No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of subsequent events.
Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893, I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the following terms:
"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last evening at eleven o'clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one who has been President of the United States dies during the session of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory, recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for the day.
"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life, having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.
"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse. He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his judgment of his merits.
"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate, out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."
In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend, and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a patriotic citizen.
On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent. bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years, which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.
After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30 yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment. I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration. In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:
"This conference report presents for our consideration again a question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.