THE "COUNTER-REFORMATION"
The mission of Populism did not end when free silver had been driven
like a wedge into all the parties. Its more fundamental reforms
outlasted both the hard times and the recovery from them. Although
obscured by the shadow of the larger controversy, the reforms had been
stated with conviction. The Populist party was not permitted to bring
the reformation that it promised, but it stimulated within the parties
in power a "counter-reformation," that was already under way. This
counter-reformation was largely within the Republican ranks because that
party dominated in every branch of the National Government for fourteen
years after 1897, but it was essentially non-partisan. It derived its
advocates from the generation that had been educated since the Civil
War, and many of its leaders bore the imprint of democratic higher
education. It derived its materials from historical, economic, and
sociological study of the forces of American society.
Practical politics in America was at its lowest level in the thirty
years after the Civil War. The United States was politically fatigued
after the years of contest and turned eagerly to the business
speculations that opened in every direction. Offices were left to those
who chose to run them, while public scrutiny of public acts was
materially reduced. The men in charge, unwatched in their business, used
it often for personal advantage, and were aided in this by the character
of both the electoral machinery and the electorate. A multitude of
offices had to be kept filled in every State and city by voters who
could know little of the candidates and who accepted the recommendation
implied in the party name. Control of the nominations meant control of
the elections, and was within reach of those who were persistent in
attending caucuses and conventions and were not too scrupulous in
manipulating them. The laws against bribery at the polls did not touch
corruption at the primaries. The cities, rapidly growing through
manufactures and immigration, were full of voters who could be trained
to support the "bosses" who befriended them.
The American "boss" made his appearance in the cities about 1870. His
power was based upon his personal influence with voters of the lower and
more numerous class. Gaining control of party machinery he dictated
nominations and policies, and used the government, as the exposures of
the Tweed Ring showed, to enrich his friends and to perpetuate his
power. Caring little for party principle, he made a close alliance with
the new business that continually needed new laws,--building laws,
transportation laws, terminal rights, or franchises. From these allies
came the funds for managing elections, and, too often, for direct
bribery, although this last was necessary only rarely.
Exposures of the evil of boss government were frequent after 1870, and
in most cities occasional revolts of outraged citizens overturned the
machines, but in the long run the citizen was no match for the
professional politician. In the unequal contest city government became
steadily worse in America at a time when European city government was
rapidly improving. States, too, were afflicted with machine politics,
and before 1890 it appeared that the dominant national party derived its
most valuable support from organized business that profited by the
partnership.
A minority of Americans fought continually for better and cleaner
government as the evils of boss rule became more visible. One of them,
Bishop Potter, of New York, gained wide hearing through a sermon
preached at the centennial of the Constitution, in 1887, in which he
turned from the usual patriotic congratulation to discuss actual
government. The keenest interest in the subject was aroused by the
_American Commonwealth_ of James Bryce.
Not since Alexis de Tocqueville published his _Democracy in America_, in
1835, had any foreign observer made an equally intimate study of
American life, until James Bryce, a young English historian, began a
series of visits to the United States in the early seventies. For nearly
twenty years Bryce repeated his visits, living at home a full life in
his Oxford professorate, in the House of Commons, and in the Ministry.
In America he knew every one worth knowing, and he saw the remoter
regions of the West as well as the older society of the East. In 1888
he brought out the result of his studies in two volumes that were filled
with admiration for the United States and with disheartening observation
upon its practices. One of its chapters cut so close that its victim
brought suit for libel, but American opinion accepted the book as a
friendly picture and regarded attacks upon it as further evidence of its
inherent truth. Probably no book in a generation so profoundly
influenced American thought and so specifically directed the course of
American reform. It became a textbook at once, teaching the truth that
corruption and misgovernment were non-partisan, and until the Populists
took them up the movements for reform were non-partisan as well.
The power of the boss lay largely in the structure of American
governmental machinery, and though some preached the need for a reform
in spirit, others saw that only mechanical improvements could accomplish
results. A corruptible electorate, such as had long confused British and
American politics, was one defect most easily improved. The prevailing
system for conducting elections made it easy for the purchaser of votes
to see that he got value for his money. The State provided the
polling-place, but the candidate or the party provided the printed
ballot. Party agents distributed these at the polls, and the voters who
received them could be watched until the votes were cast. Intimidation
of employees or direct bribery were easy and common, while secret deals
were not unknown. The loyal party voter deposited the ballots provided
for him; the boss could have these arranged to suit his needs. It was
commonly supposed that in 1888, through an agreement between the
Democratic and Republican bosses of New York, Hill and Platt, many
Republicans were made to vote for Hill as Governor, while Democrats
voted for Harrison as President.
A secret ballot was so reasonable a reform that once it had been
suggested it spread rapidly over the United States. In 1888
Massachusetts adopted a system based upon the Australian Ballot Law,
while New York advertised its value in the same year when Governor Hill
vetoed a bill to establish it. Before the next presidential election
came in 1892, open bribery or intimidation of voters was rapidly
becoming a thing of the past, for thirty-three States had adopted the
Australian ballot, provided by public authority and voted in secrecy.
"Quay and Platt and Clarkson may find in this fact a fresh explanation
of President Harrison's willingness to divest himself of their
services," wrote Godkin in a caustic paragraph in 1892.
The Australian ballot enabled the honest citizen to vote in secrecy and
safety, but it failed to touch the fact that the nominations were still
outside the law. "To find the honest men," Bryce wrote, "and having
found them, to put them in office and keep them there, is the great
problem of American politics." So long as a boss could direct the
nomination he could tolerate an honest election. The movement to
legalize the party primaries was just beginning when the ballot reform
was accomplished. The most extreme of the primary reformers saw the need
for a preliminary election conducted within each party, but under all
the safeguards of law, to the end that the voters might themselves
determine their candidates. Direct primaries were discussed by the
younger men, who were often ambitious, but helpless because of the rigor
with which the bosses selected their own candidates. In 1897 a young
ex-Congressman, Robert M. LaFollette, worked out a complete system of
local and national primaries, and found wide and sympathetic hearing for
it. The movement had to face the bitter opposition of the machine
politicians because it struck directly at their power, but it progressed
slowly. In 1901 it won in Minnesota; a little later it won in Wisconsin;
and in the next ten years it became a central feature in reform
platforms.
The reforms of the primary and the ballot were designed to improve the
quality of public officers, and were supplemented by a demand for direct
legislation which would check up the result. In Switzerland a scheme had
been devised by which the people, by petition, could initiate new laws
or obtain a vote upon existing laws. The idea of submitting special
measures to popular vote, or referendum, was old in the United States,
for in this way state constitutions and constitutional amendments were
habitually adopted, and matters of city charters, loans and franchises
often determined. The initiative, however, was new, and appealed to the
reformer who resented the refusal of the legislature to pass desired
laws as well as the unwillingness to pass worthy ones. The Populists, in
1892, recommended that the system of direct legislation be investigated,
and they favored its adoption in 1896. A journal for the promotion of
the reform appeared in 1894. In 1898 the first State, South Dakota,
adopted the principle of initiative and referendum in a constitutional
amendment. To those who attacked the device as only mechanical it was
answered: "Direct legislation is not a panacea for all national ills. In
fact it is not a panacea at all. It is merely a spoon with which the
panacea can be administered. Specific legislation is the panacea for
political ills."
The West was more ready than the East to break from existing practice
and take up the new reforms. It had always been the liberal section of
the United States. Between 1800 and 1830 it had led in the enlargement
of the franchise and in the removal of qualifications of wealth and
religion. It now approached the one remaining qualification of sex. With
the admission of Wyoming in 1890, full woman suffrage appeared among the
States. Colorado adopted an amendment establishing it in 1893. Utah, in
the words of the women, "completing the trinity of true Republics at the
summit of the Rockies," became the third suffrage State in January,
1896, while Idaho adopted woman suffrage in the same year. It was
fifteen years before a fifth State was added to the list, but the
women's movement was advancing in all directions. A General Federation
of Women's Clubs was organized in 1890 as a clearing-house for the
activities of the women, and through organizations like the Consumers'
League, the movement fell into line with the general course of reform. A
clearer vision of the defects in governmental machinery and of the
needs of society was spreading rapidly. Hull House, opened in 1889 by
Jane Addams, had a host of imitators in the cities, and enabled social
workers to study the results of industrial progress upon the laboring
class.
The new reforms, mechanical and otherwise, established themselves about
1890, and were taken up by the Populist party between 1892 and 1896.
Neither great party noticed the reforms before 1896, but in each party
the younger workers saw their point. As non-partisan movements they
gained adherents before the Populist party died out, and were pressed
more and more seriously upon reluctant organizations. As a whole they
were an attempt to make government more truly representative of the
voters, and to take the control of affairs from the hands of men who
might and often did use them for private aggrandizement. They were
overshadowed in 1896 by the paramount issue of free silver, and were
deferred in their fulfilment for a decade by accidents which drove them
from the public mind. The Spanish War, reviving prosperity, and the
renewal of tariff legislation, did not check the activities of the
reformers, but did divert the attention of the public.
William McKinley was inaugurated on March 4, 1897. He had served in five
Congresses and had been three times governor of Ohio. He "knew the
legislative body thoroughly, its composition, its methods, its habits of
thought," said John Hay. "He had the profoundest respect for its
authority and an inflexible belief in the ultimate rectitude of its
purposes." He was not likely to embarrass business through bluntness or
inexperience. He had risen through a kindly disposition, a recognition
of the political value of tact, and an unusual skill as a moderator of
variant opinions. He believed that his function was to represent the
popular will as rapidly as it expressed itself, differing fundamentally
in this from Cleveland, who thought himself bound to act in the interest
of the people as he saw it. His Cabinet reflected the interests that
secured his election.
The trend of issues had made the Republican party, by 1897, the party of
organized business. For twelve years the alliance had grown steadily
closer. Marcus A. Hanna was its spokesman. The burlesque of his sincere
and kindly face, drawn by a caricaturist, Davenport, for Eastern papers,
created for the popular eye the type of commercialized magnate, but it
did him great injustice. Self-respecting and direct, he believed it to
be the first function of government to protect property, and that
property should organize for this purpose. Without malevolence, he
conducted business for the sake of its profits, and regarded government
as an adjunct to it. He possessed great capacity for winning popularity,
and after his entry into public life in 1897 gained reputation as an
effective speaker. He destroyed, before his death, much of the offensive
notoriety that had been thrust upon him during the campaign of 1896, but
he remained the best representative of the generation that believed
government to be only a business asset. He did not enter the Cabinet of
McKinley, but was appointed Senator from Ohio when John Sherman vacated
his seat.
The pledge of the Republicans for international bimetallism created a
need for a financial Secretary of State, and John Sherman, though old
and infirm, was persuaded to undertake the office. The routine of the
department was assigned to an assistant secretary, William R. Day, an
old friend of the President. A magnate of the match trust, Russell A.
Alger, of Michigan, received the War Department. The president of the
First National Bank of Chicago, Lyman J. Gage, received the Treasury.
The other secretaries, too, were men of solidity, generally self-made,
and likely to inspire confidence in the world of business.
The new Senators who appeared at this time represented the same alliance
of trade and politics. Hanna, in Ohio, and Thomas C. Platt, president of
the United States Express Company, in New York, were the most striking
instances. In Pennsylvania Quay was able to nominate his colleague in
spite of the opposition of his old associate, John Wanamaker, and
selected Boies Penrose. Only with the aid of the silver Senators could a
Republican majority be procured in the Senate. This made currency
legislation impossible, but the managers hoped that there would be a
majority for a protective tariff when Congress met in special session,
two weeks after the inauguration.
Preparations for a revision of the tariff had been made long before
Cleveland left office. Reed was certain to be reelected as Speaker by a
large majority. Nelson Dingley, of Maine, was equally certain to be
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and began to hold tariff
hearings early in 1897. A rampant spirit for protection was revealed as
the manufacturers stated their wishes to the committee. It was often
told how the low rates of the Wilson Bill had caused the panic of 1893,
and a New York maker of "Oriental rugs" created amusement by asking to
be protected from the competition, not of the Orient, but of the German
manufacturers. Since 1890 the strength of the Republican organization
had been directed toward this revision, and the leaders had held back
the silver issue lest it should derange their plans. Now, though
returned to power only on the issue of the currency, they held
themselves empowered to act as though the tariff had been dominant in
1896. The call stated the need for tariff legislation, and Reed held the
House to its task by refusing to appoint the committees without which
other business could not be undertaken.
The Dingley Bill passed the House of Representatives after a perfunctory
debate which every one regarded as only preliminary to the real struggle
in Senate and Conference Committee. In the Senate it became a new
measure at the hands of the Finance Committee, whose secretary, S.N.D.
North, was also secretary of the Wool Manufacturers' Association.
Revenue was everywhere subordinated to protection, until the Chief of
the Bureau of Statistics, Worthington C. Ford, declared that the act
would prolong the deficit which it was designed to cure. On its final
passage, the Democratic Senator, McEnery, of Louisiana, left his party
to vote for protection to sugar. He was welcomed home in August, in
spite of his "treason," by a reception committee with four hundred
vice-presidents. The silver Senators, headed by Jones, of Nevada, were
induced to support the bill. They had procured the Sherman Silver Bill
in 1890 by the same tactics, and now, holding the balance of power,
secured a group of amendments for themselves, covering hides, wool, and
ore. The measure passed the Senate early in July and became a law July
24, 1897. Senator William B. Allison, of Iowa, was largely responsible
for its final passage, although the law continued to bear the name of
its forgotten originator, Dingley.
The Republican party was in no condition in 1897 to become the vehicle
of the non-partisan reforms that the Populists advocated and that many
young Republicans had taken up. The interest in tariff legislation drove
everything else from the national organization, while returning
prosperity destroyed the mental attitude in which reforms had
flourished. Political introspection was less easy in 1897 and 1898 than
it had been in the years of confusion and enforced economy since 1890.
The civil service and ballot reforms had been started on the upward
course, but party machines continued in control of each great
organization.
The conduct of the Senate discouraged many of the reformers in the
spring of 1897. Cleveland had left in its hands a treaty of arbitration
with Great Britain, but no action had been taken upon it when he left
office. Arbitration had been a common international tool between Great
Britain and the United States. Boundaries, fisheries, and claims had
repeatedly been submitted to courts or commissions of varying
structure, and even the claims affecting the honor of Great Britain had
been settled by arbitration at Geneva. After the Venezuela excitement
friends of peace gathered in a convention at Lake Mohonk to discuss the
extension of the method of arbitration. When Great Britain had accepted
the principle in the case of Venezuela, Cleveland entered into a general
arbitration treaty, which was signed at Washington in February, 1897.
Public opinion received it cordially, but the Senate was slow to take it
up. Late in the spring it was ratified with amendments that destroyed
its force and showed the reluctance of Senators to accept the principle
of arbitration. International peace was thus postponed, while the rising
insurrection in Cuba drove it as well as general reform from the center
of public interest.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The _American Commonwealth_ of James Bryce (1888) is the starting-point
for the study of political conditions of the nineties, and is to be
reinforced by W. Wilson, _Congressional Government_ (1885), T.
Roosevelt, _Essays on Practical Politics_ (1888), and P.L. Ford, _The
Honorable Peter Stirling_ (1894). Among the personal narratives the most
useful are T. Roosevelt, _Fifty Years of My Life_ (1913); R.M.
LaFollette, _A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences_ (1913; also
published serially in the _American Magazine_, 1911, as
"Autobiography"); Tom L. Johnson's _My Story_ (1911; edited by E.J.
Hauser); C. Lloyd, _Henry Demarest Lloyd_ (2 vols., 1912);
_Autobiography of Thomas Collier Platt_ (1910; edited by L.J. Lang, and
highly unreliable); and Jane Addams, _Twenty Years of Hull House_
(1910). Much light is thrown upon the mechanics of tariff legislation by
I.M. Tarbell, _The Tariff in Our Times_ (1911), and by the lobby
investigations conducted by committees of Congress in 1913, and by the
campaign fund investigations conducted by similar committees in 1912.
The progress of the Australian ballot reform must be traced through the
periodicals, as it has no good history. E.C. Meyer, _Nominating Systems:
Direct Primaries versus Conventions in the United States_ (1902), is
standard in its field, as are E.P. Oberholtzer, _The Referendum in
America_ (1893), and E.C. Stanton, S.B. Anthony, and M.J. Gage, _History
of Woman Suffrage_, 1848-1900(4 vols., 1881-1902). The Annual Reports of
the Lake Mohonk Conferences on International Arbitration are a useful
aid in tracing the principles of arbitration.