I opposed the payment of a large cla.s.s of claims presented for inst.i.tutions of learning or church buildings destroyed by one or the other army, not so much on account of their disloyal owners, but because their destruction belonged to the general ravages of war, never compensated for, as of right, according to the laws and usages of nations.
Besides making reports on various war claims, I spoke (December 13, 1878) at some length against a bill to reimburse William and Mary College, Virginia, for property destroyed during the war, in which I collated the precedents and reviewed the law of nations in the matter of payment of claims for property destroyed in the ravages of war by either the friendly or opposing army. I also frequently partic.i.p.ated in the debates on the floor of the House involving war claims and other important matters.
The necessity for presenting claims for the judgment of Congress results in the most grievous wrong to honest claimants, and often results in the payment of fraudulent claims through the persistency of claimants and the lack of time and adequate means for investigation.
In the absence of judicial investigation according to the usual forms of procedure it quite frequently happens that fraudulent claims are made to appear honest, and hence paid. Want of time causes other, however just, to fail of consideration, thus doing incalculable injustice. The government of the United States suffers in its reputation from its innumerable failures to pay, at least promptly, its honest creditors. Thousands of bills to pay claims are annually introduced which go to committees and to the calendar, never to be disposed of for want of time. To remedy this, on April 16, 1878, I proposed in the House an amendment to the Const.i.tution in these words:
"_Article ----_
"Section 1. Congress shall have no power to appropriate money for the payment of any claims against the United States, not created in pursuance of or previously authorized by law, international treaty, or award, except in payment of a final judgment rendered thereon by a court or tribunal having competent jurisdiction.
"Section 2. Congress shall establish a court of claims to consist of five justices, one of whom shall be chief-justice, with such original jurisdiction as may be provided by law in cases involving claims against the United States, and with such other original jurisdiction as may be provided by law, and Congress may also confer on any other of the courts of the United States inferior to the Supreme Court, original jurisdiction in like cases.
"Section 3. All legislation other than such as refers exclusively to the appropriation of money in any appropriation act of Congress shall be void, except such as may prescribe the terms or conditions upon which the money thereby appropriated shall be paid or received."
--_Con. Record_, Vol. vii., Part III., p. 2576.
The adoption of this amendment would have relieved Congress of much work; have given claimants at all times a speedy and certain remedy for the disposition of their claims and at the same time secured protection to the government against unfounded claims. A statute of limitations could have put a rest old and often trumped-up claims, still constantly being brought before Congress. It is impossible for Congress to make a statute of limitations for its own guidance.(10) It never will obey a law against its own action.
In the Forty-sixth Congress there were many contested election cases, growing out of frauds and crimes at elections, especially in the South. The purpose of the dominant race South to overthrow the rule of the blacks or their friends was then manifest in the conduct of elections. The colored voter was soon, by coercion and fraud, practically deprived of his franchise. The plan of stuffing ballot-boxes with tissue ballots (printed often on tissue paper about an inch long and less in width) was in vogue in some districts.
The judge or clerk of the election would, when the ballot-box was opened, shake from his sleeve into the box hundreds of these tickets.
In these districts voters were encouraged to vote, but the tissue ballot was mainly counted to the number of the actual voters; those remaining were burned. The party in the majority in the House, however, generally voted in its men, regardless of the facts.
As early as June 7, 1878, I proposed to amend the postal laws so as to extend the free-delivery letter-carrier system to post offices having a gross revenue of $20,000. This amendment subsequently became a law, and gave many cities the carrier system. Prior to this, population alone was the test for establishing such offices.
I opposed the indiscriminate distribution of the remaining $10,000,000 of the $15,500,000 paid by Great Britain, as adjudged by the Geneva Arbitration, for indemnity for losses occasioned by Confederate cruisers which went to sea during the Rebellion from English ports with the connivance or through the negligence of the British Government. I insisted in a speech (December 17, 1878) that the fund should be distributed in payment of claims allowed by the arbitrators in making the award, or retained by the government as general indemnity. Many of the losers whose claims were taken into account in making the award could not be proper claimants to the fund, as they had been fully paid by marine insurance companies.
It was insisted by some members that the companies had no equitable right to be subrogated to the rights of the claimants who were thus paid, because the companies had charged war-premiums, and hence did not deserve reimburs.e.m.e.nt.(11)
The Forty-sixth Congress will long be memorable in the history of our country. It was Democratic in both branches, for the first time since the war.
The previous Congress (House Democratic) adjourned March 4, 1879, without having performed its const.i.tutional duty of appropriating the money necessary to carry on,. for the coming fiscal year, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government, and for the pay of the army. The avowed purpose of this failure was to coerce a Republican President to withhold his veto and approve bills prohibiting the use of troops "to keep the peace at the polls on election days"; taking from the President his power to enforce all laws, even to the suppression of rebellion, except on the motion first taken by State authorities; repealing all election laws which secured the right, through supervisors of elections and special deputy marshals, to have free, fair elections for electors and members of Congress; and also that made it a crime for an officer of the army to suppress riots or disorder or to preserve the peace at elections.
The President called the Forty-sixth Congress in extra session, March 18, 1879, to make the necessary appropriations. The effort was at once made, through riders to appropriation bills and by separate bills, to enact the laws mentioned. Excitement ran high.
For the first time in the history of the United States (perhaps in the history of any government) it was announced by a party in control of its law-making power, and consequently responsible for the proper conduct and support of the government, that unless the Executive would consent to legislation not by him deemed wise or just, there should not be provided means for maintaining the several departments of the government--that the government should be "starved to death." In vain were precedents sought for in the history of England for such suicidal policy. The debate in both branches of Congress ran high, and there was much apprehension felt by the people. Mr. Blackburn of Kentucky, speaking for his party, said:
"For the first time in eighteen years past the Democracy are back in power in both branches of this Legislature, and she proposes to signallize her return to power; she proposes to celebrate her recovery of her long-lost heritage by tearing off these degrading badges of servitude and destroying the machinery of a corrupt and partisan legislation. We do not intend to stop until we have stricken the last vestige of your war measures from the statute- book, which, like these, were born of the pa.s.sions incident to civil strife and looked to the abridgment of the liberty of the citizen."
Others threatened to refuse to vote appropriations until the "Capitol crumbled into dust" unless the legislation demanded was pa.s.sed.
President Hayes" veto alone prevented the legislation. It is not here proposed to give a history of the struggle, fraught with so much danger to the Republic, but only to call attention to it.
The contest lasted for months.
Senators Edmunds, Conkling, Blaine, Chandler of Michigan, and other Republicans, and Thurman, Voorhees, Beck, Morgan, Lamar, and other Democrats partic.i.p.ated in the debates. In the House Mr. Garfield, Mr. Frye, Mr. Reed, and other Republicans, and Mr. c.o.x, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Carlisle, and other Democrats took a more or less prominent part in the discussion. I spoke against the repeal of the election laws on April 25, 1879, and against the prohibition of the use of troops at the polls to keep the peace on election days, on June 11, 1879. The necessity for the pay of members for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, had the effect, finally, after many vetoes of the President, to cause the Democratic members to recede, for a time, from the false position taken. The whole question was, however, renewed in the first regular session of the same Congress.
Precisely similar riders to appropriation bills and new bills relating to the use of troops at the polls, to repeal laws authorizing the appointment of supervisors and special deputy marshals for elections, and to make it a crime for an officer of the army to aid in keeping the peace at the polls on election days were brought forward and their enactment into laws demanded. I spoke on the 8th and on the 10th of April, 1880, against inhibiting the use of the army at the polls and restricting the President"s power to keep the peace at elections when riots and disorder prevailed, and on March 18th, and again on the 11th of June, 1880, in opposition to a bill intended to repeal existing laws relating to the use of deputy marshals at elections. In these debates I sought to make clear the power of the government to protect the voter in Federal elections; to demonstrate the necessity for doing so; to show that it was as important to have peace on election day at the polls as on the other days of the year and at other places; that it was not intended, and had never been the purpose, to use troops or supervisors or deputy marshals to prevent a voter from voting for officers of his choice, but only to secure him in that right; and that the right to a peaceful election had always been sacredly maintained, and for this purpose the army had been used in England and in all countries where free elections had been held. I maintained that the citizen was as much ent.i.tled to be protected in his right peacefully and freely to exercise the elective franchise, as to be protected in any other right, and that it was as much the duty and as clearly within the power of the Federal Government to use, when necessary, the army as a police force on an election day as to use it on other days of the year to suppress riots and breaches of the peace; and I further insisted that it was the duty of the United States to protect its citizens at home as well as abroad in all their const.i.tutional rights.(12) I also showed that the coercive policy of forcing legislation under threats of destroying the government was not only indefensible, treasonable, and unpatriotic, but wholly new. The precedents alleged to be found in the history of the British Parliament were shown not to exist in fact; that the farthest the English Parliament had ever gone was to refuse subsidies to the Crown, the princes, or to maintain royalty, or to vote supplies to carry on a foreign war not approved by the House of Commons; that in no case had the life of the nation been threatened as the penalty for the Crown"s not approving laws pa.s.sed by the House of Commons, and that the English statutes provided for preserving peace and order by the army, especially at elections.
In some cases during this memorable contest in the Forty-sixth Congress I took issue in the House with the majority of my party colleagues when they, through timidity, or for other causes, yielded their opposition to proposed legislation touching the use of the army and special deputy marshals and supervisors of elections to secure peaceable and fair elections. In one notable instance (June 11, 1879), Mr. Garfield of Ohio, Mr. Hale of Maine, and the other Republican members of the appropriation committee so far surrendered their previously expressed views as to concur in the adoption of a section in the army appropriation bill which prohibited any of the money appropriated by it from being "paid for the subsistence, equipment, transportation, or compensation of any portion of the army of the United States to be used as a police force to keep the peace at any election held within any State."
The application of the previous question cut off general debate, and I was only able to get five minutes to state my objections to the proposed measure.
Though the section was plainly intended to deprive the President of his const.i.tutional power as Commander-in-Chief of the army, eleven Republicans only of the House joined me in voting against it. The Republican Senators, however, generally opposed the section when the bill reached the Senate. Later in the same Congress the Republicans of the House unitedly supported the position taken by me. This and other like incidents led, however, to a charge being made later by some weak, jealous, and vain Republicans that I was not friendly to Mr. Garfield as a leader and not always loyal to my party.
In the last army appropriation bill of the same Congress, after full discussion, a similar provision was omitted, and no such limitation on the use of the army has since been or is ever again likely to be attempted to be enacted into law.
The political heresies of the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses have apparently pa.s.sed away, and a more patriotic sentiment generally exists in all parties, and, fortunately, the necessity for troops, supervisors of elections, and special deputy marshals at the polls no longer exists in so marked a degree.
I spoke, December 7, 1880, and again, February 9, 1881, at length, against the adoption of a joint rule of Congress relating to counting the electoral vote, which rule, among other things, undertook to give Congress the right to settle questions that might arise on objection of a member as to the vote of the electors of a State.
I maintained that, under the Const.i.tution, Congress neither in joint session nor in separate sessions had the right to decide that the vote of a State should or should not be counted, or that there was any power anywhere to reject the vote of any State after it had been cast and properly certified and returned; that the two Houses only met, as provided in the Const.i.tution, to witness the purely ministerial work of the Vice-President in opening and counting the electoral vote as returned to him. I cited the precedents from the beginning of the government under the Const.i.tution in support of my position, excepting only the dangerous one of 1877, growing out of the Electoral Commission.
I spoke on many other important subjects, especially on the true rule of apportionment of representation in the House; on election cases, and parliamentary questions. I was not always in harmony with my party leaders. I denied the policy of surrendering principle in any case, even though apparent harmony was, for the time being, attainable thereby.
At the November election of 1880, James A. Garfield was elected President, and the Republicans had a bare majority in the House at the opening of the Forty-seventh Congress over the Democrats and Greenbackers, but not a majority over all. There were three Mahone re-Adjusters elected from Virginia. I formed no purpose to become a candidate for Speaker of the House, until the close of the Forty- sixth, and then only on the solicitation of leading members of that Congress who had been elected to the next one.
Shortly after Mr. Garfield was inaugurated President of the United States, a violent controversy arose over appointments to important offices in New York, which led to the resignation of Senators Conkling and Platt. This was followed by President Garfield being shot (July 2, 1881) by a crazy crank (Guiteau) who, in some way, conceived that he, through the controversy, was deprived of an office. In company with General Sherman I saw and had an interview with Mr. Garfield in his room at the White House the afternoon of the day he was shot. His appearance then was that of a man fatally wounded. He lingered eighty days, dying September 19, 1881. (He is buried at Cleveland, Ohio.) Garfield was a man of great intellect, and attracted people to him by his generous nature. I have spoken of him in an oration delivered, May 12, 1887, at the unveiling of a statue of him at the foot of Capitol Hill, Washington, D. C., erected by the Society of the Army of the c.u.mberland.(13)
Over such compet.i.tors as Mr. Reed, of Maine, Mr. Burrows of Michigan, Mr. Hisc.o.c.k of New York, and others, I was chosen Speaker of the Forty-seventh Congress, December 5, 1881. The contest was sharp before the caucus met, but when my nomination became reasonably apparent, Mr. Hisc.o.c.k, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Burrows, my three leading compet.i.tors, generously voted and had their friends vote for my nomination.
Chester A. Arthur, as Vice-President, succeeded to the Presidency on the death of Mr. Garfield. There came, later, an acute division in the Republican party, Blaine and Conkling (both then out of office by a singular coincidence), being the a.s.sumed heads of the opposing factions. President Arthur tried, faithfully, to bring the elements together by recognizing both, but in this, as is usually the case, he was not successful and had not the active support of either faction. Mr. Blaine was too inordinately ambitious and jealous of power to patiently bide his time, and Mr. Conkling was too imperious and vengeful to tolerate, through his political friends, fair treatment of his supposed enemies. Mr. Conkling was a man of honesty and sincerity, true to his friends to a degree, of overtowering intellect, with marvellous industry. Notwithstanding his many unfortunate traits of character, Mr. Conkling was a great man.
Mr. Blaine was essentially a politician, and possessed of a vaulting and consuming ambition, and was jealous of even his would-be personal and political friends. Mr. Conkling advised some of his friends in Congress to support me for Speaker, as did also his former senatorial colleague, Mr. Platt of New York. The members from New York state, however, though many of them were followers of Mr.
Conkling, unitedly supported Mr. Hisc.o.c.k until the latter decided, during the caucus, himself to vote for me. Mr. Blaine, though to me personally professing warm friendship, held secret meetings at the State Department and at his house to devise methods of preventing my election.(14) He had been a member, for many terms, of the House, and thrice its Speaker, had been a Senator, and for a few months Secretary of State under Presidents Garfield and Arthur.
He had an extended acquaintance and many enthusiastic friends. He lacked breadth and strength of learning, as well as sincerity of character. He, however, came near being a great man, especially in public, popular estimation.
The Forty-seventh Congress met December 5, 1881, and being elected its Speaker over Mr. Randall, the candidate of the Democrats, I made this inaugural address:
"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives,--I thank you with a heart filled with grat.i.tude for the distinguished honor conferred on me by an election as your Speaker. I will a.s.sume the powers and duties of this high office with, I trust, a due share of diffidence and distrust of my own ability to meet them acceptably to you and the country. I believe that you, as a body and individually, will give me hearty support in the discharge of all my duties. I invoke your and the country"s charitable judgment upon all my official acts. I will strive to be just to all, regardless of party or section. Where party principle is involved, I will be found to be a Republican, but in all other respects I hope to be able to act free from party bias.
"It is a singular fact that at this most prosperous time in our nation"s history no party in either branch of Congress has an absolute majority over all other parties, and it is therefore peculiarly fortunate that at no other time since and for many years prior to the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the Executive chair have there been so few unsettled vital questions of a national character in relation to which party lines have been closely drawn.
"The material prosperity of the people is in advance of any other period in the history of our government. The violence of party spirit has materially subsided, and in great measure because many of the reasons for its existence are gone.
"While the universal tendency of the people is to sustain and continue to build up an unparalleled prosperity, it should be our highest aim to so legislate as to permanently promote and not cripple it. This Congress should be, and I profoundly hope it will be, marked peculiarly as a business Congress.
"It may be true that additional laws are yet necessary to give to every citizen complete protection in the exercise of all political rights. With evenly balanced party power, with few grounds for party strife and bitterness, and with no impending Presidential election to distract us from purely legislative duties, I venture to suggest that the present is an auspicious time to enact laws to guard against the recurrence of dangers to our inst.i.tutions and to insure tranquillity at perilous times in the future.
"Again thanking you for the honor conferred, and again invoking your aid and generous judgment, I am ready to take the oath prescribed by law and the Const.i.tution and forthwith proceed, with my best ability, guided by a sincere and honest purpose, to discharge the duties belonging to the office with which you have clothed me."
The duties of Speaker were arduous, varied, and delicate. Under the law, rules, and practice of the House he had control of the Hall of the House, and of the a.s.signment of committee rooms; signed orders for the monthly pay of each member, and the pay of employees; approved bonds of officers; appointed and removed stenographers; examined and approved the daily journal of the proceedings of the House before being read; received and submitted messages from the President and heads of departments; appointed three regents to the Smithsonian Inst.i.tution, and three members annually as visitors to the Military Academy, and a like number to the Naval Academy, and performed many other duties cast upon him, besides appointing all the committees of the House. The Speaker is naturally the person to whom members, employees, and others having business with the House flock for advice, a.s.sistance, and with their real or imaginary grievances. An extensive correspondence and social duties demand much of the Speaker"s time. All this, independent of his real duties as presiding officer of the House, in performing what is expected, without time for deliberation, to decide correctly all parliamentary questions and inquiries. And he is obliged, in addition, to discharge the ordinary duties of a member for his district and const.i.tuents. The members from all parts of the Union have diverse and often conflicting interests to press upon the attention of the House, and the jealousy of members in matters of precedence or recognition by the Speaker renders his duties severely trying. It constantly occurred that several members with equal rights, urging matters of equal merit, were dependent on the recognition of the Speaker in a "morning hour," when not more than one or two of them at most could, for want of time, be recognized.
The Speaker has to be invidious, relying on the future to even matters up. The recognition of a member by the Speaker is final, and from which there is no appeal. Members and often personal friends not infrequently feel aggrieved at the Speaker, for a time at least. All this regardless of political party lines. It is the Speaker"s duty to equally divide recognition on party sides, and this duty, from the member"s standpoint, is often a ground of complaint.
The first duty of the Speaker, ordinarily, after the House is organized and before it can proceed regularly to business, is to appoint the standing committees.
Chairmanships of committees and appointments on leading ones are much sought after, and members appeal to the Speaker on all kinds of grounds to give them the coveted places. Personal and party friendship is pressed upon him to induce favorable action. The same place is often sought by a number of members. Experience in congressional service, regardless of the member"s prior duties, pursuit, or occupation, is generally urged as a reason for making a desired appointment. Some construct a geographical reason for a particular selection. Out of all this and more, the Speaker, with little or no acquaintance with a large number of the members, does the best he can. A few always are disappointed, and, necessarily under the circ.u.mstances, some mistakes are made, but generally those who make the loudest complaint are the weak, vain, and inefficient members who hope to be made great in the eyes of their const.i.tuents by being named on one or more important committees by the Speaker.
Some who seek and obtain committee appointments of their own choice soon find they are not what they had expected, and they also join the clamor against the Speaker. There are, however, only a small number out of the whole who are unreasonable or dissatisfied. This small number, by their wailing, give the appearance of a general discontent. Complaint was made by the disappointed that I gave preference on committees to personal and party friends who supported me for Speaker. I always believed in rewarding my friends.
I, however, appointed Hon. Thomas B. Reed (since Speaker), Hon.
Frank Hisc.o.c.k, Hon. J. C. Burrows (all compet.i.tors for Speaker), Chairmen, respectively, of the Committees on the Judiciary, Appropriations, and Territories. Hon. William D. Kelley was made Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He was the acknowledged leading advocate of a high protective tariff to which the Republican party was then pledged, though the party was then honeycombed with free-traders, some of whom edited leading newspapers. Some of the latter in New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati, took occasion to a.s.sail me for appointing Mr. Kelley, and to give weight to their unjust attacks made many false statements as to the organization of other committees.(15) In this they were inspired by Mr. Blaine, and a very few others outside of Congress, who imagined their dictations should have been regarded, or who were otherwise disappointed in not being able to say who should be Speaker. The Speaker could not go into the newspapers and contradict these and like malicious stories, and hence some of them are still ignorantly repeated.(16)
After fuller acquaintance with the members, it became obvious that in a.s.signing them to committee work I had overrated some and underrated others, but a better working Congress never met. Its work abundantly proves this, not only in amount of work done, but in the importance and character of the legislation, and its freedom from all that was corrupt or vicious. I cannot recall that even the weak and vicious slanderers or disappointed lobbyists ever risked charging me while I was Speaker or during my eight years in Congress with favoring any corrupt measure pending in Congress.
Polygamy, notwithstanding it had maintained itself in the United States for fifty years, and was then more firmly established in Utah than at any time before, was given a blow, under which it has since about disappeared. The first three-per-cent. funding bill was pa.s.sed by this Congress. Pauper immigration was prohibited, and immigrants were required to be protected on their way across the sea; national bank charters were extended, letter postage was reduced to two cents, and many public acts wisely regulating the Indian and land policy of the government were pa.s.sed. Liberal pension laws were enacted; internal-revenue taxes were largely reduced, and there was a general revision (March 3, 1883) of the tariff laws. The Civil Service Act was also pa.s.sed in this Congress.
More bills were introduced for consideration in the Forty-seventh than came before Congress in the first fifty years of its existence.