SPECIAL/ PERMISSION 
 INaSRL/BRARY LOAN 
 
 SAN FRANIISHD PUBLIC LIBRARY 
 
 PLEASE RETURN THIS BOOK TO THE 
 
 INTERLIBRAHY LOAN DEPARTMENT 
 
 GENERAL REFERENCE DESK 
 
 BOOK: m 
 
 DATE DUE: "TO -I*-) 
 PATRON : 
 
STEPHEN" M. WHITE. 
 
STEPHEN M. WHITE 
 
 , CITIZEN, 
 HI R, S K N A T O R. 
 
 HIS LIFE AJSTD HIS WORK 
 
 A CHARACTER SKETCH 
 
 LEROY K. 
 
 TOGHTHHJR WITH HIS 
 
 PRINCIPAL PUBLIC ADDRESSES. 
 
 COMPILED BY 
 ROBERT T^OODL^VlSr 
 
 His Former Private Secretary, 
 
 ^A^TX 
 
 Ht 
 
 F.RS1TYJ 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 THE TIMES-MIRROR CO]VII 3 A.NY, 
 LOS 
 
 1OO3. 
 
v ( 
 
 I. 
 
 181438 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 America s pride is in her men self-made or born with a noble 
 and distinguished ancestry it is all quite the same. Pride of fam 
 ily is a characteristic of the world s older lands, but in this great free 
 republic where every boy born under the flag has an equal chance with 
 his fellows, and must achieve greatly if he would become great, fam 
 ily counts of small moment. We have seen boys stepping across the 
 humblest thresholds to become the mightiest of men in the affairs of 
 the nation and of the world. We have seen the pampered off-springs 
 of the powerful and influential and the wealthy passed at a bound by 
 those who so often struggled to the front along a pathway filled with 
 obstacles fit to daunt the stoutest heart, that the American people have 
 quite come to believe that there is no height to which the youth of this 
 republic may not attain provided he be not handicapped with too many 
 advantages. Stephen Mallory White, the brightest name in Califor 
 nia s galaxy of those born upon her soil, was essentially a self-made 
 man, albeit his ancestry was neither humble nor of noble name. 
 
 His father, William F. White, came to the United States with 
 his parents from Ireland when an infant of four years. He grew up 
 on a Pennsylvania farm, emigrated to Western New York, later mov 
 ing to the City of New York and becoming the publisher of a weekly 
 newspaper. Subsequently he was in the employ of the government in 
 the New York Custom House. 
 
 Mr. White s mother was Fannie J. Russell. She was left an or 
 phan at an early age, and when a small child was taken to Florida in 
 the family of her cousin, Stephen R. Mallory, by whom she was raised 
 and educated. Mr. Mallory represented Florida in the United States 
 Senate and was a member of the Confederate Cabinet during the 
 great war between the States. It was for Stephen Mallory that Sena 
 tor White was named. It was while Fannie Russell was being edu 
 cated in New York City that she met William F. White, and their 
 marriage took place in Savannah, Ga., just at the time that the Cali 
 fornia gold excitement was agitating the sturdy youth of the world. 
 Fired by the marvelous tales told of the golden state, William F. 
 White, with his faithful wife, emigrated to the coast, arriving in San 
 Francisco in the month of January, 1849. He became a merchant in 
 that city, and in a little cottage on Taylor Street, between Turk Street 
 and Golden Gate Avenue, Stephen Mallory White was born on the 
 I9th day of January, 1853. This cottage was built in 1850, and re- 
 
6 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 mained in place until the year 1881, when it was crowded out by the 
 advancement of business structures. 
 
 Shortly after the birth of his son, who later became so notable a 
 
 character in the State and the nation, William F. White removed 
 
 with his family to the Pajaro Valley in Santa Cruz County, engaged in 
 
 farming, established a home, ideal in character and raised his children 
 
 two sons and six daughters. 
 
 William F. White had much more than average literary ability 
 and was a frequent contributor to the press of the State. He was 
 the author of an interesting work, " Pioneer Times in, California," 
 which he published under the nom de plume of " William Gray." He 
 was a member of the famous constitutional convention of 1878, which 
 gave to California the basic instrument of the State government that 
 is now in force, and by appointment of William Irwin, then Governor, 
 was, for a number of years, State Bank Commissioner. 
 
 The political contest in California in the year 1879 was one of 
 the most notable in its history. It was a triangulated affair Repub 
 lican, Democrat and Workingmen. William F. White was the Work- 
 ingmen s candidate for governor in that contest, and finished second 
 in the race. He died at Oakland, California, where he then resided, 
 on May 16, 1890, in. his 74th year. 
 
 By this brief reference to the immediate ancestry of Senator 
 White it will be seen that he was neither of humble nor of noble birth. 
 The stock from which he sprang was good, like himself. His father, 
 though born on that rare little British isle which has produced so 
 many great men, was thoroughly American. His mother was a ster 
 ling character and their boy possessed attributes of both parents which 
 his career discloses as the story of his gallant life unfolds. 
 
 Senator White was a sturdy American boy, square, upright, true 
 as steel, faithful, loyal and brave. Just such a boy as makes a good 
 man. He was sent to a private school in Oakland at the age of thir 
 teen, where he remained for three years. In his previous boyhood he 
 was under the tutelage of his father s sister, a woman of rare mind 
 and superb attainments. At sixteen he was sent to St. Ignatius Col 
 lege, San Francisco, for a year and a half, thence to Santa Clara Col 
 lege, his alma mater, from which he graduated in 1871. For ten 
 months after his graduation he " read law " in the office of A. W. 
 Blair in Watsonville, about one year with Albert Hagan in the city of 
 Santa Cruz, and some eight months with C. B. Younger of the same 
 place. On April 14, 1874, he was admitted to the bar of the Supreme 
 Court at Sacramento, and almost immediately thereafter removed to 
 the city of Los Angeles, where his life work began, where he achieved 
 honors and distinction and where he dropped asleep after a brief life 
 filled with goodness, kindness and blessings to his fellowmen. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 7 
 
 As was stated at the outset of this sketch, Senator White was es 
 sentially a self-made man. He came to Los Angeles rich in nobility of 
 character and natural ability, but poor in pocket. But a short time 
 after taking up his abode in the Southern City he became acquainted 
 with James C. Kays, now one of the city s bankers and leading char 
 acters in the business and political world. Mr. Kays was occupying a 
 room on Main Street at a point opposite where Temple Street intersects 
 that thoroughfare and where the Lanfranco building now stands. Mr. 
 White was lonesome, more or less homesick, and without habitation 
 to his liking. Mr. Kays proposed that they enter into partnership in 
 the occupancy of his quarters, but the furnishings were few and the 
 joint exchequer vastly lean. Mr. White, however, jumped at the op 
 portunity to acquire an abiding place, yet how he was to secure a bed 
 on which to sleep, a bowl in which to wash, and a mirror before 
 which to comb his leonine locks was the problem before the house. 
 The two young men, both then starting out in life, debated the great 
 question carefully, and finally decided to beard " Dotter & Bradley," 
 a then famous firm of furniture dealers, in their lair. Their faces 
 proved their fortune, for they secured furniture for Senator White s 
 share of the abode to the amount of $50 on credit, and there com 
 menced a comradeship within the same four walls which continued 
 for nine years, or until Mr. White became a benedict through his wed 
 ding of Hortense Sacriste, one of the belles of the Southern metropo 
 lis. This event occurred at the Cathedral on Main Street on June 5, 
 1883, an d f which one of the local papers of the day said: "The 
 prominence and the great popularity of the groom, added to the beauty 
 of the lovely young bride, made this a memorable ceremony, which the 
 earliness of the hour (9 A. M.) did not prevent a large concourse from 
 attending." The issue of this marriage was William S., Estelle, Hor 
 tense and Gerald Griffin White, aged 16, 14, 12 and 6 years, respect 
 ively, at the time of Senator White s death. 
 
 At the time when Senator White entered upon his labors at the 
 bar of Los Angeles it comprised many of the ablest lawyers in Cali 
 fornia, but the fledgeling from Santa Clara College fought his way to 
 the front with dash and aplomb. The veterans soon learned that the 
 youngster was an adept in strategy, a master in debate, a power be 
 fore a jury. He held his ground against the best of them. He fought 
 his cases with skill, adroitness, energy and audacity. He was quick 
 to take advantage of opportunity, but with such cleverness and 
 savoir-faire as not to give offense. He won his cases and he grew in 
 standing and popularity. 
 
 In the years 1883-84 Mr. White served as District Attorney of 
 Los Angeles County, receiving more votes for that office than any 
 other candidate on the Democratic ticket for either a State, County, 
 
8 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 or Township office. His administration of this office was brilliant 
 and able to a degree. He became a terror to evil doers in all their 
 various varieties. His prosecution of a case spelled conviction for the 
 guilty. It is no disparagement of other able men to say that Stephen 
 M. White was far and away the most efficient District Attorney that 
 Los Angeles County ever had. His course in that important local 
 office secured for him the affectionate admiration of his fellow citizens 
 of all parties and it is not too much to say that it was his forcefulness 
 and ability that held back the tide of Republicanism in Los Angeles 
 County for many years. 
 
 In the year 1886 Mr. White was elected State Senator from the 
 district in California including the city of Los Angeles, serving four 
 years with splendid efficiency and ability. As a writer said of him 
 the day after his death: "Many wise and just laws were framed by 
 his hand and guided through the Legislature by his energy and wis 
 dom." By the death of Governor Washington Bartlett soon after his 
 election R. W 7 . Waterman became Governor. This event made Sena 
 tor White presiding officer of the Senate in the first session, and 
 Lieutenant Governor in the second. 
 
 A born parliamentarian, frank, fair and kindly, Senator White 
 filled these important positions with the same conspicuous ability, and 
 that rare fidelity which was characteristic of the man everywhere and 
 always. 
 
 While an occupant of the Senatorial office Mr. White made his 
 famous and memorable canvass of the State for the United States 
 Senate. It was in a measure, a unique canvass, for Mr. White boldly 
 announced his candidacy and made his fight, as he made all his fights, 
 in the open. It was this canvass that disclosed to California in gen 
 eral just how great and brave and manly Stephen M. White was. It 
 disclosed, too, the latent powers in the man. It demonstrated to the 
 people of the west that there was a giant among them. 
 
 It was a struggle against the odds of wealth and unscrupulous- 
 ness and corruption. The fruitage of the great canvass was not im 
 mediate, but it was the sowing of good seed upon fertile soil, for in 
 1893, with a vacancy in the national Senatorial office, he was trium 
 phantly elected United States Senator on the first ballot. The Legis 
 lature which convened in 1893 consisted of 59 Democrats, 51 Repub 
 licans, 8 Populists, i non-partisan, and I Independent. When the 
 joint session of the two houses was held, Mr. White received 61 
 votes which represented the entire Democratic membership, i non- 
 partisan and i Populist. 
 
 He took his seat March 4, 1893 and, of his career in that great 
 office, within the covers of this volume there is preserved a part of 
 the matchless record. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 9 
 
 And beyond that record of his own powerful phrases, his rapier- 
 like thrusts at wrong, his appeals to the better judgment of his coun 
 trymen and his splendid fidelity to their interests it is but justice to the 
 memory of California s most famous native son to go outside the rec 
 ord and say that few men who have served in the great parliament of 
 the United States ever before took so advanced a position in the Sen 
 ate in so short a time. Writing to the author of this all too inadequate 
 biography of Senator White, his former secretary, and the compiler 
 of the speeches and orations contained in this volume, says : " His 
 ability, his eloquence, his fairness, were quickly recognized, and when 
 he spoke the Senators crowded around his desk and the galleries 
 were filled to overflowing. His death meant a great loss to the peo 
 ple of California, more than most of them realize, and his devotion to 
 duty, his great energy and almost mania for work broke him in mind 
 and he appealed to stimulants for aid. He died meriting the plaudits 
 of the multitude, instead of the censure of his people. 
 
 " Work, unceasing work, day and night killed him. I know 
 whereof I speak, for the work nearly killed me also. Every night un 
 til ii or 12 o clock, many nights until 2 and 3 o clock and sometimes 
 all night winter and summer we toiled side by side, and sometimes I 
 have awakened him from a sleep at his desk only to be told that he 
 could not go home yet but must finish some particular piece of work/ 
 
 This is the testimony of one who was " on the ground," and who 
 has personal knowledge of the great Californian s devotion to the 
 people and the strenuous life of grinding toil, he led at the nation s 
 capital in their service. 
 
 Senator White s standing in his party was conspicuous almost 
 from the day that he reached maturity. Locally, no Democratic gath 
 ering was considered complete without his presence and, as has been 
 intimated in a previous sentence, it was owing to his powerful per 
 sonality, his sterling honesty, his genial kindliness and his squareness, 
 uprightness and common sense that his party held prestige so long in 
 a community where the population was rapidly increasing with im 
 migrants from strong Republican States. " Steve " White always led. 
 He did not follow. In the year 1888 he was elected as one of the dele- 
 gates-at-large to the National Democratic Convention held in St. 
 Louis and was made temporary chairman of that great gathering of 
 his partisans. 
 
 Again in 1892 he was one of the delegates-at-large to the national 
 convention held at Chicago when Grover Cleveland was nominated 
 for his second term and, as member of the committee for that pur 
 pose, made the address of notification to Vice-President Adlai Steven 
 son at Madison Square Garden, New York City. 
 
I 
 10 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 In the memorable convention held by the Democrats of the nation 
 at Chicago in 1896 which nominated William J. Bryan for the Presi 
 dency, Senator White was again a delegate and was made permanent 
 chairman o>f the convention. At the conventions of 1892 and 1896 
 Senator White was foremost in the counsels of the delegates, a con 
 spicuous and stalwart figure in every gathering thereof. The writer 
 of this sketch was present at both those conventions and speaks by the 
 card. It was an open secret at Chicago in 1896 that but for the pro- 
 scriptive anti-Catholic organization known as the American Protective 
 Association, or the "A. P. A," then flourishing and aggressive in many 
 parts of the Union, particularly in the West, Senator White might 
 have been the nominee of the convention for the Presidency instead of 
 Mr. Bryan. His name was under constant discussion in Chicago in 
 that connection and in connection with the Vice-Presidency. Had Mr. 
 White not been of the Roman Catholic faith (and to the shame of a 
 portion of his countrymen be it said) he stood much more than a right 
 ing chance for the Presidential nomination in that year which brought 
 such lasting disaster to his party. 
 
 Something as to the nature of Senator White s services to the 
 country and his State in the United States Senate may be gathered by 
 a perusal of his powerful speeches and debates in that body, here re 
 produced. 
 
 But no record of this strong, brave man s career would be com 
 plete without especial reference to his tireless and successful contest 
 for the establishment of a free harbor at the Port of San Pedro on 
 the coast of Southern California. The history of that contest for a 
 free harbor is too long and too complex and involved to enter upon 
 here in detail the limitations forbid but space may be taken to 
 say that in all the history of American legislation never was there 
 made a more bitter, relentless and uncompromising fight on both sides. 
 On one side the people, knowing their rights and daring to maintain 
 them, on the opposing side one of the most powerful corporations on 
 the continent, led by one of the most adroit, capable, and stubborn of 
 men. The corporation was the Southern Pacific Company, of Ken 
 tucky a corporation wholly Californian, and Kentuckian only in 
 name. Its intrepid leader and president, Collis P. Huntingion ; as tlie 
 leader in the people s cause Stephen M. White, United States Senator 
 from California. 
 
 Successive Boards of Engineers representing the government of 
 the United States had selected San Pedro as the site for a deep sea har 
 bor and the construction of a breakwater whose cost would run into tb A 
 millions of dollars. Mr. Huntington, for reasons sufficient unto him 
 self, and probably apparent to every one having no more than a su 
 perficial knowledge of the conditions surrounding the selection of a 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 11 
 
 harbor site, decided that the government must and should locate the 
 harbor several miles further up the coast at Santa Monica in an open 
 roadstead. Certain of the examining board of engineers considered 
 both sites and all of them who did so decided against the Santa Monica 
 proposition and in favor of San Pedro. But Collis P. Huntington. with 
 his powerful corporation behind him, stood fast. The case seemed 
 hopeless. The forces of money, position, daring and determination 
 were in combination for the Santa Monica project. On the other 
 side stood the reports of honest and competent governmental engineers, 
 the people and Stephen M. White! 
 
 The battle was on. And how it raged for five long years, with an 
 incipiency long prior thereto, no resident of the Southern portion of 
 California is likely to forget. Doggedly, determinedly, bitterly, Mr. 
 Huntington and his powerful array of paid attorneys hung to the 
 cause of Santa Monica with the grip of tiger jaws. Washington 
 swarmed with lobbyists. Huntington himself went to the capital to 
 appeal to Senators and Representatives with the power of his millions 
 and the promises of the great things that could be accomplished by 
 his " influence." And the influence of a strong man with hundreds 
 of millions of dollars behind him is more than many men can resist- 
 even though they be honest and incorruptible. The shadow of the 
 dollar mark reaches farther than the strip of dusk made in the sun 
 shine by the tallest church spire. Here was the incident of David and 
 Goliath in replica, with Huntington as the giant, and the junior 
 Senator from California as the stripling with the pebble and the sling. 
 
 As has been said, when Senator White entered upon this task for 
 the people the case seemed hopeless the force on one side seemed so 
 powerfully mighty, that on the side of the people so pitifully weak. 
 
 But the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the 
 strong. The people won. The Congress supported the reports of the 
 engineers and made appropriation for the construction of a deep sea 
 harbor at San, Pedro. 
 
 Then there was a further contest in opposition to the construction 
 of the harbor, even after Congress had definitely made a location there 
 of and authorized and instructed the commencement of the work. 
 Russell A. Alger, of Michigan, was then Secretary of War. Himself 
 many times a millionaire, his fellow-feeling for a fellow-millionaire 
 was more powerful than his sense of obligation to the people whose 
 paid servant he was. 
 
 Deliberately, almost if not wholly maliciously and certainly with 
 out shadow of authority, the Secretary of War, Russell A. Alger, 
 " held up " the harbor work. But he had Stephen M. White to count 
 with, and again the people won. The War Secretary was driven from 
 the false position he had assumed, and the contract was let. 
 
12 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 At this writing (June, 1903) the great harbor at San Pedro is 
 well along toward completion,. And there it will remain forever a 
 monument to the sagacity, cleverness, adroitness, audacity and un 
 swerving loyalty of Stephen M. White! 
 
 During the pendency of that strenuous contest and upon the oc 
 casion of one of Mr. Huntington s many visits to the national capital 
 the magnate of millions met Senator White at a hotel in which they 
 were mutual guests. One evening Mr. Huntington requested Senator 
 White to come to his rooms. The story of that interview has been 
 told by a writer in the Los Angeles Times as related by Senator White 
 himself. Said the Senator in telling some incidents of the great har 
 bor contest: " He (Mr. Huntington) asked if there was no way for us 
 to get together on the harbor business. I said that I did not see any 
 way to do so that I did not think that he would give up, and I 
 knew I would not. 
 
 " Said he (Mr. Huntington) I do not see why. It might be to 
 your advantage not to be so set in your opinion. I then said to him : 
 Mr. Huntington, if that harbor were my personal possession and you 
 wanted it there would be an easy way for us to get together and one 
 or both of us make some money. But as that harbor belongs to the 
 people, and I am merely holding it in trust for them, and have no 
 right to give it away, I do not see how we can come to any under 
 standing. 
 
 " Certainly, said Mr. Huntington, that is very high moral ground 
 to take, but a little Quixotic. The people will think no more of you 
 in the end. Many will think less of you, said Mr. Huntington. I am 
 not taking your view of that matter either. It is my own self-respect 
 I am looking at now. So the matter closed." 
 
 After it was all over and White had beaten Huntington, the 
 millionaire came to the Senator and in the course of conversation 
 said : " White, I like and respect you. You are almost always against 
 us, but it is not for what you can make out of us to come over. You 
 have a steadfast principle and you fight like a man, in the open and 
 with clean weapons. I cannot say that of all the public men I have 
 had to deal with." 
 
 The man who could wring that tribute from Collis P. Hunting- 
 ton had won a greater victory than the mere act of winning a contest 
 for a cause of the people. It was a tribute to manhood. It was a 
 laurel wreath of immortality, not because it came from a millionaire, 
 but because it was an acknowledgment of honesty, and loyalty and 
 of the respect that those qualities must earn from the most bitter and 
 relentless opponent. 
 
 Embraced in this volume is Senator White s great speech on this 
 question which was delivered in the Senate on May 8 and 9, 1896. A 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN: M. WHITE. is 
 
 perusal of that masterly and memorable analysis of a public question 
 will give to the reader a clear idea what manner of man Senator White 
 was with what force, logic, and adroitness he brought out the sa 
 lient points of any matter to which he gave his attention ana with what 
 industry, zeal and loyalty he fought the battles of the people against 
 the aggressions of the mighty. 
 
 But of all the many notable speeches delivered by Senator White 
 that one on Cuban Intervention delivered before the Senate on April 
 1 6, 1898, immediately preceding the outbreak of the Spanish- American 
 war and following the destruction of the battleship Maine in the har 
 bor of Havana, is a better exemplication of the powers and great 
 ness of his character than any other of which record is had. After its 
 delivery many of the Senators there present declared that nothing 
 so eloquent had been heard in the Senate since the Civil War, and that 
 sentiment was echoed by the people of the entire nation. Whatever 
 one s opinions may be as to the stand taken by Senator White in oppo 
 sition to a declaration of war, he cannot but admire the splendid spirit 
 of patriotism and fidelity to ideals that permeate every sentence of 
 that matchless and moving address. It was a speech that will live 
 forever as a brilliant gem in the oratorical and patriotic records of the 
 Senate of the United States ! 
 
 Although this brief review of the life and career of California s 
 most famous native-born son has borne most upon the political and 
 official phases thereof, they were really the least important features of 
 his work in the world. 
 
 Stephen M. White, first a good and great man, was, secondly, one 
 of the master spirits of the bar of the State and stood easily at the 
 head thereof in the section termed Southern California to distinguish 
 it from that portion of the State lying north of the Tehachepi moun 
 tain chain. 
 
 There were but few important legal contests in the history ot 
 Southern California between the year of Senator White s retirement 
 from the office of District Attorney until his death in which he was 
 not retained. And he was a tireless advocate, a master before a jury, 
 a pleader at the bar with but few equals in any State or in any coun 
 try. He grasped the salient points of an intricate and involved busi 
 ness proposition with an alertness bordering upon intuition, and when 
 he went into the court room he knew quite as much about his client s 
 cause, however complicated, as the litigant did himself. Few men 
 were his equal in the examination of a witness and as a cross-examiner 
 he was the very apotheosis of the interrogation point. He bore in 
 upon the witness under fire with the adroitness of a sharpshooter. 
 Every kernel of truth, intelligence and knowledge was sifted from 
 the chaff of speech, every point in favor of his client was exposed, 
 
14 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 every truth was made manifest an,d every lie revealed by his keen 
 and discriminating interrogations. 
 
 Senator White was not an orator of the ornate, the brilliant, the 
 pyrotechnic and yet there are but few men who could hold an audi 
 ence with a firmer grip. In more than one national convention his 
 voice was the one among all the speakers that could be heard. And 
 yet it was not a big voice but it " reached." The press of the coun 
 try, through the correspondents assembled at the St. Louis convention 
 of 1888, applauded him as being the first speaker in that great body 
 who had the capacity to make himself understood by the delegates and 
 the vast multitude in the seats of the populace, and until the appearance 
 of William J. Bryan with his famous " cross of gold and crown of 
 thorns " speech at Chicago in 1896 the same condition ruled at that 
 convention. After Senator White s retirement from the Senate with 
 his health broken and his habits out of joint he resumed his former 
 position of prominence in the politics of his party, being a delegate to 
 the Democratic State Convention of 1900 and a delegate-at-large to 
 the Kansas City convention of that year, and chairman of the Califor 
 nia delegation. 
 
 While Senator White was strongly domestic in his tastes he was 
 also a man among men. He was a member of the Bohemian Club of 
 San Francisco, of the California, Newman and Sunset Clubs of Los 
 Angeles, and many minor organizations. He was especially prominent 
 in the councils, or " parlors " of the unique California organization 
 known as the " Native Sons of the Golden West," an organization ex 
 clusive to those born upon California soil. 
 
 Senator White s last appearance in the court was in his home 
 city, Los Angeles, on February I2th, 1901. Nine days later the 
 faithful citizen, the orator who had more than once held the nation s 
 Senate enthralled with his mastery of speech, the brightest light in 
 the galaxy of the law in the state of his nativity, was no more. He 
 died in the forty-eighth year of his age at the hour of 4:15 a. m. on 
 February 2ist, 1901. His last speech to those assembled in tears 
 at his bedside were: 
 
 " The evidence is all in ; the case is submitted." 
 
 And was swept then and there out in the dark current that flows 
 on and on- forever through the years and the centuries and the ages, 
 one of the bravest, truest, sweetest souls that ever dwelt in a 
 human body. 
 
 When the intelligence went out over the wires leading across 
 the state of his birth and over the mountains and through the deserts 
 to distant states that Stephen M. White was no more his country 
 men began to realize that a mighty man had fallen that the nation 
 had sustained a loss. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 15 
 
 From the greatest men in America messages of condolence 
 began to pour into the home darkened by his going out of it. His 
 late colleagues in the Congress hastened to pay tributes to his 
 memory, the civic organizations of the state paused in their pro 
 ceedings to lay wreaths of laurel upon the casket that held his poor 
 worn body, the citizens of his home city, partisan and non-partisan, 
 mourned his passing as though the bereavement were personal. The 
 courts adjourned out of respect to his memory, his associates at the 
 bar speedily met and drafted a memorial here made a part of the 
 record. 
 
 These are its words: 
 
 THE LATE STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 :< The symbol of the broken column, typifying the untimely death 
 of a strong man stricken down in the zenith of his power and fame, 
 in the midst of his splendid usefulness, was never more strikingly 
 applicable than in the death of the distinguished man who has just 
 passed away. 
 
 " Never since the golden sun of the Occident flamed bright and 
 beckoning upon the flag of our country has any of her notable sons 
 attained to the commanding eminence which is with common thought 
 accorded to the character and achievements of Stephen Mallory 
 White. 
 
 " The stock from which he sprung has produced many eminent 
 men. California, too, can boast of a long line of illustrious dead. 
 But none of these may justly claim a better right than he to enduring 
 fame to have his name emblazoned in letters of ineffaceable light 
 upon the very foundations of the Capitol itself. And in our State 
 Pantheon, his must ever be an honored place. 
 
 " Born and reared, not in poverty, and yet with none of the adven 
 titious aids of fortune or of inherited wealth or position, he achieved 
 by force of his indomitable genius and his rugged, masterful strength 
 of character and within those early years when many men of genius 
 are yet struggling for recognition, an honorable career that well may 
 challenge the admiration of the world. 
 
 " We first behold him a young attorney at this bar, where he took 
 his modest place, an untried, unknown, unheralded man, in April, 
 1875. Not long did he remain obscure, for soon we behold him dis 
 charging with brilliant ability and success the duties of District At 
 torney of this county. 
 
 " And then a new star rose rapidly in the West. 
 
 " Richly endowed with all those gifts which go to make the suc 
 cessful lawyer the great orator he sought with the most untiring 
 diligence and effort and the most exhaustive labor to perfect his 
 
16 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 superb powers. And soon he became known as a finished lawyer, a 
 powerful advocate, a forensic gladiator of the first ability. 
 
 " We next behold him valiantly battling, with not less marked 
 distinction, on the uncertain field of politics ; and successively he rose 
 to preside over a State and then a national convention of his party, 
 to be a State Senator, a Lieutenant-Governor, and then a Senator of 
 the United States. 
 
 " In all these large public relations he always rose to the demands 
 of every occasion and never failed to wield a powerful influence for 
 what was right and just, according to his own convictions; and even 
 from his opponents he always commanded the most profound atten 
 tion and respect. 
 
 " His most eminent characteristic lay in his power to influence 
 deliberate bodies, and he reachejd the highest expression of this 
 great gift during his career in the United States Senate. His record 
 there is part of the imperishable history of that illustrious body, and 
 not soon will the renown which he there achieved be covered by the 
 silence of oblivion. 
 
 " In politics he early espoused the Democratic faith, and was 
 always loyal to his professions. 
 
 " His views upon great national questions, however, were never 
 unduly colored by partisan prejudice, but were rather tempered by a 
 wise and calm conservation that always gave his counsel great weight. 
 On more than one occasion he led a forlorn hope to certain defeat, 
 rather than surrender his conviction. He was the friend of the people 
 in his endeavors to preserve unimpaired the purity of the ballot, and to 
 compel the practice of clean methods in politics and legislation. While 
 he was nowise hostile to or prejudiced against organized capital or 
 wealth in any form, nevertheless he firmly believed above all things 
 in the supremacy of the law and the right of the people to govern them 
 selves according to the will of the majority when constitutionally ex 
 pressed, and especially in the right of every citizen to pursue his own 
 true and substantial happiness so far as consistent with the equal and 
 just rights of others before the law. He was the steadfast foe of fraud, 
 force and violence in whatever guise presented whether expressed 
 through the machinations of the political machine or the corrupt or 
 insidious use of wealth or place, or whether manifested through what 
 he considered the insolent aggressions of great corporate influence or 
 the unjustifiable extensions of the large powers of the government. 
 
 " As an orator at the bar, before a jury, on the stump, before a 
 convention, or in the halls of legislation, he was matchless irresist 
 ible. With a fine-toned, sympathetic, far-reaching voice that ever 
 rang true and sincere, and speaking ever from profound convictions 
 
J . V ~ K.l I , i 
 
 < U P ,rV^ 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 17 
 
 that were the result of earnest thought and study, he always com 
 manded large and appreciative audiences. 
 
 " He was a man of great public spirit, and he believed that public 
 office was a public trust; and a leading thought with him always, in 
 every public station, and indeed throughout his private career, was 
 the general welfare of the public. Not soon will the people of the 
 West find another such champion to speak for them, or who will pour 
 forth the rich treasures of his mind in such unstinted measure, or 
 with such force of power, or such disregard of self. 
 
 " But while we may appropriately dwell with admiration upon 
 these striking qualities which enabled him to achieve success on the 
 larger fields of action, it is of more consequence for us to record that 
 our departed brother was above all a man of the highest integrity 
 and honor in all the relations of life. He never stooped to win suc 
 cess, place or power by any indirection. He never corrupted and he 
 was incorruptible. He was sunny, genial, affable, approachable a 
 loyal, generous friend, a courteous, honorable foe. 
 
 " In his intercourse with his brethren of the bar he was manly, 
 kind and considerate. Before the court he was modest and courteous, 
 but withal marked by a dignity that stamped him with the seal of 
 greatness. He always sought to be right, he always reasoned hon 
 estly, and never did he wilfully pervert his great powers before either 
 judge or jury in the endeavor to deceive the one or mislead the other, 
 that injustice or wrong might knowingly be done. 
 
 " It is to be deplored that more complete transcripts of his many 
 great speeches have not been preserved. What was greatest in them 
 could not be written, and has passed away with the man. But they 
 are not forgotten, and the recollection of their striking brilliance will 
 long be cherished and preserved, with the fragrant memory of his 
 many virtues as lawyer and man, as citizen and friend, as among the 
 most valued traditions of this bar. 
 
 " The same fine spirit of duty, chivalry and devotion which 
 marked his public and professional career adorned his private life and 
 beautified his domestic relations. 
 
 " To his family he leaves the priceless memory of his devotion 
 and protection; to his friends, the recollection of his loyalty and 
 truth, to his brethren of the bar, an example of professional achieve 
 ment worthy of all imitation; to his home and country, the heritage 
 of many good works wrought in their behalf, and to all struggling 
 ambitious young men everywhere, he leaves the record of a career 
 which unmistakably demonstrates the mighty truth that a deserving, 
 capable man may yet confidently aspire in this age, mercenary though 
 it be, and that he can surely win the highest professional and political 
 
18 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 distinction without departing from the path of rectitude or the prac 
 tice of common honesty. 
 
 " To use his own last words : 
 " The evidence is all in ; the case is submitted/ 
 " Great lawyer, great man, great citizen, great soul, farewell ! 
 " Wherefore, brethren of the bar of Los Angeles, your committee 
 appointed in general bar meeting assembled, desiring only to express 
 a true estimate of the character and worth of our departed brother 
 without attemping any detailed review of the events of his notable 
 life work, has prepared this memorial and submit it for your ap 
 proval, with the suggestion that it be further noted so as to be a part 
 of this record, that our departed brother, Stephen Mallory White, 
 was born January 19, 1853, at San Francisco, State of California, 
 and that he died February 21, 1901, in the city of Los Angeles. 
 
 " We recommend that an engrossed and signed copy of this me 
 morial be furnished to his family and to his mother, that copies be 
 given to the press, and that a copy be presented to each of the Fed 
 eral and Superior Courts in this city, by members of the bar, to be 
 selected by your honorable body, with the request that it be tran 
 scribed at length upon the minutes; and that copies be furnished to 
 the State Supreme Court, the State Senate, and to the Senate of the 
 United States. 
 
 " HENRY T. GAGE:, Governor of California. 
 
 " ERSKINE M. Ross, U. S. Circuit Judge. 
 
 " OLIN WELLBORN, U. S. District Judge. 
 
 " LUCIEN SHAW, Judge Superior Court. 
 
 " JOHN D. BICKNELL, 
 
 "J. S. CHAPMAN, 
 
 " GEORGE J. DENIS, 
 
 " R. F. DEL VALLE, 
 
 " ROBERT N. BULLA, 
 
 " CHARLES MONROE, 
 
 " R. H. F. VARIEL, 
 
 " Memorial Committee." 
 
 Upon the day of Senator White s death the Mayor of Los 
 Angeles, Meredith P. Snyder, with commendable promptness, made 
 public suggestion of a monument to the departed leader in proclama 
 tion as follows: 
 
 MAYOR S OFFICE, Los ANGELES, CAL., FEB. 21, 1901. 
 
 " With profound sorrow the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles 
 announces the death of our distinguished fellow-townsman, the Hon. 
 Stephen Mallory White, which occurred at his residence early this 
 morning. 
 
 " The eminent station of the deceased, his high character, his 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 19 
 
 magnificent attainments, his long and extraordinary career in the 
 public service, his unfailing devotion to the cause of the people of 
 his native State and his splendid ability which he contributed to the 
 discharge of every duty, stand conspicuous and are indelibly impressed 
 on the hearts and affections of all. 
 
 " Deeming it highly proper that the citizens of our municipality 
 should take the initiative in perpetuating the memory of California s 
 greatest sou I suggest that immediate steps be taken to erect, at some 
 suitable place within our city, an appropriate monument, commemora- 
 tive of Senator White s public services, the cost thereof to be defrayed 
 by popular subscription, the voluntary offering of a grateful people. 
 
 * As a mark of respect to the memory of this eminent and faith 
 ful public servant, I request that the City Hall be closed on Saturday, 
 February 23, the day of his obsequies, and that the City Hall flag 
 be placed at half-mast and so remain until after his funeral. 
 
 "M. P. SNYDER, 
 " Mayor." 
 
 In response to this timely and fitting suggestion the sum of 
 $25,000 was subscribed by Senator White s admiring fellow-citizens 
 and a monument in keeping with his worth and services is to be 
 erected upon some notable location in the City of Los Angeles. 
 
 Immediately upon the news of the death of the Senator reaching 
 the State Legislature, then in session, action was taken expressing the 
 sentiment of that body, by its several houses as to the loss sustained 
 by the State. 
 
 The Senate resolutions were as follows: 
 
 " WHEREAS, in the death of Stephen M. White the Union has 
 lost a man who was a lover of constitutional liberty, and the State 
 of California one of her noblest and most gifted sons ; a statesman of 
 magnificent and splendid abilities ; a lawyer of eminent and com 
 manding talents ; and a noble, energetic and unselfish citizen who was 
 devoted to its interests, therefore, be it 
 
 "" Resolved, that the) Senate receives with profound sorrow the 
 intelligence of the death of Stephen M. White, formerly a Senator 
 of the United States, and for six years a distinguished member of that 
 body; and 
 
 " Resolved^ that the Senate tender its sympathy to the family 
 of the deceased and that the Secretary of the Senate be directed to 
 forward a copy of these resolutions to them, and 
 
 " fiesolved, that a copy of these resolutions be printed in the 
 journal of the senate, and that the Senate adjourn out of respect to 
 the eminent services and private virtues of the deceased." 
 
 The Assembly met the same day and adopted the following 
 resolutions by a rising vote: 
 
20 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 " WHEREAS, we have just learned with unfeigned sorrow of the 
 death of the Hon. Stephen M. White, formerly State Senator from 
 Los Angeles County, and United States Senator from California, and 
 whereas, it is fit and proper that the feelings of the State of 
 California, represented by the Assembly of the State, should be 
 expressed with reference to the life and death of one who filled so 
 important a place in the affairs of this commonwealth, therefore, be it 
 
 " Resolved, that in the death of Stephen M. White our State has 
 lost a man whose every act in private and public life was governed 
 by a desire to aid the State which was honored by his birth, and 
 whose career as a public man was free from blot or blemish or 
 scandal or taint of corruption, and in his private life displayed those 
 august qualities which attracted men to him as with hooks of steel, 
 regardless of their political faith, and who as a citizen, it was the 
 pride and pleasure of all to know and claim as a friend, and who 
 has, by the success which attended his efforts in life, shown that, 
 in this country, lack of fortune does not prevent a man from attaining 
 by his own exertions the highest distinctions in the gift of the people; 
 and be it further 
 
 " Resolved, that we tender to the family of our dead Senator 
 our sincere sympathy, and assure them that while they peculiarly feel 
 the loss of a kind and loving father and husband, we mourn the loss 
 of one who was at once a friend of the people, a leader in good works, 
 and a public servant of whom it could be said at all times, that his 
 work was well done, with an honest and heartfelt effort to do his 
 duty as he understood it; and be it further 
 
 " Resolved, )that as -a further mark of esteem for his memory, 
 when this Assembly adjourns today it do so out of respect for the 
 Hon. Stephen M. White; and be it further 
 
 " Resolved, that a copy of these resolutions be duly engrossed 
 and attested by the Speaker and Chief Clerk and forwarded to the 
 family of the deceased." 
 
 Resolutions in keeping with the above were likewise adopted by 
 the civic organizations in his home and in, other cities of the State, 
 while at the National Capital his death was felt to be a loss of pro 
 found moment to the entire cour.try. 
 
 As has been said elsewhere Senator White was, in religion a 
 Roman Catholic, and he died with the blessings of that great Chris 
 tian organization to which he gave loyal allegiance. His remains 
 were removed from his home to St. Vibiana s Cathedral at 9 o clock 
 in the morning of Saturday, February 23rd, 1901, and there gathered 
 about his bier in that solemn hour the leading men of his city and his 
 State, besides men of national prominence from other States. The 
 mass was celebrated by Bishop George Montgomery, and Bishop 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 21 
 
 Horstmann of Cleveland, Ohio, delivered the funeral oration. The 
 active pallbearers were the directors of the Newman Club of which 
 Mr. White was a member and each of them an intimate friend. 
 They were, John F. Francis, James C. Kays (whose name is else 
 where mentioned as an early intimate of the Senator s,) Louis A. 
 Grant, John J. Fay, Ex-State Senator R. F. Del Valle, I. B. Dock- 
 weiler, Joseph F. Scott and H. C. Dillon. 
 
 The honorary pallbearers comprised the first men of the common 
 wealth, residents of various sections and of distinguished men from 
 other States. For the sake of history a complete list is here given, 
 and is as follows : 
 
 Gen. Harrison Gray Otis of the Los Angeles Times, Ex-Senator 
 Edward Murphy, Jr., of New York, who served for six years in 
 the Senate with Mr. White; Governor Henry T. Gage, Chief Justice 
 Beatty of the Supreme Court and six associate justices, Hon. Erskine 
 M. Ross and Hon. Olin Wellborn of the United States Court, Superior 
 Judges Lucian Shaw, B. N. Smith, M. T. Allen, Waldo M. York, D. 
 K. Trask, N. P. Conrey, Ex-Congressman Russell J. Waters, Hon. 
 James McLachlan, Hon. James D. Phelan, Ex-Mayor of San Fran 
 cisco; Hon. James G. Maguire, Ex-Congressman from the same city; 
 W. F. Fitzgerald, John S. Chapman and J. D. Bicknell, leading mem 
 bers of the Los Angeles bar; Mayor Meredith P. Snyder, P. W. 
 Powers, John T. Gaffey, I. H. Polk, Charles Prager, W. W. Foote, 
 D. M. Delmas, John Garber, H. W. Hellman, M. J. Newmark, Kas- 
 pare Cohn, Eugene Germain, Joseph Mesmer, J. M. Elliott, W. C. 
 Patterson, John E. Plater, John R. Mathews, H. T. Lee, William H. 
 Perry, J. W. Mitchell, William Pridham, Charles Forman, John 
 Kenealy, Richard Dillon, D. M. McGarry, W. A. Cheny, J. W. 
 McKinley, O. W. Childs, J. O. Koepfli, Henry T. Hazard, John 
 Crimmins, W. H. Workman, I. N. Van Nuys, A. J. King, Horace 
 Bell, J. A. Redman, William R. Rowland, R. Egan, John Foster, W. 
 D. Gould, F. L. Winder, R. B. Carpenter, Hugh, L. Macneil, Cor 
 nelius Cole, Ex-United States Senator; W. L. Hardison, C. White 
 Mortimer, Victor Ponet, A. Fusenot, M. Esternaux, J. Castruccio, 
 Gen. Andrade, A. M. Stephens, J. R. Scott, A. W. Hutton, Ben Good 
 rich, R. H. F. Variel, Frank P. Flint, B. W. Lee, S. O. Houghton, 
 Charles Silent, J. A. Anderson, Jr., J. S. Slauson, F. Q. Story, E. F. 
 C. Klokke, Dr. John R. Haynes, Dr. Walter Lindley, Dr. E. A. 
 Bryant, W. R. Burke, Frank Garrett, Congressman E. F. Loud, W. A. 
 Clark, J. A. Barham, W. H. Alford, R. J. Wilson, Charles Monroe, 
 J. D. Sproule, A. F. Jones, Frank McLaughlin, Frank Finlayson, John 
 P. Irish, Gavin McNab, H. B. Gillis, W. R. Radcliff, J. H. Farraher, 
 J. J. Dwyer, J. F. Sullivan, J. A. Filcher, Edward Maslin, W. J. 
 Trask, Fred Cox, J. H. Sewall, James H. Wilkins, T. W. H. Shana- 
 
22 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ban, H. C. Gesford, T. B. Bond, Ed E. Leak, E. L. Coleman, W. V. 
 Gaffey, W. R. Jacobs, Thomas Flint, Jr., John Curten, B. F. Langford, 
 
 D. A. Ostrom, M. F. Tarpey, R. B. Canfield, Marion Cannon, Abbott 
 Kinney, George H. Fox, C. E. Thorn, R. Porter Ashe, J. Rogs Clark, 
 T. E. Gibbon, Willard Stimson, F. H. Gould, J. V. Coleman, Frank 
 J. Moffatt, R. P. Troy, Gen. P. W. Murphy, J. A. Graves, Fred 
 Harkness, W. S. Leak, Dr. W. P. Mathews, C. B. Younger, W. H. 
 Spurgeon, Oscar Trippett, Byron Waters, J. Downey Harvey, George 
 S. Patton, Peter D. Martin, John McGonigle, Jarrett T. Richards, 
 William Graves, John A. Hicks, B. D. Murphy, G. G. Goucher, J. C. 
 Sims, E. H. Hamilton, N. A. Covorrubias, Max Popper, J. W. B. 
 Montgomery, Dr. Joseph Kurtz, C. F. Heinzman, C. A. Last, J. D. 
 Spreckels, M. H. De Young, W . R. Hearst, T. J. Flynn, E. B. Pond, 
 
 E. A. Preuss, F. J. Heney, Dr. H. Nadeau, A. B. Butler, W. S. 
 Moore, Garrett W. McEnerny, Jas. H. O Brien, J. J. Carrillo, J. B. 
 Van Demey, A. T. Spotts, John P. Dunn, Julius Sieckes, D. D. 
 English, T. J. Clunie, Warren English, Victor H. Metcalf, W. W. 
 Bowers, S. M. Shortridge, George A. Knight, Gen. W. H. L. Barnes, 
 J. C. Campbell, E. S. Pillsbury, W. E. Dargie, J. V. Coftey, Judge 
 W. W. Morrow, Judge W. D. Gilbert, Judge J. J. De Haven, J. S. 
 Spear, H. W. Frank, F. M. Coulter, Niles Pease, H. Jevne, J. Baruch, 
 H. C. Lichtenberger, W. J. Variel, L. E. Aubrey, E. A. Meserve, Dr. 
 Carl Kurtz, M. H. Newmark, F. T. Griffith, W. G. Hunt, John S. 
 Thayer, J. D. Hooker, I. A. Lothian, L. C. Scheller, Will Bishop 
 and J. D. Lynch. 
 
 On the day of the funeral the flags were at half-mast of the 
 City Halls of San Francisco and Los Angeles. In one city he was 
 born, in the other he died. The boards of supervisors of both cities 
 and counties passed appropriate resolutions on the subject of his 
 loss to the State. 
 
 The dead Senator left a considerable estate, somewhat in excess 
 of $100,000, which was bequeathed wholly to his wife and children. 
 
 Thus was born into this world, lived thereon for a brief forty- 
 eight years and passed away a man who was, despite his comparatively 
 short life, one of the notable Americans. He was a man who would 
 have been distinguished in any company, or in any country, and 
 withal he was one of the most modest, frank and simple of men. He 
 spoke his thoughts openly. He did nothing by stealth and never 
 talked in whispers, as is sometimes the way of politicians. He 
 showed unmistakably that the great man is the simple and unpre 
 tentious man. He was as approachable by the humblest citizen as by 
 the most exalted in the State. He was not crushed by defeat nor 
 made haughty by success. To his neighbors and friends, and col 
 leagues he was " Steve " White and as " Our Steve " he was wel- 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 23 
 
 corned and proclaimed by the people of his home. He was good 
 to the core. He was a man. 
 
 California mourned his death as a fond mother mourns the 
 passing of a favorite son. And his loss to the State was equally a 
 loss to the world for great men who are good and true and loyal 
 men, as well, are not to be counted lightly at a time when manhood 
 is counting for more and more as the years roll by. 
 
 As the leading newspaper of Los Angeles a paper politically 
 opposed to the Senator said in an editorial in commenting upon 
 his death: 
 
 " Good citizen, pure patriot, eloquent orator, learned lawyer, 
 able statesman ; in the prime of life with great renown won ; with a 
 glorious career achieved ; with an imperishable name written on the 
 pages of the history of the country, he has gone untimely to his 
 rest. He leaves behind a light which will shine for ages to come. 
 His is a clear, unsullied and a great record. Centuries will pass over 
 the mound of grass where his ashes shall rest and still this city and 
 this State will be his debtors for the great services he performed for 
 the public good. 
 
 " We mourn deeply his loss today, but in all coming days Los 
 Angeles and all California will rejoice in the splendid life of the 
 gifted and patriotic soul which has passed away from earth. Not 
 death itself can rob Los Angeles of the glorious record of her noble 
 citizen. Nor will time dim the luster of achievements which leave 
 the State in debt to her most distinguished son, her bravest, most high- 
 souled public servant." 
 
 No eulogy was ever more richly earned by an American states 
 man, and no tribute however eloquent could fitly voice the merits 
 of one of the sweetest, and most human creatures that ever walked 
 among men, one who ennobled them by his having lived and made 
 the world better therefor. 
 
 And as a memorial and a tribute to the man and for the uplifting 
 and betterment of those who are to come after this record of great 
 deeds well done, great words well said, great sentiments set forth 
 in luminous and telling speech is here given to his countrymen that so 
 much of faith and courage, and fidelity and devotion shall not perish 
 from the earth. 
 
 LEROY E. MOSHER. 
 
REMONETIZATION OF SILVER 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Thursday, September 21, 1893. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. i) to repeal a part 
 of an act, approved July 14, 1890, entitled " An act directing the purchase of 
 silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes." 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California said : 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: Said Daniel Webster, on December 21, 1838: 
 
 Congress has no power granted to it in this respect, but to coin money and 
 to regulate the value of foreign coins. The legal tender, therefore the constitu 
 tional standard of value, is established and can not be overthrown. I am cer 
 tainly of opinion that gold and silver, at rates fixed by Congress, constitute the 
 legal standard of values in this country, and that neither Congress nor any 
 state has authority to establish any other standard or to displace this. 
 
 Mr. President, I approach the consideration of the pending meas 
 ure with considerable diffidence. When the bills to which my remarks 
 shall be addressed were first attracted to my attention I doubted 
 whether, in view of the great experience and the admitted ability of 
 gentlemen upon both sides of this Chamber whom I knew would call 
 to the consideration of the matter their best endeavors, it would be wise 
 for me to obtrude my views. But recollecting that the question is one 
 of paramount importance, and that I have been summoned to this 
 Chamber by the will of a great Commonwealth, I believe that I wtould 
 not be discharging my duty properly if I did not express the reasons 
 for the faith that is within me. 
 
 I am not deterred from this expression by any extraneous asser 
 tions of waste of time. A careful observer of everything that has 
 transpired here, I know it to be untrue that any Senator has spoken 
 with any other view than to enlighten those who listen to him and who 
 might read the arguments presented. Those who have heard or read 
 our proceedings know that the interest in this debate has not flagged, 
 and that there has been brought from day to day to the investigation 
 of this important issue not only much ability, but careful and profound 
 study. 
 
 At the outset let me suggest that I am not at all oblivious of the 
 ability, honesty, and statesmanship of Senators with whom I am com 
 pelled to differ ; nor is it right that those gentlemen whose expressions 
 and arguments I shall criticise should entertain the opinion that I am 
 unmindful of the thorough examination which they have given the 
 pending subject, or of the attainments which they have utilized in 
 reaching the judgments which they have announced. Nevertheless, 
 however much greater their experience, although I admire their ability 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 25 
 
 and readily acknowledge them to be gentlemen of integrity, I can not 
 for these reasons abandon my own views and shall not hesitate to utter 
 them candidly and plainly. 
 
 At the same time I beg each Senator here, whether he be a member 
 of the party to which I belong or whether his fortunes have been 
 thrown in other political channels, to recollect that though my expres 
 sions may, because of want of power to declare them otherwise, seem 
 to convey reflections, I intend nothing of the sort. I wish Senators to 
 remember that I cast no aspersions upon the motives of any Senator ; 
 that I know the aspirations of all are high and worthy of this Chamber 
 and of this Assembly, which you, Mr. President, declared from the 
 chair is the greatest deliberative body upon earth. . 
 
 In considering this matter I can not avoid to some extent repeating 
 what has been said by others. Indeed, I hardly hope to present any 
 thing new. I might say in the words of some one else that I have 
 gathered a posey of other men s flowers, and only the thread that 
 binds them together is my own. Therefore I deem myself at liberty to 
 discuss this subject freely, and while endeavoring to obtain and deserve 
 the respect of my colleagues, I shall not omit to attack those conclu 
 sions which seem to me ill founded and unsupported. 
 
 I will argue that we are bound by our platforms to oppose uncon 
 ditional repeal, and will also attempt to show that independently of 
 those platforms it is our duty, as patriotic citizens having the best 
 interests of our country at heart, to legislate in the interest of silver, 
 and it will be readily understood before I conclude that I prefer free 
 coinage at a ratio of 16 to i. 
 
 I shall first consider the present condition of affairs with reference 
 to the causes of depression. 
 
 I believe that the present depression was produced by inflation and 
 overspeculation resulting from tariff legislation, and that the illogical 
 and unnatural treatment which silver has received from us was pro- 
 motive of disaster. I am not prepared to deny that the prospect of a new 
 tariff law affected matters in a degree, because, as has been truly said, 
 any tariff revision whatever has some bearing upon the markets and 
 creates some disturbance. I know, however well devised such legisla 
 tion may be, it cannot but be a cause of grave solicitude to those 
 who will be affected by its enforcement ; and fairness and candor 
 require, I think, that we should admit that much. That fact leads to 
 a conclusion, which I shall reach later on, that there are before us 
 duties of greater importance than those to which we have been sum 
 moned to direct our undivided attention. 
 
 I am satisfied, further, that the constant and unremitting asser 
 tions by alleged financial authorities and by Wall street newspapers 
 to the effect that we are going to the bad because of the Sherman 
 bill frightened many people, and that the deliberate, preconcerted, 
 and generally arranged programme by which a number of the specu 
 lators of the country prevented the loaning of money and promulgated 
 an edict to the effect that nothing would be done, no money permitted 
 to move until the Sherman act was repealed, had much to do with the 
 embarrassment. 
 
 I wish, in a few words, to say that it is not true that this country 
 has been in such an intensely prosperous condition in the recent past 
 
26 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 as many of our friends on the other side, and several Senators upon 
 our own side, suppose. I claim that, although upon the surface it 
 seemed as if there was general prosperity, the truth is that there were 
 elements in operation which anyone of discernment, and who desired 
 to make careful examination, could discover justifying the anticipation 
 that hard times were at hand. 
 
 Enterprises were carried on involving large outlays, and the casual 
 observer would conclude, and people generally did believe, that every 
 one was getting rich. 
 
 In the Fifty-first Congress there was a memorial presented praying 
 for the passage of the Torrey bankruptcy bill. This document was 
 laid before Congress at its second session, after the passage of the 
 Sherman and McKinley laws. It was headed, " Memorial calling 
 attention to the present depressed financial condition of the country." 
 And it began thus : 
 
 The financial affairs of the country are in a perilous condition. Business 
 men in all of the States of the Union are apprehensive that there will be a panic. 
 Citizens in general are alarmed at the outlook. Values of property are decreas 
 ing. Persons, firms, and corporations are daily failing, whose assets are largely 
 in excess of their liabilities. There is but a single cause for all the above condi 
 tions, and that is want of confidence. As a result of that single cause money 
 is being withdrawn from circulation and the evils which are following and are 
 likely to continue to follow are innumerable. 
 
 This was in 1890. Hence before the Sherman law, regarding 
 which we are speaking, could have affected the affairs of this country, 
 before there was any opportunity for its extended operation, men 
 who knew what they were talking about, and in fact all familiar 
 with business affairs were aware that there was a panic in progress, 
 perhaps, less forceful than the present, but nevertheless, as they 
 thought, Worthy of serious attention. There are other causes and 
 other reasons leading me to conclude that this difficulty was smoldering, 
 if I may use the expression, and the flame was at that early day almost 
 ready to burst forth. 
 
 The census also tells a significant story. During the last twelve 
 years our wealth has increased scarcely 60 per cent., and in making 
 this estimate we credit ourselves with numerous speculative land values. 
 
 The bonded railroad indebtedness, according to Poor, increased 
 from $2,530,874,943 in 1880 to $5,463,611,204 in 1892, and the other 
 railroad indebtedness, which was $162,489,939 in 1880 was $285,831,- 
 88 in 1892. 
 
 During the same period, it is stated upon good authority that the 
 loans and overdrafts of national banks increased from less than a 
 thousand million dollars to $2,171,000,000, while those of other banks, 
 not considering private banks, and of real-estate mortgages, increased 
 from $378,000,000 to $1,189,000,000. This information I get from 
 a table which has been utilized here, and was presented by the Senator 
 from Cok>rado [Mr. TELLER], and its verity has not been disputed. 
 
 But the most surprising and at the same time appalling showing 
 is that which is disclosed with reference to real-estate mortgage 
 indebtedness by the investigations of the last census. These mort 
 gages are not by any means wholly the mortgages of wealthy 
 people, but include the toilers of the country, especially the farmers 
 the possessors of small homes industrious, painstaking, economical 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 27 
 
 people. These are the proprietors to a large extent of the mortgaged 
 premises. 
 
 In an estimate made by Mr. Waite, and which has not, as far 
 as I am aware, been contradicted, that gentleman states that in the 
 twenty-one States for which the mortgaged indebtedness has been 
 tabulated, not including Ohio, Texas, California, and many other 
 States, the aggregate amount in force in 1889 was $4,547,000,000, and 
 the grand aggregate, Mr. Waite concludes, will be no less than $6,300,- 
 000,000 ; and I may say that such investigation as I have been able to 
 give the subject, leads me to believe that this estimate is rather under 
 than over the actual figures. 
 
 In 1880 the total aggregate was about $2,500,000,000; in 1892 
 the mortgaged indebtedness increased until it attained a figure in excess 
 of $8,000,000,000. 
 
 These disclosures prove that up to 1892 this mortgage indebtedness 
 had increased, as contrasted with its status in 1880, nearly four times 
 the increase in real-estate value. 
 
 To summarize : 
 
 Amount of private indebtedness of the American peo 
 ple in 1880 $6,750,000,000 
 
 Amount of private indebtedness of American people 
 
 in September, 1892 19,700,000,000 
 
 An increase of almost $13,000,000,000 in the short period of twelve 
 years. 
 
 At this point it may be well to refer to the amount of money in 
 circulation according to the statement in Senate Miscellaneous Docu 
 ment No. 35, presented by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. COCK- 
 ERELL] . 
 
 The total stock of gold in the world is $3,582,605,000 
 
 Total stock of silver 4,042,700,000 
 
 Uncovered paper 2,635,873,000 
 
 Total $10,261,178,00:0 
 
 Total of gold and silver 7,625,305,000 
 
 The entire stock of gold and silver in the world is not sufficient 
 to pay the net private indebtedness of the American people. This 
 has been the condition of affairs during the period above stated ; and 
 yet w*e are told that we are suffering from too much money. 
 
 We are informed by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut 
 [Mr. HAWLEY], that the gold-bond indebtedness of railroads within 
 the United States exceeds $4,600,000,000, and yet this is considerably 
 more than all the gold in the world. (Poor gives the railroad funded 
 debt for 1892 at $5,463,611,204.) This extraordinary increase in the 
 indebtedness of the people occurred during high protection times, and 
 was aggravated apparently by the passage of the McKinley bill. 
 
 Of course, Mr. President, no one expects the railroads to pay 
 their indebtedness. It is an impossibility, and hence no expectation 
 of it may be indulged in. Eliminating the railroad indebtedness, 
 eliminating the money transactions of those people who have been 
 spoken of in this Chamber and who were alluded to yesterday as the 
 men who participate in transactions involving millions without prac 
 tically using a single dollar, we have in many of the States of this 
 
28 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Union, indeed in all of them but especially in the agricultural States, a 
 startling increase of mortgage indebtedness. 
 
 Those people, the farmers of this country, cannot do business 
 as the millionaires do business. When they are called upon to deal 
 with anybody, they must deal with money. When their mortgages 
 become due they cannot fund their debts. They sometimes may be 
 able to remortgage, to add the interest to the principal, to start out 
 again ; but even in those cases the time comes when the property 
 value is but little in excess, if at all, of the mortgage debt. Then the 
 man to whom the indebtedness is due comes along and forecloses. 
 
 No bondholder attempts to foreclose upon railway corporations, 
 because he well knows that he cannot afford to take the property and 
 run it. He relies upon the proposition that those railroad institutions 
 will be able to get enough from their patrons to pay interest on their 
 debt and that satisfies him. 
 
 When Senators talk to me of the fact that there is no necessity 
 for more money, because, forsooth, upon Wall street and in the 
 moneyed centers of this country vast transactions are had without 
 the presence of gold or silver or even greenbacks or other currency, 
 I say to them that, while it is true in the instance which they cite, 
 it is not true in the more numerous instances in which the middle 
 classes of this country financially speaking, the farmers and others, 
 those who are not of the wealthy class, every day participate and upon 
 which depend. 
 
 I have alluded to tariff legislation as being to a large extent 
 responsible for this. The natural effect of the monetary stimulation 
 thus given to certain lines of business was to induce speculation, and 
 the outcome of speculation, thus induced, was inflation, and large 
 and perilous transactions. Our mortgagors and debtors generally 
 avail themselves of that which was spoken of yesterday, 
 and called credit, to the fullest extent, but the time arrives 
 in many instances when these people, called upon to pay 
 and unable to get time, find themselves without money, and the 
 indebtedness of these producers of the country having thus alarm 
 ingly increased, and the indebtedness of the entire nation having 
 augmented, there is nothing to meet the requirements of pay day. 
 
 In Europe there was a catastrophe which has been spoken of here 
 very forcibly. I refer to the failure of the Baring Brothers. We are 
 told and I have heard the argument made here repeatedly that 
 that failure and the speculations of Great Britain in the Argentine 
 Republic and in Australia cannot afford any explanation of our panic, 
 because the panic has not been experienced there. I think the answer 
 to that argument is plain and shall consider the subject in a few 
 moments. At this point I will content myself with the remark that 
 the financial troubles in Europe caused our many creditors there to 
 call upon us and we were compelled to pay our debts and experienced 
 the usual difficulties incident to such a demand suddenly made in very 
 large sums. 
 
 I admit that before the present Administration came into power 
 upon the surface matters looked nicely. It is possible for one who 
 is heavily in debt to live high and excite a great deal of comment, 
 if not admiration, because of his liberality and good fellowship. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 29 
 
 Especially is humanity prone to live high when humanity is living 
 upon borrowed cash, but there ever comes an hour when the money 
 must be paid, when the mortgage must be foreclosed, when the gentle 
 man who has lived beyond his means must seek another and less 
 prominent abode when, possibly, he will not be as popular or congenial 
 to the many who have gathered around him. 
 
 The selfish and illogical legislation to which we have been treated 
 has resulted in the accumulation of a few very large fortunes, and 
 possibly in the transient benefit of a very limited section of the country. 
 And all this has been done not only at a sacrifice, but in such a manner 
 as to produce ruin where the conditions, independent of legislation, 
 made prosperity not merely probable, but absolutely natural. 
 Then when the McKinley bill was enacted enormous and unreasonable 
 importations were made to escape the new and increased duty, and the 
 country was heavily overstocked ; and when times commenced to be 
 rather stringent the auctioneer was called around and these unusual 
 importations were thrown upon the market, catastrophe was the nec 
 essary consequence. 
 
 The ownership by our farmers of the land upon which they labor 
 indicates prosperity, unless, indeed, the property is mortgaged to such 
 an extent that the occupant is the proprietor only in name. Whenever 
 it comes to pass that our farming communities occupy the position 
 of mere tenants, paying rent to bankers and capitalists, our condition 
 will not differ greatly from that of older and more populous nations 
 to whom we are in the habit of extending our sympathy. The 
 increase of the tenant class is not a good indication. 
 
 I have spoken of bankers, and a remark made here yesterday by 
 the very distinguished Senator who addressed the Chamber upon the 
 other side of the question [Mr. GRAY] leads me to say that when I 
 speak of a banker in connection with something of which I do not 
 approve, I do not desire anyone to assume that I am using that word 
 in an invidious sense. I charge no class of my countrymen with 
 crime, and I charge none of them with intentional wrongdoing, save 
 in those exceptional instances which I may note. I differ from many 
 of them in their views and policies, and to some of those differences I 
 am addressing my words. 
 
 I believe that we are bound to concede that a portion of excessively 
 wealthy class of this Republic do not treat the Republic as they 
 should ; but I do not thereby mean to assert that there are no patriotic 
 men who are rich. 
 
 Utilizing statistics furnished by the Census Department, and taking 
 sixteen States pretty well scattered, we find that the percentages of 
 farmers who are tenants are as follows : 
 
 States. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1890. 
 
 States. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1890. 
 
 IVtaine 
 
 4.32 
 
 7.62 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 19.88 
 
 25.00 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 8 13 
 
 10 92 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 10.22 
 
 17.68 
 
 Vermont . 
 
 13.41 
 
 17.62 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 24.60 
 
 32.11 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 8 18 
 
 15.06 
 
 Maryland 
 
 30.95 
 
 37.23 
 
 Iowa 
 
 23 83 
 
 29 57 
 
 South Carolina.... 
 
 50.31 
 
 61.49 
 
 Ohio 
 
 24.96 
 
 37.10 
 
 Georgi a 
 
 44.85 
 
 58.10 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 9 05 
 
 13.10 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 34.53 
 
 41.88 
 
 Montana 
 
 5.27 
 
 13.40 
 
 Kansas 
 
 13.13 
 
 33.25 
 
30 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER. May I inquire of the Senator what particular 
 percentage he is giving? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am speaking of the percentage of 
 the population who are tenant farmers who occupy farms as tenants 
 as compared with the whole class. 
 
 These are all I have collected. In summing up these figures, Mr. 
 President, it will be noted that the largest increase is found in Kansas, 
 one of the most fertile States in the Union, and one which until lately 
 has been most loyal to the protective system, while in 1880 but little 
 over 13 per cent, of the farming population were tenants, in 1890 over 
 33 per cent, held under that tenure. 
 
 The condition of affairs in the great State of Ohio is almost as 
 bad. Clearly, if the so-called prosperity which commenced in 1880 
 and culminated with the overthrow of the Republican party in 1892 
 is to be considered such, it is difficult to determine what condition 
 of affairs will be though other than prosperous. That we are tending 
 towards bankruptcy is obvious. It will not do to escape the force of 
 this argument by the suggestion that land has increased in value, 
 and that therefore it is natural that there should be an increase of 
 mortgage indebtedness, because I have shown that the increase in value 
 bears no proportion whatever to the augmentation of indebtedness. 
 
 I alluded a few moments ago to Kansas. The natural resources of 
 that country are best proven by the official governmental reports. 
 In December, 1892, it was there estimated that the wheat crop of 
 Kansas would be 70,831,000 bushels, valued at nearly $37,000,000. 
 This was the largest output reported from any State in the Union. 
 Minnesota comes next in amount with 41,210,000 bushels, and Cali 
 fornia comes next in the value of her crop, which was worth 
 $26,626,584. 
 
 I mention the Minnesota and California figures to show how 
 prominently Kansas led her sister States in the matter of wheat 
 production. She produced of corn during the same year 145,825,000 
 bushels valued at $45,205,873, and her product in that regard was 
 only exceeded by the States of Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa and Illinois. 
 
 The Agricultural Department for the same year reports that the 
 Kansas oat crop was 44,094,000 bushels, valued at $11,464,567. She 
 was only exceeded in this production by Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. 
 The same authority for the same year reports Kansas as harvesting 
 2,600,000 bushels of flaxseed, valued at $1,184,000. Her production in 
 bushels of this crop was only exceeded by two States. Under these 
 conditions the farmers of Kansas ought to be growing rich. But, on 
 the contrary, the statistics show very clearly that they are becoming 
 daily more and more immersed in debt, and this difficulty was in prog 
 ress long before the Sherman bill matured, and when no one outside of 
 the more faithful Democracy contemplated the entire overthrow of the 
 Republican organization. 
 
 I have heard Senators argue upon this floor, and I have heard 
 gentlemen in the other House declare, that the fall in the price of 
 wheat and corn was natural and was due to the law of demand 
 and supply. 
 
 The Senator from Kansas stated here a short time ago that it 
 costs the people of his State more to raise corn than they can realize 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 31 
 
 for it. And it is a matter of common knowledge that corn, because 
 of its cheapness, has been burned in Western States in preference to 
 coal. 
 
 When the farmer must harvest his grain in order to get a fire, 
 he is not making much progress in the financial world. No condition 
 is natural or healthy under which the farmers of a nation realize less 
 from their crops than the cost of raising the same. No country can 
 hold its own where such a state of affairs long prevails. I do not 
 know that any one has been bold enough to say that the hard luck 
 of the farmer is wholly due to the Sherman bill, but the gentlemen 
 who speak from Wall street never fail to call attention to the sad fate 
 that awaits the farmer if the advice of the Wall street people is not 
 followed. 
 
 The amount of sympathy which has been extended to our granger 
 friends by our capitalists does not find expression in the reduction of 
 interest upon mortgages or in the solution of the farmers many 
 troubles, which usually result, and which, if the present system lasts, 
 must result in a foreclosure and a sale. 
 
 When the McKinley bill was framed my friends on the other side 
 of this Chamber proffered an alluring bait to the farming community. 
 They said, we will raise the tariff upon wheat and corn. A delightful 
 time the foreign producer of corn would have experienced had he gone 
 to Iowa to undersell the farmers of that State. 
 
 I refer to these figures and these facts to prove that it is impossible 
 for anyone to correctly establish that this country was in a healthy fiscal 
 condition when Mr. Cleveland was elected. 
 
 However we may dispute about various matters which are difficult 
 of ascertainment, such as the issue discussed yesterday as to whether 
 gold has appreciated or whether silver has fallen, however obscure 
 that may be, no one will deny that something is wrong if the farmer, 
 who arises early and goes to bed late, who is industrious and pains 
 taking, intelligent and honest, cannot realize any profit from his toil. 
 
 Senators seem to think the depreciated price of wheat is in conse 
 quence of some natural and beneficent law, and this fall in price is 
 pointed to by many, as it was pointed to by Mr. Rothschild in the 
 Brussels conference, as being an indication of advancement and pros 
 perity. I absolutely deny the accuracy of such a deduction. It is 
 admitted, as I have said, that there is room for improvement if those 
 who till the soil in this or any other country, derive no profit from 
 their exertion, that something is wrong. Will anyone pretend to say 
 that a system, whatever it may be, w hich produces this condition not 
 in an isolated instance, but practically all over the United States, is 
 a wise and a good system? Will any one here now affirm that when 
 the Democratic party came into power the country was in a truly 
 prosperous condition? The mortgage records and the financial stand 
 ing of the producers of this Republic negative such a conclusion and 
 demonstrate that the claim so often made to that effect is wholly 
 unfounded. 
 
 Our Republican friends speak of the shipment of gold as an indi 
 cation of bad government upon the part of the Democracy. Do they 
 not know that gold had commenced to move not only before the inaug 
 uration of Mr. Cleveland, but that indications to that effect were not 
 
32 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 wanting when they were announcing all over this Republic that their 
 triumph was assured? Do they not know that when Mr. Cleveland 
 left his office at the expiration of his first term he left a plethoric 
 Treasury, and that we are today sitting in this Chamber seeking to 
 so legislate as to replenish that same Treasury, whose coffers are 
 threatened with entire depletion? 
 
 It is idle, perhaps, to seek to discern all the causes of this trouble. 
 I do not pretend to say that even tariff legislation has been the sole 
 cause, but I do say that the tendency of that legislation and the specu 
 lation and inflation and unnatural conditions which were its legitimate 
 offspring, had much to do with this depression. But this proposition 
 I do confidently announce, that it is not true that this country was 
 in a prosperous condition at the close of the Republican Administra 
 tion. 
 
 Much has been said concerning the necessity of aid from the capi 
 talists of this country. I admit it. I do not know how we could get 
 along at all if it were not for the enterprise of some men of large 
 means, and if it were not for the cupidity which suggests to others 
 the necessity for investing their money ; but at the same time the 
 assistance received from our millionaires certainly does not show itself 
 in the reduction of mortgages or in the cancellation of indebtedness 
 or in the restoration of that confidence which the agricultural commu 
 nities of this country will never feel until they have been brought under 
 a system which will enable them to reduce their monetary obligations 
 and share in legitimate comforts. 
 
 Why is it, in spite of the able arguments of the advocates of the 
 single gold standard, that the farmers all over the Republic of 
 course there are exceptions, but I am speaking of them as a class 
 and laborers generally are not in favor of legislation which interferes 
 with the circulation of silver or tends to decrease its use ? They know 
 that they are in debt, and they beHeve that gold is appreciating from 
 day to day, and yet, that their mortgages are increasing because of 
 the accumulation of interest which they cannot meet for their powers 
 are taxed to get a bare subsistence, without provision for defraying 
 interest or principal. 
 
 I regard it as absurd to claim that the Sherman bill and the 
 presence of so much silver interferes with our prosperity. We have 
 coined silver in circulation and we have uncoined silver in the Treasury. 
 The coined silver, I suppose it will be conceded, does not hurt anyone. 
 It has often been said that a silver dollar buys as much of any 
 commodity as a gold dollar. It has the stamp of the dollar upon it 
 as well as the greenback, and has more intrinsic worth than the 
 paper upon wttiich the greenback is printed. Nor is it likely that the 
 stock of uncoined silver in the Treasury is causing the trouble com 
 plained of. It has been well said that if all the uncoined silver were 
 placed upon a ship and sunk in the midst of the Atlantic, the credit 
 of this Government would not be in the slightest degree impaired. 
 
 When it was suggested that the losses sustained by England in 
 the Argentine Republic, involving perhaps ^200,000,000, and the vast 
 failures in Australia, which caused the closing of Baring Brothers, 
 accounted for our distress, we were met with the answer that if this 
 were true England must have suffered also, and that her financial 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 33 
 
 attitude should be even more disturbed than ours. We all know that 
 when England felt the necessity of obtaining coin she looked around 
 to get it, and there was but one country in the world able to supply 
 her. Then European investors commenced to withdraw, and without 
 considering the real cause of the situation we imagined that we were 
 losing money when w*e were simply paying our debts. Our people 
 became scared ; the bankers, instead of loaning at higher rates of 
 interest, as they should have done, closed up and refused to permit 
 their deposits to go into circulation. That the national banks in New 
 York violated the law no one denies. The resolution introduced to 
 investigate such violation sleeps the sleep of the just in the bosom 
 of the Committee on Finance. 
 
 I cannot bring myself to believe that the Sherman law is responsible 
 for our condition unless to the extent that the public have believed 
 the attacks made upon the measure by the gentlemen who are now 
 urging its repeal. True, the friends of silver, those who are really so, 
 did not and do not believe the Sherman law to be perfect. But they 
 Jid not and do not like it, because they believed and believe that 
 something better was and is due to silver, and they believed and believe 
 that the obedience to constitutional mandates and organic regulations 
 prescribed by the fathers of this Republic necessitate more favorable 
 legislation. 
 
 This measure has caused the consumption of some of the silver of 
 the country. Mines remained in operation because of its provisions, 
 and, above all, its enactment was evidence that we did not intend to 
 abandon silver ; it was evidence worth more than a naked promise. 
 The man who has the power to perform and gives promise in lieu 
 of that performance, cannot blame those who refuse to trust him. 
 
 THE TARIFF MUST BE REFORMED. 
 
 Our Republican friends must not flatter themselves that We do 
 not intend to reform the tariff. I speak upon this subject because 
 but little has been said upon it, and one branch of my presentation 
 is designed to lead to the conclusion that it is our duty as Democrats 
 to stand upon the Democratic platform, and while proceeding in that 
 direction, I wish to illustrate my position, and I also desire to relieve 
 my Republican friends, who have been obviously suffering because 
 they fear we will not reform the tariff. I design to show them that 
 there is no ground for this apprehension ; that we do design, or that 
 I at least hope, to alter our tariff laws in accord with our promises. 
 I will not speak for others now. 
 
 If I were away from this Chamber, if I had never come here, I 
 should probably have said, speaking of my party, " we " will reform 
 the tariff, but as it is I do not feel authorized to speak for the 
 party for two reasons : first, because I am a very immaterial factor 
 in its policies and administration, and secondly, because platforms are 
 construed by strict-construction Democrats in a most remarkable and 
 liberal manner. 
 
 We are constantly hearing suggestions to the effect that we fear 
 to legislate upon the tariff, and I noticed one Senator upon the other 
 side of the Chamber, for whom I have the greatest respect and admira 
 tion, shake his finger at us, not of course in anger, but in emphasis, 
 
34 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 saying at the same time that we dared not do so. Perhaps he may 
 be right, but I desire him to apply his declaration to others than 
 myself. It is sufficient for my present purpose to note that the Chicago 
 platform positively and emphatically denounces the McKinley law. 
 The language upon the subject is unequivocal, at least I think so. I 
 do not know what the hereafter may develop; I cannot say how the 
 platform may be construed by well-meaning and ingenious, but, as I 
 think, mistaken Senators. It is worded thus : 
 
 We denounce Republican protection as a fraud, a robbery of the great 
 majority of the American people for the benefit of the few. We declare it to be 
 a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the Federal Government 
 has no constitutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the 
 purpose of revenue only, and we demand that the collection of such taxes shall be 
 limited to the necessities of the Government when honestly and economically 
 administered. 
 
 We denounce the McKinley tariff law enacted by the Fifty-first Congress 
 as the culminating atrocity of class legislation; we indorse the efforts made 
 by the Democrats of the present Congress to modify its most oppressive features 
 in the direction of free raw materials and cheaper manufactured goods that enter 
 into general consumption, and we promise its repeal as one of the beneficent 
 results that will follow the action of the people in intrusting power to the Demo 
 cratic party. Since the McKinley tariff went into operation there have been ten 
 reductions of the wages of the laboring man to one increase. We deny that 
 there has been any increase of prosperity to the country since that tariff went 
 into operation, and we point to the dullness and distress, the wage reductions 
 and strikes in the iron trade as the best possible evidence that no such pros 
 perity has resulted from the McKinley act. 
 
 Then follows another announcement, which I commend to my 
 Democratic brethren who have been psychologicalized by the eloquence 
 of the other side upon the subject of the alleged prosperity of the 
 United States at the close of the late Administration. I read 
 
 We call the attention of thoughtful Americans to the fact that after thirty 
 years of restrictive taxes against the importation of foreign wealth in exchange 
 for our agricultural surplus, the homes and farms of the country have become 
 burdened with a real-estate mortgage debt of over $2,500,000,000, exclusive of 
 all other forms of indebtedness; that in one of the chief agricultural States of 
 the West there appears a real-estate mortgage debt averaging $165 per capita 
 of the total population, and that similar conditions and tendencies are shown 
 to exist in other agricultural exporting States. We denounce a policy which 
 fosters no industry so much as it does that of sheriff. 
 
 I presume that, notwithstanding this declaration upon our part, 
 which of course constitutes no estoppel upon members of other parties, 
 we will hear that the Sherman law is solely responsible for the 
 so-called terrible condition of affairs and that none of our wloes 
 came on or were anticipated in consequence of any other legislation. 
 We shall have the assertion, as we have had it, that the author of 
 our distress is the Sherman act, although we solemnly proclaimed in 
 the platform upon which we went before the American people that the 
 day of disaster was then upon us, that hard times were coming because 
 of previous tariff laws. 
 
 It is sufficient to call attention to the platform already read. 
 
 The Democratic party said, " We denounce Republican protection 
 as a fraud, a robbery of the great majority of the American people for 
 the benefit of the few," and the people last November said " amen." 
 
 The Chicago platform declared it to be a fundamental principle 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN At. WHITE. 35 
 
 of the Democratic party that " the Federal Government has no consti 
 tutional power to impose and collect tariff duties, except for the 
 purpose of revenue only ;" and it is demanded that " the collection of 
 such taxes should be limited to the necessities of the Government 
 honestly and economically administered." 
 
 To this declaration, also, the people said " amen." 
 
 The same platform used this expressive phraseology : " We 
 denounce the McKinley tariff law enacted by the Fifty-first Congress 
 as the culminating atrocity of class legislation," and the people after 
 due consideration rendered the verdict, finding as a fact that the 
 McKinley tariff was and is the culminating atrocity of class legislation. 
 There is no appeal from the decree thus entered, and it is therefore 
 not only the duty of the Democratic party but the duty of every member 
 of Congress to immediately get rid of a piece of legislation which 
 the free and incorruptible voters of the United States have branded 
 as an outrage, a fraud, an atrocity. 
 
 It is little more than audacity to assert that the people have changed 
 their views. This favorite argument of platform repudiators has no 
 more effect upon my judgment and will have no more effect upon my 
 vote in this instance than in the case of silver. We have come here 
 pledged to do this work. 
 
 It is our solemn obligation to immediately proceed to get rid of 
 the McKinley bill or to resign and go home to a people who have 
 trusted us in vain. 
 
 Our President, in 1887, by the most convincing logic, satisfied the 
 country that the Republican protection system was wrong. He was 
 ardent in his advocacy of tariff reform. He was emphatic certainly 
 when the votes were counted last November, and although he made 
 but short reference in his recent message to the " culminating atrocity 
 of class legislation," I have no doubt that his enthusiasm has not 
 abated, and believe that he is as anxious as I am to procure the 
 repeal of the McKinley bill, but I suppose he will favor a substitute. 
 I will. I presume that I may be permitted, without danger, to say 
 that a more extended treatment of revenue matters in the President s 
 late message would have been congenial to those whom he converted 
 to the cause of tariff reform. Doubtless, however, Mr. Cleveland con 
 cluded that the country, having settled the question in the most direct 
 possible manner, did not care for further argumentation. 
 
 When we legislate on the tariff we will be just. We are not 
 seeking to destroy anyone. We wish to promote our country s interests 
 and to make even our Republican brethren happy, wealthy and wise. 
 
 I am somewhat astonished at the attitude of my Republican friends 
 concerning the British lion. I have no special affection for the beast, 
 but am not so bigoted that I cannot see anything good in British 
 legislation, and for this reason, I have paid considerable attention 
 to her fiscal laws, and believe with my party that we should not be 
 prevented from reducing the tariff merely because England reached 
 a similar determination when she was upon the verge of bankruptcy. 
 But throughout the last campaign there was not a Republican orator 
 whose voice was heard, or whose words I read, who did not say 
 that the Democratic party was subservient to England. We were 
 assailed in the most savage way. It was charged that British gold 
 
36 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 was in our pockets, British policies in our heads. We were un-Re- 
 publican, tin-Democratic, un-American, and fit for any fate. But now 
 I notice that the British lion domestically rubs against my Republican 
 friends. With tender hand they stroke its mighty head, and with 
 soothing balsam they seek to eliminate the irregularity of that append 
 age which they so lately were so prone to twist. [Laughter.] This 
 reconciliation and conversion is even more startling than the fall of 
 silver men. 
 
 I feel more than ordinary interest upon the subject of the tariff. 
 The Republican organization in my State, through its State com 
 mittee, issued a challenge to me to debate the tariff issue with a Repub 
 lican of marked ability and reputation, and it was expressly provided 
 in the proposition that no other question should be discussed. The 
 committee declared that to be the leading issue of the day, and although 
 T preferred to consider other subjects as well, my desires in this regard 
 were not heeded, and upon my acceptance the debate was proceeded 
 with as originally proposed. We canvassed the State of California, 
 speaking of the tariff only. Naturally, therefore, I felt somewhat 
 lonesome upon coming here and hearing so little concerning that 
 tariff which both parties seemed to believe was so important up to the 
 date whereon we received the popular verdict in our favor mainly as 
 the consequence of our position upon that question. 
 
 THE ACT OF 1873. 
 
 Much has been said during this debate as to the demonetization 
 of silver in 18/3, and the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio 
 [Mr. SHERMAN] has been criticised here, as well as elsewhere, because 
 of his participancy in that legislation. 
 
 Demonetization of silver Was a great mistake. It has been called 
 a crime. But I dislike to impute criminality to gentlemen who 
 undoubtedly had the best intentions. The Senator from Ohio has been 
 long an active opponent of silver. He believes that the financial theories 
 of Wall and Lombard street are sound, and he has voted and acted 
 in accordance with his faith. It is undoubted that there was much inad 
 vertent voting when the act of 1873 was passed. 
 
 Mr. John P. Young, in several very elaborate and carefully prepared 
 articles in recent numbers of the San Francisco Chronicle, furnishes 
 much information taken from the records calculated to show that the 
 demonetization clause was not noted even by the most prominent of 
 our Government officials. I will utilize in the course of my remarks 
 some of the matter which he has collected, together with his comments 
 thereon. On the 3rd of October, 1873, President Grant, in writing 
 to Mr. Cowdery on resumption of specie payment, said : 
 
 I wonder that silver is not already coming into the market to supply the 
 deficiency in the circulating medium. Experience has proven that it takes about 
 forty millions of fractional currency to make the small change necessary for 
 the transaction of the business of the country. Silver will gradually take the 
 place of this currency, and further, will become the standard of values, which 
 will be hoarded in a small way. I estimate that this will consume from two 
 hundred millions to three hundred millions, in time, of this species of circulat 
 ing medium. I confess to a desire to see a limited hoarding of money, but I 
 want to see a hoarding of something that is a standard of value the world over. 
 Silver is this. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 37 
 
 Mr. Ruggles, President of the New York Chamber of Commerce, 
 reported to the body over which he presided in a manner demonstrating 
 that he did not understand what had been accomplished. The follow 
 ing is an extract from his address : 
 
 The bill as introduced proposes to reduce the weight of the silver dollar 
 from 412^ grains to 384 grains. The Chamber of Commerce of the State of 
 New York, on examining and considering that provision by resolution onlv 
 transmitted to Congress in June last, respectfully recommended that the weight 
 of the silver dollar should be made precisely equivalent to that of the 5-franc 
 silver coin of Europe. 
 
 The frequently cited expression of Mr. Elaine to the effect that 
 he knew nothing with reference to the bill, and the testimony of 
 Judge Thurman, demonstrated a lack of knowledge upon their part. 
 
 It is not my purpose to investigate the conduct of those who 
 were engaged in the work of demonetization, and I leave the subject, 
 stating that I do not believe there was as full and complete a declara 
 tion of the real effect of the bill presented by those who understand it 
 as its importance required. 
 
 I am inclined to conclude that the act of 1873 was, to use the 
 language of an able writer, rather a blunder than a crime. Our people 
 were then discussing an international agreement. Thirty years ago 
 that subject was a matter of common talk. Uniformity of coinage 
 seemed to be sought for. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. COCKRELL] 
 has already mentioned this fact. Some further investigation appears 
 to me to justify the statement that we lost our heads at that time, 
 because of our desire to procure an international agreement. In 1857 
 Congress passed an act, under which Prof. Alexander was sent to 
 England to try and secure bimetallism in a limited form, but our 
 British cousins were as firm then as they are now and laughed 
 at us. 
 
 In 1863 the International Statistical Congress, already mentioned in 
 this debate, convened at Brussels. There were there thirteen or four 
 teen nations represented. Our delegate was Mr. Samuel Ruggles. 
 Resolutions were adopted under which the first international monetary 
 congress was held at Paris during the Universal Exposition of 1867. 
 Nineteen nations were there represented, Mr. Ruggles appearing in 
 our behalf. The monometallists ruled supreme, and the single gold 
 standard was recommended as an international unit of coinage. This 
 movement Mr. Ruggles headed, and in 1868 bills were introduced to 
 carry out these suggestions. The Senate Finance Committee ordered 
 a favorable report upon one of these bills, and the able Senator from 
 Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] did not use any equivocal language in the 
 report which he then drew up. He said : 
 
 The single standard of gold is an American idea yielded reluctantly by 
 France and other countries where silver is the chief standard of value. The 
 impossible attempt to maintain two standards of value has given rise to nearly 
 all the debasement of coinage for the last two centuries. 
 
 He also remarked : 
 
 The opportunity is now offered to the United States to secure a common 
 international standard in the metal most valuable of all others, best Adapted 
 for coinage, mainly the product of our own country and in conformity with 
 the policy constantly urged by our statesmen and now agreed to by the oldest 
 
38 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 and wealthiest nations of the world. Surely we should not hesitate for trifling 
 considerations to secure so important an object. 
 
 He further said : 
 
 France, whose standard is adopted, makes a new coin similar to our half 
 eagles. She yielded to pur demand for the sole standard of gold, and during 
 the whole conference evinced the most earnest wish to secure the co-operation 
 of the United States in the great object of the unification of coinage. 
 
 Mr. SHERMAN added that he had received assurances that if the 
 United States would lead the way our example would be followed 
 by other nations, and he mentioned England especially. He dwelt 
 upon the object of encouraging the use of gold, which was so largely 
 produced at home. 
 
 No wonder international monetary conferences convened at our 
 suggestion have proven failures. The truth is that we are responsible, 
 as I shall attempt to argue further along, for the prevailing conditions 
 with reference to silver. We struck the blow ; we did the initial act 
 which has rendered it almost impossible to recuperate so far as inter 
 national bimetallic agreement is concerned. 
 
 Not only are our statesmen responsible for the consequences fol 
 lowing the act of 1873, but it appears by indubitable testimony that 
 we primarily suggested in an international conference that there should 
 be a single standard. We have done our best to destroy silver. 
 We have exerted our fullest powers to drive it out of the world s 
 monetary systems, and we have been so potent for evil that we have 
 succeed in inducing the great commercial nations of the earth 
 to acquiesce in our illicit suggestion. Is it not time to reform ? Have 
 we not reached a point where it is our duty to retrace our steps ? 
 
 A majority of the present Congress affirm that they are in favor 
 of bimetallism. If this be true let us act as though we had confidence 
 in ourselves, as though we meant what we say. Let us practice what 
 we preach. The powerful and persistent efforts of the able senior 
 Senator from Ohio, covering more than a quarter of a century, have 
 borne such fruit, that he not only dominates the councils of his own 
 party, but commands a battalion among whose membership are to 
 be found prominent and influential Democratic statesmen. I say this 
 to the credit of the Senator from Ohio and as showing that the country 
 has not estimated him amiss when it has considered him one of its 
 foremost citizens. 
 
 At this time, Mr. President, I desire to make a remark, lest I 
 should overlook it, with reference to something said yesterday by the 
 Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY]. 
 
 It was stated that the fact that the business of this country is 
 done largely upon a credit basis is an indication of our advanced 
 civilization. This may be granted without interfering with my posi 
 tion. Remarks were also made at the same time as to our ability 
 to carry on the most extensive transactions without the use of money. 
 
 I have said, and I now repeat with reference to the last propo 
 sition, that when we apply this statement to the men wfho control 
 the finances of the United States, who dictate largely its fiscal poli 
 cies, who make contracts involving twenty, thirty or forty millions 
 of dollars, this may all be done; but when we are brought in contact 
 with persons occupying that station in life which the man of limited 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 39 
 
 means occupies, then this cannot be done, and the latter class is 
 immense not only in those States where the leading capitalists are to 
 be found, but the membership is greater as we travel westward over 
 those great and fertile plains upon which the farmer tills in vain the 
 productive corn, and strives from morning until night to earn that 
 money which he is compelled to pay in gold dollars to the man who 
 has a mortgage upon his place. 
 
 The able Senator cited the condition of France. It was said that 
 the circumstance that the circulation per capita in France was $38, 
 or thereabouts and in this country much less, demonstrates that our 
 civilization is further advanced. 
 
 I am not certain whether, if we take into consideration all sur 
 rounding circumstances, we can truly say that France is in a backward 
 condition, even if we accept our civilization as a standard. Mr. 
 President, let us remember that France is not of immense area. Let 
 us recollect her population per square mile as compared with ours. 
 Let us reflect upon her history. Her soil has been tilled over and 
 over again by struggling millions during centuries. From the time 
 when Julius Caesar brought within her confines the standard of Rome 
 to the hour when the great Napoleon took from their various avoca 
 tions his mighty army to do battle with the combined nations of the 
 time, France was in suffering, turmoil, and bloodshed. The horrors of 
 her revolution, the dull thud of the guillotine s ax, thousand? impris 
 oned, millions in poverty, uncounted numbers in exile, constitute trials 
 through which she passed unknown and never to be known in our 
 country. 
 
 Besides all this, she was compelled to pay Germany an immense 
 sum exacted as the issue of a devastating conflict. Many of the 
 ablest financiers believed that she would never be able to pay this 
 tribute and maintain herself; yet she not only accomplished this, but 
 she threw from her the rule of a titled dynasty, and although her 
 people had before sought refuge in vain in republicanism, and notwith 
 standing the criticisms of historians and thoughtful men, she was able 
 to emerge from disaster, and stands today almost peerless among 
 enlightened and democratic peoples. 
 
 While I am not prepared to admit that any country betrays the 
 progress, advancement, and happiness to be found here, notwithstanding 
 all our folly and want of statesmanship, still I am not obvious to 
 the difference in our natural surroundings as contrasted with those of 
 France and other States. 
 
 We must not be unmindful of the freedom which we have so 
 long enjoyed, not only with reference to legislative enactments, but 
 that which we derive from a beneficent God ; blessings of soil and cli 
 mate and enlarged jurisdiction, emanating not from human tribunals, 
 but remaining in spite of them. 
 
 Again it is a poor rule which does not work both ways. 
 
 The Senator who made use of the arguments which I have just 
 been attempting to answer, was asked what he thought of those nations 
 where the circulation was $3 per capita. The truth is, we must take 
 a thousand circumstances into consideration other than the volume of 
 currency in order to arrive at a correct conclusion as to this very 
 interesting matter. 
 
40 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 THE PLATFORM OF THE PARTIES. 
 
 Much has been said in regard to the duty of the Democratic party 
 with reference to its platform and the corresponding duty of the 
 Republican party. I do not desire to provoke criticism on the other 
 side of this Chamber by a discussion of the Republican platform. I 
 shall allude to it in passing, but I do not consider myself competent 
 to instruct the Senators who occupy seats upon the other side of the 
 Chamber, nor indeed those who occupy seats here. I do not know 
 how my Republican friends may regard their obligations in this 
 respect, but my belief is that each Senator feels that his platform is 
 binding upon him. 
 
 Said the Democratic convention: 
 
 We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890 
 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with possibilities of danger in the future 
 which should make all of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its 
 speedy repeal. 
 
 And I concede that its authors are rather anxious. Continuing, 
 the platform says : 
 
 We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the 
 country 
 
 Not the use to which corn or wheat or oats or other things are 
 devoted, but we hold to the use as 
 
 the standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver, 
 without discriminating against either metal or charge for mintage, but the dollar 
 unit of coinage of both metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, 
 or be adjusted throueh international agreement or by such safeguards of legis 
 lation as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals and the 
 equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of 
 debts ; and we demand that all paper currency shall be kept at par with and 
 redeemable in such coin. We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for 
 the protection of the farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless 
 victims of unstable money and a fluctuating currency. 
 
 Mr. President, it has been suggested that we must take one clause 
 of our law, our political statute, one part of it, the first part of it. It 
 is said this is plain : " We denounce the Republican legislation known 
 as the Sherman act of 1890 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with 
 possibilities of danger in the future which should make all of its sup 
 porters, as well as its author, anxious for its speedy repeal." 
 
 It is argued, this is clear. Why not act upon it? Mr. President, 
 why not act upon half of a contract? Why not take a legal instru 
 ment in which different obligations are imposed and enforce the 
 undisputed portion, leaving the remainder to the future? When we 
 are brought into court and contend as to the meaning of an instru 
 ment, why not take the first clause, let the court determine the effect 
 of that, and leave the man who depends upon the second clause to 
 await the charity of the world, or another occasion to be designated 
 by his opponent for the consideration of that portion of the obligation 
 most important to him. 
 
 Our platform must be construed in pari materia. Unless we read 
 it together and give to every syllable in it that force which we can 
 give we have not read it correctly. As well might we say that we 
 will legislate upon silver without reference to the repeal of the Sher- 
 
SPHHCHHS OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 41 
 
 man law, and thus ignore the requirement of the platform concerning 
 the repeal, as to state that we will legislate as to repeal and do nothing 
 regarding the remainder of the rule of conduct prescribed for our 
 guidance. 
 
 The Republican platform was worded thus : 
 
 The American people from tradition and interest favor bimetallism 
 
 I think I have heard some one announce that from interest the 
 American people should not favor bimetallism, but I am not prepared 
 to say, in view of the prevailing rules of interpretation, whether that 
 gentleman was on or off of the platform 
 
 and the Republican party demands the use of both gold and silver as standard 
 money 
 
 So we shake hands across this friendly chasm, and we agree that 
 we are all in favor of gold and silver as standard money 
 
 with such restrictions and under such provisions, to be determined by legisla 
 tion, as will secure the maintenance of the parity of values of the two metals, 
 so that the purchasing and the debt-paying power of the dollar, whether of 
 silver, gold, or paper, shall be at all times equal. The interest of the producers 
 of the country, its farmers and its workingmen, demand that every dollar, paper 
 or coin, issued by the Government shall be as good as any other. 
 
 You were all solicitous for the farmers and the workingmen, and 
 you were solicitous in good faith, but you do not seem to be able 
 to satisfy the farmers and the laborers of the country that the pecu 
 liar construction for which you contend constitutes a compliance with 
 those promises which brought you their votes. The Senator from 
 Georgia [Mr. GORDON], for whose ability and learning I have always 
 had the greatest regard, avers that the Democratic party is bound tu 
 repeal as the consequence of its pledges. Yes, that is true; and it is 
 bound to do something else, concurrently with repeal, as the conse 
 quence of its pledges. 
 
 Senators upon this side of the Chamber and prominent members 
 of the House have made statements according with that view, and 
 have declared that they stand upon the Democratic platform with 
 both feet. Mr. President, looking at this matter as I do and under 
 stand me, I am criticising no one in unfriendly phrase the platform 
 looks to me as if it had been trodden upon by a great many with both 
 feet. [Laughter.] 
 
 The Chicago platform, in so many words, announced it to be the 
 doctrine of Democracy that gold and silver constitute the standard 
 money of the country, and that both must be coined without discrim 
 inating against either. 
 
 Here let me pause to make a suggestion. However much we may 
 differ upon the construction of this platform, one thing is patent, 
 that both metals must be treated alike. Throughout the plank which 
 I have read permeates this idea, that the Democratic partv solemnly 
 pledges itself to treat silver as it treats gold and to treat gold as it 
 treats silver. Can any one deny that? 
 
 The advocates of unconditional repeal declare in favor of discrim 
 ination, while the platform pronounces against discrimination. How is 
 this to be reconciled ? Let us look at it candidly without resorting to 
 technical construction. We officially state that we are opposed to dis- 
 
42 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 crimination, and yet every Senator who has argued in favor of uncon 
 ditional repeal, with the exception of the able chairman of the Com 
 mittee on Finance, and I think one or two other Senators has urged 
 us to discriminate against silver. 
 
 I am not arguing now whether it is right or not right to stand upon 
 the Democratic platform. I am assuming for the immediate occasion 
 that every Senator admits that we should stand upon it, that it is our 
 law; that as we went before the people upon it it is our duty to 
 stand here upon it; and hence I ask how can any Senator argue that 
 he is adhering to that platform when he advocates a policy of discrim 
 ination against silver, when the platform is mandatory that he shall not 
 discriminate. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the argument that free coinage is 
 not demanded by our platform, no one who claims to be governed 
 by any of those rules of construction which are suggested without 
 effort to persons of common sense will pretend to maintain that the 
 man who repudiates silver as a standard, and who does not favor its 
 coinage, and who believes in discriminating against silver and in favor 
 of gold, gives the slightest adhesion to those principles of political 
 faith announced in the law which his party has made and to which he 
 has subscribed. 
 
 If the advocates of unconditional repeal presented a mteasure 
 calling for free coinage at an increased ratio, or calling for limited coin 
 age at some ratio, or if they offered any legal substitute recognizing 
 silver (not a mere empty declaration without force or virtue), they 
 might be able to defend their position with considerable plausibility. 
 But we have all listened to arguments declaring that it is absurd to 
 claim that there can be a double standard ; that such a thing is 
 impossible; that one standard only is practicable or logical. 
 
 Without examining the merits of this affair at all at present, I 
 merely refer not only to the Democratic platform, but likewise to the 
 Republican declaration which is equally specific and in terms favors 
 bimetallism and the double standard. 
 
 Gentlemen may talk as much as they please. They may argue 
 that the conventions were wrong. They may proclaim that they know 
 more than their respective parties, but this does not relieve them from 
 the charge of inconsistency, nor will it relieve any one who has gone 
 before the people upon either platform from constant criticism. True 
 there may have been conversions. We know that there have been 
 many changes, but the people of the country do not and they are 
 right about it look with much regard upon a victory won by the 
 sudden conversion of so many men of heretofore obstinate and posi 
 tive temperament. Such changes, if really accomplished bona fide, 
 imply supernatural interposition, and whatever connection our Wall 
 street friends may have with the other world, I have never heard it 
 intimated that they possess the power to utilize superhuman agencies. 
 I heard a distinguished Senator [Mr. HAWLEY] remark a few 
 days ago that he did not think that either party knew just what was 
 meant by the platforms in question. While there may be equivocal 
 expressions, nevertheless there is no uncertainty as to bimetallism, or 
 as to the double standard, or as to the use of gold and silver upon 
 equal terms. I take these words from the platform. Hence the enact- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 43 
 
 ment of a bill which merely repeals the Sherman act, but which makes 
 no provision for silver, not only fails to comply with the Chicago plat 
 form, but is a direct violation of it. As to the Republican platform, 
 there is nothing said regarding the repeal of the Sherman act. 
 Bimetallism, the double standard, and the maintenance of parity are 
 its leading financial features. 
 
 I do not presume to instruct our Republican friends as to the 
 meaning of their platform. It is patent enough to an outsider that the 
 attitude of those members of that organization who attack the friends 
 of silver in this body is not in harmony with their last statement of 
 their principles. There may, however, be something in the organiza 
 tion of the other side or in their conception of their duty which within 
 their own limits may justify their conduct. It can not be requisite to 
 say a great deal with reference to those who claim that the platforms 
 are not binding. A man who will meet the people announcing that he 
 is a candidate upon a certain platform and who thereupon pledges him 
 self and solemnly agrees that he will abide by the propositions upon 
 which he has made his candidacy, if he is successful and he does not 
 carry out his promises is in an unenviable position. 
 
 I know every one in this Chamber will concur in this view. 
 
 I am aware that it has been argued that times have changed since 
 the political convention. Times change, and we change with them. 
 This is very convenient doctrine, and if generally adopted would 
 enable anyone to disregard any platform whenever he might so elect. 
 If the platform can be repudiated six months after an election, why not 
 repudiate it six days afterward? Why have a platform at all? The 
 true view of the situation undoubtedly is that a platform is the law 
 until it has been repealed by the body which enacted it. It is a law<, not 
 enforceable by judicial decree or the infliction of a penalty, but it is 
 binding upon the conscience of the candidate who assumed to act under 
 it, and when his moral condition is such that he can not carry it out 
 because he believes it to be based upon error thereupon it becomes his 
 duty to resign. No other course is open to him. In no other way can 
 he justify himself. Elected to maintain a platform, he proceeds when 
 in office to destroy it, to violate its precepts, and to jeer at its declara 
 tions. But whatever may be our monetary embarrassment, our morals 
 are in a worse plight if we are to accept the theories of the repudiators 
 and evasionists. 
 
 It may be urged that this great question should be debated upon 
 its intrinsic merits. It is proper to do this, and I am not avoiding 
 that branch of the matter. But the Democrat who subscribed to the 
 Chicago platform and who now legislates for the destruction of silver, 
 who says that he is opposed to a double standard, who votes to discrim 
 inate in favor of gold, must seek some other excuse than any consola 
 tion which may be afforded him by a discussion of " intrinsic merits." 
 If Democrats believe that there was no merit in their platform as far 
 as silver is concerned, it is their duty, it seems to me, to resign and 
 run upon a new platform. If re-elected by a confiding constituency it 
 will be legitimate for them to support anti-silver legislation, and by 
 resigning whenever they determine to abandon their party principles, 
 they will pursue a course highly conscientious, even though sadly 
 inconsistent. 
 
 I do not think that there ever has been a time in the history of this 
 
44 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 country when such an effort was being made by the advocates of the 
 single standard to force members of Congress to fall into line. There 
 are rumors of influences emanating from official quarters which I can 
 not consider well founded. Any attempt to coerce this body, or to force 
 any Senator to act differently than his conscience and judgment direct, 
 would be usurpation, and accusations that such an effort is being made 
 should not be uttered unless there is absolute proof. The Democratic 
 platform plainly calls for the repeal of the Federal election laws, the 
 language used being as follows : 
 
 We warn people of our common country, jealous of the preservation of 
 their free institutions, that the policy of Federal control of elections, to which 
 the Republican party has committed itself, is fraught with the gravest dangers, 
 scarcely less momentous than would result from a revolution, practically estab 
 lishing monarchy upon the ruins of the Republic. 
 
 It is common talk that a certain policy is contemplated with ref 
 erence to that enactment, and to the tariff, and that both are to be sacri 
 ficed to the desire to enact a pet measure. But I shall not believe that 
 this charge is true. Circumstantial evidence apparently sustaining it 
 may indeed be cited, but I do not deem it sufficient to warrant such a 
 statement, and I will not credit any rumor that the organization to 
 which I belong designs to repudiate its pledges. I do not entertain the 
 thought that there is any intention on the part of Senators to do aught 
 else than to enforce the three propositions to which we gave our ad 
 hesion, that we would legislate, without discriminating against either 
 gold or silver ; that we would reform the tariff ; that we would repeal 
 the Federal election laws, which our convention denounced and which 
 the people denounced when voting for the Democratic candidates. 
 
 It is rumored that those having in charge the pending measure 
 have given the word that it will be unwise to enforce the Democratic 
 platform as far as the same calls for the abrogation of the infamous 
 election laws now existing, because it is said some Republican Senator 
 who desires those enactments maintained may, if the Democratic 
 friends of unconditional repeal seek to carry out the platform, abandon 
 the cause of monometallism and vote with the friends of silver. 
 Certain transactions which have been witnessed in this Capitol within 
 a few days may lend countenance to this theory, but fail, in my judg 
 ment, to establish it. 
 
 We have heard a good deal about honest dollars and the dishonest 
 silver dollar. But if our promises made to the people of the United 
 States are to be abandoned, it will indeed be strange if an honest dollar, 
 or anything that is honest, comes from our deliberations. I do not be 
 lieve that any gentleman upon the other side of the Chamber or any 
 Republican member of Congress, would sacrifice his convictions to 
 such an extent that he would decline to vote upon all questions in ac 
 cordance with his conscience, unless he would effect a trade with the 
 friends of election-law repeal. Still we are living in a peculiar age. 
 Some seem to be going upon the idea that we can not be bound by 
 conventions. All along the political highway and at every corner we 
 encounter numberless instances of suddenly changed views. 
 
 When Congress assembled the position of many of its members 
 was assumed to be definitely fixed by antecedent utterances. The as 
 sumption, however, proved wholly groundless, and as soon as the 
 President s message was read, demanding as the whole business of this 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 45 
 
 extra session the immediate repeal of the silver-purchasing- clause, 
 there was forthwith a change of base as sudden as it was radical. The 
 dismemberment of the silver forces under the persuasions of this hour 
 reminds me of a combat said to have taken place during the siege of 
 Troy, and the result is summarized by the poet as follows : 
 
 Full twelve, they boldest, in a moment fell, 
 Sent by great Ajax to the shades of hell. 
 
 I do not desire to disagreeably locate anyone, and the excerpt 
 from Homer just cited does not, as used bv me, pretend to fix the des 
 tination of those who have so quickly altered their opinions, but is 
 designed to sienalize the effectiveness of recent arguments. 
 
 The able junior Senator from Kentucky FMr. LINDSAY!, to whose 
 character and abilitv T am glad to testifv, unsuccessfully, it seems to 
 me, charges inconsistencv upon those Democrats who have spoken 
 against unconditional repeal. He points out that manv of them 
 opposed the Sherman law, and is, therefore, surprised that they now 
 object to eliminating it from the statute book. 
 
 It is unnecessary, after the magnificent presentation made bv the 
 Senator from Virginia fMr. DANIEL!, to answer this argument in 
 detail. But does not rnv friend appreciate that the existing legislative 
 conditions are greatlv different from those which prevailed when the 
 Sherman bill p-ot into the statute books? Ts he not aware that the 
 result of defeating thai- bill at that time meant at least the 
 retention of the Bland- Allison act? Does he not know that had there 
 been no legislation in 1800. the Bland- Allison law would have 
 remained in operation, and that, therefore, those Sectors who voted 
 aeainst the Sherman act and who preferred no leeislation at all to the 
 enactment of that measure, nlaced themselves in a position which sim- 
 plv amounted to this : that they deemed the statute then in force better 
 than the proposed bill? 
 
 Thev were rtp-ht about that. The Bland-Allison law was better 
 for silver than the Sherman act. But when the Bland-Allison law was 
 struck dead bv the same rower that surnmotred the Sherman measure 
 into life, the status of affairs became such that the repeal of the latter 
 meant that the Treasurv had no use for more silver. The Senators 
 who voted against the Sherman law because thev wanted more favor 
 able terms for silver are not inconsistent when they refuse to repeal 
 that act unless come concession is made to silver. 
 
 Mr. COCTTRET L. Will the Senator permit just one suggestion? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. COCKREIX. The question then pending was with reference 
 to a bill for the free and unlimited coinage of silver. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I fully appreciate that, but I will say 
 to the Senator that the point I am reaching is this: True, Senators 
 desired free and unlimited coinage, but they found, because of the 
 views of another branch of this Government, that they could not get 
 the free and unlimited coinage of silver. So the issue finallv became, 
 so far as thev were concerned, whether thev would prefer the Sherman 
 bill to the Bland- Allison act. That was the situation as I understand it. 
 
 The Senator who professed in the discussion of 1890 to be 
 opposed to the Sherman act because it was not just to silver, and who 
 preferred to depend upon the Bland- Allison law, is decidedly incon- 
 
46 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 sistent when at this time he is willing to indorse a proposition which 
 leaves us neither the Bland- Allison nor the Sherman act, nor a substi 
 tute therefor. Can we convince the people that we are friends of silver, 
 and at the same time sit here and talk and talk and urge nothing 
 except the destruction of the only legislative provision which provides 
 for the disposition of any new silver? If the Senators who advocate 
 unconditional repeal mean what they say, and we cannot doubt their 
 good faith, it follows that they hold that not only should the Sherman 
 bill have been defeated in 1890, but the Bland- Allison act should have 
 been repealed without a substitute. Such is their position, and the 
 country knows it. 
 
 ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE APPREHENSION THAT 
 THERE IS A SURPLUS OF SILVER? 
 
 In the course of my address upon this and other topics I will refer 
 to several tables, some of which, and perhaps all, are familiar to the 
 Senate. However, I deem this matter necessary to the intelligent dis 
 cussion of this important subject. 
 
 The majority of those who have advocated unconditional repeal 
 notify us that there is such an enormous supply of silver that the neces 
 sary result must be depreciation. The able Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
 ALLISON], who was also a delegate to the Brussels conference, does 
 not share this view. Although his sentiments, as I construe them, are 
 anti-silver, he declares that he does not believe that the question of 
 overproduction of either silver or gold affects the issue. This is a 
 candid statement, but while it destroys the arguments of many of his 
 colleagues, it is a tribute to his integrity and discrimination. Within 
 the last few days the able Acting Superintendent of the Mint has fur 
 nished the statement to the Senate showing the amount of silver and 
 gold heretofore produced by the States of California, Nevada, Idaho, 
 Montana, and Colorado, and the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, 
 and Utah. It is as follows : 
 
 Production of gold and silver of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
 Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. 
 
 NOTE. Previous to 1848 the gold product of the United States was esti 
 mated to have been $14,440,000, not distributed by States and Territories. (Ures 
 Dictionary of Arts, Mines, etc., Volume II, page 647.) (Raymond, 1874, page 
 544.) 
 
 
 California. 
 
 Nevada. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 From 1848 to 1873, in 
 clusive 
 
 a$98S,800,OOf 
 20,300 ,OOC 
 17,753,000 
 15,799,000 
 15,000,000 
 15,261,000 
 17,600,000 
 
 
 a$63,146,00f 
 <*/35,452,00( 
 /10,000,00f 
 215,000 
 18,000,000 
 19,547,000 
 9,000,000 
 
 $86,462,000 
 
 1874 
 
 
 1875* 
 
 
 21,795,000 
 44,991,000 
 26,000,000 
 28,130,000 
 12,560,000 
 
 1876^ 
 
 $1,505,000 
 1,000,000 
 2,373,000 
 2,400,000 
 
 1877* 
 
 1778* 
 
 1879* 
 
 Total 
 
 1,087,513,000 
 
 7,278,000 
 
 155,360,000 
 
 219,938,000 
 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 47 
 
 Production of gold and silver of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
 Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. Continued. 
 
 1880 
 
 $17,500,000 
 
 $1,100,000 
 
 $4,800,000 
 
 $10,900,000 
 
 1881 
 
 18,200,000 
 
 750,000 
 
 2,250,000 
 
 7,060,000 
 
 1882 
 
 16,800,000 
 
 845,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 6,750,000 
 
 1883 
 
 14, 120,000 
 
 1,460,000 
 
 2,520,000 
 
 5,430,000 
 
 1884... . 
 
 13 000,000 
 
 3 000,000 
 
 3,500,000 
 
 5,600,000 
 
 1885 
 
 12,700,000 
 
 2,500,000 
 
 3,100,000 
 
 6,000,000 
 
 1886 
 
 14,725,000 
 
 1,400,000 
 
 3,090,000 
 
 5,000,000 
 
 1887 
 
 13,400,000 
 
 1,500,000 
 
 2,500,000 
 
 4,900,000 
 
 1888 
 
 12,750,000 
 
 1,400,000 
 
 3,525,000 
 
 7,000,000 
 
 1889 
 
 13,000,000 
 
 1,034,000 
 
 3,000,000 
 
 6,206,000 
 
 1890 
 
 12,500,000 
 
 1,164,000 
 
 2,800,000 
 
 5,754,000 
 
 1891.. 
 
 12 600 000 
 
 970,000 
 
 2,050,000 
 
 4,551,000 
 
 1892 
 
 12 000 000 
 
 465,000 
 
 1,571,000 
 
 2,901,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 183,895 000 
 
 17,588,000 
 
 36,706,000 
 
 78,052,000 
 
 
 1,087,513,000 
 
 7,278,000 
 
 155,360,000 
 
 219,938,000 
 
 Grand total 
 
 1,271,408,000 
 
 24,866,000 
 
 192,066,000 
 
 297,990,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a From 1848 to 1873, inclusive, the gold product of California was esti 
 mated to have been $985,800,000 and the product of other States and Territories 
 $254,950,000, and of this amount $63,146,000 was from the Comstock Lode, 
 Nevada, b The silver product from 1848 to 1873, inclusive, was estimated to 
 have been $186,050,000, not distributed by States and Territories, and of this 
 amount $86,462,000 was from the Comstock Lode, Nevada, c Gold and silver. 
 (Raymond.) d Of this amount $8,990,900 gold and $13,486 silver was from the 
 Comstock Lode, Nevada, e Fiscal year, f Estimate of Dr. H. R. Linderman. 
 
 Production of gold and silver of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
 Nevada, Utah and New Mexico. Continued. 
 
 
 Colorado. 
 
 Montana. 
 
 Idaho.. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 1874 
 187Sf 
 
 $5,189,000 
 2,800,000 
 3,150,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,366,000 
 3,225,000 
 
 $2)672,006 
 3,130,000 
 4,500,000 
 5,395,000 
 11,700,000 
 
 t$4,355,000 
 3,438,000 
 3,078,000 
 3,200,000 
 2,261,000 
 2,500,000 
 
 t$161,000 
 682,000 
 1,133,000 
 750,000 
 1,670,000 
 2,225,000 
 
 *1,880,000 
 2,000,000 
 1,053,000 
 1,500,000 
 1,150,000 
 1,200,000 
 
 
 $500,000 
 307,000 
 250,000 
 200,000 
 650,000 
 
 1876f. 
 
 1877f. 
 
 1878t 
 1879f 
 
 Total 
 1880 
 
 20,730,000 
 
 27,397,000 
 
 18,832,000 
 
 6,621,000 
 
 8,783,000 
 
 1,907,000 
 
 3,200,000 
 3,300,000 
 3,360,000 
 4,100,000 
 4,250,000 
 4,200,000 
 4,450,000 
 4,000,000 
 3,758,000 
 3,500,000 
 4,150,000 
 4,600,000 
 5,300,000 
 
 17,000,000 
 17,160,000 
 16,500,000 
 17,370,000 
 16,000,000 
 15,800,000 
 16,000,000 
 15,000,000 
 19,000,000 
 20,687,000 
 24,307,000 
 27,358,000 
 31,030,000 
 
 2,400,000 
 2,330,000 
 2,550,000 
 1,800,000 
 ~ 2,170,000 
 3,300,000 
 4,425,000 
 5,230,000 
 4,200,000 
 3,500,000 
 3,300,000 
 2,390,000 
 2,891,000 
 
 2,500,000 
 2,630,000 
 4,370,000 
 6,000,000 
 7,000,000 
 10,060,000 
 12,400,000 
 15,500,000 
 17,000,000 
 19,394,000 
 20,364,000 
 21,139,000 
 22,432,000 
 
 1,980,000 
 1,700,000 
 1,505,000 
 1,400,000 
 1,250,000 
 1,800,000 
 1,800,000 
 1,900,000 
 2,400,000 
 2,000,000 
 1,850,000 
 1,680,000 
 1,721,000 
 
 450,000 
 1,300,000 
 2,000,000 
 2,100,000 
 2,720,000 
 3,500,000 
 3,600,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,000,000 
 4,396,000 
 4,784,000 
 5,217,000 
 4,091,000 
 
 1881 
 
 1882.. 
 
 1883... 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887. 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 .. 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 Total 
 
 Grand 
 Total... 
 
 52,168,000 
 20,730,000 
 
 53,212,000 
 27,397,000 
 
 40,986,000 
 18,832,000 
 
 160,789,000 
 6,621,000 
 
 22,981,000 
 8,783,000 
 
 40,158,000 
 1,907,000 
 
 72,898,000 
 
 230,609,000 
 
 59,818,000 
 
 167,410.000 
 
 31,764,000 
 
 42,065,000 
 
 *Gold and silver. (Raymond.) fFiscal year. 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
48 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Production of gold and silver of Arizona, California, etc. Continued. 
 
 
 Utah. 
 
 New Mexico. 
 
 Arizona. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 1874 
 1875f 
 
 *$3,912,000 
 44,000 
 65,000 
 350,000 
 392,000 
 575,000 
 
 "$6,80l ,o6b 
 
 5,829,000 
 5,075,000 
 5,208,000 
 6,250,000 
 
 *500,000 
 1,000,000 
 /:39,000 
 175,000 
 175,000 
 125,000 
 
 
 *$487,000 
 700,000 
 1,000,000 
 300,000 
 500,000 
 800,000 
 
 
 
 $300,000 
 500,000 
 500,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,550,000 
 
 1876f. . 
 
 *$2,027,COO 
 500,000 
 500,000 
 600,000 
 
 1877f 
 
 1878f.... 
 
 1879f 
 
 Total... 
 1880 
 
 5,338,000 
 
 29,163,000 
 
 2,014,000 
 
 3,627,000 
 
 3,787,000 
 
 7,850,000 
 
 210,000 
 145,000 
 190,000 
 140,000 
 120,000 
 180,000 
 216,000 
 220,000 
 290,000 
 500,000 
 680,000 
 650,000 
 660,000 
 
 4,740,000 
 6,400,000 
 6,800,000 
 5,620,000 
 6,800,000 
 6,750,000 
 6,500,000 
 7,000,000 
 7,000,000 
 9,051,000 
 10,343,000 
 12,313,000 
 10,473,000 
 
 130,000 
 185,000 
 150,000 
 280,OCO 
 300,000 
 800,000 
 400,000 
 500,000 
 602,000 
 1,000,000 
 850,000 
 905,000 
 950,000 
 
 425,000 
 275,000 
 1,800,000 
 2,845,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,000,000 
 2,300,000 
 2,300,000 
 1,200,000 
 1,461,000 
 1,681,000 
 1,713,000 
 1,390,000 
 
 400,000 
 1,060,000 
 1,065,000 
 950,000 
 930,000 
 880,000 
 1,110,000 
 830,000 
 872,000 
 900,000 
 1,000,000 
 975,000 
 1,070,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 7,300,000 
 7,500,000 
 5,200,000 
 4,500,000 
 3,800,000 
 3,400,000 
 3,800,000 
 3,000,000 
 1,939,000 
 1,293,000 
 1,914,000 
 1,373,000 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 ... 
 
 1883... 
 
 1884.. 
 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 1890 
 1891... 
 
 1892. 
 
 Total... 
 
 Grand 
 Total... 
 
 4,201,000 
 5,338,000 
 
 98,790,000 
 29,163,000 
 
 7,052,000 
 2,014,000 
 
 23,390,000 
 3,627,000 
 
 12,042,000 
 3,787,000 
 
 47,019,000 
 7,850,000 
 
 9,539,000 
 
 127,953,000 
 
 9,066,000 
 
 27,017,000 
 
 15,829,000 
 
 54,869,000 
 
 *Gold and silver. (Raymond.) fFiscal year. JWells, Fargo & Co. statement. 
 
 Total gold $1,662,388,000 
 
 Total silver 1,022,779,000 
 
 R. E. PRESTON, 
 
 Acting Director of the Mint. 
 BUREAU OF THE MINT, 
 
 September 6, 1893. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. If the Senator will allow me, I will say that 
 according to that table, Colorado is not credited with at least 
 $75,000,000 of gold, if not $100,000,000, produced before 1874. 
 
 Mr. DUBOIS. And if the Senator will allow me, I think it will 
 be reasonably safe t to say that Idaho produced $100,000,000 of gold 
 before 1874. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Whatever the amount may be, it 
 simply emphasizes my argument as showing the excess of gold pro 
 duction. The amount of unreported gold was very large, I have no 
 doubt. 
 
 I will add that since that statement was handed in to the Senate I 
 have obtained from the Acting Director of the Mint further informa 
 tion with reference to the gold and silver production in certain other 
 States for 1892, which I shall also append to and make a part of my 
 remarks. This table contains the entire gold and silver output of the 
 United States during 1892, and therefore contains some information 
 not found in Senate Mis. Doc. 52 : 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 49 
 
 Approximate distribution by producing States and Territories of the product 
 of gold and silver in the United States for the calendar year 1892, as esti 
 mated by the Director of the Mint. 
 
 State or Territory. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Total 
 value. 
 
 Fine 
 ounces. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Fine 
 ounces. 
 
 Coining 
 value. 
 
 Alaska 
 
 48,375 
 51,761 
 580,500 
 256,387 
 4,583 
 83,271 
 3,386 
 139,871 
 76,021 
 45,956 
 3,800 
 67,725 
 5,968 
 178,987 
 
 $1,000,000 
 1,070,000 
 12,000,000 
 5,300,000 
 94,734 
 1,721,364 
 70,000 
 2,891,386 
 1,571,500 
 950,000 
 78,560 
 1,400,000 
 123,365 
 3,700,000 
 
 8,000 
 1,062,220 
 360,000 
 24,000,000 
 400 
 3,164,269 
 60,000 
 17,350,000 
 2,244,000 
 1,075,000 
 9,000 
 50,000 
 400 
 60,000 
 310,000 
 8,100,000 
 150,000 
 
 1,000 
 
 |10,343 
 
 1,373,375 
 465,455 
 31,030,303 
 517 
 4,091,176 
 77,576 
 22,432,323 
 2,901,333 
 1,389,899 
 11,636 
 64,646 
 517 
 77,576 
 400,808 
 10,472,727 
 193,939 
 
 1,293 
 
 $1,010,343 
 2,443,375 
 12,465,455 
 36,330,303 
 95,251 
 5,812,540 
 147,576 
 25,323,709 
 4,472,833 
 2,339,899 
 90,196 
 1,464,646 
 123,882 
 3,777,576 
 400,808 
 11,132,902 
 567,500 
 
 11,629 
 
 Arizona 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado.. 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Michigan .. 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Oregon 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah . 
 
 31,936 
 18,071 
 
 500 
 
 660,175 
 373,561 
 
 10,336 
 
 Washington 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Maryland.. 
 
 Tennessee... 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 Total... 
 
 1.597.098 
 
 33.014.981 
 
 58.004.289 
 
 74.995.442 
 
 108.010.423 
 
 BUREAU OF MINT, 
 
 September 20, 1893. 
 
 It will be observed that that part of the Union embraced within the 
 States and Territories mentioned in the first of these exhibits com 
 prises most of our gold and silver producing mines, and yet it seems 
 that there has been obtained from these sources, since 1848, some six 
 hundred and forty millions of gold in excess of silver, allowing nothing 
 for the unreported amounts mentioned by the Senators from Idaho 
 and Colorado. California has furnished $1,271,000,000 of gold and 
 but $24,866,000 of silver. If any process shall be discovered adequate 
 to enable the miners of California to explore the prehistoric river beds 
 of the Sierras .without destroying the valleys and the streams, the out 
 put will be strikingly increased. Careful surveys and scientific exam 
 inations of the gravel deposits covered by the Sierras justify this asser 
 tion. While it is probable that for several years, under the influence of 
 favorable legislation, the production of silver will augment, it is almost, 
 certain that this will not be lasting. 
 
 Few people understand the thoroughness of the explorations which 
 have taken place in the West. The miners of that region are active in 
 the extreme. Their practiced eyes detect the smallest paying cropping, 
 and there is hardly a yard of country, scarcely a fastness upon which 
 man can rest, in which there is or has been gold or silver-bearing rock 
 which has not been fully prospected. It is known that there are 
 immense deposits of gold untouched in California. It is not known that 
 
50 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 there are any silver deposits of magnitude beyond those which have 
 already been worked and are now in operation. 
 
 I particularly desire to call the attention of Senators to the enor 
 mous amount of gold produced by other States and Territories which 
 are regarded as silver-bearing localities and which are sneeringly re 
 ferred to by Wall-street newspapers, and if the silver mines are closed 
 the gold output will likewise cease. Thus Idaho shows the following : 
 
 Production of silver $42,065,000 
 
 Production of gold 31,764,000 
 
 Excess of silver over gold $10,301,000 
 
 Nevada has done a great deal for gold. She produced silver 
 $297,990,000; gold $196,066,000. 
 
 We have just been informed by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
 DUBOIS] and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] that in addi 
 tion to the gold reported by the Superintendent of the Mint as the 
 product of Idaho and Colorado, that prior to 1874, about one hundred 
 millions of that metal had been extracted from each of those States, 
 then Territories. I very well remember that both were deemed gold- 
 bearing Territories before the date of the first credit appearing in the 
 Treasury report. I know that California miners went to those sections 
 anterior to that date and reported large development, but I have no 
 figures at hand to justify any personal estimate. 
 
 The greatest difference in gold and silver production appears in 
 Utah, from which Territory it seems over one hundred and twenty- 
 seven millions of silver were obtained and less than ten millions of 
 gold. If silver mining ceases there will be scarcely any gold production 
 from other States or Territories where the silver output has been so 
 large. It has been said that nature has married these metals. They 
 are certainly found in close relationship the world over, and they were 
 placed in combination by the Almighty as if in defiance of the attempt 
 of man to divorce them. 
 
 The statistics compiled by Mr. Soetbeer with reference to the 
 production of gold and silver from the discovery of America to the 
 present time show that there has been no dangerous alteration of the 
 relations of the two metals, even during the last thirty years. The 
 following is an estimate in tons : 
 
 Period. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silyer. 
 
 1493 to 1800 
 
 3,566 
 3,203 
 4,667 
 
 117,104 
 41,681 
 56,448 
 
 1801 to 1860 
 
 1861 to 1888 
 
 
 From 1 86 1 to 1888 it is obvious that the production of gold was 
 relatively greater than that of silver, the increase being 45 per cent.; 
 that of silver 10 per cent. less. From 1850 to 1890 the world s stock 
 of gold increased 143 per cent., and the world s stock of silver during 
 the same period increased but 45 per cent. Hence there is absolutely 
 nothing in the assertion that over-production has interfered with a ratio 
 which was successfully maintained for two centuries. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 51 
 
 Mulhall s table shows that the world s stock of gold and silver in 
 the years 1600, 1700, 1800, 1850, and 1890, were as follows: 
 Stock of precious metals at various periods. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Percentage of 
 increase. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver. 
 
 1600 
 
 830 
 1,310 
 2,730 
 3,620 
 8,820 
 
 23,000 
 45,000 
 88,000 
 113,000 
 165,000 
 
 
 
 1700 
 
 57 
 108 
 32 
 143 
 
 95 
 95 
 28 
 45 
 
 1800 
 
 1850 
 
 1890 
 
 This table justifies the statement already made with reference to 
 the present increase in the supply of each metal. 
 
 If there was anything in the theory of overproduction, it is certain 
 that the gigantic addition made to the gold supply during past periods 
 would have unsettled the ratio ; but it did not do so, although certain 
 nations, from mere fright what would now be called lack of confi 
 dence demonetized gold. 
 
 The conduct of the Austrians and others with relation to the 
 increased supply of that metal may seem peculiar, but was no more irra 
 tional than the statement of the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
 [Mr. MORRILL]. who seemed to be alarmed at the enormous quantity 
 of silver thrown upon civilization. 
 
 There will be no trouble in the solution of the silver question as 
 soon as we are all thoroughly educated. When the facts are fully 
 known the people reflect upon them, and the monometallist advocate 
 will be out of a job. 
 
 In this connection I ask leave to submit the statement furnished 
 by the Bureau of the Mint on August 16, 1893 : 
 
 Production of gold and silver in the world, 1792 to 1892. 
 
 Calendar Years. 
 
 Gold. 
 
 Silver (coin 
 ing value). 
 
 Total. 
 
 1792 to 
 1801 to 
 1811 to 
 1821 to 
 1831 to 
 1841 to 
 1849 
 
 1890 
 
 $106,407,000 
 118,152,000 
 76,063,000 
 94,479,000 
 134,841,000 
 291,144,000 
 27,100,000 
 44,450.000 
 67,600,000 
 132,750,000 
 155,450,000 
 127,450,000 
 135,075,000 
 147,600,000 
 133,275,000 
 124,650,000 
 128,850,000 
 119.250,000 
 113,800,000 
 107,750,000 
 106,690,000 
 
 $328,860.000 
 371,677,000 
 224,786,000 
 191,444,000 
 274,930,000 
 259,520,000 
 39,000,000 
 39,000,000 
 40,000,000 
 40,600,000 
 40,600,000 
 40,600,000 
 40,600,000 
 40,650,000 
 40.650,000 
 40,650,000 
 40,750,000 
 40,800,000 
 44,700,000 
 45,200,000 
 49,200,000 
 
 $435,267,000 
 489,829,000 
 300,849.000 
 285,923.000 
 409,771,000 
 550,664,000 
 66,100,000 
 83,450,000 
 107,600,000 
 173,350,000 
 196,050,000 
 168,050,000 
 175,675,000 
 188,250,000 
 173,925,000 
 165,300,000 
 165,600,000 
 160,050,000 
 158,500,000 
 152,950,000 
 156,150,000 
 
 1810 
 
 1820 
 
 1830 
 
 1840 
 
 1848 
 
 
 1850 
 
 
 1851 .. 
 
 
 1852 .. 
 
 
 1853 
 
 
 1854 
 
 
 1855 
 
 
 1856 
 
 
 1857 
 
 
 1858 
 
 
 1859 
 
 
 I860.. . 
 
 
 1861 
 
 
 1862 
 
 
 1863 
 
 
 Total... 
 
 2,492,726,000 
 
 2,274,217,000 
 
 4,793,304,000 
 
52 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Production of gold and silver in the world, 1792 to 1892. Continued. 
 
 Forward 
 
 2 492 726 000 
 
 2 274 217 000 
 
 4 793 304 000 
 
 1864 
 
 113 000 000 
 
 51 700 000 
 
 164 700 000 
 
 1865.... 
 
 120 200 000 
 
 51 950 000 
 
 172,150 000 
 
 1866 .... 
 
 121 100 000 
 
 50 750 000 
 
 171,850 000 
 
 1867. . . 
 
 104 025 000 
 
 54,225,000 
 
 158 250 000 
 
 1868 
 
 109 725 000 
 
 50 225 000 
 
 159 950 000 
 
 1869 
 
 106 225 000 
 
 47 500 000 
 
 153 725,000 
 
 1870 
 
 106 850 000 
 
 51 575 000 
 
 158,425,000 
 
 1871 
 
 107,000 000 
 
 61,050 000 
 
 168,050,000 
 
 1872 
 
 99,600 000 
 
 65,250,000 
 
 164,850,000 
 
 1873 
 
 96,200 000 
 
 81,800 000 
 
 178,000,000 
 
 1874 
 
 90 750 000 
 
 71,500 000 
 
 162,250,000 
 
 1875 
 
 97,500,000 
 
 80,500,000 
 
 178,000,000 
 
 1876 
 
 103,700 000 
 
 87,600,000 
 
 191,300,000 
 
 1877 
 
 114,000 000 
 
 81,000,000 
 
 195,000,000 
 
 1878 
 
 119,000 000 
 
 95,000,000 
 
 214,000,000 
 
 1879 
 
 109,000,000 
 
 96,000,000 
 
 205,000,000 
 
 1880 
 
 106,500 000 
 
 96,700,000 
 
 203,200,000 
 
 1881 
 
 103,000,000 
 
 102,000,000 
 
 205,000,000 
 
 1882 
 
 102,000,000 
 
 111,800,000 
 
 213,800,000 
 
 1883 
 
 95,400,000 
 
 115,300,000 
 
 210,700,000 
 
 1884 
 
 101,700000 
 
 105,500,000 
 
 207,200,000 
 
 1885 
 
 108,400,000 
 
 118,500,000 
 
 226,900,000 
 
 1886 
 
 106 000 000 
 
 120 600 000 
 
 226 600,000 
 
 1887 
 
 105 775 000 
 
 124 281 000 
 
 230,056 000 
 
 1888 
 
 110 197 000 
 
 140 706 000 
 
 250 903 000 
 
 1889 
 
 123 489 000 
 
 162 159 000 
 
 285,648 000 
 
 1890 
 
 113 150 000 
 
 172 235 000 
 
 285,385,000 
 
 1891 
 
 120 519 000 
 
 186 733 000 
 
 307 252 000 
 
 1892 
 
 130 817 000 
 
 196 605,000 
 
 327 422 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,633,908,000 
 
 5,104,961,000 
 
 0,738,769,000 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
 
 
 
 
 Bureau of the Mint, August 16, 1893. 
 
 In this table the output for various years is set forth, and proves 
 the production of gold to have been $528,947,000 in excess of silver. It 
 is true that silver has been advancing of late, but there is no 
 more assurance that this gain will be lasting than there was that the 
 gain of gold between 1850 and 1860 would be continuous. From 1850 
 to 1861, both inclusive, the annual product of gold always exceeded 
 that of silver, and the difference since silver has taken the lead has not 
 been nearly as pronounced as the discrepancy which was disclosed dur 
 ing a large portion of the time during which gold disclosed a surplus. 
 The greatest difference shown in favor of silver was manifested in 
 1891, during which year there was produced $66,214,000 more of silver 
 than of gold. 
 
 Production from 1792 to 1848, inclusive: 
 
 Silver $1,651,217,000 
 
 Gold 821 ,086,000 
 
 Excess of silver $1,830,131,000 
 
 Production from 1849 to 1892, inclusive: 
 
 Gold $4,812,722,000 
 
 Silver 3,453,744,000 
 
 Excess of gold $1,358,978,000 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 53 
 
 From 1851 to 1860, both years inclusive, the product was as fol 
 lows : 
 
 Gold $1,267,950,000 
 
 Silver 405,900,000 
 
 Excess of gold $ 862,050,000 
 
 From 1883 to 1892, both years inclusive, the result appears to be 
 as follows: 
 
 Silver $1,442,619,000 
 
 Gold 1,115,437,000 
 
 Excess of silver $ 327,182,000 
 
 It is clear that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] is correct 
 when he says that the overproduction of silver is not the cause of the 
 difficulty which we are experiencing. His statement is of great 
 importance, because it is the result of much thought and of the investi 
 gations made by a gentleman of attainments who is favorable to the 
 pending bill and who wient abroad to meet and deliberate with the most 
 distinguished financiers of the world, and who attended the Brussels 
 conference practically without instructions, and was compelled to 
 devote himself assiduously to the difficult problems which he felt bound 
 to solve if it were possible to do so. 
 
 Right here let me make a remark suggested yesterday by the argu 
 ment of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY]. He spoke of the 
 so-called panic and mentioned that bank depositors had withdrawn 
 their money. This no one denies. He further informed us that these 
 parties were frightened. This is conceded. A Senator upon the other 
 side of the Chamber asked what these depositors feared, and there 
 seemed to be a little hesitancy, but it was finally said that they were 
 afraid they would be paid in a depreciated currency, to wit, silver. 
 Now, although we are formed upon the same general plan, it is true 
 that we differ greatly. It may be, and as the Senator said so, I assume 
 it undoubtedly to be the fact, that the people upon the great Atlantic 
 seaboard wiere alarmed lest they should be paid in silver. It may be 
 that the depositor who frantically moved upon the bank, and who went 
 there with trembling hand so that his signature was scarcely legible, 
 was afraid that he would be paid in silver. 
 
 But that was not my experience during the panic upon the other 
 side of this continent, and I saw much of it. I wtas interested person 
 ally to this extent, that I lived in a community where there was much 
 temporary and foolish excitement which I was anxious to mollify, and 
 I had some connection with the reopening of certain institutions which, 
 though perfectly solvent, closed their doors for a few days. In all that 
 experience, and in all the conversations which I have heretofore had 
 wtith gentlemen from other parts of the United States, I have never 
 heard of a depositor who was afraid that he would be paid in silver. 
 They were afraid, Mr. President, that they would not be paid at all. 
 
 It was not the presence of silver that scared them. I believe a 
 compromise could have been effected which, however startling to 
 gentlemen upon the other side of this question, would have been satis 
 factory to the parties who charged upon those banks. People were 
 
54 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 irrational. It is aptly said that it makes no difference what the cause 
 of excitement may be the material proposition is the presence of alarm. 
 That is undoubtedly true, but is it not our duty to attempt to reach the 
 real cause of the disturbance, and having found that cause is it not our 
 duty to explain the same to the people so that they, knowing the evil, 
 may acquiesce in the remedy? 
 
 At the time my friend from Delaware was making his statement 
 the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. WHITE] interrupted him and said 
 that as the effect of the enactment of the Bland-Allison act and the 
 Sherman law, people in this part of the country demanded that there 
 should be a gold clause inserted in their contracts. I do not think that 
 any of these propositions are in the slightest degree pertinent to this 
 discussion; but let me say to the Senator from Louisiana that in the 
 State from which I come it has been a common thing for years to insert 
 a gold clause in contracts. I have never seen a contract of importance 
 in which a covenant of that kind was not inserted. 
 
 The custom arose, I presume, during the war. I have never drawn 
 a contract or an obligation of magnitude involving money payments in 
 which the word " gold " was not used ; and that custom surely was 
 not attributable to the Sherman law, because however many bad things 
 that law has done and committed, however many crimes are to be laid 
 at its door, how ever many tornadoes it has produced, and however 
 much disaster it has caused upon land and ocean, shores remote and 
 countries near, it certainly can not be said of it that it is responsible 
 for those things that were done long, long before it was ever heard of. 
 
 It may be said why is it that people prefer to put the word " gold " 
 in their contracts. Mr. President, the people outside of as well as 
 within this Chamber and this building and this city, throughout the 
 Republic generally, are intelligent and observing. They have wit 
 nessed this Government for twenty years endeavoring to ruin the 
 cause of silver. They have witnessed this Government challenging 
 the purchasing power of silver in every part of the world. They 
 have witnessed policy after policy adopted by Administration after 
 Administration antagonistic to silver. Hence they name gold in 
 their contracts, not because they have no confidence in silver, but 
 because they have no confidence in the sagacity of those who 
 represent them and make and execute the law. 
 
 Here I might interject a thought lest I should forget it. We hear 
 much regarding honest dollars. Our friends are afraid of a dishonest 
 dollar. So am I. They say, do you wish to give the poor laboring man 
 a dishonest dollar? They say, why do you not give him a dollar that 
 is really worth a dollar? Why is the silver dollar worth less than the 
 so-called honest dollar? Assume for the sake of argument only that 
 ine silver dollar will buy less than the gold dollar, if the reason must 
 be given it is found in the fact that the legislation of this country has 
 been directed against silver. Until we demonetized the white metal the 
 commercial ratios showed no discrepancy save in favor of silver. 
 
 We have willfully discredited silver, and having so discredited it 
 we audaciously speak of the dishonest dollar. Give the silver dollar a 
 chance, and if it does not take care of itself, then call it a dishonest 
 dollar. Do what your platform demands shall be done, treat it as you 
 treat gold. 
 
 Permit me to inquire whether gold advocates have not become 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 55 
 
 tired of constantly declaring that they desire to legislate in favor of the 
 honest dollar that the workingmen may not be cheated? The average 
 laboring man receives but a small sum for his daily toil, and he can 
 buy as much with that sum in silver as he can buy in gold. He finds 
 no difficulty in disposing of one, two, or three dollars a day in silver, 
 and the grocer, the butcher, the baker give him as large quantities of 
 sugar, meat, and bread for his silver as they wtould give him if he 
 brought gold or paper currency. In fact, they prefer $5 in silver to the 
 same sum in gold, since the gold is liable to depreciate by reason of 
 abrasion. 
 
 The laboring man gives full credit, or at least as much credit as 
 is due, to these professions of golden sympathy ; but in this struggle 
 he is manifestly upon the side of silver. 
 
 HAS GOLD APPRECIATED? 
 
 I now approach a very interesting inquiry. Has gold appreciated 
 or has silver depreciated? I listened with much pleasure to the argu 
 ment of the learned Senator from Delaware upon this subject yester 
 day, but I can not adopt his view of the situation. As a logician he 
 concedes that if it be true that gold has appreciated, then a condition 
 is presented calling for affirmative action. But in approaching that 
 argument he assumes that the burden of proof is upon those who advo 
 cate silver. While the rules of law prescribed for the government of 
 courts in the trial of causes are wise, they are not at all times applicable 
 to proceedings in a legislative body. I do not think it is accurate to 
 say that in considering a question like this there is any occasion for 
 rules regarding the burden of proof. We are here to elicit the truth. 
 In this case there can be no such a thing as a judgment pro confesso. 
 There can be no default. The silence of the friends of silver would 
 not justify an enactment against silver which the intrinsic merits of the 
 subject would not warrant. 
 
 Let us consider this issue upon its merits. It must not be for 
 gotten that my argument is intended to induce two conclusions : First, 
 that because of our platform obligations we should protect silver; 
 secondly, that the welfare of the people so demands. 
 
 It is the habit of the monometallists to assert that silver is con 
 stantly falling, and they deny that gold is appreciating. There are 
 very respectable people who are of this way of thinking. A large 
 number of able gentlemen, during the present session, have so argued, 
 and Sir John Lubbock strenuously contends to the same purport in 
 the current number of the North American Review. 
 
 To begin with, these gentlemen all admit that a certain quantity 
 of gold will now buy about 50 per cent, more of the necessaries of life 
 than could have been purchased with the same amount of the same 
 metal at the time of the demonetization of silver in 1873. But they 
 contend that this is due to improved machinery, to new and more eco 
 nomical methods of production. I think that the address made by the 
 able Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] at the opening of this dis 
 cussion, disposed of this subject, and I will not spend much time 
 discussing it. I have had the pleasure of listening to arguments 
 wherein it was stated that wages had not fallen. It may well be 
 doubted whether there is any foundation for this assertion, save in 
 a very limited classification, but assuming it to be true that wages 
 
56 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 are higher with reference to certain industries, that increase is 
 obviously attributable to other causes. 
 
 But if wages have increased, is such increase due to the mono 
 metallic standard, and must wages depreciate because of the Sherman 
 law? Are we to suppose that no other cause or causes influenced 
 wages in this country than the action of our Government regarding 
 currency? During the last campaign gentlemen who now sit in this 
 Chamber were preaching Democracy to assembled multitudes, and they 
 never gave as a reason for appreciation of wages the argument they 
 rely upon here. Do they still hold to their older and oft-asserted view? 
 Is it true that wages have appreciated merely because we demone 
 tized silver? 
 
 I well remember that we all contended, and I think with much 
 force, that the well-organized exertions of trades unions had much to 
 do with keeping up labor prices. No general rule can be applied to 
 this matter from which any such deduction as that insisted upon by the 
 Senator from Delaware is authorized. In the same States for the same 
 class of labor and the same number of hours, different rates are 
 charged. North, South, East, and West prices vary, depending often 
 upon the mere ability of the laborer to obtain his rights, and in some 
 instances of the employer to procure his work to be done at a reason 
 able rate. 
 
 I have heard it said that we are suffering in this country from a 
 redundancy, from an overplus, an extravagant quantity of circulating 
 medium ; that the great difficulty is, we have too much. I have seen 
 nothing to indicate that the experience of others has been less sad than 
 my own. Not for me have there been strewn along the highways 
 during this panic golden dollars. 
 
 No redundancy have I observed. 
 
 It has been said, and truly, that if money is not in circulation it 
 makes no difference whether or not there is much of it in the country. 
 That is a fact. I admit that when gold is hoarded, if it is hoarded 
 never to be taken out, it might as well have remained buried in the 
 everlasting hills. But if there is a considerable quantity of money 
 about it is easier to acquire it than when there is a very small amount 
 in sight. I presume that if there were but a million dollars in gold in 
 all the world some Senators here might be able occasionally to grasp 
 a piece of the coveted metal. But all would feel the contraction. The 
 difficulty would be increased as the amount of the metal decreased. If 
 there were but $100 in gold in all the world I do not suppose that I 
 would know any more about the metal than I do with reference to the 
 rarest, largest and most brilliant diamonds and rubies. Nor would I 
 use more of the article than I do of attar of roses, which I believe our 
 friends upon the other side put upon the free list. [Laughter.] 
 
 One of the most distinguished monometallists of Great Britain is 
 Mr. Giffen, chief of the statistical department of the board of trade, 
 and although he has not seen fit in his later work to republish the 
 views I am about to quote, I desire, nevertheless, to quote an abstract 
 from his paper entitled " Recent Changes in Prices and Incomes Com 
 pared." He there positively places himself upon record in support of 
 the proposition that gold has notably appreciated, and moreover he 
 argued that this appreciation was likely to continue, and that therein 
 was found the true explanation of the fall in the price of commodities. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 57 
 
 In 1879 he pointed out that this rise would soon become evident. 
 Let me quote: 
 
 If the test of prophecy be the event, there was never surely a better fore 
 cast. The fall of prices in such a general way as to amount to what is known 
 as a rise in the purchasing power of gold is generally, I might almost say 
 universally admitted. Measured by any commodity, or group of commodi 
 ties, usually taken as the measure for such a purpose, gold is undoubtedly 
 possessed of more purchasing power than was the case fifteen or twenty 
 years ago, and this high purchasing power has been continued over a long 
 enough period to allow for all minor oscillations. 
 
 It is unnecessary to read Sauerbeck s Index-numbers, which I have 
 here, but I commend them to the perusal of Senators who have not 
 already read them. I commend them to the investigation of any one 
 who is studying this question as showing the basis of forty-five of the 
 principal commodities a large number surely selected some time ago 
 and subjected successfully to the intelligent criticism of the world. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mr. Sauerbeck s in 
 dex numbers 
 
 Years. 
 
 Mr. Sauerbeck s in 
 dex numbers 
 
 Of 45 
 principal 
 com m odi- 
 ties. 
 
 Of 
 Silver. 
 
 Of 45 
 principal 
 com m odi- 
 ties. 
 
 Of 
 Silver. 
 
 1874 
 
 102 
 96 
 95 
 
 94 
 87 
 83 
 88 
 85 
 84 
 82 
 
 95.8 
 93.3 
 86.7 
 90.2 
 86.4 
 84.2 
 85.9 
 85.0 
 84.9 
 83.1 
 
 1884 
 
 76 
 
 72 
 69 
 68 
 70 
 
 72 
 72 
 72 
 68 
 
 83.3 
 79.9 
 74.6 
 73.3 
 70.4 
 70.2 
 78.4 
 74.1 
 65.4 
 
 1875 
 
 1885 
 
 1876 
 
 1886 
 
 1877 
 
 1887 
 
 1878 
 
 1888 
 
 1879 
 
 1889 
 
 1880 
 
 1890 
 
 1881 
 
 1891 
 
 1882 
 
 1892 
 
 1883 
 
 
 This table is worthy of more study that it has received. It shows, 
 taking the silver and the commodity numbers and comparing them, the 
 most remarkable results. It appears to me that it affords a demonstra 
 tion of the truth of our assertion that gold has appreciated. I am 
 aware of the existence of that other table, compiled by the learned 
 gentleman who resides in Massachusetts, and which was read here 
 yesterday. 
 
 I fully understand that he there calls attention to the circumstance 
 that plows and certain other articles can be bought today with fewer 
 bushels of wheat than some years ago; but I do not believe that the 
 table constitutes a fair test. 
 
 The Senator from Delaware argues, as do many of the authorities, 
 that the fall in the value of the various commodities is due to the great 
 development which has been made in the arts, and he calls attention to 
 Bessemer steel as a notable instance. So it is a notable instance, and so 
 far as steel is concerned, it is clearly established that improved methods 
 have lessened the cost ; and there are many similar cases. 
 
 If the fall in prices was due to improvements in machinery the 
 prices would be maintained with reference to those articles regarding 
 which there had been no improvements affecting production, and in 
 cases where inventions and new appliances had diminished the cost the 
 
58 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 depreciation would be noticed. But we know that there has been a uni 
 form fall of prices all along the line, and the tables and charts prepared 
 by eminent statisticians clearly prove that the drop has been general 
 and is therefore due to some cause utterly different from that to which 
 Sir John Lubbock and others attribute it. For instance, let us take 
 wool, at present very low. My Republican friends may say that this is 
 because our people are afraid of tariff changes. Let us so assume, 
 and take a date anterior to the triumph of the Democratic ticket, 
 and it will be found that then wool was exceedingly dull throughout 
 the country, and on the Pacific coast, where the staple is; short, owing 
 to the circumstances that we are compelled to clip twice a year, wool 
 was sd low prior to Mr. Cleveland s election that it did not even reach 
 the duty line. 
 
 It is untrue that the expense of wool-growing has become less 
 and less as years have rolled by. When a child I have seen thou 
 sands of sheep roaming over the public domain, the pasturage of 
 which cost the man who owned them not a cent. Gradually as the 
 progressive American moved over this territory and took it up under 
 the homestead and pre-emption laws, the ranges were curtailed and 
 the sheep were driven back, so that now many of them subsist at cer 
 tain seasons on the mountain sides, sometimes at an altitude of from 
 8000 to 10,000 feet above the sea, there seeking with difficulty that 
 support before readily obtained. Hence the expense of maintenance 
 has increased. Besides, lands have become useful for other purposes, 
 and the sheep in the West is becoming more andi more a burden. 
 
 Therefore there is depression not alone in those lines concern 
 ing which the cost of production is lessened, but it is found all 
 throughout the list, demonstrating to you as legislative physicians 
 that some other prescription must be applied than that suggested 
 by the Senators who are opposed to me. 
 
 I believe that a careful analysis of the situation will show 
 numerous examples which can not be explained upon the basis 
 expressed in the ably conducted argument of the Senator from Dela 
 ware. I have not had time to carefully scan this branch of our dis 
 pute, but have said enough to suggest a conclusion. In the matter 
 of eggs there has not been any invention promoting production. 
 The ancient methods are) still utilized. And yet I find there the same 
 depreciation. 
 
 It has been frequently stated, and truly, that the gold price of 
 silver prior to 1873 was remarkably stable, and that since that time 
 it has been utterly unstable. But the theory that silver has depre 
 ciated and gold remained stable does not account for admitted 
 phenomena. I refer to the phenomena which I have just recited. 
 Suppose that we adopt a gold standard, pure and simple, manifestly 
 when gold is very plentiful it will buy fewer things, and this is called 
 a rise in prices. When gold is scarce it will buy more of every 
 thing. This means a fall in prices. There is no mystery as to this. 
 The experience of every gold-standard country in the world discloses 
 a universal fall in the prices of commodities. 
 
 An let it be remembered and it is a most cogent circumstance 
 that this depreciation does not antedate 1873. If we are trying 
 this case upon its merits, and are to enter a judgment upon it, let 
 us look at the evidence. The rule suggested by the other side does 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITB. 59 
 
 not apply, because the fall is universal and the diminished cost of 
 production is not universal. 
 
 Then we have this other significant feature, that the fall in the 
 price of commodities dates from 1873, or thereabouts the date of 
 the demonetization of silver. Why is this remarkable coincidence 
 presented? There may be some means other than that hinted at 
 to account for it. I am not here to withhold any information. I 
 know that I am obliged to bring forth every fact that will tend to 
 elucidate. The truth should be known that we may legislate wisely 
 and in the interest of the people whom we represent. I can not find 
 and have not heard any explanation in harmony with the gold 
 appreciation theory, of the incidents which I have cited. 
 
 In China, where gold is a mere commodity and is sold just as 
 lead or tin would be in this country, prices have not varied in twenty 
 years. This information I derive from an article quoted in the San 
 Francisco Chronicle, and written by W. S. Wetmore, for the Hong- 
 Kong papers. Mr. Wetmore selected some twenty articles for his 
 index numbers and discovered that the prices had been practically 
 stationary since 1873, while gold had risen nearly 50 per cent. 
 
 In a recent article by the same gentleman, printed in the North 
 China News, he shows that notwithstanding the enormous depre 
 ciation in the gold price of silver in Europe, America, and India, 
 there has been no variation of importance in either China or Japan. 
 He gives an instance within his own personal experience to illustrate 
 his meaning. Seventeen years ago he employed a boy at a salary 
 of twenty-one Mexican dollars a month, and although at the present 
 time silver is worth in gold less than a third of its former price, 
 Mr. Wetmore has discovered that his servant is able to live now just 
 as well as he did in 1876 and has not deprived himself of any of 
 the advantages which he then enjoyed, although, as I have said, 
 commodities have not fallen. 
 
 At the risk of being tautological, I will say that in all the great 
 silver-using countries of the world an ounce of silver will buy just 
 as much of the necessities of life at this day as could have been 
 bought twenty years ago. If gold is declared to be the standard of 
 thei world, and if it is said that there is no other kind of money, gold 
 will be more sought for, there will be greater need for it, its pur 
 chasing power will necessarily increase. 
 
 If half the stock of gold were destroyed, no one doubts that the 
 remaining portion would be more valuable. And so, if the use to 
 which gold is applied be made more extended, if it becomes more 
 essential to the public comfort, so will we be more anxious to get it, 
 so will its purchasing power develop. This subject was very ably 
 and thoroughly discussed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada 
 in his argument before the Brussels conference. Indeed, he left 
 nothing to be said upon the subject. The man who insists that the 
 less money we have in the world the better off we are is no more 
 inconsistent than the party who admits, as he must, that the legis 
 lation of the world has been in favor of gold, and that metal has been 
 cornered and placed in a few hands, and still insists that its pur 
 chasing power has not increased. Mr. Balfour declares that 
 
 An appreciation of the standard of value is probably the most deadening 
 
60 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 and benumbing influence which can touch the springs of enterprise in a 
 nation. 
 
 The same authority says: 
 
 I have no hesitation now in asserting what I have often asserted before, 
 that if you cannot attain this absolutely theoretical perfection it is better for 
 the community at large that your standard should be a depreciating standard 
 than that it should be an appreciating standard. 
 
 IS A DOUBLE STANDARD PRACTICABLE ? 
 
 I have heard gentlemen who declare that they stand upon the 
 Democratic platform declare that there is no such possibility as a 
 double standard. I have said enough with reference to those who 
 criticise the platform upon which they were elected and will address 
 myself to the merits of this proposition exclusively. 
 
 Speaking upon this subject on February 15, 1878, the Senator 
 from Nevada [Mr. JONES], whose remarks at the Brussels conference 
 gained him such wide commendation, said : 
 
 Our money system was not based upon the idea that we should have both 
 metals always and concurrently in circulation, but upon the idea that there 
 might occur occasional variations in their value, and that it would always be 
 to our advantage in every respect to make avail of the cheaper of the two. 
 The great feature of the double or optional standard is not the actual use of 
 both metals, but the right to use either. The option of using either metal 
 was enjoyed by the United States without let or hindrance until i873- 74- 
 This right of option of choosing either metal in which to make payment suf 
 ficiently accounts for the fact that after 1840 gold, then practically having 
 become the cheaper metal, largely predominated in the coinage. It was upon 
 this very theory that our coinage laws were framed, and when silver became 
 the dearer metal the demand for its coinage diminished. Was it ever charged 
 in 1873 that the gold dollar was a depreciated dollar, a 97-cent dollar, because 
 at that time its value was 3 per cent, below the value of the silver dollar ? 
 
 Mr. Balfour handles the subject very ably. He says: 
 
 I am well aware that there is a vast mass of opinion I think not well-in 
 formed opinion to the effect that a man who maintains the possibility of 
 bimetallism should be ranked with those who think that the sun goes round 
 the earth or that the earth itself is a flat disc. But I may say without offense 
 that those who hold this opinion show themselves but little instructed in the 
 recent history of the subject. It is permissible for those who base their 
 opinion on these matters upon the imperfectly remembered scraps of eco 
 nomic knowledge picked up fifty years ago it is permissible for them still to 
 hold the view that a bimetallist is a harmless lunatic who if he only confines 
 his lunacy to this particular question cannot be regarded as more dangerous 
 to the public peace than any other confirmed bore. But I do not think that 
 any man who has seriously considered the literature of this subject during 
 the last generation holds this opinion or can possibly hold it. 
 
 I doubt whether there is a single economist of reputation under 60 years of 
 age who will commit himself to the view that it is impossible to maintain the 
 double standard. If there be such a man I do not know his name, and if it be, 
 indeed, an absurdity to suppose that this double standard can be maintained, 
 then, indeed, we are in a bad case, because from every chair of political econ 
 omy in this country and America, not to speak of Holland and other conti 
 nental nations, I believe it is taught that the bimetallic theory is a theory 
 which will stand critical examination. 
 
 Remember, I am not asserting that every distinguished economist is a 
 bimetallist; I am not asserting that they would if they could establish a double 
 instead of a single standard; but no economist of repute will lend his name to 
 the idiotic objections if I may use the expression without offense to bimet 
 allism which you will see in some of the daily newspapers, objections which 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 61 
 
 appear to be founded on the view that to hold that a stable ratio can be main 
 tained between silver and gold is something like holding that value is not 
 determined by the laws of supply and demand or the cost of production, 
 but that it can be settled by the mere fiat of government. 
 
 Those who hold that view show an ignorance of the very elements of the 
 question which make it I do not wish to say anything offensive hardly 
 worth while arguing with them. They do not appear to have realized that 
 as it rests and must rest with the government, with every government, to say 
 what shall be legal tender within the limits of the state, so it must rest with 
 the government to determine what shall be the greatest cause of demand for 
 that which it says is legal tender; and therefore, to suppose that you can dis 
 miss this doctrine by saying it is inconsistent with the law of supply and 
 demand is to ignore the main element of the problem. 
 
 In fact, I should say that the bimetallic theory affords the most beautiful 
 illustration known to me from a theoretic point of view, of the operation of 
 the laws of supply and demand, in a specially interesting and instructive 
 case; but I have usually found that those who most denounce theory, at all 
 events are usually convinced by what they regard as practice. But even 
 practice and experience in this case are not enough to convince the theoretic 
 monometallists. They absolutely shut their eyes to the fact that, so far from 
 bimetallism being an impossibility, it has been the actual system in force 
 over a long period of lime and over great districts, and that when it was in 
 force it produced every effect which every bimetallist has ever claimed for 
 the employment of the double standard. 
 
 The same distinguished man also remarked : 
 
 If you have a joint standard if, in other words, you can count for your 
 supply of currency not merely upon the gold supply of the world, but upon the 
 gold supply plus the silver supply it is evident that the effect of any single 
 cause of change is diminished, because it is spread over a wider area. If you 
 have a cistern holding, let us say, a thousand gallons, and you choose to 
 divide that cistern into halves, each holding 500 gallons, then it is evident 
 that to withdraw from one of those compartments 100 gallons will made a far 
 greater change in the level of that compartment than if the whole cistern 
 were one and you withdrew your hundred gallons, not from the 500 gallons, 
 but from the undivided mass of a thousand gallons. That is an elementary 
 way of looking at it, which, elementary though it be, will probably bring con 
 viction to those who will carefully consider it. So much for the first cause of 
 variation of the standard, on which, I think, you will admit that a double 
 standard has the advantages over a single standard. 
 
 Prof. Francis Walker, of the Sheffield Scientific School, said: 
 
 The extensive fall in the value of silver since 1873, which is often referred 
 to as proving the unfitness of silver to be joined with gold in the office of 
 moneys, appears to me to show most strikingly the power of legislation in 
 keeping the two metals together. If gold and silver actually held a course 
 through three centuries so nearly parallel, yet when silver was demonetized 
 by the United States and Germany, and the Latin Union ceased to coin silver 
 in unrestricted amount, the price of gold expressed in terms of silver mounted 
 upward in four years from 15.63 to 17.77, rising momentarily even to 20.17 
 these two facts taken in connection would seem to afford a very strong proof 
 of their interchangeable use as money in keeping their market values together. 
 
 I believe that these references are sufficient to meet the objec 
 tions which I have been considering. 
 
 CAN THE UNITED STATES MAINTAIN FREE COINAGE WITHOUT INTERNA 
 TIONAL AGREEMENT ? 
 
 It is only necessary to examine the proceedings of the Brussels 
 Conference to thoroughly appreciate the difficulties in the path of 
 international agreement. 
 
62 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. Cramer-Frey, delegate from Switzerland, said: 
 
 I should be an unworthy disciple of the lamented M. Peer Herzog, who 
 represented Switzerland at the conference of 1878, and an unworthy successor 
 to M. Burckhardt Bischoff, whose interesting work on Bimetallism and the 
 Conference of 1881, at which he was a Swiss delegate, will have been duly 
 esteemed by many of you, if I ever entertained the idea that bimetallism would 
 be admissible for us. My colleague, M. Rivier, and myself have received the 
 most formal instructions to this effect from our government. 
 
 Mr. Zeppa, delegate of Italy, said: 
 
 It is astonishing that persons of admittedly high intelligence and general 
 culture are to be found who would wish to lead nations backward and to 
 re-establish bimetallism. 
 
 Mr. Weber, delegate of Belgium, closes his remarks with these 
 words : 
 
 The forced circulation of silver appears iniquitous, from whichever stand 
 point the question is regarded, and, in seeking to favor the expansion of industry 
 and commerce by international means, we must not look for help to the mint, 
 but to the custom-house. 
 
 Mr. Boissevain, delegate of the Netherlands, did not agree with 
 his more radical brethren. 
 
 Mr. Tirard, delegate of France, expresses himself as believing 
 that France was satisfied with the prevailing conditions, and his 
 remarks were so positive that they were construed at the time by 
 Mr. Cannon, one of our delegates, as meaning that France was 
 less favorable to bimetallism than England, a view, however, which 
 Mr. Tirard repudiated. 
 
 Mr. Raffalovich, delegate of Russia, strongly favors gold. 
 
 Mr. Rothschild expressed himself, as we all know, in the most 
 positive terms, approving of the financial policy of England, though 
 he did venture the assertion that he saw no objection to silver being 
 made a legal tender in England up to 5 instead of ^2, as at present. 
 And he made a suggestion which is of considerable importance, as 
 follows : 
 
 It seems to me that the European powers, holding as they do large amounts 
 of coined and uncoined silver, cannot be indifferent to the market price of 
 that metal; and, as to England, we have no right to look at one side of the 
 question only and to ignore the complaints of a powerful minority. 
 
 He also said: 
 
 Gentlemen, I need hardly remind you that the stock of silver in the world 
 is estimated at some thousands of millions, and if this conference were to 
 break up without arriving at any definite result there would be a depreciation 
 in the value of that commodity which it would be frightful to contemplate 
 and out of which a monetary panic would ensue, the far-spreading effects of 
 which it would be impossible to foretell. 
 
 The conference did break up, or adjourned without day, and it 
 is now proposed to choke the last breath out of silver. International 
 bimetallism may be accomplished if the United States stands firm, 
 but if we throw up our hands as the advocates of unconditional 
 repeal request us to do, the fight is determined. If one engaged in 
 personal contest, conscious that his strength is failing, throws him 
 self at the feet of his adversary and, placing his foeman s heel upon 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 63 
 
 his neck, suggests a compromise, his attitude is ridiculous. Much 
 better for him would it have been to prolong the struggle and rely 
 for a favorable proposition upon his adversary s desire to avoid a 
 culmination, the exact nature of which could not be foretold. 
 
 I am aware of the answer made time and time again to this argu 
 ment. It is insisted that the way to bring about an international 
 agreement is to absolutely demonetize silver. We all admit that 
 silver money is necessary, and we are told that if we put ourselves 
 in the position now occupied by England, France, and other coun 
 tries, in time they will suffer so much that we will be able to force 
 concessions. Thus we are asked to undergo the Dr. Tanner pro 
 cess. We are to put ourselves upon a starvation basis, and must 
 rest our hopes upon our ability to endure privations longer than 
 others. 
 
 Mr. PEFFER. And then begin with watermelons to recover. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I scarcely think that the influence 
 of watermelons would cure us under such circumstances. I believe 
 that it would take more stimulation than even this wonderful country 
 has within its bosom. 
 
 Mr. HOAR. The difference between the Democratic party and 
 Populists is the question of stimulation. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. The Senator from Massachusetts 
 refers to the difference between the Populists and the Democratic 
 party, which he says is a matter of stimulation. My experience, 
 acquired not only here but elsewhere, is that we can gather our 
 Republican friends upon that issue into a common fold; upon such 
 a platform they will not refuse to stand. We are not differing 
 greatly upon that proposition; and I really think that a majority 
 of our friends the Populists, sympathize with us in a degree at least. 
 
 We have sent our delegates to Europe and have urged upon the 
 world that there should be a bimetallic agreement between the 
 powers, and we have declared that silver should be accepted as money 
 and that it is good money ; and while rmaking all this talk, and in 
 the midst of our argument, we propose by a solemn act of Congress 
 to take away all the potentiality of a metal which we produce and 
 flatter ourselves that an empty declaration which has no place in the 
 body of the act, and which is simply apologetic, will influence other 
 nations to change their system and will be a substitute for, if not 
 better than, positive legislation. To say that the policy recommended 
 is cowardly, is to express the situation in very moderate terms. 
 
 The chairman of the Committee on Finance has introduced, as 
 I have said, in the proposed measure an announcement that silver 
 is good; that we should have silver; that silver should be coined at 
 the mints free of charge, and that it should be treated in all respects 
 as gold is treated. Wliile making that declaration we decline to 
 signify our faith in it. We absolutely abandon silver and surrender 
 in the midst of a great financial struggle with foreign powers. We 
 bow before them and cast ourselves trembling at their feet, and with 
 their feet upon our necks we expect a compromise and concession. 
 
 I do not look at this affair from a sentimental standpoint merely, 
 nor have I any false pride as to my country. I regard her and 
 cherish her as sincerely as any man can, for I feel that I owe much 
 more to her than she will ever obtain from me. But I assert that 
 
64 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 if we do not show our faith by our acts, if we do not stand by the 
 principles in which we assert we believe, we can not expect others 
 to credit us with good faith, and we can not anticipate favorable 
 action from those upon whom it is important that our influence 
 should be made effective. 
 
 Remember, Mr. President, that the history of this subject which 
 I have already narrated makes it obvious that we have been derelict 
 not merely in passing the so-called demonetizing act, but in our con 
 duct and declarations in the international councils that have been 
 held regarding silver years ago. When we sent men to represent 
 us, and when those men themselves expressed a lack of faith in silver, 
 did we not then and there teach the lesson of wrong, and so deeply 
 impress it upon the minds and consciences of other peoples that they 
 are unwilling to abandon the customs and policies begotten by our 
 instruction ? Can we add any force to our position, can we expect 
 to gain more favorable audience if we desert silver and present to 
 other powers the debates that have been had in, this Chamber ? Will 
 they not find every argument that was ever utilized by a gold mono- 
 metallist in speeches which! have been made in the present Congress ? 
 Will they not encounter the solemn declarations of more than one 
 Chief Executive and of the men nearest Administrations to the effect 
 that we do not after all have so high a regard for silver ? When 
 we confront these foreign financiers with the statement in our bill 
 that we are in favor of doing something which we are not prepared 
 to do will not these statesmen, those men of thought and experience 
 in human affairs, smile at us as they have smiled before ? 
 
 But, as I remarked, I do not consider it essential that we shall 
 have the concurrence of foreign powers. If I did I should regard 
 the task as difficult in the extreme. I should wait, perhaps, with 
 glimmering faith for the future, but I would rely more upon hope 
 than upon faith, for I do not believe that if we abandon silver we can 
 reasonably look during our generation for its adoption as a money 
 metal by the principal nations. In some countries perhaps it may 
 be necessary. In India it is probable that no matter what we do the 
 necessities of the case and the loss which England has already sus 
 tained in her Eastern trade may lead to a reversal of her policy, but 
 the way to obtain proper standing for silver is to stand by it our 
 selves. It is not, as I have frequently said, to cast it by the wayside 
 as unworthy of contact, or to relegate it to an obscurity from which 
 it can never emerge. 
 
 Great Britain has been a gold-standard country ever since 1816, 
 and that very year she made a strenuous effort to discard silver, 
 but failed to succeed in doing so. This is demonstrated by an 
 inspection of the table of ratios already in evidence. 
 
 Thus in 1815 the ratio of silver to gold was 15.26, in 1816 it was 
 15.28, in 1817 it was 15.11. 
 
 Silver ruled a little more than three-quarters of a cent higher 
 per ounce in 1817 than in 1816. There was subsequently a decline 
 which did not exceed 3 cents in thirty years. And it has been 
 said that the fluctuations during that period were not greater than 
 the rate of discount in the Bank of England. 
 
 I wish to say that I have heard many remarks in reference to 
 the declarations of Lord Liverpool, whose Treatise on Coins of 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 65 
 
 the Realm had so much to do with the British fiscal legislation of 
 1816. Sir David Barbour says: 
 
 In no portion of Lord Liverpool s Treatise on Coins of the Realm is there 
 any illusion to 
 
 I. The Treasury order of 25th of October, 1697, directing that the guineas 
 should be taken at 2,2.8. each. 
 
 II. The Council order of 8th of September, 1698, referring the question of 
 the high rate of the guinea to the Council of Trade. 
 
 III. The report of the Council of Trade, dated 22nd of September, 1689. 
 
 IV. The resolution of the House of Commons on that report. 
 
 V. The orders of the Treasury to receive the guineas on public account at 
 2is. 6d. each, " and not otherwise." 
 
 With the publication of these documents, falls Lord Liverpool s statement 
 that the English people, by general consent and without any interposition of 
 public authority, attached a higher value to the guinea after the great recoin- 
 age than the market value of gold would justify; and with the fall of the 
 alleged fact must disappear the conclusion drawn from it, namely, that with 
 the increase of wealth and commerce the English people in 1698 had come to 
 prefer gold to silver. And with the disappearing of this hypothesis there dis 
 appears the only evidence brough forward in support of the theory regarding 
 the progress of wealthy countries from silver to gold, which Lord Liverpool 
 invented in order to overthrow Locke s opinion that "gold is not the money 
 of the world or measure of commerce, nor fit to be so." 
 
 In Germany and Austria in 1857 a determined effort was made 
 to demonetize gold. Singularly enough sometimes we are dissatis 
 fied with silver and sometimes we are not satisfied with gold. But 
 this attempt to discredit gold did not affect the ratio. The Director 
 of the Mint informs us that fine silver was quoted in 1857 at l -353 
 per ounce; in 1858, at 1.344; in 1859, at 1.36; in 1860, 1.352. So 
 that the unaided policies of Austria and Germany, to which I have 
 adverted, were not sufficiently potential to produce the conditions 
 against which we are contending. 
 
 Of course, such action tended in an ulterior direction, but were 
 insufficient to produce the change. The last straw destined to break 
 the camel s back, i. e., our improvident legislation, had not been 
 imposed. 
 
 Germany exacted an enormous gold indemnity from France and 
 thereupon proceeded to demonetize silver. 
 
 In 1871 silver was quoted on an average at 1.326 per ounce. In 
 1872 the quotation was 1.322, and there was no sign of a fall until 
 1873, when the enactment concerning which my friend from Nevada 
 [Mr. STEWART] has said so much slipped through. 
 
 If the market quotations are worth anything at all they show 
 that silver received its severest blow and that its depreciation was 
 mainly caused by the action of this Government. 
 
 And if we were potential for destruction, may not our efforts in 
 the contrary direction be productive of good ? 
 
 I admit that the legislation of Europe has influenced matters. 
 I claim that legislation has its effect upon financial affairs, but I 
 say that if we had been faithful to our trust even the power of Europe 
 would not have been able to bring about the perils which menace 
 our financial integrity. This is not sentimentality, but a mathemat 
 ical deduction derived from the quotations and figures which I have 
 given and from the demonstrations of that great teacher, experience. 
 
66 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. HIGGINS. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a 
 question ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HIGGINS. I ask the Senator from California if it is not a 
 fact that the United States at the time of the act of 1873 was upon 
 a paper basis, using only paper and not coin at all, and that there 
 fore any effect which might arise from the act of 1873 could only 
 have a possible future bearing, that future bearing being then beyond 
 the ken of man to know ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. My answer to the Senator from 
 Delaware is, that up to the date mentioned the commercial ratio 
 remained without impairment; and that when the fell blow was 
 struck the result which I am now relating took place at once, and 
 from that time to this the same tendency continues. 
 
 Mr. HIGGINS. Then I ask the Senator if that was not coinci 
 dent in time with the large sales of German silver upon the market, 
 and if that was not the cause of silver going down ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. President, let facts speak for 
 themselves. I admit that when we are reasoning from circum 
 stances one circumstance alone is not sufficient to justify a conclu 
 sion; and it may be that in all the array which I have presented 
 and in all the experience narrated there may be other things coin 
 cident which it may be said may suggest a result; but when I take 
 the history of this country and the history of other countries and 
 find that the demonetization acts and the transactions with reference 
 to gold and silver did not produce the unfortunate conditions of 
 which we complain, and when I see that the moment we upon our 
 statute books abandoned silver that then the difference of ratio 
 became manifest, I claim that I have made a case; that the pre 
 sumption is upon my side. 
 
 Besides, I care not whether paper was used in the markets of 
 this country at the dates mentioned by the Senator; there was then 
 no> law in existence striking at silver. There was then no man 
 who doubted that when the resumption time came gold and silver 
 would be the money of the people. Our citizens had learned from 
 Hamilton, from Webster, from the great teachers who stood around 
 the cradle of this Republic, to believe that gold and silver consti 
 tuted our money, and they so thought, and in accord with that 
 faith and the experience of civilization the commercial ratio men 
 tioned was easily sustained. 
 
 I have ever doubted whether we have the power to adopt a gold 
 standard. Mr. Webster s argument upon this question seems strong 
 and sensible. 
 
 Said Mr. Hamilton: 
 
 To annul the use of either of the metals as money is to abridge the quantity 
 of circulating medium and is liable to all the objections which arise from a 
 comparison of benefits of a full with the evils of a scanty circulation. 
 
 No man of patriotism until recently supposed that silver and 
 gold would be divorced. It was known that they were married by 
 nature s ceremony in the Sierras recesses. It was known that 
 generally wherever these metals existed that the disclosure of one 
 meant the procurement of the other. Experience had demon- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 67 
 
 strated that while for a time one might be produced in larger vol 
 ume than the other, yet, that averaging the whole, going back to 
 the earlier days, parity was well maintained. 
 
 No argument can be sustained which has for its object the 
 enforcement of the contention that the present state of affairs has 
 been brought about otherwise than by legislation, and by the legis 
 lation of this country and the action of those whom we have placed 
 in power. The venerable and able Senator from Vermont declares 
 that we must find a new market for silver. This is not very cheer 
 ing. The recent expeditions to the antartic regions have resulted in 
 the discovery of a fine stock of seals, and it is supposed that a new 
 field will be opened there for our poaching friends. But no hope 
 is thrown out that that country will consume much silver. 
 
 The investigations that have been going on in the interior of 
 Africa do not indicate the opening of any new market there, and our 
 flying machines are not sufficiently perfected to justify the hope that 
 we may be able to vend our products to residents of other planets. 
 Hence, if we wait for the new market suggested by the Senator from 
 Vermont, we must tarry long and tearfully. But I fail to note the 
 necessity for a new market. The world s output of silver is steadily 
 absorbed. Says the Britannica: 
 
 The total production of silver in the Western world, from the discovery of 
 America to the present time, has been in value about 1,400,000,000, of which 
 300,000,000 remains in coins. On the whole, it appears quite safe to estimate 
 the average consumption of silver in the arts and through wear, tear, and 
 loss, as fully equal to three-fourths the production. Lowe in 1822 estimated 
 it at two-thirds. 
 
 So great has been the consumption of the precious metals in 
 the arts that according to the statement made by Senator JONES in 
 the Brussels conference, Sir Lyon Play fair, in a speech in the House 
 of Commons, April 18, 1890, expressed the conviction that the 
 demand for gold for purposes outside of minting amounted to at 
 least 75 per cent, of the annual production. And Mr. Giffen (who 
 by the way is often quoted by monometallists) has expressed the 
 belief that substantially all the current products of the mines are used 
 in the arts. 
 
 It appears to be settled that sixty millions of money per annum 
 is required in the arts and that thirty millions more must be allowed 
 for abrasion and loss of coin. And Mr. McCulloch estimates that 
 there; should be an annual addition to the stock in Europe, Australia, 
 and America of fifty millions to keep pace with the increase in busi 
 ness. Thus we have an annual total for all interests of $140,000,000, 
 and it must be evident to the most casual observer that China, which 
 is not considered in this estimate, has for ages absorbed an immense 
 amount of silver. 
 
 It has been proven by eminent statisticans that during a period 
 pf two hundred years the price of silver in the world s markets 
 averaged only 12 cents an ounce from the legal ratio of 15 to i. 
 
 In 1760 the price realized for silver was $1.45 per ounce, or 
 about 12 cents more than the amount called for by the legally- 
 established ratio. 
 
 In 1813 the ruling price was about $1.26, or 7 cents an ounce 
 less than it would have commanded if the legal and commercial ratio 
 had maintained parity. And it must be remarked that these changes 
 
68 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 were not sudden and did not unsettle values to the slightest extent, 
 and were much less than the fluctuation of the very best commercial 
 paper. 
 
 An able writer in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in discussing 
 silver and considering ancient and modern ratios, refers to those 
 established by Portugal in 1688, Spain in 1755, and France in 1785. 
 He says: 
 
 These three historical ratios, and the bearing of each upon the other, have 
 influenced all legislation upon the subject, and, where there was no legislation 
 have governed the bullion markets for more than two centuries. 
 
 But we need not travel for information upon this topic, because 
 the history of silver from the time of its demonetization in 1873 
 settles the question. 
 
 The commercial ratios from 1687 to 1873 were as follows : 
 
 Commercial ratio of silver to gold, 1687 to 1873. 
 
 Year 
 
 Ratio 
 
 Year 
 
 Ratio 
 
 Year 
 
 Ratio 
 
 Year 
 
 Ratio 
 
 1687 
 
 14 94 
 
 1734 
 
 15.39 
 
 1781 
 
 14.78 
 
 1828 
 
 15 78 
 
 1688 
 
 14.94 
 
 1735 
 
 15.41 
 
 1782 
 
 14.42 
 
 1829 
 
 15.78 
 
 1689 
 
 15.02 
 
 1736 
 
 15.18 
 
 1783 
 
 14.48 
 
 1830 
 
 15.82 
 
 1690 
 
 15.02 
 
 1737 
 
 15.02 
 
 1784 
 
 1470 
 
 1831 
 
 15.72 
 
 1691 
 
 14 98 
 
 1738 
 
 14 91 
 
 1785 
 
 14.92 
 
 1832 
 
 15.73 
 
 1692 
 
 14.92 
 
 1739 
 
 14.91 
 
 1786 
 
 14.96 
 
 1833 
 
 15.93 
 
 1693 
 
 14 83 
 
 1740 
 
 14.94 
 
 1787 .. 
 
 14.92 
 
 1834 
 
 15.73 
 
 1694 
 
 14.87 
 
 1741 
 
 14.92 
 
 1788 
 
 14.65 
 
 1835 
 
 15.80 
 
 1695 
 
 15 02 
 
 1742 
 
 14.85 
 
 1789 
 
 14.75 
 
 1836 
 
 15.72 
 
 1696 
 
 15 00 
 
 1743 . . 
 
 14.85 
 
 1790 
 
 15.04 
 
 1837 
 
 15.83 
 
 1697 
 
 15 20 
 
 1744 
 
 14.87 
 
 1791 
 
 15.05 
 
 1838 
 
 15.85 
 
 1698 
 
 15.07 
 
 1745 .... 
 
 14.98 
 
 1792 
 
 15.17 
 
 1839 
 
 15.62 
 
 1699 
 
 14.94 
 
 1746 
 
 15.13 
 
 1793 
 
 15.00 
 
 1840 
 
 15.62 
 
 1700 
 
 14 81 
 
 1747 
 
 15.26 
 
 1794 
 
 15.37 
 
 1841 
 
 15.70 
 
 1701 
 
 15.07 
 
 1748 
 
 15.11 
 
 1795 
 
 15.55 
 
 1842 
 
 15.87 
 
 1702 
 
 15.52 
 
 1749 
 
 14.80 
 
 1796 
 
 16.65 
 
 1843 
 
 15.93 
 
 1703 
 
 15 17 
 
 1750 
 
 14.55 
 
 1797 
 
 15.41 
 
 1844 
 
 15.85 
 
 1704 
 
 14.22 
 
 1751 
 
 14.39 
 
 1798 
 
 15.59 
 
 1845 
 
 15.92 
 
 1705 
 
 15 11 
 
 1752 
 
 14 54 
 
 1799 .. 
 
 15.74 
 
 1846 
 
 15 90 
 
 1706 
 
 15 27 
 
 1753 
 
 14 54 
 
 1800 
 
 15.68 
 
 1847 
 
 15.80 
 
 1707 
 
 15 44 
 
 1754 
 
 14 48 
 
 1801 
 
 15.46 
 
 1848 
 
 15.85 
 
 1708 
 
 15.41 
 
 1755 
 
 14.68 
 
 1802 
 
 15.26 
 
 1849 
 
 15.78 
 
 1709 
 1710 
 
 15.31 
 
 15.22 
 
 1756 
 1757 
 
 14.94 
 
 14.87 
 
 1803 
 1804 
 
 15.41 
 15.41 
 
 1850 
 1851 
 
 15.70 
 15.46 
 
 1711 
 
 15.29 
 
 1758 
 
 14.85 
 
 1805 
 
 15.79 
 
 1852 
 
 15.59 
 
 1712 
 
 15.31 
 
 1759 
 
 14.15 
 
 1806 
 
 15.52 
 
 1853 
 
 15.33 
 
 1713 
 
 15.24 
 
 1760 
 
 14.14 
 
 1807 
 
 15.43 
 
 1854 
 
 15.33 
 
 1714 
 
 15.13 
 
 1761 
 
 14 54 
 
 1808 
 
 16.08 
 
 1855 
 
 15.38 
 
 1715 
 
 15.11 
 
 1762 
 
 15.27 
 
 1809 
 
 15.96 
 
 1856 
 
 15.38 
 
 1716 
 
 15.09 
 
 1763 
 
 14.99 
 
 1810 
 
 15.77 
 
 1857 
 
 15.27 
 
 1717 
 
 15.13 
 
 1764 
 
 14.70 
 
 1811 
 
 15.53 
 
 1858 
 
 15.38 
 
 1718 
 
 15.11 
 
 1765 
 
 14.83 
 
 1812 
 
 16.11 
 
 1859 
 
 15.19 
 
 1719 
 
 15.09 
 
 1766 
 
 14.80 
 
 1813 
 
 16.25 
 
 1860...... 
 
 15.29 
 
 1720 
 
 15.04 
 
 1767 
 
 14.85 
 
 1814 
 
 15.04 
 
 1861 
 
 15.50 
 
 1721 
 
 15.05 
 
 1768 
 
 14.80 
 
 1815 
 
 15.26 
 
 1862 
 
 15.35 
 
 1722 
 
 15.17 
 
 1769 
 
 14.72 
 
 1816 
 
 15.28 
 
 1863 
 
 15.37 
 
 1723 
 
 15 20 
 
 1770 
 
 14.62 
 
 1817 .. 
 
 16.11 
 
 1864 
 
 15.37 
 
 1724 
 
 15.11 
 
 1771 
 
 14.66 
 
 1818 
 
 15.35 
 
 1865 
 
 15.44 
 
 1725 
 
 15.11 
 
 1772 
 
 14.52 
 
 1819 
 
 15.33 
 
 1866 
 
 15.43 
 
 1726 
 
 15.15 
 
 1773 
 
 14.62 
 
 1820 
 
 15.62 
 
 1867 
 
 15.57 
 
 1727 
 
 15.24 
 
 1774 
 
 14.62 
 
 1821 
 
 15.95 
 
 1868 
 
 15.59 
 
 1728 
 
 15.11 
 
 1775 
 
 14.72 
 
 1822 
 
 15.80 
 
 1869 
 
 15.60 
 
 1729 
 
 14.92 
 
 1776 
 
 1455 
 
 1823 
 
 15.84 
 
 1870 
 
 15.57 
 
 1730 
 
 14.81 
 
 1777 
 
 14 54 
 
 1824 
 
 15.82 
 
 1871 
 
 15.57 
 
 1731. 
 
 14.94 
 
 1778 
 
 14.68 
 
 1825 
 
 15.70 
 
 1872 
 
 15.63 
 
 1732 
 
 15.09 
 
 1779 
 
 14.80 
 
 1826 
 
 15.76 
 
 1873 
 
 15.92 
 
 1733 
 
 15.18 
 
 1780 
 
 14.72 
 
 1827 
 
 15.74 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 69 
 
 From 1874 to 1878 the ratios were as follows: 
 Commercial ratio, 1874 to 1888. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 1874 
 
 16.17 
 
 1878 
 
 17.94 
 
 1882 
 
 18.19 
 
 1886 
 
 20 78 
 
 1875 
 
 16.59 
 
 1879 
 
 18 40 
 
 1883 
 
 18.64 
 
 1887 
 
 21 13 
 
 1876 
 
 17.88 
 
 1880 
 
 18.05 
 
 1884 
 
 18.57 
 
 1888 
 
 21.99 
 
 1877 
 
 17.22 
 
 1881 
 
 18.16 
 
 1885 
 
 19.41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 These ratios have widened since that time, with the exception 
 of a brief period during which it appeared that the United States 
 intended to return to sensible legislation (an ill-founded assump 
 tion, I am sorry to say), and the mere rumor that we intended to 
 do so, baseless indeed, though it was, helped silver to a marked 
 extent. 
 
 Prof. Francis A. Walker, writing in 1876 and noting the slight 
 and unimportant fluctuations for a period of more than a century 
 preceding 1873, uses these significant words : 
 
 That the changes in the comparative purchasing power of the two metals 
 between 1873 and 1876 were wholly or mainly due to the changes in supply or 
 changes in demand disconnected from the acts of governments dealing with 
 the legal relations of gold and silver I really cannot conceive any intelligent 
 and candid man is now maintaining. 
 
 To argue any further for the purpose of showing that silver 
 was holding its own up to the demonetization of 1873 would be 
 violence to the common sense of the Senate and the country. The 
 tables heretofore referred to constitute a demonstration of the cor 
 rectness of this proposition. 
 
 Since 1873 the fluctuation so often mentioned has certainly taken 
 place in an exceedingly aggravated form. From these facts, not 
 susceptible, I take it, of denial, it follows that silver for generations 
 was successfully used as money and held its own with gold and 
 continued to do this until the United States demonetized it. If the 
 United States had not done this the relative situation of the metals 
 would not have been changed. This final proposition must be correct 
 if experience is worth anything. Nor is there anything unreasonable, 
 independent of the argument based upon experience, in the conclusion 
 which I have just reached that when England, Germany, and other 
 European countries declared that silver was not worthy of con 
 sideration as standard money, it was natural that the) situation should 
 be somewhat perturbed. But when the United States adds its voice 
 in the same direction and, wholly regardless of her own interests, 
 announces to the world and proclaims from housetops of civilization 
 that silver is worthless, it is certain that the usefulness of the metal 
 will be to a great extent impaired. 
 
 If I should circulate a rumor that the real property that the 
 chairman of the Committee on Finance owns, and to which he has 
 good title, was so involved as to render it impossible for him to 
 convey the fee, and if this assertion, made in obvious disregard of 
 the truth to some one who intended to purchase that property, 
 influenced the latter so as to prevent a sale, I would be guilty 
 
70 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of slander of title; an action could be maintained against me to 
 recover damages for my ill-advised talk. 
 
 This right of action is given upon the theory that men are 
 influenced by ungrounded reports. And if this be true in the case 
 of an individual, how much more potent does the slander become 
 when it is made officially by a great nation; when it is made not 
 with reference to the property of another, but regarding our own 
 product. When we who produce silver declare against silver, when 
 we who insist in our political platforms that bimetallism is desirable, 
 inconsistently print upon our statute books the declaration that we 
 have no confidence in silver, is it to be wondered at that there is 
 lack of confidence elsewhere ? Is it not evidence of imbecility to 
 wonder that silver should be discredited when we have thus treated it ? 
 
 Give silver a chance. Do what you solemnly said you would do 
 when you subscribed to your party platforms. Put it upon the same 
 basis as gold. Treat it as fairly as gold. Give it an equally honor 
 able place at the governmental table, and see that a fair portion of 
 the choicest legislative viands is allotted to the white metal. The 
 man who is so treated that starvation threatens him, finds m> diffi 
 culty in assigning a reason for the difference in physical develop 
 ment manifest as between himself and one who has been well fed. 
 Act toward gold as you have acted towards silver, and a large portion 
 of our most distinguished inhabitants would demand the demonetiza 
 tion of the former. Let us be consistent; let us be reasonable; let 
 us be liberal ; let us act in good faith. 
 
 When our Government speaks discreditably of silver the state 
 ment excites more than common attention. It is said of us that our 
 interests should naturally be for silver, as we produce large quantities 
 of that metal, and that therefore we are very much in the same 
 attitude as a suitor whose expressions adverse to his own interests 
 are proven with telling effect by his opponent. 
 
 It has been argued that many Senators upon other occasions 
 called attention to India as a silver consumer, and contended that 
 because of our large absorption we could afford to go to free coinage, 
 but that now, this argument being taken away, the case falls. 
 
 I think it has been shown with sufficient clearness that there is 
 not an extravagant quantity of silver in the world; that there is 
 not enough to destroy parity; and that while the absorption of sil 
 ver in India furnished an argument on the silver side of the ques 
 tion, its elimination does not justify the conclusion that we should 
 do our utmost to destroy the purchasing power of a metal of which 
 we produce so much. It has been demonstrated that until we made 
 the most vicious attack possible on silver, it took good care of itself, 
 and there is not a man in the country who has any right to assume 
 that silver will not be self-sustaining if Congress restores it to the 
 position which it occupied in 1873, in which position it maintained 
 itself without difficulty. 
 
 Besides, we have the authority of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
 ALLISON] that England will be forced to restore silver in India, and 
 the indications go far to sustain his anticipation. 
 
 It is claimed that if we have free coinage our silver must all 
 leave the country. It has been well remarked that this metal can 
 not leave us unless we receive an equivalent. A few days ago a 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 71 
 
 Senator who advocates the gold standard declared that he did not 
 mean to say that gold would in such an event be withdrawn from 
 the country, but that it would be withdrawn from circulation. 
 Says an English writer: 
 
 If a gold coin could be exchanged for a heavier weight of silver coins in one 
 country than another, gold would be sent there to buy up the heavier silver 
 coins. This very mistake was made at the English mint before the year 1698, 
 so gold came from other countries to buy up the heavy English silver coins, 
 and in spite of Sir Isaac Newton s teaching to the contrary, people generally 
 supposed that the gold came of itself through greater suitability; conse 
 quently it was pronounced to be the fittest for coinage, and was decreed in 
 1816 to be alone fit for unlimited coinage, silver being banished, except for 
 small payments under 40 shillings. 
 
 Even Sir Thomas Gresham never pretended that one metal 
 would drive out another. He did say that the inferior would drive 
 out the superior if they were allowed to circulate together. He 
 was led to make this remark because of the currency of light and 
 full weight coins. Prof. Jevons says : 
 
 Gresham s remarks concerning the inability of good money to drive out 
 bad only referred to money s of one kind of metal. 
 
 It is untrue that because coins of a certain metal depart from 
 a particular country that that fact proves that the coin withdrawn 
 is superior. 
 
 It is said that if we have silver only we will be involved beyond 
 redemption. When we had a sole gold currency, owing to the 
 fact that silver was dearer, ruin did not appear imminent. Sensible 
 men paid no attention to the often-heard remark that we would become 
 bankrupt if we allowed the free coinage of gold, because it was cheaper 
 than silver. The subject was, however, discussed. 
 
 Thirty years ago the Illustrated London News reported certain 
 proceedings of the British Association for the Advancement of Sci 
 ence. Among other interesting matter the following is given : 
 
 Mr. H. Fawcett read a paper "On the Effects of the Recent Gold Discov 
 eries," which attracted considerable attention, and led to a very animated dis 
 cussion. Mr. Fawcett reckons that the amount of our whole existing gold 
 currency is 300,000,000. The next ten years will introduce 200,000,000 of 
 fresh gold from Australia, California, and other quarters. He subtracts from 
 this latter amount 60,000,000, which he sacrifices to " absorption." This leaves 
 140,000,000 as the addition to our gold currency in ten years time. But gold 
 is depreciated and lessened in value according to its abundance. Did it 
 promise, then, to be twice as abundant at the end of ten years as it is now, 
 it would threaten the loss of half its present value, and therefore promising, 
 as it does, an addition of nearly a fourth to its present amount at the end 
 of that period, it threatens a loss by that time of nearly one-fourth of its pres 
 ent value. Mr. Fawcett thinks this depreciation sufficiently probable to induce 
 any prudent person to take every precaution to obviate its consequences. 
 
 Mr. Fawcett followed the line of argument adopted by present 
 advocates of the gold standard, but no one paid great attention to him. 
 
 But I do not believe that with proper legislation there is any dan 
 ger that gold and silver will be at variance at the ratio of 16 to i. 
 If we will desist from our own onslaughts upon silver the world will 
 do likewise. We can not get all the silver of the world if we desired 
 
72 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 it. Without some silver even the gold-standard countries would find 
 themselves in peril. 
 
 We certainly will not give our gold to any one ; we can make good 
 bargains as well as others. 
 
 But all the silver of the world could not be thrown upon the 
 American market without bringing other nations to a standstill. It is 
 admitted that a vast quantity of silver is needed everywhere. It is 
 conceded that there is not enough of gold in the world to go around. 
 Does any one suppose that France would yield up her immense stock 
 of silver ? She could not replace it with gold, for there is no gold to 
 replace it. If our silver supply was augmented by remonetization, 
 such increased amount would be readily absorbed and would constitute 
 no menace to our business integrity. 
 
 But, Mr. President, as I have already repeatedly urged, as soon 
 as silver is treated properly there will be no object in attempting to 
 capture silver or to capture gold. 
 
 The assertion that silver is too bulky for use is not worthy of 
 much consideration. I do not find many people in this part of the 
 world carrying double eagles in their pockets. I think it probable that 
 a very large portion of my Eastern friends who are so wild upon the 
 subject of gold would not know gold if they saw it. In California we 
 know something of gold because we handle it. 
 
 A few years ago, upon the occasion of my first visit to the East 
 ern portion of the United States, I came to Washington sightseeing. 
 I then had some ambition to come here in an official capacity, and en 
 tertaining the idea that no one couIH be really capable of participating 
 in the affairs of his Government intelligently unless he had to some 
 extent familiarized himself by actual observation with the necessities 
 and peculiarities of each State, I traveled from State to State on a 
 tour of observation, and having a small supply of gold on hand, I went 
 to a Washington theater with some friends and presented a newly 
 coined twenty-dollar piece at the box office. The young man in 
 charge, who was a New Yorker, and violently in favor of the single 
 standard gold, looked at the piece critically and told me he would 
 rather not take it. I told him that it was gold, and he called in 
 Attaches of the office, and finally the general manager, and after 
 extended deliberation, my twenty-dollar piece was accepted. I do not 
 believe that it would have been taken had it not been that I twitted 
 them upon the inconsistency of Eastern people with reference to gold 
 and silver, and while I was engaged in utilizing my diplomatic powers, 
 I noticed other amusement seekers buying tickets and paying silver 
 without objection. It is just as unnecessary to lug silver around as it 
 is to take gold about. Silver certificates weigh no more than gold 
 certificates. The balance of my gold supply I found it hard to get rid 
 of. There was a lack of confidence in gold. 
 
 I certainly feel justified in saying that there is nothing in the 
 proposition that silver is too bulky. In the great commercial trans 
 actions to which gentlemen have alluded neither metal is actually 
 present, and in smaller affairs of business currency is uniformly util 
 ized ; and whatever may be the legislation upon the subject, it will not 
 be difficult to avoid actually handling large quantities of either metal. 
 At this point I desire to say a Word with reference to a policy 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 73 
 
 which this Government adopted some time ago, and which, it appears 
 to me, was wholly uncalled for. 
 
 I refer to our practice as to the redemption of bonds payable in 
 coin. 
 
 I believe in paying our creditors all that we owe them and paying 
 them in the money designated in the bond. But when this Govern 
 ment, owing money payable in coin payable, in other words, in that 
 coin designated by the Constitution and described therein as gold and 
 silver, refused to pay silver, but did pay gold because the creditors 
 preferred it, a great mistake, if not a crime, was committed. In all 
 private transactions it has universally been admitted that where coin 
 is called for that either metal will satisfy the obligation. Such was 
 the law known by all parties when bonds were issued. With reference 
 to the greenback matter which has been spoken of, no one ever pre 
 tended that anyone who entered into a contract after the decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, and after greenbacks wtere 
 declared to be currency, providing for payment in lawful money, could 
 not satisfy the indebtedness with greenbacks. 
 
 The proposition sustained in the greenback cases, which excited 
 so much comment and such an amount of adverse criticism, was that 
 one who entered into a contract involving a money promise prior to 
 the issuance of the greenback could be forced to accept currency 
 unknown when the agreement was made. No court ever held to the 
 view which the Secretaries of the Treasury seem to have uni 
 formly followed, that our coin indebtedness should be paid in gold 
 only. What right have the bondholders of this country ever had to 
 ask for the enforcement of a condition undisclosed in their contract? 
 May they plead ignorance of the law? Such a plea is not tenable. 
 Were they deceived by any mistake of fact? Obviously not. They 
 knew the Constitution of this country just as well as we know it, and 
 they knew when they insisted upon gold payments that they were not 
 entitled to the same. They knew the attendant circumstances fully. 
 But they have procured various Administrations to ignore the interests 
 of the people, that the feelings of the bondholder may not be hurt. 
 These men have been more exacting than Shylock. He demanded the 
 letter of his bond ; he asked for nothing else. He wished a pound of 
 flesh close to the heart. Had the modern bondholder been in his place 
 he would have demanded the heart itself. 
 
 Legally as well as morally the United States Government erred 
 when it paid out gold when its promise would have been satisfied by 
 the payment of silver. It is well known that the bondholders have 
 always bitterly opposed free coinage. They were especially active 
 when the Bland act was passed. That measure was not congenial to 
 any of the silver men. Mr. Bland said when he was compelled to 
 accept it: 
 
 I say, I protest against this bill while I vote for it under that protest. I 
 want, in this House, to give notice and the understanding to go forth that 
 this is no compromise and no settlement. It is not what the country expects 
 or desires, but we vote for it now to secure what we can at this time, intending 
 to continue the necessary legislation hereafter. 
 
 Although the bondholders did not obtain the exact legislation 
 which they desired, still they made an enormous profit out of the work 
 as it was done. The loss to the Government has been immense. 
 
 6 
 
74 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Between 1862 and 1868, it is stated upon reliable authority that the 
 United States marketed bonds to the value of $2,049,975,700 and only 
 obtained from those who took these bonds up $1,371,424,238. So the 
 bondholders were not very badly treated. They do not belong to the 
 injured innocent class. 
 
 Thus we again discredited silver. We manifested our want of 
 faith in its debt-paying power when we permitted those whose 
 indebtedness could have been legally and morally satisfied by the pay 
 ment of silver to take gold from our Treasury. 
 
 I presume Senators will yet be found who will still say that we 
 have treated silver as we have treated gold. One of the most dis 
 astrous consequences of this mistaken policy consists in the establish 
 ment of a rule from which it is difficult to depart. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator pardon a single question? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HAWLEY. Did not California and the whole coast there 
 make exactly such bonds? Did they not keep themselves on a gold 
 basis during the whole war, and ever since? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am glad that the Senator has men 
 tioned this, because I can show the utter want of resemblance between 
 the situation to which he refers and that which I am considering. 
 We made contracts in gold for the reasons I have stated, and we paid 
 them in gold because we agreed in terms to do so ; but when we made 
 a contract payable in lawful money of the United States we paid it in 
 lawful money, the debtor determining the kind of lawful money. We 
 never permitted the creditor who had entered into a contract with us 
 which was by its terms to be satisfied by payment "in coin" to dictate 
 the character of coin that we shall give him, and we have never known 
 an instance of anyone having the audacity to make such a demand. 
 
 I have said, Mr. President, that our own legislation is responsi 
 ble for much of our present trouble. I find in support of my position 
 a letter quoted as having been written by the senior Senator from Ohio 
 [Mr. SHERMAN]. I know nothing as to its authenticity except that I 
 find it in a respectable paper and I assume it is correct. I will read it. 
 It was written in 1868, regarding the question of which I am now 
 speaking. It is said to have been received by Hon. A. Mann, of 
 Brooklyn Heights, N. Y. : 
 
 DEAR SIR : I was pleased to receive your letter. My personal interests are 
 the same as yours, but, like you, I do not intend to be influenced by them. 
 My construction of the law is the result of careful examination, and I feel 
 quite sure an impartial court would confirm it if the case could be tried 
 before a court. I send you my views as fully stated in a speech. Your idea 
 is that we propose to repudiate or violate a promise when w r e offer to redeem 
 the principal in legal tenders. 
 
 I think the bondholder violates his promise when he refuses to take the 
 same kind of money he paid for the bonds. If the case is to be tested by the 
 law, I am right ; if it is to be tested by Jay Cooke s advertisements, I am 
 wrong. I hate repudiation or anything like it, but we ought not to be deterred 
 from doing what is right by the fear of undeserved epithets. If, under the 
 law as it stands, the holders of the five-twenties can only be paid in gold, 
 then we are repudiators if we propose to pay otherwise. If the bondholder 
 can legally demand only the kind of money he paid, then he is a repudiator 
 and extortioner to demand money more valuable than he gave. 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 JOHN SHERMAN. 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 75 
 
 I have collected, or rather there has been collected by Mr. Young, 
 whom I before quoted, and published in the San Francisco Chronicle, 
 excerpts from a debate which was had in this Chamber, together with 
 remarks thereon, which I adopt. It reads thus : 
 
 Not only did the monometallists in the Senate betray their tender consid 
 erations for the bondholder by insisting that he should receive payment in a 
 dollar not used by the common people, but being beaten on that point they 
 attempted to secure for him a silver dollar containing about 42 grains more 
 than the dollar they would have cheerfully given to the people. After roundly 
 denouncing the silver dollar of 412^ grains as a cumbrous and undesirable 
 coin various monometallist Senators proposed amendments to increase lits 
 weight. Senator MORRILL of Vermont, for instance, proposed a dollar of 454 
 grains and antagonized the adoption of an amendment offered by Booth, which 
 was subsequently incorporated in the bill. Mr. Booth, explaining the amend 
 ment, said: 
 
 " It is constantly objected that silver is not a proper material of which to 
 make money because it is too cumbersome; but certificates of deposit for silver 
 will circulate just as freely as certificates of deposit for gold, and just as 
 easily. And in reply to the suggestion of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. 
 WHYTE] allow me to say that this section is copied substantially from the 
 section of the existing law which allows deposits of gold and makes the 
 United States the safe depository for gold on the same terms that this proposes 
 to make it for silver." 
 
 Senator Blaine, whose attitude on the bill was on the whole against bimet 
 allism, was too logical to oppose Booth s amendment, and in the course of 
 the debate took occasion to express his approval of the silver certificate plan. 
 He was interrupted when speaking, and the following colloquy ensued : 
 
 " MR. MORRILL. May I ask the Senator from Maine if he does not consider 
 it (proposition to issue silver certificates) a confession that silver is a cum 
 brous and inconvenient article to carry, and that this is a mode to obviate it? 
 
 " MR. BLAINE. Not at all. 
 
 "MR. MORRILL. A mode of getting paper instead? 
 
 " MR. BLAINE. No more than it is as to gold. You do that for gold today. 
 You give exactly the same certificate for gold. J 
 
 "MR. BOOTH. It is seldom I intrude upon the Senate, but the junior Senator 
 from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL], if I am right, is in favor of a very heavy silver 
 dollar. He favors a dollar of 454 grains." 
 
 The amendment, which reads as follows, was opposed by every gold advo 
 cate in the Senate and almost unanimously accepted by the advocates of 
 remonetization. We give it place here and lay stress upon it because there are 
 in California alleged friends of silver who are constantly asserting that the 
 standard dollar will not circulate and are lying idle in the Treasury, in willful 
 disregard of the fact that there are certificates outstanding against nearly every 
 dollar of silver reposing in the Government vaults : 
 
 "That any holder of the coin authorized by this act may deposit the 
 same with the Treasurer or any assistant treasurer of the United States in 
 sums of not less than $10 and receive therefor certificates of not less than 
 $10 each, corresponding with the denominations of the United States notes. 
 The coin deposited for or representing the certificates shall be retained in 
 the Treasury for the payment of the same on demand. Said certificates shall 
 be receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received 
 may be reissued." 
 
 Mr. MORRILL, who had at one stage of the proceedings denounced the 
 silver dollar of 412^ grains as cumbrous and undesirable, and who rather 
 inconsistently proposed to increase its weight to 454 grains, instead of accept 
 ing his defeat gracefully, proposed the following amendment : 
 
 "And provided further, That for any amount of silver dollars which may 
 be issued under this act there shall be reserved and cancelled by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury an equal amount of United States notes of denominations less 
 than $5." 
 
 Mr. MORRILL stated that the object of his amendment was to get the silver 
 dollar into circulation, but the Senate recognized the fact that its purpose was 
 
76 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 to contract the currency, or at least prevent its expansion by retiring legal- 
 tender dollars as rapidly as standard silver dollars were coined. The Senate 
 promptly rejected the amendment, all of the gold men voting for it. 
 
 Mr. President, I have said that I did not intend to wage war upon 
 any class ; and the criticisms which I have made and shall make, are 
 not directed at those who carry on any particular business, unless 
 they come within the statement which I present. 
 
 In the queen city of the Empire state a city which largely influ 
 ences the affairs of this Republic and to some extent controls its des 
 tiny there are to be found in proportion to population as many able 
 and patriotic men and women as can be encountered elsewhere ; and 
 it is probable that the proportion of wealthy men who are otherwise 
 than as they should be, is not greater there than in other portions 
 of the country. 
 
 When the nation was in peril, when she was threatened with 
 dismemberment, the brave men of New York did more than utter 
 patriotic expressions. Their state contributed to the cause of the Union 
 her full quota and made a record for valor and leadership second to 
 none. Still, it is undeniable that there are within that busy city a 
 number of immensely affluent people who, while expressing much 
 solicitude for the laborer and farmer, and while hoping that every 
 man will get an honest dollar, and that the poor may be clothed and 
 fed, do not act as if they were sincere in their professions. We 
 have been informed, and the statement is no doubt true, that during 
 the panic thousands of depositors were unpaid, and the reason given 
 for this non-payment was the inability of those who held the money 
 to meet their obligations ; and thus national bank after national bank 
 committed admitted acts of bankruptcy. 
 
 It has been demonstrated that at that period there were in the 
 vaults of those institutions an enormous amount of money which 
 would have done much to alleviate the suffering which prevailed in 
 New York. 
 
 No one will charge the New York World with partiality in favor 
 of silver people. No one will say that that journal attempted to 
 raise a commotion or create feeling against the moneyed interests of 
 the metropolis. Yet I learn from that paper that there were thou 
 sands of people of that great city out of employment and hundreds 
 needing bread. I quote the following from the World of the 6th. 
 
 "THE BREAD GAVE OUT/ 
 
 For two days this cry has ended the story of the distribution of The World s 
 Free Bread Fund. 
 
 After 9,000 had been fed the door was reluctantly shut in the faces of 500 
 hungry poor. 
 
 This should not be permitted to happen again. It is a pity, and if continued 
 it would be a shame for any to be turned away empty-handed who ask only 
 a loaf of bread. 
 
 Five hundred dollars will feed 10,000 people. In this city of luxury and 
 liberality that small sum daily surely should not be lacking. 
 
 The contributions from the benefit performance to-morrow by star actors 
 always quick in sympathy and prompt in charity will give the fund a lift. 
 But the individual subscriptions ought not to slacken. 
 
 With the improvement of the times the need is likely to diminish. While 
 it lasts it must be met. 
 
 I lately noticed two illustrations in that paper which, blended, 
 represented the following: There was a miserable hovel. The walls 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 77 
 
 were apparently broken. Mould oozed through the cracks ; the floor 
 seemed ill-suited to the use made of it. In one corner was a bed 
 scarcely competent to maintain its burden, and upon it was stretched 
 a miserably covered woman. Her despairing countenance told the sad 
 story of hunger unappeased. The skin seemed to be drawn tightly 
 and closely to her frame. Not old, she was worn from suffering. 
 Her hands were clasped upon her breast, from which an infant then 
 crying upon the floor, had drawn almost the last drop of her life. Her 
 glassy eyes were turned upward in mute appeal for that justice which 
 had never been awarded her here. Near the door stood a man poorly 
 clad. Upon his cheek there was a tear. He looked in bitter anguish 
 upon his suffering family. The artist had written across his breast the 
 words, "No work." Near the bed paused a girl, perhaps 14 or 15 
 years of age. Her face was that of a woman, and she was obviously 
 thoroughly conscious of the terrible character of her situation. A 
 toddling boy weeping, embraced his father s leg, and looking up into 
 his parent s face seemed to say, "I want something to eat." 
 
 The reporter who saw all this passed perhaps several blocks away 
 from the sad scene and there encountered a magnificent mansion. 
 He delayed, responsive to the enchantment of music. 
 
 There was a sound of revelry by night. 
 
 Had he looked beyond the externals of this grand abode, he would 
 have beheld all the splendor and delight of a New York financier s 
 home. He would have noticed beautiful women in gorgeous attire, 
 attractive and attracted. He would have seen costly furnishings before 
 which the fabled glories of antiquity would have seemed as nothing, 
 liveried servants parading in styles borrowed from insolvent lords 
 and barons. Perhaps the proprietor of this palace, the gentleman who 
 thus entertained his friends, is one of those who has urged his news 
 paper representatives to attack this Senate upon the ground that the 
 repeal of the Sherman law would make the poor happy. Perhaps he 
 has closed his bank and refused to pay a dollar to his depositors. Per 
 haps he is one of those who have determined to create misery that 
 Congress may come to time. 
 
 During the enactment of all these bewildering scenes, and while 
 these very variant circumstances are displayed behind the curtain of 
 life which I have sought to lift, we are told by the New York World 
 that it has been difficult in that center of enlightenment and worth 
 to secure enough money to supply the poor with loaves of bread. And 
 mid these happenings in the great harbor of New York, with face 
 turned toward the sea, seeming to look over the ocean, upon which 
 ride, and must for ages ride, the ships of civilization, freighted with 
 the mighty wealth that commerce moves, stands a colossal statue, pre 
 sented to this Republic in token of her superiority and as proof of her 
 right to claim pre-eminence in the councils of freedom: In its right 
 hand that statue holds, extended far above its massive front, a brilliant 
 and flashing torch it is Liberty enlightening the world ! 
 
 But those of whom I am treating otherwise than in praise, un 
 fortunately exert or have exerted a vast influence upon the affairs of 
 this country. There has never been a time of monetary stringency 
 when they have not pinched this Government. They have dared to use 
 the National Treasury for their personal aggrandizement. Not only 
 
78 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 that, but they assume to control the policy of the Government where 
 financial affairs are in any wise concerned. As citizens of the United 
 States they have a right to express their views and criticise their public 
 officers, and to this no sensible man will object. But they do not, 
 either in fact or in theory, thus limit themselves. They wish to rule 
 and desire that those who ought to be the servants of the people shall 
 be their servants only. 
 
 To illustrate the peculiar tendencies of this class I will call atten 
 tion to the remarks of one of the wealthiest men who has ever been 
 in our country, and who was called upon two or three years back 
 to give such information as he possessed concerning certain com 
 binations and stock operations supposed to be injurious to the public. 
 After those who were examining him had made several suggestions 
 and had interrogated him as to whether in his judgment some of his 
 dealings were not contrary to public policy, he said with some asperity 
 in substance: "If these things that I do are against public policy and 
 wrong, why do you not make your laws so as to prevent me from 
 accomplishing them? As long as your laws are as they are I will act 
 as I have acted." 
 
 The expression "your laws" impressed me as exceedingly sig 
 nificant. This man was a citizen of the United States, was supposed 
 to exert much influence upon our elections because of his unlimited 
 means, and yet he said your laws," indicating that he considered him 
 self without the pale of Republican fraternity. Then his remark, that 
 he would act as he had acted until prevented by punitive legislation, 
 amounted to saying that his deeds could not be controlled by anything 
 binding only in the forum of his conscience. Nothing but a penal en- 
 actmtnt could hold him to moral rectitude. His attitude was indeed 
 piratical. While he did not sail upon the ocean flying the black flag, 
 the platform upon which he thus stood, the sentiments he thus an- 
 noiriced, and the course of conduct he pursued justified the assertion 
 that he was hostis hutnani generis. 
 
 Tn the present controversy we have familiar instances of similar 
 arrogance. A few days ago a New York dispatch announced that a 
 prominent banker had been waited on by a reporter for the purpose of 
 ascertaining his views with reference to a rumored conversation said to 
 have taken place between the President, the Secretary of the Treasury 
 and other officials concerning the State-bank tax. The reporter asked 
 this Wall street financier his opinion of the proposed measure. 
 "Well." said the latter, "I have not examined the proposition very 
 closely, but do not think I would like it. However, there need not be 
 any solicitude, because the Administration will not pass any financial 
 legislation without consulting us ; hence there need be no anxiety upon 
 the part of the public regarding the subject." 
 
 Another Wall street man was also reported as having been inter 
 viewed, and he expressed himself in much the same way ; adding, how 
 ever, that the country would never be satisfied with any bill that did 
 not meet approval of the fraternity to which he belonged. Such men 
 claim to know the sentiment of the people. 
 
 A telegram in the Washington Post of Monday tells us that cer 
 tain bankers in New York City have censured the chairman of the 
 Finance Committee because he has yielded too much to the silver 
 men, and the chairman is spoken of in anything but complimentary 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 79 
 
 teims. His censors declare that he is unfit for the position that he 
 occupies because he has made concessions. The same paper also an 
 nounces that the Senator from Indiana acted wrongfully in "refusing 
 to consult us." 
 
 I have no doubt but that if such a request was made, the chairman 
 of the Finance Committee would refuse to pay any attention to it. 
 I know that he would much rather consult a gathering of farmers 
 residing at a point distant from this capitol and who are unable to 
 come here, than to visit the New York magnates who are now 
 attempting to dictate to him. These people do not appreciate the situ 
 ation or dignity of the man whom they assail the chairman of the 
 committee which at this juncture is the most important of this body; 
 a man who has served in the Congress of his country for a large por 
 tion of a generation ; who has had the confidence of his constituents 
 and of the public ; who has labored thus long and earnestly, sacrificing 
 numerous opportunities for advancing his fortune, and above all a 
 Senator of the United States whose obligation to the people is para 
 mount to his duty to any individual. 
 
 This man is abused because he will not take his gospel from men 
 whom he has justly criticised and for whom he has properly expressed 
 his contempt for these many years, and regarding whom in his opening 
 speech he told many truths, most unpalatable, no doubt, to them. Nor 
 do they appreciate that the Senator from Indiana has been placed in 
 an attitude which cannot be agreeable to him, because he is antagoniz 
 ing the views of a large number of gentlemen whose opinions upon the 
 real merits of the silver question do not differ from those which he has 
 long entertained, and vigorously and eloquently championed. If the 
 chairman of the Committee on Finance needs any proof that he is still 
 a gcod silver man, it is furnished by the opposition of his Wall street 
 critics and their newspaper subordinates. 
 
 Whenever I conclude that the Senator from Indiana has aban 
 doned the cause to which he has given the best days of his life I will 
 have no confidence in myself. I differ from him in this instance, but 
 1 do not doubt his good faith. 
 
 I am aware, of course, that it is idle to dwell upon the wealth of 
 one person and the poverty of another. Legislation can never obviate 
 this difficulty. 
 
 It has often been said that if we were to commence on any given 
 day upon an equal footing, the evening would find us in varying cir 
 cumstances. 
 
 But I have cited the instances mentioned and have referred to 
 want of patriotism of a limited but very powerful class that the coun 
 try might appreciate the necessity for the maintenance of those rules 
 which have ever guided this body, and that the Senate of the United 
 States is not subject to the dictation of a dishonest element, however 
 strong it may be. 
 
 But a few days ago it was said by the newspaper critics that 
 there was not a Senator on this floor who had anything to contribute 
 who had not been fully heard ; yet we know that Senators who have 
 spoken more recently, as well as others who gave expression to their 
 views earlier in this debate, all contributed to our instruction, and the 
 Instruction of the country, and each of them spoke upon his conscience, 
 with dignity and with advantage to those who would listen or who 
 
80 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 may read. I, in common with each Senator am present because I 
 consider it to be my duty. I am acting in accordance with what I 
 deem to be the sentiments of the masses of my countrymen. 
 
 There is an honest difference as to the wishes of the people. I am 
 absolutely of the opinion that my State is with me. My views upon 
 this subject are not unknown. I nave expressed them many times. 
 They have been crystallized at my instigation in the platform of more 
 than one Democratic convention in the State of California. I have 
 never retracted a word that I have said upon the subject of free coin 
 age, and I am here taking the position which I have occupied for years. 
 I believe that we are all endeavoring to do our best, fully aware of the 
 great responsibility resting upon us, and which is not resting upon 
 those individuals who are attacking us ; and it might as well be under 
 stood now as at any other time that our obligations will be performed 
 regardless of such assaults. 
 
 If there is at this time any matter the chairman of the Committee 
 on Finance thinks of sufficient importance to dispose of, I have no 
 objection, though I can proceed if it will suit better. It is convenient 
 either way as far as I am concerned. I do not wish to disturb the 
 regular business of the Senate. It is agreeable to me to yield, and it is 
 perfectly agreeable to me to continue. 
 
 I lately asked a gentleman who favors unconditional repeal 
 whether he thought we are suffering from a lack of currency, and he 
 said " undoubtedly." 
 
 I asked another gentleman, also an enthusiast in the same cause, 
 his opinion, and he stated that we were not suffering from a want of 
 currency. Yet both of them agreed that there should be unconditional 
 repeal. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury informs us that 
 
 No greater mistake could be committed than to assume that the present 
 financial embarrassment is caused by an actual scarcity of money in the country. 
 
 One of the most eloquent, unconditional repealers, who has 
 spoken during the present Congress, says : 
 
 I venture the assertion that we are not suffering to-day from a lack of 
 money, but from a redundancy of money. 
 
 " Redundancy " is defined as being " anything superfluous exceed 
 ing what is natural or necessary. Superabundant, exuberant." So 
 that we are suffering from superfluous, superabundant, and perhaps 
 exuberant money. 
 
 The cause of our difficulty seems to be, according to this theory, 
 that we have too much of a good thing, a proposition which, however 
 much it may be appreciated by others, and I and my friends decline to 
 believe, for not only do we discover that money is not superabundant, 
 but that it is uncommonly difficult to procure. Or, if there be such a 
 redundancy, the elusive character of the metal may account for our 
 failure to hold it. The more common view taken by the friends of the 
 pending bill seems to be that money is scarce, and consequently that 
 business can not be done. 
 
 I mention these conflicting views to show that our opponents can 
 not reconcile their arguments. It is plain that the repeal of the Sher 
 man bill can not be insisted upon on the theory that our circulation is 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 81 
 
 too contracted, because the effect of that measure has necessarily been 
 to increase the circulation. And it is equally obvious that no argu 
 ment based upon the hypothesis that we have too much money will 
 ever be considered sound by men who have not enough to transact 
 their daily affairs. 
 
 It is a fact, as stated by one of the very able speakers who has 
 addressed the present Congress, " that one dollar in actual circulation, 
 moving about in business circles with rapidity, is worth any number 
 of dollars fastened up in a safe or located in a bureau drawer." He 
 might have added that one dollar in circulation is of greater commer 
 cial importance than any amount of precious metal which may be 
 buried under the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It ought not to be diffi 
 cult to convince a man who is ready to recognize the effect of a logical 
 statement that it is much easier to get a dollar when there are a mil 
 lion dollars in circulation than to obtain such dollar when there are 
 only a thousand in existence. 
 
 If not novel it is at least worth noting that in this day and gener 
 ation an ample circulating medium is a bad thing. Why can not we 
 support as large a circulation as France ? We need a more liberal cir 
 culation than that country. 
 
 Taking the position of our opponents, it may be summarized this 
 way : If contraction is bad, the Sherman law caused contraction ; if 
 expansion is bad, the Sherman law caused expansion. The Sherman 
 law is indeed a most unfortunate enactment. It excites my pity. I feel 
 for the unfortunate measure. It has no friends. According to the 
 statements of those who voted for it it never had any friends. Most 
 of them supported it because in its absence silver would be more liber 
 ally dealt with. These gentlemen, who were far-seeing, if not particu 
 larly candid, knew that the Bland-Allison act was more favorable to 
 silver, and hence they were willing to substitute. The Democrats were 
 aware of the same thing, and they voted against the Sherman bill, be 
 cause, although they preferred free coinage to any such measure, they 
 nevertheless desired the Bland-Allison act rather than the Sherman act. 
 
 Under these conditions it is suggested by a Democratic Admin 
 istration that the latter act be repealed. The Bland-Allison act having 
 already departed this life, silver is to be hopelessly abandoned. 
 
 Said the author of the bill under consideration, in speaking of the 
 same: 
 
 The bill proposed here would not demonetize a single silver dollar now 
 circulating in any part of the country; the bill has come, not to destroy but 
 to save; it has come not to strike down silver but to place it at once and 
 forever on an impregnable basis with gold in the circulation of the country. 
 
 Says the President of the United States, in his message to Con 
 gress : 
 
 At this stage gold and silver must part company, and the Government 
 must fail in its established policy to maintain the two metals on a parity with 
 each other. 
 
 So the author of the bill introduced it for the purpose of saving 
 silver; and the President recommends, urges, and insists upon its pas 
 sage, so that silver and gold shall part company. 
 
 I do not desire to convey the idea that I doubt the good intentions 
 
82 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of those who here hold opinions differing from my own, but good in 
 tentions will not suffice. Said Mr. Webster: 
 
 Good intentions will always be pleaded for assumption of power, but they 
 cannot justify it even if we were sure that it existed. It is hardly too strong 
 to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers 
 of good intentions, real or pretended. 
 
 It has been charged that those who are opposed to unconditional 
 repeal are endeavoring to attach something in the nature of what is 
 commonly called " a rider " to the bill. This is entirely unfounded. 
 The act in question proposes to amend the Sherman law by repealing 
 one of its clauses. It is admitted that there must be further financial 
 legislation, and yet it is sought to first accomplish a repeal and then 
 afterwards to prepare that which logically should be an amendment or 
 a substitute. The argument that because people are frightened and 
 have been deluded by monometallists into the belief that the Sherman 
 law is in some way connected with their misfortunes we should vote 
 contrary to that which we hold to be common sense, is unworthy of 
 consideration. 
 
 It is our obligation to explain to the people the bearing of the 
 Sherman law upon the country, and thus restore confidence. Instead 
 of pandering to a meaningless panic we should reason with those who 
 have participated in it. It is palpable that the addresses that have been 
 made in this Chamber and elsewhere have done much to convince the 
 public that there is nothing in the pretense that the Sherman act is at 
 the bottom of all our misfortunes. 
 
 It is true that some capitalists threaten to get up another panic, 
 but I do not believe they can succeed. At all events, it is not a bad 
 idea to find out who controls this Government. 
 
 Those who are opposed to unconditional repeal have appreciated 
 the pleasant references made to their exertions by the New York 
 World. I remember seeing some articles a short time since in the St. 
 Louis Republic. That newspaper was edited, as we all know, by the 
 distinguished gentlemen whose pen now writes from day to day our 
 obituaries in the World. 
 
 Mr. COCKRELL. In the New York World? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. In the New York World. I believe 
 about the middle of last May he transferred his services to that journal 
 and from that stand he is writing- to us and of us. 
 
 I have been looking up the St. Louis Republic during the period 
 of this gentleman s occupancy of the editorial chair. I am about to re 
 port the result, not to make him experience unpleasant sensations, for 
 that I would not do, but because he was the chairman of the committee 
 on resolutions of the last Democratic national convention, and from 
 the platform he read to the assembled Democracy the party principles 
 there adopted, with the exception of the change in the tariff plank, 
 which was made upon the floor. As to the silver plank, it came from 
 the committee over which he presided, and he personally read it. His 
 declarations now are valuable for another purpose. 
 
 Senators have been annoyed at his remarks, but I desire to assure 
 them that the New York World does not mean a word it says upon 
 this subject. The harsh expressions therein contained are used in a 
 Pickwickian sense, and when Senators are charged with a violation of 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 83 
 
 duty by this gentleman, he merely acts as the instrument of another. 
 He is there to write for that side. He does not pen his real sentiments. 
 I am endeavoring to vindicate him, and hence, I wish to show you his 
 actual opinions, not only to exonerate him, but likewise to present the 
 arguments to the Senate which he formerly utilized and which are 
 deserving of consideration. 
 
 In the St. Louis Republic of April 4, he said : 
 
 A Senator is quoted as saying that Mr. Cleveland is amazed at the strength 
 of the free-silver element in his party. That is nonsense. Mr. Cleveland 
 knows very well that nine hundred and ninety-nine Democrats in every 
 thousand are standing squarely on the declaration of their party platform in 
 favor of the coinage of silver and gold without mint charge and without discrim 
 ination against either metal. 
 
 NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE DEMOCRATS IN EVERY THOUSAND. 
 
 It is good news that the proportion is thus large, but I am led to 
 fear that it has been reduced somewhat hereabouts. I have never 
 doubted that the mass of the people were that way. I presume that 
 this article may be considered accurate as applying to the people rather 
 than to Congress. 
 
 Again, he said in the same paper on April 26 of this present year, 
 but a very few days before the World articles were put before us : 
 
 The financial platform adopted at the Chicago convention as part of the 
 platform on which the Democratic party defeated Harrison, would form the 
 basis for an admirable Treasury policy a policy of bimetallism, first, last, 
 and all the time. It would furnish admirable reading for Secretary Carlisle 
 whenever a few dozen millionaires and a few hundred speculators try to convince 
 him that they are the people. 
 
 This is solid reading. There is truth in it, I admit; but such an 
 announcement would not look well in the New York World. 
 
 In an editorial appearing in the Republic less than a week before 
 the gentleman quoted commenced work upon the World, under the 
 heading, " Against a ruinous contraction," we find the following : 
 
 It ought to be generally understood that the present policy of redeeming 
 the Sherman silver-bullion notes in gold only is temporary, and that the 
 Democratic party is so far from being committed to it that it disproves and con 
 demns it. This is borne out by the party s record since 1873, as well as by the 
 national platform adopted last year at Chicago. Democrats have never ceased 
 to denounce the demonetization of silver. 
 
 Then follow some references to the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
 SHERMAN], which I shall not read. 
 
 In the Republic of May 9 our friend makes the following savage 
 declaration : 
 
 Secretary Carlisle has demonstrated that with the aid of the West and the 
 South he can maintain the Treasury reserve fund, and the New York banks can 
 go to thunder. 
 
 That the Republic had but little faith in the panic is illustrated by 
 the following, taken from the issue of May 8 : 
 
 Having discovered that the rest of the country pays no attention to a 
 "panic" among its gamblers, and that Secretary Carlisle can not be stampeded 
 by a speculative " squeeze," Wall street may be expected to pull itself together 
 this week and indulge in some wholesome meditation upon the fact that its con 
 trol of the finances and trade of the country is errevocably lost. 
 
84 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 The course since pursued by our editor implies that Wall street 
 has pulled itself together and has pulled the editor of the World. 
 In the issue of May 8 I find this : 
 
 Well, Wall street has had its threatened "panic," and what is the result? 
 A few lame ducks are fluttering from additional wounds, some of the water 
 has been squeezed out of the inflated stocks, and the legitimate business of 
 the country goes on steadily and prosperously. The time when a flurry among 
 Wall street speculators could bring on a crash in the finances and trade of 
 the country is gone forever and the country s business is all the healthier 
 for it. 
 
 That this teacher of the people was right in his faith as to the 
 brief life of the panic is corroborated by the views of our very excel 
 lent and able Comptroller of the Currency, who in an address delivered 
 at a dinner tendered to him by the bankers of Chicago on the I4th of 
 this month, said : 
 
 One of the greatest dailies of New York, in the introductory to an account 
 of a dinner there given two months since, at which I had the honor to be 
 the guest, said : " Amid the crashing and toppling of Western banks the bankers 
 of New York, Republicans and Democrats ajike, met last night and gave expres 
 sion to their faith in the financial stability of our country. It can be but 
 a source of natural congratulation that the gathering of to-night is under 
 other and different circumstances. The disasters then threatening, happily for 
 us have all passed away. No longer banks are suspending and factories 
 closing, but instead, reopenings are the order of the day, and whirling spindles 
 and smoking forges are furnishing labor for the army of unemployed." 
 
 But I am digressing. Some one may say that there is no incon 
 sistency in the attitude of the editor of the New York World, because 
 he may be in favor of silver and yet desire to repeal the purchasing 
 clause. But that he was a vigorous opponent of unconditional repeal 
 is manifest from the St. Louis Republic of May 8, where occurs the 
 following : 
 
 It is reported from Washington that a poll of the House of Representatives 
 shows a majority of 35 in favor of free coinage of silver. In such a House 
 it will be easy to redeem the pledges of the Democratic platform to repeal 
 the Sherman law and to substitute for it the coinage of both gold and 
 silver, without discriminating against either metal and without charge for 
 mintage. 
 
 This is very important, not because it illustrates the inconsistency 
 of a gentleman who was expressing his sentiments in the St. Louis 
 Republic on May 8, and who, though he writes editorials for the New 
 York World, does not express the same views therein for the ques 
 tion of his consistency or inconsistency is not vital and is only valu 
 able as evidence tending to show the exact situation of the contest 
 but because he is a prominent member of the Democratic party. He 
 certified to the silver plank in his party s platform. Not only did he 
 certify to it, but he was chairman of the committee which framed it, 
 and he actually read it to the assembled Democracy, and it is with 
 pleasure that I refer to his construction of that platform, and that I 
 call attention of Senators to the circumstance that he agrees that the 
 Sherman law should be repealed, and that there should be a substitute 
 for that law providing for the coinage of both gold and silver without 
 discriminating against either metal and without charge of mintage. 
 " So say we all." 
 
 Mr. PALMER. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 85 
 
 I wish to say that Mr. Jones did not read the declaration of principles, 
 according to my remembrance, I was on the platform at the time, 
 and I think it was read by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. VILAS.] 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. My impression is that Mr. Jones 
 went up to read it; but that is quite unimportant. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. I know that. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. My impression is that the Senator 
 is mistaken, but I may be in error about it. I am not at all dogmatic 
 on that point. My recollection was that way, but it is a matter which 
 did not impress me very much then. 
 
 Mr. BATE. I would say to the Senator from California that 
 the gentleman, to whom he is referring was the chairman of the com 
 mittee on resolutions. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Yes, the chairman of the committee. 
 On reflection, I think the gentleman took the stand with the platform 
 and then the Senator from Wisconsin read them. 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Yes, that is my recollection. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Well, he stood by it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. PALMER. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. McPHERSON. The Senator may remember another thing 
 which perhaps may be of importance in that connection. The gentle 
 man to whom the Senator from California refers was not the chair 
 man of the subcommittee which formulated the draft of the platform, 
 nor a member of the subcommittee. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I spoke not of a subcommittee, for 
 a subcommittee is not the committee. I spoke of the committee. 
 Hence I do not concede that I have been corrected. The gentleman 
 I referred to was chairman of the committee. I do not mean to say 
 that he wrote this particular plank; that he actually sat down and 
 penned it. I do not know who penned it. It has a composite appear 
 ance in some aspects ; but let us not be too technical in this matter. He 
 was chairman of that committee. He came into the convention, and 
 another gentleman, it seems, took the resolutions and read them 
 to the convention. 
 
 We are now told that a subcommittee drafted this plank. All 
 right, but that gentleman was chairman of that committee. He 
 was not only as responsible as any one of the members, but was 
 under all rules, more directly concerned than anyone else with refer 
 ence to its framing. It suited him, Mr. President, for in his paper 
 he declared for that construction which we here contend for, and 
 which is justified by the terms of the instrument. 
 
 On May 5 the same editor remarked in the Republic : 
 
 Gold is not heavily exported from the Mississippi Valley, because it loses 
 in value by abrasion so that it is not worth its face, and because its weight 
 makes the expense of freight a very considerable item. To secure its exporta 
 tion, however, the Federal Treasury can pay the freight on it and store it 
 in the New York subtreasury, giving Western and Southern holders green 
 backs and silver certificates in exchange. These will answer every purpose 
 of money, and by continuing this process of collecting at public expense as 
 much gold as possible in the New York subtreasury it will be comparatively 
 easy to get it out of the country. Perhaps after all this would be the best 
 way of solving the gold question. 
 
 And now he is afraid that gold may leave us. In the issue of 
 May 2 there is a very pointed editorial attacking Wall street and com- 
 
86 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 menting upon the ability of Mr. Carlisle to resist the importunities of 
 the speculators. On that day, among other wise utterances, the 
 Republic said: 
 
 The quicker the extra session of Congress is called the better. In no other 
 way can Secretary Carlisle be so well defended from the Wall street speculators 
 and money dealers, who are determined to control the Treasury in spite of 
 the Democratic platform. 
 
 But, sad to relate, Mr. Editor, the extra session was called, and 
 the Democratic majority of 35 to which you referred passed away, 
 and because of influences, the nature of which I do not absolutely 
 know, but which have been surmised to be various, this majority was 
 obliterated, and the cause that was in the ascendant failed of support, 
 and the Senate of the United States at this moment is striving to re 
 sist the Wall street speculators and the money dealers who are de 
 termined to control the Treasury in spite of the Democratic platform, 
 a platform which you, Mr. Editor, helped to make and for which, as 
 far as this plank is concerned, it afforded me pleasure to vote. 
 
 Again, in an editorial of May 12, just on the eve of his depart 
 ure to New York, the gentleman already quoted says: 
 
 In the first place let us dispose of all questions about the Democratic 
 national platform adopted at Chicago by pointing out that the policy on which 
 the Federal Treasury is now conducted is Harrison s policy as carried out 
 by Mr. Foster, of Fostoria, late Secretary of the Treasury, as the representative 
 of Wall street ideas illustrated in the careers of Messrs. JOHN SHERMAN and 
 ZIMRI DWIGGINS. As this policy was adopted by the Harrison Administration 
 considerably before the meeting of the Democratic national convention, as that 
 convention condemned in sweeping terms the entire financial policy of the Har 
 rison Administration, as from that day to this there has been no change in 
 the policy so condemned, it is evident that neither the Democratic platform nor 
 the Democratic party is in any way responsible for it. Democrats have not 
 yet been able to rally to the support of Mr. Cleveland in such numbers as to 
 force a change, but they will do so, and that in the near future. 
 
 " In the near future," did you say ? I should fix it " in the sweet 
 by and by." 
 
 It is a matter of regret that the " rally " has not been had, or if 
 had, that it has been ineffectual. 
 
 Continuing in the same editorial, this ex-chairman of the commit 
 tee on resolutions of the Chicago convention says and this is ex 
 cathedra : 
 
 The bimetallism of the Democratic party means that silver and gold shall 
 be freely coined at the legal ratio and treated by the Government as legal 
 tenders of equal value when so coined. Under this policy silver would be paid 
 out at the convenience of the Treasury and we would hear nothing more of 
 the talk about the drain of gold. 
 
 This committee chairman ought to know. 
 
 Why do not the advocates of unconditional repeal change their 
 tactics, and while amending the Sherman law substitute in lieu of the 
 purchasing clause legislation that will allow silver and gold to be 
 freely coined at the legal ratio? Is it necessary to hold meetings of 
 committees and to deliberate weeks and weeks in the preparation of 
 such a silver measure? If the promises made in the bill introduced 
 by the Finance Committee are to be realized, let the realization be had. 
 
 I desire to say here that the honesty and elevated character of 
 several well-known bimetallists, who have been induced by readily 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 87 
 
 made promises to support unconditional repeal, render these gentle 
 men incapable of suspecting that which I feel confident is a fact, to 
 wit, that they will not be allowed to give us any financial relief. Why 
 not introduce a bill in the House of Representatives covering this sub 
 ject? Why not do something, gentlemen? Move a little. We yearn 
 for your proposition which is to be crystallized into a financial law. 
 " Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." 
 
 We have made promises ad nauseam, but promises are always 
 unsubstantial if there is a lack of faith in the intention or a want of 
 ability to perform. 
 
 Said the St. Louis Republic on April 30: 
 
 An esteemed and acute reader of the Republic writes that in less than a 
 week after the Boston bankers have been kind enough to give Mr. Carlisle 
 their gold for greenbacks they will send some one with the greenbacks around 
 to the New York subtreasury to draw out the gold again. This is entirely 
 within the range of possibilities. In fact, it is greatly to be feared that these 
 people are having fun with Mr. Carlisle. But he is entirely too high-minded 
 to suspect them of it. 
 
 I fear that these people are having fun with a great many able, 
 distinguished, and conscientious gentlemen. 
 
 In a late issue of the World the junior Senator from Kentucky is 
 referred to as a worthy successor of Mr. Carlisle. In this I agree; 
 but let me say to him and to the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
 and to other Senators who are and for years have been friends of 
 bimetallism and the earnest advocates of free coinage, that it is greatly 
 to be feared that these people are having fun with them, and permjt 
 me to urge in tones of caution, that it will not do to have too much 
 regard for the promises of men whose lives have been devoted to mak 
 ing of fortunes because of the mistakes, inadvertences, and confiding 
 manliness of those with whom they have dealt. And such are the 
 persons who are seeking to delude us by assurances of relief to come. 
 
 From the Republic, May 9: 
 
 The only sound money for America is a currency of gold and silver, freely 
 coined. Any sort of bank note is unsound money. Any delegation of the 
 sovereign power of issuing money or tokens of exchange to any corporation 
 or individual, to any bank, State or national, is one of the worst forms of 
 robbery ever devised against the people, and it ought to be resisted by them 
 to the last extremity. 
 
 How would that editorial read in the New York World? It is 
 a sound editorial. I indorse it. I also agree with the Republic in 
 its editorial of May 10, wherein the following advice was given: 
 
 The talk of humiliating Mr. BLAND of Missouri merely because he insists 
 on representing the rank and file of the Democratic party will end in talk and 
 nothing else. The people who undertake to turn Mr. BLAND out of the Demo 
 cratic party will have to turn the party out with him. 
 
 That is severe. 
 
 In the Republic of May 9, there is an editorial entitled " Money 
 and Sovereignty," wherein, among other things the editor in com 
 menting upon the attempt of the national banks to control the Govern 
 ment, says: 
 
 If the Democrats of the Valley allow their flank to be turned by the pluto 
 crats of Boston and Wall street; if they surrender the principle of bimetallic 
 currency, freely coined; if they fall in with the Northeastern plutocratic policy 
 
88 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of contraction of the national currency; if they sell the birthright of the people 
 for the concession of getting into local circulation a lot of stuff counterfeiting 
 money and passing as money with the ignorant, though under the Federal 
 Constitution a wagon load of it cannot be made to pay a dollar of the enormous 
 debt we owe to the Northeast if this is to be done and the sovereignty of 
 the people is to be delegated to corporations which with such a delegation 
 will be the people s masters, then we will have in the United States such a 
 condition of complete collapse and ruin as will show what folly it is to try to 
 divorce finance from common sense and common justice. 
 
 I wish it to be understood that I do not press these utterances 
 upon the Senate for the purpose of inconveniencing or injuring in the 
 slightest degree the gentleman who promulgated them. But in 
 addition to the reasons that I have already given I regard his argu 
 ments while he was upon the Republic as cogent, and am willing to 
 adopt the greater portion of them, certainly those which I have cited. 
 As he was the leader of those who made the national platform, I am 
 delighted to know that his view of the meaning of that platform 
 wholly coincides with mine. I am confident that he will be grateful 
 to me for my explanation. His present employment embarrasses his 
 opinions and if perchance he should say aught seemingly harsh you 
 must not forget that he can not help himself. Some, not all of our 
 Eastern metropolitan newspapers have pursued in many instances a 
 course that can bring them no credit. It was truly said by the Sen 
 ator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER ] that the days of great editors, who 
 molded the opinion of the country by their honest and brainy argu 
 ments, seems to have departed in many parts of the country. The 
 Hessian there holds the boards. Of course we have an able, honest, 
 and fearless press. I am not speaking of that press. 
 
 I have heard it stated that the effect of an increase of currency 
 will be to injure the poor depositors whose money is being kept by the 
 New York and other banks. It is true that the banks are in debt to 
 the depositors. When one of the advocates of the pending measure, 
 who claimed that its defeat will enrich the New York bankers, was 
 asked why do not the New York bankers favor it if its passage would 
 be of such vast assistance to their depositors, he responded that the 
 New York bankers would not take this money because they had learned 
 that " honesty is the best policy." I confess I do not credit this. I 
 do not think that the New York bankers refused to make $20,000,000 
 because " honesty is the best policy." They may be very good men, 
 but they have not been subjected to this temptation. 
 
 It sought to persuade us that the bankers of the country are in 
 debt, and that farming communities especially are all right because 
 they produce something, and the world at large must buy their pro 
 ducts. But the farmers are very largely mortgaged. I have shown 
 that the percentage of tenants is increasing. The more corn and wheat 
 they raise the poorer they get, because it costs more to produce the 
 crop than it brings in market. Of course they can eat some of their 
 wheat and corn and I presume that this satisfaction is deemed suf 
 ficient to afford them happiness but when they are all reduced to 
 a condition of tenancy, they may be denied even this right. 
 
 THE UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL OF THE SHERMAN LAW MEANS NO LEGISLATION IN THE 
 INTEREST OF SILVER OR IN THE INTEREST OF ANY CURRENCY EXCEPT GOLD. 
 
 Delenda est Carthago! thundered the imperious Roman. Silver 
 must be destroyed, declare the monometallists of today. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 89 
 
 The bill reported to the Senate by the committee on Finance 
 contains, in addition to the ordinary legislative matter, a promise that 
 Congress will do better than the terms of the bill indicate. 
 
 It is a Congressional function to enact a law which becomes 
 effectual when signed by the President, or when passed notwithstand 
 ing his dissent. Beyond this the Senate has no power to go. A reso 
 lution such as that contained in the Finance Committee s bill may be 
 aptly denominated a brutum fulmen it is without the jurisdiction of 
 this body. Its incorporation into a law is the mere injection of 
 extraneous matter wholly illogical and trifles with the public. 
 
 It is the function of Congress to enact laws, not to promise such 
 enactment. We have no jurisdiction to enter into a contract to enact 
 such a measure. Su ch a promise will not bind our successors, nor 
 can it bind us. 
 
 The man who will accept that declaration in lieu of that to which 
 the declaration admits silver is entitled, would be willing to subsist 
 upon assertion in lieu of substantial nutriment. 
 
 I can not question, as I have said, the good faith of the chairman 
 of the Committee on Finance. His eloquent address in advocacy of 
 the bill which he reported demonstrates that he is not in sympathy 
 with what I believe must be the effect of such legislation. That he 
 has been induced to report and support it is no argument reflecting 
 upon his integrity. He is acting bona fide. He thinks that if Con 
 gress repeals the Sherman law, that a measure akin to free coinage 
 will be passed and signed by the President. That the chairman of 
 the Committee on Finance has faith no one will deny, in view of this 
 condition of affairs. I am aware that he favors the free coinage of 
 silver. 
 
 I know this, because he has said so often and splendidly. He 
 has been led to believe that if this bill becomes a law, silver will find 
 advocates in the ranks of the repealers. I am not without confidence, 
 notwithstanding the times, but I hesitate before this decidedly test 
 ing proposition. To be candid, I think that the unconditional repeal 
 of the Sherman act is the end of financial legislation for the present. 
 While I know that many gentlemen think there is a financial system 
 approaching, I nevertheless assert that those who are dictating the 
 present movement aspire to ruin silver. It is sought to delude the 
 Senate into the belief that the Administration is utilizing its utmost 
 brain work to put silver upon its proper level ; and it is supposed that 
 the Chief Executive is engaged in this arduous task, notwithstanding 
 the fact that he has squarely declared that the hour has arrived when 
 gold and silver must part company. He does not equivocate. He is 
 now, as always, positive and direct. He has not said a word calcu 
 lated to deceive anyone. 
 
 There should be no question in the mind of any gentleman here 
 that the unconditional repeal of the Sherman bill ends financial legis 
 lation for this session. This is true for several reasons. First, 
 because Congress, under present influences, will not pass any remedial 
 legislation ; secondly, because if such legislation were enacted the 
 Presidential veto would be interposed. 
 
 I will say now that I have no patience with the view of duty 
 which practically concedes the right of the Executive to do the think 
 ing of the Senate. It is his duty to recommend. This he has done. 
 
90 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 It is our duty to consider his recommendations without fear, favor, 
 or affection. This I am endeavoring to do. The Senator from Texas 
 [Mr. MILLS], said tersely and forcibly the other day that the depart 
 ments of government must be kept strictly apart. I agree with him, 
 but do not concur in the inferences properly deducible from his 
 more recent remarks upon a kindred question. 
 
 Some one has said that he has followed the President s leader 
 ship. So have I. I did my best to promote his election in my State 
 in 1884 without results. In 1888 I had the honor to preside for half 
 the time over the national convention which nominated him for Pres 
 ident of the United States. I was a member of the last national con 
 vention, and my delegation voted for him solidly. 
 
 In my State exertions were made last year independent of the 
 slightest aid from the national committee in any way whatever, which 
 brought California into the Democratic fold. I have always 
 defended him and know him to be fearless and honest. Hence I say 
 that my attitude towards him can not be questioned when I speak of 
 it as being friendly. But as a Senator I criticise Executive declara 
 tions as a matter of duty, and because I deem it right so to do. I 
 have taken a position from which I do not propose to retreat until 
 satisfied that I have made a mistake. 
 
 IF THE INTRINSIC MERITS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY A FRIEND 
 OF SILVER THAT UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL IS A DEVICE OF THE GOLD MONOMETAL- 
 LISTS, THE SURROUNDINGS OUGHT TO SUPPLY ABSOLUTE PROOF. 
 
 We find the Republican party practically solid in favor of 
 unconditional repeal. We discover the authors of the demonetization 
 of 1873 and all the admitted monometallists insisting that uncondi 
 tional repeal is the salvation of the country. But we find the Presi 
 dent of the United States, who positively declares that gold and silver 
 must part company, appearing here through his message and urging 
 us to unconditional repeal as the means of carrying out his policy 
 that is to say, that gold and silver may part company, Mr. Cleveland 
 asks us to unconditionally repeal this law. If the consequence of un 
 conditional repeal is to force silver away from gold s companionship, 
 no one who believes in silver can support the scheme. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland s ability is conceded, and he tells us flatly that he 
 asks for this repeal so that the divorce of the metals shall be rendered 
 effectual ; no conditional decree does he propose ; it must be absolute 
 and complete. For my part I prefer to stand with the masses of the 
 Democratic party, who, I am persuaded, approve of the course of 
 whose leadership I am following. I regret that the Democracy of the 
 Chamber is not united. I know that there are able and conscientious 
 gentlemen on the other side, but I think I can see Democracy standing 
 with a tear upon her cheek and looking reproachfully at those who 
 have long been her champions and wearing an expression that seems to 
 say: 
 
 Shall we then meet as strangers, 
 After our dreams of joy? 
 
 Permit me to ask the friend of silver who urges unconditional re 
 peal to consider his associates in this matter ; to remember the history 
 and sentiments of the majority of those who are acting with him. 
 There are in that advocacy able and loyal men upon this side of the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 91 
 
 Chamber who have been in many a Democratic campaign and whose 
 integrity is indisputable. There are enlisted in the same cause Repub 
 licans who have done great service to their country and whose names 
 are linked with the story of her greatness ; but let me ask the advocate 
 of unconditional repeal to point out a Senator or any individual in or 
 out of this Chamber who is an absolute gold monometallist who is 
 not in favor of the pending measure. 
 
 IS IT UNNATURAL THAT THE SILVER STATES SHOULD APPEAL TO CONGRESS TO DO 
 THEM JUSTICE, AND HAS CONGRESS ANY RIGHT TO REFUSE THE APPEAL? 
 
 Colorado became a State before the Hayes-Tilden election. Had 
 it not been for Colorado Mr. Tilden would have been President. The 
 Electorial Commission would not have been heard of. 
 
 I have attempted to present the questions involved here without 
 reference to the interests or desires of any particular State. I recog-_ 
 nize that the legislation which Congress is called upon to enact involves 
 something beyond personal profit ; that it comprehends more than the 
 advancement of individual views, or the vindication of personal 
 theories. Hence, I have sought to argue the pending issue regardless 
 of advantages which might be conferred upon a particular person or 
 section by the adoption of the sentiments to which I subscribe ; because 
 I have recognized and do recognize the truth that it is the duty of the 
 Government to do that which is for the benefit of the greatest number 
 and to adopt that policy from which will flow the largest amount of 
 happiness. 
 
 Colorado was admitted to the Union at a time when she was able 
 to accomplish the triumph of a Republican President. Wyoming, 
 Montana, and Idaho were also admitted, mainly by Republican en 
 deavor. 
 
 I do not mention these circumstances because I have any doubt 
 of the right or duty of Congress to admit these States. Had I been 
 here I would have voted for admission. In this struggle Colorado 
 and Montana find that they are the principal silver producing States. 
 Idaho relies largely upon the same industry. Wyoming is tributary 
 in a degree to the territory covered by these States, and Colorado, by 
 whose vote Mr. Hayes became president, finds itself in direct antago 
 nism to the Republican party. I am a Democrat, firmly convinced of 
 the correctness of my party s principles, and yet I stand here and de 
 fend the cause in which the efforts of Colorado and Montana and 
 Idaho and other silver producing regions and their dependencies are 
 enlisted. I do this not because I believe that silver should be sold to 
 the Government for the benefit of silver-producers, but I hold to my 
 present view because I am satisfied that the cause of silver is not re 
 stricted to silver States and is not bounded even by the confines of 
 this Republic, but is circumscribed alone by the limits of enlighten 
 ment. 
 
 I have attempted to show why this country should maintain silver 
 coinage, and I have not said one word in support of the notion that 
 the United States should assist in the use of this metal because 
 certain States were greatly interested in its production. But I con 
 fess at this time to a feeling for the silver States. They were called 
 into the sisterhood of the American Union by the Republican party, 
 which at this moment laughs at their distress, smiles at their ruin, and 
 
92 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 plans their disintegration. These States come to this Congress pos 
 sessing the same sovereignty enjoyed by Massachusetts and New York. 
 They ask for friendly, nay, they have a right to expect affectionate 
 treatment. They are met with the cold blooded announcement that 
 their inhabitants are few in number, their taxable property immaterial, 
 and that for such reasons it is not a mistake to immolate them upon 
 the pyre erected by the magnates of Wall street. 
 
 Here I pause to set my foot firmly and immovably. I ask for 
 the enforcement of no policy destructive to our common country, but 
 I demand square behavior toward every member of that Union whose 
 permanency has been decreed in the storm of battle and proclaimed 
 by constitutional declaration. Colorado, Montana, and Idaho may not 
 dictate to their American sisters, but they cannot be ignored or re 
 pudiated. If there are any bright pages in the story of the Republican 
 party, they are to be found in the record of that great struggle which 
 culminated in the organic announcement which inhibits secession. My 
 Republican friends, you wooed Colorado, Idaho, and Montana into 
 the fold ; you brought them here upon the implied promise that they 
 would be benefited by the affiliation. You solicited them to enter 
 into a government contract from whose obligations they might never 
 be discharged, and having thus tied them to you, you are crowding 
 them to the wall. 
 
 Here in this hour, when the sunlight of liberty illumines the after 
 noon of the nineteenth century, you tell us that these States have no 
 rights which you are bound to respect. This I deny. I am a believer 
 in the reformation of the tariff. I am perhaps radical in my theories, 
 and yet when I am brought to the task of altering an instrument 
 based upon a different plan, which is the result of the legislation of 
 a generation, I will not hesitate to consider the status of those whose 
 property has been invested and whose experience has been had under 
 another policy supposed to be fixed and lasting. I comprehend what 
 the destruction of the silver industry means to Colorado, Montana, and 
 Idaho. I have no interest in either one of those Commonwealths ex 
 cept the interest which ought to be felt by each citizen of the United 
 States. 
 
 But I know that the enactment which is contemplated means the 
 ruin of the silver-mining States. You object because those States 
 produce. Why should they not produce? Why should their citizens 
 not demur to a programme which must degrade and bankrupt them? 
 Throughout all nature the oppressed protests against the oppressor. 
 History is pregnant with such examples. But reasonable beings do not 
 monopolize this characteristic. The least of God s creatures yield 
 obedience to the same law. Scarcely a worm crawls that does not 
 resent the heel of the intruder ; the serpent strikes, the poisonous adder 
 hisses when man places upon them the pressure of unfriendly contact ; 
 the sheep fiercely defends its offspring; the trembling and wounded 
 deer strikes the hound with deadly power. The harmless dove, spend 
 ing its powers to their utmost tension to escape its destroyer, and 
 spending its ultimate energies to elude the pursuit of its dreaded ad 
 versary, screams in pain and terror as it falls beneath the talons of the 
 kite. And shall we wonder if a Commonwealth, organized under our 
 Constitution and conformable to our laws, shall protest against the 
 enactment of a statute which shall substitute ruin for prosperity, sad- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 93 
 
 ness for joy, and which shall render her incompetent for existence; 
 which shall exile business from her cities, drive the miner from his 
 home, and leave to the eagle, the emblem of our liberty, to signal 
 desolation from its mountain eyrie? 
 
 Mr. President, if it is desired to aid the cause of silver, why can 
 we not incorporate in this bill an effective recognition of that metal? 
 It is idle to pretend that the subject must be more fully considered. 
 Complaint is made by parties within this body, and parties without, to 
 the effect that the Senate is taking up too much time. 
 
 Why do not the gentlemen who are becoming restive utilize their 
 industry and their talents in suggesting a financial measure such as 
 will meet the admitted demands of the country? Why is it that 
 they are incapable of doing this now, when, according to their theory, 
 they will be able to bring about the wished-for scheme later on ? 
 
 What hope can the people of the United States justly entertain 
 that a body incompetent to devise ways and means, in the month of 
 September, 1893, will develop proper qualifications later in the season? 
 Does the climate affect the financial ability of the anti-silver people, 
 and if the weather is not favorable to the solution of the broader ques 
 tion, I cannot understand the point that this is a good time for the 
 enactment of the pending measure. 
 
 The President of the United States holds out no hope to those 
 who are upon our side of this question. He flatly repudiates silver, 
 and those who know Mr. Cleveland and are aware of his firmness of 
 character, do not doubt that he will, as I have said, at once veto any 
 measure designed to accomplish any of the results for which the friends 
 of silver are struggling. I am no prophet, and I do not claim to pos 
 sess any kindred gift ; but the most ordinary intellectuality can safely 
 be depended upon to foretell the action of the President should a sep 
 arate measure extending the circulation of silver be presented to him. 
 He is anxious to repeal the Sherman act, and while he would not favor 
 an amendment recognizing the two metals as money, still, if he could 
 not obtain the repeal of the purchasing clause in any other mode, it 
 is probable that he would acquiesce in a fair compromise a compro 
 mise in public interest. 
 
 Senators may ask, What plan do you suggest? Mr. President, 
 we are not in a position to suggest an amendment, because it is openly 
 stated that those who have this bill in charge will not accept any amend 
 ment. They are absolute repealers nothing else. If we defeat un 
 conditional repeal, they will perhaps descend from their lofty eminence 
 and talk fair. As it is now, we are informed in advance that there is 
 no midway place of meeting ; that we must cross the street and present 
 ourselves in humble homage before the unmoved champions of abso 
 lute repeal. 
 
 The law does not require that which is useless. If, owing to 
 business relations with you, Mr. President, it is my duty to make you 
 a tender before a cause of action arises in my favor, and if you notify 
 me that it is not worth while to make such tender that you will not 
 accept it then I am exonerated from the obligation and am not forced 
 to do that which must necessarily be vain. Such is our position here, 
 and such must it continue to be as long as our opponents declare that 
 they will accept no compromise. 
 
 I may be permitted to urge that there should be no doubt of the 
 
94 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 good faith of those who are contending upon either side of this sub 
 ject; and that being so and I address these remarks particularly to 
 those of my own political faith it is obviously our duty to come to 
 gether and make a reasonable and rational arrangement, one that can 
 be accepted without humiliation by all parties. Unless the Democratic 
 members of the Senate shall come together, the consequences to the 
 party, and therefore to the country, must inevitably be disastrous. 
 The personal ambition or interests of one individual or of a few in 
 dividuals ought not, it is true, obstruct the course of party policy. 
 
 But here, where probably a majority of the Democratic Senators 
 are firmly convinced that the unconditional repeal of the purchasing 
 clause of the Sherman act should not be carried out, it is not only 
 rational, but common sense, to say that their opinions ought to be 
 respected, at least to the extent heretofore indicated. I do not think 
 that the wildest man on Wall street is foolish enough to claim now 
 that the bad times, regarding which we have talked, have been brought 
 about by the Sherman act, or that good times will come because of the 
 repeal of that act. Such an argument will be considered puerile in 
 the near future. Such is the general verdict. 
 
 I have brought to the consideration of this subject no feeling of 
 personal advantage. The statistics before the Senate demonstrate that 
 California s interest in silver is but little more than that of any other 
 State in the Union. As far as the metals are concerned and they 
 constitute but a small part of her wealth she is a gold producer, and 
 will remain so for many years. In fact, I doubt whether half of her 
 mineral wealth has been extracted. But the masses of our people, 
 and I truly believe the masses of the people of the United States, favor 
 the freer use of silver and its fair and liberal treatment. I am for 
 dealing justly by every State within the Union, and as one of the 
 representatives of California, I would feel derelict if I did not express 
 myself fully and freely upon the issues here pending, regardless of 
 the stupid assertions of certain newspapers who seek to dictate our 
 conduct. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not desire that anything I have said shall 
 be construed into an intimation that I fear that this Republic has any 
 thing but a glorious future. I have sought to point out rocks in the 
 pathway of her progress, and have endeavored to picture and combat 
 those evils which I consider for the moment threaten her. I have 
 every confidence in the honesty of the masses of our electors, and do 
 not permit myself to question that they will in the end solve all prob 
 lem? rightly. Our country has met and has overcome dangers seem 
 ingly insurmountable. After she threw off her allegiance to the British 
 Crown, and when she had but partially recovered from the effort of 
 her birth, she was assailed by her former antagonist, the most powerful 
 of nations; but the bravery that had been sufficient to win her 
 emancipation and to make good the declaration of her independence 
 was fully adequate to the task of defending her institutions. 
 
 Without speaking of her war with Mexico, I may refer in demon 
 stration of her wonderful capacity not only to the great civil strife, 
 wherein the lives of thousands of her bravest sons and millions of her 
 treasure were yielded that she might not be dismembered; but more 
 remarkable to me even than this has been her recuperation since that 
 struggle, not so much financially, because her resources are imparalleled 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 95 
 
 and the result natural, but I speak of the Union, not merely in theory 
 but the union in fact. When I behold men who have bravely fought 
 in opposing armies, and who bear upon their bodies the proof of that 
 valor to which unborn generations will turn with pride and amazement, 
 sitting together in this Chamber and mingling with each other and 
 acting in common endeavor to promote the happiness of the people, I 
 am driven to the conclusion that we may err for a time and may suffer 
 as the penalty of our error, but we can not follow mistaken counsels 
 to destruction. 
 
 Nor is my faith in the perpetuity of this Republic dependent only 
 upon the ability and patriotism of her people, but the natural advan 
 tages which God has given her afford assurances of indestructibility. 
 While Europe has been endeavoring to solve the problems of life for 
 many hundred years, her population has increased until its extent has 
 begotten the gravest apprehension; while contending armies have 
 passed and repassed, have gone forward and have retreated over almost 
 every inch of her soil ; while for ages the oppressor has cruelly dis 
 regarded the most sacred privileges of his subjects ; while laws have 
 been so framed as to increase the disparity between the rich and the 
 poor ; while hereditary titles and so-called inherited respectability have 
 impeded the progress of the masses and maintained in places of power 
 those who have neither the ability nor the integrity to justify pro 
 motion, this great continent was undergoing a process of preparation 
 fitting itself for the citizens of today. Upon its vast plains the loam 
 of ages accumulated in anxiety for the husbandman s industry. 
 Within its mountains the Giver of all deposited vast stocks of those 
 metals useful to mankind and filled the gravel and rock of the Sierras 
 with gold and silver the money of the ages. Great rivers pierced 
 this mighty domain qualified to bear the burdens of commerce and to 
 carry from market to market goods and products to sustain civilization. 
 Lakes second only to the ocean were impounded as if in anticipation 
 of their usefulness to posterity. The eastern and western shores held 
 back the ocean storms of the world, and nature seemed to look toward 
 the rising and setting sun, beckoning Progress to America s arms 
 and tempting her with the choicest offerings. This is the heritage 
 which we have received, and which it is ours to faithfully guard ; and 
 while I believe that the step which the supporters of the pending bill 
 demand that we shall take is retrogressive, I do not doubt that what 
 ever may be done here this Republic will march on and on. (Ap 
 plause in the galleries.) 
 
CHINESE EXCLUSION 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Thursday, Nov. 2, 1893. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 3687) to amend an 
 act entitled "An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United 
 States," approved May 5, 1892 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California, said : 
 
 Mr. President: I shall detain the Senate but a few moments 
 with reference to the pending measure, as I deem it essential, if we 
 desire to transact any business at all concerning it, that the matter 
 should be brought to a head at once. 
 
 I have listened to all of the arguments made by the disinguished 
 Senators who have addressed themselves to this bill, and I have heard 
 many things regarding the Chinese which I never heard before. 
 Perhaps this is because I know something about the race, while 
 Senators who have furnished the information have never been brought 
 in contact with those of whom they have treated. 
 
 A gentleman was once asked whether he had ever seen the Alle 
 gheny Mountains. He replied : " Why, sir ; of course I have. Did not 
 I work for the contractor who built them ? " There are remarks made 
 here with relation to the Chinese which give me the impression that 
 Senators who have addressed us upon the subject, while acting 
 innocently, have nevertheless committed themselves without full knowl 
 edge or correct advice. 
 
 I do not intend to describe the condition of the Chinese. This 
 has been done here so often by those thoroughly competent for the 
 task that I should deem it an intimation that Senators were unable 
 to appreciate facts when presented plainly, if I endeavored to travel 
 over the ground again. 
 
 It is admitted that the people of California have succeeded in 
 obtaining a major portion of this undesirable element. The Chinese 
 have come to us. We have them. We who are side by side with 
 them, who move among them, who necessarily learn something about 
 them, are told by Senators who have had no such opportunity, who 
 view them from afar, that they constitute an immigration that is 
 rather valuable and that after all they are a desirable people to 
 cultivate. 
 
 In Harper s Weekly, of date July 23, and in another number of 
 the same weekly dated July 30, 1870, I find illustrations accompanied 
 by an article in which we are informed that a certain gentleman, Mr. 
 Sampson, residing in North Adams, Mass., who was conducting a 
 boot and shoe business in that enterprising locality, found himself 
 unable, or at least unwilling, to pay to his white employees the sums 
 
 96 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 97 
 
 which they demanded ; he accordingly sent an agent to California and 
 imported a number of Chinese operatives. 
 
 The pictures to which I allude illustrate the Mongolians at work 
 in a Massachusetts shoe shop. But, Mr. President, it turned out in 
 a very few days that there was a commotion in that good old Common 
 wealth, and the Chinamen who had been thus imported found it well 
 to leave at a speed much greater than that displayed at the time of 
 their advent. 
 
 Hence, I may be permitted to remark that unless there has been 
 a change of opinion the gentlemen who regard the Chinamen as ad 
 vantageous for California do not regard them as very desirable for 
 themselves. 
 
 In the city of San Francisco there are congregated an immense 
 number of Chinese. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS ] who 
 so ably and eloquently championed their cause here, has stated that 
 he has witnessed transactions or sights in that locality of a horrible 
 character. Indeed no one can visit the place without being made 
 aware that a Chinaman differs from anyone ever before brought within 
 the scope of his observation. 
 
 The Senator also referred to the circumstance that Chinamen send 
 their countrymen s bones to Asia, thus indicating, I suppose, a belief 
 that this country is scarcely good enough to hold the relicts. No 
 special objection is made to the deportation of Chinamen s bones, but. 
 the people of California prefer that the Chinaman should go to China 
 before he has reached a state where it is impossible to transport more 
 than a portion of his being. 
 
 In this connection, and as illustrative of Chinese habits, I might 
 mention the fact that some years ago an officer was walking upon his 
 beat on Dupont street, San Francisco, when he detected a peculiar 
 odor permeating the atmosphere. While he was tolerably familiar 
 with the flavor of the effluvia of Chinatown, as he had been in the habit 
 of taking care of that somewhat singular locality, yet there was some 
 thing unusual about this, something differing from the ordinary. He 
 procured one of his associates to accompany him, and entering an 
 adjacent Chinese dwelling and, passing three or four stories under 
 ground, they came to a room beneath the sidewalk wherein the air 
 was unendurably corrupt. 
 
 There they found a great caldron in which there were bodies of 
 deceased Chinamen, and these were being boiled for the purpose of 
 extracting the bones for shipment. The chef who seemed to preside 
 over the operation smiled as the officers entered, and explained to 
 them quite fully that this was by far the most approved method of 
 preparing the proposed consignment. Of course the institution was 
 suppressed as a nuisance. 
 
 Mr. President, Senators have probably heard of highbinders. A 
 highbinder, as we understand the matter, is an individual whose 
 business it is to murder for hire. Commotions in Chinese society 
 caused by highbinder warfare are not infrequent. Such a contest 
 simply means that conflicting associations of those whose business is 
 assassination have determined to settle in blood issues arising as the 
 result of their nefarious trade. In San Francisco it is common knowl 
 edge that the highbinder executes the edicts and commands of his 
 employer. A highbinder is occasionally caught after he has killed 
 
98 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 some one, and upon conviction is hanged. His shirt of mail, suspended 
 as a trophy in the police department, indicates that he was an indi 
 vidual of considerable enterprise and that he possessed the inventive 
 genius which is so greatly admired by his American advocates. 
 
 We have sought to deal with the Chinese in a humane manner. 
 We have done our best to shield them from violence. Charges to the 
 contrary are baseless ; and while we have been criticised because of 
 our attitude towards the Chinese, the fact remains that they prefer 
 to stay in California rather than to go anywhere else. With all our 
 faults they enjoy residence with us. They have no confidence that 
 they will be well and profitably received in the bosoms of those who 
 loudly demand unrestricted immigration and who appear to consult 
 Chinese convenience rather than the interests of our own race. 
 
 Mr. President, it has been said that the legislation proposed here 
 is peculiar. So it is peculiar because it deals with a peculiar subject 
 and a peculiar people. It deals with a race differing from all others 
 in essential particulars. The Senator from Minnesota eloquently 
 referred to the antiquity of the Chinese Empire and spoke of its ancient 
 greatness. He prophesied that it will stand when existing empires, 
 republics, and dynasties have passed from the earth. Perhaps this 
 may prove true ; but the Chinese Empire of to-day is not a model of 
 progression. On the contrary, it presents the worst features of modern 
 society. It is incapable of absorbing knowledge and oblivious to the 
 demands of enlightenment. 
 
 Born in a State where Chinamen have been from the time of 
 the organization of the government ; witnessing them and their con 
 duct as a boy, as a man, in a professional and in other capacities, I 
 am thoroughly familiar with their habits, with their capabilities, and 
 their moral status. When Senators condemn this bill because It dis 
 credits the Chinaman as a witness, they forget that such a rule merely 
 recognizes the existence of a characteristic, to disregard which would 
 be to assert that it is impossible for this Government to maintain or 
 enforce its laws. Never and I say it unqualifiedly never have I 
 known a Chinaman whom I would believe under oath in a matter in 
 which he was interested. Can that be said of any other class or of 
 any other people? It is not for me to philosophize, to analyze the 
 Chinese disposition, or to seek to draw from their history anything 
 accounting for these deficiencies. I am speaking of things as they 
 exist. This clause is essential to the efficiency of the measure. 
 
 So true is it, Mr. President, that a Chinaman can not be believed 
 on oath, that when to tell the truth in a court of justice would be bene 
 ficial to him it is often almost impossible to induce him to fully declare 
 it because he does not believe that there can be any association of 
 rectitude with his interests. When a Chinaman is presented before 
 a judge or a jury, and there is no testimony explanatory of his declara 
 tions, it is often impossible to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It is 
 generally difficult to discern which of two contesting Mongolians 
 approaches to the truth. They have absolutely no conception of their 
 duties in this regard. 
 
 When acting in an official capacity upon a certain occasion I was 
 called into court to attend to the public interest in a small case. A 
 battery charge was involved. The prosecutor and the defendant were 
 Chinamen. The former s face was discolored, showing evidence of 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 99 
 
 injurious contact. He had been somewhat disfigured. He claimed 
 that a member of another company, a Chinaman, had attacked him 
 upon the public street. A trial was had. As prosecuting officer I 
 introduced the complaining Chinaman and six other Chinese witnesses. 
 The defendant s counsel asked each of them to which company he 
 belonged, and each swore that he was a member of the company of 
 the prosecuting witness. Then came the defendant, and he introduced 
 six Chinese witnesses ; each of whom was a member of the company 
 to which the defendant belonged, and each swore absolutely and posi 
 tively that defendant was not present when the assault was said to 
 have taken place, though the other seven witnesses had testified 
 emphatically that defendant committed the battery. 
 
 I mention this as illustrating the proposition that a Chinaman 
 will swear according to the interest and orders of his company. If 
 there is litigation among Chinamen, and there are 75 Chinese wit 
 nesses upon one side and 75 Chinese witnesses upon the other side, 
 upon investigation you will find that all the plaintiff s witnesses be 
 long to one company and that all the defendant s witnesses recognize 
 another company. Their habits and customs are not such as to make 
 them either valuable or tolerable residents of any civilized community. 
 
 Upon another occasion I was called upon to prosecute a China 
 man for the murder of another Chinaman. I succeeded in procuring 
 a conviction. The court believed that there had been an error in the 
 trial, some misruling upon a question connected with the testimony, 
 and a new trial was granted. 
 
 When the time for the new trial approached I visited the China 
 man representing the company to which the decedent had pertained, 
 and told him that I desired the witnesses who had been present at the 
 former trial to appear once more in court as witnesses. He shook 
 his head and said that they could not be found. 
 
 I said " Where are they ? " He did not know. I pressed him 
 and he advised me to dismiss the case. After considerable interroga 
 tion I arrived at this state of facts : The Chinaman who had been 
 killed was a member of the company which the man with whom I was 
 conversing represented, and the Chinaman who did the killing was a 
 member of another company; and the two companies came together 
 and appraised the dead Chinaman at $1,000, and had passed the money 
 and the receipts. Therefore the witnesses could no longer be found. 
 
 Is it for a class of people to whom this is an every-day and 
 monotonous transaction that we are asked to sacrifice the wishes and 
 the comfort of the citizens of the American Republic? 
 
 Mr. President, I am as charitable and kind-hearted, I trust, as 
 any man who is within this Chamber or elsewhere. I would as 
 quickly, I hope, as any one else put myself out to alleviate suffering 
 and perform those duties which charity enjoins upon a Christian. But 
 I am confronted with a situation that threatens ruin to my own peo 
 ple ; and when I am called upon to choose between them and an alien 
 race incapable of virtue and unappreciative of vice, then I stand by 
 my own hearthstone and guard my own home. 
 
 Senators who know but little of these things say much to the 
 effect that we have been disregarding a treaty. Mr. President, the 
 Chinese Government has never in good faith attempted to stand by 
 its treaty. When it appeared to this Government and to the Congress 
 
100 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of the United States that the treaty that had been adopted and ratified 
 in 1880 needed revision, there was an effort made by us to accomplish 
 such revision. As stated in the very able message of Mr. Cleveland, 
 presented to this body when he was formerly President of the United 
 States, this Government, through its commissioners, prepared a treaty 
 which was acceptable to the Chinese minister here, and which every 
 one supposed would be ratified. This proposed engagement was sub 
 mitted to the Chinese Government and there it rested for a period of 
 about six months without any action whatever. 
 
 Our minister repeatedly and urgently called the attention of the 
 imperial government to the pendency of that treaty, to the demand 
 upon the part of the citizens of the United States that it should be 
 acted on. No response whatever was given. Thereupon Mr. Cleve 
 land signed the act of 1888 and sent to Congress the message to which 
 I have referred upon another occasion. 
 
 It is as follows: 
 
 To the Congress: 
 
 I have this day approved House bill No. 11,336, supplementary to an act 
 entitled "An act to execute treaty stipulations relating to Chinese," approved the 
 6th day of May, 1882. 
 
 It seems to me that some suggestions and recommendations may properly 
 accompany my approval of this bill. 
 
 Its object is to more effectually accomplish by legislation the exclusion 
 from this country of Chinese laborers. 
 
 The experiment of blending the social habits and mutual race idiosyncracies 
 of the Chinese laboring classes with those of the great body of the people 
 of the United States has been proved by the experience of twenty years, 
 and ever since the Burlingame treaty of 1868, to be in every sense unwise, 
 impolitic and injurious to both nations. With the lapse of time the necessity 
 for its abandonment has grown in force, until those having in charge the 
 government of the respective countries have resolved to modify and sufficiently 
 abrogate all those features of prior conventional arrangements which permitted 
 the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States. 
 
 In modification of prior conventions the treaty of November 17, 1880, was 
 concluded, whereby, in the first article thereof, it was agreed that the United 
 States should at will regulate, limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese 
 laborers to the United States, but not absolutely prohibit it; and under this 
 article an act of Congress approved on May 6, 1882 (see volume 22, page 58, 
 Statutes at Large), and amended July 5, 1884 (volume 23, page 115, Statutes 
 at Large), suspended for ten years the coming of Chinese laborers to the 
 United States, and regulated the going and coming of such Chinese laborers 
 as were at that time in the United States. 
 
 It was, however, soon made evident that the mercenary greed of the parties 
 who were trading in the labor of this class of the Chinese population was 
 proving too strong for the just execution of the law, and that the virtual 
 defeat of the object and intent of both law and treaty was being fraudulently 
 accomplished by false pretense and perjury, contrary to the expressed will of 
 both Governments. 
 
 To such an extent has the successful violation of the treaty and the laws 
 enacted for its execution progressed that the courts of the Pacific States have 
 been for some time past overwhelmed by the examination of cases of Chinese 
 laborers who are charged with having entered our ports under fraudulent 
 certificates of return or seek to establish by perjury the claim of prior residence. 
 
 Such demonstration of the inoperative and inefficient condition of the 
 treaty and law has produced deep-seated and increasing discontent among the 
 people of the United States, and especially with those resident on the Pacific 
 coast. This has induced me to omit no effort to find an effectual remedy for 
 the evils complained of, and to answer the earnest popular demand for the 
 absolute exclusion of Chinese laborers having objects and purposes unlike our 
 own. and wholly disconnected with American citizenship. 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 101 
 
 Aided by the presence in this country of able and intelligent diplomatic 
 and consular officers of the Chinese Government, and the representations made 
 from time to time by our minister in China under instructions of the Department 
 of State, the actual condition of public sentiment and the status of affairs in the 
 United States has been fully made known to the Government of China. 
 
 The necessity for remedy has been fully appreciated by that Government, 
 and in August, 1886, our minister at Peking received from the Chinese foreign 
 office a communication announcing that China, of her own accord proposed 
 to establish a system of strict and absolute prohibition of her laborers, under 
 heavy penalties, from coming to the United States, and likewise to prohibit the 
 return to the United States of any Chinese laborer who had at any time gone 
 back to China "in order" (in the words of the communication) "that the 
 Chinese laborers may gradually be reduced in number and causes of danger 
 averted and lives preserved." 
 
 This view of the Chinese Government, so completely in harmony with that 
 of the United States, was by my direction speedily formulated in a treaty draft 
 between the two nations, embodying the propositions so presented by the Chinese 
 foreign office. 
 
 The deliberations, frequent oral discussions, and correspondence on the 
 general questions that ensued have been fully communicated by me to the 
 Senate at the present session, and, as contained in Senate Executive Docu 
 ment O, parts i and 2, and in Senate Executive Document No. 272, may be 
 properly referred to as containing a complete history of the transaction. 
 
 It is thus easy to learn how the joint desires and unequivocal mutual under 
 standing of the two Governments were brought into articulated form in the treaty 
 which after a mutual exhibition of plenary powers from the respective Govern 
 ments was signed and concluded by the plenipotentiaries of the United States 
 and China at this capital on March 12 last. 
 
 Being submitted for the advice and consent of the Senate, its confirmation 
 on the 7th day of May last, was accompanied by two amendments, which that 
 body ingrafted upon it. 
 
 On the I2th day of the same month the Chinese minister, who was the 
 plenipotentiary of his Government in the negotiation and the conclusion of 
 the treaty, in a note to the Secretary of State gave his approval of these 
 amendments, " as they did not alter the terms of the treaty," and the amend 
 ments were at once telegraphed to China, whither the original treaty had 
 previously been sent immediately after its signature on March 12. 
 
 On the I3th day of last month I approved Senate bill No. 3304, "to prohibit 
 the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States." This bill was intended 
 to supplement the treaty, and was approved in the confident anticipation of an 
 early exchange of ratifications of the treaty and its amendments and the 
 proclamation of the same, upon which event the legislation so approved was by 
 its terms to take effect. 
 
 No information of any definite action upon the treaty by the Chinese 
 Government was received until the 2ist ultimo the day the bill which I 
 have just approved was presented to me when a telegram from our minister 
 at Peking to the Secretary of State announced the refusal of the Chinese 
 Government to exchange ratifications of the treaty, unless further discussion 
 should be had with a view to shorten the period stipulated in the treaty for the 
 exclusion of Chinese laborers, and to change the conditions agreed on, which 
 should entitle any Chinese laborer who might go back to China to return again 
 to the United States. 
 
 By a note from the charge d affaires ad interim of China to the Secretary 
 of State, received on the evening of the 25th ultimo (a copy of which is here 
 with transmitted, together with the reply thereto), a third amendment is 
 proposed whereby the certificate, under which any departing Chinese laborer 
 alleging the possession of property in the United States would be enabled to 
 return to this country, should be granted by the Chinese consul instead of the 
 United States collector, as had been provided in the treaty. 
 
 The obvious and necessary effect of this last proposition would be prac 
 tically to place the execution of the treaty beyond the control of the United 
 States. 
 
 Article I, of the treaty proposed to be so materially altered had, in the 
 course of the negotiations, been settled in acquiescence with the request of the 
 Chinese plenipotentiary and to his expressed satisfaction. 
 
102 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 In 1886, as appears in the documents heretofore referred to, the Chinese 
 foreign office had formally proposed to our minister strict exclusion of Chinese 
 laborers from the United States without limitation; and had otherwise and 
 more definitely stated that no term whatever for exclusion was necessary, for 
 the reason that China would of itself take steps to prevent its laborers from 
 coming to the United States. 
 
 In the course of the negotiations that followed suggestions from the same 
 quarter led to the insertion in behalf of the United States of a term of " thirty 
 years," and this term, upon the representations of the Chinese plenipotentiary, 
 was reduced to "twenty years," and finally so agreed upon. 
 
 Article II was wholly of Chinese origin, and to that alone owes its presence 
 in the treaty. 
 
 And it is here pertinent to remark that everywhere in the United States 
 laws for the collection of debts are equally available to all creditors without 
 respect to race, sex, nationality, or place of residence, and equally with the 
 citizens or subjects of the most favored nations and with the citizens of the 
 United States recovery can be had in any court of justice in the United States 
 by a subject of China, whether of the laboring or any other class. 
 
 No disability accrues, from nonresidence of a plaintiff whose claim can be 
 enforced in the usual way by him or his assignee or attorney in our courts of 
 justice. 
 
 In this respect it can not be alleged that there exists the slightest discrimina 
 tion against Chinese subjects, and it is a notable fact that large trading firms and 
 companies and individual merchants and traders of that nation are profitably 
 established at numerous points throughout the Union, in whose hands every 
 claim transmitted by an absent Chinaman of a just and lawful nature could be 
 completely enforced. 
 
 The admitted and paramount right and duty of every government to exclude 
 from its borders all elements of foreign population which for any reason retard 
 its prosperity or are detrimental to the moral and physical health of its people, 
 must be regarded as a recognized canon of international law and intercourse. 
 China herself has not dissented from this doctrine, but has, by the expressions 
 to which I have referred, led us confidently to rely upon such action on her part 
 in co-operation with us as would enforce the exclusion of Chinese laborers from 
 our country. 
 
 This co-operation has not, however, been accorded us. Thus from the 
 unexpected and disappointing refusal of the Chinese Government to confirm the 
 acts of its authorized agent and to carry into effect an international agreement, 
 the main feature of which was voluntarily presented by that Government for our 
 acceptance, and which had been the subject of long and careful deliberation, 
 an emergency has arisen, in which the Government of the United States is 
 called upon to act in self-defense by the exercise of its legislative power. I can 
 not but regard the expressed demand on the part of China for a re-examination 
 and renewed discussion of the topics so completely covered by mutual treaty 
 stipulations as an indefinite postponement and practical abandonment of the 
 objects we have in view, to which the Government of China may justly be con 
 sidered as pledged. 
 
 The facts and circumstances which I have narrated lead me, in the per 
 formance of what seems to me to be my official duty, to join the Congress in 
 dealing legislatively with the question of the exclusion of Chinese laborers, in 
 lieu of further attempts to adjust it by international agreement. 
 
 But while thus exercising our undoubted rights in the interests of our peo 
 ple and for the general welfare of our country, justice and fairness seem to 
 require that some provision should be made by act or joint resolution, under 
 which such Chinese laborers as shall actually have embarked on their return to 
 the United States before the passage of the law this day approved, and are now 
 on their way, may be permitted to land, provided they have duly and lawfully 
 obtained and shall present certificates heretofore issued permitting them to 
 return in accordance with the provisions of existing law. 
 
 Nor should our recourse to legislative measures of exclusion cause us to 
 retire from the offer we have made to indemnify such Chinese subjects as have 
 suffered damage through violence in the remote and comparatively unsettled 
 portions of our country at the hands of lawless men. Therefore I recommend 
 that, without acknowledging legal liability therefor, but because it was stipu 
 lated in the treaty which has failed to take effect, and in a spirit of humanity 
 befitting our nation, there be appropriated the sum of $276,619.75, payable to 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 103 
 
 the Chinese minister at this capital, on behalf of his Government, as full 
 indemnity for all losses and injuries sustained by Chinese subjects in the manner 
 and under the circumstances mentioned. 
 
 GROVER CLEVELAND. 
 EXECUTIVE MANSION, October i, 1888. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. In that message the President tersely 
 states ample reasons for the belief that China had absolutely refused 
 to enter into any stipulation with us at all. She stood without action, 
 inert and impassive, determined to do nothing that we wished her to 
 do, defiant and morose. It is true that a treaty is an obligation, bind 
 ing at least in the forum of the national conscience ; but it is not a 
 fact that a nation is bound to stand by a treaty forever, and to see its 
 own interests and the interests which it was organized to conserve 
 sacrificed upon the altar of sentimentality. 
 
 When China refused to reasonably modify this treaty; when her 
 people, in violation of the terms of a preceding compact were con 
 stantly coming to this country, intruding upon shores upon which if 
 was not lawful for them to tread; when Chinese officials aided and 
 abetted these transactions, then I assert the time had come when it 
 was but justice to our own citizens to enact such laws as might be 
 deemed adequate for our defense. Under this condition of affairs 
 the statutes mentioned were passed lawfully, justly, and properly. 
 
 No doubt exists of the power of the Congress of the United 
 States to legislate notwithstanding a treaty. It is true that the power 
 should be rarely exercised. It is a fact, Mr. President, that we should 
 under all circumstances endeavor to adhere to the engagements which 
 we may have made. But there are times, as every writer upon such 
 subjects concedes, when a nation is justified in paying no further 
 attention to a treaty. One of these occasions, recognized by all authori 
 ties upon international law, is disclosed when one party violates 
 the terms of a treaty. Such behavior warrants the other party in 
 regarding the contract terminated. 
 
 The principal object of the legislation which is now sought to be 
 enacted here, and of the legislation which we have heretofore adopted, 
 has been to prevent the coming to this country of the Chinamen whom 
 China herself admitted should not be permitted among us, but who 
 have been allowed to come by China in spite of the solemn obligations 
 into which that nation entered. This violation of treaty stipulations 
 by China was long anterior to the legislation of 1888, was provocative 
 of that legislation, and made that necessary. 
 
 Therefore, Mr. President, this Government stands absolutely 
 acquitted of the accusations made against it. It is not with good grace 
 that these charges should be made upon this floor by Senators who 
 themselves have participated in the enactment of the legislation which 
 they now denounce. If Senators have done nothing worse and nothing 
 which will more subject them to criticism than that which they per 
 formed in voting for the legislation sought by the people of the 
 Pacific Coast, they will never have occasion for sorrow or pain. 
 
 This act, Mr. President, as I have said, is justifiable where it 
 demands testimony other than Chinese ; with reference to the burden 
 of proof it is also justifiable. It is a familiar principle that the party 
 who has in his possession the best evidence must produce it upon 
 demand. A Chinaman defends himself by saying : " You can not 
 deport me because I have a good excuse for non-registration." If so, 
 
104 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 he must establish that fact. It is impossible for this Government to 
 prove the contrary at the outset. If every Chinaman in California is 
 presumed to have registered, or if he concedes that he did not regis 
 ter, if he is presumed to have a good excuse for non-registration it 
 will be impossible for the Government ever to make a case for 
 deportation against a Chinaman. 
 
 If, in defiance of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, you treat this as penal legislation, if you declare that it is in 
 effect the enactment of a penal statute, and that the Chinaman is 
 entitled to the presumption of innocence so called as to each and every 
 proposition necessary to be established in order to justify his deporta 
 tion, then he must be presumed to be a person exempt from liability 
 to deportation, and this presumption can not be rebutted no matter 
 what the merits may be. 
 
 When once the certificate provided for by this statute has been 
 given to a Chinaman he has in his pocket the very best evidence that 
 he can have and the best evidence that exists of his right to be in 
 the country, and he can readily supply it. 
 
 There is no disgrace in the photograph requirement of this bill. 
 Is it a disgrace to have our photographs taken? Have not Senators 
 at some time in their lives been proud and happy when asked for a 
 photograph? Is it not a fact that some candidates for office occa 
 sionally send photographs about for the purpose of exhibiting their 
 features? Is it not true throughout all the avenues of business, over 
 which today travel the most enterprising and energetic of our people, 
 that the photograph is used by the man who wishes to make himself 
 known? 
 
 In our daily transactions we subject ourselves to personal descrip 
 tions. I have in my pocket a railroad ticket which I bought in 
 Los Angeles for the round trip from that city to Washington, and 
 thence to California, and upon which ticket, by means of certain desig 
 nations made by punching the ticket, I am described. I never thought 
 of saying to the railroad corporation selling the ticket that it had no 
 authority to so punch the same as to indicate whether I am tall or 
 short, stout or otherwise ; whether I am old or young, whether I have 
 gray or black hair, or whether my head is bald. Yet they took that 
 liberty with me, and I did not feel offended ; and the Chinaman, whose 
 tender heart seems to appeal with such effect to Senators here, is the 
 last man on earth to be insulted because he is asked to sign his name 
 and have his personal appearance taken down. 
 
 I have spoken to many Chinamen with reference to this registra 
 tion, and they have uniformly told me that they were willing to reg 
 ister, but that their leaders had informed them or advised them not to 
 do so. By their leaders, they refer to the Six Companies those won 
 derful organizations, whose exact constitution is unknown, as far as I 
 am aware, to any of us. Today the Chinamen in California are, in 
 my opinion, anxious for any opportunity to register under the pro 
 visions of this bill. They do not detect any hardship. 
 
 Primarily my disposition was to oppose the granting of any exten 
 sion whatever ; I believed that when the Congress of the United States 
 had enacted a measure which was approved by the Executive, and 
 when the supreme tribunal, whose organization fitted it for a final 
 adjudication of the issue, have held that that legislation was valid and 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 105 
 
 constitutional, it should have been enforced ; but I found that the 
 temper and desires of the majority of the American people were in 
 favor of an extension, and 1 have not therefore hesitated to come 
 here and to advocate the adoption of this bill. 
 
 I doubt whether in the second section the definition of the word 
 " laborer " is as broad as it should be. I would rather define laborer 
 as meaning all those who are not expressly permitted to land. I 
 would rather, perhaps, amend the bill for the purpose of perfecting 
 it in one or two respects, but I am satisfied that in these last hours, of 
 the session there is nothing to do but to pass it as it has come here. 
 
 There is a provision that the parties may go before a United 
 States judge, and it is my opinion that there should have been added 
 " the judge of a Territory," it having been held by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States in the case of the United States vs. McAllister, 
 141 U. S., that a judge of a Territory is not a United States judge, 
 but we shall probably be able to supplement that later on if necessity 
 arises. Hence I have presented no amendment. 
 
 While I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Washington 
 [Mr. SQUIRE] that there should be an appropriation to carry out the 
 provisions of this act, yet I do not believe it advisable to submit that 
 amendment now, for the reason assigned with reference to the other 
 amendments. Therefore I shall vote for the bill as it stands. 
 
 Let me say to those who for whatsoever reason see fit to stand 
 here as the advocates of those people, against whom the citizens of 
 the State of California, regardless of party and with astounding 
 unanimity, protest that if they defeat this bill they leave the matter 
 standing in that State thus : Today Chinamen are in hiding, they are 
 in the willow patches, the marshes, and in the hills seeking to avoid 
 the enforcement of the law which is still in effect, and if those who 
 feel friendly disposed toward the Chinese desired to do something to 
 relieve their present condition let me remind them, in all earnestness 
 and with the utmost sincerity, that they should at once desist from 
 their efforts to repeal the wise legislation upon this subject heretofore 
 passed. The enactment now desired is an extraordinarily liberal 
 measure. When 100,000, perhaps 200,000, members of an alien race, 
 permitted to be within the confines of this Republic, defy our laws and 
 boldly announce that they will not obey the statute, I think they 
 should be well satisfied if this Government permits them an oppor 
 tunity to do that which they should have done long ago. 
 
 Senators speak of the imprisonment of these Chinamen. How 
 can a man be deported unless there is some harshness used with refer 
 ence to him? The necessity of his deportation being settled by the 
 Government, and the power conceded and affirmed by the highest 
 tribunal which may pass upon it, there remains nothing for the Gov 
 ernment to do but to execute its well-considered edict, and in execut 
 ing it, in deporting him, if the Chinaman will not go of his own motion, 
 if he must be compelled to go, it may be that the maxim molliter 
 manus imposuit should apply to him, but there must be some force 
 used, as little as may be, but he must be taken ; the marshal must not 
 be required to keep him in his parlor, but when once sentenced, when 
 once ordered deported, then the day of grace has passed and there is 
 nothing to do but to execute the order. 
 
 " But you deny the right of habeas corpus," says somebody. 
 
 8 
 
106 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Where do we deny it? There is no appeal, says another. Is there 
 anything wonderful with reference to the denial of an appeal? In 
 some tribunal must be lodged the power to finally adjudicate every 
 question. It is of no moment, constitutionally considered, whether in 
 such a case as this the ultimate power is vested in a judge of the 
 United States district court or the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. In each case it is within the power of Congress, and if each 
 one of these Chinamen were given an opportunity to enable the 
 Supreme Court of the United States to pass upon a simple question of 
 fact there would arise the necessity of creating a thousand tribunals 
 with the result that the legislation could not be enforced. 
 
 Senators speak of the danger of men being deported who should 
 not be. What tribunal more safe than that over which a United States 
 judge presides? If we eliminate the court, and refer to it the judge 
 alone, nevertheless he is the same conscientious officer in whatever 
 part of this Republic he may be. He has been selected by the Presi 
 dent of the United States and his nomination confirmed by the Senate 
 of the United States. The judge of a United States court has been 
 made the arbiter with the full knowledge upon the part of Congress 
 that in no other hands can the authority be more safely lodged; and 
 when once a Chinaman is found unregistered, whose duty it was to 
 register under the provisions of the act, he is subject to be deported. 
 Then why, let me ask, should there be any further steps, any further 
 delay, any appeal bonds, or why permit the release of one admittedly 
 not entitled to be at large within the United States ? 
 
 Some one has said an American, a white man, might be arrested 
 under this law. Mr. President, yes, it may be that an offitcer of the 
 law might take a white man and bring him before a United States 
 judge and that the United States judge might decide him to be a 
 Chinaman. But are we to suppose that our tribunals have become so 
 incompetent, so foolish, so corrupt ? Are we to indulge in a presump 
 tion against the officers of our Government, in whom we have our 
 selves lodged this power? Are we to assume that they are incapable 
 of exercising their authority, either reasonably or honestly? There is 
 no danger, Senators, of the abuse of power in this case. No such in 
 stance has ever arisen or will arise. 
 
 There is no disposition upon the part of the people of the State 
 of California to misuse authority, or to ill treat Chinamen, or to do 
 anything else than to live within the pale of the law. The people of 
 California appealed to Congress, and not in vain, for the enactment of 
 the measure to which this is an amendment. It was not their fault 
 that the trouble was not settled, but it was because of the turpitude 
 of those whose obligation it was to register ; and now that they mani 
 fest a disposition to register, and while we accord them the privilege 
 and whether they demand it or not, it is certainly a gratuity on our 
 part let us not hesitate to incorporate in the enactment such pjo- 
 visions which will make it efficacious and final. 
 
 No hardship will be done. The Chinese will seek and be sought 
 by the officers whose duty it is to register them, and they will register, 
 placing their names and their photographs on record. No better cre 
 dentials can the Chinese have to defend their right to stay within this 
 country than the photograph and the certificate. These will constitute 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 107 
 
 their protection. It will guard their interests as well as the interests 
 of the people. 
 
 We know, notwithstanding the legislation which has been had 
 here, that, although thousands of Chinamen have gone home, yet that 
 population has not been reduced, and we appreciate, therefore, that 
 the failure to reduce it under such circumstances is due necessarily to 
 the coming into this country of Chinese who have no right whatever 
 to be here. 
 
 The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS] alluded to the lan 
 guage of the act signifying that certain Chinamen are entitled to be 
 here, and he spoke harshly of the additional burdens imposed upon 
 them. Shall an alien within the United States refuse to register, to 
 give us his name if we see fit to ask it of him ? Is it undue severity to 
 solicit him to put his name of record where it may be useful to us and 
 of benefit to him ? Is there any outrage committed when going to the 
 Republic of France the visitor finds that he must record his name ? Is 
 there anything outrageous in carrying a passport and having it 
 inspected? Is there anything vicious in legislation which demands 
 that when a reasonable provision is made with reference to aliens in 
 this country that that provision shall be enforced? 
 
 This is not legislation in any manner like that to which Senators 
 have alluded. The Jews of Russia have been expelled by an imperial 
 order without any reference to their rights or any opportunity to per 
 form any rational requirement giving them the privilege of remaining. 
 The revocation of the edict of Nantes, mentioned by the Senator from 
 Minnesota, and kindred harsh assertions of power were all peremp 
 tory mandates, unconditional and unreasonable orders inhibiting the 
 presence of the hated individual and demanding his summary expul 
 sion. But this nation has done no parallel act. 
 
 I am astonished that in this Chamber a Senator should rise and 
 declare that we have enacted a law in any manner similar to those 
 commented upon. Such statements are wholly unsupported. The 
 power which we have invoked is the power of sovereignty. The 
 Republic, within its own confines, guarding the welfare of her people 
 and discharging that trust received from them, and which must be 
 well and perfectly discharged if she shall live and command the 
 respect of man, has simply exacted of these people to do something 
 involving no expense, but little trouble, and no disgrace. This demand 
 of the sovereign tolerating their presence is refused and they declare 
 they will not comply. Then this Government, whose laws have been 
 repudiated and whose authority has been challenged, merely says to 
 those who have thus defied her, " No penalty shall be inflicted upon 
 you as the consequence of your willful transgressions, except this, if 
 you will not obey my laws you shall not live within the reach of their^ 
 jurisdiction." Surely no nation can be asked to harbor those who 
 boldly refuse to acquiesce in reasonable regulations ; and no nation 
 can be called unjust if it demands that those who so refuse shall be 
 driven without its w-alls. This is all that we attempt to do. How 
 wanton, then, are the attacks made upon the friends of this legisla 
 tion. 
 
 I know an appeal has been made to us by well-meaning and char 
 itable and honest people, representing a portion of the Christian com 
 munity of this country. But these good folks do not understand the 
 
108 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 subject. Some time ago the Senator from Oregon [Mr. DOLPH] very 
 well expressed the situation of these ladies and gentlemen, and ex 
 plained their want of knowledge. I wish the light of Christianity 
 might penetrate the Chinese heart and control their actions, and dic 
 tate to them the proper policy to pursue, the mode of life to follow. 
 But in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the efforts of our 
 missionaries have not been a success. Of the one hundred thousand 
 Chinamen who dwell in this country, amidst our churches and our 
 Christian influence, and our goodness, and our piety, how many are 
 really Christians? 
 
 Some of them go to Sunday-school, and their presence there was 
 well explained by a Chinese interpreter with whom I was once ac 
 quainted. He came to my office and said, " I can not act longer for 
 you or the county" (I was then a prosecuting officer, and had used 
 him as an interpreter), "because I am going to China." "Well," I 
 said, " Jim, will you return." He said, " No." I remarked, " You are 
 a Christian, are you not ? I know you are a member of the Rev. Mr. 
 So-and-So s Sunday-school." He said, "Oh, yes; I am a Christian 
 here." " Well," I said, " when you get back to China, will you not be 
 a Christian there?" "Oh, no," he responded, "you know there are 
 not many Christians in China, but this is a Christian country, and I 
 like to do everything here that the Christians do. I am a Christian 
 here, but when I go back to China, of course, I shall be the same as 
 the Chinese are there." So that his theory was that religion was a 
 kind of state institution, which it was his duty as rather a good- 
 natured man to follow while he was here, and especially, in considera 
 tion of observing it, he was able to get an education, enabling him to 
 speak the English language. 
 
 In all my experience, as I have said and I have had a good deal 
 of it I have never been able to find a solitary Chinaman who, in my 
 opinion, was a bona fide Christian. 
 
 When journeying here the other day from the city of Los Angeles 
 I met a very estimable gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of 
 the Episcopal Church, and he told me that he had gone to school in 
 New England many years ago with a bright young Chinaman, who 
 had been graduated and who remained in this country and studied 
 law for some years, and was a member of a Christian denomination. 
 He went to church here very regularly. The gentleman with whom 
 I was conversing said he heard from the Chinese student soon after 
 his arrival in China; that there he withdrew his claim to Christianity 
 and resumed his ancient practices and donned his antediluvian garb. 
 What the reason may be I do not pretend to state. My trust is that 
 at some date the Almighty will enlighten these people, but I do not 
 wish that my life and the lives of those whom I am here to represent 
 shall pass away waiting, waiting, waiting for Divine interposition to 
 make possible that policy which is advocated by the opponents of this 
 bill. I have faith that the change will come, but I do not desire that 
 my fellow-citizens shall be offered up as sacrifices, and unwilling ones 
 at that, while we are pausing for the accomplishment of a miracle. It 
 is our plain duty to legislate upon matters as they stand. 
 
 I do not regard as sufficient to control our action the glowing 
 protests of those gentlemen who, standing upon a lofty pedestal and 
 free from the presence of the Chinese curse and speaking of the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 109 
 
 rights of man, seek to instruct California as to the propriety of her 
 conduct. If I could present some of these distinguished gentlemen 
 and their constituents with twenty-five or fifty thousand Chinamen, I 
 would fold my cloak and watch with confidence that so far as they 
 are concerned, the problem would soon be solved, and that among 
 them I would find my most enthusiastic allies. There is evidently a 
 want of education upon this topic. 
 
 This is not a party question in California, or the suggestion of 
 any clique, of any creed, or of any class of men. It is the universal 
 judgment of an intelligent people. One hundred and fifty-four thou 
 sand votes against eight hundred upon a secret ballot constitute an ex 
 pression the like of which can not be recorded in any State of this 
 Union upon any issue or alleged issue. 
 
 With this before us, with the knowledge which we of the coast 
 possess, we, the representatives of that section, appeal to the Senate 
 and to Congress, to those who occupy a common vantage ground, we 
 appeal to them to do that justice which we should do if we were in 
 their position ; to treat us as brethren entitled to their active co-opera 
 tion in our struggle of self-defense. 
 
 Senators refer to the possible conduct of China in relation to our 
 missionaries. She will not, Mr. President, take any course differing 
 from that already adopted because of this measure. I am willing 
 speaking for myself, that she should ask our missionaries in China to 
 register and present their photographs. What an outrage would thus 
 be perpetrated on the missionary who has gone forth prepared to die, 
 ready to be tied to the stake or sliced by the well-known Chinese slic 
 ing process ! Would he not be willing to stipulate that in lieu of the 
 dangers which he supposed he might meet, he should be called upon to 
 sign his name and give a photograph ? 
 
 We hear that there is danger that China may retaliate, and we are 
 told " Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Yes, Mr. 
 President, let China require every American within her walls to regis 
 ter and present his photograph, and I do not believe one will be found 
 to object. Our missionaries will not defy the law of China, and China 
 will, in that event, have done to them just as we are doing to her sub 
 jects, and no American will be silly enough to protest against the 
 regulation. 
 
 Mr. DOLPH. Will the Senator allow me to ask him if it is 
 not true that every American citizen in China is compelled to register 
 in some manner? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. DOLPH. And are not American citizens obliged to take out 
 some evidence of their right to stay there? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I understand so ; but I am speaking 
 of the special provisions of the pending bill. My understanding is, 
 though I am not prepared to give the terms of the order, that much 
 more stringent measures are enforced in China than here in that 
 regard. 
 
 The Chinamen at the World s Fair, one of whose certificates I 
 have in my pocket, have not found it very difficult to register and 
 present their photographs. I hold in my hand Mr. Wee Hay s card 
 and his photograph and the various tickets appended thereto. He is 
 an actor, a professional man, and he has not objected to furnishing 
 
110 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 his photograph so far as I have heard. In fact there is not, as I said 
 before, a single Chinaman in the State of California who on personal 
 grounds objects to this proposition. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall not detain the Senate further. I have made 
 these remarks because it has seemed to me that opposing Senators have 
 not presented this question upon its real merits, and that they have 
 misconceived the attitude of California and of the inhabitants of that 
 State. It appears to me that if Senators resided on the Pacific coast 
 for even a brief period their sentiments would be identical with those 
 of their own flesh and blood who, brought into immediate contact with 
 this repellant influence, have made the demands which I am attempting 
 to enforce. The legislation proposed is wise, necessary, just. The 
 criticisms which I have sought to answer are the outcome of a total 
 misapprehension of the matter, and the disasters suggested will prove 
 entirely imaginative. 
 
I V R 
 
 THE TARIFF 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Friday, July 23, 1897. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the report of the committee of con 
 ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. 379) to 
 provide revenue for the Government and to encourage the industries of the 
 United States- 
 Mr. WHITE said : 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: As we are approaching the termination of this 
 discussion and, I hope, of this session, I deem it proper to present a 
 summary of the situation, which may possibly be of some value to 
 those who, unlike certain intimate friends of mine not very far away, 
 are in search of the truth. 
 
 While a great deal has been said in criticism of the majority of 
 the Finance Committee, I wish to remark for myself, and I know my 
 associates agree with me, that if our opponents have taken extreme 
 measures, the fault is with the system of which they are a part and 
 of the policies which they have seen fit to pursue. 
 
 The exclusion of the minority from participancy in tariff con 
 ferences is, in my judgment, a grave mistake. I believe that if the 
 minority managers had been permitted to be present and to actu 
 ally share in the deliberations of this conference, much good would 
 have been accomplished, and that many of the provisions of the bill 
 which are now justly subjected to criticism would have been other 
 wise framed and beneficially altered. 
 
 I say this not because we assume the possession of great ability 
 or remarkable attainments, but because the expression of divergent 
 sentiment often, if not invariably, leads to an elucidation of the situ 
 ation which can not occur when the proceeding is entirely ex parte. 
 
 It is a fact, as stated by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
 /ONES], that the Democratic conferees had nothing at all to do with 
 this measure in conference, and I am gratified, I may add, that I can 
 make this statement, though I do not approve of the method 
 adopted. Had we been permitted to act, some of the articles which 
 the Senate placed upon the free list and which were dropped out by 
 the conferees might still be found where the Senate placed them; 
 injustice elsewhere might have been avoided. 
 
 Comments have been made upon the conduct of the Republican 
 managers upon the part of the Senate because it is said they did not 
 adhere with sufficient pertinacity to the amendments which the Sen 
 ate voted into the bill. 
 
 The managers on the part of the House were familiar with the 
 proceedings of this body. They knew that each Republican Senate 
 manager had voted against free matting and free cotton bagging 
 
 111 
 
112 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 and free grain bags. The manager upon the part of the House 
 doubtless said to the manager on the part of the Senate, " Mr. Man 
 ager, surely you do not personally believe in free grain bags," etc. 
 Thereupon the manager upon the part of the Senate, being of diplo 
 matic tendency and not caring to commit himself particularly, prob 
 ably replied, " Well, I am instructed, you observe, to stand by this 
 amendment; further than this I have nothing to say." As personal 
 conviction did not accompany the Senate instructions, it is not 
 astonishing that the consciences of our Republican managers pre 
 vailed and the Senate managers fell prone by the wayside, and our 
 amendments with them. Our sugar amendments inserted by Repub 
 lican votes fared better. 
 
 This is a subject of regret, Mr. President, but it is due to the 
 vice of the system. For instance, the Senate decides that a certain 
 provision ought to be inserted in a bill, and appoints a conferee who 
 has voted that that identical item ought not to be adopted. This 
 conferee, thus thinly armored, seeks a conflict with a House conferee 
 who is not only instructed the other way, but who believes the other 
 way, and whose opinions really accord with the personal views of the 
 Senate conferee. A contest of that kind is a contest only in name, 
 and the result will always be as it has been in this instance. The 
 Senate representative will give way. 
 
 I hope when the next tariff bill is framed (and I am sorry that 
 we will have to prepare another tariff bill soon) that the defective 
 practice which I have criticised will be abandoned, and that there 
 will be a real conference, as there is with reference to other bills. 
 In that way we may be able to obtain the legislation which the 
 majority of each body actually desires. If conferees who hold a 
 particular political tenet wish to consult privately, they can do so, 
 but all real conferences should be truly free. 
 
 There is another feature of this case that ought not to be over 
 looked. Usually, in the matter of large appropriation bills, the con 
 ferees agree as to certain matters of difference and report the same 
 to their respective bodies for action. When these propositions are 
 concurred in, the issues involved are out of the way. 
 
 The sword is not held over the head of anybody. Finally the 
 whole subject is reduced to perhaps two or three or a dozen lead 
 ing items ; everything else is disposed of. Then the Senate or the 
 House is in a condition of comparative freedom and may reject the 
 report at once as to the undecided items if the Senate or House, as the 
 case may be, does not approve the conduct of its managers. To 
 illustrate : If the Senate managers in the matter of this bill had 
 reported from time to time as to various subjects agreed upon, their 
 suggestions would have been reduced to cotton bagging, cotton ties, 
 grain bags, matting, etc., and in that event the report would have been 
 remanded to conference by the Senate. 
 
 But the whole bill is thrown upon us by design. Each Republi 
 can is appealed to. It is conceded that he has been outraged, but he 
 is required to take the measure entire or to reject it. He can not 
 resist the importunities and demands of party friends. It is even inti 
 mated that if the conference again seizes the bill, his pet provisions 
 will be emasculated. Hence it is that we are confronted now with 
 a situation which involves the necessity of the repudiation of the 
 entire report or the swallowing of many an obnoxious item, and I 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 113 
 
 know my Republican friends here well enough to assert, in view of 
 the quantity of political medicine which they have heretofore will 
 ingly taken, they will be found ready to absorb this dose, and will 
 declare that they like it, notwithstanding the taste. 
 
 Mr. President, I wish to say a word in relation to the attitude 
 of the Republican party when the extra session was called. The 
 election of Mr Cleveland in 1892 was generally attributed to public 
 disapprobation of the unreasonable and extravagant provisions of 
 the McKinley bill. After the Chicago convention of 1896. when it 
 was learned that it was the determination of the controlling element 
 of the Democratic party to adhere to the bimetallic traditions of that 
 organization, Gold Democrats flocked to the standard of McKinley. 
 Many of these were in theory free traders. As far as they had any 
 representation in either branch of Congress this was obviously true. 
 In order to allay the fear of this important element and the more 
 numerous conservative Republicans that the triumph of the Repub 
 lican party meant high tariff, the agents of the national committee of 
 that organization appeared all over the United States, assuring the 
 thousands who were hostile to extravagant rates that the impositions 
 of the McKinley bill would not be repeated. 
 
 This view obtained until after the election. The St. Louis plat 
 form carefully avoided indorsement of the McKinley bill. The 
 Speaker of the House and other dominating Republican influences 
 furnished numerous intimations that after all a very moderate tariff 
 would be enacted. It was common talk during the campaign that 
 permanency was preferable to unduly high and short-lived rates. 
 Before the newly elected House of - Representatives convened, the 
 members of the Ways and Means Committee of the old House were 
 at work framing a bill. This measure was ready for the novices of 
 the Fifty-fifth Congress. Quite a percentage of the present House of 
 Representatives never served in Congress before, yet they were not 
 permitted to contribute their attainments and had but meager oppor 
 tunity to officially communicate the wishes of their constituents to the 
 Ways and Means Committee. 
 
 The extra session having been called, these lately chosen Rep 
 resentatives came to Washington. They were not appointed upon 
 committees, they were not informed as to whether they would be 
 called upon to serve upon any important committee. When the 
 Speaker was urged to fill the committee list, he declined. There 
 was no pretense that Congress as now organized might not go on 
 and transact any business legitimately coming before it. No one 
 pretended to say that if a bill was meritorious and ought to be 
 passed it would be less efficacious if enacted at this session. Many 
 a measure of vital interest to our constituents has passed here and 
 is somnolent elsewhere. 
 
 It is said that some one somewhere who has power to enforce 
 his views concerning committee appointments dryly remarked that 
 it was necessary to consider the qualifications of the several indi 
 viduals composing the flock. This authority, whoever he may be, 
 well knew that if those to whom he referred felt independent, if 
 they were all located so that the general character of their committee 
 work could be discerned, they would be less embarrassed. He also 
 knew that while a condition of expectancy, or doubt, or hope, or fear 
 existed, the infirmities of subserviency would be noticeable. Hence 
 
114 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 the failure to fill committees. This condition exists today. The 
 present bill is the result of the partisan action of a few men. It is 
 the offspring- of the trusts. Its flagitious character in this respect 
 was not imparted to it by the Senate. The inoculation occurred in 
 the first draft. It appeared here bearing a luxuriant growth of 
 " combine " fungi. 
 
 The Republican members of the Finance Committee, to their 
 credit be it said, sought to improve the bill, and they presented a 
 measure to the Senate containing between one and two thousand 
 amendments, many of which slightly reduced the number and extent 
 of the iniquities proposed. The bill was finally reported to the 
 Senate. The astute and skilled senior Senator from Rhode Island, 
 whose abilities no one doubts, and whose remarkable familiarity with 
 tariff schedules excites the admiration of his decided opponents, 
 thoroughly appreciated the situation, and in his opening address, 
 delivered May 25, 1897 (RECORD, page 1553), used this expression: 
 
 The majority of the committee believe that if a thorough revision of our 
 revenue laws, such as is contemplated by the House bill, is necessary, it should 
 be carried out in a conservative spirit, and that such a moderate and reasonable 
 measure should be adopted as will insure a much greater degree of permanence 
 to our tariff legislation. Frequent revisions of the tariff are productive of long 
 periods of uncertainty and arrested development. The radical change in policy 
 in 1894 proved disastrous to the business interests of the country. 
 
 It was, I believe, thoroughly understood throughout the country in the last 
 political campaign that if the Republican party should be again intrusted with 
 power, no extreme tariff legislation would follow. 
 
 The Senator from Rhode Island concurs exactly in what I have 
 said to the effect that the Republican promise was that resort would 
 not be had to extreme rates. He continues : 
 
 It was believed that in the changed conditions of the country a return to 
 the duties imposed by the act of 1890 would not be necessary, even from a pro 
 tective standpoint. It was with these facts constantly in view that the majority 
 of the Finance Committee prepared the amendments which they have submitted 
 for your consideration. Nothing could be more conducive to the return and 
 maintenance of real prosperity in this country than the well-grounded belief 
 that there were to be no violent changes in our revenue policy for some years to 
 come. 
 
 The true friends of a protective policy do not insist upon extreme rates, or 
 any that are not necessary to equalize conditions. While it is true that rates 
 above this line are often inoperative, yet it must be admitted that they fur 
 nish needless opportunities for destructive attacks. The committee believe that 
 in the reductions they have suggested from the rates imposed in the House bill 
 they have not gone in any instance below the protective point, and if the bill 
 should become a law in the form presented by them, every American industry 
 would be enabled to meet foreign competition on equal terms ; this is, so far as 
 this equality can be secured by tariff legislation. The rates suggested by the 
 committee s amendments are considerably below those imposed by the House 
 bill, and in most instances below those contained in the act of 1890. 
 
 Thus spoke the Senator who at that time represented the Re 
 publican members of the Committee on Finance. These were his 
 conservative words ; these his promises of conservative action. The 
 result, I sorrow to say, is to be found in the conference report, 
 and shows that the Senator from Rhode Island did not properly 
 estimate the temper of his associates or the capacity and demands 
 of those who control the majority on this floor. 
 
 When those of us who were supposed to have charge of the bill 
 upon this side of the Chamber heard these declarations of the Senator 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 115 
 
 from Rhode Island, we trusted that the time had at length arrived 
 when cupidity would not be regnant in the council chambers of a 
 Republican tariff committee, and we hoped that the solicitude which 
 possessed us all, that the vast outlay known to have been made by 
 the great corporations and trusts of this country in order that the 
 Republican party should succeed during the last campaign was to 
 be reimbursed out of the people s pockets, would prove groundless, 
 and that, after all, those who made this speculation would fail to 
 realize their anticipations. 
 
 I regret that this hope proved delusive. It is with pain that I 
 concede that the monetary combinations of this country knew what 
 they were doing when they invested last fall in the Republican party, 
 and it is with pain that I admit that they will not only enjoy their 
 principal, but that compound interest at extortionate rates will con 
 stitute but a part of their unholy gain. 
 
 Some days since I presented a table showing the comparative 
 ad valorem rates of the Senate and House bills and the present 
 laws under the importations of 1896. While changes have been made, 
 it is substantially correct now. I should add, Mr. President, that 
 in so far as any changes are to be noted, they tend to the increase 
 of the rates in the bill reported by the committee of conference. The 
 table is as follows : 
 
 Table showing the ad valorem* upon the importations in 1896 of each of the 
 
 schedules. 
 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Ad valo 
 rem. 
 
 A. Chemicals: 
 1896 
 
 $19,694,037.69 
 
 $ 5,619,239.63 
 
 Per cent. 
 28 53 
 
 Hous6 
 
 26,876,772.62 
 
 8,557,937.59 
 
 31.84 
 
 Senate . .. 
 
 28,221,956.92 
 
 8,601,857.91 
 
 30.48 
 
 B. Earths : 
 1896 
 
 22,896,254.23 
 
 8,006,839.71 
 
 35 
 
 House.. 
 
 23,264,869.38 
 
 12,257,128.37 
 
 52.64 
 
 Senate. . 
 
 23,264,869.38 
 
 12,277,993.59 
 
 52.77 
 
 C. Metals : 
 1896 
 
 34,634,562.06 
 
 13,197,312.72 
 
 38.10 
 
 House 
 
 35,512,595.02 
 
 17,246,685.54 
 
 48.56 
 
 Senate 
 
 36,597,637.25 
 
 17,283,467.96 
 
 47.22 
 
 D. Wood : 
 1896 . 
 
 1,800,307.41 
 
 413,727,50 
 
 22.98 
 
 House 
 
 13,307,443,67 
 
 2,213,330.92 
 
 16,63 
 
 Senate 
 
 13,307,443.67 
 
 1,955,418.55 
 
 14.69 
 
 E. Sugar: 
 
 1896 
 
 73 068 811.76 
 
 29,910,703.55 
 
 40.94 
 
 House 
 
 73 092 178.76 
 
 51,970,910.54 
 
 71.10 
 
 Senate 
 
 73 092,178.76 
 
 52,173,574.27 
 
 71.38 
 
 F. Tobacco: 
 1896 
 
 13,625,272.51 
 
 14,859,117.02 
 
 109.06 
 
 House 
 
 13,625,272.51 
 
 22,352,697.34 
 
 164.05 
 
 Senate 
 
 13,625,272.51 
 
 15,962,979.85 
 
 117.15 
 
 G. Agricultural : 
 1896 
 
 35 077,980.62 
 
 7,919,636.46 
 
 22.58 
 
 House.. 
 
 38 873,592.01 
 
 15,540,188.92 
 
 40 
 
 Senate 
 
 46,362,671.78 
 
 17,132,865.18 
 
 36.95 
 
 H. Spirits: 
 1896 
 
 11 270 965.24 
 
 6,935,648.08 
 
 61.54 
 
 House 
 
 11 940 732.20 
 
 9,197,473.32 
 
 77.03 
 
 Senate.. 
 
 11,856,658.95 
 
 7,213,633.53 
 
 60.84 
 
 
 
 
 
116 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Table showing the ad valorem* upon the importations in 1896 of each of the 
 
 schedules. Continued. 
 
 
 Values. 
 
 Duties. 
 
 Ad valo 
 rem. 
 
 I. Cotton: 
 1896 
 
 21,279,498.43 
 
 9,311,701.76 
 
 43.75 
 
 HoUS6 
 
 21 279 498 43 
 
 11 049 410 61 
 
 51 92 
 
 Senate 
 
 21 279 498 43 
 
 11 134 764 08 
 
 52 33 
 
 J. Flax : 
 1896 
 
 29 756 631.02 
 
 12 018 082.78 
 
 40.38 
 
 House 
 
 42,880,772.00 
 
 20 151 816 69 
 
 46.94 
 
 Senate 
 
 31,986,109.02 
 
 16 036,929 64 
 
 50.14 
 
 K. Wool : 
 
 1896 
 
 48 352 049 90 
 
 23 027 569 87 
 
 47 62 
 
 House 
 
 82 816 564 19 
 
 72 800 400 92 
 
 87 91 
 
 Senate .. . 
 
 82 816 564 19 
 
 67 061 119 16 
 
 80 98 
 
 L. Silks: 
 1896 
 
 26,627,731.71 
 
 12 504 006.17 
 
 46.96 
 
 House 
 
 26 627 731.71 
 
 14 208 435 32 
 
 53.36 
 
 Senate 
 
 26 627 731 71 
 
 14 195 205 82 
 
 53 32 
 
 M. Pulp, paper, etc. : 
 
 1896 
 
 5 599 939 55 
 
 1 242 198 92 
 
 22 18 
 
 House . ... 
 
 7 122 543 61 
 
 2 130 497 16 
 
 29 91 
 
 Senate .. 
 
 5 599 839 45 
 
 1 730 460 32 
 
 30.92 
 
 N. Sundries : 
 1896 
 
 42 895 050 21 
 
 10 635 098 70 
 
 24 79 
 
 House 
 
 55 895 082.59 
 
 17 137 762.91 
 
 30.66 
 
 Senate 
 
 73 425 164 35 
 
 18,949,926 07 
 
 25.81 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 1896 
 
 386,579,182.34 
 
 155,600,882.87 
 
 40.25 
 
 House 
 
 473,115,648.70 
 
 276,804,676.15 
 
 58.51 
 
 Senate 
 
 488,063,596.37 
 
 261,710,195.93 
 
 53.62 
 
 
 
 
 
 The ad valorem rate of the McKinley bill was less than 50 
 per cent. 
 
 I herewith present a partial list of articles upon which a duty is 
 to be levied in excess of the McKinley rates. This is corrected up 
 to today. 
 
 The following list shows some of the articles on which the duty 
 imposed by the Dingley bill exceeds the rate in the McKinley Act: 
 
 A. 
 
 Lactic acid 
 
 Gallic acid. 
 
 Perfumery. 
 
 Alcoholic compounds. 
 
 Bleaching powder. 
 
 Borate of lime. 
 
 Camphor. 
 
 Chalk. 
 
 Mirbane. 
 
 Chicle. 
 
 Alizarin. 
 
 Fusel oil. 
 
 Opium. 
 
 Morphine. 
 
 Spirit varnishes. 
 
 Crayons. 
 
 Smalts. 
 
 Browns. 
 
 Chlorate of potash. 
 
 Alcohol medicines. 
 
 Chlorate of soda. 
 
 Soda ash. 
 
 B. 
 
 Beveled 
 
 Plaster rock. 
 Plaster of paris, ground. 
 Magnesic brick. 
 Pumice stone. 
 
 13 by 24. 
 24 by 30. 
 Plate glass: 
 1 6 by 24. 
 
 Asphalt. 
 Clock cases. 
 Chemical glassware. 
 Decanters, etc. 
 Plate Glass: 
 
 24 by 30. 
 Beveled 
 1 6 by 24. 
 24 by 30. 
 Glass paste. 
 Glass, broken. 
 
 1 6 by 24. 
 24 by 30. 
 Polished 
 
 Agate. 
 Alabaster. 
 
 T , 
 
 1 6 by 24. 
 
 Jet. 
 Freestone. 
 
 24 by 30. 
 Silvered 
 
 x- i 
 
 Granite. 
 Granite, dressed. 
 
 16 by 24. 
 
 
 24 by 30. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cylinder glass : 
 
 Scissors and shears. 
 
 1 6 by 24. 
 
 Tinsel wire. 
 
 24 by 30. 
 
 Wire cloth. 
 
 Ground 
 
 Shotguns. 
 
 24 by 36. 
 
 Saws. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 117 
 
 Mica. 
 
 Chronometer. 
 Watches. 
 Watch cases. 
 
 D. 
 
 Railroad ties. 
 
 Clapboards. 
 
 Shingles. 
 
 E. 
 
 Sugar. 
 Molasses. 
 Glucose. 
 Saccharine. 
 
 G. 
 
 Chocolate. 
 Cocoa. 
 Dandelion root. 
 
 M. 
 
 Braids, plaits, laces etc. 
 
 Paper manufactures. 
 H. N. 
 
 Ginger ale. Beads. 
 
 Mineral waters, natural. Hats 
 
 I. 
 
 Plushes and corduroys. oal, anthracite. 
 Manufactures, cotton, n 
 p f leathers, crude. 
 
 Precious stones. 
 
 Hemp, tow of. 
 
 Flax tow. 
 
 Hemp and jute carpets. 
 Orchids lily of the val- Jute yarn. 
 
 ley, etc. 
 Garden seed. 
 Straw. 
 
 Smoked fish. 
 
 Fruits preserved in their Other manufactures, 
 own juice. Jute manufactures. 
 
 Gunny bags, old, etc. 
 
 K. 
 
 Cordage. 
 Twine. 
 Oilcloth. 
 Hemp. 
 
 Zante currants. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Oranges. 
 
 Lemons. 
 
 Meats. 
 
 Olives. 
 
 Cocoanut meat or copra. 
 
 Pineapples. 
 
 Carpets. 
 Hats. 
 
 L. 
 
 Buttons. 
 Metal buttons. 
 Feathers and 
 
 beds. 
 Skins. 
 Fans. 
 Haircloth. 
 Hats. 
 Jewelry. 
 Jewelry, set. 
 Hides. 
 Leather. 
 Laces. 
 Coral. 
 Spar. 
 
 Musical instruments. 
 LJmbrellas. 
 Sticks for umbrellas. 
 
 down for 
 
 Spun silk. 
 
 The enormous duties imposed by this bill are not justified by 
 any protective theory or by any political platform or public campaign 
 promise. They are levied probably in redemption of secret political 
 engagements. 
 
 PROSPERITY AND THE TARIFF. 
 
 Before proceeding to discuss the schedules I am compelled to 
 admit I do not believe that any tariff law will of itself produce 
 prosperity. I think that the financial policy of the present Admin 
 istration must be wholly inadequate to the needs of the hour, and 
 that while there may be, and indeed I think must be, some relief 
 from the prostrate conditions involving us, we will not find ourselves 
 on safe or solid ground until we escape from the evils of the gold 
 standard. 
 
 Good crops here, poor crops elsewhere, and other similar possi 
 ble and even probable conditions will beneficially affect certain inter 
 ests, and must promote the well-being of many. But when I speak 
 of prosperity, I mean something more than these transitory effects. 
 The Dingley bill is enough to defeat any organization, but those who 
 will assume the reins of power when the Republican party is relegated 
 to obscurity must not expect to realize the hopes of their adherents 
 by mere disputations upon tariff schedules. Trade has been so long 
 and generally depressed that a rally is reasonably anticipated, but 
 the evils of the financial system to which the Republican party is 
 committed will be more and more evident as time passes. Voters of 
 all parties must recognize this. The proper management of our 
 finances will be the dominant issue until bimetallism is restored. 
 
 Mr. President, as stated by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
 TELLER], it is said that the President of the United States, after 
 
118 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 having procured or looked with satisfaction upon, I prefer to say 
 the passage of this tariff bill, and discovering that we are not be 
 coming rich at a rate calculated to disturb our mentality or to excite 
 world-wide interest, has determined to send in a message asking for 
 authority to appoint a currency commission. It was commonly 
 reported that the President would have sent this message in at an 
 earlier hour had he not supposed that to do so might interfere with 
 the enactment of this precious bill. It was thought that unless the 
 currency message was placed upon the desks of Senators, they would 
 be unaware of the Presidential conception, although the world at 
 large might be informed with reference thereto. 
 
 It was feared that if the Senate really believed that such a move 
 ment was contemplated, we would not permit the tariff bill to make 
 the people blessed, and that we might all seek to borrow that historic 
 time consumer, the oft-mentioned document of my distinguished 
 friend the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. QUAY]. But, 
 Mr. President, I may be pardoned if I insinuate that every member 
 of this Senate has heard as much about the currency proposition as 
 the average citizen of the United States, and if the same does not 
 appear in this Capitol today or tomorrow it will not astonish any 
 body, nor will its nonappearance cause excitement. 
 
 Mr. President, I fail to understand the necessity for the appoint 
 ment of this commission. They can not enact a currency bill. Even 
 the celebrated fourth section of the reciprocity clause, found in the 
 pending conference report, with all of its peculiar delegations and 
 subtractions and conglomerations of power, contains nothing equal 
 to the theory that a commission appointed, even under an act of 
 Congress, can decree a financial scheme binding to any extent on the 
 Congress or the country. If we authorize the appointment of a com 
 mission, if we give authority to proceed under the direction of the 
 President of the United States, a report may be made to us, but that 
 report will not constitute even a prima facie case. 
 
 It will be even necessary to prepare a bill, and to introduce it 
 here ; such bill must come from a member of the body ; and it will 
 actually be essential to read the measure three times, and there will 
 be nothing so sacred about it that it will not be subject to a motion to 
 lay on the table; and if the bill should repose in the bosom of the 
 Senate Committee on Finance for a period necessary for its careful 
 examination, there will be no unusual procedure for its recall. It 
 will be subject to ordinary processes of the Senate. 
 
 Such a bill will amount to absolutely nothing, except that if 
 such a commission is appointed with salary under a law of Congress, 
 then its members can perform the pleasant feat of drawing com 
 pensation. If the President appoints without legislative warrant, no 
 salary will be paid. The commission s legal functions, save in so far 
 as drawing salary is concerned, will be the same in either contingency. 
 It will be an innocent affair, except as it may aid in disposing of the 
 surplus which will be found in the Treasury after the passage of this 
 bill as we are told. 
 
 REVENUE. 
 
 Mr. President, from the beginning of the present debate Demo 
 cratic members of the Finance Committee and other Senators have 
 constantly sought to obtain from their Republican brethren some 
 statement as to the probable revenue to be realized from this bill. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 119 
 
 While aware that the measure must become odious as a taxing 
 instrument, we hoped that its infirmities might to some extent be 
 compensated for by a demonstration of its ability to fully supply 
 the Treasury. Our efforts in this direction have not been successful. 
 The Senator from Rhode Island, when announcing the platform of 
 his committee and his party, flatly told us that the House bill was 
 inadequate. The tenor of his address demonstrated that he did not 
 wish to be held accountable for the bill as it reached the Senate. 
 
 At various times we have endeavored to elicit the views of the 
 able and affable senior Senator from Iowa as to the producing 
 qualities of this alleged promoter of prosperity. The information 
 given has not been valuable. Indeed, the meager solace which has 
 been vouchsafed us by our reserved friends of the opposition has 
 not been of a reassuring nature, and when we doubted we referred 
 to Congressional history, and to our dismay discovered that even 
 the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] and the Senator 
 from Maine [Mr. HALE] two of our more experienced members 
 prophesied to us in 1894 regarding the revenue capacity of the 
 Wilson bill so inaccurately as to cause us to lose faith in their 
 qualifications in that regard. Thus the Senator from Maine said 
 (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 21, 1894, volume 26, part 5, page 
 5020) : 
 
 The Senator knows that by the bill he has presented here, * * * with 
 out reckoning the income tax and the tax that they lay upon sugar, the two 
 thus increasing the House bill over $80,000,000, there will not be a deficit 
 obliging them to resort to protective duties in order to raise a revenue, but 
 there will be a surplus. 
 
 The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH ], skilled in tariff 
 diplomacy, familiar with differentials, profoundly cognizant of com 
 pound duties, accustomed to divert himself and seek relaxation in 
 those tariff mystifications which annoy and exasperate most of us, 
 added the weight of his authority to the calculation of the Senator 
 from Maine, and I find (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 26, part 5, 
 page 4753, May 15, 1894) that that Senator remarked: 
 
 If, as I believe, it can be shown, and shown beyond a fear of contradiction, 
 upon the other side of the Chamber that we are to have by this bill, if it be 
 come a law, one hundred millions or more of surplus, then it is pertinent in 
 every part of the bill and in every paragraph to ask as to what will be its 
 effect upon the revenue, etc. 
 
 On the same page and referring to the same computation, he 
 says : 
 
 And this estimate does not include the income tax. It is based upon the 
 revenue duties alone. 
 
 It appears that these Republican Senators, these educated 
 political and financial experts, did not guess aright. I confess that I, 
 being then even less advised than now and relying upon these gentle 
 men more than now, was worried lest the Wilson bill might fill the 
 Treasury with an enormous and deadly surplus. This experience 
 induces me to question the infallibility of Republican experts as to 
 the productiveness of a tariff bill, especially when the bill is of Repub 
 lican parentage. 
 
 The last full fiscal year during which the McKinley bill was in 
 operation terminated June 30, 1894. That measure produced in 
 that vear : 
 
120 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Customs $131,807,758.88 
 
 Internal revenue 146,722,760.17 
 
 Miscellaneous 15,133,841.84 
 
 Total $293,664,360.89 
 
 The first full year of the operation of the Wilson bill ended 
 June 30, 1896. The revenue received for that period was as follows : 
 
 Customs $159,516,275.50 
 
 Internal revenues 145,850,780.29 
 
 Miscellaneous 18,441,083.92 
 
 Total $323,803,139.71 
 
 It is therefore plain that although there was a slight falling off 
 in the internal revenue in the fiscal year last noted as compared 
 with that first referred to, nevertheless during the first fiscal year 
 during which the Wilson bill was in absolute and entire operation 
 there was collected, in excess of the revenue of the last fiscal year 
 under the McKinley bill, $30,143,778.82. 
 
 A reference to the receipts of the year ending June 30, 1897, 
 shows the following: 
 
 Customs $176,316,393.18 
 
 Internal revenue 146,241,263.97 
 
 Miscellaneous 24,627,071.47 
 
 Total $365,807,836.32 
 
 It will thus be observed that the total revenue for the year just 
 closed on the accounts above mentioned exceeds the revenue pro 
 duced by the McKinley bill during its last fiscal year in the sum of 
 $53>5 2o >367-73. Notwithstanding the enormous income last above 
 noted, there was a deficiency for the fiscal year 1896-97 amounting 
 to $18,623,107.70. It is proper to remark that had the Supreme 
 Court of the United States adhered to its views as laid down during 
 its antecedent history with regard to the income tax, the Wilson bill 
 would have produced a surplus amounting to between $35,000,000 
 and $50,000,000, and the burden would havq been largely placed upon 
 those best able to bear it. 
 
 Some of the parties who would have been compelled to pay taxes 
 on their incomes have realized within the last three months from 
 sugar stock alone, and because of the increased value of that stock, 
 between $35,000,000 and $40,000,000. These people, by processes 
 which I can not fathom, have succeeded in eliminating the carefully 
 prepared Senate amendment providing for a tax upon stock issues. 
 The only reason given for the extraordinary performance of the 
 Senate managers is that the gentlemen who conducted the proceed 
 ings upon the part of the House made the Senate conferees familiar 
 with some provision of the National Constitution rendering the tax 
 invalid because of the exemption of homestead associations. 
 
 While neither of the able Republican lawyers in this Chamber 
 discovered this so-called invalidity during the consideration of an 
 amendment which was suggested, carefully digested, and subsequently 
 introduced and passed here pursuant to a Republican caucus decree, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 121 
 
 nevertheless, if the argument is sufficient to show the unconstitution 
 ally of the plan, which I deny, the conferees could readily have 
 adjusted the trouble, and could have removed the discrimination by 
 merely exscinding the few words referring to homesteads. I fear 
 that the real reason for the action of our Republican friends is dis 
 covered in their gratitude to late campaign contributors. 
 
 At this point it may not be out of place to refer concisely to the 
 effect of the Wilson bill upon the trade of the United States. 
 
 Our merchandise exports for twelve months ending June 30, 1897, 
 aggregated $1,051,987,091 the largest in the history of the country, 
 even exceeding the remarkable showing of 1892. Our imports for 
 the same period reached $764,373,905, showing an excess of exports 
 over imports and a favorable trade balance of $287,613,186. While 
 the percentage of profit upon the commodities thus exported may not 
 have been very large, still the payment to citizens of this country 
 of the enormous sum noted tended in no small degree to mitigate 
 prevailing evils. 
 
 It is not easy to compute the revenue value of the Dingley bill. 
 Much will, no doubt, depend upon the general state of trade. If 
 that prosperity which has been due so long visits us, large collec 
 tions may be expected ; but the bill contains so many prohibitive 
 rates and is so permeated by the spirit of imposition and so much 
 of the tax levied goes into the pockets of the favored few that the 
 prospects for surplus are not as encouraging as generally imagined. 
 In any ordinary financial weather the Wilson bill would produce 
 ample revenue. 
 
 SUGAR. 
 
 So much has been said with reference to this subject that it is 
 hardly necessary to enter into great detail. In 1890 the Republican 
 party announced that sugar, being a necessary of life, ought not to be 
 taxed, and that the cultivation of cane and beet and maple sugar 
 deserved encouragement to be given by means of bounty. In 1894 
 the Democratic party repudiated this idea and imposed a tax upon 
 sugar in substance 40 per cent, ad valorem, one-eighth differential 
 and one-tenth countervailing. When the bill now under consideration 
 came from the House, a specific duty was levied, which was changed 
 by the insertion of an ad valorem element by the Senate Committee 
 on Finance; but before a vote could be taken, the Republican mem 
 bers of that committee who were responsible for the schedules intro 
 duced upon that subject abandoned their previous work and adopted 
 the principle of the House bill, raising the rates, however, materially. 
 
 Thus the matter went to conference, and a report was finally 
 made modifying both Senate and House provisions upon this subject 
 in such a manner as to slightly decrease the differential on certain 
 grades and to raise it on others, preserving, however, the high rate 
 on refined sugars. I herewith present a table with reference to all 
 the bills, prepared by Mr. Schoenhof, showing the differential and 
 duty-paid price of German granulated. In this computation the draw 
 back allowance fixed by the Treasury is allowed. I think it has been 
 quite clearly demonstrated by the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. 
 CAFFERY] that this drawback table is grossly inaccurate, and if this 
 be true the trust s profits will be much greater. 
 
 The tables referred to are as follows : 
 
122 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 1 5>>a 
 ? 2^s 
 OP 
 p 
 <i 
 
 ^-1 
 
 >->.;H eC O 
 -Jf c^ 05 bcefl 
 
 & t g l 
 
 H 
 
 DQ 
 
 - 
 
 
 tO CO CO "<t GO I> r- GO CO !>. GO 
 
 ot^Tf 
 
 O O ^H 
 
 r-5 c^ c<i c^ w ci CQ i ci c-i ci c^ c4 
 
 SW^vOCOOCJ^-vOCOOO} 
 OOOOrHT-HrHTHr-IC^C^ 
 iHr-tHrHrHiHr-JrHrHr-lHH 
 
 3 
 
 fOCNiOiHl>rOCOrOCO 
 
 ^_ C3 o T3 . d . 
 
 
 iO fO 
 
 ro 00 f*5 
 H rH 
 
 | 
 
 s S^a 
 
 ^ 2 S 0> 
 
 ^OQO 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 111 
 
 f 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 > Z S 
 oc d 
 
 Ml 
 
 1 
 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 123 
 
 ro \0 vOI> 00 
 rH iH CO CO Tf- 
 i/) i/) U} u") i/) 
 
 ssg 
 
 rO "^ v> t>; 00 
 
 S* t>I o* f*5 H 
 0000 
 
 c<i H c^ ci ci 
 
 ^ ^ ^ CN ^ 
 
 fO 00 rH 
 
 Vs M * ^-* 
 
 1 & F 
 
 %> & 
 a3 - ^g 
 2 o^^S 
 V 2 "S "S 
 -gOOOO 
 a 
 v 
 
 OD 
 
 fi 
 
 CO 
 
 00 r-t LO f*5 lO U} O\ 
 
 VO C-l 
 
 ci ri ri H ci H c4 ri csj ci c4 c4 ci ri 
 
 *oor<>ricic<jaO ^- 
 
 n 
 en 
 d raw 
 
 ce 
 
 e 
 e 
 id 
 d 
 ed. 
 
 Diffe 
 betw 
 duty-pai 
 an 
 refin 
 
 up 
 
 w & 
 
 
 14* 
 
 O rH rH r-( 
 
 LOi 
 
 01 1 
 
 
124 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 "- 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 r*5 ro f<) ro ro fO co 
 
 c CQ ro to ro ro ro 
 
 vo 
 
 00 
 
 ro CO 
 
 
 
 GJ 
 
 o O 
 
 S 3 - 
 *- 
 
 CP 2 s 
 
 IjOPf 
 
 a 
 
 O) 
 CG 
 
 ce 
 
 Differen 
 between 
 duty-paid raw 
 and 
 refined. 
 
 IS -S 
 
 e3 ^ ^H 13 
 ft o oJ ^ 
 
 - 
 
 <j goo 
 
 r- TH r-t O 
 
 f>l C<1 fM C1 
 
 | ro TH O^ t> UO ro rH 
 
 r?rHrHOOOOO 
 "SrHrHrHrHrHrHrH 
 
 CO vo ON rH 
 rO ON L/J fXJ 00 Tf ON 
 l>. t>- 00 ON ON O O 
 ro ro ro ro ro W 
 
 00 
 
 PH So 55 CD 
 13 
 
 n 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 125 
 
 Conference Committee Bill. 
 
 Degrees. 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 Dingley 
 biii. 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 Senate 
 bill. 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 amended 
 Senate 
 bill. 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 amended 
 Senate bill 
 (molasses, 
 sugars, 
 etc. 1 ). 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 conference 
 report 
 bill. 
 
 Difference 
 under 
 present 
 tariff 
 law. 
 
 75 
 
 $1.346 
 
 $1.593 
 
 $1.426 
 
 $1.713 
 
 $1.494 
 
 $1.00 
 
 76 
 
 1.257 
 
 1.479 
 
 1.337 
 
 1.638 
 
 1.287 
 
 .918 
 
 77 
 
 1.169 
 
 1.359 
 
 1.249 
 
 1.568 
 
 1.301 
 
 .828 
 
 78 
 
 1.090 
 
 1.264 
 
 1.170 
 
 1.494 
 
 1.212 
 
 741 
 
 79 
 
 1.008 
 
 1.173 
 
 1.088 
 
 1.428 
 
 1.125 
 
 665 
 
 80 
 
 .938 
 
 1.062 
 
 1.018 
 
 1.357 
 
 1.044 
 
 .573 
 
 81 
 
 .858 
 
 .976 
 
 .938 
 
 1.29 
 
 .961 
 
 505 
 
 82 
 
 .791 
 
 .869 
 
 .871 
 
 1.231 
 
 .893 
 
 .435 
 
 83 
 
 .734 
 
 .794 
 
 .814 
 
 1 168 
 
 813 
 
 349 
 
 84 
 
 .661 
 
 .709 
 
 .741 
 
 1.118 
 
 74 
 
 297 
 
 85 
 
 .618 
 
 .668 
 
 .698 
 
 1.08 
 
 691 
 
 255 
 
 86 
 
 .577 
 
 .618 
 
 .657 
 
 1.047 
 
 642 
 
 217 
 
 87 
 
 .531 
 
 .56 
 
 .611 
 
 1.018 
 
 593 
 
 182 
 
 88 
 
 .483 
 
 .508 
 
 .587 
 
 
 .557 
 
 165 
 
 89 
 
 .502 
 
 .484 
 
 582 
 
 
 533 
 
 152 
 
 90 
 
 .463 
 
 .452 
 
 543 
 
 
 502 
 
 12^ 
 
 91 
 
 447 
 
 .438 
 
 .527 
 
 
 487 
 
 103 
 
 92 
 
 .429 
 
 .418 
 
 .509 
 
 
 464 
 
 097 
 
 93 
 
 .430 
 
 .424 
 
 505 
 
 
 4596 
 
 107 
 
 94 
 
 .433 
 
 .433 
 
 .508 
 
 
 4^7 
 
 12 
 
 95 
 
 .438 
 
 .43 
 
 .513 
 
 
 .4578 
 
 125 
 
 96 
 
 .441 
 
 .434 
 
 .516 
 
 
 4578 
 
 .135 
 
 97 
 
 .450 
 
 .445 
 
 .536 
 
 
 .4618 
 
 148 
 
 98 
 
 .462 
 
 .448 
 
 .537 
 
 
 .4695 
 
 165 
 
 99 
 
 .472 
 
 .478 
 
 .548 
 
 
 .4755 
 
 17=; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . Degrees. 
 
 Price 
 given by 
 sugar 
 dealers 
 (100 
 pounds). 
 
 Duty per 
 100 
 pounds). 
 
 Duty- 
 paid 
 price per 
 100 
 pounds. 
 
 Drawback 
 allowance 
 for 100 
 pounds of 
 refined. 
 
 Duty-paid 
 price of 
 raw sugar 
 in 100 
 pounds of 
 refined. 
 
 Difference 
 between 
 duty paid 
 rawm 
 refined and 
 duty-paid 
 refined. 
 
 75 
 
 $1 19 
 
 $0 95 
 
 $2 14 
 
 Pounds . 
 
 146 68 
 
 $3 139 
 
 $1 494 
 
 76 
 
 1 25 
 
 985 
 
 2 235 
 
 144 82 
 
 3 346 
 
 1 87 
 
 77 
 
 1.31 
 
 1 02 
 
 2 33 
 
 142 95 
 
 3 339 
 
 1 301 
 
 78 
 
 1.37 
 
 1.055 
 
 2.425 
 
 141 08 
 
 3 421 
 
 1 212 
 
 79 
 
 1.43 
 
 1.09 
 
 2 52 
 
 139 21 
 
 3 508 
 
 1 125 
 
 80 
 
 1 49 
 
 1 125 
 
 7 615 
 
 137 35 
 
 3 589 
 
 1 044 
 
 81 . 
 
 1 55 
 
 1 16 
 
 2 71 
 
 135 48 
 
 3 672 
 
 961 
 
 82 
 
 1 61 
 
 1 195 
 
 ? 805 
 
 133 61 
 
 3 74 
 
 893 
 
 83 
 
 1 67 
 
 1 23 
 
 2 90 
 
 131 74 
 
 3 82 
 
 813 
 
 84 
 
 1.73 
 
 1 265 
 
 2 995 
 
 129 88 
 
 3 893 
 
 74 
 
 85 
 
 1.78 
 
 1 30 
 
 3 08 
 
 128 01 
 
 3 942 
 
 691 
 
 86 
 
 1.83 
 
 1.335 
 
 3 165 
 
 126 14 
 
 3 991 
 
 642 
 
 87 .. . 
 
 1 88 
 
 1 37 
 
 3 25 
 
 124 27 
 
 4 04 
 
 593 
 
 88 
 
 1 92 
 
 1 405 
 
 3 325 
 
 122 41 
 
 4 076 
 
 557 
 
 89 
 
 1.96 
 
 1 44 
 
 3 40 
 
 120 54 
 
 4 10 
 
 533 
 
 90 
 
 2.00 
 
 1 475 
 
 3475 
 
 118 67 
 
 4 131 
 
 502 
 
 91 
 
 2.04 
 
 1.51 
 
 355 
 
 116 81 
 
 4 146 
 
 487 
 
 92 
 
 2 08 
 
 1 545 
 
 3 625 
 
 114 94 
 
 4 169 
 
 464 
 
 93 
 
 2 11 
 
 1.58 
 
 3 69 
 
 113 07 
 
 4 1734 
 
 4596 
 
 94 
 
 2.14 
 
 1 615 
 
 3 755 
 
 111 20 
 
 4 176 
 
 457 
 
 95 
 
 2 17 
 
 1 65 
 
 3 82 
 
 109 34 
 
 4 1752 
 
 4578 
 
 96 
 
 2.20 
 
 1.685 
 
 3 885 
 
 107 47 
 
 4 1752 
 
 4578 
 
 97 .. 
 98 
 
 2.23 
 2 26 
 
 1.72 
 1 755 
 
 3.95 
 4 015 
 
 105.6 
 103 73 
 
 4. 1712 
 4 1635 
 
 .4618 
 4695 
 
 99 
 
 2.29 
 
 1.79 
 
 4.08 
 
 101.87 
 
 4.157S 
 
 .4755 
 
126 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 A table upon this subject was presented by me to the Senate 
 on the 20th of this niuiith. I then made certain statements with 
 reference thereto, as follows : 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It appears to me that the more this sugar schedule is investi 
 gated and this conference report is studied by the impartial mind, the more 
 thoroughly will the Republican Senate conferees be acquitted of the charge 
 of submission. 
 
 I have a table which is short and relates only to certain grades, but as far 
 as it goes it will throw a light upon the subject. I will ask the Secretary to 
 read it. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Secretary will read as 
 requested. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 "According to the table furnished by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] 
 (see CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, page 2066, June 15), together with the value of 
 89-degree sugar established by the sugar dealers at New York of similar date, 
 the following comparison will show that instead of the House having gained 
 a victory in the sugar schedule agreed on in conference the reduction from 
 the Senate s differential is trifling as to refined sugar and made from 89-degree 
 raw sugar, and that on refined sugar made from sugars testing less than 83 
 degrees the amount of protection given to the trust, instead of being less, is 
 greater under the schedule agreed to in conference than under either the 
 House bill or the Senate amendments thereto." 
 
 Value of 120.54 pounds of 89-degree sugar necessary to make 100 pounds 
 
 of granulated, at $1.96 per 100 pounds $2.3626 
 
 Duty at 40 per cent, ad valorem 9450 
 
 Value of loo pounds of granulated, as estimated by the Senator from 
 Iowa 2.47 
 
 Duty at 40 per cent ad valorem 9450 
 
 Deduct duty on raw 945 
 
 Differential 168 
 
 HOUSE BILL. 
 
 Duty on 100 pounds of granulated 1.875 
 
 Duty on 120.54 pounds of 89-degree sugar 1.711 
 
 Differential 164 
 
 SENATE AMENDMENT. 
 
 Duty on 100 pounds of granulated 1.95 
 
 Duty on 1^0.54 pounds 1.71 r 
 
 Differential 239 
 
 CONFERENCE SCHEDULE. 
 
 Duty on uo pounds of granulated $1.95 
 
 Duty on 120.54 pounds of 89-degree sugar 1.736 
 
 Differential 214 
 
 Comparison of the Senate rates and conference rates on razv sugars. 
 
 Senate duty on sugars testing 75 degrees, per 100 pounds i oo 
 
 Conference 
 
 Senate duty on sugars testing 80 degrees, per 100 pounds 1.15 
 
 Conference 1.125 
 
 Senate duty on sugars testing 83 degrees, per 100 pounds 1.24 
 
 Conference T 23 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 127 
 
 Senate duty on sugars testing 85 degrees, per 100 pounds 1.30 
 
 Conference 1.30 
 
 Senate duty on sugars testing 89 degrees, per 100 pounds 1.42 
 
 Conference i i-44 
 
 It will thus be seen that on all sugars testing below 85 degrees the trust 
 will have to pay less duty than under the Senate amendments, and as the 
 duty on refined sugar is the same in both the Senate and conference sched 
 ules, the conference schedule is far more favorable to the trust than the 
 Senate schedule. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. When the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island was in 
 the Senate, and before his illness, which we all so much regretted, he pre 
 sented on the part of the committee a tabulated statement, incorporating it 
 in his very able speech, from which he showed that the schedule prepared 
 by him, or by the committee of which he was a member, was not only a more 
 equitable schedule than that presented by the House, but that it was, in fact, 
 lower. To use his own language : 
 
 " This table shows that the differential between raw and refined sugars by 
 the Senate proposition varies from 9.77 to 15.40 cents per 100 pounds, while 
 the differential in the House bill varies from 12.20 to 17.35 cents per 100 
 pounds." 
 
 Taking the basis which he assumed, I have not been able to find any expert 
 who has disputed his conclusion. Yet, Mr. President, we have now a bill 
 which is an advance upon the schedule proposed by the Senator from Rhode 
 Island. No wonder the sugar market trembled and brought forth increased 
 prices. 
 
 Mr. President, I have before me an official statement showing the importa 
 tions of sugar during the first six months of the present year. The aggregate 
 for those months was 3,240,967,568 pounds, and the statistician informs me that 
 there is still omitted perhaps 4 per cent of the importations of last June. 
 
 I must call attention to a matter which I noted, I think, at an earlier stage 
 of the discussion, namely, that under the Wilson act the prevailing law 
 the duty-paid price of sugar is 3-445 ; that is, taking 2.30 as the price of Ger 
 man granulated, 40 per cent ad valorem amounts to ninety-two one-hun- 
 dredths! We add one hundred and twenty-five one-thousandths, which ^ is 
 the one-eighth differential, and ten one-hundredths as the countervailing 
 duty. The result is 3.445. 
 
 On the other hand, take the price of German granulated at 1.95 and three 
 hundred and eighty-three one-thousandths as the countervailing duty, and 
 we have 4.633 as the duty-paid price of German granulated in this country, 
 showing that it will cost 1.188 cents more under this reform, reduced, and 
 triumphal-march schedule to buy a pound of sugar than under the present 
 prevailing law. 
 
 If we have in this country 70,000,000 people, and if the average consump 
 tion is 66 pounds per capita, and if it be true that the price of sugar must 
 increase 1.18, we have a difference of cost alone imposed on the free breakfast 
 table of over $54,000,000; more, Mr. President, I fear, than that fragile struct 
 ure can bear, because, relying upon the promise of our friends on the other 
 side, the breakfast table has not been lately constructed of material suffi 
 ciently resistant to stand such an enormous imposition. 
 
 We therefore find that our Republican friends have favored the 
 sugar trust as it was never favored before; and whatever may be 
 the protestations emanating from the majority in either branch of 
 Congress, the enormous rise in market values tells the tale. Some 
 one has said to me in this discussion, " You will find no indication 
 of the effect of the sugar schedule in the price of sugar stock." This 
 was not the phraseology or argument employed by our Republican 
 friends during the debate of 1894. 
 
 When the Wilson bill was under consideration, the distinguished 
 Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] said, regarding the sugar 
 schedule : 
 
 It is clothed in language that requires an expert to determine, but it was 
 sufficient to put up the price of common sugar stock in New York $15 a 
 
128 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 share. It is enough to prevent the introduction of refined sugar into this 
 country, and anybody who has studied this matter knows it whether he be 
 Senator or whether he be speculator in Wall street in sugar-trust stock. The 
 bill has been changed, increasing the proposed duty upon refined sugar, sim 
 ply because it could not be passed unless that concession was made to the 
 sugar trust. Congressional Record, volume 26, part 5, page 4706, May 14, 
 1894- 
 
 These are quoted words, and their applicability is sufficiently 
 obvious to foreclose the necessity of discussion. 
 
 In the present instance sugar stock has risen about 35 points, 
 and it is calculated that it has increased in value about one-third. 
 The situation is peculiarly disagreeable -when we learn from the 
 opening address of the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] 
 that the schedule which he prepared and which the Republican party 
 abandoned accorded a lighter differential than any since suggested. 
 Who doubts that the sugar trust contributed enormously to the last 
 campaign? The disposition of Mr. Havemeyer was demonstrated 
 by his testimony before the Senate investigation committee. I quote : 
 
 Senator ALLEN. Had you or the Sugar Refining Company contributed any 
 thing to the campaign fund in New York last year the Democratic State 
 campaign fund of last year? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. I will have to -answer that in the affirmative. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. Did you also contribute something to the Republican cam 
 paign fund that is, for the State campaign? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. We always do that. I have not the amount in my mind. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. In 1892 did you contribute to either party? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. The local parties? 
 
 Senator ALLEN. The national parties. 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. No, sir; but always to the local parties. Let that be dis 
 tinct. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. And you contribute to both parties with the expectation 
 that, whichever party succeeds, your interests will be guarded? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. We have a good deal of protection for our contribu 
 tion. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. Therefore you feel at liberty to contribute to both parties? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. It depends. In the State of New York, where the Demo 
 cratic majority is between 40,000 and 50,000 we throw it their way. In the 
 State of Massachusetts, where the Republican majority is doubtful, they 
 probably have the call. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. However, in the State of New York you contribute to 
 the Democratic party, and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you con 
 tribute to the Republican party? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. It is my impression that w y herever there is a dominant 
 party, wherever the majority is very large, that is the party that gets the 
 contribution, because it is the party that controls local matters. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. Then the sugar trust is a Democrat in a Democratic State 
 and a Republican in a Republican State? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. As far as local matters are concerned, I think that is 
 about it. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. In the State of Maine, you control the refineries at Port 
 land, do you not? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. That is defunct. We would not give anything to the 
 State of Maine. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. In the State of Pennsylvania, where do your contribu 
 tions go ? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. I will have to look that up. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. In the State of your nativity, of the nativity of your cor 
 poration, New Jersey, where do your contributions go? 
 
 MR. HAVEMEYER. I will have to look that up. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. I understand that New Jersey is invariably a Democratic 
 State. It would probably go the Democratic party? 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 129 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. Under the theory I have suggested, if they were there, 
 it would naturally go to them. 
 
 * # * * * * * 
 
 Senator ALLEN. And this money that you contribute to these different 
 parties for campaign purposes, local campaign purposes that money comes 
 out of the corporation of the sugar refining company? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. And is a part of the expenses of that company? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. Charged up on your books as expenses? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. How would it show as so much money? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. It would show that a payment was made, and that pay 
 ment would have to be explained by the party who made it. 
 
 Senator ALLEN. The manner in which he did explain it actually would not 
 appear upon your books? 
 
 Mr. HAVEMEYER. No, sir. 
 
 He certainly did not advance funds to the Democratic party, 
 and if he told the truth when he said, " We have a good deal of 
 protection for our contribution," he might emphasize the statement 
 now ; for though he may have yielded many thousands to the Repub 
 lican campaign committee, he has been most amply rewarded. How 
 can my Republican friends explain their change of base upon the 
 sugar issue? They often spoke of the free breakfast table and of 
 the outrage committed by the Democracy in imposing such a heavy 
 tax upon the consumer of sugar. And here let it be remembered that 
 under the prevailing law the duty-paid price of German granulated 
 is 3.444, and under the conference bill it is 4.633, or 1.188 in excess 
 of the sum so often and bitterly referred to by Republican Senators 
 in the debate of 1894. 
 
 I here insert remarks made by some of the distinguished Sena 
 tors upon the other side of the Chamber, to which I have already 
 directed attention. I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the 
 Senate or to further harrow the feelings of anyone by rereading 
 the same. My main object in placing these excerpts in the RECORD 
 is to enable my friends upon the other side to readily ascertain what 
 they believed or said they believed in the year 1894. I was about to 
 cite a quotation from the Senator from New Hampshire, commencing, 
 4< The sugar show is about to close," but I will forbear. 
 
 The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. GALLTNGER] said: 
 
 The advantage which the new tariff act 
 It was the McKinley Act of which he then spoke 
 
 gives to the country in the matter of sugar for one year can be seen at a 
 glance : 
 
 Amount of duty taken off $60,000,000 
 
 Amount paid for bounties 9,000,000 
 
 Amount saved to the people by the new reciprocity treaty 
 
 alone 51 ,000,000 
 
 (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, page 4972, volume 26, part 5, May 19, 1894.) 
 
 The then senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN], now the distin 
 guished Secretary of State, elaborated upon this subject, and he laid 
 down the proposition that it was absolutely unnecessary to give any 
 differential to the refiners ; that any allowance made to the refiners 
 
130 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 was not only injudicious, but was a contribution to the most oppres 
 sive monopoly of the day. During the entire course of that debate 
 it was charged that we were under the influence of the trust, and 
 that the ad valorem tariff of 40 per cent, was placed in the bill 
 especially for the benefit of that institution, so loyal to Democracy s 
 opponents. I refer to the proceedings of May 31, 1894, of this body, 
 to be found in volume 26, part 6, pages 5517 and 5518, when the then 
 Senator from Ohio, the present distinguished Secretary of State, said 
 upon this subject: 
 
 The quotations I have marked in the report made by the Committee on 
 Finance show that it is an industry (sugar refining) which needs no protec 
 tion; and when they come here and secure a benefit to be conferred upon 
 them, it seems to me that the time has come to call a halt. I had rather cut 
 off my right hand than vote a single cent of bounty to a corporation which 
 has dealt with the Government as these corporations have done. 
 
 The same able Senator further stated, speaking of the McKinley 
 bill: 
 
 It has some demerits. It adopted bounties for sugar instead of protection, 
 which I believed at the time was a bad policy. It favored unduly, I think, 
 the great sugar trust, then not known, and which had not grown to the 
 importance which it has assumed since. Congressional Record, page 5510, vol 
 ume 26, part 6, May 31, 1894. 
 
 I would not be true to myself if I did not state that although I voted for 
 the passage of the McKinley bill, I was not at any period of its pendency in 
 favor of the disposition it proposed of the sugar question. Congressional 
 Record, page 5514, volume 26, part 6, May 31, 1894. 
 
 I beg leave also to cite a few remarks made by the distinguished 
 Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. GALLINGER] upon the same 
 interesting occasion, and with reference to the same subject. 
 
 On sugar 
 Said that disting-uished Senator 
 
 the tariff strikes a blow at every man, woman, and child in the land, and 
 especially in the families of the poor. It protects and fattens the great sugar 
 trust, while at the same time it imposes an additional burden upon every 
 consumer of sugar in the United States. Congressional Record, page 3893, 
 volume 26, part 4, April 20, 1894. 
 
 Is it not sad, even pathetic, to reflect that the present bill is an 
 exaggeration of the Wilson Act in this ulterior regard? 
 
 I also have another extract from the able and diplomatic Senator 
 from Maine [Mr. HALE]. He said: 
 
 The Republican party has a policy that, as the years go by, will be sanc 
 tioned, and our people will be grateful for the building up in this country of 
 industry in every form and of the production of sugar that in the end will 
 relieve us from the tribute that we pay to other nations. There is no more 
 beneficent thing, Mr. President, that the Republican party has been engaged 
 in for years in all its missions, since it has taken into consideration the great 
 financial and fiscal questions of this country, than the two things which were 
 embodied in that proposition upon sugar that was free sugar for the break 
 fast table and a system of bounties which would encourage and build up in 
 this country an industry by which within twelve years we should raise all 
 the sugar consumed by the American people. I am willing in the future to 
 stand upon that proposition. I am willing to contrast that with the attitude 
 that the Democratic party is in, either in the other House or in the Senate, as 
 will be shown by future votes in that body and by votes in this body upon 
 the question of sugar. Congressional Record, page 5020, volume 26, part 5, 
 May 21, 1894. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 131 
 
 Yet, Mr. President, these very Senators are here today ready to 
 vote for a differential greater than that which they then denounced 
 in unsparing terms and which they even insinuated challenged the 
 honesty of the men who supported it. 
 
 But I am told this is ancient literature. It is not so very old. 
 It is new enough to be important and instructive. 
 
 The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CHAND 
 LER] commented upon the situation thus : 
 
 I wish again to show (i) that duties on sugar have failed to develop the 
 home industry, because cane sugar can not possibly be supplied in quantities 
 to meet more than one-fifth of the American consumption ; (2) that under the 
 bounty system the growth of the cane-sugar and beet industry is rapidly 
 increasing our home production, and (3) that the abolition of the bounty and 
 the return of the duty system, the duty to be 40 per cent ad valorem and one- 
 eight of a cent a pound in addition on refined sugar, will tend to check the 
 American production of sugar and stop the growth of the beet-sugar indus 
 try, while unnecessarily taxing the American consumers over $60,000,000 
 annually, and enriching the monopoly known as the sugar trust by devices which 
 will enrich its owners nearly $75,000,000 profits during the next year and per 
 manently fasten the trust upon the households of America at a cost of $70,000,- 
 ooo, one-half of which will go as an unfair profit to the trust and the other half 
 into the Treasury as a tax, not needed, upon one of the necessaries of life. 
 Congressional Record, page 5719, volume 26, part 6, June 4, 1894. 
 
 This speech surely could not be made upon that side of the 
 Chamber now, for our Republican friends tender us a direct propo 
 sition to impose the tax which they formerly repudiated. They now 
 threaten to inflict it in a more obnoxious form and to an exaggerated 
 extent. 
 
 The " American breakfast table " was a source of great solicitude 
 on the other side of the Chamber during that debate. We were told 
 that the poor man was entitled to have his sugar without any tariff 
 mixture. Untaxed sugar was something that the Republican party 
 guaranteed to every American consumer. 
 
 He must have sugar, and he must have it free from tax. Yet, 
 Mr. President, the same distinguished gentlemen, I repeat, who at 
 that time so roundly denounced the Democracy in this Chamber 
 because of the imposition of a small sugar tariff, are here today 
 levying a greater tax, as the result of all their experience and in 
 the face of their own advertised promises and record. Even the 
 Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], whom we all know to be an 
 extremely conservative man and an able Senator, made this remark: 
 
 Mr. President, if I had my way, I should strike from this bill every vestige 
 which provides a duty upon sugar, and I would continue the bounty, as we are 
 bound under our contract until 1905 by a moral obligation which is as binding 
 on the United States as any contract that I may make can be binding upon me. 
 And if additional revenue is required, I would look around among the luxuries 
 that are consumed by our people and find that revenue. Congressional Record, 
 page 5703, volume 26, part 6, June 6, 1894. 
 
 The Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] complained often of the 
 tax upon the breakfast table, and he truly said, " High duty on 
 sugar puts up the price to the consumer." (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,, 
 volume 26, part 5, May 18, 1894.) 
 
 Then the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] made this 
 comment, to be found on page 4670, volume 26, part 5, of the CON 
 GRESSIONAL RECORD, May 12, 1894: 
 
 If it is to be the principle of the Democratic party and of the majority of the 
 committee in this Chamber that the duty upon luxuries is to be decreased for 
 
132 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 the purpose of furnishing an excuse to increase the duties upon necessaries of 
 life like sugar, then we had better understand it at once. 
 
 If now we are to have a superlatively high duty upon sugar, we 
 had better understand it at once. 
 
 The following colloquy occurred. It appears on page 4914, vol 
 ume 26, part 5, of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 18, 1894. The 
 Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] said: 
 
 The duty upon sugar will be paid by every man, woman and child in the 
 United States. 
 
 That is true; there is no doubt about it. I affirm it. Then the 
 Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICI-I] said: 
 
 The increase of taxation and revenue from sugar will be at least $50,000,000. 
 
 We become most thoughtful in the presence of that proposition. 
 The prospect of the imposition of $50,000,000 of taxation upon the 
 American people was not cheerful. Then the Senator from Maine 
 [Mr. HALE] said: 
 
 So that a part of this scheme is to take off $38,000,000 upon imports which 
 are pure luxuries and not used in everyday life, and to make up for that reduc 
 tion the committee propose to add $50,000,000 to the sugar duties and tax the 
 breakfast table of every man, woman and child in the United States. Is that 
 true? 
 
 Mr. ALDRICH. That is true. 
 
 And it is true now; it is true of this bill; it is just as true now 
 as it was then, and with this bill superlatively so if I may use such 
 an expression in this, that the rates of duty are so much higher 
 that every hundred pounds of sugar under the provisions of this bill 
 will cost probably $1.18 or $1.20 more than it does under the prevail 
 ing Wilson bill. 
 
 I now refer to a statement made by the Senator from Connecticut 
 [Mr. PLATT], which I wish to read a very pertinent statement, to 
 be found on page 4707, volume 36, part 5, of the CONGRESSIONAL 
 RECORD, in the proceedings of May 14, 1894. He said: 
 
 How are you who have denounced this duty upon refined sugar this con 
 cession to the sugar trust going to vote for it now? How great must be the 
 compulsion which obliges Senators thus to swallow not only the words but the 
 opinions of years and vote for a prohibitive duty on refined sugar. 
 
 The Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] also remarked: 
 
 Mr. President, there is one thing that is as certain as the coming of tides 
 and sunrise, and that is that whatever happens to be put finally into the bill and 
 is comprehended in its features when it passes, the American people will not 
 go long without a return to the feature of free sugar for the breakfast tables of 
 the people, thereby saving to those breakfast tables an annual tax of between 
 $60,000,000 and $70,000,000. Congressional Record, page 5764, volume 26, part 6, 
 June 5, 1894- 
 
 Again, Mr. President, I must say my feelings are outraged. 
 This breakfast table, around which our Republican brethren rallied 
 in 1894, is turned over to its modern autocrat the sugar trust. 
 
 The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CHANDLER] commented 
 at the same time upon the bill as follows : 
 
 Mr. President, the sugar show is about to close 
 
 We are now very near the end of the conference, Mr. President, 
 it will be observed 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 133 
 
 The Populists have got free barbed wire and free lumber. The Democrats 
 have got the Populists, and the sugar trust has got them all. The American 
 people are to be taxed next year, and year by year, $60,000,000 annually upon a 
 necessity of life solely in order that the shameless boast of the sugar trust in the 
 Sugar Trade Journal, that the trust controls Congress, may be carried out. 
 (Page 5774, volume 26, part 6, June 5, 1894.) 
 
 The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] likewise made 
 the following" contribution to the debate of 1894 (CONGRESSIONAL 
 RECORD, volume 26, part 6, page 5775, June 5, 1894) : 
 
 And I say to you now that when this question is reached in the Senate, we 
 shall try on this side of the Chamber to secure, if possible, a vote for free sugar. 
 
 Let me ask Republican Senators whether they are prepared to 
 secure a vote for free sugar at this time? 
 
 This struggle will not end 
 The Senator continues 
 
 This struggle will not end today in the Senate ; it certainly will be continued 
 before the American people and their judgment taken. 1 tell you. Senators, that 
 no act of yours, no provision in this bill, will be so certain to bring upon you 
 and your party the condemnation of the American people as this one ; and when 
 I say " your party " I include also the representatives of the Third Party. Those 
 gentlemen have always asserted that they were the friends of the people. They 
 have signalized that friendship today by joining their Democratic allies in forc 
 ing upon the people of the United States this unjustifiable, indefensible and 
 infamous [sugar] tax. I said this tax [sugar] was infamous, and if I could 
 employ any stronger word than that in characterizing it, 1 should be glad 
 to do so. 
 
 Is it not sad to reflect, Mr. President, that a great party, within 
 whose ranks these patriotic sentiments were born, should change 
 its tactics and adopt the very policy which it then characterized 
 as infamous? 
 
 In a general way, and as peculiarly relevant here, I add the fol 
 lowing history, written by our opponents during this same discus 
 sion. I again quote from the Senator last cited : 
 
 Mr. President, it is evident that the die is cast 
 Evident ! 
 
 The spectacle of a great party responsible for legislation, but hopelessly and 
 helplessly under the control of influences outside of this Chamber, must be a 
 humiliating one to the American people. 
 
 I confess to some diffidence in continuing this, but as a matter 
 of duty I will proceed : 
 
 If the Senators upon the other side of this aisle should vote upon the prop 
 ositions contained in this schedule according to their conscience and judgment, 
 it would receive the almost universal condemnation of Democratic Senators. 
 
 A substitution of party name should be made here. 
 
 Not over six Senators upon that side believe in the justice or equity of the 
 propositions now to be approved in the Committee of the Whole. Certain per 
 sons not known to the Constitution or the laws, not recognized as any part of 
 the National Government, have demanded that certain provisions shall be writ 
 ten in the statutes of the United States, and the members of a great party 
 cravenly submit to these demands. Congressional Record, page 5775, volume 26, 
 part 6, June 5, 1894. 
 
 And yet the same organization, the representatives of which 
 stood by, and if they did not applaud the sentiments it was because 
 
134 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 the decorum of the body prevented it, is today not only sanctioning 
 a bill containing larger differentials than the Wilson and House bills, 
 but which likewise imposes a double tax upon the American people. 
 
 And yet here we have this tremendous duty upon sugar, and the 
 bounties, where are they? 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] used language 
 which exactly fits the case, if I am permitted to eliminate from it the 
 word " Democratic " and substitute " Republican." As thus revised, 
 I will read it : 
 
 Stand up, Republican Senators, if you will, and say that you are personally 
 in favor of this bill the whole of you, a majority -of you, a tenth part of you. 
 You will not do it. " We are going to vote for this bill and stop your mouths, if 
 we can," you tell us " not because we believe in it " they say it is wicked 
 through and through " not because the American people believe in it " they 
 say it is wicked through and through but because two or three gentlemen have 
 got together in a committee room or a corner somewhere, like the three witches 
 in Macbeth, and concocted this hellbroth which we have promised them to 
 swallow. Congressional Record, page 5062, volume 26, part 6, May 22, 1894. 
 
 I find a very interesting statement from the honorable Senator 
 from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] concerning the methods of preparing 
 the Wilson bill, and especially the sugar schedule. It is singularly 
 pertinent to the present proceedings, and will be found on page 3811, 
 volume 26, part 4, of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, in the proceedings 
 of April 1 8, 1894: 
 
 Concerning the rates of duties reported in the tariff bill, it is no violation 
 of the confidential relations of the Senate Committee on Finance to state now 
 that they were all fixed and determined without the votes of the Republican 
 members, and even against the votes of any hesitating or divergent minority 
 of Democratic members. Thus many of the most important questions may 
 have been determined by the small fraction of three or four of a committee of 
 eleven. 
 
 Sad to say, these comments apply with greater force to the sit 
 uation which now surrounds us. 
 
 I also find the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 LODGE] commenting graphically upon the outrages assumed to have 
 been perpetrated by the Democratic majority of the Finance Com 
 mittee upon their unfortunate brethren. On page 4350, volume 26, 
 page 5, of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, in the proceedings of May 2, 
 1894, that Senator said : 
 
 It must be remembered that there have been practically no public hear 
 ings upon the bill. There have not been the usual opportunities to the persons 
 affected by it to present their views before committees in regard to its pro 
 visions. No hearings have been given here. 
 
 The able senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] added 
 his significant criticism thus : 
 
 I never before heard of a financier who made up a budget and did not have 
 some expectation of the amount he could depend upon from particular sources. 
 Congressional Record, volume 26, part 5, page 4483. 
 
 The Senator from Rhode Island said (RECORD, volume 26, part 
 5, page 4823) : 
 
 And I hope that in this particular case some of the Senators upon the other 
 side, representing some of the Southern States, may break away from this iron- 
 bound caucus rule and vote for one thing which they believe in and not submit 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 135 
 
 their consciences entirely to the keeping of the Senator from Arkansas ; but 
 once a day at least, merely for a change, that they shall vote for amendments 
 or suggestions which commend themselves to their judgment and which are in 
 the interests of the people whom they represent. 
 
 Mr. President, I am not unfeeling enough to again read this 
 article and substitute the names of the distinguished Senators on the 
 other side in charge of the present bill for that of the Senator from 
 Arkansas. The pertinency of the citation is manifest. 
 
 I wish also to quote the language of the Senator from New 
 Hampshire [Mr. CHANDLER] : 
 
 There is not a word or a line in this bill from beginning to end that was 
 constructed in the sunlight. It has been constructed in the deep holes of this 
 Capitol; it has been constructed in dark by-places; it has been constructed in 
 secret, out-of-sight places, and, Mr. President, it ought to be smitten to death, 
 if not by the sunlight of heaven, by lightning that ought to flash from the 
 heavens and utterly tear it to pieces and destroy it. Congressional Record, 
 page 5775, volume 26, part 6, June 5, 1894. 
 
 While the distinguished Senator otherwise declares, I must deem 
 it probable when he thus spoke that he foresaw the present mal- 
 conduct of his party. 
 
 Certainly there has been much secret work here. I do not doubt 
 that the Senator would like to know how the stock-transfer tax 
 came to be eliminated by the Republican conferees. 
 
 I will not further discuss this feature of pending legislation. I 
 think the American people understand it ; and when the next tariff 
 bill is framed, it is more than probable that no differential at all will 
 be accorded the sugar trust. The country is weary because of the 
 interference in legislation of those who hold so much of the wealth 
 of the world. Their greed, selfishness, and corruption should exclude 
 them from participancy in any advantages possible to attend tariff 
 legislation. 
 
 THE DUTY ON WINES. 
 
 The tariff act of 1894 contained the following provision with 
 reference to that class of liquors which include clarets : 
 
 Still wines, including ginger wine or ginger cordial and vermuth, in casks 
 or packages other than bottles or jugs (i), if containing 14 per cent, or less of 
 absolute alcohol, 30 cents per gallon; if containing more than 14 per cent, of 
 absolute alcohol, 50 cents per gallon. In bottles or jugs, per case of one dozen 
 bottles or jugs, containing each not more than i quart and more than i 
 pint, or twenty-four bottles or jugs containing each not more than i pint (2), 
 $1.60 per case; and any excess beyond these quantities found in such bottles 
 or jugs shall be subject to a duty of 5 cents per pint or fractional part thereof, 
 but no separate or additional duty shall be assessed on the bottles or jugs. 
 
 The pending bill as it passed the House (eliminating a proviso 
 not important to this discussion) was as follows : 
 
 Still wines, including ginger wine or ginger cordial and vermuth, in casks, 
 60 cents per gallon; in bottles or jugs, per case of i dozen bottles or jugs, con 
 taining each not more than i quart and more than i pint, or 24 bottles or jugs 
 containing each not more than i pint, $2 per case ; and any excess beyond 
 these quantities found in such bottles or jugs shall be subject to a duty of 7 
 cents per pint or fractional part thereof, but no separate or additional duty 
 shall be assessed on the bottles or jugs. 
 
136 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 The Senate amended this provision by reducing the tax from 
 60 cents per gallon to a much lower rate. The language was as 
 follows : 
 
 296. Still wines, including ginger wine or ginger cordial and vermuth, in 
 casks or packages other than bottles or jugs, if containing 14 per cent, or less 
 of absolute alcohol, 30 cents per gallon; if containing more than 14 per cent, 
 of absolute alcohol, 50 cents per gallon. In bottles or jugs, per case of i dozen 
 bottles or jugs, containing each not more than i quart and more than I pint, 
 or 24 bottles or jugs containing each not more than i pint, $1.60 per case; and 
 any excess beyond these quantities found in such bottles or jugs shall be sub 
 ject to a duty of 5 cents per pint or fractional part thereof, but no separate 
 or additional duty shall be assessed on the bottles or jugs. 
 
 The conferees reported an amendment exactly accordant with 
 the Senate proposition except that 30 was raised to 40. (Confer 
 ence report, page 99.) It is understood that one of the members of 
 the bimetallic diplomatic commission asked that this sacrifice of Cali 
 fornia industries might be made in order that he might more easily 
 persuade the French Government to come to terms. This statement 
 would seem absurd, or rather it would seem too absurd for credence, 
 were it not for the presence of proof. We find a similarly silly 
 declaration in the so-called reciprocity clause agreed upon by the 
 conference. 
 
 The President is there given authority to reduce the tariff on 
 champagne 25 per cent., or from $8 per dozen quarts to $6 per dozen 
 quarts, and he is also permitted to reduce the tariff on still wines 
 and vermuth in casks to 35 cents per gallon. Ordinarily, alcoholic 
 beverages have been considered the proper subject for a high tariff. 
 This ought especially to be the case when these articles are produced 
 in the United States. When this subject was before the Senate 
 earlier in the discussion, I inserted in the RECORD a letter from Hon. 
 M. M. Estee, of California, which I deemed and still deem exceedingly 
 pertinent. It is as follows : 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, May 24, 1897. 
 
 MY DEAR SENATOR: The tariff schedule adopted by the United States 
 Senate, so far as it relates to American wines, is unjust, and the grape grow 
 ers of California are practically a unit in opposition to it. By request of 
 some of the leading producers of our State, I venture to write you on this 
 topic. 
 
 You are aware that personally I have ceased to be interested in grape cul 
 ture in California, but, in common with all of our people, I am deeply inter 
 ested in whatever secures the prosperity of the producers of our State and 
 country. 
 
 i. There is but a very small portion of the earth s surface where the finer 
 qualities of the European grape can be raised. These grapes never will pros 
 per in the Tropics, nor, indeed, in the temperate zones, except in especially 
 favorable localities. California is the only part of the American Union where 
 the European vine has thus far been largely cultivated. The culture of the 
 grape is an infant industry so far as our country is concerned, and if the 
 principle of protection means anything, it means that infant or undeveloped 
 industries shall be protected against unfair foreign competition. 
 
 That is what we ask, and all we expect. The inquiry then arises, What 
 should be done to accomplish this purpose? It goes without saying that all 
 foreign wines brought to the United States are a luxury which none but the 
 wealthy can enjoy, and this is so whether high import duties are imposed on 
 them or not, as the American consumer of the middle classes uses American 
 wines only ; and hence the question of protection to American wines resolve s 
 itself into a contest between the rich American consumer and the foreign 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 137 
 
 producer on the one hand and the industrious American producer and the 
 poor American consumer on the other. 
 
 2. It is claimed that under the Senate amendments of the Dingley tariff 
 bill this American industry will be destroyed. Ought this to be done? The 
 amount invested in vineyards in California now exceeds $50,000,000. This is 
 divided between the raisin, the wine, and the brandy industries. During the 
 last four years there has been a great depression in the grape culture, caused 
 largely by the so-called Wilson tariff bill, which placed the duty on dry wines 
 at 30 cents per gallon. This was raised in the Dingley bill to 60 cents; but the 
 Senate Finance Committee has cut it down to the old figure of 30 cents; and 
 not only that, but it has changed the duty on imported wines in glass to $i a 
 case of a dozen bottles. 
 
 This is an actual discrimination in favor of the foreign product, because 
 the one-dollar duty does not meet the difference in the price of wages in 
 France and America. To illustrate, in the wine districts of France the aver 
 age wages paid to labor is from li to 3 francs a day, the laborer boarding 
 himself, except his lunch. In California the price of labor for the same work 
 is from 75 cents to $i a day and board. It will thus be seen that if it were a 
 mere matter of the value of labor in cultivating the vine, America could not 
 on even terms compete with France in the making of wine. In this connec 
 tion, it ought also to be observed that the interest on money in California is 
 from 7 to 10 per cent, per annum; in France, Germany and Italy it is from 
 3 to 4 per cent, per annum. And it should also be noted that Germany charges 
 an import duty on wines brought into that country in glass of $1.95 a case; 
 Italy, $1.44 a case and France, on all wines above 10.9 of alcoholic strength, 
 the same proportionate duty she imposes on spirits. 
 
 The Senate amendments to the Dingley bill are not only wrong to the pro 
 ducers, but are unjust to the whole people. For instance, the duty on wines 
 of an absolute alcoholic strength of from 14 to 24 degrees is 50 cents a gallon, 
 while the duty on spirits whose absolute alcoholic strength is 50 is $2.25 a 
 gallon. Thus the duty on twenty-four fiftieths of a gallon of spirits, when 
 blended with wine, is only 50 cents; but when it comes into the country in the 
 form of pure spirits the duty would be over a dollar, thus discriminating 
 in favor of foreign wines. And, again, this would encourage adulteration, 
 because the ordinary strength of California wines is about ni degrees of 
 alcohol, while under this bill the importer could bring in wine braced up to 
 24 in spirits, and by the use of water and other substances dilute it until it 
 was down to the usual strength of ni degrees of spirits, and thus make more 
 than two gallons of wine out of one. 
 
 And, again, it is a notorious fact that the French officials have recently 
 reported to the French Government that a considerable portion of the wines 
 of France are adulterated. Whatever may be said of California wines by 
 people who underrate our own productions, yet no one ever doubted but 
 what they were pure. 
 
 3. As a revenue proposition the Senate amendments to the Dingley bill in 
 relation to wines would prove a failure. As before stated, it is well under 
 stood that imported wines of the better grades are drank only by wealthy 
 people, and it is also a fact that the chief test of the value of these wines with 
 the American user is the cost of such wines, rather than their quality and 
 purity, and thus 50 cents a gallon duty on dry wines (that is, those under 12 
 per cent, of alcoholic strength) will not perceptibly affect the amount of the 
 importation of wine. Such a duty would, however, protect our own pro 
 ducers, and would throw into the market in competition with imported wines 
 an absolutely pure article, and which is improving in quality every year, and 
 thus, while a 5O-cent duty would increase American revenue, it would at the 
 same time sustain an American industry. 
 
 It must be noted also in this connection that the duties on wines and liquors 
 are high in all countries where any duty at all is imposed. As a rule, this 
 duty is imposed for the single purpose of producing revenue. The conten 
 tion that a lower rate of duty on imported wines would stimulate the impor 
 tation, and thus increase the revenue, has by the experiences of the past proven 
 to be an error. For instance, the importation of wines in the United States 
 in 1893 was 3-354,078 gallons. The duty on these wines at 50 cents per gallon 
 amounted to $1,727,039.14, while the amount of wine imported in 1896, when 
 the duty was 30 and 50 cents a gallon, was 2,768,485 gallons, and the duty col- 
 
 10 
 
138 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 lected amounted to $1,420,251.90. So you can readily see that if these Senate 
 amendments to the Dingley bill were prompted for the purpose of increasing 
 the revenue, they will prove a failure. 
 
 The fact is, France never has been a good market for American produc 
 tions. We therefore owe no commercial obligations to France that we have 
 not thrice paid; but even if we did, is it either fair or wise for our brethren 
 in the more populous portions of our country to pass laws which will protect 
 the industries in which they are engaged, but at the same time forget their 
 kindred in the remoter portions of this Republic? They should remember 
 that while their wool and iron and coal and their products of the farm are 
 protected, our fruits and wines should be equally protected ; and thus by 
 developing all the resources of every part of the country they will increase 
 the average wealth of the people, maintain prices for labor, give to capital 
 remunerative investments, and make our country self-supporting by produc 
 ing nearly everything that our people consume. 
 
 Yours, sincerely, MORRIS M. ESTEE. 
 
 Hon. STEPHEN M. WHITE, 
 
 United States Senator, Washington, D. C. 
 
 In California, Republican orators have burdened the air with 
 their denunciations of those Democrats who have favored a moderate 
 tariff upon wines. I have always contended that 50 cents per gallon 
 on clarets was eminently reasonable and served only to exclude con 
 coctions unfit for consumption. The animus in this respect of the 
 so-called reciprocity clause is further found in the provision contained 
 in section 3, which allows the President to agree to a reduction upon 
 the tariff on brandy to $1.75 per proof gallon, as against $2.25. 
 (Section 288, page 94, conference report.) Grape brandy is produced 
 to a large extent in California, and this reciprocity provision is 
 designated to further interfere with an industry by no means over- 
 profitable. 
 
 COAL. 
 
 California has for many years paid practically all the tariff that 
 has been collected on account of the importation of coal. Heretofore 
 anthracite has been admitted free. The Senate amended the free 
 list and practically imposed a duty upon anthracite. A large amount 
 of this variety of coal has been brought to San Francisco during the 
 last few years by way of ballast. We produce no coal of that quality 
 in California or in the immediate neighborhood, and our people, I 
 believe, are entitled to the benefit of the lowest-priced fuel obtainable. 
 I opposed the duty upon coal, believing it to be entirely unjus 
 tifiable and knowing that the people of California paid not less than 
 $600,000 per annum on this account alone. The conference com 
 mittee modified the Senate amendment slightly, and permitted the 
 admission of anthracite testing above 92 degrees carbon free of duty. 
 
 The influence of the coal barons of the East has been felt in this 
 connection. This is especially noticeable in the provisions affecting 
 the use of coal for fuel on vessels propelled by steam. Until the 
 enactment of the McKinley bill vessels of this description engaged in 
 trade with foreign countries, and also in the coastwise trade, were 
 entitled, if of American register, to coal for fuel free of duty. That 
 is to say, full drawback was allowed. 
 
 When the McKinley bill became a law, it was not intended to 
 change this regulation, but the Government claimed that as the draw 
 back provision was not repeated in the McKinley law it was repealed 
 by implication. This contention was overruled by the circuit court 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 139 
 
 and court of appeals of the Ninth circuit, but the judgment of the 
 latter tribunal was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, one of the justices dissenting, and the vessels referred to were 
 held to be not entitled to free coal. 
 
 I suggested the restoration of the old law, which had been thus 
 inadvertently abrogated. But a few interested people of influence 
 compelled the Republican majority to deprive coastwise vessels of 
 this privilege, but permitted the amendment tendered by me to stand 
 as far as it concerned steamers engaged in foreign trade, or in trade 
 between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States. Here, 
 again, the trust power manifested itself, and the subordination of 
 public to private interests was once more disclosed. 
 
 ANTITOXIN. 
 
 For years vaccine virus has been upon the free list. It is a matter 
 of common knowledge that the discovery of antitoxin furnished to 
 the world a specific for diphtheria. The General Board of Appraisers 
 of the United States decided that this most valuable and beneficial 
 article was admissible, under the " vaccine-virus " clause, free of duty. 
 American manufacturers, or those who intended to manufacture this 
 medicine, differed from the Board of Appraisers, and the matter was 
 finally submitted to and decided by the United States district court. 
 
 The opinion is exceedingly brief. I read from 77 Federal 
 Reporter, page 607 : 
 
 This was an appeal by the Government from a decision of the Board of 
 General Appraisers, reversing the decision of the collector of the port of New 
 York as to the classification of certain merchandise, imported by Schulze, 
 Berge & Koechl. The merchandise was invoiced as "blood serum diph 
 theria remedy," and it was shown to be an agent for the prevention and cure 
 of diphtheria, produced from the blood of horses by treatment with the 
 diphtheria poison. The collector assessed a duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem, 
 as upon a medicinal preparation. The importers claimed an exemption from 
 duty directly or by similitude, or component of chief value, under paragraphs 
 367, 404, 470, or 664, act 1894. 
 
 Judge Wheeler, in deciding the case, said : 
 
 The tariff act of 1894 places a duty, by paragraph 59, on " all medicinal prep 
 arations not specially provided for," and by paragraph 664 puts on the free 
 list "vaccine virus." This importation is of antitoxin. It was classified under 
 the former paragraph, and the protest raised the question whether it should 
 be free under the latter. Antitoxin is a different thing from vaccine virus. 
 It comes from a different source, is used for a different, although somewhat 
 similar, purpose, and operates in a different way. The former seems to cure 
 disease, and the latter introduces a milder form to obviate what would be worse. 
 The latter has such a well-defined meaning, applicable to one thing, that, against 
 a first impression, it does not now seem capable of covering, by any implication, 
 such a different thing as the former. Decision of General Appraisers reversed. 
 
 It will be noticed that according to this statement antitoxin is 
 manufactured if it can be called a manufactured article at? all 
 from the blood of the horse. In other words, the diphtheria poison 
 is infused and the blood drawn from the animal, and, without any 
 other processes than those which naturally follow, the antidote 
 results. 
 
 While engaged in the investigation of another matter I noticed 
 this adjudication and found myself compelled to doubt its accuracy, 
 and since I have examined into the subject of the production of 
 
140 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 antitoxin I have made up my mind that it is in no sense a medicinal 
 preparation. It can not be said that the giving of healthy food to a 
 healthy horse and the drawing of blood from the animal and the sub 
 sequent evolution of the material thus pruduced is the u preparation " 
 of a medicine. However, the court has so held and no appeal has been 
 taken. It seemed to me that if vaccine virus may be given to the 
 people regardless of wealth or station free of duty, the same policy 
 ought to be pursued with reference to antitoxin. One would rather 
 find smallpox in his family than diphtheria unless he might use anti 
 toxin to eradicate the malady. 
 
 The imposition of a tax upon this article will not be felt by the 
 wealthy nor by those in medium station, but will be noted within 
 the unfortunately large domain occupied by poverty. The best 
 quality of antitoxin is expensive. Under the decision already noted 
 the article will come under the medicinal-preparation clause page 
 15, section 68, last print the duty being 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Think of this. Think of the suffering infant struggling for 
 breath in the abode of poverty. Perhaps the domestic finances are 
 such as to make the addition of 25 per cent, or 75 cents material. Yet 
 this child must die that an infant industry may live! 
 
 Such cases may be rare, though poverty is not rare; but, how 
 ever unusual, the collusiveness of the objection remains. A tariff 
 bill which will obstruct efforts to cure diphtheria, which will en 
 courage speculation on life, which will call upon the poor to wait, 
 notwithstanding the death of innocents, until a new industry has 
 been established, is based upon barbarian doctrines. These objec 
 tions might not appeal to the King of Benim, but ought to be regarded 
 by American Senators, and even by American trusts, who have here 
 tofore been contented to realize their profits from sugar, lead, iron, etc. 
 
 GRAIN BAGS. 
 
 When this matter was before the Senate, a majority voted to 
 put the article on the free list, where the Wilson bill located it. 
 This was done after vigorous discussion. But the conferees have 
 given away the Senate as they did in the matter of matting, cotton 
 bagging, and cotton ties. The farmers of California are interested 
 in procuring cheap grain bags. All the grain which we ship to 
 Liverpool is forwarded in bags of this character. Local manufac 
 turers insist that they are entitled to protection against the cheap 
 labor of Calcutta. I answer that the farmer derives so little benefit 
 from tariff taxes that I favor giving him a chance as against all 
 others when it comes to grain bags. The; Wilson bill cheapened 
 grain bags to the consumer. In 1891, when bags were dutiable, the 
 cost to the California farmer was from 7 to 7^ cents ; in 1892, when 
 there was also a duty, the cost was from 7^4 to 8 cents, and in 1893, 
 the duty being still in effect, the cost was from 63/2 to 7 cents. In 
 1894, when bags were free, the cost was from 4 to 4}^ cents ; in 1895, 
 under same conditions, from 4^ to 5 cents; and in 1896, the article 
 being still on the free list, from 4% to 4^2 cents. As soon as this bill 
 was reported to the House, the bag market stiffened, and no doubt 
 the price will again be from 6^2 to 8 cents, and the farmers of Cali 
 fornia will be taxed upon this single item from $300,000 to $500,000 
 per annum. It is true that a tariff has been placed upon grain. No 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 141 
 
 one is silly enough to be deceived as to the effect of this sort 
 of legislation. Our prices are fixed abroad. Grain can not be 
 brought here profitably. When an importation is made, it is for 
 seed purposes, and then the farmer pays a duty. In the matter of 
 grain bags an opportunity was afforded to do something of sub 
 stantial benefit to the agriculturist, but again the manufacturer had 
 his way and the granger was ignored as usual. 
 
 Mr. President, I propose to offer several exceedingly brief criti 
 cisms upon many paragraphs of the bill. I will not attempt to 
 elaborate. 
 
 SOME ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO THE OPPRESSIONS OF THE PENDING 
 
 BILL. 
 
 Argols Put on dutiable list; destroys opportunity to secure 
 foreign trade. 
 
 Glue Large increase over present law. 
 
 White lead and other lead products Rates about doubled over 
 present law. 
 
 Paints Increase over McKinley bill. 
 
 Potashes Several taken from free list. 
 
 Medicines Increased above McKinley rates. 
 
 Soaps Rates doubled. 
 
 Sea moss Even sea moss can not float in upon our shores with 
 out paying a customs duty. 
 
 Chinaware and crockery Increased from 30 and 35 to 55 and 60 
 per cent. 
 
 Engraved glassware Increased from 40 to 60 per cent. 
 
 Window glass Rates increased all the way from 25 per cent, to 
 100 per cent. Especially is the rate increased on common window 
 glass. Indeed, it is prohibitive. 
 
 Looking-glass plates for cheap furniture Largely increased, so 
 the plate-glass trust can force the purchase of plate glass. 
 
 Spectacles Increased enormously over the Wilson and McKin 
 ley laws. For instance, a cheap pair of spectacles can not pay less 
 than 65 per cent., and from that up to over 120 per cent. 
 
 Marble Think of a duty of $1.10 per cubic foot for gravestones. 
 This is nearly double the duty under the present law, and there were 
 only 147,000 cubic feet brought in during 1896. 
 
 Cotton ties Free under present law. Only $102,327 worth im 
 ported in 1896, but the price was cut in half, from twenty-six one- 
 thousandths in 1893 to thirteen one-thousandths in 1896. 
 
 Steel rails Seven dollars and eighty-four cents per ton, when 
 contracts have been made in the past year to supply rails in England 
 for a less price than English ironmasters demand. 
 
 Tin plates The duty on tin plates is increased, notwithstanding 
 the fact that the importations have decreased one-half since 1893 
 under the present law and the domestic output has risen from 139,- 
 000,000 pounds in 1894 to 307,000,000 pounds in 1896. 
 
 Sheet iron or steel, polished, planished, or glanced (in common 
 phrase, Russia sheet iron) The present rate of 2 cents per pound 
 is maintained, notwithstanding there were only $26,000 worth im 
 ported in 1896 as against $49,000 in 1893. 
 
 Card clothing (used in all Southern mills for carding cotton) 
 The rate is advanced to 56 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
142 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Sporting guns It is difficult to estimate, but in many cases the 
 rates have been more than trebled. The duty on a sporting rifle, 
 valued at above $10, is 95 per cent., as against 30 per cent, under the 
 present law. 
 
 Granite ware is 35 per cent, under the present law, and the 
 importations have fallen off from $86,000 to $31,000. The rate is 
 increased to 40 per cent. 
 
 Nails There were $4000 worth of horseshoe nails imported in 
 1896 under a duty of 30 per cent. ; so, in order to check this enormous 
 importation, the rate is made a specific of 2^4 cents, equal to over 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Cut nails The rate is made six-tenths of a cent per pound, or 
 25 per cent., notwithstanding only $143 worth were imported in 1896. 
 
 Wire nails are increased from 25 per cent, to 60 per cent., while 
 there was only $25,000 imported in 1896 not enough to stock one 
 wholesale dealer. 
 
 Horseshoes There were $102 worth imported in 1896, at a duty 
 of 25 per cent., and this rate is maintained in a specific form. 
 
 Tacks Twelve thousand dollars worth came in in 1896 on a 
 basis of 25 per cent. The increased duty is cunningly concealed by 
 making it i}4 cents per 1000, which will probably treble existing rates. 
 
 Saws There was a revenue of $20.70 derived from mill saws in 
 1896, with a duty of 10 cents per foot. This rate is continued. It 
 amounts to over 50 per cent, ad valorem. 
 
 Other saws The duty is increased from 25 per cent, to 30 per 
 cent., and on band saws it is made compound; is very likely 100 per 
 cent. 
 
 Screws Very fine work has been done in this paragraph, and 
 while there is an apparent decrease, there is in reality a large increase 
 of duty. The total revenues derived in 1896 from all screws was $18 ! 
 
 Dutch metal leaf Present law, 40 per cent. Proposed law, 6 
 cents per 100 leaves. This is equivalent to over 100 per cent, on an 
 article not one sheet of which is made in this country and never 
 will be. It is the raw material of bookbinders, lithographic and 
 other printers, picture-frame and furniture makers, etc. 
 
 Watches Enormous advance of duty, at a time when Amer 
 ican watches are the world s standard. 
 
 Zinc Increase, when we are large exporters. 
 
 Lumber Duty imposed for benefit of trusts. 
 
 Toothpicks Even these are advanced to a 50 to 75 per cent. duty. 
 
 Kindling wood is taxed for the first time. 
 
 Fruits Are largely advanced. 
 
 Nuts Are largely advanced. 
 
 Salt Is now free, but is taxed by this bill. Again does the 
 breakfast table suffer. 
 
 Starch A duty of nearly 100 per cent, is maintained, although 
 the importations are steadily declining. 
 
 Paragraph 81. Vanillin The duty on this substance is 115 per 
 cent. Under the House provision the rate was fixed at 70 cents 
 per ounce, or 100 per cent., the value per ounce being about 70 cents. 
 The Senate reduced the rate to 50 per cent, but subsequently 
 advanced the duty to 80 cents per ounce, which was adopted by the 
 conference. This substance is controlled by one party in the United 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 143 
 
 States, who bids fair to soon become a millionaire at the expense of 
 the people of this country. 
 
 The provision in paragraph 128 for steel bands or strips suitable 
 for making band saws is a stupendous job. Who can tell what steel 
 is suitable for making band saws, the same steel being suitable for 
 almost any other use? The duty on this material will equal 75 per 
 cent, and the provision is conflicting with the two other paragraphs 
 which provide for sheet steel in strips and saw plates, respectively. 
 
 Paragraph 151. Table cutlery, 90 per cent of which is made in 
 this country under the present duty of 35 per cent, has been advanced 
 to an equivalent ad valorem duty of 225 per cent on some grades. 
 It is self-evident that this advance in duty will not produce any con 
 siderable amount of revenue from the small proportion hitherto 
 imported. 
 
 Paragraph 344. There is not a city, village, or town in the land 
 that has not been called on to pay tribute to a theoretical industry, 
 not yet and never to be established, 100 per cent duty on linen fabrics 
 of the description used by the poor, who will be required to pay as 
 much or more duty on the goods than they are sold for to the farmer, 
 mechanic, and laborer in other countries, a tribute levied on them in 
 order that the cheaper linens may be made experimentally in this 
 country. The sale of such fabrics will be so greatly diminished that 
 the effect will be felt by dealers all over the land. 
 
 A reasonable schedule was submitted by importers and such 
 domestic manufacturers as are in existence; but that schedule was 
 rejected. Raw flax was advanced over the House rates ; flax yarns 
 were then advanced on the strength of such advance, and finally the 
 finished fabrics were proportionately increased, the excuse being given 
 that such advance was made necessary on account of the higher duty 
 on yarns. In conference the duty on yarns was reduced, but no cor 
 responding reduction was made on finished fabrics. This is one of 
 the rank injustices of this bill. 
 
 Another injustice is in placing a duty varying from 100 to 700 
 per cent on light-weight silk goods in the piece, and providing for 
 articles made therefrom at 60 per cent. The operation of this schedule 
 of duties will be to throw out of employment at least 10,000 poor 
 sewing women in New York and the leading cities throughout the 
 country. I am credibly informed that already several large firms in 
 New York are arranging to remove their establishments to Europe 
 in order to ship the products thereof to this country in a finished 
 condition. 
 
 Straw matting, which is not made in this country (and which, 
 in order to promote reciprocal trade with China and Japan, who are 
 large and growing purchasers of wheat and flour produced on the 
 Pacific Coast, should be free), has been taxed 75 per cent, a tax that 
 was levied admittedly and solely to deprive the poorer classes of straw 
 matting and compel them to purchase in lieu thereof cheap carpets. 
 
 The daily journals from time to time have spoken of the grow 
 ing demand for American bicycles in foreign markets. The confer 
 ence committee have earned the gratitude of our domestic manufac 
 turers of these articles by increasing the duty on bicycle tubing beyond 
 the rates provided in the McKinley bill or the Senate amend 
 ments to the House bill, notwithstanding the fact that said tubing has 
 to be imported. The duty on window glass has been advanced to 
 
144 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 over 125 per cent, and, indeed, except as to the sugar schedule, there 
 is not a schedule in the whole act that some one or more paragraphs 
 do not show rates of duty exceeding 100 per cent. 
 
 When the silk schedule was under consideration it was charged 
 on this side of the Chamber that the complicated rates, when reduced 
 to the ad valorem standard, ranged all the way from 50 per cent to 
 700 per cent. This was denied by the majority, and it was affirmed 
 by the member of the Finance Committee having the matter in charge 
 that the duty did not exceed 75 per cent. Thereupon we took the 
 distinguished Senator at his word and an amendment was offered 
 providing that the duty should not in any case exceed 75 per cent. 
 This was voted down by the majority, and similar action was had as 
 to two other proposed amendments limiting the tax to 100 per cent 
 and 200 per cent, respectively. 
 
 This schedule is particularly offensive, as already stated, to 
 China and Japan, with which countries we are now doing quite a 
 business in breadstuffs. One of the leading vices of this bill is the 
 commercial warfare which it challenges. Now that our exports are 
 increasing so much, it would seem desirable to obtain an avenue 
 through which our surplus might be profitably transmitted, but the 
 tendency seems to be in a contrary direction. In the silk as in the 
 linen schedule, and indeed throughout the whole bill, we find high 
 rates upon cheap articles and low rates upon expensive articles ; the 
 poorer class taxed high, the richer class taxed low. 
 
 DISCRIMINATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE TRUSTS. 
 
 The present bill is thronged with high rates imposed for the 
 benefit of trusts. I insert a list which I believe to be correct, so far 
 as it goes, although it does not by any means cover the subject. 
 
 Trusts Existing and proposed duties. 
 
 Trust. 
 
 Present duty. 
 
 Proposed duty. 
 (Dingley bill.) 
 
 Anthracite coal (bituminous com 
 petes) 
 
 40 cents 
 
 
 Ax 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent 
 
 Barbed wire 
 
 2\ cents per pound. . 
 
 2^ to 3 cents 
 
 Bolt and nut 
 
 ii cents per pound. . 
 
 ii cents per pound 
 
 Borax 
 
 2 cents per pound 
 
 
 Broom 
 
 20 per cent * . 
 
 40 per cent 
 
 Carbon candle 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 Cartridge 
 
 do 
 
 Do 
 
 Casket 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 jc ner cent 
 
 Castor oil 
 
 35 cents per gallon 
 
 
 Celluloid 
 
 45 per cent 
 
 6^ cents and 25 per 
 
 Cigarette 
 
 $4 per pound and 25 
 
 cent. 
 $4 50 per pound and 
 
 
 per cent. 
 2 cents per pound... 
 
 25 per cent. 
 2 cents per pound 
 
 Copper ingot 
 
 Free . . 
 
 Free 
 
 Copper sheet 
 
 ....do 
 
 Do 
 
 Cordage 
 
 Binding free; 10 per 
 
 i cent and 2 cents per 
 
 Cotton-seed oil 
 
 cent and i cent per 
 pound. 
 Free 
 
 pound. 
 4 cents per gallon 
 
 Cotton thread 
 
 5$ cents per dozen. . 
 
 6 cents per dozen 
 
 
 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 145 
 
 Trusts Existing and proposed duties. Continued. 
 
 Trust. 
 
 Present Duty. 
 
 Proposed Duty. 
 (Dingley Bill.) 
 
 Electric supply 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent 
 
 Flint glass 
 
 40 per cent 
 
 60 per cent. 
 
 Fork and hoe . . . 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 P er cent 
 
 Fruit jar 
 
 40 per cent 
 
 Do. 
 
 Harrow 
 
 Free 
 
 20 per cent. 
 
 Hinge 
 
 ii cents per pound . 
 
 ii cents per pound 
 
 Indurated fiber 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 Lead . . . . 
 
 i cent per pound 
 
 ^i cents per pound 
 
 Leather board 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 Lime 
 
 5 cents per 100 
 
 5 cents per 100 
 
 Linseed oil 
 
 pounds. 
 20 cents per gallon 
 
 pounds. 
 20 cents per gallon 
 
 Lithograph 
 
 13 to 28 per cent 
 
 26 to 41 per cent 
 
 Locomotive tire 
 
 ii cents per pound. . 
 
 i cents per pound 
 
 Marble 
 
 85 cents per cubic 
 
 $i ID per cubic foot 
 
 Match 
 
 foot. 
 20 per cent 
 
 8 cents per gross 
 
 Morocco leather .... 
 
 do 
 
 20 per cent. 
 
 Oilcloth 
 
 25. and 40 per cent. . 
 
 35 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Paper bag 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 Pitcfc 
 
 Free 
 
 Free. 
 
 Plate glass 
 
 5 to 35 cents per 
 
 8 to 35 cents per 
 
 Pocket cutlery 
 
 square foot. 
 25 to 75 per cent. . . . 
 
 square foot. 
 To 160 per cent. 
 
 Powder 
 
 5 to 8 cents 
 
 4 to 6 cents. 
 
 Pulp . 
 
 10 per cent 
 
 $1.50 to $5 per ton. 
 
 Rubber gossamer 
 
 4^ to 50 per cent. . . . 
 
 50 cents and 55 per 
 
 Rubber, general 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 cent. 
 30 per cent. 
 
 Safe 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Salt ... . . ... 
 
 Free 
 
 8 and 12 cents per 100 
 
 Sanitary ware 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 pounds. 
 55 per cent. 
 
 Sandpaper 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Saw 
 
 12 to 50 per cent. . . . 
 
 12 to 50 per cent; 
 
 Schoolbook 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 band, 10 cents and 
 20 per cent. 
 25 per cent. 
 
 School furniture 
 
 do 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Sewer pipe 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 25 per cent. 
 
 Shot and lead 
 
 ii cents per pound 
 
 2i cents per pound. 
 
 Skewer 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Smelters 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Snath 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Soap . 
 
 10 to 35 per cent. . . . 
 
 20 to 50 per cent. 
 
 Soda-water machinery . ... 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Spool bobbin and shuttle 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Starch 
 
 i^ cents per pound. . 
 
 il cents per pound. 
 
 Steel 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Steel rail 
 
 $7 84 per ton 
 
 $7.84 per ton. 
 
 Stove board ... 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Strawboard 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 30 per cent. 
 
 Sugar 
 
 40 per cent. -\- J cent 
 
 1.95 cents per pound. 
 
 Teasel 
 
 15 per cent 
 
 30 per cent. 
 
 Tin plate 
 
 i^ cents 
 
 i 4-10 cents. 
 
 Tombstone . . 
 
 45 per cent 
 
 50 per cent. 
 
 Trunk 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 35 per cent. 
 
 Tube 
 
 2C per cent . 
 
 2 cents per pound. 
 
 Type . . . 
 
 15 per cent 
 
 25 per cent. 
 
 Umbrella 
 
 45 per cent 
 
 50 per cent. 
 
146 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE,. 
 
 Trusts Existing and proposed duties. Continued. 
 
 Trust. 
 
 Present duty. 
 
 Proposed duty. 
 (Dingley bill.) 
 
 Vapor stove 
 
 do 
 
 o 8 cent per pound 
 
 Wall paper 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 Watch 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 
 Wheel 
 
 do 
 
 per cent. 
 35 per cent 
 
 Whip 
 
 30 per cent 
 
 Do 
 
 \Vindow glass 
 
 
 
 Wire 
 
 ii cents to 4.0 per 
 
 i^ to 2 cents 
 
 
 cent 
 
 
 Wood screw 
 
 3 to 10 cents 
 
 
 Wrapping paper 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 25 per cent 
 
 Yellow pine 
 
 
 $2 npr TVT fppf 
 
 Petroleum 
 
 do 
 
 Free 
 
 
 
 2 cents per pound 
 
 Lard 
 
 i cent per pound- 
 
 Do 
 
 School slate 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 Gas 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Whisky 
 
 $i 80 per gallon 
 
 $2 25 per gallon 
 
 Nails 
 
 22^ to 25 per cent 
 
 j -jo j cent 
 
 Wrought pipe 
 
 
 2 cents 
 
 Stoves 
 
 o 088 cent per pound 
 
 o 8 cent per pound 
 
 Coke 
 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 Jute bagging 
 
 Free 
 
 f cent per pound and 
 
 Lumber 
 
 do 
 
 15 per cent. 
 $i per M feet 
 
 Shingles 
 
 do 
 
 30 cents per M 
 
 Beef 
 
 
 2 cents per pound 
 
 Felt ....> 
 
 25 to 50 per cent 
 
 To 40 cents and 55 
 
 Lead pencils 
 
 SO per cent 
 
 per cent. 
 45 cents per gross and 
 
 Clothes wringers 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 25 per cent. 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Carpets 
 
 30 to 40 per cent 
 
 To 6o cents and 40 
 
 Dental tools 
 
 35 per cent 
 
 per cent. 
 45 per cent. 
 
 Milk 
 
 Free 
 
 2 cents per gallon. 
 
 Patent leather 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 20 cents per pound 
 
 Flour 
 
 do 
 
 and 10 per cent. 
 25 per cent. 
 
 Bread 
 
 do 
 
 20 per cent 
 
 
 
 
 Had there been any disposition on the part of the majority to 
 curtail the power of the trusts, a provision to that effect might have 
 been placed in this bill. While the subject is complicated by reason 
 of the difficulties pertaining to Federal jurisdiction, nevertheless the 
 adoption of an amendment such as that proposed by the Senator from 
 Texas [Mr. CHILTON] would have been most timely, and I think that 
 the trusts would have found it difficult to evade its plain terms. The 
 Senator from Nebraska [Mr. THURSTON] has introduced a bill leveled 
 at the trusts. It is understood that he made an effort to obtain the 
 caucus indorsement. In this he was not successful. How can the 
 Republican party, without violating its promises and without ingrati 
 tude to its friends, the combines of the country, father any legislation 
 which will make those institutions uncomfortable? 
 
 A striking instance of the dominating influence of the trusts here 
 is found in the action of the conference committee in eliminating the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 147 
 
 Senate amendment providing for a duty on incandescent lamps 
 amounting to 35 per cent ad valorem. The Senator from Iowa, upon 
 being interrogated with reference to this subject, conceded that in the 
 absence of this amendment these lamps will pay a duty of 45 per cent 
 ad valorem. Heretofore the duty has been but 35 per cent, and with 
 out any justification whatever the Senate conferees permitted a " com 
 bine " to regulate the tax. When this subject was formerly consid 
 ered, on the 3d of July, 1897, I presented documents which demon 
 strated not only that this trust existed, but that it was explicitly con 
 ceded that the object of the institution was to raise rates, and a very 
 large increase in prices has been made in consequence of the power 
 of the combination. Yet this body, dominated by the Republican 
 party, deliberately legislates money into the pockets of this unscrupu 
 lous and extortionate alliance. The proof introduced by me can be 
 found on the above date, page 2629, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. The 
 present rate (35 per cent) is almost prohibitive, but the trust, finding 
 itself able to do so, has determined, with the aid of Congress, to abso 
 lutely shut out competition. 
 
 Not only do the trusts realize enormously by reason of increased 
 rates, but in many instances they will reap a rich harvest because of 
 the large stocks which they have accumulated. . It stands admitted 
 on this floor that there is a year s supply of wool on hand on which 
 no duty has been paid, and still the manufacturer is allowed a com 
 pensating duty on this identical article, on which he has not paid 
 and never will pay any duty whatever. When we proposed to sus 
 pend the compensating duty for twelve months, the Republican Sena 
 tors voted us down. Sugar is another example. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury proposed an excise tax on sugar 
 now in the United States. The majority declined to act on the 
 advice. There is an immense amount on hand. The importations 
 for 1895, 1896, and 1897, ending with and including June of the 
 latter year, are to be found in No. n, series 1896-97, Monthly Sum 
 mary of Finance and Commerce of the United States, May, 1897, 
 page 1905, under heading " Totals." The statistician, Mr. Ford, 
 informs me that the returns above shown for June contain about 96 
 per cent of the entire importation for that month. On every pound 
 of this sugar now on hand the trust will net at least 1.188 cents per 
 pound in excess of the price heretofore prevailing. 
 
 The table is as follows : 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Value. 
 
 189 201 829 
 
 $3,542,059 
 
 388,381,830 
 
 $ 9,991,876 
 
 235 488 605 
 
 4,609 702 
 
 544,106,452 
 
 13,817,477 
 
 396 020 254 
 
 4 438,728 
 
 472,637,376 
 
 11,863,068 
 
 377 937 280 
 
 6,976,220 
 
 320,175,291 
 
 7,364,079 
 
 538 664 910 
 
 10,484,230 
 
 292,507,454 
 
 6,341,541 
 
 388 808 648 
 
 7 760 751 
 
 387,747896 
 
 8,385,641 
 
 364 712 668 
 
 7,211,960 
 
 308,694,399 
 
 6,524,904 
 
 256 778 388 
 
 4 887,103 
 
 172,312018 
 
 3,625,180 
 
 204 519 984 
 
 4,000,286 
 
 184,122,514 
 
 3,709,432 
 
 285 563 135 
 
 5,711,030 
 
 208,480,753 
 
 3,997,937 
 
 159 658 142 
 
 3,406,344 
 
 286,605,450 
 
 5,633,513 
 
 182 470 911 
 
 3 739 460 
 
 485525990 
 
 9,413,910 
 
 263 995 129 
 
 5 897 178 
 
 773 527 477 
 
 15,125,409 
 
 337 992 660 
 
 7 885,441 
 
 790,653,995 
 
 15,054,777 
 
 435,501,882 
 
 10,807,738 
 
 696,174,103 
 
 13,560,125 
 
148 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 This table shows monthly importations commencing January, 
 1895, and ending June 30, 1897. 
 
 Mr. President, I must say a word in conclusion regarding 
 
 THE: SELFISHNESS OF THE PENDING MEASURE. 
 
 This is obviously a manufacturers bill. When the tax was 
 imposed upon wool a compensating duty with concealed advantages 
 was added to the already high rate fixed for the manufacturer s wel 
 fare. It has been amply shown throughout this debate that our 
 manufacturers defy competition. Some! of the extraordinary advances 
 in exports can be studied with advantage in this regard. Sufficient 
 is it to-day that the burdens thus imposed are wholly unnecessary 
 and result from the avariciousness of those who have most largely 
 gained by reason of protective enactments. Mr. Sherman in his 
 Recollections says that 
 
 The New England States have twelve able and experienced Senators, with 
 a population, according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for 
 less than 400,000 inhabitants. * * * This inequality of representation can 
 not be avoided. It was especially manifest in framing the tariff of 1883, when 
 New England carried a measure that was condemned by public opinion from 
 the date of its passage/ 
 
 In discussing the McKinley bill in the same work, Mr. Sherman 
 remarks : 
 
 The McKinley tariff bill was not improved in the Senate. The compact 
 and influential delegation from New England made its influence felt in support 
 of industries pursued in that section, while the delegations from other sections 
 were divided on party lines. 
 
 This was the language of a Republican leader. It is in the 
 nature of a confession. 
 
 It would be interesting to obtain the views of the distinguished 
 Secretary of State upon the Dingley bill the worst of its kind. 
 But I will not prolong this discussion. The arguments made from 
 time to time in the Senate while the bill has been before us are suffi 
 cient to fully expose its nefariousness. I know that but few Repub 
 lican Senators really approve of the bill throughout. They feel that 
 the business of the country will suffer because of its exactions and 
 with reason dread the day of reckoning. Unquestionably demands 
 were often difficult to avoid, and I am persuaded that each Republican 
 member of the Finance Committee, when he recalls the importunate 
 army by which he has been pursued, is disposed to say, " I will rejoice 
 when I am relieved of these yelling monsters that with ceaseless cries 
 surround me/ " 
 
 It is no doubt disappointing to those who are responsible for 
 this legislation that a milder measure, more conservative schedules 
 have not been produced. But however much as an individual I may 
 sympathize with my friends in their trouble, I know that the country 
 will not excuse them. When they declare that they could do no 
 better, that various people and certain powers could not be ignored, 
 they will be told that no such plea can be accepted. To admit that 
 they were unable to resist is to concede unfitness. 
 
 So spake the fiend, and with necessity, 
 The tyrant s plea, excused his devilish deeds. 
 
SILVER COINAGE AND COIN REDEMPTION 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Friday, January 31, 1896. 
 (Legislative day, Thursday, January 30). 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 2904) to maintain and 
 protect the coin redemption fund, and to authorize the issue of certificates of 
 indebtedness to meet temporary deficiencies of revenue 
 
 Mr. WHITE said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: This discussion has elicited so many of the 
 arguments upon which the majority of the Committee on Finance 
 have deemed controlling that I do not regard it essential to delay 
 proceedings for the purpose of making any extended dissertation. 
 As far as the silver question is concerned, I have seen no reason to 
 alter the opinions which I expressed in an address delivered in this 
 Chamber on September 21, 1893. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
 TELLER] recently called the attention of the country to the circum 
 stance that gold monometallists, who are ably represented by the 
 minority of the Committee on Finance, have presented nothing; that 
 they are here without a policy and without a suggestion worthy of 
 consideration as a financial plan. They declare that all national 
 obligations must be paid in gold ; that although our bonds, notes, etc., 
 are clearly otherwise worded that still, in deference to the sensibilities 
 of the financial world, we must yield our convictions and forego our 
 contractual rights. Perhaps some of us might be willing to give all 
 that we now possess in testimony of our good faith, but even then we 
 would be constrained to entertain gloomy forebodings as to the future. 
 
 Everyone concedes that the present financial system is bad. 
 Everyone knows that the sale of bonds in times of peace indicates 
 governmental inefficiency. Were our country void of resources, were 
 our people indolent and brainless, our present embarrassment might 
 be accounted for. No one will claim that silver advocates have had 
 their way. Not only has the legislative department discredited silver, 
 but the executive has practically announced that while gold is consti 
 tutional money silver, though similarly mentioned in that instrument, 
 is not to be so considered. And after thus contributing every effort 
 to convince the world that silver can not be used in common with 
 gold we hear complaint that there is a difference in the actual value 
 of the two metals, a difference that does not depend upon production 
 and what has no apparent or actual relationship to the amount of 
 metal in circulation or existence the world over. 
 
 The President proposes to retire the greenbacks and to trust the 
 financial affairs of the Government to the national banks. If I read 
 the history of my party correctly, its greatest men, its ablest teachers, 
 have always declared a public debt to be a curse, and have advised 
 the payment of governmental obligations at the earliest practicable 
 
 149 
 
150 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 moment. The historical reference made by the Senator from Texas 
 [Mr. MILLS] some days since I shall annex to my remarks in demon 
 stration of this proposition. Whenever the financial affairs of this 
 country are placed absolutely in the keeping of national banks or of 
 any private banking system, free government will cease, and wealth 
 resulting from our deliberate misfeasance will rule imperilously and 
 indisputably. Are we prepared to disregard the advice of our revered 
 and patriotic statesmen? The distinguished Senator from Ohio 
 [Mr. SHERMAN], if I understand him, does not agree that greenbacks 
 should be destroyed. He would store them in the Treasury. I 
 agree with the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] that as between 
 the two propositions that of the Administration is the more logical, 
 and I notice that the advocates of the gold standard throughout the 
 United States quite generally accept Mr. Cleveland s view. 
 
 In his address delivered at the annual meeting of the Board of 
 Trade in the city of Chicago, Mr. William T. Baker, the president 
 of the board, and who referred to the free-coinage advocates as per 
 sons afflicted with free-silver lunacy, said : 
 
 In order to maintain the credit of the Government by keeping the parity 
 between gold and silver as required by law, the Treasury must redeem green 
 backs and Sherman notes in gold, and this redemption is accompanied by the 
 absurd requirement that such notes must be paid out again and kept in circula 
 tion, to be again and again redeemed in gold. This imbecile legislative contri 
 vance has placed us at the mercy of foreign enemies or alien speculators in bul 
 lion, and recent events have shown us that such enemies and speculators know 
 their advantage and are not slow to profit by our weakness. There is but one 
 remedy for this deplorable condition of affairs. Provision must be made for 
 the permanent retirement of the five hundred millions of greenbacks and Sher 
 man notes. Long-time bonds, bearing a low rate of interest and payable in gold, 
 should be authorized for this purpose, and if such bonds were permitted to be 
 used by national banks as security for circulation redeemable in gold, they would 
 be quickly absorbed, and the transition would be easily and safely made. All the 
 hoarded gold in the country would immediately come back into circulation, and 
 this country would enter upon an era of unexampled prosperity. There is no 
 politics in this proposition. There is only partisanship, ignorance, and greed 
 opposed to it. 
 
 The gentleman whose comments I have read uses this expression : 
 " There is only partisanship, ignorance, and greed opposed to it " 
 the proposition which he advocates. So-called conservative expres 
 sions of this kind with reference to those who in good faith favor 
 the free coinage of silver are heard wherever gold monometallists 
 promulgate their dogmas. We daily peruse in the great newspapers 
 of the gold center of the United States extravagant denunciation of 
 this type. Indeed, Senators who faithfully advocate the principles 
 which for years they have openly avowed and who honestly act in 
 redemption of their promises are derided and accused of misrepre 
 senting the very constituents who elected them because of the opin 
 ions which they here reiterate. Because of certain reflections of this 
 nature, I wish to make a few citations from platforms adopted by 
 the Democracy of California. 
 
 The money of the Constitution, gold and silver, the only legal tender. 
 Democratic State Platform. 1876. 
 
 That this convention recommends the passage of an act of Congress pro 
 viding for the free coinage of both gold and silver, by the terms of which act 
 all gold and silver bullion offered at the several mints of the United States shall 
 be received in exchange for money, or gold or silver certificates at the rate now 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 151 
 
 fixed by law for standard dollars of gold or silver, which certificates shall be re 
 ceivable for all public purposes and interchangeable for gold or silver, as the 
 case may be. Democratic State Platform, 1886. 
 
 That this convention recommends the passage of an act of Congress provid 
 ing for the free coinage of both gold and silver, by the terms of which act all 
 gold and silver bullion offered at the several mints of the United States shall 
 be received in exchange for money, or gold or silver certificates at the rate 
 now fixed by law for standard dollars of gold or silver, which certificates shall 
 be receivable for public purposes and interchangeable for gold and silver, as the 
 case may be. Democratic State Platform, 1888. 
 
 A depleted Treasury, the imposition of unequal and oppressive taxes, the 
 effort to enact coercive legislation, the arbitrary disregard by the Speaker of the 
 House of Representatives of all parliamentary rules, and the shameless servility 
 displayed by the majority in the House of Representatives in yielding ready 
 obedience to his tyrannical mandates, their refusal to join the Democracy in its 
 efforts to procure the passage of a measure permitting the free coinage of silver. 
 Democratic State Platform, 1890. 
 
 Over one of these conventions I had the honor to preside, and in 
 another instance I was the chairman of the committee on resolutions. 
 In every instance I voted for the platforms from which these citations 
 are made. 
 
 I take it to be a fact that the only proposition offered for the 
 rehabilitation of our financial system by those who are opposed to the 
 views held by the majority of the Finance Committee is that which 
 involves either the retiring or hoarding of greenbacks, the withdrawal 
 from circulation and the substitution of the national bank for the Gov 
 ernment in the regulation and control of our financial system. I will 
 not elaborate upon the consequences of this condition. The obviously 
 fatal tendency of such a scheme has been most fully presented here. 
 In the first place we would suffer from a most ruinous contraction. 
 Notwithstanding all the inducements that have been heretofore offered 
 to the national banks, they have but a comparatively small amount of 
 circulation, and many of them have manifested a disposition to retire 
 much of this. It is certain that they would never, if they procured 
 the contemplated additional privilege, supply money equal in amount 
 to that which our friends proposed to destroy or withdraw; and the 
 utter futility of maintaining a gold basis in this country would give 
 rise to disaster and bring about the further centralization of gold and 
 all the direful consequences of a congested and inadequate currency. 
 
 Speaking from Democratic ground, I may be permitted to say 
 that I do not understand how any follower of Jefferson or Jackson 
 can stand the new departure which the Administration insists we shall 
 adopt. Platform after platform of our party, year in and year out, 
 has been so drawn as to call the attention of the world to the criminal 
 subserviency of the Republican organization to the national banking 
 system, and yet now we are to meekly follow not only the financial 
 leaders of that organization, but are to submit ourselves absolutely 
 to the dictation of those who have thus been selected to determine the 
 volume of our currency and whether we shall have an adequate money 
 supply. I know of no tyranny more odious than that which has thus 
 been partially established and which it is proposed to deliberately 
 fasten upon the people of the United States. 
 
 I have before me a work called the Democratic Campaign Book. 
 It is a document which was issued by the Congressional Committee 
 of the Democratic party in 1890, and contains the arguments upon 
 which it was hoped the party might gain an important contest. 
 
152 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 REPUBLICAN FAVORITISM FOR NATIONAL BANKS AN ACT TO CREATE AND DONATE 
 $I5,OOO,OOO TO THESE PETS INCREASING CIRCULATION TO PAR VALUE OF BONDS 
 DEPOSITED. 
 
 Mr. Dorsey, Republican (Nebraska), introduced in this Congress the fol 
 lowing bill : 
 
 " A substitute for bill No. 537 to provide for the issue of circulating notes to 
 national banking associations. 
 
 " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled, That upon any deposit already or 
 hereafter made by any United States bonds bearing interest in the manner 
 required by law, any national banking association making the same shall be entitled 
 to receive from the Comptroller of the Currency circulating notes of different 
 denominations in blank, registered and countersigned as provided by law, not 
 exceeding in the whole amount the par value of the bonds deposited : Provided, 
 That at no time shall the total amount of such notes issued to any such associa 
 tion exceed the amount at such time actually paid in of its capital stock. And 
 that all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, 
 and the same are hereby, repealed." 
 
 January 29 an attempt was made to push the bill through without discus 
 sion. Mr. Bland objected to the consideration of the bill, and the ayes and noes 
 were taken, which resulted in the bill being then taken up for one hour s discus 
 sion. The vote on the question of consideration stood thus : 
 
 Yeas Democrats, 18; Republicans, 125. 
 
 Nays Democrats, 103; Republicans, 9. 
 
 Under the present law national banks are allowed to issue circulation up to 
 90 per cent, of the par value of Government bonds held by them. This bill is to 
 allow them to increase their circulation to the full par value of the bonds. 
 
 Under existing law these banks are the owners of $145,000,000 of bonds, and 
 their circulation, based on these bonds, is $128,000,000. Bonds are far above 
 par, due in a large measure to the demand upon the part of banks for these 
 securities as a basis of circulation, and the immediate and intended effect of this 
 bill is to increase the value of the assets of the banks. 
 
 Upon the passage of the bill the banks could, without the purchase of 
 another bond, issue $15,000,000 more of notes. That is to say, the bill is a Repub 
 lican proposition to make the banks a present of $15,000,000 to be loaned out to 
 borrowers at any rate of interest that necessity may compel the borrowers to pay. 
 
 The further and necessary effect is, of course, to increase to the extent of 
 the increase of circulation the power of the banks to expand and contract the 
 currency. 
 
 This is another instance of Republican friendship toward the banks, and a 
 corresponding act of unfriendliness toward silver. 
 
 This bill has not been finally voted upon in the House, but it and several 
 others containing like propositions are still pending there, while in the Senate 
 JOHN SHERMAN has another on the Calendar awaiting the coming 1 of the second 
 session of this Congress. 
 
 The following Republican expressions made during the hour s debate on this 
 bill are sufficiently indicative of the purpose of the Republican party to enable 
 the people to judge as to the probable result should that party be retained in 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Dorsey of Nebraska : Now, if the House passes this bill It will be an 
 encouragement for the national banks to continue to hold the bonds that they 
 are holding today at a positive loss and it will give them cause to hope that this 
 Congress will pass such a measure as will perpetuate the national banking sys 
 tem of the country. I know it was popular some years ago, especially in the 
 West, to cry out against national banks, but I am happy to say that day has 
 passed. 
 
 Mr. Conger of Iowa, chairman of Coinage, Weights and Measures : Why, 
 gentlemen, I am in favor of any measure that will do any public good in this 
 country, even if it should make a few men rich. 
 
 Suppose the national banks do receive some benefit from this proposition. 
 The national banking system, in my judgment and in that of the civilized people 
 of this world, is the best that history has ever known. This will tend in some 
 measure to perpetuate that system. But, gentlemen, I know you do not like the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 153 
 
 national banking system; you never did like it; I do not suppose you 
 ever will. It was a Republican measure ; and it is the highest compliment that 
 has ever been made to the history of the Republican government of this country. 
 
 So far the Democrats have, with the assistance of a very few Republicans, 
 been able to prevent the passage of any of these bills, but the Republican who 
 was most in sympathy with them has not been renominated, and should they 
 be in the minority in the coming election the bill will certainly pass. 
 
 A proposition of like nature was made in the Fiftieth Congress, but the 
 Democratic majority ignored it entirely, and it was never even considered. 
 
 Those upon whom Democratic orators thus instructed impressed 
 these views are not disposed to abandon their convictions, no matter 
 from whom the solicitation or mandate may come. 
 
 Mr. President, I desire to say at this point that in my judgment 
 no compromise is possible. The Sherman and Bland-Allison acts 
 were failures. These were compromises. A bill which I might 
 almost call immaterial regarding the coinage of the seigniorage was 
 vetoed, thus indicating that the Executive did not believe that any 
 concession whatever should be made, and after all, with the views 
 which that distinguished officer entertains, his veto of that bill 
 should have been anticipated. His sentiments have been expressed 
 uniformly. He has not changed. He has been consistent. This is 
 more than can be said of many who have followed in the pathway 
 which he has, as far as the Democracy is concerned, pioneered. 
 
 Now and then some one comes upon the scene who thinks he 
 has a programme which will solve all difficulties. An idea of this 
 kind is embodied in a resolution offered by the Senator from Kansas 
 [Mr. BAKER] concerning the coinage of the American product. 
 
 Upon principle no free-coinage man can vote for such a proposi 
 tion, because the moment that a discrimination of any kind or char 
 acter is made against silver, the moment its use is limited or a pecu 
 liar burden imposed upon it, whenever an avenue of usefulness is 
 opened to one metal. not permitted to the other, that moment bimetal 
 lism as we understand it ceases and the true theory is abandoned. 
 
 But there is another reason independent of this which absolutely 
 interdicts the success of the idea advanced in the amendment of the 
 Senator from Kansas [Mr. BAKER]. This I will illustrate by the 
 following quotation from the Coinage Laws of the United States, 
 1792-1894. The article has reference to the significant experience 
 of Venezuela: 
 
 PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORTATION OF SILVER COIN. 
 
 The Venezuelan Government issued the following decree on the I4th of 
 August, 1893: 
 
 1. From and after this date the importation of Venezuelan silver coin 
 through the customs stations of the Republic is prohibited, except when the 
 same is imported by the Government. The import of all foreign silver coin is 
 also prohibited by law. 
 
 2. The collectors of customs in seaport towns shall consider all silver coins, 
 inclusive of Venezuelan silver coins, which it is sought to import into the coun 
 try as articles whose importation is prohibited, and persons found guilty of such 
 attempted importation shall be punished by the confiscation of the coin and a 
 fine equal to 50 per cent, of its value. 
 
 The reasons for the issuance of this decree are explained by Mr. E. A. Plu- 
 macher, our consul at Maracaibo, in the following words : 
 
 " At this moment, when the silver question is attracting universal attention, 
 it may interest the Department to know that for some time past there have been 
 imported into this country large quantities of Venezuelan silver coins which 
 have been discovered to be of unauthorized coinage. 
 
 1 1 
 
154 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 " Since 1886 the importation of foreign silver of all nationalities has been 
 prohibited, but all classes of gold coins and Venezuelan silver have until now 
 been allowed free entry and are constantly being introduced through the custom 
 houses. It now appears that parties abroad, taking advantage of the low price 
 of silver bullion, have coined hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan silver dollars, 
 exact facsimiles of the emission authorized by the Government, and containing 
 an equal, or, as it is said, even a greater amount of pure silver. 
 
 " The Government has acted promptly in the matter and issued a decree 
 prohibiting the importation from abroad, except by the government, of Vene 
 zuelan silver coins, and declaring them contraband should efforts be made to 
 introduce them. This will put a stop to the business through the custom-houses, 
 but large amounts will no doubt continue to be successfully smuggled. 
 
 " It is a striking commentary on the situation that such a speculation is pos 
 sible, producing, it is said, nearly 40 per cent, profit, although it is freely admit 
 ted that the surreptitious coins are in all respects equal to those authorized by 
 law. 
 
 "Advices from Curacao, which is and always has been a dumping ground 
 for money of all nationalities, show that Venezuelan silver, since the late devel 
 opments, is received at only one-half its face value; moreover, it is intimated 
 that it will soon be rejected entirely." Consular Reports, November, 1892, p. 321. 
 
 In the last Congress we reduced the tariff upon opium 50 per cent 
 because of the circumstance that opium was readily and most suc 
 cessfully smuggled the profit of the illegal traffic being so great. 
 Silver, of course, would be much more easily brought into this coun 
 try, and the evils resulting would be intolerable. But the main objec 
 tion is that first stated. It ought tot be conclusive upon those who are 
 really anxious for the restoration of silver. 
 
 It has been said that the remedy for all our ills is an increased 
 revenue, and that the passage of a bill to add $40,000,000 to the 
 income of the Government will put us upon a satisfactory basis. The 
 same individuals who favor the tariff bill favor the bond bill. They 
 say that we must have the revenue and also the proceeds of the bonds, 
 and still they tell us that if we have the revenue we do not need the 
 bonds. The records plainly show that the deficiency is something 
 less for the last year than the amount proposed to be raised by the 
 new emergency horizontal tariff bill, and still we must, it is declared 
 (and this sentiment is echoed by all the gold monometallists), have 
 both bonds and revenue. And now comes the Republican section 
 of the gold monometallists and informs us that the difficulty consists 
 wholly in a lack of revenue. I think that a majority on this floor 
 are opposed to issuing- bonds at all. These Senators believe that such 
 issuance is entirely unnecessary, and that there is enough of coin 
 at the disposition of the Government, or which can be made available 
 to meet current demands. If it is undesirable to raise money by 
 issuing bonds because of the burden to be thus put upon the people, 
 is it not also undesirable to tax the people to such an extent that the 
 same amount of money will, in fact, be squeezed out of them? If a 
 hundred millions of dollars is necessary it is a question how that 
 money should be obtained. Are the people of the United States pre 
 pared to supply it by means of taxation? Is it not a fact that the 
 general sentiment is that gold obtained either as the result of taxation 
 or the issuance of bonds is not needed ? Our friends assert that gold 
 is essential; that we must have gold, and that we will have plenty 
 of it if the revenue laws are amended properly. After all, the money 
 is to come from the people. The burden is to be imposed in one form 
 or the other. If we do not run in debt it will be because we con 
 tribute cash from our own individual resources instead of supplying 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 155 
 
 it upon the strength of governmental promise. If we are to have a 
 gold standard, and if we are to further debase silver, Mr. Cleveland 
 is right. He should have authority to issue gold bonds; he should 
 retire all greenbacks and Sherman notes, and the crisis will then have 
 been reached. Where the gold is to come from to maintain us in 
 such a contingency is to me a mystery. 
 
 Our friends of the opposition assert and reiterate that those who 
 favor free coinage are really silver monometallists. This accusation 
 is unfounded, in view of the fact that we ask nothing for silver that 
 is not accorded to gold. We seek to impose no new money upon this 
 country or upon the world. We ask that the gold and silver which 
 constitutes the coin referred to, not only in the Constitution, but also 
 in our obligations, shall be used honestly and carefully and patriotic 
 ally by the Treasury in such a way as to maintain the parity of both 
 by ignoring the potency of neither. To assert that the Government 
 is aiding the cause of silver when it announces that silver is not money 
 save in a restricted sense, and by continually warning Congress 
 against its recognition, is as unreasonable as it is contrary to instruc 
 tion of the Constitution. The attempt to evade the explicit wording 
 of our bonds and the force of the Matthews resolution, by the pre 
 tense that the act declaring that the parity must be maintained requires 
 the Treasurer to ignore silver, can not be entertained in good faith 
 by sensible men. 
 
 Those who favor the committee s amendment admit that it would 
 be difficult under an Administration holding the financial views which 
 dominate Mr. Cleveland s Cabinet and which controlled Mr. Harri 
 son s management of public affairs, to fairly enforce a free-coinage 
 law. Such a law should be dealt with by its friends. Day by day, 
 hour by hour, the return to what can be truly called sound money is 
 made more and more embarrassing, though such return is certain 
 and the continuance of existing conditions impossible. I have no 
 doubt that free coinage, supplemented by efforts made in good faith 
 by officers honestly and earnestly seeking to establish bimetallism, 
 would be rewarded by the accomplishment of every promise made by 
 the advocates of silver, and that the results of such exertions would 
 be that coin would be paid on demand, and gold and silver taken indis 
 criminately and without injury to the condition of the Treasury. It 
 is not the aim of the silver advocates to force silver only upon a 
 creditor, but we believe that the debtor has some rights, and that when 
 there is a deliberate attempt by speculators, backed by tributary news 
 papers, to bankrupt the national Treasury through such invasions as 
 we have recently witnessed, the Government should announce that it 
 will exercise its option for its own interest, as of right it may do. It 
 is true that money is timid and that financiers must often be treated 
 in the most tender and careful manner to avoid harrowing their feel 
 ings. They are touchy. But while recognizing this situation we 
 must draw the line somewhere. There is a point beyond which self- 
 respect and self-defense forbid us to go, and a time must come when 
 the Government will control money matters and will refuse to subject 
 itself to the personal and private demands of those whose impudent 
 dictations it now tolerates. 
 
 In an address delivered in this Chamber on the 22d of last month 
 the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] made several very interest 
 ing statements regarding the foreign trade of England, and showed 
 
156 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 from publications contained in the Statist and London Economist that 
 the foreign trade of the United Kingdom was more profitable in 1895 
 than at any time in the history of that country. The Senator upon 
 the same occasion called attention to the fact that our policy is build 
 ing up in Asiatic countries a competition which can not be met. As 
 bearing upon this proposition, I call the attention of the Senate to a 
 report made by our consul-general at Shanghai, Mr. Jernigan, and 
 contained on pages 93 and following, of volume 50, No. 184, Consular 
 Reports. The article is entitled " Labor and Wages in China." I 
 quote : 
 
 LABOR AND WAGES IN CHINA. 
 
 No country in the world is more abundantly supplied with labor than China, 
 and in no country in the world does the laborer receive less compensation. A 
 Chinese laborer will save money on wages that would hardly be sufficient to sup 
 ply the absolute necessities of an American laborer. This is made possible by 
 the cheapness of the vegetable diet on which the Chinese laborer is content to 
 live; the small cost of house accommodations, for several families will subdi 
 vide one room of a house and live in contentment in it, and the low price paid 
 for clothing, which is made of the coarsest cottons. But the cheapness of labor 
 in China does not mean that the products of that labor are inferior in quality. 
 The Japanese laborer, receiving higher wages, is more artistic in his work his 
 productions are more finished; in dyes and in the blending of colors he is su 
 perior to his Chinese rival, but in substantial and lasting quality the latter is fully 
 the equal and in some instances the superior. 
 
 The silk that comes from the looms of Japan compares in gloss and fineness 
 with any in the world, and Japanese crapes have a reputation in almost every 
 market for softness of beauty and harmony of color; but for substantial wear, 
 for lasting quality, the silk goods of China are most favorably known to the 
 merchants of all lands. 
 
 Among western nations the impression prevailed at one time that Asiatic 
 races were more imitative than original, and that in the industrial departments, 
 where originality was the chief element of success, the Occident need not fear 
 the Orient as a rival. The test has : been made, and the result has greatly modi 
 fied if not entirely removed the impression. Within the last quarter of a cen 
 tury Japan has thrown off a most oppressive form of feudalism and advanced to 
 the forefront as a nation of progressive ideas. Twenty-five years ago a system 
 of government obtained in Japan which discouraged all liberal enterprise. Cen 
 turies of political slavery, intrenched in formidable prejudices, seemed to have 
 crushed out the very soul of the Japanese people, and the Empire was dominated 
 by the tyranny of great feudal chiefs, the remains of whose castles, now scat 
 tered over Japan, attest to the traveler the strength and wealth of the former 
 owners and the servitude and poverty of their retainers. 
 
 All has given place to an enlarged liberty. With the adoption of a written 
 constitution, the Japanese mind began to develop more rapidly, and in defining, 
 by a written law, the organic structure of his Empire, the Emperor of Japan not 
 only did what no other Asiatic ruler has ever done, but caused a new era to 
 dawn upon Japan. 
 
 The gates of the Empire of Japan, so long closed to the Westerner, were 
 opened to his coming, and the Japanese soon learned to appreciate and utilize the 
 productions of Western thought and skill. Today, the navy yards, arsenals, fac 
 tories, banks, and large commercial houses of Japan prove that there is in Japan 
 ese character a reserve force which is destined, if judiciously regulated and 
 directed, to assure still greater achievements in industrial fields. The attestations 
 are too numerous to .leave doubt that the Japanese are not only original in con 
 ception, but possess the power of concentration and execution. 
 
 ******* 
 
 And the problem of China s awakening should not be solved without the 
 intelligent influence of the business men of the United States. The solution will 
 involve more intimate and valuable trade relations with western nations, as well 
 as define such relations in their future extent and value. Occupying the more 
 favored geographical position, the United States can and should send to China 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 157 
 
 much of their overproductions in exchange, if not absolute sales, for those of 
 China s products that may be needed. 
 
 During the last fiscal year the value of the trade relations between Japan 
 and the United States was estimated, in round numbers, at $28,000,000, but the 
 figures show a balance against the United States of $19,000,000. Japan is nearer 
 to the United States than any other Western nation, and several thousand miles 
 nearer .than Great Britain, and yet the balance sheet, for comparison, between 
 Japan and Great Britain shows a balance in favor of the latter about as large as 
 the balance against the United States. 
 
 During the same period, the value of the aggregate trade relations between 
 China and the United States was estimated at $24,000,000, with a balance 
 against the United States of $16,000,000, while in China, as in Japan, Great 
 Britain checks off large balances in her favor, although more remote from China 
 by thousands of miles. 
 
 The population of China is many times larger than the population of Japan, 
 and with the varied productions of the United States there ought to be a much 
 more valuable trade with China. This consideration should be regarded as of 
 special importance at a time when the symptoms of political and commercial 
 changes in China appear so clearly, even on the surface. When the 400,000,000 
 Chinese feel the influence of Western civilization they will, as their Japanese 
 neighbors have done, acquire and assimilate in many respects the habits and 
 desires of the Westerner, and the United States should be prepared to supply 
 their share of the demands. 
 
 European nations are sustaining the efforts of European merchants more 
 substantially than the American merchant is sustained. The latter, in the com 
 petition for Asiatic trade, has to rely upon his own skill and energy, while 
 the merchants of Europe are encouraged by the aid given to the great steamship 
 lines which carry their flags and pour the productions of Europe into Asiatic 
 ports. At the port of Shanghai, the great commercial and distributing center of 
 Asiatic trade, Great Britain, France, and Germany have direct mail and commer 
 cial communication the steamers entering and leaving the port every week, 
 carrying the flags of their respective nationalities, while no ship carrying the 
 American mail and flying the Stars and Stripes touches at Shanghai at all. The 
 American merchant must often unduly wait for his mail after its arrival at 
 Yokohama, and send his purchases in foreign bottoms to the ports of his native 
 land. The trade relations of the United States with China can not be satisfac 
 torily enlarged until American merchants are secured a more advantageous posi 
 tion. They can not successfully compete for Asiatic trade, even with the natural 
 advantages of their geographical position, when such advantages are so greatly 
 neutralized by such resources and means at the command of their competitors as 
 referred to. 
 
 These observations have been suggested by the following table showing the 
 price of Chinese labor : 
 
 Wages of Chinese at Shanghai September 30, 1895, reduced to American 
 
 currency. 
 
 
 Wages \ 
 
 idth food. 
 
 Description 
 
 Per day. 
 
 Per month. 
 
 Blacksmith 
 
 $0.13 
 
 
 Brass worker 
 
 .16 
 
 
 Barber 
 
 03 
 
 
 Bootmaker : 
 Native... 
 
 .10 
 
 
 Foreign . . .. 
 
 
 $5.28 
 
 Bamboo cabinetmaker 
 
 .11 
 
 
 Bricklayer 
 
 10 
 
 
 Compositor : 
 Native . 
 
 
 5.28 
 
 Foreign 
 
 
 7.92 to 15.84 
 
 Carpenter... 
 
 .11 
 
 
158 
 
 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Wages of Chinese at Shanghai September 30, 1895, reduced to American 
 Currency Continued. 
 
 Description. 
 
 Wages with food. 
 
 Per Day. Per Month. 
 
 Cabinetmaker 
 
 Cooly* 
 
 Bookbinder : 
 
 Native 
 
 Foreign* 
 
 Lithographer* 
 
 Furniture polisher 
 
 Tailor : 
 
 Native 
 
 Foreign 
 
 Pressman 
 
 Coachman : 
 
 Native 
 
 Foreign 
 
 House boy : 
 
 Native* 
 
 Foreign 
 
 Cotton-mill machinist 
 
 Cotton-factory hands 
 
 .13 
 .13 
 
 4.22 
 
 6.34 
 
 10.56 
 
 .21 
 .10 
 
 6.34 
 6.34 
 
 3.17 
 6.84 
 
 2.11 
 4.75 
 
 11 to .22 
 .18 
 
 *Without food. 
 
 Mr. President, it is too late at this time to enter into a discussion 
 of the arguments made yesterday and at different times during this 
 debate to the effect that gold has not appreciated. In this connection 
 I beg leave to quote certain remarks made, by me when speaking upon 
 this same subject in the address delivered in the Senate in 1893. I 
 then said : 
 
 To begin with, these gentlemen all admit that a certain quantity of gold will 
 now buy about 50 per cent, more of the necessaries of life than could have been 
 purchased with the same amount of the same metal at the time of the demone 
 tization of silver in 1873. But they contend that this is due to improved 
 machinery, to new and more economical methods of production. I think that the 
 address made by the able Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] at thq opening of 
 this discussion disposes of this subject, and I will not spend much time discussing 
 it. I have had the pleasure of listening to arguments wherein it was stated that 
 wages are higher now than ever, and that hence it follows that gold had not 
 fallen. It may well be doubted whether there is any foundation for this asser 
 tion, save in a very limited classification, but assuming it to be true that wages 
 are higher with reference to certain industries, that increase is obviously attribu 
 table to other causes. 
 
 But if wages have increased, is such increase due to the monometallic stand 
 ard, and must wages depreciate because of the Sherman law? Are we to suppose 
 that no other cause or causes influenced wages in this country than the action of 
 our Government regarding currency? During the last campaign gentlemen who 
 now sit in this Chamber were preaching Democracy to assembled multitudes, 
 and they never gave as a reason for appreciation of wages the argument they 
 rely upon here. Do they still hold to their older and oft-asserted view? Is it 
 true that wages have, appreciated merely because we demonetized silver? 
 
 I well remember that we all contended, and I think with much force, that 
 the well-organized exertions of trades unions had much to do with keeping up 
 labor prices. No general rule can be applied to this matter from which any such 
 deduction as that insisted upon by the Senator from Delaware is authorized. In 
 the same States for the same class of labor and the same number of hours differ 
 ent rates are charged. North, South, East and West prices vary, depending 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 159 
 
 often upon the mere ability of the laborer to obtain his rights, and in some 
 instances of the employer to procure his work to be done at a reasonable rate. 
 
 ******* 
 
 One of the most distinguished monometallists of Great Britain is Mr. Giffen, 
 chief of the statistical department of the board of trade, and although he has 
 not seen fit in his later work to republish the views I am about to quote, I 
 desire, nevertheless, to quote an abstract from his paper entitled, " Recent 
 changes in prices and incomes compared." He there positively places himself 
 upon record in support of the proposition that gold has notably appreciated, and, 
 moreover, he argued that this appreciation was likely to continue, and that 
 therein was found the true explanation of the fall in the price of commodities. 
 
 In 1879 he pointed out that this rise would soon become evident. Let me 
 quote : 
 
 " If the test of prophecy be the event, there was never surely a better fore 
 cast. The fall of prices in such a general way as to amount to what is known 
 as a rise in the purchasing power of gold is generally, I might almost say univer 
 sally, admitted. Measured by any commodity or group of commodities usually 
 taken as the measure for such a purpose, gold is undoubtedly possessed of more 
 purchasing power than was the case fifteen or twenty years ago, and this high 
 purchasing power has been continued over a long enough period to allow for 
 all minor oscillations." 
 
 The Senator from Delaware argues, as do many of the authorities, that the 
 fall in the value of the various commodities is due to the great development 
 which has been made in the arts, and he calls attention to Bessemer steel as a 
 notable instance. So it is a notable instance, and so far as steel is concerned, it 
 is clearly established that improved methods have lessened the cost; and there 
 are many similar cases. 
 
 If the fall in prices was due to improvements in machinery the prices 
 would be maintained with reference to those articles regarding which there had 
 been no improvements affecting production, and in cases where inventions and 
 new appliances had diminished the cost the depreciation would be noticed. But 
 we know that there has been a uniform fall of prices all along the line, and the 
 tables and charts prepared by eminent statisticians clearly prove that the drop 
 has been general and is therefore due to some cause utterly different from that 
 to which Sir John Lubbock and others attribute it. For instance, let us take 
 wool, at present very low. My Republican friends may say that this is because 
 our people are afraid of tariff changes. Let us assume, and take a date 
 anterior to the triumph of the Democratic ticket, and it will be found that when 
 wool was exceedingly dull throughout the country, and on the Pacific Coast, 
 where the staple is short, owing to the circumstance that we are compelled to 
 clip twice a year, wool was so low prior to Mr. Cleveland s election that it did 
 not even reach the duty line. 
 
 It is untrue that the expense of woolgrowing has become less and less as 
 years have rolled by. When a child I have seen thousands of sheep roaming 
 over the public domain, the pasturage of which cost the man who owned them 
 not a cent. Gradually, as the progressive American moved over this territory 
 and took it up under the homestead and pre-emption laws, the ranges were cur 
 tailed and the sheep w,ere driven back, so that now many of them subsist at cer 
 tain seasons on the mountain sides, sometimes at an altitude of from 8,000 to 
 10,000 feet above the sea, there seeking with difficulty that support before readily 
 obtained. Hence the expense of maintenance has increased. Besides, lands have 
 become useful for other purposes, and the sheep in the West is becoming more 
 and more a burden. 
 
 Therefore there is depression not alone in those lines concerning which the 
 cost of production is lessened, but it is found all throughout the list, demonstrat 
 ing to you as legislative physicians that some other prescription must be 
 applied than was suggested by the Senators who are opposed to me. 
 
 I believe that a careful analysis of the situation will show numerous exam 
 ples which can not be explained upon the basis expressed in the ably conducted 
 argument of the Senator from Delaware. I have not had time to carefully scan 
 this branch of our dispute, but have said enough to suggest a conclusion. In the 
 matter of eggs there has not been any invention promoting production. The 
 ancient methods are still utilized. And yet I find there the same depreciation. 
 
160 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 It has been frequently stated, and truly, that the gold price of silver prior 
 to 1873 was remarkably stable, and that since that time it has been utterly un 
 stable. But the theory that silver has depreciated and gold remained stable does 
 not account for admitted phenomena. 1 refer to the phenomena which I have 
 just recited. Suppose that we adopt a gold standard, pure and simple, mani 
 festly when gold is very plentiful it will buy fewer things, and this is called a 
 rise in prices. When gold is scarce it will buy more of everything. This means 
 a fall in prices. There is no mystery as to this. The experience of every gold- 
 standard country in the world discloses a universal fall in the prices of commo 
 dities. 
 
 And let be remembered and it is a most cogent circumstance that this 
 depreciation does not antedate 1873. If we are trying this case upon its 
 merits, and are to enter a judgment upon it, let us look at the evidence. The 
 rule suggested by the other side does not apply, because the fail is universal 
 and the diminished cost of production is not universal. 
 
 Then we have this other significant feature, that the fall in the price of 
 commodities dates from 1873 or thereabouts the date of the demonetization 
 of silver. Why is this remarkable coincidence presented? There may be 
 some means other than that hinted at to account for it. I am not here to 
 withhold any information. I know that I am obliged to bring forth every 
 fact that will tend to elucidate. The truth should be known that we may 
 legislate wisely and in the interest of the people whom we represent. I 
 can not find and have not heard any explanation, in harmony with the gold- 
 appreciation theory, of the incidents which I have cited. 
 
 In China, where gold is a mere commodity and is sold just as lead or tin 
 would be in this country, prices have not varied in twenty years. This infor 
 mation I derive from an article quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle and 
 written by W. S. Wetmore. for the Hongkong papers. Wr. Wetmore selected 
 some twenty articles for his index numbers and discovered that the prices 
 had been practically stationary since 1873, while gold had risen nearly 50 per 
 cent. 
 
 In a recent article by the same gentleman, printed in the North China 
 News, he shows that notwithstanding the enormous depreciation in the gold 
 price of silver in Europe, America and India, there has been no variation of 
 importance in either China or Japan. He gives an instance within his own 
 personal experience to illustrate his meaning. Seventeen years ago he employed 
 a boy, at a salary of twenty-one Mexican dollars a month, and although at 
 the present time silver is worth in gold less than a third of its former price, 
 Mr. Wetmore has discovered that his servant is able to live now just as well 
 as he did in 1876, and has not deprived himself of any of the advantages which 
 he then enjoyed, although, as I have said, commodities have not fallen. 
 
 At the risk of being tautological, I will say that in all the great silver-using 
 countries of the world an ounce of silver will buy just as much of the necessi 
 ties of life at this day as could have been bought twenty years ago. If gold 
 is declared to be the standard of the world, and if it is said that there is no 
 other kind of money, gold will be more sought for, there will be greater 
 need for it, its purchasing power will necessarily increase. 
 
 If half the stock of gold were destroyed, no one doubts that the remaining 
 portion would be more valuable. And so if the use to which gold is applied be 
 made more extended, if it becomes more essential to the public comfort, so 
 will we be more anxious to get it, so will its purchasing power develop. This 
 subject was very ably and thoroughly discussed by the distinguished Senator 
 from Nevada in his argument before the Brussels conference. Indeed, he 
 left nothing to be said upon the subject. The man who insists that the less 
 money we have in the world the better off we are is no more inconsistent 
 than the party who admits, as he must, that the legislation of the world has 
 been in favor of gold, and that metal has been cornered and placed in a few 
 hands, and still insists that its purchasing power has not increased. 
 
 A very instructive and interesting 1 article on this topic by the 
 Mexican minister, Mr. Romero, can be found in the June (1895) 
 number of the North American Review. 
 
 It is sufficient to say in general of this measure that no doubt 
 there are large interests in the United States which might be affected 
 adversely by the free coinage of silver. Those whose business it has 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 161 
 
 been to reduce the value of that metal and who have been growing 
 wealthier day by day in consequence of that policy will realize reduced 
 profits with corresponding gain to the public at large. Those whose 
 monetary and selfish programme has been thus far followed, and 
 whose power has been, unfortunately and I trust but temporarily, 
 fastened upon the American people, can not be expected to willingly 
 release the great advantages which have accrued to them. They 
 necessarily struggle; they necessarily denounce. The newspapers 
 which they own and to whose support they largely contribute also 
 join in the calumniating cry. But those of us who believe in free 
 coinage, and who have uniformly and fearlessly asserted our views 
 in that direction, are not to be deterred from the discharge of our 
 duties by either threats or prophecies of personal calamity. 
 
 While the change proposed would bring about some disturbance, 
 we must recollect that business affairs are far from settled now. The 
 great gulf that separates the poor and the rich is daily becoming 
 more and more pronounced. While not interfering with property 
 rights, we must recognize prevailing conditions. I do not apprehend 
 anarchy, revolution, or kindred horrors. Milder remedies are within 
 reach. If the wrongs to which I refer really prevail, if my conclu 
 sions are well founded, the people have the power in their hands to 
 redress their grievances. 
 
 It is to be hoped that the true solution will be reached, that those 
 arguments upon which we have relied and in which we have full faith 
 will be controlling at the polls. The American people, Mr. President, 
 have not lost their right to vote. If they are suffering it is their own 
 fault, not deliberate, perhaps, not wilfull; it is true, but nevertheless 
 the consequences of misconception because of inattention or the result 
 of neglect. 
 
 The true American who has faith in the system under which he 
 lives has the utmost confidence that all political issues, whether 
 economic or other, will be solved justly and patriotically. Even those 
 whom the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. VILAS] informs us do not 
 understand financial problems because of engrossing cares and ardu 
 ous occupation, have, I think, more knowledge of the real nature of 
 our troubles and certainly more disposition to redress them than many 
 more favorably surrounded. The masses will soon unite, not for 
 blood and lawlessness, but in the peaceful and determined effort to 
 enforce at the ballot box those policies which, however odious to gold 
 monopolists, are essential to the happiness and comfort of the people. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY ON BONDS AND NATIONAL BANKS. 
 
 National-bank notes shall be retired, their further issue prohibited, and 
 United States Treasury notes substituted therefor. The power to issue paper 
 money and coin as a legal tender is only vested in the National Government. 
 
 Arkansas, 1878. 
 
 COLORADO. 
 
 In 1878 Colorado denounced "the retirement and destruction of legal- 
 tender notes and the maintainance of the national banking system," and said : 
 
 " No further increase in the bonded debt and no further sale of bonds for 
 the purchase of coin for resumption purposes; a gradual extinction of the 
 public debt by the redemption of the interest-bearing portion thereof in such 
 currency as the law will permit." 
 
162 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ILLINOIS. 
 
 That the present system of national banks can and should be abolished at 
 once, and the notes of, such institutions redeemed and their place relieved by 
 non-interest bearing notes of the Government, thus saving to the people annually 
 $20,000,000. Illinois State Democratic Platform, 1868. 
 
 That it is the exclusive prerogative of the United States to issue all bills to 
 circulate as money, and a right which ought not to be exercised by any State 
 or corporation. That the national-bank notes should be redeemed, and instead 
 thereof there should be issued by the Government an equal amount of Treasury 
 notes. Illinois State Democratic platform, 1878. 
 
 INDIANA. 
 
 That the national bank system organized in the interest of bondholders 
 ought to be abolished and United States notes substituted in lieu of the 
 national-bank currency, thus saving to the people in interest alone more than 
 $18,000,000 a year; and, until such system of banks be abolished, we demand 
 that the shares of such banks in Indiana shall be subject to the same taxation, 
 State and municipal, as other property of the State. Indiana Democratic State 
 platform, 1868. 
 
 We are in favor of the repeal of the national-bank law and the substitution 
 of greenbacks for the national-bank currency. Indiana State Democratic 
 platform, 1874. 
 
 1876: We declare in favor of the adoption of measures looking to the 
 gradual retirement of the circulation of the national banks and the substitution 
 therefor of circulating notes issued by the authorities of Government. 
 
 1878 : The right to issue paper money as well as coin is the exclusive 
 prerogative of the Government. * * * We demand that the national-bank 
 notes shall be retired, and in lieu thereof shall be issued by the Government 
 an equal amount of Treasury notes with full legal-tender quality. 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 That the national-bank system, organized in the interest of bondholders, 
 ought to be abolished and United States notes substituted in lieu of the national- 
 bank currency, thus saving the people in interest alone more than $18,000,000 
 annually; and, until such system of banks shall be abolished, we demand that 
 the shares of such banks in Iowa shall be subject to the same taxes, State 
 and municipal, as other property of the State. Iowa State Democratic platform, 
 1868. 
 
 1869: A national debt is a national curse. 
 
 1875 : We favor a sufficient supply of national currency for business 
 purposes. Opposition to the present national banking law. 
 
 1876: The resumption law should at once be repealed. 
 
 1877 : We favor the retention of a greenback currency, and declare against 
 any further contraction, and we favor substitution of greenbacks for national- 
 bank bills. 
 
 We deprecate the funding of our non-interest-bearing debt. * * * jWe 
 oppose any further retirement of the United States notes now in circulation, 
 and favor the substitution of national Treasury notes for national-bank bills. 
 Iowa State Democratic platform, 1878. 
 
 1879: We are in favor of the substitution of United States Treasury notes 
 for national-bank notes, and of the abolition of national banks as banks of 
 issue. * * * We favor a reduction of the bonded debt as fast as practicable 
 and the application of the idle money in the Treasury to that purpose. 
 
 KANSAS. 
 
 We demand the repeal of the national-bank law, and that the Government 
 shall issue a legal-tender currency direct from the Treasury. Kansas State 
 Democratic platform, 1874. 
 
 1876: We demand that the act of Congress creating the national banking 
 system be repealed; that the notes of the national banks be withdrawn from 
 circulation, and in lieu thereof the paper of the Government of the United 
 States be substituted. That as Congress has the sole power to coin money 
 and regulate the value thereof, it should also have the sole power to provide a 
 paper currency for the people. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 163 
 
 1876: We are opposed to all banks of issue, whether chartered by Congress 
 or the State legislature, and we desire that banking on the part of corporations 
 or private individuals shall be confined by law exclusively to exchange, 
 discounts, and deposit. 
 
 That as Congress has sole power to coin money and regulate the value 
 thereof under the Constitution, it should also exercise the sole power of pro 
 viding a paper currency to be used as money. * * * That we favor the 
 retirement of national-bank notes and substitution of Treasury notes, commonly 
 called greenbacks, in their stead. Kansas State Democratic platform, 1878. 
 
 LOUISIANA. 
 
 1878 : The Louisiana Democracy demands that the national banking system 
 should be abolished and national-bank notes retired, and in lieu thereof that 
 the Government of the United States should issue an equal amount of Treasury 
 notes, commonly known as greenbacks. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 1868. Every dollar received by taxation from the people not absolutely 
 necessary for the economical and legitimate expenses of the Government to be 
 applied to the payment of the public debt. 
 
 1877: Resolved, That the practice of borrowing money for other objects 
 than those of strict public necessity has generated schemes of extravagant 
 expenditure, until taxation has become well-nigh an intolerable burden. Hon 
 esty, economy, and " pay as we go " should be the rule in all the appropriations 
 of the peoples money. The power of the State, counties, cities, and towns to 
 borrow money ought to be rigidly limited, so that an end may be put to the 
 system which " anticipates the labor of coming ages and appropriates the fruits 
 of it in advance; which coins the industry of future generations into cash and 
 snatches the inheritance from children yet unborn." 
 
 MICHIGAN. 
 
 1879: We demand that all money, whether paper or metallic, shall be 
 issued by the General Government only, and made a full legal tender for all 
 debts, public anH private, except as to such contracts heretofore made as were 
 originally payable in coin. We are opposed to all banks of issue, and demand 
 that greenbacks shall be substituted in place of national-bank bills. 
 
 MINNESOTA. 
 
 1878: We are opposed to any increase of the bonded debt, and to the 
 sale of bonds for the purpose of obtaining coin for resumption purposes. We 
 are in favor of the gradual substitution of national Treasury notes for national- 
 bank notes and making such Treasury notes the sole paper currency of the 
 country, and placed on such basis as that the same shall be equal in value 
 with coin, and as a legal tender the same as coin. 
 
 MISSOURI. 
 
 We regard the national banking system as being oppressive and burden 
 some, and demand the abolition and retirement from circulation of all national- 
 bank notes and the issue of legal-tender notes in lieu thereof, and in quantities 
 from time to time sufficient to supply the wholesome and necessary business 
 demands of the entire country, and that all greenbacks so issued shall be used 
 in the purchase and retirement of the bonds of the United States, so that the 
 interest-bearing debt of the country may be lessened to the extent of the 
 greenbacks thus put into circulation. Missouri State Democratic platform, 
 1878. 
 
 MAINE. 
 
 That so long as the currency consists in whole or in part of paper money, 
 issued under the authority of the National Government, such paper should 
 be issued directly by the Government itself, and that the great and valuable 
 privilege of issuing three hundred millions of this money, yielding _ a profit 
 equal to eighteen millions annually in gold, has been too long enjoyed by 
 favored individuals associated under the national-bank law, and should be forth- 
 
164 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 with assumed by the people represented by the political authority of the 
 United States. Maine State Democratic platform, 1868. 
 
 1878: The payment of the bonded debt of the United States as rapidly as 
 practicable. No further issue of Government bonds whereby equal taxation 
 with the other property of the country is avoided. * * * We are opposed 
 to an irredeemable currency, but believe in a currency for the Government 
 and people, the laborer and officeholder, the pensioner and soldier, the pro 
 ducer and the bondholder. We are opposed to the present national banking 
 system and in favor of the gradual substitution of greenbacks for national bank 
 bills. 
 
 NEBRASKA. 
 
 1878: We demand the gradual substitution of United States legal-tender 
 paper for national bank notes and its permanent establishment as the sole paper 
 money of the country; the immediate repeal of the national banking act; no 
 further issue of interest-bearing bonds ; no further sale of bonds for the pur 
 chase of coin for resumption purposes, but a gradual extinction of the public 
 debt. 
 
 NEVADA. 
 
 The substitution of the United States currency for the national bank notes. 
 No further sale of interest-bearing bonds for coin for resumption purposes, 
 but the gradual reduction of the public debt. Nevada State Democratic plat 
 form, 1878. 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 1878 : One currency for the Government and the people, the laborer and the 
 officeholder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the bondholder. 
 That whatever currency is issued by the Government should be issued for the 
 benefit of the whole people, and not for the benefit of capitalists at the expense 
 of the people. 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 1869: We denounce the national banking system as one of the worst out 
 growths of the bonded debt, which unnecessarily increases the burden of the 
 people $30,000,000 annually, and we demand its immediate repeal. 
 
 1870 : We are opposed to the system of national banks, and demand the 
 immediate repeal of the law creating them, and that in place of the notes of 
 such banks Treasury notes of the United States should be substituted. 
 
 1871 : Honor and duty alike require the honest payment of the public debt. 
 
 Believing that a better system can be devised, and one that will be free from 
 unjust privileges, we are in favor of abolishing the franchises of the national 
 banks to issue a paper currency as soon as the same can safely and prudently 
 be done, and that the notes so withdrawn by the banks be replaced by the 
 Government with legal tender currency. Ohio State Democratic platform, 
 
 1874- 
 
 1875 : That the policy already initiated by the Republican party of abolish 
 ing the legal tender and giving national banks the power to furnish all the 
 currency will increase the power of an already dangerous monopoly and the 
 enormous burden now oppressing the people, without any corresponding 
 advantage, and that we oppose the policy and demand that all the national 
 bank circulation be promptly and permanently retired, and legal tenders be 
 issued in their place. * * * No paper currency except such as may be issued 
 directly by and upon the faith of the General Government. 
 
 1876: The gradual but early substitution of legal tender for national bank 
 notes. * * * The issue by the General Government alone of all the circu 
 lating medium, whether paper or metallic. 
 
 1877 : We favor the retention of greenback currency as the best paper money 
 we have ever had, and declare against any further contraction. * * * We 
 favor the issue by the General Government alone of all circulating mediums, 
 whether paper or metallic, to be always of equal tender and interconvertible. 
 
 1878: The gradual substitution of United States legal tender paper for 
 national bank notes and its permanent establishment as the sole paper money of 
 the country. * * * No further increase in the bonded debt and no further 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 165 
 
 sale of bonds for the purchase of coin for resumption purposes, but the gradual 
 extinction of the public debt. 
 
 1879: The issue of money in any form and the regulation thereof belong to 
 the General Government alone, and ought not to be delegated or intrusted 
 to individuals or corporations. We oppose the perpetuation of the present 
 national banking system as a means of control over the currency of the coun 
 try, and demand the gradual substitution of Treasury notes for national bank 
 currency. 
 
 OREGON. 
 
 1875 : The institution of the system of national banks was a fraud upon the 
 country and injustice upon the laboring classes, and we demand such pru 
 dent legislation as will gradually bring this vicious system to a close; that all 
 currency which may be issued shall be convertible into coin upon demand and 
 be issued directly by the Government. 
 
 That the gratuity of nearly $24,000,000 now paid to national banks by the 
 Government is simply levying tribute upon the people for the benefit of the 
 capitalists. We, therefore, favor the repeal of the law under which they were 
 established and the direct issue by the Government of currency, receivable for 
 all public dues, sufficient to supply the place of the present bank-note circulation. 
 Oregon State Democratic platform, 1878. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 1875 : That the policy already indicated by the Republican party of abolish 
 ing legal tenders and giving the national banks the power to furnish all the 
 currency will increase the power of an already dangerous monopoly and the 
 enormous burden now oppressing the people without compensating advan 
 tage, and that all the national bank circulation be promptly and permanently 
 retired and full legal tenders be issued in their place. 
 
 1875 The honest payment of our just debts and the sacred preservation of 
 the public faith. 
 
 1876: The honest payment of the public debt. 
 
 1878 : Gold, silver and United States legal tender notes at par therewith are 
 a just basis for paper circulation. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 1874 : Honest payment of the public debt in coin. 
 
 TENNESSEE. 
 
 That we favor the abolition of the present odious national bank system and 
 the payment of the bonds of the Government by issuance of its non-interest-bear 
 ing notes, according to the contract expressed and implied at the time of the 
 creation of such obligations. Tennessee Democratic State platform, 1874. 
 
 The substitution of Treasury notes for national bank currency at the ear 
 liest moment practicable. Tennessee State Democratic platform, 1876. 
 
 1878 : The odious national banking act be repealed and greenbacks be sub 
 stituted for the circulation of national banks. * * * That no more interest- 
 bearing bonds be issued; that all loans required by the Government be raised 
 by the issuance of non-interest-bearing Treasury notes. 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 1878: We favor one currency for the Government and the people, the 
 laborer and the officeholder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the 
 bondholder. * * * The substitution of United States legal tender for 
 national bank notes and its permanent re-establishment as the sole paper money 
 of the country. 
 
 No further increase in the bonded debt; no further sale of bonds for the 
 purchase of coin for redemption purposes, but a gradual reduction of the public 
 debt by payment according to the original contract by which it was created. 
 
 VERMONT. 
 
 1878: The honest payment of the public debt in such currency as its terms 
 imply, and the preservation of the public faith. 
 
166 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 One currency for all. We oppose the present national banking system and 
 recommend the gradual substitution of greenbacks for national bank bills. 
 
 WISCONSIN. 
 
 1887: Declares its opposition to a longer continuance of the national bank 
 currency and demands that the Government furnish its own notes in the place 
 thereof. 
 
 UTTERANCES OF EMINENT STATESMEN. 
 
 These are the words of Mr. Jefferson: 
 
 " It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to 
 cherish its credit, but at the same time to restrain the use of it within the 
 limits of its faculties, never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax on the 
 same instant for paying the interest annually, and the principal within a given 
 term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith. 
 On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, 
 on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the neces- 
 Mty of equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against 
 oppression, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution. But the term 
 of redemption must be moderate and at any rate within the limits of their right 
 ful powers. But what limits, it will be asked, does this prescribe to their pow 
 ers? What is to hinder them from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of 
 nature, I answer. The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead. The will and 
 the power of man expire with his life, by nature s law." 
 
 " In seeking, then, for an ultimate term for the redemption of our debts, 
 let us rally to this principle and provide for their payment within the term of 
 nineteen years at the furthest." (Volume 6, pages 136, 137.) 
 
 " We must raise, then, ourselves the money for this war, either by taxes 
 within the year, or by loans ; and if by loans, we must repay them ourselves, 
 proscribing forever the English practice of perpetual funding, the ruinous con 
 sequences of which, putting right out of the question, should be a sufficient warn 
 ing to a considerate nation to avoid the example." (Volume 6, page 197.) 
 
 " At the time we were funding our national debt, we heard much about a 
 public debt being a public blessing ; that the stock representing it was a creation 
 of active capital for the aliment of commerce, manufactures, and agriculture. 
 This paradox was well adapted to the minds of believers in dreams, and the 
 gulls of that size entered bona fide into it." (Volume 6, page 239.) 
 
 " The misfortune is that in the meantime we shall plunge ourselves in unex- 
 tinguishable debt, and entail on our posterity an inheritance of eternal taxes, 
 which will bring our Government and people into the condition of those of 
 England, a nation of pikes and gudgeons, the latter bred merely as food for the 
 former." (Volume 6, page 409.) 
 
 "Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt 
 within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation 
 coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession 
 of the earth He made for their subsistence, unencumbered by their predeces 
 sors, who, like them, were but tenants for life." 
 
 "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more 
 dangerous than standing armies ; and that the principle of spending money to be 
 paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a 
 large scale." (Volume 6, pages 605-608.) 
 
 " No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt 
 as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to 
 such wretchedness as that, laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are 
 still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or 
 potatoes as will keep soul and body together." (Volume 7, page 7.) 
 ******* 
 
 "I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are 
 our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence 
 we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 167 
 
 election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run 
 into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in 
 our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our 
 callings and our creeds, as the people of England are; our people, like them, 
 must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fif 
 teen of these to the Government for their debts and daily expenses; and the 
 sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, 
 on oatmeal and potatoes ; have no time to think, no means of calling the mis- 
 managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to 
 rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers. Our landholders, too, 
 like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, 
 but held in trust for the Treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign coun 
 tries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the 
 nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson that private fortunes 
 are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the 
 tendency of all known governments. A departure from principle in one 
 instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 
 till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automations of misery, to have 
 no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the 
 bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so gen 
 eral in this world, have mistaken it for the natural instead of the abusive 
 state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Tax 
 ation follows that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression." (Volume 7, 
 page 14.) 
 
 ******* 
 
 " I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, 
 and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. We see in Eng 
 land the consequences of the want of it their laborers reduced to live on a 
 penny in the shilling of their earnings, to give up bread, and resort to oat 
 meal and potatoes fo.r food; and their landholders exiling themselves to live 
 in penury and obscurity abroad, because at home the Government must have 
 all the clear profits of their land. In fact, they see the fee simple of the island 
 transferred to the public creditors, all its profits going to them for the inter 
 est of their debts. Our laborers and landholders must come to this also unless 
 they serenely adhere to the economy you recommend." (Volume 7, page 19.) 
 
 " The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed by this bill have 
 not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution." 
 Opinion against the constitutionality of a national bank, February 15, 1791, 
 volume 7, page 556. 
 
 " The bank filled and overflowed in the moment it was opened. Instead of 
 20,000 shares 24,000 were offered and a great many unpresented who had not 
 suspected that so much haste was necessary. Thus it is that we shall be pay 
 ing 13 per cent, per annum for eight millions of paper money, instead of hav 
 ing that circulation of gold and silver for nothing. Experience has proved 
 to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted; and 
 for the paper emitted from the bank 7 per cent, profits will be received by 
 the subscribers for it as bank paper (according to the last division of profits 
 by the Philadelphia Bank,) and 6 per cent, on the public paper of which it is 
 the representative." Letter to Colonel Monroe, July, 10, 1791, volume 3, page 
 2f8. 
 
 " Our public credit is good, but the abundance of paper has produced a 
 spirit of gambling in the funds, which has laid up our ships at the wharves 
 as too slow instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the 
 tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure itself. I wish it 
 may, but I have rarely seen a gamester cured, even by the disasters of his 
 vocation." Letter to Gouverneur Morris, August 30, 1791, volume 3, page 290. 
 
 " You will see further that we are completely saddled and bridled, and that 
 the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they will guide. 
 
168 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 They openly publish a resolution that, the national property being increased 
 in value, they must by an increase of circulating medium furnish an adequate 
 representation of it, and by further additions of active capital promote the 
 enterprises of our merchants." Letter to Colonel Munroe, June 12, 1796, vol 
 ume 4, page 140. 
 
 " I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. 
 I would be willing to depend on that alone for the redemption of the adminis 
 tration of our Government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I 
 mean an additional article, taking from the Federal Government the power of 
 borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else 
 a legal tender." Letter to John Taylor, November 26, 1798, volume 4, page 
 260. 
 
 " The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil. The multiplication 
 of them was intended to cure it; but it multiplied an influence of the same 
 character with the first, and completed the supplanting the precious metals 
 by a paper circulation." Letter to Mr. Gallatin, June 19, 1802, volume 4, 
 page 440. 
 
 " From the passage in the letter of the president [of the United States 
 Bank] I observe an idea of establishing a branch bank of the United States in 
 New Orleans. This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing against 
 the principles and form: of our Constitution. The nation is at this time so 
 strong and united in its sentiments that it can not be shaken at this moment. 
 But suppose a series of untoward events should occur, sufficient to bring into 
 doubt the competency of a republican government to meet a crisis of great 
 danger to unhinge the confidence of the people in the public functionaries, 
 an institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, 
 acting by command and in phalanx, may in a critical moment upset the Gov 
 ernment." Letter to Mr. Gallatin, December 13, 1803, volume 4, page 519. 
 
 " That we are overdone with banking institutions, which have banished the 
 precious /,metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium ; 
 that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employ 
 ments to nourish idleness; that the wars of the world have swollen our com 
 merce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for 
 our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our 
 society, who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the 
 whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties 
 produced, more easily to be deplored than remedied." Letter to Abbe Sali- 
 mankis, March 14, 1810, volume 5, page 516. 
 
 " One of the great advantages of specie as a medium is that, being of uni 
 versal value, it will keep itself at a general level, flowing out from where it 
 is too high into parts where it is lower. Whereas, if the medium be of local 
 Value only, as paper money, if too little, indeed, gold and silver will flow in 
 to supply the deficiency; but if too much, it accumulates, banishes the gold 
 and silver not locked up in vaults and hoards, and depreciates itself that is 
 to say, its proportion to the annual produce of industry beinn- raised, more 
 of it is required to represent any particular article of produce than in the 
 other countries. And to fill up the measure of blessing, instead of paying, 
 they receive an interest on what they owe from those to whom they owe; for 
 all the notes, or evidences of what they owe, which we see in circulation, 
 have been lent to somebody on an interest which is levied again on us through 
 the medium of commerce." Letter to John W. Eppes, November 6, 1813, vol 
 ume 6, page 239. 
 
 "Everything predicted by the enemies of banks in the beginning is now 
 coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper, as we 
 were formerly by the old Continental paper. It is cruel that such revolutions 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 169 
 
 in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who 
 instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, com 
 merce, or other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the 
 interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the 
 price of no useful industry of theirs. * * * I am an enemy to all banks 
 discounting bills or notes for anything but coin." Letter to Dr. Thomas 
 Cooper, January 16, 1814, volume 6, page 295. 
 
 " Until the gigantic banking propositions of this winter had made their 
 appearance in the different legislatures, I had hoped that the evil might still be 
 checked; but I see now that it is desperate, and that we must fold our arms 
 and go to the bottom with the ship." Letter to Joseph C. Cabell, esq., January 
 17, 1814, volume 6, page 300. 
 
 "I have ever been the enemy of banks, not of those discounting for cash, 
 but of those foisting their own paper into circulation, and thus banishing our 
 cash. My zeal against those institutions was so warm and open at the estab 
 lishment of the Bank of the United States that I was derided as a maniac by 
 the tribe of bank mongers who were seeking to filch from the public their 
 swindling and barren gains." Letter to President Adams, January 24, 1814, 
 volume 6, page 305. 
 
 " From the establishment of the United States Bank to this day I have 
 preached against this system but have been sensible no cure could be hoped 
 t>ut in the catastrophe now happening. The remedy was to let banks drop 
 graduation at the expiration ^f their charters, and for the State governments 
 to relinquish the power of establishing others. This would not, as it should 
 not, have given the power of establishing them to Congress. But Congress 
 could then have issued Treasury notes payable within a fixed period, and 
 founded on a specific tax, the proceeds of which, as they came in, should be 
 exchangeable for the notes of that particular emission only." Letter to Thomas 
 Cooper, csq., September 10, 1814, volume 6, page 381. 
 
 "Let us be allured by no objects of banks, public or private, or ephemeral 
 expedients, which, enabling us to gasp and flounder a little longer, only 
 increase by protracting the agonies of death." Letter to James Monroe, October 
 16, 1814, volume 6, page 395. 
 
 " The fatal possession of the whole circulating medium by our banks, the 
 excess of those institutions, and their present discredit cause all our difficul 
 ties. Treasury notes of small as well as high denomination, bottomed on a 
 tax which would redeem them in ten years, would place at our disposal the 
 whole circulating medium of the United States ; a fund of credit sufficient to 
 carry us through any probable length of war." Letter to his excellency Mr. 
 Crawford, February n, 1815, volume 6, page 419. 
 
 " The Government is now issuing Treasury notes for circulation, bottomed 
 on solid funds, and bearing interest. The banking confederacy (and the 
 merchants bound to them by their debts) will endeavor to crush the credit 
 of these notes, but the country is eager for them, as something they can trust 
 to, and so soon as a convenient quantity of them can get into circulation, the 
 bank notes die." Letter to Jean Batiste Say, March 2, 1815, volume 6, page 434. 
 
 " Their merchants (the English) established among us, the bonds by which 
 our own are chained to their feet, and the banking combination interwoven 
 with the whole, have shown the extent of their control, even during a war 
 with her. They are the workers of all the embarrassments our finances have 
 
 12 
 
170 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 experienced during the war." Letter to Caesar A. Rodney, March, 16, 1815, 
 volume 6, page 449. 
 
 " Like a dropsical man calling out for water, water, our deluded citizens are 
 clamoring for more banks, more banks. The American mind is now in the 
 state of fever which the world has so often seen in the history of other nations. 
 We are under the bank bubble, as England was under the South Sea bubble, 
 France under the Mississippi bubble, and as every nation is liable to be under 
 whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their 
 guard. We are now taught to believe that legerdemain tricks upon paper 
 can produce as solid wealth as hard labor in the earth. It is vain for common 
 sense to urge that nothing can produce nothing ; that it is an idle dream to 
 believe in a philosopher s stone which is to turn everything into gold, and to 
 redeem man from the original sentence of his Maker, In the sweat of his 
 brow shall he eat his bread. " Letter to Colonel Yancey, January 6, 1816, vol 
 ume 6, page 515. 
 
 " The metallic medium of which we should be possessed at the commence 
 ment of a war would be a sufficient fund for all the loans we should need 
 through its continuance; and if the national bills issued be bottomed (as is 
 indispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemption within certain 
 and moderate epochs, and be of proper denominations for circulation, no 
 interest on them would be necessary or just, because they would answer to 
 everyone the purposes of the metallic money withdrawn and replaced by 
 them." Letter to William H. Crawford, June 20, 1816, volume 7, page 8. 
 
 " The bank mania is one of the most threatening of these imitations. It is 
 raising up a moneyed aristocracy in our country which has already set the 
 Government at defiance and although forced at length to yield a little on 
 the first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded and unyield 
 ing. These have taken deep root in the hearts of that class from which our 
 legislators are drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable has become his 
 tory. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf of the bad, and thus 
 those whom the Constitution had placed as guards to its portals are sophis 
 ticated or suborned from their duties. That paper money has some advan 
 tages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable, and by breaking 
 up the measure of value makes a lottery of all private property, can not be 
 denied. Shall we ever be able to put a constitutional veto upon it?" Letter 
 to Dr. Josephus B. Stuart, May 10, 1817, volume 7, page 64. 
 
 " There is, indeed, one evil which awakens me at times, because it jostles 
 me at every turn. It is that we have now no measure of value." Letter to 
 Nathaniel M aeon, esq., January 12, 1819, volume 7, page in. 
 
 " The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our 
 citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, 
 and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of specu 
 lating, shaving, and banking institutions." Letter to Mr. Adams, March 21, 
 1819, volume 7, page 115. 
 
 " The paper bubble is then burst. This is what you and I and every reason 
 able man, seduced by no obliquity of mind or interest, have long foreseen, yet 
 its disastrous effects are not the less for having been foreseen. We are labor 
 ing under a dropsical fullness of circulating medium. Nearly all of it is now 
 called in by the banks, who have the regulation of the safety valves of our for 
 tunes, and who condense and explode them at their will. Lands in this State 
 can not now be sold for a year s rent." Letter to J. Adams, esq., November 
 7, 1819, volume 7, page 142. 
 
 " If we suffer the moral of the present lesson to pass away without improve 
 ment by the eternal suppression of bank paper, then, indeed, is the condition 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 171 
 
 of our country desperate, until the slow advance of public instruction shall 
 give to our functionaries the wisdom of their station." Letter to Mr. Rives, 
 November 28, 1819, volume 7, page 145. 
 
 " The plethory of circulating medium which raised the prices of everything 
 to several times their ordinary and standard value, in which state of things 
 many and heavy debts were contracted, and the sudden withdrawing too 
 great a proportion of that medium, and reduction of prices far below that 
 standard, constitute the disease under which we are now laboring and which 
 must end in a general revolution of property if some remedy is not applied." 
 Letter to Mr. Rives, November 28, 1819, volume 7, page 146. 
 
 " Interdict forever, to both the State and National Governments, the power 
 of establishing any paper bank, for without this interdiction we shall have 
 the same ebbs and flows of medium and the same revolutions of property to 
 go through every twenty or thirty years." Letter to Mr. Rives, November 28, 
 1819, volume 7, page 147. 
 
 "The State is in a condition of unparalleled distress. The sudden reduc 
 tion of a circulating medium from a plethory to all but annihilation is pro 
 ducing an entire revolution of fortune." Letter to H. Nelson, esq., March 12, 
 1820, volume 7, page 151. 
 
 " I should put down all banks, admit none but a metallic circulation, that 
 will take its proper level with the like circulation in other countries, and 
 then our manufacturers may work in fair competition with those of other 
 countries, and the import duties which the Government may lay for the 
 purposes of revenue will so far place them above equal competition." Letter 
 to Mr. Pinckney, September 30, 1820, volume 7, page 180. 
 
 The expansion of the currency by the issue of paper in a period of prosper 
 ity will inevitably be succeeded by its contraction in periods of adversity. 
 W. H. Crawford. 
 
 The great object now in view is to terminate forever the evil of the present 
 system, and to place the currency on a foundation so stable that it can not 
 again be shaken. If a broad and sure foundation of gold and silver is provided 
 for our system of paper credits we need not hereafter apprehend those alter 
 nate seasons of abundance and scarcity of money suddenly succeeding each 
 other, which have so far marked our history and irreparably injured so many 
 of our citizens. Report of R. B. Taney, Secretary of Treasury, April 15, 1834. 
 
 Proneness to excessive issues has ever been the vice of the banking system, 
 a vice as prominent in national as in State institutions. This propensity is as 
 subservient to the advancement of private interests in the one as in the 
 other; and those who direct them both, being principally guided by the same 
 views and influenced by the same motives, will be equally ready to stimulate 
 to extravagance of enterprise by improvidence of credit.- President Van 
 Buren s message, September 4, 1837. 
 
 The history of trade in the United States for the last three or four years 
 affords the most convincing evidence that our present condition is chiefly to 
 be attributed to overaction in all the departments of business, an overaction 
 deriving, perhaps, its first impulse from antecedent causes, but stimulated 
 to its destructive consequences by excessive issues of bank paper and by 
 
172 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 other facilities for the acquisition and enlargement of credit. President Van 
 Buren s message, September 4, 1837. 
 
 The limited influence of a national bank in averting derangement in the 
 exchanges of the country, or in compelling the resumption of specie payments, 
 is now not less apparent than its tendency to increase inordinate speculation 
 by sudden expansions and contractions; its disposition to create panic and 
 embarrassment for the promotion of its own designs; its interference with 
 politics, and its far greater power for evil than for good either in regard to 
 the local institutions of the operations of a government itself. What was in 
 these respects, but apprehension or opinion when a national bank was first 
 established now stands confirmed by humiliating experience. The scenes 
 through which we have passed conclusively prove how little our commerce, 
 agriculture, manufactures, or finances require such an institution, and what 
 dangers are attendant on its power a power, I trust, never to be conferred 
 by the American people upon their Government, and still less upon indi 
 viduals not responsible to them for its unavoidable abuses. President Van 
 Buren s second annual message, December 4, 1838. 
 
 The experiment has been tried and local paper has failed as a national cur 
 rency, and out of that failure arose the second United States bank. It will 
 fail again and again, and forever. . There is no safety for the Federal reve 
 nues but in the total exclusion of local paper, and that from every branch of 
 the revenues customs, lands, and post office. There is no safety for the 
 national finances but in the constitutional medium of gold and silver. After 
 forty years wandering in the wilderness of paper money we have approached 
 the confines of the constitutional medium. Benton, December 14, 1836. 
 
 The evils of a redundant paper circulation are now manifest to every eye. 
 It alternately raises and sinks the value of every man s property. It makes a 
 beggar of the man to-morrow who is indulging in dreams of wealth to-day. 
 It converts the business of society into a mere lottery, while those who dis 
 tribute the prizes are wholly irresponsible to the people. When the collapse 
 comes, as come it must, it casts laborers out of employment, crushes manu 
 facturers and merchants, and ruins thousands of honest and industrious citizens. 
 Shall we then, by our policy, any longer contribute to such fatal results? That 
 is the question. Buchanan. September 29, 1837. 
 
 For myself, I am opposed to investing in banks the power of manufactur 
 ing a paper Currency. This power of creating a currency for a nation is 
 one of the highest and most important attributes of a sovereign power, and 
 more deeply affects all the diversified interests of society that the excercise 
 of any other power whatever. It is more important than coining money, 
 for that must be preceded by the purchase of the bullion ; but here is a 
 power to manufacture paper money at pleasure, to constitute the currency 
 of a State or nation, a power intrusted to the irresponsible directory of a 
 bank, acting in secret, and whose chief interest is to abuse their power. In 
 proportion as a bank increases in currency are its dividends and profits aug 
 mented, and hence the stimulus to overissues is irresistible, and especially is 
 this the case where, as we have seen by the evidence before quoted, the very 
 directors which manufacture the paper loan out, as a general rule, more than 
 one-fourth of it to themselves. This power, then, of issuing their paper 
 as money is truly fearful, and when united with the power of loaning at 
 pleasure, in secret conclave, and to whom and for what purpose the bank direqt- 
 ory may think proper, and of recalling it at pleasure, and of contracting and 
 expanding as suits their caprice, is a power which few European despots would 
 dare to exercise, and is utterly incompatible with the fundamental principles 
 of a free government. From the speech of Robert J. Walker in the Senate, 
 January 21, 1840. 
 
 Allow me, moreover, to hope that it will be a favorite policy with you not 
 merely to secure a payment of the interest of the debt funded, but as far and 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 173 
 
 as fast as the growing resources of the country will permit to exonerate it of 
 the principal itself. The appropriations you have made of the Western lands 
 explain your disposition on this subject, and I am persuaded that the sooner 
 that valuable fund can be made to contribute, along with other means, to the 
 actual reduction of the public debt, the more salutary will the measure be to 
 every public interest, as well as the more satisfactory to our constituents. 
 Washington s second annual address to Congress, December 8, 1790. (Williams 
 Presidents Messages, volume i, page 38.) 
 
 No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption 
 and discharge of the public debt. On none can delay be more injurious or an 
 economy of time be more valuable. Washington s fifth annual address to Con 
 gress, December 3, 1793. (Williams Presidents Messages, volume i, page 49.) 
 
 GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The time which has 
 elapsed since the commencement of our fiscal measures has developed our 
 pecuniary resources so as to open the way for a definitive plan for the redemp 
 tion of the public debt. It is believed that the result is such as to encourage 
 Congress to consummate this work without delay. Nothing can more promote 
 the permanent welfare of the nation and nothing would be more grateful to 
 our constituents. Indeed, whatever is unfinished of our system of public credit 
 can not be benefited by procrastination ; and as far as may be practicable we 
 ought to place that credit on grounds which can not be disturbed and to pre 
 vent that progressive accumulation of debt which must ultimately endanger 
 all governments. Washington s sixth annual address to Congress, November 
 19, 1794. (Williams Presidents Messages, volume i, page 59.) 
 
 The consequences arising from the continual accumulation of public debts 
 in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth 
 in our own. The national defense must be provided for as well as the sup 
 port of Government, but both should be accomplished as much as possible by 
 immediate taxes and as little as possible by loans. President John Adams 
 message, 1797. 
 
 When effects so salutary result from the plan you have already sanctioned, 
 when merely by avoiding false objects of expense we are able, without a direct 
 tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing, to make large and effectual 
 payments towards the discharge of our public debt and the emancipation of our 
 posterity from that moral canker, it is an encouragement, fellow-citizens, of 
 the highest order, to proceed as we have begun, in substituting economy for 
 taxation, and in pursuing what is useful for a nation placed as we are, rather 
 than what is practiced by others under different circumstances. And whenso 
 ever we are destined to meet events which shall call forth all the energies 
 of our countrymen, we have the firmest reliance on those energies, and the 
 comfort of leaving for calls like these the extraordinary resources of loans and 
 internal taxes. Jefferson s second annual message to Congress, December 15, 
 1802. (William s Presidents Messages, volume i, page 160.) 
 
 I am uneasy at seeing that the sale of our western lands is not yet com 
 menced. That valuable fund for the immediate extinction of our debt will, I 
 fear, be suffered to slip through our fingers. Every delay exposes it to events 
 which no human foresight can guard against. Letter to James Madison, June 
 20, 1787, volume 2, page 153. 
 
 The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another 
 seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet 
 it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place 
 also among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of 
 reflection in which we are immersed here, on the elementary principles of 
 society, has presented that question to my mind; and that no such obligation 
 can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, 
 which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the 
 
174 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion 
 occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and 
 reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation 
 of its lands in severally, it will be taken by the first occupants, and these 
 will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed 
 rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children or to 
 some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to its 
 creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it not by natural right, 
 but by a law of the society of which he is a member and to which he is sub 
 ject. Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the 
 persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts con 
 tracted by him. For if he could he might during his own life eat up the 
 usufruct of the lands for several generations to come ; and then the lands 
 would belong to the dead and not to the living, which is the reverse of our 
 principle. 
 
 What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them 
 all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of 
 the rights of the individuals. To keep our ideas clear when applying them 
 to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the 
 same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, 
 leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age, 
 all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21 years, and their period of 
 life thirty-four years more, that being the average term given by the bills 
 of mortality to persons of 21 years of age. Each successive generation would, 
 in this way, come and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do 
 now. Then, I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its 
 course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear 
 of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. 
 For if the first could charge it with debt, then the earth would belong to 
 the dead and not to the living generation. Then no generation can contract 
 debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. Letter 
 written from Paris to James Madison, September 6, 1789, volume 3, page 103. 
 
 Not those who promote unnecessary accumulations of the debt of the 
 Union, instead of the best means of discharging it as fast as possible, thereby 
 increasing the causes of corruption in the Government and the pretext for new 
 taxes under its authority, the former undermining the confidence, the latter 
 alienating the affections of the people. 
 
 The real friends of the Union are those who are friends to the authority of 
 the people, the sole foundation on which the Union rests ; 
 
 Who are friends to liberty, the great end for which the Union was formed ; 
 
 Who are friends to the limited and republican system of government, the 
 means provided by that authority for the attainment of that end; 
 
 Who, considering a public debt as injurious to the interests of the people 
 and baneful to the virtue of the Government, are enemies to every contrivance 
 for unnecessarily increasing its amount, or protracting its duration, or extend 
 ing its influence. 
 
 In a word, those are the real friends of the Union who are friends to that 
 republican policy throughout which is the only cement for the union of a 
 republican people, in opposition to a spirit of usurpation and monarchy, 
 which is the menstruum most capable of dissolving it. No. 15, Writings of 
 Madison, March 31, 1792, page 480. 
 
 If Providence permits me to meet you at another session, I shall have the 
 high gratification of announcing to you that the national debt is extinguished. 
 I can not refrain from expressing the pleasure I feel at the near approach of 
 that desirable event. The short period of time within which the public debt 
 will have been discharged is strong evidence of the abundant resources of 
 the country and of the prudence and economy with which the Government 
 has heretofore been administered. President Jackson s message, 1833. 
 
 I can not too cordially congratulate Congress and my fellow-citizens on 
 the near approach of that memorable and happy event, the extinction of the 
 public debt of this great and free nation. Faithful to the wise and patriotic 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 175 
 
 policy marked out by the legislation of the country for this object, the pres 
 ent Administration has devoted to it all the means which its flourishing com 
 merce has supplied and a prudent economy preserved for the Public Treasury. 
 Within the four years for which the people have confided the executive 
 power to my charge, $58,000,000 will have been applied to the payment of the 
 public debt. 
 
 * * * ***** 
 
 The final removal of this great burden from our resources affords the 
 means of further provision for all the objects of general welfare and public 
 defense which the Constitution authorizes, and prevents the occasion for such 
 further reduction in the revenue as may not be required for them. President 
 Jackson s annual message, 1832. 
 
 The paper-money system and its natural associates, monopoly and exclu 
 sive privileges, have already struck their roots deep in the soil ; and it will 
 require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil. 
 The men who profit by the abuses and desire to perpetuate them will con 
 tinue to besiege the halls of legislation in the General Government as well as 
 in the States, and will seek, by every artifice, to mislead and deceive the pub 
 lic servants. It is to yourselves that you must look for safety and the means 
 of guarding and perpetuating your free institutions. In your hands is right 
 fully placed the sovereignty of the country, and to you everyone placed in 
 authority is ultimately responsible. It is always in your power to see that 
 the wishes of the people are carried into faithful execution, and their will, 
 when once made known, must sooner or later be obeyed. And while the peo 
 ple remain, as I trust they ever will, uncorrupted and incorruptible, and con 
 tinue watchful and jealous of their rights, the Government is safe, and the 
 cause of freedom will continue to triumph over its enemies. 
 
 But it will require steady and persevering exertions on your part to rid 
 yourself of the iniquities and mischiefs of the paper system, and to check the 
 spirit of monopoly and other abuses which have sprung up with it, and of 
 which it is the main support. So many interests are united to resist all 
 reform on this subject that you must not hope the conflict will be a short one 
 nor success easy. My humble efforts have not been spared, during my admin 
 istration of the Government, to restore the constitutional currency of gold and 
 silver; and something, I trust, has been done toward the accomplishment of 
 this most desirable object. But enough yet remains to require all your energy 
 and perserverance. The power, however, is in your hands, and the 
 remedy must and will be applied if you determine upon it. Jackson s Farewell 
 Address. 
 
 The creation, in time of peace, of a debt likely to become permanent is an 
 evil for which there is no equivalent. The rapidity with which many of the 
 States are apparently approaching to this condition admonishes us of our 
 own duties in a manner too impressive to be disregarded. One, not the least 
 important, is to keep the Federal Government always in a condition to discharge 
 with ease and vigor its highest functions, should their exercise be required 
 by any sudden conjuncture of public affairs a condition to which we are 
 always exposed, and which may occur when least expected. To this end 
 it is indispensable that its finances should be untrammeled and its resources, 
 so far as practicable unencumbered. No circumstance should present greater 
 obstacles to the accomplishment of these vitally important objects than the 
 creation of an onerous national debt. Our own experience, and also that of 
 other nations, has demonstrated the unavoidable and fearful rapidity with 
 which a public debt is increased when the Government has once surrendered 
 itself to the ruinous practice of supplying its supposed necessities by new loans. 
 The struggle, therefore, on our part, to be successful, must be made at the 
 threshold. To make our efforts effective, severe economy is necessary. This 
 is the surest provision for the national welfare, and it is at the same time 
 the best preservative of the principles on which our institutions rest. Sim 
 plicity and economy in the affairs of state have never failed to chasten and 
 invigorate republican principles, while these have been as surely subverted by 
 national prodigality under whatever specious pretext it may have been intro- 
 
176 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 duced or fostered. Van Buren s third annual message. (Statesman s Manual, 
 volume 2, page 1121.) 
 
 A few years ago our whole national debt growing out of the Revolution 
 and the war of 1812 with Great Britain was extinguished, and we presented to 
 the world the rare and noble spectacle of a great and growing people who 
 had fully discharged every obligation. Since that time the existing debt has 
 been contracted; and, small as it is in comparison with the similar burdens 
 of most other nations, it should be extinguished at the earliest practicable 
 period. Should the state of the country permit, and especially if our foreign 
 relations interpose no obstacle, it is contemplated to apply all the moneys in 
 the Treasury, as they accrue beyond what is required for the appropriations 
 by Congress, to its liquidation. I cherish the hope of soon being able to con 
 gratulate the country on its recovering once more the lofty position which 
 it so recently occupied. Our country, which exhibits to the world the bene 
 fits of self-government in developing all the sources of national prosperity^ 
 owes to mankind the permanent example of a nation free from the blighting 
 influence of a public debt. Folk s first annual message, December 2, 1845, 
 (Statesman s Manual, volume 4, page 1462.) 
 
 The amount of the public debt to be contracted should be limited to the 
 lowest practicable sum, and should be extinguished as early after the conclu 
 sion of the war as the means of the Treasury will permit. 
 
 With this view it is recommended that as soon as the war shall be over all 
 the surplus in the Treasury, not needed for other indispensable objects, shall 
 constitute a sinking fund and be applied to the purchase of the funded debt, 
 and that authority be conferred by laws for that purpose. Folk s third annual 
 message, December 7, 1847. (Statesman s Manual, volume 4, page 1704.) 
 
 Besides making the necessary legislative provisions for the execution of 
 the treaty, and the establishment of Territorial governments in the ceded coun 
 try, we have, upon the restoration of peace, other important duties to per 
 form. Among these I regard none as more important than the adoption of 
 proper measures for the speedy extinguishment of the national debt. It is 
 against sound policy and the genius of our institutions that a public debt 
 should be permitted a day longer than the means of the Treasury will enable 
 the Government to pay it off. We should adhere to the wise policy laid down 
 by President Washington, of " avoiding the accumulation of debt, not only 
 by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace, 
 to discharge debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not 
 ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden we ourselves ought to bear." 
 Folk s special message, July 6, 1848, (Statesman s Manual, volume 4, page 
 I743-) 
 
 In my message of the 6th of July last, transmitting to Congress the ratified 
 treaty of peace with Mexico, I recommended the adoption of measures for the 
 speedy payment of the public debt. In reiterating that recommendation, I 
 refer you to the considerations presented in that message in its support. 
 
 The public expenditures should be economical and be confined to such nec 
 essary objects as are clearly within the powers of Congress. All such as are 
 not absolutely demanded should be postponed and the payment of the public 
 debt at the earliest practicable period should be a cardinal principle of our 
 public policy. Folk s fourth annual message, December 5, (Statesman s Man 
 ual, volume 4, page 1774.) 
 
 The following are from Clay, Calhoun, Crawford, and Benton : 
 
 Mr. Clay said, in 1816, he would 
 
 " Lay down a general rule, from which there ought never to be a departure 
 without absolute necessity, that the expense of the year ought to be met by 
 the revenue of the year. If in time of war it were impossible to observe this 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 177 
 
 rule we ought in time of peace to provide for as speedy a discharge of the 
 debt contracted in the preceding war as possible." 
 
 And in 1824 he said : 
 
 " The payment of that debt and the consequent liberation of the public 
 resources from the charge of it is extremely desirable. 
 
 " The moral value of the payment of a national debt consists in the demon 
 stration which it affords of the ability of a country to meet and its integrity 
 in fulfilling all its engagements. * * Whoever may be entitled to the 
 credit of the payment of the public debt, I congratulate you, sir, and the country 
 most cordially that it is so near at hand." 
 
 I shall oppose strenously all attempts to originate a new debt; to create a 
 national bank ; to reunite the political and money power more dangerous 
 than that of church and state in any form or shape. Calhoun on the bill for 
 the issue of Treasury notes, United States Senate, September 18, 1837. (Abridg 
 ment Debates in Congress, volume 13, page 363.) 
 
 An attentive examination of the rise and fall of public debts in other coun 
 tries can not fail to impress the American Republic with the necessity of mak 
 ing suitable exertions in periods of peace to release the national revenue from 
 so heavy an incumbrance. W . H. Crawford, December 16, 1816. 
 
 What more unwise and more unjust than to contract debts on long time, 
 as some of the States have done, thereby invading the rights and mortgaging 
 the resources of posterity, and loading unborn generations with debts not their 
 own? What more unwise than all this, which several of the States have done, 
 and which the effort now is to make all do? Besides the ultimate burden, in 
 the shape of final payment, which is intended to fall upon posterity, the present 
 burden is incessant in the shape of annual interest, and, falling upon each gener 
 ation, equals the principal in every periodical return of ten or a dozen years. 
 Few have calculated the devouring effect of annual interest on public debts and 
 considered how soon it exceeds the principal. Benton s speech on assumption 
 of State debts; Thirty Years View, volume 2, page 173. 
 
 The following are the declarations of the national Democracy in their plat 
 forms : 
 
 "A rigorously, frugal administration of the Government and the applica 
 tion of all the possible savings of the public revenue to the liquidation of the 
 public debt, and resistance, therefore, to all measures looking to the multiplica 
 tion of officers and salaries merely to create indebtedness and augment the 
 public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." Platform of 1800, 
 article 4. 
 
 " We declare unqualified hostility to bank notes and paper money as a cir 
 culating medium, because gold and silver is the only safe and constitutional 
 currency." Platform, 1836. 
 
 "ART. 6. That Congress has no power to charter a United States bank; 
 that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the interests of 
 the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the 
 people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control 
 of a concentrated money power and above the laws and will of the people." 
 Democratic platform, 1840. 
 
 Democratic platform of 1844 affirms article 6 of the platform of 1840. 
 
 Democratic platform of 1848 declares 
 
 " For the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt." 
 
 The platform of 1848 further declares that the triumph of 1844 had fulfilled 
 the hopes of the Democracy of the Union in defeating the declared purposes of 
 their opponents to create a national bank. In protecting the currency and labor 
 of the country from ruinous fluctuations and guarding the money of the country 
 for the use of the people by the establishment of a constitutional Treasury. 
 
 Also 
 
 "Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to 
 enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, 
 
178 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the 
 necessary expenses of the Government and for the gradual but certain extinc 
 tion of the public debt." Democratic platform, 1852, article 8. 
 
 Article 9 of the same : 
 
 " That Congress has no power to charter a national bank ; that we believe 
 such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, 
 dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and 
 calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a con 
 centrated money power above the laws and will of the people." Democratic 
 platform, 1852, article 9. 
 
 That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe 
 such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the coun 
 try, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the American 
 people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control 
 of a concentrated money power and above the laws and will of the people. 
 Democratic platform, 1856, article 7. 
 
 Payment of all the public debt of the United States as rapidly as practi 
 cable. Democratic platform, 1868, article 3. 
 
HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Wednesday, February 21, 1894. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the resolution reported by Mr. 
 TURPIE, from the committee on Foreign Relations, January 23, 1894, declaratory 
 of the policy to be pursued under existing conditions toward the Government 
 of Hawaii 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California said : 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT : After the exceedingly interesting and somewhat 
 exciting episode of this morning, I can not expect to challenge the 
 attentive consideration of the Senate, nor do I anticipate that in say 
 ing what I have to utter upon the pending resolution, I shall be able 
 to adduce anything novel. In view, however, of the circumstance 
 that it has been proposed to annex the Hawaiian Islands not only to 
 the United States, but particularly to the State of California, which I 
 in part represent here, I have considered it proper to interject some 
 remarks regarding the entire subject. In order to correctly present 
 the views which I deem appropriate to the occasion, I consider that 
 it will be necessary at the outset to speak of the state of affairs which 
 met President Cleveland when he assumed the discharge of his high 
 trust. 
 
 In the first place, there was at that time pending in this body a 
 proposed treaty of annexation, an instrument whereby it was attempted 
 not merely to establish diplomatic relations between the United States 
 and the Provisional Government, but the effect of which, had it been 
 ratified, would have been the subversion of the sovereignty of the 
 Hawaiian Islands and the conference of supreme territorial jurisdic 
 tion upon the United States. It was then a matter of common report, 
 known to everyone, that it was questionable whether the so-called 
 Provisional Government, proposing that treaty, had been so regularly 
 constituted as to merit continued diplomatic relations. The President 
 was confronted with this condition of things. The proposed treaty 
 was here, and there was doubt, uncertainty, or at least debate, as to 
 the propriety and legality of the proceedings leading up to the pres 
 entation of the treaty. It was under these circumstances that the 
 President saw fit to appoint a commissioner to the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 I shall consider in a moment the question arising out of the 
 action of the Executive in appointing that commissioner and touching 
 his power to do so. It is not disputed that the situation was as I have 
 described it. Mr. Cleveland could not properly while this status 
 existed nominate and submit to the Senate a minister to the Hawaiian 
 Islands without doing violence to the views which he did at that time 
 necessarily entertain. In the first place, it had been reported that a 
 revolution had taken place, and it was said that, as the result of 
 domestic action, the monarchy had been destroyed, and that a govern- 
 
 179 
 
180 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ment, called a Provisional Government, had been erected upon its 
 ashes. The charge was freely made that this transition had been 
 accomplished by the efforts of our minister, Mr. Stevens, and the 
 naval forces of the United States. 
 
 At the outset I freely concede that it is no part of the affair of 
 this Government as to how a foreign revolutionary government has 
 been created. It is beyond our jurisdiction, I admit, to interfere to 
 that extent in the affairs of a foreign state. The rule, I think, is 
 correctly stated by Gen. Halleck in his work upon International Law, 
 as follows : 
 
 The right of every sovereign state to establish, alter, or abolish its own 
 municipal constitution and form of government would seem to follow, as a 
 necessary conclusion, from these premises. And from the same course of 
 reasoning it will be inferred that no foreign state can interfere with the 
 exercise of this right, no matter what political or civil institutions such sov 
 ereign state may see fit to adopt for the government of its own subjects and 
 citizens. It may freely change from a monarchy to a republic, from a 
 republic to a limited monarchy, or to a despotism, or to a government of any 
 imaginable shape, so long as such change is not of a character to imme 
 diately, or of necessity, affect the independence, freedom, and security of 
 others. (Halleck s International Law, page 77.) 
 
 The same doctrine is found in Pomeroy s International Law, 
 Woolsey s edition, page 47; Hall s International Law, page 21 ; Wool- 
 sey s International Law, section 40. 
 
 Said the Supreme Court of the United States, in Williams vs. 
 Bruffy, 96 U. S. 185. 
 
 Those who engage in rebellion must consider the consequences ; if they 
 succeed, rebellion becomes revolution, and the new government will justify 
 its founders. 
 
 Indeed, I do not understand that this view is at all challenged. 
 In his celebrated letter to the sheriffs of Bristol, Edmund Burke 
 wrote : 
 
 If there be one fact in the world perfectly clear it is this : That the disposi 
 tion of the people of America is wholly averse to any other than a free gov 
 ernment ; and this is indication enough to any honest statesman how he ought 
 to adapt whatever power he finds in his hands to their case. If any ask me 
 what a free government is, I answer that for any practical purpose it is what 
 the people think so and that they, not I, are the natural, lawful, and com 
 petent judges of this matter. (2 Burke s works, page 283.) 
 
 I have referred to these authorities, Mr. President, that my con 
 clusions may not be misunderstood, and that it may be fully appre 
 ciated that in everything which I say I recognize and admit the 
 absolute power of the people of the Hawaiian Islands to establish 
 any sort of a government which to them may seem proper. Mr. 
 Cleveland, as I interpret his position, has never made any contrary 
 assertion. Indeed, the very acts regarding which there has been dis 
 pute here have been performed because of a desire on his part to 
 relieve a foreign government from the effect of such interference upon 
 the part of Mr. Stevens and certain naval officers of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Stevens bore to the Hawaiian Islands the following letter of 
 credence : 
 
 Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, to Her Majesty 
 
 Liliuokalanij Queen of the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND: Having determined that Mr. John L. Stevens, 
 who was accredited as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipoten- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 181 
 
 tiary of the United States, to reside near the government of your illustrious 
 predecessor, King Kalakaua, shall exercise the same functions near the 
 government of your majesty, I have instructed that gentleman to present to you 
 this expression of my wishes, and to commend him to your confidence, as the 
 trusted agent of the Government of the United States in Hawaii, in the full 
 belief that he will deserve that confidence and that his mission will serve to 
 draw still closer, if possible, the friendly relations of the two countries. 
 I pray God to have your majesty in His wise keeping. 
 Written at Washington, the 9th day of March, 1891. 
 
 Your good friend, BENJ. HARRISON. 
 
 By the President : 
 
 JAMES G. ELAINE, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Under these credentials Mr. Stevens entered upon the discharge 
 of his duties. He was commissioned to no provisional government, 
 he bore no letter of credence to any power save that which was repre 
 sented by the Queen ; and at the time the change of government took 
 place his legal status, as I understand it, is correctly set forth in the 
 following quotation, which I shall also make from Gen. Halleck : 
 
 Where the mission terminates by the decrease or abdication of the minis 
 ter s own sovereign, or the sovereign to whom he is accredited, it is usual 
 for him to await a renewal of his letters of credence. In the former case, a 
 mere notification of the continuance of his appointment is sent by the suc 
 cessor of the deceased or deposed sovereign, and in the latter new letters 
 of credence are sent to the minister to be presented to the new ruler. If a 
 radical change should take place in the character or organization of his 
 own government, it would be the duty of the minister to await new letters 
 of credence, or a ratification of his appointment by the new government. 
 The government to which he is accredited would be justified in declining any 
 new negotiations with him without such ratification or new appointment, 
 or at least without some evidence of a renewal or continuance of his 
 powers. (International Law, page 82.) 
 
 A radical change in the form of government terminates the mis 
 sion of a diplomatic agent. Such is the rule laid down in Pomeroy s 
 International Law, pages 438, 439; Boyd s Wheaton, pages 321, 352; 
 Vattel, pages 460, 461 ; Hall s International Law, page 301, section 
 98; Woolsey s International Law (sixth edition, 1892), page 157. 
 
 In Prof. Woolsey s edition of Pomeroy s International Law, sec 
 tion 363, the writer, in speaking of the practice as I have stated it, 
 says: 
 
 I think it may fairly be said that reason as well as practice favors the 
 latter view. For although every state must decide its form of government 
 for itself, yet after every violent change in the constitution of a state its 
 stability and legality are, so to speak, on trial. Other states are compelled 
 to ask whether the new government is capable of fulfilling its obligations 
 before entering into relations with it. So that the same rules govern the 
 question of diplomatic intercourse with a new state, or an old state under 
 a new government, which govern its recognition. How, then, could a mission 
 to the old state be suspended or be otherwise than terminated when, for an 
 appreciable moment, there is question whether any mission will be received from 
 or sent to the new power? 
 
 Mr. President, therefore, the moment that by revolutionary acts 
 the Government to which Mr. Stevens was sent ceased to be, that 
 moment he occupied the position of one who had been a minister to 
 the court of Queen Liliuokalani, but who was compelled to wait 
 instructions from his parent Government. It was his duty to protect 
 the interests of American citizens. If he recognized the new gov- 
 
182 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ernment, his act depended for its validity upon the ratification of our 
 Executive. Under those conditions, the preceding Administration 
 saw fit to advise Mr. Stevens to assume diplomatic relations with those 
 who constituted the Provisional Government. 
 
 I am aware that it is laid down by at least one author upon inter 
 national law that in case of the recognition of belligerency there can 
 be no withdrawal of the recognition, and it is argued a fortiori that 
 that must be the case where the independence of a revolutionary 
 government is recognized ; but I take it, if such a case were ever pre 
 sented, if it could be shown that the newly recognized government, 
 so called, had in fact no nationality, that the recognition received was 
 fraudulently obtained, and that the organization claiming to represent 
 the people was created, brought into existence, and maintained by the 
 agents and officers of the Government of the United States, then and 
 in such event the Executive in the exercise of those powers which he 
 holds for justice and right could and should repudiate such recogni 
 tion always guarding the interests of innocent third parties. As 
 to the jurisdiction of the Executive to so sever diplomatic, relations, I 
 have no doubt. 
 
 This was the condition which confronted Mr. Cleveland. It 
 is not necessary to say that it had been demonstrated that this state 
 of things really existed, but from the facts and surroundings of the 
 matter it was rational to conclude that such recognition as had been 
 accorded had been acquired by deception. 
 
 He made no nomination of a minister because he did not know 
 whether the developments of the situation would justify the sending 
 of such a representative. But he appointed a commissioner to the 
 islands with specific instructions, looking to the ascertaining of such 
 facts as would tend to throw light upon the situation. Information 
 was essential. The President felt it to be his duty and he was right 
 about it to determine whether, first, there should be any continua 
 tion of diplomatic intercourse; and, secondly, whether the treaty 
 pending before the Senate of the United States should be ratified. 
 
 As to the power of the Executive upon this subject there should 
 be no controversy. 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE SOLE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHEN IT IS PROPER TO 
 RECOGNIZE A REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT, AND MUST INAUGURATE, AS FAR 
 AS THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED, ALL TREATY PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 The question of recognition of foreign revolutionary or reactionary gov 
 ernments is one exclusively for the Executive, and can not be determined 
 internationally by Congressional action. 
 
 Different expressions are used in different judicial decisions 
 regarding this power. 
 
 In the Prize cases, 2 Black, 666, I find the following: 
 
 That a blockade de facto actually existed and was formally declared and 
 notified by the President on the 2;th and 3Oth of April, 1861, is an admitted 
 fact in these cases. 
 
 That the President, as the Executive Chief of the Government and Com- 
 mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, was the proper person to make such 
 notification has not been and can not be disputed. 
 
 On page 668, same decision, I find the following : 
 
 The battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma had been fought before 
 the passage of the act of Congress of May 13, 1846, which recognized a state of 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 183 
 
 war as existing by the act of the Republic of Mexico. This act (the act of 
 Congress) not only provided for the future prosecution of the war, but was 
 itself a vindication and ratification of the act of the President. 
 
 In United States vs. Yorba, i Wall., 412, the power to recognize 
 is stated to be lodged in the political department of the Government. 
 
 In United States vs. Hutchings, 2 Wheeler, C. C. 546, which 
 action was tried in 1815 before Marshall, the authority is spoken of as 
 being vested in the Executive. 
 
 In the Hornet, 2 Abbott, U. S. 35, a case tried before Judge 
 Brooks, in 1870, in the United States district court of North Carolina, 
 the phrase " Executive power " is used. 
 
 In United States vs. Baker, 5 Blatchford, 56, we find legislative 
 and executive spoken of. 
 
 The same in United States vs. Palmer, 3 Wheaton, 610; and in 
 the Nueva Anna, 6 Wheaton, 193 ; and in Gelston vs. Hoyt, 3 
 Wheaton, 324 the power is described as being exercised by the 
 Government. 
 
 In the Ambrose Light, 25 Federal Reporter, 409; United States 
 vs. Itata, 56 Id., 505 ; United States vs. Trumbull, 48 Id., 99, it is said 
 that the right to recognize belligerency rests in the Executive. 
 
 The case of Kennett vs. Chambers (14 Howard, 47) is instruc 
 tive upon this subject and contains an allusion to the proceedings of 
 this Government regarding the acknowledgment of the independence 
 of Texas which it is well to note. See also note of Mr. Wharton, i 
 Wharton, Id., page 553. 
 
 Some of these cases have reference to the recognition of belliger 
 ency and some refer to the acknowledgment of the status of inde 
 pendent nations. 
 
 Mr. Seward, in a letter written to Mr. Dayton, our minister, in 
 April, 1864, said : 
 
 [No. 525-] 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 7, 1864. 
 
 Sir: I have received your dispatch of March 25, No. 442, which informs 
 me of the completion of the loan to the Grand Duke Maximilian, and of his 
 anticipated embarkation for Mexico. In order that you may understand the 
 condition of affairs in that country as fully as they are understood here, I 
 have given you a copy of a communication which has lately been received 
 from our consul at Matamoras. 
 
 I give you also, for your information a copy of a note which has been 
 received from Mr. Geofroy on the subject of the protection which was extended 
 to the consul at that place by Maj. GvM. Heron, and of my answer to that 
 paper. This correspondence embraces some other incidental subjects. It is 
 proper to say that Mr. Geofroy proposes to communicate to me a statement 
 of another distinct subject of complaint in regard to proceedings on the frontier 
 under instructions from Mr. Dronyn de Lhuys, and that I have engaged to 
 bestow due consideration upon it. 
 
 I send you a copy of a resolution which passed the House of Representa 
 tives on the 4th instant by a unanimous vote, and which declares the oppo 
 sition of that body to a recognition of a monarchy in Mexico. Mr. Geofroy 
 has lost no time in asking for an explanation of this proceeding. It is hardly 
 necessary, after what I have heretofore written with perfect candor for the 
 information of France, to say that this resolution truly interprets the unan 
 imous sentiment of the people of the United States in regard to Mexico. It 
 is, however, another and distinct question whether the United States would 
 think it necessary or proper to express themselves in the form adopted by 
 the House of Representatives at this time. This is a practical and purely 
 Executive question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs not to the 
 House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the 
 United States. 
 
184 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 You will of course take notice that the declaration made by the House of 
 Representatives is in the form of a joint resolution, which before it can acquire 
 the character of a legislative act must receive first the concurrence of the 
 Senate, and secondly the approval of the President of the United States, or 
 in case of his dissent the renewed assent of both Houses of Congress, to be 
 expressed by a majority of two-thirds of each body. While the President 
 received the declaration of the House of Representatives with the profound 
 respect to which it is entitled as an expression upon a grave and important 
 subject, he directs that you inform the Government of France that he does 
 not at present contemplate any departure from the policy which this Govern 
 ment has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists between France 
 and Mexico. It is hardly necessary to say that the proceeding of the House 
 of Representatives was adopted upon suggestions arising within itself, and not 
 upon any communication of the executive department, and that the French 
 Government would be seasonably apprised of any change of policy upon 
 this subject which the President might at any future time think it proper 
 to adopt. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 
 WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq., etc., etc., etc. 
 
 There is no substantial conflict, as I have said, in the authorities 
 that the right to recognize either belligerency or independence is 
 vested exclusively in the Executive. It is true that there are 
 instances in the history of this Government where the Senate and 
 House of Representatives have both been consulted, but such consul 
 tation was at the mere will of the Executive, and was no indication, 
 even by implication, that the President s so asking advise had any 
 doubt of the exclusiveness of his power. 
 
 Thus President Cleveland, possessing the authority conferred 
 by the Constitution, found that the condition of affairs in the 
 Hawaiian Islands was in dispute and in doubt. 
 
 When he was compelled to either make a treaty subject to the 
 concurrence of the Senate or to withdraw the compact proposed 
 through his predecessor and to determine what diplomatic relations, 
 if any, should be maintained with the provisional establishment, it 
 was not only within his power, but obviously his duty, to investigate 
 and find the facts. To have appointed a minister would have been 
 at once to recognize the existence of that which was in obscurity ; to 
 have remained without information would have been to fail in the 
 performance of his functions. 
 
 The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] in 
 the course of his speech referred to sections 1674, 1684, 1751, and 
 1760 of the Revised Statutes for the purpose of showing that Mr. 
 Blount s appointment was without authority of law. The same sec 
 tions were referred to by the able Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
 DAVIS]. The citation from section 1674 is as follows: 
 
 Diplomatic officers shall be deemed to include ambassadors, envoys extra 
 ordinary, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, commissioners, charges 
 d affairs, agents, and secretaries of legation, and none others. 
 
 Section 1684, as far as quoted, is as follows : 
 
 To entitle any charge d affairs, or secretary of any legation or embassy to 
 any foreign country, or secretary of any minister plenipotentiary, to com 
 pensation, they shall respectively be appointed by the President, by and with 
 the advice and consent of the Senate. 
 
 That portion of section 1751, to which the distinguished Senators 
 attracted our attention, is worded thus : 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 185 
 
 No diplomatic or consular officer shall correspond in regard to the public 
 affairs of any foreign government with any private person, newspaper, or 
 ether periodical, or otherwise than with the proper officers of the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Mr. President, I assert that the executive power of the Presi 
 dent being derived, as it is, from the Constitution, is not subject to 
 abridgment by any legislative act. I secondly asserverate that there 
 is not a word in either of the sections to which I have attracted atten 
 tion, which, in any manner, derogates from my argument or tends to 
 show that the President in any way infringed upon the power of any 
 other department of this Government or passed beyond the limits of 
 his own. 
 
 In the first place, the second section which I mentioned, and to 
 which I make reference because of the arguments to which I am 
 attempting to formulate an answer, omits the words " commissioners 
 and agents ;" that is to say, section 1684 was quoted by learned Sena 
 tors for the purpose of showing that, because there is no provision 
 for compensation therein, that hence that section, indirectly at least, 
 prohibits the President from making such an appointment as he made 
 in the case of Mr. Blount. Let it be noted that although in section 
 1674 the words " commissioners " and " agents " are used in the defi 
 nition of " diplomatic officers," yet these identical terms are studiously 
 omitted in section 1684, showing that the legislative power ex industria 
 relieved from the limitations of that part of the law both " commis 
 sioners " and " agents." 
 
 Section 1751 prevents any diplomatic or consular officer from cor 
 responding with any private person, newspaper, or other periodical, 
 and it is argued that Mr. Blount violated his duty, and that the Pres 
 ident was wrong in commissioning him tq advise or talk or hold any 
 communication with any third party. 
 
 This assertion is tantamount to a declaration that the President 
 of the United States had no right to send Mr. Blount abroad for the 
 purpose of making any inquiry; it is equivalent to a declaration that 
 if his name had been submitted to the Senate and his confirmation had 
 been had, still he would have had no power to perform the duties 
 assigned to him, which duties, Senators assert, could not be dis 
 charged unless he had been confirmed. 
 
 Manifestly, section 1751 has reference to diplomatic officers who 
 have been nominated and by and with the advice of the Senate 
 appointed. Hence, the argument of the Senator proves altogether 
 too much, for if he be correct, it results that the President of the 
 United States can never send abroad anyone to make any inquiry 
 whatever regarding foreign affairs. For his theory is that taking 
 testimony such as Blount took is corresponding regarding govern 
 mental affairs within the purview of section 1751. Reduced to this 
 conclusion,, the argument fails, I think, for I do not imagine that 
 any one will seek to maintain it if these premises are correct, and 
 even a cursory perusal of the statutes seem to leave no other con 
 clusion. 
 
 The declared purpose of the law-making body in enacting section 
 1751, was to inhibit a minister or consul from divulging the secrets 
 of a foreign government to any party or parties outside of the proper 
 officers of the United States. 
 
 If the commissioner or agent mentioned in section 1674 is a 
 
 13 
 
186 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 diplomatic officer who can not take testimony as did Blount, it is 
 certain that such an examination as Blount was instructed to make 
 could not legally be carried on by a minister regularly confirmed. 
 
 It is by no means evident that Mr. Blount ever assumed diplo 
 matic functions. He was sent to the islands solely for the purpose 
 of investigating and fully reporting to the President all facts respect 
 ing the condition of affairs in that country, the cause of the 
 revolution, and the sentiment of the people. 
 
 Diplomacy is defined to be " The science of the forms, cere 
 monies, and methods to be observed in conducting the actual inter 
 course of one state with another, through authorized agents, on the 
 basis of international law ; the art of conducting such intercourse, as 
 in negotiating and drafting treaties, representing the interests of a 
 state or its subjects at a foreign court, etc." Century Dictionary. 
 
 The word diplomacy implies the existence of negotiations. Mr. 
 Blount was not authorized to negotiate with the Provisional Govern 
 ment nor to do anything but arrive at a correct knowledge of the 
 status of affairs. 
 
 Indeed, the ultimate purpose of Mr. Blount s mission was to 
 settle the character of our relations with the islands and to determine 
 whether we would or would not accredit a minister to that portion 
 of the world. The so-called paramount power was conferred solely 
 for the purpose of enabling him to carry on the investigation. 
 
 The able Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] has demonstrated 
 both on principle and authority that in Mr. Blount s case there was 
 no office to be filled ; that the office spoken, of in the Constitution 
 refers to a station of authority that may be vacant existing inde 
 pendent of incumbency. His argument makes it unnecessary to con 
 sider any of the provisions of the Revised Statutes, but I have 
 endeavored to furnish additional reasons showing that Mr. Cleve 
 land did not step beyond constitutional limits. 
 
 Section 1760, which refers to salaries, and which has been 
 quoted upon the theory that the Executive had no right to pay Mr. 
 Blount, has no application here. It is as follows : 
 
 No money shall be paid from the Treasury to any person acting or assum 
 ing to act as an officer, civil, military, or naval, as salary, in any office when 
 the office is not authorized by some previously existing law, unless such 
 office is subsequently sanctioned by law. 
 
 " Salary " is defined in the Century Dictionary as 
 
 The recompense or consideration stipulated to be paid to a person periodic 
 ally for services, usually a fixed sum, to be paid by the year, half year, or 
 quarter. 
 
 I regard as peculiar and unthoughtful the suggestion that the 
 Executive can not properly use the fund which Congress has com 
 mitted to his discretion for the purpose of defraying such expenses 
 as those which were incurred in the Blount affair. 
 
 The curious may investigate Anderson s and other law dic 
 tionaries, where similar definitions will be found. 
 
 Mr. President, I take it that even if we concede the power in 
 Congress to limit executive functions constitutionally derived, it is 
 clear that the statutory provisions relied upon by the other side 
 have nothing to do with the case. I have already remarked that the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 187 
 
 arguments of distinguished Senators, enforcing a different view, 
 simply amount to this, that the President can never send abroad to 
 ascertain anything which it is necessary and proper for him as 
 President to learn. 
 
 THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. BLOUNT. 
 
 I have been somewhat surprised that derogatory allusions to 
 the character of an eminent American whose services are a part 
 of the history of this country have been made by Senators during 
 the course of this debate. I have not the pleasure of Mr. Blount s 
 personal acquaintance, but I do not hesitate to say that the asper 
 sions cast upon him are, one and all, beyond the evidence, beyond 
 the necessity, and beyond propriety. 
 
 The senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. CUIXOM], for whom I 
 have every personal regard and respect, in a speech made in this 
 body, in referring to Mr. Blount used this astonishing language : 
 
 Passing by some of the intermediate steps taken by the United States 
 Government, such as the withdrawal of the pending treaty from this Sen 
 ate; the sending of a special commissioner as a detective, to act as a spy 
 upon a foreign government, without the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 then in session, and other equally ridiculous blunders of Falstaffian diplo 
 macy, we have found a government in Hawaii recognized by the world in 
 full control of affairs. There was, it is true, an American flag flying in Hon 
 olulu, to give earnest of the will of the United States that American inter 
 ests and American citizens should be protected, and that the new Govern 
 ment should be allowed peacefully to conduct its administration pending 
 the treat} negotiations with the United States. 
 
 Acting under instructions, this American spy performed his duty by fre 
 quent secret reports to the Secretary of State, as to what he found and as 
 to what he did, which included the singular incident of pulling down the 
 American flag. 
 
 On another occasion, in earlier history, a distinguished citizen of New 
 York State, in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet of President Buchanan, 
 issued an order something as follows : " If any man pull down the American 
 flag, shoot him on the spot." At a later day, by the order, if I mistake not, 
 of Gen. Butler, at New Orleans, one man was hanged for the same act for 
 which another now receives the thanks of the Executive of the United States. 
 
 Another event in Revolutionary history has certain parallel lines to the 
 story of the President s detective in Hawaii. Something over a hundred 
 years ago a British officer of undoubted character and reputation was selected 
 as the special commissioner of his Government to act the part which would 
 complete the betrayal of West Point and other American forts into the hands 
 of the British. Maj. Andre, the distinguished spy, was apprehended and 
 paid the penalty with his life. 
 
 Again the Senator said: 
 
 Just look at it ! Purporting to be an ambassador and accredited to a rec 
 ognized government, his secret instructions, not even made known to this 
 Senate, if obeyed by him, put him in the attitude, in fact and effect, of the 
 most despicable offenders against international proprieties. True, his offense 
 was that of his superiors merely, but the punishment is meted to the, agent 
 who is caught in the act. Maj. Andre suffered death; Comissioner Blount 
 receives compensation from the United States, but the world condemns both 
 him and his employers. 
 
 There are several allusions of the same nature. The senior 
 Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] also stated that Mr. 
 Blount was a spy. Is it possible that the meaning of the word " spy " 
 is not understood? Is it possible that any man, upon reflection, will 
 assert that he who in open daylight, carrying a letter of authority 
 
188 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 which he delivers to the supposed adverse party, and who steps in 
 time of peace within a foreign, country to openly act under that let 
 ter and with the consent of the individuals and organization regarding 
 whom his investigation is to be made and who proceeds to make it, 
 and does make it, under their eyes and sanction is it possible that 
 anyone can so far forget himself as to declare such a man to be a spy ? 
 It is in conflict with the record to state that Mr. Blount was sent to act 
 as a spy. It is wholly untrue that he purported to be an ambassador. 
 Nor was it legally possible for Mr. Blount to do any act as a spy, nor 
 did he demean himself in the slightest degree improperly. 
 
 In the Hulsemann-Mann case the President had sent a secret 
 agent to a friendly power, upon whose report concerning an interne 
 cine struggle he expected to act. Mr. Webster, in defending the con 
 duct of this Government against the charge that Mr. Mann was a spy, 
 used the following definition, fully applicable to the present contro 
 versy. He said: 
 
 A spy is a person sent by one belligerent to gain secret information of 
 the forces and defenses of the other, to be used for hostile purposes. 
 
 Dr. Von Hoist (4 Const. History United States, page 69), in 
 speaking of the Hulsemann incident, says that it was " nonsensical and 
 boldly insulting when Hulsemann asserted that Mann had been 
 exposed by those who commissioned him to the fate of a spy." And 
 the same writer, in discussing Mr. Webster s defense of this Govern 
 ment, remarks that the points at issue " Webster submitted to an 
 exhaustive examination, and refuted his opponent, who was no match 
 for him, in the most brilliant manner." 
 
 No one pretends that Mr. Blount s mission was secret. 
 
 In a letter concerning which so much has been said, wherein 
 Mr. Cleveland commended Mr. Blount to the Hawaiian Government, 
 the following language appears : 
 
 I have made choice of James H. Blount, one of our distinguished citizens, 
 as my special commissioner to visit the Hawaiian Islands and make report 
 to me concerning the present status of affairs in that country. 
 
 Mr. Blount was publicly engaged in collecting evidence, and took 
 the testimony of parties friendly to the Provisional Government, and 
 even participating in it. He made no concealment in his work; was 
 open and above board, and the assertion that he was a spy would, if it 
 emanated from any other source than the distinguished Senators 
 alluded to, be denominated as absurd. His work was rendered neces 
 sary by the very project of annexation. An inquiry was practically 
 solicited. 
 
 A spy is necessarily a secret agent. No person sent to this or 
 any other country to make an open investigation can be called a spy. 
 And if Mr. Blount s mission was antagonistic to the Provisional Gov 
 ernment, every member of it knew that he was endeavoring to obtain 
 the facts regarding the revolution and report the same to the Presi 
 dent for such action as the Executive might deem it desirable to take. 
 An imputation of this sort directed against an honored American citi 
 zen can not be too strongly condemned. Partisanship has indeed 
 exceeded all bounds if such criticism is to be approved. 
 
 During Mr. Blount s mission an annexation newspaper charged 
 him by indirection with misconduct and referred to his communication 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 189 
 
 with the Queen. Mr. Blount at once wrote to President Dole, calling 
 his attention to the imputation (House Executive Document 47, page 
 65), to which Mr. Dole responded (Ibid., page 66) and said among 
 other things : 
 
 The Government sincerely regrets the publication referred to in your 
 communication and I hasten to assure you that it is in no way responsible for 
 the expressions of that or any other paper and thoroughly disapproves of 
 anything that may be published that can be taken as implying any action 
 on your part that is not entirely consistent with your mission. 
 
 Mr. Blount was long connected with the legislative department 
 of this Government. He represented in the House an intelligent con 
 stituency for many years, and if the Senators who have attacked him 
 here had been present when he was about closing his career in that 
 honorable body, and heard the encomiums showered upon him by 
 Republicans and Democrats alike, they certainly would have hesitated 
 before attempting an assault upon his good name. One of the ablest 
 of the Republican members of the House of Representatives, a gentle 
 man of long experience in public life, and who occupied, as did Mr. 
 Blount, a position upon the Committee on Foreign Affairs, eloquently 
 alluded to his associate in terms already quoted here, if I mistake not, 
 by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GORDON]. It is hardly necessary 
 to repeat, but as the accusations to which I have referred have been 
 made since, I shall cite a few expressions utilized by Mr. HITT in cer 
 tifying to the qualifications and the character of Mr. Blount. Mr. 
 HITT said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it would be ungracious to let these remarks, coming 
 from the leader of the other side of the House [Mr. HOLMAN], pass without 
 some response from this side. I have served for ten years with the hon 
 orable and distinguished gentleman, the chairman of the committee that 
 has brought this bill to which the committee unanimously consented and to 
 which the House will now assent. The term of my service has been only 
 half the long score of years that measure his honorable career as a legis 
 lator, and older members might more fitly speak, but I can not see the time 
 approach when he is to leave our Hall without heartily joining as one mem 
 ber of the House with the honorable gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HOLM AN] 
 in every word he has said in testimony of the personal worth, of the high 
 character, of the industry, of the energy of the honorable gentleman from 
 Georgia, and I will mark most of all that patriotism above party that inspired 
 him in this House when last year leading the great committee charged to 
 consider the affairs and interest not of a party, but of a whole nation embroiled 
 in sharp dispute with a foreign power, he rose with the occasion and proved 
 himself first and altogether a patriot and American [applause] ; so that 
 a foreigner, looking down from the gallery upon this Hall, could never- have 
 told whether he was a Republican or a Democrat, but would have known 
 that he was in every fiber an American. [Applause.] I am glad of the 
 opportunity to add this single word in echo of what has been so much better 
 said by the honorable gentleman from Indiana. [Applause.] 
 
 The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] said 
 in the course of his able address : 
 
 No, Mr. President, this Administration has been hurried into this trans 
 action, not by any sense of justice to Hawaii, not by any desire to vindicate 
 the national honor, but for the sake of making what has turned out to be a 
 weak, impotent attack on its predecessor. The great name and fame of 
 Benjamin Harrison have left a sense of envy and discontent in some bosoms. 
 
 But President Harrison, in his last letter of acceptance, alluded 
 not directly but plainly in terms of the highest praise to Mr. Blount. 
 
190 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Having spoken of the difficulties which resulted from the unfortu 
 nate transactions at Valparaiso, and having criticised the Democratic 
 party for its platform denunciation of his conduct, he proceeded thus : 
 
 I have very great gratification in being able to state that the Democratic 
 members of the Committee of Foreign Affairs 
 
 Mr. Blount was Chairman of the committee 
 
 responded in a true American spirit. I have not hesitated to consult freely 
 with them about the most confidential and delicate affairs, and here frankly 
 confess my obligation for needed co-operation. President Harrison s letter 
 of acceptance, September 3, 1892. 
 
 Thus it will be observed that the committee referred to by the 
 late President in his letter of acceptance was presided over by Mr. 
 Blount, and yet he complimented its work and fairness. Surely if it 
 had been any part of Mr. Cleveland s desire or purpose to cast asper 
 sions upon his predecessor, he would not have selected for the dis 
 charge of the delicate duties of the place one who had received such 
 a compliment from Mr. Harrison s hands and who had been most 
 impartial and judicial. It seems to me that any allusion to Mr. 
 Blount upon either side of this Chamber ought to be complimentary, 
 and can not be otherwise if we speak within the domain of fact. 
 
 Much has been said concerning the lowering of the flag. The 
 able Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] states in effect that a crime 
 was committed when Mr. Blount ordered the flag taken down. I shall 
 in a few minutes call attention to the necessary conclusion that when 
 Secretary Foster disavowed the act of Mr. Stevens in assuming a 
 protectorate over the islands he clearly disapproved his conduct in 
 raising the flag. When the flag was raised it was for the purpose of 
 assuming control. It was so placed to be the emblem, the evidence, 
 and the proof that the United States asserted dominant influence. 
 
 I am surprised that any Senator should assert that it is a crime 
 to take down, the flag when it is placed in a position unfitted for its 
 influence. In our national anthem it is declared that 
 
 The star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave, 
 O er the land of the free and the home of the brave. 
 
 If our flag were allowed to wave over the Hawaiian Islands, 
 would it wave " o er the land of the free " at this moment ? It is 
 conceded that the people have no part in the present government. 
 They are opposed to it. They are not free. They protest. The flag 
 typifies the power of the Republic. It heads the onward movement 
 of rectitude. Its foes are wrong and dishonesty. Under the flag 
 Washington marched that our freedom might be assured; that our 
 people might have their way. 
 
 The Declaration of Independence announced a kindred purpose. 
 The Constitution was adopted as proof that the Government for which 
 it provided was that for which the people had battled. Our banner 
 was not chosen to wave over alien lands or over alien peoples. It was 
 intended to float over America s battles ; over America s manhood. 
 You are prepared to bear it as you have done, over river, lake, and 
 sea, over prairie, swamp, and mountain, and through forest jungle, 
 that it may be rooted where success means the preservation of the 
 rights for which your fathers fought; but you surely will not permit 
 anyone to use that flag to lead you to a struggle unpatriotic or unjust, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 191 
 
 or for ends un-American. You will strike down the impious hand 
 thus seeking to misuse the emblem of your nation s glory. 
 
 Yes, shoot the man who seeks to tear down the flag when it 
 waves where honor calls it; but remit to condign punishment the 
 wretch who makes patriotism a trade, and using our country s banner 
 for ulterior ends, shields dishonesty and protects crime. The flag 
 is raised for justice. It must be taken down when it can not float 
 without injustice. Its mission is in the cause) of integrity. It is dese 
 crated when otherwise devoted. The Stars and Stripes must not 
 assist in the establishment of a government against the popular will, 
 even though we believe that a change will bring improvement. We 
 must leave to the erosive processes of time and civilization the oblite 
 ration of inferior races and the overthrow of corrupted dynasties. 
 Not by the sword of this Republic or before her victorious banner 
 shall the one be annihilated or the other subverted, 
 
 Mr. President, it appears to be plain that the issue here is, Was 
 the flag raised on a proper occasion? An attempt to stir up feeling 
 and partisanship by the mere statement that the flag was taken down 
 disregards the proposition that it was placed in a location from whence 
 it was our duty to remove it. 
 
 In addition to the criticisms upon Mr. Blount s conduct, to which 
 I have made some reference, it is said that he assumed command of 
 the naval forces of the United States. Who is it under the Consti 
 tution has a right to direct the Army and Navy of the United States ? 
 Can this Chamber control that which the Constitution declares to be 
 within the scope of the Executive? Is there any doubt that Mr. 
 Cleveland had authority, as President of the United States, to dictate 
 the movements of the Army and Navy of the United States ? Was 
 this function lodged in Mr. Stevens alone until his mission was ter 
 minated by recall ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland, as President of the United States, was justified 
 under the Constitution in transmitting an order, directly or indirectly, 
 tc any commander of the Navy or Army requiring him to act in 
 accordance with Executive desire and within the lines of his duties 
 pertaining to his place, and Mr. Blount, as his messenger, went to the 
 Hawaiian Islands and complied with the Presidential mandate. He 
 received his orders from the hands of the Executive, to whom it had 
 been given that it might be delegated without the necessity of con 
 sultation or advice. I say that it might be delegated, because no one 
 assumes that the President of the United States, acting under the 
 provision of the Constitution now being considered, must do so per 
 sonally, without the aid of agent or messenger. When, Mr. Cleveland 
 gave Mr. Blount the authority which he exercised, the President was 
 acting within the domain of the Constitution. 
 
 The precedents cited by other Senators present cases of far 
 greater doubt than this. The impartial historian who examines this 
 matter will reach the conclusion which I have already noted, that 
 pressed to its logical result the argument upon the other side means 
 that in no case can the President of the United States send abroad to 
 obtain information. 
 
 Much has been said in the course of this debate as to the conduct 
 of Mr. Stevens. I do not propose to review in detail the various 
 transactions which have already received such careful and exhaustive 
 consideration. I do not intend to recite all the reasons upon which I 
 
192 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ground my contention that his behavior was not within the lines of his 
 obligations. 
 
 I will cite in a general way a few of the more prominent and 
 undisputed matters appearing in the record. 
 
 MR. STEVENS AS A DIPLOMAT AND WITNESS. 
 
 The distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE] has 
 called the attention of the Senate to the circumstance that Mr. Stevens, 
 in his narration of the events which have been under discussion, ten 
 times referred to the late sovereign of the Hawaiian kingdom as the 
 fallen Queen, and that he also spoke of her as the late immoral occu 
 pant of the throne, and the Queen and her paramour; and he perti 
 nently asks whether these are the choice phrases of official correspond 
 ence or the polished language of diplomacy. But not only did Mr. 
 Stevens use such language since he abandoned his diplomatic career, 
 but I have taken occasion to notice that wherever he has found it nec 
 essary to allude to Wilson, the marshal of the Hawaiian Islands, he 
 has displayed the most remarkable feeling and has evinced character 
 istics wholly at variance with the demeanor and manner of a diplomat, 
 and wholly at variance with the sort of phraseology usually employed 
 by those who make impartial and reliable witnesses. 
 
 I concede that his disposition, his mannerisms, even his charac 
 ter should not affect the determinations of the question involved in 
 the consideration of this resolution, except in, so far as it may affect 
 his testimony by showing his bias and prejudice. But whenever we 
 examine the recital of a witness, whenever in a matter that is subject 
 to the determination of a court we are confronted with an individual 
 testifying, it is pertinent to determine his state of mind, not because 
 the result in that particular must end the controversy, but because it is 
 of importance in reaching a true judgment. 
 
 On May 21, 1892, when writing to Mr. Blaine, he used these 
 expressions descriptive of Wilson : 
 
 " The Tahitian half-caste marshal, the former reputed, if not the present 
 paramour of the Queen." " The Tahitian and the Queen." " Tahitian favor 
 ite." "The Queen and the Tahitian favorite." (House Report 243, page 92.) 
 
 And on September 9 of the same year, in a very short letter to 
 Mr. Foster, we find Wilson alluded to twice in the same way 
 (page 94). 
 
 In his short letter, written by Mr. Stevens to Mr. Foster on Sep 
 tember 14, 1892 (House Report No. 243, page 95), he alludes to 
 Wilson as follows : 
 
 " The Tahitian half-caste favorite of the Queen." " The Tahitian favorite." 
 "The Queen and the Tahitian." "The half-caste Tahitian favorite." 
 
 Making four complimentary references of this sort in one diplo 
 matic communication, without a single mention of the name or the title 
 of his office. 
 
 In another communication upon the following page of the same 
 report, in a letter from Mr. Stevens to Mr. Foster, dated October 19, 
 1892, the former fails to mention Wilson s name once, but designates 
 him as follows : 
 
 " The Tahitian favorite and the Queen." " The Tahitian marshal, with 
 all the abuse and corruption which surrounded him and the Queen." " The 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 193 
 
 faction of the Tahitian." "The Tahitian favorite." "The Tahitian favorite 
 of half-English blood." 
 
 In another diplomatic letter, same report, page 108, written by 
 Mr. Stevens to Mr. Foster on October 31, 1892, he again uses similar 
 phrases freely and monotonously, thus : 
 
 "The Tahitian favorite." "The Queen and the Tahitian." "The Tahi 
 tian favorite." " The half-English Tahitian favorite and the Queen." " The 
 Tahitian marshal." " The present Queen and her favorite." 
 
 After the so-called revolution, and even after last March, Mr. 
 Stevens in a letter to Secretary Gresham (House Report 243, page 
 150) again manifested his peculiar disposition and the singular hos 
 tility which he entertains toward every one who holds views differing 
 from his own. I quote : 
 
 UNITED STATES LEGATION, Honolulu, March 24, 1893. 
 
 Sir : In my previous dispatches I have given some facts and surmises 
 regarding Japanese ambitions as to these islands. I presume the Department 
 of State has knowledge of the elaborate article of Sir Edward Arnold in the 
 London Telegraph of February 24; strongly anti-American and favoring 
 the surrender of Hawaii to Japanese predominance and protection. By resi 
 dence in Japan, as well as by some previously acquired taste of Calcutta 
 and Hindostan life, Arnold seems to accept readily Japanese morals and 
 civilization, warmly flatters the easily susceptible vanity of the Japanese, 
 the real Frenchmen of Asia. 
 
 STEVENS FROM THE BEGINNING PLOTTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO 
 WHICH HE HAD BEEN ACCREDITED. 
 
 No right-thinking person will deny that it was the duty of Mr. 
 Stevens when he entered upon his trust to remember his obligations 
 as the representative of a great Government to and before a friendly 
 court to which he bore a letter of credence commending him to the 
 sovereign s confidence. It is admitted in this debate that when the 
 revolutionary movement was conceived, when those who inaugurated 
 the movement were considering the advisability of moving forward, 
 Mr. Stevens was consulted without objection on his part as to what he 
 would do. 
 
 Let us suppose, Mr. President, that a representative of this Gov 
 ernment at the Court of St. James was found consorting with men 
 plotting the overthrow of the British Empire, and stating conditions 
 under which he would recognize the conspirators as a newly-estab 
 lished regime. How would such conduct be regarded by Great 
 Britain, and by the civilized world? 
 
 Mr. W. O. Smith, a member of the Provisional Government, in 
 speaking of the transactions of January 15, says: 
 
 After we adjourned Mr. Thurston and I called upon the American minister 
 again and informed him of what was being done. Among other things we 
 talked over with him what had better be done in case of our being arrested 
 or extreme or violent measures being taken by the monarchy in regard to 
 us. We did not know what steps would be taken, and there was a feeling of 
 great unrest and sense of danger in the community. Mr. Stevens gave 
 assurance of his earnest purpose to afford all the protection that was in his 
 power to protect life and property. He emphasized the fact that while he 
 would call for the United States to protect life and property, he could not 
 recognize any government until actually established. Executive Document 
 47, page 122. 
 
194 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. Soper, who is with the Provisional Government, testifies 
 (House Executive Document 47, page 506) : 
 
 Q. Was anything said about his [Stevens ] agreeing to recognize the 
 Provisional Government in the event of their getting possession of the gov 
 ernment building and reading their proclamation or any other building? 
 
 A. You mean at this meeting? 
 
 Q. Yes. 
 
 A. I can not say positively as to whether I understood it at that meeting, 
 or the following morning. I understood he would recognize a de facto gov 
 ernment. 
 
 Q. What did they say was a de facto government? 
 
 A. A government that was in possession of the government building, 
 archives, treasury, etc. 
 
 Q. The treasury, archives, etc., were in the government building? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. The understanding was then that if the Provisional Government got 
 possession of the government building and read the proclamation that then 
 he would recognize it as a de facto government? 
 
 A. I believe that was the understanding. 
 
 Is there anything in diplomatic history, is there anything in any 
 work on the subject of international jurisprudence which gives such a 
 definition of a de facto government? It was not to be a government 
 in possession of the power and substance of the state after the oblite 
 ration of a former dynasty, but a de facto government according to 
 Stevens meant a handful of men in possession of certain specified 
 structures. Our minister virtually said to those who were contemplat 
 ing the overthrow of the Queen to whom he had been introduced as a 
 friend, " Whenever you seize the buildings which I name and thus 
 open the fight and make success probable I will recognize you, that 
 my dream of conquest may be realized. I will do all I can Messrs. 
 Conspirators to protect you." 
 
 The evidence upon this subject has been already fully discussed 
 and presented, and I do not intend to elaborate further upon it. 
 
 Mr. President, I, for one, deny that there is any authority under 
 any system of enlightened or civilized usage justifying an envoy to a 
 foreign court in holding any intercourse or making any bargain with 
 or suggesting any contingency as a basis for action on his part at the 
 dictation or inquiry of insurgents to be. This behavior of our minis 
 ter is perhaps to some extent overlooked because we are dealing with 
 a feeble people, with a few little islands in the sea, with a race incapa 
 ble of coping with us ; but Mr. Cleveland, with eloquence and unde 
 niable logic, has taken the true position that we must act upon the 
 basis of justice and not with reference to our strength or the weak 
 ness of those with whom we are brought in contact. 
 
 Mr. President, nearly one hundred years ago, in the Senate of 
 the United States, Governor Morris said : " I do not think that the 
 universe presents a spectacle more sublime than that of a powerful 
 nation kneeling before the altar of justice and sacrificing there alike 
 her passion and her pride." I find here no reason for an American, 
 with the honor and power of this nation, in his keeping, to hesitate 
 to admit a wrong done under the cloak of national authority by one 
 who has violated his faith or to hasten to redress the outrage. Nay, 
 I feel as though it were my duty in so far as I am individually con 
 cerned to be more punctilious and more scrupulously fair in dealing 
 with inferior nations than in transactions with powerful states com 
 petent to guard their interests. The first can protect themselves, the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 195 
 
 others are at our mercy and dependent upon our honesty and magna 
 nimity. 
 
 Mr. President, our minister was not justified under diplomatic 
 usage in recognizing the Provisional Government until it was abso 
 lutely in possession of the power of the state and until it exercised 
 actual dominion. While the matter was in active dispute, as I shall 
 presently show, and until the Government was at least tacitly accepted 
 by the people, no recognition should have been made. I am aware 
 that Mr. Stevens represented to President Harrison that when he 
 acted the Queen had been overthrown. Documentary evidence dem 
 onstrates that President Harrison was deceived. In his message to 
 Congress concerning the proposed treaty, he says : 
 
 At the time the Provisional Government took possession of the govern 
 ment buildings, no troops or officers of the United States were present or 
 took any part whatever in the proceedings. No public recognition was accorded 
 to the Provisional Government by the United States minister until after 
 the Queen s abdication and when they were in effective possession of the 
 government buildings, the archives, the treasury, the barracks, the police 
 station and all the potential machinery of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Stevens s records show that before 4 p.m. of the I7th the 
 Provisional Government had been recognized (House Executive 
 Document No. 4, page 123) : 
 
 [Extract from records of the United States legation.] 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE WITH HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT. 
 
 UNITED STATES LEGATION, Honolulu, January 17, 1893. 
 
 About 4 to 5 p.m. of this date am not certain of the precise time the note 
 on file from the four ministers of the deposed Queen, inquiring if I had rec 
 ognized the Provisional Government, came to my hands, while I was lying 
 sick on the couch. Not far from 5 p.m. I did not think to look at the watch 
 I addressed a short note to Hon. Samuel Parker, Hon. William H. Cornwell, 
 Hon. John F. Colburn, and Hon. A. P. Peterson no longer regarding them 
 ministers informing them that I had recognized the Provisional Govern 
 ment. 
 
 JOHN L. STEVENS. 
 United States Minister. 
 
 Lieut. Draper certifies that the police station mentioned by Presi 
 dent Harrison s message was not turned over until hours after the 
 recognition by Stevens. 
 
 He says (House Executive Document No. 47, page 63) : 
 
 STATEMENT BY LIEUT. DRAPER. 
 
 May 5, 1893, Herbert L. Draper, lieutenant Marine Corps, attached to 
 Boston : 
 
 I was at the United States consulate-general at the time the Provisional 
 Government troops went to the station house and it was turned over to 
 them by Marshal Wilson. It was about half-past seven o clock. The station 
 house is near the consulate-general on the same street. As soon as it happened 
 I telephoned it to the ship. 1 wanted my commanding officer to know, as I 
 regarded it as an especially important thing. 
 
 I was the commanding officer at the consulate-general. There was no 
 other United States officer there at the time excepting myself. 
 
 The above is a correct statement. 
 
 HERBERT L. DRAPER, 
 First Lieutenant, United States Marine Corps. 
 
 Commander Swinburne s letter (House Executive Document No. 
 47, page 57) shows the importance attached by Capt. Wiltse to the 
 
196 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 police station, and is direct to the effect that the same was not in the 
 possession of the Provisional Government until after Stevens had 
 acted : 
 
 MR. SWINBURNE TO MR. BLOUNT. 
 
 HONOLULU, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, May 3, 1893. 
 
 Sir: In response to your verbal request for a written communication 
 from me regarding certain facts connected with the recognition of the Pro 
 visional Government of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States minis 
 ter to that country on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, I have to state as 
 follows : 
 
 On the afternoon in question I was present at an interview between Capt. 
 Wiltse, commanding the Boston, who was at that time present in his official 
 capacity with the battalion then landed in Honolulu, and Mr. Dole and other 
 gentlemen representing the present Provisional Government, in the execu 
 tive chamber of the government building. During the interview we were 
 informed that the party represented by the men there present was in com 
 plete possession of the government building, the archives, and the treasury, and 
 that a provisional government had been established by them. 
 
 In answer Capt. Wiltse asked if their government had possession of the 
 police station and barracks. To this the reply was made that they had not 
 possession then, but expected to hear of it in a few minutes, or very soon. 
 To this Capt. Wiltse replied, " Very well, gentlemen, I can not recognize you 
 as a de facto government until you have possession of the police station and 
 are prepared to guarantee protection to life and property," or words to that 
 effect. Here our interview was interrupted by other visitors, and we with 
 drew and returned to the camp at Arion Hall. As far as I can recollect, this 
 must have been about 5 o clock p.m. 
 
 About half past 6 Capt. Wiltse left the camp, and as he did so he informed 
 me that the United States minister to the Hawaiian Islands had recognized 
 the Provisional Government established by the party in charge of the gov 
 ernment building as the de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands. About 
 half past 7 p.m. I was informed by telephone by Lieut. Draper, who was then 
 in charge of a squad of marines at the United States consulate, that the 
 citizen troops had taken possession of the police station, and that everything 
 was quiet. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 WM. SWINBURNE, 
 Lieutenant-Commander, United States Navy. 
 
 Hon. J. H. Blount. 
 
 Special Commissioner of the United States. 
 
 But the letter of Mr. Dole (House Executive Document No. 47, 
 page 124), thanking Mr. Stevens for his interference, is absolutely 
 conclusive. It is thus worded : 
 
 GOVERNMENT BUILDING, Honolulu, January 17, 1893. 
 
 Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your valued communication of this day, 
 recognizing the Hawaiian Provisional Government, and express deep apprecia 
 tion of the same. 
 
 We have conferred with the ministers of the late government, and have 
 made demand upon the marshal to surrender the station house. 
 
 We are not actually yet in possession of the station house; but as night 
 is approaching and our forces may be insufficient to maintain order, we request 
 the immediate support of the United States forces, and would request that 
 the commander of the United States forces take command of our military 
 forces, so that they may act together for the protection of the city. 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 SANFORD B. DOLE, 
 Chairman Executive Council. 
 
 Therefore it must be assumed that the surrender of the Queen 
 did not take place until after Stevens had been thanked by Mr. Dole 
 for recognizing a government which did not exist, but whose chances 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 197 
 
 Mr. Stevens had much improved. This is in accordance with the 
 Queen s protests made at the very time and constituting a part of the 
 res gestae. She said (House Executive Document No. 47, page 120) : 
 
 I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the 
 Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all 
 acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian 
 Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Gov 
 ernment of and for this Kingdom. 
 
 That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose 
 minister plenipotentiary, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United 
 States troops to be landed at Honolulu, and declared that he would support 
 the said Provisional Government. 
 
 Now to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I 
 do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until 
 such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts 
 being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in 
 authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian 
 Islands. 
 
 Done at Honolulu this I7th day of January, A. D. 1893. 
 
 LILIUOKALANI, R. 
 
 SAMUEL PARKER, 
 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
 WM. H. CORNWELL, 
 
 Minister of Finance. 
 JNO. F. COLBURN, 
 
 Minister of the Interior. 
 A. P. PETERSON, 
 
 A ttorney-GeneraL 
 S. B. DOLE, Esq., and others, 
 
 Composing the Provisional Government of the Haivaiian Islands. 
 
 Admitting that Mr. Stevens s Christian soul was justly filled with 
 sorrow at the transactions of this foreign court, and that he longed 
 to establish a better system, yet he was sent to the Queen as a friendly 
 representative. He was possessed of two characters, in one of which 
 his individual sentiments while entertained should have been con 
 cealed, and in the other he, as the agent of the United States carrying 
 credentials directed to the Queen, owed her that respect which his own 
 Government accorded. He was bound to find her a sovereign as long 
 as she acted as such and until she was clearly and absolutely deposed, 
 unless the power commissioning him otherwise directed. It was not 
 a question whether Liliuokalani had possession of 100 or 1000 acres; 
 whether the insurgents held 1,000,000 acres or i acre. Was the 
 Queen still maintaining herself? Was there a struggle? She had 
 not resigned the scepter. On the contrary there stood around her 
 armed men obedient to her mandates. 
 
 Conceding for the sake of argument (against my conviction, 
 however), that in an engagement she would have been defeated, yet 
 it was not for Mr. Stevens to solve the problem. It was to be set 
 tled without his troops or his proclamations. Stevens could not peer 
 into the future. He had no right to anticipate. It was his business 
 to wait and be governed by the demonstrations of his senses. It was 
 not his place as the representative of this Government to declare it 
 probable that Dole would win, and therefore to anticipate events and 
 recognize him. Recognition was important and even determinative. 
 Not only was impartiality required, but he was compelled to recollect 
 that as a minister he must not be influenced by personal preferences 
 to step outside the lines of his mission. 
 
198 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 It is indisputable, I take it, that while there is any conflict the 
 minister must remain inactive as to the recognition of an insurgent. 
 In this instance the impartial investigator must find that when Mr. 
 Stevens came to the rescue there was still a conflict; that there had 
 been no surrender; that Liliuokalani claimed to be Queen, and that 
 there was force about her when our minister, backed by the military 
 power of the United States, declared in favor of a contestant to whom 
 he) was not accredited by his master, the United States of America. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator from California 
 a question or two if it will be no interruption to him. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. No, sir; it will be no interruption. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I understand the Senator to lay down the doc 
 trine that there being a change of government in the Hawaiian Islands, 
 Mr. Stevens ceased to be the representative of the Government of the 
 United States in those islands without reference to the will of either 
 his own Government or the Government of Hawaii. Am I correct? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. No ; my proposition is this : In all 
 of the authorities which I have cited and will cite (and there are a 
 great many of them) in fact by all publicists of whom I have any 
 knowledge the rule is laid down that when there is a radical change 
 in the form of government 
 
 Mr. TELLER. The Senator need not read it over again. I will 
 take his statement. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I prefer, however, to make my 
 answer in my own way, if the Senator will excuse me. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Certainly; only I heard his authority read. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I desire to call the attention of the 
 Senator to the statement that he may examine it at his leisure if he 
 may not have heard my reference. The authorities upon the subject 
 are very fully collated in Mr. Pomeroy s work on International Law, 
 page 277, where (and my investigation appears to bear this out) it is 
 stated that when there is any radical change in the form of govern 
 ment to which the diplomatic agent is accredited his power ceases 
 until in some manner his home government has recognized the new 
 authority, it being, however, his duty to protect as far as he can his 
 own country s interest pending the decision. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Then I understand the Senator denies the right 
 not only of our own minister but of all other ministers to recognize 
 that as the de facto government, as they did, as the Senator must be 
 aware. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I deny the right of Mr. Stevens in 
 this particular case to do so. He might declare his recognition, but 
 the power and validity of his act must depend upon its ratification by 
 the home Executive, in whom the power to recognize is, under all the 
 authorities, exclusively vested. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. The Senator, I suppose, is aware that all the 
 diplomatic representatives there promptly recognized that Govern 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. " Promptly " is the word used by 
 Mr. Stevens, which meant the next day. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. That is the fact, too, is it not ? They did do it 
 the next day. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Yes. They gave it a qualified rec 
 ognition in almost every case. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 199 
 
 Mr. TELLER. The Senator says it was not a de facto govern 
 ment. Does the Senator mean to say that it is not a de facto govern 
 ment to-day? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator tell us when it became a de 
 facto government? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I would say it became a de facto 
 government when, it was in possession of the governmental power of 
 the Hawaiian Islands, which it was not in possession of at the time 
 Mr. Stevens recognized it. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Oh, I beg the Senator s pardon. He did not 
 recognize it until the day the representatives of the other governments 
 did, and the Queen had then formally abdicated. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. The Senator is mistaken. Let me 
 state to the Senator that Mr. Dole, in his letter thanking Mr. Stevens 
 for his recognition, admits that he is not in possession of the entire 
 power, but expects to seize the police headquarters ; and upon his great 
 expectations the recognition was had. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Then, will the Senator tell us exactly when it 
 became a de facto government, so that we may see what our relations 
 were from that time on? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I think, if the Senator will wait 
 until I conclude 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I will not dispute the question of fact with the 
 Senator. I want him to give me the date when it became a de facto 
 government, if he can do so. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am unable to give the Senator 
 the date when it became a de facto government, but it became such, 
 as I have already said, whenever it had entire dominion, when Liliuo- 
 kalani ceased to exercise any authority, and when our flag was taken 
 down and we were no longer in command of the islands. From that 
 time I think it became a de facto government, because I know of no 
 other power exercising governmental functions. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Was it a de facto government when the Presi 
 dent of the United States commissioned Mr. Blount to go there, and 
 when the President of the United States also recognized Mr. 
 Stevens as the minister of the United States Government? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. What President? 
 
 Mr. TELLER. President Cleveland. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. When? 
 
 Mr. TELLER. In, March, 1893. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I shall be very happy to answer all 
 these questions in the progress of my remarks, but I do not recollect 
 the exact date when every particular transaction occurred. So I 
 decline to fix them. I will say further that I must not suppose, upon 
 these matters of fact concerning which I am being catechised, the 
 Senator from Colorado lacks any information. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I do not desire to catechise the Senator, but the 
 Senator has laid down some principles of law which I think he can 
 hardly sustain, and I wished to attract his attention to them. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am happy to have my attention 
 attracted to anything of that kind. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. It is important to determine when that govern 
 ment had any existence which could be recognized. Of course it 
 
200 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 had at some time or other, but I want to know when. I wish 
 to know of the Senator whether he claims, as a question of inter 
 national law, that the Government, having recognized another gov 
 ernment as an existing government, it is within the power of the 
 Government at a subsequent time to withdraw that recognition? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I have discussed that heretofore. 
 Ordinarily I should say not, unless 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Has the Senator any reference to any prece 
 dent of that kind in his extensive study? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. No, sir; but I have no reference 
 to any government created as was this, and to no such circumstances 
 as those under which it was called into existence. Hence I have 
 no facts to which to apply any precise rule with which I am 
 acquainted. Each case must be judged upon its facts, and I am 
 judging this case upon its facts. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. The Senator, I understand, has laid down the 
 rule correctly, that it is the President of the United States who must 
 recognize a government. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I agree with him in that. Does the Senator 
 hold that when one Executive has recognized a Government his suc 
 cessor may revoke that order? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am not confronted with that 
 proposition, since it has not been done, but under ordinary circum 
 stances I would say no. But if it should turn out that the preceding 
 Executive had been deceived by the beneficiaries of the recognition in 
 material matters, I have no doubt it would be the duty of this Govern 
 ment to sever diplomatic relations, taking care at all times to guard 
 the interests of third parties. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Senator if he thinks now that 
 it is still the duty of the Government of the United States to undo 
 what he says Minister Stevens has improperly done? Does he think 
 it is still our duty to return the Queen to power? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. No. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Then I should like to further inquire when it 
 ceased to be our duty so to do? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am thoroughly willing to state 
 to the Senator anything regarding his present duty, but as to past 
 obligations upon this subject or the minute when it ceased to be his 
 duty or my duty to do a particular act, I decline at this moment to be 
 interrogated. I am not very good at remembering dates, and I do 
 not propose to be interrogated upon a subject that may call into 
 exercise that faculty which I should like to have more fully developed 
 than it is. I will state to the Senator, since his remark has called 
 for it, that I will even go as far as he did upon the floor the other 
 day and I have authority to sustain me that for all practical 
 purposes a de facto government is a de jure government. (Fer 
 guson s Manual of International Law, volume I, page 83.) The 
 Senator stated this proposition upon another occasion, and I do not 
 doubt its correctness, though I believe others differ from him. 
 
 I will further remark as the Senator from Colorado will dis 
 cover, if I am permitted to conclude, that I do not oppose either 
 branch of the pending resolution. The phraseology, perhaps, may 
 be altered. I am not speaking of that, nor do I know that I care, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 201 
 
 but I am in favor of doing that which the Senator declared very 
 lately ought to be done. I am in favor of declaring, first, that it is 
 against our policy to take, or at least that we will not take, any steps 
 looking to the annexation of these islands; and secondly, that as the 
 Provisional Government has been recognized and has endured so long 
 that we will continue that recognition and leave the Hawaiian people 
 to solve disputed matters of government as they see fit. If the 
 Senator had been here when I commenced my remarks, he would 
 have heard me read three or four authorities from well-known 
 writers upon this point. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I have never made any suggestion that I am 
 not in favor of annexation, 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I understood the Senator to say 
 that he is in favor of the pending resolution. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I said I am in favor of the pending resolution 
 except the first part of it. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Of course, the Senator knows I do 
 not wish to attribute to him virtues which he has not. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I only want to put in my caveat. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I have no objection at all to the 
 interruption, because I have always found that the Senator s state 
 ments, especially of legal propositions, are in accord with me, and 
 this is rather complimentary to me perhaps, and I do not think that 
 he will differ from me when he considers what I have said and when 
 he hears me through. 
 
 Mr. President, when the Senator interrupted me I was discuss 
 ing Mr. Stevens s conduct. I wish to say that I agree with my friend 
 from Colorado that the propriety of the passage of the resolution 
 before us does not depend upon Mr. Stevens s behavior, whether it 
 was good, bad or indifferent. But I am discussing the subject because 
 assertions have been made by Senators upon the other side which I 
 conceive are not warranted, which have resulted in injustice to 
 patriotic citizens who are doing their utmost to further the interests 
 of our country and to keep it in the path of rectitude. Hence if I 
 shall say aught that is not absolutely and directly material to this 
 particular resolution, it must be remembered that it is in response 
 to arguments which have been made upon the other side. 
 
 I have stated that Mr. Stevens erred when he recognized the 
 existence of a government at a time when the fortunes of war had 
 not indubitably settled the struggle. The recognition of a revolution 
 ary government by a minister to which attention has been called, 
 differs materially from that by the Executive. The one is the exer 
 cise of an assumed function which depends for its efficacy upon 
 subsequent approval sub spe rati. In several instances in our 
 -diplomatic history, notably in connection with our transactions with 
 France, our minister recognized a revolutionary government, and his 
 act was ratified by the Executive. But in the case before us, we find 
 a minister who recognizes not an undisputed government, but one 
 that is disputed, not an authority holding dominion uncontested and 
 possessed of the effective power of the state, but a faction engaged in 
 a conflict and constituting, in my judgment, the weak side of the fight. 
 
 Mr. Stevens in his many letters to the Department of State 
 
 14 
 
202 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 evinced a disposition to seize the islands regardless of the popular wilL 
 On August 20, 1891 (House Report, page 243), Mr. Stevens 
 informed Secretary Elaine that it might be well to have a warship 
 on hand soon. In all of the letters from which I have quoted as 
 to Mr. Stevens s peculiar expressions there is contained a manifest 
 spirit of opposition to the existing Government, and a desire for its 
 overthrow. Without pausing here, it will be enough to make a mere 
 reference to these communications. 
 
 On October 31, 1892 (House Report, page 108), Mr. Stevens 
 writes to Mr. Foster thus : 
 
 There are strong reasons for the belief that were it not for the presence of 
 the American naval force in the harbor the Tahitian marshal and his gang 
 would induce the Queen to attempt a coupe d etat by proclaiming a new con 
 stitution, taking from the Legislature the power to reject ministerial appoint 
 ments. 
 
 It will thus be seen that Mr. Stevens understood that the naval 
 force of the United States might be used to effect the decision of the 
 local government upon constitutional matters. 
 
 Stevens disclosed his plans and ambitious designs in his cele 
 brated letter to Mr. Foster. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. What was the date of the letter from which 
 the Senator is about to read? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. The 2Oth of November, 1892, 
 He says: 
 
 An intelligent and impartial examination of the facts can hardly fail to 
 lead to the conclusion that the relations and policy of the United States toward 
 Hawaii will soon demand some change, if not the adoption of decisive 
 measures, with the aim to secure American interests and future supremacy 
 by encouraging Hawaiian development and aiding to promote responsible 
 government in these islands. 
 
 He then proceeds to discuss the many supposed advantages to 
 accrue to the United States from the acquisition of the Hawaiian 
 Islands. At that time there was no Provisional Government. When 
 Mr. Stevens suggested absorbing the islands and the assumption of 
 supremacy over them there was no domestic struggle in progress. 
 There was not even a commotion, as took place when the troops. 
 were landed. There was no opportunity for him to exercise his 
 remarkable government-making proclivities by acknowledging the 
 nationality of a handful of men and using the naval strength of his 
 Government to enforce their claims. But affairs were comparatively 
 quiet; there was no turmoil. Yet he proceeded to argue in favor 
 of annexation in the manner now to be related. He said: 
 
 The men qualified are here to carry on good government, provided they 
 have the support of the Government of the United States. 
 
 Ah, this was a case where a man who ought to be honored was 
 unable to find anyone in his neighborhood appreciating his merits. 
 There were men qualified to rule, but in, order to rule they must 
 have the support of the Government of the United States. They 
 were not understood at home not wanted as rulers by their 
 countrymen. 
 
 Why not postpone American possession? Would it not be just as well for 
 the United States to take the islands twenty-five years hence? 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 203 
 
 And then he proceeds to argue against the postponement thus : 
 
 Two-fifths of the people now here are Chinese and Japanese. If the pres 
 ent state of things is allowed to go on the Asiatics will soon largely prepon 
 derate, for the native Hawaiians are growing less at the rate of nearly 1,000 
 per year. At the present price of sugar, and at the prices likely to hold in the 
 future, sugar-raising on these islands can be continued only by the cheapest 
 possible labor that of the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Indian coolies. 
 Americanize the islands, assume control of the " Crown lands," dispose of 
 them in small lots for actual settlers and freeholders for the raising of cof 
 fee, oranges, lemons, bananas, pineapples, and grapes 
 
 He did not say " ripe pears." [Laughter.] 
 
 and the result soon will be to give permanent preponderance to a popula 
 tion and civilization which make the islands like Southern California, and 
 at no distant period convert them into gardens and sanitariums, as well as 
 supply stations for American commerce, thus bringing everything here into 
 harmony with American life and prosperity. 
 
 Now listen to this statement: 
 
 To postpone American action many years is only to add to present unfav 
 orable tendencies and to make future possession more difficult. 
 
 Hence at this moment when there was no possible warrant for 
 interference, when there was no pretense of domestic disturbance, 
 no danger to American citizenship, or American homes, or American 
 life, or American, comfort, he declares " that to postpone American 
 action many years is only to add to present unfavorable tendencies." 
 What action did he in this remarkable letter suggest was the best 
 to be taken? 
 
 One of two courses 
 Says he, on page 117, House Report 243 
 
 seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed, either bold and vigerous 
 measures for annexation or a " customs union," an ocean cable from the 
 Californian coast to Honolulu; Pearl Harbor perpetually ceded to the United 
 States, with an implied but not necessarily stipulated American protecto 
 rate over the islands. I believe the former to be the better. 
 
 What former course did the minister allude to? The former 
 course was that which is expressed in these words : " Bold and 
 vigorous measures for annexation." What did he mean by " bold 
 and vigorous measures ? " A protectorate ? No ; because he* con 
 sidered the protectorate scheme and repudiated it, but he meant bold 
 and vigorous measures to result in the acquisition of territorial 
 supremacy in those islands. In other words, at that time, in the 
 hour of profound peace, when he represented this friendly Govern 
 ment at that court, he advised the Secretary of State and gave it 
 as his deliberate opinion that it was the business and office of tMs 
 Government to capture the Hawaiian group. 
 
 He remarks, page 118, same report: 
 
 It is equally true that the desire here at this time for annexation is much 
 stronger than in 1889. Besides, so long as the islands retain their own independ 
 ent government there remains the possibility that England or the Canadian 
 Dominion might secure one of the Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station. 
 Annexation excludes all dangers of this kind. 
 
 Mr. Stevens not only insisted on " bold and vigorous measures," 
 but he was also opposed to independence, because he says that so 
 
204 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 long as the islands retain their own independent government this 
 deprecated condition must last. Hence he was in favor of a bold 
 and vigorous policy, one which would take away the independence 
 of the islands and reduce them to the position of dependency, or 
 culminate in annexation. 
 
 Mr. President, when we find that a certain thing has been com 
 mitted or done and there is a question as to the motive or a doubt 
 concerning the inspiration of the matter, we inquire as to the animus 
 of the party accused. Here is Mr. Stevens for months striving to 
 acquire the islands by bold and vigorous measures, finally enjoying 
 the coveted opportunity. His soul filled with the idea, possessed 
 with the notion that it was his function to reform the Hawaiian 
 people and to bring them within the jurisdiction of this Republic. 
 This was the end in view. As to the means to be adopted or thie 
 wishes of the people he cared not. Poor human nature could not 
 resist. The deed was done. He acted contrary to law and against 
 propriety, but moved in accordance with his opinion. Cervantes 
 says, I think, that every man is what Heaven has made him and 
 sometimes a great deal worse. I do not know that it would be 
 proper to criticise Mr. Stevens harshly or to make a personal attack 
 upon him. I believe he has acted pursuant to his lights. 
 
 I have said that the Provisional Government was dependent 
 upon Mr. Stevens. Again, I am not required to submit the testi 
 mony of anti-annexationists. I am not required to call to the witness 
 stand any one who represented or represents interests opposed to 
 Mr. Stevens, but I appeal to the letter of the Provisional Govern 
 ment, addressed upon the 3ist day of January to Mr. Stevens, worded 
 as follows: 
 
 HONOLULU, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, January 31, 1893. 
 
 Sir : Believing that we are unable to satisfactorily protect life and prop 
 erty, and to prevent civil disorders in Honolulu and throughout the Hawaiian 
 Islands, we hereby, in obedience to the instructions of the advisory council, 
 pray that you will raise the flag of the United States of America for the 
 protection of the Hawaiian Islands for the time being, and to that end we 
 hereby confer upon the Government of the United States, through you, freedom 
 of occupation of the public buildings of this Government, and of the soil 
 of this country, so far as may be necessary for the exercise of such pro 
 tection, but not interfering with the administration of public affairs by this 
 Government. 
 
 We have, etc., 
 
 SANFORD B. DOLE, 
 President of the Pro-visional Government of the Hawaiian Islands 
 
 and Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
 J. A. KING, 
 
 Minister of the Interior. 
 
 P. C. JONES, 
 
 Minister of Finance. 
 
 WILLIAM O. SMITH, 
 
 A ttorney-General. 
 His Excellency JOHN L. STEVENS. 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 
 of the United States, 
 
 These individuals, who are claimed to have been strong enough 
 to overthrow the Queen when she was surrounded by her friends 
 and with her military forces, these men who had obtained all the 
 support which the record shows was given them by the naval forces 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 205 
 
 of the United States, find themselves unable to preserve their Gov 
 ernment in the presence of their disarmed and dispossessed rivals. 
 Can it be possible that the Provisional forces were able to conquer 
 the Queen, and still unable to retain the position which it is claimed 
 they won? Certain it is, that it was found necessary to solicit the 
 interposition of the United States to preserve that which every 
 nation must be able to enforce or go to pieces order. The effect 
 of the hoisting of the flag was expressed in Mr. Stevens s telegram 
 of February 8, wherein he said: 
 
 The affairs of state continue to be hopeful. Hoisting flag in protection of 
 this Government was expected. Subjects who were doubtful now for annexa 
 tion. The natives show unexpected regard for the United States flag. 
 
 No wonder the Dole administration became more generally 
 respected. All admitted the power of the United States. That the 
 flag was raised to indicate American dominancy is apparent from 
 the letter of Mr. Stevens to Mr. Foster, dated February 8, 1893. 
 He there said : 
 
 As soon as it can become a certainty that these islands are to remain under 
 the United States flag as a part of American territory, there is little doubt 
 that all the principal leaders will wish to become American citizens, and their 
 assistance can be had to help bring the native people into ready obedience 
 to American law and fidelity to the American flag. 
 
 It is unnecessary to argue as to the impropriety of Stevens s 
 conduct in raising the flag since Mr. Foster in his letter of February 
 14, in speaking of Stevens s course, said : 
 
 So far as it may appear to overstep that limit by setting the authority of 
 the United States above that of the Hawaiian Government in the capacity 
 of protector, or to impair the independent sovereignty of that Government 
 by substituting the flag and power of the United States, it is disavowed. 
 
 Secretary Tracy, in writing to Admiral Skerrett, disavowed the 
 action of that commander in setting the authority of the United 
 States above that of the Hawaiian Government. The proclamation 
 of Mr. Stevens assuming control is a remarkable one. It is as 
 follows : 
 
 By authority of the Hawaiian people : 
 
 At the request of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, I 
 hereby, in the name of the United States of America, assume protection of 
 the Hawaiian Islands for the protection of life and property, and occupation 
 of the public buildings and Hawaiian soil, so far as may be necessary for 
 the purpose specified, but not interfering with the administration of public 
 affairs by the Provisional Government. This action is taken pending and 
 subject to negotiations at Washington. 
 
 JOHN L. STEVENS, 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States. 
 
 When we consider that Mr. Stevens for two or three years had 
 been in favor of a vigorous policy with reference, to annexation, 
 that he was holding secret meetings with revolutionists who had not 
 as yet accomplished anything, and that immediately after that secret 
 meeting he was requested by the revolutionists to land troops (no 
 American citizen as such made any demand upon him for aid), that 
 he did land them, that thereupon a provisional government was 
 
206 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 proclaimed, that he immediately recognized it, while the Queen was 
 yet possessed of effective power, and afterwards ran up our flag and 
 announced that the country was under the protection of the United 
 States, no rational being can doubt that this Government through 
 Mr. Stevens was a participant in the overthrow of a foreign govern 
 ment. 
 
 The matters which I have thus cited are, as I have stated, 
 admitted. It is perfectly immaterial whether any gentlemen have 
 an opinion to the effect that the Queen would have lost her throne 
 without Stevens s interposition. It is plain that the ability of the 
 revolutionists was not tested, but that the deed was accomplished 
 through the Government of the United States. 
 
 That there was no commotion of magnitude appears from the 
 statement of Mr. Wundenberg (House Executive Document No. 47, 
 page 577). He states: 
 
 At the time the men landed the town was perfectly quiet, business hours 
 were about over, and the people men, women, and children were in the 
 streets, and nothing unusual was to be seen except the landing of a formida 
 ble armed force with Gatling guns, evidently fully prepared to remain on 
 shore for an indefinite length of time, as the men were supplied with double 
 cartridge belts filled with ammunition, also haversacks and canteens, and 
 were attended by a hospital corps, with stretchers and medical supplies. 
 
 The curiosity of the people on the streets was aroused, and the youngest, 
 more particularly, followed the troops to see what it was all about. * * * 
 During all the deliberations of the committee, and, in fact, throughout the 
 whole proceedings connected with plans for the moving up to the final issue, 
 the basis of action was the general understanding that Minister Stevens 
 would keep his promise to support the movement with the men from the 
 Boston, and the statement is now advisedly made that without the previous 
 assurance of support from the American minister, and the actual presence 
 of the United States troops, no movement would have been attempted, and if 
 attempted would have been a dismal failure, resulting in the capture or 
 death of the participants in a very short time. 
 
 This gentleman is admittedly a man of strict integrity and 
 high standing. The letter written by Admiral Skerrett to Mr. 
 Blount demonstrates that the troops were not landed to protect 
 American interests or for any other purpose than to facilitate the 
 revolution. That letter is as follows : 
 
 U. S. S. BOSTON, FLAGSHIP OP THE PACIFIC STATION. 
 
 Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, May 20, 1893. 
 
 Sir: I have examined with a view of inspection the premises first occu 
 pied by the force landed from the United States steamer Boston, and known 
 as Arion Hall, situated on the west side of the government building. The 
 position of this location is in the rear of a large brick building known as 
 Music Hall. The street it faces is comparatively a narrow one, the building 
 itself facing the government building. In my opinion, it was unadvisable to 
 locate the troops there if they were landed for the protection of the United 
 States citizens, being distantly removed from the business portion of the 
 town, and generally far away from the United States legation and consulate- 
 
 feneral, as well as being distanf from the houses and residences of United 
 tares citizens. It will be seen from the accompanying sketch that had the 
 Provisional Government troops been attacked from the east, such attack 
 would have placed them in the line of fire. 
 
 Had Music Hall been seized by the Queen s troops, they would have been 
 under their fire had such been their desire. It is for these reasons that I con 
 sider the position occupied as illy selected. Naturally, if they were landed 
 with a view to support the Provisional Government troops, then occupying 
 the government building, it was a wise choice, as they could enfilade any 
 troops attacking them from the palace grounds in front. There is nothing 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 207 
 
 further for me to state with reference to this matter, and as has been called 
 by you to my attention, all of which is submitted for your consideration. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. S. SKERRETT, 
 Rear-Admiral United States Navy. 
 Commanding United States Force, Pacific Station. 
 
 Col. J. H. BLOUNT, 
 
 United States Minister Plenipotentiary and 
 Envoy Extraordinary, Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 NO TREATY OF ANNEXATION SHOULD BE MADE. 
 
 One of the questions to be determined here, as far as the 
 resolution is concerned, and one of the matters to which Mr. Cleve 
 land s mind was directed, concerns the ratification of the treaty. 
 
 Mr. President, I am against annexing the Hawaiian Islands. 
 I am opposed to annexation because the Provisional Government 
 has not the stability to warrant the execution of such a contract. 
 Its endurance is problematical. 
 
 A treaty is valid if there be no defect in the manner in which it has been 
 concluded ; and for this purpose nothing more can be required than a suffi 
 cient power in the contracting parties, and their mutual consent sufficiently 
 declared. Vattel, page 193. 
 
 " Sufficient power in the contracting parties." Understand me, 
 Mr. President, I do not mean to say that a de facto government, 
 which I have admitted to be pro hac vice a, de jure government also, 
 has no power to enter into a treaty with a nation which sees fit to 
 recognize it, but I affirm that in dealing with another nation this 
 Republic must take into consideration the condition of affairs under 
 which those claiming to represent the other party seek to exercise 
 supreme authority. We, as a free people, maintaining constitutional 
 principles which we have attempted to perpetuate for the benefit of 
 mankind, can not afford to take within our confines new territory 
 unless we know beyond all cavil and all dispute that there is not only 
 technical power in those executing the contract, but that they who so 
 act in truth express the unquestioned will of the people. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL of Oregon. May I ask the Senator from 
 California a question? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL of Oregon. Suppose there were no question 
 in the mind of the Senator from California as to the stability of the 
 existing Government of the Sandwich Islands, would the Senator 
 then favor annexation? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I am about to state that I would 
 not, and will give the reasons for my conclusion. I have given one 
 reason. Secondly, the Provisional Government does not represent 
 the people. 
 
 If this proposition is correct the deduction is inevitable that 
 there should be no annexation. Upon what do I base this assertion? 
 I am fully aware the authorities are that for business and com 
 mercial purposes and the carrying on of diplomatic relations the 
 existence of a government for a reasonable length of time must be 
 taken as evidence that it is supported by the people. This is a rule 
 for convenience. Again, I say that we can not afford to rest upon 
 mere presumptions which the history of the world has demonstrated 
 
208 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 time and time again, may or may not be well founded, but we must 
 know that the will of the people prevails. Disregarding the mere 
 presumption indulged in for the objects already mentioned, we 
 should look deeper and act upon certainty. When we reach beyond 
 the sea and beyond the jurisdiction of our flag and beyond the limits 
 of this Republic and take within us alien territory we must find that 
 we are acting in accordance with the wishes of the people, whbse 
 property, liberties, and lives we contemplate bringing within the 
 reach of our laws. 
 
 Mr. Webster said March 15, 1843: 
 
 We seek no control over their Government nor any undue influence what 
 ever. Our only wish is that the integrity and independence of the Hawaiian 
 territory may be scrupulously maintained and that its Government should 
 be entirely impartial toward foreigners of every nation. 
 
 President Johnson on December 9, 1868, while referring favor 
 ably to a project of annexation, said that he regarded reciprocity with 
 Hawaii as desirable " until the people of the islands shall of them 
 selves at no distant day voluntarily apply for admission to the 
 Union." 
 
 Mr. Bayard In his letter to Mr. Merrill, July 12, 1887, which is 
 found in House Report 243, page 17, says: 
 
 As is well known, no intent is cherished or policy entertained by the 
 United States which is otherwise than friendly to the autonomical control 
 and independence of Hawaii. 
 
 This does not accord with Mr. Stevens s notion as expressed 
 in his letter of November 20, that the independence of the islands 
 is undesirable. 
 
 The authorities with reference to the recognition of the inde 
 pendence of revolutionary governments are, in substance, that no 
 affirmative action should be taken until there is evidence that the 
 new system is approved by the people. 
 
 Said Minister Seward, in his dispatch to Mr. Bigelow, the 
 United States Minister to France, on June 30, 1865 (see Dana s 
 Wheaton, Note 41) : 
 
 So far as our relations are concerned, what we hold in regard to Mexico is,, 
 that France is a belligerent there, in a war with the republic of Mexico. We 
 do not enter into the merits of the belligerents, but we practice in regard 
 to the contest the principles of neutrality, as we have insisted on the prac 
 tice of neutrality by all nations in regard to our civil war. Our friendship 
 toward the republic of Mexico and our sympathies with the republican sys 
 tem on this continent, as well as our faith and confidence in it, have been 
 continually declared. Political intervention in the affairs of foreign states 
 is a principle thus far avoided by our Government. 
 
 It will be observed that when this letter was written, Maxi 
 milian had been put upon the throne for a considerable period of 
 time. 
 
 The habitual obedience of the members of any political society to a supe 
 rior authority must have once existed in order to constitute a sovereign 
 state. (Dana s Wheaton, page 34.) 
 
 The independence of the Spanish provinces of South America 
 was finally recognized by Congress, and diplomatic relations estab- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 209 
 
 lished in January, 1822, several years after the revolutionists had 
 assumed complete control. 
 
 Said President Jackson in December, 1836: 
 
 The acknowledgment of a new state as independent and entitled to a place 
 in the family of nations is at all times an act of great delicacy and respon 
 sibility. * * * In the contest between Spain and the revolted colonies we 
 stood aloof and waited not only until the ability of the new states to pro 
 tect themselves was fully established, but until the danger of their being 
 again subjugated had entirely passed away. Then, and not until then, they 
 were recognized. Such was our course in regard to Mexico herself. The 
 same policy was observed in all the disputes arising out of the separation 
 into distinct governments of those Spanish-American states which began or 
 carried on the contest with the parent country united under one form of 
 government. 
 
 We acknowledged the separate independence of New Granada, Venezuela, 
 and of Ecuador only after their independent existence was no longer a sub 
 ject of dispute or was actually acquiesced in by those with whom they had 
 been previously united. * * * Prudence, therefore, seems to dictate that 
 we should still stand aloof and maintain our present attitude, if not until 
 Mexico itself or one of the great foreign powers shall recognize the inde 
 pendence of the new government, at least until the lapse of time or the course 
 of events shall have proved beyond cavil or dispute the ability of the people 
 of that country to maintain their separate sovereignty and to uphold the 
 government established by them. Dana s Wheaton, pages 44-45. 
 
 The independence of the South American republics was recognized first 
 by the United States and tardily by England, but by both upon the ground 
 that, after long-recognized belligerency and the practical unobstructed exercise 
 by them of sovereign powers, Spain, separated by an ocean, had abandoned 
 actual efforts for their reduction, and only clung to a nominal right. * * * 
 Mr. Clay proposed in Congress a mission to the South American provinces 
 to express the sympathy of the United States and with a view to enter into 
 friendly relations with them at a future day. The proposition was rejected 
 by a vote of 115 to 45, on the ground of the still unsettled state of the provinces 
 and the continuance of actual war. Dana s Wheaton, page 43, note. 
 
 In justifying the action of the United States regarding the 
 South American difficulties, Mr. Gallatin, our minister at Paris, 
 wrote to the Secretary of State, Adams, on November 5, 1818, 
 among other things, thus : 
 
 We had not, either directly or indirectly, excited the insurrection. It had 
 been the spontaneous act of the inhabitants and the natural effect of causes 
 which neither the United States nor Europe could have controlled. We had 
 lent no assistance to either party; we had preserved a strict neutrality, (i 
 Wharton s International Law, page 522.) 
 
 Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State, writing to President Mon 
 roe, on August 24, 1816, regarding the same subject, said: 
 
 I am satisfied that the cause of the South Americans, so far as it consists 
 in the assertion of independence against Spain, is just. But the justice of 
 a cause, however it may enlist individual feelings in its favor, is not suffi 
 cient to justify third parties in siding with it. The fact and the right com 
 bined can alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new and disputed 
 sovereignty. 
 
 When a sovereign state, from exhaustion, or any other cause, has virtu 
 ally and substantially abandoned the struggle for supremacy, it has no right 
 to complain if a foreign state treat the independence of its former subjects 
 as de facto established. When, on the other hand, the contest is not absolutely 
 or permanently decided, a recognition of the inchoate independence of the 
 insurgents by a foreign state, is a hostile act towards the sovereign state, which 
 the latter is entitled to resent as a breach of neutrality and friendship. It 
 is to the facts of the case that foreign nations must look. The question with 
 them ought to be: Is there a bona fide contest going on? If it has virtually 
 
210 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ceased, the recognition of the insurgents is then at their discretion. (Boyd s 
 Wheaton, section 27.) 
 
 In speaking- of the cases where the recognition of the independ 
 ence of a new government is proper, Prof. Woolsey, International 
 Law, page 41, sixth edition, remarks: 
 
 It is almost needless to say that this rule can not have its application as 
 long as there is evident doubt whether a government is a fact. 
 
 A revolutionary government is not to be recognized until it is established 
 by the great body of the population of the state it claims to govern. (Mr. 
 Seward to Mr. Culver, November 19, 1862, i Wharton, page 542.) 
 
 Says Mr. Fish to Mr. Sickles, with reference to diplomatic 
 matters in Spain, i Wharton, page 545 : 
 
 We have always accepted the general acquiescence of the people in a 
 political change of government as a conclusive evidence of the will of the 
 nation. 
 
 As an instance showing the care exercised by this Government 
 in recognizing the sovereignty of a particular state, attention is 
 called to the case of Tripoli, i Wharton s International Law, page 
 546. 
 
 President Hayes in his first annual message, 1877, said: 
 
 It has been the custom of the United States, when such revolutionary 
 changes of government have heretofore occurred in Mexico, to recognize and 
 enter into official relations with the de facto government as soon as it shall 
 appear to have the approval of the Mexican people. 
 
 Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Foster, minister to Mexico, in 1877, 
 and among other things stated this to be the policy of the United 
 States : 
 
 In the present case (United States) it waits before recognizing Gen. Diaz 
 as the President of Mexico, until it shall be assured that his election is 
 approved by the Mexican people, (i Wharton, page 548.) 
 
 Mr. Evarts in his note to Mr. Baker, June 14, 1879, m the Ven 
 ezuela case, said: 
 
 In other words, while the United States regard their international com 
 pacts and obligations as entered into with nations rather than with politi 
 cal governments, it behooves them to be watchful lest their course toward 
 a government should affect the relations to the nation. Hence, it has been 
 the customary policy of the United States to be satisfied on this point, and 
 doing so is in no wise an implication of doubt as to the legitimacy of the 
 internal change which may occur in another state, (i Wharton, pages 548-549.) 
 
 If the Calderon Government is supported by the character and intelli 
 gence of Peru, and is really endeavoring to restore constitutional government 
 with a view both to order within and negotiation with Chile for peace, you 
 may recognize it as the existing Provisional Government, and render what 
 aid you can by advice and good offices to that end. Mr. Elaine to Mr. Christ- 
 iancy, May 9, 1881. (i Whar., page 550.) 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen, in a letter to Mr. Logan, March 17, 1884, 
 said: 
 
 The Department of State will not recognize a revolutionary government 
 claiming to represent the people in a South American state until it is estab 
 lished by a free expression of the will of that people. 
 
 President Arthur, in his third annual message, 1883, 
 speaking of South American difficulties : 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 211 
 
 Meanwhile the provisional government of Gen. Iglesias has applied for 
 recognition to the principal powers of America and Europe. When the will 
 of the Peruvian people shall be manifested, I shall not hesitate to recognize 
 the government approved by them, (i Whar., p. 550.) 
 
 In the late domestic disturbance in Chile, our Government issued 
 its instructions to Minister Egan on September 4, to the effect that if a 
 government was installed and accepted by the people of Chile he was 
 authorized to recognize it. 
 
 Even Mr. Foster concedes the rule to be as I have stated it, for 
 he says in his telegram to Mr. Stevens (House Report 243, page 
 45 1 ): 
 
 The rule of this Government has uniformly been to recognize and enter 
 into relations with any actual government in full possession of effective 
 power with the assent of the people. You will continue to recognize the new 
 government under such conditions. 
 
 Mr. Stevens did not pay much attention to these authorities when 
 he recognized the Dole government. But his conduct furnishes no 
 precedent adequate to justify the United States in concluding the pro 
 posed treaty of annexation or any similar compact. 
 
 While the precedents just cited pertain to the course proper to 
 be adopted when the recognition of a new government is involved, 
 the law as laid down is applicable here; because if it be true that 
 before we may rightfully take official notice of a revolutionary organi 
 zation we must be thus careful and thus positive as to the facts and 
 must know that we are acting in accordance with the wishes of the 
 people, how much greater should be our solicitude and how cautiously 
 should we act before we make a step which must result in the oblitera 
 tion of a sovereignty and the abandonment of national independence? 
 The commonest honesty compels us to subordinate our ambitions to 
 the desires of the nation we are asked to absorb. 
 
 Mr. Stevens is authority for the statement that the people of the 
 Hawaiian Islands can not govern themselves. In a lecture delivered 
 by him in Massachusetts and reported in the Boston Journal of 
 November 23, 1893, he said: 
 
 But I hear a whisper in the air : " Let the islands vote on the question." 
 This demand comes from three distinct sources. It was first made by the 
 British minister at Honolulu, a Tory in his political views, many years a 
 resident in Hawaii, a persistent antagonist of American interests, and by per 
 sonal bonds and family relations strongly attached to the fallen Hawaiian 
 monarchy. You remember how many votes have been taken in India and 
 Hongkong and Cyprus. [Laughter.] Immediately after its organization in 
 January last he urged this plan on the Provisional Government. This scheme 
 was subsequently brought forward by the Queen s attorney. The lottery and 
 opium rings, of which the fallen Queen s lawyer is believed to be the agent, 
 favor the plan. While the ultra Tory English and the Canadian Pacific Rail 
 road have purposes in view other than those of the fallen Queen and the lot 
 tery and opium rings, they are agreed as to the method of defeating annexation. 
 
 The ex-Queen s attorney has often been the paid agent of Claus Spreckels, 
 and the latter makes part of the alliance to kill annexation by the plebiscitum. 
 This is an alliance powerful as it is disreputable. It is not admissible by honest 
 Americans for the following reasons: It would surely result in the raising of 
 an enormous corruption fund by the allied parties. The Canadian Pacific Rail 
 road is a great power in Canadian politics, and in the past has used vast bribes 
 to accomplish its designs, and wants to have its foot and hand firmly in Hawaii. 
 
 The respectable citizens of the islands do not believe in wholesale bribery 
 and the importation of voters, and should they even take into consideration 
 
212 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 such a method of accomplishing their wishes, they could not fail to see that 
 Spreckels with his millions, the opium and lottery rings, and the ultra British 
 ers in Canada and England, could throw into the contest a bribery fund which 
 they could not and would not try to equal. It is therefore obvious that the 
 plebiscitum scheme has been devised as the most sure to result in striking 
 down American civilization and American interest in the islands, flooding them 
 with an Asiatic population and ruthlessly sacrificing what the American Board, 
 the American missionaries, and the American teachers have accomplished in 
 seventy years. 
 
 No one disputes that the masses of the Hawaiian people are 
 opposed to annexation. Mr. Blount s statement upon this subject 
 does not seem to be challenged. He says (Report, page 59) : 
 
 The testimony of leading annexationists is that if the question of annexa 
 tion was submitted to a popular vote, excluding all persons who could not 
 read and write except foreigners (under the Australian ballot system, which is 
 the law of the land), that annexation would be defeated. 
 
 From a careful inquiry I am satisfied that it would be defeated by a vote 
 of at least two to one. If the votes of persons claiming allegiance to foreign 
 countries were excluded it would be defeated by more than five to one. 
 
 The undoubtful sentiment of the people is for the Queen, against the Pro 
 visional Government and against annexation. A majority of the whites, espe 
 cially Americans, are for annexation. 
 
 It will not do, as I have heretofore observed, to declare that 
 because the intelligence and respectability of Hawaii favor annexa 
 tion that therefore the scheme must succeed regardless of popular 
 desire. It is no part of the business of this country to conquer 
 nations, even for their betterment. Almost at the outset of our Decla 
 ration of Independence we assert that governments derive " their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed." 
 
 Shall we, who base our right to the sovereignty upon the will of 
 our citizens, be heard to say that it is politic or right or American to 
 step out of our boundaries and coerce to submission those who, how 
 ever poor, however lowly, however inferior, however ignorant, are, 
 after all, men and women fashioned in the image and likeness of their 
 maker, and entitled under our laws, under our Constitution, under our 
 Declaration of Independence, and the virtue of our oft-reiterated pro 
 fessions, to receive at our hands that equal treatment which we 
 demanded for ourselves, and which demanding we won and have 
 maintained ? 
 
 It is against the interests of the United States to acquire the 
 Hawaiian Islands. They are too far removed. Are difficult and 
 expensive to defend. The population is undesirable and likely to so 
 remain for many years. 
 
 Says Mr. Alexander, an ardent annexationist (Executive Docu 
 ment 47, page 199) : 
 
 Considering the character of our mixed population, the intensity of race 
 jealousy, the concentration of one-fourth of the population comprising its most 
 turbulent elements in the capital city, it seems vain to expect a suitable self- 
 governing, independent state under such conditions. It is time one of the great 
 powers should intervene, and it is needless to ask which power has its hands 
 unfettered by conventions and already holds paramount interests and responsi 
 bilities in this archipelago. 
 
 Here is an admission that those whom we are requested to make 
 our fellow citizens are incapable of self control. Here is a declaration 
 from a gentleman of attainments, and I assume, of integrity, that 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 213 
 
 Hawaii should be annexed because of the degraded character of the 
 majority of the inhabitants. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson wrote to President Madison, April 27, 1809: 
 
 It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit can then be drawn 
 to our future acquisitions. Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and this 
 develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should ever 
 be accepted which would require a navy to defend it. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson was not opposed to the annexation of Cuba, but he 
 did not believe it policy to acquire any territory to defend which our 
 naval forces would be requisite. 
 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen in a note to Mr. Langston cited in i Whar- 
 ton, page 579, declares that it is contrary to the policy of our Govern 
 ment to attempt such territorial aggrandizement as will require a 
 naval force. 
 
 Mr. Bayard made a similar announcement which may be found 
 in the same volume, page 580. 
 
 Said Mr. Cleveland in his message of 1885 : 
 
 Maintaining, as I do, the tenets of a line of precedents from Washington s 
 day, which proscribe entangling alliances with foreign states, I do not favor a 
 policy of acquisition of new and distant territory, or the incorporation of remote 
 interests with our own. 
 
 See also the history of the attempt to acquire the Danish West 
 Indies, and the rejection of the treaty by the Senate, (i Wharton, 
 page 416.) See as to San Domingo matter, i Wharton, page 412, 
 et seq. 
 
 Mr. President, I have stated these objections. They appeal to 
 me with more or less force, each of them with force enough to deter 
 mine my vote. I am not prepared at this moment to lay down abso 
 lute doctrine, from which I shall never deviate in any contingency, 
 against the acquisition of foreign lands, provided the people desire 
 such annexation ; but I see at this time no reason to qualify or doubt 
 the correctness of the principle maintained from Jefferson to Cleve 
 land. 
 
 There is, however, another objection which is possibly even 
 stronger than those which I have just discussed. The able Senator 
 from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] whose deliberate judgment upon any 
 public question is entitled to consideration, and other distinguished 
 Senators, have said, either upon the floor or elsewhere, that the 
 Hawaiian group should be annexed to the State of California. Mr. 
 President, it is not saying any more than the truth when I declare that 
 there is no one present more deeply concerned for the progress and 
 welfare of that Commonwealth than I. I was born there, reared and 
 educated there, whatever I possess is there, whatever of distinc 
 tion I have acquired has been from the favor of her people, and if I 
 thought that it would be to her advantage, and correspondingly to the 
 advantage of the Union, that action favoring annexation should be 
 taken here, I should not hesitate. Not for any party reason, or to 
 uphold or maintain any Administration, should I forfeit that which I 
 considered to be for the glory and happiness of my country. 
 
 But a short time since we were considering the Chinese question 
 in this Chamber. A law was enacted of the severest character, it was 
 said, to exclude the Mongolian from our shores. Day by day our 
 statesmen are endeavoring to solve the complicated issues which have 
 
214 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 arisen from the conflict of races, precipitated upon them without any 
 fault of the present generation. 
 
 We have statutes designed to prohibit the coming of paupers and 
 persons unfitted to become citizens of the United States, or whose 
 presence here would be opposed to the general welfare, or who might 
 become public charges. Under these conditions what should I think 
 of myself if standing here I advocated bringing within my State or 
 within the United States a people who are notoriously and by confes 
 sion of all unfitted for self-government, a population of some 90,000, 
 containing not more than 5 per cent, competent for the elective fran 
 chise? 
 
 Let us be consistent. But lately we declared the presence of the 
 Mongolian inimical to the Republic, and now we propose to annex 
 an island flooded with the lowest class of Chinese and Japanese. I 
 know that it will be said that these Chinamen can be excluded and 
 that a stipulation to that effect must be incorporated in the treaty if 
 any is made. We have had enough trouble dealing with the China 
 men and should not seek further complications. The Chinese and 
 Japanese form but a portion of the undesirable residents of Hawaii. 
 Mr. Blount has given us a statement of the population which seems 
 to be accurate. He says (Report, pages 60, 61) : 
 
 The population of the Hawaiian Islands can best be studied by one unfa 
 miliar with the native tongue from its several census reports. A census is 
 taken every six years. The last report is for the year 1890. From this it 
 appears that the whole population numbers 89,990. This number includes na 
 tives, or, to use another designation, Kanakas, half-castes (persons containing 
 an admixture of other than native blood in any proportion with it), Hawaiian- 
 born foreigners of all races or nationalities other than natives, Americans, 
 British, Germans, French, Portuguese, Norwegians, Chinese, Polynesians, and 
 other nationalities. 
 
 (In all the official documents of the Hawaiian Islands, whether in relation 
 to population, ownership of property, taxation, or any other question, the desig 
 nation " American," " Briton," " German," or other foreign nationality does not 
 discriminate between the naturalized citizens of the Hawaiian Islands and those 
 owing allegiance to foreign countries.) 
 
 Americans number 1,928; natives and half-castes, 40,612; Chinese, 15,301; 
 Japanese, 12,360; Portuguese 8,602; British, 1,344; Germans, 1,034; French, 70; 
 Norwegians, 227; Polynesians, 588; and other foreigners, 419. 
 
 It is well at this point to say that of the 7,495 Hawaiian-born foreigners 
 4,117 are Portuguese, 1,701 Chinese and Japanese, 1,617 other white foreigners, 
 and 60 of other nationalities. 
 
 There are 58,714 males. Of these, 18,364 are pure natives and 3,085 are 
 half-castes, making together 21,449. Fourteen thousand five hundred and 
 twenty-two are Chinese. The Japanese number 10,079. The Portuguese con 
 tribute 4,770. These four nationalities furnish 50,820 of the male population. 
 
 Males. 
 
 The Americans 1,298 
 
 The British 982 
 
 The Germans 729 
 
 The French 46 
 
 The Norwegians 135 
 
 These five nationalities combined furnish 3,170 of the total male population. 
 
 The first four nationalities when compared with the last five in male popu 
 lation, are nearly sixteenfold the largest in number. 
 
 The Americans are to those of the four aforementioned group of nation 
 alities as i to 39 nearly as I to 40. 
 
 Portuguese have been brought here from time to time from the Madeira 
 and Azore Islands by the Hawaiian Government as laborers on plantations, just 
 as has been done in relation to Chinese, Japanese, Polynesians, etc. They are 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 215 
 
 the most ignorant of all imported laborers and reported to be very thievish. 
 They are not pure Europeans, but a commingling of many races, especially the 
 negro. They intermarry with the natives and belong to the laboring classes. 
 Very few of them can read and write. Their children are being taught in the 
 public schools, as all races are. It is wrong to class them as Europeans. 
 
 Will any thoughtful man risk the assertion that it is desirable 
 to bring about the amalgamation of such a population with our own? 
 Without considering the degraded foreign element, the native popula 
 tion furnishes an irresistible argument against annexation. I doubt 
 whether there are many people in the world more the subject of pity 
 than the unfortunate natives who are gradually yielding to the 
 inroads of the most loathsome diseases. We can not afford to deport 
 the natives. We have no right to sweep them from the face of the 
 earth. I think that I have already shown that we can not decently 
 act without consulting their wishes. If the islands are annexed to 
 California, candidates for office may experience some difficulty in 
 extending their visits to their constituents so as to take in the newly 
 acquired possessions, 2000 miles removed from the present State. 
 The returns from the enlightened Hawaiian precincts would be 
 awaited with considerable interest. Should annexation be brought 
 about we must be just to the Hawaiian natives. 
 
 These islanders are the proprietors of the soil by designation of a 
 power beyond ours. They were placed where they are by Omnipo 
 tence long before Mr. Stevens or his predecessors in goodness com 
 menced to exert their saving influence. We recognize the right of a 
 people not only to live but to rule. We can not afford to destroy the 
 poorest Hawaiian native. If the islands are to be ours me must take 
 those " to the manor born " to our political bosoms and throw around 
 them the equal protection of those laws which are framed for the 
 benefit of all who move under the protection of our flag. 
 
 Therefore, I repeat that the Provisional Government has not the 
 stability to warrant the making of a treaty ; that it was not organized 
 for permanency, but for a specific object, to wit, for the purpose of 
 giving away the country it professed to rule. And while we are now 
 holding diplomatic relations with Hawaii as an independent state,, 
 notwithstanding her imperfect organization, we may well doubt the 
 propriety of dealing with her new government as to a treaty of annex 
 ation. The Provisional Government does not represent the people. 
 We can not annex territory under mere color of right. Nations 
 organized for conquest may not regard the method employed to extend 
 their confines, but we must be not only technically but actually right. 
 Those* whom we desire to absorb must consent, and such consent must 
 be unmistakably proven as a condition precedent to our action. The 
 islands are too remote, the population, undesirable. We have now an 
 ample supply of incompetent citizens. Our stock is complete. 
 
 If we concede that the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands would 
 result in adding to the prosperity of this country and redound to our 
 lasting pecuniary advantage, I would not favor the project as long as 
 it is questionable whether such annexation can be honorably brought 
 about under existing conditions. Not only is deliberation necessary 
 in the preparation and approval of a treaty involving such grave sub 
 jects, but it is essential, as I have hinted, that there should be no 
 question as to the right of those who suggest the adoption of the com 
 pact to enter into such a solemn obligation. Granting that Mr. Stev 
 ens had not interfered improperly and conceding everything which he 
 
216 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 individually did to be regular and admitting all that is claimed by his 
 friends, the fact still remains that the Provisional Government is 
 purely experimental, and that if it ever received any authority, that 
 authority was for a limited purpose and emanated from a limited 
 circle. 
 
 It is not claimed, as I have said, that this institution was organ 
 ized for permanent purposes. Herein it lacked an essential of gov 
 ernment. It did not rest upon popular suffrage. And herein it 
 lacked representative authority. It was brought about admittedly by 
 the action of a few courageous and determined men who assert, and 
 perhaps with reason, that their morality and ability have placed them 
 upon a plane above the commonality. Far from representing the 
 masses of the people, these gentlemen have been the advocates and 
 defenders of a constitution which curtailed the popular right. Hence, 
 plainly the Provisional Government did not have the stability and 
 solidity which alone can empower it to perform the supreme functions 
 of abrogating nationality and delivering up the privileges of statehood. 
 This treaty should not have been hastily accepted by Mr. Harrison. 
 
 Nothing had occurred on the part of our citizens to warrant such 
 existing celerity. Modesty, good taste, as well as diplomatic usage, 
 dictated the keeping of the matter in abeyance until the advent of a 
 President who had already been elected to hold for a full term. 
 Instantaneous action was sought and the future was relied upon to 
 establish the title of those who proposed the treaty. It was believed 
 by Mr. Stevens and his associates that if the last Administration 
 could be brought to engage in a treaty of annexation with the Dole 
 establishment, that forthwith the people of Hawaii, who had not been 
 consulted, would yield readily to the superior force of the United 
 States. It was well reasoned that if we took the islands under that 
 treaty we would regard the native population as rebellious if they 
 subsequently objected to the annexation. 
 
 Permit me again to assert what I have already intimated : that I 
 am not here to compare the respective merits of the small American 
 and foreign colony, which supports Mr. Dole, with the native popula 
 tion. I have no doubt that the Provisional Government represents 
 the most advanced intellectual sentiment of the islands, but I unhesi 
 tatingly aver that this does not constitute any justification for our 
 departure from settled principles of honesty in dealing with our 
 neighbors ; nor does it warrant us as a civilized and Christian nation 
 in a policy of invasion and conquest; and if we abet such designs, to 
 say nothing of our participancy therein, we will deserve and receive 
 the contempt of mankind. 
 
 THE FOREIGN POLICY OF PRESIDENT CLEVELAND SUFFERS NOTHING WHEi. COMPARED 
 WITH THAT OF HIS PREDECESSOR. 
 
 There is another matter to which I deem it proper to briefly 
 allude. 
 
 My friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. CUL- 
 LOM], further said: 
 
 Heretofore the diplomatic history of the United States, with trivial excep 
 tions, has been a bright and glorious record, and its precedents have become 
 standards of international procedure. Until now liberty, justice, and honor 
 have been the legends inscribed upon each diplomatic act bearing the approval 
 of American Presidents and Secretaries of State. No citizen of this country 
 has ever before been called to hide his head when challenged upon the theater 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 217 
 
 of the world, and forced to acknowledge the disgrace and shame of the 
 Republic. 
 
 Mr. President, we will not remain silent listening to such asser 
 tions made against those who are acting in good faith for the perpet 
 uation of principles in which we believe and to the enforcement of 
 which we have pledged our best efforts. We can well afford to com 
 pare the foreign policy of this Administration with that of its imme 
 diate predecessor, knowing that we will not thereby suffer. I intend 
 to speak from the record, and in describing the incident to which it is 
 my design to direct consideration, I will utter nothing that can not be 
 easily proven to be precisely correct. 
 
 It has been argued in this Chamber, and reiterated with great 
 emphasis elsewhere, that the present Administration is not in sym 
 pathy with republicanism, and that it is seeking to maintain monarchi 
 cal institutions abroad, and it is sought to justify, or at least mitigate 
 the peculiar behavior of the late minister to the Hawaiian Islands by 
 the claim that his conduct if questionable, was, after all, in the interest 
 of free government. 
 
 The hollow nature of this pretense can be, and I trust has been 
 exposed otherwise than by the argument which I am about to make 
 but I desire to show that not only the late Executive and the then 
 Department of State, but likewise many who elsewhere are loudest 
 in their so-called patriotic demands, did but lately engage in a most 
 unwarranted attack upon the people struggling for free constitutional 
 rights. 
 
 In the year 1891, the people of Chile were torn asunder by revo 
 lutionary conflict. The President of the Republic had assumed pow 
 ers in defiance of the constitution, in consequence with which it was 
 his duty to administer his trust. 
 
 The highest court of the Republic had decided against him, and 
 the great majority of the Chilean Congress had also pronounced 
 adversely to his pretensions. Instead of yielding obedience to the 
 laws of the land, he announced himself a dictator. He promulgated 
 a decree which contained, among other things, the following: 
 
 SANTIAGO, January 7, 1891. 
 
 I decree that from this date I assurrte all public power necessary for 
 administering and governing the State and maintaining order in the interior. 
 Therefore, from this moment, every law that would forbid the exercise of the 
 powers required for preserving order and tranquillity in the interior and security 
 in the exterior of the State, is suspended. 
 
 By his unauthenticated fiat he declared that all laws which, 
 according to his opinion, were inimical to the state, should be then 
 and there suspended. The supreme court and the court of appeals 
 decided against him and determined in favor of the Congressionalists, 
 and he at once issued this edict : 
 
 That the regular and ordinary functions of the supreme court and the court 
 of appeals, in the abnormal and extraordinary situation, created by the revolu 
 tion and the anarchy of those who have commenced and sustain it, will prevent 
 the task of pacification demanded by the highest national interests, and will pro 
 duce conflicts that will augment the misfortunes that afflict the republic. I have 
 resolved, and I decree, until further orders, the functions of the supreme court 
 and the court of appeals are suspended. 
 
 Thus did this man assume absolute power. Thus did he in defi 
 ance of republican principles declare, " I am the State." The mem- 
 
 15 
 
218 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 bers of congress were compelled to flee to escape his cruelty and per 
 secution. They took refuge in the navy, for the navy was true to the 
 law. War was waged, one side represented by Balmaceda, who acted 
 against the constitution; the other was composed of patriots seeking 
 to maintain the constitution. 
 
 Concurrently with the promulgation of these decrees, more 
 despotic than any issued within the last thirty years by any semi- 
 civilized government, this despot sacrificed the lives of numbers of his 
 fellow-citizens who had dared to verbally protest against his out 
 rageous defiance of that constitution which was adopted as the result 
 of the triumph of brave men over the imperial armies of Spain. To 
 use the language of Judge Hanford of the court of appeals of the 
 ninth circuit (56 Fed. Rep., 505 et seq.) : 
 
 The Congressional party, instead of being an organization of rebels against 
 the Government of Chile, was, in fact, composed of and controlled by the legis 
 lative branch of the national government and was supported by a considerable 
 part of its military and naval forces. The object of the Congressional party was 
 not revolution but the preservation of the Government by deposing Balmaceda 
 for maladministration of his office. Balmaceda was not the government. He 
 was merely the highest officer and head of the government. The struggle, there 
 fore, was not between the government and a faction, but between the chief 
 departments of the government. While it continued, the condition of affairs was 
 similar to what might have been brought about in the United States if a suffi 
 cient number of Senators had voted for the impeachment of President Andrew 
 Johnson, and the vote had been followed by an attempt on his part to forcibly 
 resist removal from office. 
 
 Under these conditions the last Administration not only refused 
 to recognize the justice of the cause of the Congressional party, as 
 those who were supporting the Chilean constitution were designated, 
 but it even refused to recognize them at all. Mr. Harrison declined 
 to permit the agents of the Congressional party to enter the State 
 Department for the purpose of presenting their claims, and the Presi 
 dent rejected their solicitation for personal audience. Every obstruc 
 tion possible was thrown in their pathway, and when Jorge Montt, the 
 then admiral of the Chilean fleet and the present President of that 
 Republic, sent to the city of San Diego an ordinary passenger and 
 freight steamer for the purpose of getting supplies, our Government 
 denied her clearance papers, and when she left the harbor of San 
 Diego and afterwards took on board in unbroken packages $80,000 
 worth of arms, purchased from an American firm and paid for at the 
 market rates, one of our ships of war, the Charleston, was dispatched 
 to Chile, and the Itata was brought back with her cargo to San Diego, 
 and a Chilean congressman, together with two American citizens, who 
 had engaged in the purchase of the arms, were arrested and charged 
 with a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States ; and they 
 were charged, among other things, with having fitted out and armed 
 the Itata for the purpose and with the intent that that vessel should be 
 employed in the service of a foreign people, to cruise and commit 
 hostilities against the Republic of Chile. There was, in fact, no legal 
 ground for this seizure, as the United States district court and the 
 court of appeals have decided. 
 
 This conduct upon the part of our Government in thus practically 
 taking sides against a people seeking a constitutional government was 
 in itself bad enough, but my criticism is not leveled so much at this 
 behavior, or misbehavior, of the last Administration, but the subse 
 quent transactions present a story of outrage unparalleled in our his- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 219 
 
 tory. In the latter part of August and the first part of September, 
 1891, the Congressional forces met those of Balmaceda and in two 
 pitched battles utterly routed the dictator s army and marched in 
 triumph into Valparaiso. 
 
 The issue was thus settled, and under all the authorities the 
 result of war definitely ascertained, foreign governments were bound 
 to accept the same. 
 
 On September 4, 1891, when Balmaceda was a fugitive from the 
 wrath of his countrymen, when he had scarcely a friend on earth 
 outside of those in charge of the Government of this Republic, when 
 the associates of those whom he had murdered and the citizens of that 
 Republic which he had shamefully betrayed, were seeking him with 
 terrible earnestness, our Government sent a dispatch to 6ur resident 
 minister to the effect that if a government was installed and accepted 
 by the people of Chile, the same should be recognized ; and on the 7th 
 day of September that officer, Mr. Egan, notified the State Depart 
 ment that he was in cordial communication with the Provisional Gov 
 ernment, established September 4, of which Jorge Montt was chief. 
 
 One would have supposed that the opening of diplomatic rela 
 tions with the new authority and the utter annihilation of the Balma- 
 cedan regime would necessarily have resulted in the dismissal of pro 
 ceedings against members of the new government and against its rep 
 resentatives, as those prosecutions depended upon the assertion that 
 the vessel complained of and the cargo sought to be confiscated were 
 to be used, and that the defendants indicted were waging war against 
 Chile, with which the United States was at peace, and it being then 
 the fact that there was no Chile save that represented by these very 
 men who were charged in the proceedings thus instituted with having 
 attempted to destroy a nation which recognized them as her loyal 
 and devoted citizens. 
 
 Under these conditions this Government was bound, not only in 
 law, but in fairness, and in that spirit of friendship which she pro 
 fessed to entertain toward Chile, to at once abandon its hostile attitude, 
 regretting that the same was ever inaugurated. But the Administra 
 tion, so anxious to establish a new condition of things in the Hawaiian 
 Islands, so solicitous for the extension of republican influences, so 
 ready to acknowledge a provisional government which had given no 
 proof of its ability to endure, not only declined to dismiss these cases, 
 but on October 20, 1891, more than a month after the recognition of 
 the new government and after Balmaceda had acted as his own exe 
 cutioner, placed Mr. Ricardo Trumbull, and those who had been asso 
 ciated with him in obtaining a cargo for the Itata, on trial and sought 
 to convict him of a high misdemeanor, under the provisions of sec 
 tions 5283, 5285, and 5286 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
 States. 
 
 Here was our Government, pretending to be the friend of republi 
 canism, striving to make a criminal out of a man who had imperiled 
 himself in a service which was intrinsically honorable, and which, 
 because of the issue of war, was legally determined to be just, and 
 which our Government had recognized as being patriotic and legiti 
 mate. But the United States court, upon the testimony of the prose 
 cution, adjudicated that no case was made out, and the jury rendered 
 a verdict of " not guilty." But the end was not yet. Still maintain 
 ing its unrepublican policy, the same patriots who joined with Mr. 
 Stevens in the overthrow of a friendly government, pressed the admi- 
 
220 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ralty cases against the Chilean vessel and her cargo, employed special 
 counsel very excellent and able gentlemen, who were compensated 
 through the Department of Justice to press with every energy the 
 demand that the forfeiture should be decreed. 
 
 But the district court again decided against the Government, and 
 from this decision, as late as March, an appeal was taken to the cir 
 cuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit, the Attorney-General hav 
 ing failed to obtain a certiorari bringing the cause to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. Meantime the Itata had been released 
 upon bond and had gone back to Chile and was engaged in mercantile 
 pursuits ; and had a decree been rendered in favor of the United States 
 and had recourse upon the bondsmen failed there would have been no 
 method of enforcing the judgment save by seizure of this vessel carry 
 ing the Chilean flag in Chilean waters ; and such seizure would have 
 been an execution of the judgment pronounced against a vessel, 
 because it was engaged in a service patriotic, lawful, and approved by 
 the affirmative recognition of all our judicial and executive authori 
 ties. 
 
 The appeal was urged, and in spite of the efforts of those who 
 represented Chile, the late Administration pressed it to final issue, and 
 on the 8th of May, 1893, the circuit court of appeals, composed of 
 three judges all appointed by Mr. Harrison confirmed the judg 
 ment of the lower court, and finally settled the case against the United 
 States. 
 
 I refer to these matters as demonstrating that the Administration 
 which supported and assisted Mr. Stevens in his unjustifiable work 
 was not in quest of new fields for liberty, but was anxious to gain 
 that applause given by the unthinking to those who subvert and 
 destroy. 
 
 Nothing can better illustrate the unrepublican disposition of the 
 late Administration than the facts which I have cited from judicial 
 records regarding the Chilean controversy, and nothing can better 
 disclose the misguided disposition which prevailed in the councils of 
 those whom the American people drove from authority. 
 
 The fitting outcome of this entire transaction has been the decis 
 ion, just rendered by the joint commission, which has had under con 
 sideration the contested claims existing between this Government and 
 Chile, to the effect that our seizure of the Itata was without even 
 probable cause. It is difficult to conceive how any other conclusion 
 could have been reached, since our courts from the Santissima Trini 
 dad (7 Wheaton) to this day, and our diplomats from Secretary 
 Pickering to Secretary Evarts uniformly avowed that there is no law 
 or regulation forbidding any person or government from purchasing 
 arms from citizens of the United States and shipping them at the risk 
 of the purchaser. Such also was the doctrine of Mr. Hamilton, which 
 fully accorded with the view expressed by Judge Story in the case first 
 cited. 
 
 It is proper for me to say that the late Attorney-General was so 
 solicitous for the confiscation of a vessel and cargo of a power with 
 which we were then at peace, and with whose citizens and Government 
 we desired to preserve friendly relations, that he actually contended 
 before the Supreme Court of the United States upon an application 
 for a writ of certiorari, which was denied, and afterwards argued in a 
 brief, which he filed in the circuit court of appeals, that a judgment 
 should be rendered in favor of the United States upon the ground 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 221 
 
 that the representative of the present Chilean Government and his 
 associates were pirates, and were therefore entitled to no consideration 
 whatever. 
 
 It is unnecessary to add that he remained lonesome in this advo 
 cacy. If any person considers this episode a triumph of diplomacy, 
 I am content to leave him to his fate. 
 
 MR. CLEVELAND HAS NEVER SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. 
 
 It has been asserted that the Administration assumed the right to 
 interfere with a foreign government. Exactly the contrary is the 
 truth. It is against interference with a foreign government that Mr. 
 Cleveland has protested, and if he is pressing any doctrine it is that 
 which Senators profess to be so fond of, that this Government must 
 in no case invade the territory of another. The President takes the 
 position that we should undo what we have wrongfully done ; that 
 having invaded a foreign territory, and having changed the govern 
 ment of that territory, we should place matters as they were before the 
 invasion occurred, and this for the purpose of more clearly and 
 emphatically establishing a doctrine which has not been disputed in 
 this debate, that in no case should we destroy the government of 
 another nation. 
 
 The efforts of Mr. Cleveland to restore the Queen were in the 
 nature of a protest against previous illegal acts of a representative 
 of our Government. He sought to undo as far as possible the 
 improper transactions of a diplomatic agent. He repudiated and con 
 demned that agent s conduct. He adopted the most positive method 
 in carrying out this laudable purpose. More he could not do, and he 
 accordingly recommended the matter to Congress. President Harri 
 son recognized the new order. So did President Cleveland. It is 
 said, as I have remarked, that under certain conditions the recognition 
 of belligerent rights can not be withdrawn. Such, at least, is the rule 
 stated by Mr. Hall (International Law, third edition, page 37). 
 Whether this rule applies to the acknowledgment of independence it 
 is unnecessary to discuss ; but assuming such to be the case, if the 
 recognition is procured by a conspiracy to which the beneficiaries are 
 parties, I imagine that there is no doubt of the power to revoke, saving 
 harmless, of course, third parties who have acted bona fide. 
 
 If the Dole administration is an institution of this Government, 
 created by our late minister; if it was established and supported by 
 our action ; if we were actually in control of the premises, then we had 
 a right to withdraw that support and undo the mischief done. 
 
 It should be remembered that the Provisional Government was 
 not organized for permanency, but was explicitly formed for the sole 
 purpose of procuring the United States to extend its jurisdiction over 
 the islands. When we speak of the de facto government we allude to 
 an institution having present existence and exercising certain func 
 tions. This government did not pretend to be formed for the pur 
 pose for which a nation organizes itself. But Mr. Dole and his asso 
 ciates were empowered by themselves to act as agents in transferring 
 to the United States the soil and independence of the Hawaiian 
 Islands. The testimony of Mr. Soper, another annexationist, estab 
 lishes that the Queen believed that she was surrendering to the United 
 States, and the provisional people concede that they submitted to the 
 United States the question whether their government should or should 
 
222 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 not exist, *. e., whether this nation would consent to absorb it. 
 
 Under all these circumstances the Queen was justified in suppos 
 ing that the Executive would act in the capacity of mediator, and Mr. 
 Cleveland was certainly authorized to extend some supervision and to 
 make some inquiry concerning the situation which involved an attempt 
 to extend the dominion of the United States over the islands. No one 
 in all our history has more thoroughly emphasized than Mr. Cleveland 
 the duty of this Republic to attend to its own affairs and to avoid 
 meddling in foreign politics. 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. President, permit me to say that I am not 
 prepared to defend every officer of this or any other Administration, 
 merely because his politics and mine may harmonize, but I insist that 
 justice shall be done. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland has done or attempted to do substantially justice, 
 and he has done that which honor dictated. His protest against the 
 continuance of the present Government of Hawaii was made that a 
 record might be written showing his detestation as our chosen Execu 
 tive, of a cunning and fraudulent scheme by which a change of sys 
 tems eventuated which otherwise would never have been brought 
 about. He made that protest, and then committed the whole subject 
 to the House of Representatives and Senate. It is before Congress 
 now. 
 
 The resolution submitted to the Senate embodies an expression 
 to the effect that we should acknowledge conditions as they are. 
 Months have gone by. It is impossible to prognosticate the future, 
 but the status is such and has been so long continued, that it is 
 undoubtedly in our interests in accord with sound policy and proper 
 in every regard to recognize the present Government, to declare that 
 no foreign power shall interfere, and to place here upon record the 
 solemn assertion that we will not conclude a treaty of annexation. 
 This recognition becomes inevitable when we consider the continued 
 reception of diplomatic agents (Hall s International Law, page 94; 
 Field s Pro-International Code, section 118), as well as the long con 
 tinued dominancy of the Dole supremacy. 
 
 It is hardly worth while to determine what may be done under 
 conditions differing from those presented. It is not necessary for 
 immediate purposes to enter into any such debate. Suffice it to say, 
 that, dealing with this question as it now stands, we are in favor of 
 maintaining the status quo to the extent that our mere declarations 
 will do so, not because we approve of wrongful acts, but because, 
 under prevailing exigencies not of the creation of this Administration, 
 it is unwise to adopt any other course. We affirm and approve of the 
 action of the President of the United States in withdrawing the 
 treaty, not necessarily for all the reasons which I have stated 
 though all are good reasons to me but because of the varied sur 
 roundings upon which I have sought to comment. 
 
 I shall not resume my seat without responding for an instant to 
 something said by the able and eloquent Senator from Maine [Mr. 
 FRY] who a few days ago, in speaking with mingled sarcasm and 
 disappointment of the unanimity displayed by Democratic Senators 
 in supporting the election repeal bill, alluded to our failure to act 
 together upon the financial issue (forgetting that residents of fragile 
 structures should be conservative), and boldly prophesied that we 
 would be unable to concentrate our forces upon the Hawaiian or other 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 223 
 
 issues. " Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." No doubt my 
 friend and his associates are solicitous. Well may they be solicitous. 
 I question whether any one upon the other side will regret a division 
 in our ranks, and I venture to remark that our adversaries fear our 
 unbroken front. 
 
 I dislike to say that which is unpleasant. I would not harrow 
 the tender sensibilities of those who claim to be so anxious for our 
 comfort, but I can not in candor do otherwise than to express the 
 opinion that my Republican friends will have to meet a united Democ 
 racy. The Democratic party is composed of men of thought and 
 intelligence; men who act upon principle. They will often differ as 
 to detail, but whenever the individual can not otherwise bring about 
 concerted action, he will make any concession short of sacrificing his 
 conscientious conviction. The financial question is one upon which 
 party lines can not be drawn. Some Democrats may differ from the 
 President as to his views upon silver. I have done so and have not 
 changed my opinion. Some may occasionally and at long intervals 
 not agree with him as to the advisability of a nomination, just as other 
 Senators have disagreed with other Presidents; but do not flatter 
 yourselves, my Republican friends, that any process of disintegration 
 is at work here, or that I and my colleagues contemplate suicide. 
 
 We are and will be ready for you. You may have observed that 
 we made no loss upon the election repeal matter. Our majority was 
 quite comfortable. We are prepared to stand by a Democratic Admin 
 istration. We may criticise a little, but do not be misled by this, for a 
 small-sized family row does not mean divorce a vinculo. We have 
 followed Mr. Cleveland through three campaigns. We are not pre 
 pared to recant or to retrograde. He called our attention to an almost 
 lost party policy, not merely that the organization to which he and we 
 belong should be successful, but that the country might have the 
 benefit of wise laws and a statesmanlike administration thereof, and, 
 while he was temporarily set aside, nevertheless the principles which 
 he announced soon became the battle cry of our triumphant legions. 
 The President may not be perfect; to assert that he was so consti 
 tuted would be to deny his humanity. We do not claim as much for 
 him in that respect as our modest opponents daily claim for them 
 selves. Mr. Cleveland has for many years, notwithstanding the 
 doubts of individuals and the slanders of political adversaries, had the 
 respect and admiration of the best minds of his country to a greater 
 extent than any other man. 
 
 Upon the pending resolution, Mr. President, while I doubt not that 
 Senators upon this side of the Chamber will differ as to mere phrase 
 ology, there is not one of us, I imagine, who doubts that the two 
 propositions which I have attempted to defend should be decided 
 affirmatively, and I am led to hope even our friends upon the other 
 side will for once join in our good work. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I wish to cite to the Senator from California, 
 in whose speech I have been much interested, a point which I think 
 he has forgotten. I am more concerned about the law of this case 
 and what is to be done, as I said the other day, than I am as to what 
 has been done. 
 
 The Senator from California lays down a proposition of law 
 from which I wish to dissent. He will find a great abundance of 
 authority in the text-books in support of the proposition which he 
 lays down. There is no question, however, but that the doctrine that 
 
224 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 a change of government means a practical withdrawal of the minister 
 accredited to that government has become obsolete. The modern 
 practice is that the minister continues under the new government. 
 
 I call the attention of the Senator to the fact that in 1848, when 
 the State Department was presided over by Mr. Buchanan, whom we 
 all recognize as a very able diplomat and a very able man, a very 
 sudden revolution occurred in France, and the American minister was 
 the first minister to recognize the new republic. The ministers of the 
 other governments followed, but, as Mr. Polk said in his next mes 
 sage, it was very fitting and very proper that our minister should have 
 been the first. 
 
 Not only did the minister continue to exercise the duties of his 
 office without any new appointment, but Mr. Buchanan, in words of 
 the highest praise, spoke of his recognition of the French Republic. 
 
 The President of the United States, Mr. Polk, in his next annual 
 message I shall not read it, though I have here before me both of 
 his messages on the subject spoke in terms of the highest approba 
 tion of the fact that our minister had promptly recognized the new 
 republic, and then referred to the sympathy which we naturally feel 
 for the French people. 
 
 So I want to say to the Senator that in modern times that doc 
 trine is not in practice anywhere, and, as he must know, every repre 
 sentative of a foreign power at the Hawaiian Islands recognized the 
 new government without waiting to hear from the home government. 
 So the old idea has fallen into disrepute. 
 
 I wish to say one other word. There seems to be a little com 
 plaint that there was a sympathy going out from our representative 
 when this old, effete, and farcical monarchy was to be destroyed, a sort 
 of opera bouffe, as somebody has called it, and properly so. I have 
 not any doubt that there was ? and I should be ashamed of an American 
 minister who did not feel that way. That has always been the boast 
 of this country. It can be found in the letter of one of our distin 
 guished Secretaries of State, in which he said, speaking of one of the 
 South American revolutions, that it was our openly expressed sym 
 pathy which prevented intervention and assisted those people in main 
 taining the contest with the mother country. 
 
 It has always been so. When Mexico was fighting Spain we did 
 not conceal our sympathy anywhere. We made it apparent to the 
 whole world that we were on their side ; but when later Mexico was 
 brought into trouble by European intervention, in every department 
 of the Government, in every phase of American life, we proclaimed 
 our sympathy with the existing affairs. When the Mexican Govern 
 ment had been reduced in numbers to such an extent that the president 
 fled to the frontier, preparatory to stepping across our line if it was 
 necessary, accompanied, as I have been told by good authority, with 
 only 32 men, and when, for his daily bread, he depended upon the 
 contributions of the patriotic people of that country, we proclaimed 
 everywhere that he was the legal executive of Mexico, and our great 
 minister, Mr. Seward, said to France: 
 
 As we do now, we shall continue to recognize Gen. Juarez as the constitu 
 tional executive of Mexico. 
 
 There has been a time when we were not so afraid as we are 
 to-day of expressing sympathy against monarchies and in favor of a 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 225 
 
 change of government in the direction of greater freedom and greater 
 liberty. 
 
 Mr. President, as an American citizen I hope the day is far dis 
 tant when either as representatives, as officials, or as citizens, we shall 
 be afraid of expressing our sympathy with advanced liberal ideas, and 
 when we see a throne tottering, whether it be in the Sandwich Islands 
 or in Europe, we shall express our gratitude and our joy, and, as far 
 as is consistent with international law, our determination to render it 
 such assistance as may make it effective. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. President, I understood the Sena 
 tor to say that a minister has power to recognize a new government. 
 That statement has the merit of novelty. It was never made before. 
 I stated, and I affirm, that there is no dispute either in the books or in 
 practice that when a minister recognizes a new government, as was 
 done in France I stated that I was perfectly familiar with that case 
 - he depends upon the ratification of his act by the home government. 
 He has absolutely no authority to personally and effectively recognize 
 any government. That function is vested by the Constitution wholly 
 in the Executive. 
 
 When he is accredited to a king, or queen, or nation, and when 
 that government is swept away, it is for the state which accredited 
 the minister not for the minister to determine whether the home 
 government shall be represented at the foreign court. He may pos 
 sess personal traits which would not fit him for contact with the 
 newly constituted authority, or perhaps his government might not 
 wish to acknowledge the changed conditions, or might decline to sus 
 tain diplomatic relations. It is proper for the minister to guard the 
 interests of his countrymen it is his duty to do so. If he does 
 recognize the new state, the approval of his government will justify 
 his act. But the efficacy of his declaration is dependent wholly upon 
 the ratification of his government. It is but little if anything more 
 than a recommendation. 
 
 Secondly, the Senator s statement regarding his leaning towards 
 republican institutions is all right ; but when Mr. Stevens deliberately 
 accepted a commission directed to the Queen of the Hawaiian Islands 
 and agreed that he would go there and act honorably and faithfully 
 as a minister of this Government introduced to her, the " great and 
 good friend " of President Harrison and of this Government, it was 
 his duty to do one of two things either to turn back as soon as he 
 found he could not deport himself in friendliness, or, acting there, to 
 do so in good faith and in accordance with settled custom. 
 
 I sympathize with democratic institutions as sincerely as my 
 friend, and I concede and proclaim the illogical character of monarchi 
 cal power. For myself, I wish that the saving influence of the prin 
 ciples upon which we act, upon which we depend, and to which we are 
 forever anchored might prevail and control other peoples ; but, never 
 theless, I believe that when we assume an obligation, whether it be 
 expressed or implied, when we send a representative to a foreign gov 
 ernment we disgrace ourselves if we decline to act bona fide, or fail 
 to remain absolutely free of entanglements with enemies or revolution 
 ists plotting against that government. If its character is not such as 
 will permit us to consistently maintain relations, then we should with 
 draw from the distasteful contact. 
 
 We must not appear in history in a dual character and should not 
 
226 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 under any contingency excuse ourselves by the pretense that the 
 Queen " is no good anyhow." If this Queen was good enough to 
 induce the sending of Mr. Stevens to her court, if she was virtuous 
 enough to warrant his presentation to her, and if she was meritorious 
 enough to be received and saluted by our naval officers and our ves 
 sels of war just as any other foreign potentate, then she was great 
 enough to be treated with candor and fairness. 
 
 I draw, as I said before, no distinction as to the duty of our min 
 ister in favor of a powerful state as contrasted with the case of a 
 weaker nation. My preferences I will express elsewhere^ but if I 
 proceed as minister to a friendly power I will remain faithful to my 
 trust or decline employment for which I am not competent. 
 
 In the Mexican case we studiously refused to interfere. We 
 accorded belligerent rights to both disputants. The letter which I 
 read at length from Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton, the Senator will see, 
 covers the subject. There is no question that we sympathized with 
 the South American republics they were indeed republics springing 
 from the popular will but we waited for seven years before we 
 recognized their independence, although they had won absolute free 
 dom although during nearly all that time they had been completely 
 removed, so far as the administration of their affairs was concerned, 
 from the mother country. But Mr. Stevens did not wait seven min 
 utes or seven seconds, but he recognized the Provisional Government 
 before the Queen had been dethroned, and without any proof of popu 
 lar acquiescence and without the pretense of necessity. 
 
 I see nothing in the statement of my friend which in any way 
 relieves the situation so far as Mr. Stevens and his aiders and abettors 
 are concerned. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. With the permission of the Senator who desires 
 to take the floor, I will read the exact language of Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. I have read it two or three times. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. And I think the Senator will see that I am per 
 fectly correct. Our minister was Mr. Rush. Few men of greater 
 accomplishments have ever represented this country abroad than Mr. 
 Rush; everybody understands that. We had two great men dealing 
 with the subject, one as minister and the other as Secretary of State. 
 Mr. Buchanan, in writing to Mr. Rush, says : 
 
 It was right and proper that the envoy extraordinary and minister pleni 
 potentiary from the United States should be the first to recognize, so far as his 
 powers extended, the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Indeed, 
 had the representative of any other nation preceded you in this good work, it 
 would have been regretted by the President. 
 
 He was to be prompt. Then Mr. Buchanan goes on to say what 
 I shall not read, for I do not wish to take up time, but he says substan 
 tially we recognize no difference between a de facto and de jure gov 
 ernment. The Senator said that he did not ; and so I shall not waste 
 any time on that point. 
 
 What does President Polk say in his special message of April 3, 
 1848? I read it: 
 
 The prompt recognition of the new Government by the representative of 
 the United States at the French court meets my full and unqualified approba 
 tion, and he has been authorized in a suitable manner to make known this 
 fact to the constituted authorities of the French Republic. Called upon to act 
 upon a sudden emergency, which could not have been anticipated by his instruc- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 227 
 
 tions, he judged rightly by the feelings and sentiments of his Government and 
 of his countrymen, when, in advance of the diplomatic representatives of other 
 countries, he was the first to recognize, so far as it was in his power, the free 
 government established by the French people. 
 
 Mr. President, for the first time in my life I have heard the 
 declaration that the representative of this Government going to 
 another owed some fealty to the Government to which he was accred 
 ited. I beg the Senator to understand that that is not good law. Mr. 
 Stevens was under no obligation of fealty to the Queen of Hawaii. 
 He was our representative, and not hers, and he could do with prompt 
 ness just what Mr. Rush did in the affair in France. There is no 
 moral turpitude in a man who is accredited to a government, recog 
 nizing the destruction of that government, but the Senator himself 
 admitted in his argument that a minister was under no obligation to 
 assist in preserving it. I admit that he was not authorized by inter 
 national law to assist in destroying it. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. That is what I say. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. But if he should assist in destroying it, I say 
 the doctrine laid down by international writers everywhere, as I said 
 the other day, has been that vice does not follow the government. It 
 was so laid down by Mr. Buchanan ; it has been so laid down by all 
 our writers on international law, and by a number of our Secretaries of 
 State. 
 
 We do not concern ourselves, said Mr. Buchanan in speaking of 
 another case, about the legality of the organization. Does it exist, is 
 all we inquire. That is all we have a right to inquire. If we get back 
 to the proposition, which I think is the only one, it is this : The Presi 
 dent of the United States said he thought it was his duty to destroy the 
 Provisional Government and put the Queen back on the throne, and 
 the Senator from California says he thinks it was the duty of the 
 President to do so. 
 
 The President has devolved that duty upon Congress. The con 
 clusion would have been, if the Senator had not disclaimed it, that the 
 Senator believes that the duty is now devolved upon us, because he 
 has not told us when that ceased to be our duty, if it was the duty of 
 the President. The Senator will not claim that it is our duty now to 
 destroy the existing Government ; he will not declare that, because he 
 knows that American sentiment will not tolerate it. 
 
 I have gone into no discussion of this case heretofore as to the 
 action of the President, and I do not intend to do so now. I have 
 no criticism to make on it, because criticism is not of any profit in this 
 condition of things. I have not examined I do not mean to say 
 that I have not studied the question but I mean I have not dis 
 cussed the question of what Mr. Stevens did. Admit that everything 
 he did was wrong; admit that the President was right, if you choose, 
 on the one side, or admit on the other, that he was wrong, the question 
 presented is, what are we to do? The matter has been remitted to us. 
 
 Shall we go on and carry out what the President attempted to 
 accomplish and failed, or shall we say " here is a government existing, 
 no matter how it came into existence, it has been in existence a year 
 and we will recognize it," leaving the question of annexation or non- 
 annexation to be determined afterwards by those of us who believe 
 in annexation, and are in favor of it, and those who do not believe 
 in it and are against it. 
 
228 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 The practical question is, are we going to keep those people in 
 turmoil? Are we going to keep a minister there who occupies an 
 attitude of semi-hostility to them, as I have no doubt the minister 
 believes it is his duty to maintain, until we shall declare in some 
 authoritative manner that we disagree with the views which the Presi 
 dent entertained at the time he sent the minister out or sent him the 
 instructions under which he is still acting? 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. There are some people, Mr. Presi 
 dent, who think that the king can do no wrong; there are some Sena 
 tors who believe that the President can do no right. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I do not. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. President, my friend from 
 Colorado states a proposition of law which is very nearly right. If 
 he would make it just right, we should not have any dispute about this 
 matter ; but he changes it a little unwittingly, I think. Of course, his 
 views may be accurate and mine otherwise, but I am speaking of the 
 subject from my standpoint. 
 
 The French case furnishes an instance where our minister recog 
 nized a republic. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. No, a provisional government. It was not a 
 republic then, but became a republic afterward. 
 
 Mr. WHITE of California. It was a pretty good republic then, 
 as the Senator will perceive if he will read the whole of the message 
 from which he has quoted, and a republic erected under circumstances 
 widely different from those attending the formation of the Dole organ 
 ization. Our minister recognized it not because he had any power 
 to do, but merely as a suggestion to our Executive, and Mr. Buchan 
 an s recital is plainly and clearly in ratification of his act. The min 
 ister had no power to recognize. If the home Government had not 
 seen fit to ratify, his act would have been utterly nugatory from its 
 inception. There was no authority of the sort vested in him. I said 
 before, and repeat now, that when a change of Government occurs 
 there is nothing to inhibit a minister making his recommendation, and 
 in so acting then and there as to protect the interests of his country 
 men then and there, he is always taking the chance of ratification. 
 He acts, in diplomatic phrase, " in the hope of ratification." I have 
 never said anything else, and the Senator s argument, as I said before, 
 in no manner detracts from what I have uttered. In the French 
 instance the minister s conduct and anticipations were justified by the 
 facts. It was otherwise with Mr. Stevens. 
 
 I am complaining of Mr. Stevens, not merely because he assumed 
 to treat a new organization as a government, but because his conduct, 
 taking it in view of what occurred, was wholly without warrant. My 
 compTaint is based upon the proposition that he recognized that as a 
 de facto government which was no government at all, and that his 
 recognition was simply an approval of that which he had done himself. 
 " I am proud of my work " was the proper construction of his message 
 of recognition. 
 
 I have further criticised him for raising up our flag and assuming 
 that sovereignty which his superiors plainly told him subsequently 
 he had no right to do. 
 
 I further repeat that the question of the integrity of a governor, 
 of a queen or a king, or the enlightened, virtuous, or stable character 
 of everyone connected with a recognized power or the want of these 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 229 
 
 traits does not alter the duty of a minister to treat those as friendly 
 whom his country declares to be so. He can not recognize a govern 
 ment unless the law warrants him in doing so. He is not empowered 
 to select rulers for other peoples. 
 
 We are glad to note the spread of democratic ideas. It is true, 
 as the Senator has said, that we always hail with satisfaction the 
 establishment of a republic, and we look with regret upon monarchical 
 success, but nothing will absolve our diplomatic officer from doing 
 his duty as a straightforward and sincere man. 
 
 I know, and I trust the Senator is aware of the fact that I know, 
 that our minister owes no fealty to a foreign potentate. I have never 
 so intimated. I understand this, but when that minister enters into 
 the presence of a foreign potentate as our envoy, represented to be 
 trustworthy, and worthy of confidence and regard, it is his obligation, 
 to be decent and to let conspiracies and conspirators whether right 
 or wrong severely alone. If Mr. Stevens seized a book and threw 
 it at the head of the Queen when he first appeared before her, it might 
 emphasize the fact that he believed as does the Senator from Colorado, 
 but it would not be proper. In his contact with a foreign court the 
 minister must deport himself as a gentleman, not only in private inter 
 course, but also in his diplomatic relations, and by that phrase I mean 
 not merely his manner of address, but his entire conduct. This he 
 must do out of respect for his own countrymen. 
 
 As Mr. Stevens came to Queen Liliuokalani with the letter of 
 credence already mentioned, directed to her as the " great and good 
 friend " of the President of the United States, as long as he bore 
 that assurance of our Government s regard, declaring him to be 
 worthy of the Queen s confidence, and used it to gain admission to her 
 presence and her home, it was at least his province as an American, 
 not because he owed fealty to her, but because he owed fealty here, 
 to abstain from the commission of acts hostile to her and her people. 
 He should have acted toward her as he would have acted toward any 
 other monarch, or any other power whether great or small, strong or 
 weak, both publicly and in private. His character as a minister should 
 have absorbed his personality. 
 
MARITIME CANAL COMPANY OF NICARAGUA 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Thursday, January 24, 1895. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 1481) to amend the act 
 entitled " An act to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua," 
 approved February 20, 1889 
 
 Mr. WHITE said : 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT : In discussing the provisions of the pending bill 
 I shall not attempt to go minutely into the details of the measure, but 
 will assume that those subjects which have been carefully considered 
 pro and con are thoroughly understood by the Senate and the country 
 and need little, if any elaboration. Nevertheless, it will be impossible 
 to avoid repetition, perhaps, and it will be requisite to refer to various 
 topics which have attracted the attention of different Senators who 
 have spoken. 
 
 In my judgment this bill should receive our approval and should 
 be enacted. I shall attempt to convince the Senate that we have 
 the authority to act as proposed, and that the various provisions of 
 the Constitution which pertain to the matter confer upon the legisla 
 tive department of the Government the right so to do. I shall then 
 attempt to answer some of the objections which have been made, 
 and to correct some misconceptions which have misled certain Sen 
 ators who have heretofore addressed us. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
 
 I will briefly allude to a few of the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States which appear to me to bear upon the 
 side of the question, and I will primarily direct the Senate s attention 
 to their consideration. 
 
 Doubts have been expressed more than once in this debate as to 
 the constitutional power of Congress to carry out the plan outlined 
 in the pending bill. Whatever may have been the contention in the 
 earlier history of the Republic with reference to an exceedingly 
 strict construction of the organic law, it is at this date obvious that 
 all parties have been voluntarily placed in such a position that they 
 can not consistently advocate a narrow interpretation. Even Jeffer 
 son was supposed to have stretched the subject when he carried out 
 his annexation project; but his successors never deemed it essential 
 to procure any other ratification of his acts than that which followed 
 acquiescence. 
 
 I believe that we have jurisdiction to pass this bill under the 
 commerce and common-defense clauses, and because of the conceded 
 plenary authority of the Federal Government over matters of inter 
 national concern. The distinguished Senator from Indiana and 
 others have urged that this is a Government of enumerated powers, 
 
 230 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 231 
 
 and that unless something can be pointed out in the Constitution 
 which gives the authority here claimed we can not act. This I 
 readily concede; but I also invoke another rule equally well estab 
 lished, namely, that the power when delegated is complete in itself, 
 with no other limit than that prescribed. It was so held at an early 
 date by the Supreme Court of the United States in decisions which 
 have ever since been followed. 
 
 In Gilman vs. Philadelphia^ 3 Wall., 731, it was said: 
 
 Within the sphere of their authority both the legislative and judicial powers 
 of the nation are supreme. A different doctrine finds no warrant in the Consti 
 tution and is abnormal and revolutionary. 
 
 The commerce clause has always been very liberally interpreted. 
 In Pensacola Telegraph Company vs. Western Union Telegraph 
 Company, 96 U. $., 9, we find the doctrine stated thus : 
 
 Since the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden (9 Wheat., i) it has never been 
 doubted that commercial intercourse is an element of commerce which comes 
 within the regulating power of Congress. Post-offices and post-roads are estab 
 lished to facilitate the transmission of intelligence. Both commerce and the 
 postal service are placed within the power of Congress, because, being national 
 in their operation, they should be under the protecting care of the National 
 Government. The powers thus granted are not confined to the instrumentalities 
 of commerce, or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was 
 adopted, but they keep pace with the progress of the country and adapt them 
 selves to the new developments of time and circumstances. They extend from 
 the horse with its rider to the stagecoach, from the sailing vessel to the steam 
 boat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad 
 to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet 
 the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the 
 government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all cir 
 cumstances. 
 
 In Kidd vs. Parsons (128 U. S., 20) Justice Lamar says: 
 
 The buying and selling and the transportation incident thereto constitute 
 commerce ; and the regulation of commerce in the constitutional sense embraces 
 the regulation at least of such transportation. The legal definition of the term 
 as given by this court in County of Mobile vs. Kimball (120 U. S., 702) is as 
 follows : " Commerce with foreign countries and among the States, strictly con 
 sidered, consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation 
 and the transportation and transit of persons and property as well as the pur 
 chase, sale, and exchange of commodities." 
 
 It being conceded that Congress has the power to improve rivers 
 and harbors and to make canals within the United States because the 
 commerce clause declares that Congress shall have power to regulate 
 commerce among the several States, etc., does it not follow that Con 
 gress is authorized to improve ways of commerce abroad in view 
 of the fact that the same provision of the Constitution ordains the 
 existence of the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations? 
 If we can dig a canal in order to more effectively regulate com 
 merce among the States, it is not perceived why we can not dig a 
 canal in Nicaragua in order to beneficially regulate our foreign com 
 merce. If the United States is in reality a nation, and Chief Justice 
 Marshall so emphatically declared in the Cohens case; it is not easy 
 to see why the gentlemen who are upon the other side of this question 
 insist upon our impotency to act abroad. I do not think that we are 
 restricted, cooped up, to the extent claimed by some of my friends 
 upon this floor. I do not believe in a hobbled nationality, and do not 
 think the Constitution conferred less than sovereign power upon the 
 
232 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 United States Government when acting upon foreign questions or 
 upon matters confided without specified restrictions to national 
 keeping. 
 
 In Cherokee Nation vs. Kansas Railway Company (135 U. S. 
 658) it is said: 
 
 The power to construct or to authorize individuals or corporations to construct 
 national highways and bridges from State to State is essential to the complete 
 control and regulation of interstate commerce. Without authority in Congress to 
 establish and maintain such highways and bridges it would be without authority 
 to regulate one of the most important adjuncts of commerce. Of course, the 
 authority of Congress over the Territories of the United States and its power 
 to grant franchises exercisable therein are, and ever have been, undoubted. But 
 the wider power was very freely exercised and much to the general satisfaction 
 in the creation of the vast system of railroads connecting the East with the 
 Pacific, traversing States as well as Territories and employing the agency of 
 State as well as Federal corporations. 
 
 In the present instance Congress proposes to employ the "agency 
 or agencies mentioned in the bill. If such agencies may be employed 
 and such powers delegated under the commerce clause because it 
 confers jurisdiction to regulate " among the States," why can not 
 similar instrumentalities be utilized in the present instance in order 
 to " regulate foreign commerce ? " 
 
 I am aware that Senators have argued that we must acquire the 
 territory through which the canal runs before we can build it; that 
 we have no jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce, except where 
 we have the absolute sovereignty. Whence comes this limitation? 
 Not from the Constitution. It is not denied that we may legally 
 appropriate money to remove a rock in mid-ocean to which there is 
 no claimant, and which endangers our trade, but it is averred that 
 we are not permitted to remove such an obstruction if it belongs 
 to a foreign government, although that government consents, and, in 
 fact, invites us to do so. This may be good law, but I will not 
 believe it until the Supreme Court so declares. This restriction is a 
 stranger to the organic instrument. 
 
 The eighteenth subdivision of section 8 of Article I of the Con 
 stitution ordains that 
 
 The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary 
 and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other 
 powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or 
 in any department or officer thereof. 
 
 Hence, I take it that if this bill be necessary and proper for 
 carrying into execution the power to regulate commerce with foreign 
 nations it may be lawfully enacted. 
 
 I can not understand the line of reasoning which concludes that 
 " regulate " is of less force when applied to foreign nations than 
 when made applicable to the Indian tribes or the several States. 
 
 The eighteenth subdivision of section 8, above quoted, has been 
 held to be a direct authority for the exercise of all necessary, inci 
 dental, or implied power to enable Congress to carry out the great 
 provisions of the Constitution. It is not a limitation upon its powers, 
 but an enlargement thereof. (McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 
 421 ; Anderson vs. Dunn, 6 Wheat., 204; U. S. vs. Harris, 106 U. S., 
 629; Tennessee vs. Davis, iocfU. S. 257.) 
 
 But we are not even compelled to rely upon that part of the 
 commerce clause which refers to our right to regulate .foreign com- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 233 
 
 rnerce. It is undoubtedly important that there should be cheap and 
 short communication between that portion of the Union which is 
 upon the Pacific Coast and the Atlantic Seaboard of the nation. If 
 the Nicaragua Canal is opened and vessels ply between New York 
 and San Francisco carrying on domestic commerce between these 
 parts of the Republic, will it not be commerce among the States ? 
 I am aware that some Senators hold that commerce among the 
 States can not be carried on outside of national lines. This I consider 
 a peculiar doctrine, to say the least. If a vessel, going from San 
 Francisco to Puget Sound, shall pass beyond the jurisdiction of the 
 United States before reaching her destination, I can not think that 
 this fact will affect the question. If I send a thousand bags of wool 
 from San Francisco to Boston by rail, I presume it will be said that 
 this is carrying on commerce among the States, and if I send a similar 
 amount of the same commodity by water to the same point, some of 
 my friends would have me believe that this is not commerce among 
 the States. These distinctions are, to say the least, fine spun. They 
 find no warrant, I think, in the Constitution, and I am assured that 
 no court in this age of progress, development, and necessity will 
 impose upon the country any such strained and forced interpretation. 
 In Gibbons vs. Ogden (9 Wheat., 189) Chief Justice Marshall 
 said : 
 
 The words are : " Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with 
 foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes." The 
 subject to be regulated is commerce; and our Constitution being, as was aptly 
 said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent 
 of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. The coun 
 sel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the inter 
 change of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This 
 would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significa 
 tions. Commerce undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more; it is inter 
 course. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations and parts of 
 nations in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on 
 that intercourse. 
 
 In regulating commerce with foreign nations the power of Congress does 
 not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. It would be a very use 
 less power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States 
 with foreign nations is that of the whole United States. (Id., 195.) 
 
 If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though lim 
 ited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce 
 with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as 
 absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the 
 same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution 
 of the United States. The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity 
 with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, 
 are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, 
 the sole restraints on which they have relied to secure them from its abuse. 
 They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all repre 
 sentative governments. (Id., 197.) 
 
 We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are lim 
 ited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound con 
 struction of the Constitution must allow to the National Legislature that dis 
 cretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be 
 carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties 
 assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legili 
 mate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution and all means which are 
 appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but 
 consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. (Mc- 
 Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 421.) 
 
 As illustrative of the correctness of this construction, Marshall 
 16 
 
234 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 pointed out the fact that almost the whole penal code of the United 
 States is valid, not because of direct authority, although the Con 
 stitution does give authority expressly in some cases, such as counter 
 feiting, piracies, and offenses against the laws of nations, etc. So, 
 also, from the power to establish post-offices and post-roads has been 
 inferred the power of carrying the mail and punishing robbery of 
 mails, etc. 
 
 Another most important rule is that 
 
 It is not indispensable to the existence of any power claimed for the Fed 
 eral Government that it can be * * * clearly and directly traceable to some 
 one of the specified powers. Its existence may be deduced fairly from more 
 than one of the substantive powers, expressly defined, or from them all com 
 bined. It is allowable to group together any number of them and infer from 
 them all that the power claimed has been conferred. (Legal Tender Cases, 12 
 Wall., 534; see also Julliard vs. Greenman, no U. S-, 449-) 
 
 Thus in the present instance it is enough, if taking the com 
 merce clause, the authority to provide for the common defense and 
 the other expressed and implied powers conferred, the jurisdiction 
 can be found. 
 
 It is scarcely worth while at this time to attack those decisions. 
 The people of the United States, directly cognizant of the view taken 
 by their highest appellate tribunal, have for years refrained from 
 any organic amendment touching this subject, and no serious attempt 
 has been made to defeat this construction by constitutional pro 
 hibition. This is, therefore, the accepted view, whatever individuals 
 may think about it, and it is not likely that it will ever be seriously 
 reassailed. 
 
 It seems to me that there can be no doubt of the power of Con 
 gress to build this canal, because of its effect upon international 
 relations. There are a number of decisions unholding the right to. 
 annex territory and expel aliens, which are grounded upon the theory 
 of the unlimited power of Congress with reference to international 
 matters. (Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S. 604; Jones vs. U. S., 
 137 U. S., 212; Nishimura Ekiu vs. U. S., 142 U. S., 659; Fong 
 Yue Ting vs. U. S., 149 U. S., 705.) 
 
 In the Chinese exclusion case (130 U. S., 604) Justice Field 
 quoted with approval the language of the Supreme Court in Cohens 
 vs. Virginia (6 Wheat., 413), as follows: 
 
 That the United States form, for many and for most important purposes, a 
 single nation, has not yet been denied. In war we are one people. In making 
 peace we are one people. In all commercial regulations we are one and the 
 same people. In many other .respects the American people are one, and the 
 Government, which is alone capable of controlling and managing their inter 
 ests in all these respects, is the Government of the Union. It is their Govern 
 ment, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in 
 many respects and to many purposes, a nation ; and for all these purposes her 
 government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have 
 declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. 
 
 In speaking of the necessity for practically unlimited power in 
 matters affecting the public peace, Mr. Madison says, in the forty- 
 first number of the Federalist, Hamilton s edition : 
 
 With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be lim 
 ited by those who can not limit the force of offense? If a Federal Constitution 
 could chain the ambition or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, 
 then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own Government and 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 235 
 
 set bounds to the exertions for its own safety. How could a readiness for war 
 in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, 
 the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation ; the means of secur 
 ity can only be regulated by the means and danger of attack. They will, in fact, 
 be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose 
 constitutional barriers to the impulse of self preservation. It is worse than in 
 vain ; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, 
 every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary" and multiplied repetitions. 
 
 I think it is obvious from the decisions above mentioned, as 
 well as from the inherent demands of the case, that full rights of 
 sovereignty in foreign relations are necessarily implied from the pro 
 visions of the Constitution itself. If I believe, as I do believe, that 
 the construction of this canal will regulate our foreign commerce, 
 also commerce among the States, and if I believe, as I do believe, 
 that for the security and safety of the Republic it is wise that this 
 canal should be built, and that its construction will tend to benefit us 
 in our international relations, I am then authorized to advocate the 
 measure, as far as the Constitution is concerned. I do not care to 
 rest my support upon the construction placed by some upon the 
 general-welfare clause. I think that certain opinions here uttered 
 regarding that provision are rather broader than mine. But I feel 
 confident that this bill, if it becomes a law, will stand the judicial test. 
 I know that it is usual to declare that any important measure that 
 does not accord with the particular constitution of the individual 
 criticising it is violative of the Constitution of the United States. 
 I might add that Congress has the power, as I have said, to bring 
 about the construction of this canal by whatever means it may deem 
 to be best. Having the authority to build it, it may delegate the same 
 or may assist to execute the work. The extent and mode of the 
 control to be asserted and maintained are not matters of jurisdiction, 
 but rest in the sound and indisputable discretion of the lawmaking 
 power. 
 
 It is perhaps well to call attention to the fact that the power to 
 make internal improvements, such as the old Cumberland road, mod 
 ern railroads, canals, etc., rests upon the commerce clause of the 
 Constitution. (Pac. R. Co., Removal Cases, 115 U. S., 18; Califor 
 nia vs. Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S., 39; Monongahela N. Co. vs. U. S. f 
 148 U. S. 335-) 
 
 I think it plain that Congress has authority in times of peace, 
 not only to prepare for war, but to so act as to prevent war. If the 
 Nicaragua Canal, built as we propose to build it, will give us addi 
 tional security, and of this there can be no reasonable doubt, we 
 have power to use such instrumentalities as we think are desirable. 
 I can not bring myself to think that there is anything in the claim 
 that our international rights are not to be invoked for the reason that 
 we are the stockholders in this enterprise. The proposition made in 
 the bill virtually brings us into relationship with other nations. One 
 objection sometimes urged is that we will become involved in foreign 
 entanglements ; that we will have trouble with Great Britain, or that 
 there will be disputes between ourselves, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica; 
 and still we are informed that the taking of stock domesticates the 
 entire affair. 
 
 Mr. President, a distinguished Senator who spoke upon this 
 subject stated that the Constitution, so far as it seeks to regulate 
 commerce among the States, can not apply, because in passing from 
 
236 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Coast or from the Pacific Coast 
 to the Atlantic seaboard, a vessel is for the major part of the voyage 
 without the jurisdiction of the United States, and within that of 
 foreign governments. The same Senator stated that for the same 
 reason Congress may not, even with the consent of the intervening 
 territorial proprietor, construct a railroad from the United States to 
 Alaska; that because the British possessions separate these parts 
 of the United States there can not as to such removed jurisdictions be 
 4< commerce among- the States." 
 
 Mr. President, if this be true, then, if Alaska shall ever be 
 admitted into the Union, she will not have the benefit of the com 
 merce clause regarding the regulation of commerce among the States. 
 
 If there must be contiguity of the territory of States, if there 
 must be adjacent States in order to have commerce " among the 
 States," clearly as to Alaska, separated as it is, there never could be 
 such commerce, and hence that portion of the United States, were 
 it a State, would have no advantage whatever from this provision of 
 the organic instrument. 
 
 Again, in order to bring a State formed from Alaska within the 
 clause under immediate consideration, we would only find it neces 
 sary to purchase a strip a few inches in width, running from the 
 United States to Alaska, and erect upon it a telegraph line, in order 
 to at once alter the situation and bring Alaska within the commerce 
 features of our Constitution. 
 
 I do not propose to say that any argument is wholly unfounded. 
 I do not undertake to criticise any Senator for what he may have 
 stated as mere opinion, but I fail to see how it can be logically main 
 tained that any such doctrine as that above stated was ever entertained, 
 or laid down, or considered, or even thought of by the framers of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 I think that if the State of California, the State of Oregon, and 
 the State of Washington see fit to send their goods and wares to 
 other portions of the United States it is no less commerce " among 
 the States " because a waterway instead of a railway is utilized. 
 This is an important question, for great is the commerce which 
 traverses the ocean between the eastern and western coasts of our 
 country. 
 
 It will be unfortunate indeed if it shall appear to this Govern 
 ment that there is no authority to bring about the construction of 
 this canal, which every Senator admits is desirable and which all 
 concede will promote our interests. While there have been inci 
 dental expressions of doubt as to the magnitude of the benefit to be 
 conferred, I take it that the consensus of opinion is that if the canal 
 can be built it should be built. It would seem, in view of the 
 remarks which have been made here in attempted or actual elucida 
 tion of this subject, that there can be no substantial dispute as to 
 this conclusion. The great saving in transportation as shown by 
 the often-cited table of distances is itself most suggestive as a com 
 mercial argument. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 237 
 
 Table showing distances in miles between commercial ports of the world and 
 distances saved by the Nicaragua Canal. 
 
 From 
 
 Via 
 Cape 
 Horn. 
 
 Via Cape 
 of Good 
 Hope. 
 
 Via 
 Nicara 
 gua 
 Canal. 
 
 Distance 
 saved 
 
 New York to 
 San Francisco 
 
 Miles. 
 14,840 
 17,921 
 16,105 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Miles. 
 4,946 
 8,026 
 6,209 
 3,122 
 3,682 
 11,038 
 9,363 
 10,000 
 8,680 
 6,388 
 3,701 
 3,053 
 4,688 
 
 4,047 
 2,409 
 2,969 
 2,340 
 2,988 
 3,987 
 
 7,694 
 
 5,870 
 6,430 
 12,748 
 11,349 
 13,786 
 12,111 
 5,890 
 6,449 
 7,436 
 9,136 
 13,520 
 13,887 
 
 6,880 
 6,320 
 5,530 
 5,515 
 
 Miles. 
 9,894 
 9,895 
 9,896 
 9,949 
 9,949 
 4,163 
 6,827 
 3,290 
 3,870 
 7,842 
 6,988 
 8,418 
 5,062 
 
 11,005 
 10,874 
 10,874 
 9,343 
 7,913 
 5,975 
 
 6,996 
 7,051 
 7,051 
 392 
 1,051 
 1,265 
 3,929 
 5,431 
 4,090 
 2,144 
 4,944 
 431 
 1,314 
 
 7,051 
 7,051 
 5,900 
 5,605 
 
 Bering Strait 
 
 
 Sitka 
 
 
 Acapulco ... 
 
 13,071 
 13,631 
 18,180 
 17,679 
 13,502 
 12,550 
 14,230 
 10,689 
 
 
 Mfizatlan . . . . 
 
 
 Hongkong 
 
 15,201 
 16,190 
 13,290 
 14,125 
 
 Yokohama 
 
 Melbourne 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Sandwich Islands 
 
 Callao 
 
 
 Guay aci uil 
 
 11,471 
 9,750 
 
 
 
 
 New Orleans to 
 
 15,052 
 
 
 
 13,283 
 
 
 Mazatl&n 
 
 13,843 
 
 
 Guayaquil 
 
 11,683 
 
 
 Callao 
 
 10,901 
 
 
 Valparaiso 
 
 9,962 
 
 
 Liverpool to 
 
 14,690 
 
 
 
 12,921 
 
 
 Mazatlan . 
 
 13,481 
 13,352 
 12,400 
 18,030 
 17,529 
 11,321 
 
 
 Melbourne 
 
 13,140 
 13,975 
 15,051 
 16,040 
 
 New Zealand 
 
 Hongkong 
 
 Yokohama 
 
 Guayaquil 
 
 Callao .... 
 
 10,539 
 
 
 
 9,600 
 
 
 Sandwich Islands 
 
 14,080 
 
 
 Spain to Manila 
 
 16,900 
 17,750 
 
 13,931 
 
 13,951 
 15,201 
 
 
 Hamburg to 
 Mazatlan 
 
 Acapulco 
 
 13,371 
 11,430 
 11,120 
 
 
 Fonseca 
 
 
 Punta Arenas Costa Rica 
 
 
 
 
 To eastern 
 
 S r n a C g e ua f 
 Canal. 
 
 To western 
 entrance of 
 Nicaragua 
 Canal. 
 
 Miles. 
 New York 2 021 Sa 
 
 n Franci 
 ilparaiso 
 
 ,1 1 ao . . . 
 
 SCO 
 
 Miles. 
 2,776 
 2,518 
 1,531 
 3,219 
 3,428 
 
 Liverpool 4,769 V< 
 
 
 Hamburg 5 219 Ca 
 
 
 Amsterdam 4,994 Portland 
 
 Havre . 4,874 Victoria 
 
 Cadiz 4,220 
 
 
 New Orleans 1,308 
 
 NOTE. The distances are measured by customary routes most convenient 
 for sailing ehips and slow freight steamers. 
 
238 
 
 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 As tending to show the business which awaits the construction 
 of this canal, I find in the report before the Senate a partial state 
 ment of transcontinental railroad traffic in 1890 from California, 
 where it is said that that State exported from the port of San Fran 
 cisco 148,446,150 pounds of canned and dried fruits, including raisins, 
 1,623,867 cases of canned salmon, 4,500,000 gallons of wines and 
 brandy, 5,734,120 pounds of hops, and 22,662,000 pounds of wool, 
 fully 90 per cent, of which was transported by rail across the con 
 tinent. Portland, Seattle, Tacoma and other cities were also large 
 exporters of like commodities. Quantities of shingles were shipped 
 from Puget Sound, and all the places named were large importers 
 of provisions by railroad. At a moderate estimate this business 
 amounted to 250,000 tons ; total 6,812,340 tons. The total referred 
 to includes the vast freight enumerated on page 30 of the report and 
 described as coming from the various sources therein set out. 
 
 The California production in 1894, as far as gathered, indicates 
 better business than that estimated by the promoters of the canal. 
 
 The following is a partial statement of the same: 
 
 Article. 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Per Ton. 
 
 Freight 
 charges. 
 
 Green fruits 
 
 85 000 
 
 $20 00 
 
 $1,700 000 
 
 Dried fruits . 
 
 45 000 
 
 20 00 
 
 900,000 
 
 Raisins ... . . . . 
 
 41 000 
 
 20 00 
 
 820,000 
 
 Canned goods 
 
 41 000 
 
 20.00 
 
 820,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ao gregatingf. . . 
 
 212 000 
 
 
 4,240,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 We can assume that the crop of the current year will be the 
 same, and it surely will not be less, and we will have in addition, 
 as now estimated, about 2,000,000 boxes of oranges, which will pay 
 freight at the prevailing rates to the extent of about $1,100,000. 
 
 The foregoing figures do not include over 800,000 gallons of 
 brandy shipped in 1894, more than one-half of which went by rail ; 
 nor does it touch the great wheat crop of California, which will 
 furnish for the coming year over 20,000,000 bushels for exportation ; 
 nor does it include about 25,000,000 pounds of wool, quicksilver, 
 barley, oats, flour, hops, and various products of great value and 
 quantity not enumerated. Besides there are other industries, such as 
 dairying, but imperfectly developed, and which will have a great 
 future if transportation be cheapened. But it is certain that our 
 fruit growers will save not less than $2,000,000 per year if the canal 
 is built, and production will be stimulated to such an extent that the 
 railroad companies can afford to carry our products at one-half the 
 present rates. If not, the more reasonable route will always be 
 adopted. The producer will in most cases be able to avail himself 
 of the advantages of the canal. 
 
 There are probably perishable articles certain fruits, which 
 must be sent to market rapidly, and concerning which it is likely 
 the railroad will always be preferred. Californians have been able 
 to send with some success green fruits to New York by rail and 
 thence to London by steamer, and I see no difficulty in shipping even 
 green fruits, with few exceptions, through the canal to the New 
 York market. Ordinarily three weeks are consumed in transporting 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 239 
 
 freight by rail from Pacific points to New York. Chicago will con 
 tinue to be supplied by rail, save where enormous charges may lead 
 to water communication up the Mississippi River and through the 
 canal which that great city is now constructing. 
 
 The wheat grower now finds great difficulty in competing with 
 the Argentine, not only, as is supposed by many, because of the 
 cheapness of labor there, but also because of the prolonged voyage 
 necessary to be taken from San Francisco around Cape Horn. This 
 will be partially avoided and we will be better able to compete with 
 that country when our vessels adopt the Nicaragua short cut. Cali 
 fornia will save $2 per ton upon all her exported wheat. These bene 
 fits to which I have referred are not merely local. They will be felt 
 throughout the country, especially along the seaboard ; and although 
 to a less extent, will nevertheless be obvious throughout the interior. 
 Our products will be sold in Eastern markets and everyone inter 
 ested in such trade or in the consumption of the goods will be a 
 beneficiary under the bill. 
 
 You will understand the extravagant freight charges to which 
 the people of California are subject when I tell you that an 8-acre 
 orange crop of a personal friend in Los Angeles County contributed 
 $648 per acre to transportation companies, leaving nothing for the 
 producer, and that this is not an exceptional case will be manifest 
 when I say that many hundred acres of oranges in the same vicinity 
 yielded not a cent to their proprietors but furnished some $240 per 
 acre toward railroad charges. 
 
 It is folly to maintain that an instrumentality which will open 
 improved communication from seaboard to seaboard, which will 
 promote and foster trade between the States, which will facilitate 
 foreign and domestic business intercourse, which will allow the 
 producer to fairly realize, and which will permit the consumer to 
 purchase at a more reasonable figure is not commerce. To say that 
 this is not " commerce among the States " simply because of pre 
 viously existing physical impediments is, it seems to me, to advance 
 a most wonderful doctrine. 
 
 During the tariff debate a Senator remarked that there was 
 danger that the Argentine Confederation would ultimately take the 
 New York wheat and corn market, that it would be possible to ship 
 barley and corn from that portion of the world to New York in com 
 petition with California and the West. Is it not obviously in the 
 interest of New York and of. the millions partially dependent upon 
 her that the wheat and other products of the Pacific should be placed 
 within easier reach? Let us not forget that it is farther from San 
 Francisco via Cape Horn to New York than it is from the former 
 city to Liverpool. Do we reflect that South America, the mighty 
 barrier interposed between us and our commercial realizations, may 
 be entirely ignored ; that nature has placed but a mere neck of land as 
 an obstacle in our path, challenging our genius and enterprise, and 
 has tendered rewards for our successful labor worthy of a civilized 
 age? Are we to stand supinely by inertly comtemplating a great 
 opportunity, or shall we engage in disputation concerning means and 
 methods when we should know that we enjoy not merely the power 
 to act but that the differences between the projects recommended are 
 of immaterial degree? 
 
 Let it be granted that some of the promoters of this enterprise 
 
240 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 may realize more money from it than is reasonable. Assume this 
 to be true. Even then I am not ready to desist. The amount to 
 be paid is not glaringly immoderate. I will not plunge into financial 
 darkness, nor will I, on the other hand, pause in executing an under 
 taking so vitally beneficial to the entire Republic and to civilization 
 because, forsooth, an individual may make two pennies where in 
 fairness he is entitled to but one. 
 
 Mr. President, I find no difficulty, as I have heretofore said, as 
 to our power. While I might and do assert that I would prefer to 
 find our Government in a position to construct the canal and to own 
 it absolutely and wholly, yet I can not hope to impress my views 
 upon all those who are vitally interested in the project and whose 
 acquiescence is a sine qua non to the accomplishment of the enter 
 prise. When I find that this Government controls 70 per cent. is 
 to have in its actual possession and control 70 per cent, of the stock 
 of the enterprise and when I find that we have the right to appoint 
 the directors mentioned, to select them from our own countrymen, 
 if the bill is to be effective, I feel warranted in going forward. If 
 our directors are faithful we can not be defrauded. We must confide 
 in some one. We can not expect to devise any scheme involving 
 the expenditure of money which will not force us to trust to the 
 honesty or integrity of men. Millions of dollars of public money 
 pass through the hands of American citizens and others in the 
 execution of governmental trusts. Sometimes there is a loss. Dis 
 honest men now and then appropriate to their own use that which 
 ought to be devoted to public purposes ; but we do not cease carrying 
 on our Government for that reason; we do not desist from river 
 and harbor improvements because a contractor may get the better 
 of the agreement occasionally. 
 
 Mr. VEST. May I ask the Senator from California a question? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. VEST. How does the Senator dispose of that provision in 
 the concession from Nicaragua which requires that one-half of the 
 directors of the Maritime Canal Company should be projectors and 
 retain their charter as such? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I intended to refer to that later on, but I have 
 no objection to doing so now. Does the Senator refer to the following 
 provision of the concession 
 
 Mr. VEST. There is but one that refers to that question. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I will find it in one moment. 
 
 Mr. VEST. That provision is I do not think I can misquote 
 it - 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I will get it in a moment and read it so that there 
 will be no dispute what it is. It is in the Costa Rica concession. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Nicaragua. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Nicaragua concession is as follows, on page 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 The present concession is transferable only to such company of execution 
 as shall be organized by the Nicaragua Canal Association, and in no case to 
 Governments or to foreign public powers. Nor shall the company cede to any 
 foreign Government any part of the lands granted to it by this contract; but it 
 may make transfers to private parties under the same restriction. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 241 
 
 The Republic of Nicaragua can not transfer its rights or shares by selling 
 them to any Government. 
 
 That is not the provision. 
 
 Mr. VEST. No; that is not it. It is about the directory. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I understand that to which the Senator refers. 
 The Costa Rica concession is worded thus: I read from the Report, 
 page 165: 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 The company shall be organized in the manner and under the conditions 
 generally adopted for such companies. Its principal office shall be either in the 
 city of New York or such place as may be deemed convenient. 
 
 Its first board of directors shall be composed of persons, one-half at least 
 of whom shall be chosen from those members of the Nicaragua Canal Associa 
 tion who were promoters of the enterprise. 
 
 Is that the provision to which the Senator alludes? 
 
 Mr. VEST. That is a part of it. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. That is all of the article. 
 
 Mr. VEST. It is in the Nicaragua concession. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. What is the number of the article the Senator 
 from California has just read? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It is article 9, page 165, of the Costa Rica con 
 cession. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. That is merely a provision for the first board. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. That is the first board. I was about to call 
 attention to that distinction. This may be the provision to which 
 the Senator from Missouri alludes. Article XI of the Nicaragua 
 concession I read: 
 
 ARTICLE XL 
 
 The Government of Nicaragua in its character of shareholder in the com 
 pany of execution, as hereinafter provided, shall have the perpetual right of 
 naming one director, who shall be an. integral part of the board of directors of 
 the company, with all the rights, privileges, and advantages conferred upon them 
 by the statutes of the company, and the laws of the country under which it shall 
 organize. 
 
 The Government shall also have the right in its aforesaid capacity of share 
 holder to take part in such elections as the company may hold. 
 
 But more likely the following is the article to which the Senator 
 has reference: 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 The company shall be organized in the manner and under the conditions 
 generally adopted for such companies. Its principal office shall be in New 
 York, or where it may deem most convenient, and it may have branch offices 
 in the different countries of Europe and America, where it may consider it 
 expedient. 
 
 Its name shall be the " Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua," and its 
 board of directors shall be composed of persons, one-half at least, of them shall 
 be chosen from the promoters who may yet preserve their quality as such. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I call the Senator s attention to the fact that there 
 is nothing like a limitation to the first board of directors in that 
 article. It is a perpetual limitation, and until Nicaragua changes that 
 concession one-half of this board of directors must always be projec 
 tors. The Senator has not read the whole of that provision because 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have read every word of it. 
 
242 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. VEST. One provision there says essentially that they must 
 retain their character as such. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. " Who may yet preserve their quality as such." 
 If they do not preserve their quality, of course it does not apply. 
 
 Mr. VEST. But they must be projectors. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. " Promoters who may yet preserve their quality 
 as such." 
 
 Mr. VEST. Yes. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Now, to begin with, I affirm that that provision 
 is manifestly placed in that contract for the benefit of the promoters 
 themselves. It is not a stipulation vital to the grant. It was not put 
 in there as a matter in which Nicaragua itself had any particular 
 interest, but it was put in for the benefit of the promoters themselves, 
 and may be waived by them. 
 
 Mr. VEST. It is there. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. Now, as showing that the Republic 
 of Costa Rica regarded some of the provisions of this concession as 
 vital and some otherwise, I refer to Article XLVII of the Costa Rica 
 concession to the Nicaragua Canal Company, as follows : 
 
 The present concession shall be forfeited : 
 
 First. Through the failure on the part of the company to comply with 
 any one of the conditions contained in Articles VII, XLII, and XLIII. 
 
 Neither one of which includes the directors qualifications. 
 
 Second. If the service of the canal, after it is completed, is interrupted for 
 six months, unless in case of unforeseen accidents or main force, etc. 
 
 Therefore, when this contract was made the Government making 
 it specified in the concession that which should; be considered adequate 
 to operate as a forfeiture. This is an express limitation. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Will my friend permit me? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I have said nothing about forfeiture. That is 
 another question. But I put this question to the Senator from Cali 
 fornia: Is anybody eligible to be a director, when it comes to making 
 this directory, as to one-half of it, who is not a projector and who does 
 not retain his character as such, leaving out the legal effect as to what 
 would be a forfeiture under that concession ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Unquestionably; I think so. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Is it not absolutely certain that under that provision 
 one-half of this directory shall be projectors? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir ; I do not consider it essential at all. The 
 very language of the article to which the Senator refers states that 
 " one-half at least shall be chosen from the promoters, who may yet 
 preserve their quality as such." 
 
 Mr. VEST. What is meant by preserving their quality? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. If they do not preserve it, if none of the pro 
 moters are there, how are the directors to be obtained? Will the 
 Senator contend that if all die this enterprise will end, though there 
 is nothing in the concession that indicates any intent to terminate it 
 upon the ignoring of that provision, which is plainly a proviso in the 
 interest and for the benefit of the parties who receive the concession? 
 It is not a matter of concerning which these Republics would care or 
 could be heard. 
 
 Mr. President, if there be any difficulty of construction or any 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 243 
 
 valid point in the assertion made by my friend, it should have no 
 effect, because Costa Rica and Nicaragua will not, I am persuaded, 
 regard the restrictions claimed as material, and if this statute is 
 enacted, their participancy in the project, their acceptance of stock 
 issued under the act, will evidence their waiver and acquiescence. 
 Can it be correctly affirmed that if a corporation is formed or reor 
 ganized as provided in this bill, and if Guatemala and Costa Rica 
 accept stock issued under the stipulations therein contained, such 
 action is not a waiver of the right, if right there be, under the con 
 struction contended for by the Senator from Missouri? 
 
 Mr. VEST. Suppose enough of these projectors are living to 
 constitute one-half of the directory and they present themselves as 
 candidates, can anybody else take their place? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. When that bridge is reached we will cross it. 
 We are not seeking to do everything at once. The gentlemen who 
 are opposed to this enterprise would not be able to suit themselves if 
 the whole matter were turned over to them with unlimited power to 
 act. These objections seem to me hypercritical. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. If the Senator from California will allow me, 
 before the Senator from Missouri leaves the Chamber, I should like 
 to ask him a question. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PLATT in the chair). Does 
 the Senator from California yield to the Senator from Alabama? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. In fifty years from now, when all these pro 
 jectors are dead, how are you going to get a board of directors? 
 
 Mr. VEST. I suppose that then nature will have settled that 
 question : but so long as they are living they are bound to hold those 
 places if they want to hold them. 
 
 Mr. W T HITE. The Senator from Missouri is fighting nature; 
 I am not. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I do not propose to put corpses in there ; but if they 
 are alive they are entitled to hold their place as directors. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Senator says if they are alive they are enti 
 tled to have the place. Mr. President, if the promoters of this enter 
 prise shall acquiesce in the plan outlined in this bill and join with us 
 in consummating it, the dangers which the opposition now anticipate 
 will be of no importance. It is admitted that this bill, if enacted 
 into law, can not be fully effective without certain subsequent proceed 
 ings. It is conceded that we must have the participancy of the stock 
 holders and promoters in the execution of the programme which we 
 have outlined. If the promoters of this enterprise and all persons 
 in interest refuse to accept the tender made by us, then realization 
 will be impossible. 
 
 But a conclusive answer, both to the argument of the Senator 
 from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE] and that of the Senator from Missouri 
 [Mr. VEST], is that if the promoters accept this bill, and if the repre 
 sentatives of Nicaragua and Costa Rica take the stock to be issued to 
 them under its limitations, no other ratification is necessary. Such 
 conduct would be conclusive between private parties in any court, and 
 no international tribunal, one organized to arbitrate, would for a 
 moment consider the subject open to the slightest disputation. 
 
 Mr. President, when I was led into this discussion, I was about 
 to refer to some remarks made by the distinguished Senator from 
 Indiana [Mr. TURPIE], whose eloquent and interesting address was 
 
244 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 listened to with so much interest. I understood that Senator to state 
 that under the provisions of section 3 $200,000,000 of liabilities which 
 are outstanding because of a contract with the Nicaragua Construction 
 Company will remain a preferred claim, even as to the United States. 
 I read from section 3 : 
 
 That in consideration of the provisions of this act, and before any bonds 
 are issued under the provisions thereof, all the stock of the Maritime Canal 
 Company of Nicaragua heretofore subscribed for or issued, except as in this 
 act provided, shall be called in, canceled, and restored to the treasury of the 
 company, so that none shall remain outstanding 
 
 I call specific and particular attention to this clause 
 
 all bonds issued by said company and obligations to deliver bonds shall be 
 redeemed and canceled 
 
 The contract with the construction company constitutes an obli 
 gation to deliver bonds, and there is no qualification at all in this 
 section. The absolute cancellation of all such agreements is definitely 
 required. 
 
 But section 3 continues 
 
 all outstanding liabilities of said company shall be satisfied, and all contracts 
 and agreements heretofore made 
 
 Here are the words which are criticised by the learned Senator 
 not consistent with the provisions of this act, shall be canceled. 
 
 And, says the Senator from Indiana, the contract with the con 
 struction company is consistent with the provisions of this act because 
 the canal is to be built under it. But I take it to be palpable, even 
 were we compelled to rest upon this provision alone and, as I shall 
 show, we are not bound so to do that no injury can result because 
 the words " not consistent with the provisions of this act " refer 
 entirely to the concessions made by Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and 
 do not relate to the contract with the construction company. These 
 concessions are obviously consistent with this act, and their retention 
 is essential. All contracts for the issuance of bonds shall be redeemed 
 and canceled, for the bill so declares. But there need be no doubt 
 about this; it is unnecessary to quibble as to the meaning of words. 
 We find on page 18, in section 4, this language: 
 
 Such mortgage shall be so framed as to be valid as a first lien under the 
 laws of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. 
 
 I might here remark that that mortgage, concerning which so 
 much has been said, must be recorded in Nicaragua and Costa Rica 
 under the official sanction of those countries. Will anyone pretend 
 that such action will not constitute a ratification? 
 
 But to this point. I desire to cite section 7, which certainly dis 
 poses of the contention of the Senator from Indiana regarding the 
 priority of the $200,000,000 agreement. 
 
 Sec. 7. That after the passage of this act, and before any bonds indorsed 
 under its provisions are issued, and after the surrender and return to the 
 treasury of the company of all stock that may have been issued, and after 
 the surrender and cancellation of all bonds, bond script, and obligations to 
 issue bonds, the satisfaction of all liabilities of said company and the cancel 
 lation and extinguishment of all contracts and agreements of said company 
 with individuals or corporations, except the concessions from Nicaragua and 
 Costa Rica, but including its contract or agreement with the Nicaragua Canal 
 Construction Company for the construction of the said canal, as is provided 
 for in this act. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 245 
 
 Hence the surrender, the delivery, the cancellation of the contract 
 with the construction company is required in direct and positive terms. 
 This surely disposes of the charge which I have been considering. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to discuss the question of moral turpi 
 tude to which the learned Senator alluded when he said that this 
 Government should not contract with any party or any body of men 
 connected with or responsible for such an obligation as that just 
 named. I know none of the promoters of this enterprise. I am not 
 personally acquainted with one of them. I have even casually seen 
 but one of them. However, I understand that they are fair business 
 men, and there is no evidence reflecting upon their integrity or manly 
 conduct. This bill is so fashioned that if we do not receive honest 
 treatment it will be because of the misconduct and perfidy of our own 
 representatives or the indiscretion of the President of the United 
 States, to whom I understand some Senators are unwilling to delegate 
 such power. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. If it will not interrupt the Senator, I should like 
 to call his attention to a constitutional difficulty which I have. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I yield to the Senator for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. I agree with the Senator that we have the con 
 stitutional power to make this canal as a Government work, providing, 
 of course, that we have the consent of the Governments there. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I understand that. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. I should like to have the Senator s views upon 
 this question : Have we a right to indorse as security the bonds of a 
 corporation for the purpose of raising money to build a canal? My 
 difficulty arises out of this. It is a well-settled principle, as the 
 Senator will recognize, that an agent having power to execute a bond 
 to borrow money for a principal, and having that only, does not have 
 included in that power a right to indorse the paper of another party 
 in order to raise money. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It appears to me that that distinction does not 
 obtain here. I think there are two or three answers to the point made 
 by the Senator. Here, as I have attempted to urge, we have a right 
 to directly construct the canal or to procure its construction in aid of 
 commerce, and I hold that the plan we propose to adopt to procure 
 the opening of the same is legitimate and proper upon the principle 
 that when the authority is conferred b> the Constitution to regulate 
 commerce that delegation includes not merely one method, not merely 
 a direct method, but all incidental means which may be necessary in 
 the judgment of Congress to accomplish the end designed. Having 
 the jurisdiction, the mode of its exercise is a question wholly vested 
 in the legislative department of the Government. The discretion rests 
 there to reach the end by whatever channel may be deemed wise. 
 
 The United States became a surety for certain transcontinental 
 railroads, and, as I stated a moment ago, that act upon the part of the 
 Government has been upheld by the Supreme Court and made to rest 
 wholly upon the commerce clause of the Constitution, not upon any 
 rights conferred because of war or national peril. I repeat, the power 
 to regulate commerce among the States has been decided to grant the 
 authority to take upon our shoulders monetary obligations with refer 
 ence to a domestic corporate enterprise, and I see no limitation in the 
 organic grant with regard to foreign commerce, nor do I find anything 
 in the Constitution restricting the exercise of the subsidy power to our 
 own territorial limits. 
 
246 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. If it will not interrupt the Senator, upon that 
 point I wish to make an inquiry. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. If this Government can build a canal under the 
 power to regulate commerce, could it not also build a railroad? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. If we can build a canal or a railroad, and, I sup 
 pose, any other highway of commerce, in the territory of Nicaragua 
 and Costa Rica, why not anywhere else in the world? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I know not why not. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. Then the contention, as I understand, is that, sub 
 ject to the pleasure of Congress, power is conferred by the Constitu 
 tion to build any highway, railroad, canal, or other similar instrumen 
 tality of commerce anywhere in the known world. Is that the propo 
 sition ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; if in the judgment of Congress such 
 act would regulate our commerce; or it might be done pursuant to 
 other great constitutional powers which are expressly delegated. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. With the consent of the foreign nation. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly the Senator understands that I assume 
 the consent of the foreign nation. I do not assume that we will 
 attempt to proceed by force. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. I take it that is a question of physical power. The 
 consent of the foreign nation has nothing to do with the constitutional 
 power of the United States. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No. I presume we might conquer a foreign 
 nation and build our canal. We could so proceed if we desired. 
 
 Mr. VILAS. Does the Senator think any such proposition as 
 that would have been entertained in the secret chamber where the 
 Constitution was framed a hundred years or more ago? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. My answer to the Senator is that the argument 
 which he brings is that which was overthrown in McCulloch i<s. 
 Maryland, and there the Chief Justice said : 
 
 The wisdom and .the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, 
 and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are in this, as 
 in manv other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole 
 restraints on which they have relied to secure them from its abuse. They are 
 the restraints on which the people must often rely solely in all representative 
 governments. 
 
 Mr. President, there is no question, I think, that when the power 
 is given to Congress to regulate foreign commerce, and to regulate 
 commerce among the States, there is conferred therewith, and as inci 
 dental to it, the right to do everything which may be necessary to com 
 pletely execute such plan of regulation as Congress may see fit to 
 sanction. Congress can not, for the alleged purpose of regulating 
 commerce, do that which upon its face can not conduce to such regula 
 tion. When it is admitted that we may, at home, dig canals, make 
 harbors, and deepen rivers, and when we declare that this is the valid 
 exercise of the right to regulate commerce, can we rationally affirm 
 that to dig a canal in foreign parts is not a regulation of foreign com 
 merce while a similar work in our own country is 3, regulation of 
 domestic commerce or commerce among the States? 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. May I interrupt the Senator from California? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 247 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I inquire of the Senator from California 
 whether he contends that canals can be constructed in foreign territory 
 as a regulation of commerce with foreign nations? Would the Sena 
 tor stop at such an improvement? Light-houses, breakwaters, any 
 work that might facilitate commerce in a foreign territory, under his 
 construction, could be built and maintained by the United States. I 
 want to know whether he would extend his rule as to canals to include 
 every construction that we adopt in this country to facilitate com 
 merce to foreign shores? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I will answer the Senator s question. Even 
 courts of very high character frequently have occasion to say " the 
 question is not now before us;" but I have no objection to answering 
 the question of the Senator, though there may possibly be some 
 exceptions to which my mind does not now revert. I will answer by 
 stating a supposable case. If, for instance, it should appear to this 
 Government that the construction of a light-house upon the Falkland 
 Islands were necessary in order to prevent disaster to our commerce, 
 I should have no doubt of the power of Congress to make an appro 
 priation to put up such a light-house and thus save our commerce. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator yield to me for another ques 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I will. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. The Senator cited the case of McCulloch vs. 
 Maryland as proving the general principle that any instrumentality 
 necessary and proper to carry into execution any of the powers of the 
 Constitution was authorized. Now, I inquire of the Senator whether 
 the construction of a canal anywhere in the United States or in foreign 
 territory, according to his view, would not necessarily imply that the 
 commerce that flowed through that canal would be under the jurisdic 
 tion of the United States before the instrumentality would be war 
 ranted ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. By no means. I do not understand that it is 
 necessary to own ships which may pass through a canal or over our 
 rivers and harbors, or that the possession of dominion over the soil 
 is requisite. I understand that the great canal which has been con 
 structed on the Canadian line is not wholly under the jurisdiction of 
 the United States. Whether we shall improve navigation without our 
 territorial limits is wholly a matter of judgment. 
 
 I undertake to say that the framers of the Constitution at least 
 if the interpretation of Judge Marshall be correct, and it has long 
 stood unquestioned expected that there would be honesty, sound 
 discretion, fair ability among those who would be summoned to legis 
 late for the Republic, and it was thought that the necessity of concur 
 rence by both Houses and the existence of the veto power would ren 
 der usurpation and extravagance improbable. 
 
 If, indeed, it shall come to pass that dire calamity overtakes the 
 nation because this discretion is vested in the legislative department, 
 it will be due to national incompetency. Congress has the ability to 
 declare war without limitation or restraint. We might constitu 
 tionally plunge our country into endless and fatal strife. But this 
 possibility did not alarm the founders of our Government. 
 
 When I was interrupted I was considering some of the criticisms 
 made by the learned Senator from Indiana. I did not have the pleas 
 ure of listening to his first address, but noted his remarks in the 
 RECORD. I find that he objects to the entire project of the Isthmian 
 
248 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 canal in Nicaragua or anywhere in the tropics; that, in the opinion 
 of the Senator, it is impossible to carry out a project like this, even 
 when organized under a more desirable supervision than he seems to 
 think is designed here. 
 
 Mr. TURPIE. Will the Senator allow me? 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Cali 
 fornia yield to the Senator from Indiana? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. TURPIE. I have expressed no such opinion. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I understood the Senator to state that owing to 
 earthquakes and floods it was impossible in the tropical belt to do 
 such work as that proposed. It seems I was mistaken, and I of course 
 admit the error, as the Senator disclaims any such intention. 
 
 Mr. TURPIE. Will the Senator allow me? 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Cali 
 fornia yield? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. TURPIE. The word " earthquake " will not be found 
 either in the first or second edition of my remarks. : Teredo " will be 
 found there and found also in Mr. Menocal s report. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I probably confounded the statements of the Sen 
 ator in this regard. He spoke of the earth bursting open because, I 
 presume, of the prevailing heat, and he alluded to the tremendous 
 rainfall which dissolves a considerable portion of the country. This 
 statement has left me somewhat in doubt as to whether there is any 
 thing remaining in Nicaragua which can be washed away or burned. 
 
 Mr. President, so far as that part of the continent is concerned I 
 have not made any personal investigation, nor has the Senator from 
 Indiana; but I have, as he has, friends who have been there. I am 
 acquainted with many gentlemen of reputation and standing who have 
 been engaged in business in that country. The commercial relations 
 between the part of the Union whence I come and Nicaragua have 
 been close. Some of our citizens have engaged in agricultural pur 
 suits in Central America. From these and other sources I have infor 
 mation from which I can conclude that it is true, as Mr. Menocal 
 says, that in the high lands and above the lower San Juan the mias 
 matic region to which the Senator alluded there is found a rich 
 soil, capable of producing fine and heavy crops, that the forest growth 
 is great, and the hills and valleys are by no means barren or forbid 
 ding. Indeed, the land is exceptionally fertile and the production 
 superabundant, and the climate is both pleasant and healthful. 
 
 It seems to me that if the effect of the extraordinary rainfall 
 which occurs periodically in Nicaragua was such as the Senator from 
 Indiana described, there would be nothing in the nature of a crop 
 possible. It would not be practicable to raise coffee or any sort of 
 small product if the soil, when disturbed for purposes of cultivation, 
 must be swept away by torrents from the sky. 
 
 I have been told that, although there is heavy and frequent rain 
 and while it is quite warm at certain seasons, nevertheless the conse 
 quence of these conditions is to stimulate the crops and rapidly mature 
 the natural growth. Earth embankments thrown up anywhere in that 
 country and composed of average material will soon be so covered 
 with vegetation as to easily resist atmospheric disturbances. If the 
 contrary be true, why have not the hills been converted into barren 
 desert sentinels? 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 249 
 
 The Senator from Indiana speaks of the teredo. The learned 
 Senator says upon the authority of an engineer, whose name does not 
 appear, that the teredo at Grey Town will attack a creosoted pile and 
 destroy it in six months, and he added with a great deal of emphasis 
 that after the creosoted pile had been in use for a time the teredo 
 became more vigorous in its ravages because of the presence of creo 
 sote. In other words, piles a la creosote is the favorite dish of the 
 Grey Town teredo. 
 
 While I have not constructed canals, while I am not an engineer, 
 and while I must confess that I am not qualified to go over an engi 
 neering proposition and announce dogmatically to the world whether 
 or not it may be carried out, yet I have had occasion to notice the 
 action of the teredo upon piles. I know that the creosote treatment 
 has been long utilized ; and that lately methods have been improved 
 with the result that the wood remains safe from the teredo for years. 
 
 I telegraphed yesterday to Mr. William D. English, who is now 
 surveyor of the port of San Francisco, and who was a State harbor 
 commissioner acting at that city for an extended period and whom I 
 know to have had experience in this matter. He has made the subject 
 a study in connection with his business as a harbor commissioner. 
 
 He telegraphed me as follows : 
 
 With Pacific Coast experience of six or eight years, piles not attacked. 
 Properly creosoted timber, with good creosote, should last twenty-five years. 
 
 I know this gentleman to be a practical man. The information is 
 thoroughly reliable. The assertion that by adequate creosoting piles 
 can not be protected from the teredo for more than six months is an 
 error. The person who made that statement to the Senator from 
 Indiana does not know anything about it. It makes no difference 
 to me who he is or whence he comes. 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE. May I interrupt the Senator from California for 
 a moment? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE. I do not desire to make an extended remark. I 
 simply wish to confirm, from personal knowledge, the statement of 
 the Senator from California. I myself happen to have been engaged 
 in building wharves on the Pacific Coast for my own business pur 
 poses. I have had piles treated with the creosoting preparation, and 
 they have stood now for several years. I know it to be very valuable. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I took occasion, also, to telegraph to an able engi 
 neer residing in the city of Los Angeles, Mr. Hagood. He is a man 
 of wide knowledge, and has within the last three years had experience 
 in wharf construction in waters where the teredo is common. He 
 places the limit at ten years. 
 
 I do not consider this issue of peculiar importance because we can 
 easily dispense with piling in Grey Town, but I mention it to show how 
 the unskilled are readily deceived and to illustrate the folly of reliance 
 upon anything save the evidence of qualified judges. 
 
 Mr/ CAFFERY. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GALUNGE* in the chair). 
 Does the Senator from California yield to the Senator from Louisiana ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I should like to know from the Senator from 
 California whether he has any expert testimony in regard, to the 
 ravages of the teredo at the mouth of the canal? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir. 
 17 
 
250 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator permit me to make a state 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I saw about four days ago a series of photo 
 graphs of the breakwater constructed at the mouth -of the San Juan 
 River, and they show the piling that was driven in forming- the break 
 water was almost entirely destroyed by the teredo. The photographs 
 were in the possession of an engineer who took them or said he took 
 them himself. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I hope the Senator from Louisiana does not mis 
 understand me. I have seen wood that had been under sea water 
 honeycombed as the result of the action of the teredo. No doubt the 
 teredo will perforate an exposed surface not properly treated with 
 creosote; no doubt a naked pile located where the teredo is common 
 and possesses the vitality displayed in the Pacific will be almost con 
 sumed in a limited time ; but my assertion is that modern methods of 
 creosoting are such that piles may be protected. I have quoted from 
 those who have tried it and whose business it is to carry on work of 
 this kind, men of positive knowledge. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I will state to the Senator that it appears from 
 the statement of the work on the breakwater made by Mr. Menocal, I 
 believe, that the piles which formed the breakwater were very care 
 fully creosoted before they were driven. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. It is evident they were not properly creosoted. 
 There is no doubt about that. Perhaps at the date referred to the 
 application of creosote was not thoroughly comprehended. However; 
 this is an incidental question, upon which I do not care to spend more 
 time. 
 
 Now, I desire to attract attention to another matter. As far as 
 the construction of the breakwater, or indeed as any other branch of 
 the work is concerned, if it be found that the criticisms of the Senator 
 from Indiana [Mr. TURPIE] shall prove well founded, it is easy 
 enough to take advantage of his labors, and as the work progresses 
 to adopt such methods as may be found desirable to obviate suggested 
 difficulties. There is nothing in the bill requiring the company to put 
 piles at Grey Town rather than rock; there is nothing in the bill lim 
 iting the amount of rock which shall be used in the Ochoa Dam or in 
 any other construction. It is true that alterations may enhance the 
 cost, but the revision board which investigated Mr. Menocal s esti 
 mates added 20 per cent, because it was considered possible that modi 
 fications might be needful. 
 
 The Senator from Indiana, in discussing the question of rock 
 fill, stated in answer to an interrogatory addressed to him by the Sena 
 tor from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE:] that when the water flowed over 
 the Ochoa Dam it would fall not upon rock merely, but upon the 
 composition of rock and earth to which he referred. I desire to quote 
 the statement of Mr. Menocal as to what he means by u rock fill " and 
 to show that the Senator from Indiana is mistaken as to the interpre 
 tation of those words. I refer to page 217 of the report of the com 
 mittee, being a portion of the testimony taken, as follows : 
 
 Q. What kind of a dam do you propose to build there? 
 
 A. I have proposed to build a rock-fill dam; that is, a dam made of rock 
 dumped in the river and allowed to take its natural slope. The work of dis 
 tributing the material will be done by the force of the water and its scour- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 251 
 
 ing action on the bottom until the proper equilibrium is established. In this 
 way I expect that the company would have a very cheap and safe dam. 
 
 Q. Well, having got your rocks in in that way, how can you make a dam 
 tight? 
 
 A. We have so much surplus water that I do not think we will make any 
 efforts to make the dam tight, but if it was required to make it tight, all we 
 have to do is to make a deposit of sand, clay, and other material on the upper 
 slope of the dam. 
 
 Again, Mr. Menocal, in referring to the character of the. struc 
 ture, says that it is " an artificial mountain across the river." 
 
 Again, it will be found from the committee s report that it is 
 contemplated to fill in with large rocks and then to use the earth 
 referred to as backing. That is the plan. 
 
 Menocal says in the course of his report : 
 
 All the embankments resting on the valley or swamp level are designed 
 of rock-fill and earth backing with three parallel rows of sea piling between 
 abutments. 
 
 He also says, in speaking of the Ochoa Dam, that it will be built 
 of rock fill and earth backing, in all respects similar to the other large 
 embankments and weirs : 
 
 The upper portion and long flat apron will be composed of stone of the 
 largest dimensions that can be properly handled and arranged, the interstices 
 being filled from behind with small stones, gravel, and earth dumped from 
 suitable trestles. 
 
 Mr. Harvey, in speaking of the Ochoa Dam plan, says that it will 
 be as firm as the primitive hills by which it is flanked. It is clearly 
 shown by Harvey s report that the Ochoa Dam is not a wonderful 
 conception as compared with other constructions in various parts of 
 the world. 
 
 I confess, as I stated before, that I have not the technical knowl 
 edge nor the capacity to authorize the statement that such dam would 
 be the best or that it would not suit the purpose at all. I take it that 
 men who have made practical tests are better informed than I am, 
 and I assume that an engineer whose success in life, whose reputation 
 depends upon the verity of his statements in matters of this sort, will 
 pause long before he will impose upon the public an expert opinion, 
 the error of which must soon be made manifest. 
 
 Take the case of Mr. Harvey, whose thorough review is con 
 tained in this record, and who has gone over the whole project. He 
 is a man of admittedly high reputation, of good character, and demon 
 strated capacity. His connection with the enterprise is that of an 
 engineer engaged to report to his employers as to the feasibility of 
 the scheme. Can it be that one of his ability, of his standing, and of 
 his future, will not only mislead his clients, but will peril all for the 
 mere purpose of aiding certain parties temporarily in an affair which if 
 impracticable must quickly come to grief ? I do not believe it. When 
 an honest witness possesses knowledge, when he has shown by his 
 works that he is competent, when he comes forward and gives his 
 evidence I will act on it until it is overcome by the testimony of per 
 sons who leave darkness and subject themselves to public scrutiny and 
 examination. I have heard it stated that engineers do not care to 
 come here and make statements adverse to this enterprise. I can not 
 see that any evil can happen to anyone who may give such information. 
 No threats are, have been, or will be made. Surely Senators are all 
 
252 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 anxious to learn the truth and will welcome any testimony taken 
 before the Committee on Foreign Relations, or elsewhere given, which 
 will throw any light whatever upon the scene. Until those who have 
 technical attainments satisfy me that the canal can not be made as 
 planned, I will continue to credit Mr. Menocal. 
 
 I do not intend to discuss the relative merits of the Panama 
 and Nicaragua schemes. I will refer anyone anxious to make the 
 comparison not only to the statements in our report but also to the 
 address which Admiral Ammen delivered before the Naval Institute 
 at Annapolis in March, 1887, wherein he disclosed many reasons for 
 favoring the construction of the canal at Nicaragua. 
 
 Mr. President, many statements have been made by Senators to 
 the effect that the explorations upon the canal route are insufficient. 
 I happen to be acquainted with a gentleman who has done much work 
 upon the line, a man who aided in building some twelve 1 miles of rail 
 road along the San Juan. He at present resides in Los Angeles 
 County. I telegraphed to him some days ago concerning the climatic 
 conditions in Nicaragua and also with reference to his investigations 
 generally ; and the answer is given in the following dispatch : 
 
 MONROVIA, CAL., January 8, 1895. 
 
 I built twelve miles of railroad, did some harbor and other work, spent 
 two years diamond drill boring when necessary. No climatic difficulties. 
 
 J. B. HARRIS. 
 
 Afterwards he wrote more fully to Mr. J. De Earth Shorb, of San 
 Gabriel, Cal., and the letter having been transmitted to me, I will 
 read it, as Mr. Harris knows something of the situation from personal 
 inspection and because of professional knowledge: 
 
 MY DEAR SIR : I am sorry that I was away from home when you called to 
 ask me what I know about the Nicaragua Canal, so I write this for your 
 information. * * * As a contractor I have spent over two years in making 
 a most thorough examination of the work to be done to complete the canal. 
 These examinations extended over the whole length of the canal where deep 
 excavations are to be made. I bored holes every 50 feet along the line from 
 the surface to the bottom with diamond drills and thus informed myself of 
 the character of the rock that is to be excavated. Where locks, dams, and 
 embankments are to be built I also made borings, soundings, excavations, etc., 
 to satisfy myself as to the character of the foundations of such structures. 
 
 The same matter appears in the testimony of Mr. Menocal, 
 although it was said here that there was no evidence that such borings 
 have been made. Mr. Harris continues : 
 
 I also examined the country round about for the purpose of seeing what 
 building material could be had there, and found an abundance of the best 
 limestone, also plenty building rock for locks, etc., and a great deal of suit 
 able timber for use in construction. In addition to all this, Mr. C. P. Treat, 
 of Chicago, a practical contractor, and myself built 12 miles of railroad there 
 and on the most difficult portion of the whole line, and I will here mention 
 that we built this 12 miles of railroad at a cost of $7,000 less per mile than Mr. 
 Menocal s (chief engineer) estimated cost of railroad line. Our principal 
 object, however, in building this railroad and doing other work there was not 
 so much to make money for ourselves as it was to post ourselves as to the 
 character of the laborers that could be had there to build the canal later on. 
 We also made thorough examinations of the harbor work to be done and did 
 some harbor work on the Atlantic side. From all this you will see that I 
 should be well informed as to the cost of building the canal, including locks, 
 dams, and harbors. After making all these examinations we made a proposal 
 to the canal company to build and complete the whole canal, including the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 253 
 
 harbors and all work there to be done, and deliver the canal completed at the 
 estimated cost of Mr. Menocal, the chief engineer, and to have the canal com 
 pleted in five years, of course giving bonds. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 J. B. HARRIS. 
 
 In conversing with Mr. Harris before coming to Washington, he 
 referred specifically to numerous borings which he had made for the 
 purpose of ascertaining whether the rock to be removed was solid 
 throughout, its general character, etc. That such work was done is 
 shown by the committee s report. 
 
 Borings were made at numerous points along the route. (Report, 
 129.) 
 
 It required the constant labor of six surveying parties and the boring 
 party six months before the location of the upper route was agreed upon. 
 (Page 130.) 
 
 Numerous borings were made along the whole route. (Page 139). 
 
 The locks are to be built of concrete. (Report, page 219.) 
 
 " Most all excavations for locks will, be in rock." (Report, 
 page 220.) 
 
 I know California contractors who are anxious to take much of 
 this work within Mr. Menocal s figures. As to the route through 
 the lower lands, I do not agree that an advantageous change might 
 be made by following the river. I think Mr. Menocal explodes this 
 theory effectively. An inspection of the testimony in the report will 
 satisfy an impartial mind that the upper route is preferable and less 
 liable to be disturbed by the river. The fact that the bed of the San 
 Juan is uncertain is sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by 
 Mr. Menocal. However, I repeat, I do not utter anything dogmatic 
 upon the subject of engineering. 
 
 Perhaps there is no one more familiar with the country around 
 about this canal than Capt. William L. Merry, of California, whose 
 statement is contained in the report. He lately penned me a note, 
 which I will read, as it contains much valuable material. Says Cap 
 tain Merry : 
 
 I lived on the canal line for nearly three years, in charge of the transit 
 route when Cala passengers were crossing it in 1865, 1866, and 1867. During 
 that time I was a great deal on the river San Juan in boats and steamers, day 
 and night. I was never seriously ill while there; never had an attack 
 of the fever and ague, and the general health of the employees of the company 
 was good. Many of them were Americans. On the lower San Juan the land 
 is alluvial, vegetation dense, and rainfall heavy ; like all river bottoms malaria 
 is found, and fever and ague result, seldom of a dangerous type. Farther 
 up the river and in the lake region the land is higher, rainfall less, and 
 climate fine. True, it is a tropical climate, but nights are cool and the north 
 east trade winds temper the sun s heat and prevent malarial diseases. 
 
 The Nicaragua Isthmus is healthy, because the low summit level and the 
 great lakes draw the northeast tides from the Caribbean Sea over it. It is 
 a marine tropical climate. The health of the many exploring expeditions on 
 the Isthmus proves the correctness of my assertions. I do not state that 
 unacclimated Americans will not get chills and fever on the lower San Juan, 
 but I do assert that any American going there and living carefully as at home, 
 will not suffer from the climate any more than in the lower Mississippi Valley 
 and other parts of the United States. That there will be some difficult work 
 on the canal I have no doubt, but none as difficult as the Central Pacific Rail 
 road presented. The restoration of the Port of San Juan del Norte is no 
 uncertain factor ; but it may cost more than estimated. I am of opinion that 
 nearly every other part of the work will cost little if any more than the revised 
 engineer s estimates. 
 
254 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 I have carefully studied all the surveys during the past fourteen years and 
 am very familiar with the details. Mr. Menocal allows large prices for the 
 work; much of it can be done cheaper than he estimates, some portions may 
 cost a little more. I know of Chicago contractors who will build the Pacific 
 division for Menocal s estimate, including the 25 per cent contingency allowed; 
 but this division, between Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific, is the easiest part 
 of the work, except the dredging work at the Atlantic terminus and in the 
 lake. Regarding the Ochoa Dam, the project of a rock-fill dam is somewhat 
 novel, but greater streams than the San Juan are crossed with higher dams 
 in many countries, and if a rock-fill dam is objected to a dam of ordinary but 
 more expensive character can be built. But as the rock is necessarily taken 
 from the eastern divide and must be disposed of the rock-fill dam appears 
 advantageous. It must be remembered that the Ochoa Dam is not a retain 
 ing dam, but used merely to raise the river bed. The criticism about the 
 embankments used are fallacious, because no engineer doubts that safe embank 
 ments can be made at a. reasonable cost. If good clay, impervious to water, 
 is not obtainable stone can be used in the central portion of the work ; it will 
 cost more, but is perhaps safer, and safety is a necessity. The port of Brito 
 is much like Port Harford on our coast, and a harbor can easily be built 
 there. 
 
 Port Harford is mentioned in the river and harbor act passed by 
 this Congress. The Government has been improving it for some time, 
 and no engineering difficulties of moment have been encountered. 
 
 I have personally examined it. On the whole the Nicaragua Canal is not a 
 difficult work; formidable only owing to its extent, and it is a safe work. Earth 
 quakes are not to be as much feared as in San Francisco, for all the structures 
 are below the surface and the canal line has been seldom disturbed by them 
 during the last century. I yield to no one on the thorough understanding of 
 this question. It has been with me the study of a lifetime, with the advan 
 tage of a long personal observation. Besides Mr. Menocal, civil engineer 
 United States Navy, you have in Washington Admiral Ammen, United States 
 Navy, who has personally examined the route; Maj. George W. Davis, United 
 States Army, at the office of the Secretary of War, who is very familiar with 
 the surveys, although he has not visited the canal line. Maj. C. E. Dut- 
 ton, United States Army, has also examined the canal line and surveys, spe 
 cially in relation to the possibility of damage by earthquakes. 
 
 I will add that Major Button s statement is contained in this 
 record : 
 
 I do not know if Major Dutton is accessible to you, but think he is. I am 
 as familiar with the canal line as you are with Spring street, Los Angeles, and 
 rely on my own knowledge, but in so doing I have the support of all civil engi 
 neers who have examined the canal line personally or otherwise. The time has 
 passed for assertions as to the practicability of a canal at Nicaragua. When 
 I state as a fact that a 6oo-ton steamer, under natural conditions, can go from 
 New York or New Orleans and up the San Juan River during the rainy 
 season and approach within i2i miles of the Pacific, on Lake Nicaragua, I 
 merely prove how much the Almighty has done to encourage the engineer 
 in uniting the oceans at Nicaragua. The Nicaragua Canal will be soon con 
 structed ; there is no doubt of that! The question before the legislators of 
 our Republic is, shall it be an American canal under American control, for 
 the benefit of our citizens, or a foreign canal under European control, for the 
 benefit of the parties or the nation that build it? And we can not much 
 longer pursue " a-dog-in-the-manger " policy about it, or the control will 
 either leave us or be retained at a vastly increased cost, possibly of blood as 
 well as treasure. To the United States the canal means build by, or fight, with 
 the alternative of a back seat among the nations of the earth. 
 
 Comments similar to those made by Captain Merry concerning 
 the construction of the canal and its general utility have been substan 
 tially presented by many other equally trustworthy persons. Admiral 
 Ammen in his. address delivered at the Naval Institute at Annapolis 
 used this phraseology: 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 255 
 
 I can assure my brother officers that the Nicaragua Canal will be made, and 
 soon, too. Whether we as a people will or will not have any control of it, 
 seems, as far as I know, a question of indifference to the executive branch of 
 our Government, or a doubt as to its constitutional powers, that may throw 
 the construction of the canal into European hands, and with it the control 
 of our coasting trade. 
 
 Mr. President, it passes without saying that boards of trade and 
 chambers of commerce throughout this country having before them 
 all the facts, and knowing trade necessities and the advantages to flow 
 from the consummation of this great work, have urgently requested 
 the passage of the pending bill. 
 
 No considerable portion of our people oppose this canal. Certain 
 interests engaged in transcontinental traffic antagonize it. Corpora 
 tions which have long reaped unconscionable rewards from the pro 
 ducers of the Pacific Slope have not hesitated to condemn it, and to 
 ridicule Menocal and others in their struggles to furnish water com 
 petition. This opposing element does not take into consideration the 
 truth that cheap freight rates must eventuate in enormously increased 
 patronage. But monopolies seldom recognize the accuracy of this 
 proposition. 
 
 Much has been said here and elsewhere with reference to the 
 mortgage described in the bill. It has been called worthless. The 
 power to execute it has been assailed, because of the stipulations in the 
 concessions made by Nicaragua and Costa Rica. No one has pre 
 tended that there is a word in either concession forbidding the holding 
 of stock by the United States. If the enterprise is to be successful 
 and the friends of the bill confidently anticipate its success then the 
 ownership of such a large majority of the stock and the consequent 
 control of the corporation furnish ample security, in my judgment, to 
 justify the guarantee which this bill contemplates. 
 
 It is wholly incorrect to say that we are presenting a vast sum of 
 money to the promoters of this enterprise. All private parties inter 
 ested in the scheme will no doubt realize something no more, I 
 think, than fair dealing and the exigencies of the situation justify. 
 But in the end our Government will be the dominating factor. Besides, 
 the discretion vested in the President of the United States makes 
 Executive concurrence essential. He may stop payment. He can 
 control the directory. In short, we or our representatives have all 
 others connected with the canal most securely bound. Hence, even 
 if the strictures indulged in with relation to the mortgage are well 
 founded, I would not hesitate to go on. But as a matter of fact, as I 
 have already had occasion to observe, the bill provides for the practical 
 ratification of the mortgage by the Governments of Costa Rica and 
 Nicaragua, and if these States accept stock issued under this bill, and 
 by act of their legislative departments authorize the recording of the 
 mortgage containing a specific description of the property mortgaged, 
 such act will amount to a ratification of the mortgage and a waiver of 
 all possible objections. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. Mr. President, do I understand the Senator 
 to hold that a mere record of this mortgage in the record offices of 
 Nicaragua and Costa Rica amounts to an abandonment of the prohi 
 bition contained in the concessions against transferring any of the 
 power or other rights in this canal to a foreign Government? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I do not know what the Senator understands, but 
 I did not make that statement. I repeat. If Nicaragua and Costa 
 
256 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Rica shall by their explicit official acts authorize the recording of 
 thesq mortgages as provided by section 4 of the bill for that section 
 declares that the mortgage shall be recorded in offices to be designated 
 by those Republics and if those nations accept the stock issued 
 under this bill as specified in section 7 thereof, I believe that such 
 conduct would, in the case of individuals, amount to a waiver; and 
 hence I assert that we will be authorized to insist upon that principle 
 whenever and if ever we have occasion to have recourse to the mort 
 gage. It is true, no doubt, that if after this bill becomes a law 
 Nicaragua and Costa Rica decline to accept the conditions tendered, 
 the result will not be different than that which must follow the failure 
 of the promoters to acquiesce. 
 
 I do not pretend that the mere passage of this measure will pro 
 duce a complete and effective scheme. Something material remains 
 to be done. But I do not anticipate any serious difficulty. I think 
 the President of the United States will never be called upon to suspend 
 payment, and that Nicaragua and Costa Rica will gladly agree to every 
 condition which we may deem prudent. Those who think that insur 
 mountable obstacles will hereafter be encountered will properly oppose 
 the bill, and if I deemed it likely that Nicaragua or Costa Rica would 
 earnestly protest I might not adhere to my present opinion. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Califor 
 nia yield to the Senator from Louisiana? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I do not understand the Senator. There is in 
 the concession, as the Senator is perfectly aware, a prohibition against 
 the alienation to a foreign power of these concessions. Now, what I 
 want to know of the Senator is this : The mortgage being granted to 
 secure the payment of those bonds, the United States having paid 
 and thereby become subrogated to the rights of the holders of the 
 bonds, assuming then to execute the mortgage of itself, could the 
 United States under the foreclosure of the mortgage purchase the 
 further concessions which are prohibited to be ceded to a foreign 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I answer the question by repeating that if it be 
 true that there is such a prohibition it is one which Nicaragua and 
 Costa Rica may waive. I have said, and I suppose said plainly, that 
 if those Governments accept the stock issued them under the pro 
 visions of this bill, and if they officially authorize the mortgage to be 
 recorded, as they must do if they acquiesce in this scheme, that these 
 acts justify the United States in insisting- that there has been an 
 abandonment of the prohibitive features of the concessions quoted. I 
 have also stated that I do not rest my support of this bill upon the 
 possible transfer to the United States of the concessions enjoyed by 
 the Maritime Company, but that our interest in the corporation itself, 
 our ownership of the stock, the title to which must vest in us, is suffi 
 cient to justify us as a conservative people in giving our credit. The 
 great object in view, the vast and desirable consequences which must 
 attend the completion of the project which we have been discussing, 
 the opening of the canal to the commerce of the world and to the 
 business of this Government, the fact that the citizens of the United 
 States above all people on the globe will most largely enjoy the trade 
 benefits of hastened and cheapened transportation, impel me to the 
 conclusion that I can render no more patriotic service to the country 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 257 
 
 than to insist upon affirmative action now. As I have said, the trans 
 fer of the stock I regard as vital. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator from California permit me? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. I ask the Senator whether, in his opinion, the 
 acceptance of the stock by Nicaragua and Costa Rica in the distribu 
 tion of the stock under the pending bill would work any denial of the 
 right of Nicaragua to contend that the concessions were inalienable to 
 a foreign power. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes; when Nicaragua 
 
 Mr. CAFFERY. If so, under what principle does the Senator 
 so contend? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. If I enter into a contract with the distinguished 
 Senator, and if subsequent proceedings are had between us, and if we 
 have dealings regarding the same matter which imply a modification 
 of some provision of the agreement which was made in his interest, 
 and if he accepts what to him are benefits, and if I insist upon corre 
 sponding rights necessarily connected with the advantages conferred 
 upon him, he is foreclosed from insisting upon the letter of the original 
 contract and from denying my profits under the altered engagement, 
 while retaining those which he has appropriated; and if, in this 
 instance, the Governments of Costa Rica and Nicaragua not only 
 accept the stock issued under this bill and tendered with all the limi 
 tations and obligations of this bill a bill which recites the existence 
 of the very power which the Senator denies and if in addition both 
 Republics shall, as provided in the act, designate the office wherein 
 these mortgages shall be made of record ; and if the United States 
 thereupon proceeds to expend money as indicated, then I assert that 
 such acceptance of stock, such recording of the mortgage, are in con 
 flict with the limitations of the concessions as contended for by the 
 Senator, and that thereafter neither Republic can be honestly per 
 mitted to insist that the stock which it received was not issued under 
 the bill, and that the mortgage which it authorized to be made of 
 record was of no effect. As between private parties, such conduct 
 would constitute a complete estoppel. 
 
 Mr. President, for years this magnificent opportunity has been 
 tendered to the enterprise of the human race. It seems as if nature 
 had proffered to us especially an opportunity to perform a labor worthy 
 of our wealth and civilization and of inestimable advantage to the 
 world. When we reflect that a 6oo-ton steamer may now in the rainy 
 season pass up the river San Juan and to the lake and sail within 
 twelve and one-half miles of the Pacific Coast, we see how much has 
 been done in advance toward the bringing about of the end which we 
 have in view. Not only will that portion of the United States which 
 I in part particularly represent here vastly profit, not only will the 
 Pacific Slope greatly improve because of increased commerce, but 
 New Orleans and the great metropolis of New York, and every town 
 upon our coast will be permanently stimulated. Narrow and restricted 
 and unpatriotic is the theory which suggests that that which will 
 build up one portion of the nation will not affect any other part. The 
 active, intelligent population upon the seaboard can not greatly pros 
 per or seriously suffer without a corresponding sensation in the inte 
 rior. That which affects the nation s pulse in any spot of the great 
 body politic must send a thrill through the whole of her mighty form. 
 Mr. Monroe advanced a doctrine upon which Americans have 
 
258 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 been proud to stand, and which, though not strictly adhered to, will 
 never be repudiated by our people. How consonant to this precept 
 will be our conduct if we shall bring about the building of the Nica 
 ragua Canal. How much easier then to fully maintain our avowed 
 principles. All here know that I do not favor the extension of our 
 dominion to remote lands, and I do not believe in interfering with for 
 eign Governments, and that, in my judgment, we have enough to attend 
 to within our own limits in a governmental sense; but the advocacy 
 of this doctrine can not prevent or forbid our active co-operation in 
 all that will develop our trade, assist in protecting us from foreign 
 foes, and make easier, more profitable, and in some respects for the 
 first time possible, free and advantageous commerce among States 
 widely separated. 
 
 Nicaragua and Costa Rica, sister Republics, are not able to pro 
 ceed unaided. Their resources are inadequate. In a friendly spirit 
 they practically invite us to assist. They are willing to make us the 
 chief beneficiaries. We assume no entangling alliances; no interna 
 tional obligations of momentous difficulty are cast upon us. As indi 
 viduals have an opportunity to accomplish great things for themselves, 
 but seldom in a lifetime, so it may happen that the United States, if it 
 ignores the present opportunity, will not, perhaps, be soon again 
 invited. 
 
 Speaking from the standpoint of an American, regardless of 
 locality and having in view the needs of the future, I trust that no 
 further delay will attend the building of the Nicaragua Canal as the 
 result of the act of this Government. 
 
WAR IN CUBA 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Wednesday and Thursday, February 26 and 27, 1896. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the concurrent resolution reported 
 from the Committee on Foreign Relations relative to the war in Cuba 
 
 Mr. WHITE said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: On the 24th of the present month I offered a 
 substitute for the various resolutions reported to the Senate by the 
 Committee on Foreign Relations with reference to Cuban affairs. I 
 ask that the substitute be read. 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. The proposed substitute will be read. 
 
 The SECRETARY read the substitute submitted by Mr. WHITE, as 
 follows : 
 
 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That 
 the Senate contemplates with solicitude and profound regret the sufferings and 
 destruction accompanying the civil conflict now in progress in Cuba. While 
 the United States have not interfered and will not, unless their vital inter 
 ests so demand, interfere with existing colonies and dependencies of any Euro 
 pean Government on this hemisphere, nevertheless our people have never dis 
 guised and do not now conceal their sympathy for all those who struggle 
 patriotically, as do the Cubans now in revolt, to exercise, maintain, and pre 
 serve the right of self-government. Nor can we ignore our exceptional and 
 close relations to Cuba by reason of geographical proximity and our conse 
 quent grave interest in all questions affecting the control or well-being of 
 that island. We trust that the executive department, of whose investigation 
 and care our diplomatic relations have been committed, will at as early a 
 date as the facts will warrant recognize the belligerency of those who are 
 maintaining themselves in Cuba in armed opposition to Spain, and that the 
 influence and offices of the United States may be prudently, peacefully, and 
 effectively exerted to the end that Cuba may be enabled to establish a per 
 manent government of her own choice. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I presume that there is no one 
 entitled to a seat in this Chamber who does not sympathize with the 
 struggling patriots in Cuba. I assume that there is no Senator who 
 would not rejoice could he witness the establishment by the people 
 of that island of a government of their own choice. But while hold 
 ing these views and experiencing these sympathies it is important that 
 we should proceed in an orderly manner and in accordance not only 
 with the customs and usages of this and other enlightened nations, 
 but also in compliance with the provisions of the organic law under 
 which we all claim to act. 
 
 The Committee on Foreign Relations has reported a concurrent 
 resolution which it is expected will receive the support of the Senate 
 and House. In the first place, if we are to approach this subject 
 through any resolution designed to be of itself effective as a declara 
 tion of belligerency, I am of the opinion that the Constitution requires 
 
 259 
 
260 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 such resolution to be joint. Within a few days a discussion arose here 
 with reference to a resolution designed to affect the thirteenth section 
 of the last river and harbor act, and it was argued with much force 
 by several Senators of distinguished ability that as that section had 
 relation merely to matters of departmental procedure and did not arise 
 under the Constitution, therefore it was unnecessary that a resolution 
 passed for the purpose of suspending the operation of that provision 
 should be presented to the President or be considered by him. But 
 Senators holding this view stated that whenever Congress seeks to 
 exercise constitutional powers by means of a resolution receiving the 
 assent of both Houses, then the same will not be valid unless sub 
 mitted after adoption, as in the case of a bill, to the President. Indeed, 
 it is difficult to read section 7 of Article I without reaching* that 
 result. Therefore, the concurrent resolutions now under advisement 
 will, if passed and not submitted to the Executive, be of no legal force, 
 and can only amount to an expression of the sentiments and opinions 
 of the Senate and House: 
 
 Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate 
 and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of 
 adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and 
 before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disap 
 proved by him, shall be repassed, by two-thirds of the Senate and House of 
 Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case 
 of a bill. 
 
 As stated by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] yester 
 day, there is no Congressional enactment affecting this subject, and 
 the committee resolution and that which I offered do not arise under 
 procedure prescribed by any statute. If, therefore, the organic limita 
 tion of the powers of Congress which I have repeated does not relate, 
 among other things, to a resolution declaring belligerency or pro 
 claiming independence, I can not find any subject of moment to which 
 the restrictive language of that provision can be held applicable. 
 Hence, if we are to make a declaration announcing belligerency, the 
 resolution can have no effect unless it is presented to the President. 
 For reasons which I shall endeavor to suggest, I am doubtful whether 
 such a resolution can have any effect unless actually approved by the 
 Executive. True it is immaterial whether it be styled concurrent or 
 joint, but we proceed here upon the theory that no resolution called 
 concurrent is presented to the President. I regret that I am unable 
 to elaborate upon this interesting topic. I am constrained to deal 
 with the subject as briefly as possible. If it 1 is sought to make a valid 
 declaration of belligerency, the resolution must be passed under the 
 Constitution and should be joint and presented to the President. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is not only a question of policy involved 
 as well as a matter of duty in the form of this declaration ; there is 
 likewise an issue as to our authority. I feel confident that the power 
 does not reside in the House of Congress, independent of the Presi 
 dent, to declare belligerency. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
 MORGAN] stated yesterday in discussing this phase of the subject as 
 follows : 
 
 I dispute the power of the President of the United States, of his own 
 motion and without the assistance of Congress, to recognize belligerency 
 between v two foreign Governments, because the President of the United 
 States has no right by his proclamation to change the commercial and other 
 relations between the people of this country and the people of a foreign 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 261 
 
 country. But being the representative of the United States in virtue of its 
 sovereignty as affects foreign countries, he has the right to recognize the 
 independence of a foreign country, because that recognition has no effect 
 upon our own people. It does not change our relation to that country in 
 the slightest degree. It does not compel us to pursue commerce under laws 
 which regulate war instead of laws which regulate peace. 
 
 Then I addressed the following inquiry to the distinguished 
 Senator : 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Will the Senator from Delaware [Mr. GRAY] permit me to 
 ask the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] a question, if the Senator from 
 Alabama will allow me? Do I understand the Senator from Alabama to deny 
 the power of the President, without the concurrence of Congress, to recog 
 nize the belligerency or to issue an effective proclamation of belligerency as 
 to the contending parties? 
 
 To this inquiry the Senator from Alabama replied thus : 
 Mr. MORGAN. I do. 
 
 Mr. President, in the same discussion, construing somewhat 
 similar provisions of the Constitution supposed to be more or less 
 related to this topic, the distinguished Senator also said that in his 
 opinion Congress had power to declare war without reference to 
 Presidential action or consultation that the resolution, or whatever 
 it might be, so declaring need not go to the Executive, and he conceded 
 that the various subdivisions of section 8 of Article I of the Constitu 
 tion bore the same relation, so far as the wording is concerned, to the 
 first part of that section ; but he argued that the eleventh subdivision, 
 granting power to declare war, etc., meant that Congress, without 
 reference to the Executive, might effectively proceed. 
 
 The first section of Article I of the Constitution declares: 
 
 All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
 United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 
 
 Thus legislative power is vested in Congress, and yet.no one pre 
 tends that an ordinary bill must not receive the Presidential signature. 
 I can not conceive of any method of reading section 8 of Article I 
 which will authorize the conclusion that any peculiar rule applies to 
 Executive functions under subdivision n. The legislative preroga 
 tive is not greater, as far as words go, under that subdivision than in 
 the instances disclosed by many other grants contained in that 
 important section. It is conceded that no bill with reference to post- 
 offices and post-roads, providing and maintaining a navy, raising and 
 supporting armies, etc., can be made effectual without the usual Execu 
 tive signature, or non-action, or the repassing of the measure over the 
 veto by the constitutional two-thirds vote. To announce any other 
 rule with respect to the power to declare war or concerning any other 
 part of the constitutional delegation of authority, would be to disre 
 gard without excuse the obvious meaning of language and to ignore 
 all recognized construction. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I affirm that the question of the recognition 
 of the existence of a revolutionary government is vested in the Execu 
 tive. Whether this power is exclusive it is unnecessary to decide, 
 though I shall allude incidentally to this phase. When the Senator 
 from Alabama stated that he denied the power of the Executive, 
 unaided by Congressional action, to recognize belligerency, it seems to 
 me that his statement was unsupported by precedent or reason. I can 
 
262 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 not find any other authority for it. True, Mr. President, a joint reso 
 lution, signed by the President of the United States, recognizing 
 belligerency, would operate, if not by virtue of the action of Congress, 
 certainly so because it was approved by the Executive. I do not find 
 it necessary to contend that Congress can not pass a bill recognizing 
 belligerency over the veto of the Executive. I can find no such 
 instance, however. I trust that no conflict of this nature will ever 
 arise, and until occasion requires I prefer to reserve my opinion as to 
 the legality of such procedure. The very case from which the learned 
 Senator from Alabama read, the Prize Cases, it seems to me, entirely 
 overthrows his contention in this regard. I call attention to the fol 
 lowing phraseology, reading from part of the opinion to which the 
 learned Senator did not advert. I quote from 2 Black, page 670: 
 
 Whether the President in fulfilling his duties as commander-in-chief in sup 
 pressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance and a 
 civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them 
 the character of belligerents is a question to be decided by him, and this 
 court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department 
 of the Government to which this power was intrusted. He must determine 
 Kvhat degree of force the crisis demands. 
 
 It must be observed that the unaided effectiveness of the Execu 
 tive act was here conceded to be proper exercise of power by the 
 political department of the Government, and Congress in this instance 
 was not regarded as constituting a portion of " the political depart 
 ment." 
 
 From the case of Kennett et al. vs. Chambers, a decision by Chief 
 Justice Taney, and reported in 14 Howard, pages 50 and 51, I read: 
 
 It is not necessary, in the case before us, to decide how far the judicial tri 
 bunal of the United States would enforce a contract like this, when two 
 States acknowledged to be independent were at war and this country neu 
 tral. It is a sufficient answer to the argument to say that the question whether 
 Texas had or had not at that time become an independent State was a ques 
 tion for that department of our Government exclusively which is charged 
 with our foreign relations. And until the period when that department recog 
 nized it as an independent State the judicial tribunals of the country were 
 bound to consider the old order of things as having continued, and to regard 
 Texas as a part of the Mexican territory. 
 
 I understand the Senator from Alabama to claim that while the 
 President of the United States is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to 
 acknowledge the independence of a country, that that officer has not 
 the same jurisdiction as to belligerency. 
 
 What is the effect of a declaration of belligerency? Is it any 
 thing, when properly made, to which a nation has a right to take 
 exception ? Manifestly not. In such an instance we assert neutrality. 
 The President of the United States issues his proclamation declaring 
 that this country will stand hands off; that we will not interfere. It 
 is not a proclamation of war ; it is a proclamation of peace ; it is not 
 an announcement of interference; it is an announcement of non-inter 
 ference ; it is not opening ourselves to the charge that we are attempt 
 ing to injure a friendly nation, but it means that we have concluded 
 that there are contending parties whose armed conflict is sufficiently 
 important to be dignified by the term war, and that we will remain 
 impartial spectators. But, on the other hand, recognition of the inde 
 pendence of a revolutionary country is often the subject of vigorous 
 protest. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 263 
 
 It passes without saying that no nation is rudely dismembered 
 save after vigorous contest and exhaustive effort. The history of 
 our country demonstrates that we have never recognized the inde 
 pendence of a state which has successfully revolted without subjecting 
 ourselves to the criticisms of the mother country. There is much 
 more danger, much more probability of conflict with a foreign power 
 in consequence of the recognition of the independence of a revolted 
 government than when we merely recognize belligerency. No nation 
 can be expected to contemplate with satisfaction the loss of her pos 
 sessions, and, unlike the able Senator from Alabama, I regard the 
 power to recognize independence, which he concedes to be in the 
 Executive, as much more important than the authority to recognize 
 belligerency, which he denies to the Executive. Said Secretary Sew- 
 ard in a letter to Mr. Adams, our minister to England (i Messages 
 and Documents, 1861-62, page 79) : 
 
 To recognize the independence of a new state, and so favor, possibly deter 
 mine, its admission into the family of nations, is the highest possible exercise 
 of sovereign power, because it affects in every case the welfare of two nations^ 
 and often the peace of the world. 
 
 The precedents showing Executive assertion of the power to 
 recognize belligerency as well as independence are many. 
 
 On December 9, 1891, while Mr. Harrison occupied the Execu 
 tive chair, he sent to this Chamber a message containing the following : 
 
 The civil war in Chile, which began in January last, was continued, but 
 fortunately with infrequent and not important armed collisions, until August 
 28, when the Congressional forces landed near Valparaiso and, after a bloody 
 engagement, captured that city. President Balmaceda at once recognized 
 that his cause was lost, and a Provisional Government was speedily estab 
 lished by the victorious party. Our minister was promptly directed to rec 
 ognize and put himself in communication with this Government so soon as it 
 should have established its de facto character, which was done. 
 
 He also said (and this is directly in point) : 
 
 During the pendency of this civil contest frequent indirect appeals were 
 made to this Government to extend belligerent rights to the insurgents and 
 to give audience to their representatives. This was declined, and that policy 
 was pursued throughout which this Government, when wrenched by civil 
 war, so strenuously insisted upon on the part of European nations. 
 
 Here was a manifest assertion of the power to determine whether 
 or not belligerent rights should be accorded, a decision which in that 
 instance was, in my opinion, most unwisely made. 
 
 I can not understand the reasoning which leads to the denial of 
 the jurisdiction of the Executive, through the State Department, to 
 declare neutrality, and consequently to affirm at least belligerency. 
 No one should doubt that if the President of the United States had in 
 the Chilean case, or in that now before us, announced that a state of 
 public war existed, and had issued the ordinary proclamation of non 
 interference, our judicial tribunals would have been compelled to fol 
 low the Executive declaration. There are not one or two but 
 numerous decisions referring not only to Executive right to proclaim 
 independence, but also to announce belligerency. Chief Justice 
 Marshall s views in this direction are clearly stated in United States 
 vs. Hutchings, 2 Wheeler s Criminal Cases, page 546. The distinc 
 tion referred to by the Senator from Alabama has not been heretofore 
 urged. The Prize Cases, already cited, contain ample justification for 
 
264 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 my claim. It was there held by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States that when Mr. Lincoln at the opening of our civil war declared 
 the blockade, he thereby recognized the existence of a condition of 
 public war and the consequent presence of belligerents. The Supreme 
 Court not only held that the President of the United States had power 
 to recognize a belligerent, but they intimated that he did so even 
 though he did not intend that his proclamation should be so construed. 
 It was decided that the Executive announcement of a blockade in 
 effect conceded that the South was at war with the North. I cite the 
 following from the Prize Cases opinion: 
 
 The proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to 
 the court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a 
 recourse to such measure under the circumstances peculiar to the case. 
 
 Whenever there is war there are belligerents. An admission of 
 war is a concession of belligerency. I quote again from the Prize 
 Cases : 
 
 The condition of neutrality can not exist unless there be two belligerent 
 parties. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 337, this court 
 say : " The Government of the United States has recognized the existence of 
 a civil war between Spain and her colonies, and has avowed her determina 
 tion to remain neutral between the parties. Each party is, therefore, deemed 
 by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights 
 of war." 
 
 In the minority report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
 and in several addresses here made, I find criticisms of the course of 
 Spain in acknowledging the belligerency of the Southern States. But 
 if Spain were wrong we will not therefore be justified in committing 
 a similar error. But she was not guilty of an impropriety. The 
 fact is, as already shown, that Mr. Lincoln recognized the belligerency 
 of the Confederacy before similar action had been taken by England, 
 France, or Spain. It is universally held, by domestic as well as for 
 eign writers on international law, that we had no rational ground of 
 objection to the conduct of European powers concerning the recogni 
 tion of the Confederate States. (Glenn s International Law, pages 
 2 9> 30; Woolsey s id., sixth edition, section 41 ; Pomeroy s id. (Wool- 
 sey s edition), page 290; Ford vs. Surget, 97 U. S. 594, and the Prize 
 Cases, 2 Black, page 670.) An English publicist (Hall s International 
 Law, page 39) fully sustains this position. 
 
 So here is a case not only settling the power of the Executive to 
 recognize belligerency, but deciding, as I have said, that he exercised 
 that power without even intending the result legally deducible there 
 from. 
 
 In the case of the Ambrose Light, decided by Judge Brown in 
 New York, and reported in 25 Federal Reporter, it was held that 
 President Cleveland had recognized the belligerency of Colombia 
 because of certain orders officially made by him, though not with that 
 design. The State Department vigorously combated this conclusion, 
 and claimed that there had been no recognition ; but everyone admitted 
 the power of the Executive, the sole question being whether the 
 authority had been exercised.. I cite this case to show that our courts 
 have held that recognition is not only a subject of a Presidential juris 
 diction, but may even be accomplished unintentionally by that depart 
 ment. 
 
 The Ambrose Light decision is lengthy, and I do not propose to 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 265 
 
 do more than to shortly refer to it. I shall do so again in connection 
 with another topic. The subject is discussed by Judge Brown with 
 great fullness, and the conclusion is reached that the power rests in 
 the Executive. Various expressions have been made by different 
 jurists in our own country upon this subject, and it must be admitted 
 that it has not been explicitly decided in so many words that Con 
 gress, without the President, can not recognize though I think 
 such inference reasonably clear but it is patent that the Executive 
 may recognize without the aid of Congress. The effect of this con 
 clusion I will shortly discuss. 
 
 I wish at this point to note several additional adjudications 
 wherein the subject of recognition of belligerency and independence 
 has been mentioned. 
 
 In the Hornet, 2 Abbott, U. S., 35, a case tried before Judge 
 Brooks in 1870, in the United States district court of North Carolina, 
 the phrase " Executive power " is used. 
 
 In United States vs. Baker, 5 Blatchford, 56, and United States 
 vs. Jones, 137 U. S., 202, we find legislative and executive spoken of; 
 also in United States vs. Palmer, 3 Wheaton, 610, and in the Neuva 
 Anna, 6 Wheaton, 193. In Gelston vs. Hoyt, 3 Wheaton, 324, the 
 power is described as being exercised by the Government. 
 
 In the Ambrose Light, 25 Federal Reporter, 409; United States 
 vs. Itata, 56 Id., 505; United States vs. Trumbull, 48 Id., 99, it is 
 said that the right to recognize belligerency rests in the Executive. 
 
 Kennett vs. Chambers, 14 Howard, 47, is instructive upon this 
 subject, and contains an allusion to the proceedings of this Govern 
 ment regarding the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas 
 which it is well to note. 
 
 Mr. Wharton, in his very able International Law Digest, which 
 is familiar to us all, quotes a number of authorities, and, as showing 
 his own view, on page 551 of volume I he heads the section " Such 
 recognition (i. e., belligerency) determinable by Executive." 
 
 Passing a step further, permit me to ask, what will be the effect 
 if we attempt to establish the rule that while the Executive has the 
 power to recognize without Congressional concurrence, Congress has 
 similar authority to act without the Executive? To what result 
 must this finally lead us? If the President, without Congressional 
 assistance, has absolute power to declare neutrality, thereby conceding 
 belligerency, which, as I say, I take to be well established, and if 
 Congress has similar absolute power over the same subject-matter, 
 we then have two independent departments of the Government, each 
 vested with the unqualified authority to render the same final judg 
 ment. What the consequences might be if the Executive proclaimed 
 belligerency and Congress declared the circumstances to be not such 
 as to warrant the proclamation and sought to annul it, or what might 
 be the consequences if Congress passed a concurrent resolution, as 
 proposed, formally recognizing the belligerency of the Cuban patriots, 
 and the Executive declined to act upon it, holding that the condition 
 of war does not obtain, are serious propositions. 
 
 It can not be that the framers of the Constitution contemplated 
 the creation of such clashing authority. If the distinguished Senator 
 from Alabama admits, as he did yesterday, that the power to recog 
 nize the independence of a nation is vested exclusively in the Execu 
 tive, I submit that it follows a fortiori that the power to recognize 
 18 
 
266 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 belligerency is similarly reposed. If the Executive may recognize, 
 as has been the practice from the foundation of the Republic, I incline 
 to believe that he; alone has this power. The clothing of each depart 
 ment with the full jurisdiction to decide the same issue is to invite 
 confusion and beget irreconcilable disputation. 
 
 Mr. President, it is not now, and I hope never will be, essential 
 to determine this question. I refer to it because I do not care to be 
 a party to the establishment of a precedent to which I can not give 
 my assent. I wish it understood that any resolution for which I 
 may vote touching this controversy is merely the expression of 
 opinion which I do not conceive to have the force of law. 
 
 Is there any reason to suppose that the Executive will not act 
 vigorously when the proper time comes? If we have such reason 
 does the proposed concurrent resolution better the situation or 
 remedy the anticipated evil? In the first place, there is at this 
 moment no proposition here which purports upon its face to abso 
 lutely recognize belligerency, and I do not think it wise to adopt 
 such a resolution, because I do not wish to wantonly place this body 
 in seeming or actual conflict with the Executive. 
 
 There is another ground which appears to me very strong in 
 support of the contention that the recognition power is lodged in the 
 Executive. There is before the Senate a document which was read 
 by the Senator from Alabama, and which I deem quite important. 
 I refer to House Document 224 of the present session. I read a few 
 lines for purposes of illustration : 
 
 No. 2699.] CONSULATE-GENERAI, OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 Havana, January 7, 1896. 
 
 Sir: With reference to the proclamation of the captain-general of the 2nd 
 instant declaring a state of war to exist in the provinces of Havana and Pinar 
 del Rio, copy and translation of which accompanied my dispatch No. 2695 f 
 the 4th instant 
 
 At this point I find a note stating that the proclamation men 
 tioned is not printed. From this I conclude that the omitted paper 
 has not been revealed to Congress. No one appears to con 
 trovert this supposition. When the House adopted the resolution 
 calling for this correspondence it did so in the following phraseology : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to communicate to the 
 House of Representatives, if not inconsistent with the public interests, copies 
 of all correspondence relating to affairs in Cuba since February last. 
 
 The House passed the usual resolution in the regular form 
 which custom authorizes. Manifestly information has been with 
 held no doubt properly. Time out of mind, if I may use that 
 expression with reference to this very modern Government, it has 
 been the custom to withhold information the disclosure of which 
 the Executive deems incompatible with public interest. The docu 
 ment thus legitimately withheld may contain essential and controlling 
 facts upon this subject. That it is important would seem to follow 
 to some extent from the very circumstance that it is retained. Has 
 the Executive the right to thus deny information? Our Chief Magis 
 trates have always done so, pursuant to unchallenged custom and in 
 compliance with recognized usage, evidenced by many hundred 
 resolutions calling upon the Executive for diplomatic information. 
 The President is not directed; he is merely requested, and always 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 267 
 
 with the qualification which I have noted. The Executive right to 
 withhold delicate diplomatic correspondence is incidental to the 
 Presidential office. Can it be that the Constitution has placed upon 
 Congress the burden of deciding and the duty to determine issues 
 concerning belligerent or other relations to foreign powers and has 
 not at the same time compelled the President to give us everything 
 within his knowledge? Can it be that we are to pass upon a part 
 of the case and not upon the whole? Can it be that under the law 
 we are deprived of material evidence and yet are expected to render 
 final and determinative judgment upon an imperfect record a 
 fraction of the aggregate proof? I say not. The President has 
 before him all information. He reviews a complete history. Plainly, 
 he is in a better condition to judge of the true state of affairs than 
 are we. He has the means to secure all relevant information. 
 
 Having in charge the diplomatic relations of the Government, 
 he is, or should be, better advised than the Senate or the House of 
 Representatives or both. 
 
 Mr. President, I refer to this controversy not because of its 
 bearing upon this isolated case, but to show that under the govern 
 mental scheme, pursuant to which we are acting, it is improbable that 
 it ever was the intention to place the power to recognize either 
 belligerency or independence in such a condition that a conflict could 
 arise between Congress and the Executive for the settlement of 
 which no adequate remedy is provided. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from California insist or 
 argue that the President of the United States in his discretion may 
 withhold information from Congress, and then when he withholds 
 the information he can act upon it himself without informing us of 
 it, and conclusively bind this Government either to a declaration of 
 belligerency or any other condition he wishes to impose upon us? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Not so broadly as that, but the President of the 
 United States has the power to withhold information. This the 
 Senator does not deny. From the beginning of this Government the 
 Executive has recognized or refused to recognize belligerency, and 
 his determination has passed unchallenged. No one has heretofore 
 disputed Executive authority to accord belligerency. There is not a 
 case, and I do not think the Senator from Alabama can discover an 
 instance, where the belligerency of a country has been recognized 
 by Congress despite the Executive. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Or by the Executive without the consent of 
 Congress. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Undoubtedly, yes. The Senator is certainly in 
 error. The cases are uniformly against him. The Prize Cases and 
 the Ambrose Light ought to suffice. In the latter cause it was 
 determined that Mr. Cleveland recognized the belligerency of 
 Colombia by indirection, although the State Department claimed he 
 did not accord such recognition. (13 Albany L. J., page 125.) 
 During the efforts of the South American Republics to gain their 
 freedom the President recognized belligerency and for many years 
 thereafter consistently refused to acknowledge the independence of 
 the revolted territory. 
 
 This recognition of belligerency was always executive. Subse 
 quently Congress ratified Presidential liberality, but such action was 
 a mere affirmation of that which was already conclusive. No one 
 
268 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ever disputed the adequacy of Presidential action. The ratification 
 by Congress was indirect. So in the case of Texas and Mexico. 
 While President Jackson refused to recognize the independence of 
 Texas for years, still belligerency was recognized openly and clearly 
 by the act of the Executive, and if the Senator from Alabama will 
 peruse the opinion of Attorney-General Butler, reported 3 Opinions 
 of the Attorneys-General, page 120, he will find an announcement 
 which plainly supports my argument. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Before the Senator from California proceeds, 
 I wish to call his attention to a case decided by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Califor 
 nia yield to the Senator from Alabama? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. I call the Senator s attention to a case decided 
 by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the first proposition 
 the Senator has announced, that every concurrent or joint resolution 
 must be sent to the President, that the Constitution on that subject 
 is mandatory, and that a resolution can not become operative as a law 
 unless it is sent to the President of the United States. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Such a resolution as that pending here now, if 
 the Senator will pardon me a resolution under the Constitution 
 and not dependent upon mere statutory or rule regulation? 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Yes. Here is the case of Hollingsworth et al. 
 against Virginia, 3 Dallas, decided by the unanimous opinion of the 
 court. The case arose upon a motion to discontinue a suit pending 
 in a Federal court after the amendment of the Constitution which 
 forbids the States to be sued in a Federal tribunal. The case as 
 stated is as follows: 
 
 The decision of the court in the case of Chisholm, executor, vs. Georgia 
 (2 Dall. Rep., 419) produced a proposition in Congress for amending the Con 
 stitution of the United States according to the following terms: 
 
 " The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend 
 to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 
 United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any 
 foreign State." 
 
 The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number of States, 
 Lee, Attorney-General, submitted this question to the court: Whether the 
 amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent 
 the institution of new suits against any one of the United States by citizens 
 of another State? 
 
 Messrs. Tilghman and Rawle argued in the negative, and they 
 stated this proposition: 
 
 The amendment has not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Con 
 stitution, and therefore it is void. Upon an inspection of the original roll it 
 appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his 
 approbation. The Constitution declares that >" every order, resolution^ or 
 vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives 
 may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented 
 to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect 
 shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed 
 by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives," etc. 
 
 The court, Chase, Justice, in commenting upon that position, in 
 a note at the bottom of the page this is the only opinion that is 
 delivered upon that point says : 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 269 
 
 There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument. The negative 
 of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation. He has 
 nothing to do with the proposition or adoption of amendments to the Con 
 stitution. 
 
 I argue from that, of course, that a joint resolution or a con 
 current resolution of the two Houses proposing an amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States embodies about as important a 
 political movement as can be conceived of. If it results in a change 
 of the Constitution of the United States, as it did in this case, nothing 
 can be more important, and yet the concurrent resolution referred to 
 in that case never was submitted to the President of the United 
 States. The original rolls show that it was submitted to him, and 
 yet after the ratification of the amendment it was held by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States that it was not necessary to submit the 
 resolution to the President because it was not ordinary legislation. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I may be wrong about it, but I do not see the 
 slightest relevancy of the case cited by the Senator from Alabama. 
 Article V of the Constitution provides the method of amendment and 
 it states : 
 
 The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, 
 shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of 
 the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention, etc. 
 
 There is a special method provided for the adoption of a resolu 
 tion looking to that end. It is a separate article, devoted to a specific 
 subject. If the construction of the Senator from Alabama is correct, 
 the section of the Constitution upon which I rely means nothing. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. I will say to the Senator from California that 
 that very point was raised in this case. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Of course it was. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. It was raised in this case, but 
 
 Mr. WHITE. And it was decided by the court. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. But the court rested its decision entirely on 
 the ground that it was not ordinary legislation, and that the President 
 did not have anything to do with it. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. So I understand. " Ordinary legislation " refers 
 to such Congressional action as is here proposed. All Congressional 
 effort under section 8 is plainly ordinary legislation. There is no 
 difficulty about that, and the present attempt being under the grant 
 of section 8, must be solved without regard to the peculiarities of 
 section 5. I referred a moment ago to the case of Texas. I find, 
 25 Federal Reporter, page 425, the following from the opinion of 
 Attorney-General Butler : 
 
 Where a civil war breaks out in a foreign nation, and part of such nation 
 erect a distinct and separate government, and the United States, though they 
 do not acknowledge the independence of the new government, do yet recog 
 nize the existence of a civil war, our courts have uniformly regarded each 
 party as a belligerent nation in regard to acts done jure belli. * * * The 
 existence of a civil war between the people of Texas and the authorities of 
 the other Mexican States was recognized by the President of the United 
 States at an early day in the month of November last. Official notice of this 
 fact and of the President s intention to preserve the neutrality of the United 
 States was soon after given to the Mexican Government This recognition 
 has been since repeated by numerous acts of the Executive, several of which 
 had taken place before the capture of the Pocket. 
 
270 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 There is a positive opinion, entitled to great weight, that the 
 President has the right to announce belligerency without Con 
 gressional co-operation. Mr. Wharton, in section 71 of his Digest, 
 says: 
 
 The question of recognition of foreign revolutionary or reactionary govern 
 ments is one exclusively for the Executive, and can not be determined inter 
 nationally by Congressional action. 
 
 Mr. Seward was an able lawyer, a distinguished publicist, and 
 his views merit serious consideration. In a letter written to Mr. 
 Dayton, then our minister to France, he refers to this point and 
 passes upon it with clearness and positiveness. I ask the Secretary 
 to read from Secretary Seward s letter to Minister Dayton. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 I send you a copy of a resolution which passed the House of Representa 
 tives on the 4th instant by a unanimous vote, and which declares the oppo 
 sition of that body to a recognition of a monarchy in Mexico. Mr. Geofroy 
 has lost no time in asking for an explanation of this proceeding. It is hardly 
 necessary, after what I have heretofore written with perfect candor for the 
 information of France, to say that this resolution truly interprets the unan 
 imous sentiment of the people of the United States in regard to Mexico. It 
 is, however, another and distinct question whether the United States would 
 think it necessary or proper to express themselves in the form adopted by 
 the House of Representatives at this time. This is a practical and purely 
 Executive question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs not to the 
 House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the 
 United States. 
 
 You will of course take notice that the declaration made by the House of 
 Representatives is in the form of a joint resolution, which before it can acquire 
 the character of a legislative act must receive first the concurrence of the 
 Senate, and secondly the approval of the President of the United States, or 
 in case of his dissent the renewed assent of both Houses of Congress, to 
 be expressed by a majority of two-thirds of each body. While the President 
 received the declaration of the House of Representatives with the profound 
 respect to which it is entitled as an expression upon a grave and important 
 subject, he directs that you inform the Government of France that he does 
 not at present contemplate any departure from the policy which this Gov 
 ernment has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists between 
 France and Mexico. It is hardly necessary to say that the proceeding of the 
 House of Representatives was adopted upon suggestions arising within itself, 
 and not upon any communication of the executive department, and that the 
 French Government would be seasonably apprised of any change of policy 
 upon this subject which the President might at any future time think it proper 
 to adopt. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
 
 WILLIAM L. DAYTON, Esq., etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. In an opinion already referred to, the decision of 
 Judge Brown in " The Ambrose Light," 2$ Federal Reporter, page 
 443, that jurist says: 
 
 The additional facts proved show, however, such a subsequent implied 
 recognition by our Government of the insurgent forces as a government de 
 facto, in a state of war with Colombia, and entitled to belligerent rights, as 
 should prevent the condemnation of the vessel as prize. The communication 
 from the Department of State to the Colombian minister, bearing date the day 
 of the seizure, seems to me to constitute such a recognition by necessary 
 implication. It could not have been based upon any facts, or have reference 
 to any state of facts, not in existence at the time of the seizure ; and it should 
 be held, therefore, to arrest and supersede any subsequent condemnation for 
 those acts of war which such a recognition authorizes the insurgents to carry 
 on. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 271 
 
 There the court grounded its judgment upon the proposition that 
 the Executive, by making a certain proclamation in reference to the 
 blockading of the Colombian ports, had recognized belligerency. Mr. 
 President, I go further yet and maintain that after the Executive has 
 once recognized belligerency the authorities are that such recognition 
 can not be withdrawn except by agreement. This feature of the 
 subject is discussed by Mr. Hall in his work on International Law, 
 pages 37 and 38. 
 
 If we are to follow the decisions of our own courts; if we are 
 to pay any attention to the uniform practice of our State Depart 
 ment; if we are to be guided to any extent by able writers, like Mr. 
 Wharton, who for years was the trusted adviser of our State Depart 
 ment and whose erudition won the commendation of publicists 
 everywhere, we must conclude that in any event recognition of 
 belligerency or independence can not be accomplished without 
 executive participation. It is not necessary for me to rest my con 
 tention upon the proposition that Executive jurisdiction is exclusive, 
 though it does seem to me that such is the law. 
 
 The resolution last reported by the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations reads thus: 
 
 That, in the opinion of Congress, a condition of public war exists between 
 the Government of Spain and the Government proclaimed and for some time 
 maintained by force or arms by the people of Cuba ; and that the United 
 States of America should maintain a strict neutrality between the contend 
 ing powers, according to each all the rights of belligerents in the ports and 
 territory of the United States. 
 
 Is it intended that this resolution when adopted shall amount 
 to a proclamation of neutrality and a declaration of belligerency, or is 
 it only advisory? If the latter, it is of no more efficacy than any 
 of the other resolutions submitted. If it is intended to operate 
 directly, then we have the spectacle of the Congress of the United 
 States issuing a proclamation of neutrality without any consultation 
 whatever with the Executive. I venture to assert that there is no 
 precedent and no authority anywhere for such a position. Certainly 
 none has been cited, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama is 
 so conversant with the diplomatic relations of this Government, past 
 and present, that if there had been any such precedent he would have 
 mentioned it. In my opinion we should proceed either by joint 
 resolution, to be submitted to the President, positively declaring 
 belligerency and announcing neutrality, or we should adopt an 
 expression of opinion and sympathy as suggested in the resolution 
 which I have proposed. I prefer the latter course, for the reasons 
 already outlined. 
 
 I am not prepared to assume that the Executive has been derelict. 
 I think we can trust Mr. Cleveland and his distinguished Secretary 
 of State to act wisely and patriotically in the matter of our foreign 
 relations. They have manifested no indisposition to maintain the 
 honor and the integrity of this country. The stand so recently taken 
 by the President concerning foreign affairs is approved by the Ameri 
 can people. Surely no one can attribute want of firmness or fear 
 to either of these distinguished officers. Can it be that they desire 
 to witness Cuba in the permanent grasp of a cruel master? Can it 
 be that if a proclamation of belligerency is of any value to the con 
 tending revolutionists the same is withheld without grave reason? I 
 
272 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 will discuss in a few moments the legal effect of such a declaration 
 and the position in which it would place the United States and the 
 people of that island. 
 
 But as far as the Department of State is a subject of consider 
 ation I must say that I am entirely confident that nothing- will be 
 done either hastily or illegally and that there will be no undue delay. 
 I repeat that I trust the Congress of the United States will not 
 put itself in antagonism to the Executive upon a question of the 
 recognition of belligerency; certainly not without the entire case 
 being presented. This Government has never been emotional in the 
 matter of the recognition of belligerency. 
 
 I referred a moment ago to the case of Chile. Mr. Harrison, 
 in the extract from his message which I read, sent in here in 1891, 
 spoke of the fact that the agents of the insurgent government of Chile 
 had attempted to obtain an audience. He said : 
 
 During the pendency of this civil contest frequent indirect appeals were 
 made to this Government to extend belligerent rights to the insurgents and to 
 give audience to their representatives. This was declined, and that policy 
 was pursued throughout which this Government, when wrenched by civil 
 war, so strenuously insisted upon on the part of European nations. 
 
 He then refers to his unsuccessful prosecution of the Itata. 
 What was the condition in Chile at the time that recognition was thus 
 refused? That condition was briefly this: The judicial department 
 of Chile decided that the President had usurped certain authority ; 
 the legislative department almost unanimously supported the judi 
 ciary; both judicial and legislative officers were driven from their 
 homes at the point of the bayonet they fled for their lives, and 
 Balmaceda assumed supreme control, even closing the courts. The 
 navy, with inconsiderable exceptions, joined in the demonstration 
 against Balmaceda. The insurgents, as they were styled, took pos 
 session of the harbor of Iquique. They held absolutely and exclu 
 sively several of the northern states of the Republic and maintained 
 undisputed dominion over those provinces and dominated the whole 
 coast. 
 
 The harbor of Valparaiso was blockaded, and Balmaceda was 
 unable to carry on commerce, while his enemies sailed over the ocean 
 at will. And yet under that condition of things Mr. Harrison 
 refused to recognize the belligerency of the insurgents, although they 
 represented at the very outbreak of hostilities the judicial and legis 
 lative branches of the Government, and although the courts of this 
 country afterwards decided that their organization really constituted 
 the Government from the beginning. 
 
 Now, here was a case where I am free to say I think recognition 
 should have been accorded, because there was manifestly a state of 
 war, and the so-called insurgents maintained civilized rule and con 
 ducted in a regular way all governmental functions. At least two 
 diplomatic agents from foreign powers were there, regularly accred 
 ited. The courts were in session. 
 
 They took prisoners of war, treated them in accordance with 
 modern usage, and maintained in all respects an enlightened estab 
 lishment. Yet we refused to recognize them, and did, I might add, 
 everything which one nation coulcl do to provoke another. In the 
 midst of our efforts to belittle them the unrecognized insurgents 
 suddenly crushed Balmaceda, and the President then, without the 
 aid of Congress, recognized their independence. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 273 
 
 I cite this case not because I think that the President of the 
 United States was justified in withholding a recognition of belliger 
 ency, though he did so without protest from anybody here, but 
 because I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that this 
 Government has of late years especially been very loath to engage 
 in any transaction which could antagonize a friendly people. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not know, I am not in a position to affirm 
 that I know, that the insurgent Government of Cuba is in a condition 
 absolutely to justify the accordance of belligerent rights. 
 
 I think it is probable that such is their status, and I draw that 
 inference mainly from the statement on page 51 of House Document 
 224 to which I referred. If Spain has proclaimed the existence of 
 war, other nations are, of course, free to recognize the same. If one 
 of the enthusiastic advocates who has here pleaded eloquently the 
 cause of Cuba for instance, my distinguished friend the Senator 
 from Florida [Mr. CALL] were appointed minister to the Cuban 
 Republic, where would he go? Where would he meet the 
 diplomatic officers of that Government, which, I am sorry to say, 
 appears to me to be in the saddle? Where is the seat of govern 
 mental authority? Where is the place where the judiciary admin 
 isters its functions? Where does the Executive sit and where are 
 the legislative obligations discharged? I do not know. Who knows? 
 It is true we are told that a constitution has been adopted, and there 
 are reported legislative proceedings printed on our desks; but I am 
 not satisfied that there is any permanently fixed and operating and 
 accessible republican government on the island. 
 
 When we have been called upon to recognize belligerency we 
 have usually been brought into direct commercial contact with the 
 people seeking recognition. But our unlucky neighbors have no 
 commerce; they have no navy; they hold no ports. No case of 
 piracy can arise with reference to them because they have no 
 maritime standing. 
 
 These are reasons suggesting themselves to my mind why it is 
 necessary to make a careful and painstaking investigation to dis 
 cover the actual facts of the case. The authorities read by the 
 Senator from Alabama are well founded where they announce that 
 there must be some settled parity between the contending forces to 
 warrant the recognition of even belligerency. We may think or 
 guess that recognition should be allowed, but we can not know 
 unless we have all the evidence before us. Without a reasonable 
 probability of success, unless there is something like equality in the 
 standing of the parties contending, recognition should not be 
 granted. The mere justice or the injustice of the struggle can not 
 determine the question of recognition or non-recognition. The rules 
 usually prevailing in such cases are stated in Dana s Wheaton, eighth 
 edition, page 34, note 15; Lawrence s International Law, sections 
 162, 163, 164; Pomeroy s International Law (Woolsey s edition), 
 section 236. I do not deem it advisable to do more than is indicated 
 in the proposed resolution which I have offered. 
 
 I prefer to leave the final determination to the President. I 
 favor this course not only because of the somewhat dubious con 
 ditions surrounding the matter, but because I think it is the law, 
 and that to this rule we should steadfastly adhere. At this point 
 I will quote from the message of President Grant, transmitted to 
 Congress after Cuba had long been in revolt. He said: 
 
274 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 In my annual message to Congress at the beginning of its present session I 
 referred to the contest which had then for more than a year existed in the 
 Island of Cuba between a portion of its inhabitants and the Government of 
 Spain, and the feelings and sympathies of the people and Government of the 
 United States for the people of Cuba, as for all peoples struggling for liberty 
 and self-government, and said that the contest has at no time assumed condi 
 tions which amount to war, in the sense of international law, or which 
 would show the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgents 
 sufficient to justify a recognition of belligerency. 
 
 During the six months which have passed since the date of that message 
 the condition of the insurgents has not improved; and the insurrection itself, 
 although not subdued, exhibits no signs of advance, but seems to be confined 
 to an irregular system of hostilities, carried on by small and illy armed bands 
 of men roaming, without concentration, through the woods and the sparsely 
 populated regions of the island, attacking from ambush convoys and small 
 bands of troops, burning plantations and the estates of those not sympathiz 
 ing with their cause. 
 
 Applying the best information which I have been enabled to gather, whether 
 from official or unofficial sources, including the very exaggerated statements 
 which each party gives to all that may prejudice the opposite or give credit 
 to its own side of the question, I am unable to see, in the present condition of 
 the contest in Cuba, those elements which are requisite to constitute war 
 in the sense of international law. The insurgents hold no town or city; 
 have no established seat of government ; they have no prize courts ; no organ 
 ization for the receiving and collecting of revenue; no seaport to which a 
 prize may be carried or through which access can be had by a foreign power 
 to the limited interior territory and mountain fastnesses which they occupy. 
 The existence of a legislature representing any popular constituency is more 
 than doubtful. 
 
 This opinion was announced in 1870, but President Grant held 
 the same views when he penned his seventh annual message in 1875. 
 (i Wharton s International Digest, section 60.) 
 
 Newspaper articles have been read here as proof of the com 
 mission of horrible crimes. We are in the habit in this Chamber 
 of reading newspapers in evidence as though absolute verity per 
 tained to such publications. 
 
 Mr. President, newspapers very often contain truth and some 
 times they avoid the truth. There are many individuals in the 
 world who frequently speak truly, and there are other individuals 
 who commonly do not adhere to facts. Newspapers, to some extent, 
 color information given in their columns. Sensations are popular. 
 Who can afford to affirm that all the narrations of atrocity, savage 
 almost beyond conception, which have been given the public with 
 reference to the transactions in Cuba are true? I believe General 
 Weyler to be a cold, relentless, and heartless man. I think the 
 record shows this conclusion to be justified. If he committed the 
 outrages which are charged against him here and elsewhere I am 
 at a loss to account for his existence. He could not long survive 
 such crimes. The vengeance of bereaved sufferers would overtake 
 him. It is my belief that the case is bad enough when the truth is 
 told, but I do not wish here or anywhere, but particularly here, to 
 charge against a Government with which we are at peace, whether 
 the Government be strong or weak, whether its administration of 
 national affairs be such as to challenge our admiration or otherwise, 
 any dark transactions of which we do not have indubitable proof. 
 
 The Senate, I understand, is specially charged with certain 
 functions pertaining to our foreign policies. We should approach 
 with caution the examination of accusations made against a friendly 
 power. Haste, excitement, and denunciation have no place in such 
 deliberations. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 275 
 
 The actual occurrences of this disturbance are sufficiently sad 
 to meet all the demands of the most sensational. It is inexcusable 
 to assume that sanguinary rumors, wholly unsupported by evidence, 
 are correct and even moderate recitals. 
 
 I would personally rejoice to witness the Cuban people free from 
 alien control. I feel that it is not in accordance with the best 
 interests of the United States that any portion of this continent or 
 the adjacent islands should be governed from across the waters. 
 I do not, however, find it requisite to exhibit gory portrayals of 
 alleged Spanish cruelty in order to sustain my position, or to over 
 rule or overturn the undisputed and unvarying policy of a century 
 for the purpose of meeting this particular exigency. 
 
 Mr. President, it may be well to inquire what the effect of the 
 recognition, which seems to be desired so greatly by the Cuban 
 patriots, will be upon their cause and likewise upon the United 
 States. In the first place, I affirm that as to the right to trade with 
 the people of this country and to purchase arms, ammunition, sup 
 plies, etc., the insurgents are as favorably situated now as they can 
 be after a recognition by us of their belligerency. Secondly, I assert 
 that as far as we are concerned, though this to me is a minor 
 consideration, we will assume in the event of a declaration of 
 belligerency burdens not now upon our shoulders. 
 
 When the Senator from Alabama had the floor last Thursday 
 the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] inquired 
 of him as to the effect upon this country of a recognition by us of 
 the Cubans; and the Senator from Alabama was asked whether it 
 was not a fact that the right of search would be accorded to the 
 naval vessels of Spain in the event of a recognition. Undoubtedly 
 such would be the result. The Senator from Alabama, as I under 
 stood him, said yes, but that such search must be made at the peril 
 of those who seized the vessel. The rule upon that subject is very 
 succinctly and fully and conclusively stated in a case called " The 
 Thompson," a prize case, reported in 3 Wallace, page 155. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. If the Senator will allow me, I referred in 
 that connection to the treaty of 1795 between Spain and the United 
 States. I hope the Senator from California has examined the treaty. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; I have examined it. I can not find 
 that it affects this question materially, and I will refer to it here 
 after. I now read the syllabus in the case of the Thompson: 
 
 1. Prize courts properly deny damages or costs where there has been 
 " probable cause " for seizure. 
 
 2. Probable cause exists where there are circumstances sufficient to war 
 rant suspicion, even though not sufficient to warrant condemnation. 
 
 Mr. HOAR. The Senator will allow me to interpose there to 
 say that I had reference in my question not only to the principle 
 of the liability of seizure to be defended or justified by probable 
 cause, but to the liability of search. If Spain has a colony that 
 she is not at war with, but with which she has only some local dis 
 turbances, and attaches a United States vessel on the high seas, she 
 has no more right to enter with that vessel than she has to enter the 
 port of New York, even if she can show absolutely that what was on 
 board was destined for her insurgents, unless it came within the 
 3-mile limit of her shores. But if she is at war, then she may search 
 every American vessel at her discretion on the high seas. There is 
 
276 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 no question about her right to stop the New York, as I understand 
 it, at her discretion. She may stop the New York or the Paris on the 
 high seas whenever she deems that the vessel is designed to aid the 
 party that might be at war. That is my point. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I appreciate the question addressed to me by the 
 Senator from Massachusetts and am disposed to agree with him. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. I beg leave to say that I differ totally with 
 the Senator. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I do not understand the position of the Senator 
 from Alabama, and I should be glad to hear him state it. 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. Vessels approaching the ports, whether block 
 aded or not, of one of the belligerents are liable to search for the 
 purpose of ascertaining whether they contain contraband of war. 
 That liability, however, is regulated by the treaty of 1795, which 
 prescribes the particular manner in which the search shall be made, 
 and excludes Spain from the right of search, even when the ship is 
 passing along the three-mile limit, unless she has contraband on 
 board. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Does the Senator mean to state that the treaty 
 excludes Spain from the right of searching any vessel? 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. I do not ; but conditions are provided by treaty 
 which are not in accordance with international law. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I do not intend to conclude this evening, and as 
 a copy of the treaty is not before me at this moment I will defer a 
 critical examination. At all events, taking the limitation suggested 
 by the Senator from Alabama, the right of search does obtain within 
 a restricted area, at least. There is no doubt about that? 
 
 Mr. MORGAN. No. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. In the next place, Spain can, in the event of our 
 declaration of neutrality, blockade her ports. There is no dispute 
 as to this. Then any American citizen on the Island of Cuba today 
 who is injured, who loses his property by reason of insurgent raids, 
 may have the basis for such a claim as Mora successfully asserted 
 and collected. But this will not be the rule if after belligerency is 
 declared and neutrality proclaimed the damage is suffered. What 
 ever may be the effect of the liberal treaty referred to by the Senator 
 from Alabama, I think it will be found that the inconveniences to 
 which our commerce would be subjected in the event of a proclama 
 tion of neutrality would be many and great. 
 
 I will now make a few observations as to the rights of the 
 Cubans in revolt to purchase contraband material here. 
 
 When the late Chilean war was in progress the Junta, or anti- 
 Balmacedan party, occupied the same legal position with regard to 
 the United States as do those who claim to represent the Republic 
 of Cuba. They were unrecognized. They had sought recognition 
 without avail. Therefore the situations may be considered parallel. 
 Under such conditions the Junta sent a vessel to San Diego and 
 there were placed upon her, within the jurisdiction of the United 
 States, rifles, ammunition, etc. The vessel sailed with that cargo 
 to Iquique. The munitions of war had been purchased in New York 
 and had been transported across this continent and placed upon a 
 schooner in the harbor of San Francisco and sent thence to Clemente 
 Island, situated within California waters. The United States sent 
 the cruiser Charleston to Iquique and took the Itata and cargo back 
 to San Diego and libeled her under the provisions of the Revised 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 277 
 
 Statutes upon which this Government now relies in the matter of the 
 prosecution just established in New York. The parties who pur 
 chased the arms were arrested and brought to trial. Here, then, is 
 an analogous case, a case upon all fours with that presented when the 
 Cubans send an ordinary merchant ship to this country to buy war 
 supplies for home consumption. Yet the district court of the United 
 States, and afterwards the circuit court of appeals, decided that the 
 Itata and those who manned her were innocent and were not amena 
 ble to any of the neutrality laws of the United States, and that the 
 Chilean insurgents had a right to buy and take away the coveted 
 consignment. In that case it was determined that the Government 
 could only prosecute the defendants under the provisions of sections 
 5283 to 5286 of the Revised Statutes, which refer to neutral duties, 
 unless they could be treated as pirates, a proposition impossible 
 under our departmental rulings. It was intimated, but not decided, 
 that there is no Federal statute under which mere unrecognized fac 
 tions can be punished. This quaere was incidentally made by Judge 
 Ross, who tried the case at nisi prius (United States vs. Trumbull, 
 48 Federal Reporter) ; and a similar hint was thrown out by Judge 
 Brown in the Carondolet (37 Federal Reporter). There are expres 
 sions in Gelston vs. Hoyt (3 Wheaton, 245) and United States vs. 
 Quincy (6 Peters, 445) to the same purport. The case, however, 
 was squarely settled upon the merits, and the effect of the adjudica 
 tion is that recognition of either belligerency or independence is not 
 essential to justify trade in contraband merchandise. 
 
 President Harrison, in the message, to which I have already 
 alluded, in commenting upon that decision said : 
 
 A trial in the district court of the United States for the southern district 
 of California has recently resulted in a decision holding, among other things, 
 that, inasmuch as the congressional party had not been recognized as a 
 belligerent, the acts done in its interest could not be a violation of our neu 
 trality laws. From this judgment the United States has appealed, not that 
 the condemnation of the vessel is a matter of importance, but that we may 
 know what the present state of our law is, for if this construction of the 
 statute is correct there is obvious necessity for revision and amendment. 
 
 While, as I have remarked, the lower court did not, as stated 
 by Mr. Harrison, base its decision upon that ground, and the mes 
 sage is incorrect to that extent, nevertheless such was the intimation. 
 No action was taken by Congress pursuant to the Presidential request ; 
 no legislation was had amending the provisions of the statute cited 
 or making the penal provision applicable specifically to mere insur 
 rectionists. These rights with reference to trade have been long 
 recognized. No one stated the law more plainly than Judge Story in 
 " The Santissima Trinidad," 7 Wheaton. 
 
 But if it be true that the insurgents in Cuba have the same right 
 to procure arms and supplies under the present condition of affairs 
 as they would if the United States recognized them as belligerents, 
 where is the vast importance attributed to this recognition? What 
 privileges would they thus obtain? Outside of a certain moral 
 advantage the sole theoretical benefit would be a curtailment of the 
 rights of Spain. As it is now, the insurgents have no national 
 status and Spain is not prohibited from coming to our ports and 
 arming her vessels, and she may fit out military expeditions here or 
 take any steps competent to her in normal times. In the event of 
 recognition Spain would be also liable under our neutrality statute. 
 
278 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 That is one advantage which would accrue to Cuba in consequence 
 of belligerency. But practically what would this amount to? Spain 
 is not engaged in fitting out expeditions in this country. There is no 
 sympathy for her here. She can procure no men to enlist in her 
 cause; she can obtain no aid and comfort in America. She may, like 
 her foes, buy supplies and arms in our market, but that is her right 
 in any event. Thus it will be seen that but little benefit can follow 
 even effective action for recognition. 
 
 What potency accompanies any resolution we may adopt? We 
 all desire to see Cuba liberated, but how can she achieve her inde 
 pendence except through her own efforts? If our Government were 
 not careful in the enforcement of her neutrality laws, perhaps the 
 insurgent cause might advance more rapidly. If these people were 
 more carefully advised there would not, I am persuaded, be serious 
 difficulty in getting much-needed ammunition and other war mate 
 rial, but expeditions can not be fitted out here nor can men enlist for 
 hostile service and arm ships in our waters for warlike enterprise. 
 No one proposes that we shall declare war against Spain, and unless 
 we do so the excited language daily repeated here is not appropriate. 
 
 Mr. President, our wishes are for Cuban freedom, but can we 
 accomplish this by mere naked declaratign? Senators have con 
 demned Spain and have criticised her policies with severity, but all 
 this is futile. We should appreciate the truth that we can not peace 
 ably, or with due respect for international obligations, go further than 
 sympathetic expression. If the President determines to announce 
 that the Cubans in revolt are entitled to the rights of war they will 
 still be subject to sections 5283-5286 of the Revised Statutes of the 
 United States. This would be true if Cuban independence were 
 recognized by us and must remain true while war lasts. Our decla 
 ration of neutrality itself implies that we will vigorously enforce the 
 law as against all parties to the contest. We are in honor bound to 
 do so. It is well to keep these facts before us. All should remem 
 ber that in no way can we relieve the people of Cuba from the effect 
 of our neutrality laws unless we boldly deny Spain s right and our 
 selves take charge of the issue and declare war. 
 
 [At this point Mr. WHITE yielded for a motion to proceed to the 
 consideration of executive business.] 
 
 Thursday, February 27, 1896. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, when the Senate adjourned yes 
 terday I was endeavoring to state the respective legal rights of the 
 parties combatant in Cuba, as I understood them, and the effect of 
 recognition. In the course of the afternoon the Senator from Ala 
 bama [Mr. MORGAN] called my attention to the treaty entered into 
 by this Government with Spain in 1795 and to its effect upon the 
 commercial relations of the two countries. Since that time I have 
 examined that convention with some care, and find in it three arti 
 cles of much importance, viz, the fifteenth, the sixteenth, and the 
 seventeenth. They are lengthy, and I shall not read them through 
 out. 
 
 Article 15 provides that it shall be lawful for the subjects and 
 citizens of both countries to trade with belligerents, and with those 
 who are enemies of both, without any opposition or disturbance 
 except in matters contraband. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 279 
 
 Article 16 enumerates the merchandise, etc., which shall be con 
 sidered the subject of legitimate trade. 
 
 Article 17, which I take to be the particular article alluded to 
 by the Senator from Alabama, provides as follows : 
 
 To the end that all manner of dissensions and quarrels may be avoided 
 and prevented on one side and the other, it is agreed, that in case either of 
 the parties hereto should be engaged in a war, the ships and vessels belong 
 ing to the subjects or people of the other party must be furnished with sea 
 letters or passports, expressing the name, property, and bulk of the ship, as 
 also the name and place of habitation of the master or commander of the said 
 ship, that it may appear thereby that the ship really and truly belongs to the 
 subjects of one of the parties, which passport shall be made out and granted 
 according to the form annexed to this treaty. They shall likewise be recalled 
 every year, that is, if the ship happens to return home within the space of a 
 year. 
 
 The article then continues and provides the essentials to be con 
 tained in such passports, and it is provided that: 
 
 It is likewise agreed that such ships being laden are to be provided not only 
 with passports as above mentioned, but also with certificates containing the 
 several particulars of the cargo, the place whence the ship sailed, so that it 
 may be known whether any forbidden or contraband goods be on board the 
 same; which certificates shall be made out by the officers of the place whence 
 the ship sailed in the accustomed form. And if anyone shall think it fit or 
 advisable to express in the said certificates the person to whom the goods on 
 board belong, he may freely do so. Without which requisites they may be sent 
 to one of the ports of the other contracting party and adjudged by the com 
 petent tribunal, according to what is above set forth, for all the circum 
 stances of this omission having been well examined, they shall be adjudged 
 to be legal prizes, unless they shall give legal satisfaction of their property by 
 testimony entirely equivalent. 
 
 Were this stipulation possible of enforcement it would amount 
 to this : That if a vessel of the contracting parties possesses the 
 passport provided for no further search or inquiry can be made, 
 because the passport is made conclusive. However, I find upon 
 investigation that the United States Supreme Court rendered a decis 
 ion to the effect that this article is wholly nugatory, for the reason 
 that the passports mentioned are referred to in the article as though 
 the form for the same were annexed to or set forth in the treaty, 
 but, in consequence of carelessness no doubt, the required form is 
 not annexed. 
 
 The Supreme Court decision to which I allude, and which I 
 shall not read, as it is lengthy, was written by Mr. Justice Story. 
 It is entitled "The Amiable Isabella," 6 Wheaton, page i. I read 
 from the syllabus, which seems to be fully authorized by the opinion : 
 
 The seventeenth article of the Spanish treaty of 1795, so far as it purports 
 to give any effect to passports, is imperfect and inoperative in consequence of 
 the omission to annex the form of passport to the treaty. 
 
 Quaere. Whether, if the form had been annexed and the passport were 
 obtained by fraud and upon false suggestions, it would have the conclusive 
 effect attributed to it by the treaty? 
 
 Quaere. Whether sailing under enemy s convoy be a substantive cause of 
 condemnation? 
 
 By the Spanish treaty of 1795 free ships make free goods; but the form of 
 the passport by which the freedom of the ship was to have been conclusively 
 established, never having been duly annexed to the treaty, the proprietary 
 interest of the ship is to be proved according to the ordinary rules of the prize 
 court, and if thus shown to be Spanish, will protect the cargo on board, to 
 whomsoever the latter may belong. 
 
280 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Therefore, while it was no doubt within the contemplation of 
 those who agreed to this treaty that a passport should be conclusive, 
 and no further search be permitted, it seems that the liberal purpose 
 entertained failed of accomplishment by reason of the clerical omis 
 sion referred to. This is not of any grave importance, and I merely 
 allude to it as a matter connected with the history of the treaty. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I yield to the Senator from Maine. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I desire to ask the Senator where passports for 
 ships are provided for? Does the Senator know? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. In article 17 of this treaty. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Is there any provision of our statutes, to which 
 the Senator can refer, which provides for passports for ships ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. There may be, but if so I have not the provision 
 in mind. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. The treaty in referring to passports makes no ref 
 erence whatever as to whether it is a passport provided by general 
 law, or whether it is a special passport. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes ; it says : " Which passport shall be made 
 out and granted according to the form annexed to this treaty." 
 Judge Story says that the Supreme Court can not make a treaty, 
 and that as there is no form annexed to the treaty, and that as the 
 treaty called for a certain form and no other, and as such form does 
 not exist, the whole article must be held inoperative. If the Senator 
 will read the argument by counsel and then the opinion by Judge 
 Story, he will find an exhaustive and interesting discussion. I do 
 not care to read it at this time. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I simply asked the question for information, 
 because the Committee on Commerce have reported a bill for the 
 repeal of the section which provided in certain cases for passports 
 for ships, and my own impression was that it was not the passport 
 to which that treaty referred; and I wished to know whether it was 
 or not. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. There is a note in the official edition of the 
 treaty showing the peculiar situation of the case. It is as follows: 
 
 The form of passport referred to in this article is not annexed either to the 
 original treaty signed by the negotiators, or to the copy bearing the ratification 
 of the King of Spain, on file in the Department of State. See " The Amiable 
 Isabella" (6 Wheaton s Reports, i). It is remarkable, however, that to the 
 Spanish version of the treaty, in volume 2, page 429, of " Coleccion de los Tra- 
 tados de Paz," etc., published at Madrid in 1800, " de orden del Rey, en la im- 
 prenta real," there are annexed two forms in Spanish for passports ; one for 
 ships navigating Europeon seas, the other for those navigating the American 
 seas. 
 
 Mr. President, I stated during my argument yesterday that cer 
 tain rights in reference to the purchase of arms were possessed by 
 these insurgents in common with the rest of mankind, and that there 
 was no law, and is none, and never has been, which prohibits a 
 manufacturing company in the United States from selling arms to 
 anyone who may come to purchase the same, and I referred to the 
 several decisions, conclusive, as it seems to me, upon this proposition. 
 I will add one or two more expressions of jurists on the subject. 
 
 During the Mexican war, the Maximilian difficulty, Mr. Speed, 
 our Attorney-General, in an opinion to be found in n Opinions of 
 the Attorneys-General, page 451, says: 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 281 
 
 I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 23d of 
 March, together with a copy of a letter from Mr. Romero, the minister of the 
 Mexican Republic. Mr. Romero says that he has been informed that agents 
 of the " usurper Maximilian " have purchased in New York 5,000 muskets, and 
 that they are to be shipped to Vera Cruz, not " as private property, but for 
 account of the said usurper." Mr. Romero asks that the shipment be not 
 allowed. You ask my opinion, whether there is any law or regulation now in 
 force prohibiting the exportation of arms for the account of any person, what 
 ever be his political designation, real or assumed, or of any Government. 
 
 This question is fully answered in my opinion delivered to you on the 23d 
 di..y of last December 
 
 Referring to an opinion to be found on page 408 of the same 
 book which is also relevant here. 
 
 The opinion of the 23d of December was given upon a complaint of Mr. 
 Romero that General McDowell, commanding the military department of Cali 
 fornia, had prohibited the exportation of arms or munitions of war by the 
 frontier into Mexico. That opinion is to the effect that General McDowell s 
 order was unlawful. 
 
 I can perceive no difference in principle between that case and this. So far 
 as neutrals are concerned, belligerent parties are equals. 
 
 I know of no law 
 
 He continues and here is the pertinent proposition - 
 
 or regulation which forbids any person or government, whether the political 
 designation be real or assumed, from purchasing arms from citizens of the 
 United States and shipping them at the risk of the purchaser, etc. 
 
 Mr. President, if an ordinary merchant vessel were to visit the 
 city of New York, sent there by the insurgents and manned by a 
 regular crew, a cargo of war supplies might be purchased and taken 
 away, as was done in the case of Chile, without any infraction of any 
 law of the United States. Such is the conclusion of the United 
 States circuit court of appeals in the Itata case (56 Federal Reporter, 
 505; id., 49, 647; United States vs. Trumbull, 48 id., 90) already 
 mentioned, and is the legitimate result of the other authorities which 
 I have cited. 
 
 This principle has been referred to by many international law 
 writers. I will furnish some references : 
 
 Vattel, Law of Nations, edition 1883, page 338; 2 Ferguson s 
 Manual of International Law, sections 229, 230, and 263 ; Hall on 
 International Law, third edition, pages 80, 612, 613 ; Wheaton s 
 International Law, third edition (Boyd), pages 583, 595, and 653; 
 i Opinions Attorneys-General (Lee) 61 ; id. (Bush), 190; 7 id. 
 (Gushing), 122; ii id. (Speed), 408, 451; 2 Wharton s Criminal 
 Law, section 1903 ; 3 Wharton s International Law Digest, section 
 391, and numerous precedents there given; Twiss s Law of Nations, 
 296, cited ii American and English Encyclopedia of Law, 478; 
 Kluber Droit des Gens., section 288, cited ii American and English 
 Encyclopedia of Law, page 478; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 
 Wheaton, 283; The Florida (a Cuban insurgency case), 4 Ben., 452; 
 View of Secretary Evarts, 3 Wharton s International Law, 515; 
 Pickering, Secretary of State, I American State Papers, page 649; 
 Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, i American State Papers, page 
 141; The Carondolet, 37 Federal Reporter, 800; i Kent s Commen 
 taries, 142; The Bermuda, 3 Wallace, 551. 
 
 I mention these cases simply for the purpose of showing that 
 while it will be pleasant for those of us who sympathize with the 
 19 
 
282 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Cuban cause to learn that the President of the United States has 
 found that the evidence justifies according belligerency to the 
 Cubans, still that such proceeding upon the part of the Executive 
 can not be followed by any direct substantial advantage in a legal 
 sense. There may, as I have observed, be resulting encouragement, 
 but there will also be greater determination on the other side of the 
 issue. 
 
 I think that I have already said what must be plain to all, that 
 while the right of trade exists within the limits defined, still the 
 insurgent vessel or the ship containing contraband is subject to cap 
 ture and confiscation by the enemy. 
 
 I know it has been said and my remarks upon this branch of 
 the subject would not be satisfactory even to myself if I did not 
 allude to it that the United States may treat unrecognized insur 
 rectionists, such as these insurgents, as pirates, and there is at least 
 one Federal decision so holding; but the important proposition is 
 whether this Government would so treat revolutionists. Mr. Cleve 
 land has made a record for himself on that subject, and I think the 
 State Department has settled the matter conclusively. After the 
 decision to which I have alluded, wherein it was held that an unrec 
 ognized insurgent might be treated as a pirate, Mr. Wharton wrote 
 a very learned and very elaborate and extremely satisfactory article, 
 which was published in 33 Albany Law Journal, commencing on page 
 125, and from which copious quotations are made in his Digest, 
 denying the correctness of the court s view. He cites a message of 
 President Cleveland sent to Congress on December 8, 1885, with 
 reference to the Colombian difficulty. The President said: 
 
 Pending these occurrences a question of much importance was presented 
 by decrees of the Colombian Government, proclaiming the closure of certain 
 ports then in the hands of insurgents, and declaring vessels held by the revolu 
 tionists to be piratical and liable to capture by any power. To neither of these 
 propositions could the United States assent. An effective closure of ports not 
 in the possession of the Government, but held by hostile partisans, could not 
 be recognized ; neither could the vessels of insurgents against the legitimate 
 sovereignty be deemed hostes humani generis within the precepts of interna 
 tional law, whatever might be the definition and penalty of their acts under the 
 municipal law of the State against whose authority they were in revolt. The 
 denial by this Government of the Colombian propositions did not, however, 
 imply the admission of a belligerent status on the part of the insurgents. 
 
 It is also shown by Mr. Wharton that Mr. Bayard, during the 
 same Administration, on April 9, 1885, addressed a very clear and 
 strong letter addressed to Mr. Ricardo Becerra, who was the Colom 
 bian representative in this city, in which he announced the same 
 doctrine. Not alone did that administration so hold, but in 1883 
 Mr. Frelinghuysen prepared a communication, which can also be 
 found in Mr. Wharton s article, in which he reached a similar result. 
 His words are as follows : 
 
 The expedient of declaring a revolted national vessel to be a " pirate " has 
 often been resorted to amo ng the Spanish-American countries in times of civil 
 tumult, and on late occasions in France. At the time of the Murcian rising 
 in 1873, the insurgents at Cartagena seized the Spanish ironclads in harbor and 
 cruised with them along the coast, committing hostilities. The Spanish Gov 
 ernment proclaimed the vessels pirates and invited their capture by any nation. 
 A German naval commander, then in the Mediterranean, did, in fact, capture 
 one of the revolted ships and claimed it as a German prize, but his act was dis 
 avowed. The rule is simply that a "pirate" is the natural enemy of all men, 
 to be repressed by any and wherever found, while a revolted vessel is the enemy 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 283 
 
 only of the power against which it acts. While it may be outlawed, so far as 
 the outlawing State is concerned, no foreign State is bound to respect or exe 
 cute such outlawry to the extent of treating the vessel as a public enemy of 
 mankind. Treason is not piracy, and the attitude of foreign Governments 
 toward the offender may be negative merely so far as demanded by a proper 
 observance of the principle of neutrality. 
 
 Mr. Wharton was deeply interested in the subject. He obtained 
 the opinions of Calvo and other eminent publicists, all of which are 
 fully noted in the publication just mentioned. 
 
 So, even if the Cubans were possessed of vessels and had any 
 status upon the ocean, there would be no danger that they would be 
 treated by this Government as pirates, and hence their legal condition 
 is no worse now, as far as the laws of the United States are con 
 cerned, than it would be if their belligerency was recognized. All 
 the neutrality laws would then be enforceable, and our Government 
 would no doubt act accordingly. 
 
 Mr. President, there are some resolutions before this body with 
 reference to the independence of Cuba. I desire to say at this point 
 that it is a subject of regret that Cuba is not really independent. 
 But that she is not independent is to me palpable. We have before 
 us resolutions affirming belligerency, and now I learn we are also 
 asked to resolve that Cuba is independent. These propositions do 
 not seem to be very harmonious. The latter can not certainly in any 
 event be properly adopted. It is settled, I think, by all authorities 
 upon the subject that the independence of no people can be recog 
 nized by this or any other civilized nation until the disturbances, the 
 real, vital disturbances, are practically closed, not entirely, it is true, 
 but the case of the parent country must be desperate before an 
 acknowledgment of independence is allowable. Under prevailing 
 conditions a recognition of the independence of Cuba would be con 
 trary not only to the precedents, but certainly would be in defiance 
 of fact. 
 
 Mr. President, during the war of the rebellion we engaged in a 
 very extensive diplomatic correspondence with France, Spain, and 
 England ; and anyone who will peruse the communications which 
 passed between Mr. Adams and Earl Russell, and contrast the doc 
 trines there laid down with some that I have heard announced here, 
 will come to the conclusion that we are receding from our former 
 position. While we undoubtedly did take an extreme stand then, 
 we have never adopted any plan or theory which will permit the 
 recognition of the independence of the Cuban people in their present 
 situation. 
 
 The Senator from Alabama has very properly observed and 
 his remark was a conclusive answer to these resolutions that the 
 power to recognize the independence of a State is vested wholly in 
 the Executive. That being the case, we will not, I hope, be so incon 
 sistent as to adopt any resolution declaring that Cuba is independent. 
 Our efforts should be confined now to expressions of sympathy and 
 opinion, and these should be tendered in the hope that a friendly and 
 satisfactory conclusion will be negotiated looking to Cuba s freedom. 
 Independence is the final consummation desired. But that condition 
 does not now obtain, and if it shall be otherwise the Executive alone 
 can officially proclaim it. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Will the Senator from California allow me to ask 
 him a question? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
284 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Without in the slightest degree controverting the 
 Senator s statement in regard to what has been the practice of the 
 United States in recognizing a people struggling for independence, 
 is it not a question exclusively with every nation to pass upon the 
 fact whether a rebellion, as it is termed, is in a desperate condition; 
 in other words, whether the mother country, Spain in this case, is 
 able to suppress that insurrection, as they term it? Would we not 
 be alone responsible to ourselves if we stated that we believed the 
 President of the United States ought to recognize the independence 
 of Cuba? Is there any tribunal, except the conscience of the Ameri 
 can people, to which an appeal can be made in that case? And if I 
 am correct and I think I am in that statement, then I should 
 like to know from the Senator from California for that is the 
 practical question whether he believes that Spain can suppress that 
 insurrection, and whether he does not believe that the cause of Spain 
 to-day with a view to that end is desperate ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I find no difficulty in answering the question of 
 the -Senator from Missouri. Of course we are responsible only to 
 ourselves. Undoubtedly so. That must necessarily be the case. 
 We are not responsible to Spain. We are answerable only to our 
 consciences. Our adhesion to the precepts laid down by publicists 
 in this matter and our compliance with our own oft-repeated pre 
 cepts must be voluntary. We so act because we think it to be right. 
 A rule of conduct with reference to international concerns laid down 
 by anybody, by any nation outside of our own, is not literally binding 
 upon us, but I imagine we do not set ourselves up here as abso 
 lutely independent of all principle. We are bound only because we 
 are civilized to an observance of those regulations and practices which 
 enlightenment has dictated. We can not, I think, repudiate the 
 views of the great masters of jurisprudence who have always com 
 manded the respect of the law-abiding. 
 
 Our obedience to these righteous requirements can not be 
 enforced by legal writs; moral coercion will suffice. 
 
 The Senator from Missouri asks me whether I do not think that 
 the cause of Spain is desperate. Mr. President, I do not know. I 
 sincerely hope that the people of Cuba will be successful in establish 
 ing a government of their own choice, but I do not know whether 
 they will or not. The information which I have upon the subject is 
 of a character not satisfactory to my mind. The Senator may believe 
 the situation as to Spain to be desperate, but when we find Spanish 
 power surrounding this island, when we find her in possession, appar 
 ently secure, of the centers of population, when we find that not a 
 single port, not a single avenue of trade is in the control of the 
 insurgents, that they have not a ship upon the ocean, that they have 
 no commercial or international representation, I am far from believ 
 ing that a point has been reached to justify a recognition of inde 
 pendence. 
 
 Mr. VEST. If my friend will permit me, it seems to me mani 
 festly unjust in the determination of that which is the vital question 
 in this whole controversy, and all the balance is leather and prunella, 
 to ignore the one fact to which he does not allude, and that is that 
 these same people, the Cubans, without having a ship upon the ocean, 
 without being in possession of a single important port, successfully 
 resisted the Spanish power for ten long years, and then only laid 
 down their arms upon certain conditions one of which was the 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 285 
 
 abolition of slavery in the island which were immediately violated 
 by the Spanish Government. 
 
 Now, if they could for ten years maintain themselves by force 
 of arms against the Spanish dynasty without ships, without muni 
 tions of war except those that they manufactured themselves, why can 
 they not now maintain the same sort of struggle until Spain is forced 
 to admit, as she did before, that it is impossible to put down the 
 insurrection? All those things must be considered together, and I 
 submit to my friend the Senator from California that if we content 
 ourselves with simply an expression of sympathy we had better drop 
 this question, for it will be a miserable farce from end to end. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Senator from Missouri will recognize the 
 fact that I have endeavored to show that the various resolutions 
 which it is proposed to adopt will not have any substantial effect upon 
 this struggle. I agree with him about that matter. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Does the Senator from California propose to state 
 that if we now, by the act of both Houses of Congress, request the 
 President of the United States to recognize the independence of 
 Cuba 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I am not speaking of that resolution. 
 
 Mr. VEST. That is the resolution, and all the balance amount 
 to nothing. 
 
 Mr. W HITE. The resolutions reported by the Committee on 
 Foreign Relations are the matters to which I was addressing myself 
 when I stated that the resolutions proposed to be adopted would not, 
 in my opinion, have any substantial effect upon this struggle. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I agree with the Senator about that point. 
 
 Mr. W r HITE. I attempted to illustrate it by showing the status 
 of those people under a mere recognition of belligerency and their 
 status as insurgents. Of course if we recognize their independence, 
 and also that a war exists, which we would have to do, we would be 
 compelled to maintain neutrality, and I do not know that they would 
 derive a great deal of benefit from that. I have shown, I think, that 
 Cuban rights as to trade would not then be materially different. 
 Their independence might be acknowledged, and yet, if there is war, 
 our neutrality laws would be in effect and would be of course 
 enforced. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I have asserted, and I have no doubt the 
 members of the Committee on Foreign Relations must have reached 
 the same conclusion in view of the resolutions reported by that com 
 mittee the determination must have been made that there is no 
 precedent or policy justifying a recognition of independence at this 
 time. 
 
 The Senator from Missouri reasons thus : He says that the 
 Cubans maintained a war for ten years, which the Spaniards were 
 unable to put down; that now, that they have carried on a struggle 
 for one year or two years, they must be independent. I deny the 
 conclusion. The premises do not warrant it at all. It is a matter 
 concerning which no man can speak definitely without more informa 
 tion than the meager facts before us. To assert here by a resolution 
 that the Cuban people have accomplished their independence when 
 we know they have not accomplished it, when we know they are 
 endeavoring to accomplish it, when we know they are making every 
 effort to attain that condition, when we know that it is an unrealized 
 
286 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 hope, would be to write ourselves down as anything but reasonable 
 men. 
 
 Certainly a declaration of that kind would not have any satis 
 factory effect. It would be an announcement here in the form of a 
 resolution of that which we should know is untrue. Some believe 
 that Cubans are in a position to finally win. Personally I would 
 rejoice to see them victorious, but to solemnly proclaim that they 
 have already won is to do violence to the notorious fact that there is a 
 bloody and fierce conflict in progress day by day in Cuba, maintained 
 by the revolutionists against great odds. 
 
 Whatever substantial I can do within the limits of propriety 
 and without violating rules established by this Republic, as well as 
 by intelligent peoples everywhere, I am ready to perform, but I do 
 not propose to vote for a resolution which expresses that which is 
 untrue merely because my sympathies and feelings are aroused. It 
 is idle to read any authorities in answer to a proposition such as that 
 stated by the Senator from Missouri, who seems to desire to estab 
 lish a precedent in this case against all others. If everyone has been 
 in error, it is, of course, well to make the departure. I have already 
 attracted attention to the language of Mr. Seward in his letter to Mr. 
 Adams, wherein he pointed out the weighty responsibility assumed 
 in the recognition of the independence of a new state. The subject 
 was fully considered by President Jackson in the case of Texas : 
 
 Undoubtedly when Texas had achieved her independence no previous treaty 
 could bind this country to regard it as a part of the Mexican territory. But it 
 belonged to the Government, and not to individual citizens, to decide when that 
 event had taken place. And that decision, according to the laws of nations, 
 depended upon the question whether she had or had not a civil government 
 in successful operation, capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obli 
 gations of an independent power. It depended upon the state of the fact, and 
 not upon the right which was in contest between the parties. And the Presi 
 dent, in his message to the Senate of December 22, 1836, in relation to the 
 conflict between Mexico and Texas, which was still pending, says : " All ques 
 tions relative to the government of foreign nations, whether of the Old or the 
 New World, have been treated by the United States as questions of fact only, 
 and our predecessors have cautiously abstained from deciding upon them until 
 the clearest evidence was in their possession, to enable them not only to decide 
 correctly, but to shield their decision from every unworthy imputation." 
 Senate Journal of 1836, page 54. 
 
 " The acknowledgment of a new state as independent and entitled to a 
 place in the family of nations is at all times an act of great delicacy and 
 responsibility, but more especially so when such a state has forcibly separated 
 itself from another of which it formed an integral part, and which still claims 
 dominion over it." 
 
 And after speaking of the policy which our Government had always 
 adopted on such occasions, and the duty of maintaining the established char 
 acter of the United States for fair and impartial dealing, he proceeds to express 
 his opinion against the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas at that 
 time in the following words : 
 
 " It is true, with regard to Texas, the civil authority of Mexico has been 
 expelled, its invading army defeated, the Chief of the Republic himself cap 
 tured, and all present power to control the newly organized Government of 
 Texas annihilated within its confines. But, on the other hand, there is in appear 
 ance, at least, an immense disparity of physical force on the side of Mexico. 
 The Mexican Republic, under another Executive, is rallying its forces under a 
 new leader, and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. Upon 
 the issue of this threatened invasion the independence of Texas may be con 
 sidered as suspended, and, were there nothing peculiar in the relative situation 
 of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgment of its independence at 
 such a crisis would scarcely be regarded as consistent with that prudent reserve 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 287 
 
 with which we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar ques 
 tions. 
 
 The right of the President to determine this subject was never 
 denied, notwithstanding the anxiety of our people to acknowledge 
 Texan independence. 
 
 Mr. Dana says (Dana s Wheaton, page 45, note) that the attempt 
 to invade Texas was abandoned by Mexico before the United States 
 acknowledged her independence. Similar policy was pursued 
 regarding the South American Republics. The United States acted 
 first, but not for many years " after long recognized belligerency and 
 the practically unobstructed exercise by them of sovereign powers. 
 Spain, separated by an ocean, had abandoned actual efforts for their 
 reduction and only clung to a nominal right." (Dana s Wheaton, 
 page 43, note.) 
 
 Mr. Adams wrote to Mr. Monroe in 1816 (i Wharton s Digest, 
 section 70) : 
 
 There is a stage in such (revolutionary) contests when the party struggling 
 for independence has, as I conceive, a right to demand its acknowledgment by 
 neutral parties, and when the acknowledgment may be granted without depart 
 ure from the obligations of neutrality. It is the stage when the independence 
 is established as matter of fact, so as to leave the chance of the opposite party 
 to recover their dominion utterly desperate. * * * But the justice of a 
 cause, however it may enlist individual feelings in its favor, is not sufficient 
 to justify third parties in siding with it. The fact and the right combined can 
 alone authorize a neutral to acknowledge a new and disputed sovereignty. 
 
 We there acted in accordance with the fact. We recognized a 
 condition of things which was patent to the world, plain, unmistaka 
 ble ; but not until we were sure of our position. 
 
 Now, there may be a mode by which we may actually accom 
 plish the freedom of Cuba. If the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
 MORGAN] is correct that the announcement of belligerency means 
 a declaration of war, that, perhaps, will settle the affair. We shall 
 then possibly have enough on our hands. We have not been warlike 
 in any new case during the last few days, but the future is promis 
 ing enough. Why not wait until we complete the disbursement of 
 the $87,000,000 recommended to be devoted to coast defenses? 
 
 I shall be guided in what I do and how I vote by my conception 
 of duty, experiencing at the same time none but the kindest senti 
 ments toward Cuba; but I will not be a party to the new departure 
 favored by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST], when in my 
 judgment such conduct would be wholly unprovoked and unwar 
 ranted. 
 
 A concurrent resolution, by whomsoever offered or whatever it 
 may contain, is nothing more than an expression of sympathy. As 
 stated by the Senator from Missouri, it will not, and as I have 
 attempted to show by its own force it can not, directly accomplish 
 anything for Cuba. Nor would a recognition of independence be 
 of material value. However, I am opposed to taking that step for 
 the ample reasons which I will not repeat. 
 
 Congress has not hesitated upon other occasions to express an 
 opinion as to Executive action, and may do so here. The sentiments 
 thus uttered will be carefully and respectfully considered. 
 
 I have no doubt that the Administration is solicitous for Cuban 
 independence. I believe that when the circumstances warrant it 
 
288 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 decisive action will be taken. But the emphatic sympathy of Con 
 gress may hasten not only Executive action, but may, if properly 
 done, have important indirect effect. But a declaration that there is 
 independence would be considered everywhere as emotional and 
 unfounded. 
 
 I prefer the resolution which I have suggested to any pending 
 before the Senate. Some one has stated that in that resolution the 
 Monroe doctrine is sought to be restricted. I think it is extended 
 rather than curtailed. The words to which reference has been thus 
 made are the following: 
 
 While the United States have not interfered and will not, unless their 
 vital interests so demand, interfere with existing colonies and dependencies of 
 any European Government on this hemisphere, nevertheless our people have 
 never disguised and do not now conceal their sympathy for all those who 
 struggle patriotically, as do the Cubans now in revolt, to exercise, maintain, 
 and preserve the right of self-government. 
 
 The phraseology criticised is that with reference to the non-inter 
 ference of the United States. Mr. Monroe s doctrine was : " With 
 the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have 
 not interfered and shall not interfere." The proposition favored by 
 me is that we shall not interfere unless our vital interests so demand. 
 Hence my suggestion rather broadens the Monroe doctrine as 
 announced by its author. 
 
 A Senator who has pressed with much force the pending inde 
 pendence resolution said that we might as well abandon the Monroe 
 doctrine if we do not recognize Cuba; but if that doctrine has any 
 application to Cuba at all it would seem that under it we must keep 
 our hands off, because, as I have already said, Mr. Monroe s words 
 are, " With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European 
 power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. To this 
 declaration we have very lately given our unqualified support. 
 
 In conclusion I reiterate that I shall support the resolution pro 
 posed by myself, or something similar, as a sincere expression of 
 justified regard and hope. I shall not vote for a recognition of the 
 independence of Cuba, first, because I do not believe that it is our 
 function, without Executive participation, to recognize either the 
 belligerency or independence of any nation; secondly, because I do 
 not think that independence has been achieved within the rules men 
 tioned or at all, and I am unwilling to declare that a certain condi 
 tion exists when I know to the contrary. 
 
HAWAIIAN CABLE AND ANNEXATION 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Friday, February 8, 1895. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. 8234) making appro 
 priations for the diplomatic and consular service for the fiscal year ending 
 June 30, 1896, the pending question being on the amendment reported by the 
 Committee on Appropriations, on page 9, after line 8, to insert: 
 
 " CONSTRUCTION OF TELEGRAPH CABLE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
 
 HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 
 
 " The President is hereby authorized to contract for the entire work of lay 
 ing a telegraphic cable between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands 
 and to direct the prosecution of such work whenever such a contract shall be 
 made, and as a part of the cost of such cable the sum of $500,000 is hereby 
 appropriated "- 
 
 Mr. WHITE said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: The question pending before the Senate has 
 reference exclusively, as I understand it, to the propriety of appro 
 priating $500,000 toward the laying of a cable to Honolulu, to what 
 ever point upon those islands may be found desirable. Yet the dis 
 cussion has broadened until there has been included not only the 
 cable issue, not only the Hawaiian revolution, but also a variety of 
 topics pertaining to annexation. The Senator from South Dakota 
 [Mr. KYLE], who has just taken his seat, has even elaborately dis 
 cussed the effect of missionary expeditions to the Hawaiian group, 
 and has presented a far more delightful narration of the good that 
 he asserts has been done than that which was afforded by his col 
 league [Air. PETTIGREW]. 
 
 Mr. President, if we trace the numerous controversies which 
 have thus been tendered for investigation throughout their entire 
 length and breadth, it is safe to say that this discussion will not ter 
 minate until the life of the present Congress expires. I shall briefly 
 allude to two or three matters which have been debated rather fully, 
 though not directly involved, and then shall say a word regarding 
 the cable. 
 
 In the beginning permit me to observe that I see no reason to 
 confound the submarine cable with other subjects. I see no reason 
 for the conclusion that it is essential for us to favor the annexation 
 of the Sandwich Islands, and to uphold Mr. Stevens and the mis 
 sionaries in order to justify an inclination toward the construction of 
 a cable. The propositions appear to me to be entirely dissimilar, 
 and one does not at all depend upon the other. 
 
 In the first place, Mr. President, I will mention and comment 
 upon the instructions which have been criticised by several Senators, 
 and which were given by the Secretary of the Navy to Admiral 
 Beardslee. Those instructions, so far as they are at all pertinent to 
 this discussion, are worded thus : 
 
 289 
 
290 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Proceed with the United States ship Philadelphia with dispatch to Hono 
 lulu, Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 Your purpose as commander of the naval forces of the United States will 
 be the protection of the lives and property of American citizens. In case of 
 civil war in the islands you will extend no aid or support, moral or physical, 
 to any of the parties engaged therein, but you will keep steadily in view that 
 it is your duty to protect the lives and property of all such citizens of the 
 United States as shall not by their participation in such civil commotions sub 
 ject themselves to local laws, and thus forfeit their right in that regard to the 
 protection of the American flag. An American citizen who during a revolu 
 tion or insurrection in a foreign country participates in an attempt by force of 
 arms or violence to maintain or overthrow the existing Government, or who 
 aids in setting on foot a revolution or insurrection in such country, can not 
 claim as matter of right that the Government of the United States shall protect 
 him against the consequences of such act. 
 
 The attack upon these instructions was inaugurated by the Sena 
 tor from Colorado [Mr. TELLER], who, I am glad to see, is in his 
 seat at this time. After prolonged discussion it now seems that there 
 is not as much difference between Senators as was at first manifested. 
 It is disclosed that the real contention is what was meant by the 
 instructions. I presume that no one will say that if an American 
 citizen participates in an attempt to overthrow or maintain the Gov 
 ernment in the Hawaiian Islands, and that long thereafter and as a 
 consequence of his act some absurd and unprecedented penalty is 
 sought to be visited upon him, he would be held to have forfeited 
 his privilege as an American citizen to proper interference in his 
 behalf. I apprehend that when Mr. Herbert used the language he 
 employed he used it in the light of events which had taken place, 
 and with which the whole country was then as now familiar. He 
 was correct in assuming that strained interpretation would not be 
 made by those whose conduct it was designed to influence. 
 
 J am not able to admit that any of the authorities which were 
 cited by the Senator from Colorado to the slightest extent conflict 
 with the obvious meaning of the rule laid down by the Secretary of 
 the Navy. I find in a letter from Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of 
 State, to Mr. Lowell, dated April 25, 1882, cited in 2 Wharton s 
 International Law, page 453, the following: 
 
 Its [American citizenship] assumption implies the promise and the obliga 
 tion to observe our laws at home, and peaceably as good citizens to assist in 
 maintaining our faith abroad, without efforts to entangle us in internal troubles 
 or civil discord with which we have not, and do not wisJi to have, anything 
 to do. When an American citizen thus conducts himself, whether at home or 
 abroad, he is entitled to the confidence of his Government and active support of 
 all its officials. 
 
 It will be noted that the Secretary at that time, in defining that 
 conduct of the American citizen which entitles the person pursuing 
 it to the protection of this Government, stated that such citizen must 
 abstain from participating in internal troubles or civil discord. He 
 drew no distinction between those who seek to maintain and those 
 who endeavor to overthrow. We have a treaty with the Hawaiian 
 Republic, that is, a treaty entered into with the preceding Govern 
 ment, and which is still in full force and effect, whereby our people 
 are exempted from all kinds and descriptions of military duty. 
 Hence, if an American citizen aids by force or violence either party 
 to a Hawaiian revolution he does so without compulsion and at his 
 own risk. Such is the rational reading and plain meaning of the 
 instructions referred to. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 291 
 
 Mr. President, I am free to concede that if the Government now 
 in power in Hawaii chose to seize an American citizen and force him 
 to render military service to bear arms against his will he would 
 in such event forfeit nothing; but I do contend that if an American 
 citizen sees fit to enlist under a foreign flag and to engage in war he 
 is not protected from the consequences of that war the reasonable, 
 natural, ordinay consequences. I do not include remote consequence, 
 cruelties, for instance, which a party successful in the conflict might 
 attempt to impose, but I refer to the consequences commonly antici 
 pated. 
 
 With this in view, I asked the Senator from Colorado, while 
 engaged in making his remarks, whether he intended to maintain 
 that if the Government of the United States found one of its citizens 
 enlisted under the banner of Hawaii it was the duty of that Govern 
 ment to maintain and assist such citizen to the end that he might not 
 be harmed in the progress of his military engagement. The Senator 
 very promptly replied that he did not so contend. Thereupon it 
 seemed to me that all the attacks upon these instructions necessarily 
 fail, unless we are to give them the absurd reading that Mr. Herbert 
 intended to advise that when an American citizen enters into the 
 service of a foreign power any danger menacing him afterwards 
 which might be but dimly traced to, or might find as its distant cause, 
 his first engagement or the animosities thereby engendered, can not 
 be averted by act of our Government. I do not understand that any 
 such instruction was given, and under the circumstances of the case 
 Admiral Beardslee can not so construe the language. Senators who 
 do not view this matter as I do concede that an American joining the 
 Dole forces may be slain in battle by revolutionists without the 
 occurrence of any obligation on our part to save him. He may be 
 shot down, they say, but must not be imprisoned. Revolutionists 
 may kill him in conflict, but they can not capture him ; or if they do 
 capture him he must be released at once, to rejoin, no doubt, the 
 army of the Government he is endeavoring to maintain. It results 
 that the revolutionist must avoid taking American prisoners. I fail 
 to detect the logic of this argument. 
 
 Mr. President, all instructions, as well as court opinions, are 
 given in view of the facts of the particular case. In the present 
 instance this Administration had, as I consider upon ample proof, 
 come to the conclusion that United States officers under t s he inspira 
 tion of Mr. Stevens had not abstained from mingling in internal 
 contention as they should have abstained, and as matters were some 
 what disturbed, the Government having been but recently threatened 
 by revolution, it was not unnatural that the Administration should 
 caution its officers against a renewal of antecedent interference and 
 should enjoin upon Admiral Beardslee the propriety of preventing 
 any service by the marines of the United States in the interest of 
 either party to a civil conflict. History shows that timely warnings 
 are necessary. Some military men go abroad anxious for excitement 
 and not thoroughly versed in international obligations. The instruc 
 tions are all right. When the present Government was in the forma 
 tive process those who are now condemning Mr. Cleveland did not 
 find it advisable to insist that it was wrong to support a revolution 
 and a matter of duty to sustain the existing condition. 
 
 Mr. President, my friends upon the other side of this question 
 have urged upon us during this debate, as they urged at an earlier 
 
292 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 date, the propriety of the annexation of Hawaii. I do not propose 
 to run over this matter in detail. In an address which I delivered 
 here upon the 21 st of February last I stated my views quite fully. 
 However, in the light of the position which I am about to take with 
 reference to the cable appropriation, I deem it well to anticipate any 
 misunderstanding as to my position concerning annexation, and I 
 shall very briefly reiterate what I have heretofore advanced against 
 the carrying out of such a plan. 
 
 First, I am opposed to such annexation, because I believe that 
 we are not in a condition to bring within our confines the elements 
 which there exist. There are Europeans in Hawaii who would 
 undoubtedly make valuable citizens if they saw fit to assume the 
 obligations of that condition. The statistics furnished us vary some 
 what; but I am willing to assume, and such must indeed be the fact, 
 that a large majority of the Europeans upon the islands could qualify 
 for citizenship. Much has been said in reference to the Portuguese 
 who reside there. If these Portuguese belong to the class to which 
 Portuguese citizens in California belong then I can assert with cer 
 tainty that they would make valuable citizens and would contribute 
 their proper share toward the maintenance and support of any Gov 
 ernment and the advancement of the people. But when we put 
 aside the European element, what do we encounter? What races 
 constitute the preponderating population in these islands? 
 
 The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. KYL] who spoke this 
 morning stated and I suppose he must know about it that the 
 native population has no will the islander has no will of his own. 
 The Senator gave this conclusion as a reason showing that we should 
 not demand as a condition precedent to annexation the acquiescence 
 of all the people, that the people were of such a kind and character 
 that they had no judgment, no discretion, could not be charged with 
 willfulness, and yet, singularly enough, he followed this with the 
 statement that, as the net result of the visits and teachings of the 
 early missionary, the natives had been elevated (?) to their present 
 happy state. I think that the missionaries have done far more good 
 than the Senator seems to imply by this declaration. I will perhaps 
 concede that if the people of the islands are reduced to a condition 
 where they have no wish, no will are incapable of voluntary act 
 that they are happy; they certainly can not appreciate unhappiness. 
 But will anyone contend that a population of that sort, whether it be 
 a happy population or not, could be otherwise than detrimental to this 
 Republic? Who desires fellow-citizens or neighbors thus constituted 
 and disqualified? 
 
 Then we have the Japanese. It is said that there are now nearly 
 20,000 Japanese in Hawaii though, according to the statistics fur 
 nished by Mr. Blount, there were, when the census upon which he 
 relied was taken, but a little over half that number but there are 
 some 20,000 in the islands at this hour. There are likewise on hand 
 almost as many Chinese. Mr. President, we have passed most 
 drastic legislation against Mongolian immigration. We have 
 endeavored to keep Chinamen away from the United States ; we have 
 affirmed that their presence is not only hostile to the best interests of 
 this Government but may be positively destructive of it. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Califor 
 nia please suspend for a moment, to enable the Chair to lay before 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 293 
 
 the Senate a message from the President of the United States, which 
 the Secretary will read. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BLACKBURN. Before the message is read I ask the 
 unanimous consent of the Senate that at the hour of half past 2 
 o clock to-morrow the Senate will, without further debate, proceed 
 to vote upon the then pending amendments to the pending appropria 
 tion bill and upon the bill. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request 
 of the Senator from Kentucky that at half past 2 o clock to-morrow 
 the Senate proceed to vote on the amendments to the pending bill 
 and on the bill? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. 
 
 The message from the President of the United States will now 
 be read. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives: 
 
 I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress a copy of a tele 
 graphic dispatch just received from Mr. Willis, our minister to Hawaii, with 
 a copy of the reply thereto, which was immediately sent by the Secretary of 
 State. | 
 
 GROVER CLEVELAND. 
 
 EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1895. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The message and accompanying 
 papers will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and 
 printed, if there be no objection. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Let the dispatches be read, Mr. President. 
 Mr. HALE. Yes, let everything that accompanies the message 
 of the President be read. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dispatches will be read. 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 COOPER, 
 
 United States Dispatch Agent, 
 
 Post-Office Building, San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Forward following by first steamer to A. S. Willis, United States minister, 
 Honolulu : 
 
 If American citizens were condemned to death by a military tribunal, not 
 for actual participation in reported revolution, but for complicity only, or if 
 condemned to death by such a tribunal for actual participation but not after 
 open fair trial with opportunity for defense, demand delay of execution, and 
 in either case report to your Government evidence relied on to support death 
 sentence. 
 
 Mr. Willis to Mr. Gresham. 
 
 [Telegram.] 
 
 HONOLULU, January 30, 1895 (San Francisco, February 6, 1895.) 
 Revolt over 9th. Casualties : Government one, royalist two. Court-mar 
 tial convened I7th; has tried 38 cases; 200 more to be tried, and daily arrests. 
 Gulick former minister, and Seward, minister, major in Federal Army, both 
 Americans, and Rickard, Englishman, sentenced to death; all heretofore 
 prominent in politics. T. B. Walker, formerly in the United States Army, 
 imprisoned for life and $5,000 fine. Other sentences not -disclosed, but will 
 probably be death. Requested copies of record for our Government to deter 
 mine its duty before final sentence, but no answer yet. Bitter feeling and threats 
 of mob violence which arrival of Philadelphia yesterday may prevent. Lili- 
 uokalani made prisoner on loth ; on 24th relinquished all claims and swore 
 allegiance Republic, imploring clemency for Hawaiians. Government replies 
 to Liliuokalani, " This document can not be taken to exempt you in the 
 
294 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 slightest degree from personal and individual liability" for complicity in late 
 conspiracy. Denies that she had any rights since January 14, 1893, when she 
 attempted new constitution. " Fully appreciates her call to disaffected to 
 recognize Republic, and will give full consideration to her unselfish appeal 
 for clemency " for participants. 
 
 ALBERT S. WILLIS. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Will the Senator from California allow me? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Mr. President, nothing can so strongly emphasize 
 the need of the most direct and swiftest communication between this 
 country and the Sandwich Islands as the documents which have just 
 been presented to the Senate. What events, tragic and melancholy, 
 may occur before the dispatches which have been sent from the 
 State Department to our minister reach him no man can tell. I should 
 say that every Senator here, whatever may have been his feeling 
 heretofore about the situation in the Hawaiian Islands and the con 
 troversies which have arisen, must now feel the deepest regret that 
 the Government there, under whatever emergencies it may be, is sub 
 jected to any temptation to a line of ultra severity such as might not 
 be sustained by the humane sentiment of the world. I only wish 
 that the agitation of this cable project had come earlier, in order 
 that the message sent by the Secretary of State to our minister might 
 be communicated to the authorities of the Sandwich Islands, so that 
 extreme measures, such as will not be justified by American senti 
 ment, will not be resorted to. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Will the Senator from California allow me? 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Cali 
 fornia yield to the Senator from Maine? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I yield to the Senator from Maine, as I did to 
 his colleague. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. My colleague did not mention the fact that the 
 date of this dispatch from Mr. Willis is nine or ten days ago or a 
 little more, and that the dispatch has just reached here; and my 
 colleague did not state, what is true, that the steamer for the Sand 
 wich Islands sailed last Tuesday morning, I think, and that another 
 will not sail for a week after, and that it will be ten days at least 
 before that direction of the President of the United States to his 
 minister will reach him, making about twenty or thirty days to get 
 any notice, no matter how important the event, to his minister and 
 from his minister. I think that emphasizes very distinctly the 
 importance of a cable. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Undoubtedly. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I do not wish to interfere with the speech of 
 the Senator from California, but I hope he will allow me to say a 
 word about the President s message 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. I have yielded to other Senators, 
 and will not discriminate. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I notice in the report of our minister that two 
 of those people are spoken of as Americans. They are not said to 
 be American citizens, and I should presume they are citizens of the 
 Hawaiian Republic. I observe that in the dispatch which the Gov 
 ernment sends to the minister they speak of the protection of Ameri 
 can citizens. I know we have no right, treating those people as a 
 nation, to say that they may not proceed against their own citizens, 
 if their own citizens have committed crimes against their law, but I 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 295 
 
 think it would be well, and I should like to make that suggestion, 
 for the Government of the United States to go to the extent of 
 asking the Hawaiian Government to suspend all harsh operations, 
 such as inflicting the death penalty even upon their own citizens, until 
 the Government of the United States can confer with them with 
 reference thereto. 
 
 Mr. President, we went through a great civil war, the greatest 
 known to history, and we did not find it necessary to execute any 
 body when we got through. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Not a single man. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. Not a single person. I do not think the 
 emeute, or whatever it is called, which has occurred in Hawaii will 
 justify those people in the harsh methods on which they seem to have 
 started. I hope the Government of the United States will take prompt 
 steps to see that those people, although they may be citizens of 
 Hawaii, are not executed in a manner that will shock the civilized 
 world. 
 
 I do not know that we could afford to give any direction to the 
 State Department, but if there are any members of the Committee on 
 Foreign Relations present, and I see one before me, the Senator from 
 Maine [Mr. FRYE], I should like to suggest that the committee con 
 sult the Department, and see if some suggestions can not be made 
 by our Government in a friendly way, and in a proper way, to the 
 Government of Hawaii to the effect that they do not proceed to the 
 extreme measure which it is indicated in the dispatch from the min 
 ister that they may take. 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE. Will the Senator from California [Mr. WHITE] 
 yield to me for a moment? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I give notice that even unanimous consent on 
 the part of the Senate will not get the floor again. I yield to the 
 Senator from Washington, however. I shall be brief in what I have 
 to say. 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE. With the permission and by the courtesy of the 
 Senator from California I desire to ask the Senator from Colorado 
 [Mr. TELLER] whether he is in favor of allowing the people who 
 have been interfering with the existence of the Government in 
 Hawaii to go absolutely untouched, free, or whether his distinction 
 is that he wishes them to be tried by a civil tribunal and not by a 
 military tribunal. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I do not care how the Government there shall 
 proceed. That has nothing to do with the question. When the 
 Mexican people had obtained control of affairs in Mexico, and we 
 supposed they were about to execute Maximilian, the Government 
 of the United States intervened in a friendly way, and said " we do 
 not think you ought to inflict the death penalty." That is all I pro 
 pose that our Government shall say now. We can not say that the 
 Hawaiian Government shall not punish those people ; we can not say 
 they shall not execute them if they see fit; but a suggestion from 
 the Government of the United States will be followed. There is no 
 danger of its not being heeded. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. But they can hang every American citizen in the 
 Hawaiian Islands before we can get any suggestions to them. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I am afraid that is true. 
 
 Mr. HALE. That we can not help. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. We can not help that until we get a cable. 
 
296 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, there is one feature of the 
 Hawaiian controversy which should commend itself to those who 
 desire protracted discussion, namely, that when a particular branch 
 of the subject becomes threadbare we are invariably furnished with 
 something new. I will say a word with reference to the dispatches 
 which have just been read as soon as I conclude my summary of the 
 annexation question. 
 
 When interrupted I was attempting to show the Senate that the 
 population of Hawaii is not fitted for our affiliation. We have 
 endeavored to exclude Chinese, and there are but a hundred and six 
 or a hundred and seven thousand Chinese now in the United States. 
 Yet it is proposed to acquire territory which contains a Chinese and 
 Japanese population amounting to over 40,000 souls. It would not 
 be beyond the truth to say that the Chinese and Japanese population 
 which would thus be added to that of the United States equals two- 
 fifths of the Mongolians within our borders. The people whom I in 
 part represent have for years been striving to exclude this competi 
 tion, and a few misguided individuals in different parts of our coun 
 try have, because of the prevalence of a determined sentiment antago 
 nistic to Chinese attempted to drive them away by violence. So 
 dangerous to society had their presence become that both nations 
 reached the conclusion that it was essential that Chinese immigration 
 should be prohibited. When we reflect that such has been our legis 
 lation and such our history, without a break in the continuity of the 
 story, it is manifest that it would be utterly inconsistent and even 
 iniquitous to absorb the very elements against whose presence we 
 have so long and so earnestly contended. 
 
 Why should we invite those whom we have driven away? Will 
 the Chinamen from Hawaii be any better than the Chinamen who 
 have come from Hongkong? The Japanese population of the 
 islands is not of an exalted character. It is a coolie population. It 
 is a population formed of the very lowest class of Japanese sub 
 jects, and yet Senators tell me that they are willing to bring within 
 this Republic a serf contribution wholly incapacitated for intelligent 
 government. The claim made by the present Republic of Hawaii, 
 if it is such, is that all save the selected few are not fit to vote, and 
 the argument of Mr. Stevens, when defending his course in a speech 
 made in Boston, is based upon the assumption that the vast majority 
 of the island inhabitants are grossly ignorant. 
 
 The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. KYLE:] reiterates that 
 statement today. He tells us that the natives have no will. They 
 are perhaps human, made in the image and likeness of their Maker, 
 but according to my friend the infusion of missionary principles 
 has left the convert Avithout the ability to think or to act pursuant 
 to desire. Hence, it is urged they need not be consulted. 
 
 Are we, then, anxious for a population of that kind, even though 
 it be true that the island soil is productive, even though it be true, 
 as stated by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW], that 
 all one has to do in the Hawaiian group to make a living is to plant 
 a banana and steal a fish line? 
 
 Is it wise to annex territory thus inhabited? Have we not 
 problems pressing upon us every day, appealing to us every hour 
 with reference to the incapacity of many who are now in the United 
 States? Do we not know that our immigration laws are being 
 daily made stronger, so that we may be able to exclude those who 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 297 
 
 are not fitted by disposition, education, or surroundings to appre- 
 ciatingly share in the blessings of that equal liberty which can be 
 safely exercised only by men of sound mind and honest heart? Does 
 anyone pretend to me that the presence of these people will add to 
 our strength or our glory? Grant that the few who set up and 
 maintain, and who in my opinion will maintain, that Republic are 
 educated gentlemen, persons guided by the best of motives and 
 possessing all of the qualifications for American citizenship; still the 
 limited number can not be included without the presence also of the 
 vast horde of incompetents. Mr. President, the undesirable element 
 now here can not be augmented without increased peril. 
 
 Someone has suggested that the islands be annexed to the State 
 of California. Mr. President, think of it! Islands as remote from 
 the Pacific Coast as Ireland is from New York. Annexed to dom 
 inate our politics, to control our elections, to dictate who shall sit 
 in our executive chair, who shall compose our legislature, who shall 
 go to Congress! Where is the guaranty that none but qualified 
 citizens shall vote? I am opposed to the annexation of any country 
 within which the preponderating element of the population is 
 ignorant, or criminal, or corrupt. I do not wish to see as a part 
 of this Republic any land whatever where the vast majority are 
 unlettered and unable to accurately and carefully weigh and truly 
 decide the questions presented for their political adjudication! 
 
 These to me are determinative arguments. I can not avoid 
 them. You may say that the Chinese and Japanese can not vote ; 
 you may, however unjustly, exclude the natives, but even then you 
 do not meet the objection that I have urged against the incorporation 
 of a community but a small portion of which knows anything of 
 governmental affairs. Nor is it accurate to say, as stated by the 
 Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER], that the doctrines of the 
 Democratic party have always been in favor of foreign acquisitions. 
 It is not true, either, that Mr. Jefferson ever advocated the annex 
 ation of territory circumstanced as is Hawaii. Mr. Jefferson, in a 
 letter to President Madison, dated April 27, 1809, which can be 
 found in the fifth volume of Jefferson s Works, page 443, in speak 
 ing of Cuba, said : 
 
 It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit can then be drawn 
 to our future acquisitions. Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and 
 this develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should 
 ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it. 
 
 And so Mr. Frelinghuysen, at a later day, in stating the policy 
 which had controlled our Government in this direction, said: 
 
 The policy of this Government, as declared on many occasions in the past, 
 has tended toward avoidance of possessions disconnected from the main con 
 tinent. Had the tendency of the United States been to extend territorial 
 dominion beyond intervening seas, opportunities have not been wanting to 
 effect such a purpose, whether on the coast of Africa, in the West Indies, or 
 in the South Pacific. No such opportunity has been hitherto embraced, and 
 but little hope could be offered that Congress, which must in the ultimate 
 resort be brought to decide the question of such transmarine jurisdiction, 
 would favorably regard such an acquisition as His Excellency proposes. At 
 any rate, in its political aspect merely, this Government is unprepared to 
 accept the proposition without subjection to such wishes as Congress and the 
 people of the United States through Congress may see fit to express. 
 
 Thus has it been ever declared by our Department of State that 
 it is contrary to our views of good policy to incorporate any section 
 20 
 
298 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 which can not be well defended without a nayy. As I have stated, 
 Mr. Jefferson placed his adhesion to the Cuban proposition dis 
 tinctly upon the ground that no navy would ever be demanded for its 
 protection because of its proximity to the mainland. Yet, sir, it is 
 sought now to acquire dominion over islands more than 2,000 miles 
 from our shores islands whose defense would necessitate the 
 employment of an independent and powerful navy. 
 
 This is an issue of policy. There is no analogy, as supposed by 
 the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. KYLE], in the Alaskan acqui 
 sition. Alaska is a part of the mainland, separated from us, it is 
 true, by the British possessions, but I imagine there never will be 
 a race inhabiting that land which will care to contend in arms with 
 our nation, or with which any foreign nation will ever care to 
 engage. Alaska is by nature equipped for self-defense and even 
 exclusion. It is valuable to us, perhaps, because of the minerals 
 yet unmined and the many other productions useful to man which 
 were so well and specifically described by the Senator from Oregon 
 [Mr. MITCHELL] in an elaborate and able presentation made here 
 some days ago. But, however this may be, however difficult (and I 
 recognize the difficulty of announcing any absolute rule upon a sub 
 ject which after all is but a matter of policy), it is plain to me that 
 it will add nothing to our dignity, our efficiency, our grandeur as a 
 nation, or the liberties of our people to annex such a population as 
 that which is contained within the Sandwich Islands. 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE. I should like to ask the Senator from Califor 
 nia a question. I have listened to what he has read and what he 
 has stated so earnestly and forcibly today with great interest, and I 
 believe the subject is one deserving of very serious consideration. 
 I ask the Senator whether the doctrine laid down by him and coward 
 which he has brought the support of the great names he has adduced 
 would have prevailed had the conditions existing at the present day 
 in regard to vessels of the Navy, both the commercial and military 
 marine, existed in those earlier days of the Republic. It is well 
 known and understood now that vessels of war can not proceed upon 
 long voyages without frequent coaling. The rate of speed required 
 for such vessels in order to give them efficiency, and the distances 
 they must traverse require that they shall have coaling stations. 
 Now, this is a condition of things that did not exist when the Navy 
 was composed largely of sailing vessels. The same is true in regard 
 to the commercial marine in a great degree. 
 
 I ask the Senator from California whether the present con 
 ditions are not such as to tend largely to modify the doctrine he has 
 laid down in regard to the acquisition of territory that can only be 
 defended by means of an American Navy? Does he not conceive 
 it essential to the very existence and efficiency of the Navy that 
 we shall have coaling stations for the Navy, and is it not just as 
 necessary to provide the means for the transportation of those vessels, 
 the fuel necessary, as it is to provide the ammunition for the cannon 
 they bear? Is it not just as essential that there shall be a requisite 
 coaling station for the supplies of the vessels of our Navy as to have 
 the ammunition that is carried to supply the guns that they bear for 
 the purpose of action? Could we not in this respect profitably 
 imitate the policy of the British nation, that great maritime power 
 whose navy dominates the globe and whose policy in some other 
 and less desirable respects receives such servile imitation by some 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 299 
 
 of our people who can see nothing in the line of progress and 
 development that should shape our policy, especially as to the tariff 
 question, unless it be on the line of English ideas yet those very 
 people will not accept the example of England as to the necessary 
 coaling stations for its Navy and for commerce. If we can not have 
 our own coaling stations why expend millions of dollars per annum 
 to build and equip a navy? I venture to maintain that the situation 
 today is vastly different as to our Navy from what it was in the 
 days of Jefferson, from whose works the extract has been quoted by 
 the Senator from California. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Is the Senator from Washington through? 
 
 Mr. SQUIRE I am. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The question addressed to me by the Senator 
 from Washington would be a very pertinent one were I speaking 
 of coaling stations, and under our very liberal rules I presume I 
 might discuss on the pending amendment coaling stations, or whaling 
 stations, or any other stations. I will simply say incidentally, how 
 ever, in response to the Senator s remark, that I presume there will 
 be no difficulty in establishing coaling stations even if we do not own 
 the places where such stations are located. In our partnership 
 entered into with two monarchical governments we have managed to 
 secure a station in Samoa, and I believe we have arrangements in 
 Hayti to the same purport. We have also Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. 
 However, if my friend from Washington will read the very able 
 remarks of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW] upon 
 this subject he will find that the coaling station which has been 
 described so glowingly in the debates here does not amount to very 
 much ; that it is rather superfluous, and not even ornamental. 
 
 Concerning the remark of the Senator from Washington to the 
 effect that the policy of Great Britain should be imitated in the 
 matter of acquiring territory and not as to tariff legislation, I do 
 not hesitate to affirm that I am not disposed to send our Navy upon 
 a career of conquest or to do anything else opposed to our ideas 
 of free government and to our notions of human rights. A study 
 of the Declaration of Independence and the Farewell Address of 
 Washington might be read with advantage. We are not discussing 
 England s tariff laws, but I might say that we find much difficulty 
 under our system in our efforts to divert from England the profitable 
 commerce of the world. 
 
 I might, in further response to the Senator from Washington, 
 urge that if the very distinguished men whose views I have read had 
 had before them the prevailing Hawaiian conditions they would have 
 strenuously protested against annexation. Moreover, in Jefferson s 
 and even in Marcy s time little was known of the embarrassments 
 of Chinese immigration ; the sharp and ruinous competition in labor 
 lines which has resulted from the presence of Mongolians. The 
 numerous questions now before us concerning which labor and capital 
 play so prominent a part were then but casually considered. Many 
 economic problems most difficult to solve have come to the front 
 within a recent period. 
 
 To conclude this branch of the subject and to summarize : I am 
 antagonistic to the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands because of 
 their remoteness and more particularly because of their undesirable 
 population. I am unwilling to introduce a political factor of that 
 
300 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 sort within the United States. I do not intend to aid in permitting 
 Hawaiian precincts to control California elections. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the cable issue is not necessarily dependent 
 for its solution upon our ideas of annexation, or upon our views of 
 coaling stations; but whether we should have a cable connecting this 
 country with the Hawaiian Islands is a matter that should be deter 
 mined upon commercial considerations and in view of commercial 
 developments, and also because of the desirability of speedy and 
 independent communication with the Orient. I know that the people 
 of California are in favor of this project. It is the general desire 
 in that part of the Union that there should be telegraphic connection 
 with Hawaii now, which will lead, I believe, to an extension ultimately 
 to Yokohama. The city of San Francisco is very nearly on the 
 same parallel with the city of Tokio. The most direct route from 
 San Francisco to Japan lies, of course, north of Honolulu. It is 
 some 2,080 miles from one port to the other. But a cable laid to the 
 Hawaiian Islands and thence to Asia would be of vast utility. It is 
 true that such a scheme involves the expenditure of much money. 
 If the Committee on Appropriations considers that at this time we 
 can afford to inaugurate such an enterprise and such is the effect 
 of that committee s amendment I shall not object. I do not con 
 sider, as I have said, that the cable and annexation plans are at all 
 interdependent. 
 
 We have now no telegraphic communication with Asia except 
 such as we are able to enjoy at the option of other nations. If we 
 owned an Asiatic cable profitable arrangements could be made with 
 Russia and Great Britain with reference to European and Australian 
 business. 
 
 A short time back our friends of the other side, who always 
 criticise the President, informed us that the proposition contained 
 in the recent message with reference to the landing of Great Britain s 
 cable at Necker Island should not be countenanced; that it was 
 another diplomatic blunder, etc. The Senator from Connecticut 
 [Mr. PLATT] read the remarks of the President of the United States 
 upon a former occasion with reference to cable communication with 
 Honolulu and there was nothing therein at all antagonistic to the 
 present programme. I desire to call attention to the fact that when 
 Mr. Cleveland has recommended the adoption of a policy differing 
 from that desired by the Government at Honolulu he has been 
 attacked for so doing; and in the present instance, when he asked 
 the Senate to acquiesce in the request of that infant Republic, to do 
 that which the Dole cabinet has requested, he is again made the 
 subject of animadversions. Let us be consistent. 
 
 I think that the message of the President in that connection 
 speaks for and justifies itself. Congress had made no effort to lay 
 an American cable. Congress has heretofore done nothing indicating 
 any disposition to connect with the islands. Under these conditions 
 we are asked to waive our right to object to the granting of Eng 
 land s request. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not imagine that the Government of the 
 United States will go to pieces if the additional commercial facilities 
 tendered by Great Britain are furnished. I do not believe that any 
 vast advantage will accrue to England if she is allowed to land her 
 cable as designed, so far as any trade competition between that Gov 
 ernment and ours is concerned. I think it is absolutely certain, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 301 
 
 because of the location of the Hawaiian group with reference to the 
 United States, that their commerce must come to the western coast 
 of this country. Self-interest on the part of the islanders requires it. 
 Certainly, while our present treaty with reference to sugar matters 
 exists it is plain that, cable or no cable, we will continue to dominate 
 commerce there. But I agree that the cable will be beneficial. I am 
 confident that with the extension to which I have referred we will 
 profit by the work. The illustration given today is very significant. 
 If such a line existed we would be able to determine in short order 
 whether it is our duty to interfere in the cases of those reported to 
 have been condemned by an autocratic military tribunal. 
 
 While such reasoning might be invoked with reference to any 
 country in which an emergency has suddenly arisen, that fact would 
 not lessen our satisfaction were we able to enjoy telegraphic inter 
 course at this moment. 
 
 However, the commercial advantages which will ultimately 
 attend the construction and extension of a cable system to Honolulu 
 are such that I do not feel justified in opposing the appropriation, 
 and I intend to vote for it. I concede that it will require a great 
 outlay to complete the project, but I rely upon a corresponding 
 benefit. 
 
 I have not overlooked the constitutional objections which were 
 so fully urged here with regard to Nicaragua and have been repeated 
 in this debate. I do not wish to add to the argument I used in con 
 sideration of the canal bill. I do not believe that there is any jus 
 tification for the theory that we have not the power to thus guard 
 our commercial and governmental interests. We can extend our 
 commercial relations, we can lay a cable wherever we find it essential 
 to do so. The legislative department has the jurisdiction to do 
 whatever will extend, advance, and regulate our commerce and 
 increase our capabilities for common defense. 
 
 I concur with Senators who have stated that this is a nation 
 vested with full power as such. It is not half a nation or two-thirds 
 of a nation. We can not afford to place the Republic in an inferior 
 position as contrasted with the great powers of this world. Every 
 American citizen would shrink from such an attempt, and would 
 warmly repudiate such a conclusion. To concede otherwise would 
 be to say that there is somewhere another Government which is 
 more powerful, self-respecting, and enlightened than ours ; and 
 more nearly competent to so administer public affairs as to promote 
 the permanent happiness of the people. No such doctrine can ever 
 have my support. Nor do I find any justification for such a theory 
 either in the language of the Constitution or in the interpretations 
 of Chief Justice Marshall, which have become crystallized into per 
 manency by the passage of time and the experience of intelligent 
 patriots. 
 
 Mr. President, the message which has just reached us, and which 
 recites the sentences of a military tribunal in Honolulu, discloses 
 a deplorable condition. 
 
 I know that my humane friend from South Dakota [Mr. 
 KYLE], who addressed us this morning, and spoke of the soothing 
 influence of missionary contact, will be somewhat horrified when he 
 discovers that the characteristics of barbarism have been thus early 
 disclosed in the first struggle for power by the newly constituted 
 Republic. Undoubtedly any Government making any claim to be 
 
302 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 such, assumes the right to enforce law, and may visit extreme 
 penalty upon those who by violent overt act dispute its nationality 
 and seek to possess themselves of dominion and supremacy. 
 
 But, Mr. President, as was well stated by the Senator from 
 Colorado, the United States passed through an unexampled civil 
 war, and did not find it necessary in a single instance to resort to 
 the imposition of the death penalty for traitorous conduct. I can 
 not believe that the sentences which have been thus announced have 
 been imposed with intent that they shall be carried out. The letter 
 of the law has been probably adopted and commutations will no 
 doubt follow. I do not think that these sentences mean any more 
 than the expression upon the part of those in authority that they 
 have the power to do those things which nationality implies whether 
 represented by a king, a president, or what not. I will not tolerate 
 the thought that anyone who has the slightest conception of free 
 government would under such surroundings convict and execute by 
 wholesale. Mr. D ole s position is such that he can not afford to be 
 otherwise than merciful. When the Queen was deposed, and when 
 she made a threat which the country construed into an intimation 
 that she would execute those who had risen against her if she 
 became once more possessed of the throne, all denounced her as 
 bloodthirsty. There is not a Senator in this Chamber and no one 
 connected with this Government who would not, had she made such 
 an attempt, have used all proper effort to prevent the carrying out 
 of her resolve. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not hesitate to say that I would most cheer 
 fully vote for a resolution expressive of the opinion of the Senate 
 that those who have been taken into custody by the Hawaiian Gov 
 ernment and who have been thus sentenced should be dealt with 
 leniently. In view of the unsettled conditions prevailing, in view 
 of the infirmities of human passion, having regard to the future of 
 the Republic, the authorities of Hawaii should not be hasty. An 
 enduring republic must be builded upon something more solid than 
 a foundation laid in blood, even though it be the blood of the 
 revolutionist who but a few months past was the representative of a 
 Government overthrown by the men who now render judgment. 
 
 Mr. President, these occurrences are regrettable. It is to be 
 hoped that in the midst of this disturbance wise counsels will 
 prevail, that the abdication of the Queen, her written and formal 
 renunciation, will prevent further disorder. The Dole Government 
 must be aware that resistance is over and that ultimate punish 
 ments are not required. Caution is ever to be observed in matters 
 affecting human life, and an error now would have serious con 
 sequences. While we have no authority to affirm that a foreign 
 government shall not enforce its laws, still, under the peculiar cir 
 cumstances environing this subject, an intimation to Mr. Dole may 
 not be amiss. 
 
 But, Mr. President, if those who have been sentenced are Ameri 
 can citizens, if it be true that they were not actually participants in 
 an attempt to overthrow the Government, or even then, if they have 
 been tried and found guilty by a summarily organized revolutionary 
 or military tribunal, trying them and passing upon their cases in the 
 shadow of dangerous conflict under either of those conditions I 
 would certainly conceive it to be our duty to intervene and to inves 
 tigate most closely before we withdraw our interfering hand. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 303 
 
 The communication from the Executive today informs us that 
 in accordance with the long-settled practice of this country a request 
 has been made for information and notice given to withhold the 
 consummation and carrying out of the sentence imposed. In any 
 event this precaution is timely. 
 
 Mr. President, this occurrence has tended to increase interest 
 in the cable proposition. I am persuaded that our commerce will 
 be advanced by this expenditure. I appreciate that the large num 
 ber of American vessels which call at Honolulu do not represent 
 vast trade and that our commerce there is small as compared with 
 that which we share with many other nations. 
 
 I repeat that we must in the end go further than Honolulu to 
 find our justification for this disbursement as a business venture. 
 But a commencement must be made, and I shall vote to begin now. 
 Without Government aid a cable will not be laid from the United 
 States. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] accurately 
 remarked that private parties can not be found who will make such 
 an investment, as quick and large direct returns are not to be 
 expected. 
 
 Mr. President, I trust that we will maintain the doctrine of non 
 interference in the internal affairs of Hawaii declared by a formal 
 resolution of the Senate; that we will prevent foreign interposition. 
 And I am convinced that the Administration will continue to take 
 such action as may secure our citizens from persecution and main 
 tain the foreign policy which wise precedents and good faith justify 
 and require. 
 
RULES OF THE SENATE 
 
 SPEECH DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 January 10, 1896. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration resolutions proposing certain 
 amendments to the rules 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE OF THE SENATE. 
 
 Mr. WHITE said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: I desire at this time to offer a few remarks 
 in enforcement of the position of those Senators who have heretofore 
 insisted that there should be changes in the rules of the Senate look 
 ing to the more logical transaction of public business. I ask in this 
 connection that Senate resolutions 14, 15, and 16, submitted by the 
 Senator from New York [Mr. HILL], and Senate resolution 18, sub 
 mitted by me, be read from the desk. 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as indi 
 cated. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows: 
 
 Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. HILL to the rules of the Sen 
 ate, submitted December n, 1895: 
 
 "Resolved, That subdivision 2 of Rule V of the standing rules of the Sen 
 ate be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows: 
 
 " If at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate a question shall be 
 raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer 
 shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll, and shall announce the 
 result, and these proceedings shall be without debate; but no Senator, while 
 speaking, shall be interrupted by any other Senator raising the question of 
 the lack of a quorum, and the question as to the presence of a quorum shall 
 not be raised oftener than once in every hour, but this provision shall not 
 apply where the absence of a quorum is disclosed upon any roll call of the 
 yeas and nays." 
 
 Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. HILL to the rules of the Sen 
 ate, submitted December n, 1895: 
 
 "Resolved, That Rule IX be amended by adding thereto the following sec 
 tion : 
 
 " Sec. 2. Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Senate as 
 unfinished business, and the same shall have been debated on divers days, 
 amounting in all to thirty days, it shall be in order for any Senator at any 
 time to move to fix a time for the taking of a vote upon such bill or resolution, 
 and such motion shall not be amendable or debatable, and shall be immedi 
 ately put, and if passed by a majority of all the members of the Senate the vote 
 upon such bill or resolution, with all the amendments thereto which may be 
 pending at the time of such motion, shall be had at the date fixed in such 
 original motion without further debate or amendment, except by unanimous 
 consent; and during the pendency of such motion to fix a date and also at the 
 time fixed by the Senate for voting upon bill or resolution no other motion 
 of any kind or character shall be entertained until such motion or such bill or 
 resolution shall have been finally voted upon. " 
 
 Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. HILL to the rules of the Sen 
 ate, submitted December n, 1895: 
 
 304 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 305 
 
 "Resolved, That Rule XII be amended by inserting an additional clause, 
 as follows : 
 
 When upon a vote by yeas and nays is shall appear to the Presiding 
 Officer, upon recapitulation and before the announcement of the result, that a 
 quorum has not voted, he shall call upon Senators present who have not voted 
 by name to vote, and shall direct the Secretary to add to the list of the Sen 
 ators voting the names of the Senators present not voting, including those 
 announcing pairs, or who may or may not be excused from voting, and to 
 enter the same in the Journal ; and if the whole number constitute a quorum, 
 and it shall appear that a majority of a quorum (or two-thirds of a quorum 
 where the Constitution prescribes a majority of two-thirds) has voted on either 
 side, the question shall be deemed to have been determined, and the result 
 shall be announced the same as if a quorum had voted. " 
 
 Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. WHITE to the rules of the 
 Senate, submitted December 12, 1895 : 
 
 " Resolved, That Rule XIX be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 
 i thereof the following : All debate shall be relevant and confined to the sub 
 ject directly before the Senate. " 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, during the last Congress many 
 resolutions suggesting alterations in the procedure of the Senate 
 were introduced. Several were to the purport that Senators in 
 addressing the Senate should be confined to the subject under inquiry; 
 others that debates should be restricted; others that for the purpose 
 of making a quorum every Senator actually present, or at least sig 
 nifying such presence by announcing a pair or otherwise, should be 
 counted. 
 
 So many propositions emanating from so many able sources ought 
 to be enough, without further argument, to convince us that material 
 departures from our present procedure must be desirable. Error long 
 practiced is difficult of eradication. Habits grow upon us. The 
 ability and public services of many of our members have compelled 
 their return here time and time again. Pride, indisposition to retract 
 opinions once expressed, unwillingness to accord to later generations 
 the credit of improvement, have made it hard to effect reforms. More 
 than this, the more venerable Senators have viewed as semi-sacrilegious 
 the efforts of comparative novices to vary our fossilized processes. 
 Perhaps it is hopeless to attempt the task now. However, I am some 
 what encouraged, because not only is the twentieth century approach 
 ing, but I note that some of those who have heretofore opposed more 
 businesslike methods have changed their views and are now anxious 
 for revision. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States contains, inter alia, the fol 
 lowing : 
 
 Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, etc. (Article I, 
 section 5, subdivision 2, Constitution.) 
 
 The rules now in existence, as far as mooted points are concerned, 
 were formulated at a very early date, and I concede that the onus 
 of showing a reason for alteration is upon those who seek to bring 
 it about. This presumption might, indeed, be met and perhaps over 
 come by the admitted general demand, but as I will later on discuss 
 the effect which the opinion of the public, and especially of our 
 constituents, should have upon our acts, I will not now avail myself 
 of this counter presumption. I shall endeavor to state generally the 
 ground upon which I stand, and shall refer to analogous cases and to 
 the variable and peculiar conditions which have brought about pre 
 vailing embarrassments. While there are cogent considerations 
 
306 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 justifying many modifications, the principal defect, as I presume to 
 term it, which should be remedied is the entire omission in our 
 so-called rules to provide for the bringing" of a subject to a vote 
 otherwise than by unanimous consent; because as long as a Senator 
 can stand up and talk, and read or have read, matters relevant and 
 irrelevant, the question can not be put. 
 
 Next in grade descending is the recognition by the Senate of the 
 ancient but not honorable fiction that a majority of the Senate may be 
 in the Senate and yet no quorum be present, and that although a 
 Senator may answer a roll call by stating that he is paired with 
 another Senator, and although he may help to make the one-fifth of 
 those present who demand a roll call, still, in conflict with his asser 
 tion of presence, we, with eccentric and patient indifference to the 
 truth, rule that he is not here. 
 
 Then the Senate permits unlimited talk discussion it is 
 called -upon subjects absolutely and completely, entirely and 
 obviously, foreign to the bill or question appearing by the record to 
 be pending. It is interesting to know that at an early date the 
 difficulties which now confront us were to some extent felt. We are 
 informed by Mr. Schouler (History United States, volume 3, page 
 369) that Mr. Randolph during the last years of his public service 
 was prone to wander from the actual question to which his remarks 
 should have been addressed. In speaking of the Senate this author 
 says : 
 
 The decorum of this quiet Chamber was outraged as never before, and 
 Virginia was mortified at the unseemly exhibition. As a thorn in the flesh 
 of an unpopular Administration Randolph was not to be despised, and on this 
 account perhaps Calhoun bore gently with him, watching from his chair the 
 flow of poesy and vituperation which the rules of the Senate, so he alleged, 
 forbade him to interrupt. 
 
 I find by referring to 30 Niles s Register, pages 146-147, that the 
 Senate rescinded the then existing rule which vested in the President 
 the appointment of the Senate committees and the supervising of the 
 Journal, and Mr. Calhoun made an elaborate statement in connection 
 with this action, and also concerning his jurisdiction to confine Sen 
 ators to the subject of debate. His argument in part is thus 
 expressed by the reporter: 
 
 From this direction which the debate, in some degree, took, as well as 
 from what has been said without these walls, it becomes, on this occasion, 
 proper that I should state, for the information of this body, the construction 
 that the Chair has put on the sixth and seventh rules of the Senate. They are 
 in the following words : 
 
 " When a member shall be called to order he shall sit down until the 
 President shall have determined whether he is in order or not; and every 
 question of order shall be decided by the President without debate; but if 
 there be a doubt in his mind he may call for the sense of the Senate. 
 
 " If the member be called to order for words spoken, the exceptionable 
 words shall immediately be taken down in writing, that the President may be 
 better enabled to judge of the matter." 
 
 The Chair, said the Vice-President, has bestowed its most deliberate and 
 anxious attention by night and by day on the question of the extent of its 
 powers under a correct construction of these rules, and is settled in the con 
 viction that the right to call to order on questions touching the latitude or 
 freedom of debate belongs exclusively to the members of this body and not 
 to the Chair. The power of the presiding officer on these great points is an 
 appellate power only, and consequently the duties of the Chair commence 
 when a Senator is called to order by a Senator. Whenever such a call shall 
 be made, the Chair will not be found unprepared to discharge its only func- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 307 
 
 tions in such a case that of deciding on the point of order submitted. And 
 the opinion of the presiding officer in relation to the freedom of debate in this 
 body it will be time to declare when a question may be presented; but such 
 as it is, it will be firmly and, I trust I may add, fearlessly maintained. 
 
 Mr. Schouler also writes that in the course of the next Congress, 
 in 1828, the Senate gave to the Vice-President concurrent power in 
 calling members to order, subject to appeal from his decision. 
 
 We all know that this prerogative is never exercised by 
 either the Senate or Vice-President in so far as it refers to the 
 obligation to keep within the limits of the question under discussion. 
 Matters which are germain and matters which are not germain seem 
 to be alike in order here. I believe that even under our rules, prop 
 erly construed, Senators should be required to adhere to the question; 
 but the contrary practice prevails, and will only be corrected by 
 positive prohibition. 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF OUR RULES DOES NOT INHIBIT THEIR AMENDMENT. 
 
 In examining this question it is fair to admit that rules which 
 have been in operation during such an extended period, and have 
 been found frequently competent to discharge the functions for which 
 they were designed, should not lightly be set aside. That a plan of 
 action has been, for a period, found advantageous suffices, perhaps, 
 to make out a prima facie case in its favor. This, however, is all 
 that can be claimed. This is as much as the doctrine of presumption 
 warrants. It must likewise be granted that no regulations sufficiently 
 comprehensive to include the advanced requirements of an alert 
 nation can be devised for all time. We can not photograph the 
 future, or even comprehend it. However wise we may be, or how 
 ever closely; we may have studied that which has gone, we are 
 not permitted to penetrate the mystery of that which is to come. The 
 unexpected developments of an active world we can but partially 
 forestall. The phonograph does not store the pronunciation of the 
 sages, the heroes, the philosophers of antiquity. Ages unborn will 
 hear the voices of Gladstone and Bismarck, but the tones of their 
 predecessors in greatness must be ever absent. 
 
 To suppose that rules adopted in the days of the nation s infancy 
 by her Senate will be sufficient for all exigencies in maturer hours 
 is to expect that there is never to be any actual development; that 
 our country must be monotonous and non-progressive. It needs no 
 discussion to show that we are a go-ahead people ; that we are fully 
 alive to inspiring demands. 
 
 According to the census of 1800 the United States then con 
 tained 5,308,483 persons, and of these nearly one-fifth were slaves. 
 It now contains a population but little less than 70,000,000. At that 
 time Cincinnati contained, perhaps, 15,000 people. Buffalo was not 
 laid out. There were a few cabins upon the site of Cleveland. 
 Pittsburg amounted to little. Rochester did not exist. Boston con 
 tained a population of about 25,000; New York about 60,000, and 
 Philadelphia, which then headed the list, some 75,000. Chicago was 
 unknown. The great West was undeveloped. The vast resources 
 of the Pacific Coast had been untouched. 
 
 The western frontier was located within the Empire State. The 
 entire banking means of the United States in 1800 would not, as a 
 contemporaneous historian has remarked, " have answered the stock 
 jobbing purposes of one great operator of Wall street in 1875." 
 
308 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 The same author tells us that in 1800 " the normal capital of all the 
 banks, including the Bank of the United States, fell short of twenty- 
 nine millions. The limit of credit was quickly reached, for only the 
 richest could borrow more than fifteen or twenty thousand dollars at 
 a time, and the United States Government itself was greatly embar 
 rassed whenever obliged to raise money. In 1798 the Secretary of 
 the Treasury could obtain $5,000,000 only by paying 8 per cent, 
 interest for a term of years, and in 1814 the Government was forced 
 to stop payments for the want of twenty millions." 
 
 It is perhaps accurate to say that the gross exports and imports 
 of the United States at the dawn of this century did not more than 
 balance at about $75,000,000. The States were few in number. 
 This body was exceedingly small. When the Senate contained three 
 or four dozen members, there was but little necessity for the enact 
 ment of stringent rules. There was no opportunity to filibuster. 
 No chance was afforded to obstructionists for the retardation of, 
 public affairs. 
 
 Although it is true that civilization, with its varied social 
 requirements, molded somewhat by climatic conditions, and influ 
 enced, too, by many other causes, has developed characteristics in one 
 locality and among a certain set of men at a particular date, never 
 theless, human nature is very much the same the world over and 
 through the generations. The people of the United States had been 
 governed under the English system. They had imbibed much of the 
 hard sense and practical ideas which begot the common law. More 
 over, the severe experiences of border life, the trials of war, and the 
 demands of a new and unprecedented situation evoked love of coun 
 try and smothered tendencies to indiscretion. Thus it came about 
 that a country not then remarkably important commercially, offering 
 but limited opportunity for the accumulation of lucre, sustained the 
 most generally patriotic people who ever lived. This spirit has not 
 become inactive, but many contentions which were entirely foreign 
 to those who sat in this Chamber when the rules which I am attempt 
 ing to consider were adopted are now urged upon us. It passes with 
 out saying that the development of the United States has induced 
 many innovations and made imperative the enactment of numerous 
 laws. The wisdom of our earlier Congresses, however marked, was 
 not equal to the task of modeling statutes wide enough to cover the 
 demands of 1895-96. Laws have multiplied until they have become 
 so numerous that no one pretends to have more than a passing 
 knowledge of the public and private bills which have become 
 absolute rules of conduct. Our Constitution, the best result of the 
 greatest wisdom of our predecessors, did not satisfy all necessities. 
 Men who now sit here took part in changing that instrument and 
 vitally adding to its prohibitions. These circumstances amply 
 answer the claim that no revision should be made in the mere rules 
 of a body which is itself constantly revising the statute law and 
 sometimes aiding in the alteration of the organic instrument. 
 
 I assume that the causes which have made it necessary to add 
 to or take from our Constitution, our statutes, our Federal and State 
 systems must have made amendments to the Senate s procedure 
 advisable. Apart from the concrete consideration of this topic, an 
 intelligent stranger to the present discussion would doubtless say 
 that if our rules are perfect, fit for unvaried endurance, the Senate 
 must have been divinely organized and at all times acting in 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 309 
 
 accordance with a plan born in omnipotent wisdom, or else that such 
 rules must be behind the age, partaking somewhat of those proofs 
 of the existence of ancient marvels which are furnished by prehis 
 toric formations, petrified forests, the remains of various monsters, 
 etc. These physical reminiscences are important because they are 
 extremely old and not available for present use. They form 
 examples of that which has been, and are valuable for the scientific 
 lessons which are taught from them. Our rules are too modern for 
 display and too ancient to suit our purposes. 
 
 I do not wish it to be understood that our rules ever will become 
 or have become so obsolete as to suggest their exhibition with 
 Cleopatra s Needle. I merely advert to the possibility of their 
 improvement. They are still capable of being read by the public, 
 but can not, it seems, be understood in all regards, even here. 
 During my limited incumbency I have noticed grave differences 
 among our parliamentary Nestors as to their proper interpretation, 
 and when such controversies have been submitted to the Senate, the 
 solution has been accomplished along party lines, presumably 
 because the safest course to pursue was that dictated by faith in 
 tried and trusted leaders. But mutations which ought to affect about 
 everything depending upon human intelligence have not interfered 
 with these creations of the remote past to which the future is to be 
 sentenced, because, Mr. President, I contend that in this regard we 
 are behind the times ; that it is our duty to be up and doing ; that 
 we can not hold the world back ; that however great we may assume 
 and presume ourselves to be we are atoms to be crushed if we seek 
 to stay the march of intelligence ; that we must either keep abreast 
 of the chariot or be dragged at its wheels. These are propositions 
 not susceptible of refutation. I would not change a rule merely 
 for the sake of change ; I would not alter one without a reason ; but 
 I would not retain a rule merely because I or my predecessor had 
 made it. 
 
 We can not, I know, vary our conduct as the dictators of the 
 fashionable world do their raiment, but when the test of thought 
 confronts us ought we not seriously ask whether we, even we, may 
 not be in error? The boys in the gallery many times suggest to the 
 accomplished theatrical manager some defect in the acting or staging 
 of his piece which the boxes have not detected. May it not be that 
 those who have sent us here are right in their present criticism? 
 " We owe it to ourselves," says one. " not to yield to public clamor. 
 Let us take our time about it." This advice seems to be heeded. 
 We are taking our time about it. Senators declare that we can 
 always pass a bill if the majority wishes it to be passed. This may 
 be true, but such passage is brought about only when the opposition 
 is practically taken out on a stretcher. Such proceeding is not intel 
 lectual. While not novel here, it excites universal surprise every 
 where else. 
 
 THE MAJORITY IS AT THE MERCY OF THE MINORITY. 
 
 Under our programme a single voice neutralizes, nay, vanquishes 
 eighty-seven. Sir Boyle Roche would have said that one Senator out 
 numbers eighty-seven. True, a single Senator may be subdued, but no 
 thanks to our rules for this boon. Give the credit to that nature which 
 can not be conquered. Thus it afforded the relief which our rules attempt 
 to negative. We can not overcome a single and determined oppos- 
 
310 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ing Senator until, his physical powers having weakened, we march 
 to the roll call over his prostrate and panting form. Such procedure 
 is not dignified surely, and if there is reason behind it no one has 
 disclosed the same. If a sufficient number of obstructionists to order 
 a roll call be present and a proper supply of positive Senators be here 
 to watch and pray with their fellows which must nearly always 
 be the case in the great controversies now pending or plainly in sight 
 or hereafter to occur no vote can be reached until the minority so 
 wills it. The more numerous Senators, the more need for firmness 
 and positive regulation. We have now the largest Senate that ever 
 convened in the United States, and the end is not yet. Let us look 
 at this matter in the light of the present and consider the experience 
 of the past. The tariff discussion in the last Congress furnished 
 competent lessons. We sat here day after day and were treated 
 to essays of enormous length, compilations, treatises, etc. Many of 
 these were not listened to throughout by a single Senator beyond 
 the member who had the floor, and except perhaps the Senator from 
 Kansas [Mr. PUFFER], who listens patiently to everything. I am 
 told that he has felt it to be his duty to harken with the hope of 
 hearing that which might instruct, and I am also informed that he 
 feels that his self-sacrifice has been but partially rewarded, and that 
 after all his trouble he is ready to confirm the generally accepted 
 theory that everything said is not relevant or manifestly instructive. 
 
 Mr. President, I witnessed during the last tariff discussion a 
 Senator of great ability and long experience speaking in this Cham 
 ber when there were but four of his associates present. One was in 
 the chair, and one was attentive. I marveled why it was necessary 
 to talk under such circumstances. The fourth Senator was writing a 
 letter. After a while an absentee strolled into the Chamber, and, 
 with a desire to emancipate us, moved an adjournment, and the 
 Senate adjourned, leaving the Chamber but slightly less agitated 
 than it had been. Was this deliberation? Did the Senators who 
 left the Chamber pending the argument, speech, or recitation leave to 
 deliberate ? Perhaps so perhaps so. After certain religious 
 instructions the auditors are remanded to solitude for reflection. 
 Maybe those who leave while the lone member deliberates aloud do 
 so to deliberate in silence. 
 
 In a note to the second edition of Brice s American Common 
 wealth (volume i, page 116), it is said: 
 
 One is told in Washington that it is at present thought "bad form" for a 
 Senator to listen to a set speech ; it implies that he is a freshman. 
 
 I had not heard of this, but our custom gives color to the theory 
 that such is our faith. 
 
 The numerous calls of the Senate, the appearances and disap 
 pearances, the exits and entrances of Senators, summoned from the 
 cloakroom and immediately thereafter returning thereto, indicate 
 that lack of interest and want of proper regard for public business 
 which are the legitimate result of the procedure I condemn. It must 
 be conceded that it would have been cruel to force anyone to hearken 
 to the many repetitions dealt out here during the tariff debate. Those 
 addresses were not made to be listened to. No Senator was offended 
 because his colleagues absented themselves. Why should he) feel 
 offended? He exercised a similar right himself, and he did unto 
 others as he desired others to do unto him. I know that many able 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 311 
 
 speeches were delivered upon the tariff; that our opponents, espe 
 cially in the running debate, made trenchant criticisms, and, from their 
 standpoint, appropriate remarks; but I do not hesitate to affirm that 
 folios after folios of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are filled with sta 
 tistical and other compilations, originating on the Republican side 
 which, while wholly cumulative compelled modifications in our bill, 
 yielded under compulsion as the only means of shortening that which 
 threatened to last world without end. Much of this profuseness will 
 not be studied or read until the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt have 
 all been deciphered; until the partially eradicated stories which linger 
 in the ruins of Asia Minor or arrest the archaeologist s attention in 
 the land of the Aztecs have been fully interpreted and understood. 
 
 During the discussion to which I have referred a diminutive 
 minority (diminutive as to numbers) upon the other side of this 
 Chamber declared themselves ready to talk until March 4 to beat the 
 bill. And if there had been a slight addition to their strength the 
 threat would have been executed. 
 
 Another and very striking illustration of the consequences of 
 our rules was furnished on February 9 and II by a distinguished 
 Senator. The bill making appropriations for the maintenance of the 
 Post-Office Department of the Government was under consideration. 
 A certain amendment thereto was proposed by the committee, and a 
 point of order was made to the effect that the amendment was such 
 general legislation as to conflict with the first subdivision of Rule 
 XVI. The Senator referred to thereupon took the floor and pro 
 ceeded to discuss the Alabama election controversy, devoting hours 
 to its consideration, presenting numerous affidavits, statements, etc., 
 bearing upon the transactions incident to recent proceedings at the 
 polls in that State. That Senator, whom we all know to be able and 
 intelligent, did not pretend that he was addressing himself to the 
 subject then before the Senate. On the contrary, he had sought to 
 be heard upon the election matter during the earlier part of the day, 
 and being cut off by the parliamentary situation, did not hesitate to 
 say that he would take the floor and make his speech in any event. 
 He is not to be greatly blamed for this. He was merely exercising 
 a privilege allowed him by the absurd procedure which the Senate 
 tolerates in defiance alike of sentiment and sense. 
 
 The following is one of the many samples of the working of the 
 present rule. Omitting names, I will read the report of an occur 
 rence of the last session, which was published in a journal of this 
 city. The report was substantially correct : 
 
 AIMS A BIG GUN. 
 
 Mr. A did not attempt to further prolong the delay in passing the bill, 
 although for a few moments it looked as if the Senate was on the verge of a 
 speech three months long. Mr. B s amendment providing for legal proceed 
 ings to test the constitutionality and validity of the tax before the taxpayer 
 had paid it had been ruled out of order, and the decision of the Chair had been 
 sustained by an overwhelming vote. Thereupon Mr. A, in order to get a 
 vote upon the question directly, offered another amendment to the same 
 effect ; but Mr. D, declining to let the proposition be voted upon on its merits, 
 raised the point of order. It was immediately sustained by the Chair, Mr. 
 E being the presiding officer. Never a word said Mr. A, but, reaching beneath 
 his desk, produced a pile of manuscript that was a foot and a half high and 
 must have contained at least a thousand pages. It was a speech. 
 
 Mr. C laughed out loud. Mr. A smiled quietly and Mr. G nearly fell out of 
 his chair. Mr. A, with a face as solemn as any clergyman s, unbuckled the 
 
312 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 great leather strap with which the immense mass was fastened, took up the 
 topmost pages and began to look through them. Half a dozen Senators at 
 once gathered around him. 
 
 "Are you going to make some remarks?" one of them asked him. 
 
 "I am going to make these remarks," was the Senator s reply, pointing to 
 the mountain of manuscript, and the very ludicrousness of the situation 
 brought a smile to his face. 
 
 Mr. H went over to plead with him. Mr. I also approached to view the 
 threatened danger, and then Mr. G walked across the Senate to interview 
 Mr. A. The result of the conference was seen a moment later, when Mr. A 
 again introduced his amendment. This time no point of order was made 
 against it. It was voted upon, and, as Mr. A had doubtless anticipated, was 
 defeated by a vote of 19 yeas to 32 nays. But he had gained his point, and 
 sinking back in his chair with an expression of beatific satisfaction he watched 
 his clerk once more buckle up the thousand pages and stow them away under 
 the desk, where they still remain to be again forthcoming when Mr. A has 
 anything to gain by their appearance. 
 
 I know that some will probably say that there has not been any 
 filibustering here. I am not particular about words or names. I am 
 referring to transactions as they occur. During the last session, and 
 after the tariff bill finally passed, it was pretty well known that there 
 were in that bill defects certain errors which the alleged domi 
 nant party wished to correct. The adoption of all the Senate amend 
 ments by the House rendered the usual committee revision impossi 
 ble. It was suggested here that one or two of the inaccuracies should 
 be cured; but no; the minority informed the majority that this could 
 not be done, and the few had power to control the many. We threw 
 up our hands and submitted without more than a murmur. Hence 
 but little effort was made in the line of even clerical improvement. 
 The press correctly informed us that the leaders of the other side 
 concluded that there should be no more tariff legislation. The 
 minority thus dictated to the majority, and the majority acquiesced. 
 Others again affirmed that there must be no financial legislation. It 
 may be that the majority here believe, as I do, that it is practically 
 impossible to enact a complete financial scheme at this session; but it 
 is wholly immaterial whether the majority or the minority favors 
 legislation. The majority can do nothing unless the minority con 
 sents. 
 
 True, the minority can not enact a bill disagreeable to the 
 majority, but practically the Senate is governed by a minority. It 
 is common experience for a majority leader to say to his restive 
 subordinates : " Wait awhile ; have patience ; I have been in consulta 
 tion with Senator Blank, the leader of the minority, and he agrees 
 that if we will make the following concessions he w r ill see that the 
 majority is allowed to proceed." The followers sometimes are irri 
 tated, use non-parliamentary language in the cloakroom, refuse for 
 a day or two to bow down, but they always come to time. They 
 have to come to time under the rules the constitutional rules of 
 the Senate. Even our leaders do not relish having to do this. No 
 one pretends that it is just right. The most plausible excuse that 
 can be given is that nothing is perfect, even in the Senate, and that 
 these difficulties are of less moment than those that might, could, or 
 would be produced by more positive and less curious regulations. 
 
 I will show that there is nothing in these excuses or arguments. 
 Just now there are various important bills before us. Perhaps we 
 may be allowed to vote upon them. Many of them present no party 
 issue. But one opposing Senator may baffle us. If we assume that 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 313 
 
 there is a majority of 10 or 20 only, either for or against one of these 
 bills, and if the measure reaches a roll call or a determination, it will 
 be because the minority have so willed. In other words, the passage 
 of a bill is effected when the opponents thereof agree thereto. This 
 is certainly a harmonious anticipation involving peace and good will. 
 We vote because of the magnanimity of those whom we outnumber. 
 I know that some who differ from me declare that bills are 
 always passed on. This is not true. But if it were better founded 
 it would be a remarkably weak response. Are those rules the per 
 fection of human wisdom whose only value is that notwithstanding 
 their existence legislation may be had? Rules framed for a legisla 
 tive body defended because in spite of them work may be done! 
 Rules are everywhere supposed to be designed to promote work. 
 If the argument is worth anything, it is for the reason that it means 
 that the essence of Senatorial statesmanship is the impeding of legis 
 lation. A body formed to legislate is, according to this view, per 
 forming its obligations when it does its best to negative the object 
 of its creation. Organized for action, it luxuriates in inaction and 
 deliberates and deliberates and deliberates, while one part of the 
 country is swearing and the other is yawning. 
 
 ILL-ADVISED LEGISLATION IS NOT AVOIDED BY A SYSTEM WHICH CONSUMES TIME 
 AND ENLIGHTENS NO ONE. THE DISCUSSION WHICH RESULTS IN BENEFIT 
 IS PERTINENT, DIRECT, AND PITHY DEBATE. 
 
 The person who tells me that addresses which are listened to only 
 by the suffering Presiding Officer and by the party who is talking 
 enlighten anybody does not appeal very strongly to me. When a 
 minority resolves upon the death of a bill the speeches, while fatal to 
 the measure, are also dull to the Senate and void of intelligent con 
 sequences. If mistakes have been made in bills which have passed 
 here after lengthy debate, it does not prove that we did not spend 
 enough of time upon such measures, but does establish that our hours 
 were not as well employed as would have been the case had there 
 been a brisk and apposite discussion upon which was centered the 
 undivided attention of the whole body. The present plan inhibits 
 such educating consideration. Reasonable rules will produce the 
 improved condition. I frankly admit that I do not like to be driven, 
 and I also know that self-respect requires us to maintain our 
 integrity against demagogic onslaught. If you do not respect your 
 self, how can you expect others to respect you, is a pointed inquiry 
 upon a proper occasion. It is an inquiry which I would address to 
 those who inflict kill-bill compilations upon their brethren, which 
 compilations are never read again nor intended to be read by men 
 or angels certainly not by angels who are not paying the fearful 
 penalty of transgression. It is because I revere this place, long and 
 now tenanted by many great and good men ; it is because I trust 
 that our posterity may see in this Chamber nothing to offend and but 
 little to improve, and it is because I feel that unless we remodel our 
 practice we will be righteously condemned that I make this appeal, 
 especially to those Senators whose extended and valuable services 
 to their country leads me to hope that they will finally decide aright. 
 
 THE DIGNITY OE THE SENATE IS NOT MAINTAINED BY ADHERING TO PARLIAMENTARY 
 
 ANOMALIES. 
 
 Much has been said with reference to the dignity of the Senate, 
 and it appears to be intimated that it would not be dignified to have 
 
 21 
 
314 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 a previous question here; that other bodies may condescend to such 
 restrictions, but that it would be indecorous for us to do so. But 
 the Senate was created for the purpose of, to some extent, legislating 
 for the country. Such, certainly, is one of its most important duties. 
 Jt was designed to act with the House of Representatives, and both 
 together to form the National Legislature. It was not organized 
 merely that its members might be impressive. But dignity (dignus) 
 is the equivalent of true worth, of excellence. It does not depend 
 solely or chiefly upon external manifestations nor lofty bearing. 
 Senatorial dignity should result from the full discharge of the obliga 
 tions of a Senator. It is not begotten of rules; it exists only in 
 just appreciation of high responsibility, and is the companion of 
 onerous, patriotic labor, carefully, ably, and conscientiously done. 
 Due comprehension of the importance of his trust should influence 
 the manner and conduct of a Senator. He should ever remember that 
 his fealty to the great power which he represents inhibits improper 
 and unseemly action. But the people of the United States did not 
 make this body for any other purpose than to conserve, develop, and 
 perpetuate the principles of liberty, which they hoped would enable 
 them to pursue, without fear or favor, their legitimate affairs. The 
 Government, after all, is an agency of a strictly business character. 
 The unessential embellishments of power, the pomp and circum 
 stance of authority, are daily becoming less and less tolerable. The 
 diffusion of education, the fact that the printing press is so generally 
 in use and literature so available tends toward the equalization of 
 mentality as far as such equalization is natural and renders too much 
 display and obtrusive consciousness of the possession of authority 
 repulsive to the average American. Recognition of the courtesies 
 of enlightened life must undoubtedly prevail ; the enforcement of 
 regulations dictated by regard for order and adequate veneration of 
 our country s institutions is also vital, but here the patience of our 
 constituents is disposed to cease. 
 
 THE SENATE SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCEPTION TO ALT, LEGISLATIVE BODIES. 
 
 Every effective assemblage in the civilized world is controlled 
 by rules which make the transaction of business by the majority 
 always attainable within a reasonable period. This is true of short 
 lived bodies, such as conventions, of more permanent organizations, 
 such as parliaments, diets, chambers of deputies, etc. Even the 
 Senate claims to have rules, and I think I have heard it admitted that 
 these are valuable as aids to affirmative action. How absurd to fix 
 hours for morning business or to designate a time when the Calendar 
 may be considered or anything else taken up, when we contuma 
 ciously and with premeditation so manage our affairs that one- fourth 
 of the body can readily defeat a roll call on the merits. That a 
 quorum may be present and actually debating, and yet by declining to 
 vote members present may make the record show no quorum, is a 
 condition perfectly familiar and indefensible. If we are to have rules 
 at all, let them reach the vital part. If we are here for work, let the 
 work be done. If it be better for the country that no legislation 
 should be had and I have heard a distinguished man defend our 
 rules on this ground then let us meet only to adjourn. If a bill is 
 good, ought it not to pass? If it is bad, should it not be disposed 
 of according to law? Talking a bill to death, while in harmony with 
 Senatorial usage, is unreasonable. Rational consideration, full con- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 315 
 
 sideration, every measure indeed should have, even at the risk of 
 weariness, but a minority should not be allowed to effectively say, 
 " We will not permit clerical errors or other obvious defects in a 
 tariff or other bill to be changed. Our policy is to compel the coun 
 try to act under the measure as it is. We claimed that the bill was 
 defective, nevertheless it was made a law. W T e will now decline to 
 permit mistakes to be rectified, even though the same may have been 
 exposed by us. It is against our policy to permit the majority to 
 act/ 
 
 Is it wonderful that the people of the United States censure the 
 Senate? Is it remarkable that this is not a popular body? Is it 
 singular that every one asks us why the Senate is so slow? And 
 is it not peculiar that our excuse must be that our rules will not 
 permit us to do anything that we are disciplined to inaction? Is 
 it true of other advanced peoples that their highest legislative cham 
 bers are compelled to admit that their rules, their own instruments, 
 created to facilitate business, are efficacious only to prevent the deter 
 mination of important issues? It was never designed by the framers 
 of the Constitution that this body should be an insuperable obstacle 
 to reform, or that it should place about its limbs shackles of its own 
 fashioning and justify its torpor by referring to impediments of its 
 own proper design. 
 
 THE FORCE; BILL. 
 
 I am aware that several Senators whose abilities and statesman 
 ship long ago justly won for them high national reputation object 
 to anything approaching a cloture, because they say we ever stand 
 under the menace of the force bill, that the effort to enact that bill is 
 a warning of the presence of kindred perils. Stated in a different 
 form, this means that there is always danger that the majority may 
 become tyrannical or may scheme for continuous dominancy, or may 
 plot against the country s interests. The force bill seems to be used 
 by each and all of those upon the Democratic side who rest 
 upon this so-called argument. The pertinency of the illustration is 
 hardly admitted by our Republican friends who defend the rules. I 
 shall consider the subject first as it regards the obnoxious bill so for 
 tunately buried. Then I shall attempt to maintain that the good or 
 evil of any special measure can never warrant a general and century- 
 extending policy which can not be justified except as a preventive to 
 such ill-advised legislation. 
 
 Is it true that the country or the Democratic party would have 
 been ruined had the force bill become a law? I do not think so. I 
 have the highest respect for Senators who regarded that concoction 
 as an edict of proscription and death. I fully agree that it contem 
 plated an unrepublican system. I concur that the time of its intro 
 duction a generation after the close of our lamentable civil strife 
 was most unhappily selected. Nevertheless, had that bill been 
 enacted there would have been no temporary or other Democratic 
 falling off, either North or South. The common danger would have 
 solidified expression in the ballot box, and an attempt to repeat the 
 criminality of carpetbagism or the errors of electoral commissions 
 would have stirred the Union to such an extent that election cyclones 
 would not have been causes of discomfort to this side of the Chamber. 
 If I am not right about this, and if still I be correct in my disapproval 
 of the force bill, it follows that our Government is a total failure. 
 
316 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 For if an odious, unpatriotic, enslaving, power-perpetuating enact 
 ment, unjust in its conception and cruel in its workings, be not 
 doomed to swift destruction by the honesty of the land, it can only 
 be because it reflects public immorality and general wanton disregard 
 of sacred privileges. Nor is it any response that the nature of that 
 bill was such as to place the machinery for counting in and counting 
 out in the hands of politicians, who would have exercised such 
 authority selfishly and to the fullest extent. 
 
 This condition would no doubt require more decided public 
 expression, greater majorities than are ordinarily determinative of 
 party struggles, but the difficulty is purely theoretic. The American 
 people occasionally " go out gunning " with weapons thoroughly 
 charged. During these uprisings schemers, gerrymanders, force-bill 
 men, id genus otnne have only one recourse, viz, to take to the woods. 
 Sometimes even the innocent go down with the guilty. If, which 1 
 do not deem likely, the Republican party shall come into complete 
 power once more, having under its control the executive and legisla 
 tive departments, its astute leaders will not attempt to enact a force 
 bill any more than they will seek to re-enact the McKinley bill. They 
 have tasted both to their heart s discontent, and will be found some 
 what homeopathic even as to protection. While the people will often 
 go too far while, as in the late elections, they may perhaps visit the 
 sins of one party upon the other yet in the end the matter will be 
 honestly adjusted the fair thing will be done. To hold differently 
 is to write one s self a pessimist, an unbeliever in republicanism, or, 
 at best, a political agnostic. 
 
 I can well appreciate that Senators who lived under the imposi 
 tions of carpetbag control, who watched the looting of their treas 
 uries and of their people by imported conscienceless and merciless 
 speculators upon patriotism, who saw not only their personal belong 
 ings taken away, their families humiliated and terrorized, their rights 
 as citizens ignored and repudiated, but who also suffered from enormous 
 State and municipal debts and the infliction of numerous other evils, 
 should shudder at the remembrance of such a condition, and should 
 protest against any concession rendering the recurrence of such enor 
 mities possible. But this very experience, the presence of hearts and 
 frames yet bearing the scars of outrage and sorrow, is apt to exagger 
 ate the peril. We are not upon the heels of an awful war; our 
 people are commercially and otherwise one ; and no such sad state as 
 that to which I have alluded can be born of force bills or miscalled 
 legal writs. The American people are too well educated in liberty 
 and law to allow long life to any cruel or clearly unjust measure. 
 So much for this feature of the case. 
 
 I affirm that we must not spend our time in rendering legislation 
 difficult because we fear that the majority may pass an iniquitous bill. 
 When I say the majority, I mean as far as this body is concerned, the 
 Senate. 
 
 There are instances as in the case of the expulsion of a mem 
 ber or upon impeachment trials or the ratification of a treaty where 
 more than a majority is required ; but I allude now to those cases 
 where those who sum up more than half a quorum are given by the 
 Constitution the right to express the will of the Chamber. The Sen 
 ate mentioned in enacting clauses and which Senate concurs with the 
 House, is not practically and necessarily composed of more than a 
 majority of a quorum. Of course nothing less than a quorum con- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 317 
 
 stitutes the Senate. The contesting minority either does not partici 
 pate in the enacting of a law, or if it participates, it is by way of 
 protestation. It does not enact. It seeks to prevent enactment. 
 That this minority has a right to require deliberation 1 grant. That 
 it may dictate the extent of the deliberation and define what consti 
 tutes deliberation I positively deny. To admit such a proposition 
 would be to permit the minority to deliberate to the death. Con 
 sideration there should be: patient, painstaking, earnest reflection; 
 but as either the minority or the majority must determine when 
 deliberation ceases and the wasting of time begins, I at once select 
 the majority as the repository of the power. 
 
 Majorities are not infallible. The majority and minority both 
 come from a body speaking a common language, living under a 
 common Constitution, governed by a common Federal system, and 
 having a common aspiration. They are all samples of one stock. 
 Hence it is obviously demonstrable that the majority will be oftener 
 correct than the minority. I prefer to live under a plan which 
 sometimes leads to wrong rather than under one which generally 
 leads to wrong. Usually the majority is in sympathy with the 
 latest expressed will of the people. Hence it is not easy to avoid the 
 conclusion that the majority will commonly enact the popular will, 
 and no one is bold enough to claim that we should not, as a rule, 
 defer to the public will by which we have been inducted into our 
 places. There may be an extreme case, but I am not discussing such. 
 My argument is a protest against the adoption of a policy based upon 
 exceptions. I repudiate the view which forces me to follow a line of 
 conduct usually which is only tolerable in isolated instances. I ask 
 for a rule that now and then may work an inconvenience, but which, 
 in the vast mass of cases, must be beneficial. My adversaries invoke 
 a plan which, as I have said, ignores the rule and recognizes the 
 exception, adopts the special and rejects the general. I am afraid 
 of majorities, says one. Very true. But I am afraid of minorities. 
 If we can not trust the majority, a fortiori minorities must be 
 avoided. The basis of our Government is the recognition of the 
 majority. Many of those who have endeavored to enforce minority 
 control are in jail. Some of them have been disposed of according 
 to law and with the judicial prayer, " May God have mercy on your 
 soul." Outside of the faith of this Chamber, the American people 
 do not believe in minority control. Mr. Webster well said " Liberty 
 exists in proportion to wholesome restraint." Without some cur 
 tailment of the obstructive power of the minority liberty is in peril. 
 When the majority representing the people can not prevail within a 
 reasonable time the condition is menacing. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 o clock having 
 arrived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfin 
 ished business, which will be stated. 
 
 The SECRETARY. A bill (H. R. 2904) to maintain and protect 
 the coin redemption fund, and to authorize the issue of certificates of 
 indebtedness to meet temporary deficiencies of revenue. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Sena 
 tor from Arkansas [Mr. JONES] as being entitled to the floor on the 
 unfinished business. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I inquire if the Senator from Arkansas prefers 
 to proceed immediately? It will not take me very long to conclude. 
 
318 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. JONES of Arkansas. How long will it take the Senator 
 from California to conclude? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. About fifteen minutes. 
 
 Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I should be very glad indeed to pro 
 ceed, but I do not like to interfere with the Senator s speech. I 
 yield to him if he desires. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I am much obliged to the Senator from Arkan 
 sas. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the 
 unfinished business will be temporarily laid aside without losing its 
 place. The Senator from California will proceed. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Committee on Rules is and has been com 
 posed of some of the ablest Senators; men of great experience, who 
 have given much consideration to parliamentary problems as well as 
 to general legislation ; yet that committee, as heretofore organized, 
 and I do not confine myself to any one committee or to any particular 
 membership, suggests an admirable illustration of the evil against 
 which many are now protesting. That committee creates not, neither 
 does it destroy. It lulls into somnolence all tendered changes. The 
 most energetic rule, the most stirring proposition, is afflicted with 
 incurable lassitude when it comes within the anaesthetic atmosphere 
 of this remarkable organization. Occasionally a member of the 
 Committee on Rules notes the propriety of reporting back a proposed 
 resolution. The vitalized committee member is informed that he can 
 not even enjoy the privilege of filing a minority report, because a 
 minority report presupposes the existence of a declaration from the 
 majority, and the majority reports not, neither does it cease to be. 
 So the progressive member may fuss, he may protest, he may storm, 
 but the Committee on Rules, smiling upon him, benignly prescribes 
 calmness. There are many centuries to come. Why should the 
 minority of the Committee on Rules become agitated while the 
 majority are so completely satisfied? You believe in majorities, they 
 sarcastically say ; hence demur not. This condition is the more 
 remarkable when we reflect that the Senators who are and have been 
 on that committee are and have been men of integrity, determination, 
 ready judgment, and admitted fearlessness. But I am not addressing 
 myself to any particular committee or to any special person. I 
 spend not a moment from a mere disposition to censure an individual. 
 To do so would be unjust. My aim is directed against a system 
 which drags down not only the Committee on Rules but the Senate. 
 The Senate is responsible for the committee and its customs and 
 uages. It has been unjustly said that the Committee on Rules is the 
 graveyard of Senatorial advancement. There is nothing left of a 
 rule when it reaches that committee. There is nothing to inter. The 
 suggestion not only sleeps, not only dies, but it is forgotten. No 
 coffin conceals its wasting form, no urn contains its ashes, no parting 
 words are uttered, no eulogy pronounced. The Committee on Rules 
 is not obtrusive. Its power of annihilation is effectively manifested 
 in silence, serenity, and solemnity. The numerous amendments which 
 have been submitted to this committee at different times have not 
 affected any controlling opinion within its circle. That body has had 
 nothing to say as to the impropriety of the many propositions which 
 the irate and nervous, the dignified and sedate have pressed for con 
 sideration. 
 
 The committee has not even officiallv informed us whether its 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 319 
 
 members think that the rules can be improved. We have not been 
 told whether it is desirable to enact a rule to establish that we are 
 present when we are not absent, or whether it is not possibly well 
 that we should repeal a canon of practice which records us absent 
 when we are demonstratively, though it seems unparliamentary, 
 here. We have not been informed whether it is right to place upon 
 the Journal the presence of a Senator who declares in stentorian 
 tones that he can not be counted because he is paired ; who announces 
 that because some one is really abroad he is constructively away. If 
 a Senator should engage another Senator in desperate physical 
 encounter a supposition purely illustrative and should in the. 
 midst of the melee declare himself paired or refuse to answer, he 
 would not be counted, would be considered absent, although he 
 might be expelled because of misconduct in the presence of the Senate 
 while in session. Senators who do not know this body have, when in 
 workful mood and as the result of rosy anticipations of duty per 
 formed, transmitted to the Committee on Rules declarations of prin 
 ciples of action which have been recognized as effective and necessary 
 throughout civilization, vainly trusting that the hour for improve 
 ment had been reached. Visionary indeed are such aspirations ; 
 unfruitful such efforts ; abortive such exertions. Time disciplines 
 these enthusiastic tyros in Senatorial ways. They finally lapse into 
 a semi-acquiescent state. When these rules are changed and they 
 will be changed Senators, now young, who tendered these amend 
 ments, will stay their tottering steps as they proceed down the pleas 
 ant walks of their later lives, and will say, in the uncertainty of the 
 utterances of old age, " Yes, yes ; those amendments were proposed 
 long ago, forty or fifty years ago. I made a few remarks concerning 
 them ; am glad to see that my sentiments have at last obtained. Sin 
 gular that it should have taken half a century to induce the Senate 
 to agree with unanimous expression. It has been a little slow yes, 
 quite slow ; quite slow." 
 
 IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SEEK PRECEDENTS ABROAD CONCERNING THE DISIRABILITY 
 OF A MORE PRACTICAL SET OF RULES. 
 
 We have a home example; a case not only in point, but a teach 
 ing, inspiring, chiding, and dominating case that furnished by the 
 House of Representatives. At the outset of the debate which there 
 led to the final rules of the Fifty-third Congress, precedents were 
 cited to show that there was no necessity for more restrictive forms. 
 Attention was called there, as it is called here, to the truth that our 
 country has managed to get along for a century under old conditions. 
 Undoubtedly the founders of this Government did not consider the 
 obstructionist of to-day. It is unnecessary to ask for the reason. 
 It is sufficient to say that without the change business could not be 
 transacted at all ; and hence the good sense of our Representatives 
 brought about the alteration. Although the majority of the party 
 to which I belong denounced Mr. REED for his work with reference 
 to parliamentary matters, it is safe to say that neither party will ever 
 
 I back to the rules and regulations which have been abandoned, 
 ir Republican friends deserve the credit of the first effective action 
 in the House, though in inaugurating the work they but followed the 
 precedent made by the Senator from New York while he was the 
 presiding officer of the senate of the Empire State. But that party, 
 after loudly proclaiming in justification of its course that it is traitor 
 ous to oppose the popularly selected majority, had no sooner been 
 
320 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 condemned to second place than it immediately adopted dilatory tac 
 tics, and with pleasing abandon maintained that until the Democratic 
 majority forced the Republican minority to do its duty, the latter was 
 authorized to pursue its natural bent. The best advertised honesty 
 in the Republican Congressional delegation advocated and directed 
 this course. The Republican press applauded it. Republican bosses 
 said : " Go on ; your course is bold, but your immorality will demon 
 strate the need of coercive measures. We will sustain our virtue by 
 insisting upon vice." This programme, faithfully carried out, 
 resulted in the rules which finally prevailed at the other end of the 
 Capitol during the last part of the Fifty-third Congress, and which 
 gave the majority that control which the Constitution contemplates 
 and the public rightfully demands. 
 
 It must be understood that I do not favor the House rules. The 
 numerical parliamentary features existing there are not so marked 
 here, and for that reason greater latitude can be allowed. My insist 
 ence is that some method shall be devised which will enable the 
 majority, after a rational period, after liberal debate, allowing time 
 which can not without unanimous consent be reduced, to put the 
 previous question, and also to compel the record to speak the truth 
 as to the presence of Senators. I know that no one will insist upon a 
 vote even under these conditions at such an hour or day as will pre 
 vent a Senator from fully and fairly expressing himself, and I trust 
 that I am not hoping against hope when I assume that the Senate 
 will sometime exercise the power to determine that the reading of 
 Paradise Lost, Webster s Dictionary, Mr. Gladstone s translation of 
 Horace, etc., are not always in order, regardless of the subject under 
 discussion. If such authority exists to-day, either in the Senate or its 
 presiding officer, it is not exercised, and yet clearly irrelevant matter 
 has been often projected upon us. The Senator who fathers an 
 address so long that he can not afford to listen to it himself, which, 
 perhaps, he may not have even read or heard read, should not be per 
 mitted to procure an enthusiastic colleague to publish it for him 
 while he retires to be refreshed, that he may be able to come again 
 upon the stage and challenge the physical endurance of those whose 
 judgment he does not either hope or seek to affect. 
 
 Technical debate is not actual debate in this Chamber. Some 
 one delivers a formal address to-day and it is answered by an equally 
 formal preparation two months hence. The enormous accumulations 
 contained in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD would, I believe, be greatly 
 reduced, to the benefit of all, if we proceeded upon business princi 
 ples. Senators have stated here frequently that the number of bills 
 passed by this body shows that the rules are good enough. It must 
 not be forgotten that most of these measures have excited no great 
 interest or active discussion. In such cases no trouble is experienced 
 in obtaining speedy action ; but when the great issues the material 
 matters pertaining to legislation are before us, the obstructionist 
 becomes omnipotent, and days and days and weeks are wasted. 
 Senators may say that such discussion is not wasted. But no one 
 listens to it. Occasionally some episode induces the public to fill the 
 galleries and Senators to seek the floor; but for the most part the 
 deliberative eloquence mentioned is spoken ineffectively, except in so 
 far as it stops needed legislation. 
 
 The House of Representatives more than once has passed a reso 
 lution favoring the submission-to the several States of a constitutional 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 321 
 
 amendment authorizing the election of Senators by direct vote. For 
 months at a time that resolution has been here. It has been tied up, 
 buried, ignored, sat upon by our preponderating ponderousness. 
 Great interest is taken all over the country in this proposition. Rep 
 resentatives direct from the people have asked that the States be per 
 mitted to act upon the matter ; but the Senate not only fails to permit 
 such action, but declines to expressly say whether it will or will not 
 submit it. For myself, I am emphatically in favor of the adoption 
 of that constitutional amendment. The issue was submitted to the 
 voters of California in 1892, and the vote stood : For the amendment, 
 187,958; against, 13,342. It must be understood that I am not blam 
 ing anyone in particular. The pernicious results to which I refer are 
 the legitimate offspring of a system that is operative only for harm, 
 and that should have been remodeled long, long ago. 
 
 I think that we owe something to the public. This body, while 
 not chosen by the popular vote, is, nevertheless, elected by agencies 
 of popular creation. While we are not bound by an initiative or 
 referendum, still we should pay some attention to the desires of those 
 who sent us here. As our Government is based upon the popular 
 idea, we must not deny the long-continued demands of those from 
 whom we have obtained our authority. I do not refer to the expres 
 sions of self-constituted newspaper critics, whose views of public 
 conditions are sometimes most selfish and unreliable, but I speak of 
 the actual beliefs of our constituents. I have been in many States 
 of the Union in large cities and small towns, and in rural districts 
 during the last two years. I have not discovered one man, woman, 
 or child who favors our prevailing doctrine of legislative paralysis, 
 and the subject has been and is one of constant consideration. In 
 every instance the Senate has been censured and referred to as antique 
 and as constituting more a relic than a life a thing that has been, 
 rather than a present existence. This situation is not pleasant ; it is 
 unfortunate; it is exaggerated and grossly unjust; but the provoking 
 cause is plainly discernible. 
 
 The ill which we permit, and against which my words are lev 
 eled, is the parent of many of the unfounded attacks from which we 
 suffer. It must not be thought that I believe that any Senator should 
 sacrifice his views of the Constitution, his convictions of duty, to a 
 mere external demand, whether from meetings hastily gathered 
 together, or from more regularly convened bodies, or from newspa 
 pers, or from the press generally. These expressions should be duly 
 weighed and should not be thoughtlessly ignored; nevertheless, I will 
 not abandon or advise another to abandon conscience or independence. 
 I am certain that the States here represented want firm as well as true 
 counselors, men of integrity who will not be swerved by threats or 
 flattery or by " the conscious simper and the jealous leer." I do not 
 forget, either, that it often happens that those who criticise possess 
 " a brain of feathers and a heart of lead." Still, while thus holding 
 firmly to our rights and guarding according to our judgment public 
 interests, we must not, as I have stated, fail to respect or consider 
 opinions of those whose servants we are. I think that every cautious 
 person will appreciate that the Constitution contemplates care in the 
 passage of bills, and that that instrument made it practically impos 
 sible to enact a law without considerable deliberation. The passage 
 through the House of Representatives of any bill is attended with 
 much discussion. 
 
 The Senate was organized upon the long-term idea that it might 
 
322 SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 enjoy greater independence and be subjected less to exciting influ 
 ences and political flurry. It was thought that when the more popu 
 lar branch and the Senate united the country would not often have 
 inflicted upon it an unwise law, and that when that occurred an 
 Executive veto would arrest the theatened wrong, and that more 
 than one-third of either body would, when occasion warranted, hasten 
 to the support of the President. These and other safeguards, such 
 as that requiring a roll call when demanded by one-fifth of the mem 
 bers present, were thought ample, and are, in my judgment, entirely 
 adequate. There may be possible exceptions, but rules well con 
 ceived are not predicated upon exceptions. No one concerned in the 
 making of the Constitution apprehended that a second veto power, or, 
 rather, the authority to extinguish by protracted torture, resided in 
 the minority of the Senate. No such bill-destroyer was called to the 
 attention of the fathers. They no more anticipated that a Senator 
 would filibuster against a vote than we look for a filibuster by a 
 minority of the Supreme Court against a judgment of that court when 
 attempted to be announced through the majority. But opinions of 
 official responsibility have changed since then. In this epoch the 
 Senatorial parliamentarian invokes as manv quibbles as the most 
 erudite professor of any class. 
 
 We should not forget the usually correct proposition expressed 
 by Gibbon : 
 
 All that is human must retrograde if it do not advance. 
 
 I understand the solicitude of those of my associates who fear 
 that a change of rules just now will emphasize Republican influence 
 in this body ; but my remarks have been of no avail if I have not 
 shown that the objections to the procedure of the Senate which I have 
 urged are not conceived in partisanship, but arise from a deliberately 
 formed judgment that the public welfare is involved and that it is 
 imperative that attention should be paid to the well-grounded and 
 universal demand for the adoption of an improved plan. The party 
 advocate may and should be patriotic, but he does not rise above the 
 level of selfishness if he insists upon saddling a parliamentary incubus 
 upon an already heavily burdened body solely because he thinks that 
 the majority, whose power is born of the people, may under prevailing 
 conditions be unable to exercise the authority thus solemnly intrusted 
 to their keeping without the intervention of technical obstruction. 
 
 Our rules should be reasonable, in harmony with the period for 
 M 7 hich we legislate and the civilization of which we partake. Let us 
 have ample argument, but not argument lasting long after all have 
 ceased to listen. Let us protect the minority, but permit the majority 
 to assert their manifest privilege. Let no Senator openly avow his 
 presence and place the same upon the record and then aver that he 
 may not be counted as part of a quorum. Give to all wide latitude 
 in debate, but do not refuse to call a Senator to order who willfully 
 deserts his subject and consumes the time allotted thereto in the con 
 sideration of matter wholly foreign and palpably irrelevant. The star 
 of progress glows with increased brightness. He who stands with 
 sleepy visage, uncertain of his duty, is mischosen to place. Rever 
 ence of the great and gone should ever be cherished, but the examples 
 of these have been given without profit if we do not move with rapid 
 as with thoughtful step in the performance of the duties of an evolu 
 tionary age. 
 
DEEP SEA HARBOR* SAN PEDRO-SANTA MONICA 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 Friday, May 8, and Saturday, May 9, 1896, and Tuesday, May 12, 1896. 
 
 The Senate, being in Committee of the Whole and having under consider 
 ation the river and harbor appropriation bill 
 
 Mr. WHITE said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: I offer the amendment which I send to the 
 desk. 
 
 The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike out all the committee 
 amendment, commencing on line 13, page 35, down to and including 
 line 10, on page 36, and insert in lieu thereof the following : 
 
 For the purpose of selecting a proper location for a deep-sea harbor either 
 in the Bay of San Pedro or at Port Los Angeles, in the Bay of Santa Monica, 
 on the coast of Los Angeles County, Cal., a board of engineers, one of whom 
 shall be an officer of the United States Navy, with a rank of not less than 
 commander, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, one a member of 
 the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, to be selected by the Sec 
 retary of War, and one a member of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, to be 
 selected by the Superintendent of the Survey, shall personally examine the 
 more northerly location in said Santa Monica Bay at Port Los Angeles, shown 
 upon the first chart of House Executive Document No. 41, Fifty-second Con 
 gress, second session, as a proper place for a breakwater and deep-sea har 
 bor, and shall also examine the location recommended for a breakwater and 
 deep-sea harbor by the Board of Engineers of the United States Army, as 
 appearing in said House Executive Document No. 41, Fifty-second Congress, 
 second session, and shall determine the relative merits of said locations, and 
 shall designate which of said locations is the more eligible for such breakwater 
 and deep-sea harbor, and shall report to the Secretary of War their finding in 
 the premises, and the decision of a majority of said Board as to said location 
 shall be conclusive. And the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated for a deep- 
 sea harbor, to be constructed at the point so selected by said Board ; and if 
 said Board shall select the said location at Port Los Angeles, then the break 
 water for which this appropriation is made shall be constructed substantially 
 as shown on the said first chart in House Executive Document No. 41, Fifty- 
 second Congress, second session; and if said Board shall select the location at 
 San Pedro, then the breakwater for which this appropriation is made shall be 
 constructed substantially as recommended by said Board of Engineers in said 
 House Executive Document No. 41, Fifty-second Congress, second session; 
 Provided, That the Secretary of War may make contracts for the comple 
 tion of said work, to be paid for as appropiations may be made, from time 
 to time, according to law, not exceeding in the aggregate $2,998,000, exclusive 
 of the amount herein and heretofore appropriated : Provided, however, That 
 if the said board shall report in favor of the construction of a breakwater at 
 Port Los Angeles no expenditure of any part of the money hereby appro 
 priated shall be made until the Southern Pacific Company, or the owner or 
 owners thereof, shall execute an agreement and file the same with the Secre 
 tary of War that any railroad company may equally share with the said 
 owner or owners in the use of the pier now constructed on the site of said 
 harbor and the approaches thereto situated westerly of the easterly entrance 
 to the Santa Monica tunnel upon paying its proportionate part of the cost 
 of that portion of the same used by such railroad company and its propor- 
 
 323 
 
324 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 tionate part of the expense of maintainance of the particular part of said 
 approaches and pier so used to be determined by the Secretary of War in case 
 of disagreement between the parties. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FAULKNER in the chair). 
 The question is on agreeing to the amendment submitted by the 
 Senator from California [Mr. WHITE]. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, the question presented by the 
 amendment which I have offered, and necessarily involved in the 
 report of the committee, is of great local importance to those whom I 
 in part represent, and it is of national importance on more than one 
 account. In the first place, the United States are necessarily inter 
 ested in everything pertaining to harbor improvements. This fol 
 lows as a matter of course. Then the Government is also interested 
 in seeing that appropriations made by the Congress of the United 
 States by means of a river and harbor bill are made for public pur 
 poses, and that the diversion of the funds of the Government is not 
 accomplished through private channels or for personal ends. 
 
 The situation must be briefly outlined. It will save some time 
 in the future and doubtless be of advantage to me as well as to those 
 who are to follow me in the discussion. 
 
 I place before the Senate a map which can not at once be seen, 
 perhaps, by everyone in the Chamber, but it is as favorably located 
 as circumstances will permit. It is a map of the State of Califor 
 nia, and I particularly direct attention to the southerly coast. It 
 will be noticed that the trend of the coast is southeasterly, so that 
 at Santa Monica, located on the map at the point indicated by me 
 [indicating], is some 250 miles, more or less, eastward of the par 
 allel upon which the city of San Francisco is built. The coast from 
 Point Concepcion, situated nearly north of the Island of Santa Rosa, 
 tends strongly eastward ; in fact the shore line for a considerable 
 distance is "almost east and west. Thence it proceeds southerly and 
 easterly. We have here at this point [indicating] Point Dume, 
 where Santa Monica Bay, so called, which is really an open road 
 stead, commences. Following along the coast southerly we reach 
 Point Vincente, where the Santa Monica Bay, so called, ends. 
 Thence we pass along the coast until we reach a point called Point 
 Firmin. [Indicating.] There the Bay of San Pedro commences. 
 
 It is from a point close to Point Firmin that the breakwater 
 recommended by the Government engineers is designed to be con 
 structed. It is in Santa Monica Bay, at a point some 15 miles from 
 Point Dume and northerly and westerly from the town of Santa 
 Monica, that the breakwater provided for in the bill is sought to be 
 erected. To more definitely fix these points according to the charts 
 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey which are before us, I will refer 
 to a chart obtained from that office in this city, which chart is 
 marked " Pacific Coast from Santa Monica to Point Concepcion, 
 including Santa Barbara Channel, California." Point Dume upon 
 this chart is located at this spot [indicating]. It will be observed 
 by a close inspection of this diagram that the water from Point 
 Dume southerly and southwesterly is exceedingly deep, the figures 
 reading 14, 150, 182, 233, 273, 322 fathoms, and so on, increasing. 
 The soundings seem to cease beyond the point where 498 fathoms, 
 or 2,988 feet, appear. 
 
 This diagram discloses the town of Santa Monica. The 
 proposed pier, spoken of in the tracings as the pier of the Southern 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 325 
 
 Pacific Company, extends into Santa Monica Bay, at a point more 
 westerly than northerly from Santa Monica, a distance from that 
 town of something like 2 miles, or a little less, perhaps. This point 
 [indicating a point southerly from the Southern Pacific wharf] is 
 located, according to the Coast Survey chart before us, not far from 
 the 8-fathom line, and reading the figures directly in front of and 
 southerly or southwesterly from the wharf, we have the following: 
 8, 14, 26, 30, 60, 89, 180, no, 40, 41, 61, and 113. Reading not 
 directly, but over a bearing between the direct reading which I have 
 made and Point Dume, we find that the water is somewhat deeper, 
 culminating in 224, 238, and 255 fathoms. 
 
 I refer to this proposition because it is stated in the argument 
 before the Committee on Commerce by an engineer who I see claims, 
 in a document which he has issued here by unnamed authority, to 
 be a semi-official individual, that the water near Santa Monica is not 
 extremely deep and that one of its great advantages is that there is 
 a gradual slope and an easy grade and that the waves come over 
 such grade gently and without disposition to do serious injury when 
 the Southern Pacific pier is reached. It will be noted that in the 
 Coast and Geodetic Survey chart, to which I have attracted the 
 attention of the Senate, there are no soundings in the portion of the 
 diagram immediately south and southwesterly of the last sounding 
 to which I call attention [indicating]. I presume that the depth is 
 such that it was not deemed worth while to proceed further. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL of Oregon. When was that diagram made? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I received it very recently from the Coast and 
 Geodetic Survey office. I do not know when the surveys were made. 
 I presume it is the latest on hand, because I requested the best 
 information in the possession of the office and I was furnished with 
 this chart. It is the result of a series of compilations running down 
 to 1881. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. I will say to my colleague that it is customary 
 with the Coast Survey to correct these charts annually and that this 
 is undoubtedly the last issue of the Coast Survey. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. MITCHELL of Oregon. The Senator says it comes down 
 to 1 88 1. That would be a good while ago. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. That is the original plate, but where the sur 
 veys have not been completed these corrections are made from time 
 to time. That they are correct I am satisfied, because our navigators 
 upon the Pacific Coast are using this series of charts. They are 
 issued by and under the authority of the United States Coast 
 Survey. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The second plate, to which I am about to refer, 
 is called " Pacific Coast from San Diego to Santa Monica, including 
 the Gulf of Santa Catalina." The island which is observable upon 
 the map [indicating] is called Santa Catalina. It is located about 
 18 miles from San Pedro. The Senate will notice that the words 
 San Pedro and Wilmington occur frequently in the discussion of this 
 matter and are often noted in official publications. As far as this 
 question is concerned we may consider San Pedro and Wilmington 
 one place, though, as a matter of fact, the towns are some little 
 distance apart. However, the improvement which has been going 
 on for many years in this neighborhood is known as the improve 
 ment of Wilmington Harbor. We are more in the habit of desig- 
 
326 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 nating the inner harbor as San Pedro, but appropriations refer to 
 the place as Wilmington. I will use the terms indiscriminately. 
 The town of Wilmington is a small village situated upon the inner 
 harbor, and San Pedro is upon the same waters. 
 
 Mr. COCKRELL. How far apart? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Oh, a couple of miles apart. 
 
 The Island of Catalina, to which I have attracted attention, is 
 some 20 miles or thereabouts in length and some 18 miles from 
 shore. It will be observed that this large body of land furnishes 
 protection from southerly and southeasterly winds. Its northern 
 shore is thoroughly protected. So true is this that the little Bay of 
 Avalon located at this point [indicating] on the northerly shore of 
 Catalina Island is the most tranquil sea water which I have ever 
 observed. It is so calm that there is no difficulty in ordinary 
 weather in using any common rowboat handled by a lady or robust 
 boy along a considerable portion of the landward coast of Catalina 
 Island. The water on the ocean or southerly coast is comparatively 
 rough. I mention that to show the effect of the island in stilling 
 the water toward the mainland. Its length extends the calming 
 influence and affects the sea to San Pedro. 
 
 Point Firmin is located at this point. [Indicating.] It is from 
 a spot just easterly of Point Firmin that the Government engineers 
 have designed the construction of the breakwater which they recom 
 mend. That breakwater, according to the last report, is to com 
 mence near Point Firmin, on the shore, and extend outwardly in a 
 curved line, thus [indicating]. The town of San Pedro is located 
 at the point marked San Pedro on this diagram, indicated by the 
 pointer which I hold in my hand [indicating], and the town of 
 Wilmington, also referred to, is located here. [Indicating.] 
 
 The Senate will notice in the report and in the bill an item with 
 reference to the inner harbor at Wilmington. We have already 
 made an appropriation to which it is necessary for me to advert 
 before proceeding further, so that confusion may be avoided. We 
 have upon page 36 of the bill made the following appropriation : 
 
 Improving Wilmington Harbor, California, in accordance with the project 
 submitted February 7, 1895, $50,000: Provided, That contracts may be entered 
 into by the Secretary of War for such materials and work as may be neces 
 sary to complete said project, to be paid for as appropriations may from time 
 to time be made by law, not to exceed in the aggregate $342,000, exclusive of 
 the amount herein appropriated. 
 
 The harbor of Wilmington is located northeasterly about two 
 miles from the town of San Pedro, and on the estuary. The inner 
 harbor designed to be further improved by the $392,000 appro 
 priation is separated from the ocean by a narrow neck of land, a 
 sandy island known as Rattlesnake Island. [Indicating.] That 
 island is nominally separated from the mainland, and the Terminal 
 Railroad now runs upon the island and along Wilmington Harbor, 
 where that corporation possesses wharves; and there, too, private 
 parties, lumber dealers, and so forth, have built wharves * under 
 franchises granted them by the board of supervisors of the county 
 of Los Angeles. Much trade has thus developed. 
 
 The inner harbor is, at its commercial point, about 500 feet in 
 width. Upon one side of it, which we might for convenience call the 
 shore side, there are located wharves of the Southern Pacific Rail 
 road Company, and there that company is constantly running its 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WRITE. 327 
 
 trains and transacting transportation business. On the other side of 
 the harbor the Terminal Railroad Company conducts its business. 
 There are, as I have said, many business men other than the rail 
 road companies who are the proprietors of wharves or docks upon 
 that inner harbor. 
 
 The Senate will notice that Point Firmin is located at a point 
 where the bluff rises to a height of about 60 feet [indicating], and 
 this bluff continues down to the town of San Pedro. Thence the 
 grade reduces, so the land between San Pedro and Wilmington is 
 flat. There are there lagoons and sloughs, as we call them, and 
 marshy land over which at times the tide rises. That property is sus 
 ceptible of commercial development. A part of this locality has 
 passed into the possession of individuals. The major portion of it 
 belongs to the State of California, and under the terms of our present 
 constitution it is inalienable. Under our laws the board of supervis 
 ors have the regulation of the granting of franchises for wharves. 
 These wharves are public, but in view of the outlay in their construc 
 tion the proprietors are allowed to make certain charges by way of 
 toll. 
 
 This inner harbor has been a marked success. When the Gov 
 ernment engineers took charge of this work some years ago there 
 were only 2. feet of water upon the bar, possibly a little over 2. 
 feet. By dint of skillful management and in consequence of the 
 appropriations made by Congress the depth has been so increased that 
 at the present time there are 14 feet of water at low tide. The tidal 
 rise in that neighborhood is about 5 feet. Hence there are upward 
 of 1 8 feet of water at high tide at that place, where formerly at low 
 tide there were but 2 and at high tide perhaps 7 feet. 
 
 Some years ago this estuary or inner harbor to which I have 
 referred was employed solely for very light draft craft. I recollect 
 very well twenty-two years ago when I first went to the city of Los 
 Angeles from the northern part of the State in a steamer owned by my 
 colleague and his associates. We anchored outside of San Pedro in 
 the water which it is now designed to utilize for an outer harbor, and 
 then we went upon smaller craft. Lighters were used for freight 
 and very light craft for transporting passengers into this estuary to 
 the town of Wilmington. Now vessels drawing 13 and 14 feet and 
 more pass into the inner harbor and tie up at the wharves and dis 
 charge lumber and freight. 
 
 The main occupation there at this time is the lumbering business. 
 Most of the lumber coming down the coast, save that which is con 
 signed directly to the railroad company, and much that is consigned 
 to that company, seeks this inner harbor. 
 
 The provision to which I have referred and which we have 
 passed upon already involves carrying out what is known as the 
 project of Colonel Benyaurd, by which he proposes to obtain a depth 
 of 18 feet at low tide within the inner harbor ; this will equal 23 feet 
 at high tide, which will accommodate nearly all the vessels which come 
 there. 
 
 Before passing from this point I wish to call your attention 
 specifically to a map of the site of the proposed harbor at San Pedro, 
 which contains soundings which will be of value in the discussion. 
 It is said that there is much deep water at the point where it is 
 intended to construct the harbor. It will be noted from the map now 
 before the Senate, and which is called " Wilmington and San Pedro 
 
328 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 harbors, California; published December 18, 1895; W. W. Duffield, 
 superintendent; O. H. Tittman, assistant in charge of office," and 
 so forth, date of publication 1888, that is not true, as stated in Mr. 
 Corthell s paper before the Senate, and as heretofore erroneously 
 claimed by many, that there is such abrupt bottom in the neighbor 
 hood of Point Firmin. It is true that as we go more southerly, 
 westerly, and northerly there is a gradual and a rapid recession, as 
 we also have observed in the case of Point Dume ; but if Senators 
 interested will notice the depths south and southeasterly from Point 
 Firmin the depths extend, as shown upon this diagram, these figures 
 in fathoms will be found to appear, viz, 7, 9, 13, 17, 16, 17, 16, 14^, 
 *3> l $ l /2, and to 19. The exact distance can be computed from the 
 scale, but it certainly is several miles, so that there is no trouble to 
 be apprehended from this cause. The water is not remarkably deep. 
 The evidence is without conflict that the ocean swells proceed from 
 the west, and that, although the wind may blow from the southeast 
 and points not varying far from the southeast, still the swells, the 
 dangerous seas, come uniformly, or nearly so, from the west, and 
 it is designed to construct this breakwater at San Pedro so that it 
 will cut off the westerly swells. I have referred to this diagram to 
 prove that the assertion regarding the soundings which has been 
 made by Mr. Corthell and others is not well founded. 
 
 You will observe, therefore, that when we speak of the inner 
 harbor at San Pedro we are referring to something which has 
 received the attention of the Government in the past, and for which 
 we have already here made provision. 
 
 The outer harbor, with reference to which I have been speaking, 
 is in the immediate neighborhood, though not directly connected 
 with the inner harbor. The outer harbor would be peculiarly 
 valuable if situated adjacent to the inner harbor. 
 
 The questions before the Senate may be summarized thus : 
 First, is it necessary that we should have an outer harbor at all? 
 Second, if so, should that outer harbor be located at San Pedro or 
 should it be fixed at Santa Monica? 
 
 Mr. President, if it be conceded that the selection at San Pedro, 
 as contended by my distinguished nautical friend the chairman of 
 the committee [Mr. FRYE], is not well located, and that the Govern 
 ment is not warranted in making the expenditure at that point, the 
 question still remains, will the Government be justified in making 
 the expenditure at the point designated in the bill? 
 
 Mr. GRAY. Is Santa Monica .on that map? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have here a map upon which it appears. I 
 place before the Senate a diagram which was utilized in Los Angeles 
 by the Architects and Engineers Association and which Mr. Corthell 
 correctly referred to in the hearing as an accurate picture of Santa 
 Monica Bay. It shows the wharf and the bay. I shall be obliged 
 if Senators will examine it. I likewise present a photograph of the 
 inner harbor of San Pedro as it now exists, which I also ask Senators 
 to kindly examine. 
 
 Such is a general statement of the location proposed for this 
 governmental investment. Let us now inquire as to the official status 
 of the matter before the Senate. It has long been the desire of the 
 people in that part of the United States to have a good harbor. 
 Senators are all well aware that most of the Pacific (so-called) bar- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 329 
 
 bors are not of the best, that we have been compelled to rely largely 
 upon governmental bounty in the construction of harbors. We have 
 a splendid harbor at San Francisco, a splendid natural harbor at 
 San Diego, one which I think has enlisted the admiration of every 
 competent judge who has seen it. But San Diego is far some 130 
 miles from the seat of that extensive population of which Los 
 Angeles is the center. It is not practicable, from a commercial point 
 of view, to rely wholly upon transportation facilities there. In 
 pioneer days San Pedro, or Wilmington, was sought by those nav 
 igators who saw fit to come to that part of California for trading 
 purposes. The locality was called El Embarcadero, and there, 
 through the estuary to which I have already alluded, the modest 
 commerce of that time was transacted ; but as population grew, Los 
 Angeles, having according to the census of 1880 some 11,000 inhab 
 itants, and at present having perhaps 100,000 inhabitants, with a 
 populous country immediately adjacent to it, the necessity for another 
 harbor increased and the requests for better facilities augmented. 
 
 The town of Santa Monica was founded years ago because of 
 the enterprise and good judgment of the distinguished Senator from 
 Nevada [Mr. JONES]. He built a railroad from Los Angeles to 
 Santa Monica, called the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. 
 His design at that time, most laudable and worthily ambitious, was 
 to extend his enterprise from Santa Monica to Invo County, and 
 possibly to Salt Lake. At any rate, everyone there was anxious 
 that Senator JONES should succeed ; but, for various reasons, unneces 
 sary to enumerate here and beyond his control, the road fell into the 
 hands of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and he failed to 
 realize his plan and to bring about a result which would have 
 advanced the wealth, prosperity, and happiness of the people. 
 
 Senator JONES at that period caused a wharf to be constructed 
 at the town of Santa Monica. That location, I wish to impress upon 
 the Senate, is not that where it is now designed to build the break 
 water mentioned in the bill ; that is, it is not the locality whereat 
 the present wharf of Mr. Huntington is situated. I submit at this 
 point photographs of Mr. Huntington s pier, which I hope will be 
 examined. Senator JONES S wharf, after passing into the hands of 
 the Southern Pacific Company, was allowed to go into decay, and 
 finally it was partially eaten by teredos, and was then torn down and 
 became a matter of memory. 
 
 At that time the Southern Pacific Company owned, as it does 
 now, a large amount of property at San Pedro or Wilmington. 
 There nearly all of its business was transacted. Redondo, a ship 
 ping place situated between Santa Monica and San Pedro, com 
 menced to assume some commercial importance, and there a wharf 
 was constructed. The water at Redondo is very deep, too deep, as 
 the Government engineers found, to warrant any attempt at the 
 erection of a breakwater. Redondo transacted much commerce, and 
 finally Mr. Huntington, or the Southern Pacific Company, more 
 accurately speaking, made an arrangement to get through the town 
 of Santa Monica along the seacoast and up to the point where the 
 wharf we are asked to protect now stands. 
 
 By the river and harbor act approved September 19, 1890, a 
 board of engineer officers was constituted to examine the Pacific 
 Coast between Point Dume and Capistrano, with a view to deter- 
 
 22 
 
330 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 mining the best location for a deep-water harbor, with a project and 
 estimates for the work. This board consisted of G. H. Mendell, 
 colonel, Corps of Engineers; C. L. Gillespie, lieutenant-colonel, 
 Corps of Engineers ; and W. H. H. Benyaurd, lieutenant-colonel, Corps 
 of Engineers. This board preferred San Pedro. In submitting the 
 matter to Congress General Casey, then Chief of Engineers, said: 
 
 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, 
 
 UNITED STATES ARMY. 
 Washington, D. C., December 18, 1891. 
 
 Sir: I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of report dated December 
 8, 1891, of the board of engineer officers constituted under the terms of the 
 river and harbor act, approved September 19, 1890, to examine the Pacific 
 coast between Points Dume and Capistrano with a view to determining the 
 best location for a deep-water harbor, together with project and estimates 
 for the work. 
 
 The board, after full examination, concludes that the selection of a site for 
 a deep-water harbor within the limits designated by the act is restricted to 
 the harbors in Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Bay, and is of the opinion 
 that San Pedro is the better of these, and submits alternative estimates of 
 the cost of necessary breakwaters, as follows. 
 
 If constructed of rubble and concrete $4,594,494 
 
 If constructed entirely of rubble 4,126,106 
 
 After a careful consideration of the facts in the case as presented by the 
 board, its views as to the location and general estimates of construction are 
 concurred in by me. The difference in cost of the two breakwaters, for the 
 same arcs of protection, is over $700,000 in favor of San Pedro, and when the 
 other advantages of San Pedro, as detailed by the board, are taken into con 
 sideration, it would seem that its selection has been properly made. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, 
 
 Brigadier-General, Chief of Engineers. 
 Hon. L. A. GRANT, 
 
 Acting Secretary of War. 
 
 This report, made by these three officers, headed by Colonel 
 Mendell, is alluded to here generally as the Mendell report. It is 
 proper for me to state that, so far as the men who constituted this 
 board are concerned, that they were not only experienced officers, 
 but Colonel Mendell had lived upon the Pacific Coast, where he now 
 resides, during more than a generation, and was absolutely familiar 
 with all the work, all the governmental projects, and all local points 
 upon which money was designed to be expended; and, as you will 
 observe, General Casey, in sending this report to Congress, did not 
 merely transmit it without comment, but he transmitted it with 
 specific approval as to site selection and otherwise. 
 
 This board recommended a semi-detached breakwater; or a 
 breakwater, I might say, more properly, in two parts, commencing 
 near Point Firmin, the common point of commencement of the two 
 boards, running thence into the ocean southeasterly to a point. 
 There an opening of 1,500 feet was provided. Thence, at a point 
 1,500 feet southerly from the end of this part of the proposed break 
 water, an extension thereof commenced and was designed to extend 
 easterly 5,600 feet, to insure protection from the southerly seas. 
 
 The last board which was appointed by the Government recom 
 mended a breakwater commencing at the same shore point and run 
 ning on a curve seaward and terminating at the easternmost 
 extremity of the detached section of the Mendell breakwater. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 331 
 
 After Colonel Mendell s report had been filed here, objection was 
 made to an appropriation for the harbor recommended. The maps 
 and illustrations referred to will be found in House Executive 
 Document 41, Fifty-second Congress, second session, and also in the 
 Mendell report of September 19, 1890. 
 
 When the latter report reached Congress the Senator from 
 Maine, who I hope is giving me his attention, suggested that, in his 
 opinion, the harbor was not properly located, and I believe through 
 his instrumentality, owing to his prominent position upon the Com 
 merce Committee, of which he was then, as now, the able and dis 
 tinguished chairman, procured another board to be appointed; and 
 Congress, in compliance with his desire and through his committee, 
 which acted in unison with him in that regard, procured the adoption 
 of a provision which will be found in the river and harbor act of 
 July 13, 1892, as follows: 
 
 The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a 
 board of five engineer officers of the United States Army, whose duty it shall 
 be to make a careful and critical examination for a proposed deep-water har 
 bor at San Pedro or Santa Monica bays, and to report as to which is the more 
 eligible location for such harbor in depth, width, and capacity to accommodate 
 the largest ocean-going vessels and the commercial and naval necessities of 
 the country, together with an estimate of the cost. Said board of engineers 
 shall report the result of its investigations to the Secretary of War on or 
 before the 1st of November, 1892; and $10,000, or so much thereof as may be 
 necessary, are hereby appropriated for said purpose. 
 
 A very distinguished board was appointed by the then Secretary 
 of War, the honorable junior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
 ELKINS]. The board so chosen consisted of the following: Wil 
 liam P. Craighill, colonel (now general), Corps of Engineers; Henry 
 M. Robert, lieutenant-colonel, Corps of Engineers; Peter C. Hains, 
 lieutenant-colonel, Corps of Engineers ; C. W. Raymond, major, 
 Corps of Engineers, and Thomas H. Handbury, major, Corps of 
 Engineers. 
 
 This board went to California, and convened in San Francisco 
 and in Los Angeles. After their field work they went to the city 
 of New York, where the various computations necessary to be made 
 were completed, and finally prepared a most elaborate report, which 
 is known upon the official files as House of Representatives 
 Executive Document No. 41, Fifty-second Congress, second session. 
 
 I will state that this document is very difficult to obtain, but in 
 the minority report, prepared by me, I have inserted the whole of 
 the report, except the maps, and Senators can thus easily obtain the 
 body of the report. If there were available copies of the report 
 itself the same would be valuable because of the maps; but I think 
 there are but few in existence. 
 
 In proceeding to consider this subject the board had before it 
 not only the knowledge that its views would necessarily be the sub 
 ject of that criticism which is always given to a public document of 
 importance, but, in addition to that, the board had the advantage 
 of the comments which had been made upon the Mendell report. 
 They were well aware that it was only by a careful, painstaking, 
 skillful, reliable examination and the announcement of well-founded 
 conclusions that they could hope to produce any results beneficial 
 to the Government. They set about performing the duties intrusted 
 
332 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 to them in the following way: As I have said, they visited the city 
 of San Francisco and the city of Los Angeles. I was present for a 
 while in the latter city during their deliberations. They had before 
 them every means of reaching the truth usually afforded to men of 
 impartiality. They did not meet in starchamber session; they sent 
 for no favorites or particular friends of anybody; but they gave 
 public notice that they would be in the city of Los Angeles on a 
 certain day, and that they would expect all interested to be present 
 and offer such facts as might be deemed pertinent to the matter 
 in hand. 
 
 There were three places competing for the location of a deep- 
 sea harbor at that time. One was Redondo, one was Santa Monica, 
 and one was San Pedro. These interests were represented, not only 
 by individual citizens who had their special opinions, but likewise 
 by lawyers eminent at the bar and engineers of standing. The 
 Southern Pacific Company was cared for by one of the best lawyers 
 in California, a man apt and valuable in discussion and examination. 
 The Santa Fe Railroad, which was interested at Redondo, was on 
 hand, and the same was true of the advocates of San Pedro. They 
 produced there not merely the views of the business men of that 
 community, but they likewise tendered the expert notions of such 
 persons as were deemed competent to express the same. Mr. Hood, 
 the engineer of the Southern Pacific Company, who, with Mr. Cor- 
 thell, has succeeded in impressing his notions favorably upon a 
 majority of the committee, was there. He gave his conclusions, he 
 had his plans, and he, as he always does, delivered himself with 
 much skill and ability, and presented the advantages of his 
 experience and his wishes to the board there assembled. 
 
 I speak of this, Mr. President, because it seems to be assumed 
 that there was information, or that there were perhaps facts some 
 where not brought to the attention of this board. I declare that I 
 have never known a more fair, open, thorough hearing and examina 
 tion than was given to these subjects at the hands of the Craighill 
 board. The members of that organization are not unknown. They 
 were, as were their predecessors, able and honorable men. It is 
 unnecessary for me to pass any eulogy upon the Corps of Engineers 
 of the United States Army. It is sufficient to say that intrusted, 
 as they have been, with the discharge of delicate and important 
 duties, and having in their keeping, as they have had, those interests 
 which involve the expenditure of millions of dollars of money, often 
 in the midst of contention because money can never be disbursed 
 without some dispute there has never been a case, so far as I 
 know, in the history of the Government where any ulterior influence 
 has ever had the slightest effect upon a member of this remarkable 
 corps. This fact justifies our pride and our confidence. 
 
 These engineers were not children in the work ; they were not 
 mere tyros; they were experienced men. It is said that they are 
 fortification engineers. It is true they are fortification engineers; 
 but at the same time there is not one of them who has not been 
 in charge of riparian work, and in charge of all the important civil 
 engineering work of the United States; and today we are in this 
 bill giving the outlay of the millions to the members of that corps. 
 These men, pursuant to law and under the direction of the Chief of 
 Engineers, decide as to how this money shall be expended. It is 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 333 
 
 upon their skill, upon their integrity, upon their good judgment, not 
 alone as fortification engineers, but as persons skilled in riparian and 
 harbor work, as men conversant with all the subjects involved in 
 this bill requiring engineering skill that we rely, that Congress 
 depends, and upon which the country, too, rests in security. 
 
 Mr. President, after these examinations, thus conducted by eight 
 of the engineers of the United States Government, a second report 
 was filed favoring the location at San Pedro, with the changes I 
 have stated in the form of a curved breakwater, commencing and 
 ending where the Mendell breakwater commenced and terminated. 
 
 I pause here. When Colonel Mendell, who headed the first 
 board, and who, I might say, next to General Casey, was the rank 
 ing member of the entire Engineer Corps, made his report, he con 
 sidered Santa Monica, but the only place suggested to him at that 
 time for the location of a harbor was not at the point which has been 
 since selected, but was opposite, or nearly opposite, the town of 
 Santa Monica. The present scheme, as I have said, suggests a 
 harbor, not in front of the town, but above it, at Port Los Angeles, 
 the official name of the Southern Pacific wharf. 
 
 That location was disregarded by Colonel Mendell because 01 
 the abrupt and rocky shore. This statement can be verified by refer 
 ring to page 8 of Executive Document No. 41. At the time Colonel 
 Mendell reported there had been no attention called to the Southern 
 Pacific wharf, for the obvious reason it had not then been built, 
 but he rejected the location where that wharf is now found because 
 of the abrupt shore. At the spot where the pier of Mr. Huntington 
 stands, as shown by the photographs which I have passed around 
 in the Senate, the bluff rises almost absolutely straight to the height 
 of 200 feet. At the base of that bluff there is a comparatively 
 narrow strip of land. The title to that strip, so far as private 
 property can go toward the ocean, is vested in those who own th<* 
 property above. That ownership is dominated by Mr. Huntington. 
 Of course, private ownership can not prevent the taking of property 
 for public use, and the right of way can be condemned over the land 
 of private parties whenever a proper statutory and constitutional 
 showing is made. 
 
 But I am specially referring to the physical condition. There 
 is a bluff rising 200 feet and a narrow strip below it. Now, let us 
 assume, for the sake of argument, that there may be placed at the 
 foot of that bluff a number of railroad tracks. It is said by the 
 advocates of Santa Monica that eight or ten may be constructed 
 there. I do not set myself up for an expert, but I do not believe 
 this. It is, however, a mere matter of opinion. But there is no 
 foundation or space there for buildings or warehouses, or any com 
 mercial edifices whatever. There is what we call a small canyon, or, 
 more accurately, a diminutive gorge, coming in close to this wharf, 
 furnishing enough level land for the erection by the Southern 
 Pacific of a small building for engine-house purposes. Nothing else 
 can very easily be erected there. At all events, Colonel Mendell 
 thought the spot selected by Mr. Huntington was one which was 
 not well suited to commercial purposes in the general sense, and he 
 rejected it, and while preferring San Pedro, gave as the only possible 
 harbor site in Santa Monica Bay a situation near the town of that 
 name. 
 
334 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 I am endeavoring to explain this matter in detail. It is, as I 
 consider, of a great deal of importance that all these circumstances 
 shall be understood. The bill proposes the expenditure of more than 
 $3,000,000, and I am endeavoring to present the arguments pro and 
 con as well as I can, that the merits of the case may be carefully 
 considered. 
 
 When Colonel (now General) Craighill s board met, the rail 
 road company had not completed its wharf at Port Los Angeles. 
 The work had proceeded considerably, and was attracted to the 
 attention of the board. It was to that particular proposition that 
 Mr. Hood and others who were interested for the Southern Pacific 
 addressed their remarks. So far as the Craighill board was con 
 cerned they had the advantage of all the facts and arguments which 
 the then situation afforded. 
 
 When that report came before Congress no action was taken. 
 The fight was still on. Its suggestion was no more satisfactory to 
 the advocates of the Santa Monica Bay proposition than had been 
 the judgment of the first board. Here permit me to call attention 
 to the report of the majority of the committee as to the Santa 
 Monica item. I will ask the Secretary to read Appendix H, page 
 401, of the report of the committee. It is not very lengthy. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as 
 indicated, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 The river and harbor act of 1890 authorized the aopointment of a board of 
 three engineer officers " to examine the Pacific coast between Points Dume 
 and Capistrano, with a view to determining the best location for a deep-water 
 harbor." Their report was submitted December 8, 1891. In it the board 
 stated that the only eligible sites were at San Pedro and Santa Monica bays, 
 set forth the advantages and disadvantages of each as viewed by its members, 
 and submitted estimates for breakwaters at each place. 
 
 For the breakwater at Santa Monica the estimate was $4,549,494 and for 
 that at San Pedro $4,137,591. The board expressed a preference for the latter, 
 This report may be found in the Engineer s Report for 1892, pages 2631-2639. 
 
 The Committee on Commerce, when it was considering the river and har 
 bor bill of 1892, after considering this report and other evidence, concluded 
 that further light on the subject was desirable, and in that bill provided for 
 a second board, consisting of five engineer officers, to make examination of 
 these bays. 
 
 The report of this board was submitted October 27, 1892, and may be 
 found in the Engineer s Report for 1893, pages 3238-3263. This report dis 
 cusses relative advantages of the two bays at length, and concludes with the 
 opinion that the location selected by the board of engineers of 1890 was the 
 more eligible. An estimate of $2,885,324 was submitted for a breakwater at 
 San Pedro. 
 
 It was stoutly contended by persons having large interests in the com 
 merce of the Pacific Coast and familiar with the local conditions that the 
 opinion expressed by the Board was erroneous; that to act in accordance 
 with it would be a waste of money ; and in the river and harbor act of 1894 
 no appropriation for a harbor at either place was made. 
 
 While considering the bill herewith submitted, exhaustive hearings were 
 given by your committee to parties representing both sides of this vexed 
 question, including eminent engineers, both civil and military, and a conclu 
 sion was reached, in accordance with which a provision has been inserted 
 for constructing a breakwater at Santa Monica Bay, at a cost not to exceed 
 $3,098,000. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. When this report was ordered to be made in 
 the committee, I earnestly dissented from it, and reluctantly reached 
 the conclusion that it would be my duty to file a minority report; 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 335 
 
 and after consultation with those of my associates who thought as 
 I did and to Whom I was able at that time to submit the 
 matter involved, I, together with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
 BERRY], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. CAFFERY], and the 
 Senator from Florida [Mr. PASCO], did file such report. I was 
 not able to present the document at that time to the Senator from 
 Missouri [Mr. VEST], who, generally speaking, agrees with our 
 views, as he was unavoidably absent from the city, and I thought 
 that the river and harbor bill would come up the following day and 
 believed it advisable to place the matter found in the views of the 
 minority upon the desks of Senators at the earliest practicable 
 moment. 
 
 In the minority report we outlined the points upon which it 
 seemed the views of the minority should rest. I will read an extract 
 from the report: 
 
 The undersigned object to the amendment to H. R. 7977, making appro 
 priations for the construction, repair, and preservation, of certain public 
 works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, reported by the major 
 ity of the Committee on Commerce to the Senate April 27, 1896, which appro 
 priates $3,098,000 for the construction of a breakwater near Santa Monica, 
 Cal. This item was not placed in the bill at the suggestion of either of the 
 Senators from California, nor at the instigation of the Representative from 
 the Sixth Congressional district of that State, wherein the site involved is 
 located. On the contrary, both of the Senators and the Representative objected 
 to the construction of the breakwater at the point named in the bill, and the 
 overwhelming sentiment of the community prefers another location. 
 
 I ask the Secretary to read to the end of subdivision 7, as show 
 ing the considerations which justify the minority view. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. The Senator from California will allow me to say 
 right here that a rule of the Senate adopted some time since requires 
 a brief report as to each item which is contained in the bill. The 
 clerk of the Committee on Commerce always drafts those reports 
 from the reports of the engineers, in order that they may be con 
 veniently at hand for any Senator to see. So far as the report with 
 respect to Santa Monica is concerned, it was made precisely in that 
 way. I did not even look at it ; I did not even see it ; I did not even 
 read it. I never heard of it until the Senator had it read just now. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have not said anything that can involve a 
 criticism of the report. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I make the statement simply to account for the 
 brevity of the report. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. It is simply intended to refer Senators to the doc 
 uments where, if they please, they can find the information in full. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I was endeavoring to present the matter in 
 rather complete form, and referred to the report of the committee, 
 which of course is very general in its terms and contains none of 
 the argumentations and none of the reasons upon which the Senator 
 from Maine and other members composing the majority of the com 
 mittee acted in voting for the placing in the bill of the item which I 
 am criticising. I only mention the report so far as it reaches a con 
 clusion from which I dissent. I have referred to it, as I have said, 
 not because it estops Senators from giving additional reasons, or 
 because it presents their view of the case, but merely because it is a 
 part of the record. 
 
336 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Now, let the Secretary read the extract from the minority report. 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as 
 requested by the Senator from California. 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 The following considerations are submitted as justifying this minority 
 report : 
 
 (1) The appropriation as proposed is inadvisable. The bill is otherwise 
 sufficiently burdened. The condition of the Treasury does not warrant the 
 use of the public money for this particular work. 
 
 (2) There is no official recommendation or other authority justifying the 
 making of this appropriation. 
 
 (3) Those officers of the Government to whom has been committed the 
 charge and management of harbor improvements, and upon whose recom 
 mendations Congress has been accustomed to act, have uniformly and unan 
 imously reported against an appropriation for a breakwater at Santa Mbnica. 
 There has been no conflict in the Engineer Corps upon this topic, notwith 
 standing strenuous exertions by private and powerful interests, and although 
 two boards specially commissioned to examine and report have faithfully 
 discharged their duties. 
 
 (4) The action of the committee establishes a dangerous precedent. The 
 entire disregard of the carefully formed and unbiased opinions of two boards 
 of able engineers and the arbitrary location of this extensive work at a point 
 demanded by private interests is a dangerous exercise of power and threatens 
 the removal of needed protection to a frequently imperiled Treasury. 
 
 (5) The ultimate success of the work authorized is problematical. 
 
 (6) The proper site for a deep-sea harbor is not at Santa Monica but at 
 San Pedro. 
 
 (7) If there is doubt as to the availability of San Pedro for a deep-sea 
 harbor, then the expenditure of the appropriation should be made to depend 
 upon the judgment of a commission provided for in this act. Such commis 
 sion, after taking into consideration all the information theretofore collected 
 and that still is obtainable, should decide as between San Pedro and Santa 
 Monica and should report to the Secretary of War, and a contract should 
 thereupon be entered into for the construction of a breakwater pursuant to 
 such report. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. In order to give the Senate as full information 
 from a scientific source as I was able to produce, I and my associates 
 in the views of the minority submit a synopsis of the Mendell report 
 and we proffer the report of the Craighill board in full. These are 
 contained in the minority suggestions and constitute as to extent the 
 main part of the same. 
 
 Right here I wish to allude to another matter. It is said in the 
 minority report that the insertion of this item is not owing to the 
 importunity or the effort of either of the Senators from California 
 or the local Representative. It is pretty evident from my attitude 
 that it was not put in at my suggestion. It is equally certain that 
 it was not placed there at the instigation of my colleague. At the 
 hearing before the committee the very able gentleman who represents 
 the Sixth Congressional district of California came before our com 
 mittee and stated his views upon the subject. I consider them of 
 sufficient importance (they are not very lengthy) to justify presenting 
 at least a part of the same, and I therefore request the Secretary to 
 read from Congressman McLACH LAN S statement to the end of the 
 fifth line on page 5, Hearings. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as 
 indicated, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows : 
 
 Hon. JAMES MCL.ACHLAN, member of Congress from the Los Angeles dis 
 trict, said: 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 337 
 
 " MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN : Perhaps it would be well for me to 
 state briefly the history of harbor matters in the vicinity of Los Angeles. 
 Something like twenty years ago an appropriation was made by Congress for 
 the improvement of the inside harbor at San Pedro, and appropriations have 
 been made from time to time for the improvement of that harbor until the 
 total of the disbursements up to this time aggregate somewhere in the neigh 
 borhood of $800,000. That was for the improvement of the inside harbor at 
 San Pedro. The commerce of that locality is increasing rapidly, and it has 
 become evident to all the people there that larger facilities are necessary to 
 meet this increasing commerce. The Government engineers made a survey 
 of what is termed the outer harbor at San Pedro and reported the feasibility 
 of constructing a deep-sea harbor in that vicinity. A short time afterwards 
 another survey was made by Government engineers, and I think that at that 
 time they also made an investigation of Santa Monica, which is about 30 miles 
 north of San Pedro. 
 
 " The reports of the Government engineers with reference to the investi 
 gation of these two harbors are matters of record here, and can be seen for 
 themselves. It is a fact that those reports show that the Government engi 
 neers, on a comparison of the two locations, made 1 a preference in favor of 
 San Pedro for the second time. There has been a good deal of agitation over 
 the question in the vicinity of Los Angeles, and there has been a wonderful 
 conflict going on since that time between these two localities. Before I was 
 nominated for Congress (this will show the condition and temper of the peo 
 ple at that time) I went on the platform of the Republican convention and 
 stated that if I were elected I would go to Congress and would do all in my 
 power to secure an appropriation for a deep-sea harbor at San Pedro. I 
 think that every candidate on every ticket nominated in that campaign two 
 years ago did the same thing. The general sentiment of the people, based 
 largely, I suppose, upon the reports of Government engineers, was largely in 
 favor of San Pedro for the deep-sea harbor. Those are the conditions on 
 which I came to Congress. 
 
 "When I arrived at Washington in the beginning of this session I found, 
 however, that the friends of San Pedro were in doubt as to the advisability 
 of our contending at this session for an appropriation for an outside harbor 
 at San Pedro. After consultation with each other, the friends of San Pedro 
 decided that, on account of the depleted condition of the Treasury, so reported, 
 and of the economical ideas which seemed to pervade Congress, it would 
 be wise at this session of Congress to confine their efforts to an appropriation 
 to deepen the inside harbor at San Pedro to 18 feet at mean low water, 
 according to the report of Colonel Benyaurd, who stated that, in his judgment, 
 it could be done for $392,000. 
 
 " I want to state to the committee that I was the last friend of San Pedro 
 who finally assented to this course, and I think the friends of San Pedro will 
 bear me out in stating that. I said to them that I was elected to come here to 
 work for an outside harbor at San Pedro; that that was my pledge to the 
 people, and that now I would not be justified in confining my efforts to the 
 inside harbor. I was perhaps the last one who finally consented to this plan, 
 because it was the best thing to do. I went before the House committee and 
 asked the improvement of the inside harbor of San Pedro and an appropria 
 tion of $392,000 for that purpose, stating at the same time that we did not 
 forego our claims to the outside harbor at San Pedro. At that hearing there 
 was no objection to the request made by us, and we left the committee with 
 the request that we should receive an appropriation that would enable us to 
 complete the inside harbor at San Pedro. 
 
 "Afterwards, and before the river and harbor bill was reported to the 
 House, it was learned that the committee had put in the bill an appropria 
 tion for the full amount that was asked for the inside harbor at San Pedro, 
 and had also included an appropriation (as we are credibly informed) of 
 about $2,800,000 for the construction of an outside harbor at Santa Monica. 
 I am bound here to state, as the Representative from that district, that I 
 never asked for an appropriation for Santa Monica. We simply confined 
 our efforts to the inside harbor at San Pedro. And I am in duty bound to 
 say, as a Representative from that district, coming fresh from the people 
 that I am not here today asking for an appropriation for Santa Monica, but that 
 I am here asking for an appropriation to continue that inside harbor at San 
 Pedro according to the plan of Colonel Benyaurd. And if in the wisdom 
 
338 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of this committee it can see its way clear to give us an appropriation for an 
 outside harbor, I am bound, under my pledges, to ask you to give that ap 
 propriation for the construction of the outside wall or breakwater at San 
 Pedro." 
 
 Mr. WHITE. In addition to the extract which has just been 
 read, I make the following" quotation from Mr. MCLACHLAN : 
 
 Senator ELKINS. You say that you appear here to get an appropriation for 
 the inside harbor at San Pedro, and that you would like an appropriation for 
 the outside harbor as well. 
 
 Mr. MCLACHLAN. All the friends of San Pedro consider that on account 
 of the economical tendency of this Congress, and on account of the condition 
 of the Treasury, it would be wise to confine our efforts to getting an appropria 
 tion of $392,000 for the inside harbor; but since we discovered a disposition 
 on the part of the House to give more to the vicinity of Los Angeles, I say, 
 as a representative of that people coming here with those pledges, and that 
 if there is to be an appropriation for an outer sea wall, I ask it for the begin 
 ning of the outer harbor at San Pedro. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. But you do not expect an appropriation of some $3,000,- 
 ooo for Wilmington Harbor provided the Government continues to make a 
 deep-sea harbor at San Pedro? 
 
 Mr. MCL,ACHI,AN. Yes : because we believe that one of the most practical 
 advantages to the deep-sea harbor will be the completion of the inside harbor 
 at San Pedro. 
 
 Now, the Senate will understand that the $392,000 referred to 
 in this testimony by Congressman MCLACHLAN is provided for in 
 the pending bill; that is to say, there is an appropriation of $50,000 
 and a continuing contract for an amount making the whole $392,000 
 for the improvement of the inner harbor which I have described, and 
 a photograph of which is here before the Senate, and his statement 
 is therefore fully supported. 
 
 I wish to call the attention of the Senate to what I consider an 
 extraordinary feature of this case a peculiar feature of the con 
 troversy. It is and would be in any instance rather singular that 
 the Congress of the United States should find it necessary to make 
 an appropriation of public money in the face of the desire of local 
 representatives, and it is almost impossible that such a condition of 
 things can ever exist unless there is some uncommon influence not 
 usually applicable and not generally brought into exercise. 
 
 Let us examine this situation. In the report of the committee, 
 from which I have read the general synopsis, we find the following: 
 
 It was stoutly contended by persons having large interests in the com 
 merce of the Pacific Coast and familiar with the local conditions that the 
 opinion expressed by the board was erroneous ; that to act in accordance 
 with it would be a waste of money. 
 
 The opinions thus expressed were the expressions of the South 
 ern Pacific Railroad Company, and that persistency which has been 
 referred to has been and is the persistency, the potential persistency, 
 of that company. I recognize the right of every man to proceed 
 upon proper lines to gain all grants from Congress which his 
 eloquence and skill, his arguments and persuasion, may be able to 
 obtain, but I do not recognize the right of such person to control me 
 without some argument demonstrating that the appropriation of this 
 large amount of money in defiance of official recommendation is for 
 the public interest. 
 
 Let me go a step further in the history of this matter. Mr. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 339 
 
 McIvACHUN in his lucid statement has perhaps made the matter 
 plain enough, but I wish to allude to the subject, for I desire the 
 Senate and every member of it to understand the situation, and so 
 understanding it if members of this body are willing to take the 
 responsibility of voting away $3,098,000 it is their affair, not mine. 
 But I shall give the facts as I know them, and I shall state nothing 
 that I do not believe to be true, and I shall gladly correct any state 
 ments which I may discover to be unfounded. 
 
 When the present Congress convened the situation of this matter 
 was briefly as I shall state it. Nothing had been done upon the 
 report of the board of engineers and no appropriation had been made. 
 In the meantime Colonel Benyaurd had devised the project for the 
 improvement of the inner harbor to which I have referred. I called 
 for that project, which was filed away in the War Department by 
 resolution which passed the Senate at the close of the last session. 
 The report of Colonel Benyaurd was thereafter incorporated in the 
 official records of the Chief of Engineers, and when the river and 
 harbor bill came before the committee of the House for consideration 
 I appeared there and so also did my colleague, and the distinguished 
 member of the House already referred to was likewise there. We 
 presented our claims for the further improvement of the inner har 
 bor at San Pedro or Wilmington I use the words indiscriminately 
 the Benyaurd project, against which there was, so far as we 
 knew, or now know, no disclosed objection. 
 
 I stated there, as others did, that in view of the depleted con 
 dition of the Treasury, and because we deemed it wholly unlikely 
 that Congress would care to embark in so expensive a work as a 
 three-million-dollar outer harbor at this time, we should be satisfied 
 if we were given a continuing contract for the inner harbor at San 
 Pedro, involving the $392,000. We left. Nothing more was heard 
 by me of this affair until I learned indirectly that a provision had 
 been printed in the draft of the river and harbor bill for two million 
 eight hundred and odd thousand dollars for a harbor at Santa 
 Monica or Port Los Angeles, and that $392,000 had also, it was 
 rumored, been appropriated for San Pedro. 
 
 Thus I discovered that to some extent my State occupied a 
 higher plane than that upon which other Commonwealths have been 
 in the habit of treading; that while there were some who were forced 
 to solicit appropriations and to make arguments to obtain the same, 
 in my instance such favors came not only unsolicited but unwanted. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. Thrust on you. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. However, a great local disturbance arose in Los 
 Angeles. As shown by the hearings printed by the Committee on 
 Commerce, a telegram was sent to Los Angeles stating that if the 
 people there would unite they could have the inner harbor at San 
 Pedro, but they must take it with the outer harbor at Santa Monica. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Who sent that telegram? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Representative. I will refer to the page in 
 a moment. The result of it all was that the River and Harbor Com 
 mittee dropped the whole matter, leaving only an appropriation of 
 $50,000 for the inner harbor at San Pedro on the Benyaurd proposi 
 tion and no continuing contract at all. Indeed, my State was not 
 honored with any continuing contract in the bill as it came to this 
 end of the Capitol. When the measure reached the Committee on 
 Commerce the fight was renewed. 
 
340 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 I neglected to say that the River and Harbor Committee had 
 the benefit (not in my presence, however) of the testimony of 
 Messrs. Corthell and Hood, whose views have been published by the 
 House. The combat was thence transferred to the Committee on 
 Commerce. Upon a day fixed by common consent representatives 
 from the State of California were brought here, business men, per 
 sons of standing and integrity, who represented both sides of the 
 question. Some of these gentlemen (and their evidence is in the 
 hearings here) argued in favor of Santa Monica and some in favor 
 of San Pedro. 
 
 Petitions were filed ; telegrams without number were received. 
 One of my constituents stated to me, " Let us have the appropriation, 
 even if it is to go to Arroyo Seco," which means " dry creek." 
 The impression prevailed in the community that there was an oppor 
 tunity to get $3,000,000, and some thought that it was useless to 
 longer make a fight for San Pedro, where the vast majority of the 
 people wanted the harbor. Sooner than lose the appropriation for 
 the inner harbor, and this large amount of money promised to be 
 disbursed in the locality, they were willing to locate a harbor any 
 where. 
 
 Of course that did not represent the universal sentiment. I may 
 say the record here shows a telegram signed by two or three 
 hundred of the leading business men of Los Angeles insisting upon 
 my advocacy of both appropriations for San Pedro. But if I had 
 not received that telegram I should not have changed my position. 
 It can not alter my attitude standing here in the discharge of a 
 public duty merely because a vote of mine is to prevent the expen 
 diture of money in my locality. If I know that that expenditure 
 is not to be made in the public interest that it is sought for a 
 private purpose I will not vote for it. Were I outside of official 
 life, selfishness, which dominates many of us, and to some extent 
 influences us all, might perhaps lead me to applaud an act which 
 would involve local disbursement of such an elaborate sum. But I 
 could not find myself authorized, and do not deem myself empowered, 
 to appropriate one cent unless I find it to be for a public purpose 
 and for the public interest. 
 
 Mr. Lankershim, a very prominent business man of my city and 
 a person of excellent standing, was before our committee and was 
 examined, and favored the selection of Santa Monica. The dis 
 tinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. BERRY] asked him the ques 
 tion whether it was not a fact that the people in that section of the 
 State had finally come to the conclusion that they had better take 
 the appropriation, because influences surrounding the case were such 
 as to render it impossible to authorize the outlay elsewhere. I refer 
 to the exact language. It can be found in Hearings, page 64. 
 
 Senator BERRY. You say now you have changed your mind and that 
 others have changed their minds. 
 
 Mr. BERRY. Read just before the first question. 
 Mr. WHITE. Oh, yes. 
 
 Senator BERRY. You worked for years, did you not, trying to get this 
 deep-water harbor at San Pedro? 
 
 Mr. LANKERSHIM. Yes. 
 
 Senator BERRY. You say now that you have changed your mind and 
 that others have changed their minds. Is not that change of mind attribut- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 341 
 
 able in a large measure to the fact that these people have come to believe 
 that the influences here at Washington were so strong against San Pedro that 
 that harbor could not be built, and you came to the conclusion that it was 
 better to take Santa Monica than none? Is not that a fact? 
 
 Mr. LANKERSHIM. Well, it is somewhat so. I was a good deal more in 
 favor of San Pedro before I came here, but since I have heard the reports 
 of these engineers I never will believe another day that a port can be built 
 at San Pedro. 
 
 And so on. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. What engineers does he refer to? 
 
 Mr. FRYE. The civil engineers. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. He refers to Corthell. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Corthell and Hood. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Corthell and Hood. They were the engineers 
 of the company. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Of what company? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Southern Pacific. Now, Mr. President, 
 taking the situation as I find it, I have no hesitancy in the world in 
 asserting that, as between the location at San Pedro and Santa Mon 
 ica, were the people of my section permitted to make a choice there 
 would be an overwhelming vote in favor of San Pedro. But there 
 are those, and it can not be denied, who think that under prevailing 
 conditions they can never obtain their preference, and they conclude 
 that it is better to accept the situation such as it is without further 
 contest and worry. That situation can not affect me ; it should 
 affect nobody. The question before the Senate is where ought 
 this money to be put if it is expended at all. Mr. Hood and Mr. 
 Corthell were practically before both committees ; Mr. Corthell was 
 personally before both, and Mr. Hood s statement was before both. 
 These gentlemen, who were heard in behalf of the railroad company, 
 explained their preferences, and Mr. Corthell not only made his 
 argument before the committees, but as soon as the minority report 
 already mentioned was filed I encountered in the hands of an 
 employee of the Senate a printed document indorsed as follows : 
 
 DEEP-SEA HARBOR IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Letter of Mr. E. L. Corthell, civil engineer, to United States Senators WHITE, 
 BERRY, CAFFERY, and PASCO, of the committee on Commerce, relating to 
 their minority report on the amendment to H. R. 7977, making appropria 
 tion for the construction of a breakwater at Santa Monica, Cal., May i, 
 1896. 
 
 Turning the title page, which appeared to indicate a report from 
 the third house, I found the interior decoration as follows : 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C, May i, 1896. 
 Hon. STEPHEN M. WHITE, 
 
 United States Senate, City. 
 
 DEAR SIR : On April 29 last you, representing yourself and Senators 
 BERRY, CAFFERY, and PASCO, presented a minority report upon a location for 
 a deep-sea harbor on the southern coast of California. 
 
 As the facts and opinions which I have laid before the Senate and House 
 committees, and I may say the War Department, have been called in ques 
 tion in your report, it seems to me proper that I should at least remove 
 some misunderstandings that evidently exist in the minds of yourself and your 
 associates. 
 
 Then he proceeds in this charitable enterprise as follows: 
 
342 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 From the time that I first appeared before the Senate Committee on Com 
 merce, on June 19, 1894, I have frankly stated my professional connection 
 with this question, both to the committees and to the War Department. 
 Most of the statements which I have made are recorded in the printed reports 
 of hearings. It is only necessary now to refer to the following, from an official 
 communication addressed by me to the Chief of Engineers, December 13, 1895 : 
 
 " Early in the spring of 1894 I was requested by Senator FRYE, of the Com 
 merce Committee, and so stated by him before his committee, and by Mr. 
 BLANCHARD, at that time chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, 
 and afterwards by Mr. CATCHINGS, subsequently appointed chairman of that 
 committee, to make a careful investigation in reference to the question of 
 location and plans for a protected harbor on the coast of Southern California." 
 
 This extract, it will be observed, is what Mr. Corthell styles u an 
 official communication." 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Who is Mr. Corthell? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. He is an employee, in this matter, of the South 
 ern Pacific Railroad Company. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Has he any connection with the Government? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I am trying now to work out his connection. 
 I am endeavoring to proceed through the sinuosities of the situation 
 to a conclusion or to some tangible result. In other words, I am 
 trying to anchor him with reference to his opinions. This alleged 
 official communication was sent in December 13, 1895. Now, he 
 proceeds : 
 
 I was aware of the decided difference of opinion existing even then (1894) 
 as between Santa Monica and San Pedro. 
 
 Mr. Huntington, president of the Southern Pacific Company, had also 
 asked me, as I was about to start for California, to examine the question of 
 harbor location 
 
 It will be observed that this was a mere incidental request 
 
 as I was about to start for California, to examine the question of harbor loca 
 tion, but I considered that I was making the examination for the committees 
 of Congress 
 
 We will see what there is in that pretentious and presumptuous 
 claim in a moment 
 
 and I determined to investigate the matter exhaustively, to decide the impor 
 tant questions involved carefully and impartially, and to present my opinion 
 to the committees. It therefore seems unnecessary for me to repeat now that 
 had I found the location at San Pedro more advantageous than at Santa 
 Monica, I should have reported so. 
 
 This is his letter to me which was never delivered, as I have 
 stated, through any intentional instrumentality of its author. Now, 
 let us look a little further. This gentleman was interrogated upon 
 this subject when he appeared before the Committee on Commerce. 
 I refer to the hearings. When he took the stand, so to speak, 
 although perhaps that expression is technically inaccurate (no one 
 was sworn, and the statements of the gentlemen who appeared there 
 were all accepted without any other verification than their word) he 
 stated, I refer to page 36 of the hearings before the committee 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: You recollect that 
 about two years ago I made an examination of these conditions in Califor 
 nia as exhaustive an examination as if I had been employed professionally 
 on the subject. I did it with the approval of three leading members of the 
 Senate and House committees, and I came before you on the I9th of June, 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 343 
 
 1894, with a statement of what I had found and of my opinion in regard to 
 where this deep-sea harbor should be located. 
 
 Later on the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. 
 BERRY] asked the witness the following questions: 
 
 Senator BERRY. In the beginning of your remarks you said something 
 about going out there at the instance of Senators. Did I understand you to 
 say so ? 
 
 Mr. CORTHEI.L. I meant with the approval of Senators. 
 
 Senator BERRY. They did not employ you to go out there, did they? 
 
 Mr. CORTHELL. No, sir. 
 
 Senator BERRY. Who employed you? 
 
 Mr. CORTHELL. Nobody at the time; but afterwards Mr. Huntington paid 
 my expenses. Mr. Huntington asked me, in the first place, if I would make 
 the examination. I said that I did not think I would like to do so in my 
 position, because it would be officious if I should make an examination and ask 
 to he heard before a committee. I said : " If Senator FRYE and Mr. BLANCH- 
 ARD (then chairman of the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors) would 
 like me to make an examination I will make it." 
 
 Senator BERRY. There was no order of Congress for you to make it? 
 
 Mr. CORTHELL. No; I received a telegram from Mr. CATCHINGS while at 
 San Diego, asking my opinion, but expressly stating that he did not intend 
 to employ me, but that he wished me to give my opinion. 
 
 Senator WHITE of California. You had done some work for Mr. Hunt-- 
 ington before that? 
 
 Mr. CORTHELL. I was, for four years, when obtaining a charter from 
 Congress, the representative of six railroads at New Orleans, and the president 
 of the Southern Bridge and Railroad Company while the charter was being 
 obtained for a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, it was (by previous agree 
 ment among the directors of the companies) then transferred to the rail 
 road interests. That was the object of getting the charter. I resigned my 
 position as president and was re-elected chief engineer, and Mr. Huntington 
 was elected president. Those are my relations with him. Of course I was 
 very glad, on account of these relations, to do anything which I could prop 
 erly do that Mr. Huntington requested. 
 
 Mr. President, what justification is there for the assertion that 
 this was an official investigation? I appeal not only to lawyers, but 
 to those used to analyzing human statements and to determining 
 the candor or want of candor of individual declaration, and I ask, 
 Does any man believe that the person who thus addresses this com 
 munication to me and other Senators is any more than the employee 
 of the interest in this case, which is making this determined contest 
 for personal profit? Is there any question about it? Official posi 
 tion ! Who conferred it ? I repudiate, deny, and controvert the 
 assertion that the Committee on Commerce ever authorized this man 
 to make any investigation. They never did. 
 
 Does anyone suppose that in the year 1894 I, conscious of this 
 man s relation to an interested party, ever would have consented to 
 or permitted without emphatic demurrer his appointment in any such 
 confidential place ? Does anyone believe that I would have been will 
 ing to intrust my constituents interests to one whom I knew was in 
 the pay of a person toward whom my constituents occupied an 
 antagonistic attitude? Senators, indeed, might, if they chose, ask 
 Corthell to make the investigation. That was their individual affair. 
 He was first sought by Mr. Huntington. Mr. Huntington had a 
 right to ask him. It was Mr. Huntington s affair properly to exam 
 ine into the case and to employ the most skilled men he could obtain. 
 Mr. Corthell is a very able and skillful engineer, and for years, as his 
 testimony shows, he has been associated with Mr. Huntington. He 
 
344 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 went out to my State and he made this inspection, and his expenses 
 were paid by Mr. Huntington. I should have had a great deal more 
 regard for Mr. Corthell if he had come out, like expert witnesses 
 who are candid ought always to come out, and said : " Yes, I was 
 employed and well paid for the work I did; it is good work, and I 
 will stand by it and demonstrate that I am right." There would 
 have been something about that which would have commended the 
 man s utterances to me. But he has evaded the whole story. 
 
 Mr. President, it would have been singular had this man been 
 sent to California officially to inspect a public improvement by gen 
 tlemen who were authorized themselves to act in committee upon 
 that subject, without any regard in their committee that it was so 
 done. There never was any such appointment. There never was 
 any such authority. I have resided for half of my life, for all my 
 manhood s days, in the county of Los Angeles, where this improve 
 ment is intended to be made. I know its people pretty well. I 
 know the surroundings of the case pretty well. My associate has 
 lived upon that coast since 1855. He possesses technical and nauti 
 cal knowledge regarding it which no other man here enjoys. This 
 he has learned in the course of his business. The Representative of 
 that district, fresh from the people, lives in the city of Los Angeles. 
 Ought not we know perhaps something about it? Were we not 
 worthy of consultation? There is an alleged public officer, a man 
 who professes to be an employee of the Government, who talks about 
 his official communication, who visits our home and determines the 
 merits of our arguments without even identifying himself. Mr. 
 President, his investigation was uninvited by any committee, unsanc- 
 tioned by any law. He was Mr. Huntington s agent then as he is 
 now. 
 
 Mr. President, in so far as his statements disclose facts sup 
 ported by reason so far are those statements valuable. In so far as 
 he attempts to put himself in a situation of impartiality and fairness 
 his efforts must prove unavailing. He is worthy of credit, as I say, 
 as far as he is supported, but he is not entitled to that degree of con 
 fidence pertaining to an impartial man who, in the discharge of a 
 public function, knows no master save his conscience, and does noth 
 ing merely to win individual monetary emolument. The one is ruled 
 by a lofty sense of duty to his country, the other toils for the com 
 mendations of selfishness. 
 
 Therefore, Mr. President, we must proceed to examine such 
 arguments as are adduced in support of these propositions upon their 
 merits, without supposing that there is any official sanction for the 
 report of the committee beyond that sanction which follows from 
 our acts as Senators. It has been shown that the committee has had 
 the regular reports of two boards of engineers; that their reports 
 have been adverse to Santa Monica; that those politically authorized 
 are similarly minded. Here I pause. I do not contend that any 
 Senator or Representative has an absolute right to dictate to a com 
 mittee where public funds shall be expended. As a member of the 
 Commerce Committee I am only entitled to vote once to vote my 
 own notions and I have no right to register the judgment of any 
 other member. At the same time, perhaps, the custom which has 
 grown up because of the teachings of experience is not a bad one 
 to pay some little respect to recommendations and representations of 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 345 
 
 those who speak within this Chamber of the necessities of their 
 homes. 
 
 But what is there before this body to offset the official disap 
 proval from these two boards concurred in by General Casey dis 
 tinguished boards, as I have said one presided over by the present 
 General of the Engineer Corps? Is there anything official to cancel 
 this disapprobation? I have disposed of the claim that Mr. Corthell 
 represents anybody officially, unless it be the railroad company. Mr. 
 Hood, an able engineer, gives his views. He is the chief engineer, 
 and an exceedingly good one, of the Southern Pacific Company. We 
 have his evidence. 
 
 Mr. President, we have cast aside the reports of our engineers, 
 and of the Chief of Engineers, and the views of those locally inter 
 ested, and we have adopted the conclusions of those who are person 
 ally, individually, and financially interested. We have refused to 
 appropriate the public money and place it where it is said by impartial 
 and competent Government officers its disbursement would be of use 
 to the public, and we have taken it and placed it where these officers 
 have said it should not be expended. Perhaps we are right, perhaps 
 the committee is right; but let it be plainly shown before we act 
 affirmatively; let it appear most clearly that the committee is 
 obviously right. No dubious evidence will suffice to justify such a 
 singular course. 
 
 Mr. GRAY. Let me ask the Senator if there is no recommen 
 dation of the board of engineers or other Government authority in 
 favor of the appropriation for Santa Monica? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. None on earth. Not only that, but it is sought 
 to appropriate $3,098,000 for this improvement, when there is no 
 official estimate of the cost of that improvement or recommendation 
 for it. 
 
 This is not a case, Mr. President, where a Senator rises from 
 his seat and says, " Here is something of necessity, here is something 
 about which I know everything," and there is no dispute, and he is 
 asked, " Have you a recommendation ? " " No ; there is no recom 
 mendation, but I am cognizant of the facts; they are so and so." 
 The Senate sometimes, in such cases where the amount is small, takes 
 the risk and perhaps makes the appropriation. But the present is 
 an instance where there is negation. This is a case where the 
 authorities to whom we have committed this matter, in an advisory 
 sense it is true, but to whom nevertheless we have committed this 
 matter, have reported adversely. We are to make this enormous 
 expenditure, not only without their recommendation, but in the face 
 of their condemnation. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator allow me a moment? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. I only wish to ask a question; I know nothing 
 about the matter and I have not heard all the debate. Is it a fact 
 that two boards of United States engineers, acting under oath, have 
 reported against the appropriation recommended by the committee? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Is it a fact that both the Senators from Califor 
 nia and the Representative in the other house of Congress from that 
 district, are against the appropriation ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 23 
 
346 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. Is it a fact that there is no other evidence 
 upon which the Senate is asked to act except the statement of two 
 men who are in the employ of the Southern Pacific Railroad Com 
 pany? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. To be fair, I would say there is other evidence. 
 There are gentlemen who testified before the committee; and, in 
 addition to that, there is the personal knowledge, or whatever it may 
 be, of those who have seen the locality, and who, upon that, have 
 formed their views. 
 
 Mr. GEORGE. I mean any professional, any engineer reports? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No, sir. I will say, however, that there are gen 
 tlemen upon the committee who have seen this location, notably the 
 distinguished chairman, who has examined it personally, and who 
 has reached a conclusion as the result of his examination. There are 
 other members of the committee who are also familiar with it, very 
 familiar with it. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. JONES] is very 
 familiar with it, knows the ground thoroughly, and has for many 
 years known it. 
 
 Mr. BATE. I should like to ask the Senator one further ques 
 tion, which I believe the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] 
 did not ask. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BATE. Is it or is it not a fact that all the boards and 
 commercial organizations in the city of Los Angeles, which is tribu 
 tary to this place, have decided in favor of San Pedro? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The principal commercial board of the city of 
 Los Angeles is the Chamber of Commerce. This board comprises 
 within its membership most of the more prominent business men of 
 that citv. In 1894 the Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles had a 
 meeting and determined that its members should vote upon this sub 
 ject, which they did, deciding by a large majority in favor of San 
 Pedro. If the Senator from Tennessee will consult page 80 of the 
 hearings he will find there an elaborate dispatch signed by men 
 whom I consider to be representative business men of the city of Los 
 Angeles, also in favor of San Pedro. 
 
 Mr. President, I dislike to go on further with this subject now. 
 I will state the reason. I have been suffering from a severe cold 
 for three or four days, and I feel the effects of it somewhat. I shall 
 go on and finish in the morning. I should prefer to proceed now if 
 I were physically able, but in my present condition I do not like to 
 risk going on further tonight. 
 
 Mr. HARRIS. In view of the suggestion of the Senator from 
 California, I move that the Senate adjourn. 
 
 The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o clock and n minutes 
 p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morr.ow, Saturday, May 9, 1896, 
 at 12 o clock meridian. 
 
 Saturday, May 9, 1896. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I will resume consideration of 
 my objections to the Santa Monica item of the river and harbor bill, 
 and will now proceed to consider some of the claims made by the 
 advocates of Santa Monica and also the objections raised to the San 
 Pedro location, although I deem it unnecessary to a correct solution 
 of the immediate question pending that any elaborate presentation 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 347 
 
 of the particular subjects to which I allude shall be made, because 
 the amendment which I have proffered involves the appointing of 
 a commission to locate the harbor, and provides that upon a favorable 
 report of a majority of the commission the appropriation shall be 
 made available for the point selected by them. The merits of each 
 site would thus be finally and satisfactorily settled. 
 
 I believe it has already been sufficiently shown and that it must 
 continue to be apparent that there is at least reasonable ground to 
 doubt the advisability of investing more than three millions of public 
 funds in an unapproved breakwater site, and I trust that I may be 
 able to show to the Senate that it is improper to make such an appro 
 priation as is designed in the bill without any governmental sanction 
 or without any regard to those safeguards which have heretofore 
 been deemed essential to secure the proper disbursement of public 
 money. 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that I do not deem it absolutely mate 
 rial to consider objections to the contending locations, I will do so, 
 as some may be influenced by the many charges and theories from 
 time to time urged in this connection. In the views of the minority, 
 page 31, occurs the following: 
 
 It is asserted that since the last report of the engineers was made Mr. 
 Huntington and his associates of the Southern Pacific Company have con 
 structed an extensive wharf at Port Los Angeles (Santa Monica), and that 
 the shipping experience since had evidenced the wisdom of the location. It 
 is true that in ordinary weather vessels successfully discharge their cargoes 
 at Mr. Huntington s wharf, but in this respect San Pedro possesses equal 
 advantages. The evidence taken by the committee shows insurance rates to 
 be less at San Pedro than at Santa Monica. The Mendell s report mentions 
 that San Pedro Bay has been a shipping point time out of mind; that prior 
 to the American occupation mariners touched there, and the locality was 
 known as the " Embarcadero." During those periods no one thought of 
 resorting to Santa Monica Bay. 
 
 In the letter circulated by and bearing Mr. Corthell s name I 
 find the following response to the point to which I have just adverted: 
 
 On page 68 of the report of the hearing is a digest of certain affidavits 
 made by shipmasters this year, who have, some of them, for two or three years 
 been engaged regularly in loading and unloading vessels at Port Los Angeles, 
 It is my pronounced opinion that had the commercial experience at the wharf 
 at Port Los Angeles been available for consideration by the Mendell board 
 in 1891 it would not have hesitated to give an opinion in favor of building 
 a deep-sea harbor at this point instead of at San Pedro. It is well known 
 that the reason why " San Pedro has been a shipping point from time out 
 of mind " is the existence of the mouth of a tidal lagoon at this place into 
 which the small vessels which formerly plied along this coast could enter and 
 unload upon the banks or wharves, and that it was not on account ofi any 
 anchorage facilities which the open bay might possess. 
 
 In the same connection Mr. Corthell refers to the holding ground 
 at San Pedro thus : 
 
 The contention in regard to holding ground at San Pedro has been, and is 
 that there are near the shore and in some other parts of the bay rocky areas 
 which do not form good holding ground for vessels at anchor. It is generally 
 conceded by shipmasters, and it certainly is evident from careful examina 
 tions made by borings and by experience in pile driving at Port Los Angeles, 
 that that part at least of the Bay of Santa Monica could not have better hold 
 ing ground. 
 
 Among the many fallacious impressions which obtain in some 
 quarters, and perhaps yet prevail, in consequence of reiterated asser- 
 
348 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 tion, is the notion that the holding ground at San Pedro is not good. 
 There will be found printed in the hearings before the Senate com 
 mittee the statement of some forty-odd shipmasters who have visited 
 San Pedro at different times, and their evidence upon this subject is 
 absolutely conclusive. Those shipmasters have not called at that 
 port during one or two years, but have plied up and down the coast 
 of California for extended periods. The statements to which I refer 
 are on page 24 of the hearings and extend to the middle of page 28. 
 The original affidavits are on file with the committee, and the matter 
 presented in the report is in digested form. I quote: 
 
 O. A. Olsen, master mariner: Have been acquainted, in my capacity as 
 practical sailor, with San Pedro Bay and Harbor nine years. Have been in 
 San Pedro Bay several times, and have anchored in roadstead. Very good 
 holding ground. San Pedro has the better anchorage ground. San Pedro 
 has the better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 F. G. Miller, master mariner : Have been acquainted with San Pedro Bay 
 and Harbor, as a practical sailor, for thirty years. Have been in San Pedro 
 Bay and Harbor six times. Always anchored in roadstead. Anchored in 
 winter of 1860-61 and since to date. Good holding ground, and with good 
 ground tackle I think vessel will lay safe to her anchors the year round. 
 
 Here is the case of a man who has been engaged in managing 
 vessels, acting as master mariner on the Pacific Coast since 1861, and 
 he has frequently visited this bay. 
 
 H. A. Smith, master mariner : Have anchored in San Pedro Bay many 
 times since 1888. Good holding ground. San Pedro best place for harbor. 
 Is better protected from prevailing winds and swells than Santa Monica Bay. 
 
 John Peterson, master mariner: Have been acquainted with San Pedro 
 Bay and Harbor twenty years, and have been there many times. Anchored 
 in the roadstead. Very good anchorage ground. Have been acquainted with 
 Santa Monica Bay twenty years. San Pedro has better anchorage ground 
 and has better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 I will not read all the statements, but I will ask to have same 
 incorporated in my remarks. Senators who care to do so may 
 peruse these statements upon pages 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the hear 
 ings. They are to the effect that the natural advantages of San 
 Pedro are in every way superior to Santa Monica, and are specific 
 and positive as to the character of the holding ground. These affi 
 davits are made, not by theorists, but by men who have cast their 
 anchors in that roadstead and know exactly what they are talking 
 about. Their views should be regarded as conclusive. I submit 
 their statements: 
 
 Sivorn statements of sea captains as to holding ground for anchorage at San 
 
 Pedro. 
 
 W. S. Southard, master mariner: Have been at San Pedro Bay and 
 Harbor once. Anchored in the roadstead. First-class holding ground. Have 
 been in Bay of Santa Monica, near Redondo. San Pedro is best place for 
 harbor. Is protected by islands on one side, mainland on the other. Latter 
 protects westerly winds, which prevail at different times of the year. 
 
 F. E. Magune, shipmaster: Been in San Pedro Harbor twelve times. 
 Anchored in roadstead. The holding ground is good and very hard. San 
 Pedro has better protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 Barnard Olsson, master mariner: Anchored many times in San Pedro 
 Bay, in roadstead. San Pedro best holding ground. Have always tried to 
 keep away from Santa Monica Bay. The better anchorage ground is at San 
 Pedro, by all means. San Pedro has better protection from prevailing winds 
 and swells. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 349 
 
 Henry A. Crocker, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor 
 many times too numerous to mention. Anchored in roadstead. Very good 
 anchorage ground at San Pedro. Have been in Bay of Santa iMonica. San 
 Pedro has better anchorage ground and has better protection from prevailing 
 winds and swells. 
 
 R. Brummer, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor many 
 times. Anchored in roadstead. The holding ground is exceptionally good. 
 Am acquainted with Bay of Santa Monica. San Pedro has better anchorage 
 ground and better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 Charles Warner, master mariner: Have been in, San Pedro Harbor 
 many times. Anchored in roadstead. Anchorage ground very good. Was in 
 Santa Monica Bay with cargo of piles and found great difficulty in discharg 
 ing and holding ground very poor. San Pedro has better anchorage ground 
 and better protection from prevailing winds, etc. 
 
 P. A. Johnson, master mariner: Have been on San Pedro route six 
 years steady. Have anchored in roadstead many times. Good holding ground. 
 Don t think favorably of Santa Monica. San Pedro has better anchorage 
 ground and is better protected from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 C. C. Birkholm, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Bay and Har 
 bor twenty times. Anchored in roadstead. Good anchorage ground. Have 
 discharged two cargoes at Santa Monica. San Pedro has better anchorage 
 ground and better protection from prevailing winds. 
 
 E. Christ, shipmaster: Have been in San Pedro Harbor many times. 
 Always anchored my vessel outside. Have always found the holding bottom 
 of first-class quality. Do not think there is any better. Never had occasion 
 to anchor in Santa Monica Bay. San Pedro has better anchorage ground, 
 I think. San Pedro has better natural protection from prevailing winds and 
 swells. 
 
 O. Anderson, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor many 
 times. Anchored in roadstead many times. Good holding ground. Have been 
 acquainted with Santa Monica Bay since 1881, and do not know any good 
 of it. San Pedro has better anchorage ground and better protection from 
 prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 William Robb, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor twenty 
 times or more. Anchored in roadstead. Have always found the anchorage 
 good ; in fact, superior to any bay on the Pacific Coast, San Francisco exceptecl, 
 and only except San Francisco on account of the harbor being land-locked. 
 Have anchored in Santa Monica Bay on different occasions in small boats 
 and yachts. San Pedro has better anchorage ground and better protection 
 from prevailing winds and swells. San Pedro is sheltered from prevailing 
 winds on the Pacific Coast. 
 
 John W. Aspe, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor about 
 thirty times. Anchored in roadstead every voyage. Holding ground is good. 
 Am acquainted with Santa Monica Bay. San Pedro has best anchorage ground 
 and better protected from prevailing winds and swells. San Pedro is a safe 
 harbor for the summer winds, with good holding ground. Santa Monica 
 has a constant westerly swell, with very poor holding ground. 
 
 M. Olsen, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Bay many times. 
 Often anchored in roadstead. Good holding ground. San Pedro has best 
 anchorage ground. Acquainted with Santa Monica Bay only by my charts. San 
 Pedro has better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 F. D. Wells, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor several 
 times. Anchored in roadstead. I have anchored there in heavy blows and 
 my anchors always held. San Pedro has best anchorage ground. Am ac 
 quainted with Santa Monica Bay. San Pedro has better natural protection 
 from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 C. Jansen, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro many times. 
 Anchored in roadstead. Good holding ground; most emphatically good. Am 
 acquainted with Santa Monica Bay. I consider San Pedro superior in all 
 weather from the fact that San Pedro is protected from all prevailing winds 
 and seas. San Pedro has best anchorage ground, and is recognized by all 
 seafaring men as a safe port to anchor in. 
 
 J. W. Grove, shipmaster : Have been in San Pedro Bay. Anchored in 
 roadstead. Good holding ground. Have been in Santa Monica Bay twice. 
 San Pedro has best anchorage ground and better natural protection from pre 
 vailing winds and swells. The latter place is protected from the south by 
 Catalina Island; from the north by the mainland. 
 
350 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 William Kindlen, master mariner: Have anchored in San Pedro Harbor, 
 in roadstead. San Pedro has good holding ground and shelter. Can not 
 compare San Pedro with Santa Monica, for I do not know; but San Pedro is 
 good. In my opinion San Pedro has better protection from prevailing winds 
 and swells. 
 
 F. M. Johnson, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Harbor many 
 times. Anchored in roadstead. Good holding ground. Am acquainted with 
 Santa Monica Bay from my charts. San Pedro has best anchorage ground 
 and better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 David Robinson, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Harbor, and 
 anchored in roadstead. I think the bottom is very good holding ground. I 
 have never dragged my anchor there. Am not acquainted with Bay of Santa 
 Monica. In my opinion San Pedro has best anchorage ground and better pro 
 tection from prevailing winds and swells. I have been over to Santa Monica, 
 and I noticed that there is a very strong undertow, and I should think it 
 would be very hard to hold a ship at the wharf. As to anchorage, I know 
 nothing, only from hearsay. 
 
 John Slater, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 many times. Anchorage ground good. Am -acquainted with Santa Monica 
 Bay for twenty years, and I at all times wanted to keep away from it. San 
 Pedro has best anchorage ground, and has better protection from prevailing 
 winds and swells. 
 
 C. Ryder, shipmaster : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor many 
 times. Anchored in roadstead many times. Good anchorage ground. As 
 between bays of Santa Monica and San Pedro the latter has best anchorage 
 ground and better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 William Rosendall, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and 
 Harbor many times. Anchored in roadstead many times. Good holding 
 ground. Acquainted with Santa Monica a little by knowledge acquired from 
 my charts. San Pedro has best anchorage ground and better natural pro 
 tection from prevailing winds and swells. San Pedro is protected from all 
 prevailing winds and swells, excepting severe winds and seas from the south 
 east; these the bay of Santa Monica is entirely exposed to. 
 
 Martin Chester, shipmaster : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 between three and four hundred trips and anchored in roadstead many times. 
 Good holding ground. Never knew of a vessel meeting with any accident 
 on account of poor holding ground. I was master of the first vessel that tied 
 up alongside the old Santa Monica wharf. San Pedro has best anchorage 
 ground and better protection from prevailing winds, etc. In my personal 
 experience as master of different vessels bound for both ports I found that 
 for safety and shelter San Pedro was preferable and more secure. 
 
 Richard Hillyer, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Harbor and 
 Bay hundreds of times. Anchored in roadstead. I have found anchorage 
 good, and it can not be surpassed. Have been acquainted with Santa Monica 
 Bay for many years. San Pedro has better anchorage ground under all cir 
 cumstances than Santa Monica, and has better natural protection from pre 
 vailing winds and swells. Santa Monica has poor holding ground and but little 
 shelter. I dragged my anchors in Santa Monica Bay, and was forced to go 
 back to San Pedro Bay for protection. 
 
 R. P. Rassmussen, master: Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor. 
 Anchored in roadstead twenty times or more. Have found the anchorage 
 good for almost all winds, with hard blue clay for bottom, well adapted for 
 holding ground, with a depth of water of from 5 to 15 fathoms. Am acquainted 
 with Bay of Santa Monica by careful study of charts. In my opinion San 
 Pedro has best anchorage ground and better natural protection from pre 
 vailing winds and swells. San Pedro anchorage, with winds from due west 
 to due south, is perfectly sheltered, while Santa Monica is exposed to both 
 winds and swells between said points. 
 
 E. C. Generaux, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Bay about ten 
 trips. Anchored every trip, save one, in roadstead. Anchorage ground is 
 excellent holding ground. No sudden rise and fall in the bottom and an 
 average depth throughout the whole ground. Have been anchored in several 
 gales and never dragged. Am acquainted with Santa Monica Bay, first from 
 observations from the beach and how vessels anchored in the bay act, and 
 from hearsay from shipmasters that have been there. From experience I 
 know little concerning Santa Monica Bay, but I can plainly see that there is 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 351 
 
 too much water for vessels to anchor safely. Very heavy undertow. San 
 Pedro has best anchorage ground by far, as Santa Monica has too much 
 water and not an even bottom. San Pedro Bay has better protection from 
 prevailing winds and swells, as it is only open to southerly and westerly winds. 
 A vessel will ride a gale in San Pedro better than Santa Monica. 
 
 Walter H. Mackie, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay. 
 Anchored in roadstead. Good holding ground. San Pedro has best anchorage, 
 ground and better protection from prevailing winds and swells than Santa 
 Monica. 
 
 A. C. Glaser, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Harbor and Bay 
 several times. Anchored in roadstead. Good anchorage ground at San 
 Pedro. Am acquainted with Santa Monica Bay. San Pedro has best anchor 
 age ground and better natural protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 San Pedro is a natural harbor. 
 
 Edward Lewis, shipmaster: Have been in San Pedro Bay about ten 
 trips. Anchored in roadstead. San Pedro is the very best holding ground, in 
 my opinion, there is on the Pacific Coast, basing my opinion from the fact 
 of having discharged full cargoes of coal in the outer harbor. San Pedro 
 has better protection from prevailing winds than Santa Monica. The prevailing 
 winds for about ten months in the year come from the westward, and a ship 
 at anchor in San Pedro Bay, being protected by Point Firmin, is safe from 
 the wind and swells. 
 
 J. C. Hansen, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 many times. Have anchored in roadstead many times too numerous to 
 mention. Find from my varied experience that the holding ground at San 
 Pedro is of the very best. In 1876 in Santa Monica Bay I came near losing 
 the schooner Hayes, a new vessel. Had all my lines out, and also many lines 
 furnished by the company, and barely escaped destruction. San Pedro has 
 best anchorage ground and better natural protection from prevailing winds 
 and swells. 
 
 A. P. Carlson, master : Have been in San Pedro Harbor various times and 
 anchored in roadstead. Anchorage ground good. San Pedro has best anchor 
 age ground and better protection from prevailing winds and swells. I have 
 been in Santa Monica and rebuilt the wharf, and during that time I observed 
 it to be a dangerous bay for shipping. Saw the seas break over the wharf 
 at times while a personal observer. 
 
 J. Wiley : Have anchored in roadstead, San Pedro Bay, ten or fifteen 
 times during last year. First-class holding ground ; sheltered from all winds 
 except a southeast wind, which we have three or four times during the winter 
 months. They last only short time. No trouble of a vessel riding if their 
 anchors are clear and have out good scope. Vessels never go to Santa Monica 
 unless they are compelled to. San Pedro has best anchorage ground and bet 
 ter protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 O. Anfindsen, master mariner: Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 six or seven times each year during all seasons. Anchored in roadstead often. 
 While master of the schooner Bobolink, in 1886, anchored there about once a 
 month. Anchorage ground I find excellent, with good shelter from north 
 west and southwest winds and from south and southeast winds. It is in 
 my opinion, better than any harbor south of San Francisco, barring San 
 Diego, and I have been in all of them. Am acquainted with Santa Monica 
 Bay no more than from casual runs up and down the coast. San Pedro has 
 by far the best advantage. Santa Monica is an open ocean and no shelter. 
 San Pedro has the most advantage of a harbor for shipping, it being inclosed 
 by land in a half circle, whereas Santa Monica is exposed to all quarters of 
 the compass, and the undertow there is severe on the ship s ground tackle, 
 which does not exist in the outer road of San Pedro. 
 
 George Dettmer, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Har 
 bor many times. Anchored in roadstead many times. Good holding ground. 
 Have been many times in Santa Monica Bay and its locality. San Pedro has 
 best anchorage ground and has better natural protection from prevailing 
 winds and swells. 
 
 E. W. Sprague, master: Have been running to San Pedro Harbor off and 
 on as master of vessel for twelve years. Always anchored in roadstead every 
 trip. Have found it first-class holding ground and have never known a ves 
 sel to drag anchor there. Am acquainted with bay of Santa Monica to my 
 sorrow. My experience is a heavy westerly swell setting in the year round, 
 
352 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 and westerly wind has full sway, and there is no protection from them. San 
 Pedro has best anchorage ground and better protection from prevailing 
 winds and swells. Westerly winds are the prevailing winds and always a 
 westerly swell, and San Pedro has a protection from them already, and Santa 
 Monica has not, and in my opinion it never can have. Can easily anchor 100 
 ships in outer bay of San Pedro in a westerly gale in perfect safety. 
 
 O. Peterson, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Harbor about one 
 hundred times. Anchored in roadstead many times. Good holding ground. 
 Have been acquainted with Santa Monica Bay since 1878. San Pedro has best 
 anchorage ground and better protection from prevailing winds and swells. 
 
 F. O. Raven, shipmaster: Have been in San Pedro Harbor many times. 
 Anchored in roadstead. Have anchored and lain in all kinds of weather and 
 never dragged my anchors. Have been acquainted with Santa Monica Bay 
 for eighteen years. San Pedro has best anchorage and better protection from 
 prevailing winds. Have lain in Santa Monica Bay with cargo and distributed 
 my cargo with great difficulty. 
 
 Alexander Smith, master mariner and pilot: Have been in San Pedro 
 Bay and Harbor about five hundred times. Anchored in roadstead both light 
 and deep draft. Anchorage ground is very good and will hold a long time if 
 your anchors are clear. Am very well acquainted with Santa Monica Bay. 
 San Pedro has best anchorage ground, and has better natural protection from 
 prevailing winds and swells for three hundred and sixty days in the year. 
 Santa Monica Bay has not good holding ground for any vessel s anchors; the 
 bottom is too hard until you get 14 miles to the southeast of the new Santa 
 Monica wharf. San Pedro Bay is the most eligible location for a deep-water 
 harbor because the half of a natural harbor is there already. 
 
 Claus C. Hansen, master : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 twenty times and more and have anchored in roadstead. It is a very good 
 holding ground. San Pedro has best natural protection from prevailing winds. 
 It is a better protected roadstead from westerly winds, which are most pre 
 vailing. Catalina Island protects some. Do not see any protection for Santa 
 Monica Bay from any islands. 
 
 P. Sonerud, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Harbor 
 between twenty and thirty times and anchored in roadstead. There is a good 
 holding bottom, and I think a vessel can lie perfectly safe in most any kind 
 of s weather. Am acquainted with Santa Monica by study of chart and wind 
 and current setting into that place. San Pedro has best anchorage ground, 
 and better protection from prevailing winds. From my constant trading to 
 San Pedro I have always found it a safe place, and that the outside harbor 
 has a natural protection from the prevailing winds that blow there ; and, further 
 more, never saw any swell setting in to interfere with discharging of deep- 
 water vessels that always lay in the harbor discharging freight. 
 
 R. Johannessen, master mariner : Have been in San Pedro Bay and Har 
 bor about a hundred times. Have anchored in roadstead many times. Anchor 
 age ground there is excellent. Am acquainted with bay of Santa Monica 
 for twenty-three years. San Pedro has best anchorage ground, and better 
 protection from prevailing winds. 
 
 Is there anything in the proposition of Mr. Corthell and others 
 that the Mendell board were ignorant of the situation and would 
 have reached a different conclusion had they been aware that a wharf 
 such as that of the Southern Pacific could be erected and maintained 
 at Port Los Angeles? There is nothing anywhere to justify the 
 assertion. 
 
 I have no doubt from the shipping experience at San Pedro that 
 it would be possible to construct and operate a wharf there extend 
 ing into the roadstead. The constant use of San Pedro Bay for 
 years for shipping uses demonstrates this. 
 
 It is conceded that Mr. Huntington has built a magnificent pier 
 at Port Los Angeles, and that he is able to handle shipping and 
 transact business there. There are sometimes difficulties incident to 
 rough water. Trouble of that kind has been lately experienced. 
 
 It has been said that there never has been an accident at the Santa 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 353 
 
 Monica wharf, and that ships have been wrecked at San Pedro. 
 San Pedro Harbor has been utilized for commercial purposes, as the 
 evidence before us shows, from time out of mind. No doubt in 
 stormy seasons vessels can not at all hours lie there in safety, and 
 there is evidence that there have been wrecks within that harbor. It 
 is admitted that certain vessels have drifted ashore at San Pedro. 
 But during the time that Mr. Huntington s wharf has been in opera 
 tion at Santa Monica there have been no disasters at San Pedro 
 none whatever. It so happens there have been no very serious storms 
 since that structure has been called into existence, and consequently 
 no losses at either place. When the Mendell Board examined this 
 subject they did not content themselves with equivocal language, but 
 they announced their conclusions (page 9 of the Mendell report) 
 thus: 
 
 In view of the fact that San Pedro Bay in its natural condition affords bet 
 ter protection both from prevailing winds and from dangerous storms than 
 Santa Monica Bay; that protection can be secured at less cost for equal devel 
 opment of breakwater at the former than at the latter; that a larger area of 
 protected anchorage from the prevailing westerly swells can be secured, the 
 severe storms from the southeast being infrequent, and that there is already 
 an interior harbor that will be a valuable addition to the outer harbor, the 
 Board considers San Pedro Bay as the better location for the deep-water 
 harbor provided for by the act. 
 
 It was never supposed by Colonel Mendell or anybody else that 
 a wharf would not stand during ordinary weather at the place 
 pointed out by Mr. Huntington and selected by him. No one has 
 ever argued that the storms upon the Southern California coast are 
 severe enough to destroy a well-built pier, unless in exceptional 
 cases. 
 
 It is evident from an inspection of the coast of Santa Monica 
 Bay, where the railroad wharf is located, the westerly swells, admitted 
 to be common and severe, must directly affect Santa Monica Bay. 
 There is nothing to prevent such a swell disturbing the sea behind 
 the breakwater proposed by the majority. The southwesterly swells 
 and the westerly swells are those which mariners fear. It is shown 
 by conclusive proof that, while the wind sometimes blows from the 
 southeast, the swell never proceeds from that direction. The San 
 Pedro breakwater is so designed as to completely intercept westerly 
 and southwesterly swells. The breakwater will cut off the swell 
 completely, and it is therefore a matter of indifference whether there 
 is or is not deep water west of Point Firmin. 
 
 In the immediate neighborhood of the breakwater at San Pedro 
 the water is not extremely deep ; the bottom recedes, proceeding 
 westerly, with considerable rapidity; but Mr. Corthell s diagram por 
 traying the suddenness of the deepening near Point Firmin is not 
 fair. No doubt deep water can be found by proceeding westerly 
 from the point. But if Mr. Corthell will make his soundings south 
 easterly or southerly or toward Catalina Island he will find a gentle 
 slope and better water than exists near Port Los Angeles. 
 
 Such a diagram can be made to show almost anything, depend 
 ing upon the direction selected. 
 
 I have referred several times to the deep-sea matter and have, 
 perhaps, given more attention to the point than it deserves ; but I 
 wish to quote briefly from the report of the Craighill board, showing 
 
354 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE, 
 
 that those gentlemen took the subject into consideration and exam 
 ined it with care. I read from page 6 of the Craighill report, as fol 
 lows : 
 
 HYDROGRAPHY. 
 
 Throughout Santa Monica Bay the depth is very irregular 
 That statement is fully justified by the charts 
 
 Abreast of Santa Monica village there is a depth of 40 fathoms 4 miles 
 off-shore, but off the beach, south of La Ballona, a submarine plateau 4 miles 
 wide extends for 8 miles to the southwest, with depths very uniformly increas 
 ing to 40 fathoms, the bottom being gray sand, mud, and gravel 
 
 This plateau is towards San Pedro from Santa Monica and is 
 not necessarily involved here 
 
 Westward of this plateau, toward Point Dume, the depth increases rap 
 idly to nearly 300 fathoms, carrying 200 fathoms within a mile south of the 
 point, and the bottom is muddy. On the east of this plateau, toward Point 
 Vincente, there is a remarkable submarine valley only i mile wide between 
 the loo-fathom curves, carrying from 280 to 100 fathoms to within I and li 
 miles to the beach, with a muddy bottom. The eastern side of this valley is 
 very steep, dropping from 40 to 200 fathoms in three-eighths of a mile. The 
 western side is more sloping, but the slope from 100 fathoms is very sharp, 
 It has been named by Professor Davidson the Vincente Submarine Valley. 
 Near the southern end of the bay a well-marked current running to the north 
 ward and westward has been observed. 
 
 I refer to this description to prove that the Bay of Santa Monica 
 throughout not merely in one particular^ point, but throughout 
 is irregular, and that the uniform grade or slope is largely the 
 offspring of Mr. Corthell s poetic fancy. The report further pro 
 ceeds : 
 
 The line of 10 fathoms, which may be considered the practical outer limit 
 for breakwater construction, and the line of 5 fathoms, which is the inner 
 limit of the deep-water anchorage, for both Santa Monica and San Pedro 
 bays, are shown on the map accompanying this report. 
 
 And an inspection of the Coast Survey maps will fully sustain 
 everything I have said upon this proposition. 
 In the minority report it is said : 
 
 It is claimed that the proposed breakwater at San Pedro it not protected 
 from southeast gales ; that therefore that locality is not desirable for harbor 
 purposes, and that the land projection which culminates in Point Firmin 
 shelters Santa M onica Bay from these winds. This subject has been care 
 fully considered in the reports already noted, and the conclusion there reached 
 by the gentlemen who examined into the matter was that no danger is to be 
 anticipated from the southeast gales. It may be remarked in this connection 
 that the inner harbor at San Pedro, which it is conceded is perfectly sheltered 
 and upon the surface of which scarcely a ripple is ever observed, is largely 
 exposed to the so-called dangerous southeast gales, and yet the shipping 
 within that inner harbor has never been disturbed thereby. Manifestly, no 
 breakwater can ever protect any harbor from wind; the essential feature in 
 such cases is the guarding against ocean swells. The difficulty in this respect 
 proceeds from the west, and the proposed breakwater at San Pedro will 
 afford complete protection from this peril. A vessel lying within the pro 
 posed San Pedro Harbor with sails unfurled might be disturbed by southeast 
 winds, but naked masts could never present sufficient surface for the serious 
 operation of any wind likely to visit that coast. 
 
 In his letter heretofore mentioned Mr. Corthell says: 
 
 The objection stated by me and others upon this point is that the harbor, 
 not the breakwater, is unprotected from southeast gales, and that the entrance 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 355 
 
 to Wilmington Harbor is entirely unprotected from these gales by the break 
 water as designed, and an examination of the charts of the harbor and of the 
 plan will evidence this to anyone. 
 
 In the report of the Craighill commission (H. R. Ex. Doc. 41, 
 Fifty-second Congress, second session) we have a map, the second 
 in that publication, from which it appears that the proposed break 
 water at San Pedro protects an extended area, including the seven- 
 fathom curve, from winter storms and from the western swells. 
 
 The subject of harbor protection is treated of in that report and 
 the conclusion reached that the smooth surface at San Pedro is much 
 more than that at Santa Monica. I call attention specifically to this 
 matter, and invite study of the contrasts. 
 
 For the purpose of comparison 
 Says Craighill, page 17 
 
 the anchorage areas for the Santa Monica harbors are assumed to be the 
 areas included within the breakwaters, the lines drawn through their ends 
 normal to the shore, and the 6- foot contour; and for the San Pedro Harbor 
 the area included between the breakwater, the line drawn from the end of 
 the breakwater to D-eadman s Island, and the 6-foot contour. The deep-water 
 anchorage is assumed to be the area over which there is a depth of at least 
 30 feet; the remaining area will be referred to as the inner anchorage. 
 
 I will ask the Secretary to read, beginning with the last para 
 graph on page 17, down to the end of page 18 of the pamphlet which 
 I send to the desk. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HILL in the chair). With 
 out objection, the Secretary will read as requested. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows : 
 
 ADVANTAGES FOR SHELTER AND FOR HANDLING FREIGHT. 
 
 For the purposes of comparison, the anchorage areas for the Santa Monica 
 harbors are assumed to be the areas included within the breakwaters, the 
 lines drawn through their ends normal to the shore, and the 6- foot contour; 
 and for the San Pedro Harbor the area included between the breakwater, 
 the line drawn from the end of the breakwater to Deadmans Island, and the 
 6-foot contour. The deep-water anchorage is assumed to be the area over 
 which there is a depth of at least 30 feet; the remaining area will be referred 
 to as the inner anchorage. 
 
 The total anchorage area at the San Pedro Harbor is 1,187 acres. This 
 includes the area in Wilmington Harbor. The deep-water area is 339 acres 
 and the inner anchorage 846 acres. The harbor at Santa Monica village has 
 a total anchorage area of 1,078 acres. The deep-water area is 602 acres 
 and the inner anchorage 476 acres. The harbor above Santa Monica Canyon 
 has a total anchorage area of 994 acres. The deep-water area is 479 acres and 
 the inner anchorage 515 acres. In the Santa Monica harbors the inner anchor 
 age will be very much diminished by the wharves, which must extend com 
 pletely across it to reach deep water. This is not the case to the same extent 
 in the San Pedro Harbor. 
 
 To compare the exposures, it is assumed that so much of the anchorage 
 area as lies north of southeast and southwest lines drawn through the ends 
 of the breakwaters is not fully covered from the heavy swells. The harbor 
 at San Pedro has a protected area of 852 acres and an unprotected area of 
 335 acres. The harbor at Santa Monica village has a protected area of 209 
 acres and an unprotected area of 869 acres. The harbor above Santa Monica 
 Canyon has a protected area of 221 acres and an unprotected area of 773 acres. 
 
 The harbor above Santa MJonica Canyon, within the anchorage limits 
 assumed, has a land frontage 8,000 feet in length available for the construction 
 of wharves. The harbor at Santa Monica village has a similar land frontage 
 8,000 feet in length. In the harbor first mentioned, however, the land approach 
 
356 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 to the wharves is narrow and not capable of extension except at great expense, 
 and there is no available place for the construction of interior basins. The 
 conformation of the ground is such that free access to the landing facilities of 
 the harbor would not be easily attainable by all parties engaged in the business 
 of land transportation. 
 
 At Santa Monica village, on the other hand, the approaches from the land 
 are more open, and at La Ballona an interior basin could be readily formed. 
 At San Pedro there is a land frontage of 4,300 feet in the outer harbor with 
 out including the inner line of the breakwater. Since the breakwater is con 
 nected with the shore, a railway can be constructed along it, and wharves 
 can be readily projected from its inner face. This advantage would be sac 
 rificed if a western entrance were established. This gives for the outer har 
 bor an additional frontage of 8,000 feet and a total frontage of 12,300 feet. 
 The frontage of the inner harbor is about 4 miles long. The total frontage 
 for the whole harbor is therefore 33,420 feet, or about 65 miles. The approaches 
 are good, as they include both sides of the harbor, and Wilmington harbor 
 forms a magnificent interior basin. 
 
 In every harbor a portion of the area must be more or less exposed, owing 
 to the necessity of providing convenient communication with the sea. In a 
 port of commerce it is of great importance that the harbor should be so 
 located and designed that the landing facilities should be established in the 
 most sheltered part. In the Santa Monica harbors this imperative condition 
 is entirely neglected, the landing facilities being necessarily situated entirely 
 within the exposed area. As a consequence of this the wharves will not be 
 well protected during storms, and small vessels will crowd the quiet spaces 
 of the deep-water anchorage. At the San Pedro Harbor the landing facilities 
 are situated within the unexposed area, and small vessels will find their best 
 shelter in bad weather within the inner harbor. 
 
 The deep-water anchorage area is amply sufficient in all the harbors and 
 can in all be readily extended in the future. In the San Pedro Harbor the 
 landing facilities can be greatly extended within the inner harbor without 
 any addition to the outer breakwater. This is not the case in the Santa 
 Monica harbors. 
 
 In all the harbors the holding ground is good. Some doubts have been 
 expressed with regard to the character of the holding ground at San Pedro, 
 but after diligent inquiry the board is satisfied that it is as good in this loca 
 tion as in the others. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. The Senate will observe, therefore, that the 
 Craighill board, perhaps to a greater extent and more carefully than 
 that presided over by Colonel Mendell, took into consideration the 
 relative value of the protection afforded by each plan of harbor con 
 struction, and concluded, in direct antagonism to the opinions of the 
 Southern Pacific engineers, that the San Pedro project would afford 
 more extended safe anchorage facilities. 
 
 It is said, and this is one of the favorite arguments of the major 
 ity of the committee, that running a line directly from Point Vincente 
 to Point Dume there will be a water inclosure extending- landward 
 from the center of such line 12 miles, whereas San Pedro Bay, accord 
 ing to Mr. Corthell s first statement before the Commerce Committee, 
 in 1894, when similarly examined, manifests only 65/2 miles. This 
 may reasonably be said to be an advantage, as far as it goes, favoring 
 Santa Monica. But this circumstance was considered by the boards 
 mentioned, and was not deemed vital or controlling. 
 
 You will observe upon the photograph of the Santa Monica 
 shore, which is upon the blackboard, the real character of that so- 
 called bay. It is nothing but an open roadstead; there is a 1 2-mile 
 indentation, and it must be between 30 and 40 miles from Vincente 
 to Dume, and looking from the shore out to the ocean the exposure 
 is absolute ; the waves roll in, as appearing upon the photograph, 
 comparatively uninterrupted. There is but slight evidence of an 
 actual bay in this case. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 357 
 
 The wharf of the Southern Pacific Company, around which we 
 are asked to place this government protection, is located in Santa 
 Monica Bay, as shown on the photograph, and northerly and west 
 erly of the town of Santa Monica. In my judgment the Mendell 
 board was correct in saying that the very best site to be found in 
 Santa Monica Bay was nearly opposite the town of that name. There 
 the bluff is not remarkable. It recedes as we go east and south, until 
 at South Santa Monica there is no precipice and the favorable condi 
 tions spoken of by Colonel Mendell can there be found. If we are 
 to have a harbor in Santa Monica Bay this is the proper location. 
 But such a work would be most accessible. The proprietors of the 
 wharf which we are about, to protect preferred a different spot, less 
 open to intrusion and not as readily subject to competition. 
 
 In the testimony taken before the Commerce Committee it is 
 said that there is ample room along the shore of the ocean from 
 Santa Monica to the wharf for ten or twelve railroad tracks. The 
 Santa Monica shore from the wharf to the town is an ordinary sea- 
 beach. The waves roll over it not tempestuously, but in a manner 
 usual on the Southern California coast. Thousands from the city of 
 Los Angeles visit this region for the purpose of seaside bathing. 
 Santa Monica itself a very delightful town and growing in seaside 
 importance is in the immediate vicinity of the most favored bath 
 ing spot. There are extensive and finely constructed bath houses, 
 occupied and used in the summer, indeed, to some extent throughout 
 the whole year, but principally in the summer, by anxious crowds 
 coming from the city of Los Angeles and the interior. These people 
 resort to the sea for objects of health and diversion. The presence 
 of one railroad track within the municipality of Santa Monica and 
 upon the seabeach is a positive disadvantage. Any person walking 
 along the bluff, at the foot of which the railroad runs, while a loco 
 motive is passing, will find the cinders excessively disagreeable ; and 
 while there is yet sufficient space between the bluff and the shore to 
 enable the ordinary pursuits of pleasure which accompany diversions 
 at the seaside, yet if there are to be additional tracks laid along that 
 shore, if railroad freight and passenger traffic is to be carried on there 
 by several railroads, the locality will cease to be available for present 
 uses. 
 
 The question as to how many tracks may be placed along that 
 shore is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the board of trus 
 tees. No condemnation proceedings can procure a right of way 
 along the ocean within the town limits until after an affirmative vote 
 of the board of trustees. I assume that that board will properly 
 discharge its duties and will not permit the extension of that which is 
 already a nuisance. 
 
 But it is contended that the proposed harbor can be reached by 
 means of Santa Monica Canyon. It is possible, and I think practi 
 cable, to obtain a grade through the Santa Monica Canyon. But 
 the route is circuitous, and a road thus built would be longer than 
 that of the Southern Pacific Company. But when the shore is 
 reached the expense will have but begun. 
 
 If we assume that the breakwater designed by the Southern 
 Pacific engineers would be sufficient and adequate to protect an area 
 great enough to permit the erection of two or three large wharves as 
 proposed, nevertheless the expense is almost prohibitory. It will cost 
 
358 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 at least three-quarters of a million dollars, and probably more, to build 
 a wharf, to say nothing of the right of way and other difficulties of 
 access. Now, it is proposed in this bill that the Southern Pacific 
 Company shall give the use of their tracks upon this wharf to any 
 railway that will pay a sufficient pro rata proportion of the cost thereof, 
 to be fixed by the Secretary of War. There is now but one track and 
 one wharf. If the business grows to the magnitude expected, these 
 will never suffice. If it does not grow to that magnitude, then there is 
 no justification at all for the proposed expenditure. Mr. Huntington 
 will not make any foolish trades. His road will have an advantage at 
 Port Los Angeles that no other road can enjoy. 
 
 At San Pedro, as shown in the report of the engineers, not only 
 is the Southern Pacific already on the water front, but there is also a 
 competing railroad upon the other side of the inner harbor, and while 
 the latter would not be directly connected with the outer harbor, still 
 the proximity is such that there could be no difficulty in the transfer 
 ence of shipping from one point to the other, especially if the inner 
 harbor be deepened under the Benyaurd project. 
 
 It is said that the bluff near San Pedro, some 60 feet in height, 
 presents insuperable obstacles to reaching the shore. I do not think 
 it will be necessary for the purposes of commerce for years to come to 
 build piers in any outer harbor on our coast. The inner anchorage 
 will suffice; but, assuming that the demands of trade require such 
 harbor to be reached from shore, there is no difficulty in making a 
 grade, as the Southern Pacific did to the wharf which it commenced to 
 build and afterwards abandoned at San Pedro, and thus reaching the 
 shore. Colonel Craighill says in his report, and all of his colleagues 
 agree with him, that the breakwater itself could be utilized for railroad 
 tracks, thus using the interior of the bay right along the line of the 
 breakwater for slips. This, Mr. Corthell says, is impossible. He takes 
 Issue with the engineers upon this proposition. I will quote his lan 
 guage. He says : 
 
 Considering the location of this proposed breakwater immediately under 
 a verticle bluff, in the open ocean and the impracticability, as shown by the 
 physical facts, of building a railroad track under the bluff in the protected 
 harbor, it is difficult to see how the top of this dike could be made accessible 
 to railroads, and I think I am safe in saying that on a dike 10 feet above the 
 surface of the water, or even 20 feet above the surface of the water, in such 
 an exposed location a railroad could not be operated, or even maintained 
 upon it, on account of the waves during heavy storms, at least, coming over 
 the top of the breakwater, not only making the track unavailable, but also 
 throwing masses of water upon the wharves placed under it. I have made 
 no estimates of the cost of a breakwater at this place that would admit of the 
 operation of a track upon it and of wharves behind it, but I should think it 
 would cost twice, perhaps three times, as much as the breakwater shown on 
 the plans of the Government engineers. 
 
 The Craighill board is positively to the contrary. 
 Since the breakwater 
 They say 
 
 is connected with the shore, a railway can be constructed along it, and 
 wharves can be readily projected from its inner face. This advantage would 
 be sacrificed if a western entrance were established. 
 
 At the hearings Colonel Hains, who was a member of the board, 
 gave an opinion of a similar character. He says : 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 359 
 
 There is another thing in regard to the continuing breakwater. The first 
 board recommended two breakwaters, with a gap. I do not think that there 
 is any trouble about the filling in with sand, which some people apprehend, 
 from the deposits along the shore. If the breakwater is continuous with the 
 shore, it enables a protected area on the inside of this breakwater to be used 
 for docks and that sort of thing. Often the inside breakwaters are used for 
 docks and landings. 
 
 The breakwater at San Pedro can be approached by a cut. It is 
 true the Southern Pacific Company claims to own land there. A con 
 siderable part of the property on the San Pedro bluff is controlled by 
 that company ; not all of it, however. The Government owns a reser 
 vation there, and private parties have holdings. However, condemna 
 tion proceedings properly conducted will remedy this trouble. The 
 building of a track upon the breakwater will depend upon the demands 
 of business. If the exigencies of the case warranted, a track would be 
 laid upon the dike, and would afford superior facilities for harbor 
 access. It hence appears that there is an available method of reaching 
 an outer harbor at San Pedro preferable to anything at Santa Monica. 
 Of course, at San Pedro wharves might be built into the sea, but such 
 a programme would be attended with the expense of which I complain. 
 For years to come there will be ample room in the inner harbor, when 
 improved, for our commerce ; and the San Pedro deep-sea area will 
 accommodate vessels at anchor awaiting an opportunity to discharge. 
 Mr. President, there is another criticism to which I deem it wise 
 to reply. I refer to Mr. Corthell s theory of the littoral current which 
 moves sand in a northerly direction along the coast. He avers that 
 the effect of the breakwater, constructed as proposed by the Craighill 
 board, would be to detain a large amount of these sands near the shore 
 and gradually destroy the harbor, or make it necessary to dredge exten 
 sively. Perhaps some little accumulation might occur. If so, it could 
 be readily removed. Nowadays a reasonable amount of harbor dredg 
 ing is an attendant upon nearly all public work of this character. One 
 of the few exceptions is afforded by the Wilmington inner harbor, 
 which has, ever since governmental improvement, always kept 
 itself clear. But both Major Raymond and Colonel Hains are 
 positive that no danger is to be apprehended from any sand deposit. 
 Tney have studied the question carefully ; it is considered in the reports 
 from which I have quoted. All the Government experts rest their 
 reputations as experts upon the proposition that no serious harm will 
 accrue. Mr. Corthell, in the communication with which he has hon 
 ored me though delivery of the same was omitted informs us that 
 there are known instances of moving sands impelled by littoral cur 
 rents upon the Pacific Coast. He tells me that I am acquainted with the 
 condition of affairs at San Diego Bay, and that I must be aware that 
 at the point where a jetty is now under process of construction at the 
 entrance to that bay sand accumulates. 
 
 This statement is true, but the movement of sand particles there is 
 manifestly attributable to the rush of water into the bay caused by the 
 tidal rise. The torrent flowing with wonderful power in or out of the 
 narrow harbor entrance is a sight worth witnessing. This naturally 
 disturbs the sand and the inward current tends to accumulate the 
 material below the jetty rapidly and obviously. I attracted the atten 
 tion of Mr. Corthell to the fact that a ship laden with coal some years 
 ago was wrecked at San Pedro ; and that a large quantity of the coal 
 was picked up afterwards south of that point, at the town of Long 
 
360 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Beach. I asked him how he accounted for that consistently with his 
 theory. He gave the explanation which I shall read, which, I must 
 confess, does not seem to me to be entirely conclusive. The following 
 is the statement: 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. Before you reach that, I want to say a 
 word. I remember the circumstance of a vessel loaded with coal being 
 wrecked in the neighborhood of San Pedro and sinking there, and a good deal 
 of that coal was picked up on Long Beach. Long Beach is located southerly 
 from San Pedro? 
 
 Mr. CORTHELL. Yes. 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. If the shore currents are northerly, how do 
 you account for the coal being carried to Long Beach? 
 
 Mr. CGRTHELL. I had a memorandum made to explain that. That fact was 
 called to my attention, and I will give you the reason for it. As I said to 
 Senator NELSON, there are occasional southwestern swells so great that they 
 may reverse the current for the time being, and they would move obstacles on 
 the bottom. The current does not move coal; it moves fine particles of sand. 
 What moved that coal across the bay was this : These lines here [indicating on 
 the diagram] are kelp, which indicate rocky areas. That coal dropped on the 
 rocky bottom, was affected by the heavy waves, and it simply drifted over the 
 bottom and across it until it struck Long Beach and was thrown upon it by the 
 waves. 
 
 Mr. President, in the first place southwesterly swells are not 
 uncommon ; the westerly is the regular swell incident to that coast ; 
 and here we have a statement that this discriminating current, alluded 
 to by Mr. Corthell, does not move coal, while it moves fine particles of 
 sand ! This littoral current will not move coal, but it will move fine 
 particles of sand. We reach the remarkable conclusion that coal drifts 
 south and sand goes north ; that one is moved by a current which influ 
 ences coal, and the other by a current influencing sand ! 
 
 Mr. President, it is a matter of fact, notorious upon that coast, 
 that objects frequently float southerly. In two or three cases where 
 persons lost their lives by drowning the remains were picked up south 
 of the scene of disaster. It may be said that this was only an occasional 
 manifestation, but that it was not the rule, that the current usually 
 tends in the other direction. But no such deduction is authorized. But 
 if there were any danger of the accumulation of sand at Point Firmin, 
 inside this breakwater, how is it that there is at that place today a 
 naked bluff? How is it that there is no sand spit? How is it that 
 there are no sand dunes, no accumulations around Point Firmin indi 
 cating the tendency claimed? If the sand drifts, as stated by this 
 expert, northerly, it would naturally be detained in the neighborhood 
 of Point Firmin, and would certainly extend to that point. Right here 
 I may remark perhaps I should have said it in connection with 
 another point there there are no severe storms beating against Point 
 Firmin. The unworn base of the bluff proves this. The material is 
 comparatively soft and could not resist heavy waves. The unscathed 
 shores disposes of the pretense that San Pedro Bay is a storm center. 
 
 Mr. President, the inner harbor at San Pedro is exposed to these 
 so-called terrible southeasterly tempests. The land lying upon both 
 sides of the inner harbor is almost level. There is nothing to prevent 
 winds sweeping across the inner harbor ; and yet no one ever heard of 
 a vessel within its confines being harmed by any storm from any quar 
 ter. The swell which does injury, which strains chains, which divorces 
 the anchor from the ship, comes from the west ; the southeast wind, 
 seldom serious even in connection with the swell, must be harmless 
 without it. 
 
SPEECHES OP STEPHEN M. WHITE. 361 
 
 Mr. President, in opening this argument I said that it was prob 
 lematical whether the proposed structure at Santa Monica would ever 
 be of much protective value. In support of my assertion I have the 
 testimony of Major Raymond, who was examined before the com 
 mittee. He made the following comments in this connection. It is of 
 importance and I direct the attention of the Senate to it : 
 
 Major RAYMOND. I can state generally what were the essential differences 
 which we thought were in favor of San Pedro as a location, as compared with 
 location farther up the coast. To my own mind, as I remember it now, the 
 extension of the present harbor of San Pedro and the improvements there, at an 
 inconsiderable expense to the Government, made a rather remarkable impression. 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. In what respect? 
 
 Major RAYMOND. Because jetty improvements of that kind have not, as a 
 rule, been successful in this country. The depth of water at San Pedro was 
 increased from 2 or 3 feet the original depth to about 14 feet at mean low 
 water. The thing that made it especially interesting to me was the examina 
 tion of the changed front in the inner harbor, which was so trifling as com 
 pared with the other places on the Atlantic coast. All the phenomena seemed 
 to me less marked than any other place where I have been in practice. The 
 shoaling was slow there. The tide is about 5 feet, I think. That there should 
 be a jetty harbor of that kind so successful, and that the depth of water should 
 be so increased, and that the problem should be so simply solved, was a matter 
 of very great interest to me. I could see that the inner basin, the inner 
 harbor, the inner anchorage, could be extended very readily without difficulty; 
 and that was a feature in the future improvement which was very advantageous. 
 
 The inner anchorage is a very important thing, especially in time of war, 
 Torpedo boats can run into the inner harbor, protected from the fire of the 
 enemy. That was the thing most advantageous. When we came to examine 
 the problem, step by step, we did not find any point in which the other loca 
 tion seemed superior to San Pedro, and we found several points in which 
 we thought San Pedro superior to the other location. My own opinion is 
 that a breakwater harbor, such as that proposed at Santa Monica, parallel 
 to a nearly rectilinear shore, is fatal. I do not know of any place where there 
 is an exactly similar harbor, and I can not conceive a place where I would 
 be willing to construct it where the outlying breakwater is parallel to the 
 shore, as in this case. 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. What are the cardinal defects in that kind 
 of a harbor? 
 
 Major RAYMOND. Generally speaking, the accessibility would be very good 
 for a harbor of that kind, but the main defect in such a harbor is that the 
 landing facilities are in the most exposed part of the harbor. Generally, 
 motions of the waves are deflected by the ends of the breakwater, and the 
 disturbance is generally created in the parts of the harbor farthest from the 
 points of deflection. I do not remember that kind of a harbor in any place. 
 
 Afterwards, Colonel Hains, who was examined upon the same 
 topic, thought that the wharves proposed by the Southern Pacific to be 
 erected could be protected by the breakwater. I will read his statement 
 in that respect : 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. What do you think of the feasibility of such 
 a harbor as that designed at Santa Monica? 
 
 Colonel HAINS. In what respect? 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. Would it be a success? 
 
 Colonel HAINS. Do you mean the breakwater? 
 
 Senator WHITE, of California. Yes. 
 
 Colonel HAINS. I think that this breakwater there would protect these 
 wharves [indicating on the map.] I do not think they need much protection. 
 The fact that they use these wharves so much without a breakwater is pretty 
 good evidence that they need very little protection from the outside. I think 
 that a breakwater made of plank would accomplish the purpose. 
 
 If there were severe storms I presume it would be admitted that 
 a breakwater of plank would not be very desirable, or there would be 
 24 
 
362 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 no excuse for this application for a three-million-dollar appropriation. 
 
 Colonel Hains thinks the wharves designed would probably be 
 protected by a breakwater. But his declaration shows that he does not 
 anticipate gales. 
 
 Major Raymond, who has had more experience in breakwater 
 construction than anyone who was before us, is of the opinion that the 
 proposed appropriation would not accomplish its purpose, and says 
 that he would not be willing to undertake the work. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, we are here, I presume, to enact a law pro 
 viding for an appropriation to be expended for some useful purpose 
 and under conditions giving reasonable assurances of success. We 
 are not here to experiment. Colonel Hains says, in speaking of the 
 character of the Port Los Angeles breakwater I read from page 30: 
 
 I do not think that a breakwater parallel with the coast is as good as one 
 which connects with the shore, but it might accomplish the purpose. 
 
 Shall we engage in the business of constructing a harbor at a con 
 demned place upon an uncertainty as to the result? Shall we spend 
 this money upon a spot regarding which the testimony is at least con 
 flicting, and concerning which our accredited engineer, who has had 
 great special experience, expresses an adverse opinion? Is it proper 
 thus to risk public moneys? 
 
 There are a. number of incidental matters which I do not care to 
 allude to now, but which may be mentioned hereafter. However, I will 
 mention one. Commander Taylor, of the United States Navy, was 
 engaged for some time in coast and geodetic survey upon the Pacific. 
 His views were placed before the board of engineers at Los Angeles, 
 and Mr. Corthell and members of the majority of the Commerce Com 
 mittee rely not a little upon his opinions. He strongly favors Santa 
 Monica. A memorandum of his theories and experiences was called 
 to the attention of the Craighill board by Mr. Hood, who seemed to be 
 advised concerning the same. That document is the strongest part of 
 the Santa Monica presentation, and as I am endeavoring to state this 
 W 7 hole case without reservation, I will ask that it be read, and will fol 
 low it with a statement by Professor Davidson upon the other side of 
 the matter. I refer to page 109 of the executive document from which 
 I have already made several extracts. I ask that the same be read at 
 the desk. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FAULKNER in the chair). 
 The Secretary will read as requested. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows : 
 
 MEMORANDUM REGARDING A BREAKWATER AT SANTA MONICA. 
 
 For many years the need for a harbor at Santa Monica has been apparent. 
 Southern California is separated from the rest of the State by mountain sys 
 tems and needs a port as an outlet for its products. The center of the busi 
 ness activity of Southern California is Los Angeles. This city has gr.-.wn to 
 be too great to let it be anticipated that that center will be changed. Indeed, 
 the fertile plain and the adjacent valleys of which it is now the depot would 
 require such a port if Los Angeles were not there. 
 
 San Diego, whatever its qualities as a seaport, is too far to the south ; it has 
 practically no back country of sufficient importance to justify a great sea 
 port. To the east and southeast is the peninsula of Lower California, and 
 farther in that direction lie the northern provinces of Mexico. But the ports 
 of the Gulf of California will intercept traffic from that direction. To the 
 north and northeast is a country of great productiveness, but that country 
 is nearer to Los Angeles as a depot, and will find its outlet to the sea near 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 363 
 
 that city. As to the harbor of San Diego, it may be said (as of all harbors) 
 that it is not entirely satisfactory. San Francisco itself, which ranks as the 
 greatest of bar harbors, is dangerous to enter after long-continued stormy 
 weather. From Puget Sound to Magdalena Bay, Mexico, few harbors exist, 
 and none of great convenience. It is natural, therefore, that San Diego Har 
 bor should be regarded of value on account of the great scarcity of harbors 
 on the coast. It is not denied that it could be improved and its bar perhaps 
 removed. The situation there is favorable to certain classes of engineering 
 work, but the object of such work is not apparent when the position is not 
 the natural sea outlet of an important tract of country. 
 
 A creek makes into the land at Wilmington and San Pedro, affording a 
 shelter to small vessels, and expensive improvements have been carried on for 
 several years by the army engineers, which have slightly benefited it, but, 
 at the best that can be hoped, it can never have the accommodations of a 
 great harbor. A breakwater to include sufficient area of shelter could be 
 built, but it would include some shoals and rocks inside of it, and would also 
 receive whatever discharge of sediment there would be from the creek. This 
 creek was used in the beginning by schooners and small craft, which were suf 
 ficient for the trade of the then unsettled country. The circumstances of its 
 location, favorable for such craft, are unfavorable for the formation of a great 
 seaport such as the commerce of Southern California now demands. 
 
 We come now to that locality which appears specially to be favored by 
 nature, Santa Monica. 
 
 The bay of Santa Monica is, in its combination of natural features, unique 
 on the Pacific Coast. Here the depth of water increases from the beach out 
 ward with an ease and gradual slope for several miles. Here a breakwater 
 can be established to inclose and shelter a capacious harbor, without being 
 in water so deep as to make its construction impracticable or even difficult. 
 
 The marked feature of the Pacific Coast is the steep slope of the bottom 
 as we move from shore to seaward. This rule has few exceptions, and it 
 results that along the entire coast a breakwater to inclose a sufficient sheltered 
 area would have to be placed in such deep water as to be impossible of con 
 struction. 
 
 Among the few exceptions is the bay of Santa Monica. It is a remarkable 
 coincidence that the coast line in a deep curve here approaches nearer than 
 at any other point to Los Angeles and to the fertile region of which it is the 
 depot. 
 
 The bay of Santa Monica has, along most of its shore line, this quality of 
 gradual deepening of the water, the bay of itself being occupied by a subma 
 rine plateau unique upon the Pacific Coast. But certain portions of the shore 
 line of the bay have other advantages in addition. The town of Santa Monica 
 is situated at a point on the shore near a neighboring range of mountains 
 against or toward which blow the only winds of violence. The force of the 
 wind blowing against a great barrier is deadened for some distance to wind 
 ward of such barrier, and this probably accounts for the well-known fact 
 that the winds at Santa Monica do not blow with violence. The swell which 
 rolls in at this anchorage is much modified, even in the worst weather, by the 
 effect of the large islands to seaward and by the deep recessed position of 
 this portion of the bay shore. 
 
 I have had considerable experience in this bay while conducting the surveys 
 carried on there, and have laid at anchor through all seasons of the year, at 
 and near Santa Monica, on the Government vessel which I commanded. I 
 have never seen any weather in which a vessel could not ride at her anchors 
 there in safety, and but few occasions when unloading at a wharf was imprac 
 ticable. 
 
 If Southern California needs a port, I am confident that Santa Monica is 
 the only practicable place to construct such a port, and that Southern California 
 does urgently need a port there can be no longer any question. The mountain 
 ranges intervening between the central and southern parts of the State are of 
 so "difficult a character for railroads that the hauling of freight across 
 these mountains is very expensive, and the products of the southern section 
 of the State have now become so numerous and important that the construction 
 of a proper harbor in Southern California can not longer be neglected. Also 
 we have to regard Los Angeles no longer as a way station, but as a truly 
 terminal point for several systems of railroads now built or to be built. With 
 such a port close to the suburbs of Los Angeles, she would possess a most 
 
364 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE 
 
 attractive route for the transportation of products from the other side of 
 the Pacific to her own vicinity, and thence across the continent. 
 
 Is a breakwater at Santa Monica practicable, convenient, economical? 
 
 Having had, some years ago, the opinion of an able and experienced civil 
 engineer as to the amount and quality of rock to be obtained in the hills 
 abreast of the end of this breakwater, after his personal examination, made 
 at my request, I am justified by the opinion in taking for granted a plentiful 
 supply of good rock at that point. With this basis of supply close at hand, 
 I would propose a breakwater in 40 feet depth of water, 3,000 yards long, in 
 a straight line parallel to the shore, or with a slight angle at the center of 
 the line, the angle being convex to seaward, as shown on the chart submitted 
 in blue. A section of it is shown on accompanying sheet. It would be 45 
 feet high, 20 feet across the top, 225 feet across the bottom. Its inner face 
 would have the natural slope of dumped rock, its seaward face would be 
 extended until its profile would be a modified form of that at Plymouth, Eng 
 land. This cross section would contain 677 square yards, and the whole 
 breakwater, 3,000 yards long, would contain 2,021,000 cubic yards. I have 
 taken as a basis of cost the prices at which contractors have successfully 
 delivered stone at the breakwater now building by the United States engineers 
 at Rockport, Mass., being an average for two years of 65 cents per ton, or allow 
 ing 2 tons per cubic yard, $1.30 per cubic yard. The difficulty and expense are, 
 however, much greater in delivering rock there than they would be at Santa 
 Monica. At the latter the hills which contain the rock are at a distance of 
 only 2,300 yards, across water of moderate depths, to the nearest end of the 
 breakwater. A tramway on piles can be constructed easily and cheaply to 
 connect the two, and the quarries can be located in the hills at an elevation 
 sufficient to cause gravity to move the loaded cars down, and bring back by 
 their weight the empty cars. It is reasonable, therefore, to regard this esti 
 mate of $1.30 per cubic yard as being largely in excess of the probable cost. 
 I have, however, added to this amount 33! per cent, to cover the installation 
 of working plant, the opening of quarry, the building of tramway, and all 
 contingencies, as follows: 
 
 To excavate 2,100,000 cubic yards and deliver same in place, at $1.30 
 
 per cubic yard $2,730,000 
 
 To install plant, etc., and for all contingencies, 33 J per cent 910,000 
 
 Total $3,640,000 
 
 It is my belief that this sum is much in excess, and that a breakwater can 
 built for $2,500,000. 
 
 I will mention here that a smaller breakwater could be placed in 30 feet 
 depth of water, 2,000 yards long, and of similar though smaller section than 
 the above, at a cost of $1,800,000, and would afford a good shelter. It would 
 not, however, possess the qualities of a great port, either in itself or in its 
 powers of expansion for future needs, and it is a great port which Southern 
 California now demands for its growing trade. 
 
 Under the shelter of 3.000 yards breakwater, with wharves properly planned 
 and constructed, 130 ships of 300 feet length could lie alongside the wharves 
 and leave space there and in the anchorage ground between them and the 
 breakwater for 200 more vessels of various sizes. A breakwater 2,000 yards long 
 in 30 feet depth of water would form an excellent shelter, but I would recom 
 mend one 3,000 yards long in 40 feet depth of water as the wiser project of 
 the two. It would in fact, be a perfect project, leaving nothing to be chanced. 
 In this depth a breakwater will be as distant from shore as will ever be neces 
 sary. Greater area of shelter, when desired, may be secured by extensions of 
 the breakwater on its own line parallel to the shore. 
 
 Finally, I submit a plan of such breakwater, shown in b|ue print on the 
 chart. I submit also a section of same, showing details of proposed construc 
 tion. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 H. C. TAYLOR. 
 
 NOTE The drawings, etc., referred to by Commander Taylor have been 
 mislaid, the foregoing memorandum having been written several years ago. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have had this document read because it has been 
 relied upon with confidence by the advocates of Santa Monica, and 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 365 
 
 although it does not in any manner sustain any claim to superiority 
 on the part of the site upon which the Southern Pacific Company has 
 made its pier, I presume that Taylor had reference to a harbor opposite 
 the town. But there is an air of partisanship about Lieutenant Tay 
 lor s statement which I do not quite understand. For instance, he 
 refers to an improvement at the inner harbor at San Pedro as being 
 slightly beneficial, for he says: 
 
 A creek makes into the land at Wilmington and San Pedro, affording a 
 shelter to small vessels, and expensive improvements have been carried on for 
 several years by the Army engineers, which have slightly benefited it. 
 
 The engineer s report is that the benefit has not been slight, but 
 that it has been remarkable. There has been an increase of depth 
 from 2 to 14 feet at low tide and an 1 8- foot low tide depth is antici 
 pated. Then Lieutenant Taylor refers to the discharge of sediment 
 from Wilmington Creek. There is no sedimentary discharge of an 
 injurious kind. No deposits on the bar or outside can be found. I 
 must say that Lieutenant Taylor seems to be a special advocate. His 
 figures are peculiar, his calculations unique. I am quite willing that 
 his expressions shall be read side by side with those of General Craig- 
 hill s board. 
 
 But if there is any man upon the Pacific Coast who is thoroughly 
 familiar with all topics pertaining to hydrography and who has given 
 to Pacific harbor work the patient toil of almost a lifetime, that man is 
 Prof. George Davidson, a gentleman of great attainments and sterling 
 worth. His views of Santa Monica Bay I wish to put before the Sen 
 ate. No more valuable expert opinion can be found in the United 
 States or elsewhere, for that matter. I ask that the Secretary read the 
 memorandum commencing on page 124, Executive Document 41. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. I suggest to my colleague that he state that 
 Professor Davidson has had charge of the Coast and Geodetic Survey 
 on the Pacific Coast for forty years. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. He is author of the Coast Pilot, and is the best 
 living authority on nautical matters relating to the hydrography of the 
 ocean and coast that there is on the Pacific Coast. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I desire to say further that during the hearings 
 I requested Mr. Corthell to state whether in his opinion Professor 
 Davidson was not an authority upon these matters, and he responded 
 by saying that he had great regard for him. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as 
 requested, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. 
 
 The SECRETARY read as follows: 
 
 MEMORANDUM BY PROF. GEORGE DAVIDSON, UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC 
 
 SURVEY. 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO, September 7, 1892. 
 
 My experience begins with June, 1852, when the disabled steamer California 
 anchored in San Pedro Bay. The navy-yard commission was on board of her, 
 and to prevent great delay the members were carried to San Francisco by the 
 United States Coast Survey steamer Active. 
 
 I mention this merely because the Active was then transporting me for the 
 chronometer determinations of the longitude of all southern points with San 
 Francisco. Before this incident, and afterwards, my duties compelled me to 
 land through the surf at all the exposed stations on the main shore and the 
 Santa Barbara Islands. And this bears upon the following statement: 
 
366 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 In December, 1852, after selecting a base line, I was waiting for a steamer 
 at the old adobe of San Pedro. The brig Fremont was at anchor off San Pedro, 
 and rode out a strong southeast gale of two or three days duration. (See Coast 
 Pilot, 1889, pages 38 and 40.) The judgment there expressed is that formed 
 from my own experience through subsequent years, the experience of Coast 
 Survey officers, naval and civilian, and of captains whom I have known to be 
 familiar with the place. 
 
 At the time of the Fremont s riding out the gale I had no doubt that I could 
 have landed on the beach in a well-manned boat from the Fremont. 
 
 I have learned no facts to weaken my judgment expressed in the Coast 
 Pilot. Vessels that have dragged into danger and they have been remarkably 
 few in the last forty-two years have anchored in shoal water too close inshore, 
 at anchor not well found in ground tackle, or both; and I express my judgment 
 with confidence because I had command of the surveying brig /. H. Fauntleroy 
 for four years in the waters from San Francisco to the Gulf of Georgia, and 
 have anchored hundreds of times over every character of bottom and varying 
 depths of water, under stress of weather, in exposed situations, with strong 
 currents, and in very heavy weather. The northern weather is much heavier 
 than the southern. 
 
 In our " southeaster," the swell of the Pacific conies from the southwest 
 and along the greater part of the coast breaks squarely upon the shore, reach 
 ing from profound depths at a very short distance from land. The only fairly 
 protected part of the coast is that from Point Conception eastward and south 
 ward to between San Pedro and San Diego. There is, however, a marked pecu 
 liarity of the winter storms of this coast which I have expressed in the Coast 
 Pilot, the farther north we go in winter the heavier are the gales. In this low 
 latitude of 33! the winter storms are relatively not severe, and, combined with 
 this character of the storms, the great islands of Santa Barbara form barriers 
 against the full .force of the winter swell. 
 
 In the latitude of San Francisco, 37! , the southwest swell frequently 
 breaks all over the San Francisco bar in 6 or more fathoms of water, while the 
 swell of the same storm would not break on the bar of San Diego, where the 
 depth of water is less than 4 fathoms. (See Coast Pilot, page 18.) San Pedro 
 is but 95 miles from San Diego and not so open to the swell, because the great 
 islands of San Clemente and Santa Catalina serve to break up the broad ocean 
 swell of the winter gales. 
 
 This low latitude and these protecting islands are very important factors in 
 judging of the safety of any anchorage. We know that it occasionally breaks 
 on the shoal spots of 95 fathoms off Cape Mendocino, and I have laid off the 
 breaking bar of Humboldt for two weeks, but at the same time there would be 
 no break on San Diego bar and no danger in San Pedro Bay. From the sum 
 mit of Tamalpais I have seen a large English vessel forced to leave her anchor 
 age on the southern edge of San Francisco bar before the swell was breaking, 
 and such a vessel would lie in absolute safety at the same time in San Pedro 
 Bay. 
 
 Smaller vessels at San Pedro, even well found in ground tackle, necessarily 
 do not care to ride out a " southeaster " there, with its wear and tear and the 
 annoyances, when the lee of Santa Catalina Island is only 18 miles distant and 
 affording them ample protection. In this respect the anchorage is almost as 
 much favored as Hueneme, San Buenaventura, and Santa Barbara. 
 
 One plain proof of the comparative weakness of the destructive action of 
 the southeast storms on this southern coast is seen in the very slow wearing 
 away of the sandy cliffs and of the bluff immediately at San Pedro; nor could 
 the exposed wharves of this region stand if the destructive forces of the winter 
 storms was great. 
 
 In regard to the anchorage of San Pedro, I have always believed that there 
 was good bottom for holding ground. The bay is the northwestern limit of 
 a very extensive plateau of comparatively shoal water along the seaboard from 
 Point Firmin to about Newport, and the whole country behind the shore is 
 sandy and so low that in winter it is flooded for miles inland by the rains and 
 the overflowing of the low banks of the numerous streams frequently changing 
 their courses. The detritus from these streams is moved seaward, and princi 
 pally to the westward over this plateau, and helping to extend it, by the action 
 of the inshore eddy current. 
 
 I believe that this material, mud, sand, and gravel, is sufficiently deep to 
 give good holding ground for any sized vessel if properly found in ground 
 tackle. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 367 
 
 I may mention here that for many years I have believed that San Pedro 
 Bay is an admirable location for a breakwater to form a first-class harbor of 
 refuge against winter storms, when the commerce of the southern coast demands 
 it. Gen. B. S. Alexander and myself frequently discussed the importance of a 
 breakwater here, because I was not enamored of the smaller temporary jetty 
 scheme which he had proposed. He was fully alive to the great advantage 
 of a breakwater on a large plan, but he believed the commerce did not then 
 warrant it, and that the Government would not then sanction it ; and that the 
 relief he proposed was temporarily sufficient. With the chart of the Coast 
 Survey before us we have drawn rough lines of the suggested breakwater to 
 cover the exigencies of vessels entering the harbor from the west or around the 
 exterior extremity of the breakwater, and to give free movement to the inshore 
 eddy current carrying its material to the westward. (He utilized this move 
 ment of material in planning the present jetty.) 
 
 My study of the great breakwaters of Europe has satisfied my judgment, 
 and I see clearly that a capital harbor can be formed in San Pedro Bay by a 
 breakwater in 10 fathoms of water, and that from my visits to Catalina Island 
 building stone can be had in any quantity, if the rock of San Pedro hill is too 
 soft, as I believe it is. 
 
 SANTA MONICA BAY. 
 
 I am not unfamiliar with Santa, Monica Bay, but do not know it so well as 
 I know San Pedro. I think the same would be said by all sailing and steamship 
 captains on the southern seaboard. 
 
 I was along the " West Beach " as early as 1852 and 1853. In 1872 I had 
 the following experience on the shores of Santa Monica Bay. With a loaded 
 wagon I followed the beach from the arroyo east of Santa Monica to Point 
 Dume. The high bluffs and cliffs came so sharply to the shore, and the arroyos 
 there so deep that no road was practicable above high water, and I had to 
 travel along the beach at low water. At Point Dume a very fierce westerly 
 wind sprang up and retarded my operations so that in returning to Santa 
 Monica I was on the beach through two low waters. I found the beach torn 
 away along the whole shore line, and met with rocky obstructions, which in 
 some cases had been wholly uncovered by the washing away of the sands. As 
 we approached Santa Monica the evidences of this destructive action became 
 more and more marked, and for the last 2 or 3 miles the beach was torn away 
 from 10 to 12 feet in depth. We met a friend from the Santa Monica arroyo 
 driving his buggy on the inner edge of the beach of four days before, where he 
 was 10 to 12 feet above the new beach, and he was in such a hazardous position 
 that we had to relieve him. When I soon afterwards left Los Angeles via San 
 Pedro there were no signs whatever of damage done to the beach there. 
 
 Afterwards when I was appealed to for a letter recommending the location 
 of Santa Monica for a commercial wharf I related the above facts and refused 
 to give an unqualified indorsement of the location. 
 
 During the hydrographic survey of Santa Monica Bay from Point Vincente 
 to Point Dume by the Coast Survey, the officer commanding the surveying ves 
 sel reported that when at anchor in the vicinity of Santa Monica, with a strong 
 westerly breeze blowing, and the inshore eddy current running to the north 
 ward along the shore, the vessel rode to the current and her rolling in the swell 
 falling directly on shore was so large and disagreeable that the vessel had to 
 weigh anchor and seek a more comfortable berth. 
 
 I have had no personal experience of the winter storms at the head of 
 Santa Monica Bay. A glance at the chart will demonstrate that it is more 
 squarely open to the southwest swell than San Pedro. 
 
 In the winter of 1888-89, when my party was on the Los Angeles plains, I 
 visited the wharf at Newport to learn what effect the winter s storms had upon 
 it. This wharf is situated 15 miles eastward of San Pedro, and is more exposed 
 to the open sea. It is located at the head of a submarine valley, just as that 
 art Redortdo Beach in Santa Monica Bay, but the storms had not sprung a 
 plank. (See Coast Pilot, page 35, bottom.) At the same time I understood 
 that the end of the wharf at Redondo had been badly damaged. (Coast Pilot, 
 page 46.) 
 
 In conclusion, I may say that a few years since I was consulted to express 
 an opinion upon the feasibility of a harbor or wharf or anchorage in Santa 
 Monica Bay, between Point Dume Cove and the vicinity of La Ballona. I 
 presented what facts I then had, exhibited tracings of the original surveys, and 
 made such explanations to the deeply interested parties that they abandoned 
 the project. 
 
 GEORGE DAVIDSON. 
 
368 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, this resume of the situation by the 
 best advised man upon the Pacific Coast, one who knows more about 
 the hydrographic conditions surrounding this issue than any other 
 individual, can not but be a most valuable contribution to this discus 
 sion. 
 
 Not only was Professor Davidson s information before the Craig- 
 hill board, but the statement of Lieutenant Taylor was likewise 
 received. The decision of the new board was made upon a complete 
 case. Lieutenant Taylor has recently declared that he adhered to the 
 presentation above cited, and Professor Davidson has informed me 
 that he sees no reason to depart from the opinion which has been 
 repeated here to-day. 
 
 There was much testimony before the Craighill board supporting 
 the views of Professor Davidson. The hearing lately conducted by the 
 Commerce Committee is of little moment when contrasted with the 
 examination made by the board of engineers of 1892. 
 
 If Senators who care to thoroughly understand this case will read 
 the evidence and exhibits returned by the board of 1892 the justice of 
 my remark will be conceded. That board had all the information 
 given before the Commerce Committee, except only that at that time 
 the Southern Pacific wharf was not in operation. I imagine that the 
 majority of the members of the Committee on Commerce (I do not 
 include the chairman) have not thoroughly digested the evidence 
 reported by the Craighill board. On page 62 of that paper will be 
 found the statement of Mr. Johnson, with whom I was well acquainted. 
 I have much confidence in his accuracy. He does not express himself, 
 perhaps, with that technical correctness which is preferable in such 
 controversies, but his remarks are to the point. He resided in San 
 Pedro for years and spoke with knowledge. I ask the Secretary to 
 read the statement of Mr. Johnson, commencing at the foot of page 
 62, to the end of the statement. 
 
 The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as indicated. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows: 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I will say the little facts I know about the harbor. I 
 came here in 1852, in December, forty years ago, in the bark America. I went 
 to anchor in the Bay of San Pedro; rode out two heavy southeasters with 
 safety; two anchors, one with 45 and the other with 50 fathoms of chain. 
 Then from that time until 1854 I lived at San Pedro, on the point which they 
 call now Timms Point, in that neighborhood. Saw vessels coming there, few, 
 as a matter of course, and two little steamers that were running there then, 
 the only steamers on the coast the Seabright and the Ohio. And they got 
 there in all kinds of waters, and, with the exception of one losing her anchor 
 once without having their chain shackled, there was never any trouble about 
 riding out the gale, so far as the holding ground was concerned, within a 
 couple of miles of the bluff. Southeast from there to here there is more or less 
 loose sand. Of course, in the southeast wind, the only wind -that is liable to 
 do any damage, the vessels would naturally drift inshore toward the water, 
 where the anchorage will hold better. In 1854 I was engaged by John Ord, 
 the United States surveyor at the time, to run him about the coast, surveying 
 him and his party. I was engaged the vessel and myself. And I got in 
 the Bay of San Pedro there in all kinds of weather during the winter months 
 in 1853, 1854, and 1855, and part of 1856; got to anchor there in the night and 
 day, and all kinds of waters, and I never had any trouble of laying there safe, 
 as far as the anchorage is concerned, to hold, as long as the moorage and 
 tackles are good. Since that time, for fourteen years, I was running in and out 
 the bay, night and day, any kind of weather, summer and winter ; anchored in 
 every place and any place within the anchorage as laid down in our official 
 chart, and never had any trouble. And from that time I stopped following the 
 sea and having anything to do with the vessels. But I resided in the neighbor- 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 369 
 
 hood and saw every vessel there. And no vessels ever dragged their anchor 
 age who had their anchors clear. Those who dragged their anchorage either 
 parted their chain or they had a fouled anchor which they neglected to clear 
 before the storm came up. 
 
 Now, with regard to the inner harbor, we all know there is about 18 feet of 
 water there to go over at high tide. Vessels go in there and they are well 
 secured. They are like in a pond when they are in there. And the outer har 
 bor is protected from all winds, with the exception of the east and southeast. 
 The southwest wind that is prevailing here during the months of February and 
 March, and sometimes a part of April, they are the strongest gales we have 
 on this coast, which every seafaring man knows, because they blow more toward 
 shore than any other wind ; raise a heavier sea. San Pedro there is protected 
 by Point Firmin. It is only the wind from the east and southeast. Catalina 
 Island protects part of the harbor, but not sufficient for vessels to lie perfectly 
 smooth in smooth water. 
 
 Now, with the money that has been expended in that harbor there, with 
 very little breakwater insufficient water there to build it on a solid foundation, 
 which is not to be found in every other place, a small breakwater would inclose 
 there a couple of thousands acres for their deep-sea harbor. The inside harbor 
 is nearly as good as finished. And we would have plenty of facilities for all 
 the railroad companies, for all the community that would ever live in that 
 neighborhood, for warehouses and everything else; lots of fine, level soil, and 
 the facilities would be great. I heard a gentleman this morning speaking about 
 ships going up to the Columbia River to get to Santa Monica. I have followed 
 the sea since 1841, and I couldn t think even Columbus himself would have 
 traveled so far to find the port of San Pedro or Santa Monica as to go to the 
 Columbia River. Any vessel or in fact, to make it short, allow me to state 
 that we must in the future look to our trade by water. We expect to have 
 communication from South America, West Indies, or at least Central America 
 and Mexico. To have that trade we are nearest to Los Angeles of any of the 
 towns. 
 
 In regard of making harbors what does a seaman want? A good light 
 house? We have got it in San Pedro. We have got Catalina lying out there 
 for a point of land to navigate by. We have a Government reservation at San 
 Pedro, if the Government wants to build any fortifications, or anything. They 
 have 500 square varas of land there and, in fact, any facility anybody wants to 
 have for the sake of a harbor. 
 
 Now, in regard to the time between San Francisco and here, the freight 
 and the passenger traffic that has been carried in former years is nearly done 
 away with. Everything goes by railroad that comes from there. We must not 
 look to San Francisco for our trade. We must look to the East by water to 
 have cheap transportation. Consequently, if we get it by water we are nearest 
 to Los Angeles of any port. Any little freight or passengers that come from 
 San Francisco to Santa Monica they gain a little time, that is true. But, outside 
 of that, what is there in Santa Monica to protect shipping? It is open to the 
 south, and we know we have heavy gales from the south and southwest. They 
 speak about water being smooth there. I have been there hundreds of times, 
 and always found plenty of surf for the bathers to bathe in, and heavy swells. 
 I have known vessels to drag there, and they had to send steamers there in the 
 month of May, 1878, to pull them out, keep them from going ashore, heavy 
 swell, undertow, and one thing and another. Anchors didn t hold up laying 
 alongside of the wharf. They were destroyed there. 
 
 In regard to the anchorage outside in Santa Monica, I can t tell, for the 
 reason I never sounded much, other than the Point Dume. I was up there with 
 John Ord, and he sounded there and put some signals ashore. 
 
 In regard to Redondo, my friend here has said all that could be said in 
 regard to it. There is deep water, plenty of it; protected from the southeast, 
 it is true, but it is open to the westward. If the gentlemen wish to inquire in 
 regard to anything else I would like to state. I don t like to take up all your 
 time. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. This is the opinion of a man of experience, who 
 derived his knowledge not from theories and statements of others, but 
 from his own interpretation of events which had transpired under his 
 direct notice. 
 
 I do not propose to expend any time with the proposition that it 
 would be of advantage to have the harbor at Santa Monica because 
 
370 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 of its greater proximity to the city of Los Angeles, for I do not believe 
 that that fact is of surhcient importance to affect the result. Nor do I 
 care to discuss the relative merits of the two localities; the superior 
 advantages of Santa Monica as a most delightful seaside resort are too 
 well known to require elaboration. Commercial considerations should 
 control our decision. 
 
 I have just procured the time and distance tables issued by the 
 Southern Pacific Company for the use of its employees exclusively, 
 and by which its trains are operated and its freight tariffs made. This 
 schedule shows that the distances from Los Angeles to San Pedro and 
 Port Los Angeles, respectively, are as follows : 
 
 From Los Angeles to San Pedro, 22.10 miles. 
 
 From Los Angeles to Port Los Angeles, 20.70 miles. 
 
 I have already called the attention of the Senate to the circum 
 stance that at San Pedro, or Wilmington, there is a large area in imme 
 diate proximity to the inner harbor owned by the State of California, 
 inalienable because of its tide character, and subject to use under lim 
 ited franchises, and therefore held for the benefit of the public. I think 
 I have already shown that it is difficult to imagine the possibility of any 
 other institution than the Southern Pacific Company obtaining access 
 to the water of Santa Monica Bay, where Port Los Angeles is located, 
 except at a very great expenditure of money. In my opinion no other 
 wharf will be built there for years. 
 
 Mr. President, what is the amendment which I nave introduced 
 and upon which I ask a vote? What is the proposition which I make 
 to the Senate regarding the subject? The gist of the matter is the 
 making of an appropriation and the expenditure of the money at either 
 San Pedro or Port Los Angeles, the location to be determined by a 
 board consisting of an officer of the United States Navy, of rank not 
 less than commander, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy ; a 
 member of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, to be 
 selected by the Secretary of War, and a member of the Coast and 
 Geodetic Survey, to be selected by the Superintendent of the Survey. 
 
 Now, I ask those who are disposed to be fair, who wish this im 
 portant subject determined accurately, what objection can be rationally 
 made to this plan. An objection might, indeed, be urged upon the 
 part of those who advocate San Pedro and who are interested on the 
 part of the Government in the disbursement of public moneys, upon the 
 ground that two boards have already reported against Santa Monica, 
 and therefore it may be said that we are going too far in selecting a 
 third tribunal when we have two positive reports made by competent 
 persons. In offering the amendment I do not in the slightest degree 
 impugn the motive, question the integrity, or doubt the capacity of the 
 eight distinguished gentlemen who have passed upon this subject. I 
 believe that as to the location of the harbor their views are correct. I 
 have entire confidence in the accuracy of their positions, but a majority 
 of the Commerce Committee and several Senators who affirm that they 
 have thought about this subject for seven or eight years announce that 
 the engineers are wrong ; that the boards are mistaken ; that these 
 eight impartial honest servants of the Government are all misin 
 formed ; that among these eight scientific men of integrity there was 
 not one competent to pass judgment or able to reach the true conclu 
 sion. There seems to be a notion in some quarters that the Mendell 
 and Craighill boards were prejudiced. Why, I am at loss to know. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 371 
 
 There is no evidence or suspicion justifying such a conclusion, unless 
 it be found in the opinion of a majority of the committee to the effect 
 that both boards reached erroneous results. 
 
 But, Mr. President, as soon as it was asserted or intimated that 
 there had not been an absolutely impartial and unbiased examination, 
 as soon as it was intimated that the second board was influenced by 
 the first board, and that there was an esprit de corps existing among 
 those officers which made it impossible for one to determine anything 
 against the other, it was suggested by one of my associates of the 
 Commerce Committee that we might make the appropriation and leave 
 the determination of this issue between these two points to an admit 
 tedly uninfluenced tribunal appointed pursuant to a plan agreed on by 
 Congress. 
 
 i am not irrevocably committed to the plan proposed in my 
 amendment. I have no desire to provide for the selection of a board 
 which will not do equal, exact, and complete justice to all. I want 
 a board satisfactory to the most critical. I want no one save persons 
 of integrity, of capacity, and without partiality. I wish a board upon 
 whom those who favor Santa Monica and those who prefer San 
 Pedro can alike look with confidence and upon whose judgment 
 any right-thinking man should be willing to rest. But what do 
 we encounter? It is to this most indefensible part of the Santa 
 Monica contention that I attract the attention of Senators. Here we 
 have a harbor site condemned officially. It has no legal indorsement. 
 The employed agents of interested parties, and with whom certain 
 Senators seem to concur, declare that we should reject all the evidence 
 bearing official authenticity. The point is made that the reports of the 
 eight engineers should be rejected because not founded upon fact, or 
 because conclusions not properly deducible from facts presented have 
 been announced. But are we to proceed without any favorable intima 
 tion from any of our officers? 
 
 Let me ask those who oppose my view, Why object to the appoint 
 ment of a skilled and unbiased commission to pass upon the subject? 
 If he be not satisfied with that which has been done, if it be contended 
 that the action of previous boards must be disregarded, can we not 
 find some one somewhere to whom we will be willing to commit this 
 subject? Will Senators who have no more knowledge of the situa 
 tion than that derived from the cursory and scattered hearings before 
 the committee pretend to tell me that they know absolutely and con 
 clusively that these eight officers of the Government were wrong, 
 and that they are so satisfied of this that they want no more light; 
 that the glorious radiance flashing from the information which they 
 have received here renders the advent of other knowledge impossible? 
 That the limit of intellectual absorption has been attained? Is this 
 the position? Will anyone admit that he is unwilling to lay this 
 matter before a competent, impartial board ? Yes ; the advocates of 
 Santa Monica must so concede. They will not consent to the sub 
 mission of their pretensions to any person or officer. They say in 
 effect by this refusal that no board will report in favor of their loca 
 tion. They decline to submit their arguments to competent scrutiny. 
 Why? Not because they think their success possible. They would 
 not then refuse. They decline, because and there is no other 
 deduction possible from their conduct they know that no impar 
 tial and competent tribunal will decide in their favor. They fear 
 fairness. 
 
372 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Is the constitution of the proposed board objected to? If so, 
 why not suggest improvement? I and those who are contending in 
 conjunction with me are prepared to do that which is honest and 
 equitable. Is it possible to form any commission to constitute any 
 board to which the majority of the committee will be willing to sub 
 mit? Evidently it is not possible. Mr. President, you can not find, 
 you can not devise, you can not suggest any tribunal, any board, any 
 committee, any qualified person or persons to whom this discretion 
 will be committed by my friends of the opposition. They rest in 
 security upon the theory that Senators are ready to vote against the 
 report of the Government engineers and against everything official, 
 are willing to appropriate in the face of authoritative condemnation, 
 and they do not therefore propose to risk any board. 
 
 This sort of procedure may sometime surely it ought to be 
 condemned. Here are three millions of money, Senators, to be dis 
 bursed in defiance of official recommendation. How are you to justify 
 this outlay? Where is your authority? Have you any official 
 indorsement at all? Two boards have reported adversely. You say 
 that they were not fair, that they were in error. Do jou not think 
 it well to have the approval of some one not interested and who is 
 possessed of technical knowledge before you make this expenditure? 
 The answer comes "No; we will not consent to this amendment." 
 " We have waited long enough," it is said. True, you have waited 
 long. You have never had the concurrence of Senator, Representa 
 tive, or engineer. You have waited long indeed to find anyone com 
 petent and impartial treating this matter your way. 
 
 Now, at this hour when the committee reports in favor of an 
 appropriation for an unrecommended and repudiated place we are 
 asked to vote for that report to appropriate this enormous sum sim 
 ply upon the general evidence taken before the Commerce Committee, 
 which, as the record will show, is of little significance and in defiance 
 of the authorities to whom we are in the habit of committing such 
 matters. Why this extraordinary zeal to do something unprece 
 dented? 
 
 Mr. President, when the Southern Pacific Company built its pier 
 at Port Los Angeles no one had any idea of erecting any breakwater 
 in that part of the open ocean. It has attracted us there. The com 
 mittee proposes to use now $3,098,000, and Heaven only knows how 
 much more in the end, to guard and make convenient the private 
 property mentioned. What will the breakwater protect? If it answers 
 its purpose, as those who are advocating it claim that it will, it will 
 defend the railroad pier and not another structure. There is nothing 
 else in the bay; there is nothing in the neighborhood; there is no 
 inner harbor to be benefited ; there is no adjacent commercial interest 
 to be gratified. The expenditure of this money as designed by the 
 committee will be the donation of $3,098,000 to a private corporation. 
 It will be taking that sum, which the engineers of this Government 
 have recommended be not expended, and expending it for the imme 
 diate benefit of individuals. Prospectively, it may be said, others will 
 derive profit. This is mere speculation. The immediate object, the 
 immediate eiFect, is an individual advantage. No public interest is to 
 be subserved, but the money is given because it is asked for by enter 
 prising citizens engaged in the development of a large commerce over 
 one of the most magnificent wharves in the world. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 373 
 
 Mr. President, I do not believe that an appropriation made as 
 designed in this bill can be justified. I think that its consummation 
 will be an outrage upon the public. Suppose that the distinguished 
 gentlemen who favor Santa Monica are right in their scientific opin 
 ions, and that the boards and other trained officers of the Govern 
 ment are in error, still there stands a controversy, in which officials 
 of integrity and no selfish interest are ranged upon one side, and 
 upon the other stand interested parties reaching for the Treasury. 
 Grant that the latter are also intelligent ; grant that they are also men 
 ordinarily free from bias; they are nevertheless personally concerned, 
 and hence not reliable judges. 
 
 You refuse to recommit for examination; you decline to subject 
 it to candid investigation, but it is proposed to boldly overturn and 
 cast aside the suggestions of those to whose recommendation we 
 should at least award decent consideration, and to substitute therefor 
 the conclusions of employees of Mr. Huntington and to enable them 
 to place at his feet a great winning made from the Government of the 
 United States. 
 
 If the advocates of Santa Monica believe that they have the 
 meritorious side, then let them face a commission chosen upon impar 
 tial lines. With the judgment of such a board I shall be content. 
 Until some fair, competent, and disinterested man, appointed accord 
 ing to law, has determined that this appropriation is justifiable, I shall 
 continue to oppose it and to raise my voice against it, even though I 
 stand alone. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall not offer anything further at present. I 
 have endeavored to put the facts very fully before the Senate, citing 
 various opinions and conclusions adverse to my contention as well as 
 those upon which I have relied. There are other Senators who desire 
 to speak upon the matter, and I care to say no more now, but may 
 later have occasion to detain the Senate should the remarks of Sena 
 tors who take a different view in my opinion justify further comment. 
 
 REPLY TO MR. FRYE. 
 
 Tuesday, May 12, 1896. 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I desire to say a few words in 
 response to the statements made by the Senator from Maine [Mr. 
 FRYE]. 
 
 In the first place, I repudiate the intimation that there is any 
 thing of the so-called sand-lot agitation to be found upon the San 
 Pedro side of this controversy. I wish to say to the Senator from 
 Maine that the people of California are as law-abiding, and, with due 
 deference to him and his constituents, as fully competent to take care 
 of their own affairs, as intelligent, and as enlightened and progressive 
 as are those whom he represents. 
 
 As far as I am personally concerned, he places an estimate upon 
 my character far from flattering- when he assumes that I can be 
 swerved in the slightest degree from the pathway of my duty by any 
 ulterior influence or unreasoning excitement. I say to the Senator 
 from Maine that however independent he may be I claim similar inde 
 pendence. I deny that my constituents are animated by any motives 
 not creditable, manly, and thoroughly American. Those who are 
 immediately interested in Los Angeles are persons of discrimination, 
 
374 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 .fairness, and education. Nor is it true that I said one word in the 
 somewhat lengthy argument made by me here that can be called undue 
 criticism or uncalled-for censure of Mr. Huntington. I used no 
 imprecatory phrase, no denunciatory epithets. I am confident that I 
 have acted within the rules of politeness and duty. True, I do not 
 and did not regard the soil upon which he treads as sacred, but I 
 trust that I uttered no expression in reference to Mr. Huntington 
 which was not becoming. His affairs when connected with legisla 
 tion are to that extent proper matter for comment ; so also of his 
 motives. He is entitled to fair treatment and nothing more. 
 
 As my colleague [Mr. PERKINS] has said, the people of our State 
 are always ready to do justice and have no disposition to oppress. 
 They have resented certain interferences by Mr. Huntington and his 
 associates in local affairs, and have demanded immunity in politics 
 from corporate domination. The issue before us, however, must be 
 solved upon other lines. I have endeavored to consider it on its mer 
 its, and Mr. Huntington s personality has less influence upon me per 
 haps than upon some who might be identified. 
 
 While the Senator from Maine was most eloquent and lauda 
 tory, and, I believe, extravagant in his praises of Mr. Huntington, I 
 do not complain. It is a matter of taste for which I am not responsi 
 ble. He can record his admiration, if it pleases him so to do. But I 
 do complain of the caustic phrases he has used toward those who sent 
 me here, and I assert he was not justified in the attacks so gratui 
 tously made. The Senator from Maine says very truly that the pro 
 posed outer harbor is not to be a mere local improvement, and that 
 the entire Senate the country at large is interested, and that it 
 makes no difference what the people of Los Angeles want. He takes 
 pains to tell the Senate he does not care what they want, a proposition 
 which perhaps it was not necessary for him to announce thus form 
 ally. 
 
 It is true that the nation is concerned in works of this kind. It 
 is true that the views of the Senators from California are not conclu 
 sive. It is equally true that I might invade the domain of my friend 
 the Senator from Maine and pass judgment upon public works in the 
 State of Maine, and pay no attention to his recommendation. This 
 course I might adopt as a member of the Committee on Commerce. 
 Perhaps it would be my duty in certain contingencies to do so. I 
 might act likewise regarding proposed improvements in other States. 
 But surely I would not follow such a course without the gravest 
 cause. It is the habit to yield somewhat to those who come from the 
 locality immediately affected. It is sometimes the case that Senators 
 who have resided for a long time in a particular neighborhood know 
 more about it than a gentleman, however able he may be, whose eyes 
 have been transitorily cast upon the troubled waters. 
 
 The distinguished Senator from Maine stood on the shore at San 
 Pedro and he viewed the sea from the bluff. On Sunday he found 
 himself upon the cliffs of Santa Monica, and looking upon the bay 
 was charmed. This survey thus made by the Senator from Maine 
 settled the harbor question, engineers to the contrary notwithstand 
 ing. It is true he did not make any soundings. Camille Flammarion, 
 the celebrated astronomer, has very recently written that it is now 
 possible to ascertain whether the oceans in Mars are deep or shallow. 
 As science has thus progressed, it is not singular that the Senator 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 375 
 
 from Maine was able so accurately to determine the true inwardness 
 of the harbor question during his brief visit to the Pacific. 
 
 The Senator from Maine tells us that he does not profess to be 
 scientific ; that he does not claim to be an engineer, familiar with 
 all the details of breakwater construction, yet he also declares 
 that anyone any man of sense who gazes urjon the map which he 
 produced must read there a recorded judgment in favor of Santa 
 Monica. Perhaps I and other Senators may be able to endure in 
 good health this flattering reference to our restricted and constricted 
 and arrested mental development. But I submit that the evidence 
 which is thus alluded to as conclusive does not convince and should 
 not control those who are anxious to reach a correct result. There 
 are other matters of far greater value to be considered. 
 
 There are various propositions that can not very well be under 
 stood by a mere glance at the map. However, it is true that this 
 plat is useful. It shows that Santa Monica is merely an open road 
 stead. It can scarcely be called a bay. A casual inspection of the 
 Coast and Geodetic chart dispels the delusion that there is any pro 
 tection at Santa Monica from the dangerous ocean swells. The 
 Senator from Maine several times declared that the southeast gales 
 are the winds which are generally feared. We find in the Craighill 
 report, under the head of " Meteorological conditions," the following : 
 
 The prevailing wind on the California coast is from the northwest, nearly 
 parallel to the coast line north of Point Concepcion, which is in latitude 34 27 
 N. At this point the trend of the coast changes from northwest to west. 
 This fact, in connection with the bold topography of the shore, causes the pre 
 vailing winds along the southerly coast of California to be westerly. This 
 wind never becomes more than a moderate gale. It never produces the heaviest 
 waves. The disturbance of the water due to it is, however, always an incon 
 venience to vessels lying at a wharf exposed to its action, and when the dis 
 turbance is greatest there is danger to vessels. This wind prevails on the 
 southern coast during the greater part of the year with the intermission of 
 calms in_the autumn and winter. In the last-named season occur the southerly 
 offshore winds, which produce the heaviest waves to which the coast line is 
 exposed. 
 
 " Southerly offshore winds." 
 
 A northeasterly land wind, known as the " Santa Ana," occasionally blows 
 from the dry hot plains lying to the eastward. Its duration is short and it is 
 severe, but having no fetch over the sea, it raises no waves near shore. It 
 occurs both on Santa Monica and San Pedro bays. 
 
 The southeaster comes in the winter and spring and brings rain. The 
 storm first manifests itself by a wind from the southeast, which continues for 
 a few hours, shifting then to the south and southwest. The storm clears up 
 when the wind gets to the northwest. In these storms a heavy sea is devel 
 oped, which breaks upon the coast line in waves of great magnitude. These 
 waves come from the south and southwest. The waves produced by the south 
 east wind are short, designated by the sailors as choppy. The south and south 
 west seas, on the other hand, are long and heavy. A vessel at anchor under 
 this exposure must, under these circumstances, get to sea, with the possibility 
 of otherwise going ashore. It is the heave of the sea rather than the wind, 
 although the latter alone is sufficiently dangerous, that makes the strongest 
 ground tackle at times of no avail. 
 
 So the alleged frightful southeast gales amount to little, except 
 in so far as they are ultimately the cause of the swells which proceed 
 from the south and southwest. The southeast wind itself directly 
 develops no waves save the short choppy waves just referred to, and 
 the testimony, so far from sustaining the Senator from Maine, shows 
 that it is the heave of the sea proceeding from the south and south- 
 
376 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 west which is to be remedied or counteracted. These exposures are 
 absolutely protected by the harbor designed at San Pedro. 
 
 The Senate will notice the protection afforded San Pedro by 
 Catalina Island, which is 17^ miles in length. The testimony is 
 (and we scarcely need evidence to sustain that view) that this island 
 tends to protect San Pedro Harbor. As I said in my opening argu 
 ment, the calmest water anywhere in that ocean is on the land side or 
 lee of Catalina, and the island being, as I have stated, iy l / 2 miles in 
 length, naturally affects the water even to San Pedro. Santa Monica 
 is not thus favorably influenced by Catalina. The presence of enor 
 mous waves at San Pedro is the creation of the imagination of my 
 friend the Senator from Maine. No one who has resided there and 
 who is familiar with that coast has ever seen these alarming manifes 
 tations. 
 
 The San Ped.ro bluffs afford proof that there are no such dan 
 gerous storms as those to which our attention has been called. The 
 bluff shows no evidence of the battering to which we are told it has 
 been subjected. It is a silent witness in refutation of the charge. 
 
 Said the Craighill board: 
 
 A strong evidence of the weakness of the destructive action of the southeast 
 storms is seen in the very slow wearing away of the sandy cliffs and of the 
 bluffs at San Pedro ; nor could the exposed wharves be maintained in this region 
 if the destructive action of the storms was great. 
 
 I have heretofore inquired why the southeast storms do not affect 
 the inner harbor. Here [indicating] we find a narrow neck called 
 Rattlesnake Island. The surface is but little above the sea, and if 
 the winds blow with the force described, surely the shipping in the 
 inner harbor would be injured. Nobody has ever heard of ships 
 being affected at all in the inner harbor by the wind. No disturb 
 ance of that sort has ever been witnessed. 
 
 Again, the Senator from Maine stated that neither the first nor 
 second board of engineers had any knowledge with reference to the 
 westerly swells. The Senator is obviously mistaken. In the first 
 report Colonel Mendell says: 
 
 San Pedro Bay is sheltered from the westerly winds by Point Firmin. It 
 is open to the winds and seas from the southwest and to the prevailing south 
 west swell above noted, over an angle of 60 to the westward of Catalina Island. 
 
 It will be observed that Colonel Mendell speaks of the southwest 
 swell, and one of the engineers, Colonel Hains, testified about it at 
 the recent hearing. He said the same peculiarity is mentioned in the 
 report of Colonel Craighill, already cited. 
 
 Colonel HAINS. The breakwater is to be carried around in such a direction 
 that that exposure does not amount to much. In the first place, the southeast 
 gales are of very short duration. They do not last long. The wind starts in 
 from the southeast, but the sea comes from the southwest. The sea is what 
 causes the trouble, not the wind; and the sea comes from the southwest. 
 
 Senator NELSON. It can not come from the southeast? 
 
 Colonel HAINS. Some seas come from the southeast; but the heaviest 
 swells come from the southwest, even if the wind is blowing from the south 
 east. Then the wind generally shifts round to the northward. 
 
 The reason for the curved construction of the San Pedro break 
 water is because it is designed to resist the westerly swells. While 
 it is a fact that out as far as 7 miles from Point Firmin in the direc 
 tion of Catalina Island there is to be found water not over 15 fathoms 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 377 
 
 deep ; while it is true also that 3 miles in a westerly direction there is 
 water of very moderate depth, nevertheless if it be conceded that the 
 depth westerly from Point Firmin is as claimed by Santa Monica 
 advocates, still no point is made against San Pedro, for the break 
 water will absolutely intercept this swell. 
 
 The very object of its construction is to cut off these waves, and 
 that the section proposed is well designed there is now no question. 
 On the other hand, when we come to Santa Monica Bay we have 
 absolutely nothing to interfere with the southwesterly swells. The 
 surf is not serious or the sea remarkably rough anywhere along the 
 coast of Southern California. At Hueneme, at Newport Landing, 
 and at other places referred to by my colleague there are wharves 
 extending directly into the ocean. In Monterey Bay there are 
 wharves built seaward, and they stand. Senators not familiar with 
 these uncommon conditions can not well appreciate the difference 
 between the Atlantic and Pacific in this regard. The success of the 
 Southern Pacific wharf is by no means phenomenal. 
 
 At Redondo, for instance, shown on the map, there is an excel 
 lent wharf in full operation. The water is extremely deep, and the 
 pier is consequently short. It is worthy of note that while the water 
 is deeper near Redondo than at many other places on the bay, no 
 great difference in the westerly swells is observable. Before Mr. 
 Huntington made his development above Santa Monica most of the 
 Los Angeles coast business coming from San Francisco was trans 
 acted at Redondo because vessels were able to come up to a wharf and 
 discharge their cargoes. The Pacific Coast steamship has been in the 
 habit of calling at Redondo, and it has been rarely found difficult 
 to discharge at that wharf. These illustrations suffice to show the 
 availability of the Southern California coast for wharf construction. 
 A glance at the map discloses a number of shipping points similar to 
 those mentioned. 
 
 The Senator from Maine alluded several times to Mr. Hunting- 
 ton s abandonment of Wilmington Harbor. He never abandoned 
 Wilmington Harbor. The Southern Pacific commenced to build a 
 wharf near Point Firmin; Mr. Hood had charge of it. Mr. Hood 
 was the same skilled engineer then that he is now, and he has been 
 for a long time at the head of the engineering department of the rail 
 road company. He was their chief engineer long before the Santa 
 Monica wharf was built, and he was thoroughly familiar with San 
 Pedro when he commenced the pier near Point Firmin. 
 
 About the time that Mr. Huntington commenced work at Port Los 
 Angeles the Terminal Railroad was built to Rattlesnake Island and 
 commenced the transaction of business there. Redondo was doing, 
 as I have said, the major part of the northerly business, taking most 
 of it from Wilmington because of its proximity to San Francisco. 
 So Mr. Huntington built his pier, not because of any special harbor 
 advantages, but to meet the competition referred to. He selected a 
 point as far up as it was possible to go. The beach narrows proceed 
 ing towards Poine Dume and Mr. Huntington has so arranged mat 
 ters that it is practically impossible to pass him. 
 
 I have shown a photograph of the approach to Mr. Hunting- 
 ton s wharf. It will be observed that it is at the foot of a bluff about 
 200 feet high. I exhibit the picture to the Senate. The isolation of 
 the situation is clear. A study of the photographs filed makes com- 
 
378 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 ment unnecessary. Mr. Hunting-ton controls the land upon this bluff, 
 and the ownership extends to the sea and for some 2000 feet along 
 shore. 
 
 I do not deem the fact that any particular person owns this land 
 as of controlling importance, but I desire the facts in the matter to be 
 made of record. 
 
 I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the accessibility 
 proposition. The Senator from Maine says that he does not know 
 why the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company people 
 are opposed to the Port Los Angeles breakwater. If the conditions 
 were as the Senator from Maine describes them, of course the Santa 
 Fe would not be opposed to it. If the managers of that corporation 
 were not fearful of a monopoly they would naturally aid this appro 
 priation. They want to reach tide water. They are already here 
 [indicating] at Redondo Beach, and are not far, it will be observed, 
 from San Pedro. Indeed, I have heard that they have some arrange 
 ment by which they pass over the Terminal line. But that is unim 
 portant, and my knowledge regarding it is limited. 
 
 The Senator from Maine says that ten or twelve tracks can be 
 constructed along the seashore at Santa Monica. But what will 
 become of that town? Santa Monica is one of the most charming 
 seaside resorts of which I have any knowledge. It is susceptible of 
 great development and adornment. Its beauties will fade if its beach 
 is devoted to railroads and locomotives. I can not believe that the 
 trustees who control the subject will ever allow the intrusion of more 
 railroads along the water front. Can boys and girls, women and 
 children, nurses and babies safely be trusted upon a shore thus devoted 
 to commercial uses? It is not to be anticipated that the members of 
 the boards of trustees of Santa Monica will ever permit the place to 
 be ruined. 
 
 But if further destruction of the beach is forbidden, how can 
 competing railroads reach the protected harbor? It may be said that 
 Santa Monica Canyon can be utilized for approach. But the difficul 
 ties of this plan are many. The route is circuitous, the grade severe ; 
 many private interests must be condemned. I believe that no com 
 peting railroad will construct a wharf there for years, and the erec 
 tion of piers by parties of moderate means is impossible. It is not a 
 matter of surprise to me that so much opposition is manifested to Mr. 
 Huntington s plan by those who are actuated by business considera 
 tions rather than by sentiment. 
 
 The Senator from Maine mentions that there has never been the 
 slightest trouble in maintaining the wharf which Mr. Huntington has 
 built at Santa Monica. I have already observed that there is nothing 
 remarkable in this. I do not doubt that this situation will be main 
 tained for many years. 
 
 Occasionally landing will be difficult. For instance, last March 
 the British ship Dunboyne was forced to leave the wharf because of 
 an uncommon swell. She was towed away by the Pacific Coast 
 Steamship Company s vessel Corona. But under all ordinary condi 
 tions I concede that any wharf on the Southern California coast will 
 fairly accommodate shipping. Santa Monica has no monopoly in 
 that respect. 
 
 The Senator from Maine made a. very able defense of Mr. Cor- 
 thell. I do not complain that Mr. Corthell was employed by Mr. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 379 
 
 Huntington. I never have objected to that, but I do resent his attempt 
 to pose as an official employed to give a disinterested opinion. He 
 actually tells us in the letter which he addressed to the minority of 
 the Commerce Committee that he acted in an official capacity. I read 
 his language during this debate. What official authority had Mr. 
 Corthell to make this examination? He says he was first spoken to 
 by Mr. Huntington, and the Senator from Maine, who wanted, of 
 course, an impartial report, sought the services of a man already 
 spoken to by Mr. Huntington, and who had business connections 
 with the latter, to make the examination. 
 
 Mr. Huntington was undoubtedly at liberty to employ Corthell, 
 but the fact of such employment destroyed Corthell s disinterestedness. 
 Could Corthell be bribed by the mere payment of a board bill ? No 
 one ever charged that he \vas bribed by the payment of a board bill 
 or bribed in any other way ; but I have asserted, and do say, that no 
 hired expert, no man who is engaged to give an opinion by a party 
 to a controversy, is as reliable a witness as a public officer who has 
 nothing but his honor and reputation in issue. Mr. Corthell was 
 employed for what? To assist Mr. Huntington in getting an appro 
 priation for Santa Monica, a work in which he has been engaged 
 ever since the Senator from Maine asked his opinion. Mr. Corthell, 
 therefore, is an opinion witness testifying for his employer. 
 
 The very best men persons of finest standing have been 
 found unequal to the task of impartiality under such conditions. Mr. 
 Corthell is no exception. He is as intensely partisan as anyone can 
 be. He is a loyal and warm advocate of Mr. Huntington, with whom 
 he has long been associated, and whose interests he is seeking to con 
 serve. 
 
 Certainly the Senator from Maine will not claim that Mr. Cor- 
 thell s opinions as an employee of Mr. Huntington are to be treated 
 as disinterested and conclusive. Mr. Corthell is greatly interested. 
 His correspondence with Senators, his anxiety to mix in its discus 
 sion, is demonstrative of his feeling. When the Senator from Maine 
 and others connected with the river and harbor bills sent for Mr. 
 Corthell and spoke to him about making this investigation in a State 
 represented by other Senators, it was a little singular, it seems to me, 
 that not a word was said to the officers entitled to speak for that 
 State. Would it not be regarded as a little peculiar if I, as a mem 
 ber of the Commerce Committee, were to delegate some one to go to 
 Maine to pass upon river and harbor matters there without consulting 
 him at all? The Senator from Maine has said that he wishes to be 
 courteous to everybody. Does he think this action to be the quintes 
 sence of courtesy? 
 
 The Senator from Maine says he is always anxious to yield to 
 Senators upon the committee. One of the many characteristics of 
 the Senator from Maine that I admire is his firmness, his positive- 
 ness, and the fact that, when he has an opinion, he is not afraid to 
 express it, and to do so forcibly, and he generally adheres to his view. 
 Does not each member of the Committee on Commerce know that if 
 there ever was a determined chairman who not only wishes to have 
 his own way, but nearly always does have it, it is the Senator from 
 Maine? Talk about concessions! I have never known a man in my 
 life to make fewer concessions than my friend the chairman of the 
 Commerce Committee. 
 
380 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I am always right. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. WHITE. Well, you think you are, and you are happy. I 
 believe the Senator from Maine believes that he is always right; but 
 one who credits himself absolutely is frequently in error. I hope 
 the Senator from Maine will never again state in the presence of 
 members of his committee that he is of such yielding and plastic 
 temperament, of such conciliatory and conceding disposition. The 
 Senator describes the formation of his opinion on this issue. In 1893, 
 in the month of April, the Senator from Maine asserted upon this 
 floor that his mind was fully made up. Why he desired any further 
 investigation I do not know. Whether the Senator from Maine has 
 ever in the course of his life changed an opinion formed by him delib 
 erately I am unable to state. He may have done so in his younger 
 days, but not in connection with his duties upon the Commerce Com 
 mittee. His judgment is irrevocable. 
 
 The Senator from Maine, while disclaiming engineering attain 
 ments, seems to think that I was reflecting upon him in some way 
 when I spoke of him as a navigator. I did think that the Senator 
 from Maine was possessed of much nautical knowledge; but if I was 
 in error I will withdraw the remark. [Laughter.] But while the 
 Senator from Maine disclaims familiarity with technical matters he 
 informs us that anyone can see the conclusive merits of his argument 
 by a mere glance at his map. Those of the most ordinary intellectual 
 development must see that he is right. This is his faith, and he does 
 not hesitate to set up his non-professional judgment against those 
 who have been employed by the Government to pass upon this subject. 
 He not only relies upon himself against skilled authority, but he tells 
 us that as there is one chance in ten of a decision in favor of San 
 Pedro he will vote against the amendment which I offer. This is 
 more conciliation. 
 
 Mr. President, the amendment which I have advocated involves 
 the appointing of a commission of admittedly unbiased and impartial 
 men to determine between these two locations San Pedro and Santa 
 Monica. What is the objection to this? The Senator from Maine 
 says that possibly there might be a decision for San Pedro only one 
 chance out of ten, he declares. But this is quite enough. No impar 
 tial experts who choose San Pedro can, according to his view, be relied 
 on. No impartial or other board for him. What does he want? He 
 demands the power to personally solve this dispute his own way. 
 
 The Senator from Maine says that General Craighill stated that 
 he was a fortifications engineer. So he did ; and so he is ; but the 
 engineers of the Army of the United States have some riparian 
 knowledge, I presume. They have general engineering skill. Their 
 attainments are not confined to providing methods of defense. They 
 have all had vast practical experience as well as thorough education 
 in all branches of engineering science. It has been said that the 
 reports of the board of engineers as to San Pedro show that the main 
 point considered was as to the availability of the harbor site for 
 defense. This is inaccurate. The reports of these boards are here 
 and show that but little space was devoted to mere fortification or 
 defensive questions. A more intimate knowledge of the contents of 
 these documents would prove beneficial. 
 
 Look at these seven volumes on my desk, compiled in the War 
 Department and sent here for the study and enlightenment of myself. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 381 
 
 the Senator from Maine, and other Senators. What do we find? 
 Only references to fortification matters? By no means. We find 
 the advice and recommendation all through these books of the Army 
 engineers concerning riparian improvements. The great rivers, over 
 which pass hundreds and thousands and millions of tons of commerce, 
 are kept in proper condition under their management and control. 
 The harbors needing improvement are committed to their care, not 
 merely to carry out a project elsewhere devised, but their advice is 
 solicited and obtained and acted upon with reference to the character 
 of the improvements to be made. They furnish projects at the insti 
 gation of Congress. Grant that they are sometimes mistaken. Every 
 body is sometimes mistaken, except my friend from Maine, and we 
 have his authority that he is never wrong. We concede that engi 
 neers are human they are fallible but if we have doubts as to the 
 correctness of a conclusion which they have reached, let us investigate 
 in an orderly way and obtain proper indorsement and authorization 
 somewhere before we pledge ourselves to a contrary policy. If the 
 eight engineers whose reports are being discussed are not all wrong 
 this appropriation should not be made. 
 
 I have been criticised because I remarked that the Santa Monica 
 site had been condemned. I would have been strictly accurate had I 
 said that the engineers recommended San Pedro as the preferable 
 place, and alluded to Santa Monica as comparatively undesirable. 
 But this is a decision against Santa Monica. It is a virtual rejection 
 of that site. It is true that many competent officers hold that the 
 Santa Monica breakwater can be successfully constructed. Major 
 Raymond does not think so, and I believe he has had more experience 
 in the matter of breakwater building than anyone in the United States. 
 He thinks and his views seem to me rational that the westerly 
 waves will pass in behind the artificial protection. The construction 
 parallel to the rectilinear shore does not appeal to his experience or 
 mathematical investigation. 
 
 But, at all events, this disputation merely amounts to this, that my 
 friend from Maine, the majority of the committee, and other intelli 
 gent, non-professional gentlemen, think that the engineers have made 
 a mistake, and they propose not to let any contingent contract, not to 
 $o as Congress did in the case of the Brunswick Harbor, or in the 
 Eads jetty matter which, by the way, was approved by numerous 
 members of the Engineer Corps no success no pay but we pro 
 pose to appropriate flat $3,098,000 against the recommendation of our 
 own officers, and in compliance with Mr. Huntingdon s unapproved 
 solicitation. It is to that style of business that I object ; and it is to 
 the candid judgment of this Senate that I appeal. Senators, are you 
 willing to make this appropriation without any recommendation, and 
 are you ready to vote down the proposition that there must be some 
 approval by some competent official authority ? Can we afford to con 
 tribute governmental funds without any sanction or excuse? 
 
 I demand the judgment of a competent board. I have entire 
 confidence in the Army Corps and in their opinions. Others differ 
 from me. I am not unreasonable ; but I insist that, even if Senators 
 believe that developments lately transpiring indicate the preferable 
 character of Santa Monica, still it is essential that we be accorded the 
 favorable opinion of an able, qualified, and unprejudiced board sug 
 gesting the propriety of our action. Can you afford to vote down 
 such a proposition? 
 
382 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 I have repeatedly asserted that I announced no dogmatic rule for 
 the formation of such a commission. I have no friends in this case 
 to serve, no enemies to punish, but a duty I have to discharge. I 
 want no stuffed commission, no prejudiced institution, nobody biased 
 in any way whatever. I have submitted time and again to the 
 majority of the committee the proposition that they should suggest 
 some method of constructing an impartial board, and I have said that 
 I would acquiesce, and yet that proposal has been refused, without 
 reason assigned. I resubmit my proposal. I plainly suggest that 
 there is no excuse, even tolerably plausible, against my tender. 
 
 My friend from Maine says that if there is to be an outer harbor 
 at San Pedro then the inner harbor should not be improved. From 
 this view I utterly dissent. The inner harbor of San Pedro is most 
 valuable, even as it is. Wharves line the harbor frontage at that 
 point not piers costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, but 
 wharves owned by moderate mercantile interests in Los Angeles 
 over which extensive commerce is transacted. This is done though 
 only 14 feet at low tide is found upon the bar. When the Benyaurd 
 project, adopted in this bill, shall have proved successful there will be 
 1 8 feet at low tide within that harbor and hundreds of wharves will 
 demonstrate the reasonableness of the project which the Engineer 
 Corps has indorsed. The inner harbor is confined by low land. The 
 bluff rises rather abruptly farther on at San Pedro. The facilities for 
 wharves and docks are marked, and the improvement of the so-called 
 inner harbor has not only proven successful as far as it has gone, but 
 few commercial projects offer more striking possibilities. 
 
 I have never known or heard of a citizen of Los Angeles opposed 
 to the improvement of the inner harbor. The entire community 
 appreciates its advantages and merits. 
 
 I have learned many things about the people of my home. Not 
 withstanding my long residence there I have been informed that the 
 lawfully elected Representatives of that section are in the dark. My 
 friend from Maine says that the present Congressman from that dis 
 trict was instructed when first nominated to support San Pedro, and 
 that now he is renominated by a convention which passed a resolution 
 in favor of Santa Monica. 
 
 The Congressional district convention Republican, I am glad 
 to say to which allusion is made, passed a resolution in favor of all 
 appropriations. In other words, they said, " We will take all the 
 money you will give us." A willingness to absorb, not dependent 
 upon a choice of places. A sentiment favoring donations common to 
 all enterprising communities. 
 
 The Republican convention in California lately assembled was 
 a very curious affair. I do not intend to discuss politics, but I must 
 say that that body passed a resolution denouncing 1 the Pacific Railroad 
 funding bill as a fraud and an outrage, and at the same time put on 
 the electoral ticket the vice-president of the railroad company offend 
 ing a very estimable gentleman. The only member of the Califor 
 nia Congressional delegation who indorsed the funding bill, and who, 
 by the way, is an able member of the House Committee on Pacific 
 Railroads, was elected a delegate to the national Republican conven 
 tion upon a platform declaring not only against the funding bill, but 
 also in favor of William McKinley and free and unlimited coinage at 
 16 to T. [Laughter.] If there is any subject not covered on both 
 sides by my Republican local brethren, if my friends of the opposition 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 383 
 
 have not agreed to all things that conflict, I am at a loss to interpret 
 their singular platform. But the general sweeping resolution men 
 tioned by the Senator from Maine merely amounts to an acceptance 
 of all appropriations which we may make. Very few Republican 
 conventions (I mean no offense) will decline to assimilate that which 
 they can get. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. ALLEN. Did that convention make any specific reference 
 to Santa Monica? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. No; but in the county of Los Angeles, where 
 there are six assembly districts, two only of such districts acted upon 
 the subject in recent Republican conventions and these passed resolu 
 tions in favor of San Pedro. So you have it. The immediate locality 
 favors San Pedro. The Republican State convention indorsed the 
 railroad as far as nominees were concerned, advocated all appropria 
 tions, McKinley, and free coinage, and opposed Democracy, monopoly, 
 and the funding bill. 
 
 I am not responsible, I am glad to say, for the proceedings of the 
 late Republican convention held in California. The Republican dele 
 gation being absent from that State, the convention evidently escaped 
 from proper or consistent management. As far as the sentiment of 
 the people of Los Angeles is concerned, I know whereof I speak when 
 I say that their judgment is overwhelmingly for San Pedro. There 
 are many, as I have admitted, who prefer to take Santa Monica rather 
 than lose the appropriation ; but, be it said to the credit of Los Angeles 
 County, and let it be said to the credit of the workingmen of that 
 prosperous section, and to the honor of the Chamber of Commerce and 
 the Board of Trade, that they have all elected to sacrifice a mere appro 
 priation rather than to lose independence. The leaders and officials of 
 almost all the labor organizations of Los Angeles have manfully and 
 grandly supported the right in this struggle. They have emphatically 
 declined to submit to blandishments and have approved of the course 
 of my colleague and myself. 
 
 I feel that we should reach a vote upon this proposition at once, 
 and I concur that the bill should go to conference immediately. I 
 submit the issue to your candid judgment. Your opinion can not be 
 coerced or controlled. You know this case now. Its various phases 
 have been fully examined. I have sought to impress the facts upon 
 you, content to rest my claims upon justice and truth. 
 
 The struggle which I have made here may seem stubborn to 
 some, but it is maintained in the consciousness and belief that I am 
 acting for the public interest. No demagogical appeal notwith 
 standing intimations to the contrary has influenced or ever will influ 
 ence me. I have been as able as the Senator from Maine to maintain 
 myself in my conservative methods without condescending to belittle- 
 ment. I experience natural pride in my presence here, but I would 
 willingly sacrifice that honor rather than yield my maturely formed 
 judgment to any senseless clamor, to threats or flattery, to condemna 
 tion or applause, and I might say, Mr. President, that I would rather 
 be a lawyer whose word was as good as the rich man s bond, and 
 whose opinion upon an intricate question of judicial science was val 
 ued by the master minds of my profession, than to hold in my hand 
 all the honors that ever were won by appeals to thei passions or preju 
 dices of men. [Applause in the galleries.] 
 
384 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, the Senator from California has 
 painted a picture of me which I do not believe any Senator who has 
 been associated with me for quite a number of years will recognize. 
 I think I do yield very frequently, and to a certain extent I am going 
 to yield now, notwithstanding the charge which has been made against 
 me the navigator of the committee. I objected very seriously to 
 the amendment offered by the Senator from California. It contained 
 an Army engineer as one of the commission. I am not saying any 
 thing against the Army engineers, but in a question of this kind, in 
 which there has been so much discussion and friction, to put on that 
 commission an Army engineer, when his chief is the head of the Engi 
 neer Department, and was the head of one of the boards which made 
 report to Congress and has been under consideration, I do say that it 
 is packing, in all human probability, the foreman of that jury, for he 
 would be the foreman, and I should not be content with nor would 1 
 risk a commission of that kind. It was on that account that I said 
 there might be one chance in ten of a commission so constituted 
 reporting in favor of San Pedro. 
 
 The Senator has offered an amendment to strike out the item 
 which the committee had inserted in the bill, and to insert his amend 
 ment. It is my right, before that question is taken, to perfect, so far 
 as I may, the amendment which the committee itself reported, and I 
 am going to propose a commission which, under the statement of the 
 Senator made within the last fifteen minutes, I fail to see how even 
 he can refuse to accept. 
 
 In order that the Senate may understand the amendment I now 
 propose, I will read the first two lines of the amendment reported by 
 the committee, which read in this way: 
 
 For a deep-water harbor at Port Los Angeles, in Santa Monica Bay, Cali 
 fornia. 
 
 After the word " California," in line 14 of that amendment of the 
 committee, I move to insert these words : 
 
 Or at San Pedro, in said State, the location of said harbor to be determined 
 by an officer of the Navy, to be detailed by the Secretary of the Navy, an officer 
 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, to be detailed by the Superintendent of said 
 Survey, and three experienced civil engineers, skilled in riparian work, to be 
 appointed by the President, who shall constitute a board, the decision of a 
 majority of which shall be final as to the location of said harbor. It shall be 
 the duty of said board to make plans, specifications, and estimates for said 
 improvement. Whenever said board shall have settled the location and made 
 report to the Secretary of War of the same, with said plans, specifications, and 
 estimates, then the Secretary of War may make contracts for the completion 
 of the improvement of the harbor so selected by said board, according to the 
 project reported by them, at a cost not exceeding in the aggregate $2,900,000, 
 and $20,000 are hereby appropriated, so much thereof as may be necessary to 
 be used for the expenses of the board and payment of the civil engineers for 
 their services, the amount to be determined by the Secretary of War. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I will suggest to the chairman of the committee 
 that he insert the words " who shall personally examine the localities 
 named." 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I will say " who shall constitute a board and per 
 sonally examine." 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I presume the Senator from Missouri has in view 
 what he thinks is the necessity of re-sounding this harbor. 
 
 Mr. VEST. Yes. I do not want this work done by proxy, as 
 has been done in other cases. 
 
SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 385 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I will suggest that the Coast and Geodetic Sur 
 vey charts, upon which navigation is conducted on that coast, are 
 presumably accurate. However, I only make that statement because 
 I do not think it is just to criticise General Craighill for not making 
 soundings, which had been officially done by the Coast and Geodetic 
 Survey. Still, I am not objecting to the re-soundings. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I suggest to the chairman of the committee that 
 $20,000 is not an adequate sum for that kind of work. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] was just 
 making that same suggestion to me. 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I want to say that if the President of the United 
 States selects three engineers such as he ought to select, each one of 
 them should have at least $10,000 for that work. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Suppose we make the amount $40,000? 
 
 Mr. TELLER. I should say it ought to be at least $50,000 
 say " to be used in the discretion of the President, not exceeding 
 $50,000." 
 
 Mr. FRYE. Very well. 
 
 Mr. PERKINS. I would also suggest to the chairman of the 
 Committee on Commerce that there should be limit of time within 
 which the matter shall be determined. It does not seem to me that 
 it should be like Tennyson s brook, to run on forever. I think there 
 should be a limit of time. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. No; I do not think there should be. I think the 
 board should have all the time they need to settle this question. There 
 is one thing above everything else I wish, and that is a settlement 
 of this vexed question. 
 
 Mr. BERRY. I wish to remark to the Senator from Maine that 
 it seems to me that it would be fairer and better to take two of the 
 members of the board from civil life and two from the Coast and 
 Geodetic Survey, or one from the Coast and Geodetic Survey and one 
 from the Navy. It occurs to me that it would be better to have more 
 public officials on the commission who are responsible to the Govern 
 ment. I simply make the suggestion as giving my views about it. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I am obliged to the Senator; but I -have all day 
 been running this over in my mind, and as a conclusion, a fair con 
 clusion of this contest, I finally have settled down upon this proposi 
 tion. As a matter of course, I have yielded a good deal in doing so. 
 The Senator from California is practically having his own way, when 
 he says he simply asks an entirely impartial board. 
 
 Mr. BERRY. Is the proposition satisfactory to the Senator from 
 California ? 
 
 Mr. WHITE. I have stated that I would accept any impartial 
 board, and I usually stick to what I say, or try to do so, and I believe 
 the President of the United States I not only believe, but I know 
 will do his duty in this regard. If I had my way about it I would 
 rather have one Army engineer, but I see no reason to think that this 
 will not be an absolutely impartial board. I think all the other boards 
 have been impartial ; but this is an endeavor to reach a conclusion 
 satisfactory to the Senate, and I will adhere to what I stated. I have 
 consulted with those who agree with me about this matter, with as 
 many as I could talk to about it, and it seems to be the general impres 
 sion that I should accept the amendment. While I have my prefer 
 ences, as stated, I do not wish to interpose any objection to the accom- 
 
386 SPEECHES OF STEPHEN M. WHITE. 
 
 plishment of a plan which is a concession by the Senator from Maine 
 and also a concession by the Senator from California. I think we can 
 afford to stand upon it. 
 
 Mr. FRYE. I offer the amendment, then, Mr. President. 
 
 Mr. PASGO. Mr. President, as one of the minority of the com 
 mittee who objected to the majority report, I am entirely in favor of 
 this amendment, and I am very glad that the Senator from Maine 
 [Mr. FRYE], the chairman of the committee, has conceded so much. 
 There never was a time during the sessions of the committee when the 
 minority of the committee would not have joined with him in obtain 
 ing what we all regarded as a fair and impartial board; and I think 
 the amendment he now offers to us proposes just such a scheme as 
 that. For one I hope that it will be adopted and that this plan of set 
 tlement will be agreed upon by the Senate. 
 
 OF THE \ 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL. BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $T.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 ;;. ,; 
 
 OEC23 19! 
 
 JUL i I 
 
 LD 21-100m-7, 40 (6936s) 
 
I UOOO 
 
 U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 181438