President Garfield's career was cut short so soon after his accession
to office, that he had no opportunity of showing whether he had the will
and the power to obtain action for the redress of public grievances,
which the congressional factions were disposed to ignore. His experience
and his attainments were such as should have qualified him for the
task, and in his public life he had shown firmness of character. His
courageous opposition to the greenback movement in Ohio had been of
great service to the nation in maintaining the standard of value. When
a party convention in his district passed resolutions in favor of
paying interest on the bonds with paper instead of coin, he gave a rare
instance of political intrepidity by declaring that he would not accept
the nomination on such a platform. It was the deliberate opinion
of Senator Hoar, who knew Garfield intimately, that "next to the
assassination of Lincoln, his death was the greatest national misfortune
ever caused to this country by the loss of a single life."
The lingering illness of President Garfield raised a serious question
about presidential authority which is still unsettled. For over two
months before he died he was unable to attend to any duties of office.
The Constitution provides that "in case of the removal of the President
from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge
the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on
the Vice-President." What is the practical significance of the term
"inability"? If it should be accepted in its ordinary meaning, a
prostrating illness would be regarded as sufficient reason for allowing
the Vice-President to assume presidential responsibility. Though there
was much quiet discussion of the problem, no attempt was made to press
a decision. After Garfield died, President Arthur, on succeeding to the
office, took up the matter in his first annual message, putting a
number of queries as to the actual significance of the language of the
Constitution--queries which have yet to be answered. The rights and
duties of the Vice-President in this particular are dangerously vague.
The situation is complicated by a peculiarity of the electoral system.
In theory, by electing a President the nation expresses its will
respecting public policy; but in practice the candidate for President
may be an exponent of one school of opinion and the candidate for
Vice-President may represent another view. It is impossible for a voter
to discriminate between the two; he cannot vote for the candidate for
President without voting for the candidate for Vice-President, since he
does not vote directly for the candidates themselves but for the party
electors who are pledged to the entire party ticket. Party conventions
take advantage of this disability on the part of the voter to work an
electioneering device known as a "straddle," the aim of which is to
please opposite interests by giving each a place on the ticket. After
Garfield was nominated, the attempt was made to placate the defeated
faction by nominating one of its adherents for Vice-President, and now
that nominee unexpectedly became the President of the United States,
with power to reverse the policy of his predecessor.
In one important matter there was, in fact, an abrupt reversal of
policy. The independent countries of North and South America had been
invited to participate in a general congress to be held in Washington,
November 24, 1881. James Gillespie Blaine, who was then Secretary
of State, had applied himself with earnestness and vigor to this
undertaking, which might have produced valuable results. It was a
movement towards closer relations between American countries, a purpose
which has since become public policy and has been steadily promoted by
the Government. With the inauguration of President Arthur, Blaine was
succeeded by Frederick T. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, who practically
canceled the invitation to the proposed Congress some six weeks after it
had been issued. On February 3, 1889, Blaine protested in an open letter
to the President, and the affair occasioned sharp discussion. In his
regular message to Congress in the following December, the President
offered excuses of an evasive character, pointing out that Congress had
made no appropriation for expenses and declaring that he had thought it
"fitting that the Executive should consult the representatives of the
people before pursuing a line of policy somewhat novel in its character
and far-reaching in its possible consequences."
In general, President Arthur behaved with a tact and prudence that
improved his position in public esteem. It soon became manifest that,
although he had been Conkling's adherent, he was not his servitor. He
conducted the routine business of the presidential office with dignity,
and he displayed independence of character in his relations with
Congress. But his powers were so limited by the conditions under which
he had to act that to a large extent public interests had to drift
along without direction and management. In some degree, the situation
resembled that which existed in the Holy Roman Empire when a complicated
legalism kept grinding away and pretentious forms of authority were
maintained, although, meanwhile, there was actual administrative
impotence. Striking evidence of the existence of such a situation is
found in President Arthur's messages to Congress.
In his message of December 6, 1881, the President mentioned the fact
that in the West "a band of armed desperadoes known as 'Cowboys,'
probably numbering fifty to one hundred men, have been engaged for
months in committing acts of lawlessness and brutality which the local
authorities have been unable to repress." He observed that "with every
disposition to meet the exigencies of the case, I am embarrassed by lack
of authority to deal with them effectually." The center of disturbance
was in Arizona, and the punishment of crime there was ordinarily the
business of the local authorities. But even if they called for aid,
said the President, "this Government would be powerless to render
assistance," for the laws had been altered by Congress so that States
but not Territories could demand the protection of the national
Government against "domestic violence." He recommended legislation
extending to the Territories "the protection which is accorded the
States by the Constitution." On April 26, 1882, the President sent a
special message to Congress on conditions in Arizona, announcing that
"robbery, murder, and resistance to laws have become so common as to
cease causing surprise, and that the people are greatly intimidated
and losing confidence in the protection of the law." He also advised
Congress that the "Cowboys" were making raids into Mexico, and again
begged for legal authority to act. On the 3rd of May, he issued a
proclamation calling upon the outlaws "to disperse and retire peaceably
to their respective abodes." In his regular annual message on December
4, 1882, he again called attention "to the prevalent lawlessness upon
the borders, and to the necessity of legislation for its suppression."
Such vast agitation from the operations of a band of ruffians, estimated
at from fifty to one hundred in number, and such floundering incapacity
for prompt action by public authority seem more like events from a
chronicle of the Middle Ages than from the public records of a modern
nation. Of like tenor, was a famous career which came to an end in this
period. Jesse W. James, the son of a Baptist minister in Clay County,
Missouri, for some years carried on a bandit business, specializing
in the robbery of banks and railroad trains, with takings computed
at $263,778. As his friends and admirers were numerous, the elective
sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys, and judges in the area of his
activities were unable to stop him by any means within their reach.
Meanwhile, the frightened burghers of the small towns in his range of
operations were clamoring for deliverance from his raids, and finally
Governor Crittenden of Missouri offered a reward of $10,000 for his
capture dead or alive. Two members of his own band shot him down in his
own house, April 3, 1882. They at once reported the deed and surrendered
themselves to the police, were soon put on trial, pleaded guilty of
murder, were sentenced to death, and were at once pardoned by the
Governor. Meanwhile, the funeral ceremonies over Jesse James's remains
drew a great concourse of people, and there were many indications of
popular sympathy. Stories of his exploits have had an extensive sale,
and his name has become a center of legend and ballad somewhat after the
fashion of the medieval hero Robin Hood.
The legislative blundering which tied the President's hands and made the
Government impotent to protect American citizens from desperadoes of
the type of the "cowboys" and Jesse James, is characteristic of Congress
during this period. Another example of congressional muddling is found
in an act which was passed for the better protection of ocean travel
and which the President felt constrained to veto. In his veto message of
July 1, 1882, the President said that he was entirely in accord with
the purpose of the bill which related to matters urgently demanding
legislative attention. But the bill was so drawn that in practice it
would have caused great confusion in the clearing of vessels and would
have led to an impossible situation. It was not the intention of the
bill to do what the President found its language to require, and the
defects were due simply to maladroit phrasing, which frequently occurs
in congressional enactments, thereby giving support to the theory of
John Stuart Mill that a representative assembly is by its very nature
unfit to prepare legislative measures.
The clumsy machinery of legislation kept bungling on, irresponsive to
the principal needs and interests of the times. An ineffectual start
was made on two subjects presenting simple issues on which there was
an energetic pressure of popular sentiment--Chinese immigration and
polygamy among the Mormons. Anti-Chinese legislation had to contend with
a traditional sentiment in favor of maintaining the United States as an
asylum for all peoples. But the demand from the workers of the Pacific
slope for protection against Asiatic competition in the home labor
market was so fierce and so determined that Congress yielded. President
Arthur vetoed a bill prohibiting Chinese immigration as "a breach of our
national faith," but he admitted the need of legislation on the subject
and finally approved a bill suspending immigration from China for a term
of years. This was a beginning of legislation which eventually arrived
at a policy of complete exclusion. The Mormon question was dealt with
by the Act of March 22, 1882, imposing penalties upon the practice of
polygamy and placing the conduct of elections in the Territory of
Utah under the supervision of a board of five persons appointed by the
President. Though there were many prosecutions under this act, it
proved so ineffectual in suppressing polygamy that it was eventually
supplemented by giving the Government power to seize and administer the
property of the Mormon Church. This action, resulting from the Act of
March 3, 1887, created a momentous precedent. The escheated property
was held by the Government until 1896 and meanwhile, the Mormon Church
submitted to the law and made a formal declaration that it had abandoned
polygamy.
Another instance in which a lack of agreement between the executive and
the legislative branches of the Government manifested itself, arose
out of a scheme which President Arthur recommended to Congress for the
improvement of the waterways of the Mississippi and its tributaries. The
response of Congress was a bill in which there was an appropriation of
about $4,000,000 for the general improvements recommended, but about
$14,000,000 were added for other special river and harbor schemes which
had obtained congressional favor. President Arthur's veto message of
August 1, 1882, condemned the bill because it contained provisions
designed "entirely for the benefit of the particular localities in which
it is proposed to make the improvements." He thus described a type
of legislation of which the nation had and is still having bitter
experience: "As the citizens of one State find that money, to raise
which they in common with the whole country are taxed, is to be expended
for local improvements in another State, they demand similar benefits
for themselves, and it is not unnatural that they should seek to
indemnify themselves for such use of the public funds by securing
appropriations for similar improvements in their own neighborhood. Thus
as the bill becomes more objectionable it secures more support." The
truth of this last assertion Congress immediately proved by passing the
bill over the President's veto. Senator Hoar, who defended the bill, has
admitted that "a large number of the members of the House who voted
for it lost their seats" and that in his opinion the affair "cost the
Republican party its majority in the House of Representatives."
Legislation regarding the tariff was, however, the event of Arthur's
administration which had the deepest effect upon the political
situation. Both national parties were reluctant to face the issue,
but the pressure of conditions became too strong for them. Revenue
arrangements originally planned for war needs were still amassing
funds in the Treasury vaults which were now far beyond the needs of the
Government, and were at the same time deranging commerce and industry.
In times of war, the Treasury served as a financial conduit; peace had
now made it a catch basin whose excess accumulations embarrassed the
Treasury and at the same time caused the business world to suffer
from a scarcity of currency. In his annual message on December 6, 1881,
President Arthur cautiously observed that it seemed to him "that the
time has arrived when the people may justly demand some relief from the
present onerous burden." In his message of December 4, 1882, he was much
more emphatic. Calling attention to the fact that the annual surplus
had increased to more than $145,000,000, he observed that "either the
surplus must lie idle in the Treasury or the Government will be forced
to buy at market rates its bonds not then redeemable, and which under
such circumstances cannot fail to command an enormous premium, or the
swollen revenues will be devoted to extravagant expenditures, which, as
experience has taught, is ever the bane of an overflowing treasury."
The congressional agents of the protected industries were confronted
by an exacting situation. The country was at peace but it was still
burdened by war taxes, although the Government did not need the
accumulating revenue and was actually embarrassed by its excess. The
President had already made himself the spokesman of the popular demand
for a substantial reduction of taxes. Such a combination of forces in
favor of lightening the popular burden might seem to be constitutionally
irresistible, but by adroit maneuvering the congressional supporters of
protection managed to have the war rates generally maintained and, in
some cases, even increased. The case is a typical example of the way
in which advantage of strategic position in a governmental system can
prevail against mere numbers.
By the Act of May 15, 1882, a tariff commission was created to examine
the industrial situation and make recommendations as to rates of duty.
The President appointed men who stood high in the commercial world
and who were strongly attached to the protective system. They applied
themselves to their task with such energy that by December 4, 1882, they
had produced a voluminous report with suggested amendments to customs
laws.
But the advocates of high protection in the House were not satisfied;
they opposed the recommendations of the report and urged that the best
and quickest way to reduce taxation was by abolishing or reducing items
on the internal revenue list. This policy not only commanded support on
the Republican side, but also received the aid of a Democratic faction
which avowed protectionist principles and claimed party sanction for
them. These political elements in the House were strong enough to
prevent action on the customs tariff, but a bill was passed reducing
some of the internal revenue taxes. This action seemed likely to prevent
tariff revision at least during that session. Formidable obstacles, both
constitutional and parliamentary, stood in the way of action, but they
were surmounted by ingenious management.
The Constitution provides that all revenue bills shall originate in
the House of Representatives, but the Senate has the right to propose
amendments. Under cover of this clause the Senate originated a
voluminous tariff bill and tacked it to the House bill as an amendment.
When the bill, as thus amended, came back to the House, a two-thirds
vote would have been required by the existing rules to take it up for
consideration, but this obstacle was overcome by adopting a new rule
by which a bare majority of the House could forthwith take up a bill
amended by the Senate, for the purpose of non-concurrence but not for
concurrence. The object of this maneuver was to get the bill into a
committee of conference where the details could be arranged by private
negotiation. The rule was adopted on February 26, 1883, but the
committee of conference was not finally constituted until the 1st of
March, within two days of the close of the session. On the 3rd of March,
when this committee reported a measure on which they had agreed, both
Houses adopted this report and enacted the measure without further ado.
In some cases, rates were fixed by the committee above the figures voted
in either House and even when there was no disagreement, changes were
made. The tariff commission had recommended, for example, a duty of
fifty cents a ton on iron ore, and both the Senate and the House voted
to put the duty at that figure; but the conference committee fixed the
rate at seventy-five cents. When a conference committee report comes
before the House, it is adopted or rejected in toto, as it is not
divisible or amendable. In theory, the revision of a report is feasible
by sending it back to conference under instructions voted by the House,
but such a procedure is not really available in the closing hours of a
session, and the only practical course of action is either to pass the
bill as shaped by the conferees or else to accept the responsibility
for inaction. Thus pressed for time, Congress passed a bill containing
features obnoxious to a majority in both Houses and offensive to public
opinion. Senator Sherman in his "Recollections" expressed regret that he
had voted for the bill and declared that, had the recommendations of the
tariff commission been adopted, "the tariff would have been settled
for many years," but "many persons wishing to advance their particular
industries appeared before the committee and succeeded in having their
views adopted." In his annual message, December 4, 1883, President
Arthur accepted the act as a response to the demand for a reduction
of taxation, which was sufficiently tolerable to make further effort
inexpedient until its effects could be definitely ascertained; but he
remarked that he had "no doubt that still further reductions may be
wisely made."
In general, President Arthur's administration may therefore be
accurately described as a period of political groping and party
fluctuation. In neither of the great national parties was there a
sincere and definite attitude on the new issues which were clamorous for
attention, and the public discontent was reflected in abrupt changes of
political support. There was a general feeling of distrust regarding the
character and capacity of the politicians at Washington, and election
results were apparently dictated more by fear than by hope. One party
would be raised up and the other party cast down, not because the one
was trusted more than the other, but because it was for a while less
odious. Thus a party success might well be a prelude to a party disaster
because neither party knew how to improve its political opportunity.
The record of party fluctuation in Congress during this period is almost
unparalleled in sharpness.*
* In 1875, at the opening of the Forty-fourth Congress, the House
stood 110 Republicans and 182 Democrats. In 1881, the House stood 150
Republicans to 131 Democrats, with 12 Independent members. In 1884, the
Republican list had declined to 119 and the Democratic had grown to 201,
and there were five Independents. The Senate, although only a third
of its membership is renewed every two years, displayed extraordinary
changes during this period. The Republican membership of 46 in 1876 had
declined to 33 by 1880, and the Democratic membership had increased
to 42. In 1882, the Senate was evenly balanced in party strength, each
party having 37 avowed adherents, but there were two Independents.
In state politics, the polling showed that both parties were disgusted
with their leadership and that there was a public indifference to issues
which kept people away from the polls. A comparison of the total vote
cast in state elections in 1882 with that cast in the presidential
election of 1880, showed a decline of over eight hundred thousand in the
Republican vote and of nearly four hundred thousand in the Democratic
vote. The most violent of the party changes that took place during this
period occurred in the election of 1882, in New York State, when the
Republican vote showed a decline of over two hundred thousand and the
Democratic candidate for Governor was elected by a plurality of nearly
that amount. It was this election which brought Grover Cleveland into
national prominence.