E

GENERAL REVIEW

WITHER the American people are very fickle, or their chosen leaders have failed to understand the popular desire, or, understanding, failed to respond, and endeavored to bring the masses to their standpoint. Since the days of Jackson, the rule has been that the party which secured the Presidency, at the same election chose Congressmen of the same political faith, but two years thereafter sent a majority to the House of Representatives who were hostile to the administration in power. So that in every second term of Congress, in nearly every instance, the political control of legislation was transferred from one party to the other. The exceptions to this rule were during the period of the Civil War, when patriotism was stronger than partisanship; and during both of Lincoln's terms the Republicans were in the ascendancy in Congress. Or perhaps it was not so much the supremacy of patriotism which secured this result as the absence of representatives from the insurgent States. Another variance from the rule occurred in Cleveland's first term, when the House was Democratic for four years; the Senate, however, was Republican; and during the second half of McKinley's, when the elections were to some extent influenced by the war with Spain, and a majority in both Houses was Republican. Prior to Jackson's election there had been entire political harmony between the administration and Congress, except during two years of the elder Adams's term, when there was an

243

adverse House, and during the full term of John Quincy Adams, when both branches of Congress were antagonistic.

These regular changes of public sentiment, or withdrawal of confidence once bestowed, are not always easy of explanation. It is no doubt true that during Presidential elections party spirit runs higher and party lines are more closely drawn, and the popular candidate at the head of the ticket, by his personal strength, carries the Congressional candidates with him to success. Then follows a calmer and more reflective period, when the character and qualifications of the representatives are more carefully weighed, and the verdict of disapproval is more unerringly recorded. It is a fortunate thing for the country that there should be this independence in voting, and a consequent transition of parties. It is quite as salutary and effectual as the English system and that of other limited monarchies: of the resignation of the Cabinet when any of its measures are defeated in Parliament. In our case, the people must register their judgment every two years. In England, this right can only be enforced every seven years.

Another explanation of the biennial changes may be found in the fact that the parties every four years formulate and promulgate the measures which they respectively propose to carry out. Appeals to the people are made to enlist their support of these principles as represented by the candidates. The principles are accepted as a frank statement of the policy to be pursued. After the election the voters find that they have been deceived, or have misread the platform, or else that those elected to advance its theories have put a different construction upon the tenets, or perchance have proved recreant.

Parties are founded on certain fundamental doctrines, to which they adhere with more or less fixity of purpose. At the same time, when their conventions meet they take

cognizance of the existing sentiments of the people, and do not hesitate to make such modifications of previous declarations as may seem to be more in accordance with the popular will, and best calculated to win votes. And as new issues arise in the development of national life, they aim to espouse the side which seems to give assurance of the strongest support. Should the temper of the people be not well ascertained or clearly defined, conventions have been known to deal in ambiguous phrases, to" palter in a double sense," and thus arouse the ire and provoke the retribution which ensues. Mr. Lincoln quaintly said:" You can fool all of the people sometimes, and some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." The proportion of those who vote independently of party may not be large, but it has proved to be sufficient to redress some grievances, and to prevent either party from becoming too self-assured and defiant.

In the early days of the Republic, the country was not disturbed by questions of the tariff or of the currency, which in later years have been quite momentous. But the strong line of demarcation between the Democrats and the Federalists was as to the spirit in which the Constitution should be interpreted and the powers of the general government be applied. The Democrats contended for a strict construction, denying that the United States had any inferential powers, or could exercise any which had not been expressly conferred on it by the organic law, and that all powers not enumerated remained inviolably with the States or the people. The Federalists claimed that the Constitution should be liberally construed, and that the Federal Government had complete power except as to matters wherein it was expressly prohibited from taking jurisdiction. The position of the Democracy was so frequently and emphatically approved by the people that it ceased to have any open opposition.

Whatever may have been the practice of the Republican party during the stress of civil war, it recognized the Democratic theory on the point under consideration. The convention of 1860 resolved" that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved," and again" that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends." The Democratic and Republican parties being both clearly committed to a recognition of State rights, it may be considered that this is an established doctrine.

The election of Jackson brought to the front a question arising out of the construction of the Constitution. When Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, he procured the establishment of a National Bank. A renewal of its charter was desired; Jackson opposed it, contending that Congress had no power to incorporate such an institution. And this became an article in the Democratic creed. It is true that in Madison's administration a similar charter was granted, which made the position of the party for the time being inconsistent. But they swung back to their old position, and when this second charter expired, and a bill renewing it was passed, Jackson vetoed it; and from that time forward until the war period, the Democratic National conventions declared every four years that "Congress had no power to charter a National Bank." The Whigs ceased to contend for the establishment of such an institution, and the Democratic theory prevailed. The Sub-Treasury system, established by the Democracy as a substitute for the National Bank, is still maintained as a part of the financial machinery of the United States.

The Whigs were in favor of the distribution amongst

the States of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands. This the Democrats opposed, and insisted that revenues thus arising should be paid into the Federal treasury, and used for general expenses. The Democratic policy on this subject ceased to be resisted. These may be con

sidered dead issues, upon all of which the Democracy were successful.

Before adverting to the unsolved problems, the disputed questions, in which the people are still greatly interested, it should be set down to the credit of the Democratic party that under its authority all of the vast area which was added to our national domain prior to the war with Spain - except Alaska — was acquired; that it promulgated the Monroe Doctrine, which, if not international law, is irrevocable American law, and has been approved by both parties; that in the Martin Koszta case it established the principle that a naturalized or halfnaturalized citizen of this country has rights equal to the native-born, which rights foreign nations must respect; that it successfully and victoriously carried the country through two wars with foreign powers; that it opened the ports of Japan to our trade; that it crushed the spirit of bigotry and intolerance in the Know-Nothing days; and firmly maintained freedom of conscience and of worship. If its theories upon pending issues shall be condemned, and its usefulness shall cease, it may be permitted to boast of having written many brilliant and valuable chapters of American history.

Upon the question of internal improvements, the record of the Democratic party has not been consistent.

By reference to the foregoing chronological history, it will be seen that Democratic administrations and Congresses sometimes favored certain specific internal improvements, which involved a comparatively small outlay. But until 1856 it denied that the Federal Government has power under the Constitution to engage in internal