Page images
PDF
EPUB

1884-1888

autumn of 1887 and, after laboring three or four months, finally concluded an agreement known as the Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty. The treaty was, however, regarded as having yielded too much to the British, and was rejected by the Senate. At the time of the conclusion of the treaty the British commissioners offered a temporary arrangement, or modus vivendi, pending ratification. This agreement was accepted by the American commissioners, and after the rejection of the treaty it was renewed and has since continued to constitute the fishery arrangement between the two countries. 12

The domestic tranquillity of the country throughout the four years of Mr. Cleveland's administration was interrupted only by a few labor disturbances and an anarchist riot in Chicago. The order known as the Knights of Labor, organized a few years before, had now attained a membership of over half a million and was playing an important part in determining the relations between capital and labor. It advocated equal rights for women, common ownership of land, government ownership of public utilities and other socialistic policies. In the year 1886, in consequence of the dismissal of an employee of the Texas Pacific Railroad, the executive authority of the order directed a strike of the employees.

The strike soon spread to other roads and led to serious interference with travel and traffic throughout a great part of the Southwest. In St. Louis the disorders were so great that Federal troops had to be called out to preserve the peace. Several bloody riots occurred, a number of persons were killed, and a large amount of property was destroyed. About the same time a strike of workmen occurred in Chicago in furtherance of a movement to secure the adoption of an eight-hour labor day. The usual disturbances followed, in the course of which several workmen were shot by police or Pinkerton detectives.

On the evening of May 4 following, an indignation meeting of laboring men was held in Haymarket Square to protest against the acts of the police, and a number of incendiary addresses were delivered by anarchists and others. While one of the most violent of the speakers, Samuel Fielden by name, was delivering a harangue on the tyranny of government and law, a squad of policemen forced

Joseph Chamberlain, Sir Charles Tupper, of Canada, and Sir Lionel Sackville West, the British minister at Washington.

12 Snow, "Topics in American Diplomacy," p. 467.

1888

their way to the speaker's stand and commanded him to desist. At this juncture a dynamite bomb was thrown among the police, killing seven of their number and wounding many others. A storm of indignation burst out and the country was aroused for the first time to the danger of the anarchist element in the large cities, where most of them had congregated. Seven of those concerned in the Haymarket affair were convicted and sentenced to death. The sentences of two of them, Schwab and Fielden, were commuted to life imprisonment; four, Engel, Spies, Parsons and Fischer, were hanged, and one, Lingg, committed suicide in prison while awaiting the gallows. Two of those who were hanged were editors of sheets devoted to anarchistic propaganda. A few years afterward Governor Altgeld brought upon himself widespread criticism by pardoning the anarchists still in prison. He insisted that they had not been given a fair trial, that there was no evidence that they had thrown the bomb, that the jury had been “packed with prejudiced men and that the judge had not conducted the trial in a judicial manner.13

18 It was during Mr. Cleveland's term that the country was called upon to mourn the death of ex-President Grant. After his retirement from the Presidency he had engaged in business in New York City, but on account of the dishonesty of the firm with which he was connected the business failed and the General was financially ruined. He then set to work writing his "Memoirs," to provide means for the support of his family, whom he expected soon to leave behind. Suffering from an incurable cancerous trouble, he continued his work under great difficulties until a few days before his death, which occurred at Mount McGregor, near Saratoga, on July 23, 1888. The whole nation, South as well as North, united in mourning his loss and in paying tribute to his character. Southern legislatures passed resolutions of praise, Southern newspapers spoke of his great qualities as a man and a soldier, Southern commanders in the late war praised his magnanimity and kindness of heart. On August 8 his remains, accompanied by the most splendid funeral pageant ever witnessed in America, were laid to rest in Riverside Park on the banks of the Hudson in the upper part of the city of New York. There over his tomb the people of the United States have erected the most stately mausoleum that has ever been built to mark the resting place of any American.

Chapter XLI

THE ADMINISTRATION OF BENJAMIN HARRISON

1888-1892

I

DEFEAT OF CLEVELAND

HE ascendency of the Democrats in 1884 was destined to be short-lived. The issue which led to their defeat in the elections of 1888 was the tariff question, which, as has been said, was purposely made the issue by Mr. Cleveland. At this time there was a large surplus in the national treasury, which led the President to conclude that more revenue was being collected from the taxpayers than an economical administration of the government required. The traditions of the Democratic party were all in the direction of a low tariff, and, as a whole, they protested against the continuance indefinitely of the high duties which had been levied to carry on the war. There was, however, a small but influential group of Democrats, of whom Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, was the leader, who favored protective duties, and until now they had kept the Democratic House from taking a positive stand in favor of a tariff for revenue only. But it seemed to Cleveland that the widespread unrest in the labor world as well as the accumulation of more revenues than the government could legitimately expend, afforded indisputable proof that the tariff schedule needed revision in the direction of lower duties. The necessity for protecting infant industries no longer existed, and the new Republican contention that the continuance of the high tariff was necessary to keep up the wages of the laboring man, he said, was fallacious, because the laboring classes everywhere were loudly complaining that wages were unusually low. It was the manufacturer instead of the laborer, he thought, who was receiving the lion's share of the benefits; it seemed to him, therefore, to be outright favoritism on the part of the government, and favoritism, too, to those who least of all needed it. At the same time it was

1888

imposing irritating burdens upon the farmers of the South and West, upon the laborers in the great industrial centers, and in fact upon consumers generally, by increasing the cost of the necessaries of life.

Sc thought the President, and he determined, without consultation with his party associates, to throw down the gauntlet to the Republicans and raise an issue on this score. Accordingly he devoted nearly the whole of his annual message of December 6, 1887, to the subject of the tariff, which he discussed with his characteristic directness. The imposition upon the people of greater taxes than was necessary for the "careful and economical maintenance of the government," he characterized as "indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice." He denounced the existing tariff law as "vicious, inequitable and illegal"; and declared that whatever artificial advantage was gained by the laborer from a protective tariff was more than offset by the enhanced cost of living. The stubbornness with which the favored beneficiaries of the tariff had resisted all efforts looking toward a revision of the existing schedule had naturally, he said, led to the widespread suspicion that there existed an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage. "The simple and plain duty which we owe to the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the government, and restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury through the perversion of governmental powers." The question of free trade, he contended, was not involved, and no good could result from a discussion of the theories of protection and free trade. "It is," he said, "a condition which confronts us not a theory." 1

Thus did the President of his own initiative make an issue for his party. Undecided, halting, half confused, partly divided among themselves, they fell into line and prepared to force the Republicans to consent to revision or take a positive stand in favor of the continuance of a protective tariff. A measure embodying the views of the President was brought in by Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and in July, 1888, it passed the House of Representatives against the strenuous and united opposition of the Republicans and also against the votes of four Democrats. The Mills Bill attempted a systematic re1 Richardson," Messages and Papers of the Presidents,” vol. viii. p. 590.

1888

vision of the existing law in the direction of lower rates on raw materials and necessaries of life and higher duties on luxuries. It was not a radical measure, but the Republicans loudly denounced it as the very embodiment of free trade fallacies, and when it came up in the Senate it was not only rejected, but a substitute proposing even higher duties than those of the existing law was brought in and favorably reported. Thus did the Republicans take up the gauntlet thrown down by the Democrats, and with this clear-cut issue both parties went to the country for the verdict of the people, in November, 1888.

President Cleveland had been renominated by his party without opposition, and with him Allen G. Thurman, a sturdy oldfashioned Democrat, of Ohio, had been nominated for Vice President. Judge Thurman was a picturesque figure in politics, popularly called the "old Roman," and possessed wide popularity in the West. With less unanimity the Republicans had nominated Benjamin Harrison, of Indiana, and Levi P. Morton, of New York. Blaine was still the favorite, but while absent in Italy he had declined to allow his name to be presented, saying that he would not go through another contest like that of 1884 even with the certainty of the Presidency at the end of it. He was in Scotland at the time of the meeting of the national convention, and repeatedly did his friends beseech him by cable to allow the use of his name, but he positively declined and even asserted that he would refuse the nomination if it were accorded him. His health was bad and he was already suffering from the malady which four years later ended his earthly career. Other prominent candidates who received strong support in the convention were John Sherman, of Ohio, Walter Q. Gresham, of Indiana, Chauncey M. Depew, of New York, and Russell A. Alger, of Michigan. After seven ineffectual ballots, General Harrison was nominated. Sherman afterward charged that he was beaten by intrigue, and that Harrison had secured the support of the New York delegation by pledges made through his friends.

Benjamin Harrison was a grandson of President William Henry Harrison and great-grandson of that Benjamin Harrison who signed the Declaration of Independence and was a member of the first Continental Congress. He had served through the Civil

2 Crawford, "Life of Blaine," p. 593.

* John Sherman, "Recollections," vol. ii. p. 1029.

« PreviousContinue »