^o^c,^ 1^ . » < .... y v^/ %'-w*> v^^> <- •'- <. *'T ,0 -^ .^^ .^\.-. ■-^- Ov\ -%-. ^^S^f / ^^K I*"' V * ^"^ * O o-r. ^ ^^^-^4^. V •^^0^ •» o ♦>t^ •"c,^ - •- -^--o< ; 1 • aVJ ".?• 1.0 .^ '^<^ *'o..-' 0^ V "^^^' A '^^^ ''»..*' .0^ "^^ '^^^*\'V'^ .^^" .* •'' ^- /^;^^\ .^'^•^;;>- .^*^>^%\ .^'^> ,.' -^^ . i M t&» *■>* .•>^-. %. .* ^ .-i^irt:-. ^^ .*•* .'km Reply to Senator Bailey's Attack on Political Record of Robert J. Walker The following is the letter read at the Secretary's desk in the United States* Senate, August 4, 1911, at the request of Senator Martine of New Jersey; objected to by Senator Bailey, as offensive to him: 309 Hudson Street, Hobokcn, New Jersey, July 25, 19tl. Hon. James E. Martine, United States Senator from New Jersey, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I have just seen copies of the Congressional Record of July 12th and 19th, 1911, containing remarks made in the Senatt of the United States by Senator Bailey of Texas, attacking my father, the late Robert J. Walker, and, especially, the accuracy ol statements made by him, in an open public letter published by Mr. Walker in 1867, on the subject of tariff and finances, and further misquoting him and arraign- ing the historical accuracy of statements made by him in a pamphlet published by him — Mr. Walker— on July 1, 1863, in London, in reply to a statement made by Honorable John Slidell, published in the London Times of March 23, 1863, in relation to the repudiation of the bonds of the Union and Planters banks by the State of Miss- issippi. Mr, Bailey proceeds to read Mr. Walker out of the Democratic party, stating inaccurately, that in 1867 Mr. Walker was holding an office under a republican ad- ministration. I desire to have the privilege, my father being dead, of making a state- ment for publication in the Congressional Record, which contained the erroneous statements referred to above. As to the letter of 1867: Mr. Walker did state in that letter as published — I have not the original — , that in his first report he favored free raw materials; mani- festly he could not have meant by that statement his first report as adopted and final- ly completed and sent to the Congress and published, but, as the Honorable John Sharp Williams, the distinguished and honored Senator from Mississippi, suggested in the same debate, referred to the first draft of his report of 1845; and that such is the correct interpretation of Mr. Walker's letter of 1867, I find confirmed by Presi- dent Polk's diary and by references made by Schouler and others from contemporary manuscripts. In the Polk diary, kept by the President during his entire incumbency of that office, I find several entries concerning the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury of December 1845. Early in September, 1845, the President directed that each Cabinet Officer submit his proposed annual report not later than November 15, 1845, for consultation and examination. On September 30, 1845, at a Cabinet meet- ing, as recorded in President Polk's diary, "a full conversation was held on the sub- ject of the tariff and the principles which should be embraced in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury." Again, on Tuesday, November 11, 1845, at a Cabinet meeting at which all of the members were present, "The Secretary read to the Cab- inet that portion of his annual report to Congress on the finances which rchrted to the tariff and a reduction of duties. Mr. Buchanan expressed his objections to the doctrine which it contained. He remarked that it was a strong free trade document, and was in its doctrines opposed to his whole course on the subject during his entire life. The opinions of the Cabinet were not taken formally, as the Secretary of the Treasury said that he merely read it consultatively; an informal conversation took olace in reference to different parts of it" 1 find, further, that Mr. Buchanan stated that the two Pennsylvania Senators . A'.A.v.V would oppose such legislation, and that Mr. Calhoun would not sustain the admin- istration. The two Pennsylvania Senators voted against the bill as it finally passed, and of the eighteen Democratic Representatives voting against the bill in the House, eleven were from Pennsylvania. Mr. Calhoun voted for the Tariff Bill of 1846, which v/as a considerable modification of the doctrines advocated by Secretary Walker in the reports submitted to the Cabinet. The bill passed the Senate on a third reading by the casting vote of Vice-President Dallas. Independent of these facts, I maintain that it can reasonably be claimed that under the principles set forth in Mr. Walker's first published report raw materials might be put upon the free list under Rules 2 and 3 laid down in said report, wherein he says in Rule 2, "that no duty shall be imposed on any article above the lowest rate that will yield the largest amount of revenue," and under Rule 3, "that below such rate discrimination may be made descending in the scale of duties, or for impera- tive reasons the article may be placed on the free list." It is a matter of common history that the Tariff Bill of 1846 had a difficult pas- sage through the Senate even after it was modified so as to secure its enactment, and that Mr. Polk looked upon the fate of this measure as doubtful by reason of the intrigues of some Democratic Senators and the lukewarmness of others. That the four great measures of his administration — the extension of our boundaries to the Pacific Ocean, the reduction of tariff duties, the final settlement of the vexed North- western Boundary Dispute with Great Britain and the consummation of the annexation of Texas, which latter resulted in the War between the United States and Mexico — were all carried through successfully, was due to Mr. Polk's firmness and persevering industry. Now, Senator Bailey's remarkable assertion that Mr. Walker's statement made in his published letter of 1867 is to be discredited because he was holding an office under a republican administration, is strange doctrine; but the fact is otherwise. Mr. Walker was at that time a private citizen and had never held office under a republican administration. Mr. Walker was from his youth to the time of his death a Demo- crat. Briefly stated, he began his political career in 1822, being then barely of age, as a Democrat, favoring Jackson for the Presidency and continued a Union Democrat up to the time of his death in 1869, his last public political acts being the drafting of the national democratic platform of 1868 and thesupport of Seymour and Blair, the Democratic nominees. He was twice elected by the Legislature of Mississippi to the Senate of the United States as a Union Democrat, making union speeches throughout the State of Mississippi in 1832, 1833 and other years. He drafted ma- terial parts of the National Democratic Platforms of 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, 1856 and 1868, and in 1860 stumped New Jersey for the fusion democratic ticket. He never held any office under any republican administration. He was sent abroad to the different commercial capitals in Europe in the Spring of 1863, where he remained until the fall of 1864, to promote the sale of United States bonds, which he success- fully accomplished, but declined to receive any compensation whatever for his ser- vices. A part only of his modest expenses in that service was reimbursed to him after the close of the War and after the vouchers had been examined and approved toth by the Auditor and the Comptroller of the Treasury, Mr. Walker did advocate the second election of Abraham Lincoln, but as a Union Democrat and not as a Re- publican, as did many other constitutional democrats — "If that be treason then make the most of it." For example, my dear Senator, would it not make any Jerseyman laugh to hear that Joel Parker, the great Democratic War Governor of New Jersey, v.'as to be read out of the Democratic Party because he did everything he could do consistently with the Constitution to preserve the Union? But, says the Senator from Texas, substantially, Mr. Walker is not to be be- lieved because he favored the National Bank Act — an Act absolutely necessary in those War times to sustain the credit of the Government. Next we shall hear, I suppose, of some newer apostle of democracy reading John C. Calhoun out of the necrology of democracy because he voted for a national bank act of much less democratic na- ture than that of 1863, which Mr. Walker favored with an amendment making nation- al banking free to all. The War being over, Mr. Walker advocated the immediate admission of the Southern States with all their rights into the Union, claiming that they had never been constitutionally out of the Union. Shortly after the infamous reconstruction laws were enacted by Congress, Governor Sharkey of Mississippi appeared in Wash- irgton and sought the services of Mr. Walker. After consultation a bill was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by them in the name of Mississippi, enjoining President Johnson from carrying out the reconstruction laws The Supreme Court refusing to restrain the President, Mr. Walker asked that the military commander in the military district in which Mississippi was situated be enjoined from taking possess- ion of the property of the State of Mississippi. In justice to the memory of the Honorable A. H. Garland of Arkansas, afterwards Attorney General, I desire to say that he voluntarily appeared and assisted in the presentation of these cases. The rirguments in the cases, however, were made by Mr. Walker. For his services in these cases, he neither asked nor received any compensation; in fact, he paid all of the expenses of the litigation. In 1868, prior to the meeting of the National Demo- cratic Convention, Mr. Walker issued a circular containing a draft of a platform to be adopted at that convention. Prior to the meeting of the convention Mr. Walker was requested by many prominent Southern delegates to come to New York for consulta- tion, which he did. The platform of the National Democratic Convention of 1868 in its salient features was drawn up by Mr. Walker. Those planks in the platform which denounced the reconstruction acts of Congress as "usurpations, and unconsti- tutional, revolutionary, and void * * * * were drawn up by Mr. Walker, as was also the following declaration which was embodied in the platform: "In demanding these measures and reforms we arraign the Radical party for its disregard of right and the unparalleled oppression and tyranny which have marked its career. After the most solemn and unanimous pledge of both Houses of Con- gress to prosecute the war exclusively for the maintenance of the Government and the preservation of the Union under the Constitution, it has repeatedly violated that most sacred pledge * * *. Instead of restoring the Union, it has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and negro supremacy * * * * So much for Mr. Walker's democracy. Not content with these charges and insinuations, the Senator from Texas to fur- ther discredit Mr. Walker's tariff views says that he never did anything else but pro- mulgate that tariff report in 1845. Has he read Mr. Walker's reports of 1846, 1847 and 1848, and has he forgotten that it was Robert J. Walker who drew up the amend- ed resolution (the amendment is in the files of the Senate in Mr. Walker's hand- writing) under which Texas was admitted to the Union. And has he forgotten the Texas annexation letter of 1844, for which, with other labors, Mr. Walker received thanks of the Texas convention? And this convention also ordered a bust of Mr. Walker to be executed by Hiram Powers, the famous American sculptor. Mr. Walker also advocated the purchase of Cuba, Alaska and the Islands of St. Thomas and St. John. I regret that Mr. Bailey has seen fit to introduce the repudiation question at this late day. Without having read Mr. Walker's London pamphlet on the subject, he misstates its contents. The pamphlet consisted mainly in the reproduction of two letters written at different times by Mr. Davis in 1849, the one first published in the Washington Union, the other in The Mississippian, and afterwards republished in The London Times, together with the decisions of the Mississppi Courts. Mr. Walker did not state that Mr. Davis was either in the Legislature of the State of Mississippi or the Governor thereof when the action was taken repudiating these bonds. Mr. Walker represented the State of Mississippi in the Senate of the United States for nine years. He was Secretary of the Treasury for four years. While he was Senator and while he was Secretary of the Treasury he abandoned the practice of law. He never during his incumbency of these offices appeared in any case, certainly he never appeared in any case against the Government of the United States or against the State of Mississippi, or against the people of Mississippi, in any capacity, either directly or indirectly. After he had severed his connection with the United States as Secretary of the Treasury, he resumed the practice of his professor, as a lawyer. In the New Almaden Quicksilver Mine case referred to by Mr. CI..' i'.' in his His- tory of Mississippi and quoted approvingly by Mr. Bailey, Mr. Walker did not take the case on a contingent fee. He owned the subject matter in litigation. He fought the case in all the lower courts and when it was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States he argued it there and obtained the favorable decision of that great tribunal. Mr. Walker while in office neither practiced law nor influence. In some quarters the latter seems to be considered professional. To all such practices Mr. Walker was opposed. Very respectfully, DUNCAN S. WALKER. The letter having been read, Senator Bailey moved that it be stricken from the Record. (EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN SENATE) Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Mr. President, I trust that the Senator's motion will not prevail. 1 insist, in all fairness, that the letter read is not only a touching: and forcible tribute from a loyal and loving son, but a splendid defense of a loving father. 1 insist that the sheer statement of the Senator from Texas that it is untrue is not adequate. These assertions are made by a gentleman responsible for all he says, who is an honored and dignified son of the Commonwealth from which I come. I submit further, Mr. President, that I thought the distinguished Senator went out of his way to traduce and make small the memory of that great Democrat and public servant, the Hon. Robert J Walker, when he came in the day after his first speech on reciprocity and offered further data in the way of a pamphlet to prove that this gentleman, who had done honored service to his country, was not a Democrat The question was not a partisan one; it was not whether Robert J Walker was a Democrat or whether he was not. The controversy at issue at the time the Senator offered the pamphlet legarding Robert J Walker was upon the great, broad, moral question of reciprocity, not as to what was the politics of Robert J. Walker, 1 trust in all sin- cerity, I trust in all earnestness and deference, that you. Senators, as fair-minded, lib- eral, honorable, and brave men, will not now move further to traduce and belittle the memory of the honored citizen and splendid Democrat, Robert J Walker Mr BAILEY Mr President, 1 am no more inclined to reply to the Senator from New Jersey than 1 am to that private citizen, Mr. THORNTON. Mr. President, 1 wish to inquire of the Senator from Texas whether, under the circumstances, he would conisder the publication of this letter ir the Record as being personally offensive to him? Is that the ground upon which he objects? Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I think it would be offensive to the Senate for a citizen to undertake to answer a Senator's speech and to assert that the Senator had misrepresented the facts in any case. I believe that would be offensive to any Senator in this body, and I know it is offensive to me. Senator Bailey's motion prevailing, the undersigned being thus denied a hearing in the Senate, has no redress but to appeal to the public press for a hearing. He submits that the statements made by him are of public history in nearly each asser- tion and are true, and asks the public to judge of the course pursued by Mr. Bailey in making insinuations against the political record of a deceased statesman, which were not true, and in no way relevant to the subject matter in debate, and then closing the doors to their refutation in the forum where made. Mark Mr. Bailey's closing words: " I am no more inclined to reply to the Sen- ator from New Jersey than to that private citizen." Was it manly? Was it fair? DUNCAN S. WALKER. 146 "^•^^0^ -5©^ '^bl "o^-^"^*/ V'^\/ %'^-'*/ V^^"'/ rt V - « , ^ ■0^ *>i^ <^9^ tJ ,■,'1 y ^A, -i^^ . i ^0 ^. \W <^ "K *0, . »* A .^^ /^iX ''^)^m:> J'y^k^^ ^' ■'-- *iriT'- o"^ v^^rr;-* ^^' 4V .. '^ *•'"' A^ «iA o_ * r. -^ov* C°\^ ^ •^^^^ 1^ » * • ' vpC 6? "4©. d 7 .^' 'oK ';^o^ 'oK '3' *0^ • --e?