Chapter C: Section 29 (20)

"The fidelity, patriotism, and courage with which President
Cleveland has fulfilled his great public trust, the high
character of his administration, its wisdom and energy in the
maintenance of civil order and the enforcement of the laws,
its equal regard for the rights of every class and every
section, its firm and dignified conduct of foreign affairs,
and its sturdy persistence in upholding the credit and honor
of the nation are fully recognized by the democratic party,
and will secure to him a place in history beside the fathers
of the republic. We also commend the administration for the
great progress made in the reform of the public service, and
we indorse its effort to extend the merit system still
further. We demand that no backward step be taken, but that
the reform be supported and advanced until the un-democratic
spoils system of appointments be eradicated."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1896.
Prohibition Platform and Nominations.

The Prohibition Party had been the first to open the
presidential campaign with candidates placed in the field. Its
national convention was held at Pittsburg, on the 27th and
28th of May, and its nominees for President and Vice President
were Joshua Levering, of Maryland, and Hale Johnson, of
Illinois. But a split in the convention occurred on attempts
made to graft free-silver and kindred doctrines on the
one-issue platform which the majority of the party desired.
Except in a single particular, the latter prevailed. The
platform adopted was as follows:

"The Prohibition Party, in national convention assembled,
declares its firm conviction that the manufacture,
exportation, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages has
produced such social, commercial, industrial, and political
wrongs, and is now so threatening the perpetuity of all our
social and political institutions, that the suppression of the
same by a national party organized therefor is the greatest
object to be accomplished by the voters of our country, and is
of such importance that it, of right, ought to control the
political actions of all our patriotic citizens until such
suppression is accomplished. The urgency of this course
demands the union without further delay of all citizens who
desire the prohibition of the liquor traffic. Therefore be it

"Resolved, That we favor the legal prohibition by state and
national legislation of the manufacture, importation, and sale
of alcoholic beverages. That we declare our purpose to
organize and unite all the friends of prohibition into one
party; and in order to accomplish this end we deem it of right
to leave every prohibitionist the freedom of his own
convictions upon all other political questions, and trust our
representatives to take such action upon other political
questions as the changes occasioned by prohibition and the
welfare of the whole people shall demand."

{572}

Resolved, "The right of suffrage ought not to be abridged on
account of sex."

Those delegates who were dissatisfied with this platform
withdrew from the convention, assembled in another hall,
assumed the name of "The National Party," adopted the
following declarations, and nominated Charles E. Bentley, of
Nebraska, and J. II. Southgate, of North Carolina, for the two
highest offices in the national government:

"The National Party, recognizing God as the author of all just
power in government, presents the following declaration of
principles, which it pledges itself to enact into effective
legislation when given the power to do so:

"The suppression of the manufacture and sale, importation,
exportation, and transportation of intoxicating liquors for
beverage purposes. We utterly reject all plans for regulating
or compromising with this traffic, whether such plans be
called local option, taxation, license, or public control. The
sale of liquors for medicinal and other legitimate uses should
be conducted by the State, without profit, and with such
regulations as will prevent fraud or evasion.

"No citizen should be denied the right to vote on account of
sex.

"All money should be issued by the General Government only,
and without the intervention of any private citizen,
corporation, or banking institution. It should be based upon
the wealth, stability, and integrity of the nation. It should
be a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and
should be of sufficient volume to meet the demands of the
legitimate business interests of the country. For the purpose
of honestly liquidating our outstanding coin obligations, we
favor the free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold,
at the ratio of sixteen to one, without consulting any other
nation.

"Land is the common heritage of the people and should be
preserved from monopoly and speculation. All unearned grants
of land, subject to forfeiture, should be reclaimed by the
Government and no portion of the public domain should
hereafter be granted except to actual settlers, continuous use
being essential to tenure.

"Railroads, telegraphs, and other natural monopolies should be
owned and operated by the Government, giving to the people the
benefit of service at actual cost.

"The National Constitution should be so amended as to allow
the national revenues to be raised by equitable adjustment of
taxation on the properties and incomes of the people, and
import duties should be levied as a means of securing
equitable commercial relations with other nations.

"The contract convict-labor system, through which speculators
are enriched at the expense of the State, should be abolished.

"All citizens should be protected by law in their right to one
day of rest in seven, without oppressing any who
conscientiously observe any other than the first day of the
week.

"American public schools, taught in the English language,
should be maintained, and no public funds should be
appropriated for sectarian institutions.

"The President, Vice-President, and United States Senators
should be elected by direct vote of the people.

"Ex-soldiers and sailors of the United States army and navy,
their widows, and minor children, should receive liberal
pensions, graded on disability and term of service, not merely
as a debt of gratitude, but for service rendered in the
preservation of the Union.

"Our immigration laws should be so revised as to exclude
paupers and criminals. None but citizens of the United States
should be allowed to vote in any State, and naturalized
citizens should not vote until one year after naturalization
papers have been issued.

"The initiative and referendum and proportional representation
should be adopted.

"Having herein presented our principles and purposes, we
invite the co-operation and support of all citizens who are
with us substantially agreed."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1896.
Socialist-Labor Party Nominations.

Still another party which placed candidates for the presidency
and vice-presidency in nomination was the Socialist-Labor
organization, which held a convention in New York, July 4-10,
and named for the two high offices, Charles H. Matchett, of
New York, and Mathew Maguire, of New Jersey. Its platform
embodied the essential doctrines of socialism, as commonly
understood, and was as follows:

"The Socialist Labor Party of the United States, in convention
assembled, reasserts the inalienable rights of all men to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"With the founders of the American Republic we hold that the
purpose of government is to secure every citizen in the
enjoyment of this right; but in the right of our conditions we
hold, furthermore, that no such right can be exercised under a
system of economic inequality, essentially destructive of
life, of liberty, and of happiness.

"With the founders of this Republic we hold that the true
theory of politics is that the machinery of government must be
owned and controlled by the whole people; but in the light of
our industrial development we hold, furthermore, that the true
theory of economics is that the machinery of production must
likewise belong to the people in common.

"To the obvious fact that our despotic system of economics is
the direct opposite of our democratic system of politics, can
plainly be traced the existence of a privileged class, the
corruption of Government by that class, the alienation of
public property, public franchises, and public functions to
that class, and the abject dependence of the mightiest of
nations upon that class.

"Again, through the perversion of democracy to the ends of
plutocracy, labor is robbed of its wealth which it alone
produces, is denied the means of self-employment, and by
compulsory idleness in wage slavery, is even deprived of the
necessaries of life.

"Human power and natural forces are thus wasted, that the
plutocracy may rule. Ignorance and misery, with all their
concomitant evils, are perpetuated, that the people may be
kept in bondage. Science and invention are diverted from their
humane purpose to the enslavement of women and children.

"Against such a system the Socialist Labor party once more
enters its protest. Once more it reiterates its fundamental
declaration that private property in the natural sources of
production and in the instruments of labor is the obvious
cause of all economic servitude and political dependence.

{573}

"The time is fast coming when, in the natural course of social
evolution, this system, through the destructive action of its
failures and crises on one hand, and the constructive
tendencies of its trusts and other capitalistic combinations
on the other hand, shall have worked out its own downfall.

"We therefore call upon the wage-workers of the United States,
and upon all honest citizens, to organize under the banner of
the Socialist Labor party into a class-conscious body, aware
of its rights and determined to conquer them by taking
possession of the public powers, so that, held together by an
indomitable spirit of solidarity under the most trying
conditions of the present class struggle, we may put a summary
end to that barbarous struggle by the abolition of classes,
the restoration of the land and of all the means of
production, transportation, and distribution to the people as
a collective body, and the substitution of the co-operative
commonwealth for the present state of planless production,
industrial war, and social disorder, a commonwealth in which
every worker shall have the free exercise and full benefit of
his faculties, multiplied by all modern factors of
civilization.

"With a view to immediate improvement in the condition of
labor we present the following demands:

"1. Reduction of the hours of labor in proportion to the
progress of production.

"2. The United States shall obtain possession of the
railroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, and all other means
of public transportation and communication; the employés to
operate the same co-operatively under control of the Federal
Government and to elect their own superior officers, but no
employé shall be discharged for political reasons.

"3. The municipalities shall obtain possession of the local
railroads, ferries, waterworks, gas-works, electric plants,
and all industries requiring municipal franchises; the
employés to operate the same co-operatively under control of
the municipal administration and to elect their own superior
officers, but no employé shall be discharged for political
reasons.

"4. The public lands declared inalienable. Revocation of all
land grants to corporations or individuals the conditions of
which have not been complied with.

"5. The United States to have the exclusive right to issue
money.

"6. Congressional legislation providing for the scientific
management of forests and waterways, and prohibiting the waste
of the natural resources of the country.

"7. Inventions to be free to all: the inventors to be
remunerated by the nation.

"8. Progressive income tax and tax on inheritances; the
smaller incomes to be exempt.

"9. School education of all children under fourteen years of
age to be compulsory, gratuitous, and accessible to all by
public assistance in meals, clothing, books, etc., where
necessary.

"10. Repeal of all pauper, tramp, conspiracy, and sumptuary
laws. Unabridged right of combination.

"11. Prohibition of the employment of children of school age
and of female labor in occupations detrimental to health or
morality. Abolition of the convict-labor contract system.

"12. Employment of the unemployed by the public authorities
(county, State, or nation).

"13. All wages to be paid in lawful money of the United
States. Equalization of women's wages to those of men where
equal service is performed.

"14. Laws for the protection of life and limb in all
occupations, and an efficient employers' liability law.

"15. The people to have the right to propose laws and to vote
upon all measures of importance according to the referendum
principle.

"16. Abolition of the veto power of the Executive (National,
State, or municipal), wherever it exists.

"17. Abolition of the United States Senate and all upper
legislative chambers.

"18. Municipal self-government.

"19. Direct vote and secret ballots in all elections.
Universal and equal right of suffrage without regard to color,
creed, or sex. Election days to be legal holidays. The
principle of proportional representation to be introduced.

"20. All public officers to be subject to recall by their
respective constituencies.

"21. Uniform civil and criminal law throughout the United
States. Administration of justice free of charge. Abolition of
capital punishment."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1896.
The Canvass and Election.

The canvass which occupied the months between party
nominations and the election was the most remarkable, in many
respects, that the country had ever gone through. On both
sides of the silver question intense convictions were burning
and intense anxieties being felt. To the defenders of the gold
standard of value—the monetary standard of the world at
large—an unlimited free coinage of silver legal tender money,
at the ratio of 16 to 1, meant both dishonor and ruin—national
bankruptcy, the wreck of industry, and chaos in the commercial
world. To many of those who strove with desperate eagerness to
bring it about it meant, on the contrary, a millennial social
state, in which abundance would prevail, the goods of the
world be divided more fairly, and labor have a juster reward.
So the issue fronted each as one personal, vital, almost as of
life and death. Their conflict bore no likeness to those
commonly in politics, where consequences seem remote, vague,
general to the body politic,—not, instantly overhanging the
head of the individual citizen, as in this case they did. Not
even the patriotic and moral excitements of the canvass of
1860 produced so intense a feeling of personal interest in the
election—so painful an anxiety in waiting for its result. And
never in any former political contest had the questions
involved been debated so earnestly, studied so widely and
intently, set forth by every artifice of exposition and
illustration with so much ingenious pains. The "campaign
literature" distributed by each party was beyond computation
in quantity and beyond classification in its kinds. The
speeches of the canvass were innumerable. Mr. Bryan
contributed some hundreds, in tours which he made through the
country, and Mr. McKinley, at his home, in Canton, Ohio,
received visiting delegations from all parts of the country
and addressed them at more or less length.

{574}

With all the excitement of anxiety and the heated conflict of
beliefs there was little violence of any kind, from first to
last. The critical election day (November 3) passed with no
serious incidents of disorder. The verdict of the people,
pronounced for the preservation of the monetary standard which
the world at large has established in general use, was
accepted with the equanimity to which self-governing citizens
are trained. Nearly fourteen millions of votes were cast, of
which the Republican presidential electors received 7,104,244;
electors representing the various parties which had nominated
Mr. Bryan received, in all, 6,506,835; those on the National
Democratic ticket received 134,652; those on the Prohibition
tickets, 144,606; those on the Socialist-Labor ticket, 36,416.
In the Electoral College, there were 271 votes for McKinley,
and 176 for Bryan. The States giving their electoral votes for
McKinley were California (excepting 1 vote, cast for Bryan),
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky
(except 1), Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West
Virginia, Wisconsin. The States which chose electors for Bryan
were Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, besides
the single votes won in California and Kentucky. For Vice
President, Hobart received 271 electoral votes—the same as
McKinley; but Sewall received 27 less than Bryan, that number
being cast for the Populist candidate, Watson. This was
consequent on fusion arrangements between Democrats and
Populists in 28 States.

In some States, the majority given against silver free coinage
was overwhelming, as for example, in New York, 268,000
plurality for McKinley, besides 19,000 votes cast for the
"Gold Democratic" candidate; New Jersey, 87,000 Republican
plurality and 6,000 votes for General Palmer; Pennsylvania,
295,000 and 11,000; Massachusetts, 173,000 and 11,000. On the
other hand, Texas gave Bryan a plurality of 202,000, and
Colorado 135,000.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (November).
Agreement with Great Britain for the settlement of the
Venezuela dispute.

See (in this volume)
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (December).
President Cleveland on affairs in Cuba.

See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896-1897.
Immigration Bill vetoed by President Cleveland.

On the 17th of December, 1896, a bill to amend the immigration
laws, which had passed the House of Representatives during the
previous session of Congress, passed the Senate, with
amendments which the House refused to accept. By conferences
between the two branches of Congress an agreement was finally
reached, in which the House concurred on the 9th of February
and the Senate on the 17th. But the President disapproved the
measure, and returned it to Congress on the 2d of March, with
his objections set forth in the following Message:

"I herewith return without approval House bill No. 7864,
entitled 'An act to amend the immigration laws of the United
States.'

"By the first section of this bill it is proposed to amend
section 1 of the act of March 3, 1891, relating to immigration
by adding to the classes of aliens thereby excluded from
admission to the United States the following: 'All persons
physically capable and over 16 years of age who can not read
and write the English language or some other language; but a
person not so able to read and write who is over 50 years of
age and is the parent or grandparent of a qualified immigrant
over 21 years of age and capable of supporting such parent or
grandparent may accompany such immigrant, or such a parent or
grandparent may be sent for and come to join the family of a
child or grandchild over 21 years of age similarly qualified
and capable, and a wife or minor child not so able to read and
write may accompany or be sent for and come and join the
husband or parent similarly qualified and capable.'

"A radical departure from our national policy relating to
immigration is here presented. Heretofore we have welcomed all
who came to us from other lands except those whose moral or
physical condition or history threatened danger to our
national welfare and safety. Relying upon the zealous
watchfulness of our people to prevent injury to our political
and social fabric, we have encouraged those coming from
foreign countries to cast their lot with us and join in the
development of our vast domain, securing in return a share in
the blessings of American citizenship. A century's stupendous
growth, largely due to the assimilation and thrift of millions
of sturdy and patriotic adopted citizens, attests the success
of this generous and free-handed policy which, while guarding
the people's interests, exacts from our immigrants only
physical and moral soundness and a willingness and ability to
work. A contemplation of the grand results of this policy can
not fail to arouse a sentiment in its defense, for however it
might have been regarded as an original proposition and viewed
as an experiment its accomplishments are such that if it is to be
uprooted at this late day its disadvantages should be plainly
apparent and the substitute adopted should be just and
adequate, free from uncertainties, and guarded against
difficult or oppressive administration.

"It is not claimed, I believe, that the time has come for the
further restriction of immigration on the ground that an
excess of population overcrowds our land. It is said, however,
that the quality of recent immigration is undesirable. The
time is quite within recent memory when the same thing was
said of immigrants who, with their descendants, are now
numbered among our best citizens. It is said that too many
immigrants settle in our cities, thus dangerously increasing
their idle and vicious population. This is certainly a
disadvantage. It can not be shown, however, that it affects
all our cities, nor that it is permanent; nor does it appear
that this condition where it exists demands as its remedy the
reversal of our present immigration policy. The claim is also
made that the influx of foreign laborers deprives of the
opportunity to work those who are better entitled than they to
the privilege of earning their livelihood by daily toil. An
unfortunate condition is certainly presented when any who are
willing to labor are unemployed, but so far as this condition
now exists among our people it must be conceded to be a result
of phenomenal business depression and the stagnation of all
enterprises in which labor is a factor.
{575}
With the advent of settled and wholesome financial and
economic governmental policies and consequent encouragement to
the activity of capital the misfortunes of unemployed labor
should, to a great extent at least, be remedied. If it
continues, its natural consequences must be to check the
further immigration to our cities of foreign laborers and to
deplete the ranks of those already there. In the meantime
those most willing and best entitled ought to be able to
secure the advantages of such work as there is to do.

"It is proposed by the bill under consideration to meet the
alleged difficulties of the situation by establishing an
educational test by which the right of a foreigner to make his
home with us shall be determined. Its general scheme is to
prohibit from admission to our country all immigrants
'physically capable and over 16 years of age who can not read
and write the English language or some other language,' and it
is provided that this test shall be applied by requiring
immigrants seeking admission to read and afterwards to write
not less than twenty nor more than twenty-five words of the
Constitution of the United States in some language, and that
any immigrant failing in this shall not be admitted, but shall
be returned to the country from whence he came at the expense
of the steamship or railroad company which brought him.

"The best reason that could be given for this radical
restriction of immigration is the necessity of protecting our
population against degeneration and saving our national peace
and quiet from imported turbulence and disorder. I can not
believe that we would be protected against these evils by
limiting immigration to those who can read and write in any
language twenty-five words of our Constitution. In my opinion,
it is infinitely more safe to admit a hundred thousand
immigrants who, though unable to read and write, seek among us
only a home and opportunity to work than to admit one of those
unruly agitators and enemies of governmental control who can
not only read and write, but delights in arousing by
inflammatory speech the illiterate and peacefully inclined to
discontent and tumult. Violence and disorder do not originate
with illiterate laborers. They are, rather, the victims of the
educated agitator. The ability to read and write, as required
in this bill, in and of itself affords, in my opinion, a
misleading test of contented industry and supplies
unsatisfactory evidence of desirable citizenship or a proper
apprehension of the benefits of our institutions. If any
particular element of our illiterate immigration is to be
feared for other causes than illiteracy, these causes should
be dealt with directly, instead of making illiteracy the
pretext for exclusion, to the detriment of other illiterate
immigrants against whom the real cause of complaint cannot be
alleged.

"The provisions intended to rid that part of the proposed
legislation already referred to from obvious hardship appear
to me to be indefinite and inadequate. A parent, grandparent,
wife, or minor child of a qualified immigrant, though unable
to read and write, may accompany the immigrant or be sent for
to join his family, provided the immigrant is capable of
supporting such relative. These exceptions to the general rule
of exclusion contained in the bill were made to prevent the
separation of families, and yet neither brothers nor sisters
are provided for. In order that relatives who are provided for
may be reunited, those still in foreign lands must be sent for
to join the immigrant here. What formality is necessary to
constitute this prerequisite, and how are the facts of
relationship and that the relative is sent for to be
established? Are the illiterate relatives of immigrants who
have come here under prior laws entitled to the advantage of
these exceptions? A husband who can read and write and who
determines to abandon his illiterate wife abroad will find
here under this law an absolutely safe retreat. The illiterate
relatives mentioned must not only be sent for, but such immigrant
must be capable of supporting them when they arrive. This
requirement proceeds upon the assumption that the foreign
relatives coming here are in every case, by reason of poverty,
liable to become a public charge unless the immigrant is
capable of their support. The contrary is very often true. And
yet if unable to read and write, though quite able and willing
to support themselves and their relatives here besides, they
could not be admitted under the provisions of this bill if the
immigrant was impoverished, though the aid of his fortunate
but illiterate relative might be the means of saving him from
pauperism.

"The fourth section of this bill provides—'That it shall be
unlawful for any male alien who has not in good faith made his
declaration before the proper court of his intention to become
a citizen of the United States to be employed on any public works
of the United States or to come regularly or habitually into
the United States by land or water for the purpose of engaging
in any mechanical trade or manual labor for wages or salary,
returning from time to time to a foreign country.' The fifth
section provides—'That it shall be unlawful for any person,
partnership, company, or corporation knowingly to employ any
alien coming into the United States in violation of the next
preceding section of this act.'

"The prohibition against the employment of aliens upon any
public works of the United States is in line with other
legislation of a like character. It is quite a different
thing, however, to declare it a crime for an alien to come
regularly and habitually into the United States for the
purpose of obtaining work from private parties, if such alien
returns from time to time to a foreign country, and to
constitute any employment of such alien a criminal offense.
When we consider these provisions of the bill in connection
with our long northern frontier and the boundaries of our
States and Territories, often but an imaginary line separating
them from the British dominions, and recall the friendly
intercourse between the people who are neighbors on either
side, the provisions of this bill affecting them must be
regarded as illiberal, narrow, and un-American. The residents
of these States and Territories have separate and especial
interests which in many cases make an interchange of labor
between their people and their alien neighbors most important,
frequently with the advantage largely in favor of our
citizens. This suggests the inexpediency of Federal
interference with these conditions when not necessary to the
correction of a substantial evil, affecting the general
welfare. Such unfriendly legislation as is proposed could
hardly fail to provoke retaliatory measures, to the injury of
many of our citizens who now find employment on adjoining
foreign soil.
{576}
The uncertainty of construction to which the language of these
provisions is subject is a serious objection to a statute
which describes a crime. An important element in the offense
sought to be created by these sections is the coming
'regularly or habitually into the United States.' These words
are impossible of definite and certain construction. The same
may be said of the equally important words 'returning from
time to time to a foreign country.'

"A careful examination of this bill has convinced me that for
the reasons given and others not specifically stated its
provisions are unnecessarily harsh and oppressive, and its
defects in construction would cause vexation and its operation
would result in harm to our citizens.
GROVER CLEVELAND."

In the House of Representatives, the Bill was passed again,
over the veto, by the requisite vote of two-thirds; in the
Senate it was referred to the Committee on Immigration, and no
further action was taken upon it. Therefore, it did not become
a law.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896-1898.
Agitation for monetary reforms.
The Indianapolis Commission.
Secretary Gage's plan.
The Senatorial block in the way.

On November 18, 1896, the Governors of the Indianapolis Board
of Trade invited the Boards of Trade of Chicago, St. Louis,
Cincinnati, Louisville, Cleveland. Columbus, Toledo, Kansas
City, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Des Moines, Minneapolis,
Grand Rapids, Peoria, and Omaha to a conference on the first
of December following, to consider the advisability of calling
a larger convention from commercial organizations throughout
the country for the purpose of discussing the wisdom of
selecting a non-partisan commission to formulate a sound
currency system. This preliminary conference issued a call for
a non-partisan monetary convention of business men, chosen
from boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and commercial
clubs, to meet in Indianapolis, on January 12, 1897. At the
convention there were assembled, with credentials, 299
delegates, representing business organizations and cities in
nearly every State in the Union. The result of its
deliberations was expressed in resolutions which opened as
follows:

"This convention declares that it has become absolutely
necessary that a consistent, straightforward, and deliberately
planned monetary system shall be inaugurated, the fundamental
basis of which should be: First, that the present gold
standard should be maintained. Second, that steps should be
taken to insure the ultimate retirement of all classes of
United States notes by a gradual and steady process, and so as
to avoid the injurious contraction of the currency, or
disturbance of the business interests of the country, and that
until such retirements provision should be made for a
separation of the revenue and note-issue departments of the
Treasury. Third, that a banking system be provided, which
should furnish credit facilities to every portion of the
country and a safe and elastic circulation, and especially
with a view of securing such a distribution of the loanable
capital of the country as will tend to equalize the rates of
interest in all parts thereof."

Recognizing the necessity of committing the formulation of
such a plan to a body of men trained and experienced in these
matters, a commission was proposed. In case no commission
should be authorized by Congress in the spring of 1897, the
Executive Committee of the Convention was authorized to select
a commission of eleven members, "to make thorough
investigation of the monetary affairs and needs of this
country, in all relations and aspects, and to make appropriate
suggestions as to any evils found to exist, and the remedies
therefor."

Congress did not authorize the appointment of a monetary
commission; and the Executive Committee of the Convention
selected a commission of eleven members, which began its
sittings in Washington, September 22, 1897. … The Commission
was composed as follows: George F. Edmunds, Vermont, chairman;
George E. Leighton, Missouri, vice-chairman; T. G. Bush,
Alabama; W. B. Dean, Minnesota; Charles S. Fairchild, New
York; Stuyvesant Fish, New York; J. W. Fries, North Carolina;
Louis A. Garnett, California; J. Laurence Laughlin, Illinois;
C. Stuart Patterson, Pennsylvania; Robert S. Taylor, Indiana;
and L. Carron Root and H. Parker Willis, secretaries. Early in
January, 1898, the report of the Monetary Commission was
made public, and a second convention of delegates from the
boards of trade and other commercial organizations of leading
cities in the country was called together at Indianapolis,
January 20-26, to consider its recommendations. The measures
proposed by the Commission were approved by the convention,
and were submitted to Congress by a committee appointed to
urge their enactment in law. The Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr. Gage, had already, in his first annual report and in the
draft of a bill which he laid before the House committee on
banking and currency, made recommendations which accorded in
principle with those of the Commission, differing somewhat in
details. Both plans, with some proposals from other sources,
were now taken in hand by the House committee on banking and
currency, and a bill was prepared, which the committee
reported to the House on the 15th of June. But the other
branch of Congress, the Senate, had already declared itself in
a way which forbade any hope of success. By a vote of 47 to
32, that body had resolved, on the 28th of January, that "all
the bonds of the United States issued, or authorized to be
issued, under the said acts of Congress herein before recited,
are payable, principal and interest, at the option of the
government of the United States, in silver dollars, of the
coinage of the United States, containing 412½ grains each of
standard silver: and that to restore to its coinage such
silver coins as a legal tender in payment of said bonds,
principal and interest, is not in violation of the public
faith, nor in derogation of the rights of the public
creditor." The House, by 182 to 132, had rejected this
resolution; but the Senate action had demonstrated the evident
uselessness of attempting legislation in the interest of a
monetary reform. Accordingly the House bill, after being
reported and made public, for discussion outside, was
withdrawn by the committee, and the subject rested in
Congress, while agitation in the country went on.

{577}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897.
The Industrial Revolution.

"In 1865 the problem presented was this: The United States
could certainly excel any European nation in economic
competition, and possibly the whole Continent combined, if it
could utilize its resources. So much was admitted; the doubt
touched the capacity of the people to organize a system of
transportation and industry adequate to attain that end.
Failure meant certain bankruptcy. Unappalled by the magnitude
of the speculation, the American people took the risk. What
that risk was may be imagined when the fact is grasped that in
1865, with 35,000 miles of road already built, this people
entered on the construction of 160,000 miles more, at an
outlay, probably, in excess of $10,000,000,000. Such figures
convey no impression to the mind, any more than a statement of
the distance of a star. It may aid the imagination, perhaps,
to say that Mr. Giffen estimated the cost to France of the war
of 1870, including the indemnity and Alsace and Lorraine, at
less than $3,500,000,000, or about one-third of this
portentous mortgage on the future.

"As late as 1870 America remained relatively poor, for
America, so far as her export trade went, relied on
agriculture alone. To build her roads she had to borrow, and
she expected to pay dear; but she did not calculate on having
to pay twice the capital she borrowed, estimating that capital
in the only merchandise she had to sell. Yet this is very nearly
what occurred. Agricultural prices fell so rapidly that
between 1890 and 1897, when the sharpest pressure prevailed,
it took something like twice the weight of wheat or cotton to
repay a dollar borrowed in 1873, that would have sufficed to
satisfy the creditor when the debt was contracted. Merchandise
enough could not be shipped to meet the emergency, and
balances had to be paid in coin. The agony this people endured
may be measured by the sacrifice they made. At the moment of
severest contraction, in the single year 1893. the United
States parted with upwards of $87,000,000 of gold, when to
lose gold was like draining a living body of its blood. …

"What America owed abroad can never be computed; it is enough
that it reached an enormous sum, to refund which, even under
favorable circumstances, would have taken years of effort;
actually forced payment brought the nation to the brink of a
convulsion. Perhaps no people ever faced such an emergency and
paid, without recourse to war. America triumphed through her
inventive and administrative genius. Brought to a white heat
under compression, the industrial system of the Union suddenly
fused into a homogeneous mass. One day, without warning, the
gigantic mechanism operated, and two hemispheres vibrated with
the shock. In March, 1897, the vast consolidation of mines,
foundries, railroads, and steamship companies, centralized at
Pittsburg, began producing steel rails at $18 the ton, and at
a bound America bestrode the world. She had won her great
wager with fate. … The end seems only a question of time.
Europe is doomed not only to buy her raw material abroad, but
to pay the cost of transport. And Europe knew this
instinctively in March, 1897, and nerved herself for
resistance. Her best hope, next to a victorious war, lay in
imitating America, and in organizing a system of
transportation which would open up the East.

"Carnegie achieved the new industrial revolution in March,
1897. Within a twelvemonth the rival nations had emptied
themselves upon the shore of the Yellow Sea. In November
Germany seized Kiao-chau, a month later the Russians occupied
Port Arthur, and the following April the English appropriated
Wei-hai-wei; but the fact to remember is that just 400 miles
inland, due west of Kiao-chau, lies Tszechau, the centre,
according to Richthofen, of the richest coal and iron deposits
in existence. There with the rude methods used by the Chinese,
coal actually sells at 13 cents the ton. Thus it has come to
pass that the problem now being attacked by all the statesmen,
soldiers, scientific men, and engineers of the two eastern
continents is whether Russia, Germany, France, England, and
Japan, combined or separately, can ever bring these resources
on the market in competition with the United States."

_B. Adams,
The New Industrial Revolution
(Atlantic Monthly, February, 1901)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (January-May).
Arbitration Treaty with Great Britain rejected by the Senate.

See, (in this volume),
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.

The correspondence which took place between the governments of
the United States and Great Britain, on the subject of an
arbitration of the Venezuela Boundary dispute, having led to
the revival of a project for the negotiation of a general
treaty of arbitration, which the late American Secretary of
State, Mr. Gresham, had broached to the British government in
the spring of 1895, the terms of such an arrangement were
carefully and fully discussed between Secretary Olney and Lord
Salisbury, during the year 1896, and an agreement was reached
which took form in a solemn compact for the settlement by
arbitration of all matters in difference between the two
countries, signed at Washington on the 11th of January, 1897.
The treaty thus framed was as follows:

"ARTICLE I.
The High Contracting Parties agree to submit to Arbitration in
accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations
of this Treaty all questions in difference between them which
they may fail to adjust by diplomatic negotiation.

"ARTICLE II.
All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims which do
not in the aggregate exceed £100,000 in amount, and which do
not involve the determination of territorial claims, shall be
dealt with and decided by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted as
provided in the next following Article. In this Article and in
Article IV the words 'groups of pecuniary claims' mean
pecuniary claims by one or more persons arising out of the
same transactions or involving the same issues of law and
fact.'

"ARTICLE III.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall nominate one
arbitrator who shall be a jurist of repute and the two
arbitrators so nominated shall within two months of the date
of their nomination select an umpire. In case they shall fail
to do so within the limit of time above mentioned, the umpire
shall be appointed by agreement between the Members for the
time being of the Supreme Court of the United States and the
Members for the time being of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in Great Britain, each nominating body acting by
a majority. In case they shall fail to agree upon an umpire
within three months of the date of an application made to them
in that behalf by the High Contracting Parties or either of
them, the umpire shall be selected in the manner provided for
in Article X. The person so selected shall be the President of
the Tribunal and the award of the majority of the Members
thereof shall be final.

{578}

"ARTICLE IV.
All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims which shall
exceed £100,000 in amount and all other matters in difference,
in respect of which either of the High Contracting Parties
shall have rights against the other under Treaty or otherwise,
provided that such matters in difference do not involve the
determination of territorial claims, shall be dealt with and
decided by an Arbitral Tribunal, constituted as provided in
the next following Article.

"ARTICLE V.
Any subject of Arbitration described in Article IV shall be
submitted to the Tribunal provided for by Article III, the
award of which Tribunal, if unanimous, shall be final. If not
unanimous either of the High Contracting Parties may within
six months from the date of the award demand a review thereof.
In such case the matter in controversy shall be submitted to
an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of five jurists of repute, no
one of whom shall have been a member of the Tribunal whose
award is to be reviewed and who shall be selected as follows,
viz:—two by each of the High Contracting Parties, and one, to
act as umpire, by the four thus nominated and to be chosen
within three months after the date of their nomination. In
case they shall fail to choose an umpire within the limit of
time above-mentioned, the umpire shall be appointed by
agreement between the Nominating Bodies designated in Article
III acting in the manner therein provided. In case they shall
fail to agree upon an umpire within three months of the date
of an application made to them in that behalf by the High
Contracting Parties or either of them, the umpire shall be
selected in the manner provided for in Article X. The person
so selected shall be the President of the Tribunal and the
award of the majority of the Members thereof shall be final.

"ARTICLE VI.
Any controversy which shall involve the determination of
territorial claims shall be submitted to a Tribunal composed
of six members, three of whom (subject to the provisions of
Article VIII) shall be Judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States or Justices of the Circuit Courts to be
nominated by the President of the United States, and the other
three of whom (subject to the provisions of Article VIII)
shall be Judges of the British Supreme Court of Judicature or
Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be
nominated by Her Britannic Majesty, whose award by a majority
of not less than five to one shall be final. In case of an
award made by less than the prescribed majority, the award
shall also be final unless either Power shall, within three
months after the award has been reported, protest that the
same is erroneous, in which case the award shall be of no
validity. In the event of an award made by less than the
prescribed majority and protested as above provided, or if the
members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be equally divided,
there shall be no recourse to hostile measures of any
description until the mediation of one or more friendly Powers
has been invited by one or both of the High Contracting
Parties.

"ARTICLE VII.
Objections to the jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal
constituted under this Treaty shall not be taken except as
provided in this Article. If before the close of the hearing
upon a claim submitted to an Arbitral Tribunal constituted
under Article III or Article V either of the High Contracting
Parties shall move such Tribunal to decide, and thereupon it
shall decide that the determination of such claim necessarily
involves the decision of a disputed question of principle of
grave general importance affecting the national rights of such
party as distinguished from the private rights whereof it is
merely the international representative, the jurisdiction of
such Arbitral Tribunal over such claim shall cease and the
same shall be dealt with by arbitration under Article VI.

"ARTICLE VIII.
In cases where the question involved is one which concerns a
particular State or Territory of the United States, it shall
be open to the President of the United States to appoint a
judicial officer of such State or Territory to be one of the
Arbitrators under Article III or Article V or Article VI. In
like manner in cases where the question involved is one which
concerns a British Colony or possession, it shall be open to
Her Britannic Majesty to appoint a judicial officer of such
Colony or possession to be one of the Arbitrators under
Article III or Article V or Article VI.

"ARTICLE IX.
Territorial claims in this Treaty shall include all claims to
territory and all claims involving questions of servitudes,
rights of navigation and of access, fisheries and all rights
and interests necessary to the control and enjoyment of the
territory claimed by either of the High Contracting Parties.

"ARTICLE X.
If in any case the nominating bodies designated in Articles
III and V shall fail to agree upon an Umpire in accordance
with the provisions of the said Articles, the Umpire shall be
appointed by His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway. Either
of the High Contracting Parties, however, may at any time give
notice to the other that, by reason of material changes in
conditions as existing at the date of this Treaty, it is of
opinion that a substitute for His Majesty should be chosen
either for all cases to arise under the Treaty or for a
particular specified case already arisen, and thereupon the
High Contracting Parties shall at once proceed to agree upon
such substitute to act either in all cases to arise under the
Treaty or in the particular case specified as may be indicated
by said notice; provided, however, that such notice shall have
no effect upon an Arbitration already begun by the constitution
of an Arbitral Tribunal under Article III. The High
Contracting Parties shall also at once proceed to nominate a
substitute for His Majesty in the event that His Majesty shall
at any time notify them of his desire to be relieved from the
functions graciously accepted by him under this Treaty either
for all cases to arise thereunder or for any particular
specified case already arisen.

"ARTICLE XI.
In case of the death, absence or incapacity to serve of any
Arbitrator or Umpire, or in the event of any Arbitrator or
Umpire omitting or declining or ceasing to act as such,
another Arbitrator or Umpire shall be forthwith appointed in
his place and stead in the manner provided for with regard to
the original appointment.

{579}

"ARTICLE XII.
Each Government shall pay its own agent and provide for the
proper remuneration of the counsel employed by it and of the
Arbitrators appointed by it and for the expense of preparing
and submitting its case to the Arbitral Tribunal. All other
expenses connected with any Arbitration shall be defrayed by
the two Governments in equal moieties. Provided, however,
that, if in any case the essential matter of difference
submitted to arbitration is the right of one of the High
Contracting Parties to receive disavowals of or apologies for
acts or defaults of the other not resulting in substantial
pecuniary injury, the Arbitral Tribunal finally disposing of
the said matter shall direct whether any of the expenses of
the successful party shall be borne by the unsuccessful party,
and if so to what extent.

"ARTICLE XIII.
The time and place of meeting of an Arbitral Tribunal and all
arrangements for the hearing and all questions of procedure
shall be decided by the Tribunal itself. Each Arbitral
Tribunal shall keep a correct record of its proceedings and
may appoint and employ all necessary officers and agents. The
decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within
three months from the close of the arguments on both sides. It
shall be made in writing and dated and shall be signed by the
Arbitrators who may assent to it. The decision shall be in
duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered to each of the
High Contracting Parties through their respective agents.

"ARTICLE XIV.
This Treaty shall remain in force for five years from the date
at which it shall come into operation, and further until the
expiration of twelve months after either of the High
Contracting Parties shall have given notice to the other of
its wish to terminate the same.

"ARTICLE XV.
The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by the President of
the United States of America, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate thereof, and by Her Britannic Majesty;
and the mutual exchange of ratifications shall take place in
Washington or in London within six months of the date hereof
or earlier if possible."

_United States, 54th Congress, 2d Session,
Senate Document Number 63._

Public feeling in both countries gave joyful welcome to this
nobly conceived treaty when it was announced. All that was
best in English sentiment and American sentiment had been
shuddering at the thought of possible war between the kindred
peoples, and thanked God for what promised some certitude that
no dispute would be pushed to that barbarous appeal. Only the
mean thought and temper of either country was provoked to
opposition; but, unhappily, the meaner temper and the narrower
and more ignorant opinion on one side of the sea had been
getting so strong a representation in the United States Senate
as to prove capable of much mischief there, on this and other
matters of most serious public concern. When the great
covenant of peace went to that body for approval, there were
senators who found it offensive to them because it came from
the hands of President Cleveland and Secretary Olney; and
there were other senators whose dignity was hurt by the eager
impatience with which the public voice cried out for their
ratifying vote; and still others there were who looked with
official jealousy at the project of an arbitral tribunal which
might sometimes take something from senatorial functions in
foreign affairs. And the combination of pitiful motives had
strength enough to baffle the high hopes and defeat the will
of the American people.

Of the public feeling thus outraged, the following is one
expression of the time, among many which it would be possible
to quote:

Many people "are represented by influential papers like the
St. Paul 'Pioneer Press' and the Minneapolis 'Journal,' the
latter declaring that it is humiliating to think that, widely
as the treaty is favored throughout the country, a few
ill-natured men in the Senate have the power to delay
ratification. In the Central West the feeling is generally
strong for arbitration, if we may judge from the Chicago
'Times-Herald,' the St. Louis 'Republic,' the Indianapolis
'Journal,' and the Cleveland 'Leader.' In the South there are
such cheering reports as this from the Memphis 'Scimetar'; 'If
the treaty now under consideration in the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations should fail of ratification, public opinion
in this country would demand that the incoming Administration
provide another embodying the same vital principle.' In the
East the sentiment in favor of immediate ratification of the
original draft has been almost universal, the only two
journals of note differing from this being the New York 'Sun'
and the Washington 'Post.' The trend of opinion is shown in
the adoption by the Massachusetts House of Representatives of
an endorsement by a vote of 141 to 11. An important meeting
took place last week in Washington in favor of ratification.
The speakers were ex-Secretary of State Foster, Mr. G. G.
Hubbard, Professor B. L. Whitman, ex-Senator J. B. Henderson,
ex-Governor Stanard, and Justice Brewer, of the Supreme Court.
The last named said; 'I do not believe in saying to the
gentlemen charged with the duty of considering carefully that
treaty, that "you must vote for it." There is something in my
own nature which, when anybody says to me "you must," causes
something to run up my spinal column which says "I won't." It
is the Senate's duty to consider that treaty carefully, and
when I say that, I say it is no trespass upon their rights for
American citizens to express their views of that treaty. What are
the errors and losses incidental to arbitration compared to
the horrors of war? What are a few million dollars of wrongful
damages in comparison to the sacrifice of thousands of human
lives?'"

_The Outlook, February 6, 1897._