our mints to the silver bullion of the world independently of international action, that very instant, or in a brief time at best, you have sent gold to a premium; and when you have sent gold to a premium, then you have put it in great measure into disuse, and we are remitted to the single standard, that of silver alone; we have deprived ourselves of the active use of both metals."

The House non-concurred in the Senate amendment and a Conference Committee recommended a measure providing for the purchase monthly, at the market price, of 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, or as much thereof as might be offered, and for the issue of Treasury notes in payment therefor, such notes to be redeemable in either silver or gold, and when so redeemed, to be reissued. The report was agreed to and the act became known as the Sherman Law, because of the activity of that leader in determining its final form. This was the famous endless chain of which President Cleveland complained so bitterly. The notes were presented for redemption, then paid out and again redeemed until the gold reserve nearly vanished. The fear of a silver standard brought large quantities of securities from Europe, for sale here, and these had to be paid for in gold. In the fiscal year 1892-93 the exports of gold exceeded the imports $90,000,000. It

became evident that the new Treasury notes were driving the gold out of the country. In alarm the President called Congress in extra session to repeal the law, and this was finally accomplished on November 1, 1893, Senator Sherman taking the lead in securing the repeal of the law that bears his name.

The so-called Sherman Law of 1890 was a compromise. It was a concession to the Silver element, whose power was increasing and greatly to be feared. It failed to satisfy them and they continued to demand free coinage. On the other hand, sound-money men came to realize the danger of the large concessions that had been made. The repeal of the law was bitterly opposed by the advocates of free coinage. There were strong Silver men in both parties. The Democratic President found his own party hopelessly divided and carried the repeal only by the support of the Republicans. The crisis was impending. The Silver question was forging to the front. Compromise was no longer possible. The question must be decided by the voters of the country and a "fight to the finish" was inevitable. When the fight came, McKinley's voice rang out strong and true for honest money - as it had always done and more specifically against any proposition to debase the currency by the free coinage of silver.

A

*

CHAPTER XI

SECTIONALISM

LTHOUGH President Hayes was a man of

noble character, who never spoke ill of his neighbor, nor slightingly of either friend or foe, his Administration was a period of political turmoil. This was due in part to the circumstances of his election. On the face of the returns the electoral vote was 185 for Hayes and 184 for Tilden. There were charges of fraud and intimidation on both sides. In four States, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon the returns were disputed. Congress was divided. The Senate was Republican and the House Democratic. The questions involved were too complicated for the ordinary machinery of government, and accordingly an emergency device was created in the form of an Electoral Commission, composed of five Senators, five Representatives, and five Justices of the Supreme Court. The Senate named three Republicans and two Democrats; the House three Democrats and two Republicans. It was originally expected that the Supreme Court would select two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Independent - Justice David Davis, of Illinois. As

events finally developed, this would have made Justice Davis practically the sole arbiter of the dispute, the one man empowered to name the next President of the United States. Justice Davis, having been elected Senator from his State only a few days before the act was approved, wisely escaped the responsibility by declining to serve, on the ground that his acceptance would give the Senate, virtually, six members of the Commission and the Supreme Court only four. In his place Justice Joseph P. Bradley, a Republican, was named, making eight Republicans to seven Democrats. As Justice Davis was a Democrat in sympathies, and as the Democrats had been chiefly1 responsible for the creation of the Commission, its final composition was, of course, a severe blow to their calculations. As the various questions came before the Commission, they were decided by a partisan vote of eight to seven. Day after day for a full month the questions in doubt were decided uniformly in favor of the Republicans by the same majority. The Democrats angrily charged the Republicans with gross partisanship. If the charge be admitted so far as the eight Republicans were con

1 The vote for the Electoral Commission Bill in the House was, 158 Democrats and 33 Republicans in favor, and 68 Republicans and 18 Democrats against it. In the Senate there were 26 Democrats and 21 Republicans who voted yea, and 16 Republicans and I Democrat who voted nay.

cerned, it was equally true of the seven Democrats, whose consistent action in voting to favor their own candidate did not differ in the slightest degree from that of their opponents. The dispute has never been settled. The Democrats have always claimed that Tilden was cheated out of the Presidency. Had the result been reversed, the Republicans would have made a similar claim for their candidate. To ascertain the real truth in every election district where there was a reasonable doubt would be quite impossible. The dispute as to the actual returns must stand forever unsettled in history, though the title of President Hayes, as a question of law, is not subject to challenge. Fortunately the patriotism and firmness of the conservative Democrats, including Mr. Tilden, prevented a calamitous result. But the anger of the party at the time was almost unrestrainable.

The disputed election was by no means the sole cause of the bitterness between the parties. It had existed before the election and was well reflected in the party platforms. The Republicans charged the Democrats with being "false and imbecile" on financial questions and the Democrats retorted, two weeks later, without taking much trouble to alter the phraseology, by denouncing their opponents' "financial imbecility and immorality." The inde