INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY Volume XLII June, 1946 No. 2

The Money Question in Indiana Politics 1865-1890” WILLIAM G. CARLETON Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and other trans-Mis- sissippian states experienced in the 1890’s an agrarian cru- sade of tremendous proportions. Indiana went through a similar period of agrarian radicalism in the 1870’s. In both cases demands for monetary inflation loomed large in the program of economic amelioration. It is the purpose of this article to trace one aspect of agrarian radicalism in Indiana -the history of the inflation movement in the state during the 1870’s and the 1880’s. This movement in Indiana never became as evangelical or as spectacular as the free-silver agitation of the 1890’s in the West and the South, but it was persistent and in many ways similar. And like the later and more colorful movement, it largely failed and was not able to check the relentless trend toward an industrial and a conservative economy. The legal tender outstanding in 1865 amounted to $433, 000,000, and $145 of it exchanged for $100 in gold. The contraction bill advocated in April, 1866, by Hugh McCul- loch was passed by both houses of Congress and became a. law. This act authorized thle retirement of $10,000,000 of the legal tender within six months and after that $4,000,000 a month. The issue thus presented was as yet little under- stood by the voters of Indiana, and the positions taken by the various members of the Indiana delegation in Congress were not clarifying. Senator Henry S. Lane, Republican, voted for contraction, while Senator Thomas A. Hendricks, Democrat, was significantly absent. Michael C. Kerr, Dem- ocrat, representative from the second district, voted for the

*This article and the one which will follow in the next issue of the Magazine were prepared in a seminar in 1925-1926 in Indiana University under the direction of the Editor when Mr. Carleton was a senior. 108 Indiana Magazine of History measure. Kerr always leaned toward hard money. William E. Niblack, the Democratic representative from the first district, did not vote. The remainirrg memlxrs of the dele- gation were Republicans, and of these John H. Farquhar of the fourth district, Thomas N. Stillwell of the eleventh dis- trict, and Henry D. Washburn of the seventh district voted for contraction; Ralph Hill of the third district, George W. Julian of the fifth district, Joseph I-I. DefreEs of the tenth district, and Godlo~eS. Orth of the eighth voted against contraction ; while Eb,enezer Dumont of the sixth and Schuyler Colfax of the ninth did not vote.’ Julian was later counted as a hard-money man, but it must be remembered that many conservatives, including Juhn Sherman of Ohio, voted against the act of 1868, believing that the country was not yet readjr for contraction, and that McCulloch’s schemes were prema- ture. The large number of dodgers showed that sentiment in Indiana had not yet crystallized, and that it was not con- sidered politically safe to be on either side. Opinion as yet was unformulated. The three affirmative votes offset the three negative votes. In the midst of the depression of 1868, Congress by law ordered contraction to cease. The amount of outstanding legal tender had been reduced to $365,000,000. The bill put- ting an end to contraction passed the House on December 7, 1867, and every one of the ten Indiana representatives who votied cast his ballot in the affirmative. The three Demo- crats, Niblack, Kerr, and Holman, all of whom later be- came conservative on the money question, voted with the seven Republicans in favoi. of the bill. Speaker Colfax was in the chair and was the only Indiana member who did not vote. The bill passed thc Senate on January 15, 1868, and both Morton and Hendricks voted for it.’ Morton was avid in his support of tkie bill. Opinion in the Indiana delegation was thus unanimous, and sentiment in Indiana seems to have been overwhelmingly against contraction. Both parties in Indiana in 1868 wanted the greenbacks restored. McCulloch was an Indianan, and his home was at Fort Wayne. In the congressional election of 1866, he made sev- eral speeches in the state in favor of the moderate recon- struction policy of President Johnson, and he appears to

1 Congnessional Globe, 39 Cong., 1 Sess., 1854, 1614. 2 Ibid., 40 Cong., 2 Sess., 70, 537. Money Question in Indiana Politic.s, 1865-1 8!)0 10‘3

have wielded some influence in the Republican organization of the state.’ But after 1866, Oliver P. Morton opposed McCulloch on every important issue, becoming a leader of the radical reconstructionists in the Senate after his election to that body in 1867, and a spclcesrnan for the Western Re- publicans who favored cheap money. So savage did Morton become in opposition to sound money that Daniel M‘. Voorhees, who became the most conspicuous inflationist in the Demo- cratic party, was wont to use in his own speeches quotations irom Morton’s fulminations against hard money, and lonx after the Republican party in Indiana had abandoned cheap money, Voorhees delighted to taunt his adversaries with the vigorous inflation arguments uttered over and over again by the great Republican idol. Voorhees was especially fond of quoting from Morton’s speech in opposition to the Public Credit Act of 1869 in which the great Republican leader declared that “it would be foul injustice to the government and people of the United States, after we sold these bonds on an average of not more than 60 cents on the dollar, now to propose to make a new contract for the ben,efit of the bondholder^."^ It was Morton, not McCulloch, who expressed the aspirations of the Republicans of the state in the years immediately following the Civil War. The state platform of the Republicans in 1868 was €rankly radical on the money question. The platform de- clared that the large and rapid contraction of the currency, sanctioned by the votes of the Democratic party in both Houses of Congress, has had a most injurious effect upon the industry and business of the country; and it is the duty of Congress to provide by law for supplying the deficiency in legal tender notes, commonly called greenbacks, to the full extent required by the business wants of ihe country. In these words the platform approved the unanimous vote given by the Indiana cviigressional delegation to the bill ordering contraction to cease : We cordially approve the course of the Republican members of Congress in their active support of the bill prohibiting the further contraction of the currency, in which they faithfully represented the will of the

3Francis M. Trissal, Public Men of Indiana, A Political History from 1860 to 1890 (2 vols., Hammond, Indiana, 1922), I, 46. 4 Matilda Gresham, Life of Walter Quintin Gresham, 1832-18.9.5 (2 vols., Chicago, 1919), I, 430-431. 110 Indiana Mayaxine of Histo~y

people of Indiana. Acd this convention expresses their unwavering confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of Oliver P. Morton, . . . and we send greeting to him . . . and assurance to him of our unqualified endorsement of his course. On the public debt question the platform said this: “The public debt made necessary by the rebellion should be hon- estly paid; and all the bonds issued therefor should be paid in legal tenders, commonly called greenbacks, except where, by their express terms, they provide otherwise.”’ The Democrats entered the campaign of 1868 with a radical financial platform. It declared that : The national bank system, organized in the interests of the bondholders, ought to be abolished, and the United States notes substituted in lieu of the national bank currency, thus saving to the people, in interest alone, more than eighteen million dollars annually, and until such system of banks shall 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. The platform further declared on the same subject: That the bonds and other securities of the United States with every other description of property, should bear its equal proportion of taxation for State, county and municipal purposes, and to that end the bonds and other securities of the United States ought to be taxed by Congress for national purposes, in an amount substantially equal to the tax imposed on property in the several States for local purposes. The Democrats further asserted that they were in favor of “the payment of th8e Government bonds in Treasury notes, commonly called ‘greenbacks,’ (except where expressly made payable in gold by law,) at the earliest practicable point.”” The convention closed its platCorm labors with an eulogy of George 1% Pendleton of Ohio whose slogan “The same currency for the bondholder and the pl~ugh-holder’~had made him the leading inflationist candidate in the Democratic contest for the presidential nomination. The final platforni resolution declared Pendleton to be one “who has our entire

5 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, February 21, 1868 ; Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Herald, February 21, 1868; William E. Henry, State Platfoms of the Two Dominunt Politioal Parties in Indiana, 1850-1900 (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1902), 34-35. The Indiana delegation to the Republican National Convention of 1868 supported Grant and Colfax, both sound-money men, but other considerations dominated the situa- tion and entered into the choice. 6 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, January 9, 1868 ; Indianapolis, In- diana, Daily Herald, January 9, 1868; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 32-34. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 18651890 111

confidence and preference”-a pledge sufficiently elastic to permit the practical politicians freedom of action at the national convention. The Democratic national p1atfor.m of 1868 was radical on the currency question. It declared for Payment of the public debt of the United States as rapidly as practic- able . . . and where the obligations of the government do not expressly state upon their face, or the law under which they were issued does not provide, that they shall be paid in coin, they ought, in right and in justice, be paid in the lawful money of the United States. The Democrats promised “equal taxation of every species of property, according to its real value, including govern- ment bonds and other public securities.” Another plank de- clared for “one currency for the government and the people, the laborer and the office-holder, the pensioner and the soldier, the producer and the b~ndholder.”~The Indiana dele- gation favored the platform adopted, and it is noteworthy that Joseph E. McDonald, who was destined to become an outstanding hard-money advocate, was the Indiana member of the resolutions committee. On each of the first six ballots for a presidential can- didate, Indiana cast a solid block of thirteen votes for Pen- dleton. On the seventh ballot, while Pendleton was still the leading candidate before the convention, and while he was still increasing his strength and adding to his total vote, Indiana broke away from him, giving nine and one-half votes to her favorite son, Thomas A. Hendricks. It was the first break from Pendleton, and it occurred in a Western delega- tion. New York was quick to comprehend the possibilities of the situation and cast her solid block of thirty-three votes for Hendricks on the following ballot. With a real oppor- tunity thus presented to nominate her favorite son, Indiana could not now turn back to Pendleton. Tbe drift to the radical candidate was checked, and Indiana, an inflationisl state, produced the situation which destroyed all chances for the nomination of an inflationist. At the close of the eight- eenth ballot Pendleton’s name was withdrawn, and on the nineteenth the vote for Hendricks went up to one hundred seven and a half. While the twenty-second ballot was in

7 Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention . . . 1868 (Boston, 3868), 58-61; Indianapolis. Indiana, Journal, July 8, 1868; New York Times, July 8, 1868. 112 Indiana &Iagaxine of History progress, and when it appeared that a definite drift had set in for Hendricks, for his vote stosd at one hundred forty- five aiid a half, and immediately following the switch of North Carolina from Hancock to Hendrich, the Ohio delega- tion moved that Horatio Seymour be nominated and declared through its spokesman that such a nomination would be ac- ceptable to Pendleton. Seymour was then immediately and unanimously nominated on the revised twenty-second ballot. Betw8een an opportunistic Westerner, who had deprived him of a real chance to be the nominee, and an honest conserva- tive of the East, Pendletoii undoubtedly preferred the latter. The position of Thomas A. Hendricks on the money question was anomalous. Speaking at the Masonic Tenip!e at Indianapolis on January 7, 1551, before the Indiana Con- stitutional Convention, Hendricks had expressed very con- servative ideas most emphatically. I have no doubt that the time will yet come when the world will look back on the system of paper currency as a monstrous imposition and a strange delusion, as we now look back upon the efforts of the tyrants of the East and the monarchs of England to increase the wealth of their empires and kingdoms by debasing the coin.9 Hendricks had always been regard

s The story of the long balloting is found in the Official Proceed- ings of the National Democratic Convention . . . 1868, pp. 75-161, India- napolis, Indiana, Journal, July 8, 9, and 10, 1868; New York TimeP, July 8, 9, and 10, 1868. 8 John W. Holcombe and H. M. Skinner, Life and Public Services of Thomas A. Hendricks (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1886), 41‘7-418. The date is erroneously given as 1860, it should be 1861. 10 Official Proceedings of the National Demoeratic Convention . . . 180‘8, p. 153; New York Times, July 10, 1868; Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, July 10, 1868. Money Question in, Indiana Politics, 1865-1 8.00 113 paign of 1868, on September 13, Hendricks debated the is- sues of the campaign with Governor Baker at Portland, In- diana, and upheld the financial planks of the New York con- vention, declaring pointedly that the bonded debt of the United States, unless specifically provided for otherwise, should be paid in greenbacks, and that only the interest should b'e paid in gold." The inflation sentiment existing in Indiana in 1868 seems to have carried Hendricks with it. Later he again leaned toward sound money. Fundamentally, he appears to have been conservative on the money question, but politically subj,ect to change with every fluctuation in public opinion. As a politician, he treated the issue as an opportunist and not as a statesman. Eoth parties in Indiana were radical on the money ques- tion in 1868, each one attempting to outdo the other in in- flationist professions. Since both parlies wer)e radical, the issue was more or less removed. The campaign turned on national issues, and the national issues revolved around re- construction. Grant carried Indiana over Seymour by a ma- jority of 9,572, but Baker's 1,ead over Hendricks in the guber- natorial contest was only 961.12 Wheat fell in 1869 lo ninety-three cents. Corn dropped in 1870 to thirty-eight cents and wheat hovered around the dollar 1evel.l' There was an intensifying of agrarian unrest which bod,ec! ill for the party in power. The Democrats entered the campaign of 1870 with con- fidence. They presented the voters with a radical platform. They declared that we are willing to pay our national debt, in strict compliance with our contracts, whether it was made payable in gold or greenbacks, hut we are unwilling to do more than that; and we declare that the five-twenty bonds are payable in greenbacks, or their equivalent; and we condemn the policy of the Administration which is squandering millions of money by buying such bonds at a high rate of premium, when the Government has the clear right to redeem them at par.. . .That the business of the country dcmands an increased and maintained vol- ume of the currency; and the burthen of the public debt, the high rate of interest and taxation imperatively forbid the contraction of the

11 Holcombe and Skinner, Life and Public Services of Thomas A. Hendricks, 495-510. 12 The Trihzine Almanac and Politicul Register for 1869, p. 70. 13 Report of the Commissionier of Agriculture for the Year 1869 (Washington, 1870), 29; Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1870 (Washington, 1871), 31. 114 Indiana Magazine of History currency in the interest of the bondholders. . . .That the shares of stocks in the National Banks ought to be subjected to school and municipal taxation on the same conditions as other property.. . .That the bonds of the United States ought to be taxed by Congress for national purposes to such an extent as will substantially equalize the taxation of such bonds with other property subject to local taxation. The resolutions also contained a plank which made a bid to the wet voters of tbe state. It declared that “any attempt to regulate the moral ideas, appetites, or innocent amusements of the people by legislation is unwise and despotic.”’4 Thus fiscal radicalism and an appeal to the wet elements were united in a prograni calculated to please the voters, a union effected and assiduously maintained by the Democrats for the succeeding three decades. The Republican platform of 1870 was not as radical as that of 1868. Its language was guarded. It declared that the national debt . , . , however great the burden, must be cheerfully borne, until honorably and honestly extinguished in accordance with the letter and spirit of the several laws authorizing the debt; and that all attempts at repudiation of principal or interest should meet the scorn and denunciation of an honest and patriotic people.. . .That we are in favor of a currency founded on the national credit, as abund- ant as the trade and commexe of the country demand; and that we disapprove of all laws in reference thereto which establish monopoly or inequality therein. It will be noted that the currency plank was conveniently vague. The platform also declared in favor of “moral legis- lation,” stating that it was “the duty and right of the Stat? . . . to establish, foster and secure the highest moral and intellectual development of the The Democrats carried the state in 1870. ‘Th(e state ticket won by majorities ranging from 2,600 to 3,100. The result was a surprise to the Republicans, who believed that the ac’.dition of the Negro vote had made them invincible.’’’ The economic discontent of the day expressed itself in the Democratic victory.

14 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, January 10, 1870 ; Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, January 10, 1870; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominawt PaTties, 36-37. l5 Indianapolis, Indiana, Duily Sentanel, February 23, 1870 ; India napalis, Indiana, Journal, February 23, 1870; Henry, State Platfontis of the Two Dominant Parties, 37-40. 16The Tribune Almanac urul Political Register for 1871, p. 63; John B. Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1917), 243-244. Money Question in Indiana Politics., 1865-1590 115

Agrarian conditions were slightly better in 1872 than they had been in 1870, but ad a general thing the depression continued. Wheat rose to $1.26 in 1871 and to $2.32 in 1872. Corn fell to thirty-seven cents in 1871 and lo twenty-nine cents in 1872. Rye was seventy cents in 1870 and sixty-five cents in 1872. Barley was eighty-three cents in 1870 arid sixty-nine cents in 1872. Buckwheat was seventy-one cents in 1870 and eig-hty-five cents in 1872. Hay was $11.46 in 1870 and $12.53 in 1872.17 Corn, oats, and potatoes, however., were lower, and corn was Indiana’s leading crop. The Democrats and Liberal Republicans fused in 1872. The Democrats were divided on the question of fusion, and the party leaders were uneasy. Grreley was an advocate of sound money, and a majority of the seceding Republicans were of like faith. In Indiana the leading Liberal Republican was George W. Julian, and on the moncy question he was conservative. In order not to offend their new Republican allies, therefore, the Democraiic state platform of 1872 avoid- ed all mention of the money question. Instead, the Demo- crats emphasized the corruption of the Grant administration anc! the iniquities of radical reconstruction in the South. The platiorm was virtually a reiteration of that written by the Liberal Republicans at Cincinnati.” No such unduly pressing practical ne?d ccmpelled the Republicans to b,e so wary, but the national Republican ad.- ministration was conservative, and consequently, the Re- publican platform was even more conservative than it had been in 1870, notwithstanding the survival of a large radical element in the Republican party of Indiana. The Republicans virtually declared that the situation existing was satisfactory to them and endorsed the conservative policy of the adminis- tration as typified by Boutwell’s conduct of the Treasury Dtl- partment. The platform declared that “the adherence of Con- gress and the administration to the present financial policy -in spite of the hostilitj of political opponents-has been fully justified by the payments made on the public dJebt, and in the stability, security and increased confidence it has given to all the business affairs of the country.” No currency plank

17 Report of the Commissioner of Agriczdture for the Year 1871 (Washington, 1872), 22; Report of the Commissionw of Agriculturre lor the Yeur 1872 (Washington, 1373), 17. 18 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, June 13, 1872; Henry, Stute Plnt- forms of the Two Dominant Pwties, 40-41. 3 16 Indiana Magazine of History occurred in the platform. The Republican platform of 1872 was a far cry from the radical utterance of 1868.19 There was no great amount of enthusiasm for Grant in Indiana, but there was none for Greeley. Joseph E. McDon- ald flatly refused to support the Tribune editor, and Daniel Voorhees felt that it was almost sacrilege to do so. Hendriclrs was the Democratic candidate for governor, and he was per- sonally very popular. Thomas M. Browne, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, was knowii to be intemperate, and this lost him many votes. Hendricks carried the state by 1,148 votes, but the General Assembly was Republican on joint ballot by a majority of twelve, and this assured the re-election of Morton to the Senate. The Democratic candi- date for State Superintendent of Public Instruction was the clnly Democrat elected with Hendricks.20 The people were restless, there was widespread economic discontent, and it seems that if the Democrats had divorced themselves entirely from the Liberal Republicans and had boldly put out a Democratic ticket on an inflationist plat- form, that they would have stood a good chance to carry the state. Instead they supported Gneeley, paraded Carl Schurz up and down the state,21flooded the voters with the polemics of Julian, alienated thousands of strict party Democrats, and emphasized political issues which never caught fire. They cal1,ed attention to the grievances of the South without offer- ing a semedy for the economic grievances of the Indiana farmer. A single Voorhees, repeating the arguments for cheap money in a score of rural Hoosier settlenients, would have come much nearer tG carrying the state for the Demo- crats. George W. Julian and Isaac P. Gray never returned after 1872 to thle Republican fold. Henceforth both acted with the Democratic party. Julian was a political liberai, but conserva- tive on the money question. Gray was more radical, and his views on financial questions were closer to those of Voorhees, Turpie, Landers, and Williams than they were to those of Mc- Donald, Kerr, and English.

19 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, February 23, 1872; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 42-43. 20 Annual Report of the Secnetmj of State of the State of Indiana, for the Year ending October 31, 1874, p. 142; The Tribune Almanuc ad Political Register for 1874, p. 6'7 21 Stoll, History ,of the Indiana Democracy, 255-258. Money Question in Indinna Politics, 186.5-1890 117

After the election oE 1872, there was a growing feeling among the farmers of the state that both the major parties had abandoned economic liberalism. The Republican platform of that year had endorsed the fiscal policies of the Grant ad- ministration and had contained a plank only tepidly protesting against any further grants of public lands to railroads. The Democratic party apparently had abandoned its radicalism of 1868 and 1870, and not a single plank of its 1872 state plat- form suggested methods of economic amelioration. Seemingly, the only alternative lePt to the farmer was to organize inde- pendently of the two major parties. As agrarian discontent increased, tbe agricultural frater- nity known as the Patrons of Husbandry or the Grange grew in membership, power, and influence. The first Grange organ- ized in the state appeared near Terre Haute on December 21, 1869. The Statie Grange of Indiana was organized on March 1, 1872, and John Weir of Terre Haute became its first master. At the beginning of 1874, there were 423 Granges in Indiana; in March there were 985; in June there were 1,409 with a membership of 53,141. By January, 1875, there were 2,994 Granges organized, and by the middle of that year the State Grange paid the national dues on 59,981 This rep- resented the high water mark of the organization in Indiana. At first the order confined itself to agricultural educa- tion, social diversion, and protection of the farmer in his com- mercial dealings. By 1873, the Indiana Grange actively was engaged in a campaign which had for its purpose the regula- tion of the railroads. In May, 1873, I?. C. Johnson, a state deputy of the Grangers, rcpresented the Indiana Grange at the conference of the American Cheap Transportation Society held in New York City. In October of the same year, Johnson stated in an interview given to the public through the Indiana- polis Daily Sentinel that freight rates could be reduced by about fifty per cent.2J At its annual meeting in 1874, the Indiana State Grange passed a resolution denouncing the excessive freight rates of the railroads and requesting Con-

22 Oliver H. Kelley, Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States (Philadelphia, 1875), 180, 215-216, 374; State Grange, Patrons of Husbandry of the State of Indiana, Proceedings, 1874. (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1874), 34; Logan Esarey, History of Indiana (2 vols., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1918), 11, 854. 23 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, October 10, 1873. 118 Indiana Mngaxine of History gress and the General Assembly to pass nemedial legislation.” From freight rates the Grange s3on turned to inflation. A severe financial panic occurred in 1873. Hog prices, which had hovered around six and seven dollars since 1870, fell to $3.61. Wheat fell to $1.22 in the same year, and in 1874 fell to ninety-four cents. Corn, however, rose to forty cents in 1873 and to fifty-one cents in 1874.2i But despite this increase corn was still low in price, and the small rise did not offset the greater losses sustained in wheat and hogs. Immediately, the old demand for more money was re- vived. A series of meetings held in Indianapolis between October 25 and November 14, 1873, resulted in the organiza- tion of an independent party. These meetings were attended by prominent farmers and men influential in the Grange. The moving spirits were E. A. Ollernan, editor of the Indiana Farmer, who possessed a genius for organization, and James Euchanan, the slashing editor of the Indianapolis Sun. Bu- chanan was shrewd and able, and the Chicago Tribune dubbed him the “political Moses of the ‘New Party.”’”” At the third of these meetings, held the first week in November, the aspirations of the reformers were put together in a set of resolutions which later became the corner stone of the Nation- al Greenback party under the name of the “Indiana Plan.” These resolutions attributed the panic to lack of sufficient circulating medium and declared it the duty of Congress to provide an elastic currency. They claimed that persons possess- ing government bonds should be permitted to deposit them with the United States Treasurer and draw out an equal a- mount of greenbacks, and that the depositor might, as soon as he chose, redeem his bonds by returning the currency, no in- terest accruing on the bonds while so deposited. The resolu- tions further declaxed that the whole issue of legal tender notes then authorized by law should be put into circulation at once.27 The State Grange at its meeting at Valparaiso on No-

24State Grange, Patrons of Husbandry of the State of Indiana, Proceedings, 1874, p. 30. 25Rewort of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 187.3 (Washington, 1874), 22, 39; Report of the Cornmissioner of Agriculture for the Yew 1874 (Washington, 1875), 28. 26 Solon J. Buck, The Agrarian Crusade (New Haven, Connecti- cut, 1920), 82. 27 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, November 6, 1873. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 186.5-1 8!10 119 vember 27, 1873, took practically the same position.2x From the first the relations between the leaders of the Greenbackers and the leaders of the Grange were intimate. Henley James of Grant County, prominmt in the Grange, became a promin- ent Greenbacker, and Worthy Master of the State Grange headed the Gretenback ticket in the campaign of 1878. The movement also attracted a few politicians, the most fa- mous being the affable Judge David Kilgore. The Greenback movement in Indiana has been exaggerat- ed due to the great influeizce the Indiana organization wielded in the founding and development of the National Greenback party. The inflationist sentiment of Indiana expressed itself more effectively in the Democratic party, and, while the Greenback organization furnished many original ideas which ultimately found expression in Demoeratic platforms, as an active and effective political organization attaching to itself widespread and popular support, it cannot be said to have been very successful in Indiana. Following the panic of 1873, the sentiment of the country was so strongly in favor of more money that the Secretary oE the Treasury was impelled. to change for bonds $26,000,000 of legal tender which McCulloch withdrew but did not destroy, thus raising the amount outstanding to $382,000,000. But public opinion, particulariy in the West, demanded a still greater inflation of the currency. The Senate passed a bill on April 6, 1874, to increase the outstanding amount of legal tenders by $18,000,000. Oliver P. Morton led the forces supporting the bill, and both he and Daniel B. Pratt, his Republican colieague, voted for it.L'' Tho Inflation Bill passed the House on April 14, nine Republican members from Indiana voted in favor. of passage. Niblack, the Democratic representative from the first dis- trict, and William S. Holman, the Democratic representative from the third district, voted against the bill. Both belonged to the conservative wing of the Democratic party. Simeon K. Wolfe, the Democratic representative from the second district. and Henry B. Sayler, the Republican representative from the tenth district, refrained from voting. " The latter was an out-

28 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, November 26 and 28, 1873; Esa- rey, History of Indiana, 11, 872. 29 Congressional Record, 43 Cong., 1 Sess., 2825-2835. 30 Ibid., 3073; Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 43 Cong., 1 Sess., 801-802 (serial no. 1593). 120 Indiana Magazine of History

spoken inflationist, but the conservative element of the Demo- cratic party under the able leadership of Michael Kerr was active in his district at this time. A movement was on foot to replace Wolfe by nominating Kerr, and the radical representa- tive probably decided that inactivity was the prudent policy to pursue. When Grant vetoed the Inflation Bill the whole West was furious. There was considerable feeling in Indiana. In their denunciation of the President the Republican papers were more vehement than the Demacratic.31 The Democrats recognized the clash between Roscoe Conkling and Morton, and openly rejoiced at the drubbing administered to the Indi- ana Senator. Morton had confidently believed that the Presi- dent would sign the bill, and his disappointment and humilia- tion were keen. But D,errocrats and Republicans alike united in a condemnation of the veto. The Senate failed to pass the bill on April 28 over the President's veto. Pratt voted with the inflationists, and Morton also would have voted to override the President, but he was paired with Senator Morrill, who opposed the bill, and neither he nor Morrill voted.'? It is evident that Indiana Republicans had returned to their radical position of 1868. The first state convention of the Greenback party was held in Indianapolis on June 9 and 10, 1874. Judge Kilgore presided. The platform demanded that greenbacks should be the only circulating paper money and that they be inter- changeable with government bonds. It further declared that the war debt should be paid as it was contracted, that is, in greenbacks. The resolutions declaned against consolidation oE the railroads, oppression by the banks, ruinous rates of inter- est, the squandering of the public domain, and manufacturing, land, commercial, and grain monspolies. A full state tickei was placed in the field.i' The Republicans flirted with radical doctrines, but were guarded and brief in their platform treatment of them. The

31 Compare the editorial in the Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, April 23, 1874, with that of the Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel for the same date. 32Congressional Record, 43 Cong., 1 Sess., 3436; Journal of the Senate of the United States, 43 Cong., 1 Sess., 505 (serial no. 1579). 3.1 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, June 10 and 11, 1874; Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, June 10 and 11, 1874; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 44-46. Money Quest ion in, Idiana Politics, 1865-1 890 ‘621 only reference to the burning financial question was this plank in the Republican platform: We are in favor of such legislation on the question of finances as shall make National banking free; as shall furnish the country with such an additional amount of currency as may be necessary to meet the wants of the agricultural, industrial and commercial interests of the country-to be distributed between the sections according to popula- tion-and such as, consistent with the credit and honor of the nation will, avoid the possibility of permitting capitalists and combinations of capital from controlling the currency of the countrg.84 This plank was construed as a radical declaration by the Republican press and was so considered by Morton. Throughout the campaign Morton preached inflation. Benja- min Harrison and Walter Q. Gresham were chagrined that the Republican party had not come out definitely for sound money. Administration supporters and Eastern Republicans could not undlerstand the position taken by Indiana Republi- cans. While on a visit to Indiana iyi 1872, Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin H. Bristow confided to friends that Mor- ton had ruined the chances of the Republicans in Indiana.35 The Democratic State Convention of 1874 was under the control of Voorhees and Governor IIendricks. Hendricks ap- parently was impressed with the widespread popular demand for more money, and he acquiesced in the radical financial planks advocated by Voorhees.36 On the inflation question the D,emocrats “outinflated” the Greenback inflationists. They even demanded the repeal of the Public Credit Act of 1869, which provjded that the government bonds should be paid in coin. If this act were repealed, the federal government could pay the principal of its bonded indebtedness in legal tenders. Michael Kerr and Joseph E. McDonald disapproved of the action of the state convention. Kerr returned to his home in New Albany and made the race for Congress in the second district as the Democratic candidate on a platform declaring for sound money.’7 McDonald openly repudiated the financial planks of his party platform, and in a speech at Greencastle

34 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, June 17 and 18, 1874; Henry, Sfate Platfoms of the Two Dominant Pwties, 47-49. 45 Gresham, Life of Walter Quintin Gresham, I, 426. Chapter 26 gives a good account of Gresham’s position on the money question. 36 Ibid., chapter 26; also the Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, ju1y 15, 1874; Indianapolis, Indiana, Jozcrnal, July 15, 1874. 37 Gresham, Life of Walter Quintin Gresham, I, 426-427. 122 Indiana Magazine of History

in the course of the eaixpaiqn boldiy espoused the cause of sound money.:* McDonald spent much of his time during the campaign in the second district speaking for Kerr. As the campaign progressed the enthusiasm of Hendricks for the financial planks of his party’s platform oozed away. Hendricks was looking to the Democratic presidential nom i- nation in 1,876, and the money “heresies” of the Indiana Democracy were not popular in the East. Through the pages of the Louisville Courier-Journal, Colonel Henry Watterson was aiming cutting shafts of ridicule at Hendricks, and the Couxier-.Jou,rnal was widely read by the Democrats of south- ern Indiana. Concerning the state convention of the Demo- crats, the Courier-Journal had said sardonically : Take Indiana, for example. The last Democratic Convention was an offense to decency and intelligence. The only brave man of influence in it was Mr. Kerr. . . .Nothing could more conclusively show what a farce it is to talk of Hendricks for the White House. It was Dan Voorhees’ work certainly; for he wants to be the only Daniel in the lion’s den, and is always able to raise the devil among the sheep and the doves represented and led by the sweet-faced kid in the executive mansion at 1ndianapolis.zQ Refore the campaign closed Hendricks had come over to a sound-money position, and an agreement had been reached whereby the Governor was to use his influence with the Demo- cratic members of the General Assembly to secure the election of the comervatisre McDonald to the Senate, and the conserva- tives were expected to stand by Hendricks in the contest for the presidential nomination in 1876. [Jntil Hendricks had switched, Daniel Voorhees was slated for FJnited States Sena- toi.. Voorhees quickly scented the deal struck, and cuttingiy insinuated that he was tempted by no “glittering purse in the shape of an office.”’* Inflation WCM a great vietwy in Indiana in 1874. The Democrats ear.ned cver.y state office. The Democratic candi- date for Secretary of 3tak won over his RPpubliean opponlenl by 17,252 votes. The pei-centage of votes as reflected in thc contest for &c~ef;a~-of State was 52.49 per oent for- the Democrats and 47.51 per cent for the Repubiicans. J. B. Stout, the Greenback candidate for Secretary of State, polled

38 Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracg, 262. 39 Gresham, Life of Walter Qzcintin Gresham, I, 428-429. 413 Ibid., 429. Money Qwslion in tndinna Polities, 1865-1890 123

16,233 votes ; the Grwnbacli candidate for Treasurer polled 19,047 ; and the Greenbad: candidate for Auditor, Attorney- General, and Superintenclent of Public Instruction each polled over 18,000 Thle Greenbackers polled ten or more per cent of the votes for every state office in twenty-one coun- The real strength of the inflationists was revealed in the vote cast for Horace P. Biddle of Logansport for Judge of the Supreme Court from the newly created fifth judicial dis- trict. His majority of 25,46543 represented the combined Democratic and Greenback majority, although Biddle’s ma- jority should have gone to about thirty-four thousand if there had been a working fusion everywhere in the state. Eight of the thirteen congressional districts sent Demo- crats to Congress. Democrats were elected from the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, tenth, and twelfth dis- tricts. In the seventh district the inflationists won an especial victory. Franklin Landlersof Morgan County, a radical Demo- crat, was nominated for Congress by the Democrats and was endorsed by the Greenbackers. Landers defeated General John Coburn in the election. In 1874 the seventh district in- cluded Marion, Hendricks, Morgan, and Putnam The victory of Kerr in the second district was a victory for hard money. The radical Democrats of the district concen- trated on General John T. Cravens, who had the support of Wolfe, the Democratic representative of the district at that time. Copies of the Cincinnati Enquirer containing the infla- tionist speeches of Voorhees were sent through the district in an attempt to defeat Kerr. Hundreds of Republicans, led by Walter Q. Gresham, supported Kerr. The latter owed his slender victory to Republican votes. The Democratic state ticket had a majority of 4,800 in the district, while Kerr’s lead was only l,000.45 This notable victory of a conservative who successfully defied his inflationist party in the inflation- ist district of an inflationist state made Kerr nationally fa-

41 The Tr-ibume .4lmanac tsnd PoPitical Reg,ister for 1875, pp. 78-79. 42 Annual Report of the Secretary of State of the State of Indiariu, f0.r. the Year ending October hl, 1874, pp. 137-147. The counties were Benton, Blackford, Boone, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Greene, Hancock, Henry, Jasper, Jay, Johnson, Montgomery, Newton, Owen, Pike, Steu- ben, Sullivan, Tippecanoe, Warren, and Whitley. 43 The Tdmne .4?rrLnnac und Political Rey,ister for 1x75, p. 78. 44 Ibid., 79. 4i Gresham, Life of CVallrr Qirlrili?r Gresiimz, I, 432. 124 Indiana Magazine of History mous and very popular with conservatives, and in 1875 he was elected Speaker of the House. As a result of the election, the Democrats numbered eighty-three in the General Assembly, having twenty-three members in the Senate and sixty in the House. The Republi- cans could muster only fifty-four votes on joint ballot, number- ing twenty-two in the Senate and thirty-two in the House. The Greenback party held five seats in the Senate and eight in the House, totaling thirteen on joint ballot."" In the election of the General Assembly of a United States Senator in the winter of 1875, the inflationists lost the fruits of their victory. The result of the election turned on personali- ties and the exigencies of party politics. The name of Voor- hees was presented and withdrawn. McDonald received the support of the Hendricks cohorts and became the nominee of the Democratic caucus. Senator Daniel Pratt was the Re- publican nominee to succeed himself. The irrepressible James Buchanan was the Greenback candidate. McDonald received seventy-six votes, Pratt forty-one, and Buchanan thi~teen.~' Thus the Democrats sent to the Senate a thorough conserva- tive and the Republicans voted to re-elect a man whose record on the money question had been consistently liberal until December, 1874, when he had cast an affirmative vote for the Speci,e Resumption Act. But the legislature that sent McDonald to the Senate was not conservative. David Turpie, an inflationist, was elected Speaker of the Three radical bills, each of which sought drastic regulation of the railroads, developed consider- able strength ;49 and a joint resolution introduced in the House instructing the Indiana senators and requesting the Indiana delegation in the lower house of Congress to vote for the 3.65 Interconvertible Bond Bill commanded formidable support, but finally was laid upon the table.50 The Specie Resumption Aet became a law on January 14, 1875.51 It provided that the legal tender notes be retired as

40 The Tribune Almanac. and Political Register for 1875, p. 78. 47 Journal of the House of Representatives of Indiana, 1875, pp. 222-226. 48 Ibid., 7. 48 Journal of the Senate of Indiana, 1875, pp. 102, 273, 562, 686- 687, 825, 828. 50 Journal of the House .f Representatives of Indiana, 1875, p. 81. 51 United States Statutes at Large, XVIII, 296. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 1865-1 890 125 new national bank notes were issued until the greenbacks outstanding wene $300,000,000. To get gold for the purpose and to maintain resumption the Secretary of the Treasury was to sell bonds for coin until he had $100,000,000 of specie on hand. The vote of the Indiana congressional delegation on re- sumption presented a most curious neversal of conditions. In the Senate both Morton and Pratt voted for the measure. 111 the House nine of the Republican members voted for the bill and one did not vote. The three Democratic members, Niblack, Wolfe, and Holman voted against resumption.'52 The Republicans had voted solidly for the Inflation Bill in 1874, yet eight months later they voted solidly for resump- tion. This right-about-face is even more remarkable consider- ing the strong inflation sentiment in the state as manifested in the election of 1874. But nationally the Republican party was becoming more and more conservative, and the congres- sional defeat of 1874 showed the party that it must make a choice between the East and the West. Already it had elected to support an Eastern and an industrial economy. The tug of party loyalty was too much for the Indiana Republicans: they capitulated.53 The vote of Orth for resumption was to plague him in the gubernatorial race of 1876. Niblack and Holman were personally conservative money men, and in 1874 they had voted against the Inflation Bill. But the Indiana Democracy had become definitely inflationist, and Holman and Niblack merely voted the sentiments ex- pressed in the 1874 state platform of their party. Wolfe was an hon,est inflationist, and he undoubtedly voted his senti- ments. So encouraged were Buchanan and Olleman at the show- ing made by the radical forces in 1874 that they decided to launch a movement looking toward the formation of a definite third-party organization. Accordingly, a national convention was held in Cleveland, Ohio, in March of 1875, and a national

52Congressional Record, 43 Cong., 2 Sess., 188, 319; Journal of the Senate of the United States, 43 Cong., 2 Sess., 68 (serial no. 1628) ; Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 43 Cong., 2 Sess., 137-138 (serial no. 1633). 53 The position of Morton on the financial question is given in William D. Foulke, Life of Oliver P. Morton (2 vols., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1899), 11, chapter XV. It is possible that Morton was par- tially actuated by the lure of the Republican presidential nomination in 1876. 126 Indiana Magazine of History party organization perfecfed. Twelve states were represented. Olieman became national chairman of the new party and Bu- chanan was chosen secretary. The Specie Resumption Act 01 1875 was denounced and the leading features of the Indiana Plan were endorsed. Olleman and Bucharian began active organization work in Indiana. Greenback clubs appeared in various parts of the stat,e. The “Capital” club of Indianapolis numbered two hun- dred fifty members. One in Terre Haute was reported to have six hundred mernber~.“~As a general thing, these clubs came to be more radical than the party organization, and under the direction of Marcus M9 or “Brick” Ponieroy, national organiz- er, they became quite Through these clubs in various parts of the state, dele- gates were chosen to attc~ida state convention of the new party at hdianapolis, Febrwary 17, 1876. There were more than 350 delegates present representing fifty-four counties. In their platfcrm the GrFenbackers declared for the uncondi- tional repeal of the Resumption -4ct, for the refunding of the national debt at 3.65 per cent. and for the essential features of the Indiana Plan:” Franklin Landers, who was serving a term in the lower house of Congress as a result of the fusion of Democrats and Greenbackers in the seventh district elec- tion of 1874, was nominated for governor. Anson Wolcott of White County was nominated for lieutenant-governor. The national convention of the Greenback party was held in Indianapolis on May 17, 1876, with 240 delegates xpresenting eighteen states. This convention called for the “immediate and unconditional repeal of the Specie Resump- tion Act.” David Davis of Illinois was turned down as a candidate, and Peter Cooper of New York. and Senator New- ton Booth of California became the nominees of the party for president and vice-president respectively. Senator Eooth de- clined the nomination arid General Samuel F. Cary of Ohio was substituted. The Indiana Idea had dominated the con- ent ti on.^^ The Republican pilatfcrm of 1876 ~7asmore liberal thari one would expect, considering the support that Indiana mem-

54 Esarey, Histow of Indiana, 11, 874. 55For a sketch of Pomaroy see Buck, The Agrarian Crwsade, 86-87. 56 Indianapolis, Indiana, Duily Sentinel, February 17, 1876. 57 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, May 18, 1876. Mon,ey Question in Indiana Politics, 1865-1 890 127

bers of the party in Congress gave to the Specie Resumption Act. The curnency plank declared that “so much of the so- called resumption act as fixes the time for the resumption of Zpecie payments should be repealed.” It furthier declared that “after such repeal the currency should remain undis- turbed-neither contracted nor expanded.” The Republicans in their platform made use of the argument that since the Democrats had opposed the issmanoe of greenbacks during the Civil War, they must surely he opposed to them in 1876, else their former opposition had been necessarily insincere. The Republicans also employed the greenback issue as a con- servative argument, making the discovery that the greenback currency removed the necessity of a return to “the system of local and irresponsible banking which existed under the ad- ministration of Buchanan.”’x Godlove S. Orth was made the Republican nominee for governor. He had voted for the Specie Eesumption Act while a member of Congress. At the time of his nomination, he was the American minister to Austria. On financial questions the Democratic state platform of 1876 was a ramshackle affair, hut preponderantly radical. It pronounced the contraction of the currency a “vicious fi- nancial policy,” yet a few paragraphs below in the same plat- form we find a declaration for “our ancient doctrine that gold and silver are the true and safe basis for the currency, and we are in favor of measures and policjes that will pro- duce uniformity in value in the coin and paper money of the country without destroying or embarrassing the business in- terests of the people.” But in the same plank the Democrats declared that they would oppose “the contraction of the vo!- ume of our paper currency,” and favor the adoption of meas- ures “looking to the gradual retirement of tbe circulation of thc national banks and the substitution therefor [of] circulat- ing notes issued by authority of the government.” The party iurther declared that a natural return to specie payments will be promoted by the increase of national wealth and industries, by the assurance of harmony at homa and peace abroad, and by strengthening our public credit under a wise and economical administration of our national affairs. The legal tender notes constitute a safe currency, and one especially valuable to the debtor classes, because of its legal tender quality. We demand

58 Ibd., February 23, 1876; Henry, State Plutforms of the Two Dotruinant Parties, 52-55. 128 Indiana Magazine of History the repeal of the legislation enacted by the Republican party providing for its withdrawal from circulation and the substitution therefor of national bank paper. The idea of the Democrats seems to have been that green- backs would circulate at par with gold if enough time were allowed to elapse, and that “natural resumption” would not work an undue hardship on the debtor. The last financial plank asserted that the act of Congress for the resumption of specie payments . . . was devised in secret caucus for party ends, and forced through the House of Representatives without the allowance of amendment or debate;. . . . it paralyzes industry, creates distrust of the future, turns the laborer and producer out of employment, is a standing threat upon business men, and should at once be repealed without any condition whatever.59 Thus the Democratic party stood for resumption by natural means and for the repeal of the entire Specie Resumption Act. The Republicans had contented themselves with a declar- ation in favor of the repeal of the clause which fixed a definite time for resumption. The Democrats also came out against the national bank notes, while the Republicans supported them. Franklin Landers, James D. Williams, and W. S. Holman were the Democratic governorship aspirants. Holman was a member of Congress from the third district, and although he voted against the Specie Resumption Act, he had been up to that time a financial conservative. Franklin Landers was a member of Congress from the seventh district, being elected in 1874 by virtue of Democratic and Greenback fusion. He was at the time the Greenback nominee for governor. He was a thorough radical, being obsessed with the idea that the bank notes would drive out the greenback currency. In a speech at Greencastle, he had declared that the land of the farmer was pledged to the payment of the bank notes.60 Wil- liams was a wealthy farmer of Knox County who had served many years in the General Assembly. At this time he was serving a term in Congress. He was an inflationist. He was extremely homely and his plain ways were calculated to appeal to a community where love of the simple Jacksonian virtues

59 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, April 20, 1876 ; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 49-51. 600. B. Carmichael, “Campaign of 1876 in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History (Bloomington, Indiana, 1905- ), IX (1913), 276-297. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 1865-1890 329

still lingered. The name of Voorhees was presented to the convention, but he was not a candidate. Williams was nomi- nated on thie second ballot. Morton was the choice of the Indiana Republicans for the presidential nomination in 1876. He had been an outstand- ing radical on the money question until the force of party 1037- alty had compelled him to support the Specie R8esumptionAct. Inherently, he was an inflationist, and he must still have felt that a policy of abundant money was the best one for the people of Indiana, most of whom were still farmers. On six ballots th5e entire thirty votes of Indiana were given to Mor- ton. On the seventh ballot, after the nomination of Morton was seemingly impossible, Indiana cast twenty-five votes for Rutherford B. Hayes and five for Beajamin H. Bristow. Both Hayes and Bristow were exponents of sound money. On the only ballot for vice-president, Indiana gave twenty votes t3 Stewart L. Woodford of New York, two for William A. Wheeler, seven for Marshall Jewell, and one for Joseph R. Hawley, all of whom were conservative.‘,’ The Democrats went to St. Louis pledged to support for the presidential nomination Thomas A. Hendriclis, whose position on the money question had been equivocal. He was talking in a vague way about the wisdom of resumption ic 1876, and the Indianapolis Journal, exasperated at his vacilla- tion, had declared “that he was consid,ered a ‘hard money’ man in the East and a ‘soft money’ man in the West and that he was trying to cater. to the support of both the eastern and western Democi”ats.”‘X2 But there was nothing equivocal about the views of a majority of Indiana d(e1egates. They were inflationists, and they followed the lead of Voorhees. The resolutions committee reported a financial plank which was obviously a compromise. It declared we denounce the ficancial imbecility and immorality of that CRepub- lican] party, which during eleven years of peace has, made no ad- vance toward resumption, no preparation for resumption, but instead has obstructed resumption by wasting our resources and exhausting all our surplus income, and while annually professing to intend a speedy return to specie payments has annually enacted fresh hindrances

61 Official Proceedings of the Republican National Conventions . . . 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880 (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1903), 304, 307, 320- 321, 324, 327, 330. fl2 Carmichael, “Campaign of 1876 in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, IX, 283. 130 Indiana Magazine of History thereto. As such hindrance we denounce the resumption clause of the act of 1875 and we here demand its repeal.63 This hybrid declaraticn pleased neither the conservatives nor the radicals. A minority report offered by members of the resolutions committee from five Eastern states contained the sentiments of the ultra conservatives. It proposed that the clause “we denounce the resumption clause of the act 01 1875, and we here demand its repeal” be strick(en The minority report of the conservatives was defeated. The radical minority report was endorsed by members of the resolutions committee from Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Iowa, West Virginia, Kansas, and Missouri. Voorhees was the Indiana member of the committee whose name was appended to the radical minority report. Thomas Ewing of Ohio introduced the report, but Voorhees was its chief oratorical reliance. The report proposed the following specific declaration in opposition to the Specie Resumption Act: “The law for the resumption of specie payments on the first of January, 1879, having been enacted by the Republican party without deliberatiorl in Congress or discussion before the people, and being both ineffectual to secure its object and highly injurious to the business of the country ought to be forthwith re~ealed.”~~ The fluent Voorhees defended the radical minority report in an eloquent speech. He said: We can all recall a time when our paper was worth but forty cents on the dollar in gold. It had grown to be worth ninety cents before the law was passed at all. It had appreciated fifty cents on the dollar before your favorite pet idea of forced resumption touched the question in the halls of Congress; it had, sir, by the natural laws of trade and by the laws of God’s growth and prosperity returning to the country, appreciated fifty cents on the dollar in the course of eight years. Let us trust that the gap of only about ten or twelve per cent. remaining will be closed up by the same great laws in a very short time in the future.66 In other words, Voorhees was expressing the doctrine of nat- ural resumption which had been written into the Democratic state platform-the doctrine that if enough time were allowed

63 Official Proceedings of the National Democratio C,onvention . . . 1876 (St. Louis, Missouri, 1876), 95. 64ZIhid., 99. 65 Ibid., 100. 66Zbid., 106. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 186.5-1 8.00 131

to elapse resumption would take place through the operation of natural forces. Voorhees made a frankly sectional appeal, an sppeal directed toward the economic interests of the West. With gusto he exclaimed :

I stand here surrounded by ten States who have a right to be heard on this subject-West Virginia, Ohio, my own gallant Democratic State of Indiana, Missouri, 3n whose bosom we are holding this con- vention; Tennesste, that contains the Hermitage and the ashes of Jackson and Polk; Iowa and Kansas-are they not to be considered? do they amount to nothing? I will say, with all respect to the gentle- man from New York who has just sat down [Mr. Dorsheimer], that we have followed the lead of New York for twelve long years, and each time to disaster, and I, for one, assert the West, the mighty West, with its teeming population. I assert the power of the Mississippi valley, with its mighty interests and its great resources.67 The radical report was lost by a vote of 229 votes for it to 505 against it. Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, T,ennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia voted solidly for its adoption; a large block of delegates from Ohio and Illinois did likewise. Because they failed to carry their financial plank the entire Indiana delegation voted against the adoption of the whole p1atfoi.m. The only state to follow the lead of Indiana in carrying opposition to such an extreme was West Virginia.'nb On the two ballots taken to determine the presidential nomination, Indiana voted for Hendricks. Strangely enough, in the light of his equivocal position on the money question, the support of Hendricks came from Western states like I Ilinois, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri, and one Southern state, Tennessee. The reputation that the Indiana Democracy had for radicaljsm probably helped Hendricks in the West and South. The nominee of the convention was Samuel J. Tilden, who was an avowed believer in sound money. Hend- iicks was nominated for vice-president, and the Indiana dele- gation, which d,eclared he was not a candidate for second place, acquiesced in his s~lecti~n.~~

67 Ibid., 107. 6*Ibid., 115-117. There is an error in the total votes given on page 115. The ayes total 229 and. the noes 505. There must also be an error in the votes announced by the secretary. 69 Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention . . . 1876, pp. 144, 146, 154-160. 132 Zndiana Magazine of History

Economic discontent was still prevalent in 1876. Corn stood at thirty-nine cents in 1875 and at thirty-four cents in 1876. Wheat was ninety-seven cents in 1875 and $1.02 in 1876.’” The financial policy of the administration was ex- tremely unpopular. The Indianapolis Journal, chief of the Republican newspapers, had denounced the Resumption Act in a ringing editorial in its edition of January 1, 1876.“ The Republicans had demanded repeal of the clause setting a definite time for resumption, and the Democrats had de- nounced the entire act. Radicalism was in the air. The Greenback leaders were ciithusiastic. A group of workmen held a convention on Fepruary 24, 1876, and organized a “working-men’s The Socialists beld an enthusiastic convention on May 2 at Indianapolis.i3 A delegate to the Greenback State Convention had declared frankly that “what the children needed was to be taught the greenback) theory of money and not educational thought and. p~ogress.”~~The un- rest prompted a Republican worker “to write to Hayes ‘a bloody-shirt campaign, with money, and Indiana is safe; a financial campaign and no money and we are beaten.’ Many Republicans were not enthusiastic about the hard- money views of Hayes, and the Democrats were restless under the New York domination, and only party loyalty kept some of them in linie for tilde^^'^ The Republicans sought to turn the campaign into a bloody-shirt crusade. Senator Morton delivered a typical bloody-shirt address on July 11 before a large audience at the Indianapolis Academy of Music. The speeches of George W. Julian stressed the political corruption of the Grant ad- ministration, as did those of Joseph Pultizer, whom the Demo- crats sent into Indiana. William H. English made a Demo-

70Report of the Commissioner of Agricultune for the Year 1875 (Washington, 1876), 96; Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 187F (Washington, 1877), 96. 71 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, January 1, 1876. 72 Ibid., February 25, 1876. 73 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, May 2, 1876. 74 Carmichael, “Campaign of 1876 in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, IX, 288. ‘5 Buck, The Agrarian Crusade, 85, 70 Ninth District Democrats at a meeting at Frankfort on July 11 repudiated the financial plank of the St. Louis convention. India- napolis, Indiana, Journal, July 12, 1876. Money Question in Indium Politics, 1865-1 8.90 13::

cratic speech in Indianapolis which angered the radical Demo- crats. He preached sound money.“ The chief issues were financial. IViliiams opened his cam- paign on August 16 at Salem. In his own untutored way hv had this to say about the money question: I was in favor of the repeal of the resumption act, take up bonds as fast as possible and issue greenbacks instead.. . .The greenback cur- rency is good enough for pmctieal purposes; it draws no interest, twenty millions could be saved a year, and in forty years the debt could be paid by this means alone and without inflation. The govern- ment can redeem as fast as the banks can. . . .The greenbacks are the best currency we can get, and on which you pay no interest.. . .It was said that the Democrats were not sincere in their desire for the repeal of the resumption act. Our actions [in Congress] proved that we were. Williams also criticized the demonetization of the silver dollar and declared that the “bill by which it [silver] was demone- tized was passed during the last two days of the session with- out ever being read.”7h Williams was accompanied on his tour of the state by Voorhees, who always strzssed the money question. Orth withdrew as the Republican candidate on August 2. He was unpopular because he had voted for the Specie Re- sumption Act. His wet proclivities were resented by the many temperance reformers in the Republican party. The Democrats had been circulating an ugly allegation to the ef- fect that Orth personally had profited in the Vlenezuela bonc! irregularity which had occurred when he was the Americaii minister to that country, and in which many Americans had lost money. The state committee substituted Benjamin Harri- son as the Republican candidat,.. . Harrison came out boldiy against fiat money. He was reserved and did not come into intimate contact with the plain people as Williams did. The Democrats dubbed him “the kid glove candidate.” The manner of his selection offended the wets. The Germans resented the humiliation inflicted on one of their most representative cili- zens. All of these factors contributed to the Republican de- feat. When Franklin Landers failed to secure the Deniocratic nomination for govei’nor, he withdrew as the Greenback candi-

77 Trissal, Public Men of Indiana, I, 90. 78 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sen tinel, August 17, 1876. 134 Inc3ian.a Magazine of History

date, and Anson Wolcott was advanced to first place on the Greenback ticket. Wolcott mysteriously withdrew as a candi- date on October 4 intimating that his action was taken in the interests of the Republican ticket. This unexpected withdraw- al threw the Greenbackers into confusion for a time, but they substituted Henry W. Harrington on the ticket, and seemed not to have been injured by Wolcott's unexplained conduct. If the incident had any iniluence at all, it reacted against the Republicans. For governor, Williams had a total vote oi 213,219 of the aggregate vote, Harrison had 208,080, and Harrington polled 12,710 votes. The vote for Tilden for president was 213,526, for Hayes 208,011, for Cooper 9,533. The Greenback vote had fallen about five thousand, but radicalism won a victory in the Democratic Nine of the thirteen congressional districts, however, w(ere carried by the Republicans. The Democrats carried only the first, second, third, arid twelfth districts. The conserva- tives regained the seventh district, where James Buchanan was the Greenback candidate. He polled only 1,595 votes. The Greenback vote for governor amounted to ten per cent or more in five counties.Ro The Greenbackers continued to draw more heavily from the Republicans. The Republicans carried a majority of the General Assembly. On joint ballot they had seventy-seven, the Democrats had seventy-one, and the Green- backers one, a holdover in the Senatees' The General Assembiy of 1877 contained many radical members. As high as seven different bills which sought to stay execution or regulate the collection of a mortgage debt were introduced in the course of the session.8L A bill granting liens in favor of agricultural, horticultural, and mechanical associations was passled.<' A bill supported by the Grange, ~____ 7'JReport of the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, for the Year ending October 31, 1879, pp. 113-114; The Tribune Almantrc and Political Register for 1877, pp. 74-75. Since the figures for the total number of votes for governor vary, those reported in the former reference were used for this article. 80 The Tribune Almanac crnd Political Register for 1877, pp. 74-76. The counties were Boone, Brown, Fountain, Vigo, and Warren. 81 The Tribune Almanac und Political Register for 18i;, p. 75. 82 Journal of the House of Representatives of Indiana, 1877, pp. 105, 131, 236, 17, 85, 137, 139, 167, 265; Journal of the Senate of Indiana, 1877, pp. 932-986. 84 Journal of the House of Representatives of Indiana, 1877, pp. 607-608; Journal of the Senate of Indiana, 1877, p. 704. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 1865-1890 135 which would have permitted agricultural societies to borrow money on special terms, was indefinitely postponed.x4 A joint resolution instructing Indiana senators and requesting lndi- ana representatives to vote against all bills which loaned the credit of the United States to railroads,h’ and another which instructed and requested that they vote for the repeal of the National Bankrupt Law,” were carried by both houses. A joint resolution instructing Indiana senators and requesting Indiana representatives ir, Congress “to use all lawful means to procure tbe speedy enactment of a law of Congress restor- ing the legal tender quality of the silver dollar of the coinage act of 1792, and making the same a legal tender for the pay- ment of all debts, public and private, except as otherwiae pro- vided by law” passed by both houses and was forwarded to Wa~hington.~~ The illustratious Morton died in 1878 and Governor Wil- liams appointed Daniel V-oorhees, ardent inflationist, to take the place in thie Senate thus made vacant. In the seventies a majority of the people in lndiana were inflationists, and did not care how the medium of exchange was expanded just so that it was expanded. When the green- back issue offered an opportunity for inflation, the people supported greenbacks, and when the silver agitation offered an opportunity for expansion, the people supported silver. Richard “Dick” Bland of Missouri in the fall of 1877 in- troduced jn the House a bill which provided for the free and unlimited coinage of silver dollars weighing 412.5 grains at the ratio with gold of 15.62 to 1, thus cverrating the mint value of silver. Every member of the Indiana delegation in the House who cast a ballot on the measure voted for the Bland Bill. Three Democrats united with the seven Republic- ans in support of the bill. Thomas R. Cobb, the D)emocratic representative of the second district ; John Hanna, the Repub- lican representative of the seventh district; and James L. Evans, Republican representative of the eleventh district, did not vote.s8

84 Journal of the Senate of In,tlklic~na, 18;7, pp. 338, 685. 85 Ibid., 121, 187, 329, 375. 86 Ibid., 122, 182, 371, 404, 790, 795, 797, 798, 803. 87Ibid,, 208, 212, 221, 322, 476, 548; Journal of the House of Rep- resentatives of Indiana, 1877, pp. 101, 250, 686, 722, 723, 725, 764. 88 Congressional Record, 45 Cong., 1 Sess., 241; Jo~rnalof the House of Reynesentatives of the United Sttctes, 45 Cong., 1 Sess., 143-144 (serial no. 1772). 136 Indiana Magazine of Hist0r.y

When the bill reached the Senate, William B. Allison of Iowa moved to amend it by striking out the free and unlimited feature and substituting restriction. The Secretary of the Treasury was ordered to buy each month for coinage into silver dollars, exclusive of coinasre already issued, from two to four million dollars of silver, provided the amcunt invested in silver at any tim,e was not more than five million dollars. Voorhees voted against the Allison amendment, thereby rang- ing himself with the forces of free and unlimited silver coin- age. McDonald voted for the restrictive amendment of Alli- son. Both Voorhees and McDona!d voted for the amended bill when it came up for final readingY9 When the bill was returned lo the House for that body's verdict on the Senate amendments, every member of the Indi- ana delegation cast a ballot.yoBenoni S. Fuller and Cobb, Den- ocratic representatives of the first and second districts re. spectively, and William H. Calkins, Republican representative of the tenth district, voted against the amended bill. They wer 3 extreme silverites and resented the mutilation of the original bill. Every other Indiana member voted for the bill, believing that it represented the maximum concessions of a Republican Senate to the cause of silver. Then Hayes vetoed the bill. Thus challenged by the con- servatives, the three Indiana radicals who had voted against th,e amended bill because they thought it too conservative, joined their Indiana colleagues in voting to pass the bill over the executive veto. Every member of the Indiar,a delegation in the House voted to override the veto. In the Senate both Mc- Donald and Voorhees voted against the Pre~ident.~~The action of the Indiana delegation was thus unanimous. Most of the delegation would rather have had the original Bland Bill, but if they could not secure that, they would take what they could get, and the action of Hayes in returning the bill on the

89 Congressional Record, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 1076, 1112; Journal of the Senate] of th.e United States, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 202, 209 (serial no. 1779). 90 Congressional Record, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 1283-1285; Journal o/ the House of R(epresentatives of the United States, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 485-489 (serial no. 1792). 91 Congressional Record, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 1419-1420, 1409-1411; Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 549-550; Journal of the Senate of the United States, 45 Cong., 2 Sess., 252. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 186.5-1890 137

grounds that it was not conservative enough, when to most of them it seemed too conservative, engendered resentment. The year of 1878 was a year of intense depression. Corn fell as low as twenty-seven cents, the lowest it ever fell in the 1870’s and 188O’s, and wheat dropped to eighty-one cents. Rye went down to fifty-one cents and oats to twenty cents. The average price received for hay in Indiana was $6.06 a ton. Hogs sold at an average of $2.97.”2 While the Republican stat:, platform of 1878 was some- what equivocal, it was on the whole a conservative declaration. It declared for “no abandonment or appreciation of the green- back currency,’’ yet at the same time it stood for “a sound and stabk currency of gold, silver, and paper of the same value” and came out in “opposition to repudiation in all its forms,” and in favor of “the honor and credit of the nation,” which was “to be maintained in every contingencjy.” Some liberal concessions contained in the platform were a promise to work for “national legislation authorizing the receipt of greenbacks at par in payment of customs and in purchase of government bonds,” and a pledge to sponsor a law provid- ing for “an increased exemption of property from ex,ecu- tion.”gJ The important thing to note is that by 1878 the Re- publican party of Indiana had accepted without a single reser- vation every line of the Specie Resumption Act. The confession of faith expressed in the Democratic plat- form of 1878 was as radical as any Greenback declaration. That document contained the following radical demands : “The immediate and unconditional repeal of the resumptior, act”; the making of “the United States notes, commonly called greenbacks, a full legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except such obligations only as are by the terms of the original contracts under which they were issued, expressly payable in coin” ; “the restoration of the silver dol- lar of 412% grains to the coin of the country, with full legal tender quality in the pal-inent of all debts, both public and private; and that the coinage thereof should be unlimited, and upon the same terms and conditions as may be provided for the coinage of gold.” The platform also demanded that

92Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1878 (Washington, 1879), 263, 274. 83 Indianapolis, Indiana, .Journal, June 6, 1878; Henry, State Plat- forms of the Two Dominant Parties, 58-59. 138 Indiana Magazine of History

National Bank notes should be retired and in lieu thereoI the government should issue an equal amount of treasury notes with full legal tender quality. Other planks favored such legislation as should fix the legal rate of interest at not ex- ceeding six percentum per annum and the repeal of the national bankrupt act. The platform also contained an asser- tion that the right to issue paper money as well as coin is the exclusive prerogative of the government, and that such money should be issued in such amounts as the sound business interests of the country should from time to time require.94 The Democrats won a great victory in 1878, their candi- date for Secretary of State polling 194,770 votes to 180,657 for the Republican candidate. The Greenback candidate for Sec- retary of State polled 39,415, a tremendous vote when one considers that th\e Democratic party was definitely radical on the money question in 1878. The combined majority of the two inflation parties over the conservative Republican party was 53,528. The Republican party polled 43.50 per cent of the votes while the inflation parties polled 56.50 per cent. The Greenback party ran seccnd in four counties.s5 This election constitutes radicaiism's greatest victory, an& 1878 represents the high water mark of inflation senti- melilt. This is true notwithstanding the radicalism of both parties in 1868. In that year the issue was as yet undefined, fea understood it, and the question of reconstruction over- -hs lowed finance as a political issue. In the congressional contests each of the major parties won six districts. In the seventh district Gilbert De La Matyr, a G reenbacker, was elected to Congress by virtue of a coalition of 'his party with the Democrats. He had 18,720 votes ta 17,881 for Hanna, his Republican De La Matyi was a Methodist minister. He had been presiding elder for the district for one year, and his war record was irreproach- able. He had been chaplain of the Eighth New York Heavy Artillery, a regiment he had helped recruit, and to many

94 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, June 20, 1878 ; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 56-57. 95 The counties were Jackson, Newton, Vigo, and Wells. Annual Report of the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, for the Y,ea,r ending October 31, 1878, pp. 115-119; The Tribune Alma7~ucand Political Register for 1879, p. 66. 96Annual Report of the Sscretary of State of the State of Indiana, for . . . 1878, pp. 115-119; The Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1819, pp. 66-67. Money Question in, Indiana Politics, 1865-1 890 139

these qualifications overcame the stigma of radicalism. In €act, De La Matyr was quite “respectable” when compared with the dashing Euchanan. As a result of his election to Congress, De La Matyr became prominent nationally in the Greenback party. In the twelfth district, the Republicans endorsed the Democratic candidate Walpole G. Colericl;, in order to de- feat John Studebaker, the Greenback candidate. Co1,erick had 17,067 votes and Studebaker had 9,712. It was necessarj’ to pick a radical to beat a radical. The Greenback vote in the second district was 2,103; in the sixth it was 2,043; in the eighth it was 4,929; in the ninth it was 4,571; in the tenth it was 5,252; in the eleventh it was 4,266; and in the thir*teenthit was 3,462.g7 In the General Assembly the Democrats had sleventy- nine on the joint ballot, the Repitblicans had sixty-two, the Greenbackers seven, Independent Republicans one, and the Independent Democrats one. The Democrats elected fifty- five members to the House, the Republicans thirty-nine, the Greenbackers five, and the Independent Dlemocrats one. Greenback strength was for the most part in the north and west.‘IY The General Assembly which met in the winter of 1879 was a thoroughly radical body. Nine separate bills which sought to fix the legal rate of interest; six distinct bills which sought in one way or another to stay the execution of a judgment rendered in cases of debt; and two difierent bills declaring “usurious, illegal and void” all agreements to pay

“Zbid. The twelfth district then comprised the counties of Adams, Allen, Blackford, Huntington, Jay, Wells, and Whitley. 98 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentin”e1, January 10, 1879 ; Annuui Report of the Secwetwy of State of the State of Indiana. . . 1878, pp. 115-119; The Tribune Almanac and Polatzeal Register for 1879, pp. 66-67. The figures for the legislature given in the Almanac vary slightly from those given in the Sentinel. Parke and Vcrmillion; Benton, Jasper, Newton, and White were the senatorial districts which sent Greenbackers to the Senate. Montgomery and Parke; Morgan; Hamilton and Tipton; Putnam and Hecdricks; Ohio and Switzerland were the House districts which elected Greenbackers. The following counties, normally Republican, cast a vote of ten per cent or more for the Green- back ticket : Benton, Boone, Hamilton, Henry, Jasper, LaGrange, Newton, Parke, Porter, Steuben, Switzerland, Vermillioi;, Warren, and White. The following counties, normally Democratic, cast a vote of ten per cent or more for the Greenback ticket: Adams, Blackford, Cass, Clarke, Clay, DeKalb, Floyd, Fountain, .Johnson, Marshall, Owen, Pike, Puiaski, Starke, Sullivan, Vigo, Wells, and Whitlcy. 140 Zndiana illaga,zine of History

attorneys fees in any written evidlence of indebtedness were introduced in the House within a week after convening.yq Bills to tax telegraph companies, to tax -Toreign corporations doing business in Indiana, and to regulate the sale of oleo- margerine were introduced within the same space of time."" In his biennial message Governor Williams congratulated the General Assembly on the joint resolution passed during the session of 1877 which had requested the Indiana delegation in Congress to vote for the remonetization of silver. Governor Williams declared that this resolution had aided materially in the fight to secure passage of the Bland-Allison Act.'*' In the House a conservative member from Wabash in- troduced the following resolution : Resolved That we congratulate the country on the successful accomp- lishment of specie resumption; that the best interest of the people of the United States demand that specie payment shall be maintained, and that we discountenance all action that would in any way operate against the successful maintenance of such specie payments. The resoilition mustered only thirty-five votes in its favor.'"' A different fate was in store for the radical resolutions. Most of them were passed by comfortable majorities. One instructing Indiana senators and requesting Indiana repre- sentatives to vote for the unconditional repeal of the Specie Xesumption Act was carried by a vote of fifty to forty. An- other instructing and requesting them respectively to vote for the repeal of the act exempting bonds from taxation was adopted by a vote of thirty-seven to thirty-four. Still another which instructed senators and requested representa- tives to vote for the aboiition of all bank issues was carried by the overwhelming vote of fifty-nine to thirty-two. This was aimed at the national bank notes. Other joint resolutions which were passed by the House were: instructions to vote for the repeal of the act exempt- ing greenbacks from taxation, carried by a vote of seventy- six to twelve; instructions to vote for the unlimited coinage of silver, passed by the tremendous vote of leighiy-five to five; and instructions to vote for the issuing by the general government of full legal tender money, receivable for all

99 Journal of the House of Representatives of Indiana, 1879, passim 103 Ibid., 73, 76. 101 Zbid., 31. 102 Ibid., 117-118. Money Question in Indiana Politics. 1865-1890 141 dues, public and private, in amount sufficient to meet the wants of trade, or at least thirty dollars per capita, adopted by a vote of fifty to forty.’03 A particularly radical nesolution containing instructions to senators in Congress and a request to Indiana representa- tives to vote for a law to prohibit the further issuing ol interest-bearing government bonds was lost by the very nar- row margin of forty-three to forty-five. Another very radi- cal resolution which instructed and requested Indiana sena- tors and representatives respectively to vote for a federal law limiting the rate of interest to not over six per cent was lost by a vote of twenty-seven to sixty-three. Another joint resolution adopted by the House instructed and rc- quested respectively that senators and representatives vote for a law reducing the salaries of federal officials by one- half since “the present policy of the government has rendered the price of labor and all kinds of farm products, as well as real estate, to about one-half its value ten years ago.”’”i It is not difficult to see that the lower house of the Indiana General Assembly of 1879 was radical and agrarian. These resolutions were not acted on in the Senate. The legislature of 1879 sent Voorhees to the Senate for the full term of six years beginning March 4, 1879. Voor- hees received eighty-three votes to sixty for the conservative Benjamin Harrison. James Buchanan was the Greenback candidate, but he received the support of only three of the Greenback legislators.“” The remainder voted for Voorhees. In the short time Voorhees had been a membler of the Senate, he had become one of the outstanding inflationists of that body, and his election to the full term may be considered a distinct gain for the forces of cheap money in national politics. The decline from the radical peak of 1878 was swift and decisive. A severe crop shortage cccurred in Europe in 1879, and the huge surplus produced in this country that year was sent to Europe to supply the deficiency. We sold more than we bought. Gold and silver entered the country in abundance. Specie resumption took place with lease, for it was not difficult to maintain a gold reserve when the gold

103 Zbkl., 131-135. 104 Zbid., 135-137. 10.5 Zbid., 182-183. 142 Indiana Magazine of Hktofry supply of the country was large, and when business con- fidence was so buoyant. Prosperity aeturned to the farmer. Corn rose to thirty- four cents in 1879; wheat to $1.17; rye to seventy-one cents; oats to twenty-,eight cents; and hay to $9.84 a ton. By the close of 1880 corn went to sixty cents; wheat to $1.27; ryc to nin,ety-three cents; oats to forty-two cents ; barley to $1.05 ; buckwheat to ninety-nine cents; potatoes to $1.06; and hay to $l2.2O.lo6 Returning prosperity reflected itself in politics by a swing of the pendulum to conservatism. The Indiana Republicans in 1880 zenerally supported Blaine for the pnesidential nomination. Elaine had always been an enemy of fiat money and was at that time the most brilliant protagonist of the bourgeois philosophy of govern- ment. On the thirty-fourth ballot, twenty of the thirty Re- publican delegates to the national comention voted for Blaine. The other ten votes were divided among John Sher- man, Elihu B. Washburrie, and Uslysses S. Grant, all of whom were conservative. On the thirty-fifth ballot, twlenty- seven of the Indiana delegates voted for James A. Garfield, who was also conservative on the money question. For vice- president the Indiana delegates split their votes principally between Washburne, Chester A. Arthur, and Marshall Jew- ell, all conservatives.l”‘ The Republican state platform of 1880 contained no spe- cific mention of national issues; it merely reaffirmed in a blanket endorsement the principles enunciated by the national platform adopted at Chicago. This latter platform took pride in the financial achievement of the Republican party, which, it claimed, had raised paper money to the value of gold and caused government bonds to go to a premium.”” Albert G. Porter, a conservative, was made the noininele for governor. The Democratic national platform of 1880 contained a plank declaring for “honest money, consisting of gold and silver, and paper convertible into coin on demand,” and to this the Indiana Democrats made no protcst. There was no

106Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1879 (Washington, 1880), 133; Report of the Com,missioner of Agriculture for the Years 1881-1882 (Washington, 1883), 602. 107 Official Proceedings of the Republican National Conventions . . . 1880, pp. 567-628, 644. 108 Ibid., 532; Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, June 18, 1880; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 62. Money Que.stion in Indiana Politics, 1865-1 8!)0 143

renewal of the struggle which had occurred in the convention of 1876. Voorhees placed Hendricks before the convention as Indiana's choice for the presidency. On this occasion Voor- hees lost much of his accastorr,ed enthusiasm and ardor, and the reason therefore is not difficult to divine. Aside from the thirty Indiana votes Hendricks received only sporadic support.1"~ For vice-pnesident the convention nominated William H. English, a conservative Indianapolis banker.. English had been a War Democrat, and a consistent exponent of sound money. He was disliked by a large number of Indiana Democrats- many of the conservatives thought his conduct during the war tainhed with Republicanism, while to the economic radi- cals he was a Bourbon o€ the Bourbons. The Indiana delega- tion acquiesced in his nomination when it was apparent that he was the choice of a large section of the national Democ- racy.lIu When an English supporter wired Hendricks for an endorsement of his candidate the former governor sent this laconic and tepid reply: "English is acceptable to Indi- ana"-another illustration of the fact that brevity some- times speaks volumes. During the course of the campaign, an Indianapolis newspaper. published a list of mortgages held by banker English and the list filled two whole newspaper pages-not a pleasing spectacle to the debtor."' During the course of the Democratic National Conven- tion a considerable movement to make Joseph E. McDonald the Democratic candidate developed in delegations outside of Indiana. An attempt to procure from Hendricks a release of Indiana delegates proved futile, and so the chances of Mc- Donald for the nomination came to It is apparent by this time that the conservatives were having their innings in 1880. The Democratic State Convention of this year adopted a more conservative platform. It acquiesced in specie re- sumption, declaring that the coin and paper money of the country should be of uniform value, and readily convertible, and should have as great purchasing power

109 Official Proceedings of the Natiorial Democratic Convention . . . 1880 (Dayton, Ohio, 1882), 182, 76-78, 99. 11" Zbid., 131-137. 111 Indianapolis, Indiana, The People, September 18, 1880 ; Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 289. 112 Zbid., 287-288. 144 Indiana Magazine of History

as the money of other first-class commercial countries of the world, and the paper money, like the coin, should be furnished by the United States, and should not be in excess of such quantity as will be, and remain always, at par with coin. Somewhat piqued at the likely political consequences of re- turning prosperity, the platform petulently observed that “in all this [revived prosperity] we recognize the blessing of‘ God upon our country, and we denounce it as false and blasphemous when partisan leaders claim that this is the work of their hands, and that the people should be thankful to them and not grateful to Heaven for our returning pros-

perity.”” + The convention nominated Franklin Landers as the Democratic candidate for governor‘. It was an inauspi- cious year for a man with radical propensities. Returning prosperity was an argument the Democrats could not overcome. The Republican organization spent large sums of money to carry the state. Porter was elected by 231,405 votes to 224,452 for Landers for the office of governor. Richard Gregg, the Greenback candidate, polled 14,881 votes. For president, Garfield polled 232,164 votes or 49.32 per cent of the total votes; Winfield S. Hancock polled 225,522 votes or 47.91 per cent of the total votes. The com- bined vote of the Democrats and Greenbackers was 6,344 in excess of the Republican vote. The Greenbackers mustered about sixteen thousand votes for nearly every candidate except the gubernatorial candidate, and their aspirant for Superin- tendent of Public Instruction polled 16,730 votes. In the tenth district a union of Greenbackers and Democrats was defeated by tbe straight Republican ticket. Radicalism had declined, but was by no means ~rushed.”~ The mainstay of Republican strength was, as usual, in the northwest and in the central plain. The Democratic strength was in the south and in the poor counties of th? north. Th,e Greenbackers registered a vote of ten per ceni or more in six counties.’lg In the General Assembly the Republicans had eighty-

113 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, June 10, 1880; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 60-61. 114 The Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1881, pp. 48-49. 115 Ibid., 43. The counties were Boone, Fountain, Marshall, Pulaski, Starke, and Wells. The Democrats were still pretty radical, and their platform still showed hostility to the bank notes. Landers was radical; and Isaac P. Gray, a liberal, was the Democratic choice for the Senate. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 186,5-1890 145 one votes on joint ballot to sixty-two for the Democrats and two for the Greenbackers. Conservative Benjamin Harrison was sent to the Senate to succeed conservative Jcseph E. McDonald. The Greenbackers voted for De La Matyr.”” The boom of 1879-1881 was abortive. The old depression settled down again in 1882. Corn fell to forty-eight cents; wheat to ninety cents; and hay to $9.00 a ton.”’ But the old inflation sentiment did not revive vigorously. Radical Demo- crats of the state evidently felt that the nation at large accept- ed specie resumption as final. The silver agitation in the na- tion had not yet recommenced. The Democratic platform of 1882 contained no financial planks, but voiced the usual opposition to “sumptuary legis- lation.” The Republican platform incidentally boasted that the party had established “a currency equal to any in the world, based upon the coiivertibility of gr,eenbacks, and the national bank notes into gold and silver at the option of the holder^."'^^ On the basis of the vote cast for Secretary of State the Democrats polled 49.68 per cent of the votes ; the Republicans -27.28 per cent; and the Greenbackers 3.04 per cent. The Greenback vote for Secretary of State was 13,520 votes. In some localities the Democrats were more radical than their. platform and the Democratic victory together with the fairly large Greenback vote are evidence of continued dissent. The Democrats had eighty-six votcs on joint ballot in the General Assembly ; the Republicans had sixty-three ; and the Greenbackers had none. The Republicans carried only Pour congressional districts-the sixth, seventh, eleventh, and thirteenth. In the thirteenth district Benjamin Shively, later to become a prominent leader of the Inc‘iana Democracy and a United States Senator, was the Greenback candidate for Congress. He polled 1,943 votes. In the fifth district the Re- publicans endorsed the Democratic candidate in order to de- feat Samuel Wallingford, the Greenback candidate, who

116 Journal of the House of Representatiues of Indiana, 1881, pp. 209-221. Gray was the Democratic caucus nominee. 117Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1883 (Washington, 1884), 260. 118 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, August 13, 1882 ; India- napolis, Indiana, Journal, August 10, 1882 ; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 63-66. 146 Indiana Magazine of History

polled 13,298 votes. The Greenbackers rolled up a vote of ten per cent or more in four c~unties.~’~ The year 1884 was one of unusual depression. Corn sold at forty-one cents and the average prioe received for wheat in Indiana was ninety-five cents. Potatoes sold for thirty- three cents a bushe1.l2” But notwithstanding the acute de- pression inflation did not revive ; the Greenback question was conceded to be settled and the later and intense phases of the silver agitation had not yet begun. The campaign turned on other issues. Neither the Republican nor Demo- cratic state platform contained any mention of the national bank notes, silver or greenbacks.121 William Calkins was the Republican candidate for governor, and Isaac P. Gray was the Democratic candidate. Both had been liberal on the money question. Indiana delegates to the Republican convention of 1884 divided their support principally among Blaine, Arthur, and Sherman all of whom were conservative. The Republican national platform of that year contained a plank which amounted to a declaration in favor of bimetallism by inter- national agreement.122 The Democratic platform of 1884 again contained an “honest money” plank, almost identical with the plank of 1880.“? But the volatile General Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, at that very time the Anti-Monopolist candi- date for President, introduced a set of radical resolutions, one of which read that “the issue of legal tender note . . . has become the fixed currency of the United States, equal lo coined gold and silver; and neither policy nor duty calls for any meddling with it.”124Indiana cast eight votes for the

119Annual Report of the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, for the Year ending October 31, 1883, pp. 123-129; The Trib- une Almanac and Political Register for 1883, pp. 52-53. The counties were Boone, Marshall, Spencer, and Wells. 12”Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Yew 188; (Washington, 1885), 431. 121 Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, June 26, 1884; Indianapo- lis, Indiana, Journal, June 20, 1884; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 67-72. 122 Official Proasedings of the Republican National Convention . . . 1884 (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1903), 141-168, 92. 123 Official Proccedings of the National Democratic Convention . . . 1884 (New York, n.d.), 199. 124 Ibid., 206. “Meddling” was construed as specie resumption. The doctrine of natural resumption was here expressed. Money Question in Indiana Politics, 1865-lS90 147

Butler resolutions, and Voorliees, avid as usual, rose from his seat and declared, "I d,esire to be recorded especially aye." The resolutions of Butler were lost, and the erratic general solemnly committed the ilemocratic party to the keeping of God, since he could no longer support it.": The Democrats had gone to Chicago pledged to Joseph E. McDonald. That McDonald should have been the choice of the Indiana Democracy shows that the party was more con- servatke than it had been. On the first ballot the Democrats voted for McDonald, on the second for Hendricks, and on the third for Grover Cleveland-there was no financial here- sy expressed in any of these votes. Hendricks became the vice-presidential nominee.12b Gray won over Calkins for governor of Indiana by a vote of 245,140 to 237,745. Hiram Z. Leonard, the Greenback candidate, polled 8,338 vohes. For president, Cleveland had 49.71 per cent of the votes ; Blaine 48.17 per cent; and Butler 1.67 per cent. Butler was the Greenback and Anti-Monopolisl; candidate. The Greenback vole had fallen off considerably and the Democrats barely carried the state in spite of the depression.' 2i In the General Assembly the D,emocrats had ninety-four votes on joint ballot and the Republicans fifty-one. The latter carried only four congressional districts-the sixth, eighth, tenth, and eleventli. The Greenback vote in the con- gressional districts shrank to below the five hundred mark except in the ninth and eleventh districts. The Democratic victor in the thirteenth district was supported by the Green- backers. In the winter of 1885 Voorhees was returned to the Senate by the overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature."' As a Democrat he would have bleen returned no matter what his views were on money; the financial issue was no longer paramount. The depression continued in 1886, and thle Democrats declared for a paper currency convertible into coin, "includ- ing the volume of United States notes." The Republicans

125 Official Proceedings of fhe National Democratic Convention . . . 1884, pp. 203-218. 12" Zbid., 227, 241-247. 127 The Tribune Almanac and Ploliticul Register for 1885, pp. 54-55. 128 Zbid., 51-55; Journal of the House of Representatives of Indiana, 1885, pp. 206-207. There is a slight variation in the fi.gures between those given in the latter reference and those in the Almanac. 148 Zncliana Magazine of History pointed with pride to the sound-money policy of their party. The latter carried the state by a narrow margin, their cari- didate for lieutenant-governor polling 231,922 votes to 228,598 for the Demoeratic candidate. The Greenback aspir- ant pol!ed only 4,646 votes or .97 per cent of the t0ta1.l~~ The Republicans carried the first, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth districts. In the thirteenth Ben- jamin Shively was the successful Democratic candidate. He received the endorsement of the Greenbackers. In the elev- enth district the Greenbackers polled 1,324 votes, and in the sixth thley polled l,105.’30 The General Assembly was close. The Democrats had seventy-six on joint ballot and the Republicans seventy-four. The thirty-one Democratic holdovers in the Senate account for the large Democratic vote on joint ballot. There was one Greenbacker elected as a Democrat, and three Greenbackers had been elected on the Republican ticket. These were in- cluded in the Republican-Democratic lineup. David Turpie, inflationist, was the Democratic caucus nominee for Senator. Benjamin Harrison, conservative, was the Republican nomi- nee. For many ballots the four Greenbackers voted for Jasm H. Allen, and an embarrassing stalemate was created. It was not until the sixteenth ballot that the Greenbacker elected on the Democratic ticket voted for Turpie. His vote was absolutely necessary to give Turpie the necessary mx- jority of one. The three Greenbackers e!ected on the Repub- lican ticket had vot4ed,strlzngely enough, for Harrison sooner than the Democratic Greenbacker voted for Turpie.”l As ii member of the Senate, Turpie became one of the leading inflationists in national politics. The Greenback movement had vanished by 1888, and the monley issue seemed moribund. Neither state platform of the major parties contained any mention of the money ques- lion. The more hopeful of tbe Greenbackers went into the Union Labor party, but its candidate for president polled

1zoReport of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Year 1886 (Washington, 1887), 390 ; Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, August 12, 1886 ; Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, September 3, 1886; Henry, State Platforms of the Two Dominant Parties, 72-79; The Tribune Al- .naanao and Political R$egister for 1887, pp. 58-59. 131) Thc, Tribune Almanac and Political Register for 1887, pp. 58-59. 131 Journal of the Senate ,of Indiana, 1887, pp. 420-422; Stoll, History of the Indiana Democracy, 316-317. Money Question in Inclimza Politics, 1865-1 890 149

only 2,694 votes in the state. The Republicans carried lndi- ana by the very narrow margin of 2,348 votes, even though a native son was the national standard bemer.’ Indiana did not respond effectiLely to the agrarian cru- sade of the 1890’s. When the states beyond the Mississippi were aflame with agrarian radicalkm, Indiana remained rela- tivlely untouched. The fact is that by the 1890’s Indiana had entered into a more industrial economy, and in politics had come definitely to be allied with the conservative East. True, the Democrats again kccame the inflation party when the issu8e was revived in the silver agitation of the 1890’s. Voorhees remained in the Senate until 1897, and Turpie stayed in the Senate until 1F99, and both fought shoulder to shoulder with the forces of fr-ee silver. VoorbEes remained a strong advocate of fiat money, and on August 22, 1893, while speaking on the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Law he put his philosophy of mon,r?y in the following succinct paragraph : Money is the creature and congress its creator. Gold and its alleged intrinsic value goes for naught as a circulating medium unless the coin bears the stamp of the government-a stamp more powerful than the grasp of the lion’s paw or the eagle’s claw in bestowing life and activity on a dead and otherwise useless material. The same official stamp on silver, or on paper, at once ennobles them to an equality with gold in purchasing power, no matter how debased, how degraded, or how valueless the silver or the paper may have become as commodities by sinister and unwise legislation.’+ In the Chicago convention of 1896 David Turpie nomi- nated Governor Claude Matthews as the choice of the Indiana Democracy for the presidency, and said on that occasioii concerning the position of Matthews on the silver question: “He is not in favor of waiting for. the action of European nations on this subject and perceives no reason fxdeferring or postponing our legislation for the remonetization of silver, to suit the convenience, assent or agreement of other govern- ments.”ld4 On four straight ballots Indiana voted for Mat-

132 Indianapolis, Indiana, Journal, August 9, 1888 ; Indianapolis, Indiana, Daily Sentinel, Aprii 27, 1888; Henry, :Jtale I’lntfomls of the Two Dominant Parties, 80-85; The Tribune Almanac and Political Reg- ister for 1889, pp. 94-96. 133 Harriet C. Voorhees et al., Forty Years of Oratory, Daniel Wolseg Voorhees (2 vols., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1898), I, 258. 134 Official Proceedings of the -National Democratic Convention . . . 1896 (Logansport, Indiana, l896), 273. 150 Indiana Magazine of History

thews, and on the fifth cast her thirty votes for Bryan. For vice-president half of the Indiana delegation supported Richard “Dick” Bland on the second ballot. Previously, 111- diaria had voted for the radical platform reported and against the conservative substitute of the sixteen dissenting members of the resolutions committee led by William F. Vilas and David B. Hill.1d6 The Republicans had become definitely conservative. As temporary chairman of the National Republiean Convention of 1896, Charles Warren Fairbanks made a strong plea for sound mon(ey, and denounced bimetallism without interna- tional agreement as monometallism of the cheaper metal. Indiana cast a solid vote of thirty votes for William McKin1,ey on the one ballot required to nominate.’”’ The Republicans carried Indiana in 1896 by a plurality of nearly eighteen thousands over the Democrats. McKinley had 323,748 votes or 50.77 per cent of the total. Bryan had 306,206 or 48.02 per cent of the vote. The “Middle of the Road” Populists polled 7,644 votes. Even when their vote was added to the D,emocr.atic total the Republicans had a majority of nearly ten thousand. The Republicans carried all of the counties with the largest urban populations with the single exception of Allen.’<’ Inflation was no longer a winning issue in Indiana, even in a period of economic de- pression and “hard times.”

135 IbicE., 311-327, 329-356, 241-249. 136 Official Proceedings of the Republican National Convention . . . 1896 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1896), 123. The Indiana delegation also cast a solid vote in favor of the gold plank. See Official Proceed- , ings of the Republican National Convention . . . 1896, p. 96. 137 The Tribune Almanac und Political Register for 1897, pp. 237- 238; Indianapolis, Indiana, Jouwl, November 9, 1896.