"When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man, however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that the conditions of our country were such that we would not be justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent. interest.
"Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all, that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us to do so.
"I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next Secretary of the Treasury. I knew this law could not take effect until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the new secretary would come in. Therefore, I drew this amendment as it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of the Treasury. He having been formerly a member of the committee on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency, important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.
"He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all, but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with which to redeem the notes. That statement was submitted to the committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of the Treasury."
I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion. The Senate fully appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate receded from the amendment. It is easy now to see that its defeat greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of interest than three per cent.
On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural address. It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing chiefly with axioms readily assented to. Its strongest passages were in favor of a sound and stable currency. He said that the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and conservative precaution. He declared that the people had decreed that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the control of their government, in its legislative and executive branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him. He said:
"The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, not only impressively defines the great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided. I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty, preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people."
This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the Wilson bill. I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.
The chief interest at this period centered in the World's Fair at Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of America by Columbus. Such a celebration was first proposed as early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge of the national authorities. As the matter was discussed the opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one, and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St. Louis. I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor and industry of the American people. The contention about the site delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following. This was the first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was "behind time," but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress, which delayed too long the selection of the site. I was a member of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January, 1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate. On the 21st of April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000 from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of representing the government of the United States in an exposition in Chicago, in 1893. I made a speech in defense of the appropriation and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one in London and two in Paris that I had attended. While the receipts at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense, yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris. I referred to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United States, all of which were of great value to the places where held. These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely to increase in number in the future. The bill passed, but not without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to Chicago.
This course of opposition continued until August, 1892. The people of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the certainty of any return. All nations had been invited, and were preparing to be represented at this exposition. The attention of mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose. The United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers. It became necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts, in the same proportion as to other stockholders. This was declined, but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in silver, and pay the exposition that coin. Whether this was done because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000 sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against the fair, I do not know. On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed my opposition to this measure. Both Houses were remaining in session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to have been elsewhere. I said: "Under the circumstances, I do not see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass. If I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it."