"It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind,

and an exception to all the teachings of history, if the

social and political revolution which the results of the war

had imposed on the states then recently insurgent had gone

into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. It

was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was

from a state in which the superiority and domination of the

white race over the colored race existed unquestioned for

centuries. It was to a condition of things in which the most

prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of the right

to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised,

and the judicial and other offices were largely filled by

dishonest and unfriendly strangers from the North. What was

worse still, many of these places were filled by ignorant and

brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden and violent. It

was hard to submit to it quietly.

{3568}

No people, least of all such a proud and intolerant people as

that of the South, could see their local governments

transferred from their own hands into the hands of their

former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance.

This resistance took the form, in most of the Southern

States, not of armed opposition to the Federal or the state

governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. It

was directed against the colored people and against their

white allies and leaders. It made an objective point of the

agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, ministers of the gospel, and

school teachers,—all adventurers from the North, or men who

had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. All

of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies.

They were designated by the opprobrious title of

'carpet-baggers.' The history of these outrages fills many

volumes of reports made by joint and separate committees of

the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, from

reports of military commanders in the South, and from other

official documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting

the lawlessness that prevailed in the Southern States during

the … decade between 1865 and 1875, is made. These documents

are so full of the details of crime and violence, and are so

voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from

them, or to convey a correct idea of their relations. Very

soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the

Reconstruction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret

societies were organized in various states of the South.

Their object, either secret or avowed, was to prevent the

exercise of political rights by the negroes. These societies

took various names, such as 'The Brotherhood,' 'The Pale

Faces,' 'The Invisible Empire,' 'The Knights of the White

Camellia'; but all these were finally merged into, or

compounded with, the formidable and dreaded society

denominated the 'Ku-Klux Klan.' Their acts of lawlessness and

cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as

'Ku-Klux outrages.' The State of Virginia was a remarkable

exception to the other states in its exemption from crimes of

this character; while the two neighboring States of North

Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material for

investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of

the South. This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is

said to have originated in 1866. There is no doubt that the

Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to scare the

superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the

frivolities of some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told

to frighten the negroes from roaming about and pilfering. The

testimony before the committee on that subject, of which the

writer was a member, showed that they daily visited houses

and talked their foolish talk; that they were 'mummicking

about,'—whatever that means. … There is no doubt that

political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux were

under way. … Certain it is, that they soon came to be made

use of, in the most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner,

for the furtherance of political ends, and for the crushing

out of Republicanism in the Southern States; to which party

the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The

crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin,

almost exclusively, in political causes,—in the effort on the

part of the whites to set at naught the rights of suffrage

guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude from Federal,

state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance

for election to such offices was mainly if not altogether, on

negro votes. General Forrest estimated the strength of the

Ku-Klux organization in Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the

belief that it was still stronger in other states. The

members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of death for

breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation—as

gathered from the mass of evidence—was to patrol the country

at night. They went well armed and mounted. They wore long

white gowns. They masked their faces. Their appearance

terrified the timid and superstitious negroes who happened to

see them as they rode past, and who then regarded them as

ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and broke

into the cabins of the negroes; frightened and maltreated the

inmates; warned them of future vengeance; and probably

carried off some obnoxious negro, or 'carpet-bagger,' whose

fate it was to be riddled with murderous bullets, hung to the

limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and tortured, for some

offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was

active in politics or in negro schools or churches. …

According to the majority report of the Senate select

committee of March 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by

whatever name known, were instituted in North Carolina in

1867 or 1868. … The report of the Senate committee of the

10th of March, 1871, before referred to, recites a startling

number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace whipping,

mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North

Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The

report gives some of the horrifying details."

_S. S. Cox,

Three Decades of Federal Legislation,

chapters 25-26._

"Senator Scott, in a speech in the Senate, gave as the result

of the investigation that came to his own knowledge, as

follows: In North Carolina, in 14 counties, there were 18

murders and 315 whippings. In South Carolina, 9 counties, 35

murders and 276 other flagrant outrages. In Georgia, 20

counties, 72 murders and 126 whippings. In Alabama, 26

counties, 215 murders and 116 other outrages. In Florida, in

one county alone there were 153 cases of homicide. In

Mississippi, 20 counties, 23 homicides and 76 other cases of

outrage. In 99 counties in different States he found 526

homicides and 2,009 cases of whipping. But the committee state

that in Louisiana alone in the year 1868 there were more than

1,000 murders, and most of them were the result of the

operations of the Ku Klux."

_H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,

volume 3, chapter 45._

ALSO IN:

_Report of Joint Select Committee

(42d Congress, 2d session, Senate Report, number 41)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (January).

Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia.

As early as the 18th of January, 1866, the House of

Representatives passed a bill extending the suffrage in the

District of Columbia, by striking out the word "white" from

all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification of

electors for any office in the District, and declaring that no

person should be disqualified from voting at any election in

the District on account of color.

{3569}

As it was known that the President would veto the bill if sent

to him, the Senate held it until the next session. In

December, 1866, it was called up in that body by Senator

Sumner, and after considerable debate was passed, December

13th. On the 7th of January following it was returned by the

President with his veto, but was passed over the veto by the

Senate (29 to 10) the same day, and by the House (113 to 38)

the day following, thus becoming a law.

_W. H. Barnes,

History of the 39th Congress,

chapters 4 and 21._

ALSO IN:

_G. W. Julian,

Political Recollections,

chapter 12._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).

The Purchase of Alaska.

See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).

The Military Reconstruction Acts of Congress.

"Congress had declared amply enough how the rebel States

should not be reinstated. Two years after the close of the

war, however, the Union was still unrestored, and while

claiming, under the Constitution, absolute jurisdiction of the

question, Congress had failed to prescribe the terms on which

the Union should be restored. … Both the country and Congress

were at last convinced by the course of events that

affirmative Congressional action was indispensable, involving

the sweeping away of Mr. Johnson's ex-rebel State governments

and the enfranchisement of the emancipated slaves. Mr. Stevens

had been of that opinion ever since the emasculation by the

Senate of the Fourteenth Amendment, as adopted by the House

[which had proposed to exclude from the right to vote for

Representatives in Congress and for Presidential electors,

'until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who

voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid

and comfort'], and immediately thereupon proposed a measure

containing the germ of the Military Reconstruction Act. Called

up from time to time, and pressed upon the attention of the

House by Mr. Stevens, it was passed on the 13th day of

February, 1867, after a four weeks' debate upon it in

Committee of the Whole. By the 20th both Houses had agreed

upon it, and passed it. On the 2d day of March the President

returned it to the House with his veto, over which it was at

once passed by both Houses; and with only two days of the

Thirty-ninth Congress to spare, it become law."

_O. J. Hollister,

Life of Schuyler Colfax,

chapter 9._

The Military Reconstruction Act set forth in its preamble that

"Whereas, no legal State governments or adequate protection

for life or property now exists in the rebel States

[enumerating all the late Confederate States except

Tennessee]; … and whereas it is necessary that peace and good

order should be enforced in said States until loyal and

republican State governments can be legally established:

therefore, Be it enacted, … That said rebel States shall be

divided into military districts and made subject to the

military authority of the United States, as hereinafter

prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the

first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second

district, Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district,

Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana

and Texas the fifth district." Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act

made it the duty of the President to assign to the command of

each of the said districts an officer of the army not below

the rank of brigadier-general, and defined the duties and

powers of such commander, providing for the assignment to him

of an adequate military force. Section 5 provided "That when

the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a

constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution

of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention

of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State 21

years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous

condition, who have been resident in said State for one year

previous to the day of such election, except such as may be

disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony

at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that

the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as

have the qualifications herein stated for electors of

delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a

majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification

who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such

constitution shall have heen submitted to Congress for

examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the

same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature

elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the

amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed

by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen,

and when said article shall have become a part of the

Constitution of the United States, said State shall be

declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators

and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their

taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the

preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said

State." It was further provided that no person excluded from

office by the Fourteenth Amendment should be a member of the

convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel

States, and that any civil government which might exist in any

of the said States prior to the admission of its

representatives to Congress should be deemed provisional only,

and subject to the paramount authority of the United States.

"The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the

ground of its incompleteness in not containing provisions for

carrying it into effect in accordance with the purpose of its

framers. … The Fortieth Congress, meeting on the 4th of March,

immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded

without delay to perfect and pass over the President's veto

[March 23, 1867] a bill supplementary to the act to provide

for the more efficient government of the rebel States." By

this supplementary act specific instructions were given as to

the course of procedure to be followed in making a

registration of the voters qualified under the act and in

conducting the elections provided for.

_W. H. Barnes,

History of the 39th Congress,

chapter 22._

ALSO IN:

_Why the Solid South?

(Noted Men on the Solid South.)_

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (March-May).

Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson.

"Until the spring of 1866, a year after Mr. Johnson became

President, there was entire harmony between him and his

Cabinet. … No objection was raised even to that part of the

President's first message which treated of the suffrage

question, by any member of the Cabinet. It was in fact

approved by all, and by none more heartily than by Mr.

Stanton. A change took place soon after the Civil Rights bill

became a law over the President's veto, and bitter controversy

arose between the President and Congress.

{3570}

In this controversy, and at its commencement, Mr. Dennison

[Postmaster-general] and Mr. Harlan [Secretary of the

Interior] sided with Congress and tendered their resignations,

which were very reluctantly accepted. They resigned because

they could not heartily sustain the President, but there was

no breach of the social relations which had existed between

them. Mr. Speed [Attorney-general] soon after followed the

example of Dennison and Harlan. Mr. Stanton [Secretary of War]

also sided with Congress, but he did not resign. He was

advised by prominent political and personal friends to

'stick,' and he did so, contrary to all precedent and in

opposition to the judgment of conservative men of his party. …

He attended the Cabinet meetings, not as an adviser of the

President, but as an opponent of the policy to which he had

himself been committed, and the President lacked the nerve to

dismiss him. … In this crisis of his political life, Mr.

Johnson exhibited a want of spirit and decision which

astonished those who were familiar with his antecedents. He

knew when the Tenure-of-Office Bill was before Congress that

the object of its leading supporters was to tie his hands, and

yet he refrained from using them when they were free. … When

he did act he acted unwisely. He retained Mr. Stanton in his

Cabinet when his right to remove him was unquestionable. He

suspended him [August 12, 1867] after the Tenure-of-Office

Bill had become a law, and in accordance with its provisions,

[directing General Grant to act as Secretary of War ad

interim]; and when the Senate refused to approve of the

suspension [January 13, 1868], he issued orders for his

removal and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary

of War ad interim. If he had tried to give his enemies an

advantage over him, to furnish them with weapons for his own

discomfiture, he could not have done it more effectually. … If

he had removed Mr. Stanton instead of suspending him, and

justified his action on the ground that his control of the

members of his Cabinet was a constitutional right of which he

could not be deprived by Congress, he probably would not have

been impeached. The gist of the charges against him was that

he had violated a law of Congress in removing Mr. Stanton, or

issuing an order for his removal, after the Senate had refused

to sanction his suspension. In the articles of impeachment

there were other charges against the President, the most

serious of which were that he had delivered intemperate,

inflammatory speeches, which were intended to bring into

contempt the Congress of the United States and duly enacted

laws. The speeches made by the President in Cleveland, St.

Louis, and other places in August and September, 1866—in fact,

all his public addresses during his contest with Congress—were

in the worst possible taste, derogatory to himself and to his

high position; but they … did not constitute good ground for

his impeachment; and this was the opinion of the House, which

in January, 1867, after they were made, refused to impeach him

by the decisive vote of 108 to 57. Other causes for his

impeachment were subsequently sought for. His bank account was

examined. His private conduct in Washington was carefully

scrutinized. Men were employed to investigate his public and

private character in Tennessee, but nothing was found to his

discredit. … Nothing was found to justify his impeachment but

the order which he issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton and

his appointment of General Thomas to be Secretary of the War

Department ad interim after the Senate had refused to sanction

Mr. Stanton's suspension." The formal presentment by the House

of Representatives of its Impeachment against the President,

at the bar of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment,

was made on the 5th day of March, 1868. The answer of the

President was presented on the 23d; the trial opened on

Monday, the 30th of March, and closed on the 26th of May

following. "The trial was a very interesting one, not only to

the people of the United States, but to the people of other

countries. … It was the first instance in the history of

nations of the trial of the head of a government before one of

the branches of the law-making power, sitting as a judicial

tribunal, on charges presented by another. The presiding

officer was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—the

senators of the respective States were the jury—the House of

Representatives the prosecutor. The managers to conduct the

impeachment for the House were John A. Bingham, George S.

Boutwell, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas

Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Logan, all members of

the House, all lawyers, and some of them distinguished in the

profession. The President entered his appearance by Henry

Stanbery, Benjamin K. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William H.

Evarts, and Thomas A. K. Nelson. William S. Groesbeck, in the

course of the trial, appeared and took part as counsel for the

President in place of Mr. Black." The result of the trial was

a failure of the Impeachment. The senators who voted "guilty"

were 35 in number—being less than two-thirds of the

whole—against 19. Of those who voted in the negative, seven

were Republicans who had steadily opposed the President's

policy; four were Republicans who had adhered to him

throughout; eight were Democrats.

_H. McCulloch,

Men and Measures of Half a Century,

chapter 26._

In the opinion of Mr. Blaine, "the sober reflection of later

years has persuaded many who favored Impeachment that it was

not justifiable on the charges made," and that "the President

was impeached for one series of misdemeanors, and tried for

another series."

_J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 2, chapter 14._

ALSO IN:

Trial of Andrew Johnson,

(Published by Order of the Senate), 3 volumes.

Trial of Andrew Johnson,

Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Congress, 2d session.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868.

The Burlingame Treaty with China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (November).

The Twenty-first Presidential Election.

General Ulysses S. Grant, nominated by the Republican party,

was elected President in November 1868, by 3,012,833 votes of

the people against 2,703,249 votes cast for Horatio Seymour,

ex-Governor of New York, the candidate of the Democratic

party. The electoral vote returned and counted was 214 for

Grant and 80 for Seymour, who carried the States of New York,

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky,

and Oregon. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was elected Vice

President, over General Frank P. Blair.

_E. Stanwood,

History of Presidential Elections,

chapter 22._

{3571}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.

Reconstruction complete.

Restoration of all the Southern States

to representation in Congress.

"On the 22d of June, 1868, an act was passed, with the

following preamble and resolution, for the admission of

Arkansas:—'Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of an

act entitled, An act for the more efficient government of the

Rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary

thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State

government, which is republican, and the legislature of said

State has duly ratified the amendment of the Constitution of

the United States proposed by the XXXIXth Congress, and known

as Article XIV.; Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., that the

State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation

in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, upon the

following fundamental condition.' The 'fundamental condition,'

as finally agreed upon, was, 'That there shall never be in

said State any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise,

or of any other right, to any person by reason or on account

of race or color, except Indians not taxed.' The bill was

vetoed by the President on the 20th, but passed over the veto

on the 22d in the House by the vote of 111 to 31, and in the

Senate by a vote of 30 to 7. On the 25th of June a similar act

was passed admitting the States of North Carolina, South

Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in

pursuance of a similar preamble, with the conditions that they

should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that they should not

deprive 'any citizen, or class of citizens of the State of the

right to vote by the constitution thereof'; and that no person

prohibited from holding office by said Amendment should be

'deemed eligible to any office in either of said States unless

relieved from disability as provided in said amendment'; the

State of Georgia being also required to declare 'null and

void' certain provisions of its constitution, and 'in addition

give the assent of said State to the fundamental condition

herein before imposed on the same.' The bill passed the House,

May 14,—yeas 110, nays 35; in the Senate, June 9,—yeas 31,

nays 5. It was vetoed by the President on the 25th, and

passed, the same day, by both houses, over the Presidential

veto. On the 27th of January, 1870, Virginia was admitted into

the Union by a vote, in the House, of 136 to 58; and in the

Senate by a vote of 47 to 10. The following were the preamble,

oaths, and conditions precedent: 'Whereas the people of

Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of State

government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of

Virginia, elected under said constitution, has ratified the

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the

United States; and whereas the performance of these several

acts in good faith is a condition precedent to a

representation of the State in Congress,' said State should be

admitted to a representation in Congress; with the additional

conditions precedent, however, that the constitution should

never be so amended as to deprive any class of citizens of the

right 'to vote,' 'to hold office,' on account of race, color,

or previous condition of servitude; neither should there be

'other qualifications' required for such reason; nor should

any be deprived of 'school rights or privileges' on such

account. On the 3d of February Mississippi was admitted by a

bill resembling the former in every particular, by

substantially the same vote. On the 30th of March Texas was

readmitted to the Union on a bill very similar, though not

identical with the above. … By this act of Congress the last

of the 'wayward sisters' was brought back and restored to the

family of States, and the fractured Union was, outwardly at

least, repaired. It was ten years, eight months, and twenty

days after South Carolina raised the banner of revolt and led

off in 'the dance of death.'"

_H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,

volume 3, chapter 44._

ALSO IN:

_S. S. Cox,

Three Decades of Federal Legislation,

chapters 27-31._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1876.

The reconstructed government of South Carolina.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.

Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and

its rejection by the Senate.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.

Gold Speculation.

Black Friday.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.

Founding of the Order of Knights of Labor.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.

The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

"The great defect of the Fourteenth Amendment, as freely

charged during its discussion, was its at least tacit

recognition of the right of States to disfranchise the

ex-slaves, should they so elect. True, they could not do it

without sacrificing so much in the basis of their

representation in Congress; but if they were willing to make

that sacrifice, there was nothing in the amendment to prevent

such discrimination. To remedy that defect … it was resolved

to incorporate into the organic law a new provision for their

protection, and to supplement the amendments of the

Constitution already adopted by another. There were

accordingly introduced into both houses, almost

simultaneously, measures for that purpose. … In the House, on

the 11th of January, 1869, Mr. Boutwell reported from the

Committee on the Judiciary a joint resolution proposing an

amendment which provided that the right to vote of no citizen

should be abridged by the United States or any State by reason

of race, color, or previous condition of slavery." The joint

resolution was adopted in the House, 150 affirmative to 42

negative votes, on the 30th of January. Adopted in the Senate

with amendments, by 39 to 16 votes, it went to a Committee of

Conference, on whose report the joint resolution was finally

adopted by both Houses on the 25th of February, and submitted

for ratification to the legislatures of the States, in the

following form:

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote

shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

State on account of race, color, or previous condition of

servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation."

"The amendment received the votes of 29 States, constituting

the requisite three fourths, and thus became a part of the

organic law. On the 30th of March, 1870, President Grant

communicated the fact to Congress in a special message."

_H. Wilson,

History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,

volume 3, chapter 47._

ALSO IN:

_J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

volume 2, chapters 16 and 19._

{3572}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1890.

Recovery of the domination of Whites at the South.

Suppression of the Colored vote.

Prosperity of the Southern States.

"Between 1869 and 1876, the whites had in every Southern State

except South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, regained

control of the government, and in 1876 those three States were

also recovered. The circumstances were different, according to

the character of the population in each State. In some a union

of the moderate white Republicans with the Democrats, brought

about by the disgust of all property holders at the scandals

they saw and at the increase to their burdens as tax-payers,

had secured legitimately chosen majorities, and ejected the

corrupt officials. In some the same result was attained by

paying or otherwise inducing the negroes not to go to the

polls, or by driving them away by threats or actual violence.

Once possessed again of a voting majority, the whites, all of

whom had by 1872 been relieved of their disabilities, took

good care, by a variety of devices, legal and extra-legal, to

keep that majority safe; and in no State has their control of

the government been since shaken. President Hayes withdrew, in

1877, such Federal troops as were still left at the South, and

none have ever since been despatched thither. … With the

disappearance of the carpet-bag and negro governments, the

third era in the political history of the South since the war

began. The first had been that of exclusively white suffrage;

the second, that of predominantly negro suffrage. In the

third, universal suffrage and complete legal equality were

soon perceived to mean in practice the full supremacy of the

whites. To dislodge the coloured man from his rights was

impossible, for they were secured by the Federal Constitution

which prevails against all State action. The idea of

disturbing them was scarcely entertained. Even at the election

of 1872 the Southern Democrats no more expected to repeal the

Fifteenth Amendment than the English Tories expected at the

election of 1874 to repeal the Irish Church Disestablishment

Act of 1869. But the more they despaired of getting rid of the

amendment, the more resolved were the Southern people to

prevent it from taking any effect which could endanger their

supremacy. They did not hate the negro, certainly not half so

much as they hated his white leaders by whom they had been

robbed. 'We have got,' they said, 'to save civilization,' and

if civilization could be saved only by suppressing the

coloured vote, they were ready to suppress it. … The modes of

suppression have not been the same in all districts and at all

times. At first there was a good deal of what is called

'bulldozing,' i. e. rough treatment and terrorism, applied to

frighten the coloured men from coming to or voting at the

polls. Afterwards, the methods were less harsh. Registrations

were so managed as to exclude negro voters, arrangements for

polling were contrived in such wise as to lead the voter to

the wrong place so that his vote might be refused; and, if the

necessity arose, the Republican candidates were counted out,

or the election returns tampered with. 'I would stuff a

ballot-box,' said a prominent man, 'in order to have a good,

honest government;' and he said it in good faith, and with no

sense of incongruity. Sometimes the local negro preachers were

warned or paid to keep their flocks away. … Notwithstanding

these impediments, the negro long maintained the struggle,

valuing the vote as the symbol of his freedom, and fearing to

be re-enslaved if the Republican party should be defeated.

Leaders and organizers were found in the Federal

office-holders, of course all Republicans. … After 1884,

however, when the presidency of the United States passed to a

Democrat, some of these office-holders were replaced by

Democrats and the rest became less zealous. … Their friends at

the North were exasperated, not without reason, for the gift

of suffrage to the negroes had resulted in securing to the

South a larger representation in Congress and in presidential

elections than it enjoyed before the war, or would have

enjoyed had the negroes been left unenfranchised. They argued,

and truly, that where the law gives a right, the law ought to

secure the exercise thereof; and when the Southern men replied

that the negroes were ignorant, they rejoined that all over

the country there were myriads of ignorant voters, mostly

recent immigrants, whom no one thought of excluding.

Accordingly in 1890, having a majority in both Houses of

Congress and a President of their own party, the Republican

leaders introduced a bill subjecting the control of Federal

elections to officers to be appointed by the President, in the

hope of thus calling out a full negro vote, five sixths of

which would doubtless have gone to their party. The measure

appeared to dispassionate observers quite constitutional, and

the mischief it was designed to remedy was palpable. … It

passed the House, but was dropped in the Senate under the

threat of an obstructive resistance by the (then Democratic)

minority. Secure, however, as the dominance of the whites

seems now to be against either Northern legislation or negro

revolt, the Southern people are still uneasy and sensitive on

the subject. … This horror of negro supremacy is the only

point in which the South cherishes its old feelings. Hostility

to the Northern people has almost disappeared. … Just because

they felt that they had fought well, they submitted with

little resentment, and it has become a proverb among them that

the two classes which still cherish bitterness are the two

classes that did not fight,—the women and the clergy. … Not,

however, till the whites regained control between 1870 and

1876, did the industrial regeneration of the country fairly

begin. Two discoveries coincided with that epoch which have

had an immense effect in advancing material prosperity, and

changing the current of men's thoughts. The first was the

exploration of the mineral wealth of the highland core of the

country. … The second discovery was that of the possibility of

extracting oil from the seeds of the cotton plant, which had

formerly been thrown away, or given to hogs to feed on. The

production of this oil has swelled to great proportions,

making the cultivation of cotton far more profitable. … Most

of the crop now raised, which averages eight millions of

bales, and in 1894 was expected to exceed ten millions (being

more than double that which was raised, almost wholly by slave

labour, before the war), is now raised by white farmers; while

the mills which spin and weave it into marketable goods are

daily increasing and building up fresh industrial

communities."

_J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth

(3d edition). chapter 92 (volume 2)._

{3573}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1870.

The Ninth Census.

Total population, 38,558,371 (exceeding that of 1860

by 7,115,049), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.

White. Black.

Maine. 624,809 1,606

New Hampshire. 317,697 580

Vermont. 329,613 924

Massachusetts. 1,443,156 13,947

Rhode Island. 212,219 4,980

Connecticut. 527,549 9,668

New York. 4,330,210 52,081

New Jersey. 875,407 30,658

Pennsylvania. 3,456,609 65,294

Total 12,117,269 179,738

South Atlantic division.

Delaware. 102,221 22,794

Maryland. 605,497 175,391

District of Columbia. 88,278 43,404

Virginia. 712,089 512,841

West Virginia. 424,033 17,980

North Carolina. 678,470 391,650

South Carolina. 289,667 415,814

Georgia. 638,926 545,142

Florida. 96,057 91,689

Total 3,635,238 2,216,705

North central division.

Ohio. 2,601,946 63,213

Indiana. 1,655,837 24,560

Illinois. 2,511,096 28,762

Michigan. 1,167,282 11,849

Wisconsin. 1,051,351 2,113

Minnesota. 438,257 759

Iowa. 1,188,207 5,762

Missouri. 1,603,146 118,071

Dakota. 12,887 94

Nebraska. 122,117 789

Kansas. 346,377 17,108

Total 12,698,503 273,080

South central division.

Kentucky. 1,098,692 222,210

Tennessee. 936,119 322,331

Alabama. 521,384 475,510

Mississippi. 382,896 444,201

Louisiana. 362,065 364,210

Texas. 564,700 253,475

Arkansas. 362,115 122,169

Total 4,227,971 2,204,106

Western division.

Montana. 18,306 183

Wyoming. 8,726 183

Colorado. 39,221 456

New Mexico. 90,393 172

Arizona. 9,581 26

Utah. 86,044 118

Nevada. 38,959 357

Idaho. 10,618 60

Washington. 22,195 207

Oregon. 86,929 346

California. 499,424 4,272

Total 910,396 6,380

Grand total. 33,589,377 4,880,009

In addition the census shows 63,199 Chinese, 65 Japanese, and

25,731 civilized Indians, making a total of 38,558,371, as

stated above. In the decade preceding this census the

immigrant arrivals numbered 2,466,752, of which 1,106,970 were

from the British Islands, and 1,073,429 from other parts of

Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.

Renewed Negotiations with Great Britain.

The Joint High Commission, the Treaty of Washington

and the Geneva Award.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.

The first Civil-Service Reform Act.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (April).

The Force Bill.

At the extra session of Congress, which met March 4, 1871 a

sweeping Act was passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

"This Act allowed suit in Federal courts by the party injured

against any person who should in any way deprive another of

the rights of a citizen; it made it a penal offence to

conspire to take away from any person the rights of a citizen;

it provided that inability, neglect, or refusal by any State

to suppress such conspiracy, to protect the rights of its

citizens, or to call upon the President for aid, should be

'deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the

laws' under the XIVth Amendment; it declared such

conspiracies, if not suppressed by the authorities, 'a

rebellion against the Government of the United States'; it

authorized the President, 'when in his judgment the public

safety shall require it,' to suspend the privilege of the writ

of habeas corpus in any district, and suppress the

insurrection by means of the army and navy; and it excluded

from the jury-box any person 'who shall, in the judgment of

the court, be in complicity with any such combination or

conspiracy.' The authority to suspend the privilege of the

writ of habeas corpus was to cease after the end of the next

regular Session of Congress."

_A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

2d edition, page 214._

ALSO IN:

_Annual Cyclopœdia, 1871, page 228._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

Decision of the San Juan Water Boundary Question

by the Emperor of Germany.

See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.

The Twenty-second Presidential Election.

The leading candidates for President in 1872 were General

Grant, nominated for re-election by the main body of the

Republican Party, and Horace Greeley, of New York, put forward

by a revolted section of that party and accepted and supported

by the Democratic Party. "In 1870 the Republican party in

Missouri had split into two parts. The 'Radical' wing wished

to maintain for the present the disqualifications imposed on

the late rebels by the State Constitution during the war; the

'Liberal' wing, headed by B. Gratz Brown and Carl Schurz,

wished to abolish these disqualifications and substitute

'universal amnesty and universal enfranchisement.' Supported

by the Democrats, the Liberal Republicans carried the State,

though opposed by the Federal office-holders and the influence

of the Administration. This success stimulated a reaction in

the National Republican party, many of whose members believed

that the powers of the Federal Government over the local

concerns of the States had already been enforced up to or

beyond constitutional limits, that the various enforcement

Acts were designed rather for the political advancement of

President Grant's personal adherents than for the benefit of

the country, the freedmen, or even of the Republican party;

and that the efforts to police the Southern States by the

force of the Federal Government ought to cease.

{3574}

In the spring of 1871 the Liberal Republicans and Democrats of

Ohio began to show symptoms of common feeling on these

subjects, and during the summer the 'Liberal' movement

continued to develop within the Republican party. January

24th, 1872, the Missouri Liberals issued a call for a National

Convention at Cincinnati in the following May." At the meeting

in Cincinnati the Liberal Republican Convention nominated

Horace Greeley for President, and B. Gratz Brown for Vice

President. The Democratic National Convention which met at

Baltimore, June 9th, adopted these candidates, with the

"platform" on which they were nominated. "A few recalcitrant

Democrats met at Louisville, Kentucky, September 3d, and

nominated Charles O'Conor, of New York, and John Quincy Adams,

of Massachusetts."

_A. Johnston,

History of American Politics,

2d edition., chapter 22._

The Prohibitionists put in nomination James Black, of

Pennsylvania, for President, and John Russell, of Michigan,

for Vice President. The Republican nominee for Vice President,

on the ticket with General Grant, was Henry Wilson, of

Massachusetts. The popular vote cast was 3,585,444, or

3,597,132, for Grant, and 2,843,563, or 2,834,125 for Greeley

(according to the return that may be counted from Louisiana,

where two rival returning boards disputed authority with one

another); 29,489 for O'Conor and 5,608 for Black. Mr. Greeley

died on the 29th of November, 1872, before the electoral

colleges cast their vote, the consequence being that the

Democratic votes in the colleges were scattered. The following

is the electoral vote for President as counted by Congress:

Grant, 286; Thomas A. Hendricks, 42; B. Gratz Brown 18;

Charles J. Jenkins 2; David Davis, 1. The votes of Louisiana

and Arkansas were rejected, as were three votes cast in

Georgia for Horace Greeley, deceased.

_E. Stanwood,

History of Presidential Elections,

chapter 23._

ALSO IN:

_G. W. Julian,

Political Recollections,

chapter 15._

_E. McPherson,

Handbook of Politics for 1872 and 1874._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872-1873.

The Credit Mobilier Scandal.

See CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.

The so-called "demonetization of silver."

"We have heard a great deal in later years about the

surreptitious demonetization of silver in 1873. There was,

however, vastly too much criticism wasted on the act of 1873;

for the real demonetization of silver in the United States was

accomplished in 1853. It was not the result of accident; it

was a carefully considered plan, deliberately carried into

legislation in 1853, twenty years before its nominal

demonetization by the act of 1873. … In 1853 the single

standard was gold. This was a situation which no one rebelled

against. Indeed, no one seemed to regard it as anything else

than good fortune (except so far as the subsidiary coins had

disappeared). … In the debates it was proposed that, as the

cause of the change in the relative values of gold and silver

was the increased product of gold, the proper remedy should be

to increase the quantity of gold in the gold coins. … There

was no discussion as to how a readjustment of the ratio

between the two metals might be reached, for it was already

decided that only one metal was to be retained. This decision,

consequently, carried us to a point where the ratio between

the two metals was not of the slightest concern. And so it

remained. The United States had no thought about the ratios

between gold and silver thereafter until the extraordinary

fall in the value of silver in 1876. … In the provisions of

the act of 1853 nothing whatever was said as to the silver

dollar-piece. It had entirely disappeared from circulation

years before, and acquiescence in its absence was everywhere

found. No attempt whatever was thereafter made to change the

legal ratio, in order that both metals might again be brought

into concurrent circulation. Having enough gold, the country

did not care for silver. … In 1873 we find a simple legal

recognition of that which had been the immediate result of the

act of 1853, and which had been an admitted fact in the

history of our coinage during the preceding twenty years. In

1853 it had been agreed to accept the situation by which we

had come to have gold for large payments, and to relegate

silver to a limited service in the subsidiary coins. The act

of 1873, however, dropped the dollar piece out of the list of

silver coins. In discontinuing the coinage of the silver

dollar, the act of 1873 thereby simply recognized a fact which

had been obvious to everybody since 1849. It did not introduce

anything new, or begin a new policy. Whatever is to be said

about the demonetization of silver as a fact must center in

the act of 1853. Silver was not driven out of circulation by

the act of 1873, which omitted the dollar of 412½ grains,

since it had not been in circulation for more than twenty-five

years. … The act of February 12, 1873, is known as the act

which demonetized the silver dollar. Important consequences

have been attached to it, and it has even been absurdly

charged that the law was the cause of the commercial crisis of

September, 1873. As if a law which made no changes in the

actual metallic standard in use, and which had been in use

thus for more than twenty' years, had produced a financial

disaster in seven months! To any one who knows of the

influence of credit and speculation, or who has followed the

course of our foreign trade since the Civil War, such a theory

is too absurd to receive more than passing mention. To the

year 1873 there had been coined of 412½-grain dollars for

purposes of circulation, only $1,439,457, and these were

coined before 1806."

_J. L. Laughlin,

History of Bimetallism in the United States,

part 1, chapters 5 and 7._

See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.

The Panic.

"The panic of 1873 differed very materially from the other

great panics by which this country has been afflicted. Lack of

capital was the main difficulty in 1837 and 1857. Population

had increased so rapidly that millions of human beings were

out of work, and apprehension spread lest there might not be

food enough to go around. In 1873, however, men were well

employed. Business of all kinds was in excellent condition,

and no one doubted for a moment that there would be plenty for

every man to eat. The excellent condition of trade, in fact,

was the chief factor in the panic of 1873. Everyone was busy,

and wanted money with which to carry on his trade. For two

years before the crash, money had been in great demand.

{3575}

Railroads had recently been built to an extent such as this

country had never known before. Whereas, in 1861, railroad

construction amounted to only 651 miles, in 1871 it reached

the then unprecedented figure of 7,779 miles. This new

mileage, moreover, was mainly in the West, where the immediate

remuneration was but slight. Railroads were being pushed

forward into regions which could not be expected to return an

income for twenty years. The cost of railroad construction in

this country during the five years preceding September, 1873,

was estimated by the Comptroller of the Currency at no less

than $1,700,000,000. The money to pay for this extravagant

building was obtained, not from the earnings of the old

portions of the road, but from enormous issues of railroad

bonds, placed to a large extent among the banks of this

country, but still more among the capitalists of Europe. In

the Northern Pacific Company occurred the most flagrant abuse

of railroad credit the world has ever known. … One after

another of the Western roads defaulted in paying the interest

on its bonds. The result was, that, by the summer of 1873, the

market for new issues of railroad bonds had practically

disappeared. Meantime the banks and bankers of New York were

loaded down with railroad paper. The railroads had borrowed

money for short periods in the expectation that before their

notes fell due they would have raised the money to make

payment by the sale of bonds. A temporary relief was felt, in

June, 1873, through the customary midsummer ease in money. But

this temporary respite only made the difficulty worse. Deluded

by the momentary calm, the New York banks added still further

to their loans. … The year before, money had grown tight early

in September, and the more cautious banks began gradually to

call their loans, fearing that the experience of 1872 might be

renewed. But the rates for money did not noticeably increase,

and the only cause for excitement early in the month was the

failure, on September 8, of the Mercantile Warehouse and

Security Company, owing to advances on bonds of the Missouri,

Kansas & Texas Railroad. This was followed, on the 13th, by

the failure of Kenyon Cox & Co., of which firm Daniel Drew was

a member, caused by loans to the Canada Southern Railroad. By

this time the sky was heavily overcast. Money was now

advancing rapidly, the New York banks were calling loans on

every hand, and new loans on railroad paper were scarcely to

be had at all. Suddenly, on the 18th of September, the tempest

burst. On the morning of that dark day, Jay Cooke, the agent

of the U. S. Government, with some four millions of deposits

from all parts of the country, and his fifteen millions of

Northern Pacific paper, declared his inability to meet his

debts. The report flew down 'the street' with the ferocity of

a cyclone. Railroad shares were thrown upon the market by the

bushel, in utter disregard of their intrinsic value. … Stock

brokers continued to announce their failures all day long.

Nothing seemed able to withstand the shock, and when, on

September 19, the great banking house of Fisk & Hatch went

under, terror became universal. A run was started on the Union

Trust Co., which was believed to have close intimacy with

Vanderbilt's railroads, and on the Fourth National Bank, whose

dealings were largely with Wall street brokers. The panic, was

by this time so general that the banks began to refuse one

another's certified checks, and on the 20th a considerable

number of the New York banks suspended payment. On that day

the Union Trust Co., the National Trust Co., and the National

Bank of the Commonwealth all closed their doors. At 11 o'clock

on the 20th, the New York Stock Exchange, for the first time

in its history, closed its doors, and the Governing Committee

announced that the board would not be opened till further

notice. This high-handed measure caused an outcry for the

moment, but on calmer judgment it was generally conceded that

the measure was a good one. On the evening of that Saturday,

September 20, the Clearing House Association met and adopted a

plan similar to that adopted in the panic of 1857, and in

substance this: Any bank in the Clearing House Association

might deposit with a committee of five persons, to be

appointed for that purpose, an amount of its bills receivable,

or other securities to be approved by the committee, and the

committee were then to issue to that bank certificates of

deposit, bearing interest at 5 per cent. per annum, to an

amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the securities or bills

receivable so deposited. These certificates could be used in

settlement of balances at the Clearing House for a period not

to extend beyond the 1st of the following November, and they

were to be received by creditor banks during that period

daily, in the proportion which they bore to the aggregate

amount of the debtor balances paid at the Clearing House. The

amount of certificates should not exceed $10,000,000. The

legal tenders belonging to the associated banks were to be

considered and treated as a common fund held for mutual aid

and protection, and the committee were given power to equalize

the same by assessment or otherwise in their discretion. This

scheme, simple as it was, proved of the utmost efficacy in

mitigating the evils that must always follow a distrust among

banks. The lull occasioned by the intervening Sunday was

employed by President Grant and Secretary of the Treasury

Richardson in a visit to New York. All day long they gave

audience to business men at the Fifth Avenue Hotel.

Suggestions of every description were offered as a remedy for

the disease. The most feasible proposition, and that which was

finally adopted, was the purchase of Government bonds. …

Shortly after his return from the Fifth Avenue Hotel,

Secretary Richardson announced his intention to buy Government

bonds, and, in a few days, $13,000,000 of the U. S. greenbacks

were thus absorbed. … On Tuesday, September 30, the Stock

Exchange was once more opened. It was expected on all hands

that this would be the signal for another onslaught. But so

general was this expectation that most persons refrained for

the moment from offering their stocks. As a result, the market

opened a trifle higher than it had closed ten days before. It

continued to advance, moreover, till October 7. On that day a

new decline set in, and on October 14 came a fearful drop,

which carried prices lower than on September 20. From this

reaction there was a gradual improvement till October 31, when

the failure of Hoyt, Sprague & Co., the great mill owners of

Providence and New York, once more shook the market and

brought stocks, on October 31 and November 1, to the lowest

prices of the year.

{3576}

With those prices it became manifest that the panic had

reached its end. Money had already begun to flow to New York

both from Europe and from the West, and the public, tempted by

the excessive decline in stocks, began to purchase freely. The

result was a steady though gradual improvement through the

remainder of the year."

_The Panic of 1873

(Banker's Magazine, November, 1891)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

The Whisky Ring.

See WHISKY RING.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

The second Civil Rights Bill and

its declared unconstitutionality.

"Congress, to give full effect to the fourteenth amendment to

the federal Constitution, passed an act in 1875, which

provided that all persons within the jurisdiction of the

United States shall be entitled to the full and equal

enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and

privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water,

theatres and other places of public amusement, subject only to

the conditions and limitations established by law, and

applicable alike to citizens of every race and color,

regardless of any previous condition of servitude. … In 1883

the act was held unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment,

says Bradley, J., does not 'invest Congress with power to

legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State

legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State

legislation or State action of the kinds referred to. It does

not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for

the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of

redress against the operation of State laws and the action of

State officers, executive and judicial, when these are

subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the

amendment.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 United States 3."

_T. M. Cooley,

Constitutional Limitations which rest upon the

Legislative Power of the States, 6th edition,

pages 733-734 and foot-note._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

Admission of Colorado into the Union.

See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

The Sioux War.

Battle of Little Big Horn.

Death of General Custer.

Hostilities with a powerful confederation of Sioux or Dakota

tribes of Indians, in the northwest, were brought about, in

the spring of 1876, by gold discoveries in the Black Hills and

the consequent rush of miners into the Indian reservation. To

subdue the hostile Indians, three military expeditions were

set in motion,—from Fort Fetterman, under General Crook, from

Fort Ellis, in Montana, under General Gibbon, and from

Bismarck, in Dakota, under General Terry. These were to

converge on the upper waters of the Yellowstone, where Sitting

Bull, the able chief of the Sioux, and his camp, in the valley

of the small stream commonly known as the Little Big Horn. The

Sioux warrior used the advantages of his central position like

a Napoleon, striking his assailants in turn, as they came

near, with far stronger forces than they knew him to possess.

Crook was forced back; Gibbon was brought to a halt. Terry

came last on the ground. His command included the famous

Seventh Cavalry,—the regiment of General Custer. In ignorance

of the surprising number of braves which Sitting Bull had

collected, Custer was sent to make a detour and attack the

Indian camp from the rear. Doing so, on the 25th of June, he

rode into a death trap. Five companies of the regiment, with

its heroic commander at their head, were surrounded so

overwhelmingly that not one man escaped. The remaining seven

companies were too far from the others to cooperate in the

attack. They fortified a bluff and held their ground until the

27th, when Terry and Gibbon came to their relief. The Indians

retreated toward the mountains. The campaign was soon resumed,

and prosecuted through the fall and winter, until Sitting Bull

and some of his followers fled into British America and the

remaining hostiles surrendered.

_F. Whittaker,

Complete Life of General George A. Custer,

book 8, chapter 4-5._

ALSO IN:

_J. F. Finerty,

War Path and Bivouac,

part 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

The Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia.

In 1871, the Congress of the United States passed an act to

provide for the commemoration, in 1876, of the centennial

anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, by holding an

exhibition, at Philadelphia, "of American and foreign arts,

products, and manufactures." The act created a commission,

composed of one delegate from each state and territory of the

United States, to which commission was committed the

"exclusive control" of the contemplated exhibition; though the

State of Pennsylvania was required to make provision for the

erection of suitable buildings. "To the surprise of those

writers who had contended that there would be no exhibits from

abroad,' there was shown a universal desire on the part of all

nations to co-operate liberally in the World's Fair of 1876.

These different governments appropriated large sums of money,

selected as commissioners men of the highest standing, loaned

to the exhibition their most valuable works of art, and in

every sense indicated a desire on the part of the Old World to

forget the past and to unite itself closely with the future of

the New. Singular as it may seem, there was no disposition on

the part of Congress to facilitate and aid in carrying out

this grand enterprise. The money had to be raised by private

subscription, from all sections of the United States, and it

was only by a determined and persistent effort with Congress

that at last a government loan was secured of $1,500,000,

which loan has been called up by the government and repaid

since that time. The City of Philadelphia appropriated

$1,000,000 and the State of Pennsylvania $1,500,000, and all

other states, notably New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New

Hampshire, etc., subscribed to the stock issued by the

Centennial Board of Finance. In 1873, the location so well

known as Fairmount Park was selected for the exposition, and

immediate possession given by the City of Philadelphia, free

from all expense or charge, and who also liberally contributed

to the success of the World's Fair 1876 by the erection of two

magnificent bridges over the Schuylkill at a cost of over

$2,500,000, in addition to the various improvements made in

Fairmount Park. … The total number of exhibitors at the

World's Fair 1876 was estimated at 30,864, the United States

heading the list with 8,175; Spain and her colonies, 3,822;

Great Britain and colonies, 3,584; and Portugal, 2,462. …

{3577}

The exhibition opened on the 10th of May, 1876, and from that

time until November 10, 1876, there were admitted a grand

total of 9,910,966 persons, of whom 8,004,274 paid admission

fees amounting to $3,813,724.49."

_C. B. Norton,

World's Fairs, chapter 6._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.

The Twenty-third Presidential Election and its disputed result.

The Electoral Commission.

Four candidates for the Presidency were named and voted for by

as many different parties in 1876, although the contest of the

election was practically between the Republicans and

Democrats, as in previous years. The former, after a prolonged

struggle of rival factions, put in nomination ex-Governor

Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, with William A. Wheeler, of New

York, for Vice President. The candidates of the Democratic

party were ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for

President, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice

President. Before these nominations were made, the Prohibition

Reform party and the party calling itself the Independent, but

popularly known as the "Greenback party," had already brought

candidates into the field. The first named put Green Clay

Smith, of Kentucky and G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, in nomination;

the nominees of the last named were Peter Cooper, of New York,

and Samuel F. Cary, of Ohio. "Thirty-eight States participated

in the election. Colorado had been admitted to the Union in

August, 1876, and, in order to save an additional election,

the choice of electors for that occasion was conferred upon

the legislature. All the other States appointed them by

popular vote. The polls had hardly closed on the day of

election, the 7th of November, when the Democrats began to

claim the presidency. The returns came in so unfavorably for

the Republicans that there was hardly a newspaper organ of the

party which did not, on the following morning, concede the

election of Mr. Tilden. He was believed to have carried every

Southern State, as well as New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and

Connecticut. The whole number of electoral votes was 369. If

the above estimate were correct, the Democratic candidates

would have 203 votes, and the Republican candidates 166 votes.

But word was sent out on the same day from Republican

headquarters at Washington that Hayes and Wheeler were elected

by one majority; that the States of South Carolina, Florida,

and Louisiana had chosen Republican electors. Then began the

most extraordinary contest that ever took place in the

country. The only hope of the Republicans was in the perfect

defence of their position. The loss of a single vote would be

fatal. An adequate history of the four months between the

popular election and the inauguration of Mr. Hayes, would fill

volumes. Space can be given here for only a bare reference to

some of the most important events. Neither party was

over-scrupulous, and no doubt the acts of some members of each

party were grossly illegal and corrupt. … In four States,

South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon, there were

double returns. In South Carolina there were loud complaints

that detachments of the army, stationed near the polls, had

prevented a fair and free election. Although the board of

State canvassers certified to the choice of the Hayes

electors, who were chosen on the face of the returns, the

Democratic candidates for electors met on the day fixed for

the meeting of electors and cast ballots for Tilden and

Hendricks. In Florida there were allegations of fraud on both

sides. The canvassing board and the governor certified to the

election of the Hayes electors, but, fortified by a court

decision in their favor, the Democratic electors also met and

voted. In Louisiana there was anarchy. There were two

governors, two returning boards, two sets of returns showing

different results, and two electoral colleges. In Oregon the

Democratic governor adjudged one of the Republican electors

ineligible, and gave a certificate to the highest candidate on

the Democratic list. The Republican electors, having no

certificate from the governor, met and voted for Hayes and

Wheeler. The Democratic elector, whose appointment was

certified to by the governor, appointed two others to fill the

vacancies, when the two Republican electors would not meet

with him, and the three voted for Tilden and Hendricks. All of

these cases were very complicated in their incidents, and a

brief account which should convey an intelligible idea of what

occurred is impossible. … Thus, for the first and only time in

the history of the country, the election ended in such a way

as to leave the result in actual doubt, and in two States the

number of legal votes given for the electors was in dispute. …

As soon as the electoral votes were cast it became a question

of the very first importance how they were to be counted. It

was evident that the Senate would refuse to be governed by the

22nd joint rule [under which no electoral vote to which any

member of either House objected could be counted unless both

Houses agreed to the counting of it]—in fact the Senate voted

to rescind the rule,—and it was further evident that if the

count were to take place in accordance with that rule it would

result in throwing out electoral votes on both sides on the

most frivolous pretexts. It was asserted by the Republicans

that, under the Constitution, the President of the Senate

alone had the right to count, in spite of the fact that the

joint rule, the work of their party, had assumed the power for

the two Houses of Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats,

who had always denounced that rule as unconstitutional, now

maintained that the right to count was conferred upon

Congress. A compromise became necessary, and the moderate men

on both sides determined to effect the establishment of a

tribunal, as evenly divided politically as might be, which

should decide all disputed questions so far as the

Constitution gave authority to Congress to decide them. The

outcome of their efforts was the Electoral Commission law of

1877," by which a Commission was created, consisting of

fifteen members—the Senate appointing five from its own body,

the House five, and four Associate-Justices of the Supreme

Court, designated in the bill, appointing a fifth from the

same court. The Senators selected were Edmunds, Morton,

Frelinghuysen (Republicans), and Thurman and Bayard

(Democrats). The Representatives were Payne, Hunton, Abbott

(Democrats), and Garfield and Hoar (Republicans). The four

Supreme Court Justices designated by the Act were Clifford,

Field (Democrats), Strong and Miller (Republicans). They

selected for the fifth member of the Commission Justice

Bradley, who was a Republican.

{3578}

"The natural choice of the justices would have been their

associate, David Davis; but he had been ejected only five days

before as senator from Illinois, and it was regarded by him

and by others as improper that he should serve. Thus the

commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats.

If Judge Davis had been selected, there would have been only

seven Republicans, and the result of the operation of the law

might have been different. … The count had begun on the first

day of February, and the final vote upon Wisconsin was not

reached until the early morning of March 2. As question after

question was decided uniformly in favor of the Republicans, it

became evident to the Democrats that their case was lost. They

charged gross partisanship upon the Republican members of the

Electoral Commission, in determining every point involved in

the dual returns for their own party, though as a matter of

fact there does not seem to have been much room for choice

between the two parties on the score of partisanship. Each

member of the commission favored by his vote that view which

would result in adding to the electoral vote of his own party.

But as the result of the count became more and more certainly

a Republican triumph, the anger of the Democrats arose. Some

of them were for discontinuing the count; and the symptoms of

a disposition to filibuster so that there should be no

declaration of the result gave reason for public disquietude.

But the conservative members of the party were too patriotic

to allow the failure of a law which they had been instrumental

in passing to lead to anarchy or revolution, and they sternly

discountenanced all attempts to defeat the conclusion of the

count. The summing up of the votes [Hayes, 185; Tilden, 184],

was read by Mr. Allison of Iowa, one of the tellers on the

part of the Senate, at a little after four o'clock, on the

morning of the 2d of March, amid great excitement. … Mr. Ferry

thereupon declared Rutherford B. Hayes elected President, and

William A. Wheeler Vice-President, of the United States. The

decision was acquiesced in peaceably by the whole country, and

by men of every party. But the Democrats have never ceased to

denounce the whole affair as a fraud. … It is to be hoped that

the patriotism of the American people and their love of peace

may never again be put to such a severe test as was that of

1876 and 1877." According to the Democratic count, the popular

vote stood:

Tilden, 4,300,590;

Hayes, 4,036,298;

Cooper, 81,737;

Smith, 9,522.

The Republican count gave:

Tilden, 4,285,992;

Hayes, 4,033,768.

_E. Stanwood,

History of Presidential Elections,

chapter 24._

ALSO IN:

_C. A. O'Neil,

The American Electoral System,

chapters 20-21._

_A. M. Gibson,

A Political Crime._

_Congressional Record,

volume 5 (1877), parts 1-2._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877.

Halifax Fishery Award.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

The Farmers' Alliance.

The Farmers' Alliance "is the outcome of a movement which

first culminated, shortly after the Civil War had ended, in

the formation of the Patrons of Husbandry, or, as they were

more commonly called, 'The Grange,' the object of which

organization was the mutual protection of farmers against the

encroachments of capital. The collapse of the Grange was due

to a mistake it had made in not limiting its membership

originally to those whose interests were agricultural. The

first 'Alliance' was formed in Texas, to oppose the wholesale

buying up of the public lands by private individuals. … For

about ten years the Alliance remained a Southern organization.

In 1887, about ten years after the first local Alliance in

Texas was formed, and five after the State Alliance, the

'Farmers' Union' of Louisiana united with it, under the name

of the 'Farmers' Alliance and Co-operative Union of America.'

Branches were quickly established," in other Southern States.

"Later in the same year, the 'Agricultural Wheel,' a similar

society operating in the States of Arkansas, Missouri,

Kentucky, and Tennessee, was amalgamated with the Alliance,

the new organization being called 'The Farmers' and Laborers'

Union of America.' The spirit of the movement had

simultaneously been embodied in the 'National Farmers'

Alliance' of Illinois, which was started in 1877, and quickly

extended into Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas,

and Dakota. A minor organization, the 'Farmers' Mutual Benefit

Association,' was started in 1887, in the southern part of

Illinois. Finally, in 1889, at a meeting held in St. Louis,

these different bodies were all practically formed into a

union for political purposes, aiming at legislation in the

interests of farmers and laborers; and the present name of the

'Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union' was chosen. … Its

main professed object is the destruction of the money power in

public affairs, and the opposition of all forms of monopoly.

It demands the substitution of legal tender treasury notes for

National bank notes; also an extension of the public currency

sufficient for the transaction of all legitimate business; the

money to be given to the people on security of their land, at

the lowest rates consistent with the cost of making and

handling it. It demands government control, not only of money,

but of the means of transportation and every other public

function."

_Quarterly Register of Current History,

volume 1, page 132._

ALSO IN:

_F. M. Drew,

The Present Farmers' Movement

(Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891)._

See, also,

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.

The Bland Silver Bill.

The act familiarly known as the Bland Bill was passed by

Congress in 1878. "Although the silver dollar of which the

coinage was resumed in 1878 dates back as a coin to the

earlier days of the Republic, its reissue in that year marks a

policy so radically new that the experience of previous years

throws practically no light on its working. The act of 1878

provided for the purchase by the government, each month, of

not less than two million dollars' worth, and not more than

four million dollars' worth, of silver bullion, for coinage

into silver dollars at the rate of 412½ grains of standard

silver (or 371¼ grains of fine silver) for each dollar. The

amount of the purchases, within the specified limits, was left

to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. As every

Secretary of the Treasury, throughout the period in which the

act was in force, kept to the minimum amount, the practical

result was a monthly purchase of two million dollars' worth of

silver bullion. The act is sometimes described as having

called for a monthly issue of two million silver dollars; but

this was not the exact situation.

{3579}

The amount of silver obtainable with two million dollars

obviously varies according to the price of the metal in terms

of the dollars with which the purchases are made. In February,

1878, when the first purchases were made, those dollars were

the inconvertible United States notes, or greenbacks, worth

something less than their face in gold. … When specie payments

were resumed, on the first of January, 1879, and the

greenbacks became redeemable in gold, the measure of value in

the United States became gold, and the extent of the coinage

of silver dollars under the act of 1878 became simply a

question of how much silver bullion could be bought with two

million dollars of gold. The price of silver in 1878 was, in

terms of gold, not far from a dollar for an ounce of standard

silver. After 1878 it went down almost steadily. … The silver

dollar of 412½ grains contains less than an ounce (480 grains)

of standard silver. The monthly purchase of two million

dollars' worth of silver therefore yielded more than two

million silver dollars, the amount being obviously greater as

the price of silver went lower. On the average, the monthly

yield was not far from two and a half millions of silver

dollars. So much each month, therefore, or thirty millions of

silver dollars a year, was roughly the addition to the

currency of the community from the act of 1878. An important

provision of the act of 1878 was that authorizing the issue of

silver certificates against the deposit of silver dollars. …

The dollars and certificates between them constitute what we

may call the silver currency of the act of 1878. The passage

of that act was due to causes easily described. It was part of

the opposition to the contraction of the currency and the

resumption of specie payments, which forms the most important

episode of our financial history between 1867 and 1879. … No

doubt some additional force was given to the movement in favor

of the use of silver from the desire of the silver-mining

States and their representatives, that the price of the metal

should be kept up through a larger use of it for coinage. But

this element, while sometimes prominent in the agitation, was

not then, as it has not been in more recent years, of any

great importance by itself. The real strength of the agitation

for the wider use of silver as money comes from the conviction

of large masses of the people that the community has not

enough money."

_F. W. Taussig,

The Silver Situation in the United States,

part 1._

See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

The Twenty-fourth Presidential Election.

For the twenty-fourth Presidential election, in 1880, the

Republicans, meeting at Chicago, June 2, named General James

A. Garfield, of Ohio, as its candidate for President and

Chester A. Arthur, of New York, for Vice President. The

so-called Greenback party (which had appeared four years

before, in the election of 1876), meeting at Chicago on the

9th of June, put in nomination, for President, James B. Weaver

of Iowa, and, for Vice President, B. J. Chambers, of Texas.

The main object and principle of the Greenback party was set

forth in the following declarations of its platform: "That the

right to make and issue money is a sovereign power to be

maintained by the people for the common benefit. The

delegation of this right to corporations is a surrender of the

central attribute of sovereignty. … All money, whether

metallic or paper, should be issued and its volume controlled

by the government, and not by or through banking corporations,

and, when so issued, should be a full legal tender for all

debts, public and private. … Legal tender currency [the

greenback notes of the civil-war period] should be substituted

for the notes of the national banks, the national banking

system abolished, and the unlimited coinage of silver, as well

as gold, established by law." The Prohibitionists

(Temperance), in convention at Cleveland, June 17, nominated

Neal Dow, of Maine, for President, and A. M. Thompson, of

Ohio, for Vice President. On the 22d of June, at Cincinnati,

the Democratic party held its convention and nominated General

Winfield S. Hancock, of Pennsylvania, for President, and

William H. English, of Indiana, for Vice President. At the

election, in November, the popular vote cast was 4,454,416 for

Garfield, 4,444,952 for Hancock, 308,578 for Weaver, and

10,305 for Dow. The electoral votes were divided between

Garfield and Hancock, being 214 for the former and 155 for the

latter. Every former slave-state was carried by the Democratic

party, together with New Jersey, California and Nevada.

_E. McPherson,

Handbook of Politics for 1880 and 1882._

ALSO IN:

_J. C. Ridpath,

Life and Work of James A. Garfield,

chapters 10-11._

_J. G. Blaine,

Twenty Years of Congress,

chapter 29._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.

The Tenth Census.

Total population, 50,155,783 (exceeding that of 1870 by

11,5117,412), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.

White. Black.

Maine. 646,852 1,451

New Hampshire. 346,229 685

Vermont. 331,218 1,057

Massachusetts. 1,763,782 18,697

Rhode Island. 269,939 6,488

Connecticut. 610,769 11,547

New York. 5,016,022 65,104

New Jersey. 1,092,017 38,853

Pennsylvania. 4,197,016 85,535

Total 14,273,844 229,417

South Atlantic division.

Delaware. 120,160 26,442

Maryland. 724,693 210,230

District of Columbia. 118,006 59,596

Virginia. 880,858 631,616

West Virginia. 592,537 25,886

North Carolina. 867,242 531,277

South Carolina. 391,105 604,332

Georgia. 816,906 725,133

Florida. 142,605 126,690

Total 4,654,112 2,941,202

North Central division.

Ohio. 3,117,920 79,900

Indiana. 1,938,798 39,228

Illinois. 3,031,151 46,368

Michigan. 1,614,560 15,100

Wisconsin. 1,309,618 2,702

Minnesota. 776,884 1,564

Iowa. 1,614,600 9,516

Missouri. 2,022,826 145,350

Dakota. 133,147 401

Nebraska. 449,764 2,385

Kansas. 952,155 43,107

Total 16,961,423 385,621

{3580}

South Central division.

White. Black.

Kentucky. 1,377,179 271,451

Tennessee. 1,138,831 403,151

Alabama. 662,185 600,103

Mississippi. 479,398 650,291

Louisiana. 454,954 483,655

Texas. 1,197,237 393,384

Arkansas. 591,531 210,666

Total 5,901,315 3,012,701

Western division.

Montana. 35,385 346

Wyoming. 19,437 298

Colorado. 191,126 2,435

New Mexico. 108,721 1,015

Arizona. 35,160 155

Utah. 142,423 232

Nevada. 53,556 488

Idaho. 29,013 53

Washington. 67,199 325

Oregon. 163,075 487

California. 767,181 6,018

Total 1,612,276 11,852

Grand total. 43,402,970 6,580,793

In addition the census shows 105,465 Chinese, 148 Japanese,

and 66,407 civilized Indians, making a total of 50,155,783, as

stated above. The immigrants arriving in the country during

the preceding ten years numbered 2,944,695, of whom 989,163

were from the British Islands and 1,357,801 from other parts

of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.

The brief administration of President Garfield.

His assassination.

"President Hayes had left the new administration a heritage of

hatred from the Stalwart element of the Republican party. It

was President Garfield's chief wish, politically, to heal up

the chasm which the past had opened, and not to recognize one

faction more than another. … The defeat of the Stalwarts at

Chicago, by Garfield, naturally tended to transfer their

hostility from the outgoing to the incoming President."

See STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

"For months before the inauguration, the embarrassment which

threatened Garfield was foreseen by the country." The

inevitable outbreak of hostilities occurred the moment that

the President made a nomination in New York which was

distasteful to the arrogant Senator from that State, Roscoe

Conkling, who imperiously led the Stalwart forces. This

happened upon the presentation of the name of William H.

Robertson for Collector of the Port of New York. In order to

force a division in the Republican party upon the quarrel

between himself and President Garfield, Senator Conkling

resigned his seat in the Senate of the United States and

presented himself to the Legislature of New York as a

candidate for re-election. He counted, without doubt, upon an

easy triumph, expecting to be returned to Washington, bearing

the mandate of his party, so to speak, and humbling the

President into submissive obedience to his behests. He was

disappointed; his re-election was defeated; but the furious

contest which went on during some weeks, engendered bitter

passions, which had their effect, no doubt, in producing the

awful tragedy that soon ensued. By the end of June the clamor

of the strife had greatly subsided; the Senate had adjourned,

and the weary President made ready to join Mrs. Garfield at

Long Branch, where she was just recovering from a serious

illness. "On the morning of the 2d of July … the President

made ready to put his purpose into execution. Several members

of the Cabinet, headed by Secretary Blaine, were to accompany

him to Long Branch. A few ladies, personal friends of the

President's family, and one of his sons, were of the company;

and as the hour for departure drew near they gathered at the

depot of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway to await the train.

The President and Secretary Blaine were somewhat later than

the rest. … When the carriage arrived at the station at

half-past nine o'clock, the President and Mr. Blaine left it

and entered the ladies' waiting-room, which they passed

through arm in arm. A moment afterwards, as they were passing

through the door into the main room, two pistol shots suddenly

rang out upon the air. Mr. Blaine saw a man running, and

started toward him, but turned almost immediately and saw that

the President had fallen. It was instantly realized that the

shots had been directed with fatal accuracy at the beloved

President. Mr. Blaine sprang toward him, as did several

others, and raised his head from the floor. … A moment after

the assassin was discovered … and, in the middle of B Street,

just outside of the depot, was seized by the policemen and

disarmed. A pistol of very heavy caliber was wrenched out of

his hand, and it became clear that a large ball had entered

the President's body. The assassin gave his name as Charles

Jules Guiteau. … [He] was found to be a mixture of fool and

fanatic, who, in his previous career, had managed to build up,

on a basis of total depravity, a considerable degree of

scholarship. He was a lawyer by profession, and had made a

pretense of practicing in several places—more particularly in

Chicago. … In the previous spring, about the time of the

inauguration, he had gone to Washington to advance a claim to

be Consul-General at Paris. … Hanging about the Executive

Mansion and the Department of State for several weeks, he

seemed to have conceived an intense hatred of the President,

and to have determined on the commission of the crime." The

wounded President lingered for eighty days, during which long

period of suffering there were many alternations of hope and

fear in his case. He died on the 19th of September. His

assassin was tried and executed for the crime, though much

doubt of his sanity exists. The Vice-President, Chester A.

Arthur, became President for the remainder of the term.

_J. C. Ridpath,

Life and Work of James A. Garfield,

chapters 12-13._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1882.

Passage of the Edmunds Bill, to suppress Polygamy in Utah.

See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1883.

Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

Financial Disasters.

"The month of May, 1884, concludes the prosperous period which

followed the crisis of 1873. During this period the most

gigantic speculations in railroads occurred; the zenith of the

movement was in 1880, and as early as 1881 a retrograde

movement began, only to end in the disasters in question. The

decline in prices had been steady for three years; they had

sunk little by little under the influence of a ruinous

competition, caused by the number of new lines and the

lowering of rates, but above all through the manipulations by

the managers on a scale unexampled until now.

{3581}

In connection with the disasters of May, 1884, the names of

certain speculators who misused other people's money, such as

Ward, of Grant & Ward; Fish, President of the Marine Bank; and

John C. Eno, of the Second National Bank, will long be

remembered. General Grant, who was a silent partner in Ward's

concern, was an innocent sufferer, both in fortune and

reputation."

_C. Juglar,

Brief History of Panics,

pages 102-103._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.

The Twenty-fifth Presidential Election.

Appearance of the Independents or "Mugwumps."

James G. Blaine, of Maine, and General John A. Logan, of

Illinois, nominated at Chicago, June 3, were the Republican

candidates for President and Vice President, in the election

of 1884. The Democratic National Convention, held, likewise,

at Chicago, July 8, put forward Governor Grover Cleveland, of

New York, as its candidate for President, with Thomas A.

Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice President. General Benjamin F.

Butler, of Massachusetts, and General A. M. West, of

Mississippi, received double nominations, from the National or

Greenback party and an Anti-Monopoly party (so-called) for

President and Vice President, respectively; while the

Prohibitionists put in nomination John P. St. John, of Kansas,

and William Daniel, of Maryland. The election was an

exceedingly close one, its result turning upon a plurality of

only 1,149 in New York, by which that state was given to

Cleveland, with its 36 electoral votes, securing his election.

The total popular vote counted as follows: Cleveland,

4,874,986; Blaine, 4,851,981; Butler, 175,370; St. John,

150,369. The electoral vote was divided between Cleveland and

Blaine, 219 for the former and 182 for the latter.

_E. McPherson,

Hand-book of Politics, 1884 and 1886._

_Annual Cyclopœdia, 1884._

"At the presidential election of 1884 a section of the

Republican party, more important by the intelligence and

social position of the men who composed it than by its voting

power, 'bolted' (to use the technical term) from their party,

and refused to support Mr. Blaine. Some simply abstained,

some, obeying the impulse to vote which is strong in good

citizens in America, voted for Mr. St. John, the

Prohibitionist candidate, though well aware that this was

practically the same thing as abstention. The majority,

however, voted against their party for Mr. Cleveland, the

Democratic candidate; and it seems to have been the

transference of their vote which turned the balance in New

York State, and thereby determined the issue of the whole

election in Mr. Cleveland's favour." This group "goes by the

name of Mugwumps. … The name is said to be formed from an

Indian word denoting a chief or aged wise man, and was applied

by the 'straight-out' Republicans to their bolting brethren as

a term of ridicule. It was then taken up by the latter as a

term of compliment; though the description they used formally

in 1884 was that of 'Independent Republicans.' … The chief

doctrine they advocate is … the necessity of reforming the

civil service by making appointments without reference to

party, and a general reform in the methods of politics by

selecting men for Federal, State, and municipal offices, with

reference rather to personal fitness than to political

affiliations."

_J. Bryce,

The American Commonwealth (3d edition, revised),

chapter 56, with foot-note (volume 2)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1885-1888.

Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.

Renewed controversies.

The rejected Treaty.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

The Bering Sea controversy and arbitration.

"Four serious international controversies have arisen out of

the rival claims of Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and the

United States to the shores and waters of the northwest coast

of the continent of North America. The first of these was in

consequence of an attempt of the Spanish Government, in 1790,

to prevent the British from trading with the natives of that

coast. It was settled by the Nootka Sound Convention of

October 28, 1790, by which the subjects of both powers enjoyed

equal privileges of trade to all points not already occupied.

The second controversy was the result of an attempt of Russia

in 1821 to prohibit England and the United States from trading

anywhere north of the 51st parallel, or to approach within 100

Italian miles of the coast. Both governments energetically

protested and secured treaties in 1824 and 1825, by which they

retained the right of fishing and of landing on unoccupied

points of that coast. The third controversy was as to the

division of the coast between Great Britain and the United

States, Spain having by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 accepted

the parallel of 54° 40' as her southern boundary. The rival

claims of the two remaining powers, after long diplomatic

discussion, were settled by the treaty of July 17, 1846,

according to which the parallel of 49° was made the dividing

line. By the treaty of March 30, 1867, with Russia, all the

dominions and claims of that country on the continent of North

America and the outlying islands thereof were transferred to

the United States. A further, and still pending, controversy

arose in 1886 through the seizure by United States vessels of

Canadian vessels engaged in the taking of seals in waters not

far distant from the Aleutian Islands. The claim of the United

States was that it had acquired from Russia exclusive rights

in Behring Sea, at least with regard to seal fishing. The

British Government representing the Canadians denied that

there could be any exclusive rights outside three miles off

shore. By an agreement of February 29, 1892, the question has

been submitted to arbitration," the arbitrators to give "a

distinct decision" upon each of the following five points:

"1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the

Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries

therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the

time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal

fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea

included in the phrase 'Pacific Ocean,' as used in the treaty

of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if

any, in the Behring's Sea, were held and exclusively exercised

by Russia after said treaty?

{3562}

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to the jurisdiction and

as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water

boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia

of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United

States under that treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right, of

protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the

islands of the United States in Behring's Sea, when such seals

are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"

_American History Leaflets, no. 6._

The arbitrators to whom these points of the question were

submitted under the treaty were seven in number, as follows:

Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court of the United

States, and Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, appointed by

the United States; Rt. Hon. Lord Hannan, and Sir John S. D.

Thompson, Prime Minister of Canada, appointed by Great

Britain; Senator Baron Alphonse de Courcelles, formerly French

Ambassador at Berlin, appointed by the French government;

Senator Marquis E. Visconti Venosta, appointed by the Italian

government; and Judge Mons. Gregers Gram, Minister of State,

appointed by the government of Sweden. The Court of

Arbitration met at Paris, beginning its sessions on March 23,

1893. The award of the Tribunal, signed on the 15th of August,

1893, decided the five points submitted to it, as follows:

(1) That Russia did not, after 1825, assert or exercise any

exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea, or any exclusive rights

in the seal fisheries;

(2) that no such claims on the part of Russia were recognized

or conceded by England;

(3) that the body of water now known as Bering Sea was

included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty

of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and that no

exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Bering Sea or as to the

seal fisheries there were held or exercised by Russia after

the treaty of 1825;

(4) that all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and the

seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary did

pass unimpaired to the United States under the treaty of March

30, 1867;

(5) that the United States has not any right of protection or

property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the

United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside

the ordinary three-mile limit.

Mr. Morgan alone dissented from the decision rendered on the

first and second points, and on the second division of the

third point. Justice Harlan and Mr. Morgan both dissented on

the fifth point. On the fourth point, and on the first

division of the third, the decision was unanimous. These

points of controversy disposed of, the Arbitrators proceeded

to prescribe the regulations which the Governments of the

United States and Great Britain shall enforce for the

preservation of the fur seal. The regulations prescribed

prohibit the killing, capture or pursuit of fur seals, at any

time or in any manner, within a zone of sixty miles around the

Pribilov Islands; prohibit the same from May 1 to July 31 in

all the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Bering Sea,

which is north of 35° north latitude and eastward of the 180th

degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water

boundary described in Article I. of the Treaty of 1867 between

the United States and Russia; and following that line up to

Bering Straits; allow only sailing vessels, with licenses, to

take part in fur seal fishing operations, and forbid the use

of nets, firearms and explosives, except as to shot guns

outside of Bering Sea. As promulgated, the Award bore the

signatures of all the Arbitrators.

_The Behring Sea Arbitration:

Letters to The Times._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1888.

Tariff Message of President Cleveland.

Attempted revision of the Tariff.

Defeat of the Mills Bill.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1884-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.

The Twenty-sixth Presidential election.

President Cleveland was nominated for re-election by the

Democratic National Convention, held at St. Louis, June 5,

with Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, for Vice President. The

Republican Convention, at Chicago, June 19, named Benjamin

Harrison, of Indiana, for President, and Levi P. Morton, of

New York, for Vice President. At Indianapolis, May 30, the

Prohibition party had already put in nomination General

Clinton B. Fisk, of New Jersey, and John A. Brooks, of

Missouri, for President and Vice President, respectively. The

Union Labor Party, convening at Cincinnati, May 15, had

nominated Alson J. Streeter, of Illinois, and Charles E.

Cunningham, of Arkansas; the United Labor Party, a rival

organization, had put forward Robert H. Cowdrey, of Illinois,

and William H. T. Wakefield, of Kansas; and still another

labor ticket had been brought forward in February, at

Washington, where an organization calling itself the

Industrial Reform party, put Albert E. Redstone, of

California, and John Colvin, of Kansas, in nomination. At Des

Moines, Iowa, May 15, the National Equal Rights party had

named a woman for the Presidency, in the person of Mrs. Belva

Lockwood, of Washington, with Alfred H. Love, of Philadelphia,

named for Vice President. Finally, in August, an organization

attempting to revive the American Party of former days,

convening at Washington, presented James L. Curtis, of New

York, for President, and James R. Greer of Tennessee (who

declined the honor) for Vice President. In the ensuing

election, the popular vote was distributed as follows:

Cleveland 5,540,329;

Harrison, 5,439,853;

Fisk, 249,506;

Streeter, 146,935;

Cowdrey, 2,818;

Curtis, 1,591.

Notwithstanding the greater number of votes cast for Cleveland

(his plurality being 100,476), Harrison was chosen President

by the electoral votes, receiving 233. while 168 were given

for Cleveland.

Appletons Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888,

pages 773-782, and 799-828.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

The opening of Oklahoma.

The Johnstown Flood.

The Pan-American Congress.

Admission of seven new States.

"In the centre of Indian Territory there is a large district

called, in the Indian language, Oklahoma, or the 'Beautiful

Land.' This tract was finally purchased from the Indians by

the United States, early in 1889. On the 22d of April, of that

year, some 50,000 persons were waiting impatiently on the

borders of Oklahoma for President Harrison's signal, giving

them permission to enter and take up lands in the coveted

region. At precisely twelve o'clock noon, of that day, the

blast of a bugle announced that Oklahoma was open to

settlement. Instantly an avalanche of human beings rushed

wildly across the line, each one eager to get the first

chance. Towns made of rough board-shanties and of tents sprang

up in all directions. The chief of these were Oklahoma City

and Guthrie. At the end of four months, the latter had a

population of about 5,000, with four daily papers and six

banks; and arrangements, doubtless since completed, were being

made to start a line of street cars, and light the city with

electricity.

{3583}

A week after the opening of Oklahoma, the centennial

anniversary of the inauguration of Washington, and of the

beginning of our government under the Constitution, was

celebrated in New York City [April 29-May 1]. … In a little

less than a month from that occasion, the most terrible

disaster of the kind ever known in our history occurred (May

31, 1889) in Western Pennsylvania. By the breaking of a dam, a

body of water forty feet high and nearly half a mile in width

swept down through a deep and narrow valley. In less than

fifteen minutes, the flood had traversed a distance of

eighteen miles. In that brief time, it dashed seven towns out

of existence, and ended by carrying away the greater part of

Johnstown. The whole valley at that place was choked with

ruins; at least 5,000 persons lost their lives, and property

worth ten million dollars was utterly destroyed. In the autumn

(October 2, 1889), representatives of the leading governments

of Central and of South America, together with the Republic of

Mexico, met representatives chosen by the United States in a

conference or congress held at Washington. The object of the

congress was to bring about a closer union of the Americas,

for purposes of trade, and of mutual advantage. The delegates

spent six weeks in visiting the principal commercial and

manufacturing cities of the United States. They then returned

to Washington, and devoted the greater part of the remainder

of the year and part of 1890 to the discussion of business."

_D. H. Montgomery,

Leading Facts of American History,

sections 390-392._

"An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States,

and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota,

Montana, and Washington, to form constitutions and State

governments … was approved by President Cleveland, February

22, 1889. This act provided that the Territory of Dakota

should be divided on the line of the seventh standard

parallel. … On the 4th of July, 1889, the four conventions

assembled-for North Dakota at Bismarck, for South Dakota at

Sioux Falls, for Montana at Helena, and for Washington at

Olympia."

_F. N. Thorpe,

Recent Constitution-making in the United States

(Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, September, 1891)._

Acceptable constitutions having been framed and adopted in the

several proposed new states, North Dakota and South Dakota

were admitted to the Union by proclamation of President

Harrison, November 3, 1889, Montana, November 8, and

Washington, November 11, in the same year. "Early in the

session of the fifty-first Congress, Wyoming presented her

claims for Statehood, asking for admission to the Union under

the Constitution of September, 1889, which was adopted by the

people on November 5 following. The bill for admission passed

the House of Representatives on March 27, 1890, passed the

Senate on June 27, and received the President's signature on

July 10. By its terms Wyoming became a state from and after

the date of the President's approval." Idaho had previously

been admitted, by a bill which received the President's

signature on the 3d of July, 1890.

_Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1890 and 1889._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.

McKinley Tariff Act.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES); A. D. 1890.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.

The Eleventh Census.

Total population 62,622,250 (exceeding that of 1880 by

12,466,467, classed and distributed as follows;

North Atlantic division.

White. Black.

Maine. 659,263 1,190

New Hampshire. 375,840 614

Vermont. 331,418 937

Massachusetts. 2,215,373 22,144

Rhode Island. 337,859 7,393

Connecticut. 733,438 12,302

New York. 5,923,952 70,092

New Jersey. 1,396,581 47,638

Pennsylvania. 5,148,257 107,596

Total 17,121,981 269,906

South Atlantic division.

Delaware. 140,066 28,386

Maryland . 826,493 215,657

District of Columbia. 154,695 75,572

Virginia. 1,020,122 635,438

West Virginia. 730,077 32,690

North Carolina. 1,055,382 561,018

South Carolina. 462,008 688,934

Georgia. 978,357 858,815

Florida. 224,949 166,180

Total 5,592,149 3,262,690

North Central division.

Ohio. 3,584,805 87,113

Indiana. 2,146,736 45,215

Illinois. 3,768,472 57,028

Michigan. 2,072,884 15,223

Wisconsin. 1,680,473 2,444

Minnesota. 1,296,159 3,683

Iowa. 1,901,086 10,685

Missouri. 2,528,458 150,184

North Dakota. 182,123 373

South Dakota. 327,290 541

Nebraska. 1,046,888 8,913

Kansas. 1,376,553 49,710

Total 21,911,927 431,112

South Central division.

Kentucky. 1,590,462 268,071

Tennessee. 1,336,637 430,678

Alabama. 833,718 678,489

Mississippi. 544,851 742,559

Louisiana. 558,395 559,193

Texas. 1,745,935 488,171

Oklahoma. 58,826 2,973

Arkansas. 818,752 309,117

Total 7,487,576 3,479,251

Western division.

Montana. 127,271 1,490

Wyoming. 59,275 922

Colorado. 404,468 6,215

New Mexico. 142,719 1,956

Arizona. 55,580 1,357

Utah. 205,899 588

Nevada. 39,084 242

Idaho. 82,018 201

Washington. 340,513 1,602

Oregon. 301,758 1,186

California. 1,111,672 11,322

Total 2,870,257 27,081

Grand Total. 54,983,890 7,470,040

{3584}

In addition the census shows 107,475 Chinese, 2,039 Japanese,

and 58,806 civilized Indians, making a total of 62,622,250, as

stated above.

Immigration in the preceding decade rose to 5,246,613 in the

total arrivals, 1,462,839 being from the British Islands and

3,258,743 from other European countries. In the single year

ending June 30, 1890, the immigrants arriving from Europe

numbered 443,225 (273,104 males, 170,121 females), of whom

57,020 were from England; 53,024 from Ireland; 12,041 from

Scotland: 92,427 from Germany; 22,062 from Hungary: 11,073

from Poland; 33,147 from Russia: 51,799 from Italy; 29,632

from Sweden; 11,370 from Norway; 9,366 from Denmark; 6,585

from France.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.

The Silver Bill and its effect.

Financial Panic.

Extra Session of Congress.

Repeal of the Sherman Act.

"The act of July 14, 1890 [known as the Sherman Act], repealed

the silver act of 1878, and so brought to a close the precise

experiment tried under that measure. … But the new act … is

even more remarkable than that of 1878. It is unique in

monetary history. It provides that the Secretary of the

Treasury shall purchase each month at the market price four

and a half million ounces of silver bullion. In payment he

shall issue Treasury notes of the United States, in

denominations of between one dollar and one thousand dollars.

These Treasury notes, unlike the old silver certificates, are

a direct legal tender for all debts, public or private, unless

a different medium is expressly stipulated in the contract.

They differ from the silver certificates in another respect;

they are redeemable either in gold or silver coin, at the

discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The indirect

process of redemption which, as we have seen, was applied to

the silver certificates, is replaced for the new notes by

direct redemption. The avowed object is to keep the silver

money equal to gold, for it is declared to be 'the established

policy of the United States to maintain the two metals at a

parity with each other on the present legal ratio, or such

ratio as may be provided by law.' The act of 1878 is repealed;

but the coinage of two million ounces of silver into dollars

is to be continued for a year (until July 1, 1891). Thereafter

it is directed that only so many silver dollars shall be

coined as may be needed for redeeming any Treasury notes

presented for redemption. Practically, this means that the

coinage shall cease; redemption in silver dollars will not be

called for. The coinage of silver dollars accordingly was

suspended by the Treasury on July 1, 1891; a change which was

the occasion of some vociferous abuse and equally vociferous

praise, but which in reality was of no consequence whatever.

The monthly issues of the new Treasury notes vary, like those

of the old silver certificates, with the price of silver. But

the new issues vary directly with the price of silver, while,

as we have seen, the old issues varied inversely with the

price. The volume of Treasury notes issued is equal to the

market price of four and one half million ounces of silver. If

silver sells at $1. 20 an ounce, the monthly issue of notes

will be $5,400,000; if at $1.00 an ounce, $4,500,000. For a

month or two after the passage of the act, the price of silver

advanced rapidly, and at its highest, in August, 1890, touched

$1.21. But the rise proved to be but temporary. After

September a steady decline set in, and continued almost

without interruption through the rest of 1890, through 1891,

and through 1892. The year 1891 opened with silver at a price

of about $1.00 an ounce; by the close of the year the price

had fallen to about 95 cents. In 1892 a still further and more

marked decline set in, and by the close of the year the price

had gone as low as 85 cents."

_F. W. Taussig,

The Silver Situation in the United States,

chapter 6._

"On June 5 [1893] President Cleveland publicly declared his

purpose to call an extra session of Congress to meet in the

first half of September for the consideration of the country's

financial conditions, which seemed critical. On the 26th of

June the authorities of India closed the mints in that empire

to the free coinage of silver. The signs of a panic

immediately multiplied and four days later appeared the

president's proclamation summoning Congress to meet in extra

session August 7. The call was based on the 'perilous

condition in business circles,' which was declared to be

largely the result of a 'financial policy … embodied in unwise

laws, which must be executed until repealed by Congress.' The

issue of this proclamation was the signal for much excitement

among the Populists and in silver-producing circles. Silver

conventions were held in Denver, July 11, and in Chicago,

August 2, in which addresses were made and resolutions adopted

denouncing with much energy any proposition to repeal the

Sherman Act without some provision for the free coinage of

silver, and claiming that the existing financial crisis was a

deliberately devised scheme of British and American bankers,

with President Cleveland as their ally, to bring about the

exclusion of silver from use as money. The president's

message, presented to the houses August 8, brought the

question before Congress. The message embodied an exposition

of what Mr. Cleveland considered the evils of the Sherman Act,

concluding with an earnest recommendation that its purchase

clause be immediately repealed. While still holding that

tariff reform was imperatively demanded, the president

considered that it should be postponed to action on the silver

law. In Congress the silver men, without reference to party

lines, took an attitude of energetic resistance to any project

for unconditional repeal of the purchase clause."

_Political Science Quarterly, December, 1893._

In the House, the resistance was soon overcome by strong

pressure of unmistakable public opinion, and the repeal was

carried on the 28th of August. In the Senate the Silver

faction proved so much stronger that it blocked the bill until

the end of October, indifferent to the ruinous effect which

this action was having on the business and the industries of

the country. In September, while the fate of the bill remained

in doubt, the "Banker's Magazine" reported that the doubt had

"aggravated the money stringency, until it absolutely became

impossible for the great majority of business men to obtain

the necessary funds, or credit to transact their affairs. In

this respect, probably, no panic within the memory of the

present generation has been so severe; and yet, it has been

the least violent for one so universal and protracted. But it

is the collapse that follows an acute attack of disease, which

leaves its victim prostrated, after the crisis has been passed,

and which must precede ultimate recovery, by giving time to

restore exhausted strength. …

{3585}

This was different from most panics this country has

experienced, inasmuch as it was strictly an artificial one,

caused by bad legislation, rather than general financial kite

flying, while commercial affairs were seldom, if ever, on a

sounder or safer basis, from the fact that they had, for a

long time, been more free from speculation, with but few

exceptions, than for years. Hence it has been the financial

machinery by which commerce is transacted, rather than

commerce itself, that has been deranged; and, for this reason,

trade will revive much more rapidly when this artificial

pressure is removed, than it has revived after former panics,

which were either purely financial, or commercial, or both, as

the result of wild speculation and general inflation of

prices."

_H. A. Pierce,

A Review of Finance and Business

(Banker's Magazine, September, 1893)._

The repeal measure was finally carried in the Senate, becoming

law by the President's signature November 1, when a slow

recovery of business confidence began, much retarded and

disturbed, however, by the uncertainty attending expected

action of Congress on tariff and currency questions.

See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

ALSO IN:

_L. R. Ehrich,

The Question of Silver,

page 23._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

Chinese Exclusion Act.

A bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons

into the United States," reported by Mr. Geary, of California,

was passed by the House, April 4, 1892, yeas 179, nays 43, 107

not voting. In the Senate, a substitute, going little further

than to continue the then existing laws for the regulation of

Chinese immigration, was reported from the Committee on

Foreign Relations and adopted. The two bills were referred to

a Conference Committee, with the result that a compromise

measure, slightly modified from the House bill, was passed by

both branches of Congress, on the 3d and 4th of May, and

signed by the President on the 5th. It continues former laws

for ten years. It directs "that any Chinese person or person

of Chinese descent when convicted and adjudged under any of

said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the

United States," shall be removed to China, or to such other

country as he may prove to be a subject or citizen of. It

declares that any such person under arrest "shall be adjudged

to be unlawfully within the United States, unless such person

shall establish, by affirmative proof, … his lawful right to

remain in the United States"; and that any such person

"convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or

remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor

for a period of not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed

from the United States, as hereinbefore provided." The act

denies bail, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, by

a Chinese person seeking to land in the United States. It

requires all Chinese laborers who were within the limits of

the United States at the time of the passage of the act, and

who were entitled to remain, to obtain certificates of

residence, from district collectors of internal revenue, and

orders the deportation of those who had failed to do so at the

expiration of one year. This extraordinary measure of

exclusion has been commonly known as the "Geary Act."

_E. McPherson,

Hand-book of Politics, 1892._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

Settlement of the Alaskan Boundary.

A convention between the governments of the United States and

Great Britain was entered into and ratifications exchanged in

August, 1892, providing for a coincident or joint survey, "as

may in practice be found most convenient," to determine the

boundary line between Alaska and the Canadian provinces.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

Controversy with Chile.

Warlike Presidential Message.

See (in Supplement) CHILE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

First commissioning of a Papal Delegate.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

The Twenty-seventh Presidential Election.

Five parties presented candidates in the presidential election

held November 8, 1892—namely: the Democratic, the Republican,

the People's, or Populist, the Prohibitionist, and the

Socialistic Labor. The nominees of the Democratic Party were

Grover Cleveland, for President, and Adlai E. Stevenson, for

Vice President; of the Republican Party, Benjamin Harrison and

Whitelaw Reid, for President and Vice President, respectively;

of the Populist Party, James B. Weaver and James G. Field; of

the Prohibition Party, John Bidwell and James B. Cranfill; of

the Socialistic Labor Party, Simon Wing and Charles H.

Matchett. The dominant Issues in the canvass were the tariff

question and the silver question. "The Democrats named no

electoral tickets in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota,

and Wyoming, but voted for the people's party electors with

the object of taking those States away from the Republicans.

They put out an electoral ticket in Nevada, but still voted

mostly for the Populist electors. In North Dakota also there

was a partial fusion between the Democrats and the People's

party, and in Minnesota a part of the Weaver electoral ticket

was accepted by the Democrats. In Louisiana there was a fusion

of the Republicans and the People's party, each nominating

half of the 8 electors. In Alabama there was a fusion of some

of the Republicans with the People's party. In Texas a

Republican ticket called the Lily White was set up, which

differed from the regular ticket. In Michigan a new electoral

law, which was declared constitutional by the United States

Supreme Court on October 17, 1892, provided for the separate

election of a Presidential elector in each Congressional

district, and in consequence the electoral vote of the State

was divided. In Oregon the name of one of the four electors on

the People's ticket was also placed on the Democratic ticket.

… The total popular vote cast was reported as 12,154,542," of

which Cleveland received 5,556,553; Harrison, 5,175,577;

Weaver, 1,122,045; Bidwell 279,191; Wing, 21,191. The

electoral votes of the States were cast as follows: Cleveland,

277; Harrison, 145; Weaver, 22; giving Cleveland a clear

majority of 110.

_Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892._

"The most striking feature of the elections was the great

losses of the Republicans in the West. Illinois and Wisconsin

went Democratic by large majorities, California and Ohio were

very close, and Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Nevada chose

Populist electors. The Democrats carried all the Northern

states generally regarded as doubtful, viz., Connecticut, New

York and Indiana, but they nearly lost Delaware.

{3586}

An unusual incident of the result was the division of the

electoral votes in several states, owing to the closeness of

the popular vote. Thus in Ohio one Cleveland elector and in

Oregon one Weaver elector was chosen, the others being

Republican; and in California and North Dakota Mr. Harrison

secured single votes in the same way. From the conditions of

fusion between the Democrats and Populists in the last-named

state, it resulted that one of her three electoral votes was

given to each of the three candidates. In Michigan, under the

district method of choosing electors recently established,

Harrison got nine votes and Cleveland five."

_Political Science Quarterly, June, 1893._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.

Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.

See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.

Revolution in the Hawaiian Islands and proposed annexation.

See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.

The Wilson Tariff Act.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.

The Strike at Pullman.

The Coxey Movement.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.

Provision for the admission of Utah as a State.

On the 17th of July, 1894, the President, by his signature,

gave effect to a bill which provides for the admission of Utah

to the Union as a State. The admission, however, cannot become

a completed fact before the later part of the year 1895, since

the bill provides for the holding of a convention in March,

1895, to frame a constitution for the proposed new State, and

for submitting such constitution to the people at the election

in November, 1895.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.

The Status of Civil-service Reform.

Commissioner Roosevelt's Review.

"In 1883 the civil service law was established at Washington,

and in the larger post-offices and custom-houses throughout

the country, taking in a total of some 14,000 employees. The

great extensions since have all taken place during the last

six years, a period which happens to include my own term of

service with the Commission, so that I write of them at first

hand. In 1889 the railway mail service was added, in 1893 all

the free delivery post-offices, and in 1894 all the smaller

custom-houses and the internal revenue service. Other

important but smaller extensions have been made, and the

larger offices have grown, so that now about 50,000 employees

are under the protection of the law. There are, of course, and

there always must be in a body so large, individual cases

where the law is evaded, or even violated; and as yet we do

not touch the question of promotions and reductions. But,

speaking broadly, and with due allowance for such

comparatively slight exceptions, these 50,000 places are now

taken out of the political arena. They can no longer be

scrambled for in a struggle as ignoble and brutal as the

strife of pirates over plunder; they no longer serve as a vast

bribery chest with which to debauch the voters of the country.

Those holding them no longer keep their political life by the

frail tenure of service to the party boss and the party

machine; they stand as American citizens, and are allowed the

privilege of earning their own bread without molestation so

long as they faithfully serve the public. The classified

service, the service in which the merit system is applied, has

grown fast. It is true that the outside service where the

spoils theories are still applied in all their original

nakedness, has grown only less fast. The number of offices

under the government has increased very rapidly during the

last twenty years; but the growth of the classified service

has been even more rapid, so that a constantly increasing

percentage of the whole is withdrawn from the degrading grasp

of the spoils system. Now, something like a quarter of all the

offices under the federal government in point of numbers,

representing nearly a half in point of salaries, has been put

upon the basis of decency and merit. This has been done by the

action of successive Presidents under the law of 1883, without

the necessity of action by Congress. There still remain some

things that can be done without further legislation. For

instance, the labor force in the navy yards was put on a merit

basis, and removed from the domain of politics, under

Secretary Tracy. This was done merely by order of the

Secretary of the Navy, which order could have been reversed by

his successor, Secretary Herbert. Instead of reversing it,

however, Secretary Herbert has zealously lived up to its

requirements, and has withstood all pressure for the weakening

of the system in the interests of the local party machines and

bosses. It is unsafe to trust to always having Secretaries of

the Navy like Messrs. Tracy and Herbert. The Civil Service

Commission should be given supervision over the laborers who

come under the direction of Cabinet officers. Indeed, all the

laboring force and all the employees of the District of

Columbia employed by the federal government should be put

under the Commission. When this has been done, and when a few

other comparatively slight extensions have been made, all that

can be accomplished by the unaided action of the executive

will have been accomplished. Congress must then itself act by

passing some such bill as that of Senator Lodge in reference

to fourth-class postmasters; by passing some bill in reference

to the consular service on the outlines of that suggested by

Senator Morgan (but giving power to the Civil Service

Commission itself in the matter); and then by providing that

all postmasters and similar officers shall hold office during

good behavior, including as well those nominated by the

President and confirmed by the Senate as those appointed by

the President alone. Of all the offices under the federal

government, not one in a hundred can properly be called

political."

_T. Roosevelt,

The Present Status of Civil Service Reform

(Atlantic, February, 1895)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.

President Cleveland's Special Message on

the condition of the National Finances.

In a special message to Congress, on the 28th of January,

1895, President Cleveland renewed an earnest appeal which be

had made at the opening of the session, for legislation to

correct the mischievous working of the existing currency

system of the country. The condition of the national finances,

produced by unwise laws, was set forth clearly in this

message, as follows: "With natural resources unlimited in

variety and productive strength, and with a people whose

activity and enterprise seek only a fair opportunity to

achieve national success and greatness, our progress should

not be checked by a false financial policy and a heedless

disregard of sound monetary laws, nor should the timidity and

fear which they engender stand in the way of our prosperity.

{3587}

It is hardly disputed that this predicament confronts us

to-day. Therefore, no one in any degree responsible for the

making and execution of our laws should fail to see a

patriotic duty in honestly and sincerely attempting to relieve

the situation. … The real trouble which confronts us consists

in a lack of confidence, widespread and constantly increasing,

in the continuing ability or disposition of the Government to

pay its obligations in gold. This lack of confidence grows to

some extent out of the palpable and apparent embarrassment

attending the efforts of the Government under existing laws to

procure gold, and to a greater extent out of the impossibility

of either keeping it in the Treasury or canceling obligations

by its expenditure after it is obtained. The only way left

open to the Government for procuring gold is by the issue and

sale of its bonds. The only bonds that can be so issued were

authorized nearly twenty-five years ago, and are not well

calculated to meet our present needs. Among other

disadvantages, they are made payable in coin, instead of

specifically in gold, which, in existing conditions, detracts

largely and in an increasing ratio from their desirability as

investments. It is by no means certain that bonds of this

description can much longer be disposed of at a price

creditable to the financial character of our Government. The

most dangerous and irritating feature of the situation,

however, remains to be mentioned. It is found in the means by

which the Treasury is despoiled of the gold thus obtained

without canceling a single Government obligation and solely

for the benefit of those who find profit in shipping it abroad

or whose fears induce them to hoard it at home. We have

outstanding about five hundred millions of currency notes of

the Government for which gold may be demanded, and, curiously

enough, the law requires that when presented and, in fact,

redeemed and paid in gold, they shall be reissued. Thus the

same notes may do duty many times in drawing gold from the

Treasury; nor can the process be arrested as long as private

parties, for profit or otherwise, see an advantage in

repeating the operation. More than $300,000,000 in these notes

have already been redeemed in gold, and notwithstanding such

redemption they are all still outstanding. Since the 17th day

of January, 1894, our bonded interest-bearing debt has been

increased $100,000,000 for the purpose of obtaining gold to

replenish our coin reserve. Two issues were made amounting to

fifty millions each—one in January and the other in November.

As a result of the first issue there was realized something

more than $58,000,000 in gold. Between that issue and the

succeeding one in November, comprising a period of about ten

months, nearly $103,000,000 in gold were drawn from the

Treasury. This made the second issue necessary, and upon that

more than fifty-eight millions in gold was again realized.

Between the date of this second issue and the present time,

covering a period of only about two months, more than

$69,000,000 in gold have been drawn from the Treasury. These

large sums of gold were expended without any cancellation of

Government obligations or in any permanent way benefiting our

people or improving our pecuniary situation. The financial

events of the past year suggest facts and conditions which

should certainly arrest attention. More than $172,000,000 in

gold have been drawn out of the Treasury during the year for

the purpose of shipment abroad or hoarding at home. While

nearly one hundred and three millions of this amount was drawn

out during the first ten months of the year, a sum aggregating

more than two-thirds of that amount, being about sixty-nine

millions, was drawn out during the following two months, thus

indicating a marked acceleration of the depleting process with

the lapse of time. The obligations upon which this gold has

been drawn from the Treasury are still outstanding and are

available for use in repeating the exhausting operation with

shorter intervals as our perplexities accumulate. Conditions

are certainly supervening tending to make the bonds which may

be issued to replenish our gold less useful for that purpose.

… It will hardly do to say that a simple increase of revenue

will cure our troubles. The apprehension now existing and

constantly increasing as to our financial ability does not

rest upon a calculation of our revenue. The time has passed

when the eyes of investors abroad and our people at home were

fixed upon the revenues of the Government. Changed conditions

have attracted their attention to the gold of the Government.

There need be no fear that we can not pay our current expenses

with such money as we have. There is now in the Treasury a

comfortable surplus of more than $63,000,000, but it is not in

gold, and therefore does not meet our difficulty. I can not

see that differences of opinion concerning the extent to which

silver ought to be coined or used in our currency should

interfere with the counsels of those whose duty it is to

rectify evils now apparent in our financial situation. They

have to consider the question of national credit, and the

consequences that will follow from its collapse. Whatever

ideas may be insisted upon as to silver or bimetallism, a

proper solution of the question now pressing upon us only

requires a recognition of gold as well as silver, and a

concession of its importance, rightfully or wrongfully

acquired, as a basis of national credit, a necessity in the

honorable discharge of our obligations payable in gold, and a

badge of solvency. … While I am not unfriendly to silver, and

while I desire to see it recognized to such an extent as is

consistent with financial safety and the preservation of

national honor and credit, I am not willing to see gold

entirely banished from our currency and finances. To avert

such a consequence I believe thorough and radical remedial

legislation should be promptly passed. I therefore beg the

Congress to give the subject immediate attention. In my

opinion the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to

issue bonds of the Government for the purpose of procuring and

maintaining a sufficient gold reserve and the redemption and

cancellation of the United States legal-tender notes and the

Treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver under the law

of July 14, 1890. We should be relieved from the humiliating

process of issuing bonds to procure gold to be immediately and

repeatedly drawn out on these obligations for purposes not

related to the benefit of our Government or our people.

{3588}

The principal and interest of these bonds should be payable on

their face in gold, because they should be sold only for gold or

its representative, and because there would now probably be

difficulty in favorably disposing of bonds not containing this

stipulation. … The Secretary of the Treasury might well be

permitted, at his discretion, to receive on the sale of bonds

the legal-tender and Treasury notes to be retired, and, of

course, when they are thus retired or redeemed in gold they

should be canceled. These bonds under existing laws could be

deposited by national banks as security for circulation; and

such banks should be allowed to issue circulation up to the

face value of these or any other bonds so deposited, except

bonds outstanding bearing only 2 per cent interest, and which

sell in the market at less than par. National banks should not

be allowed to take out circulating notes of a less

denomination than $10, and when such as are now outstanding

reach the Treasury, except for redemption and retirement, they

should be canceled and notes of the denomination of $10 and

upward issued in their stead. Silver certificates of the

denomination of $10 and upward should be replaced by

certificates of denominations under $10. As a constant means

for the maintenance of a reasonable supply of gold in the

Treasury our duties on imports should be paid in gold,

allowing all other dues to the Government to be paid in any

other form of money. I believe all the provisions I have

suggested should be embodied in our laws if we are to enjoy a

complete reinstatement of a sound financial condition." The

President's recommendations were not acted upon. The silver

interest in Congress defeated all measures introduced for the

purpose and left the situation unchanged. The Government was

forced to a new issue of bonds under the old act, for the

replenishing of its gold reserve.

----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------

UNITED STATES BANK.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816, 1817-1833;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

UNITED STATES CHRISTIAN COMMISSION.

See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES SANITARY COMMISSION.

See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES SENATE.

See SENATE, THE AMERICAN.

UNIVERSITIES.

See EDUCATION;

also VERMONT, VIRGINIA and WISCONSIN UNIVERSITIES,

and (in SUPPLEMENT) BROWN, MINNESOTA, and TULANE.

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.;

A. D. 1873-1889, and 1887-1892.

UNKIAR-SKELESSI, Treaty of (1833).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

UNSTRUTT, Battle of the (1075).

See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

UPCHURCH POTTERY.

The Upchurch marshes, on the Medway, above Sheerness, were the

site of extensive potteries in the time of the Roman

occupation of Britain, and remains of the ware manufactured

are abundant in the neighborhood.

_Thomas Wright,

The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon,

chapter 8._

UPPER HOUSE.

See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF.

UPSALA, Battle of (1520).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

UPSAROKAS, OR CROWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

UR OF THE CHALDEES.

"The Ur Kasdim, i. e. 'Ur of the Chaldæans' in the Hebrew

Scriptures, is the modern Mug-heir, southeast of Babylon; on

clay-tablets discovered in the ruins of this place we find

cuneiform symbols, which are to be read as Uru."

_M. Duncker,

History of Antiquity,

book 2, chapter 1._

URARDA

ARARAT.

See ALARODIANS.

URBAN II., Pope, A. D. 1088-1099.

Urban III., Pope, 1185-1187.

Urban IV., Pope, 1261-1264.

Urban V., Pope, 1362-1370.

Urban VI., Pope, 1378-1389.

Urban VII., Pope, 1590, September 15 to September 27.

Urban VIII., Pope, 1623-1644.

URBARIUM, of Maria Theresa, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

URBINO: Annexation to the States of the Church (1631).

See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

URGENDJ, Destruction by the Mongols.

See KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.

URICONIUM,

VIROCONIUM.

An important Roman town in Britain, extensive remains of which

have been unearthed at modern Wroxeter. It was the station of

the 14th legion.

_J. C. Anderson,

The Roman city of Uriconium._

Uriconium was totally destroyed by the West Saxons in 583. "A

British poet in verses still left to us sings piteously the

death-song of Uriconium, 'the white town in the valley,' the

town of white stones gleaming among the green woodlands."

_J. R. Green,

The Making of England,

chapter 5._

URRACA,

Queen of Castile and Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

URSINI, The.

See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

URSULINES, The.