Fifty years in Wall Street

and fifty millions in 1881. The South may well be proud of all this productiveness. So great is this material development and so great the consequent demand for transportation facilities, that every railway in the South may well need double tracking, while to keep pace with the South’s present rate of progress, thousands of miles of new railways will have to be constructed every year for many years to come. The South should therefore continue to encourage capital no less than immigration, on a scale extensive enough to meet all its legitimate requirements. This is the work, Gentlemen and Bankers of the South, that lies before you. Now I come to Kentucky; good old Kentucky—with which is linked the fame of Daniel Boone, and a Civil War record of which it may well be proud. We in the North, of course, all know that Kentucky is famous for its beautiful women, its handsome men, its splendid race horses of the great blue grass region, and the whiskey of which Colonel Watterson has told us so much and claims to be so fine a judge. His story of “Old Kentucky Bourbon” is a dream of eloquence. But first of all to engage our attention are the women, whose beauty is only eclipsed by their charm of manner, their refinement and bright intelligence. They represent an aristocracy of the best blood of the American people, and I can testify to their fascinations, for I won, or rather surrendered to, one of the finest of Kentucky’s daughters, after for a long time supposing that my surrender was impossible even to the fairest of the fair; and therefore I am glad to come to Kentucky and to enjoy the privilege of addressing so many of its stalwart sons as are gathered in this distinguished assembly of Kentucky bankers, on the general situation, after the financial storm we have passed through. I indeed almost feel, in the tender words of the popular song, that I have at length reached “My Old Kentucky Home.” As a border State, you are claimed by both the South and the North, and your hospitality makes visitors from every quarter believe that, no matter where they hail from, Kentucky knows no North, no South, no East, no West, in the welcome she extends to strangers, or friends, from every sister State. When, in after life, these visitors sing the old song, “There’s no place like home,” they will mentally add, “except Kentucky.” I thank God that to-day we all know the United States as a United Country now and forever, which during the present generation has grown, and is growing, more united, more liberal, in a broader sense, and each section more just and generous in seeking to solve the problem of granting equal rights to rich and poor alike. In closing I desire to impress upon you that I shall always have in my heart a grateful appreciation of your kindness and courtesy in permitting me to meet and address you on this occasion. * * * * * At the close of this Address a motion was made that “Mr. Clews be tendered a vote of thanks by the members of the Convention for his very able, very interesting, and most instructive address.” The President of the Association—who presided—said, “Those in favor of the motion will please rise.” He then declared the vote to be unanimous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER LXXIX. TABLE SHOWING DATES OF ADMISSION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. _According to the Directory Issued July 1, 1907._ * * * * * Prior to May 3, 1869, the New York Stock Exchange was a body with a membership of 533. Of such original membership, there are now remaining 31, as appears by the following list, such list giving the date of their admission: 1844—Dec. 17—WM. ALEXANDER SMITH. 1857—Nov. 20—J. H. WHITEHOUSE. 1858—Mar. 6—L. D. HUNTINGTON. 1862—May 10—A. M. CAHOONE. 1863—June 6—E. C. BENEDICT. Aug. 10—J. H. JACQUELIN. Sept. 4—H. S. CAMBLOS. 1864—June 27—HENRY CLEWS. July 6—E. S. CONNOR. July 8—E. H. BONNER. Dec. 12—H. S. WILSON. Dec. 30—F. W. GILLEY. 1865—Jan. 11—JOSEPH WALKER. Feb. 28—JAS. WEEKS. Dec. 2—R. SUYDAM GRANT. 1866—Feb. 17—DONALD MACKAY. Mar. 24—A. I. ORMSBEE. May 2—FRANCIS L. AMES. Sept. 7—D. HENRY SMITH. Dec. 8—W. T. COLBRON. 1867—June 15—G. J. LOSEA. 1868—Mar. 27—T. W. THORNE. May 26—H. S. GERMOND. June 8—CHAS. GREGORY. July 24—JAS. D. SMITH. Dec. 28—C. H. LELAND. 1869—Jan. 9—A. H. COMBS. Jan. 12—F. K. STURGIS. Feb. 24—A. M. JUDSON. Feb. 26—W. G. READ. Mar. 18—W. E. TILLINGHAST. On May 3, 1869, a separate body of brokers, known as the “Government Bond Department,” was admitted, upon the payment of $1,000 each. This board has a membership, as admitted, of 173, and of such members there now remain 15, as appears by the following list: W. L. BULL. E. A. DE MAURIAC. R. P. LOUNSBERY. WILLIAM RASMUS. JAS. SELIGMAN. C. A. BUTTRICK. LOUIS P. HENOP. J. R. MAXWELL. SALEM T. RUSSELL. R. K. WHITE. CHAS. S. DAY. CYRUS J. LAWRENCE. ALFRED NEILSON. CHAS. M. SCHOTT. W. B. WADSWORTH. Between the 3d and 8th day of May, 1869, various members were elected, of whom one now remains, Mr. F. Nathan, who was admitted to membership on May 6, 1869. On May 8, 1869, a consolidation was effected with an organization known as the “Open Board of Brokers,” at that time facetiously referred to as the “Coal-holers,” from the fact that they had held their meetings for a time in a basement in William Street. This Open Board had a membership of 354, of whom there remain as members at the present time but 26, as appears by the following list: L. D. ALEXANDER. S. L. BLOOD. M. BURR, JR. W. B. DICKERMAN. H. H. HOLLISTER. W. B. LAWRENCE. J. E. MASTIN. W. B. SANCTON. J. M. ARMORY. JOHN S. BUSSING. L. G. FISHER. W. H. JOHNSON. A. LIBAIRE. P. H. MINIS. OSWIN O’BRIEN. S. M. SCHAFFER. W. G. WILEY. W. F. BISHOP. JOHN V. BOUVIER. G. F. CUMMINGS. ALBERT T. HATCH. A. JOSEPHSON. W. B. LOCKWOOD. H. J. MORSE. E. L. OPPENHEIM. A. H. VERNAM. Of members admitted during the balance of the year 1869, that is, from May 8th until the close, there remain at present 7, as appears by the following list, which gives the date of admission in each case: S. W. BOOCOCK, June 2d. D. B. VAN EMBURG, June 19th. M. C. BOUVIER, June 25th. JOHN BIANCHI, June 26th. JAS. B. WILSON, Oct. 5th. W. S. GURNEE, Nov. 30th. HENRY G. CAMPBELL, Dec. 2d. As the result of the admissions of the two bodies heretofore described, the membership of the Exchange rose to a total of 1,060, at which figure it stood until December, 1879, on which date, in order to raise funds for the construction of a new building, there were sold at auction forty additional memberships, which brought an average of about $15,000 each. Of these seats so purchased there now remain 9. This brought the total membership to 1,100, at which figure it has ever since remained. It appears, therefore, that of members who joined the Exchange prior to the 1st of January, 1870, there at present remain 85, as follows: Members of the original “New York Stock Exchange” 31 now remaining Members of the “Government Bond Department” who 15 joined May 3, 1869 One member who joined the Exchange May 6, 1869 1 Members of the “Open Board of Brokers” who were 26 admitted May 8, 1869 Present members who joined between May 9, 1869 and 7 Jan. 1, 1870 __ 80 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAPTER LXXX. ENGLAND AND RUSSIA IN OUR CIVIL WAR AND THE WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN.[7] Footnote 7: Written for the _North American Review_, June 1904 issue, by Henry Clews. There has recently been much discussion relative to the attitude of England and Russia towards the United States during our Civil War. This was provoked by the war between Russia and Japan, which caused the partisans of Russia here to contend that Americans ought to sympathize with Russia in the contest. They argued that Americans should do this because Japan has an alliance by treaty with England, and English sentiment was a good deal against the United States in our struggle, or rather in favor of the South as against the North, whereas Russia was on our side, and made us, in 1863, as they erroneously claim, an offer of naval assistance in the event of intervention by England and France. It is very easy to assert, as it has long been asserted and by many believed, that Russia, in 1863, offered the United States Government the use of her ships of war that then came to the port of New York, and that this prevented, or may have prevented, England and France from recognizing the independence of the Southern Confederacy. But we have yet to learn that there is any record of such an official overture by Russia, either at St. Petersburg or at Washington; and there certainly would be one in both countries if the assertion was a fact instead of being wholly mythical. Would Lincoln or Seward have left the country in ignorance of such an affair, or of any suggestion in that direction, if it had been officially made? It is a myth that hardly calls for contradiction. Such matters between nations cannot be kept secret, and the lapse of forty years since 1863 without revealing anything concerning the alleged orders, goes to prove that there were none of the kind, and that there was nothing to reveal. The Russian ships came here in 1863, just as the Russian fleet with the Grand-Duke Alexis came to New York in 1871, merely on a cruise. That sentiment in England during the war was largely pro-Southern among the wealthy mercantile and manufacturing class is not to be disputed. But this resulted from the interruption of the cotton supply by the war and the blockade of the Southern ports, and from the loss of the South as a customer for British manufactures, involving much depression and distress. The shoe pinched very severely. Liverpool and Manchester, in particular, were great sufferers by the war, and smarted under the extinction, for the time being, of their Southern cotton supply and connections, and they were against the North largely because it had choked off this trade.[8] Footnote 8: I except, of course, the great excitement and commotion created in England by the seizure of Mason and Slidell, on November 7th, 1861, by Captain Wilkes of the U.S.S. “San Jacinto,” when the British Government demanded their release and an apology; but that was because we had violated the rights of a neutral vessel by taking them from the “Trent,” flying a British flag. We released them on that ground, and so at once ended the trouble that had threatened war. This was a special case of our provoking. But this sentiment, this irritation, due to business conditions growing out of the war, was merely personal, and in no way involved the British Government, or reflected its leanings, opinions, or future policy.