1531⁄2, Thurman 681⁄2, Field 65, Randall 6, Morrison 62, Payne 81. New York State threw her 70 votes to Mr. Payne and Pennsylvania cast only 28 of her votes for General Hancock.

On the second ballot Payne's name was withdrawn and New York threw her 70 votes for Randall, Pennsylvania gave him 25 and Ohio gave her solid 44 to him. He received 1281⁄2 votes. Hancock received 320, Hendricks 31, Thurman 50, Field the same as before plus 1⁄2 vote, Morrison's name was dropped.

Early in the third ballot Hancock began to receive large additions to his vote and New York and Pennsylvania gave up the contest and cast their votes for him.

William H. English, of Indiana, who on the first ballot for President received one vote and on the second, 19 votes, was made the candidate for Vice-President on the first ballot.

The platform adopted simply declared for hard money but did not ask for the restoration of silver. It declared for "honest money, consisting of gold, silver, and paper convertible into coin on demand." This was practically the position taken in the Republican platform.

Thus was the question of a return to the Bimetallic standard AGAIN SIDE-TRACKED. The moneyed interests controlled both the leading parties and no third party came prominently forward with Bimetallism as the principal issue. The third party took for the chief issue, the coining of paper money by the government in place of the bankers, and so was called the Greenback party. Furthermore, their platform put forth no criterion as to the amount to be issued.

f. IN THE CAMPAIGN

the question of the restoration of silver was not brought forward to any extent. The moneyed interests, however, were evidently afraid that the Democratic party, if it should succeed would restore silver, for after the campaign was finished President-elect Garfield wrote John Sherman: "The success of the election is very gratifying. The distrust of the Solid South and of adverse financial legislation have been the chief factors in the contest." 1 (See also illustration next page.) Of course New York State returned Republicans electors, her Republican plurality over the Democratic vote being 21,033; majority over all, 5,862. And the Republican nominee, pledged to maintain the gold standard, with its falling prices, secured enough votes throughout the Union to elect him to the Presidency. But how were these votes secured from those whose vital interests lay in stable general prices-Stable Money? Was not Major-General Hancock a Union Soldier, tried and true?

1 Recollections of John Sherman, p. 789.

Yes, he was, BUT HE WAS DEFEATED BY IGNORING THE MONEY QUESTION IN THE CAMPAIGN, WHILE THE MONEYED INTERESTS "KNIFED" HIM AND AT THE SAME TIME APPEALED TO SECTIONALISM AND SELFISHNESS. Listen to this additional inside history: During the campaign the Republican nominee wrote, "The argument of the 'Solid South' is well enough in its way and ought not to be overlooked, but we should also press those questions which lie close to the homes and interests of our people," i. e., the Tariff Question.1

g. UNITED LABOR PARTY.

UNION LABOR PARTY.

This year there was no third party of any prominence. The Prohibition party met in convention May 30. In their platform the money question was not referred to. The United Labor party was formed February 22, 1887, at a convention held in Cincinnati. It was a combination of "the Knights of Labor, the Agricultural Wheelers, the Corn Growers, the Homesteadry, Farmers' Alliances, Greenbackers and Grangers." Its national convention was held at Cincinnati, May 15. On the money question it asked that paper money "be issued directly to the people without the intervention of banks, and loaned to citizens on land securities at a low rate of interest."

Another party, the Union Labor, "drew its support from the Greenbackers and farmers' organizations and the older labor reformers. The convention was held in Cincinnati one day later than the United Labor convention."

It is important that General Garfield's position on the Silver Question be thoroughly understood.

42. General Garfield's Position on the Silver Question.

It was briefly set forth on the floor of the House, February 12, 1878. He said he was in favor of the Senate amendment for the purchase of silver bullion by the government. As the gold standard votes were cast for the silver purchase bill in order to head off the free coinage of silver, it may be inferred that General Garfield was known to the moneyed interests as favorable to the gold standard. Certain it is that in the Convention which nominated him, 96 of the 99 votes which had been steadily cast for Mr. John Sherman were thrown for General Garfield. And July 19, 1880, Mr. Sherman wrote Mr. Garfield, saying: "I hope Congress will come together next winter in such temper that it may arrest the coinage

1 Letter of Mr. Garfield to Mr. Sherman, September 25, 1880, published in "Recollections of John Sherman," page

787.

2 Congressional Record, second session, 45th Congress.

p. 1279,

A SECOND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.

407

of the silver dollar, if it will not change the ratio. This question, however, is a very delicate one to discuss in popular assemblies, and I propose, therefore, in my speeches to make only the faintest allusions to it, not surrendering, however, OUR VIEWS UPON THE SUBJECT, FOR UPON THIS, I TAKE IT, WE ARE ENTIRELY AGREED."'1

Mr. Garfield in his Letter of Acceptance did not specifically mention the silver question, but said that resumption had "brought into use our store of gold and silver. The circulating medium is more abundant than ever before. The great prosperity which the country is now enjoying should not be endangered by any violent changes or doubtful financial experiments."

As we have pointed out, "good times" were the order of the day in 1880, owing to the rises in general prices which followed the German and French inflation of the currency.

43. A Second International Monetary Conference.

"An effort was made in 1880 by France to secure a monetary conference at Paris in November of that year. This effort failed, but the co-operation of the United States was obtained, and on the 8th of February the Foreign Secretary was able to announce in a council of Ministers that the Government of the United States had agreed to the proposition of France for an International Monetary Conference to consider the question of a more general adoption of the double standard of gold and silver." 2 Invitations were issued jointly.

The government of England when questioned in the House of Commons" stated that England could not consent to discuss [even], the principle of bimetallism and had declined to take part in the conference; but the Indian government would send a delegate who would not, however, participate in the discussion. The other colonies might also be represented." Later it was stated "that Mr. C. W. Fremantle, deputy-master of the British mint, would be present during some part of the proceedings."

The Conference met in Paris, April 19, 1881; sixteen governments were represented.

At its second session the delegates in the names of their governments declared as follows:

1 Recollections of John Sherman, p. 779.

2 Appleton's Cyclopædia for 1881, p. 60.

Same citation.

4 Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, France, United States.

The Attitude of the European Governments.

"They do not permit me to vote upon

For England, it was said:

the propositions which may be submitted to you."

For India, "its delegates are not authorized to take part in the votes."

For Canada, "while authorized to vote on the questions submitted to the Conference, such action must not be considered as prejudicing the future action of Canada."

"As the Danish Government has no intention of abandoning the gold standard introduced in the country a few years ago, I have received instructions on the part of my government to abstain from all discussion of the manner by which the bimetallic system could be regulated.”

The Portuguese government accepted the invitation as a matter of courtesy, "but it frankly states that its monetary system now in force would not allow of its entry into the bimetallic union now contemplated."

For Austria-Hungary it was said that if any of the delegates "should think proper to take part in the discussion it would only be to express his personal opinions."

And the same was practically the case with Sweden and Norway. Germany would not enter into the free coinage of silver but “during a period of some years it would abstain from all sales of silver and during another period of a certain duration it would pledge itself to sell annually only a limited quantity, so small an amount that the general market would not be glutted thereby."

In response to an inquiry from the United States Minister at London and the Italian Ambassador at London, the British government addressed a note to the Bank of England. Its reply was forwarded to the Conference and was as follows: Under its charter it has the option to issue paper money for silver, but this issue is limited to one-fourth of the gold held by the bank in the issue department, and it is obliged to pay all notes, in gold on demand. Silver bullion, it said, would reappear as an asset in the issue department if "other countries would insure the certainty of conversion of gold into silver and silver into gold." So long as this were done "the Bank of England, agreeably with the act of 1844, would be always open to the purchase of silver."

This offer it will be observed did not state that any considerable quantity of silver would be carried. It was simply a proposition to make silver bullion "an asset in the issue department," and that" the Bank of England would be always open to the purchase of silver" upon con