Presidential term is full of danger.
If the term were six or ten years the presence of an offensive
or dangerous man in the office would provoke a revolution,
or cause disturbances only less disastrous to business and to
social and domestic comfort. In the little republic of Hayti
there have been not less than seventeen revolutions in the
hundred years of its existence and they were due in a large
degree to the fact that the Presidential term is seven years.
The various propositions submitted to the House of
Representatives for securing the right to vote to all
the male adult citizens of the United States were re-
ferred to the Judiciary Committee of which I was a mem-
ber. Among them was one submitted by myself. In the
committee they were referred to a sub-committee consisting
of myself, Mr. Churchill of New York, and Mr. Eldridge of
Wisconsin. Mr. Eldridge as a Democrat was opposed to the
measure, and he took no interest in preparing the form of an
amendment. Churchill and myself were fellow-boarders and
we prepared and agreed to an amendment in substance that
which was adopted finally and which in form was almost the
same. When I reported the amendment to the committee
not one word was said either in criticism or commendation,

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 45

nor was there a call for a second reading. After a moment's
delay Mr. Wilson, the chairman, said : — " If there is no
objection Mr. Boutwell will report the amendment to the
House." There was no objection and at the earliest oppor-
tunity I made the report — that is, I reported the resolution
for amending the Constitution. Mr. Wilson made a speech
which I have not since read, but which made an impression
upon my mind that he was opposed to the measure, or at
least had doubts about the wisdom of urging the amendment
upon Congress and the country.

The resolution passed the House as it was reported by the
committee. When it was taken up in the Senate Mr. Sum-
ner, who was opposed to the resolution, assailed it with an
amendment that would have been fatal if his lead had been
followed by the two Houses. He proposed to insert after
the words " to vote " the words " or hold office." At that
time he was a recognized leader upon all matters relating to
the negro race, and his standing with that race was such that
the Republican senators from the slave States were obedient
to his wishes. His amendment was adopted by the Senate.
In presence of the fact that Mr. Sumner was opposed to any
amendment of the Constitution upon the subject and that he
proposed to rely upon a statute, it is difficult to explain his
conduct upon any other theory than that he intended to de-
feat the measure either in Congress or in the States. He had
claimed when the Fourteenth Amendment was pending that a
joint resolution would furnish an adequate remedy and pro-
tection. His proposition was in these words : ' There shall
be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste or monopoly invested with
peculiar privileges and powers and there shall be no denial of
rights, civil or political on account of color or race anywhere
within the limits of the United States or the jurisdiction
thereof : but all persons therein shall be equal before the law,
whether in the court room or at the ballot-box. And this

46 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

statute made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the
supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws
of any State notwithstanding/' This resolution is a sad im-
peachment of Mr. Sumner's quality as a lawyer and it is an
equally sad impeachment of his sense or of his integrity as a
man that he was willing to risk the rights of five million
persons upon a statute whose language was rhetorical and in-
definite, a statute which might be repealed and which was
quite certain to be pronounced unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court.

Upon the return of the resolution and amendment to the
House, my own position was an embarrassing one. I was
counted as a radical and in favor of securing to the negro race
every right to which the white race was entitled. My opposi-
tion to the Senate amendment seemed to place me in a light
inconsistent with my former professions. However, I met
the difficulty by an argument in which I maintained that the
right to vote carried with it the right to hold office. That in
the United States there were only a few exceptions, and those
were exceptions under the Constitution.

Finally, the House, by a reduced vote refused to concur
with the amendment of the Senate. It was at this crisis that
Wendell Phillips wrote an article in the Anti-Slavery Stand-
ard over his own name in which he said in substance and in
words, that the House proposition was adequate and that it
ought to be accepted by the Senate. His name and opinion
settled the controversy. The Southern Republicans deserted
Mr. Sumner feeling that the opinion of Phillips was a suffi-
cient shield. A slight change of phraseology was made and
the proposition of the House became the Fifteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States.

I wrote a letter of acknowledgment to Mr. Phillips in the
opinion that he had saved the amendment. At that time the
prejudice against negroes for office was very strong in Ohio,

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 47

Indiana, Illinois and in varying degrees the prejudice ex-
tended over the whole North.

The enjoyment of the right to vote has not been fully se-
cured to the negro race, but no one has appeared to deny his
right to hold office. Indeed, the Democratic Party as well as
the Republican Party has placed him in office, both by election
and appointment. Thus has experience shown the folly of
Mr. Sumner's amendment.

That Mr. Sumner should have been willing to risk the
rights of the whole negro race upon a statute whose con-
stitutionality would have been questioned upon good ground,
and which might have been repealed, is a marvel which no one
not acquainted with Mr. Sumner can comprehend. First of
all, though he was learned, he was not a lawyer. He was
unpractical in the affairs of government to a degree that is
incomprehensible even to those who knew him. He was in
the Senate twenty-three years and the only mark that he left
upon the statutes is an amendment to the law relating to
naturalization by which Mongolians are excluded from citi-
zenship. The object of his amendment was to save negroes
from the exclusive features of the statute which was designed
'to apply only to the Chinese. His amendment made plain
what the committee had designed to secure. He was a great
figure in the war against slavery and as a great figure in that
war he should ever remain.

The Fifteenth Amendment saved the country from a series
of calamities that might have been more disastrous even than
the Civil War. The South might, under the Fourteenth
Amendment, grant to the negroes the right to vote but upon
conditions wholly impracticable and thus have secured their
full representation in Congress at the same time that the
voting power was retained in the hands of the white race. Or
they might have denied to the negro race the right to vote
and submitted to a loss of representation. Such a policy

48 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

would have given the whole country over to contention and
possibly in the end, to civil war. The discontented and op-
pressed negroes, increasing in numbers and wealth, would
have demanded their rights ultimately, even by the threat of
force, or by the use of force they would have secured their
rights. In the North there would have been a large body of
the people, only less than the whole body, who would have
sympathized with the negroes and who, in an exigency would
have rendered them material aid. The Dorr War in Rhode
Island and the struggles in Kansas, are instances of the danger
of attempting to found society or to maintain social order upon
an unjust or an unequal system for the distribution of political
power. It is true that at this time (1901) the operation of
the Fifteenth Amendment has been defeated and consequently
the governments of States and the Government of the United
States have become usurpations, in that they have been in the
hands of a minority of men. Nevertheless the influence of
the amendment is felt by all, and the time is not distant when
it will be accepted by all. Thus our Government will be
made to rest upon the wisest and safest foundation yet de-
vised by man : The Equality of Men in the States, and the
Equality of States in the Union.

Mr. Sumner opposed the amendment and he declined to
vote upon the passage of the resolution. Wendell Phillips
saved it in the Senate. General Grant, more than anyone else
secured its ratification by the people. I append a copy of my
letter to Mr. Phillips :

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1870.
MY DEAR SIR : —

This letter will recall to your mind the circumstance that
when the Fifteenth Amendment was suspended between the
two houses you published an editorial in the Standard in favor
of the House proposition. Can you send me that article?
It may not be known to you that that article saved the

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 49

amendment. A little of the secret history was this. Vari-
ous propositions were offered in the House — among them
one of my own — and all were referred to the Judiciary Com-
mittee.

In the Judiciary Committee, upon my motion the various
resolutions for amending the Constitution in that particular
were referred to a sub-committee consisting of myself,
Churchill of New York and Eldridge of Wisconsin.
Churchill and myself were living at the same house and con-
ferred together several times. Eldridge took no interest in
the matter and never joined us — perhaps was not invited.
After an examination of all the plans I wrote that proposed
amendment which was passed by the House and is in sub-
stance and almost in language the amendment as adopted.

With the concurrence of Mr. Churchill I reported it to
the committee and without one word of criticism and as
far as I could judge without any particular consideration
I was directed to report it to the House. In the House it
encountered considerable opposition and Mr. Wilson, Chair-
man of the Judiciary Committee, made a speech which was
a great surprise to me, though directed chiefly to the bill
which I had also reported by direction of the Judiciary Com-
mittee giving at once "the right of suffrage to negroes in all
national elections and for members of the Legislature. This
I thought necessary to secure the passage of the amendment
through the State Legislatures. However, the resolution
was finally passed by the House. In the Senate it met with
great opposition because it omitted to secure in terms the
right to hold office. This point had been raised in the
House where I had successfully met the proposition by the
statement and an argument in support of the statement that
the right to vote as a matter of fact and in law carries with
it the right to hold office. In the Senate, Mr. Sumner, sup-
ported by all the Southern Republicans and a part of the

50 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Northern Republicans succeeded in substituting a new reso-
lution securing in terms the right to hold office. Upon the
return of the Resolution to the House I was obliged to take
what appeared a conservative position and resist the proposi-
tion to concur with the Senate upon the ground that the
change was unnecessary and that its adoption threatened
the loss of the measure in doubtful States as Ohio, Indiana,
West Virginia and others. The House adhered to its posi-
tion, yet with such weakness of purpose on the part of many
who sustained me, as indicated that they would not with-
stand another assault. The struggle was then renewed in
the Senate and with every indication that the Senate would
insist upon its amendment. It was then that your article
appeared. Its influence was immediate and potential. Men
thought that if you the extremest radical could accept the
House proposition they might safely do the same. Had the
Senate adhered one of two things would have happened,
either the House would have seceded or the amendment
would have failed.

Had the House concurred I fear that we should have
failed to carry several States which have since ratified it.

Upon reflection I think as at the time I thought that your
voice saved the Fifteenth Amendment.
I am very truly,

GEO. S. BOUTWELL.
WENDELL PHILLIPS, ESQ.
Boston.

P. S. This letter is not for the public use in so far as
names are mentioned, and of course, not for publication.

G. S. B.

The article of Mr. Phillips became so important in its in-
fluence upon the final action of the Senate that I reproduce it
in justice to Mr. Phillips and as a further record of an his-
torical event.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 51

" We see the action of the Senate touching the Constitu-
tional Amendment with great anxiety. The House had passed
simple measure, one covering all the ground that people are
jady to occupy. It answered completely the lesson of the
war. Its simplicity gave it all the chance that exists for any
form of amendment being ratified.

" Why was it not left in that shape? Leaving out of sight
ic manifest risk of attempting too much, the very fact of the
little time left before the session closes, was warning enough
to clutch at anything satisfactory and to run no risk of possi-
>le disagreement between the Houses. We wait further
lowledge before indulging any conjectures as to the motive
for this strange course of the Senate; before even suspecting
that it grew out of any concealed hate toward the whole meas-
ure and was indeed a trick to defeat it. Whoever, in either
House, gratifies some personal whim to the extent of defeat-
ing or even postponing this measure will incur the gravest
responsibility. We exhort every man who professes himself
a friend of liberty to drop all undue attachment to any form
of words and to co-operate, heartily, earnestly, with the great
body of the members in carrying through as promptly as pos-
sible, any form which includes the substance of a constitu-
tional protection to the votes and right to office of the col-
ored race. That is the work of the hour. That is the lesson
the war has burned in on the brain and conscience of the Na-
ion.

To include with this, ' Nationality, education creed,'
is utter lack of common sense. Such a total forgetful-
ess of the commonest political prudence as makes it hard to
credit the good intentions of the proposers.

" Our disappointment is the greater because we had reason

f'D believe that the Senators who have this matter in charge,
/ould be the last men to forget themselves at such a crisis.
?hey have been timidly ' practical/ ludicrously tied up to

52 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

precedents, when, in times past we have urged them to some
act which seemed likely to jeopard party. Then Sir Oracle
was never more sententious, more full of ' wise saws and mod-
ern instances/ than they. The inch they were willing to
move ahead was hardly visible to the naked eye. How they
lectured us on the * too fast ' and ' too far ' policy ! Now in
an emergency which calls for the most delicate handling, they
tear up not one admitted abuse, but include in the grasp half
a dozen obstinate prejudices, which no logic of events has
loosened. For the first time in our lives we beseech them to
be a little more politicians — and a little less reformers — as
those functions are usually understood."

Under the date of March 18, 1869, I received from Mr.
Phillips a letter in acknowledgment of my letter of thanks
and commendation, in these words :

" DEAR SIR : -

" Thank you for the intimation in your letter. I am glad
if any words of mine helped get rid of the too prompt action
at that time. I think it was of the greatest importance to act
at once."

The public mind seems to be misled in regard to the scope
and legal value of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
The amendments were in the nature of grants of power to the
National Government, and in a corresponding degree they
were limitations of the powers of the States, but the grants
of power to the nation were also subject to limitations. Until
the ratification of the amendments the States had full power
to extend the right of suffrage, or to restrict its enjoyment
with the freedom that they possessed when the Treaty of
Peace of 1783 had been signed, and when the Constitution
had not been framed and ratified.

All limitations of the right of suffrage by male inhabitants

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION 53

of twenty-one years of age, must fall under the control of the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

If in any State the right to vote shall be " denied or
abridged on account of race, color or previous condition of
servitude," the statutes may be annulled by a decision of the
Supreme Court. Neither the people of the United States in
their political sovereignty, nor the political branch of the
Government in its representative capacity can exert any direct
influence upon the decision of the questions that may arise.
The questions that may arise will be judicial questions, and
they will fall under the decision of the judicial tribunals.
Hence there has never been a time when it was the duty or
when it was in the pow^r or within the scope of the duty of
the executive branch of the National Government to take offi-
cial notice of the legislation in some of the former slave
States, which is designed manifestly, to limit the voting power
of the negro population in those States.

If such legislation does not fall under the Fifteenth Amend-
ment it will be subject to the penalty imposed by the Four-
teenth Amendment, — a proportionate loss of representative
power in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral
Colleges.

As one of the three remaining members of the Committee
on the Judiciary, and as one of the three remaining members
of the Committee on Reconstruction, I wish to say, without
any reservation whatever, that the amendments are accom-
plishing and are destined to accomplish all that was expected
by the committees that were charged with the duty of pro-
viding for the protection of the rights of the f reedmen.

They were relieved from the disparaging distinctions that

came into existence with the system of slavery. They were

placed upon an equality with other citizens and in the forms

)f law all discriminations affecting unfavorably the right of

suffrage must apply equally to all citizens. The injustice and

54 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

unwisdom of the restrictive legislation in which the Southern
States are indulging, are subjects of concern for the whole
country, but the negro populations have no ground for the
complaint that their rights have been neglected by the Gen-
eral Government.

This, however, is true : The negro population, in common
with all others, has ground for just and continuing complaint
against the legislation of Congress by which a portion of the
inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands have been denationalized
on account of race or color, or on account of a condition of
mental or physical inferiority.

The process of reasoning by which the legislation of the
States of the South is condemned, by those who uphold the
legislation in regard to Hawaii involves a question in political
ethics which for the moment I am not able to answer in a
manner satisfactory to myself.

XXXI

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL

WAR

IN the years 1865, '66 and '67 three important subjects of
inquiry were placed in the hands of committees of
which I was a member.

The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Repre-
sentatives by resolutions adopted respectively the Qth and
3Oth days of April, 1866, was directed " to inquire into the
nature of the evidence implicating Jefferson Davis and others
in the assassination of Mr. Lincoln."

James M. Ashley of Ohio introduced a resolution for the
impeachment of President Johnson, and on the 7th day of
January, 1867, the House authorized the Committee on the
Judiciary " to inquire into the official conduct of Andrew
Johnson, Vice-President of the United States, discharging
the powers and duties of President of the United States,"
etc.

By a resolution of the two Houses of Congress passed the
I2th and I3th of December, 1865, a joint committee was
created under instructions to " inquire into the condition of
the States which formed the so-called Confederate States
of America and report whether they or any of them are
entitled to be represented in either House of Congress."

William Pitt Fessenden was chairman on the part of the
Senate and Thaddeus Stevens was chairman on the part
of the House. Upon the death of Mr. Stevens I succeeded to
his place. The testimony taken in these cases fills three huge

55

56 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

volumes. No inconsiderable part of the testimony was taken
by myself, and I was but seldom absent from the meetings of
the committees.

JOHN WILKES BOOTH

In no other situation in life is the character of a man
more fully and truthfully brought into view than when he is
placed upon the witness-stand and subjected to an examination
by counsel or others who aim to support opposite opinions and
to reach adverse results. The committees that conducted the
investigations were composed of men who entertained oppo-
site views in regard to the reconstruction of the government
and in regard to the impeachment of President Johnson.
There was also a difference of opinion upon the question of
the responsibility of the Confederate authorities for the as-
sassination of Mr. Lincoln. As a consequence of this diversity
of opinion the witnesses were subjected to the equivalent of
a cross-examination in a court of justice. Some of the im-
pressions of men that I received in the many hearings, and
some of the opinions I formed, are recorded here.

In each branch of these comprehensive inquiries there may
be found something in the nature of evidence that may appear
to have a bearing upon the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.
It is my purpose in these paragraphs to bring into view the
testimony which relates directly to John Wilkes Booth, the
most conspicuous and without question the chief criminal
in the tragedy of the assassination of President Lincoln, and
the attempt upon the life of Mr. Seward.

The first step in the proceedings which culminated in the
murder was the deposit at Surrattsville (a place about five
miles from Washington, and owned by the Surratt family),
of a carbine, two bottles of whisky, a small coil of rope, a
field glass, a monkey wrench, and some other articles.

The house was kept by a man named Lloyd, and neither
the character of the house nor that of the keeper could

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 57

bear a rigid test in ethics. The deposit was made about the
first of March by John H. Surratt, Atzerodt and David E.
Herold, all of whom were afterwards implicated in the crime.
The articles were received and secreted by Lloyd, but only
after objections by him, as appears from his testimony,
Lloyd connected Mrs. Surratt with the crime by these facts
as related by him. She called upon Lloyd the Tuesday pre-
ceding the fatal Friday and gave him this message : " She
told me to have them ready (speaking of the shooting-irons)
that they would be called for or wanted soon, I have for-
gotten which."

Mrs. Surratt made a second call the afternoon preceding
the murder, when this conversation took place, as stated by
Lloyd : " When I drove up in my buggy to the back yard
Mrs. Surratt came out to meet me. She handed me a package,
and told me as well as I remember to get the guns or those
things — I really forget now which, though my impression
is that guns was the expression she made use of — and a
couple of bottles of whisky and give them to whoever should
call for them that night."

That night, after the murder, Booth and Herold called,
and took the carbine and drank of the whisky. In these facts
there is basis for a reasonable theory. The theory is this.
Previous to the fall of Richmond and the surrender of Lee's
army the Confederate authorities set on foot a scheme for
the capture and abduction of Mr. Lincoln. The articles de-
posited, including the rope and the monkey wrench, might
be useful had Mr. Lincoln been abducted, but when the
crime became murder the rope and wrench were neglected.

This view derives support from two directions. In Booth's
diary is this entry: " April 13-14 Friday. The Ides. Until
to-day nothing was ever thought of sacrificing to our coun-
try's wrongs. For six months we had worked to capture.
But our cause being almost lost something decisive and great

58 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

must be done. But its failure was owing to others who
did not strike for their country with a heart."

Colonel Baker, a detective, testified that when he was in
Canada, engaged in negotiations for the purchase of letters
that had passed between the Confederate authorities at Rich-
mond and Clay, Tucker, Thompson and others, he read a
letter from Jefferson Davis to Jacob Thompson dated March
8, 1865, in which was this expression: "The consumma-
tion of the act that would have done more to have ended
this terrible strife, being delayed, has probably ruined our
cause."

The scheme for the abduction of Mr. Lincoln was a wild
scheme, born of desperation, and its success would have
worked only evil to the Confederacy. The purpose of the
North would have been strengthened, the public feeling would
have been embittered and the friendship of England and
of the Continental states would have been suppressed. When
Lee had surrendered, when Davis was fleeing from Rich-
mond, when Benjamin was preparing to leave the country,
the leaders of the Confederacy could not have entertained a
project for the capture of Mr. Lincoln, nor of any injury to
him whatever. Their opposition to Mr. Lincoln was not
tainted with personal hostility. One fact remains; the per-
sons who had knowledge of the project to abduct Mr. Lincoln
and who were engaged in it at Washington, were implicated
in the final crime.

If Booth's diary can be accepted as a faithful representa-
tion of his mental condition it will appear that he had on that
fatal Friday submitted himself to the influence of three strong
passions. He had accepted the South as his country, and
he had come to look upon Mr. Lincoln as a tyrant and as
its enemy. Hence he was influenced with hatred for Mr.
Lincoln. Finally he had become maddened by an ambition to
rival, or to excel Brutus. The influence of his profession is

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 59

60 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

" I bless the entire world. Have never hated or wronged
anyone. This last was not a wrong unless God deems it so,
and it is with him to damn or bless me."

These extracts from Booth's diary reveal the influences
that controlled him in the great tragedy in which he became
the principal actor.

*****

The death of Booth was only a lesser tragedy than the
death of Mr. Lincoln.

Following the murder and escape of Booth a small military
force was organized hastily under the direction and com-
mand of Colonel Lafayette C. Baker, a detective in the serv-
ice of the War Department. The force consisted of about
thirty men chiefly convalescents from the army hospitals in
Washington. Colonel Everton G. Conger was in command
of the expedition, and his testimony contains a clear account
of what transpired at Garrett's Farm, where Booth was
captured and shot. Conger reached Garrett's Farm on the
night of the 25th of April, or the early morning of the 26th.
The men were posted around the tobacco shed in which
Booth and Herold were secreted and their surrender was
demanded by Conger. Booth refused to surrender and ten-
dered, as a counter proposition, a personal contest with the
entire force. Herold surrendered. Upon Booth's persistent
refusal to surrender, a fire was lighted in a corner of the
building. Booth then came forward with his carbine in his hand
and engaged in conversation with Lieut. L. Byron Baker.
While so engaged a musket was fired from the opposite side
of the shed and Booth fell, wounded fatally in the neck, at
or near the spot where Mr. Lincoln had been struck. Conger
had given orders to the men not to shoot under any circum-
stances. The examination disclosed the fact that the shot
was fired by a sergeant, named Boston Corbett. When
Colonel Conger asked Corbett why he shot without orders

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 61

Corbett saluted the colonel and said : " Colonel, Providence
directed me." Thus the parallel runs. Booth claimed that
he was the instrument of the Almighty in the assassination
of Lincoln, and Boston Corbett claimed that he acted under
the direction of Providence when he shot Booth.

Booth was shot at about three o'clock in the morning of
April 26, and he died at fifteen minutes past seven. During
that time he was conscious for about three fourths of an hour.
He asked whether a person called Jett had betrayed him.
His only other intelligible remark was this :

" Tell my mother I died for my country."

During the afternoon preceding the assassination of Mr.
Lincoln, Booth met John Mathews a brother actor, and re-
quested him to hand a letter to Mr. Coyle, of the National In-
telligencer, the next morning. Mathews had a part in the
play at Ford's Theater. When the shot was fired and
Mathews was changing his dress to leave the theater, he dis-
covered the letter, which for the time he had forgotten. When
he reached his rooms he opened the letter. It contained an
avowal of Booth's purpose to murder the President, and
he named three of his associates. Booth referred to a plan
that had failed, and he then added : " The moment has at
length arrived when my plans must be changed." These
statements were made by Mathews from recollection. Math-
ews destroyed the letter under the influence of the appre-
hension that its possession would work his ruin.

The records seem to warrant certain conclusions:

1. That the Confederate authorities at Richmond made
a plan for the capture of Mr. Lincoln, and that Booth, Mrs.
Surratt and others — who were implicated finally in the mur-
der— were concerned in the project to abduct the President
and to hold him as a hostage.

2. That that undertaking failed.

3. That following Lee's surrender and the downfall of the

62 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Confederacy, Booth originated the plan to murder the Presi-
dent, under the influence of the motives and reasons that are
set forth in his diary and in the letter to Mr. Coyle.

4. His influence over the persons who were involved in
the conspiracy to abduct Mr. Lincoln, was so great that he
was able to command their aid in the commission of the
final crime.

When the investigations were concluded there remained
in the possession of the Committee on the Judiciary a quantity
of papers, affidavits, letters and memoranda of no value as
evidence. These were placed in a sealed package. The
package was deposited with the clerk of the House of Repre-
sentatives. The preservation of the papers may have been
an error. They should have been destroyed by the committee.
Some doubts were expressed however as to the authority
of the committee. Further investigations were suggested
as not impossible. I am the only person living who has
knowledge of the papers. They are now the possession of
the House of Representatives. It is not in the public interest
that the papers should become the possession of the public.

MR. LINCOLN AND THE ATTACK ON FORT SUMTER

The testimony of John Minor Botts of Virginia, given be-
fore the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, February 18,
1866, presents Mr. Lincoln as a diplomatist at the outset of his
experience as President.

Mr. Botts had been a leading member of the Whig Party
and he was a Union man from the beginning of the contest
to the end of the war. As the work of secession was advanc-
ing in the Gulf States Mr. Lincoln became anxious for the
fate of the border States and especially for Virginia and Ken-
tucky, which promised to serve as barriers to the aggressive
movements of the South in case of war. Mr. Botts came to
Washington at the request of Mr. Lincoln in the early days

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 63

of April, 1 86 1, and they were together and in private con-
ference during the evening of the 7th of April from seven
to eleven o'clock. In the conversation of that evening the
President gave Mr. Botts an account of the steps that he
had taken to prevent a collision in the harbor of Charleston.
Mr. Summers and Mr. Baldwin of Virginia had been dele-
gates in the Peace Congress and they had been counted
among the Union men of the State. Soon after the inaugura-
tion the President was informed that the small garrison in
Fort Sumter was nearly destitute of provisions and that
an attempt to add to the supply would be resisted. The
President, Mr. Summers and Mr. Botts had served together
as Whigs in the Thirtieth Congress and the President invited
Mr. Summers by letter and by a special messenger to a
conference in Washington. To this invitation no answer was
given by Mr. Summers until the 5th of April, when Mr.
Baldwin appeared and said that he had come upon the request
of Mr. Summers. Mr. Lincoln said at once : " Ah ! Mr.
Baldwin, why did you not come sooner? I have been ex-
pecting you gentlemen to come to me for more than a week
past. I had a most important proposition to make to you.
I am afraid you have come too late. However, I will make
the proposition now. We have in Fort Sumter with Major
Anderson about eighty men and I learn from Major Ander-
son that his provisions are nearly exhausted ... I
have not only written to Governor Pickens, but I have sent
a special messenger to say that if he will allow Major An-
derson to obtain his marketing at the Charleston market,
or, if he objects to allowing our people to land at Charleston,
if he will have it sent to him, that I will make no effort to
provision the fort, but, that if he does not do that, I will
not permit these people to starve, and that I shall send pro-
visions down, — and that if he fires on that vessel he will fire
upon an unarmed vessel, loaded with nothing but bread

64 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

but I shall at the same time send a fleet along with her, with
instructions not to enter the harbor of Charleston unless
the vessel is fired into ; and if she is, then the fleet is to enter
the harbor and protect her. Now, Mr. Baldwin, that fleet
is now lying in the harbor of New York and will be ready
to sail this afternoon at five o'clock, and although I fear it
is almost too late, yet I will submit anyway the proposition
which I intended for Mr. Summers. Your convention in
Richmond, Mr. Baldwin, has been sitting now nearly two
months and all they have done has been to shake the rod over
my head. You have recently taken a vote in the Virginia
Convention, on the right of secession, which was rejected by
ninety to forty-five, a majority of two thirds, showing the
strength of the Union Party in that convention; and, if you
will go back to Richmond and get that Union majority to
adjourn and go home without passing the ordinance of
secession, so anxious am I for the preservation of the peace
of this country and to save Virginia and the other States
from going out, that I will take the responsibility of evacu-
ating Fort Sumter, and take the chance of negotiating with
the cotton States, which have already gone out/'

This quotation is from the testimony of Mr. Botts and
there cannot be better evidence of the facts existing in the
first days of April, nor a more trustworthy statement of the
position of Mr. Lincoln in regard to the secession movement.
At that time the Virginia Convention had rejected a proposed
ordinance of secession by a vote of ninety to forty-five, and
there can be no doubt that Mr. Lincoln had hopes that his
proposition might calm the temper and change the purposes
of the secessionists in that State if it did not change the
schemes of Governor Pickens, of which, indeed, the prospect
was only slight.

In his Inaugural Address, and in all his other public utter-
ances, Mr. Lincoln sought to place the responsibility of war

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 65

upon the seceding States. At a later day Mr. Lincoln, in a
conversation with Senator Sumner and myself, expressed
regret that he had neglected to station troops in Virginia in
advance of the occupation of the vicinity of Alexandria by
the Confederates, a course of action to which he had been
urged by Mr. Chase and others.

Mr. Lincoln's proposition for the relief of Fort Sumter
was rejected by Mr. Baldwin, as was the proposition for the
adjournment of the convention, sine die.

When Mr. Botts appeared the time had passed when ar-
rangements could have been made for the relief of Sumter
and the adjournment of the convention. Although the situa-
tion may not have been realized at the time it was not the
less true that Mr. Botts and the small number of Union men
in Virginia were powerless in presence of the movement in
favor of secession under the lead of Tyler, Sedden and
others.

The political side of Mr. Lincoln's character is seen in
the fact that he enjoined secrecy upon Mr. Botts. He may
have been unwilling to allow his supporters in the North to
know how far he had gone in the line of conciliation.
In the conversation with Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lincoln had
given an assurance that upon the acceptance of his two
propositions he would evacuate Fort Sumter. When Mr.
Lincoln made these facts known to Mr. Botts at the eve-
ning interview, Mr. Botts said : " Will you authorize me to
make that proposition to the Union men of the convention ? I
will take a steamboat to-morrow morning, and have a meeting
of the Union men to-morrow night, and I will guarantee with
my head, that they will adopt your proposition." In reply,
Mr. Lincoln said : " It is too late. The fleet has sailed." In
truth it was too late for the acceptance of the propositions
in Virginia. The Union men were powerless, and the seces-
sionists were dominant in affairs and already vindictive. The

66 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

charge that Mr. Seward gave a promise that Sumter would
be abandoned, may or it may not have been true, but there
can be no ground for doubting the statement made by Mr.
Botts in regard to the terms tendered by Mr. Lincoln, and
which were rejected by Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. Baldwin admitted the interview with Mr. Lincoln,
and the nature of it as herein given, to Mr. John F. Lewis,
who was a Union man and a member of the convention
that adopted the Ordinance of Secession by a vote of eighty-
eight to fifty-five.

Of the three witnesses, Baldwin, Botts and Lewis, Mr.
Baldwin was the first witness who was examined by the
Committee on Reconstruction. At that time the committee
had no knowledge of the conversation between Mr. Baldwin
and President Lincoln. Speaking, apparently, under the
influence of the criticisms of Botts and Lewis of his rejection
of Mr. Lincoln's propositions, Baldwin introduced the sub-
ject with the remark : "I had a good deal of interesting
conversation with him (that is with Mr. Lincoln) that eve-
ning. I was about to state that I have reason to believe that
Mr. Lincoln himself had given an account of this conversation
which has been understood — but I am sure mwunderstood — »
by the persons with whom he talked, as giving the representa-
tion of it, that he had offered to me, that if the Virginia
Convention would adjourn sine die he would withdraw the
troops from Sumter and Pickens." As there was no occasion
in the conversation between Lincoln and Baldwin for a
reference to Fort Pickens, and as the President did not men-
tion Fort Pickens in the account of the conversation that he
gave to Mr. Botts, the denial of Mr. Baldwin may fall under
one of the forms of falsehood mentioned by Shakespeare.

The evidence is conclusive to this point: That at an in-
terview at the Executive Mansion, April 5, 1861, between

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 67

President Lincoln and Colonel John B. Baldwin, then a mem-
ber of the Virginia Convention that finally adopted the Or-
dinance of Secession, President Lincoln assured Mr. Baldwin
that he would evacuate Fort Sumter if the fort could be pro-
visioned and the Virginia Convention would adjourn sine die.
Colonel Baldwin's voluntary and qualified denial is of no
value in presence of President Lincoln's report of the in-
terview as given by Mr. Botts and in presence of the testimony
that Mr. Baldwin did not deny the truthfulness of Mr. Botts'
limited statement, when it was asserted by Mr. Botts in the
presence of Lewis.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS AND HIS STATE-RIGHTS DOCTRINES

Upon the death of Mr. Calhoun the task of maintaining
the extreme doctrine of State Rights, as that doctrine had
been taught by Mr. Calhoun fell upon Jefferson Davis and
Alexander H. Stephens. That doctrine was carried to its
practical results in the ordinances of secession as they were
adopted by the respective States under the lead of Mr. Davis.

If Mr. Stephens advised against secession, the advice
given was not due to any doubt of the right of a State to
secede from the Union, but to doubts of the wisdom of the
undertaking.

In form of proceedings Mr. Stephens was examined by the
Committee on the Judiciary, the nth and I2th days of April,
1866, but in fact I was the only member of the committee who
was present, and I conducted the examination in my own
way, and without help or hindrance from others.

It was the opinion of Governor Clifford of Massachusetts,
that the examination of Mr. Stephens gave the best exposition
of the doctrine of State Rights that had been made. I was
then ignorant of the fact, that in the convention of 1787
the form of the Preamble to the Constitution was so changed

68 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

as to justify the opinion, if not to warrant the conclusion that
the State-Rights doctrines had been considered and aban-
doned. In two plans of a constitution, one submitted by Mr.
Randolph, and one by Mr. Charles Pinckney, and in the
original draft of the Constitution as reported by Mr. Rut-
ledge, the source of authority was laid in the respective States,
which were named. This form was adhered to in the Rut-
ledge report, which was made August 6, 1787. On the I2th
of September the Committee on Style reported the Preamble
which opens thus : " We the people of the United States,
etc" This change seems not to have been known to Mr.
Webster, nor have I noticed a reference to it in any of the
speeches that were made in the period of the active con-
troversy on the doctrine of State Rights.

Mr. Stephens was a clear-headed and uncompromising ex-
positor and defender of the doctrine of State Rights as that
doctrine was accepted by General Lee and by the inhabitants
generally of the slave States.

Mr. Stephens did not disguise his opinions : " When the
State seceded against my judgment and vote, I thought my
ultimate allegiance was due to her, and I prepared to cast
my fortunes and destinies with hers and her people rather
than take any other course, even though it might lead to
my sacrifice and her ruin."

When he was asked for his reason for accepting the office
of vice-president in the Confederacy, he said : " My sole object
was to do all the good I could in preserving and perpetuating
the principles of liberty as established under the Constitution
of the United States." Mr. Stephens advanced to his posi-
tion by conclusively logical processes. Standing upon the |
ground of Mr. Lincoln and the Republican Party, he as-
sumed that, inasmuch as the States in rebellion had never
been out of the Union, they had had the opportunity at all
times during the war of withdrawing from the contest and

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 69

resuming their places in the Senate and House as though
nothing had occurred of which the existing government
could take notice.

If, however, there were to be terms of adjustment, then
those terms must have a " continental basis founded upon
the principles of mutual convenience and reciprocal advan-
tage, and the recognition of the separate sovereignty of the
States." He was ready for a conference or convention of
all the States, but he did not admit the right of the successful
party to dictate terms to the States that had been in rebel-
lion. He expressed the personal, individual opinion, that
tax laws passed in the absence of representatives from the
seceded States would be unconstitutional. It was the opin-
ion of Mr. Stephens that the people of Georgia by a large
majority, thought that the State was entitled to repre-
sentation in the national Congress and without any condi-
tions.

When he was invited to consider the alternative of uni-
versal suffrage or a loss of representation as a condition
precedent to the restoration of the State, he said, with con-
fidence that neither branch of the alternative would be ac-
cepted. " If Georgia is a State in the Union her people feel
that she is entitled to representation without conditions im-
posed by Congress; and if she is not a State in the Union
then she could not be admitted as an equal with the others if
her admission were trammeled with conditions that did not
apply to all the rest alike."

It had been his expectation, and in his opinion such had
been the expectation of the people generally that the State
would assume its place in the Union whenever the cause of
the Confederacy should be abandoned.

Such were the results of the State-Rights doctrines as
announced by the most intellectual of the Southern leaders
in the war of the Rebellion. In the opinion of Mr. Stephens

70 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

a State could retire from the Union either for purposes of
peace or of war and return at will, and all without loss of
place or power.

At the close of his examination he made this declaration:
" My convictions on the original abstract question have un-
dergone no change."

As a sequel to the doctrines of Mr. Stephens, I mention
the history of Andrew J. Lewis. When the Legislature of
Massachusetts assembled in January, 1851, Lewis took a seat
in the House as the Democratic member from the town of
Sandisfield. He acted with the Coalitionists, and he voted
for Mr. Sumner as United States Senator. Lewis was re-
turned for the year 1852, and in General Pierce's administra-
tion he held an office in the Boston Custom House.

Upon the fall of Port Hudson I 'received a letter from
General Banks. In that letter he mentioned the fact that
Lewis was among the prisoners, holding the office of captain
in a South Carolina regiment. His account of himself was
this : " I was born in South Carolina. When my State
seceded I thought I must go too, and so I left Massachusetts
and returned to South Carolina."

GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT

General Grant's examination during the investigation
embraced a variety of topics and the report is a volume of not
less than twenty thousand words. His testimony is marked
by the qualities for which he was known both on the civil
and military side of his career. These qualities were clear-
ness of thought, accuracy and readiness of memory, direct-
ness of expression and the absence of remarks in the nature
of exaggeration or embellishment. The character of the
man and the history of events may gain something from an
examination of his testimony upon three important points
to which it related: the opinion of President Lincoln in

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 71

regard to the reconstruction of the government; the opinion
of President Johnson upon the same subject, and his own
view of the rights of General Lee and of the army under
iis command that had surrendered at Appomattox.

When President Johnson entered upon the work of re-
constructing the government of North Carolina it was
claimed that he was giving form and effect to the plan which
President Lincoln had accepted as a wise policy.

There was some foundation for the claim as appears from
the testimony of General Grant, Mr. Seward, Mr. Stanton,
and others, but there is no ground for the claim that Mr.
-incoln had matured a plan or had accepted any scheme of
mstruction at the hands of any one. In an exigency, as
the case of the resignation of General Hooker, he could
ict immediately, but time and thought, and discussion with
thers were accepted as valuable aids, whenever there was
lot a pressure for instant action.

General Grant was examined in July, 1867, and the open-
ig was conducted by Mr. Eldridge of Wisconsin. It re-
ited to the parole granted to General Lee and his army,
ic nature of the questions led General Grant to make this
lark : " I will state here, that I am not quite certain
whether I am being tried, or who is being tried, by the
luestions asked."

General Grant may have thought that Mr. Eldridge was
ideavoring to secure from him an admission that he had
needed his authority in the terms of the parole granted
to General Lee. General Grant was able to state the terms
with exactness and within his powers as commander of
the conquering army. He claimed that General Lee sur-
rendered his army " in consideration of the fact that they
were to be exempt from trial so long as they conformed to
the obligations which they had taken." President Johnson
claimed that the leaders should be tried. This position he

72 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

abandoned previous to July, 1867. Of an interview with
President Johnson, General Grant made this statement:

" He insisted on it that the leaders must be punished,
and wanted to know, when the time would come when those
persons could be tried. I told him when they violated their
parole/' In the opinion of General Grant the terms of the
parole did not include Jefferson Davis, as he had been
captured.

In the early part of the controversy President Johnson
insisted that General Lee should be tried for treason. This
purpose on the part of the President was resisted by General
Grant. His position, in his own language, was this:

" I insisted on it that General Lee would not have sur-
rendered his army and given up all their arms if he had
supposed that after surrender, he was going to be tried
for treason and hanged. I thought we got a very good
equivalent for the lives of a few leaders in getting all their
arms and getting themselves under control bound by their
oaths to obey the laws. That was the consideration, which,
I insisted upon, we had received."

General Grant added:

" Afterwards he got to agreeing with me on that subject."

On the question of political rights as involved in the
surrender and in the parole, General Grant said:

" I never claimed that the parole gave those prisoners
any political right whatever. I thought that that was a
matter entirely with Congress, over which I had no control;
that simply as general-in-chief commanding the army, I
had a right to stipulate for the surrender on terms which
protected their lives. The parole gave them protection and
exemption from punishment for all offences not in violation
of the rules of civilized warfare."

The point of difference between General Grant and Presi-
dent Johnson in regard to the parole is very clear from General

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 73

Grant's answers to questions by Mr. Thomas and Mr. El-
dridge.

" You have stated your opinion as to the rights and privi-
leges of General Lee and his soldiers; do you mean that to
include any political rights?"
" I have explained that I did not."
" Was there any difference of opinion on that point be-
tween yourself and President Johnson at any time ? "

" On that point there was no difference of opinion ; but
there was as to whether the parole gave them any privileges
or rights ... He claiming that the time must come
when they would be tried and punished, and I claiming
that that time could not come except by a violation of their
parole."

Grant claimed also that the army that had surrendered
to Sherman came under the same rules.

These quotations give General Grant's standing as an
interpreter of public law and as a leader capable of applying
the rules and principles of public law to practical affairs.
His training at West Point may have given him a knowledge
of principles and his good sense enabled him to apply the
principles in the terms that he dictated at Appomattox.

General Grant's natural qualities were such that with
training he might have succeeded in great causes involving
principles, but he was not adapted to the ordinary business
of a county-court lawyer.

It is quite certain from the testimony of General Grant
that Mr. Lincoln had had in mind a scheme for the organi-
zation of the States that had been in rebellion and that Mr.
Johnson's proclamation for the government of North Caro-
lina was not a wide departure from that scheme.

General Grant was present at two meetings of the Cabinet
in Mr. Lincoln's time, when a proclamation was read and
considered. In the language of General Grant, " after the

74 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

assassination it continued right along and I was there with
Mr. Johnson." General Grant's interest was directed to
two points: First, that civil government should be set up
but subject to the final action of Congress, and second, that
the parole should not be infringed. He states his position
thus:

" I was always ready to originate matters pertaining to
the army, but I was never willing to originate matters per-
taining to the civil government of the United States. When
I was asked my opinion about what had been done I was
willing to give it. I originated no plans and suggested
no plans for civil government."

The examination by Mr. Eldridge was in the nature of
cross-examination and for the purpose of gaining an ad-
mission from General Grant that he had advised or sanc-
tioned President Johnson's plan of reconstruction. Hence
General Grant's declarations that his part was limited to
the military side of the measure and that in his view the
entire plan was subject to Congressional action.

General Grant's testimony is explicit upon these points:
He advised President Johnson to grant a pardon to General
Lee and a pardon to General Johnston. He was especially
urgent in favor of a pardon to General Johnston in con-
sideration of his speech to his army at the time of the sur-
render. He advised against the proclamation of amnesty
upon the ground that the act was then premature.

General Grant's testimony adds strength to the state-
ment that President Johnson contemplated the recognition
of a Congress composed of Democratic members from the
North and of the representatives from the States that had
been organized under the President's proclamations.

"I have heard him say — and I think I have heard him
say it twice in his speeches — that if the North carried the
election by members enough to give them, with the Southern

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 75

members, a majority why would they not be the Congress of
the United States?"

In answer to this question : " Have you heard him make
a remark kindred to that elsewhere? " General Grant said:

" Yes, I have heard him say that aside from his speeches,
in conversation. I cannot say just when."

The North Carolina proclamation was read at an in-
formal meeting at which only Grant and Stanton were with
the President. General Grant did not criticise the paper,
e said of it : " It was a civil matter and although I was
nxious to have something done I did not intend to dictate
,ny plan. I looked upon it simply as a temporary measure
establish a sort of government until Congress should
t and settle the whole question and that it did not make
ch difference how it was done so there was a form of
overnment there. ... I don't suppose that there were any
ersons engaged in that consultation who thought of what
as being done at that time as being lasting — any longer
n Congress would meet and either ratify that or establish
me other form of government."
General Grant understood that the North Carolina proc-
mation was in substance the paper which had been con-
idered by Mr. Lincoln, but General Grant said also, that
r. Lincoln's plan was " temporary, to be either confirmed,
r a new government set up by Congress."
General Grant's testimony upon one point is supported
y the testimony of Mr. Seward and the testimony of Mr.
tanton. They agree that Mr. Johnson's plan of recon-
ruction was in substance the plan that Mr. Lincoln had had
der consideration. Mr. Stanton regarded the plan as
mporary.

If President Johnson intended to enforce the plan upon
e country he concealed his purpose when the North Caro-
lina proclamation was under consideration.

76 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In the month of October, 1866, the police commissioners
of the city of Baltimore were engaged in the work of regis-
tering voters for the November elections, and the authori-
ties were engaged in the work of registering the voters in
all parts of the State of Maryland. It was claimed that
many thousands who had been engaged in the rebellion and
who were excluded under a provision of the Constitution had
been registered by the connivance of the authorities and
especially by the police commissioners of Baltimore. There
were rumors of secret, hostile organizations, there were
threats of disturbances, and Governor Swann became alarmed.

President Johnson became alarmed also and under date
of October 25 he wrote a letter to General Grant in which
these paragraphs may be found :

" From recent developments serious troubles are appre-
hended from a conflict of authority between the executive of
the State of Maryland and the police commissioners of the
city of Baltimore." . . . "I therefore request that
you inform me of the number of Federal troops at present
stationed in the city of Baltimore or vicinity."

General Grant informed the President on the 27th, that
the number of available and efficient troops was 1,550.
Thereupon, on the first day of November the President
issued the following instruction to Secretary Stanton:

" In view of the prevalence in various portions of the
country of a revolutionary and turbulent disposition which
might at any moment assume insurrectionary proportions
and lead to serious disorders, and of the duty of the gov-
ernment to be at all times prepared to act with decision and
effect this force is not deemed adequate for the protection
and security of the seat of government."

Secretary Stanton referred the President's letter to Gen-
eral Grant with instructions " to take such measures as in

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 77

:

o

his judgment are proper and within his power to carry into
iperation the within directions of the President."

Under this order six or eight companies in New York and
on the way to join regiments in the South were detained
at Fort McHenry, and a regiment in Washington was under
orders to be ready to move upon notice.

On the second day of November the President qualified his
emands in a letter to Secretary Stanton and limited the
pression of anxiety to the city of Baltimore. It is cer-
in that General Grant and Secretary Stanton did not
are the President's apprehensions, and the day of election
assed without serious disturbance.

In the Philadelphia Ledger of October 12, 1866, there
ppeared a series of questions which were accompanied by
e statement or the suggestion that the President had sub-
itted them to the Attorney-General for an official opinion,
e questions related to the constitutional validity of the
Thirty-ninth Congress, and upon the ground that all the
States were not represented although hostilities had ceased.
From the testimony of Henry M. Flint, a newspaper
rrespondent, it appears that the President had no knowl-
ge of the questions until the publications in the Ledger.
hit's account of the affair may be thus summarized. For
imself and without conference with the President, he
.ched the conclusion that the Thirty-ninth Congress was
illegal body and he had reached the conclusion also that
e President entertained the same opinion. Thereupon he
ssumed that the President would take the opinion of the
ttorney-General. Having advanced thus far, he next pro-
eded to write the questions that he imagined the President
ould prepare and submit to the Attorney-General.
These questions he transmitted to a brother correspondent
New York — Mr. F. A. Abbott — under cover of a letter

78 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

which was not produced. Flint gave the substance of his
letter to Abbott in these words:

" These questions are supposed or believed to have been
submitted by the President to the Attorney-General."
Speaking of Abbott, Flint said : "I knew he was connected
with several newspapers and I had no doubt when I sent
these questions that they would appear in some paper in
some shape. . . . The object I had in view in writing
these questions and in sending them to Mr. Abbott was that
they might appear before the public, and that the public mind
might be directed to that point, and that the newspapers
particularly might be led to express their sentiments upon
the questions involved in it."

When the publication " had given rise to considerable dis-
cussion " in the language of Flint, " I thought," he says, " I
ought to go to the President and tell him what part of the
despatch was mine and what connection I had had with the
publication of it."

Of his interview with the President, he gives this report:
" He showed me an article, which I think, appeared the
day after the questions were published, in the Daily News
of Philadelphia, which took pretty nearly the same ground
my questions would indicate. ... He spoke of it
rather approvingly."

Flint adds : " I had remarked to him : ' Mr. Johnson, it
seemed to me that it would be by no means remarkable
that you should prepare such questions as bear upon a sub-
ject which I know must have occupied your mind as it has
the public mind.' I forget what reply he made; it was a
sort of affirmative response or assent."

Whatever may have been the origin of Flint's questions
their appearance in the manner indicated is an instance of
volunteer service not often paralleled in the rough contests
of life. Without any effort on his own part the President

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 79

gained knowledge of a public sentiment upon the question
of the legality of the Thirty-ninth Congress — a question in
which he had much interest in the autumn of 1866.

The project to increase the army around Washington and
the project to proclaim the Thirty-ninth Congress an illegal
body may have had an intimate connection with the project
to send General Grant on a mission to Mexico and to place
General Sherman in command at Washington, a project of
which I have spoken in another place.

GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE

General Robert E. Lee was examined by the Committee
on Reconstruction the I7th day of February, 1866.

The inquiries related to the state of public sentiment in
the South, and especially in Virginia in regard to secession,
to the treatment of the negroes, to the public debts of the
United States, and of the Confederacy, and to the treatment
of Northern soldiers in Southern prisons.

General Lee was then in good health and in personal ap-
pearance he commended himself without delay. He was
large in frame, compactly built, and he was furnished with
all the flesh and muscle that could be useful to a man who
was passing the middle period of life. The elasticity of
spirits, the vigor of mind and body that are the wealth of a
successful man at sixty were wanting in General Lee. His
appearance commanded respect and it excited the sympathy
even of those who had condemned his abandonment of the
Union in 1861.

The examination gave evidence of integrity and of entire
freedom from duplicity. Freedom from duplicity was a
controlling feature in General Grant's character and in that
attribute of greatness Grant and Lee may have been equals.

General Lee was free to disclose his own opinions, but he
was cautious in his statements when questioned as to the

8o SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

opinions and purposes of the men and States that had been
in the Rebellion. He was careful to say at the beginning
of the examination that he had no communication with poli-
ticians and that he did not read the papers. What he said
of the South assumed that the people were in poverty and
were so dejected that they had no plans for the future,
nor any hopes of restoration to wealth, happiness and power
in the affairs of the country. His testimony as a whole
might justify the opinion that there would be no serious
resistance to any form of government that might be set
up. He favored the governments which President Johnson
had organized and he expressed the opinion that they were
acceptable to the people generally. A comprehensive state-
ment was this :

" I do not know of a single person who either feels or
contemplates any resistance to the government of the United
States, or, indeed any opposition to it." He gave this as-
surance to the committee : " The people entirely acquiesce
in the government of the United States and are for co-operat-
ing with President Johnson in his policy."

The payment of the public debt had not been a topic of
discussion in his presence, but the people were disposed to
pay such taxes as were imposed and they were struggling
to get money for that purpose.

He was of the opinion that the people made no distinc-
tion between the Confederate debt and the debt of the United
States — that they were disposed to pay both debts, and
would pay both if they had the power. For himself, how-
ever, he had no expectation that the indebtedness of the
Confederacy would ever be paid.

General Lee manifested a kindly spirit for the freedmen,
but he was unwilling to accept them as citizens endowed
with the right of suffrage. Of the feeling in Virginia, Gen-
eral Lee said : " Every one with whom I associate expresses

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 81

kind feelings toward the freedmen. They wish to see them
get on in the world, and especially to take up some occupa-
tion for a living."

He rejected the suggestion that there was anywhere within
the State any combinations having in view, " the disturb-
ance of the peace, or any improper or unlawful acts." He
characterized the negroes as "an amiable, social race, who
look more to their present than to their future condition."

In answer to the question whether the South would sup-
port the government in case of war with France or England,
General Lee was distinctly reserved : "I cannot speak with
any certainty on that point. I do not know how far they
might be actuated by their feelings. I have nothing what-
ever to base an opinion upon. So far as I know they con-
template nothing of the kind now. What may happen in
the future I cannot say." He then added this remark:
" Those people in Virginia with whom I associate express
a hope that the country may not be led into war."

In answer to the question whether in case of war some
1 of the class known as secessionists might join the enemy,
he said : " It is possible. It depends upon the feelings of
the individual." As to joining the enemy in case of war,
he said, speaking for himself : "I have no disposition now
to do it, and I never have had."

As to an alliance during the war he said that he knew
nothing of the policy of the Confederate government : " I
had no hand or part in it," was his remark. It was his
opinion during the war that an alliance with a foreign country
was desirable, and he had assumed that the authorities were
of the same opinion. His ideas were those of General Grant,
and he avoided responsibility for the measures of government
on the civil side.

With kind feelings for the colored people of Virginia
General Lee favored the substitution of a white class of

82 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

laborers, if an exchange could be made, of which however,
he had neither plan nor hope. Nor could he give any as-
surance that Northern men would be received upon terms
of equality and friendship, if they avowed the opinions that
then prevailed generally in the North : " The manner in
which they would be received would depend entirely upon
the individuals themselves — they might make themselves
obnoxious, as you can understand," was the statement of
General Lee. His testimony as a whole indicated an opinion
that it was more important to secure capital for business,
than it was to rid the State of the negro laborer. In his
opinion, most of the blacks were willing to work for their
former masters, but they were unwilling to make engage-
ments for a year, a form of engagement which the farmers
and planters preferred, that they might be sure of help when
it would be most needed. The negroes may have been in-
fluenced by one or both of two reasons. Their unthrifty
habits — the outcome of slavery — or an apprehension that a
formal engagement for a year was a kind of bondage that
might lead to a renewal of the old system.

When General Lee was pressed by Senator Howard as to
the feeling in the South in regard to the National Govern-
ment, he said : " I believe that they will perform all the
duties that they are required to perform. I think that is
the general feeling. ... I do not know that there is any
deep-seated dislike. I think it is probable that there may
be some animosity still existing among some of the people
of the South. . . . They were disappointed at the
result of the war."

General Lee was of the opinion that a Southern jury
would not find an accused guilty of treason for participation
in the war. Indeed his doctrine of State Rights excused
the citizen and placed the sole responsibility on the State.
Of the common sentiment in the South he said : " So far as I

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 83

know, they look upon the action of the State, in withdrawing
itself from the government of the United States, as carrying
the individuals of the State along with it; that the State
was responsible for the act, not the individual." This
was the framework of his own defence. Speaking of
the advocates of secession, he said : " The ordinance of
secession, or those acts of a State which recognized a con-
dition of war between the State and the General Government,
stood as their justification for their bearing arms against
the Government of the United States. They considered the
act of the State as legitimate. That they were merely using
the reserved right, which they had a right to do."

From these views General Lee was led to a specific state-
ment of his own position :

Question : " State, if you please, what your own personal
views on that question were?"

Answer : " That was my view ; that the act of Virginia
in withdrawing herself from the United States carried me
along as a citizen of Virginia, and that her laws and her
acts were binding on me."

Question : " And that you felt to be your justification
in taking the course you did ? "
Answer: "Yes, sir."

In the course of the examination General Lee expressed
the opinion that the " trouble was brought about by the
politicians of the country."

General Lee disclaimed all responsibility for the care
and treatment of prisoners of war. He had always favored a
free exchange of prisoners, knowing that proper means for
the care and comfort of prisoners could not be furnished
in the Confederacy. He thought that the hardships and
neglects had been exaggerated. As to himself, he had never
had any control over prisoners, except as they were cap-
tured on the field of battle. He sent his prisoners to Rich-

84 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

mond where they came under the control of the provost-
marshal-general. His orders to surgeons on the field were to
treat all the wounded alike.

In the examinations that were made by the committee I
read a large number of reports of surgeons connected with
the prisons and hospitals and I may say that in all cases they
exhibited humanity and in many cases specific means of relief
for the sufferings of the soldiers were recommended. Their
reports were forwarded from officer to officer, but in a large
majority of cases the reports were neglected.

In a letter written by General Lee to his sister a few days
before he abandoned the service of the United States, he
expressed the opinion that there was no sufficient cause
for the rebellion. This opinion, in connection with his
opinion that the rebellion was the work of politicians demon-
strates the power which the doctrine of State Rights had
obtained over a man of experience and of admitted ability.
Upon his own admission, he subordinated his conduct to
the action of his State and in disregard of his personal
obligation through his oath of office. If he had followed
his own judgment as to what was wise and proper he would
have remained in his place as an officer in the army of the
United States.

If in 1 86 1 an officer of the army had entertained the
opinion that the North was in the wrong and that the South
was in the right, it could be claimed, fairly, that that officer
might forswear his obligations to the old Government and
accept service in the Confederacy.

Moral obliquity is not to be assumed in the case of Gen-
eral Lee. His pecuniary and professional interests must
have invited him to remain in the army. General Scott,
a Virginian, was at the head of the army, and General Scott
was his friend. His promotion was certain, and important
commands were probable. His large estates in the vicinity of

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 85

the city of Washington were exposed to the ravages of
war if not to confiscation. These sacrifices, some certain,
and others probable were present when he left Washington
and entered into the service of the Confederacy under the
superior authority of the State of Virginia in disregard
of his own opinion, and in disregard, not to say violation, of
his oath as a soldier who had sworn to support the Con-
stitution of the United States. General Lee was unable to
say whether he had taken an oath to support the Confederate
States. He could not recall the fact of taking the oath, but
he said he should have taken the oath if it had been tendered
to him.

The full report of the testimony of General Lee should
appear in any complete biography of the man. It reveals
his character, explains the leading influences to which he
was subjected, and it sheds light upon the state of public
opinion in the South at the end of the contest in arms.

General Scott and General George H. Thomas were Virgin-
ins, but they acted in defiance of the State-Rights doctrines
of the South. In April, 1861, General Scott gave me an
account of the efforts that had been made to induce him to
follow the fortunes of Virginia, and he spoke with a voice
of emotion of his veneration for the flag, and of his attach-
ment to the Union.

GENERAL GEORGE H. THOMAS

Of the soldiers of the Northern army in the war of the
Rebellion, General George H. Thomas takes rank next after
the first three — Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. When Grant
became President and Sherman was general of the army
the President was unwilling to appear to neglect either
Sheridan or Thomas. With high appreciation of Thomas
as a soldier, the President gave higher rank to Sheridan.
He said to me that he placed Sheridan above every other

86 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

officer of the war. He gave Sheridan credit for two su-
preme qualities — great care in his plans and great vigor in
execution.

Yet, although the President acted upon a sound basis of
opinion, the choice left a painful impression upon his
memory.

General Thomas and General Lee were alike in personal
appearance, and they resembled each other in their mental
characteristics. In one important particular they differed—
General Thomas had no respect for State-Rights doctrines.
He was a native of Virginia, but there were no indications
in his testimony, nor were there rumors, that he had ever
hesitated in his course when the rebellion opened.

He exhibited a peculiarity not uncommon among loyal
men in the South — a disposition to deprive those who had
been engaged in the rebellion of the right of suffrage.

General Thomas was examined by the Committee on Re-
construction January 29, and February 2, 1866. He was
then in command of the Military Division of the Tennessee
which included the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia,
Alabama and Mississippi. It was the main object of the
committee to obtain information as to the public sentiment
touching the treatment of the negroes and the re-establish-
ment of civil government in the States that had been in
rebellion. The Union sentiment was stronger in Tennessee
than in any other State of the Confederacy. The inhabitants
of the mountainous districts of eastern and middle Tennessee
had been loyal from the opening of the contest in 1860 and
1 86 1. Yet in 1866 General Thomas advised the committee
that it would " not be safe to remove the national troops
from Tennessee, or to withdraw martial law; or to restore
the writ of habeas corpus to its full extent." At that time the
peace of eastern Tennessee was disturbed by family feuds
and personal quarrels, the outcome of political differences.

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 87

In west Tennessee and in portions of 'middle Tennessee there
was a deep seated hostility to Union men, and especially to
Southern men who had served in the Union army.

General Thomas said of them : " They are more unfriendly
to Union men natives of the State of Tennessee or of the
South, who have been in the Union army, than they are to
icn of Northern birth."

At that time the contract system of labor had been intro-
luced, and the contracts were regarded as binding both by
whites and blacks.

General Thomas advised the admission of Tennessee into
the Union as a State, and his advice was acted upon favor-
ably by its admission in the summer of that year. His rec-
ommendations were based upon the facts that Tennessee
had " repudiated the rebel debt, had abolished slavery, had
adopted the Constitutional amendment upon that subject,
had passed a franchise law prohibiting from voting every
man who had been engaged in the rebellion " and had

passed a law allowing negroes to testify."

His opinion of the four other States of his command was
not as favorable. " I have received communications from
various persons in the South that there was an under-
standing among the rebels and perhaps organizations formed
or forming, for the purpose of gaining as many advantages
for themselves as possible ; and I have heard it also intimated
that these men are very anxious and would do all in their
power to involve the United States in a foreign war, so that
if a favorable opportunity should occur, they might then
again turn against the United States."

At the end of his first examination he gave this opinion
as the result of his experience:

Question : " In what could those advantages consist in
breaking up the government? "

Answer : " They would wish to be recognized as citizens

88 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of the United States, with the same rights they had before
the war."

Question : " How can they do that ? By wishing us in a
war with England or France, in which they would take
part against us ? "

Answer : " In that event their desire is to establish the
Southern Confederacy. They have not yet given up their
desire for a separate government, and if they have an op-
portunity to strike for it again they will do so."

When asked what he knew of secret organizations he
said that he had received several communications to that
effect but the parties were unwilling to have their names
made public. He added : " The persons communicating
with me are reliable and truthful and I believe their state-
ments are correct in the main.

" The nature and object of the organizations," he said,
" are the embarrassment of the Government of the United
States in the proper administration of the affairs of the coun-
try, and if possible, to repudiate the national debt, or to gain
such an ascendency in Congress as to make provision for
the assumption by Congress of the debt incurred by the rebel
government ; also, in case the United States Government can
be involved in foreign war to watch their opportunity and
take advantage of the first that comes to strike for the in-
dependence of the States lately in rebellion."

These extracts from the testimony of General Thomas
are a fair exposition of the condition of public sentiment
in the Confederate States with the exception in a degree
of the border States. It is apparent also that General
Thomas had not the degree of confidence in the good pur-
poses of those who had been in the rebellion that was en-
tertained by Northern officers including Grant, Sherman,
and Sheridan.

As the loyal men of the South were greater sufferers

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 89

from the war, their hostility was more intense against those
who were responsible for the war.

If we cannot say that Thomas was a great soldier in the
large use of the phrase, it can be said that he was a good
soldier and that without qualifying words. He should live
in history as a true patriot and a man of the highest
integrity.

SECRETARY STANTON

Of the men who occupied places in Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet,
no one was more free from just criticism affecting unfavor-
ably the value of his public services than Secretary Stanton.

Of those who were nearest to him, no one ever received
the impression from his acts or his conversation that he
thought of the Presidency as a possibility under any circum-
stances. Seward, Chase and Bates had been candidates at
Chicago in 1860, and whatever may have been the fact in
regard to Seward and Bates, it is quite certain that ambition
for the Presidency never lost its hold upon Mr. Chase, even
when he became Chief Justice of the United States.

Coupled with the absence of ambition, or perhaps in a
degree incident to the absence of ambition, Mr. Stanton was
the possessor of courage for all the emergencies of the place
that he occupied — a courage that was always available,
whether in its exercise the wishes of individuals or the for-
tunes of the country were involved.

It was understood by those who frequented the War Office
in the gloomy days of 1862 and '63 that a card signed " A. L.''
would not always command full respect from Secretary Stan-
ton. He was a believer in the rigid principles of the army,
and although he was a humane man he smothered or sub-
dued his sympathy for heart-broken mothers whose sons had
deserted the cause of the country, in his determination to
save the country through the strictest enforcement of the
rules and regulations of the army. Mr. Lincoln, in his

90 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

abounding good nature, could not resist the appeals of dis-
consolate wives and heart-stricken mothers, and it was often
Mr. Stanton's fortune to resist such appeals even when sup-
ported by the President's card in the form of a request which
in ordinary times and upon ordinary men would be treated
as an order.

Hence there may have been a foundation for the report
that an unsuccessful user of one of the President's cards
returned to the President for a reinforcement of the order.
The President insisted upon a full report of the Secretary's
answer. The applicant repeated the Secretary's remark,
which was not complimentary to the President's good sense.
The President hesitated, and then declined to renew the order,
saying : " Stanton is generally right."

Mr. Stanton's testimony was taken February n, 1867, and
on subsequent days. The record of the text and the ac-
companying documents cover more than two hundred printed
pages. The evidence was taken by the Committee on the Ju-
diciary, and it had special reference to the charges that had
been made against President Johnson. At that time, the
separation between Mr. Stanton and the President had be-
come irreconcilable, but there are no indications of hostility
in the answers given by the Secretary. Indeed, he assumed,
without reserve, full responsibility for acts that had been
charged on the President by others.

During the war the railroads that fell within our lines
were appropriated to the use of the United States, and heavy
outlays had been made upon some of them for repairs and
improvements. In many cases expenses had been incurred,
that in the hands of the corporation would not have been
chargeable to a construction account. In a majority of cases,
if not in all, the roads had been surrendered without compen-
sation, and the rolling stock had been transferred for very
slight consideration.

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 91

Mr. Stanton assumed the responsibility of the policy,
upon the ground that it was important to the South and
to the country that the channels of commerce should be made
available without delay and that the army could not be used
wisely in commercial traffic. As the President was interested
in one of the railroads that received a large benefit by the res-
toration of its property much improved, he was relieved of
all responsibility for a policy that had been much condemned.

Through the testimony of Secretary Stanton the committee
was enabled to find the origin and to trace with a degree of
accuracy the history of President Johnson's plan of recon-
struction. At a time not many days prior to Mr. Lincoln's
death, Secretary Stanton prepared an order which contained a
projet for the government of the States that had been in
rebellion. The paper was submitted to President Lincoln
and it was considered by him in a cabinet meeting that was
held during the day preceding the night of the assassination.

As this paper became the basis for the proclamations for
the government of the States that had been in rebellion, its
history, as given by Mr. Stanton, is worthy of exact report
in his own words :

" On the last day of Mr. Lincoln's life, there was a Cabinet
meeting, at which General Grant, and all the members of
the Cabinet, except Mr. Seward, were present. General
Grant at that time made a report of the condition of the
country, as he conceived it to be, and as it would be on the
surrender of Johnston's army, which was regarded as abso-
lutely certain. The subject of reconstruction was talked of
at considerable length. Shortly previous to that time I had
myself, with a view of putting into a practicable form the
means of overcoming what seemed to be a difficulty in the
mind of Mr. Lincoln, as to the mode of reconstruction, pre-
pared a rough draft of a form or mode by which the authority
and laws of the United States should be re-established, and

92 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

governments reorganized in the rebel States under the Fed-
eral authority, without any necessity whatever for the inter-
vention of rebel organizations or rebel aid.

In the course of that consultation Mr. Lincoln alluded to
the paper, went into his room, brought it out, and asked me
to read it, which I did, and explained my ideas in regard
to it. There was one point which I had left open ; that was
as to who should constitute the electors in the respective
States ... I left a blank upon that subject to be
considered. There was at that time nothing adopted about
it, and no opinions expressed; it was only a pro jet.

At the request of Mr. Lincoln and the Cabinet, the order
was printed and a copy was given to each member, and a
copy was given to Mr. Johnson when he had become
President.

The plan was further considered in Mr. Johnson's Cabinet,
and some alterations were made. The point of chief differ-
ence related to the elective franchise — whether it should be
extended to the negro race.

Mr. Stanton said : " There was a difference of opinion
upon that subject. The President expressed his views very
clearly and distinctly. I expressed my views, and other mem-
bers of the Cabinet expressed their views. The objections
of the President to throwing the franchise open to the col-
ored people appeared to be fixed, and I think every member
of the Cabinet assented to the arrangement as it was specified
in the proclamation relative to North Carolina. After that
I do not remember that the subject was ever again discussed
in the Cabinet."

Thus from Mr. Stanton's testimony we gather the impor-
tant facts as to the origin of a measure which became the sub-
ject of bitter controversy between President Johnson and the
Republican Party. The framework of the North Carolina
proclamation was furnished by Mr. Stanton. When alter-

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 93

ations had been made the proclamation was agreed to by the
Cabinet but without a declaration or even an understanding
upon the point which, without much delay, became the vital
point : was the policy of government that was announced in
the proclamation a permanent policy or was it a temporary
expedient, a substitute for military government, and subject
to the approval or disapproval of Congress?

General Grant was of the opinion that the organizations
which the President set up in the States were temporary
and that they were subject to the action of Congress.

Mr. Stanton's opinion is expressed carefully, in his own
words : " My opinion is, that the whole subject of recon-
struction and the relation of the State to the Federal Govern-
ment is subject to the controlling power of Congress; and
while I believe that the President and his Cabinet were
not violating any law, but were faithfully performing their
duty in endeavoring to organize provisional governments
in those States, I supposed then, and still suppose, that the
final validity of such organizations would rest with the law-
making power of the government."

In an official letter, dated January 8, 1866, Secretary Stan-
ton gave his reasons for the payment of the salaries of the
provisional governors : " The payments were made from
the appropriation of army contingencies because the duties
performed by the parties were regarded of a temporary
character ancillary to the withdrawal of military force, and
to take the place of the armed forces in the respective States."

On the other hand the President chose to treat the govern-
ments that had been set up as permanent governments and
beyond the control of Congress. On this point, the contest
between President Johnson and the Republican Party was
made up. It ended in an appeal to the people, who rendered
a judgment against the President by a two-thirds majority.
The testimony of Secretary Seward, and official papers that

94 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

were issued from the Department of State in the year 1865,
may warrant the conclusion that President Johnson was not
then prepared to treat the new state organizations as final
and binding upon Congress and the country.

Under date of July 8, 1865, Secretary Seward said, in an
official letter to Governor Holden of North Carolina : " It is
understood here that besides cotton which has been taken by
the Secretary of the Treasury under Act of Congress there
were quantities of resin, and other articles, as well as funds,
lying about in different places in the State and not reduced
into possession by United States officers as insurgent prop-
erty. The President is of opinion that you can appropriate
these for the inevitable and indispensable expenses of the civil
government of the State during the continuance of the pro-
visional government."

On the 1 4th day of November, 1865, Mr. McCulloch
authorized Mr. Worth, acting as treasurer in North Carolina,
to use the fragments of rebel property that might be gath-
ered to defray the expenses of the provisional government
of the State.

In answer to a question put to Secretary Seward, he said :
" I do not remember that any provisional governor held a
military office, except Mr. Johnson."

In the further examination of Mr. Seward, May 16, 1867,
he indicated his concurrence with President Johnson in this
remark : " The object was to proceed with the work of the
restoration of the Union as speedily and effectively and
wisely as possible, having no reference as to whether Con-
gress would be in session or not."

This question was put to Mr. Seward :

" Did not he (the President) urge these parties to be pre-
pared to be at the doors of Congress by the time of its next
meeting?"

The answer was : " Very likely he did. I do not know of

INVESTIGATIONS FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR 95

the fact. I know that I was very anxious that these States
should be represented in Congress, and that he was equally
so, that they should be provided with representatives who
could be admitted."

The policy of the administration, July 24, 1865, is set
forth in a despatch from Secretary Seward to Governor
Sharkey, of Mississippi (he is addressed as Provisional Gov-
ernor) : " The President sees no occasion to interfere with
General Slocum's proceedings. The government of the State
will be provisional only until the civil authorities shall be
restored with the approval of Congress."

Upon the united testimony of General Grant, Secretary
Stanton and Secretary Seward, it may be claimed fairly that
the governments that were set up under proclamations of the
President were treated in the beginning as provisional govern-
ments and subject to the final judgment of Congress.

In 1866, when the rupture between Congress and the Presi-
dent had taken form, the President with the support of Mr.
Seward announced the doctrine that the governments which
had been set up were valid governments, and that claimants
for seats in Congress from those who could prove their loyalty
were entitled to admission.

Thus was a foundation laid for the impeachment of Presi-
dent Johnson by the House of Representatives, and his trial
by the Senate.

XXXII

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON

THE nomination of Andrew Johnson to the Vice-
Presidency in 1864, by the Republican Party, was a
repetition of the error committed by the Whig Party
in 1840, in the nomination of John Tyler for the same office.

In each case the nomination was due to an attempt to
secure the support of a body of men who were not in accord
in all essential particulars with the party making the
nomination.

John Tyler was opposed to the administration of Mr. Van
Buren, but he was opposed also to a national bank, which
(was then an accepted idea and an assured public policy of
the Whig Party. Hence, it happened that when Mr. Tyler
came to the Presidency, he resisted the attempt of Congress
to establish a national bank, and by the exercise of the veto
power, on two occasions, he defeated the measure. This
controversy caused the overthrow of the Whig Party, and
it ended the contest in behalf of a United States bank.

In the case of John Tyler and in the case of Andrew
Johnson there was an application, in dangerous excess, of
a policy that prevails in all national conventions. When
the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency has been
secured, the dominant wing of the party turns to the minority
with a tender of the Vice-Presidency. In 1880, when the
nomination of General Garfield had been made, the selection
of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency was tendered to the
supporters of General Grant, and it was declined by more

than one person.

96

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 97

Mr. Johnson never identified himself with the Republican
Party; and neither in June, 1864, nor at any other period
of his life, had the Republican Party a right to treat him as an
associate member. He was, in fact, what he often proclaimed
himself to be — a Jacksonian Democrat. He was a Southern
Union Democrat. He was an opponent, and a bitter op-
ponent, of the project for the dissolution of the Union, and
a vindictive enemy of those who threatened its destruction.

His speeches in the Senate in the Thirty-sixth and the
'hirty-seventh Congress were read and much approved
iroughout the North, and they prepared the way for the
acceptance of his nomination as a candidate of the Republi-
in Party in 1864.

Mr. Johnson was an earnest supporter of the Crittenden
Compromise. That measure originated in the House of Rep-
resentatives. It was defeated in the Senate by seven votes
and six votes of the seven came from the South. The
provisions of the bill were far away from the ideas of Re-
publicans generally, although the measure was sustained
by members of the party. By that scheme the Fugitive
Slave Law was made less offensive in two particulars, but the
United States was to pay for fugitives from slavery when-
ever a marshal failed to perform his duty. As an important
limitation of the powers of Congress, the abolition of slav-
ery in the District of Columbia was to be dependent upon
the consent of the States of Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. Johnson gave voice to his indignation when he spoke
of the Southern men whose votes contributed to the defeat
of the Crittenden Compromise. " Who, then," said he, " has
brought these evils upon the country? Whose fault was it?
Who is responsible for it? With the help we had from the
other side of the chamber, if all those on this side had been
true to the Constitution and faithful to their constitutents,
and had acted with fidelity to the country, the amendment

98 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of the Senator from New Hampshire could have been voted
down. Whose fault was it ? Who did it ? Southern traitors,
as was said in the speech of the Senator from California.
They did it. They wanted no compromise."

These extracts show the style of speech in which Mr.
Johnson indulged, and they prove beyond question that in
the winter of 1861 he had no sympathy with the Republican
Party of 1856 and 1860. These facts explain, and in some
measure they may palliate, the peculiarities of his career,
which provoked criticism and an adverse popular judgment
when he came to the Presidency. Nor is there evidence
within my knowledge that he ever denied the right of se-
cession. However that may have been, he disapproved of
the exercise of the right at all stages of the contest.

In the Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Johnson proposed
amendments to the Constitution which gave him considera-
tion in the North. By his proposition the Fugitive Slave
Law was to be repealed, and in its place the respective
States were to return fugitives or to pay the value of those
that might be retained.

Slavery was to be abolished in the District of Columbia
with the consent of Maryland and upon payment of the
full value of the slaves emancipated. The Territories were
to be divided between freedom and slavery. His scheme
contemplated other changes not connected necessarily with
the system of slavery. Of these I mention the election of
President, Vice-President, Senators, and Judges of the Su-
preme Court by the people, coupled with a limitation of the
terms of the judges to twelve years.

The Crittenden Resolution contained these declarations
of facts and policy :

1. The present deplorable war has been forced upon the
country by the disunionists of the Southern States.

2. Congress has no purpose of conquest or subjugation,

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 99

nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the estab-
lished rights of those States.

Upon a motion to include disunionists of the North under
the first charge, Mr. Johnson voted in the negative with
Sumner, Wilson, Wade, and other Republicans.

This brief survey of Mr. Johnson's Congressional career

the opening of the war may indicate the characteristics
his mind in controversy and debate, and furnish means

>r comprehending his actions in the troublous period of his

[ministration.

Some conclusions are deducible from this survey. First of
all it is to be said that he never assumed to be a member of
the Republican Party. Next, I do not find evidence which
will justify the statement that he was a disbeliever in the
right of a State to secede from the Union. It is manifest
that he was not an advocate of the doctrine of political
equality as it came to be taught by the leaders of the Re-
publican Party. When he became President, he was an op-
ponent of negro suffrage.

This record, though not concealed, was not understood
by the members of the convention that placed him in nomi-
nation for the second office in the country.

This analysis prepares the way for an extract from the
testimony of Mr. Stanley Matthews, who was afterwards a
justice of the Supreme Court, and who was examined by
the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives
when engaged in investigating the doings of the President
previous to his impeachment. Mr. Johnson was appointed
Military Governor of Tennessee the third day of March,
1862. Colonel Matthews was provost-marshal at Nash-
ville, where Johnson resided during his term as Governor.
In that term Matthews and Johnson became acquainted.
When Johnson was on his way to Washington to take the
oath of office, he stopped at the Burnet House in Cincinnati.

ioo SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

'Matthews called upon him. Matthews had been a Democrat
until the troubles in Kansas. In the conversation at the Bur-
net House Mr. Johnson made these remarks, after some
personal matters had been disposed of. I quote from the
testimony of Judge Matthews:

" I inquired as to the state of public feeling on political
matters in Tennessee at that time. He remarked that very
great changes had taken place since I had been there, that
many of those who at first were the best Union men had
turned to be the worst rebels, and that many of those who
had originally been the worst rebels were now the best
Union men. I expressed surprise and regret at what he said
in reference to the matter.

" We were sitting near each other on the sofa. He then
turned to me and said, ' You and I were old Democrats/ I
said, ' Yes.' He then said, '/ will tell you what it is, if
the country is ever to be saved, it is to be done through the
old Democratic Party'

" I do not know whether I made any reply to that, or, if I
did, what it was; and immediately afterwards I took my
leave."

The larger part of this quotation is only important as
leading up to the phrase that is emphasized, and which may
throw light upon Mr. Johnson's policy and conduct when
he came to the Presidency.

This conversation occurred in the month of February,
1865, and it must be accepted as evidence, quite conclusive,
that Mr. Johnson was then opposed to the policy of the Re-
publican Party, whose honors he had accepted. In a party
sense Mr. Johnson was not a Republican: he was a Union
Democrat. He was opposed to the dissolution of the Union,
but not necessarily upon the ground that the Union had a
supreme right to exist in defiance of what is called " State
sovereignty." This with the Republican Party was a fun-

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 101

damental principle. Under the influence of the principles
of the old Democratic Party Mr. Johnson advanced to the
Vice-Presidency, and while under the influence of the same
idea he became President.

When the Republican Party came to power, the State of
Maryland, that portion of Virginia now known as West
Virginia, the State of Kentucky, and the State of Missouri
were largely under the influence of sympathizers with the
eleven seceding States of the South. It was necessary in
Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to maintain the ascend-
ency of the National Government by the exhibition of physi-
cal force, and in some instances by its actual exercise. Mr.
Lincoln's policy in regard to the question of slavery was
controlled, up to the month of July, 1862, by the purpose
to conciliate Union slave-holders in the States mentioned.
Of his measures I may refer to the proposition to transfer the
Free negroes to Central America, for which an appropriation
)f $25,000 was made by Congress. Next, Congress passed
an act for the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum-
bia upon the payment of three hundred dollars for each slave
emancipated.

Without representing in his history or in his person the
slave-holding interests of the South, Mr. Johnson was yet
a Southern man with Union sentiments. The impression
was received therefrom that his influence would be consid-
erable in restraining, if not in conciliating slave-holders in
what were called the " border States.." These facts tended to
his nomination for the Vice-Presidency. I have no means
for forming an opinion that is trustworthy as to the position
of Mr. Lincoln in reference to the nomination of Mr. John-
son. His nomination may justify the impression that the
Republican Party was in doubt as to its ability to re-elect Mr.
Lincoln in 1864. From the month of July, 1862, to the
nomination in 1864, I had frequent interviews with Mr.

102 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Lincoln, and I can only say that, during the period when
the result of the election was a subject of thought, he gave
no intimation in the conversations that I had with him that
the element of doubt as to the result existed in his mind.

From what has been said, the inference may be drawn
that Mr. Johnson came to the Vice-Presidency in the absence
of any considerable degree of confidence on the part of the
Republican Party, although there were no manifestations
of serious doubt as to his fitness for the place, or as to his
fidelity to the principles of the party.

The incidents of the inauguration of Mr. Johnson in the
Senate Chamber, and especially his speech on the occasion,
which was directed, apparently, to the diplomatic corps, ex-
cited apprehensions in those who were present, and the con-
fidence of the country was diminished materially concerning
his qualifications for the office to which he had been elected.
Without delay these apprehensions circulated widely, and
they were deepened in the public mind by the assassination
of Mr. Lincoln and the elevation of Mr. Johnson to the
Presidency.

The public confidence received a further serious shock by
his proclamation of May 29, 1865, for the organization of a
State government in North Carolina. That proclamation
contained provisions in harmony with what has been set
forth in this paper concerning the political principles of Mr.
Johnson. First of all, he limited the franchise to persons
" qualified as prescribed by the constitution and laws of the
State of North Carolina in force immediately before the
20th day of May, 1861, the date of the so-called Ordinance
of Secession. This provision was a limitation of the suf-
frage, and it excluded necessarily the negro population of
the State. It was also a recognition of the right of the State
to reappear as a State in the Union. It was, indeed, an early
assertion of the phrase which afterwards became controlling

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 103

with many persons — " Once a State, always a State." He
further recognized the right of the State to reappear as a
State in the organization and powers of the convention
which was to be called under the proclamation. As to that
ic said : " The convention when convened, or the legislature
h may be thereafter assembled, will prescribe the quali-
:ation of electors and the eligibility of persons to hold office
ider the constitution and laws of the State, a power the
jople of the several States composing the Union have right-
illy exercised from the origin of the Government to the
-esent time." There were further instructions given in the
proclamation as to the duties of various officers of the United
States to aid Governor Hoi den, who, by the same procla-
mation, was appointed " Provisional Governor of the State of
North Carolina."

Upon the publication of this proclamation I was so much
disturbed that I proceeded at once to Washington, but with-
out any definite idea as to what could be done to arrest the
step which seemed to me a dangerous step towards the re-
organization of the Government upon an unsound basis.
At that time I had had no conversation with Mr. Johnson,
either before or after he came to the Presidency, upon any
subject whatever. The interview which I secured upon that
visit was the sole personal interview that ever occurred be-
tween us. I called upon Senator Morrill of Vermont, and
together we made a visit to the President. I spoke of the
features of the proclamation that seemed to me objectionable.
He said that " the measure was tentative " only, and that
until the experiment had been tried no other proclamation
would be issued. Upon that I said in substance that the Re-
publican Party might accept the proclamation as an experi-
ment, but that it was contrary to the ideas of the party,
and that a continuance of the policy would work a disrup-
tion of the party. He assured us that nothing further would

104 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

be done until the experiment had been tested. With that
assurance we left the Executive Mansion.

On the 1 3th day of June, 1865, a similar proclamation
was issued in reference to the State of Mississippi, and on the
1 7th of June, the 2ist and 3Oth of June, and the I3th
day of July, corresponding proclamations were issued in
reference to the States of Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South
Carolina, and Florida. In each State a person was named
as Provisional Governor. This action led to a division of
the party and to its subsequent reorganization against the
President's policy.

In his letter of acceptance of the nomination made by the
Union Convention, Mr. Johnson endorsed, without reserve,
the platform that had been adopted. The declarations of the
platform did not contain a reference to the reorganization of
the Government in the event of the success of the Union
arms. The declarations were enumerated in this order: the
Union was tc be maintained; the war was to be prosecuted
upon the basis of an unconditional surrender of the rebels;
and slavery, as the cause of the war, was to be abolished.
The added resolutions related to the services of the soldiers
and sailors, arid to the policy of Abraham Lincoln as Presi-
dent. It was further declared that the public credit should
be maintained, that there should be a vigorous and just sys-
tem of taxes, and that the people would view with " extreme
jealousy," and as enemies to the peace and independence
of the country, the efforts of any power to obtain new foot-
holds for monarchical government on this continent. Such
being the character of the platform, it cannot be said that
Mr. Johnson challenged its declarations in the policy on
which he entered for the reorganization of the Government.
In Mr. Johnson's letter of acceptance he preserved his rela-
tions to the Democrats by the use of this phrase : " I cannot
forego the opportunity of saying to my old friends of the

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 105

Democratic Party proper, with whom I have so long and
pleasantly been associated, that the hour has come when that
great party can justly indicate its devotion to the Demo-
cratic policy in measures of expediency."

The controversy with Mr. Johnson had its origin in the
difference of opinion as to the nature of the Government.
That difference led him to the conclusion that the rebellion
had not worked any change in the legal relations of the
seceding States to the National Government. His motto
was this : " Once a State, always a State," whatever might
be its conduct either of peace or of war. There were, how-
ever, differences of opinion among those who adhered to the
Republican Party. Mr. Stevens, who was a recognized, if
not the recognized, leader of the Republican Party, advocated
the doctrine that the eleven States were to be treated as
enemy's territory, and to be governed upon whatever sys-
tem might be acceptable to the States that had remained true
to the Union. Mr, Sumner maintained the doctrine that the
eleven States were Territories, and that they were to be
subject to the General Government until Congress should
admit the several Territories as State organizations. The
fourth day of May, 1864, I presented a series of resolutions
in the House of Representatives, in which I asserted this
doctrine: The communities that have been in rebellion can
be organized into States only by the will of the loyal people
expressed freely and in the absence of all coercion; that
States so organized can become States of the American
Union only when they shall have applied for admission and
their admission shall have been authorized by the existing
National Government. A small number of persons who
were identified with the Republican Party sustained the
policy of Mr. Johnson. Others were of the opinion that the
eleven States were out of their proper relation to the Union,
as was declared by Mr. Lincoln in his last speech, -and that

io6 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

they could become members of the American Union only
by the organized action of each, and the concurrent action
of the existing National Government. The Government
was reorganized without any distinct declaration upon
the question whether the States that had been in rebel-
lion were to be treated as enemy's territory, or as Territories
according to the usage of former times. The difference of
opinion was a vital one with Mr. Johnson. Whatever view
may be taken of his moral qualities, it is to be said that he
was not deficient in intellectual ability, that his courage
passed far beyond the line of obstinacy, and that from first to
last he was prepared to resist the claims of the large ma-
jority of the Republican Party. The issue began with his
proclamation of May, 1865, and the contest continued to the
end of his term. The nature of the issue explains the char-
acter and violence of his speeches, especially that of the
twenty-second day of February, 1866, when he spoke of
Congress as a " body hanging on the verge of the
Government."

In the many speeches which he delivered in his trip
through the West, he made distinct charges against Con-
gress. He was accompanied by Mr. Seward, General Grant,
Admiral Farragut, and some others. In a speech at Cleve-
land, Ohio, he said, among other things, " I have called
upon your Congress, which has tried to break up the Gov-
ernment.'' Again, in the same speech he said, " I tell you,
my countrymen, that although the powers of Thad Stevens
and his gang were by, they could not turn me from my
purpose. There is no power that can turn me, except you and
the God who put me into existence." He charged, also, that
Congress had taken great pains to poison their constituents
against him. " What had Congress done ? Had they done
anything to restore the Union in those States? No; on the
contrary, they had done everything to prevent it."

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 107

In a speech made at St. Louis, Missouri, September 8,
1866, Mr. Johnson discussed the riot at New Orleans.* In
that speech he said, " If you will take up the riot in New
Orleans, and trace it back to its source, or its immediate
cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood
that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New
Orleans and trace it back to the radical Congress, you will
find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned."
After some further observations, he says : " Yes, you will
find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin
in the radical Congress."

These extracts from Mr. Johnson's speeches should be
considered in connection with his proclamations of May,
June, and July, 1865. They are conclusive to this point:
that he had determined to reconstruct the Government upon
the basis of the return of the States that had been engaged in
the rebellion without the imposition of any conditions
whatsoever, except such as he had imposed upon them in
his proclamations. In fine, that the Government was to be
re-established without the authority or even the assent of
the Congress of the United States. In his proclamations he
made provision for the framing of constitutions in the re-
spective States, their ratification by the people, excluding all
those who were not voters in April, 1861, and for the elec-
tion of Senators and Representatives to the Congress of the
United States without the assent of the Representatives of the
existing States.

When I arrived in Washington to attend the meeting of
Congress at the December session, 1866, I received a note
from Mr. Stanton asking me to meet him at the War Office
with as little delay as might be practicable. When I called
at the War Office, he beckoned me to retire to his private

* This was a race riot, which occurred July 30, 1866, and in which many
negroes were killed.— EDITOR.

io8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

room, where he soon met me. He then said that he had been
more disturbed by the condition of affairs in the preceding
weeks and months than he had been at any time during the
war. He gave me to understand that orders had been
issued to the army of which neither he nor General Grant
had any knowledge. He further gave me to understand also
that he apprehended an attempt by the President to re-
organize the Government by the assembling of a Congress in
which the members from the seceding States and the Demo-
cratic members from the North might obtain control through
the aid of the Executive. He then said that he thought
it necessary that some act should be passed by which the
power of the President might be limited. Under his dicta-
tion, and after such consultation as seemed to be required,
I drafted amendments to the Appropriation Bill for the
Support of the Army, which contained the following pro-
visions: The headquarters of the General of the Army
were fixed at Washington, where he was to remain unless
transferred to duty elsewhere by his own consent or by the
consent of the Senate. Next, it was made a misdemeanor
for the President to transmit orders to any officer of the*
army except through the General of the Army. It was also
made a misdemeanor for any officer to obey orders issued
in any other way than through the General of the Army,
knowing that the same had been so issued. These pro-
visions were taken by me to Mr. Stevens, the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations. After some explanation,
the measure was accepted by the committee and incorporated
in the Army Appropriation Bill. The bill was approved by
the President the second day of March, 1867. His approval
was accompanied by a protest on his part that the provision
was unconstitutional, and by the statement that he approved
the bill only because it was necessary for the support of
the army.

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 109

At the time of my interview with Mr. Stanton, I was not
informed fully as to the events that had transpired in the pre-
ceding months, nor can I now say that everything which had
transpired of importance was then known to Mr. Stanton.
The statement that I am now to make was derived from
conversations with General Grant. At a time previous to
the December session of 1866, the President said to General
Grant, " I may wish to send you on a mission to Mexico."
General Grant replied, " It may not be convenient for me
to go to Mexico." Little, if anything, further was said be-
tween the President and General Grant. At a subsequent
time General Grant was invited to a Cabinet meeting. At
that meeting Mr. Seward read a paper of instructions to
General Grant as Minister of some degree to Mexico. The
contents of the paper did not impress General Grant very
seriously, for in the communication that he made to me he
said that " the instructions came out very near where they
went in/' At the end of the reading General Grant said,
" You recollect, Mr. President, I said it would not be con-
venient for me to go to Mexico." Upon that a conversation
followed, when the President became heated, and rising
from his seat, and striking the table with some force, he
said, " Is there an officer of the army who will not obey
my instructions ? " General Grant took his hat in his hand,
and said, " I am an officer of the army, but I am a citizen
also; and this is a civil service that you require of me. I
decline it." He then left the meeting. It happened also
that previous to this conversation the President had ordered
General Sherman, who was in command at Fort Leaven-
worth, to report at Washington. General Sherman obeyed
the order, came to Washington, and had a conference with
General Grant before he reported to the President. In that
situation of affairs General Sherman was sent to Mexico upon
the mission which had been prepared for General Grant.

no SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The suggestion that Mr. Johnson contemplated the re-
organization of the Government by the admission of the
States that had been in rebellion, and by the recognition of
Senators and Representatives that might be assigned from
those States, received support from the testimony given by
Major-General William H. Emery, and also from the testi-
mony of General Grant. In the latter part of the year 1867
and the first part of the year 1868, General Emery was in
command of the Department of Washington. When he
entered upon the command, he called upon the President.
A conversation, apparently not very important, occurred be-
tween them, as to the military forces then in that depart-
ment. In February, 1868, the President directed his sec-
retary to ask General Emery to call upon him as early as
practicable. In obedience to that request General Emery
called on the twenty-second day of February. The Presi-
dent referred to the former conversation, and then inquired
whether any changes had been made, and especially within
the recent days, in the military forces under Emery's com-
mand. In the course of the conversation growing out of
these requests for information, General Emery referred to
an order which had then been recently issued which em-
bodied the provisions of the act of March, 1867, in regard
to the command of the army and the transmission of orders.
The President then said to Emery :

" What order do you refer to ? "

In reply Emery said :

" Order No. 17 of the Series of 1867."

The order was produced and read by the President, who
said :

"This is not in conformity with the Constitution of the
United States, that makes me commander-in-chief, or with
the terms of your commission."

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 1 1 1

General Emery said:

" That is the order which you have approved and issued
to the army for our Government."

The President then said :

" Am I to understand that the President of the United
States cannot give an order except through the head of the
army, or General Grant ? ''

In the course of the conversation General Emery in-
formed the President that eminent lawyers had been con-
sulted, that he had consulted Robert J. Walker, and that all
of the lawyers consulted had expressed the opinion that the
officers of the army were bound by the order whether the
statute was constitutional or unconstitutional.

When General Grant was before the Judiciary Committee
of the House of Representatives during the impeachment
investigation, this question was put to him:

" Have you at any time heard the President make any
remark in regard to the admission of members of Congress
from rebel States in either House ? "

" I cannot say positively what I have heard him say. I
have heard him say as much in his public speeches as any-
where else. I have heard him say twice in his speeches that
if the North carried the election by members enough to
give them, with the Southern members, the majority, why
should they not be the Congress of the United States? I
have heard him say that several times."

That answer was followed by this question:

" When you say the North, you mean the Democratic
Party of the North, or, in other words, the party advocating
his policy? "

General Grant replied:

" I meant if the North carried enough members in favor
of the admission of the South. I did not hear him say that

H2 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

he would recognize them as the Congress, I merely heard
him ask the question, ' Why would they not be the
Congress?'"

At this point, and without further discussion of the pur-
pose of Mr. Johnson in regard to the reorganization of the
Government, I think it may be stated without injustice to
him, that while he was opposed to secession at the time the
Confederate Government was organized, and thencefor-
ward and always without change of opinion, yet he was also
of opinion that the act of secession by the several States had
not disturbed their legal relations to the National Govern-
ment. Acting upon that opinion, he proceeded to reorganize
the State governments, and with the purpose of securing the
admission of their Senators and Representatives without
seeking or accepting the judgment of Congress upon the ques-
tions involved in the proceeding. On one vital point he
erred seriously and fundamentally as to the authority of the
President in the matter. From the nature of our Government
there could be no escape in a legal point of view from the
conclusion that, whatever the relations were of the seceding
States to the General Government, the method of restoration
was to be ascertained and determined by Congress, and not
by the President acting as the chief executive authority
of the nation. In a legal and constitutional view, that act
on his part, although resting upon opinions which he had
long entertained, and which were entertained by many others,
must be treated as an act of usurpation.

The facts embodied in the charges on which Mr. Johnson
was impeached by the House and arraigned before the Sen-
ate were not open to doubt, but legal proof was wanting
in regard to the exact language of his speeches. The charges
were in substance these : That he had attacked the integrity
and the lawful authority of the Congress of the United
States in public speeches made in the presence of the country.

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 1 1 3

The second charge was that he had attempted the removal
of Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and
that, without the concurrence of the Senate, he had so re-
moved him, contrary to the act of Congress, known as the
Tenure of Office Act. In the first investigation into the
conduct of Andrew Johnson, he was described in the reso-
lution as " Vice-President of the United States, discharg-
ing at present the duties of President of the United States."
The resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives
the seventh day of March, 1867. A large amount of testi-
mony was taken, and the report of the committee, in three
parts, by the different members, was submitted to the House
' the fourth day of the following December. The majority
of the committee, consisting of George S. Boutwell, Francis
Thomas, Thomas Williams, William Lawrence, and John C.
Churchill, reported a resolution providing for the impeach-
ment of the President of the United States, in these words :
" Resolved, that Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."
It will be observed that in the resolution for his impeach-
ment he is described as " President of the United States/'
while in the resolution authorizing the inquiry into his con-
duct he is described as " Vice-President, discharging at pres-
ent the duties of the President of the United States." This
question received very careful consideration by the com-
mittee, and the conclusion was reached that he was the
President of the United States, although he had been elected
only to the office of Vice-President. As that question was
not raised at the trial by demurrer or motion, it may now be
accepted as the established doctrine that the Vice-President,
when he enters upon the duties of President, becomes Presi-
dent of the United States. The extended report that was
made by the majority of the committee was written by Mr.
Williams. The summary, which was in the nature of

H4 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

charges, was written by myself. That summary set forth
twenty-eight specifications of misconduct on the part of the
President, many of which, however, were abandoned when
the articles of impeachment were prepared in February, 1868.

In the discussions of the committee there were serious
differences of opinion upon provisions of law. The minority
of the committee, consisting of James F. Wilson, who was
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Frederick E. Wood-
bridge, S. S. Marshall, and Charles E. Eldridge, maintained
the doctrine that a civil officer under the Constitution of the
United States was not liable to impeachment except for the
commission of an indictable offence. This doctrine had very
large support in the legal profession, resting on remarks
found in Blackstone. On the other hand, Chancellor Kent,
in his Commentaries, had given support to the doctrine that
a civil officer was liable to impeachment who misdemeaned
himself in his office. The provision of the Constitution is in
these words:

" The President, Vice-President, and all Civil Officers of
the United States shall be removed from office on impeach-
ment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The majority of the Judiciary Committee, in the con-
troversy which arose in the committee and in the House of
Representatives, maintained that the word " misdemeanors "
was used in a political sense, and not in the sense in which
it is used in the criminal law. In support of this view at-
tention was called to the fact that the party convicted was
liable only to removal from office, and therefore that the
object of the process of impeachment was the purification
and preservation of the civil service. In the opinion of
the majority, it was the necessity of the situation that the
power of impeachment should extend to acts and offences
that were not indictable by statute nor at common law. The

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 115

report of the Judiciary Committee, made the twenty-fifth day
of November, was rejected by the House of Representatives.

The attempt of the President to remove Mr. Stanton from
the office of Secretary for the Department of War revived
the question of impeachment, and on Monday, the twenty-
fourth day of February, 1868, the House of Representatives
" resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors." The
articles of impeachment were acted on by the House of Rep-
resentatives the second day of March, and on the fourth
day of March they were presented to the Senate through Mr.
Bingham, chairman of the managers, who was designated
for that duty.

The articles were directed to the following points, namely :
That the President, by his speeches, had attempted " to set
aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress " ; that
he had attempted " to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred,
contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States
and the several branches thereof " ; and " that he had at-
tempted to incite the odium and resentment of all the good
people of the United States against Congress and the laws
by them duly and constitutionally enacted." Further, it
was alleged that he had declared in speeches that the
" Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Con-
gress of the United States authorized by the Constitution of
the United States to exercise legislative power in the same."

A further charge, and on which greater reliance was
placed, was set forth in these words : " That he had denied
and intended to deny the power of the Thirty-ninth Con-
gress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the
United States." These articles were in substance the arti-
cles that had been rejected by the House of Representatives
in 1867. Finally, as the most important averment of all,
the President was charged with an " attempt to prevent the

u6 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

execution of the act entitled ' An Act Regulating the Tenure
of Certain Civil Offices,' passed March 2, 1867, by unlaw-
fully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and
contrive means by which he could prevent Edwin M. Stan-
ton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of
the Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding
the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension thereto-
fore made by said Andrew Johnson of the said Edwin M.
Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of
War." In various forms of language these several charges
were set forth in the different articles of impeachment —
eleven in all. The eleventh article, which was prepared by
Mr. Stevens, embodied the summary of all the charges
mentioned. It is to be observed that in the eleventh article
there is no allegation that the President had committed an
offence that was indictable under any statute of the United
States or that would have been indictable at common law.
It may be assumed, I think, that for this country, at least,
the question that was raised at the beginning and argued
with great force, and by which possibly the House of Rep-
resentatives may have been influenced in the year 1867, nas
been settled to accord with the report of the majority of the
Judiciary Committee. The House decided that the President
was impeachable for misdemeanors in office. With stronger
reason it may be said that every other civil officer is bound
to behave himself well in his office. He cannot do any act
which impairs his standing in the place which he holds, or
which may bring discredit upon the public, and especially
he may not do any act in disregard of his oath to obey the
laws and to support the Constitution of the country. The
eleventh article was the chief article that was submitted to a
vote in the Senate The question raised by that article was
this in substance: Is the President of the United States
guilty in manner and form as set forth in this article? On

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 1 1 7

that question thirty-five Senators voted that he was guilty,
and nineteen Senators voted that he was not guilty. Un-
der the Constitution the President was found not guilty of
the offences charged, but the majority given may be ac-
cepted, and probably will be accepted, as the judgment of the
Senate that the President of the United States is liable to im-
peachment and removal from office for acts and conduct that
do not subject him to the process of indictment and trial
in the criminal courts. At this point I express the opinion
that something has been gained, indeed that much has been
gained, by the decision of the House of Representatives, sup-
ported by the opinions of a large majority in the Senate.

The answer of the respondent, considered in connection
with the arguments that were made by his counsel, sets forth
the ground upon which the Republican members of the Sen-
ate may have voted that the President was not guilty of the
two principal offences charged, viz. : that in his speeches he
had denounced and brought into contempt, intentionally, the
Congress of the United States; and, second, that his at-
tempted removal of Edwin M. Stanton was a violation of the
Tenure of Office Act. In the President's answer to article
ten, which contained the allegation that in his speech at St.
Louis, in the year 1866, he had used certain language in
derogation of the authority of the Congress of the United
States, it was averred that the extracts did not present his
speech or address accurately. Further than that, it was
claimed that the allegation under that article was not " cog-
nizable by the court as a high misdemeanor in office."
Finally, it was claimed that proof should be made of the
" actual " speech and address of the President on that oc-
casion. The managers were not able to meet the demand
for proof in a technical sense. The speech was reported
in the ordinary way, and the proof was limited to the good
faith of the reporters and the general accuracy of the printed

n8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

report in the newspapers. In this situation as to the charges
and the answer, it is not difficult to reach the conclusion
that members of the Senate had ground for the vote of not
guilty upon the several charges in regard to the speeches
that were imputed to the President.

Judge Curtis, in his opening argument, furnished a techni-
cal answer to the article in which the President was charged
with the violation of the Tenure of Office Act, in his attempt
to remove Mr. Stanton from the office of Secretary of the
Department of War. Judge Curtis gave to the proviso to
that statute an interpretation corresponding to the interpreta-
tion given to criminal statutes. Mr. Stanton was appointed
to the office in the first term of Mr. Lincoln's administration.
The proviso of the statute was in these words : " Provided
that the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of War, etc.,
shall hold their offices for and during the term of the President
by whom they may have been appointed, and for one month
thereafter, subject to their removal by and with the advice of
the Senate/' The proviso contained exceptions to the body
of the statute, by which all civil officers who held appointments
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate were secure
in their places unless the Senate should assent to their removal.
It was the object of the proviso to relieve an incoming Presi-
dent of Secretaries who had been appointed by his prede-
cessor. The construction of the proviso, as given by Judge
Curtis, was fatal to the position taken by the managers. It
was claimed by the managers that the sole object of the pro-
viso was the relief of an incoming President from the con-
tinuance of a Secretary in office beyond thirty days after the
commencement of his term, and that it had no reference what-
ever to the right of the President to remove a Secretary dur-
ing his term.

There were incidents in the course of the proceedings that
possess historical value. By the Constitution the Chief Jus-

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 119

tice of the Supreme Court is made the presiding officer in
the Senate when the President is put upon trial on articles
of impeachment. Chief Justice Chase claimed that he was
to be addressed as " Chief Justice." That claim was recog-
nized by the counsel for the President and by some mem-
bers of the Senate. The managers claimed that he was there
as the presiding officer, and not in his judicial capacity. He
was addressed by the managers and by some of the Senators
as " Mr. President."

There was a difference of opinion in the Senate, and a dif-
ference between the managers and the counsel for the re-
spondent, as to the right of the presiding officer to rule upon
questions of law and evidence arising in the course of the
trial. Under the rule of the Senate as adopted, the rulings of
the President were to stand unless a Senator should ask for
the judgment of the Senate.

Other instances occurred which do not possess historical
value, but were incidents unusual in judicial proceedings.
When the Judiciary Committee of the House was entering
upon the investigation of the conduct of President Johnson,
General Butler expressed the opinion that upon the adoption
of articles of impeachment by the House the President would
be suspended in his office until the verdict of the Senate.
As this view was not accepted by the committee, I made these
remarks in my opening speech to the House after a review of
the arguments for and against the proposition :

" I cannot doubt the soundness of the opinion that the
President, even when impeached by the House, is entitled
to his office until he has been convicted by the Senate."

This view was accepted.

At the first meeting of the managers I was elected chair-
man by the votes of Mr. Stevens, General Logan, and General
Butler. Mr. Bingham received the votes of Mr. Wilson and
Mr. Williams. Upon the announcement of the vote, Mr.

120 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Bingham made remarks indicating serious disappointment and
a purpose to retire from the Board of Managers. I accepted
the election, and acted as chairman at the meeting. At the
next meeting, and without consultation with my associates,
I resigned the place and nominated Mr. Bingham. The nomi-
nation was not objected to, and Mr. Bingham took the chair
without comment by himself, nor was there any comment by
any other person. The gentlemen who had given me their
votes and support criticized my conduct with considerable
freedom, and were by no means reconciled by the statement
which I made to them. Having reference to the nature of the
contest and the condition of public sentiment, I thought it im-
portant that the managers should avoid any controversy be-
fore the public, especially as to a matter of premiership in
the conduct of the trial. It seemed to be important that the
entire force of the House of Representatives should be di-
rected to one object, the conviction of the accused. Beyond
this, Mr. Bingham and Mr. Wilson had been opposed to the
impeachment of Mr., Johnson when the attempt was first
made in the House of Representatives. I thought it import-
ant to combine the strength that they represented in support
of the proceeding in which we were then engaged. If Mr.
Stevens had been in good health, he would have received
my support and the support of General Butler and General
Logan. At that time his health was much impaired, but his
intellectual faculties were free from any cloud.

Another incident occurred which does not require ex-
planation, and which may not be open to any explanation.
After the report of the Judiciary Committee, and its rejection
by the House of Representatives, I was surprised to receive
an invitation from the President to dine with him at what is
known as a State dinner. I assumed that arrangements had
been made for a series of such dinners, and that the invitations
had been sent out by a clerk upon a prearranged plan as to the

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 121

order of invitations. When the matter had passed out of
my mind, but before the day named for the dinner, I re-
ceived a call on the floor of the House from Mr. Cooper,
son-in-law of the President and secretary in the Executive
Mansion. He asked me if I had received an invitation to
dine with the President. I said I had. Next he said, " Have
you answered it?" I said, "No, I have not." That was
followed by the further question, " Will you answer it? " I
said, " No, I shall not." That ended the conversation.

After the decision in the Senate had been made, the man-
agers proceeded under the order of the House to investigate
the truthfulness of rumors that were afloat, that money and
other valuable considerations had been used to secure the
acquittal of the President. That investigation established the
fact that money had been in the possession of persons who
had been engaged in efforts to secure the acquittal of the
President. Those persons, with perhaps a single exception,
were persons who had no official connection with the Govern-
ment, and none of them were connected with the Govern-
ment at Washington. As to most of them, it appeared that
they had no reasons, indeed no good cause, why they should
have taken part either for the conviction of the President or
in behalf of his acquittal. The sources from which funds
were obtained did not appear, nor was there evidence indi-
cating the amount that had been used, nor the objects to
which the money had been applied. It should be said as to
Senators, that there was no evidence implicating them in
the receipt of money or other valuable consideration. One
very important fact not then known to the managers appeared
afterwards in the reports of the Treasury Department, show-
ing a very large loss by the Government during the last eight-
een months of Mr. Johnson's administration. In that period
the total receipts from the duties on spirits amounted to
$41,678,684.34. During the first eighteen months of General

122 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Grant's administration, when the rates of duties and taxation
remained the same, the total receipts of revenue from spirits
amounted to $82,417,419.85, showing a difference of $40,-
738,735.51. It is not easy to explain in full this money loss
in one branch of the public service. Something may be at-
tributed to the fact that persons obtained nominations for
office by representations to the President that they were his
friends and supporters, and would continue to be so, under
all circumstances. When their nominations came to the Sen-
ate, they made representations of an opposite character. When
they had received their appointments, they very naturally
allied themselves with the President's policy, inasmuch as they
could not be easily removed except upon an initiative taken
by him. This deficiency occurred in the states and districts
in which the money should have been collected and through
the agents employed there. In other words, no part of the
deficiency ever passed into the Treasury of the United States.

It is not improbable that a majority of the people now en-
tertain the opinion that the action of the House of Represent-
atives in the attempt that was made to impeach President
Johnson was an error.

It is not for me to engage in a discussion on that point. I
end by the expression of the opinion that the vote of the House
and the vote of the Senate, by which the doctrine was estab-
lished that a civil officer is liable to impeachment for mis-
demeanor in office, is a gain to the public that is full com-
pensation for the undertaking, and that these proceedings
against Mr. Johnson were free from any element or quality of
injustice.

Johnson's case ought to be borne in mind in all agitation
for a longer Presidential term. Whenever the country is en-
gaged in a Presidential contest there are complaints by busi-
ness men accompanied by a demand for an extension of the
term of office to six or in some instances to ten years. The

IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON 123

disturbance to business is due to the importance of the elec-
tion, and the importance of an election is due to the amount
of power that is to be secured by the successful party. An
extension of the term would add to the importance of the
election, and a term of six or ten years would intensify the
contest and the injury to business would be intensified, pro-
portionately. It is doubtful whether in a period of twenty or
fifty years any appreciable relief to business would be fur-
nished by an extension of the term of the Presidential office.

It is by no means certain that the total of business is not
as great as it would be in the same four years if the term were
ten years instead of four. The total of production and con-
sumption cannot be affected seriously by a political con-
troversy that does not extend usually, over a period of more
than three months. If business is diminished during those
months there will be a corresponding gain in the months that
are to follow.

In a popular government there must be elections, and in all
such governments business interests must be subordinated
to the general welfare. The changes that have taken place
since the Government was organized would justify the short-
ening rather than the lengthening of the Presidential term.
The means of communication are such that two years may
give the mass of the people better means for judging men
and measures than could be had in four years at the opening
of this century.

There is no form of education that more fully justifies
its cost than the education that is gained in a Presidential
canvass. The newspapers, the magazines, and more than all
the speakers — " stump orators " as they are called — com-
municate information and stimulate thought. The voters are
converted into a great jury, and after full allowance is made
for weakness, corruption and coercion, they are advanced at
each quadrennial contest in their knowledge of men, in their

124 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ability to deal with measures of policy, and in comprehension
of the principles of government. If the losses in business
were as great as is ever represented, the educational advan-
tages of a Presidential canvass are an adequate set-off. The
people have an opportunity to see and hear the men who are
engaged in public affairs and questions are discussed upon
their intrinsic merits. In the sixty years of my experience
there has been a great advance in the quality of the speeches
to which the people have listened. The speeches of 1840 would
not be tolerated in 1900.

When great questions are under debate appeals are made
to the principles of government and proportionately the edu-
cation of the people is of a higher grade.

A serious objection to a long term in the Presidential office
is in the fact that a spirit of discontent, that always exists,
will develop into insubordination or even revolution. We
have an example in the history of the Republic of Hayti. The
term is seven years and in many cases the President has
been superseded by the leader of a revolutionary party. The
most recent instance was the overthrow of President Legi-
time and the instalment of Hyppolite. The peace and pros-
perity of Hayti would be promoted by reducing the term
of the Presidential office to two years. The contests that
are sure to arise among a mercurial people would thus be
transferred from the battle-field to the ballot-box. Who could
have answered for the peace of the United States in 1868 if
President Johnson's term had been six years instead of eight
months ?

XXXIII

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869

IN March, 1869, I was appointed Secretary of the Treas-
ury by President Grant. Soon after my appointment
Mr. McCulloch, the retiring Secretary, said to me that
I should find the department in excellent order, and that in
his opinion the financial difficulties of the Government had
been overcome. The first of these statements was true in
part, and in part it was very erroneous.

The accounting branch of the service was properly ad-
ministered practically, but there were about one hundred
persons on the pay rolls who had no desks in the department,
and who performed but little work at their homes, where
some of them ostensibly were employed in copying.

Several heads of bureaus were notoriously intemperate.
This condition of things was due in part to the war and to
the exigencies of the department consequent upon the war;
and in part it was due to the constitutional infirmities of Mr.
Chase and Mr. McCulloch. In some respects they resembled
each other. They were phlegmatic in temperament, lacking
in versatility, and lacking in facility for labor and business.

Mr. McCulloch was diligent, industrious and conscien-
tiously devoted to his duties. He had been crippled in his
administration by the conflict between Congress and the
President. The head of the Treasury needs the confidence
of the President, and the confidence and support of Congress.
The latter Mr. McCulloch did not enjoy, and there were

126 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

indications that in some respects he differed with the Presi-
dent. He was hampered by the fact that any change in the
personnel of his department would be followed by inquiries
from one party or the other, coupled oftentimes with com-
plaints and criticisms.

Great evils existed in the revenue system. The contro-
versy between Congress and the President led to many re-
movals of collectors of customs and of internal revenue.
Their places were supplied by persons who could accom-
modate themselves to both parties. The President was made
to believe that the applicants were his friends, but that their
relations with Republican Senators were such that they
could secure confirmation. When nominated these men
represented themselves as good Republicans and friendly to
the Congressional policy. From such persons an honest per-
formance of duty could not have been expected. Hence
gross frauds upon the revenue were perpetrated and in most
instances by the connivance of those in office.

The returns for the last year of Johnson's administration,
and the first year of Grant's administration, showed that
the loss on whisky in the first named period was not less
than thirty million dollars.

That there were other great losses was proved by the
facts that the payments on the public debt were less than
thirty million dollars during the last year of Johnson's
administration and that the payments were one hundred
million dollars during the first year of Grant's administration,
and that without any additional sources of revenue.

If Mr. McCulloch's first statement had been true in the
most important particulars, his second claim would not have
been open to debate. It was true that the department had
passed the point when there was any exigency for money.
The Government was no longer a borrower. Payments on
the public debt had been made, but otherwise nothing had

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 127

been done to relieve the country of the interest account, nor
was the credit of the Government such that any practicable
movement in that direction could have been made.

The six per cent coin bonds were worth only 83 or 84,
and no step had been taken to redeem the pledge of the
Government in regard to the Sinking Fund made in the
act of February 25, 1862. The interest account exceeded
one hundred and thirty-three million dollars.

Mr. S. M. Clark was the chief of the Bureau of Printing
and Engraving and everything was confided to him. It is
to be said after the lapse of thirty years for examination,
that not a tittle of evidence has been found warranting any
imputation upon his integrity. It is true that in one in-
stance a dishonest plate printer took an impression of a
bond upon a sheet of lead for use in counterfeiting. The
possibility of such an act was due to a lack of system and
not to any want of fidelity in Mr. Clark. One of my first
acts was to remove Mr. Clark, and then to open a new set
of books. The printing of the old issues was suspended per-
manently, and new plates were prepared. Mr. Clark had
had control of the manufacture of the paper, the control of
the engravers, the control of the plates, the control of the
printers, of the counters, and he had had the custody of
the red seal. The postal currency was printed under his
direction. The pieces were not numbered, they were due
bills only. At the end of twenty years the books showed
an issue of about fifteen million dollars in excess of the
redemptions.

His power was unlimited as there were no checks upon
him. He once said to me when a committee of Congress
was investigating his bureau, during Mr. McCulloch's
administration :

" They will never find a five cent piece out of the way."

After the discharge of Clark, I ordered an account of

128 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

stock to be taken. I appointed a custodian of the plates after
a full inventory had been made, whose duty it was to deliver
the plates each morning to the printers, to charge them to
the printers, to receive them at the close of the day, and to
settle the account of each man. A special paper was desig-
nated and public notice was given under the statute by
which it was made a crime for any person to make, use or
have in his possession any paper so designated. The paper
was manufactured under the supervision of an agent of the
department, who was authorized to count and receive all
the paper at the mills and to answer the orders for its de-
livery to the printers. The paper making machine was
equipped with a register which numbered the sheets of
paper. That record was compared daily with the number
of sheets received by the agent, and thus the Government
was protected against any fraudulent or erroneous issue of
paper. Registers were also placed upon each printing press.
Each morning one thousand sheets of paper were delivered
to each plate printer, and at the close of work his printed
sheets were counted and the number compared with the
register before the printer was allowed to leave the office. In
like manner there was an accounting with each counter. The
same system was extended to the managers of the machines
used for numbering bonds and bank notes. The registering
machine was made by an employee, under my direction, and
at the cost of the Government.

Books of account were opened upon the new system.
During my administration, as far as I know, there was
never the loss of a sheet of paper nor was there a fraud com-
mitted in connection with the business of the bureau. For
further security, I made arrangements by which two bank
note companies in the City of New York prepared sets of
plates for a single printing on each security, the red seal
being imprinted in the Treasury Bureau. By this arrange-

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 129

ment collusion was impossible. The expense of printing was
increased by this arrangement, but it seemed to be more
important to attain absolute security against fraud than to
save money. My successors have thought otherwise and the
printing is now done in the Treasury.

During my term I ascertained that a man in New York
who had once been employed to print certain securities, had
in his possession the plates which he had used and which
he claimed as his property. The printing had been done in
Mr. Chase's administration and there was no agreement
that the plates were to be delivered to the Government. The
plates were obtained, finally, by the payment of a sum of
money. The person who had the plates was an old man,
and there was danger that they might fall into the hands
of dishonest parties.

When I was in the Treasury I had an understanding with
Colonel Whitely, the Chief of the Secret Service that I
should have an interview with any expert professional crimi-
nal who might fall into his hands. I recall an interview
with one such criminal. A man of forty years and a gentle-
man in appearance, and a professional gentleman, as well as a
criminal by profession.

Upon the suggestion of Colonel Whiteley I gave his pris-
oner a fresh one dollar green-back note. He took a phial of
liquid from his pocket, wet one half of the paper with the
liquid and in my presence the colors disappeared from the
paper. Time and exposure have given a dark tinge to the
paper which was a pure white when the experiment was
ended. By the use of the liquid the counterfeiter was able
to obtain a piece of fibre paper on which a bill of a large
denomination might be printed, given only the engraving.

The revenue marine service was impaired by the incom-
petency of many of the officers, and its efficiency was also
impaired by the size and quality of the ships. Some of them

130 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

were sailing vessels, most of them were of wood, and the
modern ones were unnecessarily large in size. I created a
commission and all the officers except a few who were too
old for active service were subjected to an examination and
those who were found incompetent were discharged from
the service. Their places were filled by young, active and
well qualified men.

A commission was appointed to consider and report upon
the size of the vessels that were best adapted to the service.
Three reports from successive commissions were made before
a satisfactory result was reached. Finally, a report was
made by Captain Carlisle Patterson, that was approved by
me and by a committee of Congress. The recommendations
of that report have been followed, as far as I know.

At that time the Mint Service was without organization.
Each mint and assay office was in charge of an officer called
superintendent, but there was no head unless the Secretary
of the Treasury could be so considered, as all the business
came to him. Upon my recommendation Congress author-
ized the appointment of a Director of the Mint, and upon
my recommendation the President appointed Dr. Linderman,
a Philadelphia Democrat, but a gentleman familiar with the
service. Under him the service was organized and made
systematic.

When I took charge of the Treasury Department there was
no system of bookkeeping and accounting, that was uniform
in the various custom houses of the country. Each port had
a plan or mode of its own, and there was no one that was so
perfect that it could be accepted as a model in all the ports.
The books and forms were made and prepared at the several
ports and often at inordinate rates of cost.

I appointed a commission of Treasury experts to prepare
forms and books for every branch of business. Their report
was accepted and since that time the modes of accounting

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 131

have been the same at all the ports. The stationery pre-
pared is furnished through the Government printing office,
at a considerable saving in cost, and clerks in the accounting
branch of the Treasury are relieved of much labor in the
preparation of statements.

Upon the transfer of Mr. Columbus Delano from the
office of commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Secretary-
ship of the Interior Department, the question of the appoint-
ment of a successor was considered. The President named
General Alfred Pleasanton, who was then a collector of
internal revenue in the city of New York. He had been a
good cavalry officer, a graduate of West Point, and the
President was attached to him. My acquaintance with
Pleasanton was limited, but I was quite doubtful of his fitness
for the place. My opposition gave rise to some delay, but at
the end the appointment was made, the President saying in
reply to my doubts that if he did not succeed he had only
to say so to the General and he would leave at once. The
appointment of Pleasanton was urged by Mr. Delano and
General Horace Porter as I understood, both of whom were
very near the President.

Pleasanton had been informed of my position, and al-
though I was his immediate superior he did not call upon
me, nor did he ever, except upon one occasion, come into
my office, unless I sent for him. On my part I resolved to
avoid any criticism upon his official conduct unless compelled
to do so. He entered upon his duties the first of January,
1871, and although in several instances I had occasion to
control his purposes in regard to contracts and to the refund
of taxes, I did not feel called upon to mention the facts to the
President. In May the President said:

" I have come to the conclusion that Pleasanton is not
succeeding in his office."

I replied: " That is so."

132 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The President then said : " I will try to find some other
place for him, and I will then ask him to resign."

The President went to Long Branch for the summer and
nothing was done. I had very early discovered that Samuel
Ward was exercising a good deal of influence over the com-
missioner. It was his policy to secure influence by giving
dinners and entertainments, and, as far as possible, he ob-
tained the attendance of influential members of Congress and
of the chief officers in the executive departments. He once
said:

" I do not introduce my measures at these entertainments,
but I put myself upon terms with persons who have power."

On a time I received a report on the subject of refunding
a cotton tax amounting to about $60,000. It bore two
endorsements — one by the solicitor " Examined and disal-
lowed, Chesley," and one by the commissioner " Allowed,
Pleasanton."

I placed the report in my private drawer with the purpose
of delaying action until I should ascertain where the propell-
ing force existed. Having occasion to go to Massachusetts
I was absent about two weeks. Upon my return Mr. Ward
came into my office and inquired whether I had received the
report. I replied that I had received it. " Had I acted upon
it? " I said that I had not. He then proceeded to say that
the claim was a good one, — that Mr. Delano had examined
it, and had concluded to pass it, but as he left the office rather
suddenly he had neglected to act upon it. Finally, he ex-
pressed the hope that I would act without delay. I had al-
ready decided the case adversely upon the ground that the
allowance was unauthorized. Therefore I had only to en-
dorse the word " disallowed " with my signature and to re-
turn the report to the commissioner. I learned that the
commissioner was engaged through the agency of Ward in
making a contract with a Connecticut firm that was in my

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 133

opinion at once improvident and irregular. This act led me
to determine to end the difficulty at once. I went to the
Executive Mansion and asked General Babcock to go to Long
Branch and say to the President that the business of the In-
ternal Revenue Office was in such a condition that immediate
action was necessary. As a result the President returned
that night and early the next morning he sent for me. I
stated the facts, and he said he would send for General
Pleasanton and ask him to resign. At the interview Pleasan-
ton asked for the reasons. The President said : " The Secre-
tary is not satisfied with your administration." Pleasanton
replied : "I think I can make everything satisfactory to the
Secretary." The President replied, naturally : " If you can,
I am content." Then for the first time Pleasanton came to
my office without a request from me. I invited him into my
private room, and when he had related his interview with the
President, I said : " General, if this were a personal matter
we might come to an understanding, but your administration
of the office has been a failure from the first and you must
resign." This ended the interview. He refused to resign
and the President removed him. He appealed to the Senate
in a lengthy communication, but without effect. Pleasanton
may have been, and probably was, a good military officer,
but he did not possess the qualities that are essential in the
discharge of important civil trusts.

Neither from my experience in Congress nor in the Treas-
ury Department can I deduce much support for the doc-
trines of the class of politicians called Civil Service Reform-
ers. From their statements it would appear that every mem-
ber of Congress was the recipient of an amount of patronage
in the nature of clerkships that he could and did control. I
can say for myself that as a member I never asserted any
such right and as the head of the Treasury I can say that no
such claim was ever made upon me by any member of Con-

134 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

gress. The nearest approach to it was by George W. Julian.
During one of his canvasses for re-nomination, a clerk named
Smith, and a correspondent of a journal in Mr. Julian's dis-
trict, had advocated the nomination of Mr. Wilson (Jere-
miah). When Mr. Julian secured the nomination, Smith
gave him his support. Nevertheless when Julian returned to
Washington he demanded Smith's removal. After hearing
all the facts I declined to act. Julian was very indignant, and
afterwards from the Astor House, New York, wrote me a
violent, I think I might say unreasonable letter.

The public mind has been much misled by the statements
in regard to removals and appointments. The employees in
a department are of two sorts. There is a class who are
trained men in the places that they occupy. They have been
in the service for a long period. They are familiar with the
laws relating to their duties, and to the decisions of the
courts thereon, and they are the possessors of the traditions
of the offices. They are as nearly indispensable as one man
can be to another, or to the safe management of business.
The head of a department cannot dispense with the services
of such men. All thought of political opinions disappears.
The responsibility of a change in such a case is very great.
No prudent administrator of a public trust will venture upon
such experiments. There is another class of clerks who are
employed in copying, in making computations in simple
arithmetic, in writing letters under dictation, and in other
ordinary clerical work.

The public interest is not very large in the retention of
such persons. The ordinary graduates of the high schools
of the country are competent for all those duties. But the
clerks of this class are not removed in mass, and they never
will be, under any administration. Even a fresh man at the
head of a department will soon find that the fancied political
advantages are no adequate compensation for the trouble

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 135

that he assumes and the risk of error and fraud that he runs
when he takes new and untried persons in the place of those
who have been tested. As late as 1870 about thirty per cent,
of the employees of the Treasury in 1860 were in office, and
this notwithstanding that the Treasury furnished recruits for
both armies. During my time and for years afterward, the
post of Assistant Secretary was held by Mr, Hartley, a
Democrat from the days of Pierce and Buchanan. He was
experienced, diligent and entirely trustworthy.

Of the first class of employees it is to be said that there is
no occasion to embalm them in their offices, and if their pay
is adequate there is no ground for placing them upon the
pension rolls. Their duties are not as exacting as the duties
and labors of men in corresponding stations in private life.
As to the second class, their relations to the public are such
that no public obligation arises except to pay them the
stipulated salaries.

It is essential to a proper administration that the Secretary
or the President should have the power of removal, and it
should never be coupled with the duty of making a statement
of the cause. Not infrequently a statement would be the
occasion of scandal and of suffering by innocent parties.
The power may be abused as every power may be, in the
hands of dishonest or corrupt men. This is one of the perils
to the public, a peril from which no government can escape.
With us a change of rulers is a remedy for political wrongs
that do not belong to the catalogue of crimes. It may be
said, however, that this power of removal gives to a dis-
honest administrator of a department the opportunity to
secure the appointment of his political friends in the place
of political opponents removed, and this whatever may be
the method of appointment. The candidates may pass the
competitive examination, and they may enter upon their
duties, but their chief in thirty or sixty days may find them

136 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

lacking in practical aptitude, and so on, until those of the
true faith shall be sent forward by the examining board.

Honest administrators of official duties are embarrassed by
the system and dishonest ones evade it. The system may be-
come the enemy of honesty and the shield of hypocrisy.
Only this is needed. When the appointing power has desig-
nated a person for an office, let that person be examined by an
independent board with reference to character and those quali-
fications which seem to be a fit preparation for the practical
duties of the place. Whenever the power of appointment and
removal is abused the public has a remedy in a change of
administration. And herein is one reason why the Presi-
dential term should not be extended. There may be many
evils of administration which are not so flagrant as to warrant
proceedings for impeachment. Such evils may be borne for
brief periods, when if the term of the President were extended
to six or eight years the dissatisfied elements of society might
be tempted to engage in revolutionary movements. Nor is
there wisdom in limiting the Presidential office to a single
term in the same person. The thought that one has a future
is a great stimulus to careful and energetic action in the per-
formance of public duties. For a President there is no future
except a re-election, which is in fact an approval by the coun-
try of his administration. A wise man will strive to so
conduct affairs as to merit that approval. A House of Repre-
sentatives already condemned by a popular verdict is but a
poor guardian of the rights of the people; and a defeated
administration performs its duties in the most indifferent
manner. After a defeat appointments will be made and acts
done that would not have been hazarded pending an election.
It is true, probably, of every administration, not excepting
that of General Washington, that the second term was less
acceptable to the country than the first. Mr. Lincoln had no

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 137

second term, and it is useless to speculate upon its probable
character, if he had lived to perform its duties.

It was my habit to be at the Treasury every morning at
line o'clock, and I usually sent immediately for one or more
leads of division or chiefs of bureau for conference upon
le matter connected with their duties. By frequent inter-
news I acquired such knowledge of their duties and of pend-
ing questions that I always had a reason for those interviews.
By this course I maintained relations of familiarity with the
officers who constituted the department for administrative
purposes, and I also established a system of punctuality in
the matter of attendance. When the head of a division is
tardy, the clerks soon venture to follow his example, and if
he is prompt they are ashamed to be dilatory unless they
lave an adequate excuse. The same relation exists between
ic bureau officers and the head of a department.
One of my first acts in the nature of a financial policy
as to establish the Sinking Fund, agreeably to the act of
rebruary 25, 1862. Seven years had passed since the passage
>f the law and four years since the end of the war and yet
lothing had been done to provide for the redemption of the
mblic debt agreeably to the promise that had been made when
the Government was a large borrower of money and when
its credit was depreciated, seriously, in all the markets of the
world. In my first annual report, December, 1869, I advised
Congress of my action and I recommended the application of
ic bonds that I had then purchased, amounting to about fifty-
)ur million dollars, to the Sinking Fund, until the deficiency
icn existing had been met. The step that I then took was
taken in obedience to the law, and not from any great faith
in the wisdom of the Sinking Fund policy, nor was it from
any fear that the Government could not pay its debts whether
a Sinking Fund was or was not created.

138 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The faith of the Government had been pledged to a par-
ticular policy and I thought that the observance of that policy
was both wise and just. A government cannot afford to
disregard the terms of its undertakings even if a violation
or neglect does not work harm to anyone. The payments to
the Sinking Fund were made regularly during General Grant's
administration, and the credit of the Government was thereby
somewhat strengthened. The chief element of strength was
in the fact that the payments were such as to astonish the
heavily taxed and debt burdened States of Europe. In my
four years of service as the head of the Treasury the pay-
ments on the debt reached the enormous sum of three hundred
and sixty-four million dollars. No one of my successors
'has paid an equal amount, nor has an equal amount been paid
in any other equal period of time by the United States or by
any other government.

At the time I entered the Treasury the price of gold was
at about forty per cent premium and when I left the Treasury
it was at about twelve per cent premium. In the summer of
1869 I entered upon the policy of selling gold and buying
bonds. The sales and purchases were made by the Assistant
Treasurer in New York, but the bids were reported to me
and by me accepted or rejected. A leading criticism was this :
It was claimed that the simple method was to buy bonds in
gold and thus to secure the bonds by one transaction.

This policy would have limited the number of purchasers
of gold to those who could command bonds. By the policy
pursued the sales of gold were open to anyone who had money.
The gold was sold for currency, and the bonds were pur-
chased with currency. When the Treasury announced its
purpose to purchase bonds the price advanced in the market.
The President remarked to me jocularly that he had suffered
by not knowing- what the department was about to do, inas-
much as he had sold bonds a few days too early and at a

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 139

•ice below their then present value. During my service as
jtary of the Treasury I carried two questions only to
ic Cabinet discussions — and I have forgotten one of the
icstions, but it had some political significance. The other
irose in this manner : My method of negotiating the sale of
lew bonds under the Funding Act of July, 1870, had been
iverely criticized. The Government was compelled to give
ninety days' notice of its purpose to redeem five-twenty bonds,
and as we could not with safety make a call until we had
the funds, and as our chief source was the proceeds of new
bonds we could not call until a sale was made. As a conse-
quence the Government was a loser of interest on all called
bonds for the period of ninety days. I arranged with the
subscribers for new bonds, that they should have the interest
for the ninety days upon a deposit of old bonds as security
for the new ones subscribed for and taken. The Government
lost nothing, and the subscribers were benefited greatly, and
thus the subscriptions were increased.

During the campaign of 1872 I had an opportunity to nego-
tiate a new loan upon the same basis. Knowing that the
roceeding would renew criticisms, I thought it proper to
ty the case before the President and Cabinet. Upon their
idvice the negotiations were suspended.
Governor Fish on more than one occasion complained that
ic Cabinet were as ignorant of the proceedings and purposes
>f the Treasury as was the outside world. His complaints
rere well founded. Much of the business aside from routine
latters was secret. For example my orders for the sale of
'old and the purchase of bonds were never issued at any
ther time than Sunday evening, and then always by myself,
ic orders were sent to the Sub-Treasurer at New York, and
given to the Associated Press at the same time. Consequently,
on Monday morning all the country was informed, and under
such circumstances that the chances of some to speculate upon

140 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the ignorance of others were reduced to the minimum. More-
over, the members of the Cabinet might divide. I should
then be compelled to act upon my own judgment, and against
the views of some of my associates. Again, if I had the
support of the President and Cabinet, I could not have used
the fact as an excuse for myself. The public know no one
but the Secretary. I chose to act upon my own judgment,
knowing that there was no one to share the responsibility in
case of failure.

In my report to Congress, in December, 1869, I set forth
a system for refunding the Public Debt. I had unfolded
the scheme in a speech in the House of Representatives, July
1868. I had already taken two steps preparatory to the
undertaking. First, in May, 1869, I established the Sinking
Fund under the Act of February 25, 1862. Second, by the
purchase of bonds the world had assurance that the debt would
be paid. The effect of these two measures was seen in the
increasing market value of the bonds. In other words, the
credit of the country was improving. When the President
was preparing his message of December, 1869, ne called upon
me for my views in regard to the Treasury, and I furnished
him with a synopsis of my plan which he embodied in his
message. I retained a copy of the synopsis and that copy
is in the hands of my daughter. Simultaneously I prepared
a bill upon the basis of the report and caused the same to
be printed upon the Treasury press. Upon an examination
of the papers on file in the archives of the Senate I find that
cuttings from my printed bill form a part of the bill which
was printed by the Finance Committee of the Senate of which
Senator Sherman was chairman. The bill was changed in
details but not in principle. The loan was in three parts as
my bill was prepared. A portion at 5 per cent, a portion at
41-2 per cent, and a third portion at 4 per cent. The division
was retained in the statute, but the amount of the loan at

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 141

each of the several rates was changed. By my bill the interest
could be made payable in Europe. This feature was stricken
mt by the committees in the House or the Senate. This
inge I overcame or avoided ultimately by a rule of the
)artment by which interest on registered bonds could be
lade payable in checks of the Treasurer. These checks are
)w sent to all parts of the world and through the banking
facilities they are everywhere as good as gold, subject only
to the natural rates of exchange between different countries.
Since that time railroad companies and other business cor-
porations have accepted the system. My plan of making the
interest on the bonds payable in Europe was rejected under
the lead of gentlemen who thought it involved some sort of
national degradation. My object was to make the loan more
acceptable in Europe and thus to extend the demand, and
consequently, to increase the value of our securities.

The records of the Treasury Department show that on the
23rd day of December, 1869, I sent to General Schenck of
the House, a draught of a bill for refunding the Public Debt.
The same records show that on the igth of January, 1870, I
sent to Senator Sherman eight copies of a bill. These bills
were framed in conformity to the plan marked out in my
>rt of December, 1869. Previous to the preparation of
that report I had not had any conference with any member
)f Congress nor with any other person in regard to the de-
lils of the scheme.

On the 1 2th of July, 1870, Mr. Sumner introduced a bill
for refunding the Public Debt (Sen. S. 80). As might have
m expected it was not a practical measure, and on the 3rd
ty of the following February, Mr. Sherman reported the
)ill of Mr. Sumner in a new draught. A single copy of that
>ill is on file in the office of the secretary of the Senate, and
no other copy can be found.

This bill conforms to my report, and upon my recollection

142 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

it is the bill as prepared by me. The division of the loan
conforms to my recommendation in the report, and it pro-
vides that the interest may be made payable abroad. Sub-
sequently these provisions were changed. General Schenck
had then recently returned from Europe and he was of the
opinion that the loan could all be negotiated at four or four
and one half per cent and it was this opinion on his part
which led to delays. The bill was not passed till July, 1870,
at the very moment when the Franco-Prussian War opened.
Had the bill been passed in March, quite large negotiations
could have been made in April of that year. But the sale
of the new five per cent bonds was an undertaking of great
difficulty. It is now impossible to realize that a six per cent
bond was not worth par in 1869-^70. At that time the lead-
ing bankers of the world were unwilling to engage in the
undertaking. The Rothschilds and Barings stood aloof. The
Amsterdam bankers wrote letters of inquiry, but they did
nothing more. Mr. Morton, of the firm of Morton, Bliss
& Co., New York, was inclined to engage in the business,
but his partner, Mr. Bliss was doubtful of the success of the
scheme, and they therefore stood aside when the first nego-
tiations were attempted. Finally an arrangement was made
with Jay Cooke & Co., by which they advertised what was
called a popular loan, asking for a subscription to the five per
cent bonds.

Subsequently I advised Congress to issue four per cent
fifty year bonds as a basis of the banking system, coupled
with an offer to the existing banks of a preference, but in
case any bank should refuse to exchange the bonds then held
by such bank, its charter after one year should be annulled
and its banking privileges should be open to any other asso-
ciation that would purchase the four per cent bonds. This
proposition aroused the hostility of the national banks and

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 143

forthwith the city was invaded by bank officers and agents
who succeeded in defeating the bill.

I had early foreseen that the Public Debt could be paid
without much delay, and without a system of oppressive tax-
ation. In July, 1863, in the introduction to my volume on
the tax system of the country, I had predicted that the
revenues would be equal to the payment of interest on a debt
twice as large as the Public Debt then was, together with
large annual payments of principal. I predicted also that
these payments would menace the national banking system.
My scheme looked for the perpetuation of that system for
fifty years at least. The banks looked upon the scheme as
a hostile project and they were therefore led to defeat a
measure which in fact was liberal in the extreme. At that
time the capital of all the national banks was limited to three
hundred million dollars. Thus did the banks defeat a measure
which was designed to secure their perpetuity and calculated
to promote their financial interests. They acted upon the idea
that the credit of the country could never be so advanced that
a four per cent bond would be worth par.

The success of the five per cent loan of 1871, of which I
give a full account elsewhere, should have ended the contest
in regard to the credit of the United States. A five per
cent bond had been sold at par in the London market. The
principal of the Public Debt was undergoing a monthly re-
duction and the gain in the interest account was sufficient
to guarantee the payment of the principal in half a century.
From that time forward, the leading bankers of Europe and
America were ready to co-operate in placing the remaining
five per cents, and then the four and a half and four per
cents.

From that time forward the credit of the Government
has been improving constantly. It was no longer difficult

144 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

to borrow money at the rate of five per cent, and with the
adjustment of our controversy with Great Britain there re-
mained no reason to question the rapid progress of the United
States in wealth and population. Indeed, it was then entirely
feasible for the Government to have resumed specie payments,
as any demand upon the Treasury for gold could have been
met with the proceeds of bonds sold in Europe. It was my
opinion, however, that it would be wiser to delay resumption
until the balance of trade should be so much in our favor
that specie payments could be maintained by our own re-
sources. And this was accomplished in less than six years.
It is with a state as it is with an individual. With an es-
tablished credit, or with a credit improving constantly and
an income in excess of expenditures, there is no difficulty in
meeting all liabilities as they mature. Such was the condi-
tion of the Treasury when I left it in March, 1873. In March,
1869, the Government was paying interest, measured at the
gold value of its securities at the rate of seven per cent. In
1873 the rate was five per cent or less. In that time the
net Public Debt had been reduced in the sum of three hundred
and sixty- four million dollars, and the interest account had
been reduced about thirty million dollars.

When I was engaged in placing bonds in Europe, a dis-
cussion arose among bankers in regard to the conflict of
statements as to the amount of the Public Debt. By the
reports of the Treasurer, which were the basis of the monthly
statements, the debt was represented by the securities actu-
ally issued after deducting those which had been redeemed.
By the report from the Register's Office which once each year
corresponded in time to the monthly report, the balance was
widely different. These facts impaired our standing finan-
cially. Upon the register's books the Government was charged
with every issue that passed out of his office, and it was days,
usually, and not infrequently it was weeks, before the se-

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 145

curities passed from the Treasury into the hands of creditors
or purchasers of securities. On the other hand the Treasurer
would be entitled to credit for redemptions made days or
weeks before the evidence of such payments would appear
on the register's books. An analogous fact exists in the
discrepancy between a depositor's account with his bank and
the account at the bank as long as there are outstanding
checks. The books would not agree and yet each might be
accurate. As it was a necessity of the situation that the
business of the Treasury should proceed day by day without
interruption and as it was difficult to explain the discrepancy
to the many inquirers, I ordered Mr. Allison, the register, to
accept for his annual reports the statement of the Treasurer, as
his statements conformed to the existing facts on the days
when the statements were made. The register protested that
the order was not justified by the law, and that was the truth
although there was no law forbidding such an act. The
transaction, including my order, was brought before a com-
mittee of the House of Representatives, but as far as I know,
the question of the legality of the proceeding, was not can-
vassed, or if attention was directed to the subject the com-
mittee may have treated it as an act in the public interest and
from which no injury had arisen. Upon these facts, Senator
Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia, made the charge that
the books of the Treasury had been altered by my direction
and that it was possible that some great fraud had been per-
petrated which might be discovered if a committee were ap-
pointed to investigate the Treasury. A committee was
granted, of which Senator Davis was a member. The investi-
gation was a failure from his standpoint. Indeed, the al-
teration of the books of the Treasury would require the col-
lusive co-operation of many persons, and evidence of the fact
of the alteration would, of necessity, become known to Hun-
dreds of clerks.

146 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Davis and some other Democrats implicated me in an
analogous matter which they tried to understand but did not.
The Loan Accounts of the Treasury Department showed that
the payments on the Public Debt exceeded the receipts from
loans in the enormous sum of one hundred and sixteen million
dollars. I appointed a committee of clerks to examine the
account in detail for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
discrepancy was real or only apparent. The fact of the dis-
crepancy was reported to Congress and the progress made
in the investigation was noted in the appendix to the Annual
Reports. It is probable, however, that these reports were
never seen by Mr. Davis, and hence his suspicion that an
investigation into the accuracy of the Treasury accounts
would show an alteration of Treasury books, and of course,
for some improper purpose.

The error began in Mr. Hamilton's time, and in conse-
quence of the assumption of the State debts. Bonds were
issued for those debts but there were no receipts paid into
the Treasury, and consequently the debit side of the account
was a blank. When the bonds were paid the payment be-
came a credit on the loan account. In after times bonds were
issued and sold below par. The account was charged with
the receipts and upon payment the loan account was credited
with the full amount paid. In some cases the discrepancy
was augmented by the purchase of bonds and the payment
of a premium, as was done in the second term of General
Jackson. The investigation showed that the discrepancy was
only apparent, and the criticisms and complaints ceased.

During my administration of the Treasury Department, the
government of the Territory of Alaska was in my hands.
The legislation of Congress was brief and indefinite and the
only officers were collectors of customs, treasury agents and
the revenue cutter officers. The principal topics of thought
were the exclusion of liquors and firearms and the protection

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 147

of the fur seal fishery. During the session of the Forty-first
gress a bill was passed which required the Secretary to
se the seal fishery to the best bidder, with a preference to
e company which was then engaged in the fishery. On
e question of the nature of the preference I took the opinion
of the Attorney-General in advance of the contract. At that
ime I was opposed to any system of leasing and I so advised
e House of Representatives in a report upon the subject;
Congress, however, adopted the system of leasing and upon
experience that system was shown to be more advantageous to
the country. The value of the fur seal fishery depends upon
the market for the dressed furs, and the value of the dressed
furs depends upon the fashions, and the fashions are manipu-
lated by producers of the various competing goods. The Gov-
ernment could never engage in the business of promoting
fashions and training the markets. Fur seal skins have only
a moderate commercial value when the fashion is not with
em.

The question of the claim on Behring Sea was not then
uch considered. By the law of nations it is difficult to
intain the position that that vast body of salt water can
treated as a closed sea, but there are peculiarities which
distinguish it from other bodies of water as the Mediterranean
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, which are partially enclosed.
Russia for a long time was the possessor of the adjacent
ainland and of the islands which mark the limits and in
degree enclose the sea. That country claimed jurisdiction
er the water. That claim was known and its validity was
t disputed seriously. By the treaty Russia ceded about
e half of the sea to the United States. Russia and the
nited States are the countries directly interested. England
has no territorial rights and therefore she has no interest that
is not common to other nations. The United States and
Russia are interested in the seal fishery which can be pre-

148 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

served only by the protection of the animals in Behring Sea.
It may be claimed fairly that Russia and the United States
have property in these animals due to the fact that they gather
upon the territory of the countries at certain seasons of the
year. At other seasons they roam over the water as other
animals roam over the land. They are, at least, partially
domesticated. They are accustomed to the presence of the
inhabitants of the islands which they occupy as breeding
grounds and which they visit annually. Moreover, England
has an interest in the preservation of the fishery. The skins
are dressed in London, and thus far no one has been found,
either in Europe or in the United States, who can compete
with the London workmen. For the purpose of protecting
and preserving the seal fishery, Behring Sea ought to be
treated as a closed sea. For general commercial purposes
it may be used as other parts of the ocean are used.

At a time, while I was Secretary of the Treasury, when
I was detained at my lodgings by a slight illness, I received a
visit from William E. Dodge a New York merchant and an
importer of tin, whom I had known some years before when
I was a member of Congress. He said that he had called to
see me in regard to charges against his house preferred by
the revenue officers relating to the importation of tin. I said,
what was true, that I had not heard of the charges and that
I had never suspected his house of any wrong-doing in their
business. His statement in reply was a great surprise to me.
He said that if there was anything which appeared to be
wrong, or that was in fact a violation of law, the error or
wrong was unintentional — that he and his partners intended
to act always in good faith. He then stated that the claim
amounted to more than two hundred thousand dollars, and
he proposed then and there to pay the amount claimed, coupled,
however, with the condition that the payment should be kept
secret. I replied that I could not take the money upon such

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT IN 1869 149

terms and that secrecy was impossible. Upon his statement
there were three persons besides ourselves who had knowledge
of the existence of the charges and the payment of money
must come to the knowledge of the Treasury officials. I
then said:

" Mr. Dodge, you cannot afford to pay this money. If
you are innocent you should contest the matter in the courts,
and if you convince the judge, even if you are technically
wrong, that there was no intent to defraud the Government
the Secretary can remit all the penalty, leaving you to pay
the duty." His counsel, if they were competent, must have
given him similar advice and yet he paid voluntarily, about
two hundred and seventy-six thousand dollars to the officials
in New York, of which he and his friends proceeded to com-
plain. There was a suit, but it was the duty of the firm to
contest the claim of the Government, if they had a defence.
And if they had had a defence they were in no danger even
if they had violated the law ignorantly, for no Secretary
would have allowed honest men to suffer for an ignorant
violation of the revenue laws. Senator Edmunds placed upon
the records of the Senate a full statement of the case.

XXXIV

THE MINT BILL AND THE "CRIME OF 1873"

OF the many measures of my administration of the
Treasury Department, the Mint Bill of 1873 is the
only one which has been made a party issue, and
which has entered permanently into the policy of the country.

In the month of March, in the year 1869, I came to the
head of the Treasury Department. At an early day my atten-
tion was directed to the disordered condition of the mint
service, which was then, as it ever had been, without a re-
sponsible head. The proceedings at the mints were unsyste-
matic, and I resolved upon an attempt to codify the laws and
to place the administration in the hands of a recognized,
responsible officer. President Grant appointed John Jay Knox
comptroller of the currency. For many years Mr. Knox had
held the office of deputy comptroller. He had been a careful,
constant student, and he was already a recognized authority
in financial matters.

I appointed Mr, Knox commissioner to codify the mint
laws and to suggest alterations. He was assisted by Dr. Lin-
derman, then an eminent expert in the theory and practice
of coinage, by Mr. Patterson, superintendent of the mint at
Philadelphia, and by others.

When the codification of the laws relating to the mint
service had been completed the statute, as passed, contained
seventy-one sections, including a number of new provisions.

150

i

THE MINT BILL AND THE "CRIME OF 1873" I51

The political and personal controversy of twenty years and
more was directed to a single section, which was in these
words : " No coins, either of gold, silver, or minor coinage,
shall hereafter be issued from the mints other than those of
the denominations, standards and weights herein set forth."
The coinage of the silver dollar piece was discontinued in the
bill as prepared by the commissioners and the purpose to dis-
continue its coinage was thus announced in the report that
was made to Congress :

" The coinage of the silver dollar piece, the history of
which is here given, is discontinued in the proposed bill.
The present gold dollar piece is made the dollar
unit in the proposed bill, and the silver dollar piece is dis-
continued."

In 1873 I had come to believe that it was wise for every
nation to recognize, establish, and maintain the gold standard.
I was of the opinion then, as I am of the opinion now, that
nations cannot escape from the gold standard in all inter-
state transactions. The value of every article is resolved
finally by the ascertainment of its value in gold. Silver or
paper may be used for domestic purposes, but the value of
that silver or paper is determined by its value in gold.

In America, as in England, all the attempts to fix a ratio
between gold and silver coins and to maintain that ratio in
business had failed, and hence it was that I determined to
abandon the idea of a double standard, reserving in mind,
however, the possibility that an agreement by commercial
countries might overcome the difficulty. That possibility
has now disappeared. The history of the United States is
an instructive history. The coin ratio between gold and silver
was fixed in Mr. Hamilton's time and with the concurrence
of Mr. Jefferson.

In 1870 silver was at a premium upon the legal ratio
between gold and silver coins, and such had been the fact

152 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

from the year 1837, and probably from the year 1792. In-
deed, there has never been a day, from the organization of
the government, when the actual standard was silver. Until
the act of 1878 was passed, silver coins had had no appre-
ciable influence upon the volume of currency or the business
of the country. The total coinage of silver dollars had been
8,000,000 pieces only. The coinage was suspended in 1805
or 1806, and the silver dollars had been exported or they
had disappeared in melting pots. Such was the commercial
demand for American silver coins that in 1853 Congress
authorized the debasement of the subsidiary silver coins as
the only means of securing their circulation.

It is quite doubtful whether in the year 1860 there was
a person living who had seen an American silver dollar doing
duty in the channels of trade. From 1806 to 1873 the busi-
ness standard of the country was the gold standard. Silver
had been recognized in the Coinage Act, but practically it
had not played any part in the financial policy or fortunes of
the country.

The choice of gold as the standard was not due to hos-
tility to silver or to the silver mining interests, but to the
well grounded opinion that gold was a universal currency,
while in some countries, as in England and Germany, silver
coins were not a debt-paying currency.

These — within the limits of a statement — are the reasons
for the demonetization of the silver dollar and the adoption
of the single gold standard. The measure was in accord with
my policy, and it was in accord with the unbiassed judgment
of the commission.

It is a singular instance in legislative proceedings that a
measure that had no active support and that was free from
opposition at its enactment should be assailed vigorously
after the lapse of years and through a long period of time.
The measure was soon followed by the depreciation of silver

THE MINT BILL AND THE " CRIME OF 1873 " J53

and coincident with that change came the attacks upon the
Mint Bill, and the denunciation of the " Crime of 1873."

The charges were two :

First: The authors of the change had been corrupted by
English gold through one Ernest Seyd, a writer on economic
topics. It was alleged that Seyd came to this country at
the time the measure was under consideration. Seyd was not
living when the charges were made, but the fact of a visit
to this country was denied by his son. Hon. Samuel Hooper
chairman of the Committee on Coinage. In the search
for information Mr. Hooper invited Mr. Seyd to give him
his opinion. Seyd was a writer, a man of good reputation,
and a bimetallist. In a letter to Mr. Hooper which is still
in existence, and which is printed in the Congressional Record,
Seyd condemned the demonetization of the silver dollar. His
letter was dated at London, February 17, 1872.

The second charge was secrecy. The answer to this charge
was to be found in historical facts.

The evidence is this: Mr. Knox's report contained two
specific statements that it was a purpose of the bill to pro-
hibit the coinage of the silver dollar; the report of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury for the year 1872 made a specific recom-
mendation to that effect; the bill was printed six times; it
was considered in each House during the Forty-first and
Forty-second Congresses; the precise question in contro-
versy was the subject of discussion, and two years and ten
months were given to the consideration of the bill.

The bill was discussed in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Reed has stated that the report of the debate covers
one hundred and ninety-six columns of the Congressional
Record. Senator Jones, in his report of 1876, as chairman
of the Silver Commission, refers to the debate in these words :
" In the brief discussion on the bill in the House of Repre-
sentatives, the principal reason assigned in favor of those

i54 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

sections which interdicted the future coinage of the silver
dollar was that its value was three per cent greater than
the value of the gold dollar." Thus Senator Jones admits
that the debate in the House of Representatives was upon
the question of the abolition of the silver dollar, and he rec-
ognizes his knowledge of the fact of the debate.

Finally the bill passed the Senate without one dissenting
vote.

The downfall of silver has not been due to any legislation
in America or Europe, nor to any decrees or despotic policy
in Asia, but to the inventive faculties of one Charles Bur-
leigh, of Fitchburg, Massachusetts, the inventor of the power
drill.

If through him many silver mines have been rendered
valueless, so it is to him that the world is indebted for a
new application of force by which mountains are penetrated
and mining in all its forms is carried on at one fourth part
of the former cost. Every step in civilization, every advance
movement that we call progress, is a peril to many and a
ruin to some. By one stroke of genius, and limiting our
thoughts to one only of its many consequences we may say
that Burleigh has made gold so abundant and cheap that all
substitutes for a currency from wampum to silver must soon
disappear.

There is historical evidence tending to show that the repre-
sentatives of the silver mining interest had sufficient and
worthy reasons for assenting to the suspension of the silver
dollar. In 1872 silver was at a slight premium as compared
with gold. Therefore the privilege of coinage of the dollar
was of no advantage to the owners of bullion.

The Mint Bill had a new and attractive feature. It pro-
vided for the coinage of a dollar that was to contain 420
grains of standard silver, and was to be known as the trade
dollar.

THE MINT BILL AND THE " CRIME OF 1873 " 155

This passage may be found in my report to Congress for
the year 1872:

" Therefore, in renewing the recommendations heretofore
made for the passage of the Mint Bill, I suggest such alter-
ations as will prohibit the coinage of silver for circulation
in this country, but that authority be given for the coinage
of a silver dollar that shall be as valuable as the Mexican
dollar and to be furnished at its actual cost."

The dollar was coined and it was known as the Trade
Dollar. It contained 420 grains of standard silver.

The Mexican dollar which contained about 416 grains, was
then sold at a premium, and it was used extensively in the
China and India trade.

It was my expectation and the expectation of all con-
cerned, that the trade dollar, from its added value, would
take the place of the Mexican dollar in the immense trade
of the East. My own confidence was great. Indeed, the
thought of failure never occurred to me. Unfortunately, the
stolidity of the Chinese and the force of habit among that
people were not considered by us. From long use they had
become accustomed to the Mexican dollar. They refused our
trade dollar, notwithstanding its greater weight.

We coined and put into circulation, at home and abroad,
ut 36,000,000 pieces, many of which were afterwards
recoined as legal tender dollars under a special act of Con-
gress.

With the failure of that undertaking came the crusade
against the act of 1873. Whether the two events sustained
to each other the relation of cause and effect, I cannot
say.

The suggestion that Senator Stewart of Nevada was as-
senting to the demonetization of the silver dollar derives
support from the fact that, in the month of February, 1874,
he indorsed the gold standard in two speeches, delivered,

156 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

respectively, on the nth and 2Oth days of that month.
On the nth he said: " I want the standard gold, and no
paper money not redeemable in gold." On the 2Oth he added :
" Gold is the universal standard of the world. Everybody
knows what a dollar in gold is worth."

It is certain that in the month of February, 1874, when
the contents of the Mint Bill were in the public statutes,
the demonetization of the silver dollar, and the recognition
of the gold dollar as the unit of value, had not affected the
judgment nor disturbed the sensibilities of the advocates of
silver.

I dismiss this branch of the subject with the observation
that the act of 1873 placed the United States in a commanding
position in regard to the use of silver. If that metal had
continued to maintain its supremacy upon the ratio then
established between gold and silver coins, there could have
arisen no demand for the coinage of silver. If, on the other
hand, silver should depreciate, the government might, at its
pleasure, use, or it might decline to use, that metal as coin.

I now pass to a part of the history of the controversy not
heretofore considered in public discussions, from which it
will appear that the trusted representatives of the silver in-
terest put aside the most inviting opportunity, if not the only
opportunity, for the adoption of the bimetallic system by the
commercial nations of the world.

The act of 1873 prepared the way for the use of silver by
the commercial nations of the world, upon an agreed ratio
with gold, if indeed, the possibility of such an arrangement
ever existed. We were upon a gold basis; the balance of
trade, by groups of years, was in our favor; we had a gold
revenue from customs of about $200,000,000, and the excess
of Treasury receipts over expenditures was nearly $100,-
000,000 a year.

THE MINT BILL AND THE " CRIME OF 1873 " 157

If we had chosen to accumulate gold and postpone pay-
ments upon the Public Debt, we could have brought the

itions of the earth to our feet.

It was under circumstances thus favorable for negotia-
tions for the use of silver that the Silver Commission of
1876 was constituted, and authorized, among other things,
to inquire " into the policy of the restoration of the double
standard in this country, and if restored, what the legal
relation between the two coins of silver and gold, should
be."

This authority opened a way for the introduction of a

>licy on the part of the United States looking to an ar-
rangement for the use of silver by the states of Europe, and
on that authority the commission dealt with the project of
an international bimetallic system.

The commission consisted of eight persons. Senator Jones
was the chairman, and Mr. Bland, of Missouri, was an in-
fluential member. It was my fortune to be of the commission
and it was my fortune also to be alone in opinion upon the
main questions that were treated in the reports.

The majority of the commission consisted of Messrs. Jones,
Bogy, Willard, Bland and Groesbeck. They favored the re-
monetization of the silver dollar, and that without delay.

Of the points made in their report, I mention these. They
said : " The supply of gold is diminishing, being now but
little more than one half what it was in 1852, and is always
so fitful and irregular from the method of its production
that it is ill-suited to be a sole measure of value."

This statement as a statement of an existing fact was wide
of the truth, and as a prophecy it was as fallacious as are
the prophecies which predict the destruction of the world.
From 1851 to 1855 the annual gold product of the world was
6,410,324 ounces. From 1876 to 1880 the annual gold prod-

158 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

net of the world was 5,543,110 ounces. The gold product
of the latter period was eighty-six per cent of the gold pro-
duct of the former period.

Far wide of the truth were the predictions of the majority
in regard to the future product of gold. For the year 1894
the product was 8,737,788 ounces, or about thirty-seven per
cent over the product of 1851 -'5 5.

They, the majority, said : " No increase in the yield of
silver in the immediate future seems upon the whole to be
probable." The commission said further : " The exchanges
of the world, and especially of this country, are continually
and largely increasing; while the supplies of both the precious
metals, taken together, if not diminishing, are at least sta-
tionary, and the supply of gold, taken by itself, is falling

'Off/'

Each of these two statements in regard to the precious
metals was a serious error, and in their controlling influence
upon the judgment of the commission they were fatal errors.

The gold product of the world in 1876 was 5,016,488
ounces. In 1894 the product had risen to 8,737,788 ounces,
a gain of more than seventy-four per cent in the short period
of eighteen years.

In 1876 the product of silver was 67,753,125 ounces, and
in 1894 it was 167,752,561 ounces, a gain of about 147 per
cent in eighteen years.

Upon these errors the majority of the commission based
a policy by which the only opportunity that the country ever
had for the establishment of a bimetallic system which should
include the commercial nations of Europe, was put aside and
forever lost.

If, in 1876, I had anticipated the immense increase in the
product of silver, I might have hesitated, but in the view
that I was then able to command I had great confidence that
a bimetallic arrangement might be secured.

THE MINT BILL AND THE « CRIME OF 1873 " 159

The majority of the commission favored bimetallism but

icy demanded, first, the remonetization of the silver dollar.
)n the other hand, I claimed that all thought of the further
of silver should be postponed until the attempt to secure

ic co-operation of other countries had been tried faithfully.

The policy of the majority of the commission prevailed,

id it was consummated by the Statute of 1878, which was
passed over the veto of President Hayes, and which author-
ized the coinage of the silver dollar.

When we had accepted silver, when we had abandoned the
vantage ground that we had occupied, it was in vain that we
solicited the co-operation of England, France and Germany.
The adoption by the United States of a silver-using policy
led the statesmen of those countries to anticipate the more
extended and continuous use of silver leaving to them a mo-
nopoly of gold, while we should sink financially to the level
of the degraded states of the world. That catastrophe we
have escaped after an experience of twenty-five years, and
then only by the combined efforts of the two great political
parties.

I submit brief extracts from the report of the majority of
the commission and from my individual report of 1876, that
our relative positions may be understood.

The commission said : " We believe that the remonetization
of silver in this country will have a powerful influence in
preventing, and probably will prevent, the demonetization of
silver in France and in other European countries in which
the double standard is still legally and theoretically main-
tained."

Again the majority said : " It may be added that a legisla-
tive remonetization on the relation to gold if 15.5 to I ac-
complishes without delay all the objects of the proposition for
an international conference, which is urged from various
quarters."

160 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

That I may place myself where I stood in 1876 I present
brief extracts from my report of that year.

First I said : " There can be but one standard of value in
any country at the same time, and a successful use of gold
and silver simultaneously can be effected only by their con-
solidation upon an agreed ratio of value, and by the concur-
rence of the commercial nations of the world.

" The undersigned is also of opinion that it is expedient
for this Government to extend an invitation to the commercial
nations of the world to join in convention for the purpose of
considering whether it is wise to provide by treaties and con-
current legislation for the use of both silver and gold in all
such nations upon a fixed relative valuation of the two metals ;
and, finally, that, until such an agreement between this Gov-
ernment and other commercial nations can be effected, the
United States should pursue the existing policy in regard to
the resumption of specie payments."

Further I said :" It is to be apprehended that the remone-
tization of silver by the United States at the present time
would be followed by such a depreciation in its value as to
furnish a reason against the adoption of the plan by the rest
of the world, and that an independent movement on our part
would increase the difficulties rather than diminish them."

These extracts shall suffice. I now repeat the assertion
with which I introduced this topic, viz. : That in 1876 the
majority of the Silver Commission put aside the most favor-
able opportunity, indeed the only opportunity, that the coun-
try has ever had for the organization of a universal system
of bimetallism.

Of that majority, Senator Jones of Nevada, and Repre-
sentative Bland, of Missouri, were the leading members. If
in defence or in extenuation of the policy of the majority it
shall be said that the United States has not remonetized

THE MINT BILL AND THE " CRIME OF 1873 " 161

silver, and that, therefore, the policy of the majority has not
been tested, a partial rejoinder, if not, indeed, a satisfactory
reply, may be deduced from the facts that between the year
1878 and the year 1893 the Government coined more than
400,000,000 silver dollars, and yet, in that period of time,
silver bullion fell from 1.15 plus per ounce to .65 plus per
ounce.

It is worthy of notice that the product of silver in the
United States has increased with the demand for silver.
Upon the passage of the Sherman Bill the product advanced
from 45,000,000 ounces in 1888 to an average of 55,000,000
ounces from 1889 to 1893, inclusive. Upon the repeal of
that act the product fell to 49,000,000 ounces in 1894.

It is not only probable, it is certain, that with every increas-
ing demand for silver there will be an added supply. Con-
sider what has happened since the appearance of the inven-
tions of which I have spoken.

The world's annual product of silver from 1493 to J865,
inclusive, was 16,887,157 ounces. The largest annual product
was from 1861 to 1865, when it reached 35,401,972 ounces.
From 1866 to 1894 inclusive, the annual average product
was 114,326,397 ounces. In 1894 the product was 167,-
752,561 ounces, which, as will be observed, was about nine
times the annual product from 1493 to 1865.

From 1876 to 1894 the business of silver mining was in-
creased 147 per cent. Can any one name any other business
or pursuit in which there was a like increase? And is not
the inference justified that the profits have been large and
tempting, notwithstanding the demonetization of silver in
some countries and the suspension of coinage in other coun-
tries?

I turn now to the future, and first as to the possibility of
the further use of silver as currency.

1 62 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

I assume that in countries where the standard is gold there
may be a considerable use of silver, as in the United States
to-day.

An international bimetallic system, binding nations to each
other for a definite term of years, is a proposition involving
large responsibilities.

If in 1885 it was not practicable to secure the adoption of
the bimetallic system, when silver was worth eighty-four
cents per ounce, what is the prospect of its adoption when
silver is worth only sixty-four cents per ounce, with an
annually increasing product and a diminishing price?

What remains ? This, possibly : That the nations may
agree to purchase each a per cent of a fixed amount of silver
as the product of each year. This scheme might prove, and
probably it would prove, to be only a temporary expedient.

The enormous increase in the business of silver mining is
evidence that the profits are far in excess of the profits that
are gained in other pursuits. The increase in product is likely
to be followed by a fall in price. Such are the resources of
the earth that an increase in the demand for silver will be
followed by an increase in the supply.

Gold mining is obedient to the same law. From 1876 to
1894 the product increased 74 per cent. That ratio of in-
crease is likely to continue. The world is not in peril of a
gold famine. Gold as a currency, passing from hand to hand,
will be used less and less. Substitutes, for which gold can be
obtained, will be preferred. The volume of currency in a
country is not limited by the amount of gold that a country
may possess. It may increase the amount of subsidiary coin
very largely, and it may add to the sum of paper money, pro-
vided that that paper money is always redeemable in gold.

Nor does the quantity of gold in a country determine the
price of commodities, except as that gold is a part of the
total volume of the currency of the country. The volume of

THE MINT BILL AND THE " CRIME OF 1873 " 163

currency as a whole is the force by which the salable value
of commodities is affected.

In truth, gold plays a small part only in actual business.
It is a regulator of business rather than an active instrument
for the transaction of business. It is not an exaggeration to
say that the use of gold in business is limited to a small frac-
tion of one per cent of the aggregate transactions in countries
where gold is the standard.

It is not improbable that in the near future the world is
to meet a surfeit of gold, as it is now meeting a surfeit of
silver. Yet even then its capacity as a standard will not be
affected. History does not carry us to a time when gold was
not the recognized standard for the measurement of every
other kind of property, and that not by one tribe or people
only, but by mankind in every clime and in every stage of
savageness or of civilization.

As the Mint Bill and the demonetization of silver have
occupied the attention of the country for a third of a century,
and as there may be a revival of the controversy at a time
in the future I have thought it wise for me to make a record
of the facts in the most enduring form at my command.

At the end this is my claim for the Mint Bill of 1873: It
established the gold standard for the United States for all
time. All the subsequent legislation has rested upon the fact
that the Statute of 1873 made the gold dollar the standard
of value in the United States.

XXXV

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869

SO much time has passed since September 24, 1869, that
there may be a large public who may become inter-
ested in a review of the events of the spring and
summer of that year which culminated in Wall Street, New
York, in the transactions and experiences of the day known as
" Black Friday."

When the Forty-first Congress assembled in December of
that year, the House of Representatives directed the Com-
mittee on Banking and Currency " to investigate the causes
that led to the unusual and extraordinary fluctuations of
gold in the city of New York, from the 2ist to the 27th of
September, 1869." The committee made a report which
was printed under date of March i, 1870, and which may
be found in a volume entitled " Garfield's Report on the Gold
Panic Investigation." From that report it appears that cer-
tain persons in the city of New York entered into an ar-
rangement, or understanding, or combination, as early as the
month of April, 1869, for the purpose of forcing the price
of gold artificially to a rate far beyond what might be called
the natural price. The committee, of which General Gar-
field was chairman, characterized the combination as a con-
spiracy. Technically and in a legal point of view the parties
concerned could not be treated properly as conspirators. It
does not appear that they contemplated the violation of any
law, but only a policy by which gold might be advanced from

164

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 165

time to time, and out of which advance large sums of money
might be realized by those who were holders of gold. Upon
that theory Jay Gould and James Fisk, Jr., who were the
leaders and organizers of the combination, with their asso-
ciates, made large purchases of gold at prices varying from
thirty to thirty-five per cent, premium. At the close of the
month of April, the price of gold, not then, as far as known,
under the influence of any speculative movement, was at a
premium of about thirty-four per cent. The indications were
that, during the months of May and June, the parties in-
terested in the combination made large purchases. By the
2Oth of May the price had reached a premium of forty-four
per cent. From that time onward, until the last of July, the
premium diminished, and at that date the rate was thirty-six
per cent.

When I entered the Treasury Department in March, there
had not been sales of gold nor purchases of bonds by the
Treasury Department as a policy, and but few transactions
on either side had been made by my predecessors in office. As
early as the I2th day of May I commenced the purchase of
bonds for the sinking fund and for the reduction of the
interest-bearing public debt. The total purchases during
the year 1869 amounted to something more than $88,000,000,
for which there was paid in currency $102,000,000 and a
margin over. At that time, the customs receipts were in gold
exclusively, and the purchase of bonds could only be made
by a sale of gold or by a direct purchase of bonds to be paid
for in gold. Suggestions were made by bankers and others
in the city of New York, and perhaps elsewhere, that the
purchase of bonds should be made in gold. This suggestion
was not acceptable to me, and upon the ground that the sale
of gold would be limited to those who had bonds, or who
could procure bonds, for the payment of gold. From the 29th
of April, when the first sale of gold was made, until the 3ist

1 66 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

day of December, the sales amounted to something more
than $53,000,000, and the proceeds to something over $70,-
000,000. The difference in the amount realized from the
sale of gold and the amount paid for bonds purchased was met
by the excess of receipts over the expenditures of the Gov-
ernment during that period.

As having some connection, and perhaps an important con-
nection, with what is to be said hereafter touching General
Grant's action in the days of September, when the specula-
tion was going on, I think it proper to make a statement
of my relations to the President. I had declined the office
of Secretary of the Treasury, and on the morning of my
nomination to the Senate I wrote a letter to Mr. Washburne,
through whom the invitation of the President that I should
accept the office was made, requesting him and urging him to
say to the President that I was unwilling to accept the place.
My nomination was sent to the Senate and confirmed, and as
there seemed to be no alternative for me, I entered upon the
duties of the office. Due in part to these circumstances, as I
think, the President accepted the idea that the management
of the Treasury Department was in my hands, and from first
to last, during the four years that I was in his Cabinet, his
acts and his conversation proceeded upon that idea. More-
over, he was influenced by a military view that an officer who
was charged with the conduct of a business, or of an under-
taking, should be left free to act, that he should be made re-
sponsible, and that, in case of failure, the consequences should
rest upon him. It happened, and as a plan on my part, that
neither the President nor the Cabinet was made responsible
for what was done in the Treasury Department. Hence it
was that I presented to the Cabinet but two questions.
One of these was of no considerable consequence. The other
related to the political effect that might follow a loan that
I contemplated making upon certain terms in the year 1872,

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 167

when the Presidential contest was pending. In the line of
these views, it happened that I announced my purpose to
purchase bonds in May, 1869, without conference either with
the Cabinet or with the President. When the announcement
was made, there was a slight advance in bonds. In order that
the business interests of the country might not be influenced
by an apprehension that changes might take place in the
policy of the Department, I announced (as stated in Chap-
ter XXIII) at the beginning of each month the sales of
gold and the purchases of bonds that were to be made
during the coming month. Those announcements were sent
out on the evening of Sunday, either the last Sunday of the
closing month or the first Sunday of the opening month. The
despatches were written by myself Sunday evening, and sent
to the Assistant Treasurer at New York. A copy was given
to the agent of the Associated Press, that the public might
be informed in the morning of the policy for the ensuing
month, and that there should be no opportunity for specula-
tion by persons who might obtain information in advance
of the general public. Unhappily, this policy was made the
basis of the proceedings in New York which culminated in
"Black Friday." The parties interested — I do not call them
conspirators — assumed that for thirty days the policy of the
department as to the sale of gold and the purchase of bonds
would remain unchanged, and on that basis they proceeded to
make arrangements for the advance in gold. Not satisfied
with that policy, which was designed to save the business
community from unnecessary apprehensions, an attempt was
made to induce me to make an announcement for two or
three months. Such suggestions were made in letters that
I received from interested parties in the city of New York.
Speculation in gold was not all on one side. There were
speculators who were anxious to break down the price of
gold, and between the lines I could read the condition of the

1 68 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

respective parties from whom I received letters. Under date
of September 23, I received a letter from a prominent house
in New York in which the writer said : " I am actuated to
again portray to you the state of financial affairs as they now
exist in this city. The speculative advance in gold has
brought legitimate business almost to a standstill, owing to
the apprehension of a corner, which from appearances may
appear at any moment."

It did not follow that the writer of the letter was " short on
gold," as the phrase is. I had, however, in my possession at
that time a list of persons in New York who were supposed to
be contestants, some for an advance in gold and others for a
fall. The writer of the letter was among those whose names
had been given to me as speculators for a fall in gold. In
this connection I may say that it was no part of my policy to
regulate affairs in Wall Street or State Street or Lombard
Street. Until it became apparent that the operations in New
York affected largely and seriously the business interests of
the country, and until it became apparent that the Treasury
receipts were diminished by the panic that had taken posses-
sion of the public, I refrained from any interference with
those who were engaged either in forcing up or forcing down
the price of gold.

Under date of the 24th day of September, I received a
letter from my special and trusted correspondent in the city
of New York in which I find this statement : " This has been
the most dreadful day I have ever seen in this city. While
gold was jumping from forty-three to sixty-one the excite-
ment was painful. Old, conservative merchants looked
aghast, nobody was in their offices, and the agony depicted on
the faces of men who crowded the streets made one feel as if
Gettysburg had been lost and that the rebels were marching
down Broadway. Friends of the Administration openly
stated that the President or yourself must have given these

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 169

men to feel you would not interfere with them or they would
never dare to rush gold up so rapidly. In truth, many parties
of real responsibility and friends of the Government openly
declared that somebody in Washington must be in this com-
bination."

The last sentence in this quotation unfolds the policy which
had guided Gould and Fisk and their associates from April
to the culmination of their undertaking, the 24th day of Sep-
tember. As far as I know, the effort had been directed chiefly
to the support of a false theory that the President was opposed
to the sale of gold, especially during the autumn months, when
a large amount of currency is required, or in those days was
supposed to be required, for " the moving," as it was called,
of the produce of the West to the sea coast for shipment to
Europe. They even went so far as to allege that the Presi-
;lent had ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to suspend the
sale of gold during the month of September, for which there
was no foundation whatever. Indeed, up to the 22d of Sep-
tember, when I introduced the subject of the price of gold to
the President, he had neither said nor done anything, except to
write a letter from New York City under date of September
12, 1869, in the following words :

NEW YORK CITY, September 12, 1869.

DEAR SIR : I leave here for western Pennsylvania to-mor-
row morning, and will not reach Washington before the
middle or last of next week. Had I known before making
my arrangements for starting that you would be in this city
early this week, I would have remained to meet you. I am
satisfied that on your arrival you will be met by the bulls and
bears of Wall Street, and probably by merchants, too, to in-
duce you to sell gold, or pay the November interest in ad-
vance, on the one side, and to hold fast on the other. The
fact is, a desperate struggle is now taking place, and each

i ;o SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

party wants the Government to help him out. I write this
letter to advise you of what I think you may expect, to put
you on your guard.

I think, from the lights before me, I would move on with-
out change until the present struggle is over. If you want
to write me this week, my address will be Washington, Penn-
sylvania. I would like to hear your experience with the
factions, at all events, if they give you time to write. No
doubt you will have a better chance to judge than I, for I have
avoided general discussion on the subject.

Yours truly,

U. S. GRANT.
Hon. GEORGE S. BOUT WELL,

Secretary of Treasury.

At a meeting, which was accidental, as far as the President
was concerned, on board one of Fisk and Gould's Fall River
steamers, when he was on his way to Boston, in June of that
year, to attend the Peace Jubilee, an attempt was made to
commit General Grant to the policy of holding gold. I was
present on the trip with the President. What happened on
the boat may be best given in the language of Mr. Fisk and
'Mr. Gould. Mr. Fisk, in his testimony before the committee,
said:

" On our passage over to Boston with General Grant, we
endeavored to ascertain what his position in regard to the
finances was. We went down to supper about nine o'clock,
intending while we were there to have this thing pretty thor-
oughly talked up, and, if possible, to relieve him from any
idea of putting the price of gold down."

Mr. Gould's account before the committee was as follows :

" At this supper the question came up about the state of
the country, the crops, prospects ahead, etc. The President
was a listener; the other gentlemen were discussing. Some

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1 869 171

were in favor of Boutwell's selling gold, and some were op-
posed to it. After they had all interchanged their views,
some one asked the President what his view was. He re-
marked that he thought there was a certain amount of ficti-
tiousness about the prosperity of the country, and that the
bubble might as well be tapped in one way as another. . . .
We supposed from that conversation that the President was a
contractionist. His remark struck across us like a wet
blanket."

The error of Fisk and Gould and their associates, from the
beginning to the end of the contest, was in the supposition
that the President was taking any part in the operations of the
Treasury concerning the price of gold. If he expressed any
opinions outside in conversation, there were no acts on his
part in harmony with or in antagonism to the views he en-
tertained. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the
letter from the city of New York, he had no conference or
correspondence with me up to the 22d day of September, when
I called upon him, and gave him a statement of the price of
gold in the city of New York, and of the nature and character
of the combination that existed there, as far as it was under-
stood by me. Their policy was directed to two points : first,
to influence the President, if possible, to interfere in a way to
advance the price of gold; and, second, to satisfy their ad-
herents and opponents that the President either had so in-
terfered or would so interfere.

Even Fisk and Gould may at a period of time have rested
in the belief that the President either had interfered or that he
ould interfere. Their confidence was in Mr. A. R. Corbin,

brother-in-law of the President, who, under the influence
)f various considerations, which appear to have been personal
and pecuniary to a very large extent, lent himself to the task
)f influencing the President. As a matter of fact, his at-
tempts were very feeble and misdirected and of no conse-

1 72 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

quence whatever. Indeed, such is my opinion of the Presi-
dent, and such my belief as to his opinion concerning Mr.
Corbin, that nothing which Mr. Corbin did say, or could have
said, did have or could have had the least influence upon the
President's opinion or conduct. It is, however, also true that
Fisk and Gould employed Corbin and gave him consideration
in their undertakings out of which he realized some money.
I received information also, which may not have been true,
that they suggested to him that he might become president of
the Tenth National Bank, which had a very conspicuous part
m the events which culminated in Black Friday.

An attempt to strengthen the impression that it was the
purpose of the President to prevent the sale of gold was made
through an article prepared by Mr. Corbin, probably under the
direction of Mr. Gould and others, which appeared finally,
with some alterations and omissions, in the New York Times
of the 25th of August. It appears to have been the purpose
of the parties interested to mislead the Times as to the
authorship of the article, and they secured the agency of Mr.
James McHenry, a prominent English capitalist, who called at
the Times office, and presented the article to Mr. Bigelow,
the editor, as the opinion of a person in the intimate confi-
dence of the President. The article was put in type and
double leaded. When so prepared, suspicions were aroused,
and the financial editor, Mr. Norvell, made very important
corrections, taking care to omit sentences and paragraphs that
contained explicit statements as to the purposes of the Presi-
dent. Some of the phrases omitted were in these words : " It
may be that further purchases of bonds will be made directly
with gold." " As gold accumulates, the less would be the
premium upon it. High prices for gold before the sale of our
products would cause lower prices of gold after the sale of
products."

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 173

Among the statements made which were preserved in the
article as printed finally were these : " The President evi-
dently intends to pay off the 5-203 as rapidly as he may in
" ; " So far as current movements of the Treasury are
:oncerned, until crops are moved it is not likely Treasury gold
rill be sold for currency to be locked up."
Following the appearance of this article, I received a letter
from Mr. Gould, dated the 3Oth of August, in which this
sentence appears : " If the New York Times correctly re-
flects your financial policy during the next three or four
months; namely, to unloose the currency balance at the Treas-
ury or keep it at the lowest possible figure, and also to refrain
luring the same period from selling or putting gold on the
larket, thus preventing a depression of the premium at a
ison of the year when the bulk of our agricultural products
lave to be marketed, then I think the country peculiarly for-
mate in having a financial head who can take a broad view
>f the situation, and who realizes the importance of settling
ic large balance of debt against us by the export of our agri-
iltural and mining products instead of bonds and gold."
Of my reply to that letter, the committee say : " The brief
md formal reply of the Secretary gave Gould no clew to the
mrpose of the Government."

Under date of September 20, I received a letter from
)uld to which I made no reply. Aside from the topics to
rhich he directed my attention in the letter, it is the unavoid-
ible inference from the context as a whole that Gould had
then no faith in the statements given to the public that the
Resident was in any manner pledged to interfere and prevent
ic sale of gold. The following extracts from the letter of
September 20 are a full exposition of his policy and of the
leans on which he relied to advance the price of gold during
the month of September:

174 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

" On the subject of the price of gold and its effect upon
the producing interests of the West, permit me to say that
during the months of September of the past two years the
price has averaged about forty-five. Gold must range this
year at about that premium to enable the export of the sur-
plus crops of wheat and corn. We have to compete with the
grain-producing countries bordering on the Black and Medi-
terranean seas, and it requires a premium of over forty per
cent on gold to equalize our high-priced labor and long rail
transportation to the seaboard.

" My theory is to let gold go to a price that we can export
our surplus products to pay our foreign debts, and the mo-
ment we turn the balance of trade in our favor gold will de-
cline from natural causes. In my judgment, the Government
cannot afford to sell gold during the next three months while
the crops are being marketed, and if such a policy were an-
nounced, it would immediately cause a high export of bread-
stuffs and an active fall trade.

" P. S. In addition to the above, if gold were put upon the
market, government bonds would decline to at least fifteen,
leaving the purchases made by the Government in the past few
months open to criticism as showing a loss."

As early as the 2Oth of September, I had evidence satis-
factory to me that the Tenth National Bank in the city of
New York was a party to the speculation in gold, and that its
assistance was rendered largely through the certification of
checks drawn by the brokers, and largely in excess of the
balances due them upon the books of the bank when the cer-
tifications were made. It appeared from the evidence sub-
mitted that these certifications of checks in excess of the
balances due to brokers amounted to about $18,000,000 on the
22d and 23d of September, when the speculation was at its
height.

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 175

For the purpose of arresting that process and checking the
speculation in gold, I detained the comptroller of the cur-
rency and three competent clerks after the close of business on
the 22d of September. The clerks received commissions as
bank examiners, and were instructed to go to New York that
night and to take possession of the Tenth National Bank, at
the opening of business in the morning, and to give directions
that the habit of certifying checks in excess of the balances
due must be suspended. It was my expectation that the en-
forcement of that rule would, or might, end the speculation,
inasmuch as the purchasers of gold would be unable to meet
their obligations, arid therefore it would be out of their
power to create them. This expectation was not realized.
Whether the certification went on at the Tenth National
Bank in defiance of the order, or whether other banks were so
connected with the speculation that checks were certified
elsewhere, was not known to me.

I called upon the President after business on the 23d of
September, and made a statement of the condition of the
gold market in the city of New York, as far as it had been
communicated to me during the day. I then said that a
sale of gold should be made for the purpose of breaking the
market and ending the excitement. He asked me what sum
I proposed to sell. I said : " Three million dollars will be
sufficient to break the combination.'*

He said in reply : "I think you had better make it
>5, 000,000."

Without assenting to his proposition or dissenting from
it, I returned to the department, and sent an order for the
sale of $4,000,000 of gold the next day. The order was to
the assistant treasurer in these words : " Sell $4,000,000
gold to-morrow, and buy $4,000,000 bonds." The message
was not in cipher, and there was no attempt to keep it secret.
It was duplicated, and sent by each of the rival telegraph

176 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

lines to New York. Within the space Of fifteen minutes
after the receipt of the despatch, the price of gold fell from
1 60 to 133, and in the language of one of the witnesses,
" half of Wall Street was involved in ruin."

For the moment, the condition of Wall Street and the
Gold Exchange seemed to justify the statement of the person
whose language has just been quoted. As a matter of fact,
however, many of the people involved recovered from the
panic, and were able to meet their obligations. Some were
gainers, probably, by the proceedings of the month of Sep-
tember, and some were losers. As I have already said, I had
no purpose to help anybody or to hurt anybody, and I inter-
fered in Wall Street only when the operations that were
going on there involved innocent parties who were engaged
in legitimate business, and also imposed upon the Govern-
ment a sacrifice in the loss of revenue.

Following the downfall of the combination, there appeared
in the newspapers statements and imputations which reflected
upon the President and his family as to their relations to the
gold operations. All these statements were without founda-
tion. Mr. Corbin's connection was established beyond con-
troversy, but the evidence which established his relations to
the parties engaged in the gold speculation was also conclu-
sive as to the fact that the President had no connection with
it, and that he was not in any way interested in any policy cal-
culated to advance the interests of the combination.

The apprehensions that were entertained on the evening
of the 24th and on the 25th of September as to the extent of
the disaster to business and to individuals engaged in gold
speculation were not realized in full. My special corre-
spondent in New York said in a letter dated September 25 :
" Many of the houses hurt and reported failed yesterday are
likely to recover." Again he said: "The demoralization in
the street was never equaled, and it must take several days at

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 177

least before matters get fairly straightened. There is a
wholesome dread against making any obligations. Smith,
Gould, and Martin are just reported as paying in full."

In a letter dated September 27 at 6 : 30 P. M., the assist-
mt treasurer at New York wrote me : " From the best evi-
dence to be gathered in the excitement here, it is safe to infer
it the Gold Exchange Bank will suffer losses to the extent
>f its capital and surplus at least, and perhaps more." To
the contrary of that prediction, it is to be said that the Gold
cchange Bank was able to meet all its obligations.
In a letter written by Mr. Grinnell, then collector of the
>rt of New York, under date of September 24, after the
inouncement of the sale of gold had been made, I find this
itement : " Had you not taken the course which you
did, I believe a large proportion of our most reliable mer-
lants and bankers would have been obliged to suspend
jfore three o'clock to-day, as confidence was entirely gone
ind the panic was becoming universal."

Following the break in the price of gold, there were persons
who became apprehensive that the rate would fall to a point
which would affect their interests unfavorably, and I received
a letter, dated after business hours on the 24th, in which the
writer said : " It is not impossible that, in view of the large-
ness of the amount of gold to be sold to-morrow, there may
be a combination to procure it at a low price, and you will
therefore excuse a suggestion that, as the effect of your inter-
vention has already been realized, it might be well to protect
the Government by making it known that you will reject all
unacceptable bids."

These extracts from letters received previous to and dur-
ing the crisis may lead to the conclusion that it is not safe to
trust to persons engaged in large business and commercial
transactions as guides for the administration of the Govern-
ment in financial matters. Indeed, one may go still further,

178 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

and say that it is not safe to trust the guidance of the Govern-
ment in financial affairs to men whose life business it has been
to convert information into gold.

The most unpleasant incident of the gold speculation of
1869 was the fact that General Butterfield, the assistant
treasurer in the city of New York, was so far involved as to
lead the President to ask for his resignation. That request
did not arise from any evidence that General Butterfield was
in any way concerned in the movement or combination, which
led to the advance in gold. Indeed, the evidence was con-
clusive to the contrary. This fact, however, did appear —
that during the period of the excitement he had made some
purchases and sales of gold and bonds. The suspicions that
existed in the city of New York as to his connection with the
gold movement were largely exaggerations of the actual
facts. There was no evidence which impeached his official
or personal integrity in business. His resignation was re-
quested upon the ground that it was essential to the proper
administration of the office that the person holding the im-
portant place of assistant treasurer in the city of New York
should not be engaged in business transactions which might
give rise to the conjecture that he had advantages over others
in consequence of his connection with the Government.

It ought to be said that Mr. Gould, in his testimony before
the committee, which was given at great length and with
singular clearness of statement, denied expressly the exist-
ence of any combination. In fine, he claimed, what may have
been the truth, and upon the whole probably was the truth,
that it was no part of his purpose to carry the price of gold
above forty or forty-five per cent premium. He attributed
the excessive and rapid advance of the price of gold to the
persons who had sold short and who, becoming alarmed,
attempted to cover their sales by making purchases, and by

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 179

bidding against each other carried the price from about 140 to
1 60.

The same statement was made by Mr. Fisk as to the cause
of the excessive rise in the price of gold. He said : " It went
up to sixty, for the reason that there were in that market a
hundred men short of gold. There were banking houses
which had stood for fifty years, and who did not know but
what they were ruined. They rushed into the market to
cover their shorts. I think it went from forty-five to sixty
without the purchase of more than $600,000 or $700,000 of
gold. It went there in consequence of the frightened bear
interests. There was a feeling that there was no gold in the
market and that the Government would not let any gold go
out."

At the time of the gold panic, Gould and Fisk were inter-
ested in the business of railway transportation from the West
to the seaboard, and Mr. Fisk made a statement which sets
Forth the theory on which he and Gould professed to act.
risk said : " The whole movement was based upon a desire on

ir part to employ our men and work our power getting sur-
)lus crops moved East and receiving for ourselves that por-

m of the transportation properly belonging to our road,
'hat was the beginning of the movement, and the further
operations were based upon the promise of what Corbin said
the Government would do."

From the testimony of Jay Gould and James Fisk, Jr., as it
ippeared in the printed report, we are able to comprehend the
:haracteristics of the two men. Gould was cool and collected
from beginning to end, with no indication in his statements
that the events of the 24th of September had in any particu-
lar disturbed him in temper or nerve or confidence in his
ability to meet the exigencies of the situation. On the other
hand, the testimony of Fisk indicated the absence of the quali-

i8o SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ties ascribed to Gould, and during his examination he failed
to maintain even ordinary equanimity of temper. He inter-
fered with the proceedings, and delivered this address to the
committee: " I must state that I must ask you gentlemen to
summon witnesses whose names I shall give you. My men
are starving. When the newspapers told you we were keeping
away from this committee, I say to you that there is no man
in this country who wants to come before you as bad as Jim
Fisk, Jr. I have thirty or forty thousand wives and children
to feed with the money disbursed from our office. We have
no money to pay them, and I know what has brought them to
this condition."

Another extract from Fisk's testimony gives a graphic
view of his condition when the crash came : " I went down to
the neighborhood of Wall Street Friday morning. When I
got back to our office you can imagine I was in no enviable
state of mind, and the moment I got up street that afternoon
I started right round to old Corbin's to rake him out. I went
into the room, and sent word that Mr. Fisk wanted to see him
in the dining-room. I was too mad to say anything civil, and
when he came into the room, said I, ' Do you know what you
have done here, you and your people ? ' He began to wring
his hands, and * Oh/ he says, ' this is a horrible position.
Are you ruined ? ' I said I didn't know whether I was or
not; and I asked him again if he knew what had happened.
He had been crying, and said he had just heard; that he had
been sure everything was all right; but that something had
occurred entirely different from what he had anticipated.
Said I, ' That don't amount to anything. We know that
gold ought not to be at thirty-one, and that it would not be
but for such performances as you have had this last week;

you know well it would not if you had not failed/

I knew that somebody had run a saw right into us, and said
I, * This whole thing has turned out just as I told you it

BLACK FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER 24, 1869 181

would/ I considered the whole party a pack of cowards;
and I expected that, when we came to clear our hands, they
would sock it right into us. I said to him, ' I don't know
whether you have lied or not, and I don't know what ought
to be done with you.'

" He was on the other side of the table, weeping and wail-
ing, and I was gnashing my teeth. ' Now,' he says, ' you
must quiet yourself.' I told him I didn't want to be quiet; I
had no desire to ever be quiet again. He says, ' But, my
dear sir, you will lose your reason.' Says I, ' Speyers has
already lost his reason; reason has gone out of everybody but

My part and my interest in the events of Black Friday came
to an end with an effort to ascertain the authorship of an
anonymous communication, written in red ink, that I received
the 6th day of October. It was postmarked at New York, the
5th of October, 1869. (A reduced facsimile of the communi-
cation is shown below.) An attempt was made through
the police and the secret service system to trace the author-
ship of the superscription. The attempt was ineffectual.

5cU «(o«xot £tU at JJTO iwOilfb ir days I anv e, rvUtJ. fnaiu. Y*M» *U1
ike cause «JJ- mj ruit*.lY0uy life will k in.'

It appears in the review that Mr. Gould originated the
scheme of advancing the price of gold and that Mr. Fisk was
his principal coadjutor. It also appears that Mr. Fisk en-
tered into the arrangement upon the basis of friendship for
Mr. Gould, and not in consequence of an opinion on his part
that the scheme was a wise one. Mr. Gould had two main
purposes in view :• first, the profit that he might realize from
an advance in gold; and, second, the advantage that might
accrue to the railroad with which he was connected through

1 82 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

an increase of its business in the transportation of products
from the West. As set forth in Mr. Gould's letter, he enter-
tained the opinion, which rested upon satisfactory business
grounds, that an advance in the price of gold would stimulate
the sale of Western products, increase the business of trans-
portation over the railways, and aid us in the payment of lia-
bilities abroad. If the price of gold had not been advanced
beyond a premium of forty or perhaps forty-five per cent, all
these results might have been realized, without detriment to
the public, while Mr. Gould and his associates would have
realized large profits. When the price had advanced to forty
or forty-five per cent, Mr. Gould or his associates made calls
upon those who were under contracts to deliver gold to make
their margins good or else to produce the gold. These de-
mands created a panic, and the parties who had agreed to
deliver gold entered the market, and bidding against each
other, they carried the price beyond the point that Mr. Gould
had contemplated.

XXXVI

* HISTORIC SALE OF UNITED STATES
BONDS IN ENGLAND

F there should be any considerable interest in the history
of the funding system of the United States, the inter-
est would be due to a sale of bonds some thirty years
and certain incidents which could not have been antici-
ited, which arose from the execution of the trust.
In the month of July, 1868, a bill for funding the national
lebt which had passed the Senate of the United States was
)rted, without amendments, to the House of Representa-
tives by the Committee on Ways and Means.

When the bill was under consideration in the House, I
>roposed a substitute. In the debate of July 21 I made a
statement of the nature of my substitute, and I reproduce an
extract which sets forth the first step in a policy which cul-
linated in the Act for Funding the Public Debt, and which
ras approved by President Grant July 14, 1870:

The amendment to which I wish to call the attention of
ic House provides for the funding of $1,200,000,000 of the
public debt $400,000,000 payable in fifteen years @ 5 per
cent interest, $400,000,000 payable in twenty years @ 4^
per cent interest, and $400,000,000 payable in twenty-five
years @ 3.65 per cent interest, the latter sum of $400,000,-
ooo payable, principal and interest, at the option of the
takers, either in the United States, or in London, Paris, or
Frankfort."

183

1 84 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

At that time I had not entertained the thought that I might
come to be the head of the Treasury Department. Indeed, I
had no other purpose in public life than to remain in the
House of Representatives.

I had had experience on the executive side of the Govern-
ment and also on the legislative side, and I had a fixed
opinion in favor of the latter form of service.

As Secretary of the Treasury, I proposed a bill in 1869 in
the line of the substitute for the bill of the Committee on
Ways and Means which I had challenged in July, 1868. The
bill proposed an issue of three classes of bonds, each of four
hundred million dollars, which were to mature at different
dates, and to bear interest at the rates of 5, 4^2, and 4 per
cent. It was further provided that the principal and interest
of the bonds bearing the lowest rate should be made payable
either in the United States, or at Frankfort, Paris, or Lon-
don, as the takers might prefer. The provision was rejected
through the influence of General Schenck, who had then re-
turned recently from Europe, and with the opinion that the
concession involved an impairment of national honor. As a
substitute for the feature so rejected, I originated a plan for
the issue of registered bonds, upon the condition that the in-
terest could be paid in checks to be forwarded by the mails
to the holders of bonds at the places designated by them in
any part of the world. This plan is far superior to the first
suggestion, as it is susceptible of a much wider application.

I have received from Mr. Roberts, the Treasurer of the
United States, the following letter and statement :

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 185

STATEMENT SHOWING THE PROPORTION OF UNITED STATES
BONDS OUTSTANDING JANUARY 25, 1900, ON WHICH
INTEREST is PAID BY CHECK.

TITLE OP LOAN.

Total issue.

Registered
bonds on
which interest

'Sc&dkby

Percentage
of bonds on
which interest
is paid by
check.

Funded loan of 1891 continued at 2 per
cent .

$25,364,500
545,342,950
95,009,700
162,315,400
168,679,000

$25»3°4<5oo
478,195,600
64,615,650
«7i997,200
109,450,060

100.00

87.69

68.01
72.70
55-09

Pour per cent funded loan of 1907..

Five per cent loan of 1904.. . .'

Three per cent ten-twenties of 1898
Totals

$996,711,550

$795,623,030

77-49

TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

OFFICE OF THE TREASURER,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

January 25, 1900.
HONORABLE GEORGE S. BOUTWELL,

Boston, Massachusetts.

My Dear Mr. Secretary: It gives me pleasure to enclose to
you a table showing by classes of bonds the percentage of
interest paid by checks. The interest on all registered bonds
is now so paid. Only the coupon bonds, by their nature, are
differently treated.

Your plan has worked admirably, and the drift is slowly
from the coupon to the registered form, and so to an increase
of the payment of interest by checks.
With kind regards, Yours very truly,

(Signed) ELLIS H. ROBERTS,

Treasurer of the United States.

This plan has been adopted by corporations that are bor-
rowers of large sums of money upon an issue of bonds, and
the use of the system is very general in the United States.

1 86 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In my report to Congress in December, 1869, I made rec-
ommendation of the Funding Bill, and I placed copies of the
bill that I had prepared in the hands of the Finance Com-
mittee of the Senate, and in the hands of the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.

When the bill became a law, the authorized issue of five
per cent bonds was limited to two hundred million dollars,
and the issue of four per cent was raised to twelve hundred
million. Simultaneously with the passage of the Funding
Bill of July, 1870, the war between France and Prussia
opened, and the opportunity for negotiations was postponed
until the early months of the year 1871. In these later years,
when bonds of the United States have been sold upon the
basis of their par value at two per cent income, it is difficult to
realize that in 1869 the six per cent bonds of the United
States were worth in gold only 83 5-10 cents to the dollar.
The first attempt to dispose of the five per cent bonds was
made by the Treasury Department through an invitation to
the public to subscribe for the bonds, payment to be made in
the currency of the country, or by an exchange of outstand-
ing five-twenty bonds which bore interest at the rate of six
per cent. The subscriptions reached the sum of sixty-six mil-
lion dollars, of which the national banks were subscribers to
the amount of sixty-four million, leaving two million only as
the loan to the general public. A portion of the amount taken
by the banks was for the account of patrons and clients.
This experience justified the opinion that future efforts with
the general public would be unsuccessful, while the credit of
the country was not established and placed beyond the influ-
ence of cavillers and doubters.

It was under such circumstances that the aid of banks and
bankers became important for the furtherance of subscrip-
tions, in view of the fact that they could give personal

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 187

service of a nature not possible in the case of salaried offi-
cers of the Government, nor compatible with their daily
duties.

It is not easy, in this age of comparative freedom and
power in financial affairs, to comprehend that in the year
1871 the long established bankers of New York, Amsterdam,
and London, either declined or neglected the opportunity to
negotiate the five per cent coin bonds of the United States
upon the basis of their par value. It may not be out of place
for me to mention Mr. Morton, of the house of Morton, Bliss
& Co., as an exception to the bankers of Europe and the
United States.

It was in the same months of 1871 that I recommended the
' issue of a four per cent fifty-year bond as the basis of the
currency to be issued by the national banks. This proposi-
tion, which would have been advantageous to the banks, in an
increasing ratio as the value of money diminished, was de-
feated by the organized opposition of the banks through an
effective lobby that was assembled in the city of Washington.
Such was the public sentiment in the year 1871, even in the
presence of these important facts, that in the month of De-
cember I was able to say in my annual report that the debt
had been diminished during the next preceding year in the
sum of ninety-four million dollars, and that the total decrease
from March i, 1869, to December i, 1871, was over two
hundred and seventy-seven million dollars.

It was in this situation of affairs that Messrs. Jay Cooke &
Co. proposed to undertake the sale in London, by subscrip-
tion, of one hundred and thirty-four million five per cent
bonds then unsold. Authority was given to Cooke & Co. to
proceed with the undertaking, and when the books were
closed, September i, I was informed that the loan had been
taken in full. By the terms prescribed by Cooke & Co., the

1 88 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

subscribers deposited five per cent as security for the validity
of their subscriptions. The bonds were to be delivered the
first day of December.

Upon the receipt of the information that the undertaking
had been a success, the bonds were prepared, and the Hon.
William A. Richardson, then an assistant secretary of the
Treasury, was designated as the agent of the department for
the delivery of the bonds. The bonds were placed in safes, on
each of which there were three locks. The clerks were sent
over in different vessels, and the keys were so distributed
among them, that there were not keys in any one vessel by
which any one of the safes could be opened.

The success of the subscription gave rise to an unexpected
difficulty.

At that time there were outstanding one hundred and
ninety-four million ten-forty United States bonds that carried
interest at the rate of five per cent.

It was a singular coincidence, and a coincidence probably
not due to natural causes, that some five per cent bonds, hav-
ing fifteen years to run, should be at par, and that other five
per cent bonds that might run thirty years should fall below
par in the same market. In the three months from August
to December, these ten-forties were quoted as low as ninety-
seven, or even for a time at ninety-six. Cooke became anx-
ious, if not alarmed, lest the rate should fall below ninety-
five, and consequently lest the subscribers should refuse to
meet their obligations. Early on the morning of the first
Monday in December, I received the information that the
bonds were taken as soon as the offices were open. I may
mention in passing that Cooke & Co. paid for the bonds as
they were delivered, either in coin or in five-twenty bonds.

As bonds were taken, and as payments were made, a diffi-
culty appeared which had been anticipated, but not in its ful-
ness. The proceeds from the sales of the five per cent bonds

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 189

were pledged to the redemption of six per cent five-twenty

)nds, reckoned at their par value.
It was provided by the statute that whenever five-twenty

mds were called, a notice of ninety days should be given,
when interest would cease. Thus it happened that whenever
a bond was called it was worth par and interest to the end of
the ninety days. Of the called bonds some were in America,
and the owners did not choose to present them in London in
exchange for five per cent bonds, nor for coin. Hence it
happened that of the total proceeds of the five per cent bonds,
about twenty million dollars were paid in gold coin by Cooke
& Co. This coin was deposited in the Bank of England, but
upon such terms as were imposed by the governors :

1 i ) The deposits must be made in the name of William A.
Richardson. This was done, but a statement was made by
Judge Richardson that the deposit was the property of the
United States.

(2) The gold was not to be taken out of the country.
This stipulation was in the line of our policy, which was to
invest the entire sum in five-twenty bonds, whenever they
could be bought at par. The opportunity came in a manner
that was not anticipated. The documents referred to are of
historical value, and they are therefore inserted as fol-
lows:

(a) A declaration of trust by William A. Richardson, As-
sistant Secretary of the Treasury, dated at London, Decem-
ber 28, 1871.

(b) Letter of William A. Richardson, Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury, to John P. Bigelow, Chief of the Loan Di-
vision of the Treasury, dated also at London, December 28,
1871.

(c) Letter of George Forbes, Chief Cashier of the Bank
of England, to Judge Richardson, dated January 4, 1872.

190 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

(d) Letter of Judge Richardson to George Lyall, Gov-
ernor of the Bank of England, dated January 15, 1872.

(e) Reply to the same by George Forbes, Chief Cashier,
dated January 17, 1872.

(f) William A. Richardson's report of January 25, 1872.

(a) DECLARATION BY WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON

Whereas, I have this day deposited in my name, as As-
sistant Secretary of the Treasury, U. S. A., in the Bank of
England, two million five hundred and fifty thousand pounds
sterling, and shall probably hereafter make further deposits
on the same account :

Now I hereby declare that said amount and deposits, pres-
ent and future, are official and belong to the Government of
the United States, and not to me personally that the moneys
so deposited are the proceeds of the sale of five per cent
bonds of the " Funded Loan " ; that whatever money I may
at any time have in said Bank under said account, will be the
property of the United States Government, held by me offi-
cially as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, acting under
orders from the Secretary ; that the same is, and will continue
to be subject to the draft, order, and control of the Secretary
of the Treasury, independently of, and superior to my au-
thority, whenever he so elects, and that upon his assuming
control thereof, my power over the same will wholly cease.
In case of my decease before said account is closed, the
money on deposit will not belong to my estate, but to the Gov-
ernment of the United States.

Witness my hand and seal,
(Signed) WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON,

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, U. S. A.

LONDON, ENGLAND, December 28, 1871.

Witnesses:
JNO. P. BIGELOW, E. W. BOWEN, GEO. L. WARREN.

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 191

(b) JUDGE RICHARDSON TO JOHN P. BIGELOW

41 LOMBARD ST., LONDON, ENGLAND,
December 28, 1871.

To JOHN P. BIGELOW, Chief of the Loan Division, Sec-
retary's Office, Treasury Department, U.S.A.

I have this day deposited in the Bank of England, in my
name as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, two million five
hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling money, belonging
to the United States, received in payment of five per cent
bonds of the Funded Loan delivered here in London.

All money hereafter received for future delivery of bonds
will be deposited to the same account.

Herewith I hand you a declaration of trust signed by me
declaring that said account and moneys belong to the United
States, and not to me personally, also the Deposit Book and
a book of blank checks numbered from 35,101 to 35,150, both
inclusive, received from said Bank, all of which you will take
into your custody and carefully keep in one of the iron safes
sent here from the department in the same manner as the
books are kept.

This money, and all the money deposited in said bank on
the account aforesaid, will be drawn and used only in accord-
ance with the orders of the Secretary of the Treasury to
redeem or purchase five-twenty bonds and matured coupons,
or such other and further orders as he may make in relation
thereto.

When money is to be drawn to pay for bonds or coupons,
it must be drawn only by filling up a check from the book of
checks above referred to, and you will open an account in
which you will enter the amount of all deposits, the number
and amount of each check drawn, specifying also to whom the
same is made payable and on what account it is drawn.

1 92 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The checks will be filled up by Mr. Prentiss of the Regis-
ter's Office, who will place his check mark on the upper left
corner, and will enter the same in the book. You will then
carefully examine the check, see that it is correctly drawn for
the amount actually payable for bonds or coupons received
and properly recorded, and you will, when found correct,
place your check mark on the right hand upper corner before
the same is signed by me. All checks will be signed by me
with my full name as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,
as this is signed.

(Signed) WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON,

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, U. S. A.

(c) MR. FORBES TO JUDGE RICHARDSON

BANK OF ENGLAND, E. C.,

January 4, 1872.

HON. W. A. RICHARDSON, Assistant Secretary of the Treas-
ury of the United States, 41, Lombard Street.
Sir: To preclude any possible misunderstanding hereafter
as to the character of the drawing account opened in your
name, I am instructed by the Governors to communicate to
you in writing that, in conformity with the rule of the Bank,
the account is considered a personal one; that the Governors
have admitted the words appended to your name merely as an
honorary designation; and the bank take no cognizance of,
or responsibility with reference to the real ownership, or in-
tended application of the sums deposited to the credit of the

account.

I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) GEORGE FORBES,

Chief Cashier.

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 193

(d) JUDGE RICHARDSON TO MR. LYALL

41 LOMBARD STREET, LONDON,, ENGLAND,

January 15, 1872.
)RGE LYALL, ESQ.,

Governor of the Bank of England.

Dear Sir: Referring to the several conversations which I
have had with you, and with your principal cashier, Mr.
Forbes, relative to the manner and form of keeping the
account which I desire to have in the bank, I beg leave to
renew in writing my request heretofore made to you orally,
that the account of money deposited by me may stand in the
name of Hon. George S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury,
U. S. A.,, and myself, Assistant Secretary, jointly and sever-
ally, so as to be subject to a several draft of either, and of
the survivor, in case of the death of either one.

I suppose I must regard the letter of Mr. Forbes to me,
dated January 4, 1872, and written under instructions from
the Governors of the Bank as expressing your final conclu-
sion that the account in whatever form it may be kept, must
be considered a personal one.

You know my anxiety to have my deposits received by the
Bank, and entered in such way that in case of my death the
balance may be drawn at once by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury or some other officer of the Government, and although
you are unwilling to regard the account as an official one, I
hope that on further consideration you will allow it to be
opened in the name of Mr. Boutwell and myself jointly and
severally as above stated. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,
(Signed) WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON,
Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury Depart-
ment.

194 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

(e) MR. FORBES TO JUDGE RICHARDSON

BANK OF ENGLAND, E. C.,

January 17, 1872.
HON W. A. RICHARDSON,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

of the United States, 41, Lombard St.
Sir: I am directed by the Governor to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the i5th inst., requesting that the ac-
count of money deposited by you in the Bank may stand in
the name of the Hon. George S. Boutwell, Secretary of the
Treasury, U. S. A., and yourself, the Assistant Secretary,
jointly and severally, so as to be subject to the several draft
of either, and of the survivor in case of death of either one.
I am to inform you that the Bank is prepared to open an
account in this form, as a personal account ; but it is essential
that Mr. Boutwell should join in the request and concur in
the conditions proposed before each party can in that case
draw upon the account. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) GEORGE FORBES,

Chief Cashier.

(f) JUDGE RICHARDSON'S REPORT

41, LOMBARD STREET, LONDON,

January 25, 1872.
HON. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL,

Secretary of the Treasury.

Dear Sir: It is my purpose in this letter to give you an
account of the way in which I have kept the money arising
from the sale of the Funded Loan, and the manner in which
it has been drawn from time to time to pay for bonds pur-
chased and redeemed.

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 195

Immediately after the first of December, 1871, the money
began to accumulate very rapidly. Up to the first of Decem-
ber no money whatever had been received, all bonds delivered
having been paid for by the called bonds and coupons or
secured by deposit of other bonds; but on the second day of
that month nearly two and a half millions of dollars cash were
paid to me; then on the fourth, nearly five millions of dollars
more; and on the fifth, above three millions, and so on in
different sums till the present time.

Of course it was wholly impracticable to receive, handle,
count and keep on hand such large amounts of gold coin,
weighing between a ton and three quarters and two tons to
each million of dollars. At one time my account showed
more than sixteen millions of dollars on hand, and to have
withdrawn from circulation that amount of coin would have
produced a panic in the London market; and the risk in
having it hoarded in any place within my reach would have
been immense, especially as it would have soon been known
where it was.

I ascertained that there would be some difficulty in keeping
an official Government account in the Bank of England, and
I did not feel authorized, or justified in my own judgment,
in entrusting so much money to any other banking insti-
tution in this city. I found, also, that the Bank of England
never issues certificates of deposit, as do our banks in the
United States. But it issues " post notes," which are very
nearly like its ordinary demand notes, but payable to order,
and on seven days' time, thus differing only in the matter of
time from certificates of deposit. Availing myself of this
custom of the Bank of England, I put all the money into post
notes, and locked them up in one of the safes from which
| the bonds had been taken. This I regarded as a safe method
of keeping the funds, and I anticipated no further difficulty.

But when the Bank made its next monthly or weekly return

196 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of its condition, and published it in all of the newspapers
as usual, the attention of all the financial agents, bankers,
and financial writers of the daily money articles in the jour-
nals was immediately attracted to the sudden increase of the
" post notes " outstanding, and the unusually large amount
of them, so many times greater than had ever been known
before. They were immensely alarmed lest the notes should
come in for redemption in a few days, and the coin therefor
should be withdrawn from London and taken to a foreign
country ; and lest there should be a panic on account thereof.
Some of the financial writers said they belonged to Germany,
and that they represented coin which must soon be trans-
mitted to Berlin. The Bank officers themselves, although
they knew very well that these notes belonged to the United
States, were not less alarmed because they feared that I
would withdraw the money to send it to New York, which
they knew would make trouble in the London Exchange.
Money, which for a short time before had been at the high
rate of interest, for this place of five per cent, had become
abundant, and the people were demanding of the Bank a
reduction in the rate; but so timid were they about these
post notes that they did not change the rate until I took
measures to allay their fears. This I did because I thought
it would be injurious and prejudicial to the Funded Loan to
have a panic in London, in which the market price of the new
loan would drop considerably below par just at a time when
its price and popularity were gradually rising, and just as
it was coming into great favor with a new class of investors
in England, the immensely rich but timid conservatives.

I determined to open a deposit account with the Bank of
England, and in doing so experienced the difficulties which I
anticipated. I assured the officers that the money was Gov-
ernment (U. S.) money, which I did not intend, and was
not instructed to take home with me; but which I should

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 197

use in London in redeeming bonds and coupons, and should
leave in the bank on deposit unless, by the peculiarity of
their rules, I should be obliged to withdraw it. They ob-
jected to taking the money as a Government deposit, or as
an official deposit in my name, having some vague idea that
if they took it and opened an official Government account
they should be liable for the appropriation of the money
unless documents from the United States were filed with
them taking away that liability, but they could not tell me
exactly what documents they wanted nor from whom they
must come. They did, however, agree to open an account
with me, and that was the best I could do. In signing my
name to their book, I added my official title, and when, some
time after, I came to drawing checks, I signed in the same
way. This brought from the officers a letter which I annex
hereto, saying that my deposit would be regarded as a private
and personal one.

What I was most anxious to provide for was the power in
e United States officer to draw the money in case of my
death (knowing the uncertainty of life), without the delay,
expense, and trouble which must necessarily arise, if it stood
wholly to my personal credit. I asked the officers to allow
it to stand in your name as Secretary and mine as Assistant
Secretary, jointly and severally, so as to be drawn upon the
several check of either, and by the survivor in case of the
death of either one. I suggested other arrangements which
would have the same result, but they said their rules pre-
vented their agreeing to my requests, that they were con-
servative and did not like to introduce anything new into
their customs.

On the 1 5th day of January, 1872, I renewed my request
in writing, after having had several conversations with the
officers on the subject, and received an answer which, with the
letter of request, is hereto annexed.

198 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In this, their most recent communication, they express a
willingness to enter the account in our joint names as I
suggested, regarding it, however, as a " personal account "
and requiring that you should " join in the request and
concur in the conditions proposed before either party can
in that case draw upon the account."

As I must now almost daily draw from the account for
money with which to pay bonds, I cannot join your name
therein until you have sent me a written compliance with
the conditions which they set forth, because to do so would
shut me out from the account altogether for several weeks.

Besides, having no instructions from you on the subject,
I don't know that you would care to give written directions
as to the deposit. I know very well that, in case of my
sudden decease, you would be glad enough to find that you
could at once avail yourself of the whole amount of money
here on deposit, and so I should have joined your name as
I have stated. Now you can do as you please. I have
taken every possible precaution within my power, and have
no fear that the arrangements are insufficient to protect the
Government in any contingency whatever. With the cor-
respondence which has passed between the officers of the
Bank and myself, and our conversation together, the account
is sufficiently well known to them as a U. S. Government
deposit, and is fully enough stamped with that character, as
I intended it should be, however much they may ignore it
now.

But for still greater caution, I made the written declara-
tion of trust on the very day of the first deposit, signed
and sealed by me, declaring the money and account as be-
longing to our Government, and not to me, a copy of which
is hereto annexed.

I also gave written instruction to Messrs. Bigelow and
Prentiss to draw all the checks, and how to draw them

an1

B(
I

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 199

and keep an account thereof. As I make all my purchases
through Jay Cooke, McCullough & Co., every check is in
fact payable to that house, so that the account is easily kept,
and the transactions cannot be mingled with others, for

ere are no others. I annex a copy of these instructions.

This, I believe, will give you a pretty correct idea of the
ifficulties which have been presented to me in the matter of
taking, keeping, and paying out the money arising from the
sale of the bonds, and the manner in which I have met them.

I may add that when the officers of the Bank were satisfied
that I was not to withdraw the money and take it to New
York, they reduced the rate of interest and there has been
an easy market ever since.

There are now on deposit more than twelve million dol-
lars ; but I hope it will be reduced very fast next month. Had
you not sent over the last ten million of bonds, we should
have been able to close up very soon. I hope now that
you will make another call cf twenty million at least, because
I think it would enable us to purchase more rapidly.

I annex:

(1) Copy of declaration of trust.

(2) Copy of instructions for drawing checks.

(3) Copy of letter from Cashier of Bank of England,
stating that the account would be considered personal.

(4) Copy of my letter to the Governor of the Bank, asking
that your name might be joined.

(5) Copy of reply to last mentioned letter.

I am, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,
(Signed) WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON.

When Cooke & Co. had completed their undertaking, the
deposits in the Bank of England exceeded fifteen million
dollars, and for three months they were for the most part

200 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

unavailable, as the five-twenty bonds which had not matured
under the calls that had been made were above par in the
market. It was a condition of the loan that the five-twenty
bonds redeemed should equal the 5 per cent bonds that had
been issued, both issues to be reckoned at their par value.

In the month of April, 1872, the Commissioners who had
been designated under the Treaty of Washington of 1871 to
ascertain and determine the character and magnitude of the
claims that had been preferred by the United States against
Great Britain, growing out of the depredations committed
by the " Alabama " and her associate cruisers, were about to
meet at Geneva for the discharge of their duties.

The administration had appointed the Hon. J. C. Bancroft
Davis, the most accomplished diplomatist of the country, as-
the agent of the United States, and the preparation of " the
Case of the United States " was placed in his hands.

The British Ministry discovered — or they fancied that
there was concealed in covert language — a claim for dam-
ages, known as " consequential or indirect damages." Mr.
Sumner had asserted a claim for " consequential damages "
— in other words, a claim to compensation for the value of
American shipping that had been driven from the ocean and
made worthless through fear of the cruisers that had been
fitted out in British ports.

This claim, in the extreme form in which it had been pre-
sented by Mr. Sumner, had been relinquished by the Admin-
istration, and a present reading of " the Case of the United
States " may not justify the construction that was put upon
it by the British Ministry.

Nevertheless, the Administration received notice that
Great Britain would not be represented at the Geneva Con-
ference.

The subject was considered by the President and Cabinet
on three consecutive days at called sessions. At the final

SALE OF UNITED STATES BONDS IN ENGLAND 201

meeting I handed a memorandum to the President, which he
passed to the Secretary of State. The memorandum was
not read to the Cabinet.

Mr. Adams, the Commissioner for the United States, had
not then left the country. By a despatch from the Secretary
of State Mr. Adams was asked to meet me at the Parker
House in Boston, on the second day after the day of the date
of the despatch.

What occurred at the meeting may be best given through
an extract from the diary of Mr. Adams, which has been
placed in my hands by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jr.,
with the privilege of its full and free use by me.

The first entry is under date of Saturday, April 20, 1872,
and is in these words : " Charles brought me a telegram from
Governor Fish, desiring me to meet Mr. Boutwell, who will
be at the Parker House at eleven o'clock on Monday." The
second entry is under date of " Monday, 22d of April."

" At eleven o'clock called on Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary
of the Treasury, at Parker's Hotel, according to agreement.
Found him alone in his minute bedroom. He soon opened
his subject — handed over to me a packet from Governor
Fish, and said that it was the desire of the Government,
if I could find it consistent with what they understood to
be my views of the question of indirect damages, that I would
make such intimation of them to persons of authority in
London as might relieve them of the difficulty which had
been occasioned by them. I told him of my conversation
held with the Marquis of Ripon, in which I had assumed
the heavy responsibility of assuring him that the Govern-
ment would not press them. I was glad now to find that
I had not been mistaken. I should cheerfully do all in my
power to confirm the impression consistently with my own
position."

Thus, through Mr. Adams, the claim for " indirect dam-

202 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ages " was relinquished. When the fact of the disturbed
relations between the United States and Great Britain be-
came public there was a panic in the London stock market;
and in the brief period of eight and forty hours our deposit
of twelve million or more in the Bank of England was con-
verted into five-twenty United States 6 per cent bonds, pur-
chased at par.

In my annual report for December, 1872, I was able to
make this statement :

" Since my last annual report the business of negotiating
two hundred million of 5 per cent bonds, and the redemption
of two hundred million 6 per cent five-twenty bonds has
been completed, and the accounts have been settled by the
accounting officers of the Treasury.

" Further negotiations of 5 per cent bonds can now be
made on the basis of the former negotiation."

XXXVII

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION

THE greatness of General Grant in war, in civil affairs,
and in personal qualities which at once excite our
admiration and deserve our commendation, was not
fully appreciated by the generation to which he belonged,
nor can it be appreciated by the generations that can know of
him only as his life and character may appear upon the written
record. He had weaknesses, and of some of them I may
speak; but they do not qualify in any essential manner his
claim to greatness in the particulars named. He was not
fortunate in the circumstances incident to the organization
of his Cabinet. The appointment of Mr. Washburne as Sec-
retary of State for the brief period of one or two weeks was
not a wise opening of the administration, if the arrangement
was designed, and was a misfortune, if the brief term was
due to events not anticipated. The selection of Mr. Fish
compensated, and more than compensated, for the errors
which preceded his appointment. The country can never
expect an administration of the affairs of the Department
of State more worthy of approval and eulogy than the ad-
ministration of Mr. Fish. Apparently we were then on the
verge of war with Great Britain, and demands were made in
very responsible quarters which offered no alternative but
war. The treaty of 1871, which was the outcome of Mr.
Fish's diplomacy, re-established our relations of friendship
with Great Britain, and the treaty was then accepted as a step
in the direction of general peace.

203

204 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In the month of February, 1869, I received an invitation
from General Grant to call upon him on an evening named
and at an hour specified. At the interview General Grant
asked me to take the office of Secretary of the Interior. As
reasons for declining the place, I said that my duties and
position in the House were agreeable to me and that my serv-
ices there might be as valuable to the Administration as my
services in the Cabinet. General Grant then said that he in-
tended to give a place to Massachusetts, and it might be the
Secretary of the Interior or the Attorney-Generalship. He
then asked for my advice as to persons, and said that if he
named an Attorney-General from Massachusetts, he had in
mind Governor Clifford, whom he had met. Governor Clif-
ford was my personal friend, he had been the Attorney-
General of the State during my term as Governor, he was a
gentleman of great urbanity of manner, a well-equipped
lawyer, and as an advocate he had secured and maintained
a good standing in the profession and through many years.
He had come into the Republican Party from the Webster
wing of the Whig Party. To me he was a conservative, and
I was apprehensive that his views upon questions arising, or
that might arise, from our plan of reconstruction might not
be in harmony with the policy of the party. Upon this
ground, which I stated to General Grant, I advised against
his appointment. I named Judge Hoar for Attorney-General
and Governor Claflin for the Interior Department. I wrote
the full address oi Judge Hoar upon a card, which I gave
to General Grant. Judge Hoar was nominated and confirmed.

At the same time, Alexander T. Stewart, of New York,
was nominated and confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury.
It was soon discovered that Mr. Stewart, being an importer,
was ineligible to the office. Mr. Conkling said there were
nine statutes in his way. A more effectual bar was in the
reason on which the statutes rested, namely, that no man

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 205

should be put in a situation to be a judge in his own cause.
The President made a vain effort to secure legislation for
the removal of the bar. Next, Judge Hilton, then Mr. Stew-
art's attorney, submitted a deed of trust by which Mr. Stew-
art relinquished his interest in the business during his term
of office. The President submitted that paper to Chief Justice
Cartter of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The Chief Justice gave a brief, adverse, oral opinion, and in
language not quotable upon a printed page.

We have no means of forming an opinion of Mr. Stewart's
capacity for administrative work, and I do not indulge in any
conjectures. His nomination was acceptable to the lead-
ing business interests of the country, and in the city of New
York it was supported generally. He was a successful man
of business and an accumulator of wealth, and at that time
General Grant placed a high estimate upon the presence of
talents by which men acquire wealth.

Following these events, there were early indications that
Mr. Stewart's interest in the President had been diminished,
and gradually he took on a dislike to me. When I knew of
his nomination, or when I knew that it was to be made, I
met him in Washington and assured him of my disposition
to give my support to his administration. On two occasions
when I was in New York I made calls of civility upon him,
but, as he made no recognition in return, my efforts in that
direction came to an end.

At a dinner given by merchants and bankers in the early
part of September, 1869, at which I was a guest, Mr. Stewart
made a speech in which he criticized my administration of the
Treasury. In the canvass of 1872 the rumor went abroad
that Mr. Stewart had given $25,000 to the Greeley campaign
fund. In the month of October of that year, the twenty-
eighth day, perhaps, I spoke at the Cooper Union. Upon
my arrival in New York, I received a call from a friend who

206 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

came with a message from Mr.. Stewart. Mr. Stewart would
not be at the meeting, although except for the false rumor in
regard to his subscription to the Greeley fund, he should
have taken pleasure in being present. As General Grant
was to be elected, his attendance at the meeting might be
treated by the public as an attempt to curry favor with Gen-
eral Grant and the incoming Administration.

As I was passing to the hall, a paper was placed in my
hands by a person who gave no other means of recognizing his
presence. When I reached the hall and opened the paper,
I found that it was a summons to appear as defendant in an
action brought by a man named Galvin, who claimed damages
in the sum of $3,000,000. At the close of the meeting and
wrhen the fact became known one gentleman said to me: "I
do not see how you could have spoken after such a summons."

I said in reply : " If the suit had been for $3,000 only, it
might have given me some uneasiness, as a recovery would
have involved payment. A judgment of $3,000,000 implies
impossibility of payment."

I had no knowledge of Galvin, but his letters of advice were
found on the files of the Treasury. Even after the suit, I
did not examine them for the purpose of forming an opinion
of their value or want of value. Galvin alleged in his declar-
ation that he had furnished the financial policy that I had
adopted, that it had benefited the country to the amount
of $300,000,000 and more, and that a claim of $3.000,000 was
a moderate claim. Under the statute, the Department of
Justice assumed the defence. The case lingered, Galvin died,
and the case followed.

At the election of 1872, I voted at Groton in the morning,
and in the afternoon I went to New York, to find that General
Grant had been re-elected by a sufficient majority. On the
morning of the next day, I left the hotel with time for a call
upon General Dix, who had been elected Governor, and for a

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 207

call upon Thurlow Weed. General Dix was not at home.
Notwithstanding the criticisms of Thurlow Weed as a man-
ager of political affairs in the State of New York and in the
country, I had reasons for regarding him with favor, although
I had never favored the aspirations of Mr. Seward, his chief.
When I was organizing the Internal Revenue Office in 1862-
1863, Mr. Weed gave me information in regard to candidates
for office in the State of New York, including their relations
to the factions that existed — usually Seward and anti-Seward
— and with as much fairness as he could have commanded if
he had had no relation to either faction.

As I had time remaining at the end of my call upon Mr.
Weed, and as I had in mind Mr. Stewart's message at the
Cooper Union meeting, I drove to his down-town store,
where I found him. He received me with cordiality, but in
respect to his health he seemed to be already a doomed man.
He was anxious chiefly to give me an opportunity to com-
prehend the nature and magnitude of his business. As I was
about to leave, he took hold of my coat button and said:
" When you see the President, you give my love to him,
and say to him that I am for him and that I always have been
for him." Still holding me by the button, he said : " Who
buys the carpets for the Treasury ? "

I said : " Mr. Saville is the chief clerk, and he buys the
carpets."

Mr. Stewart said : " Tell him to come to me ; I will sell
him carpets as cheap as anybody."

When I repeated Mr. Stewart's message to the President
he made no reply, and he gave no indication that he was
hearing what I was saying.

In regard to Judge Hoar's relations to President Grant,
the public has been invited to accept several errors, the
appointment to the bench of the Supreme Court of Justices
Bradley and Strong, by whose votes the first decision of the

208 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

court in the Legal Tender cases was overruled, and the cir-
cumstances which led to the retirement of Judge Hoar from
the Cabinet. First of all I may say that President Grant was
attached to Judge Hoar, and, as far as I know, his attach-
ment never underwent any abatement. Whatever bond there
may be in the smoking habit, it was formed without delay at
the beginning of their acquaintance. While General Grant
was not a teller of stories, he enjoyed listening to good ones,
and of these Judge Hoar had a large stock always at
command. General Grant enjoyed the society of intellectual
men, and Judge Hoar was far up in that class. General
Grant had regrets for the retirement of Judge Hoar from
his Cabinet, and for the circumstances which led to his retire-
ment. His appointment of Judge Hoar upon the Joint High
Commission and the nomination of Judge Hoar to a seat upon
the bench of the Supreme Court may be accepted as evidence
of General Grant's continuing friendship, and of his dispo-
sition to recognize it, notwithstanding the break in official
relations.

Judge Hoar's professional life had been passed in Massa-
chusetts, and he had no personal acquaintance with the
lawyers of the circuit from which Justices Strong and Brad-
ley were appointed. Strong and Bradley were at the head of
the profession in the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
and in truth there was no debate as to the fitness of their
appointment. Judge Hoar was not responsible for their
appointment, and I am of the opinion that the nominations
would have been made even against his advice, which as-
suredly was not so given. Judge Strong, as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, had sustained the con-
stitutionality of the Legal Tender Act, and it was understood
that Bradley was of the same opinion. As the President and
Cabinet were of a like opinion, it may be said that there
could have been no " packing " of the Supreme Court except

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 209

by the exclusion of the two moat prominent lawyers in the
circuit and the appointment of men whose opinions upon a
vital question were not in harmony with the opinion of the
person making the appointment.

As to myself, I had never accepted the original decision as
sound law under the Constitution, nor as a wise public policy,
if there had been no Constitution. By the decision the Gov-
ernment was shorn of a part of its financial means of defence
in an exigency. When the Supreme Court had reached a
conclusion, Chief Justice Chase called upon me and informed
me of that fact, about two weeks in advance of the delivery
of the opinion. He gave as a reason his apprehension of
serious financial difficulties due to a demand for gold by the
creditor class. Not sharing in that apprehension, I said:
!< The business men are all debtors as well as creditors, and
they cannot engage in a struggle over gold payments, and
the small class of creditors who are not also debtors will not
venture upon a policy in which they must suffer ultimately."
The decision did not cause a ripple in the finances of the
country.

Pursuing the conversation, I asked the Chief Justice where
he found authority in the Constitution for the issue of non-
legal-tender currency. He answered in the power to borrow
money and in the power given to Congress to provide for
the " general welfare of the United States." I then said, hav-
ing in mind the opinion in the case of MacCulloch and Mary-
land, in which the court held that where a power was given
to Congress, its exercise was a matter of discretion unless
a limitation could be found in the Constitution : " Where
do you find a limitation to the power to borrow money by
any means that to Congress may appear wise? " The Chief
Justice was unable to specify a limitation, and the question
remains unanswered to this day.

When the case of Hepburn and Griswold was overruled in

210 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the Legal Tender cases, the Chief Justice was very much
disturbed, and with the exhibition of considerable feeling,
he said : " Why did you consent to the appointment of judges
to overrule me? " I assured him that there was no personal
feeling on the part of the President, and that as to my own
unimportant part in the business, he had known from the
time of our interview in regard to the former action of the
court that I entertained the opinion that the decision operated
as a limitation of the constitutional powers of Congress and
that its full and final recognition might prove injurious to the
country whenever all its resources should be required. At
the time of the reversal, the Chief Justice did not conceal his
dissatisfaction with his life and labors on the bench, and
at the interview last mentioned he said that he should be
glad to exchange positions with me, if it were possible to
make the exchange.

Various reasons have been assigned for the step which
was taken by President Grant in asking Judge Hoar to re-
tire from the Cabinet. Some have assumed that the Presi-
dent was no longer willing to tolerate the presence of two
members from the same State. That consideration had been
passed upon by the President at the outset, and he had
overruled it or set it aside. In my interview with Mr.
Washburne the Sunday before my nomination, I had said
to him that Judge Hoar and I were not only from the
same State, but that we were residents of the same county,
and within twenty miles of each other. Moreover, any public
dissatisfaction which had existed at the beginning had dis-
appeared. In the meantime the President had become at-
tached to Judge Hoar. Nor is there any justifying founda-
tion for the conjecture that a vacancy was created for the
purpose of giving a place in the Cabinet to another person, or
to another section of the country. General Grant's attach-
ment to his friends was near to a weakness, and the sugges-

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 211

tion that he sacrificed Judge Hoar to the low purpose of
giving a place to some other person is far away from any
true view of his character.

Judge Hoar had had no administrative experience on the
political side of the government, and he underestimated the
claims, and he undervalued the rights, of members of Con-
gress. As individuals the members of Congress are of the
Government, and in a final test the two Houses may become
the Government. More than elsewhere the seat of power is
in the Senate, and the Senate and Senators are careful to
exact a recognition of their rights. They claim, what from
the beginning they have enjoyed, the right to be heard by
the President and the heads of department in regard to ap-
pointments in their respective States. They do not claim to
speak authoritatively, but as members of the Government
having a right to advise, and under a certain responsibility
to the people for what may be done.

It was claimed by Senators that the Attorney-General
seemed not to admit their right to speak in regard to appoint-
ments, and that appointments were made of which they had no
knowledge, and of which neither they nor their constitutents
could approve. These differences reached a crisis when Sena-
tors (I use the word in the plural) notified the President
that they should not visit the Department of Justice while
Judge Hoar was Attorney-General. Thus was a disagreeable
alternative presented to the President, and a first impression
would lead to the conclusion that he ought to have sustained
the Attorney-General. Assuming that the complaints were
well founded, it followed that the Attorney-General was deny-
ing to Senators the consideration which the President himself
was recognizing daily.

President Grant looked upon the members of his Cabinet
as his family for the management of civil affairs, as he
had looked upon his staff as his military family for the con-

212 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

duct of the army, and he regarded a recommendation for a
Cabinet appointment as an interference. His first Cabinet
was organized upon that theory somewhat modified by a
reference to locality. Mr. Bovie who became Secretary of
the Navy was a most excellent man, but he had had no prep-
aration either by training or experience for the duties of a
department. Of this he was quite conscious, and he never
attempted to conceal the fact. He often said :

" The department is managed by Admiral Porter, I am
only a figure-head."

In a few months he resigned. His associates were much
attached to him. He was a benevolent, genial, well informed
man. His successor, Mr. Robeson, was a man of singular
ability, lacking only the habit of careful, continuous industry.
This failing contributed to his misfortunes in administration,
and consequently he was the subject of many attacks in the
newspapers and in Congress. After his retirement he be-
came a member of the House of Representatives, and it
was a noticeable fact, that from that day the attacks in
Congress ceased. As a debater he was well equipped, and
in reference to his administration of the Navy Department,
he was always prepared with an answer or an explanation in
every exigency.

The appointment of Governor Fish to the Department
of State, gave rise to considerable adverse comment. The
chief grounds of complaint were that he was no longer young
and that recently he had not been active in political contests.
He had been a Whig when there was a Whig Party, and he
became a Republican when the Republican Party was formed.
As a Whig he had been a member of the House of Repre-
sentatives and of the Senate of the United States, but he
had not held office as a Republican, nor was he known
generally as a speaker or writer in support of the policies or
principles of the party. His age, then about sixty, was urged

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 213

as a reason against his appointment. His selection as Sec-
retary was extremely fortunate for General Grant and his
administration. Governor Fish was painstaking in his office,
exacting in his demands upon subordinates, without being
harsh or unjust, diligent in his duties, and fully informed as
to the traditions and usages of the department. Beyond
these administrative qualities he had the capacity to place
every question of a diplomatic character upon a foundation
at once reasonable and legal. If the failure of Mr. Stewart
led to the appointment of Governor Fish the change was
fortunate for General Grant and the country. After the
failure of Mr. Stewart, Mr. Washburne spoke of his appoint-
ment to the State Department, as only temporary, but for
a few days he acted as though he expected to remain per-
manently. If his transfer to France was an afterthought, he
and the President very carefully concealed the fact. It is not
probable that the President at the outset designed to take
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury
from New York City. Hence I infer that the failure of Mr.
Stewart worked a change in the headship of the State De-
partment, and hence I am of opinion that the failure of Mr.
Stewart was of great advantage to the administration and to
the country, and that without considering whether there was
a gain or loss in the Treasury Department. There can be no
doubt that Governor Fish was a much wiser man than Mr.
Washburne for the management of foreign affairs and there
can be as little doubt that Mr. Washburne could not have
been excelled as Minister at Paris in the troublous period of
the years 1870 and 1871.

Mr. Fish had no ambitions beyond the proper and success-
ful administration of his own department. He did not aspire
to the Presidency, and he remained in the State Department
during General Grant's second term, at the special request
of the President.

2i4 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Sumner's removal from the chairmanship of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations was due to the fact that a time
came when he did not recognize the President, and when
he declined to have any intercourse with the Secretary of
State outside of official business. Such a condition of affairs
is always a hindrance in the way of good government, and
it may become an obstacle to success. Good government
can be secured only through conferences with those who are
responsible, by conciliation, and not infrequently by conces-
sions to the holders of adverse opinions. The time came
when such a condition was no longer possible between Mr.
Sumner and the Secretary of State.

The President and his Cabinet were in accord in regard
to the controversy with Great Britain as to the Alabama
Claims. Mr. Sumner advocated a more exacting policy. Mr.
Motley appeared to be following Mr. Sumner's lead, and the
opposition to Mr. Sumner extended to Mr. Motley. It had
happened that the President had taken on a prejudice to Mr.
Motley at their first interview. This I learned when I said
something to the President in the line of conciliation. The
President said : " Such was my impression of Motley when I
saw him that I should have withheld his appointment if I had
not made a promise to Sumner." My acquaintance with Mr.
Motley began in the year 1849, when we were members of
the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and I had a
high regard for him, although it had been charged that I
had had some part in driving him from politics into
literature.

When we consider the natures and the training of the two
men, it is not easy to imagine agreeable co-operation in public
affairs by Mr. Sumner and General Grant. Mr. Sumner
never believed in General Grant's fitness for the office of
President, and General Grant did not recognize in Mr. Sum-
ner a wise and safe leader in the business of government.

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 215

General Grant's notion of Mr. Sumner, on one side of his
character, may be inferred from his answer when, being
asked if he had heard Mr. Sumner converse, he said : " No,
but I have heard him lecture."

As I am to speak of Mr. Sumner in our personal relations,
which for thirteen years before his death were intimate, I
shall use some words of preface. Never on more than two
occasions did we have differences that caused any feeling on
either side. Mr. Sumner was chairman in the Senate of the
Committee on the Freedmen's Bureau, and Mr. Eliot was
chairman of the Committee of the House. A report was
made in each House, and each bill contained not less than
twenty sections. Each House passed its own bill. A com-
mittee of conference was appointed. Its report was rejected.
I was appointed a member of the second committee.

I examined the bills, and I marked out every section that
was not essential to the working of the measure. Four sec-
tions remained. I then added a section which provided for
the lease and ultimate sale of the confiscated lands to the freed-
men and refugees. President Johnson's restoration of those
lands made that section non-operative. The committee, upon
the motion of General Schenck, transferred the jurisdiction
of the Bureau from the Treasury to the War Department.
The bill was accepted by the committee, and passed by the
two Houses.

When within a few days I was in the Senate Chamber,
Mr. Sumner came to me, and said in substance : " The
Freedmen's Bureau Bill as it passed is of no value. I have
spent six months upon the bill, and my work has gone for
nothing. You and General Schenck cannot pretend to
know as much as I know about the measure."

With some feeling, which was not justifiable, I said : " I
have not spent six hours upon the measure, but after what you
have said I will say that the fifth section is of more value

216 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

than all the sections which you have written." I did not
wait for a reply. The subject was not again mentioned; our
friendly relations were not disturbed, and it is to Mr. Sum-
ner's credit on the score of toleration that he passed over my
rough remarks, even though he had given some reason for a
retort.

My next difference with Mr. Sumner was a more serious
difference, but it passed without any break in our relations.
He had not acquired the church-going habit, or he had re-
nounced it, and my church-going was spasmodic rather than
systematic. Thus it became possible and agreeable for me
to spend some small portion of each Sunday in his rooms.
The controversy over Mr. Motley and his removal from the
post of minister to Great Britain excited Mr. Sumner to a
point far beyond any excitement to which he yielded, arising
from his own troubles or from the misfortunes of the country.
To him it was the topic of conversation at all times and in
all places. That habit I accepted at his house with as much
complacency as I could command. Indeed, I was not much
disturbed by what he said to me in private, and certainly
not by what he said in his own house, where I went from
choice, and without any obligation to remain resting upon
me. In all his conversation he made General Grant responsi-
ble for the removal of Motley, accompanied, usually, with
language of censure and condemnation. On two occasions
that were in a measure public, one of which was at a dinner
given to me by Mr. Franklin Haven, a personal friend of
twenty years' standing, when he insisted upon holding the Mot-
ley incident as the topic of conversation. On one of these oc-
casions, and in excitement, he turned to me and said : " Bout-
well, you ought to have resigned when Motley was removed."

I said only in reply : " I am the custodian of my own
duty."

This was the only personal remark that I ever made to

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 217

Mr. Sumner in connection with the removal of Motley. The
removal was the only reasonable solution of the difficulty in
which Motley was involved; but I sympathized with him
the disaster which had overtaken him, and I was not dis-
ced to discuss the subject. The incident at the dinner led
me to make a resolution. I called upon Mr. Sumner, and
without accepting a seat, I said : " Senator, if you ever
mention General Grant's name in my presence, I will never
again cross your threshold."

Without the delay of a half minute he said : " Agreed."
There the matter ended, and the promise was kept. In
[872, and not many days before he left for Europe, he said:
I want to ask you a question about General Grant."
I said : " You know that that is a forbidden topic."
" Yes, but I am not going to speak controversially."
I said: " Say on."

He said: " What do you think of Grant's election? "
I said: " I think he will be elected."
He held up his hands, and in a tone of grief said : " You
and Wilson are the only ones who tell me that he has any
chance."

Upon his return from Europe it was apparent that his
feelings in regard to the Republican Party, and especially
in regard to General Grant, had undergone a great change.
Our conversations concerning General Grant were resumed
free from all restrictions, and without any disturbance of feel-
ing on my part. Not many months before his death Mr.
Sumner made a speech in executive session that was con-
ciliatory and just in a marked degree. I urged him to repeat
it in public session. He seemed to regard the suggestion with
favor, but the speech was not made.

For many years Mr. Sumner had been borne down under
the resolutions of censure passed by the State of Massachu-
setts in disapproval of his position in regard to the return

218 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of Confederate flags. That resolution was rescinded at the
winter session of 1874. The act brought to Mr. Sumner the
highest degree of satisfaction that it was possible for him
to realize. Above all things else of a public nature, he cher-
ished the good name of the commonwealth, and for him-
self there was nothing more precious than her approval.
The blow was unexpected, its weight was great, and its
weight was never lessened until it was wholly removed.
The rescinding resolutions came to me the Saturday next
preceding the Wednesday when Mr. Sumner died. I was
then in ill health, so ill that my attendance at the Senate
did not exceed one half of each day's session through many
weeks. Mr. Sumner called upon me to inquire, and anxious
to know, whether I could attend the session of Monday
and present the resolutions. I gave him the best assurance
that my condition permitted. When the resolutions had
been presented, and when I was leaving the chamber, Mr.
Sumner came to me, and, putting his arm over my shoulder,
he walked with me into the lobby, where, after many thanks
by him, and with good wishes for my health, we parted,
without a thought by me that he had not before him many
years of rugged life. For several years previous to 1874, Mr.
Sumner had been accustomed to speak of himself as an old
man, and on more than one occasion he spoke of life as a
burden. To these utterances I gave but little heed.

The chief assurance for any considerable well-doing in
the world is to be found in good purposes and in fixedness
of purpose when a purpose has been formed. These char-
acteristics were Mr. Sumner's possessions, but in him they
were subject to very important limitations as powers in prac-
tical affairs. He did not exhibit respect or deference for the
opinions of others even when the parties were upon a plane
of equality, as is the usual situation in legislative bodies.
He could not concede small points for the sake of a great

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 219

result. Hence it was that measures in which he had an in-
terest took on a form at the end that was not agreeable to him.
Hence it is that he has left only one piece of legislation that
is distinctly the work of his hand. When the bill was under
consideration which denied to colored persons the privilege of
naturalization in the United States, he secured an amend-
ment by which the exclusion was limited to the Mongolian
race. His declaration as to the status of the States that had
been in rebellion was not far away from the policy that was
adopted finally, but he did not accept as wise and necessary
measures the amendments to the Constitution which were
designed to make that policy permanent. Indeed, it was his
opinion, at one period of the controversy over the question
of negro suffrage, that a legislative declaration would be
sufficient. The field of his success is to be found in the
argumentative power that he possessed and in its use for
the overthrow of slavery. Of the anti-slavery advocates who
entered the Senate previous to the opening of the war,
he was the best equipped in learning, and his influence in the
country was not surpassed by the influence of any one of
his associates. In his knowledge of diplomacy, he had the
first rank in the Senate for the larger part of his career. His
influence in the Senate was measured, however, by his in-
fluence in the country. His speeches, especially in the period
of national controversy, were addressed to the country. He
relied upon authorities and precedents. His powers as a de-
bater were limited, and it followed inevitably that in purely
parliamentary contests he was not a match for such masters
as Fessenden and Conkling, who in learning were his
inferiors.

My means for information are so limited that I do not ex-
press an opinion upon the question whether Mr. Sumner's
ambitions in public life were or were not gratified. On one
or two occasions he let fall remarks which indicated a will-

220 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ingness to be transferred to the Department of State. Major
Ben. Perley Poore had received the impression that there
was a time when Mr. Sumner looked to the Presidency as a
possibility. At an accidental meeting with Major Poore, he
said to me : "I have dined with Sumner, and he gave me
an account of the conversation he had with you this morning,
in which you consoled him for not gaining the Presidency."

I recalled the conversation. It was a Sunday-morning
talk, and there was no special purpose on my part, however
my remarks may have been received by Mr. Sumner. He
spoke of the opportunity furnished to Mr. Jefferson for
the exposition of his views in his first inaugural address. I
then proceeded to say that, omitting the incumbent of the
office, of whom nothing could then be said, not more than
three or four men had gained in standing by their elevation
to the Presidency, beyond the fact that their names were
upon the roll. The exceptions were, first of all, Lincoln, who
had gained most. Then Jackson, who had gained some-
thing— indeed, a good deal by his defence of the Union when
compared with what he might have lost by neglect of duty
in the days of nullification. Washington had gained much
by demonstrating his capacity for civil affairs, by the legacy
of his farewell address, and by the shaping of the new govern-
ment under the Constitution in a manner calculated to
strengthen the quality of perpetuity. At the end, I claimed
that the other occupants of the Presidential office had not
gained appreciably by their promotion.

In two important particulars, Samuel Adams and Charles
Sumner are parallel characters in American history. Mr.
Adams was a leader in the contest that the colonies carried
on against Great Britain. Our legal standing in the con-
troversy with the mother country has never elsewhere been
presented as forcibly and logically as it was stated by Mr.
Adams in his letters to the royal governors in the name of

i

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 221

the Massachusetts House of Representatives, between the
years 1764 and 1775. When the contest of words and of

ms was over he was not only not an aid in the organization

the new Government, but he was an obstacle to its success.

e accepted the Constitution with hesitation and under
constraint. After the overthrow of slavery and the ratification
of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Mr. Sum-
ner gave no wise aid to the work of reconstructing the gov-
ernment upon the basis of the new conditions that had been
created by the war and by the abolition of slavery. As every
guarantee for freedom contains some element of enslave-
ment over or against some who are not within the guarantee,
men sometimes hesitate as to the wisdom of accepting guar-
antees of rights in one direction which work a limitation of
rights or privileges in other directions. The Constitution of
the United States, while it gave power to the body of States
and guaranteed security to each yet deprived the individual
States of many of the privileges and powers that they had
enjoyed as colonies. Every amendment to the Constitution,
from the first to the last, has limited the application of the
doctrine of home rule in the government.

Upon the election of Mr. Wilson to the office of Vice-
President, I was chosen by the Legislature of Massachusetts
as his successor in the Senate. I left the Treasury and Gen-
eral Grant's Cabinet with reluctance, but my experience in
both branches of the government had led me to prefer the
legislative branch, where there is at least more freedom of
action than can be had in an executive department. This
opinion is in no sense due to the nature of my relations with
General Grant. His military habits led him to put responsi-
bility upon subordinates and this habit he carried into civil
affairs.

Moreover, in my own case, he recognized that fact that I
had accepted the place upon his urgent request, command

222 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

indeed, and not to gratify any ambition of my own. And
further, I think I may assume, that his confidence was such
that he was content to leave the department in my hands.
During my time he put only one person — General Pleasanton
— into the department, and he never commanded or required
the removal of any one. On a few occasions he named per-
sons whom he said he would be glad to have employed if
places could be found. They were always soldiers, or widows
or children of soldiers, and he never forgot his suggestions,
nor allowed the passage of time to diminish his interest in
such cases.

The important places in New York, Chicago, St. Louis,
Cincinnati, New Orleans and Philadelphia were filled by him,
usually upon consultation, but upon his judgment. He gave
very little attention to others beyond signing the commis-
sions. I often called his attention to the more important
ones, but it was his practice to send applicants and their
friends to me with the remark that the business was in my
hands.

By this course the President avoided much labor, and es-
caped some responsibility. The disappointed ones charged
their misfortunes to the Secretary, and the President was
able to say that he knew nothing of the case, etc., etc.

I have reason to believe that the President did not exhibit
equal confidence in my successors, especially in Mr. Bristow.
The President received the impression very early, that Bris-
tow was engaged in a scheme to secure the nomination by an
alliance with the enemies of General Grant. In my time
three Secretaries of the Treasury attempted in turn to secure
a nomination for the Presidency through the influence and
patronage of that department. All were failures, and fail-
ures well deserved.

Such a policy breeds corruption inevitably. Venal men
aspiring to place, avow themselves the friends of the Secre-

GENERAL GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 223

tary, and if through such avowals they secure appointments,
the offices will be used for improper purposes.

My successor, Judge Richardson, had been Assistant Sec-
retary for three years and more, and no one could have sur-
passed him in industry, fidelity and knowledge of the busi-
ness. I recommended his appointment. The President hesi-
tated, but he finally nominated him to the Senate, and the
nomination was confirmed.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH GENERAL GRANT UPON MY RESIGNA-
TION OF THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

WASHINGTON,

March 17, 1873.
SIR:

Having been elected to the Senate of the United States by
the Legislature of Massachusetts, I tender my resignation of
the office of Secretary of the Treasury.

In severing my official relations with you it is a great
satisfaction to me that on all occasions you have given me full
confidence and support in the discharge of my public duties.
In these four years my earlier acquaintance with you has
ripened into earnest personal friendship, which, I am con-
fident, will remain unbroken. I am

Yours very truly,

GEO. S. BOUTWELL.
To THE PRESIDENT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, March 17, 1873.

[ON. GEO. S. BOUTWELL,
Dear Sir: —

In accepting your resignation of the office of Secretary of
the Treasury, an office which you have filled for four years
with such satisfaction to the country, allow me to express

224 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the regret I feel at severing official relations which have been
at all times so agreeable to me, and, — as I am assured by your
letter of resignation, — to you also. Your administration of
the important trust confided to you four years since, has been
so admirably conducted as to give the greatest satisfaction to
me because as I read public judgment and opinion it has been
satisfactory to the country. The policy pursued in the office
of Secretary of the Treasury by your successor I hope may be
as successful as yours has been, and that no departure from it
will be made except such as experience and change of circum-
stances may make necessary.

Among your new official associates I trust you will find the
same warm friends and co-workers that you leave in the
Executive branch of the government.

You take with you my most sincere well wishes for your
success as a legislator and as a citizen, and the assurance of my
desire to continue the warm personal relations that have ex-
isted between us during the whole of our official connection.

Very truly yours,

U. S. GRANT.

XXXVIII

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN*

GENERAL GRANT'S father was a Whig, and an ad-
mirer and supporter of Mr. Clay. The public policy
of Mr. Clay embraced three great measures : First,
a national bank, or a fiscal agency as an aid to the Treasury
in the collection and disbursement of the public revenues; sec-
ondly, a system of internal improvements to be created at the
public expense and controlled by the National Government;
and, thirdly, a tariff system which should protect the Ameri-
can laborer against the active competition of the laborers of
other countries who were compelled to work for smaller
compensation.

From the year 1834 to the year 1846 the country was en-
gaged in an active controversy over the policy of the Whig
Party, of which Mr. Clay was then the recognized head. In-
deed, the controversy began as early as the year 1824, and it
contributed, more than all other causes, to the new organiza-
tion of parties under the leadership, respectively, of Mr. Clay
and General Jackson.

General Grant was educated under these influences, and in
the belief that the policy of the Whig Party would best pro-
mote the prosperity of the country. Those early impressions
ripened into opinions, which he held and on which he acted
during his public life. It happened by the force of circum-
stances that the Republican Party was compelled to adopt the

* This article was printed in Appleton's Cyclopedia for the year 1885.
Copyright, 1886, by D. Appleton & Co.

226 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

policy of Mr. Clay — not in measures, but in the ideas on which
his policy was based. It is not now necessary to inquire
whether the weight of argument was with Mr. Clay or with
his opponents. The war made inevitable the adoption of a
policy which Mr. Clay had advocated as expedient and wise.

The Pacific Railways were built by the aid of the Govern-
ment and under the pressure of a general public opinion that
the East must be brought into a more intimate connection with
our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, for mutual support and
for the common defence.

The national banking system was established for the pur-
pose of securing the aid of the banks as purchasers and nego-
tiators of the bonds of the Government, at a time when the
public credit was so impaired that it seemed impossible to
command the funds necessary for the prosecution of the war.

The same exigency compelled Congress to enact, and the
country to accept, a tariff system more protective in its pro-
visions than any scheme ever suggested by Mr. Clay. The
necessities of the times compelled free-traders, even, to accept
the revenue system with its protective features; but General
Grant accepted it as a system in harmony alike with his early
impressions and with his matured opinions.

It has happened, by the force of events, that the policy of
the old Whig Party has been revived in the national banking
system, while the Independent Treasury, the leading measure
of the old Democratic Party, has been preserved in all its
features as the guide of the Treasury Department in its finan-
cial operations.

When General Grant became President, these three meas-
ures had been incorporated into the policy of the Republican
Party. Their full acceptance by him did not require any
change of opinion on his part. It was true that he had voted
for Mr. Buchanan in 1856; but his vote was given in obedi-
ence to an impression that he had received touching the quali-

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN 227

fkations of General Fremont. The fact that he had voted
for Mr. Buchanan excited suspicions in the minds of some
Republicans, and it engendered hopes in the bosoms of some
Democrats that he might act in harmony with the Democratic
Party. The suspicions and the hopes were alike groundless.

As early as the month of August, 1863, m a letter to Mr.
E. B. Washburne, he said : " It became patent to my mind
early in the rebellion that the North and South could never
live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that
without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established,
I would not, therefore, be willing to see any settlement until
this question is forever settled."

Thus was General Grant, at an early moment, and upon his
own judgment, brought into full accord with the Republican
Party upon the two debatable and most earnestly debated
questions during Mr. Lincoln's administration — the prosecu-
tion of the war and the abolition of slavery.

And thus is it apparent that in 1868 he was in a condition,
as to all matters of opinion, to accept a nomination at the
hands of the Republican Party; and it is equally apparent
that he was separated from the Democratic Party by a chasm
wide, deep, and impassable. It is, however, true that General
Grant's feelings were not intense, and in the expression of
his opinions his tone was mild and his manner gentle. It
often happened, also, that he did not undertake to controvert
opinions and expressions with which he had no sympathy.
This peculiarity may at times have led to a misunderstanding,
or to a misinterpretation of his views. Upon this basis of
his early impressions, and matured opinions his administra-
tive policy was constructed.

When he became President, there was a body of American
citizens, not inconsiderable in numbers, who doubted the abil-
ity of the Government to pay the war debt ; there were others
who advocated payment in greenbacks, or the substitution of

228 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

a note not bearing interest for a bond that bore interest; and
there were yet others who denied the validity of the existing
obligations. All these classes, whether they were dishonest
or only misled, were alike rebuked in his inaugural address.
These were his words : u A great debt has been contracted
in securing to us and to our posterity the Union. The pay-
ment of this debt, principal and interest, as well as the return
to a specie basis, as soon as it can be accomplished without
material detriment to the debtor class, or to the country at
large, must be provided for. ... To protect the na-
tional honor, every dollar of Government indebtedness should
be paid in gold, unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the
contract.

" Let it be understood that no repudiator of one farthing of
our public debt will be trusted in public place, and it will go
far toward strengthening a credit which ought to be the best
in the world, and will ultimately enable us to replace the
debt with bonds bearing less interest than we now pay."

In the same address he asserted the ability of the country
to pay the debt within the period of twenty-five years, and he
also declared his purpose to secure a faithful collection of
the public revenues. At the close of his administration of
eight years one fifth part of the public debt had been paid,
and if the system of taxation that existed in 1869 had been
continued the debt would have been extinguished in less than
a quarter of a century from the year 1869. In his administra-
tion, however, the crisis was passed. The ability and the dis-
position of the country were made so conspicuous that all
honest doubts were removed, and the repudiators were shamed
into silence. The redemption of the debt by the purchase of |
bonds in the open market strengthened the public credit, and j
laid a foundation for the resumption of specie payments.

General Grant's inaugural address was followed by the
passage of the act of March 18, 1869, entitled "An act to

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN 229

strengthen the public credit." This act was a pledge to the
world that the debts of the United States, unless there were
in the obligations express stipulations to the contrary, would
be paid in coin.

In accordance with the report of the Secretary of the Treas-
ury, President Grant, in his annual message of December,
1869, recommended the passage of an act authorizing the
funding of the public debt at a lower rate of interest.

Following this recommendation, the bill for refunding the
public debt, prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, was
enacted and approved July 14, 1870.

By this act the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized
to issue bonds to the amount of $200,000,000 bearing interest
at the rate of 5 per cent, $300,000,000 bearing interest at the
rate of 4^ per cent, and $1,000,000,000 bearing interest at
the rate of 4 per cent.

Under this act, and the amendments thereto, the debt has
been refunded from time to time until the average rate of
interest does not now exceed 3 1-2 per cent. Although these
two important measures of administration were not prepared
by General Grant, they were but the execution of the policy
set forth in his inaugural address.

In respect to the rights of the negro race, General Grant
must be ranked with the advanced portion of the Republican
Party. Upon the capture of Fort Donelson, a number of
slaves fell into the hands of the Union army. General Grant
issued an order, dated Feb. 26, 1862, in which he authorized
their employment for the benefit of the Government, and at
the close he said that under no circumstances would he permit
their return to their masters.

In his inaugural address he urged the States to ratify the
Fifteenth Amendment, and its ratification was due, probably,
to his advice. At that moment his influence was very great.
It may well be doubted whether any other President ever

230 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

enjoyed the confidence of the country in as high a degree.
He gave to that measure the weight of his opinion and the
official influence of his administration. The amendment was
opposed by the Democratic Party generally, and a consider-
able body of Republicans questioned its wisdom. General
Grant was responsible for the ratification of the amendment.
Had he advised its rejection, or had he been indifferent to its
fate, the amendment would taave failed,, and the country
would have been left to a succession of bitter controversies
arising from the application of the second section of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which provided that the representa-
tion of a State should be based upon the number of male
citizens over twenty-one years of age entitled to vote.

General Grant accepted the plan of Congress in regard to
the reconstruction of the Union. There were three opinions
that had obtained a lodgment in the public mind. President
Johnson and his supporters claimed that the President held
the power by virtue of his office to convene the people of the
respective States, and that under his direction constitutions
might be framed, and that Senators and Representatives
might be chosen who would be entitled to seats in Congress
as though they represented States that had not been engaged
in secession and war. Others maintained that neither by the
ordinances of secession nor by the war had the States of the
Confederacy been disturbed in their legal relations to the
Union.

It was the theory of the Republican Party in Congress
that the eleven States by their own acts had destroyed their
legal relations to the Union; that the jurisdiction of the
National Government over the territory of the seceding States
was full and complete; and that, as a result of the war, the
National Government could hold them in a Territorial condi-
tion and subject to military rule. Upon this theory the re-
appearance of a seceded State as a member of the Union was

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN 231

made to depend upon the assent of Congress, with the ap-
proval of the President, or upon an act of Congress by a
two-thirds vote over a Presidential veto.

General Grant sustained the policy of Congress during the
long and bitter contest with President Johnson, and when he
became President he accepted that policy without reserve in
the case of the restoration of the States of Virginia, Georgia,
Texas, and Mississippi. Upon this statement it appears that
General Grant was a Republican, and that he became a Re-
publican by processes that preclude the suggestion that his
nomination for the Presidency wrought any change in his
position upon questions of principle or policy in the affairs
of government. Indeed, his nomination in 1868 was dis-
tasteful to him, as he then preferred to remain at the head
of the army. It was in the nature of things, however, that
he should have wished for a re-election. He was re-elected,
and at the end of his second term he accepted a return to
private life as a relief from the cares and duties of office.
The support which he received for the nomination in 1880
was not due to any effort on his part. Not even to his warm-
est supporters did he express a wish, or dictate or advise an
act. His only utterance was a message to four of his friends
at the Chicago Convention, that whatever they might do in
the premises would be acceptable to him. His political career
was marked by the same abstention from personal effort for
personal advancement that distinguished him as an officer of
the army. But he did not bring into civil affairs the habits
of command that were the necessity of military life. Al-
though by virtue of his position he was the recognized head
of the Republican Party, he made no effort to control its
action. Wherever he placed power, there he reposed
trust.

There was not in General Grant's nature any element of
suspicion, and his confidence in his friends was free and

232 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

full. Hence it happened that he had many occasions for
regret.

On no man in public life in this generation were there more
frequent charges and insinuations of wrong-doing, and in
this generation there has been no man in public life who was
freer from all occasion for such insinuations and charges.

When he heard that the Treasury Department was pur-
chasing bullion of a company in which he was a stockholder,
he sold his shares without delay, and without reference to
the market price or to their real value.

General Grant had no disposition to usurp power. He had
no policy to impose upon the country against the popular
will. This was shown in the treatment of the Santo Domingo
question. General Grant was not indisposed to see the terri-
tories of the Republic extended, but his love of justice and
fair dealing was such that he would have used only honor-
able means in his intercourse with other nations. Santo
Domingo was a free offering, and he thought that its posses-
sion would be advantageous to the country.

Yet he never made it an issue, even in his Cabinet, where,
as he well knew, very serious doubts existed as to the expedi-
ency of the measure. He was deeply pained by the unjust
attacks and groundless criticisms of which he was the sub-
ject, but he accepted the adverse judgment of the Senate as
a constitutional binding decision of the question, and of that
decision he never complained.

In a message to the Senate of the 3ist of May, 1870, he
urged the annexation of Santo Domingo. He said, " I feel
an unusual anxiety for the ratification of this treaty, because
I believe it will redound greatly to the glory of the two coun-
tries interested, to civilization, and to the extirpation of the
institution of slavery." He claimed for the scheme great
commercial advantages, that it was in harmony with the Mon-
roe doctrine, and that the consummation of the measure

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN 233

would be notice to the states of Europe that no acquisition
of territory on this continent would be permitted. In his
second inaugural address General Grant referred to the sub-
ject in these words : "In the first year of the past adminis-
tration the proposition came up for the admission of Santo
Domingo as a Territory of the Union. ... I believe now,
as I did then, that it was for the best interests of this coun-
try, for the people of Santo Domingo, and all concerned, that
the proposition should be received favorably. It was, how-
ever, rejected constitutionally, and therefore the subject was
never brought up again by me." General Grant considered
the failure of the treaty as a national misfortune, but he never
criticised the action of its opponents.

General Grant's firmness was shown in his veto of the
Senate currency bill of 1874. It is known that unusual effort
was made to convince him that the measure was wise in a
financial view, and highly expedient upon political grounds.
The President wrote a message in explanation of his act of
approval, but upon its completion he was so much dissatisfied
with his own argument that he resolved to veto the bill.
Hence the veto message of April 22, 1874.

In foreign policy, the principal measure of General Grant's
administration was the treaty with Great Britain of May,
1871. The specific and leading purpose of the negotiations
was the adjustment of the claim made by the United States
that Great Britain was liable in damages for the destruction
of American vessels, and the consequent loss of commercial
power and prestige, by the depredations of Confederate
cruisers that were fitted out or had obtained supplies in British
ports. Neither the treaty of peace of 1783, nor the subse-
quent treaties with Great Britain, made a full and final settle-
ment of the fishery question or of our northern boundary-
line at its junction with the Pacific Ocean. These outlying
questions were considered in the negotiations, and they were

234 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

adjusted by the terms of the treaty. The jurisdiction of the
island of San Juan on the Pacific coast, then in controversy,
was referred to the Emperor of Germany as arbitrator, with
full and final power in the premises. By his award the claim
of the United States was sustained.

The fishery question was referred to arbitrators, but it was
a misfortune that the award was not satisfactory to the United
States, and the dispute is reopened with capacity to vex the
two governments for an indefinite period of time.

The claims against Great Britain growing out of the opera-
tions of the Confederate cruisers, known as the Alabama
claims, were referred to arbitrators, by whose award the Gov-
ernment of the United States received the sum of $15,500,000.
But the value of the treaty of 1871 was not in the award
made. The people of the United States were embittered
against the Government of Great Britain, and had General
Grant chosen to seek redress by arms he would have been
sustained throughout the North with substantial unanimity.
But General Grant was destitute of the war spirit, and he chose
to exhaust all the powers of negotiation before he would ad-
vise a resort to force. A passage in his inaugural address
may have had an influence upon the policy of the British
Government : " In regard to foreign policy, I would deal
with nations as equitable law requires individuals to deal with
each other. ... I would respect the rights of all. nations,
demanding equal respect for our own. // others depart from
this rule in their dealings with us, we may be compelled to
follow their precedent"

The reference of the question at issue to the tribunal at
Geneva was a conspicuous instance of the adjustment of a
grave international dispute by peaceful methods.

By the sixth article of the treaty of 1871, three new rules
were made for the government of neutral nations. These
rules are binding upon the United States and Great Britain.

GENERAL GRANT AS A STATESMAN 235

and the contracting parties agreed to bring them to the
knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite such
>owers to accede to the rules.

In those rules it is stipulated that a neutral nation should
lot permit a belligerent to fit out, arm, or equip in its ports
vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is in-
ided to cruise or carry on war against a power with which
is at peace. It was further agreed, as between the parties
the treaty, that neither would suffer a belligerent to make
5e of its ports or waters as a base of operations against the
other. Finally, the parties agreed to use due diligence to
>revent any infraction of the rules so established.
Mr. Fish was then Secretary of State, and to him was Gen-
Grant and the country largely indebted for the settle-
icnt of the Alabama controversy; but the settlement was in
irmony with General Grant's inaugural address.
Before the final adjustment of the controversy, by the de-
rision of the tribunal at Geneva, General Grant had occasion
consider whether the allegation against Great Britain,
growing out of her recognition, in May, 1861, of the belliger-
ent character of the Confederacy, could be maintained upon
the principles of public law. Upon his own judgment he
reached the conclusion that the act was an act of sovereignty
within the discretion of the ruler, for which a claim in money
)uld not be made. This opinion was accepted, finally, by
his advisers, by the negotiators, and by the country.

General Grant was not a trained statesman. His methods
of action were direct and clear. His conduct was free from
duplicity, and artifice of every sort was foreign to his nature.
In the first years of his administration he relied upon his
Cabinet in all minor matters relating to the departments.
Acting upon military ideas, he held the head of a department
to his full responsibility, and he waited, consequently, until
his opinion was sought or his instructions were solicited.

236 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In his conferences with the members of his Cabinet he ex-
pressed his opinions with the greatest freedom, and, upon
discussion, he often yielded to the suggestions or arguments
of others. He was so great that it was not a humiliation to
acknowledge a change in opinion, or to admit an error in
policy or purpose.

In his intercourse with members of Congress upon the busi-
ness of the Government, he gave his opinions without reserve
when he had reached definite conclusions, but he often re-
mained a silent listener to the discussion of topics which he
had not considered maturely.

His politics were not narrow nor exclusive. He believed
in the growth of the country, and in the power of republican
ideas. He was free from race prejudice, and free from
national jealousy, but he believed in the enlargement of our
territory by peaceful means, in the spread of republican insti-
tutions, and in the predominance of the English-speaking race
in the affairs of the world.

The spirit of philanthropy animated his politics, and the
doctrines of peace controlled his public policy.

XXXIX

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN

GENERAL BANKS

OF the men whom I have known in political affairs,
General Banks was in his personality one of a small
number who were always agreeable and permanently
attractive. He was the possessor of an elastic spirit; he was
always hopeful of the future and in adversity he saw or
fancied that he saw, days of prosperity for himself, for his
party, for the commonwealth and for the country. His in-
terest in the fortunes of the laboring classes was a permanent
interest, and they are largely indebted to him for the passage
of the eight-hour law by the Congress of the United States.
Not infrequently his thoughts and schemes were too vast for
realization. While the contest in Kansas was going on, he
suggested an organization of capitalists for the purchase of
the low-priced lands in Delaware, then a sale to Northern
farmers and the conversion of Delaware into a free State.

His studies in the law had been fragmentary and superficial,
and nature had not endowed him with all the qualities that
are essential to the successful lawyer. His reading on the
literary side was considerable, especially in the Spanish lan-
guage. Early in life he accepted the idea that our relations
with the Spanish race were to be intimate in a not far off
future. He was a careful observer of character, and of con-
ditions in affairs, and in a free debate he was never in peril

237

238 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of being overmatched. Of a mutual friend and an associate
in politics he said : " He has no serious side to his character
— a defect that has been the bane of many otherwise able
men."

When the coalition came into power Banks was made
speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Wil-
son was president of the Senate and I was in the office of Gov-
ernor. In an evening stroll with Banks around Boston Com-
mon, engaged in a survey of public affairs, he changed the
conversation suddenly with the remark : " It's almighty queer
that the people of this commonwealth have put their govern-
ment into the hands of men who have no last and usual place
of abode." The pertinency of this remark is to be found in
the facts to which it was applicable. There were some men
of wealth in the Coalition Party but the three places that I
have named were held by men who were destitute of even the
means of well-to-do mechanics and tradespeople.

Mr. Banks had power in repartee which made him a for-
midable adversary in parliamentary debate. When he was a
mechanic at Waltham he took an active part in temperance
meetings. At one of the meetings a Unitarian clergyman of
conservative leanings, made a speech in which he criticised
the speeches and said finally : " I do not attend the meetings
because I cannot approve of what I hear said." He then re-
ferred to Mr. Banks as a young man who was guilty of in-
discretions in speech. He had seen him once only at his
church. He had made inquiries of his brethren and he could
not learn that Mr. Banks was a regular attendant at any
church. Banks in reply admitted that he had been in the
church of the reverend gentleman but once, and that he was
not a regular attendant at any church. Said he : "I do not
go to church because I hear things said there which I do not
approve." The reverend gentleman was forced to join in
the general laugh which was raised at his expense.

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 239

Two extracts from General Banks' letters, written to me
during the war may give an idea of his characteristics in his
maturer years.

HEADQUARTERS, CAMP AT DAMSTOWN, MD.,

October 15, 1861.
[Y DEAR SIR : —

I received your letter of the 8th inst . . . and also one
of an earlier date. . . .

I am very glad to hear from you. I see few people and hear
little news from home. Newspapers I have little relish for
and scarcely time to read them, if I had.

I am glad to know that you contemplate the army for a
pursuit. Our people will in the end surrender all business
except that of the war, and that which pertains to the war.
Our country is in a sad condition. It is already clear that
the influence of France and England is against us. How
sadly all our anticipations in regard to the war have failed
us, — the insurrection of the blacks, the material deficiencies
of the South, their want of men, and worst of all the friend-
ship or the indifference of England. We have now, or shall
have by and by to do what we should have done at the start,
rely upon ourselves and prepare for our work upon a scale
proportionate to its magnitude. It would amuse you to know
how far the highest civil authority is subordinated to military
direction. I do not doubt in the slightest degree the success
of the Government in the end, but it grieves me to see how
slow we have been and still are in comprehension and
preparation.

This continent is just as important to England and France
as it is to us. It is hardly to be doubted that they will post-
pone all international questions, and secure what has never
before been offered to them — a controlling foothold here.
How many times I have spoken to you in the old Executive

240 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Chamber of the importance to the whole world of the posses-
sion of Mexico — and of the power it would infallibly give on
this continent, as in Europe to those who possessed it. And
now Spain, France and England are there. " Birnam Wood
has to great Dunsinane come." There is but one remedy
for us. Every male creature born and unborn must become
a soldier. Soldiers do not criticise, so you must consider this
Private. And believe me very truly yours, etc.

N. P. BANKS.

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF,

New Orleans, 2.7 Deer. 1863.
MY DEAR SIR : —

I have written to the President upon the subject of a free
State organization in Louisiana. It appears quite certain to
me that the course pursued here by the officers to whom the
matter is entrusted will not lead to an early or a certain result.
It will not be accomplished sooner than August or Septem-
ber, and then will be involved in the struggles of the Presi-
dential contest, and very likely share the fate of that struggle.
It certainly ought not to be dependent upon that issue, and
settled, not only independent of it, but before it opens. It
can be easily done, in March. A Free State government
upon the basis of immediate emancipation can be acquired as
early as March with the general consent of the People, and
without any material opposition, in such a manner as to draw
after it all the Southern States, on the same basis, and by
the same general consent. But it cannot be done in the man-
ner now proposed here. It is upon this subject that I have
written the President. Three months ago I wrote him upon
the same idea but did not send my letter. Subsequent reflec-
tion and inquiry have made the theory so clear to mind that
I felt impelled to put my views before him. I write this as
from the request of my previous letter you may have spoken

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN

241

to him upon the subject of the Depart' t and the reorganiza-
tion of the State. The election of next year does not seem
as clear to me as it appears to you. I fancy it to be a struggle
between the Democratic Party, backed by the entire power of
the regular army and the People. It will be a contest of
great violence.

********

The report of General Hallock is singularly incorrect, in
its references to the Department — so much so that it is im-
possible to attribute them to anything else but misapprehen-
sion of facts. I refer to that which relates to Galveston, and
the movement against Port Hudson in April. If it were not
so palpable, I shd think the Department hostile & shd be very
glad to know if you see or hear anything to indicate such
feeling towards me. General Wilson would probably know
the facts.

The Austrian Consul here, said to me the other day that
he was confident that Maximilian would not go to Mexico.
He is a sensible and well informed man, and I have confi-
dence in his opinion. I shall send you by Satds mail three
despatches from Europe of recent date.

Very truly yours,

N. P. BANKS.

M. G. C.

HON. GEO. S. BOUTWELL.

As the conclusion of my remarks upon General Banks, I
refer to. my final and unexaggerated estimate of General
Banks as given in the chapter on the Legislature of 1849
(Chapter XIV).

GENERAL SHERMAN, GENERAL SHERIDAN AND GENERAL
GRANT

The death of General Sherman removed the last member
of the triumvirate of soldiers who achieved the highest dis-

242 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

tinction in the Civil War. In the Senate one speaker gave
him the highest place, but on the contrary, I cannot rank
him above either Grant or Sheridan. When we consider the
vastness of the command with which Grant was entrusted
through a period of more than a year, the magnitude and
success of his operations, and the tenacity with which he
prosecuted all his varied undertakings, it must appear that
neither Sherman nor Sheridan was entitled to the position of
a rival. As to Sherman, I can say from a long and intimate
acquaintance with him, and under circumstances when his
real feeling would have been disclosed, that he never assumed
an equality with Grant.

As between Sherman and Sheridan it is not easy to settle
the question of pre-eminence. For myself the test would be
this : Assume that Grant had disappeared during the Battles
of the Wilderness, would the fortunes of the country have
been best promoted, probably, by the appointment of Sher-
man or Sheridan ? I cannot now say what my opinion would
have been in 1864, but I should now have pronounced for
Sheridan. He was more cool and careful in regard to the
plan of operations and equally bold and vigorous in execution.
General Grant expressed the opinion to me in conversation
that Sheridan was the best officer in the army. He spoke of
his care and coolness in the preparation of his plans and his
celerity in execution. Of " the younger set of officers " he
placed Ames (Adelbert) as the most promising.

In one of my last conversations with Sheridan he expressed
the opinion that the improvement in the material of war was
so great that nations could not make war, such would be the
destruction of human life.

Upon his return from Germany at the end of the Franco-
Prussian War, he spoke very disparagingly of the military
movements and among several things he said that the French
forces were placed where the Germans would have dictated

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 243

had they had the power. He added that either of our armies
at the close of the war could have marched over the country
in defiance of both the French and German forces combined.
This was a rash remark, probably; a remark which he could
not justify upon the facts. Without intending to betray any
confidence, the remark, as coming through me, got into the
newspapers. Sheridan with a skill superior to that of poli-
ticians caused the announcement to be made that General
Sheridan had never had any conversation with Governor
Boutwell in regard to the Franco-Prussian War.

At the end it may be claimed justly, that they were three
great soldiers — that they served the country with equal fidel-
ity— that they lived and acted without the manifestation in
either of a feeling of rivalry, and that they earned the public
gratitude.

The death of General Sherman was followed by two con-
tradictory statements from his sons. The younger, Tecum-
seh, is reported as saying that his father was never a Catholic,
while the older, Thomas, who is a priest of the Order of
Jesuits, has stated over his signature that his father was
baptized as a Catholic, was married as a Catholic, and that
he had heard him say often, " that if there was any true
religion it was the Catholic."

All this may be true and yet General Sherman may not
have been a Catholic. His baptism may have been without
his consent or knowledge, his marriage by the Catholic
Church may have been in deference to his wife's wishes, and
because he was wholly indifferent to the matter, and the re-
mark may have been made in the impression that there was
no true religion, and that the Catholic was as likely, or even
more likely to be true, than any other.

The statement made by Thomas puts an imputation upon
General Sherman that he ought not to bear. Of the thou-
sands that one may meet in a lifetime, General Sherman

244 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

was among the freest from anything in the nature of hypoc-
risy or dissimulation. Of those who knew him intimately
after the close of the war there are but few, probably, who
did not hear him speak with hostility and bitterness of the
Catholic Church. For myself I can say that I heard him
speak in terms of contempt of the church. On one occasion
with reference to fasts and abstinence from meat on Friday,
he said:

" I know better than these priests what I want to eat."
General Sherman was not a friend to the Catholic Church
in the last years of his life and there is no honor in the attempt
to enroll his name among its devotees now that he is dead
and cannot speak for himself.

SECRETARY WINDOM

Funeral services were performed February 2, 1891, at the
Church of the Covenant in Washington in honor of Mr.
Windom, late Secretary of the Treasury. He made a good
record, if not a distinguished one. As a member of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate he was noted for
fairness, for freedom from bitterness of opinion upon party
questions, and for good sense in action.

He was indisposed to take responsibility and he went no
farther than the case in hand seemed to require. As the
head of the Treasury he was anxious to gather opinions upon
matters of general public interest, and it was in his nature
to strive to accommodate his action to the public opinion, if
he could do so without serious consequences. He worked
within narrow limits, the limits set by business and politics.
Of enemies he had but few — of warm friends but few—
the many had confidence in his integrity in the affairs of
government, and in his ability to guide those affairs in or-
dinary times.

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 245

JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

In a number of the Edinburgh Review is an article on
James Russell Lowell in which the writer errs widely in two
particulars as to the effect of the " Biglow Papers." The
writer's name is not given, but he is not an American and
he is ignorant, probably, of America as it was from 1830 to
1850. When the " Biglow Papers " appeared, I was a
Democrat, and I am quite sure that the publication produced
no effect not even the least, upon the opinions of Democrats
or the action of the Democratic Party. Upon my knowledge
of the Democratic Party I can say with confidence that the
writer is in error when he says: " He (Lowell) converted
many bigoted Northern Democrats to a course of action in
conflict with their old party relations and apparent interests."

For this broad statement there is no evidence. The first
break came in 1848 and it was due to rivalries in the Demo-
cratic Party. If the " Biglow Papers " played any part it
was too unimportant to produce an appreciable result. They
were treated as a fortunate jeu df esprit that everybody en-
joyed, but the Democratic Party did not change its policy
nor did it lose adherents. The Mexican War was prosecuted
and bigotry political and religious continued to flourish.
They may have contributed though, insensibly, to a public
opinion that became formidable in the end but the effect was
not as perceptible as was the effect of Garrison's legend that
slavery was a covenant with hell and a league with death,
which had its place at the head of the Liberator through suc-
cessive years. Nor do I believe that " it revolutionized the
tone of Northern society." Indeed, there is a " tone " of
Northern society that has not been revolutionized to this
day. The South is still the land of gentle birth. The slave-
holder still lives as a man of breeding and the owner of es-
tates. The negro is still of an inferior caste and in some

246 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

circles the days of slavery were the great days of the Republic.
When the " Biglow Papers " appeared Mr. Lowell had not
achieved distinction. Society did not know him to follow him.
It cared nothing for what he thought, and it was only amused
by what he said. The Lowell of 1840 was not the Lowell
of 1890. Nor can any series of statements be more un-
truthful and absurd than the statements of the writer that
" thenceforth it became creditable to advocate abolition in
drawing rooms, and to preach it from fashionable city pul-
pits to congregations paying fancy prices for their pews. In
the workshops, the barrooms and other popular resorts the
laugh was turned against the slave-owners; the ground was
prepared for the popular enthusiasm which recruited the
armies that exhausted the South, and Lowell must share with
Lincoln and Grant the glory of the crowning victories."

If any work of romance contains more fiction in the same
space, it is my fortune not to have seen that work. The cir-
culation of the Boston Courier in which the papers were
printed was very limited. It did not go into barrooms nor
into workshops. It was read chiefly by the converted and
semi-converted abolitionists. As to fashionable pulpits
thenceforth preaching abolition it is to be said that there
was only one leading pulpit, Theodore Parker's pulpit, in
which abolitionism was tolerated until years after the ap-
pearance of the " Biglow Papers." As to society, it is to
be said that in the Fifties Charles Sumner, a Senator, was
ostracized for his opinions upon slavery.

It is nearer the truth to say that what passes for society
in New England never tolerated abolitionists nor encouraged
abolitionism.

The one writing which in an historical point of view con-
tributed most largely to recruit the armies of the Republic
during the rebellion was Webster's speech in reply to Hayne.
The closing paragraph of that speech was in the schoolbooks

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 247

of the free States, and it had been declaimed from many a
schoolhouse stage.

Lowell deserves credit for what he did. He chose his
place early and firmly on the anti-slavery side, but it is
absurd and false to say that thenceforward and therefor aboli-
tion became popular and abolitionists the sought for or the
accepted by society. Mr. Lowell was the son of a Boston
Jnitarian clergyman. In the Forties he had not gained stand-
ing ground for himself, to omit all thought of his ability to
irry an unpopular cause.

Indeed, up to the time of the repeal of the Missouri Com-
promise the whole array of anti-slavery writers and speakers
had not accomplished the results which the reviewer attributes
to the " Biglow Papers."

Indeed, should there be a signal reform in the fashion and
cost of ladies' dresses it might with equal propriety be at-
tributed to Butler's poem " Nothing to Wear."

GENERAL GARFIELD AND GENERAL ROSECRANS

The statement is revived that General Garfield, when chief
of the staff of General Rosecrans in the campaign which
ended at Chickamauga was false to Rosecrans. The allega-
tion and the fact are that he wrote to Mr. Chase, then in Mr.
Lincoln's Cabinet, that Rosecrans was incompetent to the
command. Garfield's statements, as I recall the letters, were
free from malice and the professional and ethical question is,
" Was Garfield justified as a citizen and soldier, in giving his
opinion to the Administration ? " His view of Rosecrans was
confirmed by events, and it may be assumed that the opinion
was free from any improper influence when the letters were
written. On this assured basis of facts I cannot doubt that
Garfield did only what was his duty. Neither the President
nor the War Department could obtain specific knowledge of
the officers in command except through associates and sub-

248 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ordinates unless they trusted to newspapers and casual visitors
to the army. The struggle was a desperate one and the vol-
unteer army was composed of men who were citizens before
they were soldiers and they remained citizens when they be-
came soldiers. Garfield was of the citizen soldiery and to
him and to the country the etiquette of the army and the
etiquette of society were subordinate to the fortunes of the
nation. Of General Rosecrans' unfitness for any important
command there can be no doubt. After the disaster at
Chickamauga, Rosecrans was relieved and General Thomas
was put in command and General Grant was ordered to the
field. He met Rosecrans at Nashville where they had an
interview. From General Grant I received the statement that
Rosecrans had sound views as to the means of relieving the
army; "And" said General Grant "my wonder was that
he had not put them in execution."

This one fact expresses enough of the weak side of Rose-
crans as a military leader to warrant the opinion given to
Chase by Garfield, and that opinion having been formed upon
a knowledge of facts and of Rosecrans as a military man and
not from prejudice or rivalry, Garfield should be honored for
his course, rather than condemned.

GEORGE BANCROFT

The death of Mr. Bancroft at the age of more than ninety
years removes one of the few men in private life who can
be ranked as personages. He was, perhaps, the only person
in private life whose death would have received a semi-public
recognition from any of the rulers of Europe. Such a rec-
ognition was accorded by the Emperor of Germany, and
chiefly, as it is understood, on account of the friendship which
existed between Mr. Bancroft and the grandfather of the
present Emperor.

Mr. Bancroft's long and successful career as a writer and

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 249

diplomatist would seem to be evidence of the presence of
qualities of a high order, and yet no one who was near him
accepted that opinion. His conversation was not instructive,
certainly not in later years, nor was he an original thinker
upon any subject. He was an enthusiast in politics in early
and middle life, and while his mental faculties remained un-
impaired his interest in political movements was great — and
usually it was in sympathy with the Democratic Party. He
was an adhesive man in politics, capable of appearing to be
reconciled to the success of his opponents and ready to accept
favors from them in the way of office and honors and yet
without in fact committing himself to their policy.

He was a laborious student, and he had access to standard
and in many particulars to original authorities. At the com-
mencement of his history he erred in denying with much con-
fidence the claim of the visits of the Northmen to this conti-
nent in the ninth and tenth centuries.

That early claim seems to be supported by evidence which
is nearly, if not absolutely, conclusive. Of all his chapters
that on Washington was most attractive to me and it is quite
the equal of Mr. Everett's oration, that yielded a large sum
of money, that the orator applied to the purchase of Mount
Vernon. Mr. Bancroft aimed to illustrate his history by an
exhibition of philosophy. This feat in literature can be ac-
complished successfully only by a great mind. First the
events, then the reasons for or sources of, then the conse-
quences, then the wisdom or unwisdom of the human agencies
that have had part in weaving the web, are all to be considered.
Examples are Gibbon and Buckle.

GENERAL GRANT AS A MAN AND A FRIEND

The simplicity of General Grant's nature, his frankness in
all his intercourse with his fellow men, his freedom from
duplicity were not touched unfavorably in any degree by his

250 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

rapid advancement from the ordinary pursuits of ordinary men
to the highest places in military and civil life. There was
never in his career any ostentatious display of power, never
any exercise of wanton or unnecessary authority.

He disliked controversy even in conversation, and his ret-
icence when not in the company of habitual companions and
trusted friends was due in part to his rule of life on that
subject.

From the many years of my acquaintance with General
Grant I cannot recall an instance of a reference to theological
opinions upon controverted topics of faith.

The humanitarian side of his nature was strong, but it
was not ostentatiously exhibited — indeed it was concealed
rather than proclaimed. It was made known to me by his
interest and by his lack of interest in appointments in the
Treasury Department.

Of salaried places he controlled the appointment of General
Pleasanton as commissioner of internal revenue, and of that
only.

On several occasions he suggested the designation of a
person named for employment in some menial and non-
salaried service. The person named was in every instance the
widow or daughter of some soldier of the war. At intervals,
not widely separated, he would bring the subject to my notice.
Thus, without a command, I was forced to follow his sug-
gestion.

The purity of his conversation might have been a worthy
example for the most carefully trained person in etiquette and
morals. My intercourse with General Grant was intimate
through many years, and never on any occasion did he repeat
a story or a phrase that contained a profane remark or carried
a vulgar allusion. He had a relish for untainted wit and for
genial humor, and for humor he had some capacity. He was
not an admirer of Mr. Sumner and a trace of irony may be

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 251

found in a remark attributed to him: When some one said:
" Mr. Sumner does not believe in the Bible," General Grant

tid: " No, I suppose not, he didn't write it."
General Grant was attracted by a horse driven by a butcher.

[e purchased the animal at the cost of five hundred dollars.

[e invited Senator Conkling to a drive behind the new

>rse. The Senator criticised the animal, and said : "I
think I should prefer the five hundred dollars to the
horse." "That is what the butcher thought," said General
Grant.

He was sincere and devoted in his friendships, but when he
discovered that his confidence had been misplaced, a recon-
:iliation became impossible. With him there could be no

muine forgiveness, and his nature could not tolerate any

^gree of hypocrisy. All voluntary intercourse on his part

id come to an end.
There was a time when a demand for my removal from
office was made by some Republican Senators and by the New
York Herald, to which he gave no attention.

The imperturbability of spirit which was indicated in his
conversation and movements was deep-seated in his nature.
I was with him in a night trip to New York; when the
train was derailed in part. As the wheels of the car struck
the sleepers, he grasped the back of the seat in front of him
and remained motionless, while many of the passengers added
to their peril by abandoning their seats.

On a time General Grant received a pair of large roan
horses from his farm in Missouri. He invited me to take
one of the horses and join him in a ride on the saddle. I
declined the invitation. I was then invited to take a seat with
him in an open wagon. When we were descending a slight
declivity one of the horses laid his weight on the pole and
broke it, although the parts did not separate. General Grant

)laced his foot upon the wheel, thus making a brake and

25 2 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

saving us from a disaster. General Grant's faculties were at
command on the instant and under all circumstances.

When the Ku Klux organizations were active in the South,
the President gave members of Congress to understand that
he would send a message with a recommendation for punitive
legislation. Upon reflection he came to doubt the wisdom of
the measure, especially as the use of the military forces at
New Orleans and elsewhere had been criticised in the country.
While the subject was thus undisposed of, I received a
message from the President which ended with a request that
I should accompany him to the Capitol. On the way he in-
formed me that he doubted the wisdom of a message and
that he intended to so inform those to whom he had given
encouragement. At the interview which followed several
members who were present urged adherence to the original
policy. While the discussion was going on, the President re-
turned to his original opinion and wrote a message which was
transmitted to the Congress after one or two verbal changes
that may have been suggested by Secretary Fish or Secretary
Robeson.

General Grant's sense of justice was exact and he did not
spare himself in his criticisms. He said to me in conversa-
tion, what is indicated in his Memoirs, that he assumed some
responsibility upon himself for the removal of General War-
ren at Five Forks. He had known that General Warren was
disqualified by natural defects from command in the field,
and hence that it was an error on his part that he had not
assigned Warren to duty at a station.

Again he said to me that his final campaign against Vicks-
burg was the only one of his campaigns that he could not
criticise adversely when tested by reflection and experience.

During my term of service an appointment of some im-
portance was made by the collector of New York. The ap-
pointment was approved by me. In the meantime some op-

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN

253

ments of the appointee approached the President. Upon his
rgestion the appointment was suspended. After a delay I
:eived a letter from the President dated June 28, 1869, in
rhich he says : " If it should still be the pleasure of Mr. Grin-
nell to confer the appointment before tendered, let it be so, so

r

far as I am concerned. I am not willing knowingly to do
anyone injustice as I now am led to believe I may have done
in the case of General Egan."

In the month of December, 1884, there were paragraphs in

254 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the newspapers which justified the apprehension that General
Grant was suffering from a cancer. In the late days of that
month, I called upon him at his house in New York. He
was then in good health, apparently. I found him in his
library engaged in the preparation of articles for the Century
Magazine. In the days of our more intimate acquaintance he
had said to me that it was his purpose to leave the history of
his campaigns to others. He referred to that remark and said
that his financial embarrassments had forced him to change
his purpose. As I was about to leave, he referred to a diffi-
culty in his throat that he had noticed for about six months.
He expressed the fear that he had neglected it too long. I
avoided any serious remark in reply. Soon after my return
to Groton my daughter received a letter from him, which, in
photographic copy, I here give. It contains his parting words
to me and to my family. It is a precious souvenir of my
acquaintance and service with a man who was great and good
above any estimate that the world has placed upon him.

I called upon him in the month of June. He rose to re-
ceive me. His power of speech was much impaired, and our
interview was brief. The final parting was a sad event to me.

* GRANT AS A SOLDIER

When General Grant came before the public, and into a
position that compelled notice, he was called to meet a diffi-
culty that his predecessor in the office of President had en-
countered and overcome successfully.

An opinion existed in the cultivated classes, an opinion
that was especially local in the East, that a great place could
not be filled wisely and honorably, unless the occupant had
had the benefit of a university training.

Of such training Mr. Lincoln was destitute, utterly, and
the training which General Grant had received at West
* From the New York Independent.

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 255

Foint, where it was his fortune to attain only to advanced
standing in the lower half of his class, was at the best the
training thought to be necessary for the vocation of a soldier.
That minority of critics overlooked the fact that the world
had set the seal of its favorable judgment upon Cromwell,
Washington, Franklin, Napoleon, Hamilton and others who
had not the advantages of university training. Napoleon in
a military school and Hamilton in Columbia College for the
term, of a year, more or less, did not rank among university
men.

That minority of critics did not realize the fact that col-
leges and universities cannot make great men. Great men
are independent of colleges and universities. In truth, a
really great man is supreme over colleges and universities.

Lincoln was such a man in speech, in power of argument,
in practical wisdom, by which he was enabled to act fear-
lessly and with success in the great affairs of administration.

Such a man was General Grant on the military side of his
career. With great military capacity, he was destitute of
the military spirit. During the period of his retirement from
the army after the close of the Mexican War he gave no at-
tention to military affairs. When he came to Washington
in 1865 as General of the Army, he was not the owner of a
work on war nor on the military art or science.

His military capacity was an endowment. It might have
been impaired or crippled by the training of a university ; but
it is doubtful whether it could have been improved thereby,
and it is certain that it was, in its quality, quite outside of the
possibilities of university training.

As General Grant approached the end of his career the
voice of the critics, who judged men by the testimony of
college catalogues and the decorations of learned societies,
was heard less frequently; and his death, followed by the
publication of his memoirs, written when the hand of death

256 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

was upon him, silenced the literary critics at once and for-
ever.

Since the month of July, 1885, there has appeared on the
other side of the Atlantic a set of military critics, of whom
General Wolseley, Commander of the British Army, must be
treated as the chief, who deny to General Grant the posses-
sion of superior military qualities, and who assert that Gen-
eral Lee was his superior in the contest which they carried
on from February, 1864, to April, 1865. On this side of
the Atlantic there is toleration, if not active and open sup-
port of General Wolseley's opinion.

General Wolseley is entitled to an opinion and to the ex-
pression of his opinion; but his authority cannot be ad-
mitted. On the practical side of military affairs his ex-
perience is a limited experience only.

It is not known that General Wolseley ever, in any
capacity, engaged in any battle that can be named in com-
parison with the battles of the Wilderness, with Spottsyl-
vania, with Cold Harbor, or the battle of Five Forks; and
it is certain that it was never his fortune to put one hundred
thousand men, or even fifty thousand men, into the wage
of battle and thus assume the responsibility of the con-
test.

It was never the necessity of the situation that General i
Lee should assume the offensive, and in the two instances j
where he did assume the offensive his campaigns were fail-
ures; and can any one doubt that if General Grant had
been in command either at Antietam or Gettysburg, the war i
would then have come to an end on the left bank of the
Potomac River by the capture of Lee's army? If this be j
so, then Lee's undertaking was a hazard for which there I
could have been no justifying reason, and his escape from ;
destruction was due to the inadequacy of the men in com-
mand of the Northern armies. Following this remark I

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 257

ought to say that General Meade was a brave and patriotic
officer, but he lacked the qualities which enable a man to act
promptly and wisely in great exigencies. While General
Lee was acting on the defensive did he engage in and suc-
cessfully execute any strategic movement that can be com-
pared with Grant's campaign of May, 1863, through Mis-
sissippi and to the rear of Vicksburg? Or can General
Wolseley cite an instance of individual genius and power
more conspicuous than the relief of our besieged army at
Chattanooga, followed by the sanguinary battle of Mis-
sionary Ridge, the capture of six thousand prisoners, forty
pieces of artillery, seven thousand stands of small arms and
large quantities of other material of war ?

During the period of reconstruction Alexander H. Stevens
was examined by the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives as to the condition and purposes
of the South. When the examination was over I asked him
when he came to the conclusion that the South was to be
defeated. He said: " In the year 1862." I then said:
" In that year you had your successes. What were the
grounds of your conclusions ? " In reply he said : " It was
then that I first realized that the North was putting its whole
force into the contest, and I knew that in such a contest we
were to be destroyed."

If I were to imagine a reason, or to suggest an excuse for
General Lee's two unsuccessful aggressive campaigns, I
should assume that, simultaneously with Mr. Stevens, he
had reached the conclusion that time was on the side of the
North, and that the Fabian policy must fail in the end.

In an aggressive movement there was one chance of suc-
cess. A victory and capture of Philadelphia, Baltimore and
Washington might lead to an arrangement by which the
Confederacy would be recognized, or a restoration of the
Union secured upon a basis acceptable to the South. A

258 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

desperate undertaking, no doubt, but it is difficult to suggest
a more adequate reason for the conduct of General Lee.

I cannot, as a civilian, assume to give a judgment which
shall be accepted by any one, upon the relative standing of
military men; but I cannot accept, without question, the de-
cision of a military man who never won a great victory in
a great battle,, upon a chieftain who fought many great bat-
tles and never lost one.

I end my observations upon General Grant as a soldier
by the relation of an incident in my acquaintance with Gen-
eral Sherman, which was intimate during the four years that
I was at the head of the Treasury Department.

It was my custom in those years to spend evenings at Gen-
eral Sherman's, where we indulged ourselves in conversa-
tion and in the enjoyment of the game of billiards. Our
conversations were chiefly upon the war. In those conver-
sations General Grant's name and doings were the topics
often. General Sherman never instituted a comparison be-
tween General Grant and any one else, nor did he ever ex-
press an opinion of General Grant as a military leader; but
his conversation always assumed that General Grant was
superior to every other officer, himself, General Sherman,
included.

In concurrence with the opinion of General Sherman the
friends of General Grant may call an array of witnesses who,
both from numbers and character, are entitled to large con-
fidence.

During the four years of the Civil War more than two
million men served in the Northern Army. Many of them,
more than a majority of them, probably, served for at least
three years each. With an unanimity that was never dis-
turbed by an audible voice of dissent, the two million vet-
erans gave to General Grant supremacy over all the other
officers under whom they had served. With like unanimity

REMINISCENCES OF PUBLIC MEN 259

the chief officers of the army assigned the first place to
General Grant, and never in any other war of modern times
has there been equal opportunity for the application of a
satisfactory test to leaders. In all the wars in which Eng-
land has been engaged since the fall of Napoleon, except,
possibly, the Crimean War, the opposing forces have been
composed of inferior races of men. The fields of contest
have been in India, Egypt and South Africa. From such
contests no satisfactory opinion can be formed as to the
qualities of the leaders of the victorious forces.

In our Civil War the men and the officers were of the
same race in the main, and the educated officers had been
alike trained at West Point. Except in numbers, the armies of
the North and the South were upon an equality, and in all the
great contests, the numbers engaged were equal substantially.
The quality of the men and officers may be gauged and
measured with accuracy from the fact that at Shiloh, in
the Wilderness and at Gettysburg the same fields were con-
tested for two and three continuous days. It has been said
of Mr. Adams that when an English sympathizer with the
South lauded the bravery of the Southern Army, Mr. Adams
replied : " Yes, they are brave men ; they are my country-
men."

The Southern Army was composed of brave men and its
officers were qualified by training and experience to com-
mand any army and to contest for supremacy on any field.

My readers should not assume that I have avoided a dis-
cussion of the characteristics of General Grant in his per-
sonality and as a civil magistrate.

The voice of those who in 1872 denied his ability and
questioned his integrity is no longer heard; but there are
those at home and abroad who either teach or accept the
notion that General Grant has become great historically by
baving been the favorite of fortune.

XL

ELAINE AND CONKLING AND THE REPUB-
LICAN CONVENTION OF 1880

THE controversy between Mr. Elaine and Mr. Conkling
on the floor of the House of Representatives in the
Thirty-ninth Congress was fraught with serious
consequences to the contestants, and it may have changed the
fortunes of the Republican Party.

Mr. Conkling was a member of the Thirty-seventh Con-
gress, but he was defeated as a candidate for the Thirty-
eighth. He was returned for the Thirty-ninth Congress.
During the term of the Thirty-eighth Congress he was com-
missioned by the Department of War as judge-advocate,
and assigned for duty to the prosecution of Major Haddock
and the trial of certain soldiers known as " bounty jumpers."
That duty he performed.

When the army bill was before the House in April, 1866,
Mr. Conkling moved to strike out the section which made
an appropriation for the support of the provost-marshal-
general. General Grant, then in command of the army,
had given an opinion, in a letter dated March 19, 1866, that
that office in the War Department was an unnecessary office.
Mr. Conkling supported his motion in a speech in which he
said: "My objection to this section is that it creates an
unnecessary office for an undeserving public servant; it
fastens, as an incubus upon the country, a hateful instru-
ment of war, which deserves no place in a free government
in a time of peace."

260

BLAINE AND CONKLING 261

Thus Mr. Conkling not only assailed the office, he assailed
the officer, and in a manner calculated to kindle resentment,
especially in an officer of high rank. General James B. Fry
was provost-marshal-general. He was able to command
the friendship of Mr. Elaine, and on the thirtieth day of
April, Mr. Elaine read from his seat in the House a letter
from General Fry addressed to himself. Thus Mr. Elaine
endorsed the contents of the letter.

In that letter General Fry made three specific charges
against Mr. Conkling, but he made no answer to the arraign-
ment that Mr. Conkling had made of him and of his office.
Thus he avoided the issue that Mr. Conkling had raised.
His charges were these:

1. That Mr. Conkling had received a fee for the prose-
cution of Major Haddock, and that the same had been
received improperly, if not illegally.

2. That in the discharge of his duties he had not acted
in good faith, and that he had been zealous in preventing the
prosecution of deserters at Utica.

3. That he had notified the War Department that the
Provost-Marshal in Western New York needed legal advice,
and that thereupon he received an appointment.

The fourth charge was an inference, and it fell with the
allegation.

Upon the reading of the letter a debate arose which fell
below any recognized standard of Congressional contro-
versy and which rendered a reconciliation impossible.

At that time my relations to Mr. Conkling were not inti-
mate, and I am now puzzled when I ask myself the question :
" Why did Mr. Conkling invite my opinion as to his further
action in the matter ? " That he did, however ; and I advised
him to ask for a committee. A committee of five was
appointed, three Republicans and two Democrats. Mr. Shell-
abarger was chairman, and Mr. Windom was a member.

262 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The report was a unanimous report. The committee criti-
cised the practice of reading letters in the House, which
reflected upon the House, or upon the acts or speeches of any
member.

At considerable length of statement and remarks, the com-
mittee exonerated Mr. Conkling from each and every one of
the charges, and, with emphasis, the proceedings on the part
of General Fry were condemned. The most important of the
resolutions reported by the committee was in these words :

Resolved, That all the statements contained in the letter
of General James B. Fry to Hon. James G. Elaine, a member
of this House, bearing date the 2/th of April, A. D. 1866, and
which was read in this House the 3Oth day of April, A. D. 1866,
in so far as such statements impute to the Hon. Roscoe Conk-
ling, a member of this House, any criminal, illegal, un-
patriotic, or otherwise improper conduct, or motives, either
as to the matter of his procuring himself to be employed by
the Government of the United States in the prosecution of
military offences in the State of New York, in the manage-
ment of such prosecutions, in taking compensation therefor,
or in any other charge, are wholly without foundation truth,
and for their publication there were, in the judgment of this
House, no facts connected with said prosecutions furnishing
either a palliative or an excuse.

The controversy thus opened came to an end only with
Mr. Conkling's death. It is not known to me that Mr.
Conkling and Mr. Elaine were unfriendly previous to the
encounter of April, 1866. That they could have lived on
terms of intimacy, or even of ordinary friendship, is not
probable. Yet it may not be easy to assign a reason for
such an estrangement unless it may be found in the word in-
compatibility. My relations with Mr. Elaine were friendly,

BLAINE AND CONKLING 263

reserved, and as to his aspirations for the Presidency, it was
well understood by him that I could not be counted among
his original supporters.

Only on one occasion was the subject ever mentioned.
About two weeks before the Republican Convention of 1884,
I met Mr. Elaine in Lafayette Square. He beckoned me to a
seat on a bench. He opened the conversation by saying that
he was glad to have some votes in the convention, but that
he did not wish for the nomination. He expressed a wish to
defeat the nomination of President Arthur, and he then said
the ticket should be General Sherman and Robert Lincoln.
Most assuredly the nomination of that ticket would have
been followed by an election. To me General Sherman had
one answer to the suggestion: "I am not a statesman; my
brother John is. If any Sherman is to be nominated, he is
the man."

I did not then question, nor do I now question, the sin-
cerity of the statement that Mr. Elaine then made. My
acquaintance with Mr. Elaine began with our election to
the Thirty-eighth Congress, and it continued on terms of
reserved friendship to the end of his life. That reserve
was not due to any defect in his character of which I had
knowledge, nor to the statements concerning him that were
made by others, but to an opinion that he was not a person
whose candidacy I was willing to espouse in advance of
his nomination. I ought to say that in my intercourse
with Mr. 'Elaine he was frank and free from dissimula-
tion.

I was on terms of intimacy with Mr. Conkling from the
disastrous April, 1866, to the' end of his life. Hence it was
that I ventured upon an experiment which a less well-assured
friend would have avoided. I assumed that Mr. Elaine would
close the controversy at the first opportunity. It may be
said of Mr. Elaine that, while he had great facility for get-

264 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ting into difficulties, he had also a strong desire to get out
of difficulties, and great capacity for the accomplishment of
his purposes in that direction.

On a time, and years previous to 1880, I put the matter
before Mr. Conkling, briefly, upon personal grounds, and
upon public grounds in a party sense. He received the sug-
gestion without any manifestation of feeling, and with great
candor he said : " That attack was made without any provo-
cation by me as against Mr. Elaine, and when I was suffering
more from other causes than I ever suffered at any other time,
and I shall never overlook it."

General Grant's strength was so overmastering in 1868
and 1872 that the controversy between Elaine and Conkling
was of no importance to the Republican Party. The disap-
pearance of the political influence of General Grant in 1876
revived the controversy within the Republican Party, and
made the nomination of either Elaine or Conkling an impos-
sibility. Its evil influence extended to the election, and it put
in jeopardy the success of General Hayes. At the end, Mr.
Conkling did not accept the judgment of the Electoral Com-
mission as a just judgment, and he declined to vote for its
affirmation.

I urged Mr. Conkling to sustain the action of the com-
mission, and upon the ground that we had taken full respon-
sibility when we agreed to the reference and that there was
then no alternative open to us. I did not attempt to solve the
problem of the election of 1876 either upon ethical or political
grounds. The evidence was more conclusive than satisfac-
tory that there had been wrong-doing in New York, in Ore-
gon, in New Orleans, and not unlikely in many other places.
As a measure of peace, when ascertained justice had become
an impossibility, I was ready to accept the report of the
commission, whether it gave the Presidency to General
Hayes or to Mr. Tilden. The circumstances were such that

BLAINE AND CONKLING 265

success before the commission did not promise any advan-
tage to the successful party.

For the moment, I pass by the Convention of 1880 and the
events of the following year. In the year 1884 Mr. Conkling
was in the practice of his profession and enjoying therefrom
larger emoluments, through a series of years, than were ever
enjoyed by any other member of the American bar. He
once said to me : " My father would denounce me if he knew
what charges I am making." That conjecture may have
been well founded, for the father would not have been the
outcome of the period in which the son was living. The
father was an austere country judge, largely destitute of
the rich equipment for the profession for which the son was
distinguished. After the year 1881, when Mr. Conkling
gave himself wholly to the profession, Mr. Justice Miller
made this remark to me : " For the discussion of the law
and the facts of a case Mr. Conkling is the best lawyer who
comes into our court. "

If this estimate was trustworthy, then Mr. Conkling's
misgivings as to his charges may have been groundless. If
a rich man, whose property is in peril, whose liberty is
assailed, or whose reputation is threatened, will seek the
advice and aid of the leading advocate of the city, state, or
country, shall not the compensation be commensurate with
the stake that has been set up? Is it to be measured by the
per diem time pay of ordinary men ?

Whatever may have been Mr. Conkl ing's pecuniary inter-
ests or professional engagements in the year 1884, he found
time to take a quiet part in the contest of that year, and to
contribute to Mr. Elaine's defeat.

In the month of November, and after the election, I had
occasion to pass a Sunday in New York. It happened, and
by accident, that I met Mr. Conkling on Fifth Avenue.
After the formalities, he invited me to call with him upon

266 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. William K. Vanderbilt. Mr. Vanderbilt was absent
when we called. Upon his return, the election was the topic
of conversation. Mr. Vanderbilt said that he voted for
Garfield in 1880, but that he had not voted for Elaine. Mr.
Conkling expressed his regret that Mr. Elaine had come so
near a success, and he attributed it to the fact that he had
not anticipated the support which had been given to Elaine
by the Democratic Party.

On a time in the conversation Mr. Conkling said: "Mr.
Vanderbilt, why did you sell Maud S. ? "

Mr. Vanderbilt proceeded to give reasons. He had re-
ceived letters from strangers inquiring about her pedigree,
care, age, treatment, etc., which he could not answer without
more labor than he was willing to perform. As a final
reason, he said : " When I drive up Broadway, people do not
say, ' There goes Vanderbilt,' but they say, * There goes
Maud S.' "

When General Grant was on his journey around the world
I wrote him a letter occasionally, and occasionally I received
a letter in reply. In two of my letters I mentioned as a
fact what I then thought to be the truth, that there was a
very considerable public opinion in favor of his nomination
for President in 1880, and that upon his return to the country
some definite action on his part might be required. Upon
a recent examination of his letters, I find that they are free
from any reference to the Presidency. If Mr. Conkling,
General Logan, Mr. Cameron, and myself came to be con-
sidered the special representatives of General Grant at the
Chicago Convention of 1880, the circumstance was not due
to any designation by him prior to the Galena letter, of
which I am to speak and which was written while the
convention was in session, and when the contest between
the contending parties was far advanced.

Our title was derived from the constant support that we

ELAINE AND CONKLING 267

had given him through many years and from his constant
friendship for us through the same many years. We were
of the opinion then, and in that belief we never faltered,
lat the nomination and election of General Grant were the
jest security that could be had for the peace and prosperity
>f the country. That opinion was supported by an expressed
mblic sentiment in the conventions of New York, Pennsyl-
ia, and Illinois, and in other parts of the country there
/ere evidences of a disposition in the body of the people
support General Grant in numbers far in excess of the
:rength of the Republican Party.

The mass of the people were not disturbed by the thought
mt General Grant might become President a third time,
icy did not accept the absurd notion that experience,
successful experience, disqualified a man for further service,
[or did that apprehension influence any considerable num-
of the leaders. They demanded a transfer of power
ito new hands. This, unquestionably, was their right, and
is a majority of the convention, as the convention was con-
tituted finally, they were able to assert and to maintain their
ipremacy.

It is too late for complaints, and complaints were vain
rhen the causes were transpiring, but there were delegates
appeared in the convention as the opponents of General
rrant who had been elected upon the understanding that
icy were his friends. Upon this fact I hang a single obser-
vation. If there is a trust in human affairs that should be
reated as a sacred trust it is to be found in the duty that
irises from the acceptance of a representative office in mat-
ers of government. When a public opinion has been formed,
either in regard to men or to measures, whoever undertakes
to represent that opinion should do so in good faith.

To this rule there were many exceptions in the Republican
Convention of 1880, and it was no slight evidence of devo-

268 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

tion to the party and to the country when General Grant
and Mr. Conkling entered actively into the contest after the
fortunes of the party had been prostrated, apparently, by
the disaster in the State of Maine.

Of the many incidents of the convention no one is more
worthy of notice than the speech of Mr. Conkling when he
placed General Grant in nomination. Whatever he said
that was in support of his cause, affirmatively, was of the
highest order of dramatic eloquence. When he dealt with
his opponents, his speech was not advanced in quality and
its influence was diminished. His reference in his opening
sentence to his associates who had deserted General Grant:
" In obedience to instructions which I should never dare to
disregard," was tolerated even by his enemies; but his allu-
sion to Mr., Elaine in these words : " without patronage,
without emissaries, without committees, without bureaus,
without telegraph wires running from his house to this con-
vention, or running from his house anywhere," intensified
the opposition to General Grant.

In many particulars his speech is an unequaled analysis
of General Grant's character and career, presented in a most
attractive form. An extract may be tolerated from a speech
that can be read with interest even by those who are igno-
rant of the doings, or it may be, by those who have no
knowledge of the existence, of the convention :

" Standing on the highest eminence of human distinction,
modest, firm, simple, and self-poised, having filled all lands
with his renown, he has seen not only the high-born and the
titled, but the poor and the lowly, in the uttermost ends of
the earth, rise and uncover before him."

Mr. Conkling was the recognized leader of the three hun-
dred and six who constituted the compact body of the sup-
porters of General Grant.

BLAINE AND CONKLING 269

Suggestions were made that -the substitution of Mr. Conk-
ling's name for General Grant's name would give the nomi-
nation to Mr. Conkling, and there was a moment of time
when General Garfield anticipated or apprehended such a
result. There was, however, never a moment of time when
ch a result was possible. The three hundred and six
ould never have consented to the use of any name in
ace of General Grant's name unless General Grant's name
ere first withdrawn by his authority.
A firmer obstacle even would have been found in Mr.
nkling's sturdy refusal to allow the use of his name under
such circumstances. Among the friends of General Grant
e thought of such a proceeding was never entertained,
though the suggestion was made, but without authority,
obably, from those charged with the management of the
•ganizations engaged in the struggle.

After many years had passed, and the proceedings of the
nvention were well-nigh forgotten, Mr. John Russell
oung printed a letter in which he made the charge that
nkling, Cameron, Bout well, and Lincoln had concealed
contents of a letter from General Grant in which he
irected them as his representatives to withdraw his name
from the convention. Mr. Young was in error in two par-
ulars. Lincoln was not named in the letter. General
•an was the fourth person to whom the letter was ad-
dressed.

Young brought the letter from Galena, where Grant then
was, and he claims that the letter was addressed to himself.
General Frederick D. Grant, who was then at Chicago,
claims that the letter was addressed to him, and that, after
reading it, he handed it to Mr. Conkling.

As late as the first half of the year 1897, Mr. Conkling's
papers had not been examined carefully. The contents of
the letter are important, and for the present the evidence is

2 7o SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

circumstantial; but to me it is conclusive against Mr. Young's
statement that Conkling, Cameron, Logan, and Boutwell
were directed by General Grant to withdraw his name from
the convention. I cannot now say that I read the letter, but
of its receipt and the contents I had full knowledge, and I
referred to it in these words in a letter to my daughter dated
May 31, 1880:

" Grant sent for Young to visit him at Galena. Young
returned to-day, and says that Grant directed him to say to
Cameron, Logan, Conkling, and Boutwell that he should be
satisfied with whatever they may do."

Without any special recollection upon the point, the con-
clusion of reason is that my letter was written from a con-
versation with Young, and before I had knowledge of the
contents of Grant's letter. I may add, however, that his
letter produced no change in my opinion as to our authority
and duty in regard to Grant's candidacy. My mind never
departed for a moment from the idea that we were free,
entirely free, to continue the contest in behalf of General
Grant upon our own judgment.

Upon the views and facts already presented and with even
greater certainty upon the correspondence with General Fred-
erick D. Grant, I submit as the necessary conclusion of the
whole matter that the letter of General Grant of May, 1880,
did not contain any specific instructions, and especially that
it did not contain instructions for the withdrawal of his
name from the convention; in fine, that the further conduct
of the contest was left to the discretion and judgment of the
four men whom he had recognized as his representatives.

I annex the correspondence with General Frederick D.
Grant :

ELAINE AND CONKLING 271

BOSTON, MASS., May 28, 1897.
COL. FRED. D. GRANT, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Dear Sir: You will of course recall the fact that John
Russell Young, some months ago, made a public statement
in which he declared that he brought from Galena to Chicago,
during the session of the Republican Convention of 1880, a
letter from General Grant in which he gave specific directions
to Conkling, Cameron, and Boutwell to withdraw his name
as a candidate from the convention. Some months ago I had
some correspondence with A. R. Conkling, and also with
yourself, in regard to the contents of the letter written by
General Grant. Mr. A. R. Conkling sent me a copy of a
portion of a letter which, as he advised me, he had received
from you. A copy of that extract I herewith enclose. As
one of the friends of General Grant and as one of the persons
to whom bad faith was imputed by Mr. Young, it is my
purpose to place the matter before the public with such
evidence as I can command, for the purpose of showing the
character of the letter.

I wish to obtain from you such a statement as you are
willing to make, with the understanding that whenever the
case shall be presented to the public your letter may be used.

Aside from actual evidence tending to show that Young's
statement is erroneous, I cannot believe that General Grant
would have recognized as a friend either one of the persons
named, if his explicit instructions for the withdrawal of his
name had been made by him and disregarded by them.

Yours" very truly,

GEO. S. BOUTWELL.

25 EAST 620 STREET,
NEW YORK, May 30, 1897.

My Dear Senator: I received yesterday your letter of May
28th, in which you asked me what I remember about a letter

272 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

which my father, General Grant, wrote to his four leading
friends during the session of the Republican National Con-
vention at Chicago in 1880.

With reference to this matter my recollection is, that Mr.
John Russell Young, who had been visiting father in Galena,
brought from him a large sealed envelope, which he deliv-
ered to me at my home in Chicago, with directions from my
father that I should read the letter contained therein, and
then see that it was received safely by his four friends,
Senators Conkling, Bout well, Cameron, and Logan.

The substance of General Grant's letter was, that the per-
sonal feelings of partisans of the leading candidates had
grown to be so bitter, that it might become advisable for the
good of the Republican Party to select as their candidate
some one whose name had not yet been prominently before
the convention, and that he therefore wrote to say to those
who represented his interest in the convention, that it would
be quite satisfactory to him if they would confer with those
who represented the interests of Mr. Elaine and decided to
have both his name and Mr. Elaine's withdrawn from before
the convention.

I delivered in person this letter from my father, to Senator
Conkling — I do not know what disposition he made of it.

With highest regards, my dear Senator, for your family
and yourself, believe me, as ever,

Faithfully yours,

FREDERICK D. GRANT.

Following the visit of General Grant and Mr. Conkling to
Mentor in the autumn of 1880, I was informed by Mr.
Conkling that he had not been alone one minute with General
Garfield, intending by that care-taking to avoid the suggestion
that his visit was designed to afford an opportunity for any
personal or party arrangement. Further, it was the wish

ELAINE AND CONKLING 273

of General Grant, as it was his wish, that the effort which
they were then making should be treated as a service due
to the party and to the country, and that General Garfield
should be left free from any obligation to them whatsoever.

After the election and after Mr. Elaine became Secretary
of State, he volunteered to speak of the situation of the
party in New York and of Mr. Conkling' s standing in the
State. Among other things, he said that Mr. Conkling was
the only man who had had three elections to the Senate, and
that Mr. Conkling and his friends would be considered fairly
in the appointments that might be made in that State.

When in a conversation with Conkling, I mentioned
ilaine's remark, he said, " Do you believe one word of
that?"

I said, " Yes, I believe Mr. Elaine."

He said with emphasis, " I don't."

Subsequent events strengthened Mr. Conkling in his opin-
ion, but those events did not change my opinion of Mr.
Elaine's integrity of purpose in the conversations of which I
have spoken.

My knowledge of the events, not important in themselves,
but which seem to have the relation of a prelude to the great
tragedy, was derived from three persons, Mr. Conkling, Mr.
Elaine, and Mr. Marshall Jewell. At the request of the
President, Mr. Conkling called upon him the Sunday pre-
ceding the day of catastrophe. The President gave Mr.
Conkling the names of persons that he was considering
favorably for certain places. To several of these Mr. Conk-
ling made objections, and in some cases other persons were
named. As Mr. Conkling was leaving he said, " Mr. Presi-
dent, what do you propose about the collectorship of New
York ? " The President said, " We will leave that for another
time." These statements I received from Mr. Conkling.

From Mr. Jewell I received the following statement as

274 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

coming from the President: When the New York nomina-
tions were sent to the Senate, the President was forthwith
in the receipt of letters and despatches in protest, coupled with
the suggestion that everything had been surrendered to Conk-
ling. Without delay and without consultation with any one,
the President nominated Judge Robertson to the office of
collector of New York. Further, the President said, as
reported by Mr. Jewell, Mr. Elaine heard of the nomination,
and he came in very pale and much astonished.

From Mr. Blaine I received the specific statement that he
had no knowledge of the nomination of Judge Robertson
until it had been made.

These statements are reconcilable with each other, and
they place the responsibility for the sudden and fatal rupture
of the relations between Mr. Conkling and the President
upon the President. Mr. Conkling could not fail to regard
the nomination of Robertson as a wilful and premeditated
violation of the pledge given at the Sunday conference. It
was, however, only an instance of General Garfield's impul-
sive and unreasoning submission to an expression of public
opinion, without waiting for evidence of the nature and
value of that opinion. That weakness had been observed by
his associates in the House of Representatives, and on that
weakness his administration was wrecked.

Mr. Conkling was much misrepresented and of course he
was much misunderstood. As a Senator from New York
he claimed a right to be consulted in regard to the principal
appointments in the State. His recommendations were few
and they were made with great care. He confined himself to
the chief appointments. It was quite difficult to secure his
name or his favorable word in behalf of applicants for the
subordinate places.

In my experience with him, which was considerable in the
Internal Revenue Office and in the Treasury, I found him

BLAINE AND CONKLING 275

ready to concede to the opinions of the Executive Department.
He was one of those who held to the opinion that it was the
duty of Representatives and Senators to give advice in regard
to appointments and to give it upon their responsibility as
members of the Government. Senators and Representatives
are not officers of the Government, they are members of the
Government, and the duty of giving aid to the administration
rests upon them.

When a man is chosen to represent a State or a district, a
presumption should arise that he will act for the good of the
country to the best of his ability. Advice in regard to appoint-
ments is a part of his duty, and in the main the Senators and
Representatives are worthy of confidence. The present Civil
Service system rests upon the theory that they are not to be
trusted and that three men without a constituency are safer
custodians of power.

Upon the death of Garfield and the accession of Arthur,
Mr. Conkling looked for one thing, and one thing only — the
removal of Robertson. When this was not done he separated
from Arthur. I have no knowledge of the reasons which
governed the President, but I think his career would have
been more agreeable to himself if he had so far vindicated his
own course and the course of his friends as to have removed
from office the man who had contributed so largely to the
defeat of the wing of the Republican Party with which Mr.
Arthur was identified.

When General Garfield died, the Republican Party was
broken, and it seemed to be without hope. President Ar-
thur's conciliatory policy did much to restore harmony of all
the elements except the wing represented by Mr. Conkling.

It is probable, however, that a better result might have
been secured by the early removal of Robertson. That course
of action would have been satisfactory to Conkling, and given
strength to the party in New York, where strength was most

276 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

needed. With Mr. Conkling's aid in 1884, Mr. Arthur might
have been nominated, and if nominated it is probable that he
might have been elected with Mr. Conkling's aid. Arthur's
error was that he offended two important factions of the
party. By retaining Robertson he alienated Conkling, and
by the removal of Elaine he alienated him and his friends.
Hence in 1884 two elements of the party that were bitterly
opposed to each other harmonized in their opposition to Ar-
thur.

XLI

FROM 1875 TO 1895

THE HAWAIIAN TREATY AND RECIPROCITY

IN January, 1875, Mr. Fish negotiated a treaty with the
representatives of the Hawaiian Islands by which there
was to be a free exchange of specified products and
manufactures.

By the fourth article the King agreed not to dispose of
any port or harbor in his dominions or create a lien thereon
in favor of any other government. When the treaty came to
the Senate it had no original friends, and it met with de-
termined opposition, especially from Sherman of Ohio, and
Morrill and Edmunds of Vermont. The reciprocity feature
annoyed them, they fearing that it might be used as a prece-
dent for reciprocity with Canada.

I was early impressed with the importance of securing a
foothold in the islands and I considered the exclusion of other
nations as a step in the right direction. The trustworthy esti-
mates showed that the reciprocity feature would work a loss
to the Treasury of the United States of more than half a
million dollars a year. This the supporters of the treaty were
compelled to admit, but after argument the requisite majority
ratified the treaty and upon the theory that the political, naval
and commercial advantages were an adequate compensation.
Upon the renewal of the treaty the King ceded Pearl River
Harbor to the United States. After the expiration of the
fixed period of seven years during which the two nations

277

278 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

were bound mutually, there was a class of men who were
anxious to abrogate the treaty, and at each session of Con-
gress for several years a proposition was introduced for that
purpose. By something of argument and something of art,
the scheme was defeated. The opposition, led usually by Hoi-
man, of Indiana, consisted largely of Democrats. Their
reason was loss of revenue. That fact was always admitted
by the friends of the treaty. It was claimed also that there
was no advantage gained by the country from the introduc-
tion of rice and sugar from the islands duty-free. It was as-
serted that by combinations the prices were as high on the
Pacific Coast as on the Atlantic. On the other hand the
Louisiana sugar planters opposed the treaty on the ground
that they were unfavorably affected. As the importations
from the islands never exceeded four per cent of the consump-
tion of the country, the treaty had no perceptible effect upon
prices. The sugar and rice interests were reinforced by the
delegations from Michigan, Ohio and Vermont, who opposed
the treaty under an apprehension that it would operate as a
precedent for a revival of the system of reciprocity with
Canada.

The fact of the annexation of Canada to the United States,
whether the event shall occur in a time near or be postponed
to a time remote, depends probably on our action upon the
subject of reciprocity.

Canada needs our markets and our facilities for ocean
transportation, and, as long as these advantages are denied
to her, she can never attain to a high degree of prosperity.
England may furnish capital for railways, but railways are
profitable only where there is business and production on the
one hand, and markets on the other. The system of qualified
intercourse tends to make the Canadian farmer dissatisfied
with his condition, and as long as there are cheap lands in
the United States he will find relief in emigration.

FROM 1875 TO 1895 279

The time, however, is not far distant, when the Canadian
rmer will be unable to sell his lands in the Dominion and
with the proceeds procure a home in the States. When that
time arrives he will favor annexation as a means of raising
his own possessions to a value corresponding to the value of
land in the States. The body of farmers, laborers, and trad-
ing people will favor annexation, ultimately, should the policy
of non-intercourse be adhered to on our part, and they will
outnumber the office-holding class, and thus the union of
the two countries will be secured. It is apparent also that
policy of free intercourse would postpone annexation for a
ng time, if not indefinitely. Give to the Canadian farmer
nd fisherman free access to our markets and there will re-
ain only a political motive in favor of annexation. The
nglish government is pursuing a liberal policy in its deal-
gs with the Dominion, and there is no reason for anticipat-
g a retrograde course of conduct on the part of the home
vernment.

THE MISSISSIPPI ELECTION OF 187$

In 1876 I was made chairman of a committee of the Senate
:harged with the duty of investigating the election of 1875

the State of Mississippi. My associates were Cameron of

risconsin, McMillan of Minnesota, Bayard of Delaware, and

[cDonald of Missouri.

By the election of 1875 the Republican Party had been

rerthrown and the power of the Democratic Party established
ipon a basis which has continued firm, until the present time.

ic question for investigation was this : Was the election of
[875 an honest election? There was an agreement of opinion
that there were riots, shootings and massacres. On the side
)f the Democrats it was contended that these outrages had
10 political significance, that they were due to personal quar-
rels, and to uprisings of negroes for the purpose of murder-

a8o SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ing the whites. The testimony was of the same character and
the conclusions of the two branches of the committee followed
the lead of these conflicting theories and statements. For
myself I had no doubt that the election of 1875 was carried
by the Democrats by a preconcerted plan of riots and assassi-
nations. To me the evidence seemed conclusive.

The town of Aberdeen was the scene of murderous intimi-
dation on the day of election, and at about eleven o'clock
the Republicans left the polling place and abandoned the con-
test.

One of the principal witnesses for the Democrats was
General Reuben Davis, a cousin of Jefferson Davis. He had
been a member of the Thirty-sixth Congress, and he had re-
signed his seat to take part in the Rebellion. He was a Briga-
dier-General in the service, but without distinction. He ex-
plained and excused all the transactions at Aberdeen and
with emphasis and adroitness he laid the responsibility upon
the Republicans. Of certain things there was uncontradicted
testimony. I. That the Democrats placed a cannon near the
voting-place and trained it upon the window where the Re-
publicans, mostly negroes, were to vote, and that there was a
caisson at the same place. 2. That there was a company of
mounted men and armed cavalry upon the ground. 3. That
guns were discharged in the vicinity of the voting place. 4.
That at about eleven o'clock the sheriff of the county, a white
man and a Republican, who had been a colonel in the rebel
army, made a brief address to the Republican voters in which
he said that there could be no election and advised them to go
to their homes. This they did without delay. The sheriff
locked himself in the jail where he remained until the events
of the day were ended. General Davis insisted that all these
demonstrations of apparent hostility had no significance —
that the artillery men had no ammunition — that the cavalry
men were assembled for sport only — and that the discharge

FROM 1875 TO 1895 281

of muskets was made by boys and lawless persons, but with-
out malice.

In many parts of the State the canvass previous to the elec-
tion was characterized by assassinations and midnight mur-
ders. But all were explained upon non-political grounds.

In 1878 General Davis offered himself to the electors as
a Democratic candidate for Congress. The convention
nominated another person. He then entered the field as an
independent candidate. He was defeated, or rather the
Democrat was declared to have been elected. The Republi-
cans had voted for Davis, and when the contest was decided
by the returning board Davis published a letter in which he
charged upon the Democratic leaders the conduct which in
1876, he had explained and defended. After the election of
General Harrison in 1888, General Davis appeared at Indi-
anapolis as a Republican, and as such he had an interview
with the President-elect.

While I was conducting the investigation at Jackson, a
stout negro from the plantation sought an interview with me
after he had been examined by the committee. He was a
mulatto of unusual sense, but he was under a strong feeling
in regard to the outrages that had been perpetrated upon the
negro race.

Finally he said : " Had we not better take off the leaders ?
We can do it in a night."

I said : " No. It would end in the sacrifice of the black
population. It would be as wrong on your part as is their
conduct towards you. Moreover, we intend to protect you,
and in the end you will be placed on good ground."

There is, however, a lesson and a warning in what that
negro said. If the wrongs continue, some " John Brown "
black or white, may appear in Mississippi or South Carolina
or in several states at once, and engage in a vain attempt to
regain the rights of the negro race by brutal crimes. The

282 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

negroes are seven million to-day, and they are increasing in
numbers and gaining in wealth and intelligence. The South,
and indeed the whole country were not more blind to impend-
ing perils in the days of slavery than we now are to the perils
of the usurpation in which the South is engaged. With such
examples as this country furnishes and with the traditions
under whose influence all classes are living, there will always
be peril as long as large bodies of citizens are deprived of
their legal rights.

Should such a contest arise, there will be wide spread
sympathy in the North, which might convert a servile or
social war into a sectional civil war.

COURTESY OF THE SENATE SENATORIAL ELECTION OF 1887

One of my last acts as Secretary was to advise the President
to nominate a Mr. Hitchcock for collector of the port of San
Diego, California. Hitchcock was a lawyer by profession, a
graduate of Harvard and a man of good standing in San
Diego. Mr. Houghton, the member for the San Diego dis-
trict, had recommended a man who was a saloon-keeper and
a Democrat in politics, but he had supported Houghton in
the canvass. Houghton's request was supported by Senator
Sargent. Upon the facts as then understood the President
nominated Hitchcock and one of the first questions of in-
terest to me was the action of the Senate upon the nomination
of Hitchcock which I supported.

Sargent appealed to what was known as the courtesy of the
Senate a rule or custom which required Senators of the same
party to follow the lead of Senators in the matter of nomi-
nations from the respective States. To this rule I objected. I
refused to recognize it, and I said that I would never appeal
to the " courtesy " of the Senate in any matter concerning
the State of Massachusetts. Hitchcock was rejected. The
President nominated Houghton's candidate.

FROM 1875 TO 1895 283

This action on my part was followed by consequences which
may have prevented my re-election to the Senate. When
Judge Russell, who was collector of the port of Boston, was
about to resign, General Butler, who had early knowledge of
the purpose of Russell, secured from General Grant the
nomination of his friend William A. Simmons. Simmons
had been in the army, he had had experience in the Internal
Revenue Service and his record was good. He was, however,
Butler's intimate friend, and all the hostility in the State
against Butler, which was large, was directed against the
confirmation. I was not personally opposed to Simmons, but
I thought that his appointment was unwise in the extreme,
and therefore I opposed his confirmation. There were fair
offers of compromise on men who were free from objections,
all of which were refused by Butler. The President declined
to withdraw the nomination unless it could be made to appear
that Simmons was an unfit man. This could not be done.
I was upon the Committee on Commerce to which the nomi-
nation was referred, and upon my motion the report was ad-
verse to the nomination. Butler came to my room and de-
nounced my action, saying that he would spend half a million
dollars to defeat my re-election. I said in reply : —

u You can do that if you choose, but you cannot control
my action now."

In the Senate I opposed the confirmation on the ground
that a majority of the Republican Party were dissatisfied,
that it was an unnecessary act of violence to their feelings,
that there were men who were acceptable who could be con-
sidered, and that the means by which the nomination was
secured could not be defended. I was then challenged to say
whether I appealed to the courtesy of the Senate. I said :

" No, I do not. I ask for the rejection of Simmons upon
the ground that the nomination ought not to have been made."

Sumner appealed to the courtesy of the Senate, but he had

284 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

then wandered so far from the Republican Party that his
appeal was disregarded. Simmons was confirmed.

Enough of the proceedings were made public to enable my
opponents to allege that I might have defeated Simmons, and
that my action was insincere. As a result I had no further
political intercourse with Butler, and when the contest came
in 1877 his action aided Mr. Hoar in securing the seat in
the Senate. I presume, however, that Butler preferred my
election, but he had hopes for himself, or at least that the
election would go to a third party. A day or two before
the election he sent me a friendly despatch urging me to go
to Boston. I had already determined to avoid any personal
participation in the contest. That non-interference I have
never regretted.

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

As I now view the subject (1900) the Electoral Commis-
sion was an indefensible necessity. In the division of parties
it seemed impossible, and probably it was impossible, to secure
a result with peace to the country, except by a resort to
extraordinary means.

When the bill passed the two houses the chances were with
the Democrats. Judge Davis was in the list of judges from
the Supreme Court. His sympathies, and perhaps his opin-
ions, were with the Democratic Party, and there was reason
to apprehend that he might incline to act with the Democratic
members of the commission. After the passage of the bill
Judge Davis was chosen Senator from Illinois, and Judge
Strong became a member. Upon the pivotal questions the
members acted upon their political opinions, or, most certainly
in accordance with them.

I voted for the bill upon the understanding that there was
no specific authority for such a proceeding. Indeed, the
questions might have been referred to the mayors of New

FROM 1875 TO 1895 285

York and Brooklyn, upon grounds equally defensible in a
legal point of view, although the tribunal selected was much
better qualified for the duty. Having agreed to the use of
an unconstitutional tribunal, or to an extra constitutional
tribunal, I had no qualms about accepting the result. Nor
was I especially gratified by the action of the commission.
My connections with Mr. Conkling led me to think that he
had great doubts about the propriety of the decision in the
case of Louisiana, and that doubt may have led him to avoid
the vote in the Senate.

REVISION OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1878

As chairman of the 'Committee on the Revision of the
Statutes, I framed and reported the amendments to the Re-
vised Statutes, which were afterwards incorporated in the
lition of 1878, which I prepared by the appointment of
President Hayes after my term in the Senate expired, which
was made probably, upon the recommendation of Attorney-
General Devens and without any solicitation on my part, or
)y any of my friends, as far as I know.

The edition of 1878 contains references to every decision
of the Supreme Court down to and including volume
194. It contains a reference to the decisions of the Supreme
Court, all arranged and classified under the various sections,
articles and paragraphs of that instrument. In doing this
work I was compelled to read all the opinions of the Court
from the beginning of the Government, so far, at least, as
to understand the character of each opinion.

The preparation of the index was the work of months. Its
value is great and the credit is due to Chief Justice Richard-
son who not only aided me, but he devised the plan and gave
direction to the work as it went on. It was our rule to
index every provision under at least three heads, and in many
cases there is a sub-classification under the general designa-

286 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

tion. We avoided an error into which many writers fall —
we never indexed under the lead of an adjective, article or
participle.

FRENCH AND AMERICAN CLAIM COMMISSION, l88o

In 1880, Mr. Evarts, the Secretary of State, invited me to
act as counsel for the Government in defence of the claims
of French citizens for losses sustained during the Civil War.
There were more than seven hundred cases and the claims
amounted to more than thirty-five million dollars including
interest. The recoveries fell below six hundred and thirty
thousand dollars. The printed record covered sixty thousand
pages, and my printed arguments filled about two thousand
pages. The discussions and decisions involved many im-
portant questions of international law, citizenship, the con-
struction of treaties, and the laws of war.

The chairman was Baron de Arinos. He was a man of un-
assuming manners, of great intelligence, and of extensive
acquaintance with diplomatic subjects. He was reserved,
usually, but he was never lacking in ability when a subject
had received full consideration at his hands. As far as I recall
his decisions, when he had to dispose of cases on which the
French and American commissioners differed, I cannot name
one which appeared to be unjust.

The insignificant sum awarded was due to many circum-
stances. Of those, who as French citizens had suffered losses
during the war, many had become American citizens by
naturalization. Again others were natives of Alsace and Lor-
raine, and the commission held that they were not entitled to
the protection of France in 1880 when the treaty was made.
But the losses were chiefly due to the absence of adequate
evidence as to the ownership of the property for which claims
were made, and to the enormous exaggerations as to values
in which the claimants indulged.

FROM 1875 TO 1895 287

COURTS-MARTIAL

Between the year 1880 and the year 1895 there were five
general courts-martial held in the city of Washington and

appeared for the defendants in four of them.

I was also retained for the investigation of two cases of
rs of the Navy who had been convicted by courts-martial,
one of them held in the waters of China and the other on
he coast of Brazil. The latter, the case of Reed, which may
found in volume 100 of the United States Reports, be-
came important as the first attempt by the Supreme Court to

efine and limit the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals over

e proceedings of courts-martial.

The courts consist of thirteen officers of the service to

hich the accused may belong, and by a majority in number
are his seniors in rank, if the condition of the service

ill permit such a selection.

A court thus constituted is an imposing tribunal, and in
dignity of appearance not inferior to the Supreme Court of
the United States. The members are well instructed in the
requirements of the service, but their knowledge of the science
of law, especially in its technicalities, is limited. It is the
theory of the system that the judge-advocate will be an im-
partial adviser of the court and that he will protect the ac-
cused against any irregular proceeding and especially protect
against the admission of any testimony that would be

:cluded in an ordinary court of law.

In fact, however, the judge advocate becomes the attorney
of the Government, especially when the accused has the aid
of counsel. His advice to the court becomes the rule of the
court. Questions of testimony are important usually, and
the line between what is competent and that which should be
excluded is often a very delicate line. The judge should be a
disinterested person. It is too much to assume that an advo-

288 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

cate can in a moment transform himself into an impartial
judge.

In the case of Reed, which was an application by a habeas
corpus proceeding for the discharge of Reed from prison, the
Supreme Court held that it could not examine the proceedings
of the court-martial further than to inquire whether the act
charged was an offence under the rules of the service, and,
second, whether the punishment was one which the court
had power to impose.

Thus it follows, that intermediate errors and wrongs
whether by the exclusion or admission of testimony, or by
corruption even, cannot be remedied by judicial tribunals on
the civil side.

A partial remedy for possible evils may be found through
the appointment of a judge from the civil courts, or of an
experienced lawyer who should become the adviser of the
court-martial, in place of the judge-advocate — thus leaving
to him the duties of an attorney in behalf of the Government.

XLII

LAST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS*

N the month of April, 1861, a bark, registering 215 tons,
anchored in the bay of Port Liberte, a place of no
considerable importance, on the northerly coast of the
island of Hayti, about twenty miles from the boundary of
Santo Domingo. The vessel carried the flag of France, and
the captain called himself Jules Letellier. The name of the ves-
sel was not painted upon the stern, as is required by our law;
but the captain gave her name as Guillaume Tell, bound from
Havana to Havre. He stated that he had suffered a dis-
aster at the island of Guadaloupe, and that he had been com-
pelled to throw a part of his cargo overboard. He said also
that his object in putting into the port was to obtain assistance
for the recovery of his cargo; and for that purpose he solicited
recruits. The authorities became suspicious of the craft, and
an arrest was made of the vessel, her officers and men. After
some delay the vessel was sent to Port au Prince, where she
was condemned and confiscated upon the charge of being
engaged " in piracy and slave-trading on the coast of Hayti."
Upon investigation it appeared that the true name of the
vessel was William, and that the name of the captain was An-
tonio Pelletier. Pelletier was tried according to the laws of
Hayti, convicted and sentenced to death. The sentence was
commuted to imprisonment for a term of years. The facts
of his arrest and of the sentence pronounced upon him were

* Printed in the New England Magazine. Copyright, 1900, by War-
ren F. Kellogg.

289

290 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

published in the New York Herald; and thereupon, as it ap-
peared in the investigation that was afterward made, his wife
married and, taking Pelletier's two children, left the country.
Pelletier was kept in prison for about two years, when he
escaped, probably with the connivance of the authorities. He
returned to the United States. Previous to his escape he
gained the confidence of the commissioner of the United
States at Port au Prince, who made a report in his behalf
and upon the ground that he had been arrested, tried and con-
victed for an offence of which he was not guilty.

That report was made to the Department of State, when
Mr. Seward was Secretary of State. Mr. Seward declined to
act, upon two grounds, — first, it was not proved that Pelletier
was a citizen of the United States; and second, the course of
Hayti seemed to be justified by the facts as they then appeared.
Pelletier presented a statement of his claim, amounting in all
to about $2,500,000. He placed the value of the bark Wil-
liam and her cargo, with some money which he claimed was
on her, at about $92,000. He claimed also that he had been
subjected to many losses in business transactions, which he
had been unable to consummate owing to his arrest in Hayti.
These amounted to about $750,000. The most extraordinary
claim was the claim for damages to his person, in the matter
of his arrest and captivity, and the loss of his wife, children
and home, for all of which he charged $300,000.

The claimant pressed his claim persistently to the State
Department; and in the year 1884, when Mr. Frelinghuysen
was Secretary of State, a protocol was entered into between
him and Mr. Preston, then minister plenipotentiary of the re-
public of Hayti, by which this claim, with another large claim
in behalf of A. H. Lazare against the republic of Hayti, was
submitted to an international arbitrator, — the Hon. William
Strong, formerly a justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States. The republic of Hayti retained Charles A.

LAST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS 291

de Chambrun and myself as counsel for the defence. The
hearing occupied one year of time, and the documents and
the testimony taken covered two thousand printed pages. The
investigation showed that Pelletier was born at Fontaine-
bleau in France in the year 1819. At the age of fourteen he
ran away from his home and country and came to the United
States, where he found employment on board a ship, which
was owned and navigated by one Blanchard of the State of
Maine. From about the year 1835 to the year 1850, Pelletier
was employed upon shipboard in various menial capacities,
until finally he became master of several small vessels, which
were employed on short voyages in the Caribbean Sea and
on the coast of South America. About the year 1850 he
appeared in the city of New York, and between that time and
1859 he was in the city of Chicago, where on one occasion
and as the representative of some local party he was a candi-
date for alderman. He was also engaged for a time in the
nufacture of boots and shoes at Troy, New York.
In the autumn of 1860 there appeared a statement in the
wspapers that a bark called the William had been arrested
and condemned at Key West upon the charge of having been
fitted out for the slave trade. Guided by that notice, Pelle-
tier went to Havana, and employed an agent to go to Key
West and to purchase the bark. The purchase was made at
a cost of $1,504. In Pelletier's statement of his claim, he
asserted that he paid something over $10,000 for the vessel.
From Key West the vessel was sent to Mobile in charge of
a man named Thomas Collar, who became Pelletier's mate,
but who was known on the vessel as Samuel Gerdon. At
Mobile the William was fitted out for the voyage under the
direction and apparent ownership of a firm in that city known
as Delauney, Rice & Co., of which Pelletier claimed to be a
member and proprietor to the extent of $50,000, the patri-
mony which he had received upon the death of his father.

292 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The vessel was freighted with lumber, and was cleared for
Carthagena, New Granada, in October. She arrived at that
port late in November. The investigation showed that a
portion of the lumber was placed upon the deck when there
was space below where it might have been stored. It ap-
peared also that the vessel contained a large number of water
casks, some twenty or twenty-five, about twenty pairs of
manacles, a quantity of ammunition, and that the number of
sailors was considerably in excess of the number required for
the navigation of the vessel.

At Carthagena Pelletier made a contract with a colored
man named Cortes, to carry him with his wife and children
and servant to a point on the coast east of Carthagena, known
as Rio de Hache. This contract he never performed. The
original object of the voyage, as he alleged, was to obtain a
cargo of guano, at an island which he named Buida. As a
matter of fact, there is no such island, or at any rate none
could be found on the maps, nor was its existence known to
the officers of our Government who had been engaged in
taking soundings in the Caribbean Sea.

While the William was at Carthagena, one of the men de-
serted and notified the commander of a British man-of-war
that the object of the voyage of the bark William was a
cargo of negroes to be carried to the United States and sold
as slaves. Following the desertion of this man, Pelletier left
Carthagena and, instead of proceeding to Rio de Hache, which
was understood to be the destination of the British man-of-
war, he took a northerly course toward the island of Grand
Inagua. Upon this change of the course of the vessel, Cortes
became alarmed for his safety, and he urged Pelletier to put
him ashore, and especially for the reason that the shades of
maternity were falling on his wife. After a delay of ten days,
Pelletier consented to land him, which he did at Grand Inagua,
and secured in payment the goods and effects which Cortes

LAST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS 293

on board the vessel, and which were understood to be of

ic value of $500 or more.
In the month of January, 1861, Pelletier arrived in the

irbor of Port au Prince, Hayti, where he was accused of
being engaged in a slave-trading expedition by five of his
men whom he had landed and caused to be put in prison on
the charge of insubordination. The authorities were so well
convinced of the unlawful character of the expedition that
they ordered Pelletier to leave without delay. He was con-
voyed out of the harbor by an armed vessel, and upon the
understanding that he was to sail for New Orleans. As a
matter of fact, however, he employed the months following,
until April, in expeditions among the islands of the Caribbean
In the course of the investigation, Pelletier appeared
m the stand as a witness. In a series of questions which

put to him, I asked for the names of the vessels which he had

)mmanded, previous to the voyage of the William. Among
others he mentioned the Ardennes, which was an American
ship, registered. It turned out upon further investigation
that that ship was fitted out by him at Jacksonville in the
year 1859, and cleared for the Canary Islands. Her cargo
consisted of rum, sugar, cigars and tobacco. From the ad-
mission of Pelletier it appeared that he never reached the
Canary Islands, but made the coast of Africa, near the mouth
of the Congo River. Upon being pressed for a reason for
the change, he stated that he had been driven there by a
storm. We were able to cause an examination to be made of
the records of the Pluto, a British man-of-war, that discovered
the Ardennes near Magna Grand in April, 1859. The officers
of the Pluto boarded the Ardennes, and made such an ex-
amination as they thought proper. The captain made this
entry after an examination of the vessel's papers and register,
namely : " Which, though not appearing to be correct, I did
not detain or molest them." The Ardennes lingered in the

294 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

vicinity of the mouth of the Congo, where she was arrested
by the officers of the United States ship Marion, under com-
mand of Captain Brent. The results of the examination
which he made and the circumstances of which he obtained
knowledge were such that he took possession of the vessel and
sent her to New York upon the charge of being engaged in
the slave trade. The evidence produced at New York was
not sufficient to lead the court to condemn her, but the judge
gave a certificate that there was probable cause for her arrest.
The real character of the voyage of the William from Mo-
bile was finally established beyond all controversy.. In the
year 1880, a treaty was made between the United States and
France, by which an international commission was created
for the purpose of determining the validity of claims made by
citizens of the United States against France and of claims
made by citizens of France against the United States. Among
the claimants against the United States were two French-
men of the name of Le More, residents of New Orleans. At
the time of the capture of New Orleans in the year 1862,
these men had in their possession a large sum of money be-
longing to the Confederate government. By the proclama-
tion of General Butler, made immediately upon the capture
of the city, all intercourse with the Confederate authorities
by residents of New Orleans was interdicted. Notwithstand-
ing the proclamation, the Le Mores contrived to convey the
funds in their possession across the line, and to procure their
delivery to the Confederate authorities. General Butler, hav-
ing obtained knowledge of this transaction, had the Le Mores
brought before him. He then questioned them, and upon his
own judgment and without trial he sent them as prisoners
to Ship Island, where they were confined for a time with an
attachment of a ball and chain. Each of these men presented
a claim to the commission, and, there being no defence, an
award of $20,000 was made to each. If General Butler had

LAST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS 295

convened a military court or commission, as he should have
done, and had he obtained a conviction, as he would have
obtained one, he would not have subjected the United States
to the judgments which were rendered finally.

In that hearing, De Chambrun represented the Government
of France and I represented the Government of the United
States. Thus having knowledge of the Le Mores, who were
yet in New Orleans, we applied to them for the purpose of
irtaining the character of Delauney, Rice & Co., and also
rhether there was any person living who had knowledge of
ic fitting out of the bark William. They found a man by
ic name of Louis Moses, who had been a resident of New
)rleans since the year 1852, and who was well acquainted
dth the house of Delauney, Rice & Co., having transacted
isiness for it, and who was himself concerned in the fitting
it of the bark William. He had indeed invested, in one
>rm or another, the sum of $15,000 in the enterprise, of
he had evidence in writing. He stated that the object
)f the voyage was to obtain a cargo of negroes in some of
islands of the Caribbean Sea, and to bring them to a
>ert island on the west bank of the Mississippi, near the
iland of Louisiana ; in fine, that there was no purpose to
)btain a cargo of guano.

When the hearing commenced, in the year 1884, Pelletier
ime before the arbitrator in perfect health and with the ap-
irance of a man of ability and of fortune. After an ac-
quaintance of about a year I was able to use this language
my final argument : "It is a singular circumstance that
iptain Pelletier has not produced an original paper or docu-
lent in support of his claim. He is sixty years of age or
more. He is a man not deficient in intellectual capacity, what-
ever else may be said of him. He is endowed by nature with
ability for large and honest undertakings. He claims to have
had an extensive business experience; to have been the pos-

296 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

sessor of large wealth; to have been trusted in fiduciary ways;
and he comes here and claims compensation for a great out-
rage, as he alleges, upon his person and his rights; and yet
he has not produced a paper that has the signature of any
being, living or dead, by which he can sustain the claim he
makes. What is his answer in regard to the absence of
papers ? It is that they were on board the bark William. Ac-
cording to the best information we can obtain, that bark was
not less than twelve or fifteen years of age. We know that it
did not much exceed two hundred tons burden. It was bound
on a voyage into tempestuous seas; and, leaving behind him
wealth, as he says, to be measured by the million, he embarks
on that vessel with all his papers, including title deeds, articles
of copartnership, powers of attorney, and preliminary ac-
counts relating to unsettled affairs. He is a member of the
house of Delauney, Rice & Co., in which he had deposited
his patrimony to the extent of fifty thousand dollars; and he
carries away on that frail bark all evidence of his investment
in that firm. He had, he said, a partnership agreement; he
had accounts of profits that had been rendered from time to
time, — and all are gone. He had a dear wife and two chil-
dren, for whose loss he now demands large compensation ; and
yet he carried away the evidence on which their right to his
estate would have depended, in case of his death. The state-
ment may be true, but in the nature of things it is not prob-
able. That we may believe a statement of that sort, evidence
is required, not from one man unknown, not from one man
impeached, but from many men of reputable standing in so-
ciety. It is not to be believed that a man who had been en-
gaged in transactions measured by hundreds of thousands
of dollars, through a period of ten years, should take every
evidence of those transactions on board a vessel of hardly
more than two hundred tons burden, manned by a crew com-
posed of highbinders, as he has described them, and sail to

,AST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS 297

foreign lands, over tempestuous seas, upon the poor pretext
of procuring guano for the plantations of Louisiana, — and
this, as he says, when war was imminent."

In my argument to the arbitrator I attempted to trace the
voyage of the Ardennes and the voyage of the William with
as much minuteness as seemed to me to be wise under the
circumstances, and for the sole purpose of establishing the
charge that Pelletier was engaged in the slave trade. The
laracter of the voyage of the Ardennes was important in
of the rule of law that, in the trial of a person charged
the crime of slave-trading, evidence is admissible which
;nds to prove that the accused had been engaged in similar
tndertakings at about the same time.

My argument occupied the business hours of two sessions
>f the court. At the opening of the court Pelletier appeared,
)k a seat, and remained during the first thirty or forty
linutes of my argument, when he disappeared. The New
rork Herald, on the morning of the third day after Pelle-
tier's last appearance, contained the announcement that An-
tonio Pelletier had died suddenly at the Astor House in the
city of New York. The hearing proceeded, and on the 3Oth
day of June, 1885, Mr. Justice Strong filed his opinion in
the Department of State. In that opinion, he says:

" I can hardly escape from the conviction that the voyage
of the bark William was an illegal voyage; that its paramount
purpose was to obtain a cargo of negroes, either by purchase
or kidnapping, and bring them into slavery in the State of
Louisiana; and that the load of lumber, and the profession
of a purpose to go for a cargo of guano were mere covers
to conceal the true character of the enterprise." He states
also " that Pelletier had applied to a Haytian to obtain fifty
men and some women, blacks, of course, to assist him in
obtaining guano." The arbitrator found, however, that by
the law of nations the courts of Hayti had no jurisdiction of

298 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the case. " It is undeniable," said Justice Strong, " that none
of them were piratical in view of the law of nations."

By the act d' accusation Pelletier was charged with piracy
and slave-trading on the coast of Hayti. The arbitrator found
that he was not guilty of piracy and that the act of slave-
trading was never committed, although the design and pur-
pose of the voyage were perfectly clear. The claims as pre-
sented were all rejected by the arbitrator, except the claim
for injury to Pelletier personally by his confinement in prison.
For that injury the arbitrator allowed Pelletier the sum of
$25 a day during his confinement, and the interest thereon
up to the time the judgment was rendered, amounting in all
to $57,250.

When the judgment had been rendered, the counsel for
Hayti presented a memorial to the State Department, setting
forth the impropriety and bad policy of a presentation by the
Government of the United States of a judgment rendered in
favor of a claimant who had been found guilty of fitting out
a slave-trading expedition within the limits of the United
States, and using the flag of the United States as a protection
in the prosecution of his illegal undertaking. Mr. Bayard was
then Secretary of State, and Mr. Cleveland was President.
That view of the counsel of Hayti was accepted by the Sec-
retary of State and by the President, and the government of
Hayti was relieved from the payment of the claim. I ought
to add that Mr. Justice Strong concurred with the counsel
for Hayti, and made a representation to the Department of
State urging the remission of the penalty in the judgment he
had rendered.

The decision of Mr. Justice Strong raises a question of a
very serious character — that is to say, whether an inter-
national tribunal can take notice of proceedings in the judicial
tribunals of a foreign state, further than to ascertain whether
the proceedings were according to " due process of law " in

LAST OF THE OCEAN SLAVE-TRADERS 299

the state where the proceedings were had. Justice Strong
went so, far as to hold that the courts of Hayti had erred
upon the question of their own jurisdiction. Such a ruling,
if applied to cases of public importance, might lead to very
•ious results.

XLIII

MR. LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSON-
AGE

A SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THE LA SALLE CLUB, CHICAGO,
FEBRUARY 12, 1889

THE services and fame of Mr. Lincoln are so identified
with the organization, doings and character of the
Republican Party, that something of the history of
that party is the necessary incident of every attempt to set
forth the services and the fame of Mr. Lincoln.

In a very important sense Mr. Lincoln may be regarded
as the founder of the Republican Party. He was its leader
in the first successful national contest, and it was during his
administration as President that the policy of the party was
developed and its capacity for the business of government
established. The Republican Party gave to Mr. Lincoln the
opportunity for the services on which his fame rests, and
the fame of Mr. Lincoln is the inheritance of the Republican
Party. His eulogy is its encomium, and therefore when we
set forth the character and services of Mr. Lincoln we set
forth as well the claims of the Republican Party to the grati-
tude and confidence of the country, and the favorable opinion
of mankind.

If it could be assumed that for the Republican Party the
Book of Life is already closed, it is yet true that that party
is an historical party and Mr. Lincoln is an historical person-
age, not less so than Cromwell, Napoleon, or Washington,

300

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 301

and all without the glamor that rests upon the brows of suc-
cessful military chieftains.

Of Mr. Lincoln's predecessors in the Presidential office,
two only, Washington and Jefferson, can be regarded as his-
torical persons in a large view of history. The author of the
Declaration of Independence is so identified with the history
of the country that that history cannot outlast his name and
fame.

As the author of that Declaration and as the exponent of
lew and advanced ideas of government, Jefferson was elected
to the Presidency, but his administrations, excepting only
ic acquisition of Louisiana, were not marked by distin-

lished ability, nor were they attended or followed by results
rhich have commanded the favorable opinion of succeeding

icrations.

Washington had no competitors. The gratitude of his

mntrymen rebuked all rivalries. He was borne to the Presi-
lency by a vote quite unanimous, and he was supported in
le discharge of his duties by a confidence not limited by the

mdaries of the Republic.

It is only a moderate exaggeration to say that when Mr.
,incoln was nominated for the Presidency, he was an un-
>wn man; he had performed no important public service;
lis election was not due to personal popularity, nor to the
trength of the party that he represented ; but to the divisions
among his opponents.

In 1862, when eleven hostile States were not represented in
the Government, the weakness of the administration was such
that only a bare majority of the House of Representatives
was secured after a vigorous and aggressive campaign on the
part of the Republican Party. Thus do the circumstances and
incidents of the formative period in Mr. Lincoln's career il-
lustrate and adorn the events that distinguished the man, the
party and the country.

302 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

I am quite conscious that in our attempt to give Mr. Lin-
coln a conspicuous place in the ranks of historical personages,
we are to encounter a large and intelligent public opinion
which claims that distance in time and even distance in space
are the necessary conditions of a wise and permanent decision.

The representatives of that opinion maintain that con-
temporaries are too near the object of vision, that to them
a comprehensive view is impossible, and that the successive
generations of one's countrymen may be influenced by in-
herited passions, or by transmitted traditions.

Some of us were Mr. Lincoln's contemporaries, and one
and all we are his countrymen, and in advance we accept joy-
fully any qualifications of our opinions that may be made
in other lands or by other ages, if qualifying facts shall be
disclosed hereafter. But nearness of observation, and a
knowledge of the events with which Mr. Lincoln's public life
was identified, may have given to his associates and co-
workers opportunities for a sound judgment that were not
possessed by contemporary critics and historians of other
lands, and that the students of future times will be unable to
command.

The recent practical improvements in the art of printing,
the telegraph and the railway, have furnished to mankind
the means of reaching safe conclusions in all matters of im-
portance, including biography and history, with a celerity
and certainty which to former ages were unknown. In these
five and twenty years, since the death of Mr. Lincoln,
there has been a wonderful exposition of the events and
circumstances of the stupendous contest in which he was the
leading figure, and all that knowledge is now consummated
on the pages of Nicolay and Hay's complete and trust-
worthy history. Of the minor incidents of Mr. Lincoln's
career, time and research will disclose many facts not now
known, which may lend coloring to a character whose main

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 303

features, however, cannot be changed by time nor criticism.
The nature of Mr. Lincoln's services we can comprehend, but
their value will be more clearly realized and more highly ap-
preciated by posterity. As to the nature of those services
the judgment of his own generation is final — it can never be
reversed. Indeed, it may be asserted of historical personages
generally, that the judgment of contemporaries is never re-
versed. Attempts have been made to reverse the judgment of
contemporaries, in the cases of Judas Iscariot, of Henry the
Eighth, and of Shakespeare, and I venture the assertion that
all these attempts have failed, most signally. In our own
untry there have been no reversals. Modifications of
inions there have been — growth in some cases, decrease in
others, but absolute change in none. The country has grown
towards Hamilton and away from Jefferson. They are, how-
ever, as they were at the beginning of the last century, the
resentatives of antagonistic ideas in government, but their
,on patriotism is as yet unchallenged. It is the fate of
those who take an active part in public affairs, to be mis-
judged during their lives, but death softens the asperities of
political and religious controversies and tempers the judgment
of those who survive. Franklin, Washington, Jackson, Clay
and Webster, are to this generation what they were to the
survivors of the respective generations to which they be-
longed. Mr. Calhoun has suffered by the attempt to make a
practical application of his ideas of government, but the na-
ture and dangerous character of those ideas were as fully
understood at the time of his death as they are at the present
moment.

I pass over as unworthy of serious consideration the de-
tractions and attacks, sometimes thoughtless, and sometimes
malicious, to which Mr. Lincoln was subject during his ad-
ministration. He made explanations and replied to these
detractions and attacks only when they seemed to put in peril

3o4 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

the fortunes of the country; but when he made replies, there
were none found, either among his political friends or his
political enemies who were capable of making an adequate
answer. Consult, as we may consult, his correspondence in
regard to the transit of troops through Maryland, in regard
to the invasion of Virginia, in case the city of Washington
should be attacked or menaced from the right bank of the
Potomac, in regard to the suspension of the privilege of the
write of habeas corpus, in regard to the arrest of Vallandig-
ham, in regard to our foreign relations, and, finally, consult
his numerous papers in regard to the objects for which the
war should be prosecuted, and the means, as well, by which
it could be prosecuted. Consider, also, that this work was
done by a man called to the head of an administration that
had no predecessor, to the management of the affairs of a
government distracted by civil war, its navy scattered, its
treasury bankrupted, its foreign relations disturbed by a tra-
ditional and almost universal hostility to republican institu-
tions, and all while he was threatened constantly by an adverse
public judgment in that section of the country in which his
hopes rested exclusively. And consider, also, that Mr. Lin-
coln had had little or no experience on the statesmanship side
of his political career, that as an attorney and advocate he
had dealt only with local and municipal laws; that he was
separated by circumstances from a practical acquaintance with
maritime and international jurisprudence, and yet consider
further with what masterful force he rebuked timid or un-
trustworthy friends who would have abandoned the contest
and consented to the independence of the seceding States, in
the vain hope that time might aid in the recovery of that
which by pusillanimity had been lost; with what serenity of
manner he put aside the suggestion of Mr. Seward that war
should be declared against France and Spain as a means of
quieting domestic difficulties which were even then repre-

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 305

sented by contending armies ; with what calmness of mind he
laid aside Mr. Greeley's letter of despair and self-reproach of
July 29, 1 86 1, and proceeded with the preparation of his pro-
gramme of military operations from every base line of the
armies of the Republic; with what skill and statesmanlike
foresight he corrected Mr. Seward's letter to Mr. Adams in
regard to the recognition by Great Britain of the belligerent
character of the Confederate States; and, finally, consider
with what firmness and wisdom he annulled the proclamations
of Fremont and Hunter, and assumed to himself exclusively
the right and the power to deal with the subject of slavery in
the rebellious States. In what other time, to what other ruler
have questions of such importance been presented, and under
circumstances so difficult? And to what other ruler can we
assign the ability to have met and to have managed success-
fully all the difficult problems of the Civil War ? It cannot be
claimed for Mr. Lincoln that he had had any instructive mili-
tary experience, or that he had any technical knowledge of
the military art; but it may be said with truth that his cor-
respondence with the generals of the army, and his memo-
randa touching military operations indicate the presence of
a military quality or faculty, which in actual service might
have been developed into talent or even genius. His letter to
General McClellan, of October 13, 1862, is at once a memor-
able evidence and a striking illustration of his faculty on the
military side of his official career. He sets forth specifically,
and in the alternative, two plans of operation, and with skill
and caustic severity he contrasts the inactivity and delays of
General McClellan, with the vigor of policy and activity of
movement which characterized the campaign on the part of
the enemy. He brings in review the facts that General Mc-
Clellan's army was superior in numbers, in equipment, and in
all the material of war. The President in conclusion said:
" this letter is not to be considered as an order," and yet it is

306 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

difficult to reconcile the continued inactivity of General Mc-
Clellan with the claim of his friends that he was a patriotic,
not to say an active, supporter of the cause of the Union.
With that letter in hand a patriotic and sensitive commander
would have acted at once upon one of the alternatives pre-
sented by the President, or he would have formed a plan of
campaign for himself and ordered a movement without delay,
or he would have asked the President to relieve him from
duty. No one of these courses was adopted, and the policy
of inactivity was continued until Lee regained the vantage
ground which he abandoned when he crossed the Potomac
into Maryland. It is at this point, and in this juncture of
affairs that the policy of Mr. Lincoln requires the explanation
of a friendly critic. The historian of the future may wonder
at the procrastination of the President. He may criticize his
conduct in neglecting to relieve McClellan when it was ap-
parent that he would not avail himself of the advantages that
were presented by the victory at Antietam. The explanation
or apology, is this, in substance: The Army of the Potomac
had been created under the eye of McClellan and the officers
and men were devoted to him as their leader and chief. They
had had no opportunity for instituting comparisons between
him and other military men. After Pope's defeat, the army
had been unanimous, substantially, in the opinion that Mc-
Clellan should be again placed in command. The President
had yielded to that opinion against his own judgment,
and against the unanimous opinion of his Cabinet. Having
thus yielded, it was wise to test McClellan until the confi-
dence of the army and the country should be impaired, or,
as the President hoped would be the result, until McClellan
should satisfy the Administration and the army, that he was
equal to the duty imposed upon him. Hence the delay until
the 5th of November, when McClellan was relieved, finally,
from the military service of the country.

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 307

It was known to those who were near President Lincoln,
that he was a careful student of the war maps and that he
had daily knowledge of the position and strength of our
armies. I recall the incident of meeting President Lincoln
on the steps of the Executive Mansion at about eleven o'clock
in the evening of the day when the news had but just
reached Washington that Grant had crossed the Black River
and that the army was in the rear of Vicksburg. The Presi-
dent was returning from the War Office with a copy of the
despatch in his hand. I said: —

" Mr. President, have you any news ? " He said in reply :

" Come in, and I will tell you."

After reading the despatch, the President turned to his
maps and traced the line of Grant's movements as he then
understood and comprehended those movements. That night
the President became cheerful, his voice took on a new tone —
a tone of relief, of exhilaration — and it was evident that his
faith in our ultimate success had been changed into absolute
confidence. In the dark days of 1862 he had never despaired
of the Republic, when others faltered, he was undismayed.
He put aside the suggestion of Mr. Seward that he should
surrender the chief prerogative of his office; he rebuked the
suggestion of General Hooker that he should declare himself
dictator; and he treated with silent contempt the advice of
General McClellan, -from Harrison's Landing, in July, 1862,
that the President should put himself at the head of the army
with a general in command, on whom he could rely, and thus
assume the dictatorship of the Republic. He asserted for him-
self every prerogative that the laws and the Constitution con-
ferred upon him, and he declined to assume any power not
warranted by the title of office which he held. He was reso-
lute in his purpose to perform every duty that devolved upon
him, but he declared that the responsibility of preserving the
Government rested upon the people.

3o8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Of the officers who successively were at the head of the
Army of the Potomac, none ever possessed his entire confi-
dence, until General Grant assumed that command, in person.
His letter to General Grant when he entered upon the Cam-
paign of the Wilderness contains conclusive evidence that his
confidence was given to that officer, without reservation.

Turning again to the civil side of his administration, con-
sider the steps by which he led the country up to the point
where it was willing to accept the abolition of slavery in the
States engaged in the rebellion. History must soon address
itself to generations of Americans who will have had no
knowledge of the institution of slavery as an existing fact.
Indeed, at the present moment, more than two thirds of the
population of the United States have no memory of the time
when slavery was the dominating force in the politics of the
country, when it was interwoven in the daily domestic life of
the inhabitants of fifteen States; when it muzzled the press,
perverted the Scriptures, compelled the pulpit to become its
apologist, and when successive generations of statesmen were
brought down on an " equality of servitude " before an irre-
sponsible and untitled oligarchy.

As early as 1839, Mr. Clay estimated the value of the slaves
at $1,200,000,000, and upon the same basis, their value in
1860, exceeded $2,000,000,000. This estimate conveys only
an inadequate idea of the power of slavery and it presents
only an imperfect view of the difficulties which confronted
Mr. Lincoln in 1861 and 1862. Delaware, Maryland, West
Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri were slave States, and all
of them, with the exception of Delaware, were hesitating be-
tween secession and the cause of the Union. They were in
favor of the Union, if slavery could be saved with the Union, ,
but it was doubtful in all the year 1861, whether those States
could be held, to the " Lincoln Government " as it was de-
risively called, if the abolition of slavery were a recognized

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 309

part of our public policy. Nor is this even yet a full state-
ment of the difficulties which confronted Mr. Lincoln. With
varying degrees of intensity, the Democratic Party of the
North sympathized with the South in its attempts to dissolve
the Union. During the entire period of the war, New York,
Ohio and Indiana were doubtful States, and Indiana was only
kept in line by the active and desperate fidelity of Oliver P.
Morton. In the presence of these difficulties Mr. Lincoln
recommended the purchase of all the slaves in the States not
in rebellion ; then he suggested the deportation of the manu-
mitted slaves and the free blacks, to Central America, and for
this purpose an appropriation was made ; then came the propo-
sition to give pecuniary aid to States that might voluntarily
make provision for the abolition of slavery, and then came,
finally, the statute of July, 1862, by which slaves captured,
and the slaves of all persons engaged in the rebellion were de-
clared to be free. It is not probable that Mr. Lincoln enter-
tained the opinion that these measures, one or all, would se-
cure the complete abolition of slavery, but they gave to the
slave-holders of the border States an opportunity to obtain
compensation for the loss of their slaves, and the pendency
of these propositions occupied the attention of the country
while the formative processes were going on, which matured
inally in the opinion that slavery and the Union could no
onger co-exist. In the same time the country arrived at the
onclusion that separation and continuous peace were impos-
ible. The alternative was this : Slavery, a division of terri-
ory, and a condition of permanent hostility on the one side ;
ncl on the other, a union of States, domestic peace, a govern-
ment of imperial power, with equality of citizenship in the
States and an equality of States in the Union. Thus his
measures, which were at once measures of expediency and of
elay, prepared the public mind to receive his monitory
proclamation of September 1862. In that time the border

3io SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

States had come to realize the fact that the negroes were no
longer valuable as property, and they therefore accepted
emancipation as a means of ending the controversy. To the
Republicans of the North, the Proclamation was a welcome
message ; to the Democrats it was a result which they had pre-
dicted, and against which they had in vain protested. But
the controversy would not have ended with the war. Slavery
existed in the States that had not participated in the rebellion,
and the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation might be
drawn in question in the courts. One thing more was wanted :
an amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery every-
where within the jurisdiction of the Government. This was
secured after a protracted struggle, and the result was due
in a pre-eminent degree to the personal and official influence
of Mr. Lincoln. In one phrase it may be said that every
power of his office was exerted to secure the passage, in the
Thirty-eighth Congress, of the resolution, by which the pro-
posed amendment was submitted to the States. Mr. Lincoln
did not live to see the consummation of his great undertaking,
in the cause of Freedom, but the work of ratification by the
States was accelerated by his death, and on the i8th day of
December, 1865, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State of the
United States, made proclamation that the amendment had
been ratified by twenty-seven of the thirty-six States then
composing the Union, and that slavery and involuntary servi-
tude were from that time and forever forth impossible within
our limits. Such was then the universal opinion in all
America. It was our example that wrought the abolition of
slavery in Brazil, and in colonies of Spain and Portugal; it
has led to the extermination of the trans- Atlantic slave trade,
and it was an inspiration to the nations of Europe in their
effort to destroy the traffic in human beings on the continent
of Africa.

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 311

There is an aspect of Mr. Lincoln's career, which must at-

ct general attention and command universal sympathy.

is loneliness in his office and in the performance of his duties

deeply pathetic. It is true that Congress accepted and en-
orsed his measures as they were presented from time to time,
but there were bitter complaints on account of his delays on

e slavery question, and not infrequently doubts were ex-
ressed as to the sincerity of his avowed opinions. There
were little intrigues in Congress, and personal aspirations in

e Cabinet in regard to the succession. Of the commanders
of the Army of the Potomac from McDowell to Meade, each
nd all had failed to win victories, or they had failed to secure

e reasonable advantages of victories won. There were
ivisions in the Cabinet which were aggravated by personal
ivalries. On one occasion, leading Republican members of

ngress engaged in a movement for a change in the Cabinet ;
a movement which was without a precedent and wholly desti-

te of justification under our system of government.

His want of faith in his Cabinet was shown in his pre-
liminary statement when he proceeded to read the Proclama-
tion of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln was then about to take
the most important step ever taken by a President of the
United States and yet he informed the men, the only men
whose opinions he could command by virtue of his office,
that the main question was not open for discussion; that the
question had been by him already decided, and that sugges-
tions from them would be received only in reference to the
formalities of the document.

It may be the truth, and our estimation of Mr. Lincoln would
not be lowered, if, indeed, it were shown to be the truth, that
he chose to act upon his own judgment in a matter of the
supremest gravity, and in which, from the nature of the case,
the sole responsibility was upon him. On the great question

312 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

of the abolition of slavery his mind reached a definite con-
clusion, a conclusion on which he could act, but neither too
early nor too late. The Proclamation was issued at a moment
when the exigencies of the war justified its issue as a military
necessity, and when, as a concurrent fact, the public mind was
first prepared to receive it, and to give to the measure the
requisite support.

Mr. Lincoln prepared the way for the reorganization of the
government. Under him the old order of things was over-
thrown and the introduction of a new order became possible.
Through his agency the Constitution of the United States
has been brought into harmony with the Declaration of In-
dependence. The system of slavery has perished, the insti-
tutions of the country have been reconciled to the principles
of freedom, and in these changes we have additional guaran-
tees for the perpetuity of the Union.

A just eulogy of Mr. Lincoln is a continuing encomium of
the Republican Party. By the election of 1860 he became
the head of that party and during the four years and more of
his official life he never claimed to be better nor wiser than
the party with which he was identified. From first to last
he had the full confidence of the army and of the masses of
the voters in the Republican Party, and of that confidence Mr.
Lincoln was always assured. Hence he was able to meet the
aspirations of rivals and the censures of the disappointed with
a good degree of composure. To the honor of the masses
of the Republican Party it can be said that they never faltered
in their devotion to the President and in that devotion and in
the fidelity of the President to the principles of the party were
the foundations laid on which the greatness of the country
rests.

The measure of gratitude due to Mr. Lincoln and to the
Republican Party may be estimated by a comparison of the
condition of the country when we accepted power in March,

LINCOLN AS AN HISTORICAL PERSONAGE 313

1861, with its condition in 1885, and in 1893, when we yielded
the administration to the successors of the men who had well-
nigh wrecked the Government in a former generation.

The Republican Party found the Union a mass of sand;
it left it a structure of granite. It found the Union a by-
word among the nations of the earth, it left it illustrious and
envied, for the exhibition of warlike powers, for the develop-
ment of our industrial and financial resources in times of
peace, for the unwavering fidelity with which every pecuniary
obligation was met; for the generous treatment measured
out with an unstinted hand to the conquered foe ; and, finally,
for the cheerful recognition of the duty resting upon the Re-
publican Party and upon the country to enfranchise, to raise
up, to recreate the millions that had been brought out of bond-
age.

This work was not accomplished fully in Mr. Lincoln's life,
but he was the leader of ideas and policies which could have
other consummation.

At the end it must be said of Mr Lincoln that he was a
jat man, in a great place, burdened with great responsi-
bilities, coupled with great opportunities, which he used for
the benefit of his country and for the welfare of the human
race. Among American statesmen he is conspicuously alone.
From Washington and Grant he is separated by the absence
on his part of military service and military renown. On the
statesmanship side of his career, there is no one from Wash-
ington along the entire line who can be considered as the
equal or the rival of Lincoln.

And we may wisely commit to other ages and perhaps to
other lands the full discussion and final decision of the rela-
tive claims of Washington and Lincoln to the first place in
the list of American statesmen.

XLIV

SPEECH ON COLUMBUS

DELIVERED AT GROTON, MASS., OCTOBER 21, 1892

w

E celebrate this day as the anniversary of the dis-
covery of the American continent.

"The hand that rounded Peter's dome,
And groined the aisles of Christian Rome,
Wrought in a sad sincerity;
Himself from God he could not free;
He builded better than he knew."

Of these lines of Emerson, the last three are as true of
Columbus, as of

" The hand that rounded Peter's dome,
And groined the aisles of Christian Rome,"

for, he too,

" Wrought in a sad sincerity;
Himself from God he could not free;
He builded better than he knew."

And shall we therefore say that he is not worthy of praise,
of tribute, of memorials, of anniversary days, of centennial
years, of national and international gatherings and exhibi-
tions, that in some degree mankind may illustrate and dignify,
if they will, the events that have followed the opening of a
new world to our advanced and advancing civilization ?

In great deeds, in great events, in great names, there is a
sort of immortality, an innate capacity for living, a tendency
to growth, to expansion, and thus what was but of little mo-
ment in the beginning is seen, often after the lapse of years,

314

SPEECH ON COLUMBUS 315

possibly only after the lapse of centuries, to have been
freighted with consequences whose value can only be meas-
ured by the yearly additions to the sum of human happiness.

Franklin's experiments in electricity were followed at once
by the common lightning-rod, but a century passed before
the electrical power was utilized, and made subservient, in
some degree, to the control of men.

Every decade of three centuries has added to the greatness
of that one immortal name in the literature of the whole
English speaking race. The security for the world that the
name of Shakespeare and the writings of Shakespeare cannot
die may be found in the selfishness, the intelligent selfishness
of mankind, which will struggle constantly to preserve and to
magnify a possession which if once lost, could never be re-
gained.

After four centuries of delay we have come to realize, with
>me degree of accuracy, the magnitude of the event called
the Discovery of America. Identified with that event, and as
its author, is the man Columbus. Involved in controversies
while living, the object of the base passions of envy, hatred
tnd jealousy, consigned finally to chains and to prison,
and in death ignorant of the magnitude of the discovery
that he had made, there seemed but slight basis for the con-
jecture that his name was destined to become the one im-
lortal name in the annals of modern Italy and Spain.

As if accident and fate and the paltry ambitions of men
had combined to rob Columbus of his just title to fame, the
lame of the double continent that he discovered was given
to another. To that other the name remains, but the con-
tinent itself has become the continent of Columbus. In con-
nection with the event no other name is known, and so it will
ever be in all the centuries of the future.

In these years we are inaugurating a series of centennial
anniversary celebrations in honor of Columbus, and in testi-

316 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

mony of the importance of the discovery that he made. This
we do as the greatest of the states that have arisen on the
continent that he discovered, and I delay what I have to say
of Columbus and of the discovery that I may express my
regret and the reasons for my regret, that the celebration
and the ceremonies have not been made distinctively and ex-
clusively national. In this I do not disparage, on the other
hand I exalt, the public spirit, the capacity for large under-
takings, the will and the courage of the city and the citizens
of Chicago in assuming burdens and responsibilities from
which any other city on this continent would have shrunk.

My point is this: If the people and Government of the
United States were of the opinion that the discovery of a
continent — a continent in which one of the great governments
of the world has found an abiding place — was worthy of a
centennial celebration, then the conduct of the celebration
ought not to have been left to the care of any community less
than the whole. Nor is it an unworthy thought that some-
thing of dignity would have been added to the celebration if
the nations of the earth could have been invited to the capital
which bears the name of the discoverer of the continent and
the founder of the Republic.

There are occasions which confer greatness upon an orator.
Such are revolutionary periods, the overthrow of states, radi-
cal changes in a long-settled public policy, struggles for
power, empire, dominion. These and kindred exigencies in
the affairs of men and states, seem to create, or at least to
furnish opportunity and scope for, statesmen, orators, poets
and soldiers.

This peaceful ceremony in peaceful times, of which we now
speak, will not produce orators like Patrick Henry and James
Otis at the opening of our Revolutionary struggle, like Mira-
beau in France, or Cicero in Rome, pleading for a dying re-

SPEECH ON COLUMBUS 317

public, or Demosthenes in Athens contending hopelessly
against the domination of one supreme will.

An orator for this occasion was not to have been waited
for, he was to have been sought out and found if possible.

If Webster were living and in the fullness of his powers,
the country might have looked to him for an oration that
rould have so linked itself with the anniversary that it would
ive been recognized in every succeeding centennial ob-
rance.

Turning from this thought, which at best, can only serve
a standard to which our hopes aspire, I venture the remark,
lat there is not one of our countrymen who, by the studies
)f his life, by the philosophical qualities of his mind, by the
jssession in some large measure of that Miltonian power of
lagination which Webster exhibited, is qualified for the su-
>reme task which I have thus imperfectly outlined.
For one day the rumor was voiced that Castelar of Spain
id been invited to deliver the oration at the more formal
>pening of the exhibition in May next. That rumor has not
affirmed nor dejiied, but from the delay, we cannot hope
lat its verification is now possible.

Historical knowledge, due to long and laborious studies,
id the spirit of historical inquiry, are not often found in
ic same person, combined with argumentative power and
ic quality of imagination stimulated by an emotional nature.
Tom what we know of Emilio Castelar of Spain, it may be
lid that he possesses this rare combination in a degree be-
>nd any other living man.

In the year 1856 when he was only twenty-four years of
age, he was appointed, after a competitive contest, to the
chair of philosophy and history in the University of Madrid.
During his professorship, in addition to other work, he de-
livered lectures on the history of civilization.

3i 8 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The political disturbances, in which as a republican, he had
taken an active part, led to his exile for four years, but upon
his return to Spain he resumed his place in the University.
In 1873 ne was prime minister during the brief existence of
the republic. Of his published works, the best known in this
country is the volume entitled " Old Rome and New Italy."
At present he is a member of the Cortes, where he gives sup-
port to the Government in its measures of administration,
without yielding his political principles or indorsing the mon-
archical system. If this country were to pass beyond its own
limits in the selection of an orator, then, without question
Spain has the first, and indeed, the only claim to considera-
tion. Spain furnished the means for the expedition and the
world is indebted to her enlightened patronage for the dis-
covery. It may be assumed, reasonably, that Castelar would
have brought from the archives of Spain fresh information
in regard to the motives of Ferdinand and Isabella, trust-
worthy statements as to the character and conduct of Pinzon,
the ally of Columbus, and at the end he might have been able
to prove or to disprove the theory that Columbus had knowl-
edge of the existence of this continent, or that he had or had
not reasons for believing that land in the west 'had been
visited by Scandinavian voyagers in the tenth century.

As I pass to some more direct observations upon Columbus
and the voyage of 1492, and to the expression of some
thoughts as to the future of the country, I wish to say that
I limit my criticism to our representative men, whose esti-
mate of the importance of the anniversary was quite inade-
quate. They failed to see its connection with the past, its
relations to what now is, and more important than all else
they failed to realize that this celebration is the first of a long
line of centennial celebrations, each one of which will mark
the close of one epoch, and the beginning of another.

I cannot imagine that in a hundred years this anniversary,

SPEECH ON COLUMBUS 319

in its organization and conduct, will be thought worthy of
imitation. Let us imagine, or rather indulge the hope that
then all the States of the south and the north, from the
Arctic Seas to Patagonia, will be united in a national and
international celebration in recognition of an event that has
increased twofold the possibilities, comfort and happiness
of the human race.

Passing from these criticisms, at once and finally, it is yet
true that in this centennial celebration the two Americas,
Southern Europe and the Catholic churches throughout the
world are united as one people, and for the moment differences
in religion and diversities of race are forgotten. Italy was
the birth-place of Columbus ; Spain, after long years of doubt
and vexatious delays lent its patronage to the scheme of the
"adventurer" as he was called; and the church, of which
Columbus was a devoted, and perhaps a devout disciple, be-
stowed its blessing upon those who staked their lives or their
fortunes in the undertaking. It is not probable that Colum-
bus looked to that posthumous fame of which he is now the
subject. His vision and his hopes extended not beyond the
possession of new lands where he might rule as a potentate
and enjoy power; where Spain might found an empire, and
where the church might establish its authority over millions
of new converts. Spain gained new empires, and maintained
her rule over them for three centuries and more; the church
enlarged its power by the acquisition of half a continent, in
which its ecclesiastical authority remains, even to the close of
the nineteenth century. For a moment, and but for a moment
in the annals of time, Columbus was permitted to realize the
dream of his life. After a brief period, however, instead of
place, power, gratitude, wealth, he was subjected to chains,
and consigned to prison. Of the three great parties to the
undertaking, Columbus alone, seemed to have been unsuc-
cessful, but at the end of four centuries he reappears as the

320 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

one personage to whom the gratitude of mankind is due for
the discovery of the new world. Nor do we enter into any
inquiry as to the manner of man that Columbus was on the
moral side of his character. We know that he was an en-
thusiast, that he was richly endowed with the practical virtues
of patience, of perseverance, of continuing fortitude under
difficulties, and we know that neither Spain, nor the Church,
nor Pinzon the ship-builder and capitalist, nor all of them
together would have made the discovery when it was made.
To Columbus they were essential, but without Columbus they
were nothing.

To the wide domain of history may be left the inquiry as
to the truth of his visit to Iceland in the preceding decade,
his knowledge of the expeditions of the Scandinavian voy-
agers to Greenland and the coasts of New England in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, and his theories or beliefs con-
cerning the spherical figure of the earth.

Whatever might have happened previous to the voyage
from Palos, and whatever might have been the extent of
Columbus' knowledge, the discovery of America for the pur-
poses of settlement and civilization, was made by Columbus
himself at eight o'clock in the evening of October U, O. S.
when he saw the shimmer of fire on the Island of San Salva-
dor. That fact being established, the fact of the existence of
land near by was established also. The sight of land at three
o'clock the next morning was not the discovery; it was evi-
dence only of the reality of the discovery made by Columbus
the evening before.

In these four hundred years the empires that Spain f ounde
in the New World have slipped from her grasp; the church
has lost its temporal power, but the fame of Columbus has
spread more and more widely and his claims to the gratitud<
of mankind have been recognized more generally.

At the end of each coming century, and for many centuries,

SPEECH ON COLUMBUS 321

no one can foresay how many, millions on millions in the
Americas and in Europe will unite in rendering tribute of
praise to the enthusiast and adventurer whose limited ambi-
tions for himself were never realized, but who opened to man-
kind the opportunity to found states freed from the domina-
tion of the church and churches freed from the domination
of the state.

We do not deceive ourselves, when we claim for the United
tes the first place among the states on this continent. We
are the first of American states in population, in wealth, in our
system of public instruction, in our means of professional and
technical education, in the application of science to the practi-
cal purposes of life, and finally, in experience and success in
the business of government.

It should not be forgotten by any of us, nor should the
fact be overlooked or neglected by the young that these results
have been gained by the labors and sacrifices of our ancestors,
and we should realize that the task of preserving what has
been won, is the task that is imposed upon the generations as
they succeed each other in the great drama of national life.
Vain and useless are all conjectures as to the future. The
coming century must bring great changes — equal, possibly, to
those that have occurred since 1792. At that time our terri-
tory did not extend beyond the Mississippi River, our popu-
lation was hardly four million, our national revenues were
less than four million dollars annually, manufacturing indus-
tries had not gained a footing, for agricultural products there
was no market, the trade in slaves from Africa was guaran-
teed in the Constitution, the thirteen States had not outgrown
the disintegrating influence of the Confederation, the Post-
Office Department was not organized, and the National Gov-
ernment was not respected for its power, justice or benefi-
cence, of which the mass of people knew nothing.

In this century our territory has been enlarged fourfold,

322 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

our population is eighteen times as great as it was in 1792, our
revenues have been multiplied by a hundred, and the con-
vertible wealth of the people has been increased in a greater
ratio even. The railway, the telegraphic, the telephonic
systems have been created. The dream of Shakespeare has
been realized — we have put a girdle round about the Earth
in forty minutes.

More than all else, and as the culmination of all else, we
have demonstrated the practicability of a government of the
people, by the people and for the people. All this has been
made possible by and through a system of universal public
education — a system which taxes the whole people, and edu-
cates the whole people in good learning, and in the cardinal
virtues which adorn, dignify and elevate the individual man
and furnish the only security for progressive, successful, il-
lustrious national life.

This is the inheritance to which the generations before us
are born. A great inheritance — a great inheritance of op-
portunity, a great inheritance of power, a great inheritance of
responsibility, from which the coming generations are not to
shrink.

XLV

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY

THIS paper is introduced upon two grounds mainly.
It sets forth with a reasonable degree of fulness the
views that I have entertained for three years in re-
gard to President McKinley's policy in the acquisition and
control of the islands in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific
Ocean, and it presents a history of my relations to political
movements through a long half century.

I SPEECH DELIVERED AT SALEM, MASS., OCTOBER 1 8, IQOO, IN
REPLY TO A SPEECH MADE BY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM
H. MOODY, M. C.

A truthful statement that I have been inconsistent in the
' opinions that I have held and advocated upon questions of
public concern, would not disturb me by day, nor consign
me to sleepless nights.

It is now sixty years since I first held public office by the
votes of my fellow-citizens. In that long period of time my
opinions have undergone many changes. When I have had
occasion to address my fellow-citizens upon public questions
I have not reviewed my previous sayings through fear that
some critic might arraign me for inconsistency.

I have considered only my present duty in relation to the
questions immediately before me.

In the first ten or fifteen years of my manhood I accepted
X)litical economy as a cosmopolitan science and free trade
as a wise policy for every country. My views in favor of

324 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

free trade for the United States are set forth in printed
articles, which are now accessible. They are at the service
of the critics and of the advocates of free trade. Consistency
is not always a virtue, and inconsistency is not always a vice.
Even courts of justice change their rulings and holdings
when they find themselves in error.

The Supreme Court of the United States has reversed its
first decision in the cases that have arisen under the confisca-
tion acts of 1862, and in other cases the court has qualified
its opinions from time to time. This authority is valuable
as proving or as tending to prove, that inconsistencies in
opinion may be consistent with integrity of purpose.

An attempt to change the issue while the trial is going on
is not infrequently the weak -device of misguided advocates
who happen to be charged with the care of weak causes.

It is now twenty years or more since I appeared before
Judge Endicott of your city in a cause between a trustee and
the cestui que trust. The counsel for the trustee in an argu-
ment of considerable length, proceeded to demonstrate the
unwisdom, the incapacity, indeed, of my administration of
the Treasury Department. I made no attempt to meet the
new issue, and the Judge gave no opinion upon it. I made
an effort to satisfy the Judge that the trustee was withhold-
ing money that belonged to my clients, and Judge Endicott
so held. My opponent had an opportunity to argue an issue
that was not before the court, and his client was doomed to
lose his case.

A cause is now pending before the American people. The
issue is this : Is it wise and just for us, as a nation, to make
war for the seizure and government of distant lands, occupied
by millions of inhabitants, who are alien to us in every aspect
of life, except that we are together members of the same
human family? The seriousness of this issue cannot be mag-
nified by the art and skill of writers and speakers, nor can

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 325

it be dwarfed to the proportions of a personal controversy.
Nor does it follow from any possible construction of the
Constitution that it is wise and just for the American people
to seize, through war, and to govern by force, the hostile
tribes and peoples of the earth whether near to or remote.

The advocates of weak causes have two methods of defence
to which they most frequently resort : epithets and a change
of issues.

It was in this city that 'Mr. Webster made a remark that
is applicable to the use of epithets and the avoidance of issues.
Mr. Webster had come to this city to aid the Attorney-General
in the trial of Frank and Joseph Knapp. His presence was
disagreeable to the counsel for the accused, and they more
than intimated that he had been brought to Salem to carry
the court against the law, and to hurry the jury beyond the
evidence. In reply, Mr. Webster referred to the Goodridge
trial, in which he had appeared for the accused, and he said :
" I remember that the learned head of the Suffolk Bar, Mr.
Prescott, came down in aid of the officers of the government.
This was regarded as neither strange nor improper. The
counsel for the prisoners, in that case, contented themselves
with answering his arguments, as far as they were able, in-
stead of carping at his presence." This is, in substance, the
demand that we make upon the supporters of the war in the
Philippines. Let them cease to denounce us as traitors; let
them explain the facts on which they are arraigned; and let
them answer the arguments that we offer in defence of the
Republic.

Causes may be lost by misinterpreting or misrepresenting
| the issues, or by undervaluing the character and ability of op-
ponents, but causes are not often won by such expedients.
The political issues in popular governments are the outcome
of measures and policies, and the issues can be changed only
by a change of policies and measures. President McKinley's

326 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

administration has been an administration of new policies and
new measures, and, consequently, it is an administration of
new issues — issues that will remain until the measures and
policies, to which they owe their origin, have been abandoned.
Therefore, the struggle to change the issues, however made,
or by whomsoever made, is a vain struggle.

If, in this year 1900, it could be proved beyond contro-
versy that in the year 1859, I had maintained the doctrine that
the Constitution of the United States did not apply to the
Territories, and that in the year 1899 I had expressed the
opposite opinion, would these facts, including the change of
opinion, and whether considered together or considered
separately, possess any value argumentative, or otherwise,
as a justification of President McKinley in seizing the Philip-
pine Islands through war, and in attempting to govern the
inhabitants by force? Is it of any consequence when this
country is dealing with a public policy of which war is the
incident, and the continuing inevitable incident, whether the
opinions that one man may have entertained one and forty
years ago are acceptable opinions now that the one and forty
years have passed away? Yet, my fellow-citizens, this is the
argument which the representative of the ancient and honored
county of Essex offers to you and to the country in justifica-
tion of a policy of war degenerating at times into brutal
massacres, carried on against ten million people, inhabitants
of a thousand islands, ten thousand miles from our shores,
and at a cost of four million dollars a week, and at the sacri-
fice each year of thousands of the youth of America, and the
destruction of the health and happiness of tens of thousands
more.

Such is the history of President McKinley's administration,
and such is the defence offered by the representative of the
county of Essex.

There may have been no sinister design in the attempt to

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 327

demonstrate my inconsistency upon a question of constitu-
tional law. I do not assume the existence of personal hos-
tility. An end would be answered if you and others could be
induced to believe that in 1859 I na<^ so construed the Con-
stitution as to justify President McKinley in governing the
Philippine Islands as though the Constitution of the United
States did not exist. Thus do my opinions receive more con-
sideration from an opponent than they could command at the
hands of a friend.

I am now to speak more directly in explanation of the
opinion that I gave in 1859, with something of the history
of the circumstances which led to the preparation of the paper
of that year. It is an error to assume that the question
whether or not the Constitution extends to the Territories,
was a prominent question, in the period of the anti-slavery
controversy. That question was not publicly and seriously
discussed on either side.

The controversy was conducted upon the theory that the
Territories were under, the Constitution. The question was
this : Can a slaveholder move from a slave State to a Terri-
tory and be protected under the Constitution in holding his
slaves as property?

It was the theory of the Missouri Compromise Measure of
1820 and it was also the theory of the compromise measures
of 1850, that the Constitution neither authorized slavery any-
where nor prohibited it anywhere. The Kansas-Nebraska
Act of 1854 recognized, as an admitted fact, the doctrine
that the Constitution extended to the Territories, and it as-
serted as a conclusion of law and as a public policy, the doc-
trine that the Constitution " should have the same force and
effect within the Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within
the United States." Thus it was maintained by the friends
of the compromise measures that the Constitution neither
authorized slavery in the Territories nor prohibited it. This

328 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

view of the Constitution was accepted by the opponents of
slavery.

The Constitution did not authorize slavery in the States
nor did it prohibit slavery in the States. Until the Dred
Scott Decision, the controversy proceeded upon the idea that
States and Territories were alike under the Constitution, and
that by the Constitution slavery was neither authorized nor
prohibited in any State, nor in any Territory of the Union.

Inasmuch as at that time slavery was not prohibited under
the Constitution, there was a general agreement in the propo-
sition that Congress might authorize slavery in the Territories
and that Congress might prohibit slavery in the Territories.
One party contended for its authorization, the other party
demanded its prohibition. On this issue the contest was
made up. From first to last the contest proceeded upon the
theory, on all sides admitted to be a true theory, that the
Constitution of the United States, by its own force, applied
to all the Territories of the United States. In that opinion
I concurred.

When Mr. Douglas concluded to become a Presidential
candidate, he broached a theory of constitutional interpre-
tation for which he may have found some support in the
Dred Scott Decision.

His theory was this: The Constitution so applies to the
Territories that they must take places as States in the Amer-
ican Union, and the Constitution also requires Congress to
accept the Territories as States, and with such institutions as
the Territories, when on their way to Statehood, might choose
to establish.

Hence it was, that in the article in reply to Mr. Douglas, I
made this statement : " But now under the new political dis-
pensation, these thirty million can have no opinion concern-
ing the admission of States which may have established
Catholicism, Mohammedanism, Polygamy or even Slavery."

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 329

I interrupt the course of my remarks to say that already
in the Philippines we are tolerating and supporting slavery
and polygamy, and preparing the way for the organization
of Catholic and Mohammedan States, and their admission
into the American Union.

It was in 1859, and in the article now under debate, that I
used this language as a fair exposition of Mr. Douglas'
plans :

" The people of a Territory have all the rights of the
people of a State; and therefore there are no Territories be-
longing to the American Union, but all are by the silent nega-
tive operation of the Constitution of the United States, con-
verted into independent sovereign members of the North
American Confederacy. 'We commend this system to the
advocates of popular sovereignty. It offers many advantages.
It will not be possible for the people or the Congress of the
United States to resist the admission of new States, inasmuch
as their consent will not be asked. It avoids all unpleasant
issues. It provides for new slave States; it disposes of
Utah; it settles, in anticipation, all questions that may grow
out of the annexation of the Catholic Mexican States; and
it permits the immigrants from the Celestial Empire to re-
establish their institutions, and take their places as members
of this Imperial Republic." This statement of Mr. Douglas5
policy in the interest of slavery is not a far-away prophecy
of the doings under President McKinley's administration.

I have reached a point in this discussion when this remark
may be justified: No impartial reader of my article of 1859
can fail to discover that the discussion did not involve the
question now raised. The issue was this : Are the Territories
bound by the Constitution to become States in the American
Union against the judgment of the people, and are the exist-
ing States bound to accept a new State and that without
regard to its institutions ? This was the theory of Mr. Doug-

330 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

las, and it was a theory designed to provide a certain way
for the increase of slave States. My argument was aimed
at that policy.

At the end of my article there is a summary by proposi-
tions which contains declarations that were outside of the
controversy with Mr. Douglas.

One of these has been quoted, and quoted in error as evi-
dence of my inconsistency. I read the proposition : " The
Constitution of the United States may be extended oyer a
Territory by the treaty of annexation, or by a law of Con-
gress, in which case it has only the authority of law; but
the Constitution by the force of its own provisions is limited
to the people and the States of the American Union."

In this general proposition there are several minor and
distinct propositions.

1. The Constitution may be extended over a territory by a
treaty of annexation. This is now my distinct claim in
regard to Porto Rice and the Philippines, a position that I
have uniformly maintained.

2. The Constitution may be extended to a territory by law,
in which case it has only the authority of law.

As to this statement I can only say I may have had in mind
instances of such legislation as may be found in the Kansas-
Nebraska Act.

When we say that the Constitution of its own force, applies
to the Territories, we refer to the parts that are applicable to
the Territories as distinguishable from the parts that relate
to States exclusively. It is a provision of the Constitution
that

" No State shall make any law impairing the obligation of
contracts." In terms this limitation does not extend to Ter-
ritories. Congress might extend the limitation, but the Act
of limitation would have only the force of law.

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 331

3. " The Constitution by the force of its own provisions
is limited to the people and States of the American Union."
This is only a declaration that the Constitution does not
apply to other states and communities. The word people
includes the inhabitants of the Territories as well as the in-
habitants of the States. If there could have been a doubt in
1859 of the validity of this interpretation, the doubt has been
removed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The inhabitants of
Territories are thereby made citizens of the United States,
are brought within the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and as
citizens they are put upon an equality with the citizens of the
States. They are of the people of the American Union, and
as such they are under the Constitution of the United States.

These are the opening words of the amendment : —

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside."

We have no subject classes in America excepting only
such as have been created, temporarily, as I trust, in Porto
Rico and the Philippine Islands, by the policy of President
McKinley, and all in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, which reads thus:

" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction." President McKinley claimed
jurisdiction over the Philippine Islands and consequently the
inhabitants are entitled to the benign protection of this pro-
vision of the Constitution. There cannot be any form of in-
voluntary servitude imposed upon any American citizen with-
out a violation of this fundamental law. Hence it is that
the administration is forced to deny citizenship to the in-
habitants of the Islands and to assert the claim that the Presi-

332 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

dent and Congress may govern the inhabitants of territories
acquired by purchase, as in the case of the Philippine Islands,
or by conquest, as in the case of Porto Rico, as they might
be governed if the Constitution did not exist. And this, we
are told by the President and his supporters, is not imperial-
ism, but a process of extending the blessings of liberty and
civilization to the inferior races of the earth.

The claim of the President is the assertion of a right in
Congress to establish a system of peonage or even of slavery
in Alaska, Hawaii and the rest. Your representative finds
himself called to the defence of this doctrine. Thus is the
amendment to the Constitution made of none effect in the
Territories.

The character of President McKinley's policy is set forth
in his own words and they justify the charge of imperialism.

In his speech of acceptance he said : — " The Philippines
are ours, and American authority must be supreme through-
out the Archipelago. There will be amnesty, broad and
liberal, but no abatement of our rights, no abandonment of
our duty ; there must be no scuttle policy." What is the mean-
ing of this language? Is it not an assertion of absolute, un-
conditional, permanent supremacy over the millions of the
islands ?

Imperialism is not a word merely. It is a public policy.

The President denounces imperialism, and with emphasis
he declares that we are all republicans in America. None of
us are imperialists.

Our answer is this : In the language that I have quoted
the President describes himself as an imperialist. The test
of Republicanism is the Thirteenth Amendment. The Presi-
dent is subjecting ten million people to involuntary subser-
viency under his rule. This, by whatever name called, is the
imperialism that we denounce.

We denounce it as a violation of a provision of our Con-

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 333

stitution that was gained at the cost of the lives of four
hundred thousand men.

We denounce it as a violation of the rights of ten million
human beings who owe no allegiance to us. Our title! you
exclaim. I answer, What is it ? A title to rule an unwilling,
revolutionary people, who, at the time our title was acquired,
were demanding of Spain the enjoyment of the right of self-
government. That right was well-nigh gained when we ac-
cepted the place of substitute for Spain. Through twenty
months of war we have been engaged in a fruitless attempt
to subjugate our purchased victims, and we have been cajoled,
continually, by the declaration that the war was ended.

If we accept the theory of the President that our title to
Porto Rico and the Philippines is a good title, then that title
can be exercised and enjoyed only in one of two ways under
our Constitution and the example that has been set in the
case of Cuba. They should be held as Territories, on the
way to Statehood, or as possessions entitled to self-govern-
ment without delay by us. Mr. McKinley, Senator Lodge and
Mr. Moody say neither way is acceptable — the lands and the
people are ours. They have no rights under our Constitu-
tion. We will hold them subject to our will until they accept
our authority and recognize our right to rule over them, and
beyond that we will hold them until, in our opinion, they
are qualified to govern themselves.

The doctrine of imperialism is again set forth in the Presi-
dent's letter of acceptance of September 8. " The flag of
the Republic now floats over these islands as an emblem of
rightful sovereignty. Will the Republic stay and dispense
to their inhabitants the blessings of liberty, education and free
institutions, or steal away, leaving them to anarchy or im-
perialism."

Thus the President is engaged in dispensing liberty to
conquered peoples instead of allowing them to enjoy liberty

334 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

as a birthright. He is dispensing to them such education as
he thinks they ought to have, instead of allowing them to
decide for themselves as to the education which may be agree-
able or useful to them. He dictates for them the " free in-
stitutions " which in his opinion are best adapted to their
condition, instead of allowing them the freedom to choose
their own institutions. Thus the President assumes authority
to furnish systems of education and institutions of govern-
ment by force, denying to the people all freedom of action for
themselves, and thereupon he declares that " empire has been
expelled from Porto Rico and the Philippines."

Can the President show wherein his policy, in principle,
differs from the policy of Spain ?

Spain was engaged in war to compel the Filipinos to ac-
cept Spanish institutions of education and liberty. We are
attempting through war to compel the Filipinos to accept
American institutions of education and liberty. It is not an
answer to say, what may be true, that American ideas and
systems of education are superior to Spanish ideas and systems.
In each case there is compulsion. In each case there is a
denial of freedom. In each case, there is the same exercise of
power. In each case there is the same demand for a sub-
servient class. In each case there is gross undisguised im-
perialism. The difference is to the advantage of Spain.
Spain was consistent. Her policy was a policy of imperial-
ism;— a policy of centuries.

America was a republic. Self-government was at the basis
of all her institutions. It was a prominent feature of her
history. Our accusation against President McKinley is this :
He turned away from the history of America, he disdained
our traditions, and he reversed the policy of a century.

Mark the consequences of the change. In other days we
sympathized with Greece in its struggle for self-government;
we denounced the suppression of liberty in Hungary, and in

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 335

the opening years of this century we welcomed the provinces
of Central and South America as they emerged, one by one,
from a condition of imperial vassalage, and took their places
in the galaxy of Republican States.

If in this year 1900, America had sent forth one word of
official cheer to the States of South Africa, the act would
have been an act of self-abasement that would have invited
the contempt of all mankind.

When we charge imperialism upon the administration this
question is put exultingly : " Where is the crown? " I answer
from history. England waited a century, after the conquests
by Clive and Hastings, for a Beaconsfield to crown Britain's
Queen " Empress of the Indies." The crown is but a bauble.
Empire means vast armies employed in ignominious service,
burdensome taxation at home, and ruthless maladministra-
tion of affairs abroad.

In two short years of imperialism, these evils have ceased
to be imaginative merely, and they have taken a place among
the unwelcome realities of our national life.

Before I close this discourse I shall return to the subjects
that I have now introduced to your attention, and for the
purpose of asking you to foster and preserve the quality of
consistency in the history of the county of Essex.

Mr. Moody introduced two topics to the Essex Club of
which I am to take notice. They concern me personally, but
there is an aspect of one of them that may merit public at-
tention.

With a kindliness of spirit, that I could not have antici-
pated. Mr. Moody attributes my failure to continue in the
opinions that he claims were entertained by me in 1859, to
the infirmities incident to advancing years. He thus raises
a question that I am not competent to discuss. I pass
it by.

I trust that Mr. Moody may live to the age of two and

336 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

eighty years ; that his experience may be more fortunate than
the fate that he attributes to me, and that at that advanced
period of his life his ability to interpret the Constitution of his
country will not be less than it now is.

The speech of Mr. Moody, as it appears in the Transcript
of August 30, closes with this sentence : " He at least might
spare the epithets to the party that has showered upon him
every honor within its gift, except the presidency." If I have
applied any disparaging epithet to the Republican Party, my
error is due to my ignorance of the meaning of the word.
The quotations which Mr. Moody has made from my speech
at the Cooper Institute contain a declaration in two forms of
expression, which may have led Mr. Moody to charge me
with the use of epithets. I find nothing else on which his
allegation can be founded. I reproduce the quotations :

" President McKinley and his imperialistic supporters
through two steps in an argument have deduced an erroneous
conclusion from admitted truths.

" (i) Our government in common with other sovereign-
ties has a right to acquire territory.

" (2) That right carries with it the right to govern terri-
tory so acquired.

" From these propositions they deduce the false conclusion
that Congress may indulge a full and free discretion in the
government of the territories so acquired. Herein is the
error, and herein is the usurpation."

Again, " We have the right to acquire territory and we
have the right to govern all territory acquired, but we must
govern it under the Constitution, and in the exercise of those
powers, and those only, which have been conferred upon Con-
gress by the Constitution. Any attempt further is a criminal
usurpation."

In the first quotation I make the charge that President Mc-
Kinley, in his attempt to govern the Philippine Islands as

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 337

though the Constitution did not apply to them, was exercis-
ing powers not granted to him by virtue of his office.

The President is the creature of the Constitution, and his
jurisdiction is measured and limited by the jurisdiction of
the Constitution.

When the President asserts that the Philippine Islands are
not under the Constitution, he admits that the Philippine
Islands are not within his jurisdiction. If, on the other
hand, the islands are within his jurisdiction, it follows that
his right of jurisdiction over them must have come from the
presence of the Constitution itself.

Let there be no misunderstanding upon one point. I claim
that the Philippine Islands are under the Constitution and
that the President may exercise in and over the islands what-
ever powers the Constitution and the laws may have placed
jtn his hands.

I claim further that as a right on the part of the Filipinos,
and as a policy of justice and wisdom on our part, we should
(relinquish our title, whatever it may be, and allow the Fili-
jpinos to enter upon the work of governing themselves.

The President sets up the doctrine that the islands are not
mder the Constitution and that they may be governed by him
outside of all constitutional restraints. This is the usurpation
::hat I have charged upon him, but not upon the Republican
jParty of former days. Upon the basis specified the charge
"emains. It is not an epithet. Let the charge be answered,
>r otherwise, let the President and the supporters of his policy
iibandon the doctrine that we can seize, hold and govern com-
munities and peoples who are not within the jurisdiction of
i>ur Constitution and, who, consequently, are not subject to
!>ur laws.

I I have said that the President and his supporters are im-
perialists. If the word is descriptive of a policy then the
/ord is not an epithet.

338 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

In the passage that I have quoted from the speech of Mr.
Moody he charges me in fact, if not in form of words, with
a violation of my obligations to the Republican Party, and
upon the ground that the party " has showered upon me every
honor within its gift except the Presidency." The considera-
tion that I have received from the Republican Party merits
acknowledgement, and that I accord without reserve, but
it cannot exact subserviency from me.

On public grounds I ask this question : Are those who may
hold office under the leadership of a party, to be held by
party discipline to the support of measures and policies which
they condemn? Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech
are of more value than public office. The movement for the
reform of the civil service, is, in its best aspect, but an at*
tempt to rescue the body of office holders from the tyranny
and discipline of party and of party leaders. Thus much
upon public grounds, but, for myself, I shall not seek pro-
tection under a general policy.

Never for a moment from my early years did I entertain
the thought that I would enter public life, or that I would
continue in public life, as a pursuit or as a profession. Hence,
it has happened that I have never asked for personal support
at the hands of any, and hence it has happened that I have
never solicited a nomination or an appointment from or
through the Republican Party or any member of it.

In 1860, a majority of the delegates to the Congressional
Convention in my district, favored my nomination, but not
through any effort by me. I attended the Convention and
placed in nomination Mr. Train, who had been in Congress
one term.

Without any effort on my part I was nominated in
1862-' '64-' '66 and '68. No aid in money or otherwise was
given by the State Committee or the National Committee.
Following my nomination in each case the District Committee

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 339

asked me for a contribution of one hundred dollars. On one
occasion the committee sent me a return check of forty-two
dollars and some cents with a statement that the full amount
had not been expended. If contributions of money were made
by others the fact was not communicated to me.

I became a candidate for the Senate upon a request signed
by members of the Legislature. When the second contest
was on, in 1877, I declined a call by a telegraphic message to
visit Boston and confer with my friends who were anxious
for my election. I was a member of the Peace Congress of
1 86 1 and I received several other appointments from Gov-
ernor Andrew, but without solicitation by me. At his request
I went to Washington for a conference with Mr. Lincoln
and General Scott. I reached the city by the first train that
passed over the road from Annapolis. Again, at his request,
I went to Washington the Monday following the battle of
Bull Run.

I received two appointments from President Lincoln, when,
in each case, I had no knowledge that the place existed.

From General Grant I received the offer of the Interior De-
partment and then of the Treasury Department, both of which
I declined. When General Grant had taken the responsibility
of sending my name to the Senate, I had no alternative as
| a member of the Republican Party and as a friend to General
Grant.

Upon the death of Mr. Folger, President Arthur asked me
| to take the ofBce of Secretary of the Treasury. I was then
concerned with the affairs of another government and I de-
I dined the appointment.

When General Garfield had been nominated at Chicago in
11880 the nomination of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency
Iwas placed in the hands of the friends of General Grant.
[The nomination was offered to me.

In the forty years from 1856 to 1896, I made speeches in

340 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

behalf of the Republican Party in Massachusetts, Maine,
Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Caro-
lina, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio and Indiana and in
no instance did I receive compensation for my services. When
I spoke in Ohio my expenses were paid on all occasions but
one. That was a volunteer visit. My acquaintance with the
politicians of Ohio was agreeable from first to last.

In my many trips through New York it was understood
that my expenses were to be paid. When General Arthur
was at the head of the committee his checks exceeded the ex-
penses, perhaps by a hundred per cent.

On one occasion the State Committee asked me to make
six or eight speeches upon their appointment. That service
I performed; whether my expenses were paid I cannot say.
If they were paid it is the exception in Massachusetts, unless
local expenses may have been met where addresses were made.

If a mercantile account current could be written, it might
appear that my obligations to the Republican Party are not
in excess of the obligations of the Republican Party to me.

From my experience as a member of the Republican Party
I add an incident to what I have said already.

In the month of July, 1862, and at the request of Presi-
dent Lincoln and Secretary Chase, I entered upon the work
of organizing the Internal Revenue Office. That work was
continued without the interruption of Sabbaths or evenings,
with few exceptions only, till March, 1863, when, as was
said by Mr. Chase, the office was larger than the entire Treas-
ury had been at any time previous to 1861. It was the largest
branch of government ever organized in historical times and
set in motion in a single year. The system remains undis-
turbed. Such changes only have been made as were required
by changes in the laws. In the thirty-eight years of its ex-
istence the Government has received through its agency the
enormous sum of five thousand and five hundred million dol-

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 341

lars being twice the amount of all the revenues of the Govern-
ment previous to 1860.

I have thus devoted many minutes of your time to the
questions raised by Mr. Moody.

The nature and extent of my obligations to the Republican
Party and the question of my consistency in the constructiou
that I have given to the Constitution of the United States,
are not matters of grave concern for you. They have come
into the field of discussion through the agency of Mr. Moody.

I come now to ask your attention to a view of your rela-
tions to passing events which concerns the county of Essex.

Your county has a distinguished history — distinguished
for its men and for its part in public affairs. Shall the history
that you are now making be consistent with that which you
have inherited and which you cherish? I mention one name
only among your great names and I bring before your minds
one event only.

In the order of time and in the order of events, the second
most important paper in the annals of America is the " Or-
dinance for the Government of the Territory of the United
States Northwest of the River Ohio."

The chief value of that ordinance is in the sixth article
which is in these words : " There shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than
in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted."

By repeated decisions the Supreme Court has held that the
stipulations and terms of the ordinance remained in force
after the adoption of the Constitution, unless a conflict should
appear, and in such a case the ordinance would yield to the
Constitution. As the article in regard to slavery was not
controlled by the Constitution, the exclusion of slavery be-
came the supreme and continuing law of the Territories and
States that were organized in the vast region covered by the

342 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Ordinance of 1787, and it may be assumed, fairly, that the
character and power of those States made possible the ex-
termination of the institution of slavery in all parts of the
country. The parties to the ordinance of 1787 may have
builded better than they knew, but their work is one of the
four great acts or events in the history of the Republic: —
The Declaration of Independence, the Ordinance of 1787, the
Constitution, and the amendment abolishing the institution
of slavery.

Nathan Dane of the county of Essex, was the author of
the Ordinance of 1787; and he was a delegate in the Conti-
nental Congress from 1785 to 1788. Of all the eminent men
that you have sent forth into the service of the State and the
country, he must be accounted the chief, when we consider
the value of his contribution, historically, and on the side of
freedom and civilization. His fame is in your hands and I
have come to ask you to consider whether the policy of
President McKinley in the Philippines is in harmony with
the Ordinance of 1787 and the amendment to the Consti-
tution of 1865.

By the Ordinance of 1787, freedom and full right to self-
government were made secure to the coming millions who
were to occupy the States northwest of the River Ohio. By
the amendment of 1865 freedom and equality in government
were guaranteed to all and especially to the negro race in
America.

Shall the avoidance of the Amendment in States of this
Union be tendered as a reason for a denial of equality and the
right of self-government in the Philippine Islands? If the
negroes in America are entitled to freedom from a state of
subserviency, are not the colored races in the Philippines en-
titled to freedom, and that whether they are under the Con-
stitution or beyond its jurisdiction?

You are called to a choice between the doctrines of Nathan

IMPERIALISM AS A PUBLIC POLICY 343

Dane and Abraham Lincoln on one side and the doctrines and
policy of President McKinley and his supporters on the other
side. The point that I make is this: The three propositions
cannot stand together. Dane and Lincoln are in harmony.
They guaranteed equality and self-government to all. Presi-
dent McKinley and his supporters demand subserviency of all
who are not within the lines of the American seas.

They assert supreme authority over their fellow-men for
an indefinite period of time, and they promise therewith good
government. Here are the assertion of power and the promise
of goodness that have attended the origin and movement of
every despotism that has risen to curse mankind.

That you may see, as in one view, the doctrines of Dane,
Lincoln and McKinley, I read again the records that they
have made.

"There shall be neither slavery "The Philippines are ours and
nor involuntary servitude in the American authority must be su-
said territory otherwise than in the preme throughout the Archipelago,
punishment of crimes whereof the There will be amnesty, broad and
party shall have been duly con-' liberal, but no abatement of our
Dieted." — NATHAN DANE. rights, no abandonment of our

duty. There must be no scuttle

• • Neither slavery nor involuntary tf' „ _ Wll LIAM MCKINLEY.
servitude, except as a punishment *

for crime whereof the party shall "The flag of the Republic now
have been duly convicted, shall floats over these islands as an em-
exist within the United States, or blem of rightful sovereignty. Will
any place subject to their jurisdic- the Republic stay and dispense to
tion" — ABRAHAM LINCOLN. their inhabitants the blessings of

liberty, education and free institu-
tions, or steal away leaving them
to anarchy or in :-1J — " ™r"

LIAM McKlNLEY.

to anarchy or imperialism." — WIL-
-' Ki:

"Any slave in the Archipelago
of Jolo shall have the right to pur-
chase freedom by paying to the
master the usual market price." —

Article 10, of the McKinley treaty
with the Sultan of the Sulu Isles.

I leave three questions with you.

Is a vote for President McKinley and his policy in the
Philippine Islands a vote in harmony with the teachings and
examples of Nathan Dane and Abraham Lincoln?

344 SIXTY YEARS IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Is the policy of President McKinley consistent with the
history of the county of Essex?

Shall your representative stand lor Nathan Dane and
Abraham Lincoln and Freedom, or for William McKinley and
Despotism ?

THE END

INDEX

INDEX

A

BOLITTON of slavery throughout the world, Vol. II. 310.
Acton Monument, 128.
Adams, Alvin, 43.

Adams, Charles Francis, 72, Vol. II. 201.
Adams Express Co., 43.
Adams, John Quincy, 52.

funeral of, 102.

Adams, Samuel and Charles Sumncr, Vol. II. 220.
Adirondacks, trip to the, 238.

Administration, vigor in, how secured, Vol. II. 137.
Agassiz, Alexander, 258.
Alabama Controversy, Vol. II. 235.
Alaska, government of, Vol. II. 146.
Allen, Elisha H., 101.
Allison, Wm. B., Vol. II. i.
Amendment, the isth, History of, Vol. II. 44.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 260.

America, celebration o£ the discovery of, orator for the, Vol. II. 317.
America, discovery of, Vol. II. 314, 320.
Andrew, Governor, 284.

letter to, 286.

Annapolis, condition of, April 1861, 285.
| Annapolis Junction, condition of, April 1861, 286.
Armies, character ofi in the Civil War, Vol. II. 259.
Army, appropriation for in 1867, Vol. II. 108.
Arthur, President, policy of in 1881, Vol. II. 275.
Assassination of Mr. Lincoln, investigation of the, Vol. II. 55.
Austin, James T., 104.

B

!DANCROFT, Amos B., studies with, 48.
Bancroft, George, 63.

speech of, 64, Vol. II. 248.

iBank of England, deposits of money in, Vol. II. 189.
Bank, Tenth National, its connection with " Black Friday," Vol. II. 174.

345

346 INDEX

Banks, Commission on, 98.

Banks, Nathaniel P., 107, Vol. II. 237.

letters from, Vol. II. 239, 240.
Banks, National, policy of the, Vol. II. 187.
Bankers, aid of a necessity in financial negotiations, Vol. II. 186.
Bankers, policy of in 1870, Vol. II. 142.
Bard, Aaron, n.
Bates, Attorney General, 305.
Behring Sea, jurisdiction over, Vol. II. 147.,
Bigelow, George T., 75.
Bigelow, Timothy, 36.
Biglow Papers, Vol. II. 245.

Bill of 1869 for funding the public debt, Vol. II. 184.
Bingham, John A., Vol. II. 42, 119, 120.
Bird, Francis W., 229.

Births, marriages and deaths, records of, 88.
" Black Friday," Vol. II. 164, 178, 181.
Elaine, James G., Vol. II. I, 260, 263, 265, 272.
Border- State men, 269.
Boston, first visit to, 7.

harbor of, Commission on, 97.

representatives from, in the Forties, 72.
Bonds, U. S. value of in 1869, Vol. II. 127.

U. S., purchase of, Vol. II. 138, 165, 167, 200.

U. S., sale, method of, Vol. II. 139, 183.
Booth, John Wilkes, death of, Vol. II. 60.
Boutwell, George S., birthplace, i.

ancestry, 5.

letter to Governor Andrew, 286.

letters to Hon. Simon Cameron, 291.
Boutwell, Miss, letter from General Grant, Vol. II. 253.
Briggs, George N., 87.
Britain, Great, policy of, in America, 138.
Brocklebank, Capt., character of, 172.
Brookline, birth in, i.
Brooks, George M., 248.
Brooks, James, Vol. II. 14.
Buchanan, President, interview with, 275.
Bull Run, first battle of, 265.

Bunker Hill Monument, Address upon completion of, in 1843, 89.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, changes in 1869, Vol. II. 127.
Burleigh, Charles, the author of the downfall of silver, Vol. II. 154,
Burlingame, Anson, 218.
Business, beginnings in, 47.

INDEX 347

Butler, Benjamin R, Vol. II. 14, 283, 294.

Butler, Caleb, 40.

Butterfield, General, his resignation, Vol. II. 178.

c

CABINS, log, 60.
Cabot, J. S., 08.
Cairo, Commission at, 293.
Cambridge, 252, 262.
Cameron, Hon. Simon, letters to, 291.
Canada, opening of R. R. with, 125, Vol. II. 278.
Canonchet, Chief, character of, 174.

Carolina, North, Proclamation, concerning, Vol. II. 102.
Cass, General, 114, interview with, 275.
Castellar of Spain, Vol. II. 317.
Changes and progress from 1830 to 1900, 26.
Chanler, of New York, Vol. II. 7.
Charlestown, speech at, 253.
Chase, Salmon P., speech of, in Peace Convention, 268, 270, 304, 307,

313, Vol. II. 15, 17, 29, 119.
Chittenden's Report of Peace Convention, 268.
Choate, Rufus, 231, 281.
Civil Service, reform of the, Vol. II. '133.
Clark, S. M., Vol. II. 15, 127.
Clergy, influence of, in the Revolution, 155.
Clerk and store boy, 20.
Clifford, John H., 124.

Coinage of silver coins, previous to 1873, Vol. II. 152.
Colfax, Speaker, Vol. II. 2.
College, Harvard, 95.
Colonies, the, character of, 137.
Columbia, District of, Suffrage in, Vol. II. 37.
Columbus, Vol. II. 314, 319, 320.
Commission, The Electoral, of 1877, Vol. II. 264, 284.

French and American, Vol. II. 286.

Silver, of 1876, History of, Vol. II. 157, 160.
Committee, the Judiciary, Vol. II. 114.

Report of, on "Black Friday," Vol. II. 164.
Committees, service on, Vol. II. 6.
Company, Credit Mobilier, Vol. II. 7.
Compromises, 254-5.
Concord Fight, 148, 150.

address on, 130.
Concord resolutions in favor of liberty, 153.

INDEX

Congress, nomination for, in i862-'64-'66 and '68, Vol. II. 338.

legality of the 39th, Vol. II. 79.

services in, Vol. II. i.
Congressional contest of 1858, 248.

Conkling, Roscoe, Vol. II. i, 260, 265, 268, 272, 273, 274.
Consistency of opinion, Vol. II. 323.
Conspiracy, the, 262.

Conspirators for the assassination of Lincoln, Vol. II. 57.
Constitution, Thirteenth Amendment to, Vol. II. 36, 37.

construction of, Vol. II. 326, 330.

Fifteenth Amendment, History of, Vol. II. 44, 45.

Fourteenth Amendment to, Vol. II. 36, 41.

influence of, on the Colonies, 139.

Constitutional Convention in Massachusetts, 216, 217, 219, 225, 231.
Continental Magazine, article in, 266.
Convention, Republican, of 1880, Vol. II. 266, 267.
Conversation, private, danger of quoting, 106.
Cooke, Jay, & Co., as negotiators of the loan in 1871, Vol. II. 142.
Corbett, Boston, Vol. II. 60.
Corbin, A. R., his relation to the speculation of "Black Friday," Vol.

II. 171.
Corporations, controversy over, 78.

taxation of, 80.

Counterfeiter, interview with a, Vol. II. 129.
Country life in 1830, 8.
Courtesy of the Senate, Vol. II. 282.
Courts-Martial, Vol. II. 287.
Cox, S. S., Vol. II. 8.

Credit, public, improvement of, since 1870, Vol. II. 187, 202.
Crime of 1873, Vol. II. 150.
Curtis, Benjamin R., in, Vol. II. 118.
Curtis, Charles P., 113.
Curtis, George T., 113.
Gushing, Caleb, 94, 119, 120, 122, 231.
Gushing, Edmund, family of, 23.

D

T*\A,MON, Rev. David, 13.

•^ Dana, Charles A., acquaintance with, 293, hostility of, to Gen. Grant, |

294-
Dana, Richard H.,Jr., member committee on Mass. State Constitute

221, nominated *or minister to England, 226.
Dana, Samuel, 36.

INDEX 349

Dane, Nathan, the services of, Vol. II. 342.

compared with Lincoln and McKinley, Vol. II. 342-4.
Davis, Bancroft, 228.
Davis, Henry Winter, Vol. II. i.

speech of, Vol. II. 3.
Davis, Isaac, 160.
Dav's, Isaac, Capt, 128.
Davis, Matthew L., 52.
Davis, Reuben, Vol. II. 280.
Dawes, Henry L., in.
Dearborn, H. A. S., 82.

Debt, Bill for funding the public, History of, Vol. II. 140, 184.
Defeat of 1844, Qi-
Devens, General, 266.
Dexter, Franklin, 247.
Dexter, Samuel, 15, 58.
Diary, Booth's, Vol. II. 58.
Dix, Benjamin P., 33.

Dodge, William E., Case with the Government, Vol. II. 148.
Dollar decreed to be gold only, Vol. II. 151.

the Trade, Vol. II. 154.
Dorr, Thomas W., 82.
Douglas, Stephen A., policy of, in 1854, Vol. II. 328.

t^DUCATION, Secretary of Mass. Board of, 256.
*•"' Election of 1840, 59.

to House of Representatives, 69.

of 1842, 83.

Senatorial, of 1877, Vol. II. 284.
Elections, money in, Vol. II. 13.
Emancipation, demand for, 262.

Proclamation of, Vol. II. 17, 309.
Emery, General William H., interview of, with President Johnson, Vol.

II. 1 10.

Emerson, George B., 259.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 248.
England, Bank of, deposits in and terms of, Vol. II. 189.

Bonds, sale of in, Vol. II. 183.
Everett, A. H., as an orator, 56.
Everett, Edward, as an orator, 56.

350 INDEX

FANEUIL HALL, dinner in, in honor of Morton's election, 85, Vol.
II. 20.

Farley, George F., 37.

Felton, President of Harvard College, 260.

Field, David Dudley, course of in Peace Convention, 273.

interview with after Pope's defeat, 310.

Fifteenth Amendment supported by President Grant, Vol. II. 229.
Fillmore, President, visit to Mass, in 1851, 125.
Fish, Secretary, Vol. II. 235.

as a public officer and statesman, Vol. II. 212.
Fishery, seal, in Alaska, Vol. II. 147.

Fisk, James, Jr., testimony of, " Black Friday," Vol. II. 165, 179.
Fiske, Mr., Register of Probate, 124.
Fitzpatrick, Bishop, 220.
Flint, Timothy, 14.

Frelinghuy.sen, Frederick T., speech in Peace Convention, 268.
Fremont, John C, sketch of, 295.
Fuller, Margaret, 35.
Fuller, Timothy, 35.
Fund, Sinking, History of, Vol. II. 137, 186.

GALVIN, suit by, Vol. II. 206.
Gardner, Henry J., 238.
Garfield, James A., Vol. II. i.

opinion of General Rosecrans, Vol. II. 247.
Geneva Conference, Vol. II. 200.
Geographies, errors in systems, 259.
Giles, Joel, 234.
Going, John K., 237.
Gold, sales of, Vol. II. 138.

accumulation of, in Bank of England, Vol. II. 196.

product of and influence of on prices, Vol. II. 162.

sale of September 24, 1869, Vol. II. 175.

sales of, Vol. II. 165.

sales of, policy in regard to the, Vol. II. 167.

speculation in, in September, 1869, Vol. II. 165-7.
Gould, Jay, Vol. II. 165.

his plan in regard to gold, Vol. II. 182.

letters from, Vol. II. 173-4-

INDEX

Governor, nomination for the office of in 1849, 115.

election of, in 1850, 115.

Granger, Francis, course of in Peace Convention, 274.
Grant, Fred D., letter of, in regard to General Grant's letter of 1880, Vol.

II. 271.
Grant, General, views of, on reconstruction, Vol. II. 70.

administration, Cabinet in, Vol. II. 204.

and Sheridan compared, Vol. II. 241.

as a man and friend, Vol. II. 249.

as an administrator, Vol. II. 212.

as a statesman, Vol. II. 225.

attempt to influence his acts in the events of " Black Friday," Vol.
II. 170, 171.

candidacy of, in 1880, Vol. II. 266.

characteristics of, Vol. II. 235-250.

correspondence with, upon my resignation from Treasury, Vol. II. 223.

his advice in regard to the sale of gold, Vol. II. 175.

his career as a soldier, Vol. II. 254.

his course in regard to appointments, Vol. II. 221.

letter from, Vol. II. 169.

letter of, to Conkling and others, Vol. II. 269.

letter of, to Miss Boutwell, Vol. II. 253.

opinion of the army, Vol. II. 258.

mission to Mexico in 1866, Vol. II. 109.

testimony of, in regard to President Johnson's plans, Vol. II. III.
Greene, Charles G., 114.
Griffin, John Quincy Adams, sketch of, 312.
Groton, residence in, 33.

Liberty Hall in, 64.
Guyot, Professor, 259.

H

TT ALE, ROBERT S., Vol. II. 11.

•" Hallet, Benjamin F., 114.

Hamlin, Vice-President, despatch to, April 1861, 285.

Hangmen, ministers as, 74.

Harrison, William H., 60

Harvard College, my relations to, 96.

Hawaiian Treaty, Vol. II. 277.

Hayti, Republic, claim against, Vol. II. 289.

Haywood, Simeon, 20.

Henshaw, David, 114.

Hillard, George S., 219.

35* INDEX

Hitchcock, President of Amherst College, 260.

Hoar, E. R., the resignation of from General Grant's Cabinet, Vol. II.

208-210.

Hoar, Samuel, 96.

Hooker, General, after battle of Antietam, 308.
Hopkins, President of Williams College, 260.
Howe, Elias, 234
Hubbard, Joseph S., 34.
Hubbard, Rev. Joseph, 15.
Hunkers, old, 116.

I

IMPEACHMENT, Vol. II. 10.

Andrew Johnson, Vol. II. 96.

Law of, Vol. II. 114.

of President Johnson, charges in, Vol. II. 112.

of President Johnson, Report of, 1867, Vol. II. 113.

resolution for the, of Johnson, Vol. II. 55.
Imperialism as a public policy, Vol. II. 323.
Incidents of early life, 3.
Indians, Narragansett, 165.

Tribes of, under King Philip, 165.
Insanity, investigation of, in 1847, 99.
Insolvency, clerk in, 42.
Intefnal Revenue Office, resignation as Commissioners, 311.

and permanency, 315.

its magnitude, 313.

policy of, 313.

Interest on public debt, how payable by checks, Vol. II. 185.
Introduction, page v.
Investigations following the Civil War, Vol. II. 55.

trial of President Johnson, Vol. II. 118.
Issues in legal contests, change of, Vol. II. 324.

JEFFERSON, dinner in honor of, in 1859, 250.
administration of, Vol. II. 301.

Johnson, President, views of reconstruction, Vol. II. 72.
expenses of his administration, Vol. II. 121.
his nomination in 1864, Vol. II. 97, 101.
his course in Congress, Vol. II. 97.
impeachment of, Vol. II. 96.
impeachment of, its value, Vol. II. 122.

INDEX 353

Johnson, interview with Stanley Matthews, Vol. II. 100.
interview with him in 1865, Vol. II. 103.
issues in trial of, Vol. II. 117
managers at trial of, Vol. II. 113.
plan of reconstruction, Vol. II. 91.
policy in North Carolina, Vol. II. 94.
policy of, in 1866, Vol. II. 76.
policy of, in regard to the reorganization of the government, Vol.

II. 112.

policy of reconstruction, Vol. II. 74.
proclamation by, Vol. II. 104.
speeches by, Vol. II. 106.
trial of, Vol. II. 113.
vote of Senate on question of guilty or not guilty, Vol. II. 117.

K

TS ERNAN, FRANCIS, Vol. II. 2.

-^ King Philip, 164.

death of, 182.
King Philip's War, destruction in, 168, 173.

causes of, 177.

policy of colonists in, 174.
Kinnicutt, Thomas, 80.
Know-Nothing Party, 238.
Kossuth, Louis, 184.

T ANGUAGE, French, study of, 88.

•^ Law, study of, 40.

Leadership, elements of, 70.

Lee, General, rights of, after the surrender, Vol. II. 73.

character of, Vol. II. 85.

examination of, Vol. II. 79-

the offensive campaigns of, Vol. II. 256.

views of, on secession, Vol. II. 82.
Legal Tender cases, Vol. II. 208.
Legislature of 1847, 94.

1848, 102.

1849, 107.

Lewis, Andrew J., Vol. II. 70.
Lewis, Joseph J., 313.
Liberty, its influence, 144.

354 INDEX

Lincoln, Ezra, 117.

Lincoln, President, ability of, in military affairs, Vol. II. 305.

advice in regard to command of army, 310.

as an historical personage, Vol. II. 300.

attacks upon, Vol. II. 303.

character of his Cabinet, Vol. II. 311.

character of, Vol. II. 313.

his opinion of Stanton, Vol. II. 90.

his power as a controversialist, Vol. II. 304.

his relations to General Grant, Vol. II. 308.

hostility to, in Congress, Vol. II. 310.

influence over doings of Peace Congress, 274.

letter from, April 1859, 250.

neglect to send troops into Virginia, Vol. II. 65.

opinions on secession, Vol. II. 33.

on campaign against Vicksburg, 311.

policy in regard to Fort Sumter, Vol. II. 62.

policy of, in regard to slavery, Vol. II. 101.

policy of, in regard to Virginia, Vol. II. 66.

remark in regard to Mr. Chase, 275.
Lincoln, Solomon, 98.
Long, Alexander, Vol. II. 2.
Louisiana, reorganization of, Vol. II. 240.
Lowell, James Russell, Vol. II. 245.
Lunenburg, early home in, 2

business in, 20.
Lyceums, 76.

M

A^ANAGERS at trial of President Johnson, Vol. II. 113.

•*•*•*• chairman of, at trial of President Johnson, Vol. II. 119.

Mann, Horace, 256.

Marshall, Timothy, 16.

Mason, Lowell, 259.

Massachusetts men in the Forties, 69.

Massachusetts, resolutions of, concerning Senator Sumner, Vol. II. 217.

parties in, in 1854, 238.

Matthews, Stanley, interview with Vice-President Johnson, Vol. II. 100.
Maud S., Vol. II. 266.
McClellan Club, Vol. II. 21.

McClellan, relations of, to President Lincoln, Vol. II. 306.
McCulloch, Secretary, opinion of Treasury in 1869, Vol. II. 125.

difficulties in administration, Vol. II. 125.

INDEX 355

McKinley, the policy of, in the Philippine Islands, Vol. II. 332.
Meetings, political, in 1840, 63.
Meteors, shower of, in 1833, 22.
Mexico, war with, 94.

mission to, in 1866, Vol. II. 109.
Miantonomo, Chief, death of, 176.
Middlesex, County of, declaration by the, 142.
Mint Bill of 1873, Vol. II. 150.

effect of, Vol. II. 156.

its importance, Vol. II. 163.
Mint Service, organization of, Vol. II. 150.
Mississippi, election in, in 1875, Vol. II. 279.
Monument, Sudbury, address at dedication of, 160.
Moody, William H., controversy with, Vol. II. 333.
Morse, author of a geography, 259.
Morton, Governor, 58, 219.

administration of, in 1843, 86.
Morton, Marcus, Jr., 219.
Motley, J. Lothrop, 94.
Murray, author of a grammar, 259.

N

^ANTUCKET, 77.

^ Negroes, their future, Vol. II. 281.

o

f~\ 'BRIEN, SMITH, meeting in behalf of, 127.
^-^ Occupations of the people in 1830, 29.

Office, appointments to, Vol. II. 134.

Officers, civil, for what offences removable by impeachment, Vol. II. li6L

Opinion, changes in, 26.

value of contemporaneous, Vol. II. 302.

Otis, Harrison Gray, 103.

P

pAPERS, secret, Vol. II. 62.

*• for publication, 48.

Parentage, 5.

Park, Stuart J., 236.

Parties in Massachusetts in 1854, 238.

Party, Democratic in Mass., 1848, 114.

obligations to, Vol. II. 338.
Patriotism, 149.

356 INDEX

Peace Convention, members of, for Massachusetts, 268.

debates in, 271, 272.

of 1861, 268.

parties in, 269.

report on, 282.

speech in, 273.

Pelletier, Antonio, Vol. II. 289.
People's Party, 263.
Pequot Indians, treaty with, 175.
Phelps, Rev. Dudley, 45.
Phi Beta Kappa, oration of 1861, 262.

Phillips, Wendell, part in aid of Fifteenth Amendment, Vol. II. 48.
Pierce, President, 233.
Pierce, Rev. Dr., 2.
Pierpont, John, 29.

Pillow, Gideon J., visit to Massachusetts, 121.
Pitt, opinion of, 138.

Pleasanton, General, appointment and removal as commissioner of In-
ternal Revenue, Vol. II. 131.
Plot to murder Lincoln, Vol. II. 61.
Poland, partition of, 145.
Politics, first experiences in, 55.
Polk, James K., 91.
Poll tax, 81.

Post office at Groton, 51.
Potomac, Army of the, Vol. II. 311.
Presidency, term of, Vol. II. 122.
President, election of, Vol. II. 33.

election of, in 1877, Vol. II. 284.

Proclamation by President Johnson in 1865, Vol. II. 104.
Proclamation of Emancipation, Vol. II. 311.

history of, Vol. II. 17.

R

TJ ANDALL, SAMUEL J., Vol. II. 16.

•*^ Rantoul, Robert, Jr., elected senator, 117.

characteristics of, 118, 231, 232.
Rantoul, Robert, 231, 232, 233.

Ratio, attempt to establish a, between gold and silver, Vol. II. 151.
Raymond, Henry J., Vol. II. 10.
Rebellion, speech on, Vol. II. 22.

Dorr, 82.

Shays, 66.

INDEX

Reciprocity, Vol. II. 277.
Reconstruction, policy of, Vol. II. 30.

by President Johnson, Vol. II. 104.

General Grant's views of, Vol. II. 70, 74.

policies for, Vol. II. 105.
Register, Genealogical, 161.

Reports as secretary of Board of Education, 260.
Representative, candidate for, in 1839, 57.
Republican Party, organization of, in Massachusetts, 246.
Republican Party, Vol. II. 300.
Revenue Marine Service, changes in, Vol. II. 129.
Revenue System, the Internal, organization of, 303.
Revolution, how supported, 155.

its morality, 135.
Rhode Island, Dorr Rebellion in, 82.

controversy with, 224.
Rice, A. H., Vol. II. 3.
Richardson, William A., ix.
Robinson, Rev. Charles, 45.
Robinson, John P., 77.
Russell, Bradford, 40
Russell, William, 260.

O ALARY grab, Vol. II. 11.
° Salaries, Vol. II. 13.

reduction of, in 1843, 86.

Santo Domingo, General Grant's policy in regard to, Vol. II. 233.
School-keeping, 31.
Schools and teachers, 18, 32.
Schools, district system, 257.
Schools in Massachusetts, controversy over, 257.
Schenck, General, Vol. II. 8.
Sears, Barnas, 256.
Secession, debate upon, Vol. II. 2.

difficulties of, 262.

effects of, Vol. II. 30.

Mr. Lincoln on, Vol. II. 33.
Secretary of Mass. Board of Education, 256.
Securities, Public examination of. in 1847, 100.
Seddon, James A., interview with, 269.
Senate, election to, Vol. II. 221.

courtesy of, Vol. II. 282.

357

358 INDEX

Senate, U. S., in 1839, 52.

vote of, on impeachment of President Johnson, Vol. II. 117.
Senator, election of, in 1851, 116.
Seward, William H., Interview with, 270.
Shattuck, Job, 65.
Shays, Daniel, 65.
Shellabarger, Samuel, Vol. II. 33.
Sherman, General, mission to Mexico in 1866, Vol. II. 109.

his religious opinions, Vol. II. 243.

opinion of, of General Grant, Vol. II. 258.
" Shoemakerized," 119.
Silver, demonetization of, history of the, Vol. II. 152.

bimetalism, system of, Vol. II. 162.

its downfall, the author of. its, Vol. II. 154.

product of, Vol. II. 161.
Skeleton, history of, 49.
Slavery, interview with a slave woman, 53.

influence of, in the Forties, Vol. II. 246.

in the territories, Vol. II. 327.

Lincoln's policy in regard to, Vol. II. 101.
Slaves, value of, Vol. II. 308.
Slave traders, the last of the ocean, Vol. II. 289.
Societies, religious, 9.
Society, in the North, Vol. II. 245.
South, condition of, in 1866, Vol. II. 80, 86.

Spain, its part and fortunes in the discovery of America, Vol. II. 319.
Speakership in Massachusetts in 1842, 83.
Speeches in 1840, 63.

Speculators in gold, their policy in 1869, Vol. II. 169.
Spooner, Dr., i.

Standard of Values, Vol. II. 160.
Stanton, Secretary, Gorham's Life of, 311.

agency in the work of reconstruction, Vol. II. 92.

character of, Vol. II. 89.

his attempted removal by President Johnson, Vol. II. 115.

interview with, December, 1866, Vol. II. 107.
Staples, Thomas A., 42.
State Rights, Vol. II. 67.

General Lee's position on the doctrine of, Vol. II. 79.
States, Border, their condition in 1861, Vol. II. 101.
Statistics, Vital, bill for registration of, 88.
Statutes, revision of, Vol. II. 285.

Stevens, Alexander H., doctrine of State Rights, Vol. II. 67.
Stevens, Thaddeus, Vol. II. 9, 10.

INDEX 359

I Stewart, A. T., his relations to General Grant's administration, Vol.

II. 204.

Stewart, Senator, opinions of, Vol. II. 155.
Sturgis, family of, 245.
Sudbury Fight, date of, 160.
character of, 169.
losses at, 171.
Sudbury monument, 160.
I Suffrage, speech on, Vol. II. 37.
in the South, Vol. II. 53.
its future in the country, Vol. II. 43.

Sumner, Senator, as a member of convention of 1853, 227.
and Samuel Adams, compared, Vol. II. 220.
course on Fourteenth Amendment, Vol. II. 42.
his qualities and powers, Vol. II. 218.
on reconstruction, Vol. II. 32.
ostracized, Vol. II. 246.
personal relations with, Vol. II. 215.
removal of, from chairmanship of Committee on Foreign Relations,

Vol. II. 214.

the resolution of Massachusetts in regard to, Vol. II. 217.
Sumter, Fort, Mr. Lincoln's policy in regard to, Vol. II. 62.
(Surgeons, character of, in Confederate Army, Vol. II. 84.

•'"pAXATION of mortgaged real estate, 81.

' •*• Temperance, legislation concerning, in 1838, 55.
•Tennessee, admission of, Vol. II. 41.
•Tenney, Sanborn, 260.
{; Texas, annexation of, 90.
.jThayer of Pennsylvania, Vol. II. 10.
•ilThomas, Benj. F., 79, Vol. II. I.
1 Thomas, Francis, Vol. II. 33.

iThomas, General George H., opinion of, Vol. II. 85.
ilTimes, The New York, attempt to use it in the events of " Black Friday,"

Vol. II. 172.

•Trade Dollar, history of, Vol. II. 154.
iTrain, Charles R., Vol. II. I.

Treasurer of United States, letter from, Vol. II. 185.
> 'Treasury, accounts in the, Vol. II. 144.

accounts in the, discrepancies in, Vol. II. 145.
Department, bookkeeping in Customs Service, Vol. II. 130.
Department, management of, Vol. II. 166.

360 INDEX

Treasury, in 1869, Vol. II. 125.

resignation from, Vol. II. 223.
Treaty, Hawaiian, Vol. II. 277.
Treaty of Washington, Vol. II. 235.
Trowbridge, Dr., i.
Tyler, John, 61, 269.

administration of, 68.

course of, in Peace Convention, 274.

f

u

UNITED STATES, credit of, method of establishing, Vol. II. 40.
in December 1871, Vol. II. 143.

VALUE, standard of, Vol. II. 160.
Vanderbilt, William K, Vol. II. 265.
Vicksburg, movement of army upon, Vol. II. 307.

capture of, 311.
Virginia, Mr. Lincoln's proposals to, Vol. II. 63.

call for Peace Convention by, 268.
Voorhees, D. W., Vol. II. 2.
Votes, counting the electoral, Vol. II. 33.

W

TT7ADSWORTH, CAPT., 160.
* * Wadsworth, Benj., 160.
Wall Street, condition of, in Sept. 1869, Vol. IT. 168.

during the panic of " Black Friday," Vol. II. 176.
War, Civil, border states, in the, Vol. II. 309-

King Phillip's, 164.

opening of the Civil, 284.

rules of, Vol. II. 234.
Ward, General, 34.
Ward, Nahum, 34.
Wars, when justifiable, 134.
Washington, appointed agent to visit, April 1861, 284.

condition of, April 1861, 286.

condition of city upon Pope's Defeat, 310.

in 1865, Vol. II. 103.

Treaty of, Vol. II. 235.

visit to, in 1839, 51.
Washington, General, strength in the country, Vol. II. 301.

INDEX 361

Webster, Daniel, 60.

Address at Bunker Hill, June 1843, 89.

in 1851, 125.

Reply of to Hayne, Vol. II. 246.

Speech of, in Sept. 1851, 127.
Webster, Fletcher, 94.

death of, 309.

Webster, county of, project for, 236.
Weed, Thurlow, 307, Vol. II. 207.
Wentworth, John, 103.
Whig Party, end of, 233.
Whigs, tactics of, in 1840, 62.
Wilkes, John, opinion of English policy, 138.
William, bark, a slave trader, Vol. II. 289.
Wilson, Henry, 78.

character of, 228.
Wilson, James R, Vol. II. i.
Windom, Secretary, Vol. II. 244.
Winthrop, Robert C, 116-7, 247.

Wolseley, General, as critic of General Grant, Vol. II. 256.
Wood, Nathaniel, peculiarities of, 84.
Woodbury, James T., 128.
Wool, General, i.
Wythe, Nathaniel J., 100.

, speech by, 252.
speech in reply to, 252.
Young, John Russell, on Chicago Convention of 1880, Vol. II. 269.

»

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY