|
OF my early experiences
in Congress there is little to relate. The record of what was done
during the six years I served as a member of the House of
Representatives has been set down in detail elsewhere and it would
be superfluous for me to comment upon it here. The part I played in
the legislative deliberations of this time was a very small one. As
a member of the minority I could accomplish little and moved with
the other Republicans a shadow across the screen, while the
Democratic majority directed the policy of government.
Although I was an
uncompromising Republican, and have been ever since the organization
of the party, - even before, I might say almost with accuracy, when
the Whigs were battling for existence,— I did not feel that it was
incumbent upon me to assert my allegiance to the extent of arousing
the hostility of the Democrats. As a matter of fact I numbered among
them some of my best friends. This was due partly to my own efforts
and partly to the acquaintanceships I had formed before I thought of
embarking upon a political career. William B. Ogden, Samuel J.
Tilden, William H. Barnum, and many other prominent members of the
party I had known intimately or had been associated with in a
business way. Through them, not infrequently, I learned the
political secrets of the Democratic party, subcurrents of thought
and purpose not disclosed to the lesser leaders and the rank and
file, so that, as a member of the minority, I came to the House
under very good auspices. I had the ear of Randall, Tilden's ablest
lieutenant; Blanchard, chairman of the river and harbor committee;
and others who then directed the destinies of the majority. Many of
the Democratic members themselves paid me the compliment of
soliciting my aid in passing measures in which they were interested
or in ascertaining what plan of action their own leaders had under
contemplation. The same was true, in large measure, of the
Republican leaders, whom I came to know through men outside of
Congress who took no active part in political affairs.
My rather intimate
association with Speaker Reed, Tom Reed, as he was better known,
then the minority leader and of much more impressive personality
than William McKinley, I enjoyed more than any other experience
during my term of service in the house. Nearly every day we took
luncheon together, sometimes by ourselves, sometimes with others.
Among the latter was Representative Abram Stevens Hewitt,— "Abe"
Hewitt, the great iron master of the firm of Cooper and Hewitt, an
ardent Free Trader, who as Reed said, never opened his mouth unless
it were "full of raw material." Reed's drollery was a source of
constant amusement and, although he was a man of few words, his
brief remarks, delivered with a. characteristic New England drawl,
invariably brought to earth many ambitious legislators who essayed
long and lofty flights of oratory. In the six years I served in the
House I took luncheon alone but once. If it were not Reed it was
some one else I had as my guest, a pleasure which had its benefits
as it enabled me to meet and oftentimes to count as friends many of
my associates whom I would otherwise have scarcely known.
One of the members of
the house at this time was John Arnot, of Elmira, whose father had
played a conspicuous part in the construction of the Erie Railroad
and whose sister had, late in life, married William B. Ogden. With
Arnot, a Democrat, Jesse Spalding, with whom I had been associated
in various enterprises, and a general from Pennsylvania, whose name
I do not recall, I called on President Arthur late one evening, a
visit which I remember with unusual distinctness because of the
impression that Arthur made. From eleven o'clock until half-past two
in the morning we sat near the entrance of the White House
conservatory, talking about various things simply for the pleasure
it gave us. President Arthur was an ideal host, suave of manner and
possessing a well developed sense of humor, and enjoyed the
conversation as much as ourselves. At midnight we arose to go, but
he insisted upon our remaining, telling us of his efforts to
renovate the White House and of the discovery in the attic of a
table purchased in Andrew Jackson's time. The general from
Pennsylvania, who regaled himself with rye whiskey, protesting all
the time that bourbon was the proper Democratic drink, achieved so
great an admiration for the President before we departed that he
declared he would vote for him if the Republicans had the wisdom to
nominate him.
There were, of
course, many other prominent men in Congress at this time whom it
was my good fortune to know, but there is nothing for me to add to
what others have said of them.
During these days we
had not yet arrived at the point of federal extravagance that has
since been attained. The Democrats were ultra-conservative in the
matter of spending money and avoided what we have since come to
regard as necessary and economical outlay. There was no post-office
building at Augusta, the capital of Maine, for example. The city of
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, had no federal building and the post-office at
Milwaukee was a shambly, inadequate structure which occupied the
site on which the Wells Building was subsequently erected. We set
out to secure an appropriation for a building there, but met with
much opposition and did not carry the struggle to a successful
conclusion until the last moment of my three terms of service.
The Navy was also the
object of little solicitude on the part of Congress. Representative
"Sam" Randall, the Democratic leader in the House, in discussing the
administration's naval policy, said that there was no enemy in sight
and that, therefore, no Navy was needed. Such was the general point
of view, particularly of the Democrats. The fallacy of this course
of reasoning was disclosed soon afterward by the outbreak of the
Spanish-American War, since which time the policy has been changed.
The lesson of that experience, however, has been very largely
forgotten. The habitual weakness of the American people is to assume
that they have made themselves great, whereas their greatness has
been in large measure thrust upon them by a bountiful providence
which has given them forests, mines, fertile soil, and a variety of
climate to enable them to sustain themselves in plenty, and an
isolated position away from the maelstrom of international politics.
It might be well to
look with much less complacency upon our own accomplishments and to
distrust our own sense of security.
By reason of my early
experiences on the lakes, as a sailor, officer, and vessel owner,
the part I played in the improvement of harbors, the development of
transportation facilities by the use of barges, and the construction
of the Sturgeon Bay Canal, I took a very keen interest in the work
of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, of which I was a member, and
bent my efforts toward securing larger appropriations and making
systematic expenditures for waterways. In the forties, as I have
said, the Democrats had suspended all federal aid in the improvement
of conditions on the lakes, which led every sailor to give
allegiance to the Whig party. Since that time Congress had doled out
money for this purpose in niggardly fashion.
In 1888, during my
service on the House committee, we reported a bill carrying
appropriations of twenty-two and one-half millions, six millions
larger than any bill framed up to that time. The magnitude of the
measure from the point of view then prevailing aroused opposition,
and we realized that we had a fight before us to pass it. It fell to
me to act in the capacity of whip, to secure pairs between the
members opposed to and the members in favor of the bill, and to keep
our forces at their places when needed. After working for three days
and a half under the five-minute rule, we completed the
consideration of only eleven pages. The speaker, pressed for time,
was unwilling to proceed further with the debate on the measure and
we at length decided to attempt to pass it under a suspension of the
rules.
This was difficult of
accomplishment. Representative McKinley, for example, afterward
President of the United States, said that he was in favor of
internal improvements of this character, but that he would not vote
for the bill on its final passage under a suspension of the rules.
He had no rivers or harbors in his district, he said, and would
never be able to explain to all the old women and children why he
voted for so large an outlay of money without even considering it.
Rather than lose the bill entirely, however, he promised to support
it if necessity arose.
On Monday, suspension
day, we made our motion and were beaten by nineteen votes.
McKinley's name was called, but he did not respond. Among those who
opposed the bill was General Brown, from the Wabash district in
Indiana, a very able man. He was a member of the Judiciary Committee
and had some time before been defeated for the governorship by
Hendricks. General Culberson, of Texas, the father of Senator
Culberson and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, came to me as we
were about to vote and said that he had to go to the White House to
discuss an appointment with President Cleveland. We could not
sacrifice any votes, and as I was looking about to see whom I could
pair with Culberson, General Brown came up.
"Will you pair with
General Culberson?" I asked.
"Where is the other
man?" he replied. ''This motion requires a two-thirds majority and
it will take two to pair against me."
For the moment I did
not know where to turn, as he was right and there was no other man
available for the pair. I therefore took the dilemma by the horns.
"Has it come to this," I said, "that the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee of the House is not equal to a fellow from an inland
district down in Indiana?"
General Brown
hesitated a moment, then laughed and said: "All right; I'll go
down-town." The vote was saved.
On the second attempt
we succeeded in suspending the rules. McKinley again refused to
vote, but we had twenty more than the necessary two-thirds majority,
and the bill was passed. Our success aroused a deluge of criticism
on the ground of extravagance from all parts of the country.
Nevertheless the appropriations for rivers and harbors have gone on
increasing, reaching in the Fifty-ninth Congress the enormous total
of eighty-three million dollars.
With indiscriminate
denunciation of appropriations for rivers and harbors as
"pork-barrel" measures, I have little patience. Of course there is
no gainsaying that every precaution should be taken to avoid useless
expenditure, but the opposition of inland districts which are
without navigable rivers or harbors is as short-sighted as the
efforts of other districts to secure as large an appropriation as
possible without regard to the value of the improvement
contemplated. Wisely designed projects are not for the exclusive
benefit of the limited area in their vicinity. The Great Lakes, as I
had ample occasion to know, were the broad thoroughfare over which
the products of the Middle Western states, especially before the
advent of the railroads, found their way to the seaboard. It was to
the advantage of Iowa, Illinois, and other inland states as well as
to the states of Wisconsin and Michigan that harbors were built and
shipping facilities extended.
This line of
reasoning might well be carried to greater lengths. The construction
of canals and the improvement of navigable rivers will not only
obviate some of the problems which now confront us,—the shortage of
cars and the difficulty of moving crops,—but in the years to come
will cheapen transportation and give comparatively inaccessible
regions an outlet other than the railroads. To verge upon prophecy,
I believe that, as the general development of the country permits,
the great lakes should be connected with the Mississippi River by a
ship canal with a system of locks by which the waters of Lake
Michigan may be conserved and the level maintained. The Mississippi
should provide an adequate waterway from St. Paul to the Gulf of
Mexico over which the products of the North and Middle West might be
carried directly to foreign markets. To impound the waters of the
Great Lakes, the level of which must be maintained, a dam might be
built at the head of Niagara Falls, raising the level of Lake Erie;
the channel might be narrowed at the outlet of Lake Huron, reducing
the waste there; the flow might be checked to some extent in the
Straits of Mackinac at the narrowest point near St. Ignace, and
precautions taken to retard time flow at the "Soo," the outlet of
Lake Superior. Such projects are far in the future, perhaps, but
they are worthy of attention. Millions, even hundreds of millions,
might be expended annually, upon rivers, harbors, and canals in the
United States to advantage. At the same time water power, for which
there are many sites in northern Wisconsin and time northern
peninsula of Michigan, will be developed extensively for the
production of electricity, which will take the place of coal and
time rapidly dwindling supply of wood.
In 1882, when I first
became a candidate for Congress, I went to Ashland near the head of
Mucquanicum Bay, where there were three or four sawmills. The water
was shoal, not more than twelve feet deep, and Washburn, a village
four miles to the north, competed with Ashland for traffic. For fear
of disclosing their own lack of harbor facilities the people of
Ashland not only made no effort to secure an appropriation, but
frowned upon a movement to that end. To accomplish anything it was
necessary for me to take the initiative and I accordingly induced
Colonel Barlow, the engineer in charge of the district with
headquarters at Milwaukee, to make a survey for a breakwater
designed to prevent the sand from drifting into the harbor, and for
deepening the channel by dredging. Recommendations were made to this
effect, the survey was made, and in 1883 or shortly after I secured
an appropriation to begin the work.
Such was the attitude
adopted by many people of the country toward river and harbor
improvement. One of the most zealous advocates of it was my brother,
S. M. Stephenson, who during his four terms in Congress devoted much
time and effort to the work. It was due largely to his energy and
persistency that a continuing appropriation was made for the
maintenance and improvement of the "Soo" Canal and that many
projects on the lakes were undertaken.
Time has wrought
marked changes in the makeup of Congress since my first years of
service in the House of Representatives. Not only have the men who
dominated the activities of the legislative branch of the government
gone, but there are few of the same stamp to take their places. Men
of experience in the business world - commerce, finance,
manufacturing - have given way in great measure to lawyers, and the
effort to eradicate the evils of the old régime has resulted in a
mass of theoretical and experimental legislation enacted without
regard to its effect upon the productive resources of the country.
In my own time at least eleven of the sixteen members of the
Committee on Commerce of the Senate were lawyers, and only one other
than myself had ever had anything to do with a ship. To one member I
suggested that the only knowledge he had acquired of shipping was
confined to a prairie schooner, and the figure of speech could
doubtless have been applied to many others. Small wonder, then, that
the statute books have grown bulky with a mass of hastily enacted
legislation impossible of enforcement and that men at the head of
business institutions look with anxiety to the future. |
