« PreviousContinue »
SITTING BULL SURRENDERS; OTHER INDIAN TROUBLES.
sidered the time favorable for nego- and bloody fighting the tribes were tiating their treaty. They met Sitting finally conquered.* The Cheyennes Bull on October 17, 1877, but could also went on the warpath and in not come to any satisfactory agree- September massacred many whites ment and returned. The Indians then in eastern Colorado. United States remained quiet until 1880.
troops were sent after them also and Sitting Bull now experienced trouble the Indians, after suffering a crushfrom another quarter, for the Cana- ing defeat, fled into Nebraska. They dian authorities notified him that un
were then imprisoned at Fort Robinless he and his tribe moved from
son, Nebraska, but escaped from that Canadian territory troops would be place in January, 1879. The troops sent to expel him. Perceiving that he which set out in pursuit finally surcould no longer successfully resist and rounded them and after surrender had as the extreme cold was causing much
been refused, almost exterminated the suffering among the members of his band. tribe, he expressed a desire to make The Utes on the western frontier terms with the United States authori
of Colorado now took their turn in ties. In the autumn of 1880, Rain-in- making trouble, and under chief Ouray the-Face and about 1,000 of Sitting broke out into active hostility in the Bull's warriors surrendered; others early autumn of 1879. In September, gradually followed this example but
N. C. Meeker, the Indian agent at the wily chief himself feared for his
White River, complained that the Utes life and still refused to surrender.
resisted his agricultural operations He was finally pursuaded by General
and he appealed to the national Miles to accept the proferred amnesty
government for protection. Major and on July 19, 1881, returned to the
Thornburg, with three companies of United States where he remained cavalry, was sent to Meeker's aid, but quiet for several years.
while on the march the detachment In the summer of 1878 there was
was ambuscaded by the Utes, at Milk more trouble with the Indians, this Creek, Colorado, on September 29,
, time with the Shoshones and Ban
and the commander and several of his nocks of northern Oregon. These
men were killed and about twenty tribes, in the early part of June, went
wounded. Beside this the Indians on the warpath against the whites, but
killed about three-fourths of the United States troops under Generals
trooper's horses and burned a wagon Howard and Miles were sent against
train. The troops thereupon inthem, and after three months of severe
trenched and for six days were sur
rounded by the Indians, but they held * Judson E. Walker, Campaigns of General Cus
out until relieved by troops under ter in the Northwest and the Final Surrender of Sitting Bull, pp. 59–76; Miles, Personal Recollec. tions, pp. 306–318.
Miles, Personal Recollections, pp. 294-301.
EARLY HISTORY OF FISHERY DISPUTE.
Colonel Merritt who repulsed the appointed by the United States and Utes on October 5. In the meantime, Great Britain, the two then selecting however, the Indians had murdered the third member. There was also a Meeker and the whites at the White provision that if the first two could River agency and carried off the not agree upon the third commissioner women and children into captivity, within a period of three months after but upon the arrival of reënforcements the article should take effect, the these were surrendered by the Indians minister of Austria-Hungary at Lonto General Adams. After several don should name him. months the Utes who were guilty of This dispute had awaited settlement the massacre were surrendered and for many years. As finally signed on by a treaty of peace between the September 3, 1783, Article III of the national government and chief Ouray, Treaty of Paris gave our fishers the in September, 1880, the Utes sold their same rights in British North American lands.*
waters that they had before the RevoThe Apache Indians also caused the lution. But when the commissioners government much concern during 1879 were discussing the terms for the secand 1880. Under the leadership of ond treaty of peace at Ghent in 1814 their chief, Victorio, these Indians the fishery clause was the subject of overran New Mexico, and beside de- much wrangling and was finally stroying and confiscating much prop- omitted altogether from the treaty. erty, also killed many whites. Victorio In October, 1818, a convention was successfully combatted the efforts of signed, by the terms of which the the United States and Mexican au- former privileges were again restored thorities to capture him for a long to the Americans on condition (Article time, but in October, 1880, the Mexican I) that they should neither“ take, dry troops cornered the band and Victorio or cure fish on or within three marine and many of his warriors were killed miles of the coasts, bays, creeks or and the others captured.i
harbors ” of Canada. Then came the Foreign affairs also occupied the reciprocity treaty of June 5, 1854, exeattention of President Hayes and his cuted by Secretary of State Marcy Cabinet and an important dispute - and Lord Elgin, Governor-General of the fishery dispute — was apparently Canada as plenipotentiary of Great settled during his term of office. Britain. By this treaty the Americans
By the terms of the Treaty of Wash- were to enjoy the use of the inshore ington concluded in 1871 the fishery fisheries of the Canadian waters, and dispute was to be settled by a com
the Canadians were given certain mission of three members, one each privileges of free trade with us, heavy
duties being laid on our principal * Miles, Personal Recollections, p. 319.
articles of export to Canada in favor † S. M. Barrett, Geronimo's Story of his Life, pp. 98-104.
of British merchants, whereas the
principal Canadian products were political connection of their governallowed to enter this country duty ments with Great Britain would probfree.* On January 18, 1865, however, ably esteem themselves disqualified Congress passed a resolution giving for the position,” and also those "who notice that this treaty would be termi- have not the necessary familiarity nated on March 17, 1866, and on that with the English language.” Being date the fisheries were again regulated absent from Washington Thornton did under the terms of the treaty of 1818.1 no receive this message till July 11,
In 1873, therefore, legislation was but not until August 19 did the Britenacted giving the fishery articles of ish government make any counter prothe Treaty of Washingtonț full effect posals and then suggested a person and on July 7, 1873, acting Secretary whom Secretary Fish regarded as esof State J. C. Bancroft Davis sug- pecially disqualified — Maurice Delgested to the British minister at fosse, the Belgian representative at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, Washington. “ The disqualification the names of several foreign diplo- did not convey a personal reflection on matic representatives at Washington that gentleman, but was based upon any one of whom would be acceptable the relations of his government to the to the United States as the third government of Great Britain."* This
* member of the commission. He was because of the relationship of the omitted the names of those minis- reigning family of Belgium to that of ters who “by reason of the peculiar Great Britain. Furthermore, Belgium
owed her origin to the armed inter* For the early history of the dispute see Hen. derson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 451- position of Great Britain and the 510; Foster, American Diplomacy, pp. 337–339 ; bonds of friendship were necessarily Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 615–623; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 404-416; Moore, American Di- strong. Secretary Fish therefore inplomacy, pp. 87-94; Freeman Snow, Treaties and formed Thornton that the selection of Topics in American Diplomacy, pp. 427-446; F. E.
Delfosse was impossible, whereupon Haynes, The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854, in Publications of the American Economic
Thornton notified Fish that the Association, vol. vii., No. 6; J. L. Laughlin and Canadian government strongly obH. P. Willis, Reciprocity, pp. 30–54, 473 (The Baker & Taylor Company) ; Cushing, The Treaty jected to the “ appointment of any of of Washington, pp. 226-236; Charles B. Elliott, the foreign ministers residing at The United States and the Northeastern Fisheries,
Washington.''+ pp. 15-75, 103-129. † The President signed the bill January 18.
While this excluded Delfosse, SecSee Statutes-at-Large, vol. xiii., p. 566. For the retary Fish felt that the British govdebates in Congress see Congressional Globe, 38th
ernment was resorting to devices for Congress, 1st session, part iii., pp. 2333–38, 2364– 71, 2452-56, 2476–84, 2502-09, and 2d session delay, and on September 6, 1873, repart i., pp. 204-213, 226–234. See also Laughlin buked this interposition of the Canaand Willis, Reciprocity, pp. 54-65.
I These articles are printed in full in the Pro- * Blaine, vol. ii., p. 625; also Elliott, Northceedings of the Halifax Commission of 1877, eastern Fisheries, pp. 81, 83, 84. vol. i.
+ Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, p. 82.
dian government saying that “the vote, on November 23, 1877, cast it in reference to the people of the Domin
favor of Great Britain. Blaine says: ion of Canada seems to imply a prac- " The result of the negotiation, theretical transfer to that Province of the fore, was that for twelve years' use of right of nomination which the treaty the inshore British Colonial fisheries, gives to her Majesty.” On September which were ours absolutely by the 24 Thornton proposed that the minis
treaty of 1783, we paid to the British ters of the two countries at The Hague
government the award of $5,500,000 nominate “ some Dutch gentleman," and remitted duties of $350,000 per but Secretary Fish replied that this
annum (for the period of twelve was contrary to the treaty. After
years $4,200,000), besides building up much correspondence Thornton on Oc
into a profitable and prosperous intober 24 advised Fish that the British
dustry, the shore-fishing of Prince Edgovernment considered that the three
ward's Island, which before the Recimonths allowed by the treaty for the selection of a third commissioner had procity Treaty was not even deemed expired and on December 2 under in- worthy of computation.”
The award created astonishment in struction from Lord Granville, insisted that Great Britain and the United
the United States and on March 11, State write the Austrian government
1878, Mr. Blaine in the Senate rerequesting that the Austrian am- quested the papers in the case and bassador at London may be author- President Hayes transmitted them to ized to proceed with the nomination of Congress.† After being debated in the third Commissioner."* The Aus- the Committee on Foreign Relations a trian ambassador then nominated report was submitted to the Senate on Minister Delfosse, Fish having with- May 28 by Hannibal Hamlin, the drawn his personal objections. chairman, which recommended that
The Commission met at Halifax, the award be paid by the President Nova Scotia, early in June, 1877. En
“if, after correspondence with the sign H. Kellogg represented the Government of Great Britain, he United States, Sir Alexander T. Galt shall, without further communication represented Great Britain and Mr.
with Congress, deem that such payDelfosse was the third Commissioner.
ment shall be demanded by the honor Francis C. Fort was the agent of the
and good faith of the Nation.” A British government and Dwight Foster of the United States. After pre
* Vol. ii., p. 632; Henderson, pp. 517–519; sentation of both sides of the case by Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 416-417. The counsel, Delfosse, having the deciding
full proceedings of the commission are given in
House Ex. Doc. No. 89, 45th Congress, 2d session. Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 626-629.
† Senate Ex. Doc. No. 44, 45th Congress, 2d † Henderson, Diplomatic Questions, pp. 513
session. For Blaine's speech see Ridpath’s Blaine, 616; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 446–449.
bill was afterward passed appropriat- than it was producing and the treasing the necessary money."
ury was compelled from time to time On September 27, 1878, Mr. Evarts, to sustain the money market by rethen Secretary of State, endeavored in leasing some of the gold it was accua despatch to Lord Salisbury to con- mulating for resumption purposes. vince the latter that the award was un- Secretary Sherman, upon assuming reasonable and excessive, but Salis- office, displayed much firmness in his bury replied that the case ended when pursuit of the resumption goal. He the award was made by the commis- gradually sold $95,500,000 of bonds sion.† Therefore the money was paid and took enough from the surplus to Great Britain when due - one year revenues so that on January 1, 1879, from the date of award.
the treasury contained $133,508,804.50 During the past few years the coun- of coin over and above all matured try had been preparing for the re- liabilities.* Before he had succeeded sumption of specie payments as au- in doing this, however, Congress had thorized under the act of Congress of made several attempts to repeal the 1875 and the subsequent enactments. law of 1875. The times were proThe resumption necessitated the pitious for the opposition to break hoarding of gold, for the Secretary down the policy of the administration. of the Treasury, John Sherman, esti- The Republicans had only a small mated that the smallest reserve of majority in the Senate and this could gold that was safe would be 40 per not be trusted. Trade was stagnant cent. of the notes outstanding, and on and prices falling; business failures this basis $138,000,000 in coin was were numerous; and in 1878 “ the necessary. This was a difficult task record of insolvencies far exceeded at best and was rendered doubly so by even that of the panic year of 1873.”+
' the attitude of Congress. In 1877 it The people moreover were discourwas estimated that the total stock of aged by four years of hard times and gold in the United States, outside the the opponents of resumption had no treasury, was less than $100,000,000 trouble in being heard. and of this sum the national banks On November 23, 1877, the House held only $22,658,820.Ş But the coun- began the attack by passing a bill by try was losing more gold by export a vote of 133 to 120 which practically
repealed the Resumption Act, but this * Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, p. 86 et seq. McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1878, p. 213.
was subsequently radically amended † Elliott, p. 88.
in the Senate and then laid on the # Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 615–637; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 449–451.
* See his report of December 2, 1878 and his I Recollections, vol. ii., p. 631; Annual Report Recollections, vol. ii., pp. 686–695. See also of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 2, Bolles, Financial History, vol. iii., pp. 293–299; 1878.
Horace White, Joney and Banking, p. 196 et seq.; & Report of Comptroller Knox, 1877, p. 163; Upton, Money in Politics, pp. 146–154. Noyes, American Finance, pp. 23–26.
† Noyes, American Finance, pp. 34-35.