Congress adjourned on the 20th of June, and after a short vacation Mr. Potter's committee entered upon its extensive inquiries. Perhaps with the view of stimulating the Democratic members of the committee to zeal in the performance of their duty, Mr. Manton Marble early in August published a carefully prepared letter on the electoral counting of 1876. Mr. Marble was unsparing in his denunciation of the Republicans for having, as he alleged, obtained the election of Hayes and Wheeler by corruption in the Southern States. He dealt with unction upon the fact that the absolute trust of Mr. Tilden and his adherents in the Presidential contest had been in moral forces. As the accusations put forth were attributed to Mr. Tilden, and only the remarkable rhetoric of the letter to Mr. Marble, the public interest was fully aroused, and the threatened exposures impatiently awaited.

The majority of the committee reported, though perhaps with greater elaboration, substantially the same facts and assumptions that had been brought against the Republicans in the Southern States directly after the election, nearly two years before. If any thing new was produced, it was in detail rather than in substance, and undoubtedly showed some of the loose practices to which the character of Southern elections has given rise. Between the violence of the rebel organizers, and the shifts and evasions to which their opponents, both white and colored, have been subjected, the elections in many of those States have undoubtedly been irregular; but the Committee did not establish any fraudulent voting on the part of Republicans. Freely analyzed, indeed, the accusations against the colored voters were in another sense still graver accusations against the white voters. Duplicity is a weapon often employed against tyranny by its victims, and there is always danger that a popular election where law is unfairly administered and violence constantly impending, will bring into play on both sides the worst elements of society.

But all interest in the investigation as it was originally designed, was suddenly diverted by incidents which were wholly unlooked for when Mr. Potter moved his resolution and when Mr. Marble wrote his letter—giving an unexpected conclusion to the grand inquest so impressively heralded.

It happened that during an inquiry into the Oregon case by a Senate Committee, some thirty thousand political telegrams (mainly in cipher) had been brought into the custody of the committee by subpoenas to the Western Union Telegraph Company. The great mass of these telegrams were returned to the Company without translation. About seven hundred, however, had been retained by an employe of the committee. The re-opening of the Presidential controversy by the Democrats, and especially the offensive letter of Mr. Marble, led to a renewed effort to decipher the reserved telegrams. The translation was accomplished by an able and ingenious gentleman on the editorial staff of the New-York Tribune (Mr. William M. Grosvenor), and the result disclosed astonishing attempts at bribery on the part of Democratic agents in South Carolina, Florida, and Oregon. What may have been done of the same character in Louisiana can only be inferred, for no dispatches from that State were found.

The gentlemen who went to Florida in Mr. Tilden's interests were Mr. Manton Marble, Mr. C. W. Woolley, and Mr. John F. Coyle. Mr. Marble's sobriquet in the cipher dispatches was Moses. Mr. Woolley took the suggestive pseudonym of Fox, while Mr. Coyle was known as Max. Their joint mission was to secure the Electoral vote of the State, by purchase if need be, not quite as openly, but as directly as if they were negotiating for a cargo of cotton or offering money for an orange-grove. Mr. Marble was alarmed soon after his arrival by finding that the Democratic electors had "only about one hundred majority on certified copies, while the Republicans claimed the same on returns." Growing anxious, he telegraphed on November 22 to Mr. William T. Pelton (a nephew of Mr. Tilden): "Woolley asked me to say let forces be got together immediately for contingencies either here or in Louisiana." A few days later Mr. Marble telegraphed: "Have just received a proposition to hand over at any time required, Tilden decision of Board and certificate of Governor, for $200,000." Mr. Pelton thought the "proposition too high," and thereupon Mr. Marble and Mr. Woolley each found that an Elector could be secured for $50,000, and so telegraphed Mr. Pelton. Mr. Pelton, with commendable economy, warned them that he did not wish to pay twice for the same article, and with true commercial caution advised the Florida agents that "they could not draw until the vote of the Elector was received." According to Mr. Woolley the power was received too late, and on the 5th of December Mr. Marble closed the interesting correspondence with these words to Mr. Pelton: "Proposition failed. Finished responsibility as Moses. Last night Woolley found me and said he had nothing, which I knew already. Tell Tilden to saddle Blackstone."

Mr. Smith W. Weed went on a similar errand to South Carolina. He did not attempt to hide behind any disguised name, and simply telegraphed over his own initial. On the 16th of November he informed Mr. Henry Havermeyer, who seemed to be co-operating with Mr. Pelton in New York, that "the Board demand $75,000 for giving us two or three electors," and that "something beyond will be needful for the interceder, perhaps $10,000." At a later hour of the same day he thought that he had made a better bargain, and telegraphed Mr. Havermeyer that "it looks now as though the thing would work at $75,000 for all seven votes." The next day Mr. Weed began to fear the interposition of the court, and advised Mr. Havermeyer to "press otherwheres; for no certainty here, simply a hope." Twenty-four hours later Mr. Weed's confidence revived, and on the 18th he telegraphed,—"Majority of board have been secured. Cost is $80,000,—one parcel to be sent of $65,000; one of $10,000; one of $5,000; all to be in $500 or $1,000 bills, notes to be accepted as parties accept and given up upon votes of South Carolina being given to Tilden's friends. Do this at once and have cash ready to reach Baltimore Sunday night." Mr. Weed then started to Baltimore with the intention of meeting a messenger from New York with the money. Mr. Pelton was there but had not brought the money, and both went to New York to secure it.

Meanwhile the Canvassing Board of South Carolina reported the returns to the court, showing on their face the election of the Hayes Electors, and of a Democratic Legislature which would count the vote for Governor. The Board also reported that the votes of Lawrence and Edgefield Counties ought to be thrown out, which would make a Republican Legislature. On the 22d the court issued an order to the Board to certify the members of the Legislature according to the face of the returns, but to revise and correct the Electoral vote according to the precinct returns. Without receiving this order the Canvassing Board, whose powers expired by statutory limitation on that day, perceiving the purpose of the Court to prevent any count of the Electoral vote, declared and certified the election of the Republican electors, rejected the votes of Lawrence and Edgefield Counties, certified the election of a Republican Legislature, and then adjourned without day.

This result put an end to the plans of Mr. Weed and Mr. Pelton for bribing the Canvassing Board. But their resources were not yet exhausted. On the 4th of December Mr. Pelton offered to furnish $20,000 if it "would secure several electors." This plan also failing, he telegraphed, advising "that the Court under the pending quo warranto proceedings should arrest the Electors for contempt, and imprison them separately during Wednesday," the day for casting their votes for President and Vice-President; "for," as he plaintively added, "all depends on your State." Imprisoning "separately" was essential, for if they were imprisoned together they could have cast the Electoral vote.

In Oregon the attempt to bribe was quite as bold as in the two Southern States. Mr. George L. Miller of Omaha, member of the National Democratic Committee for Nebraska, had been requested by Mr. Pelton to go to Oregon, but had sent in his stead one J. N. H. Patrick, who upon his arrival at Portland began an active telegraphic correspondence with Mr. Pelton. On the 28th of November he telegraphed Mr. Pelton that Governor Grover would issue a certificate of election to one Democratic Elector (Cronin), and added, "Must purchase Republican Elector to recognize and act with the Democrat, and secure vote to prevent trouble. Deposit $10,000 to my credit." This telegram was endorsed by Senator Kelly, to whom Mr. Abram S. Hewitt had on the 17th of November telegraphed at San Francisco when on his way to Washington, that circumstances required his immediate return to Oregon to consult Governor Grover. Mr. Pelton replied to Mr. Patrick, "If you will make obligation, contingent on result in March, it will be done, and incremable slightly if necessary," to which Mr. Patrick responded that the fee could not be made contingent; whereupon the sum of $8,000 was deposited to his credit on the 1st of December, in New York, but intelligence of it reached Oregon too late to carry out any attempt to corrupt a Republican Elector.

As nothing had been known of these extraordinary facts when Mr. Potter moved for the appointment of his investigating committee, the House of Representatives, on the 20th of January, 1879, directed that committee to investigate the cipher telegrams. Before this committee the genuineness of the telegrams and the correctness of the translation by the Tribune were abundantly established. Some of the principal persons connected with them appeared before the committee to explain and to excuse. Senator Kelly had previously stated that he endorsed Mr. Patrick's dispatch without knowing its contents, a statement probable in itself and sustained by Mr. Kelly's good reputation. Mr. Marble swore that he transmitted to headquarters information of the opportunities for corruption merely "as danger signals." Mr. Weed admitted and tried to justify his efforts to bribe the South Carolina Canvassing Board. Mr. Pelton admitted all his attempts and took upon himself the full responsibility, saying that if money became actually necessary, he intended to call for it upon Mr. Edward Cooper and the members of the National Democratic Committee. Mr. Cooper swore that he first knew that Mr. Pelton was conducting such negotiations when he went to Baltimore; and that when on the next day he received from Mr. Pelton a cipher telegram requesting that the $80,000 should be sent to him at Baltimore, he informed Mr. Tilden what Pelton was doing, whereupon he was recalled and "the thing was stopped." Under cross-examination by Mr. Reed of Maine, Mr. Tilden swore that he knew nothing of any of the telegrams; that the first he knew of the Florida transactions was when they were mentioned to him by Mr. Marble after his return from Florida; that he was informed by Mr. Cooper of the South Carolina negotiations and stopped them; that he scorned to defend his title by such means as were employed to acquire a felonious possession. Neither Mr. Patrick nor Mr. Woolley appeared before the committee.

Two general conclusions may safely be drawn from the voluminous evidence: first, that the Democratic agents in the contested States of Florida, South Carolina, and Oregon earnestly and persistently endeavored to change the result from Hayes to Tilden by the use of large sums of money as bribes to official persons to violate their duty; second, that the negotiations for that purpose do not show that any member of any Canvassing Board or any Presidential Elector ever contemplated betraying his trust for such inducement. The interest throughout the investigation centred upon Mr. Tilden, and concerning him and his course there followed general discussion—angry accusation and warm defense. There is nothing in the testimony to contradict the oath taken by Mr. Tilden and there has been no desire to fasten a guilty responsibility upon him. But the simple fact remains that a Presidential canvass which began with a ponderous manifesto in favor of "reform" in every department of the Government, and which accused those who had been entrusted with power for sixteen years of every form of dishonesty and corruption, ended with a persistent and shameless effort to bribe the electors of three States!

[(1) The joint committee respecting the mode of counting the electoral votes consisted of the following members:—

SENATORS: George F. Edmunds of Vermont, F. T. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, John A. Logan of Illinois, Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, Allen G. Thurman of Ohio, Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware, and Matt W. Ransom of North Carolina.

General Logan was detained in Illinois, and Mr. Conkling was substituted on the committee.

REPRESENTATIVES: Henry B. Payne of Ohio, Eppa Hunton of Virginia, Abram S. Hewitt of New York, William M. Springer of Illinois, George W. McCrary of Iowa, George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, and George Willard of Michigan.]

[(2) The Commission as organized was as follows:—

JUSTICES of the Supreme Court: Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller, Stephen J. Field, William Strong, Joseph P. Bradley.

SENATORS: George F. Edmunds, Oliver P. Morton, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Thomas F. Bayard, Allen G. Thurman.

REPRESENTATIVES: Henry B. Payne, Eppa Hunton, Josiah G. Abbott, James A. Garfield, George F. Hoar.]

[(3) The following counsel attended:—

On the Democratic side: Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Charles O'Connor, John A. Campbell, formerly of the Supreme Court, Lyman Trumbull, Montgomery Blair, Matthew H. Carpenter, Ashbel Green, George Hoadly, Richard T. Merrick, William C. Whitney, Alexander Porter Morse.

On the Republican side: William M. Evarts, Stanley Matthews, E. W. Stoughton, Samuel Shellabarger. In addition to regular counsel the objectors to any certificate or vote were allowed to be heard by two of their number. Senators Howe, Christiancy, Sherman, McDonald, Sargent, Mitchell, C. W. Jones, Conover and Cooper, together with Representatives Kasson, William Lawrence, David Dudley Field, Tucker, Hunt, McCrary, Hurlbut, Dunnell, Cochrane, Thompson and Woodburn were appointed to this duty.]

[(4) The following is an exact statement of the vote on the Electoral Bill in both branches:—

In the Senate 26 Democrats voted for the Bill and 1 against it. " " " 21 Republicans " " " " " 16 " " In the House 160 Democrats " " " " " 17 " " " " " 31 Republicans " " " " " 69 " "

In the two Houses jointly, 186 Democrats voted for the Electoral Bill and 18 against it, while 52 Republicans voted for the Bill and 75 against it.]

[(5) The following were the members composing the committee:—

Clarkson N. Potter of New York, William R. Morrison of Illinois, Eppa Hunton of Virginia, William S. Stenger of Pennsylvania, John A. McMahon of Ohio, J. C. S. Blackburn of Kentucky, William M. Springer of Illinois, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, Jacob D. Cox of Ohio, Thomas B. Reed of Maine, Frank Hiscock of New York.]

CHAPTER XXVI.

President Hayes was inaugurated on the 5th day of March (1877)—the 4th falling on a Sunday. As matter of precaution the oath of office was administered to him by Chief Justice Waite on Sunday—Mr. Hayes deeming it wise and prudent that he should be ready as President of the United States to do his official duty if any Executive act should that day be required for the public safety. Although his title had been in doubt until within forty-eight hours of his accession, he had carefully prepared his Inaugural address. It was made evident by his words that he would adopt a new policy on the Southern question and upon the question of Civil Service Reform. It was plainly his determination to withdraw from the South all National protection to the colored people, and to put the white population of the reconstructed States upon their good faith and their honor, as to their course touching the political rights of all citizens.

The Inaugural address did not give satisfaction to the radical Republicans, but was received with every mark of approbation by the more conservative elements of the party. Many Democrats would have supported Mr. Hayes cordially but for the mode of his election. It was impossible for them to recover from the chagrin and disappointment of Mr. Tilden's defeat. The new President, therefore, began his administration with a bitter personal opposition from the Democracy, and with a distrust of his own policy on the part of a large number of those who had signally aided in his election.

The one special source of dissatisfaction was the intention of the President to disregard the State elections in the three States upon whose votes his own title depended. The concentration of interest was upon the State of Louisiana, where Governor Packard was officially declared to have received a larger popular majority than President Hayes. By negotiation of certain Commissioners who went to Louisiana under appointment of the President, the Democratic candidate for Governor, Francis T. Nicholls, was installed in office and Governor Packard was left helpless.(1) No act of President Hayes did so much to create discontent within the ranks of the Republican party. No act of his did so much to give color to the thousand rumors that filled the political atmosphere, touching a bargain between the President's friends and some Southern leaders, pending the decision of the Electoral Commission. The election of the President and the election of Mr. Packard rested substantially upon the same foundation, and many Republicans felt that the President's refusal to recognize Mr. Packard as Governor of Louisiana furnished ground to his enemies for disputing his own election. Having been placed in the Presidency by a title as strong as could be confirmed under the Constitution and the laws of the country, it was, in the judgment of the majority of the Republican party, an unwise and unwarranted act on the part of the President to purchase peace in the South by surrendering Louisiana to the Democratic party.

The Cabinet selected by President Hayes was regarded as one of great ability. Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, were well known.

—The Secretary of War, George W. McCrary of Iowa, had steadily grown in public esteem by his service in the House of Representatives, and possessed every quality desirable for the administration of a great public trust.

—Mr. Richard W. Thompson of Indiana, appointed Secretary of the Navy, was in his sixty-eighth year, and had been a representative in Congress thirty-five years before. He was known throughout the West as an ardent Whig and an equally ardent Republican.

—Charles Devens of Massachusetts was appointed Attorney-General. His standing as a lawyer can be inferred from the fact that he had left the Supreme Bench of his State to accept the position. To eminence in his profession he added an honorable record as a soldier, having served with distinction in the civil war and attained the rank of Brigadier-General. As a private gentleman he was justly and widely esteemed.

—For Postmaster-General the President selected David M. Key of Tennessee, who during the previous session had served in the Senate, by appointment of the Governor of his State, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ex-President Johnson. The selection of Mr. Key was made to emphasize the change of Southern policy which President Hayes had foreshadowed in his Inaugural address. Mr. Key was a Democrat, and personally popular. A Southern Democrat in a Republican Cabinet presented a novel political combination, and it is evidence of the tact and good sense of Mr. Key that he administered his Department in such manner as to secure, not merely the respect of the Republican party, but the sincere friendship of many of its leading members. He was wise enough and fortunate enough to induce Hon. James N. Tyner, whom he succeeded as Postmaster-General, to remain in the Department as First Assistant, in order that Republican senators and representatives might freely communicate upon party questions, which Mr. Key delicately refrained from even hearing. The suggestion was made, however, by men of sound judgment, that in projecting a new policy towards the South, which was intended to be characterized by greater leniency in certain directions, it would have been wiser in a party point of view, and more enduring in its intrinsic effect, to make the overture through a Republican statesman of rank and ability.

Among the new senators of the Forty-fifth Congress were some who were transferred from the House and were already well known to the country. James B. Beck of Kentucky, George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, Benjamin H. Hill of Georgia, had each made a brilliant record by his service in the House. Mr. Blaine of Maine now entered for a full term, but had come to the Senate several months before as the successor of Honorable Lot M. Morrill, when that gentleman was called by President Grant to administer the Treasury Department.—Among those who had not served in Congress were several distinguished men. David Davis of Illinois, who had been fifteen years on the Bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, now entered the Senate as the successor of General Logan. With the exception of John Rutledge, who served in the House of Representatives after he had been on the Supreme Bench, Judge Davis is the only man who entered Congress after service on the Bench. John Jay was Minister to Great Britain and Governor of New York after he resigned the Chief-Justiceship; and Oliver Ellsworth was Minister to France after his retirement from the Bench. A large proportion of the justices had been in Congress before they entered upon their judicial service; but the transfer of Judge Davis to the Senate was a reversal of the natural order.

Samuel J. Kirkwood, already well known by his service in the Senate, now returned from Iowa.—Preston B. Plumb of Kansas, who had been printer, editor, soldier in the civil war with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, member of the Bar, reporter of the Supreme Court of his State, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Kansas, now succeeded James M. Harvey. Mr. Plumb was actively and largely engaged in business affairs, and had perhaps as accurate knowledge of the resources of the West as any man in the country.—A. H. Garland entered from Arkansas, being promoted from the Governorship of his State. He was popular among his own people, and had been a member of the Secession Convention and of both branches of the Confederate Congress. His reputation as a lawyer had preceded his entrance into the Senate, where he was at once accorded high rank among his political friends.—John R. McPherson, a business man of good repute in New Jersey, succeeded Mr. Frelinghuysen.—Edward R. Rollins of New Hampshire, who had creditably served six years in the House, now came to the Senate as the successor of Aaron H. Cragin.—Alvin Sanders, who was appointed Governor of the Territory of Nebraska by Mr. Lincoln in 1861, and held the position until the State was admitted to the Union in 1867, now came as one of her senators.—Richard Coke who had been Governor of Texas, and Lafayette Grover who had been Governor of Oregon, now entered the Senate.—Isham G. Harris, who had been in Congress twenty-five years before and had played a somewhat conspicuous part in the rebellion as Governor of Tennessee, now succeeded Henry Cooper as senator from that State.

—William Pinkney Whyte, who entered the Senate the previous Congress for a full term, had already served in that body for a brief period in 1868-69, succeeding Reverdy Johnson when he resigned to accept the mission to England. In the interval between the close of his first service and his second election he had served as Governor of Maryland. He is a grandson of the eminent William Pinkney, who was a member of the Senate at the time of his death, and who as an orator was considered by Mr. Benton, Mr. Clay, and the younger men of that period, as the most eloquent in the country. Mr. Pinkney Whyte held a distinguished position at the bar of Maryland, was recognized as a senator of great ability, and as a private gentleman was highly esteemed without reference to party lines.

—Stanley Matthews took the seat made vacant by the transfer of Mr. Sherman to the Treasury Department. His reputation as a lawyer was well established. He had ben United-States District Attorney for three years preceding the war. He commanded an Ohio regiment for two years in the field and resigned to accept a position on the bench of the Supreme Court. His legislative experience had been limited to a single term in the Ohio Senate, and as the Democrats had carried Ohio in the autumn of 1877 before he could take his seat, he saw before him a short service in Congress. Within the limit of two years, however, he made a profound impression upon his associates in the Senate. He proved to be an admirable debater, and seemed intuitively to catch the style of Parliamentary discussion as distinguished from an argument in court. He left the Senate with an enlarged reputation, and with a valuable addition to his list of personal friends.

—Simon Cameron from Pennsylvania resigned his seat in the spring of 1877. He had been four times elected to the body, and had twice resigned, leaving his total service some eighteen years. He was in his seventy-ninth year when he retired, but in exceptional vigor of body and mind. He had the graces of age without its infirmities, and shared the good will of his fellow senators on both sides of the chamber in an exceptional degree. He was succeeded by his son, James Donald Cameron, who up to that period had never been a member of any legislative body and who was in this forty-fourth year when he took his seat in the Senate. He was educated at Princeton and had indeed devoted his life to business. During the last year of President Grant's Administration he was a member of the Cabinet as Secretary of War, in which position he showed the same executive power that had characterized the prompt and orderly dispatch of his private business.

—A fortnight after the meeting of Congress the Senate sustained a deep loss in the death of Oliver P. Morton. He died at his home in Indiana on the 1st day of November (1877). He had for several years been in ill health, but struggled with great nerve against the advances of disease. Few men could have resisted so long and so bravely. An iron will sustained him and enabled him through years of suffering to assume a leading part in the legislation of the country and in directing the policy of the Republican party.

Governor Morton was succeeded by Daniel W. Voorhees, already widely known by his service of ten years in the House. Mr. Voorhees was a Democrat of the most pronounced partisan type, but always secured the personal good will of his political opponents in Congress.

—M. C. Butler of South Carolina entered the Senate on the 2d of December, 1877. He had been engaged in all the partisan contests by which the Republican party was overthrown in South Carolina, and encountered much prejudice when he first took his seat; but his bearing in the Senate rapidly disarmed personal hostility, and even gave to him a certain degree of popularity upon the Republican side of the chamber.

The House was organized at an extra session called by the President on the 15th of October, 1877. The failure of the Army Appropriation Bill at the preceding session rendered this early meeting of Congress necessary. Samuel J. Randall was re-elected Speaker, receiving 149 votes; his Republican competitor, James A. Garfield, receiving 132. Among the new members of the House were some men who were afterwards advanced to great prominence.—Thomas B. Reed of Maine came from the Portland district. He had been a member of the Bar some twelve years, had rapidly risen in rank, had served in the State Legislature two terms, and had been Attorney-General of his State for three years. He was a strong man in his profession, and had an admirable talent for parliamentary service. His promotion was not more rapid than his ability justified and his friends expected.—The Massachusetts delegation received a strong reinforcement in several new members. George D. Robinson was a conspicuous figure. He developed great readiness as a debater, and his career in the House plainly indicated the eminence he has since attained.—George B. Loring came from the Salem district. He had served several terms in both branches of the Massachusetts Legislature and had been President of the Senate. He had for many years taken part in National contests, and of the personnel and principles of the political parties he possessed a knowledge equaled by few men in the United States.—William W. Rice of the Worcester district had devoted himself assiduously to his profession of the law and had generously shared in its rewards and its honors. From the midst of his full practice he was chosen to Congress.—William Claflin, well known as a merchant, had taken active part in the politics of Massachusetts, had been in both branches of the Legislature, and served as Lieutenant-Governor, and Governor of the State.

Horace Davis (a son of the eminent Senator John Davis of Massachusetts), long resident in California, came as the representative of the San Francisco district. He had been successful as a business man on the Pacific Coast, and brought to the service of the House large experience, strong sense, and high character.—The Indiana delegation was especially strong, with Thomas M. Browne, John H. Baker, and William H. Calkins, among its members. Mr. Browne and Mr. Calkins united a talent for parliamentary discussion with exceptional power as platform speakers. Mr. Baker was one of the most thorough men in the House on all questions of finance and taxation.—Hiram Price, who had already served six years, returned from Iowa.—William A. Phelps, Dudley C. Haskell and Thomas H. Ryan made a strong delegation from Kansas.—James F. Briggs, a lawyer of good standing, entered from the Manchester district of New Hampshire.—John T. Wait, a highly intelligent representative from Connecticut, had served a part of the Forty-fourth Congress, and was now returned for a full term.—Edwin Willets who proved to be a wise legislator came from Michigan.—Anson G. McCook, of the well-known Ohio family that furnished so large a number of good soldiers, came from New-York City, with the personal distinction of having carried a Democratic district. —Frank Hiscock came from the Syracuse district. He had been a member of the Convention of 1867 and stood high as a lawyer. He rose rapidly in the House, soon acquiring a position of the first rank.—John H. Starin and George A. Bagley were among the conspicuous members of the New-York delegation.—Judge A. B. James, of long service on the Supreme Bench of his State, came from the Ogdensburg district, and George W. Patterson, in his seventy-ninth year, from the Chautauqua district. Mr. Patterson was Lieutenant-Governor of the State when Hamilton Fish was governor.

Among the prominent Ohio representatives were Jacob D. Cox, from the Toledo district; Joseph W. Keifer, from the Madison district, afterwards promoted to the Speakership of the House; Amos Townsend, from the Cleveland district, a successful merchant and a man of strong sense.—General Thomas Ewing came from the Fairfield district. He was one of the private secretaries of President Taylor before he had attained his majority, was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kansas at thirty-one years of age and a member of the Ohio Constitutional Convention in 1873-74. He was an able lawyer and strong debater.—William McKinley, jun., entered from the Canton district. He enlisted in an Ohio regiment when but seventeen years of age, and won the rank of Major by meritorious service. The interest of his constituency and his own bent of mind led him to the study of industrial questions, and he was soon recognized in the House as one of the most thorough statisticians and one of the ablest defenders of the doctrine of Protection. He was more widely known afterwards as a platform speaker, always welcomed by large audiences.

Russell Errett and Thomas M. Bayne entered from the Pittsburg districts, Pennsylvania. Mr. Errett was a veteran editor in the anti-slavery cause, and Mr. Bayne was recognized as a young man of superior ability, ready in debate and with special adaptation to parliamentary service.—John I. Mitchell, afterwards chosen senator, entered from the Lycoming district, and Edward Overton from the Bradford district.—General Harry White entered from the Armstrong district. He had been confined in Libby Prison for sixteen months during the war and being a member of the Pennsylvania Senate his absence made a tie vote. He was not allowed to send his resignation and thus permit a Republican successor to be chosen, because the Confederates were not engaged at that time in promoting Republican success. His resignation was finally sent through the lines, concealed in a Testament carried by an exchanged surgeon.

The distinctive measure of the Forty-fifth Congress was the passage of the Act for the coinage of silver dollars. The subject had been discussed in the Senate and House and before the people, with increased zeal, ever since the movement for resumption of specie payment took decided form. For those who had not given special attention to the question, arguments were at hand from an official source. It would be more difficult to find a more exhaustive examination into the silver question than is embodied in the report of the Monetary Commission (organized under the joint resolution of August 15, 1875), presented to Congress on the 2d of March, 1877. It has permanent value for the compact and lucid form in which the history of the precious metals is presented, and for the clear statement of conflicting theories in regard to monetary systems.

—Three members of the Commission, John P. Jones and Louis V. Bogy of the Senate, and George Willard, a representative from Michigan, believed that the United States should remonetize silver without regard to the future policy of Europe, and that a law should be passed fixing 15-1/2 to 1 as the standard of relative value between silver and gold in this country.

—Mr. William S. Groesbeck favored the remonetization of silver at the old relation in the United States of 16 to 1, and was joined in this suggestion by Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri.

—Senator George S. Boutwell expressed the opinion that it was not expedient to coin silver dollars to be a legal-tender, and that the introduction of silver as currency should be postponed until the effort to secure the co-operation of other nations had been faithfully made.

—Professor Francis Bowen and Representative Randall L. Gibson thought that a double standard was an illusion and an impossibility, and declared the proper place for silver in the monetary system to be that of subsidiary or token currency, considerably overvalued by law and a legal-tender only within certain minor limits. They advocated the coinage of silver dollars of 345-6/10 grains, to be legal-tender for sums not over twenty dollars, and to take the place of all paper currency of less denomination than five dollars.

President Hayes presented the subject in his message, December 3, 1877. He did not believe that "the interests of the Government or the people would be promoted by disparaging silver," but held that it should be used only at its commercial value. "If," said he, "the United States had the undoubted right to pay its bonds in silver coin, the little benefit from that process would be greatly over-balanced by the injurious effect of such payments if made or proposed against the honest convictions of the public creditors."

Secretary Sherman, in his annual report at the same time, said that in the work of refunding he had informed his associates in an official letter that "as the Government exacts in payment for bonds their full face value in coin, it is not anticipated that any future legislation of Congress or any action of any Department of the Government will sanction or tolerate the redemption of the principal of these bonds, or the payments of the interest thereon, in coin of less value than the coin authorized by law at the time of their issue,—being gold coin." He earnestly urged Congress to give its sanction to this assurance.

These official utterances were put forward in the heat of the general discussion, and fell upon the ears of persons already engaged on one side of the other of the earnest controversy in regard to the coinage of silver. Congress was at once called upon from an unexpected source to make a declaration hostile in its aim and purpose to the policy advocated both by the Head of the Nation and its chief financial officer. In direct hostility to the recommendations of an Ohio President and an Ohio Secretary of the Treasury, an Ohio senator, Mr. Stanley Matthews, moved a concurrent resolution in the Senate, declaring that "all bonds of the United States are payable in silver dollars of 412-1/2 grains, and that to restore such dollars as a full legal-tender for that purpose, is not in violation of public faith or the rights of the creditor." A motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary was defeated—ayes 19, noes 31. It was kept before the Senate for immediate consideration and discussion. The eagerness for debate on the subject is shown by the record. Thirty-four senators delivered speeches, most of them elaborately prepared, going over the history of the precious metals, the field of American legislation, and international practice in money.

The Senate refused to adopt Mr. Conkling's suggestion to make the resolution joint instead of concurrent and thus require the signature of the President. Mr. Matthews had framed it so as simply to evoke an expression by both branches of Congress without sending it to the Executive, whose opinions had just been made known through his annual message. This was intended as an expression of dissent on the part of Congress from the views of the President. Mr. Edmunds moved an amendment declaring that "the bonds are payable in gold coin or its equivalent, and that any other payment without the consent of the creditor would be in violation of the public faith." It was defeated—ayes 18, noes 44. On an amendment offered by Mr. Justin S. Morrill, declaring that "the bonds will be payable in silver if the Silver Bill becomes the law of the land," the division was ayes 14, noes 41. On the passage of the resolution in the Senate, the ayes were 43, the noes 22. In the House of Representatives, the resolution was passed under a suspension of the rules,—ayes 189, noes 79. This proclamation of the financial creed of Congress was made complete on the 28th of January, 1878.

On the 5th of the previous November, during the extra session, the House passed, under a suspension of the rules, a bill for the free coinage of silver dollars of 412-1/2 grains, full legal tender for all debts public and private. Mr. Richard P. Bland of Missouri was the author of the measure. The vote upon it stood 163 ayes to 34 noes, 93 members not voting. It was reported in the Senate with amendments, in December, and its discussion was superseded for the time by the resolution of Mr. Matthews. As reported from the Finance Committee, it provided for a coinage of dollars of 412-1/2 grains to the extent of not less than $2,000,000 or more than $4,000,000 per month; all seigniorage to accrue to the Treasury. A second section, proposed by Mr. Allison of Iowa, authorized the President to invite other nations to take part in a conference, and to appoint three Commissioners to represent the United States, with a view to the adoption of a common ratio for gold and silver.

The bill gave rise to a longer and broader discussion than that which had occurred on Mr. Matthews' resolution. It was opened by Mr. Morrill of Vermont. He pronounced the measure a "fearful assault upon the public credit. It resuscitates the obsolete dollar which Congress entombed in 1834, worth less than the greenback in gold, and yet to be a full legal-tender." He thought that the causes of the depreciation of silver were permanent. "The future price may waver one way or the other, but it must finally settle at a much lower point. Nothing less than National will and power can mitigate its fall."

—Mr. Wallace of Pennsylvania charged that the opponents of the bill, were "taking a course for the abasement, depreciation and disuse of silver. The supporters of the bill favor both gold and silver."

—Mr. Dawes dwelt on the uncertain commercial value of silver and on the harm to the public credit threatened by the impending measure, insisting that the cheapest money would be our only money.

—Mr. Beck of Kentucky submitted a proposition to direct the coinage of "not less than $3,000,000 per month, or as much more as can be coined at the mints of the United States."

—Mr. Morgan of Alabama said the law did not deal with commercial values. It promised coin to the bondholder—coin of silver or coin of gold.

—Mr. Thurman of Ohio thought that the contract provided for the payment of public debts in coin of the standard of 1870, when the dollar of 412-1/2 grains was full legal-tender, and that such dollar would approximate to gold in value.

—Mr. Kernan of New York said: "This bill does not proceed upon the basis that we are to make a silver dollar equivalent to a gold dollar," and thought that the cheaper coin would inevitably drive out the gold coin.

—Mr. Blaine submitted an argument "that gold and silver are the money of the Constitution, the money in existence when the Constitution was formed, and Congress had the right to regulate their relations." He favored the coinage of "such a silver dollar as will not only do justice among our citizens at home, but prove an absolute barricade against the gold monometallists." He did not believe that "412-1/2 grains of silver would make such a dollar."

—Mr. Davis of West Virginia favored the utilization of silver, "because it is one of our chief products, will make the money known to the Constitution more abundant, will relive distress, and lead back to prosperity."

—Mr. McDonald of Indiana thought that "if no change had been made in our coinage laws, no proposition would be made to change them now. The Act of 1873 demonetizing the silver dollar made the pending measure necessary."

—Mr. McPherson said that he was "charged by a large majority of the people of New Jersey to remonstrate against the measure, which they believe will retard prosperity, and throw a blot upon our National integrity."

—Mr. Sargent of California, representing a mining State, opposed the bill, "as against good faith, and against the interests of the Government and of the people."

—Mr. Jones of Nevada supported the bill in a very elaborate speech. He had an enthusiastic faith in silver as a circulating medium, and had given a great deal of study to the question.

—Mr. Ingalls of Kansas argued "that the public debt is payable in silver, and if the money unit should be established in the metal least subject to fluctuation that metal is silver. Gold is the money of monarchs, and was in open alliance with our enemies in the civil war."

—Mr. Lamar presented resolutions from the Legislature of his State, instructing the senators and representatives to vote for the pending measure. He explained that he could not comply with the instructions, and would give the reasons for his vote to his own people.

—Mr. Allison of Iowa closed the debate, drawing the distinction between free coinage as proposed in the House Bill, and limited coinage as proposed in the Senate amendment. He dwelt on the invitation for an International Monetary Conference. He recited the growing demand for gold in Europe, and explained that "France ceased coining silver because she already had in circulation as full legal-tender from $350,000,000 to $400,000,000 in that coin."

In the course of the discussion the history of the Demonetizing Act of 1873 was brought out, and the degree of attention, or rather inattention, which was given to its passage,—On proceeding to vote the Senate rejected an amendment by Mr. Morrill, providing that for the first year only 25 per cent, and for the second year only 50 per cent, of the duties should be receivable in silver.—The amendment of Mr. Wilson "that $100,000,000 should be coined in silver dollars within three years, and then the coinage should cease if bullion should be more than three per cent below par," was also rejected.—The Senate refused to agree to an amendment offered by Mr. Edmunds, "that nothing in this section contained shall be construed to interfere with the coinage of gold and of the subsidiary silver now authorized by law."—The section providing for an International Conference was adopted,—ayes, 40; noes, 30.—Several forms of amendment relative to the legal-tender provision were suggested, but the phrase as it appears in the law was preferred.—Amendments offered by Mr. Eaton, Mr. Christiancy, Mr. Blaine, and Mr. Cameron of Wisconsin to increase the amount of silver in the coin, so as to approximate it to the value of the gold dollar, were severally rejected by large majorities.—After providing, on Mr. Chaffee's motion, for certificates of not less than $10 in exchange for silver coin deposited and redeemable in the same on demand, the Senate passed the bill with its amendments, by ayes 48, noes 21.

On the return of the bill to the House of Representatives debate began on February 21st.—Mr. Phillips of Kansas advocated the double standard with the ratio of metal properly determined, and he thought this was done in the dollar of 412-1/2 grains.—General Butler of Massachusetts was in favor of insisting on the House bill for free coinage, and was seconded by Mr. Atkins of Tennessee.—Mr. Bland was willing to accept the Senate amendments and then pass a supplementary measure for free coinage on an appropriation bill. He added: "If we cannot do that I am in favor of issuing paper money enough to stuff down the bondholders until they are sick."—Mr. Dwight of New York sought to limit the legal-tender quality of the silver dollar to $50, and for larger sums to make it receivable at its value in gold.—A motion by Mr. Hewitt of New York to lay the bill on the table was lost by ayes 71, noes 205. The several amendments of the Senate were then adopted; that limiting coinage by 203 ayes, to 72 noes, and that for an International Monetary Conference by ayes 196, noes 71.(2) The concurrence of the House in these amendments passed the bill.

President Hayes returned the bill the House of Representatives with his objections, on the 28th of February. He based his veto on the proposition that "the silver dollar authorized is worth eight to ten per cent less than it purports to be worth, and is made a legal tender for debts contracted when the law did not recognize such coin as lawful money. The effect would be to put an end to the receipt of revenue in gold, and thus compel the payment of silver for both the principal and interest of the public debt." This he thought would be regarded as a grave breach of public faith: "It is my firm conviction that if the country is to be benefitted by a silver coinage, it can only be done by the issue of silver dollars of full value which will defraud no man. A currency worth less than it purports to be worth, will in the end defraud not only creditors, but all who are engaged in legitimate business, and none more surely than those who are dependent on their daily labor for their daily bread."

The House voted at once on the veto—passing the bill against the objections of the President, by ayes 196, to noes 73. The vote was taken in the Senate on the same day, without debate, and the bill was passed over the veto by ayes 46, noes 19. The senators not voting were paired. Had every senator been present and voted the result would have been ayes 53, noes 23. New England, New York and New Jersey supplied the principal part of the negative vote. Mr. Bayard, Mr. Pinkney Whyte, Mr. Butler of South Carolina, and Mr. Lamar were the senators from the South who voted in the negative. Pennsylvania, the South and the West sustained the bill. The Pacific coast was divided,—Mr. Booth supporting the bill and Mr. Sargent opposing it. The only vote for the bill in either House from New England was that of General Butler. The proportion and general location of the votes in the House were about the same as in the Senate.

The opinions of senators and representatives were of three distinct types. The majority believed, as the vote showed, in the policy of coining silver dollars of full legal-tender, regardless of their intrinsic equality of value with gold dollars,—thus creating two metallic currencies differing in value for all purposes of commercial interchange with the world, and keeping them at an equality of value at home by the force of law. The great mass of the Democratic party and a considerable number of Republicans joined in this view.

A small minority of both parties disbelieved in the use of silver as money, except for subsidiary coins, with its legal-tender value limited to small sums,—fifty dollars being the highest proposed, the majority apparently favoring ten dollars.

A majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats asserted the necessity of maintaining silver coin at full legal-tender, but upon the basis of equality in intrinsic value with the gold dollar. This class feared the effect of an exclusively gold standard, while the supply of gold, compared with the commercial demands of the world, is relatively and rapidly growing less. They had seen the ratio of gold-supply far beyond that of silver for a series of years following 1850, and then for a series of years the ratio of silver-supply in excess of the supply of gold. The theory advanced by this class rested upon the proposition that the dollar of commerce could not with safety be exclusively based either upon the scarcer or upon the more plentiful metal. An adjustment is required providing for the employment of both metals—maintaining between them such fair equalization as would not violently disturb the value of real property or of annual products, and most important of all would secure a steadiness to the wages of labor and a sound currency in which to recompense it. The supply of both metals for two periods of sixteen years each (1850-1865 both included and 1866-1881 both included) in the United States and in the world at large may suggest some useful lessons.(3)

From the Silver Bill the public interest turned to the approaching day of Specie Resumption, January 1, 1879. To the last month there had been many doubters, but when the day came it was found that the Treasury was fully prepared and the gold coin which had borne a premium for the seventeen years of specie suspension was not now demanded even by those who had been hoarding legal-tender notes for that express purpose.

The result has proved that legislators and financiers were wisest who had the largest faith in the resources of the nation. The legislation proved to be adequate to the end in view, and resumption was achieved with the least practicable disturbance of trade and the least practicable depression to industry. The process of funding the debt was of great assistance, as was the constant reduction of the principal, which all the while drew our bonds from Europe and thus reduced the amount due for foreign interest. The monthly charge for interest had been in 1865 as high as $12,581,474.—a part payable in paper. During the fiscal year ending with June, 1879, it was only $6,981,148. It is obvious that from this source alone the Treasury was greatly strengthened.

Generous credit was accorded to Secretary Sherman for the great achievement. It seldom happens that the promoter of a policy in Congress had the opportunity to carry it out in an Executive Department. But Mr. Sherman was the principal advocate of the Resumption Bill in the Senate, and during the two critical years preceding the day for coin payment he was at the head of the Treasury Department. He established a financial reputation not second to that of any man in our history.

During the period of the Crimean war (1854-6), the mercantile marine of the United States gained so rapidly that it approached equality with that of England, in tonnage. But even before the calamities of our civil war, a change was foreshadowed favorable to England, hostile to the United States. It was the change from sail to steam. The utilization of iron as a ship-building material, the cheapening of fuel, the superior speed, all betokened a radical change in transportation on the principal ocean routes of the world. From the close of 1856 to the outbreak of the rebellion the average loss to the Navigation interests of the United States was two per cent annually. This ratio of loss was immensely accelerated by the course of events during the civil war, involving the utter destruction of many American vessels or their change of flag. The natural result was that in the spring of 1865 we stood in the carrying trade relatively and absolutely far behind our position in 1855.

Practically, nothing has since been done to recover the lost ground. Provision was made by Congress for the admission of certain ship-building materials free of duty. This somewhat improved the prospects and stimulated the construction of sailing vessels; but the competition in the world's carrying-trade is in steam-vessels. Great Britain had for many years covered the ocean with subsidized steamers, paying heavily for mail service until the lines were self-supporting, and withdrawing her aid only when competition could be safely defied. Congress steadily refused to enter upon any system of the same kind. Fitful aid was granted to special lines here and there, but no general system was devised, and the aid extended being temporary and accompanied sometimes by scandals in legislation was in the end rather hurtful than helpful.

Meanwhile the products we were exporting and importing enlarged so rapidly that we were giving more cargoes to ships than any other nation of the world,—furnishing in the year 1879 between thirteen and fourteen million tons of freight, and this altogether exclusive of our coasting trade. Some very extreme cases occurred, strikingly illustrative of the reluctance of Congress to help the American carrying trade. It was shown by statistics that we were exporting to Brazil not over $7,000,000 of our own products, and taking from her over $40,000,000 of her products. We had no steam communication with Rio Janeiro, except by way of Europe. In 1876 the Emperor of Brazil, an able and enlightened monarch, visited the United States. As a result of his inquiries and examinations His Majesty expressed a sincere desire for closer commercial connections between the two countries, and eagerly spoke of his willingness to contribute by an annual bounty to the establishment of a line of steamers.

After the Emperor's return to his dominions John Roach (a native of Ireland, but long naturalized in the United States), an energetic and capable ship-builder, of unusual foresight, energy, and integrity of purpose, sent an agent to Rio Janeiro, and procured a contract from the Brazilian Government pledging $125,000 per annum, provided the Government of the United States would give the same amount, for the establishment of a steam line between the two countries. Not doubting the readiness of the American Government to respond, Mr. Roach proceeded with full confidence, and built vessels for the line in his own shipyard. The enterprise promised the best commercial results; but to his chagrin and discomfiture, Mr. Roach found that no amount of argument or appeal by those who were willing to speak for him could induce Congress to contribute a single dollar for the encouragement of the line. Brazil cancelled her offer when the United States refused to join with her. Mr. Roach's ships were withdrawn, and the line was surrendered to an inferior class of English steamers.

During the period of this futile experiment, as well as before and afterwards, Congress annually appropriated more than a million dollars for the maintenance of the South-American squadron of naval vessels, to protect a commerce that did not exist, and for the creation of which the United-States Government was unwilling to pay even ten per cent of the cost annually of maintaining the squadron. Every intelligent man knows that it is impossible to maintain a navy unless there be a commercial marine for the education of sailors. The American marine preceding 1861 was so large that it could furnish seventy-six thousand sailors to maintain a blockading squadron on the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The value of this school for seamen, as one of the arms for National defense, could not have been more strikingly illustrated, or more completely proved. The lesson should have been heeded. It is a familiar adage requiring no enforcement of argument, that navies do not grow at the top. They grow from and out of a commercial marine that educates men for sea service. If the Government of the United States had, since the close of the war, expended annually upon the mercantile marine one-fifth of the amount that has been expended upon the Navy, our ships would have covered every sea, and the Navy would have grown of itself. Instead of that, we have been constructing the navy as an exotic, forcing it to grow without a favoring atmosphere, establishing it with officers and not with men, educating cadets on land, and not educating sailors on the ocean.

The Democratic party in Congress was hostile to every movement for the encouragement of our carrying trade, and the Republican party was fatally divided. The men who had earnestly attempted to do something were therefore constantly defeated and compelled to abandon the effort. Following this came the demand for the ships, which meant simply that American capitalists might secure the registry of the United States for vessels built in English ship-yards and manned with English sailors. This is the last movement necessary to complete the dominion of Great Britain over the sea, to complete the humiliation of the United States as a commercial country. It would abolish the art of ship-building on this side of the Atlantic, would educate no American sailor, except in the coasting trade. As a result, our naval vessels, if a Navy should be maintained, would necessarily be constructed where the merchant vessels were constructed; and the last point of absurdity in this policy would be reached when, in case of possible conflict with a European Power, we should be dependent for naval vessels upon a foreign country from which we could be cut off by the superior strength of our opponent on the sea.

With a more extended frontage on the two great oceans of the world than any other nation; with a larger freightage than that of any other nation, it will be a reproach to the United States, more pointed and decisive every year, if it neglects to establish a policy which shall develop a mercantile marine, and as the outgrowth of the mercantile marine, a Navy adequate to all the wants of the Republic. If Congress, in the sixteen years following the war, had given a tithe of encouragement to the building and sailing of ships, that it has wisely given to manufactures, to the construction of railways, and to every industrial pursuit on land, our flag would before the close of that period have stood relatively on the ocean as strong and permanent as it stood before steam was applied to the carrying trade of the world. In those sixteen years the Government expended more than three hundred millions on the Navy!(4) It expended scarcely three millions to aid in building up its mercantile marine, and expended much of that unwisely.

[(1) The Louisiana Commission was composed as follows:

General Joseph R. Hawley of Connecticut, Judge Charles B. Lawrence of Ohio, General John M. Harlan of Kentucky, Ex-Governor John C. Brown of Tennessee, Hon. Wayne McVeagh of Pennsylvania.]

[(2) The International Monetary Conference for which provision was made in the bill was held at Paris in the autumn of 1878. The American Commissioners were Reuben K. Fenton, William S. Groesbeck, and Francis A. Walker, with S. Dana Horton as Secretary. The principal European Nations were present with the exception of Germany. The Commissioners receive the impression that decided progress had been made towards the remonetization of silver in Europe, but subsequent event have not vindicated their judgment. Mr. Goschen, who was the head of the British delegation, declared that "it would be a misfortune for the world if a movement for a sole gold standard should succeed;" but he indicated no purpose on the part of his own government to change from the gold standard. The Conference came to no practical conclusion, simply agreeing that "it is necessary to maintain in the world the monetary functions of silver as well as those of gold;" but that "the selection for use of one or the other of the two metals, or both simultaneously, should be governed by the special position of each State or group of States." The proposition of the United States "that the delegations recommend to their respective governments the adjustment of a fixed relation between the two metals and the use of both in that relation as unlimited legal-tender money," was rejected. The supporters of a bi-metallic standard, though disappointed in the immediate result of the Conference, received encouragement from the advance in International opinion in the years that had elapsed since the previous Conference (1867). At that time the Nations declared almost unanimously in favor of a single standard of gold. Many of them had found in the interval great difficulty in maintaining it and were withheld from declaring for the double standard simply by the influence and example of England.]

[(3) The following tables have been prepared with care by Hon. A. Loudon Snowden, the able superintendent for several years of the United States Mint at Philadelphia.

ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF GOLD AND SILVER IN THE UNITED STATES, FROM 1850 TO 1881, INCLUSIVE.

YEARS. GOLD. SILVER. YEARS. GOLD. SILVER.

1850 . . . $50,000,000 $50,000 1866 . . . $53,500,000 $10,000,000 1851 . . . 55,000,000 50,000 1867 . . . 51,725,000 13,500,000 1852 . . . 60,000,000 50,000 1868 . . . 48,000,000 12,000,000 1853 . . . 65,000,000 50,000 1869 . . . 49,500,000 12,000,000 1854 . . . 60,000,000 50,000 1870 . . . 50,000,000 16,000,000 1855 . . . 55,000,000 50,000 1871 . . . 43,500,000 23,000,000 1856 . . . 55,000,000 50,000 1872 . . . 36,000,000 28,750,000 1857 . . . 55,000,000 50,000 1873 . . . 36,000,000 35,750,000 1858 . . . 50,000,000 500,000 1874 . . . 33,500,000 37,300,000 1859 . . . 50,000,000 100,000 1875 . . . 33,500,000 31,700,000 1860 . . . 46,000,000 150,000 1876 . . . 39,930,000 38,780,000 1861 . . . 43,000,000 2,000,000 1877 . . . 46,900,000 39,800,000 1862 . . . 39,200,000 4,500,000 1878 . . . 51,200,000 45,281,000 1863 . . . 40,000,000 8,500,000 1879 . . . 38,900,000 40,800,000 1864 . . . 46,100,000 11,000,000 1880 . . . 36,000,000 39,200,000 1865 . . . 53,225,000 11,250,000 1881 . . . 30,650,000 43,150,000

Total. . $822,525,000 $38,400,000 Total. . $678,805,000 $467,011,000

Total Gold for thirty-two years, $1,501,330,000. Total Silver, $505,411,000

ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF GOLD AND SILVER IN THE WORLD, EXCLUSIVE OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM 1850 TO 1881, INCLUSIVE.

YEARS. GOLD. SILVER. YEARS. GOLD. SILVER.

1850 . . . $15,000,000 $39,500,000 1866 . . . $67,600,000 $40,750,000 1851 . . . 12,600,000 39,950,000 1867 . . . 52,300,000 40,725,000 1852 . . . 72,750,000 40,550,000 1868 . . . 61,725,000 38,225,000 1853 . . . 90,450,000 40,550,000 1869 . . . 56,725,000 35,500,000 1854 . . . 67,450,000 40,550,000 1870 . . . 56,850,000 35,575,000 1855 . . . 80,075,000 40,550,000 1871 . . . 63,500,000 38,050,000 1856 . . . 82,600,000 40,600,000 1872 . . . 63,600,000 36,500,000 1857 . . . 78,275,000 40,600,000 1873 . . . 60,200,000 53,500,000 1858 . . . 74,650,000 40,150,000 1874 . . . 57,250,000 34,200,000 1859 . . . 74,850,000 40,650,000 1875 . . . 64,000,000 48,800,000 1860 . . . 73,250,000 40,650,000 1876 . . . 63,770,000 48,820,000 1861 . . . 70,800,000 42,700,000 1877 . . . 67,100,000 41,200,000 1862 . . . 68,550,000 40,700,000 1878 . . . 67,800,000 49,519,000 1863 . . . 66,950,000 40,700,000 1879 . . . 69,800,000 55,200,000 1864 . . . 66,900,000 40,700,000 1880 . . . 70,400,000 57,500,000 1865 . . . 66,975,000 40,700,000 1881 . . . 65,800,000 62,800,000

Total $1,072,125,000 $649,800,000 Total $1,008,420,000 $716,864,000

Total Gold, $2,080,545,000. Total Silver, $1,366,664,000.

TOTAL FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. GOLD. SILVER. 1850-1856 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,894,650,000 $ 688,200,000 1866-1881 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,687,225,000 1,183,875,000]

[(4) The Naval expenditures for the sixteen years following the war were as follows:—

Four years under President Johnson . . . . . $114,500,000 Eight years under President Grant . . . . . 154,500,000 Four years under President Hayes . . . . . . 57,000,000]

CHAPTER XXVII.

The question of the fisheries has been in dispute between Great Britain and the United States for more than seventy years. During that period it has been marked by constantly recurring, and sometimes heated, controversy; and it will continue to be a source of irritation until the two Government can reach a solution which shall prove satisfactory, not only to the negotiators, but to the class of brave and adventurous men who, under both flags, are engaged in the sea-fisheries. For a long period each recurring season brought its series of complaints, often threatening violence between the fishermen, and tending to bring the two Governments into actual collision. An adjustment was effected by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 and again by the Treaty of Washington in 1871, but for so brief a time under each agreement as only to postpone the difficulty and not to settle it. There is a right and a wrong side to this questions, and either the Government of the United States or the Government of England is to blame for the chronic contention which marks it.

The American case can be briefly stated. When the independence of the Colonies was recognized in the preliminary treaty of 1782 the provisions agreed upon in regard to two subjects were held by both Governments to be final and perpetual. One was the territory embraced within the boundaries conceded to the United States: the other was the right to the fisheries. The people of the Colonies, especially the people of the New-England Colonies, had as British subjects used all the British fisheries in what is now known as the Dominion of Canada and the island of Newfoundland; and in the preliminary treaty to which George III. gave his assent in 1782, as well as in the final and more definite treaty of 1783, it was provided that the privilege should continue to be enjoyed by citizens of the new Republic.(1) No doubt of the intent and proper construction of this clause in both treaties had ever been suggested, until the English and American negotiators were engaged in framing the treaty of peace at Ghent in 1814, at the close of the second war with Great Britain. The British negotiators claimed that the war of 1812 had put an end to all existing treaties, and that, the fishery clause in the treaty of 1782 being no longer in force, our fishery rights had expired, and if revived at all must be revived under new stipulations.

The direct purpose of this movement was obvious. By the treaty of 1782 it was declared that "the navigation of the Mississippi River from its source to the ocean shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and to the citizens of the United States." It was at that time assumed that the boundary line between the territory of British America and the United States, as set forth in the treaty of peace, would at a certain point cross the Mississippi River, and that the navigation of that river would thus be secured to the subjects of his Britannic Majesty. But his was soon ascertained to be an error, and to that end that the line might be determined with precision the Jay treaty of 1794 provided for a joint survey. By the time of the negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent, twenty years later, it was definitely ascertained that the northern boundary of the United States ran above the sources of the Mississippi, while the purchase of Louisiana had given to our Government the control of the mouth of the river. Hence the privilege of navigating the Mississippi (so earnestly desired by the British Government) could not be insisted on, since the river from its source to the sea was wholly within the territory of the United States. If, therefore, our fishery rights were void by the abrogation of the fishery clause of the treaty of 1792, the restoration of those rights could be demanded only in exchange for some equivalent; and the equivalent to be asked, as was well known, would be the concession to Great Britain of the free navigation of the Mississippi River.

The position thus taken by the British Government was plainly untenable. The treaty of 1782 was only the formal declaration of certain facts consequent upon the termination of the Revolutionary war. That treaty recognized three conditions as fully established: I. The independence of the thirteen Colonies. II. The territorial limits of the United States. III. The rights and methods of the common fisheries in Colonial waters which the citizens of the United States had exercised as British subjects.—The history of the negotiation and the explicit language of the treaty prove that the clause touching the fisheries was the recognition of an existing right and not the grant of a new right. The British Government, in 1814, might with equal force and justice have claimed that under this theory of the abrogation of the treaty of 1782 by war, the recognition of our independence and the establishment of our boundaries had also become void. It is a rather curious fact, apparently unknown or unnoticed by the negotiators of 1814, that as late as 1768 the law officers of the Crown under the last Ministry of Lord Chatham (to whom was referred the treaty of 1686 with France, containing certain stipulations in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries) gave as their opinion that such clauses were permanent in their character, and that so far the treaty was valid, notwithstanding subsequent war. The American negotiators of course refused to admit the principle (that the war of 1812 had put an end to any provision of the treaty of 1782) or its application; and the result was that the Treaty of Ghent was signed and ratified, without any provisions either as to the Fisheries or the navigation of the Mississippi River,—a position which left the United States in the full exercise of its rights under the treaty of 1782, from which it could be excluded only by the exercise of force on the part of the British Government. There was no danger of force being applied. The war of 1812 had satisfied Great Britain that she could gain nothing by going to war with the United States.

Within four years of this time a treaty was negotiated and ratified, which is altogether the most inexplicable in our diplomatic history. The war just concluded with Great Britain had reflected the highest honor upon our navy; while on land we had demonstrated, if not the absolute impossibility, certainly the serious difficulty and danger, of an invasion of our soil by any foreign power. We had risen greatly in the estimation of the world as to our capacity for war, and we had learned the especial importance of maintaining the fisheries as the nursery of our sailors. The State Department was under the direction of John Quincy Adams, who, above all statesmen of his day, was supposed to appreciate the value of the fisheries and who had stubbornly refused at Ghent to consent to any diminution of our fishing-rights even if the alternative should be the continuation of the war. Yet on the 20th of October, 1818, a treaty was concluded at London, containing as its first and most important provision an absolute surrender of some of our most valuable rights in the fisheries. The negotiation was conducted by Albert Gallatin and Richard Rush, men of established reputation for diplomatic ability and patriotic zeal. The history of the transaction is meagre. A brief and most unsatisfactory correspondence contains all that we know in regard to it. Neither in the minute and important diary of Mr. Adams, nor in the private letters, as published, of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Rush, is there the slightest indication of any reason for recommending, or any necessity for conceding, the treaty.

By reference to the Third Article of the treaty of 1782, already quoted, it will be seen that the rights of the citizens of the United States were recognized; first, to take fish of every kind on the Great Bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, and also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time before the treaty to fish; second, to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen should use, but not to dry or cure the same on that island; third, to take fish of every kind on the coasts, bays, and creeks of all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; fourth, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador. By the provisions of the First Article of the treaty of 1818, the right to take fish on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was limited to certain portions of the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rights of the Hudson Bay Company; second, the right to dry and cure fish was granted on the limited portions of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, so long as they remained unsettled; third, for this privilege of drying and curing fish, the United States "renounced forever and liberty theretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the limits so described." Of this extraordinary renunciation Mr. Rush wrote, many years after: "We [Mr. Gallatin and himself] inserted the clause of renunciation; the British plenipotentiaries did not desire it."

From the execution of this treaty—as might well have been seen—the misunderstanding between the two countries in relation to the fisheries became more and more complicated. The treaty seems to have considered only the cod-fishing, and even from that point of view we paid an enormous price for the poor privilege of drying fish on the Newfoundland coast, by abandoning the right of mackerel fishing within three marine miles of all other coasts of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; for from that time the mackerel fisheries grew into large proportions, and without regard to treaty provisions the right of cod-fishing on the banks could never have been taken from us.

The difficulty of determining the three-mile line, the presence of armed vessels to prevent its violation, the vexatious seizure of American fishing-vessels, the reckless injustice of the British local courts in their condemnations, constantly exasperated both parties, and on several occasions threatened to bring the two Governments into actual collision. Both countries recognized the necessity of a more definite settlement; and in June, 1854, after thirty-six years of continuous disturbance and danger, Mr. Marcy as Secretary of State, and Lord Elgin, Governor-General of Canada, as plenipotentiary for Great Britain, negotiated what is known as the Reciprocity Treaty. It was hoped that the opportunity would be used to settle this question permanently, or at least to secure and understanding that we should not upon the termination of a temporary arrangement be relegated to the irritating injustice of the treaty of 1818. But the wary diplomatists of England, with sarcasm scarcely concealed, had so phrased the opening clause of the Reciprocity treaty as to make its provisions only "additional to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by the Convention of 1818."

The right in the fisheries conceded by the treaty of 1854(2)—originally ours under the treaty of 1782, and unnecessarily and unwisely renounced in the treaty of 1818—was not given freely but in consideration of a great price. That price was reciprocity of trade (so-called) between the United States and the British North American Provinces in certain commodities named in the treaty. The selection as shown by the schedule was made almost wholly to favor Canadian interests. There was scarcely a product on the list which could be exported from the United states to Canada without loss, while the great market of the United States was thrown open to Canada without tax or charge for nearly every thing which she could produce and export. All her raw materials were admitted free, while our manufactures were all charged with heavy duty, the market being reserved for English merchants. The fishery question had been adroitly used to secure from the United States an agreement which was one-sided, vexatious, and unprofitable. It had served its purpose admirably as a makeweight for Canada in acquiring the most generous and profitable market she ever enjoyed for her products. And yet Canadians seemed honestly to believe that they had conceded to us more on the sea than we had conceded to them on the land.(3)

The treaty of 1854 was to continue for ten years, with the right of termination upon twelve months' notice by either party. It was terminated on the 17th of March, 1866, upon notice given by the United States one year before. By the abrogation of this treaty our fishery rights were again, through our own unwise concession, subjected to the provisions of the treaty of 1818. But Canada gained little by this relegation, while she suffered great loss in consequence of being deprived of her free access to the markets of the United States for all her products of forest, field and sea.

During the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty the enterprise and capital of the American fishing industry had in some degree developed mackerel fishing, while a free market in the United States had encouraged the inshore fishing of the British dominions to a great and profitable extent. Perhaps at this time the British fishermen placed an exaggerated estimate upon the three-mile fisheries, while the American fishermen followed the privilege rather as a convenience and as an exemption from this annoyance and expense of seizure and trial, than as having any very large intrinsic value.

When the Joint High Commissioners proceeded to consider the question of the fisheries three different views were manifest. The British Commissioners desired a restoration of the Reciprocity Treaty, to which the American Commissioners replied that such a concession was impossible. During the discussion to which this refusal led, the American Commissioners declared that the value of these inshore fisheries had been largely over-estimated, and that the United-States Government desired to secure their enjoyment, not for their commercial or intrinsic value, but for the purpose of removing a source of dissension. They intimated that $1,000,000 was the largest sum which they would be disposed to offer for the full and permanent use of the inshore fisheries without the addition of any privilege as to the free admission of fish and fish-oil. The British Commissioners considered this to be an entirely inadequate estimate of the value of the fisheries and found insuperable difficulties in the way of an absolute and permanent transfer of the rights.

After prolonged consideration and discussion the American Commissioners finally declared that they were "willing (subject to the action of Congress) to concede the admission of Canadian fish and fish-oil free of duty as an equivalent for the use of the inshore fisheries, and to make the arrangement for a term of years." They were firmly and intelligently of the opinion that free fish and free oil to the Canadian fishermen would be more than an equivalent for these fisheries; but they were also willing to agree upon a reference to determine that question and the amount of money-payment that might be found necessary to complete the equivalent—it being understood that the action of Congress would be needed before any payment could be made. This proposition was referred by the British Commissioners to their Government, was accepted by cable, and was at once embodied in the treaty. These articles adopted the language of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, recognizing, as it might again be claimed by the British Government, the existence and full force of the Convention of 1818. The Commission then provided for the freedom from duty of Colonial fish and fish-oil, granted reciprocity of inside fisheries to British fishermen, and finally provided that the question of compensation should be referred to three Commissioners.(4)

It would not be just to impute carelessness to the American members of the Joint High Commission in framing the articles of the treaty relating to the fisheries. It is quite evident however that they had not closely studied the question, and had allowed the British Commissioners to gain an advantage. It was a mistake to agree to a new confirmation of the treaty of 1818, apparently establishing it as the basis of all our rights and giving to it the authoritative position which the treaty of 1782 originally held and should have continued to hold on this question. We might not be able to annul the treaty of 1818, but it was not wise to forfeit, by the assent of so imposing a body as the Joint High Commission, our right of protest against the injustice of its provisions and to agree practically to the assertion that our fishing-rights began in 1818. But a much graver blunder was committed. Our Commissioners had very justly maintained that the admission of Canadian fish and fish-oil free of duty into the United States would be more than an equivalent for the fishery rights to be conceded by the British Government. They had also maintained that for a concession of those rights in perpetuity the Government of the United States would not be willing to pay more than $1,000,000. Holding these views, believing as they did that we were giving more than we were gaining, the Commissioners nevertheless consented to a reference to determine how much in addition we should pay to Great Britain. The agreement certainly should have been to ascertain to which party, if either, a money consideration should be paid. Still further, if they were willing to imply in advance that a money consideration might be due to Great Britain and not to the United States, a maximum limit should have been inserted in the treaty beyond which the American Government would not be willing that any award should extend. But by practically conceded, in the first place, that money should be paid to Great Britain, and by leaving the Reference to determine the amount without any limit whatever, they offered a great temptation to wrong dealing, against which the United States had reserved no defense and could secure no redress.

Of the three Commissioners referred to in the Article providing for an arbitration, the treaty directed that one should be appointed by the President of the United States, one by Her Brittanic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her Brittanic Majesty conjointly; and if they could not agree upon the third within a period of three months after the Article should take effect, then "the third Commissioner shall be named by the representative at London of his Majesty the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary." The legislation necessary to give the Fishery Articles of the treaty full effect having been completed in 1873, Acting Secretary of State J. C. Bancroft Davis, on the 7th of July in that year, notified the British Minister at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, that in regard to the third Commissioner "the Government of the United States is willing to take the initiative and suggest to her Majesty's Government the names of a number of persons, each one of whom would be in the opinion of the President be influenced only by a desire to do justice between the parties." He then proposed (for the consideration of the British Government) the names of the Mexican Minister, the Russian Minister, the Brazilian Minister, the Spanish Minister, the French Minister, and the Minister of the Netherlands, residing at that time in Washington. Mr. David advised Sir Edward that they had "omitted the names of those Ministers who have not the necessary familiarity with the English language," and also of those who "by reason of the peculiar political connection of their governments with Great Britain would probably esteem themselves disqualified for the position."

Sir Edward Thornton, being absent from Washington, did not receive the note of Mr. Davis until the 11th of July, when (as he advised him on the 16th) he immediately telegraphed the substance of it to Lord Granville, and dispatched a copy by mail. Five weeks later, on the 19th of August, without any intervening correspondence Sir Edward (writing from the Catskills) recalled to Secretary Fish that he had spoken to him when last in Washington "on the subject of the Belgian Minister, Mr. Delfosse, being a suitable person as third Commissioner on the Commission which is to sit at Halifax. . . . I had hoped [wrote Sir Edward] that he would have been agreeable to your Government, until I spoke to you upon the subject. I subsequently received a telegram from Lord Granville, desiring me to ascertain whether Mr. Delfosse would be agreeable to the Government of the United States as third Commissioner. . . . Lord Granville desired me to ask you in his name that you would consent to the appointment of the Belgian Minister, who, as he believes, would be in all respects a suitable person for the position."

Mr. Fish was utterly astounded by this proposition submitted by Sir Edward Thornton and coming almost as a personal and pressing request from Lord Granville. The one Minister who was regarded as especially disqualified by Mr. Maurice Delfosse, the representative of Belgium at Washington. The disqualification did not convey a personal reflection upon that gentleman, but was based upon the relations of his government to the Government of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Belgium owed its origin to the armed interposition of Great Britain, and its continuance, to her friendship and her favor. Its first monarch Leopold, who had been but five years dead when the Treaty of Washington was negotiated, had married the Princess Charlotte, daughter of the Price-Regent of England; he was brother to Queen Victoria's mother, and to Prince Albert's father; he held the rank of Marshal in the British Army, and had been for a long period in receipt of an annual allowance of fifty thousand pounds from the British Exchequer. He was on terms of the most affectionate friendship with the Queen and was her constant and confidential adviser.

His son and successor Leopold II., the reigning monarch, cousin of Queen Victoria, had married an Austrian princess, and the unfortunate Carlotta, widow the Emperor Maximilian, was his sister. The House of Hapsburg associated the American support of the Mexican President Juarez with the death of Maximilian, and might not be well disposed towards the Government of the United States. It was not therefore an altogether happy circumstance that the Austrian Ambassador in London had been designated as the person to choose a third Commissioner, in the event of the British and American Governments failing to agree in his selection. A sense of honest dealing at the outset had plainly suggested the ineligibility of a Belgian subject to the third Commissionership, and suggested also the impropriety of leaving to the Austrian Ambassador in London the selection of the Commissioner. The narrative will show that the British Government had determined upon the one or the other, and in the end accomplished both.

The reply of Mr. Fish to Sir Edward's extraordinary communication of August 19 was prompt and pointed. In a note of August 21 he courteously affected to believe that a grave mistake had occurred in the transmission of Lord Granville's telegram. He could not believe that Lord Granville, advised of the inability of the Government of the United States to assent to the selection of Mr. Delfosse, would deliberately propose that gentleman. Mr. Fish was sure that there had been "some mis-conveyance of information or instruction, for which the telegraph must have been responsible." He reminded Sir Edward that in an interview with him in Washington he (Mr. Fish) had declared that "while entertaining a high personal regard for the character and abilities of the Belgian Minister to his country, there are reasons in the political relations between his government and that of Great Britain why the representative of the former could not be regarded as an independent and indifferent arbitrator on questions between the Government of her Majesty and the United States." Mr. Fish still further reminded Sir Edward that during the session of the Joint High Commission, when the question of referring the Fishery dispute to the head of some foreign State was under discussion, Earl de Grey, chairman of the British Commissioners, in proposing several powers, voluntarily said to the American Commissioners, "I do not name Belgium or Portugal, because Great Britain has treaty arrangements with them that might be supposed to incapacitate them."

Five days later Sir Edward advised Mr. Fish that "as the matters which are to be considered by the Commission deeply concern the people of Canada, it was necessary to consult the Government of the Dominion upon the point of so much importance as the appointment of a third Commissioner; and some delay was therefore unavoidable. . . . I have now [continued Sir Edward] the honor to inform you that her Majesty's Government has received a communication from the Governor-General of Canada (Lord Dufferin) to the effect that the Government of the Dominion strongly objects to the appointment of any of the foreign Ministers residing at Washington as third Commissioner on the above mentioned Commission, and prefers to resort to the alternative provided by the treaty; namely, to leave the nomination to the Austrian Ambassador at London."

The State Department was justified by this time in considering that the British Government was resorting to devices for delay. Circumstances all pointed in that direction. The Government of the United States had submitted the names of six Ministers, representing countries of which at least four held more intimate relations with Great Britain than with the United States. Specific reasons had been given for not mentioning others. After a totally unreasonable delay (from July 11 to August 19) the English Government responded, proposing the very name that had originally been objected to by the United States—proposing it with the urgency of a personal request from Lord Granville. When it was found that our Government would not accept Mr. Delfosse, the intelligence came within a week that the Canadian Government objected to any foreign Minister, who had been residing in Washington, as third Commissioner. Of course this objection excluded Mr. Delfosse with all the others, for Mr. Delfosse had resided in Washington several years longer than the majority of those who had been proposed by the United States.