6. Uniform civil and criminal law throughout the United States. Administration of justice to be free of charge. Abolition of capital punishment.

The canvass developed few features of special interest. The result seemed to be in doubt, and both parties were hopeful. The opposition which had existed, prior to the conventions, to the President and the ex-President, the candidates of their respective parties, disappeared for the most part. The Republicans had been placed in a minority by the disaster of 1890; but their leaders, their orators, their journalists, and the rank and file of the party made no doubt that the defection was temporary. The ticket did not arouse great enthusiasm; but the Republicans built great hopes upon the situation of the Democrats in New York. There seemed to be an irreparable breach in that State. An eloquent advocate of the nomination of Governor Hill had said, in a speech before the Democratic convention at Chicago, that Mr. Cleveland could not carry New York. Tammany Hall protested its loyalty to the ticket; but the "anti-snapper" wing of the party feared, and the Republicans hoped, that the protestations were insincere. An element of humor was imparted to the canvass in New York by an ostentatiously disingenuous attempt on the part of those Democrats who did not subscribe to the free-trade plank in the platform to make it appear that "negro domination" would ensue upon the success of the Republicans. The New York "Sun," which disliked Mr. Cleveland almost beyond its by no means deficient power of expression, made "No Force Bill!" its campaign cry, to excuse its support of the Democratic candidate.

The growth of the Populist party in the West and in some parts of the South led to coalitions which render an exact division of the votes among the several parties quite impossible. In five States-Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Wyoming the Democrats nominated no electors, but voted for the Populist candidates. It was deemed possible that neither party might secure a majority of electors. In that case the election of President would devolve upon the House of Representatives already chosen, in which the Democrats controlled a large majority of the state delegations. Consequently, for their purposes, a defeat of the Republicans, by the success of the Populists in a few of the States, was as serviceable as the election of a full majority of Democratic electors. In

Nevada the Democrats nominated an electoral ticket, but almost the whole voting strength of the party was given to the Populists. In Oregon one of the four Populist electors was placed on the Democratic ticket. In Minnesota there was a fusion of Democrats and Populists on four candidates for electors. The members of each party voted for their own candidates for the other five electors. In the South the alliances of the Populists were with Republicans. The fusion in Alabama was incomplete, but in Louisiana the electoral ticket was divided between the two partics, four electors for each party. This fusion explains why the popular vote in Louisiana for Harrison and for Weaver, in the following table, is substantially the same. The vote for the fusion electors was 26,563. An independent electoral ticket, by the so-called "Lily White " faction of the Republican party of Texas, received 3,969 votes.

Still another complication was introduced at this election by the action of the Democratic legislature of Michigan chosen in the "landslide " year, 1890. An act was passed by that legislature reëstablishing the system of choosing electors by districts. Maryland, the last State to cling to this method, had abandoned it in 1836. It was a device, in the case of Michigan, to enable a party which was conscious of being in a minority to secure a few electors. The constitutionality of the measure was attacked; but it was clearly within the power of the legislature to pass the act, and the Supreme Court of Michigan so decided.

The result of the election was a great surprise to men of all parties. Not only was the South "solid" once more for the Democratic candidates, not only did all the usually doubtful States support Mr. Cleveland by large majorities, but Illinois, Wisconsin, and California were drawn into the Democratic ranks. Even Ohio, which had not given an electoral vote tc a Democrat since there had been a Republican party, was so closely divided that one Cleveland elector slipped in. The fusion against the Republicans was successful in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, and Nevada. It was partially successful in North Dakota and Oregon. The popular vote for the several candidates is given in the following table, as nearly as it can be stated, but the "official returns vary so greatly as to render absolute accuracy impossible. The appended figures are made up by a careful comparison of several sets of "official" returns, and a choice of those that seem most trustworthy. It should

be borne in mind that the Populist vote is overstated, and the Democratic vote understated, by reason of the alliances just mentioned.

Forty-four States participated in the election, six new States having been admitted since the previous election, — North and South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. In all the States, electors were chosen by popular vote; in all, save Michigan, on a general ticket. The popular and electoral votes are included in the same table.

The count of the electoral vote took place on February 8, 1893. The proceedings of 1889 were followed exactly. No incident occurred to enliven the occasion more important than a round of Democratic applause when the vote of Illinois was announced.

XXXI

THE FREE SILVER CAMPAIGN

THE four years which cover the second term of Grover Cleveland may be characterized as the most momentous period, in a time of peace, in the history of the country, and as the most interesting, from a political point of view, in either war or peace. The prominence assumed by our foreign relations would alone have distinguished it from preceding administrations; and yet the diplomatic questions that confronted us, although important, far-reaching, and exciting, became almost insignificant in comparison with the domestic problems and conditions with which public men had to deal. An attempt which, since it was but partially successful, was not successful at all, to introduce a new principle in the levy of import duties; a steady and large deficit in the revenue, not corrected by additional taxation; a currency hopelessly disordered, while no party was strong enough either to restore it to soundness or to introduce a new element of confusion; commercial disaster and private distress, manifesting itself in demonstrations that always excited apprehension, and in some cases lapsed into lawlessness which the local authorities could nct or would not suppress, such, in brief, were the evil conditions that prevailed during that eventful period. It was a time full of surprises, the last and greatest of which was the sudden rise, to an issue of overwhelming importance and interest, of a question that had troubled the peace of American politicians for twenty years, but had previously been dallied with and avoided, never met squarely and with courage.

At the very beginning of the administration the President signified his disagreement with his predecessor on a question of foreign policy by withdrawing from consideration by the Senate the treaty for the annexation of Hawaii. The position ultimately taken by the new administration was that the revolution in the island kingdom had been accomplished by an improper use of the armed forces of the United States, and