« PreviousContinue »
sidered the time favorable for negotiating their treaty. They met Sitting Bull on October 17, 1877, but could not come to any satisfactory agreement and returned. The Indians then remained quiet until 1880.
Sitting Bull now experienced trouble from another quarter, for the Canadian authorities notified him that unless he and his tribe moved from Canadian territory troops would be sent to expel him. Perceiving that he could no longer successfully resist and as the extreme cold was causing much suffering among the members of his tribe, he expressed a desire to make terms with the United States authorities. In the autumn of 1880, Rain-inthe-Face and about 1,000 of Sitting Bull's warriors surrendered; others gradually followed this example but the wily chief himself feared for his life and still refused to surrender. He was finally pursuaded by General Miles to accept the proferred amnesty and on July 19, 1881, returned to the United States where he remained quiet for several years.*
In the summer of 1878 there was
more trouble with the Indians, this
time with the Shoshones and Bannocks of northern Oregon. These tribes, in the early part of June, went on the warpath against the whites, but United States troops under Generals Howard and Miles were sent against them, and after three months of severe
*Judson E. Walker, Campaigns of General Custer in the Northwest and the Final Surrender of Sitting Bull, pp. 59-76; Miles, Personal Recollections, pp. 306-318.
and bloody fighting the tribes were finally conquered. The Cheyennes also went on the warpath and in September massacred many whites in eastern Colorado. United States troops were sent after them also and the Indians, after suffering a crushing defeat, fled into Nebraska. They were then imprisoned at Fort Robinson, Nebraska, but escaped from that place in January, 1879. The troops which set out in pursuit finally surrounded them and after surrender had been refused, almost exterminated the band.
The Utes on the western frontier of Colorado now took their turn in making trouble, and under chief Ouray broke out into active hostility in the early autumn of 1879. In September, N. C. Meeker, the Indian agent at White River, complained that the Utes resisted his agricultural operations and he appealed to the national government for protection. Major Thornburg, with three companies of cavalry, was sent to Meeker's aid, but
while on the march the detachment was ambuscaded by the Utes, at Milk Creek, Colorado, on September 29,
and the commander and several of his men were killed and about twenty wounded. Beside this the Indians killed about three-fourths of the trooper's horses and burned a wagon train. The troops thereupon intrenched and for six days were surrounded by the Indians, but they held out until relieved by troops under
* Miles, Personal Recollections, pp. 294–301.
EARLY HISTORY OF FISHERY DISPUTE.
Colonel Merritt who repulsed the Utes on October 5. In the meantime, In the meantime,
however, the Indians had murdered Meeker and the whites at the White River agency and carried off the women and children into captivity, but upon the arrival of reënforcements these were surrendered by the Indians to General Adams. After several months the Utes who were guilty of the massacre were surrendered and by a treaty of peace between the national government and chief Ouray, in September, 1880, the Utes sold their lands.*
The Apache Indians also caused the government much concern during 1879 and 1880. Under the leadership of their chief, Victorio, these Indians overran New Mexico, and beside destroying and confiscating much property, also killed many whites. Victorio successfully combatted the efforts of the United States and Mexican authorities to capture him for a long time, but in October, 1880, the Mexican troops cornered the band and Victorio and many of his warriors were killed and the others captured.
Foreign affairs also occupied the attention of President Hayes and his Cabinet and an important dispute. the fishery dispute was apparently settled during his term of office.
By the terms of the Treaty of Washington concluded in 1871 the fishery dispute was to be settled by a commission of three members, one each
* Miles, Personal Recollections, p. 319.
S. M. Barrett, Geronimo's Story of his Life, pp. 98-104.
appointed by the United States and Great Britain, the two then selecting the third member. There was also a provision that if the first two could not agree upon the third commissioner within a period of three months after the article should take effect, the minister of Austria-Hungary at London should name him.
This dispute had awaited settlement for many years. As finally signed on September 3, 1783, Article III of the Treaty of Paris gave our fishers the same rights in British North American waters that they had before the Revolution. But when the commissioners were discussing the terms for the second treaty of peace at Ghent in 1814 the fishery clause was the subject of much wrangling and was finally omitted altogether from the treaty. In October, 1818, a convention was signed, by the terms of which the former privileges were again restored to the Americans on condition (Article I) that they should neither "take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbors" of Canada. Then came the reciprocity treaty of June 5, 1854, executed by Secretary of State Marcy and Lord Elgin, Governor-General of Canada as plenipotentiary of Great Britain. By this treaty the Americans were to enjoy the use of the inshore fisheries of the Canadian waters, and the Canadians were given certain privileges of free trade with us, heavy duties being laid on our principal articles of export to Canada in favor of British merchants, whereas the
principal Canadian products were allowed to enter this country duty free. On January 18, 1865, however, Congress passed a resolution giving notice that this treaty would be terminated on March 17, 1866, and on that date the fisheries were again regulated under the terms of the treaty of 1818.+ In 1873, therefore, legislation was enacted giving the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washingtont full effect and on July 7, 1873, acting Secretary of State J. C. Bancroft Davis suggested to the British minister at Washington, Sir Edward Thornton, the names of several foreign diplomatic representatives at Washington any one of whom would be acceptable to the United States as the third member of the commission. omitted the names of those ministers who "by reason of the peculiar
*For the early history of the dispute see Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 451510; Foster, American Diplomacy, pp. 337-339; Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 615-623; Schuyler, American Diplomacy, pp. 404-416; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 87-94; Freeman Snow, Treaties and Topics in American Diplomacy, pp. 427-446; F. E. Haynes, The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854, in Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. vii., No. 6; J. L. Laughlin and H. P. Willis, Reciprocity, pp. 30-54, 473 (The
political connection of their governments with Great Britain would probably esteem themselves disqualified for the position," and also those "who have not the necessary familiarity with the English language." Being absent from Washington Thornton did no receive this message till July 11, but not until August 19 did the British government make any counter proposals and then suggested a person whom Secretary Fish regarded as especially disqualified-Maurice Delfosse, the Belgian representative at Washington. "The disqualification did not convey a personal reflection on that gentleman, but was based upon the relations of his government to the government of Great Britain."'* This was because of the relationship of the reigning family of Belgium to that of Great Britain. Furthermore, Belgium owed her origin to the armed interposition of Great Britain and the bonds of friendship were necessarily strong. Secretary Fish therefore informed Thornton that the selection of Delfosse was impossible, whereupon Thornton notified Fish that the Canadian government strongly ob
Baker & Taylor Company); Cushing. The Treaty jected to the "appointment of any of the foreign ministers residing at Washington."+
of Washington, pp. 226-236; Charles B. Elliott, The United States and the Northeastern Fisheries, pp. 15-75, 103-129.
The President signed the bill January 18. See Statutes-at-Large, vol. xiii., p. 566. For the debates in Congress see Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 1st session, part iii., pp. 2333-38, 236471, 2452-56, 2476-84, 2502-09, and 2d session part i., pp. 204-213, 226-234. See also Laughlin and Willis, Reciprocity, pp. 54-65.
These articles are printed in full in the Proceedings of the Halifax Commission of 1877, vol. i.
While this excluded Delfosse, Secretary Fish felt that the British government was resorting to devices for delay, and on September 6, 1873, rebuked this interposition of the Cana
* Blaine, vol. ii., p. 625; also Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, pp. 81, 83, 84.
Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, p. 82.
THE AWARD OF THE HALIFAX COMMISSION.
dian government saying that "the reference to the people of the Dominion of Canada seems to imply a practical transfer to that Province of the right of nomination which the treaty gives to her Majesty." On September 24 Thornton proposed that the ministers of the two countries at The Hague nominate "some Dutch gentleman," but Secretary Fish replied that this was contrary to the treaty. After much correspondence Thornton on October 24 advised Fish that the British government considered that the three months allowed by the treaty for the selection of a third commissioner had expired and on December 2 under instruction from Lord Granville, insisted that Great Britain and the United State write the Austrian government
requesting that the Austrian ambassador at London may be authorized to proceed with the nomination of the third Commissioner."* The Austrian ambassador then nominated Minister Delfosse, Fish having withdrawn his personal objections.†
The Commission met at Halifax, Nova Scotia, early in June, 1877. Ensign H. Kellogg represented the United States, Sir Alexander T. Galt represented Great Britain and Mr. Delfosse was the third Commissioner. Francis C. Fort was the agent of the British government and Dwight Foster of the United States. After presentation of both sides of the case by counsel, Delfosse, having the deciding
*Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 626-629.
Henderson, Diplomatic Questions, pp. 513516; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 446-449.
vote, on November 23, 1877, cast it in favor of Great Britain. Blaine says: The result of the negotiation, therefore, was that for twelve years' use of the inshore British Colonial fisheries, which were ours absolutely by the treaty of 1783, we paid to the British government the award of $5,500,000 and remitted duties of $350,000 per annum (for the period of twelve years $4,200,000), besides building up into a profitable and prosperous industry the shore-fishing of Prince Edward's Island, which before the Reciprocity Treaty was not even deemed worthy of computation.
bill was afterward passed appropriating the necessary money.*
On September 27, 1878, Mr. Evarts, then Secretary of State, endeavored in a despatch to Lord Salisbury to convince the latter that the award was unreasonable and excessive, but Salisbury replied that the case ended when the award was made by the commission. Therefore the money was paid to Great Britain when due one year from the date of award.‡
During the past few years the country had been preparing for the resumption of specie payments as authorized under the act of Congress of 1875 and the subsequent enactments. The resumption necessitated hoarding of gold, for the Secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman, estimated that the smallest reserve of gold that was safe would be 40 per cent. of the notes outstanding, and on this basis $138,000,000 in coin was necessary. This was a difficult task at best and was rendered doubly so by the attitude of Congress. In 1877 it was estimated that the total stock of gold in the United States, outside the treasury, was less than $100,000,000 and of this sum the national banks held only $22,658,820.§ But the country was losing more gold by export
Elliott, Northeastern Fisheries, p. 86 et seq. McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1878, p. 213. Elliott, p. 88.
Blaine, vol. ii., pp. 615-637; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 449-451.
Recollections, vol. ii., p. 631; Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 2, 1878.
§ Report of Comptroller Knox, 1877, p. 163; Noyes, American Finance, pp. 23-26.
than it was producing and the treasury was compelled from time to time. to sustain the money market by releasing some of the gold it was accumulating for resumption purposes.
Secretary Sherman, upon assuming office, displayed much firmness in his pursuit of the resumption goal. He gradually sold $95,500,000 of bonds and took enough from the surplus revenues so that on January 1, 1879, the treasury contained $133,508,804.50 of coin over and above all matured liabilities. Before he had succeeded in doing this, however, Congress had made several attempts to repeal the law of 1875. The times were propitious for the opposition to break down the policy of the administration. The Republicans had only a small majority in the Senate and this could not be trusted. Trade was stagnant and prices falling; business failures were numerous; and in 1878 "the record of insolvencies far exceeded even that of the panic year of 1873." The people moreover were discouraged by four years of hard times and the opponents of resumption had no trouble in being heard.
On November 23, 1877, the House began the attack by passing a bill by a vote of 133 to 120 which practically repealed the Resumption Act, but this was subsequently radically amended in the Senate and then laid on the
*See his report of December 2, 1878 and his Recollections, vol. ii., pp. 686-695. See also Bolles, Financial History, vol. iii., pp. 293–299; Horace White, Money and Banking, p. 196 et seq.; Upton, Money in Politics, pp. 146-154.
Noyes, American Finance, pp. 34-35.