Page images
[graphic][merged small][merged small]


session of the Forty-ninth Congress," that the country be protected in such a contingency. A bill was then introduced, passed and approved January 19, 1886, providing that, in the incapacity of both President and VicePresident, the functons of the office should be discharged, until an election could be held under the Constitution, by the Cabinet officers according to official seniority, as follows: (1) The Secretary of State; (2) the Secretary of the Treasury; (3) the Secretary of War; (4) the Attorney-General; (5) the Postmaster-General; (6) the Secretary of the Navy; and (7) the Secretary of the Interior. In 1889 the Secretary of Agriculture became a Cabinet official and in 1903 a new office was created-Secretary of Commerce and Labor. These officials therefore follow in order after the Secretary of the Interior.+

The opponents of the President soon began to attack him for his minor appointments, claiming that his removals and appointments were made for partisan purposes and contrary to the sentiments expressed in his inaugural address. Cleveland was thus in the difficult position of having to satisfy the politicians of his own party by giving them offices without at the same time exposing himself to the charge of inconsistency. The Republicans in the Senate endeavored to entangle the President into some admission of

[blocks in formation]

a district-attorney in the South had been dismissed, called upon the Attorney-General for the papers and other information in the case. This led to a controversy between that body and the President as to the right of the Senate to such information. The AttorneyGeneral replied that "the President of the United States directed him not to transmit these papers "; and the Senate then passed a resolution condemning this action and declaring that under such circumstances the Senate ought to refuse its advice and consent to removals of this character. A committee was therefore appointed to investigate the rights of the Senate to require such papers and a report approving the claims of the Senate was prepared by the majority consisting of Edmunds, Ingalls, McMillan, Hoar, Wilson, and Evarts. A minority report was also prepared by Pugh, Coke, Vest and Jackson.

President Cleveland then sent a message to the Senate (March 1, 1886) confirming the Attorney-General's assertion and claiming that the papers referred to were unofficial and private and related to a duty belonging exclusively to the President. He denied the statement that the Senate possessed the right to call for these papers, in so far as the right was based upon the claim that the papers were official. He also disputed the right of the Senate " by the aid of any documents whatever, or by any way except impeachment, to review or reverse the acts of the Executive."

[blocks in formation]

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.‡

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. 189– 191, 1888, pp. 17-29.

McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1886,

p. 235.

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 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 The initial apMarch 2, 1887 (Hatch Act). propriation to each State under the Adams Act is $5.000 for the fiscal year 1906. To this amount $2.000 is to be added each year for five years, after which an appropriation of $15,000 is to continue annually. Thus in 1911 and each year thereafter each State will receive $30,000, double the amount hitherto granted under the Hatch Act."-Year Book of the Department of Agriculture, 1906, p. 102. In 1907 an amendment to the Merrill bill was introduced by Representative Nelson and by its terms yearly increments of $5,000 were also added.


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. 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.†

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »