APPENDIX VII

PERSONAL LETTERS

THE five letters in this appendix were all written by Olney after he had retired from office. Three comment on political developments about which he was peculiarly fitted to express an interesting opinion. One characterizes the former President who has become a figure in American history and whom he knew so well. With the exception of the letter to John Fox and the quotation from the Nelson document, everything was written without expectation of publication, and therefore with more freedom, though not more candor, than marks Olney's public utterances. The reader will see that these letters deserve to be published for several reasons. The last note, to President Wilson, is printed on special grounds which are explained in the headnote.

To Grover Cleveland, written just after de Lome's resignation and the sinking of the Maine

[It will be recalled that a private letter of the Spanish Minister, de Lome, to a friend in Cuba fell into the hands of the insurgents and was published by them. Its comments on Cuban affairs and on President McKinley were such that there was nothing for de Lome to do but resign. The first paragraph of the following letter refers to this incident; the second to the sinking of the Maine.]

DEAR MR. CLEVELAND:

BOSTON, 19 February, 1898

I have your last note and have read the contents with the interest and satisfaction which anything from you always induces. I would give much for half an hour's chat with you over current events. Poor Dupuy must realize how much worse a blunder can be than a crime. Here is his country practically unrepresented at Washington at a time when its interests de

mand a persona grata at our capital more imperatively than ever before. I had much confidence in the man and thought him able, sincere, and patriotic. I confess some expressions of his letter stagger me, and, if they bear the interpretation the President has put on them, and mean that Spain has been tricking us as regards autonomy and other matters incidental to it, I should have wanted the privilege of sending him his passports before he had any chance to be recalled or resign. His diplomatic career must, I think, be ended. What he can do in domestic politics remains to be seen. But I would not give much for his chances. The feminine portion of my family are overflowing with sympathy for Madame Dupuy, who is certainly a charming woman.

What a horrible catastrophe in the harbor of Havana! While it ought not so far as I can now see to bring us any nearer to a rupture with Spain than we were before while the surface of things as yet shows little disturbance, I cannot help feeling there is much suppressed and pent-up wrath which may precipitate a crisis at any moment. As the Maine was a comparatively well-tried and seasoned vessel which had been in a good many foreign ports without misadventure of any sort, it is impossible to free the popular mind of the conviction that she came to grief at Havana by foul means—whether through any agency or fault of the Spanish Government is for popular purposes quite immaterial. This popular feeling is, I am sure, shared, if not created and intensified, by the officers of the navy, who will be likely to find sympathy not to say a loud voice in the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. His discretion is evidenced by his open communication to the New York police, made, of course, with the laudable intention of preventing any attempts upon the just arrived Spanish cruiser. But being publicly proclaimed, the warning will operate almost like an invitation to cranks and hot-heads to do the very thing it is desired to prevent. Then, in our representative in Havana, we have a sort of firebrand whose ruling idea, as we know, is that the Cuban troubles offer an opportunity for the manufacture of a large stock of political capital. Altogether, I do not like the look of it. The

Dupuy episode and the Havana explosion have furnished more material for the inflammation of popular passions against Spain than all that has happened during the last three years. Hitherto, while Congress has been fierce rather in words than in real purposes - the people at large have been comparatively apathetic. The danger is now that the people themselves may become roused become roused-in which case is it likely that this Administration will prove itself competent to prevent a collision with Spain?

--

This letter is becoming intolerable in length, and I feel certain, if I do not stop directly, your resentment will prevent you from ever writing me again.

Mrs. O. and Mrs. Minot send their best wishes to Mrs. Cleveland and all the children, as well as yourself - I do the same and remain.

Sincerely yours

HON. GROVER CLEVELAND

RICHARD OLNEY

Princeton, N.J.

To Mr. S. B. Griffin- about Bryan and the Democratic prospects

in 1900

[The struggle which went on from 1896 to 1912 between Mr. Bryan's wing of the Democratic Party and the conservative wing deserves a chapter of its own in the history of the times. With that the next letter and the one which follows are concerned. (Mr. Griffin has had no part in the publication of the letter to him, which follows an office-copy, and is printed by permission of Mr. Olney's family.)]

HON. S. B. GRIFFIN

BOSTON, 23 COURT STREET

5 February, 1900

[Editor of the "Springfield Republican "]

Springfield, Mass.

DEAR MR. GRIFFIN:

I am indebted to you for a recent copy of the "Springfield Republican" containing a most interesting editorial upon

Mr. Bryan and his candidacy — with an allusion to myself which I highly appreciate.

The article signifies a growing tolerance of Mr. Bryan's aspirations — which -which may culminate in support of them. The idea is not unfamiliar - I have asked myself many times of late, "Can I bring myself to vote for Mr. Bryan at the coming presidential election - are there reasons for so doing which are satisfactory to myself and which I should be willing to urge upon others as reasons which ought to be satisfactory to them?" I get over the "silver" issue which Mr. Bryan persists in bringing to the front without much difficulty. He is apparently wedded to an economic error. But his continued championship of the silver fetish may show that he is at least capable of convictions — convictions, too, which, however extraordinary and regrettable in themselves, are for present practical purposes of no real moment.

Indeed, had the 1896 Chicago platform embodied nothing worse than the silver heresy, I for one should never have thought of not supporting the Democratic nominee. As between the coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1 and a Dingley tariff bill dictated by Hanna and his presidential syndicate, I should have thought the former the less evil of the two. The intolerable vice about the Chicago platform was and is its apparent attack upon law and order as existing and secured by our system of government. The leading and best speech on the Republican side during the campaign was made in New York by ex-President Harrison. He devoted but little time to silver, but put his whole force upon the "anarchical feature" of the Chicago platform. He was quite right in thinking it the most vulnerable point in the Democratic armor. Bryan, on the other hand, was so wanting in sense and sagacity as to permit Harrison's construction of the platform to stand as the true construction. He might well have interpreted it in his letter of acceptance or otherwise, not as a revolutionary defiance of the law, but as simply calling for a change of the law through the customary and accepted channels. In various parts of the country that view of the platform was put forward by Democratic candidates for Congress and other ad

vocates of Bryan's election. That, so construed, the platform was not necessarily indefensible is shown by the fact that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate - Hoar, I think, chairman actually decided and, as I recollect, reported in favor of certain changes of the law of contempt as now understood and administered by the courts. But Bryan, in 1896 as now, apparently stands for the Chicago platform as a whole and in every detail as if it were a gospel of which any criticism or explanation would be a sort of blasphemy. While he maintains that attitude, he certainly makes it most difficult for any intelligent man to go with him - be Republican sins and shortcomings what they may.

He is now making a good deal of talk about "trusts." I don't know that his treatment is more superficial than that of most political orators, but it certainly does not give one exalted ideas of his practical statesmanship. For instance — and not to indulge in any extensive comments - he seems to think that a corporation is an essential feature of a trust, and so is hammering away at corporations, whose claws he proposes to cut by various devices which are neither original nor likely to prove effective. But the fact is (you are aware of it and I only wish you to notice it in this connection) that a trust of the intensest type may be and often is constituted without resort to the corporate form, so that Mr. Bryan's proposed remedies merely show that he is striking in the dark at a mischief he does not really comprehend.

Bryan's third issue is "imperialism," about which he seems to be floundering very much as in the case of trusts. He has already had to recall some of his early utterances and, if he must keep up an incessant stream of the talk he thinks adapted to the popular ear, will have to recall many more. He wants the people to trust him with the presidency. If he gets it, what is he going to do with it? What is he going to do about the Philippines, for instance? He will find them United States possessions which must either be got rid of or be controlled and administered in some way. If I understand Bryan, he considers the Declaration of Independence to be directly applicable to the case, and, construing it as literally