CHAPTER XVI CLEVELAND'S FIRST TERM 1884 to 1887
The Republican Convention of 1884 was held at Chicago. The names of Joseph R. Hawley, John A. Logan, Chester A. Arthur, John Sherman, George F. Edmunds, and James G. Blaine were presented as candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Blaine and Logan finally were the nominees, neither of them having much of a contest to secure the nomination for President and Vice- President respectively.
The Democratic Convention met later, and nominated Grover Cleveland and Thomas A. Hendricks.
The Presidential campaign of 1884 was unique in the extreme. It was the most bitter personal contest in our history. The private lives of both candidates, Cleveland and Blaine, were searched, and the most scandalous stories circulated, most of which were false.
The tide was in favor of Blaine only a short time before the election. I do not intend to go into the cause of his defeat. It was accomplished by a margin so narrow that any one of a dozen reasons may be given as the particular one. The Burchard incident, the dinner given by the plutocrats at Delmonico's, certainly changed several hundred votes—important when we remember that a change of less than six hundred votes in the State of New York would have elected him. Conkling, too, was accused of playing him false, and it was alleged that there were hundreds of fraudulent votes cast in the city of New York and on Long Island. Colonel A. K. McClure, in "Our Presidents and How We Make Them," says, with reference to this contest:
"Blaine would have been matchless in the skilful management of a Presidential campaign for another, but he was dwarfed by the overwhelming responsibilities of conducting a campaign for himself, and yet he assumed the supreme control of the struggle and directed it absolutely from start to finish. He was of the heroic mould, and he wisely planned his campaign tours to accomplish the best result. In point of fact, he had won his fight after stumping the country, and lost it by his stay in New York on his way home. He knew how to sway multitudes, and none could approach him in that important feature of a conflict; but he was not trained to consider the thousand intricacies that fell upon the management of every Presidential contest."
Grover Cleveland was inaugurated on the fourth of March, 1885, being the first Democratic President since James Buchanan, who was elected in 1856, and marking the first defeat of the Republican party since the election of Lincoln.
There was a wild scramble for offices on the part of the Democrats as soon as Cleveland was inaugurated. He proceeded to satisfy them as rapidly as he could, and out of 56,134 Presidential positions he appointed 42,992 Democrats.
I always admired Grover Cleveland. I first saw him at the time of his inaugural address, which he delivered without notes. He never faltered from the beginning to the end, never skipped a line or missed a word, or made a false start. He was the first, and so far as I know the only President who did not read his inaugural address. His speeches, his messages, and his public utterances generally all showed that he was a man of extraordinary ability. He made a wonderful impression upon the country. As Chief Executive, he was strong-minded and forceful, and adhered to his views on public questions with a remarkable degree of tenacity, utterly regardless of his party.
He appointed a very fair cabinet. There was really no great man in it, but they were all men of some ability. The Secretary of State, Thos. F. Bayard, of Delaware, was one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when I entered it, and had represented his State in that body for many years. I believe he conducted the affairs of the State Department satisfactorily, and he was later made Minister to the Court of St. James.
Daniel Manning, of New York, was Secretary of the Treasury. And, referring to Manning, I am reminded of a little story.
Soon after he came into the office I had occasion to go to the Treasury Department on some business. I saw the office secretary, who had been there under the previous Administration, and whom I knew well. He informed me that the Secretary of the Treasury was not in, but that he would be in a few minutes. I expressed a desire to see him and said that I would like very much to be introduced to him. Mr. Manning came in presently, and I was introduced, after which I disposed of my business without delay. Looking around, I saw Senator Beck and a number of other Senators, accompanied by a horde of Democratic office-seekers from the South, sitting against the wall waiting for me to get through with my business. Beck came forward, and in a half serious sort of way said to me: "You do not seem to know that the Administration has changed. You march in here and take possession, and we Democrats are sitting here against the wall cooling our heels and waiting for an opportunity to see the Secretary. You have seen him already, and are ready to go." It did plague me a little, as I was not quite sure whether Beck was in earnest or not. He soon returned to the Senate from the Treasury, and coming into the Senate Chamber a little later I found that he had been telling my colleagues how he had "plagued Cullom" and how Cullom was much embarrassed about it. He considered it quite a joke on me.
L. Q. C. Lamar, of Mississippi, was made Secretary of the Interior.
Lamar was also one of the prominent Democrats of the Senate when
I entered it. I had the very greatest respect for him as a Senator
and as a man. Later, Mr. Cleveland nominated him for Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination pended before the
Judiciary Committee for a long time, as it was well known that Mr.
Lamar had not been an active, practising lawyer.
I happened to be at the White House one day, and Mr. Cleveland said to me: "I wish you would take up Lamar's nomination and dispose of it. I am between hay and grass with reference to the Interior Department. Nothing is being done there; I ought to have some one on duty, and I can not do anything until you dispose of Lamar."
He had, I suppose, spoken to other Senators along the same line. The nomination was taken up soon after, and he was confirmed. I voted against his confirmation in the Senate; not because I had anything against him personally, or because he was a Southern Democrat, but I understood that he had not practised law at all, and I did not believe that sort of man should be appointed to fill so high and responsible a position.
Generally speaking, I got along very well with President Cleveland, considering the fact that he was a Democrat and I a Republican. I visited the White House frequently, and he generally granted anything that I asked for.
He was keenly interested in the passage of the first Interstate Commerce Act. It became a law under his administration, and although the Democrats supported it, it succeeded mainly through the influence of Republican Senators and a Republican Senate. When the bill went to the President, and while he had it under consideration, he sent for me to explain one or two sections which he did not understand. I called one night about nine o'clock and found him surrounded by a multitude of papers, hard at work reading the bill. I explained the sections concerning which he was in doubt as best I could, and he said: "I will approve the bill."
I immediately took advantage of the occasion to say: "Now, Mr. President, I might just as well take this opportunity to talk with you with reference to the appointment of a Commission. A Republican Senate has passed this bill, and as I had charge of it in the Senate, I think you ought to permit me to recommend the appointment of one commissioner." He agreed to this, asking me to present the name of some Republican whom I desired appointed.
Afterward there were complications with the members of his own party in Congress, and he sent for me to tell me that Colonel Morrison, of Illinois, had been recommended by the whole "Free Trade Party," as he called it, and that he did not see how he was going to avoid appointing him. I suggested that he give Morrison something else. He undertook to do so; but Morrison, true to his independent nature, declined to accept anything else, declaring that he would like to have the office of commissioner, and if he could not have that he would accept nothing.
The President sent for me again, and told me he could not satisfy Morrison, and he did not know how he was going to solve the complication. I said, in effect, that I had been a Governor of a State and I knew sometimes that an executive officer had to do things he did not expect to do, and did not desire to do, but that he had to yield to party pressure. I ceased insisting upon an appointment, and allowed Morrison to be named. At the same time I was a little provoked and out of patience and I added: "Colonel Morrison knows nothing about the subject whatever. If you are going to appoint broken-down politicians who have been defeated at home, as a sort of salve for the sores caused by their defeat, we might as well repeal the law."
I inquired of him: "Who else are you going to appoint on that
Commission?" I had previously recommended Judge Cooley.
"I will appoint Cooley," promised the President.
"Will Cooley take it?" I asked; to which he replied, "I will offer any place on the Commission he desires, and will telegraph him at once."
I expressed my satisfaction with this arrangement. He did telegraph Judge Cooley, who accepted, and was the first and most distinguished chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The Forty-ninth Congress assembled on December 7, 1885, with Thomas A. Hendricks, Vice-President, presiding in the Senate, John Sherman having been elected President pro tempore. The Senate was still in the control of the Republicans by a majority of five. The Democrats had a majority of something like forty in the House, and elected John G. Carlisle Speaker. This is practically the same situation that had prevailed during the previous Congress, except this time the Democrats, in addition to a majority, had the Chief Executive as well. But they were just as powerless to enact legislation as they had been before.
Senators Evarts, of New York; Spooner, of Wisconsin; Teller, of Colorado; Stanford, of California; Gray, of Delaware; Brown, of Georgia; Blackburn, of Kentucky; and Walthall, of Mississippi, were a few of the prominent men who entered the Senate at the beginning of the Cleveland Administration.
Senator Evarts was recognized for many years as the leader of the American Bar. He was not only a profound lawyer, but one of the greatest public speakers of the day. I remember him as a good natured, agreeable man, who was pre-eminently capable of filling the highest places in public life. He was Attorney-General under President Johnson, Secretary of State under President Hayes, and counsel representing the United States before many great international tribunals. He defended President Johnson in his impeachment proceedings, and I remember yet his lofty eloquence on that memorable occasion. He did not accomplish much as a Senator, but he did take an active part where a legal or constitutional question came before the Senate.
Illustrating how great lawyers are as apt to be wrong on a legal question as the lesser legal lights, Senator Evarts expressed the opinion that Congress did not possess the constitutional power to pass the Act of 1887 to regulate commerce. He contended in the debate that the act was a restriction and not a regulation of commerce, and consequently was beyond the power of Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States very soon afterwards sustained the constitutionality of the act.
Before his term expired he became partially blind, and the story is told by the late Senator Hoar that Senator Evarts and he had delivered speeches in the Senate on some great legal, constitutional question, Senator Hoar on one side, Senator Evarts on the other. The latter asked Senator Hoar to look over the proof of his speech and correct it, and in reading over the proof Senator Hoar told me that he became convinced that his position was wrong and that Evarts was right.
I do not know of a Democrat with whom I have served in the Senate for whom I have greater respect than George Gray, of Delaware. We became quite intimate and were paired all during his service. He was one of the few Senators that every Senator on both sides believed in and was willing to trust. Indeed, our country would not suffer if he were elected President of the United States. He has held many important positions,—Senator, member of the Paris Peace Commission, United States Circuit Judge, member of many arbitration commissions,—in all of which he acquitted himself with great honor.
My friend, Senator Henry M. Teller, of Colorado, returned to the Senate at the beginning of this Congress. He had previously served in the Senate, and resigned to accept a Cabinet position under President Arthur. Senator Teller has had a long and honorable public career. He was elected to the Senate several times as a Republican, and appointed to the office of Secretary of the Interior as a Republican. He continued this affiliation until the silver agitation, in 1896, when he regarded himself as being justified in leaving the party, and was twice elected afterward to the Senate by the Legislature of his State, and during this last term I believe he became a pretty strong Democrat; yet he never allowed partisanship to enter into his action on legislation, excepting where a party issue was involved, when he would vote with his party.
I served with him on the Appropriation Committee and other committees of the Senate, and regarded him as one of the best Senators for committee service with whom I was ever associated. The friendly relations between Senator Teller and myself have been very close and intimate since I first knew him, and I am glad to say that the fact that he left the Republican party has not disturbed them in the least.
Mr. Teller's withdrawal from the Republican party after its declaration for the Gold Standard in the St. Louis Convention of 1896 was due to his abiding conviction in support of the principles of bimetallism. He had been a member of the party almost since its organization, and up to '96, although independent upon many points at issue, had been regarded as one of the party's stanchest and most reliable adherents. The severance of the ties of a lifetime could not be made without producing a visible effect upon a man of Mr. Teller's fine sensibilities, but I was pleased to observe that he did not allow the incident to change his personal relations. He continued as a member of the Senate for twelve or thirteen years after he left the Republican party, and I am sure that he did not lose the respect or personal regard of a single Republican member of the body. Personally, I regarded him just as warmly as a Democrat as I had esteemed him as a Republican, and I am sure that my attitude toward him was reflected by his attitude toward myself.
The Colorado Senator's nature is such that he cannot dissemble, and when his conviction led him to condemn the Republican party because of its position on the money question, he could not find it in his conscience to remain in that party. Time has shown that he was mistaken as to the results that might follow the adoption of the gold standard, but it has not served to alter the character of the man. He will stand for what he believes to be right, whatever the consequences to himself. As a legislator, he was faithful in his work in committee and in the Senate. No man was more constant in his attendance, and none gave more conscientious attention to the problems of legislation. An unusually strong lawyer and a man given to studious research, he never failed to strengthen any cause which he espoused nor to throw light upon any subject which came within his range of vision. With the exception of three years spent as Secretary of the Interior he was a member of the Senate from 1876, the year of Colorado's admission to the Union, until 1909, during which time he had nine different colleagues from his own State.
Mr. Teller was a resident of Illinois before he removed to Colorado in 1861, and was one of the earliest supporters of Mr. Lincoln. His father and mother remained in Illinois as long as they lived, and Senator Teller always has retained interests in that State. I think he still has relatives residing in Whiteside County.
William Eaton Chandler, of New Hampshire, was one of the first government officials with whom I became acquainted when I came to Washington, in 1865, as a member of the House of Representatives. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. We became quite intimate and our relations ever since have been the most cordial and friendly.
Senator Chandler is a man of wonderfully acute intellect. For many years he served his people in the Legislature of New Hampshire and was a member of the Senate of the United States for several terms. After he retired from the Senate in 1901, President McKinley appointed him a member of the Spanish Claims Commission. In the discharge of the duties of that office he manifested the same high conception of his trust as in every position he occupied, either elective or appointive, and I think he saved to the government of the United States many millions of dollars in the adjudication of claims growing out of the Spanish-American War.
While Senator Chandler is very combative in his attitude toward others, yet his innate sincerity draws one close to him after becoming acquainted with him. A little incident which will illustrate this trait, occurred in the Senate of the United States some years ago. Mr. Chandler was induced to believe that the late Senator Proctor, of Vermont, did not like him very much. So Chandler went up to Proctor, and said: "Proctor, don't you like me?" Proctor in his coarse gruff voice replied: "I have acquired a liking for you." He established the point without circumlocution or diplomacy.
As Chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate, I objected to the appointment of Chandler as a member of that committee. I did not believe he would be very attentive. It turned out that I was mistaken and I often wished that he would stay away from the meetings, because he was always stirring up some new question that involved the time of the committee. He was inspired, however, by the highest motive, recognizing as he did that the control of the railroads of the country was a matter of supreme importance to the people of the United States. He rendered valuable service on the committee in the enactment of legislation on this important subject.
Senator Leland Stanford, of California, was a man of large wealth,
and became famous on account of his having built the Central Pacific
Railroad. He was a man of business experience and made a valuable
Senator. He died as a member of the Senate, and his wife founded
Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Senator Stanford's colleague, Senator Hearst, who entered the Senate two years after Senator Stanford, was also a man of very large wealth and possessor of a interesting character. Concerning him many amusing stories are told. He gave an elaborate dinner one evening, which I attended. There were twenty-five of us present with our wives, and after dinner was over the men went down to the smoking-room. Senator Hearst had thought out a little speech to make to us, in which he said: "I do now know much about books; I have not read very much; but I have travelled a good deal and observed men and things, and I have made up my mind after all my experience that the members of the Senate are the survival of the fittest." Senator Hearst died while serving as a member of the Senate.
Matthew Stanley Quay was a conspicuous figure in our political history. He had been a soldier in the Civil War and afterwards occupied many positions of importance in the civil affairs in his State. Few men in American political life have had so constant a struggle as did Senator Quay to retain his ascendancy in Republican politics in Pennsylvania. Quay in Pennsylvania, and T. C. Platt in New York, were regarded as two of the greatest political bosses in the country. In national convention after national convention they exercised a paramount influence over the nomination of Presidents, and the two usually worked together. Their political methods were about the same. Quay was the bigger man of the two; but it must be said, in justice to both of them, that the word of either was as good as his bond. Senator Quay was returned to the Senate after a desperate struggle. I was glad to see him return, but saddened to see that he was sorely afflicted with a disease that finally proved fatal. Senator Quay and Senator Platt have both passed away. They were the two last survivors of the old coterie of politicians who so long dominated Republican national conventions.
Toward the close of the Cleveland Administration, a vacancy occurred
in the office of Chief Justice of the United States, to fill which
President Cleveland appointed the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, of
Illinois. I had something to do with this appointment.
Chief Justice Fuller has only recently passed away, after serving as Chief Justice of the United States for a longer period than any of his predecessors in that high office, with the two exceptions of Marshall and Taney. I knew Melville W. Fuller for many years before he became Chief Justice. Away back in war times, I knew him as a member of the Illinois Legislature and as a member of the Constitutional Convention, and subsequently as one of the leading lawyers of the Chicago Bar.
President Cleveland was in a considerable quandary over the appointment of a Chief Justice. He wanted to bestow the seat upon an able lawyer, and he wanted a Democrat, but as the Senate was in control of the Republicans he wanted to make sure to name some one whom the Senate would confirm. He at first seriously considered Judge Phelps, of Vermont, a cultivated and able man, who had been Minister to England, but for some reason or other—why I never knew —he finally rejected Phelps as an available candidate and determined upon a Western man as Chief Justice.
Prior to this, however, he had considered the appointment of Justice Scholfield, of our own State, who was then a member of the Supreme Court of Illinois, which never had an abler or better lawyer as a member of its personnel. He would have been given the honor had he signified a willingness to accept; but when he was approached by Representative Townsend, at the suggestion of President Cleveland, after considering the matter, he demurred, asserting that although he would enjoy the distinction of being Chief Justice of the United States, he did not think that life in Washington, and especially the social side of the life which the Chief Justice of the United States naturally is expected to lead, would suit either him or his family. He had a family of growing children, who had been raised in the country, and they would naturally have to accompany him to Washington. He feared that Washington life would ruin them, so he finally declined the appointment.
Judge Fuller had been a close friend of President Cleveland, had been a member of the national convention that nominated him, was recognized as one of the leading Democrats of Illinois, and had been consulted by Mr. Cleveland in the distribution of the patronage in that State; so naturally Judge Fuller was considered in connection with the office. It was not surprising, considering that the Senate was then in the control of the Republicans, that he would want to enlist my aid in securing his confirmation.
I called on Mr. Cleveland about nine o'clock one morning in regard to some personal matter. He at once sent out word for me to come in, that he wanted to see me. I apologized for appearing at so early an hour, whereupon he said that he was very glad that I had come because he desired to have a talk with me. Then he inquired whom I considered the best lawyer, belonging to his party, in Illinois, who would make a good Chief Justice. He at once himself mentioned Judge Fuller. I told him that Judge Gowdy was probably the ablest Democratic lawyer in Illinois, but that he was a railroad attorney, and it would probably not be a good thing to appoint him. He next questioned me particularly about Fuller. I told him that I knew Fuller very well indeed; that if I were called upon to name five of the best lawyers of Illinois belonging to his party, I would name Fuller among the five; that he was not only a good lawyer, but a scholarly man, a gentleman who would grace the position. He at once intimated that he would send his name to the Senate.
I said to him: "Mr. President, the selection of a Chief Justice is one of the greatest duties you have to perform. You can make a mistake; we can raise the devil in Congress; but with a capable Supreme Court standing steady and firm, doing its full duty, the country is safe."
He agreed with me; and very soon thereafter Melville W. Fuller was nominated as Chief Justice of the United States.
But this was only the prelude to the real struggle. The nomination was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which Senator Edmunds, of Vermont, was chairman. The latter was very much out of humor with the President, because he had fully expected that Judge Phelps, of his own State, was to receive the honor, and he did not take it kindly that the appointment should go to Illinois. He had told me himself, in confidence, that he had every assurance that Judge Phelps was to be nominated.
The result was the Senator Edmunds held the nomination, without any action, in the Judiciary Committee for some three months, as I now recollect. Finally there began to be more or less scandal hinted at and suggestions of something wrong, and so forth; which I considered so entirely uncalled for and unfair to Judge Fuller that I appeared before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and asked that the nomination be reported favorably if possible, unfavorably if the committee so determined; and if the committee was not disposed to report the nomination either favorably or unfavorably that they report the nomination to the Senate without recommendation, so that the Senate itself might have an opportunity to act upon it. The latter action was taken, and the nomination was laid naked before the Senate. The matter was considered in executive session. Senator Edmunds at once took the floor and attacked Judge Fuller most viciously as having sympathized with the Rebellion, together with much to the same effect.
In the meantime some one had sent me a printed copy of a speech which Judge Phelps had delivered during the war, attacking Mr. Lincoln in the most outrageous and undignified fashion. When I read that speech I then and there determined that Judge Phelps would never be confirmed as Chief Justice, even though the President might send his nomination to the Senate. I put the speech in my desk, determining that if I ever had a good chance I would read it in the Senate, at the same time pointing out that the only objection which Senator Edmunds opposed to Judge Fuller was his pique because Phelps had not received the appointment. Edmunds' attack on Judge Fuller gave me the opportunity, and I read the speech of Judge Phelps to the Senate, much to the chagrin and mortification of Senator Edmunds.
The Democrats in the Senate enjoyed the controversy between Senator Edmunds and myself; Senator Voorhees was particularly amused, laughing heartily all through it. Naturally, it appeared to them a very funny performance, two Republicans quarreling over the confirmation of a Democrat. They sat silent, however, and took no part at all in the debate, leaving us Republicans to settle it among ourselves. The vote was taken and Judge Fuller was confirmed by a substantial majority.
Judge Fuller was very grateful to me for what I had done in behalf of his confirmation, and afterwards he wrote me a letter of thanks:
"Chicago, July 21, 1888.
"My dear Senator:—
"I cannot refrain from expressing to you my intense appreciation at the vigorous way in which you secured my confirmation. I use the word 'vigorous' because, though it was more than that, that was the quality that struck me most forcibly when I saw the newspapers this morning. When we meet, as I hope we will soon, I would very much like to talk this matter over with you. I hope you will never have cause to regret your action. I can't tell you how pleased I am that Maine and Illinois, both so dear to me, stood by me. But because I love them, I do not love my country any the less, as you know.
"And so I am to be called 'Judge' after all! This is between ourselves.
"Faithfully yours,
"M. W. Fuller."
Senator Frye voted in favor of Judge Fuller's confirmation. He did this partly, I believe, because Fuller was a Maine man and a classmate of his at Bowdoin College, he previously having entertained some doubts, as he told me afterwards, whether Fuller was really qualified to be Chief Justice of the United States. Very soon after his appointment, the Chief Justice was invited to deliver an address before the Joint Session of the two Houses of Congress. I think it was on the occasion of the one-hundredth anniversary of the inauguration of the first President of the United States. Senator Frye and I walked together over to the hall of the House where the joint session assembled, and he said as we went along: "I will determine to-day, after I hear Fuller deliver his address, whether I did right or wrong in voting for his confirmation as Chief Justice." Judge Fuller delivered a most beautiful speech, which would have done credit to any man, no matter how high a position he occupied in this or any other country; and as we returned together to our own chamber, Senator Frye remarked: "Cullom, it is all right. I am satisfied now that I did right in voting in favor of the confirmation of Fuller's nomination."
Melville W. Fuller filled the position of Chief Justice of the United States with great credit and dignity. He wrote, during his long term of service, many very able opinions. I did not agree with his conclusions in the Income Tax case; but I think every lawyer will conceded that this opinion was about as able a presentation of that side of the case as could be made. He was a most conservative and safe man for the high position which he occupied. Of necessity the Chief Justice of the United States must be an executive officer as well as an able lawyer and judge. There was no better executive officer than Chief Justice Fuller. Justice Miller told me on one occasion that Fuller was the best presiding judge that the Supreme Court had had within his time; and in addition he was a most lovable, congenial man.
The last time I saw Judge Fuller he was particularly agreeable. I called to invite him to deliver an address at a great banquet to be held in Springfield on Lincoln's birthday in February, 1909. I have had a great deal of experience in trying to prevail upon prominent men to deliver addresses in Illinois, and I know how they always hesitate, and hem and haw, then, if they do accept, destroy all feelings of gratitude and appreciation by the ungracious manner in which they do so. It was certainly a pleasant surprise and a contrast to custom to hear Judge Fuller's reply when I extended the invitation to him. "Why, certainly," he responded promptly; "I will be delighted to accept. I have been wanting to visit Springfield for twenty years, and I am glad to receive the invitation."
This reply was quite characteristic of Chief Justice Fuller. I could not imagine him saying an unkind word to any one. His disposition was to treat his colleagues on the Bench, the members of the Bar who appeared before him, and every one with whom he came in contact, with the greatest kindness and consideration. He passed away, quietly and peacefully, as he would have wished, honored and respected by the Bench and Bar of the Nation, and by the people of his home State, who took pride in the fact that Illinois had furnished to the United States a Chief Justice for so long a period.
Chief Justice Fuller was succeeded by Hon. Edward D. White, of Louisiana, with whom I served for three years in the Senate of the United States. Justice White was an able Senator, and in the disposition of some of the most important cases which have come before the Supreme Court in recent years affecting corporations he has shown great ability and is a worthy successor of his predecessors in that high office.
Aside from the act to regulate commerce, an act providing for the Presidential succession, and an act in reference to polygamy, there was very little, if any, important legislation during the first Cleveland Administration.
It was a very quiet administration. The country clearly comprehended that the Senate stood in the way of any Democratic doctrine being enacted into law, and generally, as I remember it now, the country was fairly prosperous. This condition continued until President Cleveland's famous Free Trade message of December 5, 1887, came as a startling blow to the business and manufacturing interests of the United States.
Why he should have sent such a message to Congress when his administration was about to come to a close, and when he knew perfectly well that no tariff legislation could be enacted with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, I do not know. He for the first time stepped out boldly and asserted his Free Trade doctrine, and made the issue squarely on tariff for protection as against Free Trade, or tariff for revenue. This message naturally precipitated a tariff discussion in both House and Senate, and the Democratic majority of the House considered it incumbent on them to make some attempt to carry out the President's policy. As a result the so-called Mills Bill was reported, upon which debates continued for many months. One member in closing this discussion very aptly said:
"This debate will perhaps be known as the most remarkable that has ever occurred in our parliamentary history. It has awakened an interest not only throughout the length and breadth of our own country, but throughout the civilized world, and henceforth, as long as our government shall endure, it will be known as 'the great tariff debate of 1888.'"
It was in this debate in the House that both Mr. Reed and Mr. McKinley so distinguished themselves as the great advocates of Protection. Mr. Reed was then the floor leader of the minority. He made a magnificent speech against Free Trade in which he used many familiar allegories, one of which I have often used myself in campaign speeches. It is substantially as follows:
"Once there was a dog. He was a nice little dog—nothing the matter with him, except a few foolish Free Trade ideas in his head. He was trotting along, happy as the day, for he had in his mouth a nice shoulder of succulent mutton. By and by he came to a stream bridged by a plank. He trotted along, and looking over the side of the plank, he saw the markets of the world, and dived for them. A minute afterwards he was crawling up the bank the wettest, the sickest, the nastiest, the most muttonless dog that ever swam ashore."
Thomas B. Reed was one whom I unquestionably would term a great man. He was conspicuous among the most brilliant presiding officers that ever occupied the chair of the Speaker. He ruled the House with a rod of iron, thus earning for himself the nickname of "Czar."
And this was more or less warranted. He was the first Speaker to inaugurate the new rules. He found a demoralized House in which it was difficult to enact legislation, and in which the right of the majority to rule was questioned and hampered. He turned the Lower House into an orderly legislative body in which legislation was enacted expeditiously by the majority. He had more perfect control over the House than any former Speaker, and his authority remained unquestioned until he retired. He ruled alone; after he became Speaker he had no favorites; he had no little coterie of men around him to excite the jealousy of the members of the House, and it has even been said that so careful was he in this respect that he would scarcely venture to walk in public with a member of the House. He was a powerful man intellectually and physically, and he looked the giant he was among the members of the House. He wanted to be President; and it seems rather a queer coincidence that his election as Speaker paved the way for his rival, Mr. McKinley, as by his acceptance of the chair Mr. McKinley became the leader of the majority, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the author of the McKinley Bill, which finally resulted in its author's defeat for Congress, but in his election as President of the United States in 1896.
But to return to the Mills Bill. It passed the House by a substantial majority and came to the Senate, where a substitute was prepared by the Finance Committee and reported by Senator Allison early in October. I remember the discussion on it in the Senate very well. We all thought it incumbent upon us to make speeches for home consumption, for campaign use, showing the iniquities of the Mills Bill, and of the Democratic tariff generally, although we knew it was impossible for either bill to become law.
The Congressional session continued until about the middle of
October with nothing done in the way of practical legislation.
This was the situation when the National Republican Convention assembled in 1888.