4. By what feature in the Const.i.tution was the support of South Carolina and Georgia a.s.sured? Why was this support deemed peculiarly desirable?
5. What five states ratified the Const.i.tution with little or no opposition?
6. What was the objection of Ma.s.sachusetts and some other states to the Const.i.tution? What course, therefore, did they adopt?
7. What three states after Ma.s.sachusetts by their ratification made the adoption of the Const.i.tution secure?
8. What four states subsequently gave in their support?
9. Give an account of the adoption of the first ten amendments.
10. For what do these amendments provide?
11. What powers are reserved to the states?
Section 8. _A Few Words about Politics._
[Sidenote: Federal taxation.]
A chief source of the opposition to the new federal government was the dread of federal taxation. People who found it hard to pay their town, county, and state taxes felt that it would be ruinous to have to pay still another kind of tax. In the mere fact of federal taxation, therefore, they were inclined to see tyranny. With people in such a mood it was necessary to proceed cautiously in devising measures of federal taxation.
[Sidenote: Excise.]
This was well understood by our first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and in the course of his administration of the treasury he was once roughly reminded of it. The two methods of federal taxation adopted at his suggestion were duties on imports and excise on a few domestic products, such as whiskey and tobacco. The excise, being a tax which people could see and feel, was very unpopular, and in 1794 the opposition to it in western Pennsylvania grew into the famous "Whiskey Insurrection," against which President Washington thought it prudent to send an army of 16,000 men. This formidable display of federal power suppressed the insurrection without bloodshed.
[Sidenote: Tariff.]
Nowhere was there any such violent opposition to Hamilton"s scheme of custom-house duties on imported goods. People had always been familiar with such duties. In the colonial times they had been levied by the British government without calling forth resistance until Charles Townshend made them the vehicle of a dangerous attack upon American self-government.[32] After the Declaration of Independence, custom-house duties were levied by the state governments and the proceeds were paid into the treasuries of the several states. Before 1789, much trouble had arisen from oppressive tariff-laws enacted by some of the states against others. By taking away from the states the power of taxing imports, the new Const.i.tution removed this source of irritation. It became possible to lighten the burden of custom-house duties, while by turning the full stream of them into the federal treasury an abundant national revenue was secured at once. Thus this part of Hamilton"s policy met with general approval. The tariff has always been our favourite device for obtaining a national revenue. During our Civil War, indeed, the national, government resorted extensively to direct taxation, chiefly in the form of revenue stamps, though it also put a tax upon billiard-tables, pianos, gold watches, and all sorts of things. But after the return of peace these unusual taxes were one after another discontinued, and since then our national revenue has been raised, as in Hamilton"s time, from duties on imports and excise on a few domestic products, chiefly tobacco and distilled liquors.
[Footnote 32: See my _War of Independence_, pp. 58-83; and my _History of the United States, for Schools_, pp. 192-203.]
[Sidenote: Origin of American political parties.]
Hamilton"s measures as secretary of the treasury embodied an entire system of public policy, and the opposition to them resulted in the formation of the two political parties into which, under one name or another, the American people have at most times been divided. Hamilton"s opponents, led by Jefferson, objected to his princ.i.p.al measures that they a.s.sumed powers in the national government which were not granted to it by the Const.i.tution. Hamilton then fell back upon the Elastic Clause[33] of the Const.i.tution, and maintained that such powers were _implied_ in it. Jefferson held that this doctrine of "implied powers"
stretched the Elastic Clause too far. He held that the Elastic Clause ought to be construed strictly and narrowly; Hamilton held that it ought to be construed loosely and liberally. Hence the names "strict-constructionist" and "loose-constructionist," which mark perhaps the most profound and abiding antagonism in the history of American politics.
[Footnote [33]: Article I, section viii, clause 18; see above, p. 245.]
Practically all will admit that the Elastic Clause, if construed strictly, ought not to be construed _too_ narrowly; and, if construed liberally, ought not to be construed _too_ loosely. Neither party has been consistent in applying its principles, but in the main we can call Hamilton the founder of the Federalist party, which has had for its successors the National Republicans of 1828, the Whigs of 1833 to 1852, and the Republicans of 1854 to the present time; while we can call Jefferson the founder of the party which called itself Republican from about 1792 to about 1828, and since then has been known as the Democratic party. This is rather a rough description in view of the real complication of the historical facts, but it is an approximation to the truth.
[Sidenote: Tariff, Internal Improvements, and National Bank.]
It is not my purpose here to give a sketch of the history of American parties. Such a sketch, if given in due relative proportion, would double the size of this little book, of which the main purpose is to treat of civil government in the United States with reference to its _origins_. But it may here be said in general that the practical questions which have divided the two great parties have been concerned with the powers of the national government as to (1) the _Tariff_; (2) the making of roads, improving rivers and harbours, etc., under the general head of _Internal Improvements_; and (3) the establishment of a _National Bank_, with the national government as partner holding shares in it and taking a leading part in the direction of its affairs. On the question of such a national bank the Democratic party achieved a complete and decisive victory under President Tyler. On the question of internal improvements the opposite party still holds the ground, but most of its details have been settled by the great development of the powers of private enterprise during the past sixty years, and it is not at present a "burning question." The question of the tariff, however, remains to-day as a "burning question," but it is no longer argued on grounds of const.i.tutional law, but on grounds of political economy.
Hamilton"s construction of the Elastic Clause has to this extent prevailed, and mainly for the reason that a liberal construction of that clause was needed in order to give the national government enough power to restrict the spread of slavery and suppress the great rebellion of which slavery was the exciting cause.
[Sidenote: Civil service reform.]
Another political question, more important, if possible, than that of the Tariff, is to-day the question of the reform of the Civil Service; but it is not avowedly made a party question. Twenty years ago both parties laughed at it; now both try to treat it with a show of respect and to render unto it lip-homage; and the control of the immediate political future probably lies with the party which treats it most seriously. It is a question that was not distinctly foreseen in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson, when the Const.i.tution was made and adopted; otherwise, one is inclined to believe, the framers of the Const.i.tution would have had something to say about it. The question as to the Civil Service arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics; they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this.
[Sidenote: Origin of the "spoils system."]
But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens "out of politics" could hardly be devised. It called to the front a large cla.s.s of men of coa.r.s.e moral fibre who greatly preferred the excitement of speculating in politics to earning an honest living by some ordinary humdrum business. The civil service of these states was seriously damaged in quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public service in return, and thus the line which separates taxation from robbery was often crossed.
[Sidenote: "Rotation in Office."]
[Sidenote: The "spoils system" made national]
About the same time there grew up an idea that there is something especially democratic, and therefore meritorious, about "rotation in office." Government offices were regarded as plums at which every one ought to be allowed a chance to take a bite. The way was prepared in 1820 by W.H. Crawford, of Georgia, who succeeded in getting the law enacted that limits the tenure of office for postmasters, revenue collectors, and other servants of the federal government to four years.
The importance of this measure was not understood, and it excited very little discussion at the time. The next presidential election which resulted in a change of party was that of Jackson in 1828, and then the methods of New York and Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale.
Jackson cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of office with a keen zest. During the forty years between Washington"s first inauguration and Jackson"s the total number of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were defaulters. During the first year of Jackson"s administration the number of changes made in the civil service was about 2,000. [34] Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a national scale of the so-called "spoils system." The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who in a speech in the senate in 1831 declared that "to the victors belong the spoils." The man who said this of course did not realize that he was making one of the most shameful remarks recorded in history. There was, however, much aptness in his phrase, inasmuch as it was a confession that the business of American politics was about to be conducted on principles fit only for the warfare of barbarians.
[Footnote 34: Sumner"s _Jackson_, p. 147.]
In the canva.s.s of 1840 the Whigs promised to reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many Democratic votes; but after they had won the election, they followed Jackson"s example. The Democrats followed in the same way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary at each change of party to make a "clean sweep" of the offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful people. The "spoils system" has helped to sustain all manner of abominations, from grasping monopolies and civic jobbery down to political rum-shops. The virus runs through everything, and the natural tendency of the evil is to grow with the growth of the country.
[Sidenote: The Civil Service Act of 1883.]
In 1883 Congress pa.s.sed the Civil Service Act, allowing the president to select a board of examiners on whose recommendation appointments are made. Candidates for office are subjected to an easy compet.i.tive examination. The system has worked well in other countries, and under Presidents Arthur and Cleveland it was applied to a considerable part of the civil service. It has also been adopted in some states and cities.
The opponents of reform object to the examination that it is not always intimately connected with the work of the office,[35] but, even if this were so, the merit of the system lies in its removal of the offices from the category of things known as "patronage." It relieves the president of much needless work and wearisome importunity. The president and the heads of departments appoint (in many cases, through subordinates) about 115,000 officials. It is therefore impossible to know much about their character or competency. It becomes necessary to act by advice, and the advice of an examining board is sure to be much better than the advice of political schemers intent upon getting a salaried office for their needy friends. The examination system has made a fair beginning and will doubtless be gradually improved and made more stringent. Something too has been done toward stopping two old abuses attendant upon political canva.s.ses,--(1) forcing government clerks, under penalty of losing their places, to contribute part of their salaries for election purposes; (2) allowing government clerks to neglect their work in order to take an active part in the canva.s.s. Before the reform of the civil service can be completed, however, it will be necessary to repeal Crawford"s act of 1820 and make the tenure of postmasters and revenue collectors as secure as that of the chief justice of the United States.
[Footnote 35: The objection that the examination questions are irrelevant to the work of the office is often made the occasion of gross exaggeration. I have given, in Appendix I, an average sample of the examination papers used in the customs service. It is taken from Comstock"s _Civil Service in the United States_, New York, Holt & Co., 1885, an excellent manual with very full particulars.]
[Sidenote: The Australian ballot-system.]
Another political reform which promises excellent results is the adoption by many states of some form of the Australian ballot-system, for the purpose of checking intimidation and bribery at elections. The ballots are printed by the state, and contain the names of all the candidates of all the parties. Against the name of each candidate the party to which he belongs is designated, and against each name there is a small vacant s.p.a.ce to be filled with a cross. At the polling-place the ballots are kept in an inclosure behind a railing, and no ballot can be brought outside under penalty of fine or imprisonment[36]. One ballot is nailed against the wall outside the railing, so that it may be read at leisure. The s.p.a.ce behind the railing is divided into separate booths quite screened from each other. Each booth is provided with a pencil and a convenient shelf on which to write. The voter goes behind the railing, takes the ballot which is handed him, carries it into one of the booths, and marks a cross against the names of the candidates for whom he votes.
He then puts his ballot into the box, and his name is checked off on the register of voters of the precinct. This system is very simple, it enables a vote to be given in absolute secrecy, and it keeps "heelers"
away from the polls. It is favourable to independence in voting,[37] and it is unfavourable to bribery, because unless the briber can follow his man to the polls and see how he votes, he cannot be sure that his bribe is effective. To make the precautions against bribery complete it will doubtless be necessary to add to the secret ballot the English system of accounting for election expenses. All the funds used in an election must pa.s.s through the hands of a small local committee, vouchers must be received for every penny that is expended, and after the election an itemized account must be made out and its accuracy attested under oath before a notary public. This system of accounting has put an end to bribery in England.[38]
[Footnote 36: This is a brief description of the system lately adopted in Ma.s.sachusetts. The penalty here mentioned is a fine not exceeding a thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both such fine and such imprisonment.]
[Footnote 37: It is especially favourable to independence in voting, if the lists of the candidates are placed in a single column, without reference to party (each name of course, having the proper party designation, "Rep.," "Dem.," "Prohib.," etc., attached to it). In such case it must necessarily take the voter some little time to find and mark each name for which he wishes to vote. If, however, the names of the candidates are arranged according to their party, all the Republicans in one list, all the Democrats in another, etc., this arrangement is much less favourable to independence in voting and much less efficient as a check upon bribery; because the man who votes a straight party ticket will make all his marks in a very short time, while the "scratcher," or independent voter, will consume much more time in selecting his names. Thus people interested in seeing whether a man is voting the straight party ticket or not can form an opinion from the length of time he spends in the booth. It is, therefore, important that the names of all candidates should be printed in a single column.]
[Footnote 38: An important step in this direction has been taken in the New York Corrupt Practices Act of April, 1890. See Appendix J.]
Complaints of bribery and corruption have attracted especial attention in the United States during the past few years, and it is highly creditable to the good sense of the people that measures of prevention have been so promptly adopted by so many states. With an independent and uncorrupted ballot, and the civil service taken "out of politics," all other reforms will become far more easily accomplished. These ends will presently be attained. Popular government makes many mistakes, and sometimes it is slow in finding them out; but when once it has discovered them it has a way of correcting them. It is the best kind of government in the world, the most wisely conservative, the most steadily progressive, and the most likely to endure.
QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT.
1. What was a chief source of opposition to the new federal government?
2. What necessity for caution existed in devising methods to raise money?
3. Hamilton"s scheme of excise:-- a. The things on which excise was laid.
b. The unpopularity of the scheme.
c. The "Whiskey Insurrection."
d. Its suppression by Washington.
4. Hamilton"s tariff scheme:-- a. The cla.s.s of things on which duties were placed.
b. Popular acquiescence in the plan.
c. Effect of diverting the stream of custom-house revenue from its old destination in the several state treasuries to its new destination in the federal treasury.
d. Direct taxation during the Civil War.
e. Methods pursued since the Civil War.
5. The origin of American political parties:-- a. Jefferson"s objection to Hamilton"s policy.
b. Hamilton"s defence of his policy.
c. Jefferson"s view of the Elastic Clause.
d. Hamilton"s view of the Elastic Clause.