rsonally opposed to
Simmons, but I thought that his appointment was unwise in the extreme,
and therefore I opposed his confirmation. There were fair offers of
compromise on men who were free from objections, all of which were
refused by Butler. The President declined to withdraw the nomination
unless it could be made to appear that Simmons was an unfit man. This
could not be done. I was upon the Committee on Commerce to which the
nomination was referred, and upon my motion the report was adverse to
the nomination. Butler came to my room and denounced my action,
saying that he would spend half a million dollars to defeat my re-
election. I said in reply:--

"You can do that if you choose, but you cannot control my action now."

In the Senate I opposed the confirmation on the ground that a majority
of the Republican Party were dissatisfied, that it was an unnecessary
act of violence to their feelings, that there were men who were
acceptable who could be considered, and that the means by which the
nomination was secured could not be defended. I was then challenged to
say whether I appealed to the courtesy of the Senate. I said:

"No, I do not. I ask for the rejection of Simmons upon the ground that
the nomination ought not to have been made."

Sumner appealed to the courtesy of the Senate, but he had then wandered
so far from the Republican Party that his appeal was disregarded.
Simmons was confirmed.

Enough of the proceedings were made public to enable my opponents to
allege that I might have defeated Simmons, and that my action was
insincere. As a result I had no further political intercourse with
Butler, and when the contest came in 1877 his action aided Mr. Hoar in
securing the seat in the Senate. I presume, however, that Butler
preferred my election, but he had hopes for himself, or at least that
the election would go to a third party. A day or two before the
election he sent me a friendly despatch urging me to go to Boston. I
had already determined to avoid any personal participation in the
contest. That non-interference I have never regretted.

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

As I now view the subject (1900) the Electoral Commission was an
indefensible necessity. In the division of parties it seemed
impossible, and probably it was impossible, to secure a result with
peace to the country, except by a resort to extraordinary means.

When the bill passed the two houses the chances were with the Democ