, as a wise and proper policy, but he did believe in the
right of a State to consult itself as to its continuance in the Union.
Chanler was not a strong man and he owed his election, probably, to his
connection with the Astor family. He failed to make the political
distinction clear to the mind of the House and he was followed by
General Schenck in a severe speech. Chanler explained and asserted
that he was not secessionist--that he was for the Union--that he had
served with the New York Seventh--and that he had made a tender to
General Dix of service on his staff, but that he had not received a
reply from General Dix.

Thereupon S. S. Cox, who then represented a district in Ohio, made a
jocose reply to Schenck and a like defence of Chanler and ended with
the remark that he hoped his "colleague regretted having been guilty
of a groundless attack upon a solider of the Republic." I went over to
Cox to congratulate him upon his defence of Chanler, and in reply Cox
said: "The funniest part of it is that Chanler took it all in earnest
and came to my seat and thanked me for my speech."

Cox had no malice in his nature and there was always a doubt whether he
had any sincerity in his politics. He had no sympathy with the
rebellion, and, generally, he voted appropriations for the army and
the navy. He was sincere in his personal friendships, and his
friendships were not upon party lines. In his political action he
seemed more anxious to annoy his opponents than to extinguish them.
His speeches were short, pointed, and entertaining. He was a favorite
with the House, but his influence upon its action was very slight.
Those who acquire and retain power are the earnest and persistent men.
When Cox had made his speech and expended his jokes he was content.
The fate of a measure did not much disturb or even concern him.

Cox was party to an affair in the House which illustrated the
characteristics of Thaddeus Stevens, or "Old Thad," as he was called.
Late in the war, or soon after its close, Mr. Stevens introduced a
bill to appropriate $800,000 to reimburse the State of Pennsylvania for
expenses incurred in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, of which
Stevens was chairman. Without much delay and before the holidays,
Stevens reported the bill. There was some debate, in which my
colleague, Mr. Dawes, took part against the bill. Finally the House
postp