When General Garfield died, the Republican Party was broken, and it seemed to be without hope. President Arthur"s conciliatory policy did much to restore harmony of all the elements except the wing represented by Mr. Conkling.
It is probable, however, that a better result might have been secured by the early removal of Robertson. That course of action would have been satisfactory to Conkling, and given strength to the party in New York, where strength was most needed. With Mr. Conkling"s aid in 1884, Mr.
Arthur might have been nominated, and if nominated it is probable that he might have been elected with Mr. Conkling"s aid. Arthur"s error was that he offended two important factions of the party. By retaining Robertson he alienated Conkling, and by the removal of Blaine he alienated him and his friends. Hence in 1884 two elements of the party that were bitterly opposed to each other harmonized in their opposition to Arthur.
XLI FROM 1875 TO 1895
THE HAWAIIAN TREATY AND RECIPROCITY
In January, 1875, Mr. Fish negotiated a treaty with the representatives of the Hawaiian Islands by which there was to be a free exchange of specified products and manufactures.
By the fourth article the King agreed not to dispose of any port or harbor in his dominions or create a lien thereon in favor of any other government. When the treaty came to the Senate it had no original friends, and it met with determined opposition, especially from Sherman of Ohio, and Morrill and Edmunds of Vermont. The reciprocity feature annoyed them, they fearing that it might be used as a precedent for reciprocity with Canada.
I was early impressed with the importance of securing a foothold in the islands and I considered the exclusion of other nations as a step in the right direction. The trustworthy estimates showed that the reciprocity feature would work a loss to the Treasury of the United States of more than half a million dollars a year. This the supporters of the treaty were compelled to admit, but after argument the requisite majority ratified the treaty and upon the theory that the political, naval and commercial advantages were an adequate compensation. Upon the renewal of the treaty the King ceded Pearl River Harbor to the United States. After the expiration of the fixed period of seven years during which the two nations were bound mutually, there was a cla.s.s of men who were anxious to abrogate the treaty, and at each session of Congress for several years a proposition was introduced for that purpose. By something of argument and something of art, the scheme was defeated.
The opposition, led usually by Holman, of Indiana, consisted largely of Democrats. Their reason was loss of revenue. That fact was always admitted by the friends of the treaty. It was claimed also that there was no advantage gained by the country from the introduction of rice and sugar from the islands duty-free. It was a.s.serted by the combinations the prices were as high on the Pacific Coast as on the Atlantic. On the other hand the Louisiana sugar planters opposed the treaty on the ground that they were unfavorably affected. As the importations from the islands never exceeded four per cent of the consumption of the country, the treaty had no perceptible effect upon prices. The sugar and rice interests were reinforced by the delegations from Michigan, Ohio and Vermont, who opposed the treaty under an apprehension that it would operate as a precedent for a revival of the system of reciprocity with Canada.
The fact of the annexation of Canada to the United States, whether the event shall occur in a time near or be postponed to a time remote, depends probably on our action upon the subject of reciprocity.
Canada needs our markets and our facilities for ocean transportation, and, as long as these advantages are denied to her, she can never attain to a high degree of prosperity. England may furnish capital for railways, but railways are profitable only where there is business and production on the one hand, and markets on the other. The system of qualified intercourse tends to make the Canadian farmer dissatisfied with his condition, and as long as there are cheap lands in the United States he will find relief in emigration.
The time, however, is not far distant, when the Canadian farmer will be unable to sell his lands in the Dominion and with the proceeds purchase a home in the States. When that time arrives he will favor annexation as a means of raising his own possessions to a value corresponding to the value of land in the States. The body of farmers, laborers, and trading people will favor annexation, ultimately, should the policy of non-intercourse be adhered to on our part, and they will outnumber the office-holding cla.s.s, and thus the union of the two countries will be secured. It is apparent also that a policy of free intercourse would postpone annexation for a long time, if not indefinitely. Give to the Canadian farmer and fisherman free access to our markets and there will remain only a political motive in favor of annexation. The English government is pursuing a liberal policy in its dealings with the Dominion, and there is no reason for antic.i.p.ating a retrograde course of conduct on the part of the home government.
THE MISSISSIPPI ELECTION OF 1875
In 1876 I was made chairman of a committee of the Senate charged with the duty of investigating the election of 1875 in the State of Mississippi. My a.s.sociates were Cameron of Wisconsin, McMillan of Missouri, Bayard of Delaware, and McDonald of Missouri.
By the election of 1875 the Republican Party had been overthrown and the power of the Democratic Party established upon a basis which has continued firm, until the present time. The question for investigation was this: Was the election of 1875 an honest election? There was an agreement of opinion that there were riots, shootings and ma.s.sacres.
On the side of the Democrats it was contended that these outrages had no political significance, that they were due to personal quarrels, and to uprisings of negroes for the purpose of murdering the whites.
The testimony was of the same character and the conclusions of the two branches of the committee followed the lead of these conflicting theories and statements. For myself I had no doubt that the election of 1875 was carried by the Democrats by a preconcerted plan of riots and a.s.sa.s.sinations. To me the evidence seemed conclusive.
The town of Aberdeen was the scene of murderous intimidation on the day of election, and at about eleven o"clock the Republicans left the polling place and abandoned the contest.
One of the princ.i.p.al witnesses for the Democrats was General Reuben Davis, a cousin of Jefferson Davis. He had been a member of the Thirty-sixth Congress, and he had resigned his seat to take part in the Rebellion. He was a Brigadier-General in the service, but without distinction. He explained and excused all the transactions at Aberdeen and with emphasis and adroitness he laid the responsibility upon the Republicans. Of certain things there was uncontradicted testimony. 1. That the Democrats placed a cannon near the voting-place and trained it upon the window where the Republicans, mostly negroes, were to vote, and that there was a caisson at the same place. 2. That there was a company of mounted men and armed cavalry upon the ground.
3. That guns were discharged in the vicinity of the voting place.
4. That at about eleven o"clock the sheriff of the county, a white man and a Republican, who had been a colonel in the rebel army, made a brief address to the Republican voters in which he said that there could be no election and advised them to go to their homes. This they did without delay. The sheriff locked himself in the jail where he remained until the events of the day were ended. General Davis insisted that all these demonstrations of apparent hostility had no significance-- that the artillery men had no ammunition--that the cavalry men were a.s.sembled for sport only--and that the discharge of muskets was made by boys and lawless persons, but without malice.
In many parts of the State the canva.s.s previous to the election was characterized by a.s.sa.s.sinations and midnight murders. But all were explained upon non-political grounds.
In 1878 General Davis offered himself to the electors as a Democratic candidate for Congress. The convention nominated another person. He then entered the field as an independent candidate. He was defeated, or rather the Democrat was declared to have been elected. The Republicans had voted for Davis, and when the contest was decided by the returning board Davis published a letter in which he charged upon the Democratic leaders the conduct which in 1876, he had explained and defended. After the election of General Harrison in 1888, General Davis appeared at Indianapolis as a Republican, and as such he had an interview with the President-elect.
While I was conducting the investigation at Jackson, a stout negro from the plantation sought an interview with me after he had been examined by the committee. He was a mulatto of unusual sense, but he was under a strong feeling in regard to the outrages that had been perpetrated upon the negro race.
Finally he said: "Had we not better take off the leaders? We can do it in a night."
I said: "No. It would end in the sacrifice of the black population.
It would be as wrong on your part as is their conduct towards you.
Moreover, we intend to protect you, and in the end you will be placed on good ground."
There is, however, a lesson and a warning in what that negro said. If the wrongs continue, some "John Brown" black or white, may appear in Mississippi or South Carolina or in several states at once, and engage in a vain attempt to regain the rights of the negro race by brutal crimes. The negroes are seven million to-day, and they are increasing in numbers and gaining in wealth and intelligence. The South, and indeed the whole country were not more blind to impending perils in the days of slavery than we now are to the perils of the usurpation in which the South is engaged. With such examples as this country furnishes and with the traditions under whose influence all cla.s.ses are living, there will always be peril as long as large bodies of citizens are deprived of their legal rights.
Should such a contest arise, there will be wide spread sympathy in the North, which might convert a servile or social war into a sectional civil war.
COURTESY OF THE SENATE--SENATORIAL ELECTION OF 1887
One of my last acts as Secretary was to advise the President to nominate a Mr. Hitchc.o.c.k for collector of the port of San Diego, California.
Hitchc.o.c.k was a lawyer by profession, a graduate of Harvard and a man of good standing in San Diego. Mr. Houghton, the member for the San Diego district, had recommended a man who was a saloon-keeper and a Democrat in politics, but he had supported Houghton in the canva.s.s. Houghton"s request was supported by Senator Sargent. Upon the facts as then understood the President nominated Hitchc.o.c.k and one of the first questions of interest to me was the action of the Senate upon the nomination of Hitchc.o.c.k which I supported.
Sargent appealed to what was known as the courtesy of the Senate a rule or custom which required Senators of the same party to follow the lead of Senators in the matter of nominations from the respective States. To this rule I objected. I refused to recognize it, and I said that I would never appeal to the "courtesy" of the Senate in any matter concerning the State of Ma.s.sachusetts. Hitchc.o.c.k was rejected. The President nominated Houghton"s candidate.
This action on my part was followed by consequences which may have prevented my re-election to the Senate. When Judge Russell, who was collector of the port of Boston, was about to resign, General Butler, who had early knowledge of the purpose of Russell, secured from General Grant the nomination of his friend William A. Simmons. Simmons had been in the army, he had had experience in the Internal Revenue Service and his record was good. He was, however, Butler"s intimate friend, and all the hostility in the State against Butler, which was large, was directed against the confirmation. I was not personally 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. h.o.a.r 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 partic.i.p.ation 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 pa.s.sed the two houses the chances were with the Democrats.
Judge Davis was in the list of judges from the Supreme Court. His sympathies, and perhaps his opinions, were with the Democratic Party, and there was reason to apprehend that he might incline to act with the Democratic members of the commission. After the pa.s.sage of the bill Judge Davis was chosen Senator from Illinois, and Judge Strong became a member. Upon the pivotal questions the members acted upon their political opinions, or, most certainly in accordance with them.
I voted for the bill upon the understanding that there was no specific authority for such a proceeding. Indeed, the questions might have been referred to the mayors of New York and Brooklyn, upon grounds equally defensible in a legal point of view, although the tribunal selected was much better qualified for the duty. Having agreed to the use of an unconst.i.tutional tribunal, or to an extra const.i.tutional tribunal, I had no qualms about accepting the result. Nor was I especially gratified by the action of the commission. My connections with Mr.
Conkling led me to think that he had great doubts about the propriety of the decision in the case of Louisiana, and that doubt may have led him to avoid the vote in the Senate.
REVISION OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1878
As chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Statutes, I framed and reported the amendments to the Revised Statutes, which were afterwards incorporated in the edition of 1878, which I prepared by the appointment of President Hayes after my term in the Senate expired, which was made probably, upon the recommendation of Attorney-General Devens and without any solicitation on my part, or by any of my friends, as far as I know.
The edition of 1878 contains references to every decision of the Supreme Court down to and including volume 194. It contains a reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court, all arranged and cla.s.sified under the various sections, articles and paragraphs of that instrument. In doing this work I was compelled to read all the opinions of the Court from the beginning of the Government, so far, at least, as to understand the character of each opinion.
The preparation of the index was the work of months. Its value is great and the credit is due to Chief Justice Richardson who not only aided me, but he devised the plan and gave direction to the work as it went on.
It was our rule to index every provision under at least three heads, and in many cases there is a sub-cla.s.sification under the general designation. We avoided an error into which many writers fall--we never indexed under the lead of an adjective, article or participle.
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CLAIM COMMISSION, 1880
In 1880, Mr. Evarts, the Secretary of State, invited me to act as counsel for the Government in defence of the claims of French citizens for losses sustained during the Civil War. There were more than seven hundred cases and the claims amounted to more than thirty-five million dollars including interest. The recoveries fell below six hundred and thirty thousand dollars. The printed record covered sixty thousand pages, and my printed arguments filled about two thousand pages. The discussion and decisions involved many important questions of international law, citizenship, the construction of treaties, and the laws of war.
The chairman was Baron de Arinos. He was a man of una.s.suming manners, of great intelligence, and of extensive acquaintance with diplomatic subjects. He was reserved, usually, but he was never lacking in ability when a subject had received full consideration at his hands. As far as I recall his decisions, when he had to dispose of cases on which the French and American commissioners differed, I cannot name one which appeared to be unjust.
The insignificant sum awarded was due to many circ.u.mstances. Of those, who as French citizens had suffered losses during the war, many had become American citizens by naturalization. Again others were natives of Alsace and Lorraine, and the commission held that they were not ent.i.tled to the protection of France in 1880 when the treaty was made.