« PreviousContinue »
entirely new complexion on the affair. Alaska and upper British Columia assumed new and immense importance, and the boundary question rapidly approached a crisis. The overland trails leading into the gold fields of the upper Yukon started at two settlements, Dyea and Skagway, on the headwaters of the long estuary known as Lynn Canal. Acting upon their theory of the position of the line, the Canadian authorities advanced their outposts to these points, which had long been considered within United States territory. Conflicts of jurisdiction arose which tended to become so serious that the necessity for an immediate settlement of the question became imperative. It was therefore referred to the Joint High Commission composed of representatives of the two powers which met in 1898 for the settlement of all differences between Canada and the United States.* The
* Commissioners appointed by the governments of the United States and Great Britain, respectively, were as follows:
On the Part of the United States.- Senator Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, chairman; Senator George Gray, of Delaware; Representative Nelson Dingley, of Maine; John W. Foster, former Secretary of State; John A. Kasson, of Iowa, and T. Jefferson Coolidge, of Massachusetts.
On the Part of Great Britain and Canada.Lord Herschell, ex-Lord Chancellor of England, chairman; Sir Wilfred Laurier, Premier of Canada; Sir Richard J. Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce; Sir Louis H. Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries; John Charlton, M. P., and Sir James T. Winter, Premier of Newfoundland.
Senator Gray resigned in September, 1898, to accept the appointment of member of the Span
point at issue was the proposal on the part of the British authorities to submit the matter to a disinterested arbitrator after the precedent set by the Venezuela case. The American members, however, asserted that the
ish-American Peace Commission, and Senator Charles J. Faulkner, of West Virginia, was ap pointed by the President to fill the vacancy.
Lord Herschell was chosen president of the Joint High Commission.
The principal questions submitted for the consideration of the Commission were as follows:
1. The questions in respect to the fur seals of Behring Sea and the waters of the North Pacific Ocean.
2. Provisions in respect to the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the waters of their common frontiers.
3. Provisions for the delimitation and estab lishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary by legal and scientific experts if the commission shall so decide, or otherwise.
4. Provisions for the transit of merchandise in transportation to or from either country, across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including natural and artificial water-ways and intermediate transit by sea.
5. Provisions relating to the transit of merchandise from one country to be delivered at 'points in the other beyond the frontier.
6. The question of the alien labor laws, applicable to the subjects or citizens of the United States and of Canada.
7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other.
8. Such readjustment and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous, of customs duties applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industry of the other, upon the basis of reciprocal equivalents.
9. A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes.
10. Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of the frontier line, by land or water, where the same is now so insufficiently defined or marked as to be liable to dispute.
11. Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishment of persons in the lawful custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the other.
12. Reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights.
AWARD OF THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
situation was different, and proposed to submit the question to a commission consisting of six eminent jurists from each contracting party, the existing settlements on the coast, in the meanwhile, to remain in the United States government. The British commissioners refused to agree to this, and the sessions adjourned without action.
The need for some kind of settlement persisted, so it was determined. to reach a temporary settlement, at least, through diplomatic agencies. As a result, after much negotiation, or provisional
agreement, was signed October 20, 1899. This convention was to remain in force at the pleasure of both parties, and, although certain concessions were made to Canada, the claims of the United States in the main were upheld.
But the principal question was as yet unsettled, and in order to reach a conclusive decision, the British Foreign Office decided to accept the proposal for a joint arbitration committee to consist of three British and three American members. Accordingly, a convention to this effect was signed January 24, 1903, by Secretary Hay and the British ambassador, Sir Michael Herbert. The commissioners were then appointed; President Roosevelt selecting Elihu Root, Secretary of War, Senator H. C. Lodge, and ex-Senator George Turner to represent the United States; the
British members consisting of Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Louis A. Jette, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, and Allen B. Aylesworth of Toronto. John W. Foster presented the arguments for the United States, being assisted by J. M. Dickinson, D. T. Watson, Hannis Taylor and Chandler P. Anderson. The sessions of the commission commenced September 3, 1903, and lasted until October 20, when the decision was signed. The contentions of the United States were upheld in almost every detail, the final line as established, barring minor differences, agreeing with the old line. It is a testimony to the fair-mindedness. of the British representative, Lord Alverstone, that he was able to rise above national considerations and vote for the American side of the question, thereby preventing a deadlock. The Canadian members refused to sign the decision.
The second session of the Fiftyeighth Congress was marked by a struggle between the President and the Senate which revealed in clearest light the affiliations of the latter body. It was able to block most effectually all of the legislation that indicated progressive tendencies, among which were bills for the protection of the forests in the Appalachian and the White Mountain regions, the reform of the consular service, pure food, and others of a similar nature.
The first-named bill was reported
favorably, and had public opinion strongly in its favor, but the forces opposing were too strong to permit its passage in spite of the fact that the forests of the country were rapidly being destroyed by the by the wasteful methods of the lumbermen and the paper mills. The nation had been listening so long to the cry that the natural resources of the United States were boundless and inexhaustible that evidence to the contrary came with a shock. For a number of years it had been evident to those
who had knowledge of the fate of fertile and populous regions which had been transformed into deserts by such spoliation that a continuation of the policy regarding the natural resources would be fatal. From time to time movements favoring regulation were inaugurated, but nothing more than an act favoring passed March 3, 1891, authorizing the President to make forest reserves of public lands, resulted from the same. The question, however, became acute in the early years of the new century, and a resulting investigation by the forestry officials proved that the fears were well grounded. The bills that were introduced, however, were opposed on the grounds of economy; the $15,000,000 appropriation that they carried being disproportionate, it was argued, to the good that would result. The real animus, however, of the opposition was a fear lest their enactment might lead towards a system of forest supervision and, in addition, a desire to place stumbling
blocks in the way of any legislation proposed by the President.
As the time for the national elections drew near it became more and more apparent that there was wellorganized plan on the part of certain elements within his party to defeat Mr. Roosevelt's nomination for a second term. The problem they had to solve was a difficult one, for in spite of his mistakes, the President had impressed the country with his ability and his patriotism. These very mistakes, even, tended to strengthen his hold on the people, for it was clear that they arose from a frank and impulsive nature, that dared to go to any extreme in favor of a thing he conceived to be right. There is no doubt but that the opposition to his renomination gave the President considerable uneasiness, and had it not been for the death of the one man, Mark Hanna, who was capable of organizing the forces against him, there would have arisen a grave question of the ability of his friends to throw the nomination his way. The forces that fought him were powerful, politically and financially, and rumors were abroad of vast sums of money set aside for the purpose of insuring his downfall. The death of Mr. Hanna on February 15, 1904, however, was a blow to Mr. Roosevelt's enemies from which they never recovered, although there was still strong opposition to him by individuals who felt the repressing influence of his policies. They were, however, disorganized and without a
PARTY CANDIDATES AND PLATFORMS.
leader, and when the Republican national convention met in Chicago, June 21, President Roosevelt was nominated unanimously on the roll call of the States. The nomination for Vice-President was tendered to Charles W. Fairbanks, of Indiana, by acclamation.
In its platform the Republican party reiterated its adherence to the gold standard; the policy in the Philippines was commended; the inauguration of the Panama Canal was referred to as being due to the Republican party; the protective tariff was again upheld, but a plank in favor of reciprocity was included; ship subsidies, a stronger navy, exclusion of the Chinese, enforcement of the Civil Service Law, and the encouragement of international arbitration were all favored, while negro disfranchisement in the South and combinations of capital and of labor were disapproved. The platform ended with an enthusiastic eulogy of President Roosevelt, closing with the following words:
"He has held firmly to the fundamental American doctrine that all men must obey the law; that there must be no distinction between the rich and the poor, between strong and weak; but that justice and equal protection under the law must be secured to every citizen without regard to race, creed or condition. His administration has been throughout vigorous and honorable, high-minded and patriotic. We commend it without reservation to the considerate judgment of the American people."
The Democratic national convention was held in St. Louis on July 6, and lasted for three days. It was evident from the very beginning that
the delegates were disinclined to nominate Mr. Bryan for the third time, although the convention was still sufficiently under the spell of his personality to eliminate
a sound money clause that had been inserted by the conservatives. The theory of the Democrats, apparently, was to endeavor to capture the conservative elements of both parties who were displeased with the radicalism of Mr. Bryan and President Roosevelt. The Democratic party, however, was not only divided, but in desperate straits for a standard-bearer. A movement was instituted to nominate Mr. Cleveland for a third term, but antagonism of the Bryan wing of the party and the refusal, finally, of Mr. Cleveland to consider such a proposal, forced its abandonment. The choice then lay between Judge Alton B. Parker, chief justice of the New York Court of Appeals, and William R. Hearst, proprietor of the New York Journal and other papers of the so-called " yellow variety." The former was comparatively unknown, the delegates not even being aware of his position on the money question until after his nomination, while the latter was only too well known as an
from Judge Parker was read announcing his adherence to the gold standard. This produced a sensation, yet the writer of it had carefully selected the wording, and the time for its presentation, and the result was the one anticipated. After a heated discussion, the following resolution was passed by a vote of 798 to 184, and telegraphed to Judge Parker:
"The platform adopted by this convention is silent on the question of the monetary standard because it is not regarded by us as a possible issue in this campaign, and only campaign issues were mentioned in the platform; therefore there is nothing in the views expressed by you which would preclude a man from accepting a nomination on said platform."
Populists nominating Thomas E.
The campaign, like the one of 1900, seemed to inspire little interest until the date of the election drew near. It was, however, stirred up by two announcements; one by Thomas Lawson, who was at that time in the
The tariff, the trusts, and imperial- midst of his spectacular fight against
ism were the main issues in the platform of the Democratic party. It also declared for the enactment of laws regulating the relations of labor and capital; favored inland waterways and the reclamation of arid lands, the election of Senators by popular vote, and the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine; ship subsidies were condemned, as was polygamy; and in its close paid its respects to the Republican administration in the following terms: "The existing Republican administration has been spasmodic, erratic, sensational, spectacular and arbitrary. It has made itself a satire upon the Congress, the courts, and upon the settled practices and usages of national and international law."
Four other parties held conventions and nominated candidates: the
the Standard Oil group and the the financial rottenness of the great insurance companies. In this address to the people, he stated that a vote for Judge Parker was a vote for Wall street and the corporate interests that centered there. In contrast with this was the statement made by the Democratic candidate himself a few days before the balloting to the effect that the Republican party, through Mr. George B. Cortelyou, had been soliciting contributions from these very corporations, thereby pledging the party to enact no legislation in opposition to the same. The President denounced this accusation as "Unqualifiedly and atrociously false, *** if elected I shall go into the presidency unhampered by any pledge, promise or under