History of the United States Volume Iv Part 16

During the campaign of 1872, the Democrats charged several prominent Congressmen with having taken bribes, in 1867-68, to vote for legislation desired by the Union Pacific Railroad. At the request of the accused, an examination was had by a House committee. The committee's report in 1873 recommended the expulsion of Representatives Oakes Ames and James Brooks. Mr. Ames was accused of selling to Congressmen at reduced rates, with intent to influence their votes, shares of stock in the "Credit Mobilier," a corporation for the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad. Mr. Brooks, who was a government director in the railroad, was charged with receiving such shares. The House did not expel the two members, but severely condemned them. Shadows of varying density fell upon many prominent politicians and darkened their subsequent careers.

[1883]

The tragic fate of President Garfield, following these and other revelations of political corruption, brought public sentiment on civil service reform to a head. A bill prepared by the Civil Service Reform League, and introduced by Senator Pendleton, of Ohio, pa.s.sed Congress in January, 1883, and on the 16th received the signature of the President.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

James G. Blaine.

It authorized the President, with the consent of the Senate, to appoint three civil service commissioners, who were to inst.i.tute compet.i.tive examinations open to all persons desiring to enter the government employ. It provided that the clerks in the departments at Was.h.i.+ngton, and in every customs district or post-office where fifty or more were employed, should be arranged in cla.s.ses, and that in the future only persons who had pa.s.sed the examinations should be appointed to service in these offices or promoted from a lower cla.s.s to a higher, preference being given according to rank in the examinations. Candidates were to serve six months' probation at practical work before receiving a final appointment. The bill struck a heavy blow at political a.s.sessments, by declaring that no official should be removed for refusing to contribute to political funds. Congressmen or government officials convicted of soliciting or receiving political a.s.sessments from government employees became liable to a five thousand dollar fine, or three years'

imprisonment, or both. Persons in the government service were forbidden to use their official authority or influence to coerce the political action of anyone, or to interfere with elections.

[1873-1884]

Dorman B. Eaton, Leroy B. Thoman, and John M. Gregory were appointed commissioners by President Arthur. By the end of the year the new system was fairly in operation. Besides the departments at Was.h.i.+ngton, it applied to eleven customs districts and twenty-three post-offices where fifty or more officials were employed. The law could be thoroughly tested only when a new party came into power; that time was near at hand.

The deepest and most significant political movement of the last twenty years has been the gradual recovery of power by the Democracy. For some years after the Rebellion, this party's war record was a millstone around its neck. The financial distress in 1873 and the corruption prevalent in political circles weakened the party in power, while the Democracy, putting slavery and reconstruction behind its back, turned to new issues, and raised the cry of "economy" and "reform."

The state elections of 1874 witnessed a "tidal wave" of democratic victories. Out of 292 members of the House in 1875, 198 were democratic.

Two-thirds of the Senators were still republican. Even by republican reckoning, the democratic presidential ticket in 1876 received a popular majority of 157,000 and lacked but one electoral vote. In 1879 both houses of Congress were democratic, by small majorities, for the first time since 1856. The tide ebbed in 1880, the Democrats losing control of the House, and suffering a decisive defeat in the presidential election; but with 1884 the fortune of the Democracy reached high-water mark.

In this year James G. Blaine, of Maine, and John A. Logan, of Illinois, received the republican nomination for President and Vice-President. A number of Independent Republicans, including the most earnest advocates of civil service reform, were strongly opposed to Mr. Blaine, alleging him to be personally corrupt and the representative of corrupt political methods. They met in conference, denounced the nominations, and later indorsed the democratic nominees--Grover Cleveland, governor of New York, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana. George W. Curtis, Carl Schurz, and other prominent Republicans took part in the movement.

Several influential Independent Republican papers, including the New York Times, Boston Herald, and Springfield Republican, joined the bolt.

The campaign was bitterly personal, attacks upon the characters of the candidates taking the place of a discussion of principles. Mr. Cleveland was elected, receiving 219 electoral votes against 182 for Mr. Blaine.

He carried every southern State, besides New York, Connecticut, Indiana, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey. The total popular vote was over 10,000,000--the largest ever cast. Cleveland had 4,911,000, a plurality of 62,000 over Blaine. The Democrats regained control of the House in 1883, and held it by a considerable majority to the end of Mr.

Cleveland's first term. In the Senate, until the election of 1892, the Republicans continued to have a small majority.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Portrait.]

Grover Cleveland.

From a photograph copyrighted by C. M. Bell, Was.h.i.+ngton, D. C.

Upon the accession of the new administration to power, the country waited with deep interest to see its effect upon the civil service. Mr.

Cleveland had pledged himself to a rigid enforcement of the new law, and encouraged all to believe that with him impartial civil service would not be confined to the few offices thus protected. After the first few months of Cleveland's administration, one fact was apparent: for the first time since the days of Jackson a change of the party in power had not been followed by a clean sweep among the holders of offices. But, as the subsequent record painfully shows, office-holders' pressure proved too strong for Mr. Cleveland's resolution.

There were then about 120,000 government employees. Of these, not far from 14,000 were covered by the Pendleton law. All the other minor places were held at the pleasure of superior officers. These latter officers numbered about 58,000. In August, 1887, from 45,000 to 48,000 of them had been changed, implying change in the offices dependent upon them. There were some 55,000 postmasters, 2,400 of whom were appointed by the President for a term of four years, the rest by the postmaster-general at pleasure. At the date named, from 37,000 to 47,000 changes had been made in this department. These changes, of course, were not all removals, as many vacancies occur by expiration of terms, death of inc.u.mbents, and other causes.

[1886]

An important statute regarding the presidential succession, introduced by Senator h.o.a.r, pa.s.sed Congress in January, 1886. By previous statutes, in case of the removal, death, resignation, or disability of the President and Vice-President, the presidency pa.s.sed in order to the temporary President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. The latter two might be of the opposite party from the President's, so that by the succession of either the will of the people as expressed in the presidential election would manifestly be defeated. Moreover, in case of a President's death and the accession of the Vice-President, the latter, too, might die, and thus both the presidency and the vice-presidency become vacant in the interim between two Congresses, when there is neither President of the Senate nor Speaker of the House. Thus President Garfield died September 19, 1881, and the XLVlllth Congress did not convene to choose a Speaker until the next December. The Senate had adjourned without electing a presiding officer. Had President Arthur died at any moment during the intervening period--and it is said that he was for a time in imminent danger of death--the distracting contingency just spoken of would have been upon the country.

According to the new law, in case of a vacancy in both presidency and vice-presidency, the presidency devolves upon the members of the cabinet in the historical order of the establishment of their departments, beginning with the Secretary of State. Should he die, be impeached, or disabled, the Secretary of the Treasury would become President, to be followed in like crisis by the Secretary of War, he by the Attorney-General, he by the Postmaster-General, he by the Secretary of the Navy, he by the Secretary of the Interior, and he by the Secretary of Agriculture.

We have still no legal or official criterion of a President's disability. We do not know whether, during Garfield's illness, for instance--apparently a clear case of disability--it was proper for his cabinet to perform his presidential duties, or whether Arthur should not have a.s.sumed these. Barring this chance for conflict, it is not easy to think of an emergency in which the chief magistracy can now fall vacant, or the appropriate inc.u.mbent thereof be in doubt.

CHAPTER II.

THE TREATY OF WAs.h.i.+NGTON

[1871]

The year 1871 was marked by the conclusion of an important treaty between England and the United States. Besides settling certain questions which threatened the friendly relations of the two countries, the treaty enunciated important principles of international law, and afforded the world a s.h.i.+ning instance of peaceful arbitration as a subst.i.tute for the horrors of war.

Ever since 1863 the United States had been seeking satisfaction from Great Britain for the depredations committed by the Alabama and other Confederate cruisers sailing from English ports. Negotiations were broken off in 1865 and again in 1868. The next year Reverdy Johnson, American Minister to England, negotiated a treaty, but it was rejected by the Senate. In January, 1871, the British Government proposed a joint commission for the settlement of questions connected with the Canadian fisheries. Mr. Fish, our Secretary of State, replied that the settlement of the "Alabama Claims" would be "essential to the restoration of cordial and amicable relations between the two governments." England consented to submit this question also to the commission, and on February 27th five high commissioners from each country met at Was.h.i.+ngton. The British delegation included cabinet officers, the minister to the United States, and an Oxford professor of international law. The American commissioners were of equally high station, the Secretary of State, an a.s.sociate justice of the Supreme Court, and our minister to England being of their number.

On May 8th the commission completed a treaty which was speedily ratified by both governments. It provided for arbitration upon the "Alabama Claims," upon other claims by citizens of either country for damages during the Rebellion, upon the fisheries, and upon the northwest boundary of the United States. Provisions were also made by it for the common use of the lakes, rivers, and ca.n.a.ls along the Canadian border, and for the transit of merchandise free of duty, under certain conditions, across either country to and from certain ports.

The fisheries part of the treaty is discussed in the next chapter. The question of the northwest boundary was referred to the decision of the German emperor, William I. The treaty of 1846 had left it doubtful whether the boundary line through the channel between Vancouver Island and the main-land should be so run as to include the island of San Juan, with its group, in the United States or in Canada. The emperor's decision, given in 1872, was in favor of the United States.

Three commissioners--one appointed by each government and a third appointed jointly--met in Was.h.i.+ngton, September 26, 1871, to pa.s.s judgment upon the war claims other than the "Alabama Claims." The American claims of this cla.s.s, amounting to less than $1,000,000, were all rejected on the ground that the British Government was not proved responsible for the damages incurred. British subjects put in claims for $96,000,000. The commission allowed less than $2,000,000, which the United States Government promptly paid into the British treasury.

But far the most important and interesting part of the treaty was the provision for the settlement of the "Alabama Claims." England's unfriendly att.i.tude during the war and her subsequent refusal to submit the "claims" to arbitration, had stirred up much hard feeling throughout the United States. The graceful expression, in the preamble to the treaty, of England's regret for the ravages of the cruisers was therefore very gratifying. More material satisfaction was to follow. The treaty provided that the claims should be submitted to a tribunal of five persons--one appointed by each government and one each by the Emperor of Brazil, the President of Switzerland, and the King of Italy.

The tribunal met at Geneva, Switzerland, December 15, 1871. Charles Francis Adams, our minister to England during the war, was the United States member, and Lord Chief Justice c.o.c.kburn the English. Baron Itajuba, the Brazilian minister plenipotentiary to France, Count Sclopis, an Italian minister of State, and M. Jaques Staempfli, of Switzerland, comprised the rest of the tribunal. Each side was represented by counsel, Caleb Cus.h.i.+ng, William M. Evarts, and Morrison R. Waite appearing for the United States. An agent presented the printed case of each government.

[1872]

The American claims included direct and indirect losses--direct, by the destruction of vessels with their cargoes and by national expenditure in chasing the Confederate cruisers; indirect, by the loss of a large part of the United States ocean carrying trade, by increased marine insurance rates, and by the prolongation of the war with proportionally increased expense. Great Britain vehemently objected to the indirect claims coming before the tribunal, and at one time seemed about to withdraw. Upon rea.s.sembling in June, 1872, the tribunal decided that the indirect claims were not admissible, and the case went forward. Counsel having presented their respective arguments, the tribunal took up the case of each cruiser separately. During the consideration of damages it sat with closed doors, only the arbitrators being present. On September 14th, after thirty-two conferences, the tribunal gave its decision.

The Geneva case is of two-fold interest, first, for its decision of the facts involved, and the consequent award; second, for its enunciation of important principles of international law.

The Treaty of Was.h.i.+ngton laid down three rules for the guidance of the tribunal. They are such important contributions to international law that they must be quoted in full.

"A neutral government is bound,

"First: To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

"Secondly: Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"Thirdly: To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

Great Britain denied, in the text of the treaty, that these rules were a true statement of the principles of international law in force during the Rebellion, but consented that the "Alabama Claims" should be decided in accordance with them. Both countries also agreed to abide by them in future and to invite other maritime powers to do the same.

Questions being raised by the counsel as to the interpretation of certain terms and the scope of certain provisions in the three rules, the tribunal found it necessary to make the following preliminary decisions:

1. The meaning of "due diligence." The tribunal took the ground that what const.i.tutes "due diligence" varies with the circ.u.mstances of the case. The greater the probable damage to either belligerent, the greater must be the care taken by the neutral government to prevent the escape of cruisers from its ports.

2. Should a neutral detain an escaped cruiser when it re-enters the neutral's jurisdiction, the cruiser having in the meantime been regularly commissioned by its government? The arbitrators decided that the neutral had a right to detain such a cruiser, in spite of its commission, but was under no positive obligation to do so.

3. Does a neutral's responsibility end with the enforcement of its local laws to prevent the escape of cruisers, even if those laws are inadequate? Decision was given that the case must be determined by international law and not by national legislation. If a country's regulations for carrying out its acknowledged international duties are ineffective, they ought to be changed.

These decisions in international law, coming from so exalted a source, were of world-wide significance. The verdict on the facts in the case had, however, more immediate interest for the two contestants.

The American case claimed damages for losses inflicted by fourteen cruisers and four tenders. The award allowed for only the Alabama with her tender, the Florida with her three tenders, and the Shenandoah during a part of her career. With regard to the Alabama the culpability of the British Government was so clearly shown that even the English arbitrator voted in favor of the American claim. The Florida was permitted to escape from Liverpool although Mr. Adams, the United States minister, repeatedly called the attention of the authorities to her notorious warlike character. The vessel was, furthermore, libelled at Na.s.sau, a British colonial port, but the British officials allowed her to take in supplies and put to sea. The Shenandoah set sail from Liverpool with the connivance of the Government, received her armament at the Madeira Islands, and after a destructive career was welcomed at the British port of Melbourne, repaired in a government slip, and furnished with supplies and recruits. The award held Great Britain responsible only for her career after leaving Melbourne.