John Sherman

The people of the United States have always been extremely sensitive as to the public credit.

As to whether Congress or the people would ever undertake to pay either principal or interest of the bonded debt, and especially the bonds sold since 1873, in silver, I have a firm conviction that the question will never seriously be…

It would create excitement, personal and political animosities would mingle with it, and it would tend more than anything else to defeat the success of the law.

My attempt to do so would at once unite all those who are seized with this mania, and those who oppose executive encroachment upon legislative power.

Chase took the bull by the horns by declaring, over his own signature, that the principal as well as the interest of the 5-20 bonds were payable in gold, the faith of the United States being pledged to this by the tacit understanding of…

Shrewd men, who know what silver has done and is liable to do in the way of ups and downs, will take this fact into consideration, and the government will ultimately be compelled to do the same.

Another reason for a change in the existing contract was that it gave to the syndicate a monopoly in the sale of bonds while I wished to sell the bonds directly to the people.

The public policy of the United States to resume specie payments on or before the 1st of January, 1879, is fully established by the law and by public opinion.

With yourself at the head of the treasury department, there is no fear of public credit being shaken and commercial interests imperiled by crude and experimental legislation.

I deem it a happy augury that the President's choice of members of his cabinet has fallen upon men who have made their mark as statesmen, and whose advent to power will, I feel convinced, inaugurate an era of prosperity for our country.

Therefore it is not right, in my judgment, for Congress to interfere.

Everything in the nature of a contest as to electoral votes is an affair of the states.

I believe the Vice President alone has the constitutional power to count the votes and declare the result.

It was adopted by both Houses and voted for by a great majority, but, believing that it was extra constitutional, I, with other Republicans, did not vote for it.

Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent.

But I leave comparison to history, claiming only that I have acted in every instance from a conscientious desire to do what was right, constitutional within the law, and for the very best interests of the whole people.

History shows that no administration, from the time of Washington to the present, has been free from these mistakes.

It is not necessarily evidence of blunder on the part of the Executive because there are these differences of views.

Even had they not, differences of opinion between the Executive, bound by an oath to the strict performance of his duties, and writers and debaters must have arisen.

New converts are proverbially bitter and unfair towards those they have recently left.

But we are not to allow our friends to defeat one outrage and fraud by another.

A fair election would have given us about forty electoral votes at the south--at least that many.

They can see that the intimidation, as organized, was with a view of throwing out Republican parishes rather than endangering Democratic parishes.

That you would have received at a fair election a large majority in Louisiana, no honest man can question; that you did not receive a majority is equally clear.

The means adopted are almost incredible, but were fearfully effective upon an ignorant and superstitious people.