Finally he boldly declared: "The pledges I have made [as to civil service reform] were made to the people, and to them I am responsible for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not responsible to the Senate In this message

the President spoke of the whole of the tenure-of-office legislation as having been left for the last twenty years in a state of "innocuous desuetude." Aside from condemning the AttorneyGeneral's action, Congress did nothing further in the matter.*

In the December session, 1886, Senator Hoar introduced a bill for the repeal of sections 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771 and 1772 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (relating to the tenure-of-office, which interfered with the President's power of removal) and it was passed by both Houses (the Senate by a vote of 30 to 22, the House 71 to 67) and became law by the President's signature March 3, 1887. Thus it had taken twenty years to remove from the statute books an obnoxious law passed by a radical Congress in an emergency to curb President Johnson.†

In the early part of 1886, during the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, a bill to increase the pensions of widows, minor children and rela

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 375-383; Parker, Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland, pp. 464-475; McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1886, pp. 119-128; Grover Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 39-69.

† Hoar, Autobiography, vol. ii., pp. 135-144; McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1888, pp. 4647; Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 25-38, 73-76.

tives of soldiers and sailors was considered in the House. The Senate on May 18 passed a bill giving pensions to all dependent soldiers who had served three months in the Union army and also to dependent parents of soldiers. The House amended and passed the bill January 17, 1887, and the Senate accepted the amended bill January 27.*

In addition to this general pension bill, 747 private pension bills were brought in, but the President vetoed 101 of these, pocketed 1, approved 491, and allowed 154 to become law without his signature. Many of the President's messages were couched in severe language, and provoked considerable hostility. Yet, although many attempts were made to pass these private bills over the veto, there was only one case where it was done. I

On March 2, 1887, the President approved a bill known as the Hatch Act for the purpose of diffusing "useful and practical information on subjects connected with agriculture and to promote scientific investigation and experiment respecting the principles and applications of agricultural science." On July 2, 1862, President Lincoln had signed an act donating to each

* President Cleveland vetoed it February 11, 1887, and it failed to pass over his veto. See Stoddard's Cleveland, pp. 241-242; and for text of veto Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 549-557, and Parker's Cleveland, pp. 384-396. See also McPherson, 1886, pp. 189191, 1888, pp. 17-29. † McPherson, p. 235.

Handbook of Politics, 1886,

Hensel's Cleveland, pp. 245-246; McPherson, 1886, pp. 229–230.

State, which might provide colleges teaching agriculture and the mechanic arts, 30,000 acres of public land for each Senator and Representative accorded it by the apportionment under the census of 1860. The Hatch Act further granted the sum of $15,000 a year to each State for the purpose of establishing and maintaining agricultural experiment stations. A third act of Congress approved August 30, 1890, entitled "An act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts established under the provisions of an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862," appropriating $15,000 for the year ending June 30, 1890, this sum increasing $1,000 each year until it reached $25,000 a year, which amount was to be the permanent annual appropriation.*

* In 1906, during the first session of the 59th Congress, an act was passed in both Houses and received the President's signature March 16, 1906. This act, introduced by Henry C. Adams, of Wisconsin, provides "that each State and Territory shall annually receive from the national treasury a grant of money in addition to that given for the establishment and maintenance of agricultural experiment stations by the act of March 2, 1887 (Hatch Act).

Several important diplomatic questions were now pressed for settlement.

The rights of American fisherman in British American waters was one of them. In chapter I we have seen the results of negotiations looking to a settlement of this dispute, but the payment of money did not hinder the future rupture of pleasant relations on the same score. On July 1, 1885, the fishery clause of the Treaty of Washington ceased to be operative but was extended by agreement through the season of 1885.* The Canadian authorities then seized American fishermen in British North American waters. The controversy now developed into a question of the purposes for which a foreign fishing vessel might lawfully enter a Canadian port. Americans claimed that the Convention of 1818 protected inshore fishermen, and that Canada had no jurisdiction over the deep-sea fisheries, and they therefore could purchase bait in Canadian ports without violating the terms of the Convention.†

From the beginning of 1886, the Canadian government sent cruisers to patrol the deep-sea fisheries, and American fishing vessels were profrom entering Canadian waters. The collector of customs was also instructed to detain any American fishing vessels remaining in port twenty-four hours after being ordered

*

Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 417-420; Moore, American Diplomacy, p. 95; Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, pp. 89-90; Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 280–284.

Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, p. 93 et seq.

*

to depart. On May 7 the schooner David J. Adams was seized for remaining twenty-four hours in a Canadian port without reporting to the custom house and for buying bait; several other American ships were also seized on the same pretext.

The actions of the Canadian authorities finally became so hostile that Congress passed a bill which was signed by the President March 3, 1887, giving the President power to retaliate against Canada by refusing her vessels admission to our ports and by excluding her products from our territory. Correspondence between Secretary Bayard and the English and Canadian governments ensued, and at length a joint commission was suggested to discuss the whole question. The proposal was agreeable and commissioners were appointed to meet at Washington. Mr. William L. Putnam, of Maine, and President Angell, of the University of Michigan, acting with Secretary Bayard, represented the United States. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and Sir Lionel Sackville-West, the British minister, represented Great Britain and Sir Charles Tupper, Canada. The commission met on Tuesday, November 22, 1887. The negotiations were kept secret and were protracted, but a conclusion satisfactory to all was finally reached, and on February 15, 1888, the proposed treaty was signed. On the 20th

*Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, pp. 91–92. McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1888, pp.

38-42.

The text is given in Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 461-467.

it was forwarded by the President to the Senate, with a message* suggesting that it was advisable to publish the text of the treaty as soon as possible. The Senate, accepting the challenge, gave the treaty to the press, and on May 28 the debate began in open session. The chief clauses stipulated that the contracting parties should appoint a mixed commission of four to delimit the British waters, bays, creeks, and harbors of the coast of Canada and Newfoundland, and to define the regulations to which United States vessels entering such waters must conform. The debate was continued until August 21, 1888, when the treaty was rejected by 30 votes to 27.†

Pending action by the Senate a modus vivendi was agreed upon,‡ February 15, 1888, which remained in force by renewal for nearly 18 years:

"1. For a period not exceeding two years from the present date, the privilege of entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada and Newfoundland shall be granted to the United States fishing vessels by annual licenses at a fee of $1.50 per ton for the following purposes:

"The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines, and all other supplies and outfits.

Transhipment of catch and shipping of crews.' "2. If, during the continuance of this arrangement, the United States should remove the duties

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 603–607.

McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1888, pp. 114-122, 192-193; Andrews, Last QuarterCentury, vol. ii., pp. 118-125. See also Sherman, vol. ii., pp. 1015-1021; Whittle's Cleveland, pp. 108-122. For Cleveland's message of August 23, 1888, suggesting retaliation against Canada for her treatment of our fishermen see G. F. Parker, Writings and Speeches of Grover Cleveland, pp. 501-511; Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. viii., pp. 620-627.

Snow, Treaties and Topics, p. 467.

on fish, fish oil, whale and seal oil (and their coverings, packages, etc.), the said licenses shall be issued free of charge.

"3. United States fishing vessels entering the bays and harbors of the Atlantic coast of Canada or of Newfoundland for any of the four purposes mentioned in Article 1 of the convention of October 20, 1818, and not remaining therein more than twenty-four hours, shall not be required to enter or clear at the custom house, providing they do not communicate with the shore.

"4. Forfeiture to be exacted only for the offenses of fishing or preparing to fish in territorial waters.

“5. This arrangement to take effect as soon as the necessary measures can be completed by the Colonial authorities."

But with the improved methods of transporting perishable foods by freezing, the American fishermen found that they would not be compelled to touch at Canadian ports; furthermore the Americans almost entirely abandoned the inshore codfishery of Canada and resorted to the Banks. The necessity of coming into conflict with the Canadian fisheries was thus to a great extent obviated, and the stubborn quarrel was settled for many years.

The Samoan dispute now came up for settlement. The Samoan Islands, which lie in the central part of the Pacific Ocean, had been a bone of contention for many years. American missionaries were the first to attempt the Christianization of the natives, and until the beginning of the last quarter of the Nineteenth century the trade was exclusively in the hands of American and English commercial houses. In 1872 Commodore Meade

* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 519-529; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 96-97.

VOL. X-3

29

made an agreement with the Samoans by which they ceded to the United States the harbor of Pago Pago. President Grant submitted the agreement to the Senate* but that body took no action upon it. About that time civil war broke out among the various native competitors for the kingship and some German business houses began to curry favor with the natives in order to establish themselves. They sold arms to all the belligerents, and were paid in concessions of land. In 1873 the islands petitioned to be taken under the protection of the United States, and in 1877 a similar petition was addressed to the government of Great Britain. Both powers declined. But on January 17, 1878, a treaty between Samoa and the United States was signed, one of the clauses. of which was as follows:

"If, unhappily, any differences should have arisen, or should hereafter arise between the Samoan Government and any other Government in amity with the United States, the Government of the latter will employ its good offices for the purpose of adjusting these differences upon a satisfactory and solid foundation."

The Samoans also made treaties of similar nature with England (August 28, 1879) and Germany (January 24, 1879) granting to each exclusive rights

* Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vii., P. 168.

Callahan, American Relations in the Pacific and the Far East, p. 136. Ibid, p. 137.

For the history of the dispute see Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 209-215; Senate Ex. Doc. No. 43, 43d Congress, 1st session; House Ex. Doc. No. 161, 44th Congress, 1st session; House Ex. Doc. No. 44, 44th Congress, 2d session.